Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6881636" data-attributes="member: 42582">Upthread, I suggested that the roll of a saving throw is something that happens at the table, in the real world, and doesn't obviously or immediately correlate to something happening in the fiction.This characterisation of saving throws was rejected by [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].Allowing the player to choose not to make a knowledge roll is treating the skill roll in the same way as I prefer to treat the saving throw: as something that takes place in the real world, at the table.&nbsp; If it was simply a model of ingame causal processes (as Maxperson asserts to be case for a saving throw), then the player would be obliged to make the check to determine whether or not the PC knew the information in question.&nbsp;[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has said, upthread, that ZoT talks in in-fiction terms (about creatures in the zone, etc), and that this is a reason for treating the ZoT saving throw in Maxperson's preferred fashion. But the rules for INT and knowledge checks are no different in this respect (SRD p 81):An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.Clearly the &quot;you&quot; in that passage is talking about the character in the fiction, not the player in the real world. (Eg a player in the real world doesn't need to make an INT check in order to be permitted to draw on his/her education in the playing of the game.)What, then, is the basis for treating knowledge checks in a different, more metagame fashion than saving throws? And why can Zone of Truth not be treated in the same way (which is what the Eloelle narration requires)?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6881636, member: 42582"] Upthread, I suggested that the roll of a saving throw is something that happens at the table, in the real world, and doesn't obviously or immediately correlate to something happening in the fiction. This characterisation of saving throws was rejected by [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]. Allowing the player to choose not to make a knowledge roll is treating the skill roll in the same way as I prefer to treat the saving throw: as something that takes place in the real world, at the table. If it was simply a model of ingame causal processes (as Maxperson asserts to be case for a saving throw), then the player would be [I]obliged[/I] to make the check to determine whether or not the PC knew the information in question. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has said, upthread, that ZoT talks in in-fiction terms (about creatures in the zone, etc), and that this is a reason for treating the ZoT saving throw in Maxperson's preferred fashion. But the rules for INT and knowledge checks are no different in this respect (SRD p 81): [indent]An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.[/indent] Clearly the "you" in that passage is talking about the character in the fiction, not the player in the real world. (Eg a player in the real world doesn't need to make an INT check in order to be permitted to draw on his/her education in the playing of the game.) What, then, is the basis for treating knowledge checks in a different, more metagame fashion than saving throws? And why can Zone of Truth not be treated in the same way (which is what the Eloelle narration requires)? [/QUOTE]

Verification