Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9458051" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Seems odd to bring it up as a goal then. If every technique has the same goals... then they are all achieving the same things in the end.I don't think they need the "how are you doing so" necessarily. Those sort of things are nice, but not really necessary. Some of that should be things you already know from the character, unless this is like session 1. And, no, I have not found that players who understand that they just need to give a goal and approach stop just asking for the die roll. Maybe they stop doing it for persuasion, but they might still just say "Stealth" when faced with a situation. Again, there are multiple reasons for them doing it that way, so you'd have to address all of those reasons for it to stop entirely.To me, if the first thing a player asks after I describe a magical ritual is "can I make an Arcana check"... do I need to ask them what they are doing with the check? I would assume they want information on the thing that just happened, because "to stop this" would be something most people would add. Without adding that, it seems obvious they are asking for information. So I find the first two statements... largely identical. They wouldn't change my response. Now, I might, to either question, say "Sure, are focusing on any element in particular?" Depends on the ritual and what elements I have set up. I also don't see the difference in your "active" statement. All you have done with that statement is make it more "in character" instead of in the meta-layer, but that isn't really worth anything to my mind. Sure, it is again kind of nice, it gives a nicer flow that my writer brain likes more, but it isn't necessary at all. Nor do I think it is particularly "tricky" it is just a matter of how the player likes to play the game. Going back up to your first hurdle though, where you say "it doesn't tell me what the player wants to know"... well, they don't know what they want to know either. That's why they are asking a broad question. Picture a movie with an accidental time traveler, they don't ask "what happened over the last six months" or "what happened to the city of Detroit" they ask "what happened?" Because they, unconsciously, are avoiding limiting the answer by going for specifics. Maybe Detroit was lost in a fire... but that doesn't tell you about the sentient slugs from the 5th dimension that are taking over the planet. Which you don't even know to ask about.  I'm trying to gain insight into them and their motivations, by looking at them and using my skills of insight. How do I do that? I don't have a single clue. I can make something up about looking for eye dilation or sweat, but largely I don't know how to read people's body language, tone and ect terribly well. I suck at that IRL,so I can't tell you how a person who excels at that would even attempt to do it. And my character likely wouldn't look for just one signifier, they would likely look for all of them, body posture, tone, eye movement, size, dilation, how much they fidget, who they make eye contact with, how long they make eye contact for, and anything else that could offer insight.And the goal, while not always, is usually fairly obvious. If the NPC is offering the players a deal and they've been negotiating and discussing it... well, they want insight into the deal and the NPC's intentions. If they are discussing the kidnapped princess with the shady vizier, they are looking for clues as to his thoughts about the princess most likely. This is one of the reasons these white room scenarios fall apart. Context is there in everything that happened 15 minutes or more before the player asked for the roll. If I just listened to the players out-of-character discuss their suspicions that the princess was kidnapped by an insider who has intents on the throne, then when one of the players turns to me and says "Insight" I don't really need to ask what they are trying to figure out. They never told me directly, but the context makes their intent rather clear.But your goal is obvious then. If I'm standing in front of a locked door and I say "lockpicks" then I'm not planning on using my skillet to cook a fine roast beef. I'm trying to unlock the door with the tools used to unlock doors. I'm not planning on opening the door by shattering it with a hammer either, because my character is a low-strength rogue with lockpicks, not a barbarian making an inside joke, Sure, maybe a DM might be confused if there are multiple locked things that the players were just discussing, or if it was early in the game and they didn't realize the Paladin was an Urchin with Theive's Tools proficiency, but none of that means the player's behavior needs correcting either.Sure, but my method does the exact same thing. Because I can follow up an "Arcana?" with a response of, "Sure, but if you have a more specific question I might just tell you. You are a master mage after all." And then, often times, they might give me a more specific question as they roll, and there might be information I tell them even if they roll a 5. Because information I was going to give you for free... unless it is a crit fail I'm probably still going to give it to you for free. The roll is just for the EXTRA stuff. And if there was nothing worth rolling for... I'll tell them that too. "No need to roll, you recognize a Planar Gate when you see one." is a perfectly fine response as well.Right, but again, you can't ask what you don't know to ask about. Sometimes the player in question doesn't know how to articulate a question, or they don't have a specific question and they just want a general "what the heck?" roll.I never said it had to work for you. But the nicest thing you could say about my laxer and more fluid style was "well, I guess the DM can put in less effort and work in their descriptions". Multiple times in this post you stopped to correct me on assumptions about your style, which you are an eager defender of. But I've never attacked your style. I've pointed out why I don't feel I need it, where I feel like you make assumptions that are unfounded about the way I do things, and how you seem to focus on one aspect, while ignoring others. I also think your framing of "goal and method" is going to end up confusing to people. If I have a barbarian character who is presented with a locked door, and he grins and says "Athletics roll" then... sure he didn't state his goal, but there is a locked door in front of him. The goal is a bit self-explanatory. And the method... well it doesn't actually matter. Whether he shoulder charges it, kicks it, smashes it with his weapon all three will acheive the same result. But if what you need to know for the method is "athletics" then... they already told you. Just like the example at the top of this post told you persuasion, but you wanted to know what TYPE of persuasion, which is a bit irrelevant to my mind. Because all of them should be able to achieve the same goal.</blockquote>

Verification