Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8145073" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I mean, I'm not gonna claim that my game doesn't occasionally have a bit of drama at the table, but I'm not gonna blame the rules for that. And any such instances are always best worked out by having a conversation.I think you've hit on it about the logical bit. It's also likely deemed okay because it builds on something already established by the GM, and still gets filtered through the GM's judgment; I don't know if a GM in such a game would not consider it beyond their ability to render a successful roll to forage effectively a failure by evoking the notes. So it might play out like this:Player: Ranger is going to forage for food so that we don't starve out here. GM: Okay, go ahead and roll your Wilderness skill.Player: Wow, I rolled a 27! GM: Very nice! You're able to determine with certainty that there is nothing to forage in this area. The flora is all poisonous, so you know not to eat that! And there is an absence of wildlife that is eerily unsettling. Player: But I rolled a 27!?!GM: Yeah, but there is nothing here to find; it says so in my description of the Desolate Plains. I mean....they're desolate! You were able to determine that the flora would be dangerous, so at least you don't poison yourselves.Or something similar. Such an action still gets filtered by the GM and his notes or the module or whatever. And although some folks would say "well that's not how the GM should handle it" there are others who would say "well of course....it's the Desolate Plains, and it was determined ahead of time there was nothing safe to eat there." And I think that a big part of the problem is that huge variance between results, both of which could be seen as supported by the rules.Part of this, I think, hinges upon how Actions are viewed. I imagine that the default assumption when a character attempts an Action roll of some kind.....like a Forage check in this example.....most or many folks view the success/fail result to be a result of the character's performance, rather than a property of the fictional world. So if Ranger fails his roll, he has failed to find food. Which seems pretty absurd, except perhaps in the most extreme locations. Other folks would see such a failed result and decide that it indicates there is no food to be found. So it's not so much that the Ranger failed at the most basic functions of his class, but rather that there wasn't a way for him to succeed in the fiction. This is more about the Action roll helping to shape the fictional world rather than just the character. And in many cases, I think this is preferable; I know I'd rather think of it as food is impossible to find than that my Ranger is inept.That distinction can play a big part in this kind of thing, too, which I think can go unnoticed.Based on [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] 's descriptions of the categories, this would seem to fall into Setting Authority. But it's the same thing here as I just described above.....it's probably fine because the GM can deny it out of hand. It's a request made by the player, but ultimately it's up to the GM to put the request into play.</blockquote>

Verification