Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8744235" data-attributes="member: 6701124">This gets hard to follow going back hours later.&nbsp; This is in a sequence of posts about knowledge checks, and should they even be rolls since they don't have meaningful consequences.&nbsp; I posited I liked them as rolls.&nbsp; BZ didn't like them as rolls.&nbsp; This first three quotes by BZ below are answering: how should a DM decide on the answer to a knowledge check, should the DM just say yes all the time, and won't this encourage the players to come up with new things.I guess my problem is that I don't trust myself.&nbsp; I think as a player if I knew the DM would just say yes to anything vaguely reasonable that I would start to try and come up with short-cuts / big-red-buttons to push / very limited wishes that would &quot;let me win&quot;.&nbsp; Which is really not how I like to play.&nbsp; I like to imagine myself as the character and try to think of what they would try.&nbsp; But I think I would find myself sabotaging my own fun and stop trying to think of what my character would do.&nbsp; Maybe I could train myself not to do that (but I still haven't fully trained myself not to mock the non-24 hour day structure in 13th Age). If I know I'm just trying things that may or may not work (just like in real life trying out new things doesn't always work) then I don't think I'd have this problem.&nbsp; (&quot;Hmmm... wonder if there is a pizza place open all night near the conference center&quot; doesn't always produce one).-----This next one is about whether a player in a game where the DM just answers knowledge checks (adding the answers to the world) might get upset if there thoughts keeps not being true, while another player at the table keeps hearing yes.&nbsp; I think the why is just human nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; But fair enough, talking to the player seems eminently reasonable.&nbsp; Of course I guess my question is, should we talk to the players before moving away from the current deciding things randomly (concerns about not having consequences not withstanding)?------This next one is about why would someone think of changing it from rolling.I guess I'd rather make them an exception to the needing consequences.&nbsp; Maybe I should suggest for the new rule that you only get the inspiration 20 if failure on the roll they're trying has a significant consequence (and bring up that some rolls don't seem to have them in the usual sense).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 8744235, member: 6701124"] [I]This gets hard to follow going back hours later. This is in a sequence of posts about knowledge checks, and should they even be rolls since they don't have meaningful consequences. I posited I liked them as rolls. BZ didn't like them as rolls. This first three quotes by BZ below are answering: how should a DM decide on the answer to a knowledge check, should the DM just say yes all the time, and won't this encourage the players to come up with new things.[/I] I guess my problem is that I don't trust myself. I think as a player if I knew the DM would just say yes to anything vaguely reasonable that I would start to try and come up with short-cuts / big-red-buttons to push / very limited wishes that would "let me win". Which is really not how I like to play. I like to imagine myself as the character and try to think of what they would try. But I think I would find myself sabotaging my own fun and stop trying to think of what my character would do. Maybe I could train myself not to do that (but I still haven't fully trained myself not to mock the non-24 hour day structure in 13th Age). If I know I'm just trying things that may or may not work (just like in real life trying out new things doesn't always work) then I don't think I'd have this problem. ("Hmmm... wonder if there is a pizza place open all night near the conference center" doesn't always produce one). ----- [I]This next one is about whether a player in a game where the DM just answers knowledge checks (adding the answers to the world) might get upset if there thoughts keeps not being true, while another player at the table keeps hearing yes. [/I] I think the why is just human nature. But fair enough, talking to the player seems eminently reasonable. Of course I guess my question is, should we talk to the players before moving away from the current deciding things randomly (concerns about not having consequences not withstanding)? ------ [I]This next one is about why would someone think of changing it from rolling.[/I] I guess I'd rather make them an exception to the needing consequences. Maybe I should suggest for the new rule that you only get the inspiration 20 if failure on the roll they're trying has a significant consequence (and bring up that some rolls don't seem to have them in the usual sense). [/QUOTE]

Verification