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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N01H3r3" data-source="post: 6727055" data-attributes="member: 6799909">I don't see why, though to be fair I think we've established that you and I have quite different definitions of "fun" with regards to RPGs. Amongst other things, the actual rule (its current form) specifically does not require that the GM go into extensive (or even complete) detail, and while it requires the GM to be truthful, it specifically does not prohibit the GM from being cryptic, vague, or elusive. It's exactly the kind of truth that GMs have been using for decades. The key here is that the ability to ask those questions has been put squarely in the hands of players, representing character insights, investigative or knowledge-based skill use, and similar situations where the players would be asking the GM questions about the situation anyway. It's formalised as a function of the rules here, encouraging that more or less detail to be provided by GMs based on how successful a test was, etc.The entire section on Momentum in its current form is headed with a requirement that any given Momentum spend must have some basis or grounding in the fictional events of the game itself - you can't gain a benefit unless there's appropriate narrative justification. This is no different: the GM is permitted, nay encouraged, to provide only that information that could reasonably be gleaned from the circumstances and context that originated the skill test. Defining it as a common Momentum spend means we don't need to set aside particular "knowledge" skills (all skills should contain some knowledge, and not all knowledge should be covered purely by skills), and means we don't have to repeat that option every time we want to describe how a character gains knowledge as a function of a skill test.</blockquote>

Verification