Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6673584" data-attributes="member: 22424">I've snipped everything else, because that's the crux of it: it's a playstyle choice that says when you examine a religious icon, you resolve that by rolling Religion. Fundamentally, that's it - the reason you roll is because when you take that action the paradigm that has been adopted says that's what to do.Is that the One True Way to play? No, of course not. Is it the best way to play? Again, no - largely because I reject the notion that there is a 'best' way to play.But it does have advantages - because it's consistent, the players know what they're doing (I want to check the icon - guess I'd better roll Religion then). It models the fact that even experts do have gaps in their knowledge. And it means that the DM can give graduated responses: either they get no information, or they get partial information, or they get full information. (Or, possibly, they get false information - but I, personally, don't do that. The PCs are quite capable of generating red herrings on their own.)It does have the weakness that it adds another barrier between the players and the information contained in the clue (because they might fail the roll). But that's handled by adventure design - instead of using a Three Clue Rule, it's better to use a Four or even Five Clue Rule.(And, yes, in the extreme case it may mean that the PCs might miss every clue. But that's actually a possibility whether you roll or not, just as a routine encounter could result in a TPK if the dice choose to inflict Outrageous Fortune on the PCs. In both cases, you use design to mitigate the risks, but you can't eliminate them entirely.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6673584, member: 22424"] I've snipped everything else, because that's the crux of it: it's a playstyle choice that says when you examine a religious icon, you resolve that by rolling Religion. Fundamentally, that's it - the reason you roll is because when you take that action the paradigm that has been adopted says that's what to do. Is that the One True Way to play? No, of course not. Is it the best way to play? Again, no - largely because I reject the notion that there [i]is[/i] a 'best' way to play. But it [i]does[/i] have advantages - because it's consistent, the players know what they're doing (I want to check the icon - guess I'd better roll Religion then). It models the fact that even experts do have gaps in their knowledge. And it means that the DM can give graduated responses: either they get no information, or they get partial information, or they get full information. (Or, possibly, they get false information - but I, personally, don't do that. The PCs are quite capable of generating red herrings on their own.) It does have the weakness that it adds another barrier between the players and the information contained in the clue (because they might fail the roll). But that's handled by adventure design - instead of using a Three Clue Rule, it's better to use a Four or even Five Clue Rule. (And, yes, in the extreme case it may mean that the PCs might miss [i]every[/i] clue. But that's actually a possibility whether you roll or not, just as a routine encounter [i]could[/i] result in a TPK if the dice choose to inflict Outrageous Fortune on the PCs. In both cases, you use design to mitigate the risks, but you can't eliminate them entirely.) [/QUOTE]

Verification