Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7625425" data-attributes="member: 16814">The slippery slope argument is weak.&nbsp; Asking for an approach so that you aren't assuming character actions isn't the same thing as pixel bitching for gotchas.&nbsp; The former is a hood technique for running where you assume character competence and are matching in game action to the resolution mechanics.&nbsp; The latter is adversarial gotcha games.&nbsp; Please stop insisting that anyone asking for an approach is playing adversarial gotcha games.I'm honestly rather tired of saying this, often for many pages, as other posters continue to insist they understand goal and approach and its just pixel bitching.Approach is where the player has the opportunity to move the resolution needke in their favor, not where the DM is trying to trip up the players.&nbsp; If your trying to ID the tracks, as in the OP, and you dump statted INT, then your approach is how you get to try to sway things in your favor.&nbsp; If you frame your action in terms of, &quot;Bob the Ranger, using his long years of ranging his favored woodlands and the knowledge he gained at the feet of the druids, to determine what dangerous creatures keft these tracks.&quot;&nbsp; This reminds the DM of all the things Bob the Ranger has stacked up for success in this regard.&nbsp; The DM could decide to grant auto-success, or advantage, or still ask for a check.&nbsp; If you don't provide this, your relying on the DM to maybe remember and/or just guess what you're doing, but most certainly a check will be called.Note the complete lack of specific action -- no CSI procedure at all -- in the above.&nbsp; Yet, the DM doesn't have to guess at all as to what the character is doing in the fiction and so can easily adjuducate.&nbsp; This is a game of many players and the DM already has most of the work.&nbsp; Expecting the ither players to do their bit by providing enough in their action declaration to adjudicate should be the norm,&nbsp; not something that has to be constantly defended from slippery slope arguments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7625425, member: 16814"] The slippery slope argument is weak. Asking for an approach so that you aren't assuming character actions isn't the same thing as pixel bitching for gotchas. The former is a hood technique for running where you assume character competence and are matching in game action to the resolution mechanics. The latter is adversarial gotcha games. Please stop insisting that anyone asking for an approach is playing adversarial gotcha games. I'm honestly rather tired of saying this, often for many pages, as other posters continue to insist they understand goal and approach and its just pixel bitching. Approach is where the player has the opportunity to move the resolution needke in their favor, not where the DM is trying to trip up the players. If your trying to ID the tracks, as in the OP, and you dump statted INT, then your approach is how you get to try to sway things in your favor. If you frame your action in terms of, "Bob the Ranger, using his long years of ranging his favored woodlands and the knowledge he gained at the feet of the druids, to determine what dangerous creatures keft these tracks." This reminds the DM of all the things Bob the Ranger has stacked up for success in this regard. The DM could decide to grant auto-success, or advantage, or still ask for a check. If you don't provide this, your relying on the DM to maybe remember and/or just guess what you're doing, but most certainly a check will be called. Note the complete lack of specific action -- no CSI procedure at all -- in the above. Yet, the DM doesn't have to guess at all as to what the character is doing in the fiction and so can easily adjuducate. This is a game of many players and the DM already has most of the work. Expecting the ither players to do their bit by providing enough in their action declaration to adjudicate should be the norm, not something that has to be constantly defended from slippery slope arguments. [/QUOTE]

Verification