Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7578290" data-attributes="member: 42582">What Aldarc said! In the scenario desdribed the players are using out-of-game knowledge (eg their knowledge that this is the second set of PCs to tackle the Caves) and are declaring actions based on that (eg trying to trigger certain GM-narration-via-NPCs).Wouldn't it just be quicker if the GM told the players As you travel to the Caves, you past peasant and tinkers travelling two and from the Keep. They all shake their heads when they see you, muttering about a similar group who headed off a fortnight earlier and never returned.Or if the table cares about this sort of thing, the players could make something up.D&D has its origins in wargaming.When I replay a waragme, I'm expected to use the skill and information I acquired the first time I played it. That's how I get better.When D&D was invented, players were expected to use the skill and information they acquired the first time the played. That was how players got better. That's part of what Gygax had in mind when he advocated "skilled play".This is why early D&D is characterised by so much new content introduction (new monsters, new traps, etc), and sharing of these items among referees. Referees needed a constant supply of new puzzles to keep challenging their players.(And the idea that this has anything in common with cheating at a module is ludicrous. The only person who has trouble distinguishing the two cases is [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].)The idea that a player who has skill would, in the course of playing the game, pretend not to have it, is one that post-dates the origins of D&D. It's certainly not the only way to play D&D, and frankly to me it seems rather degeneate - no one in this thread has even explained how it would work.The two of you are just making this up. I"ve quoted the rule. The rule says nothing about when a check is or isn't required: it explains how to adjudicate a check if one is made. Obviously if a player already knows, s/he won't seek to make the check; and there is nothing in the rule that suggests the GM is to use checks to gate players' use of their knowledge.I don't know what the 5e rule for this stuff is, but frrankly it's laughable that you're trying to school me on 4e!And now you're trying to school me on logic and the English language?Rationalise means to explain/justify with reasons. Even if those reason are not true. But also if those reasons are true but (eg) not self-evident.In other words, even if isn't a synonym for when.This is incoherent. If you've deciding that your PC doesn't know about trolls, although you already do know about trolls, you're not discovering anything. Deciding isn't discoverying.How does this even work? Do you just let your PC be killed by the trolls?This doesn't answer [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]'s question: what do you expect good play to look like in this sort of case.</blockquote>

Verification