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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="redrick" data-source="post: 6551256" data-attributes="member: 6777696">My first reaction to this story is that both the players and the GM are doing it wrong, unless, of course, they are describing a situation in which all of them had fun. Who am I to say that a table doesn't like making a few arbitrary d20 rolls, checking them against a DC, and then being eaten by a big cube of acid?But, let's assume the players felt unfairly eaten and the GM felt bored out of her mind. Many better GMs than I have emphasized that players describe actions and GM's call for skill checks. So a player who declares, "religion check!" is basically just flexing her religiousness in the mirror. "22? You do feel quite knowledgeable on the subject of gods and demons!" The GM should remind the player that, at this point, she needs to use that skill in a sentence. So, sticking with a player who is phoning in the rp, "I look at the skeleton in mid-air and see if I notice anything religious about it.""You don't see any religious markings on the suspended skeleton, nor do you see any signs of rituals with which you are familiar, nor do you detect the presence of any divine or infernal powers." (I feel like the breadth of the denial is related to the success of the skill check. A 20 would get a very thorough denial, while a 1 might just get, "that doesn't look like an angel in the way you like to think of one.")"I try to look for any signs of the arcane.""Well, you know the levitate spell, and that could levitate a skeleton. Somebody else would have to be concentrating on it. Or the skeleton could be concentrating on levitating itself, though it's not wearing a pointy hat or carrying a spell focus or a component pouch of any kind.""I look at it really hard to see if I perceive anything."[BAD ROLL]"All you can see is a skeleton suspended in the air. You don't think you heard anything or sensed anything else."That's not exactly thrilling, but at least the player had to make some effort to apply their skills to a real world situation, and the GM made some effort to indicate what success or failure in that skill check might mean. Even in an old-school, rules light system, players could still try to brute-mechanic their way through a problem.[EDIT -- THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE IS CONTRIVED AND NOT VERY EFFECTIVE, BUT I'M LEAVING IT HERE AS A TESTAMENT TO, WELL, SOMETHING. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IN A LATER POST.]"A blood hawk shoots out of the trees and flies over your head.""Attack roll. I rolled a 17.""The blood hawk is 20 feet over your head. You swing at the air.""Ranged attack roll. I rolled a 16.""While you put down your sword and reach for your javelin, the blood hawk plunges out of the sky and claws at your face. Critical. Now it's latched onto your nose and trying to scratch your eye out. Do you still want to throw your javelin at it?"</blockquote>

Verification