Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7790826">Ok, so I will take it at face value that this session was great fun.&nbsp; But it seems to me that is more about the DM taking input from the roll and using that to weave a good scene, rather than the action represented by the roll being dramatically interesting in its own right.&nbsp; Contrast that with my Athletics example: the actual outcome of the failed Athletics roll is something that got narrated in a way that itself became memorable.&nbsp; And had it succeeded, it might also have been narrated in a memorable way.Does that difference make sense?&nbsp; It's tough for me to improvise imaginary &quot;memorable&quot; scenarios because they tend to arise organically, but here goes...Iimagine Insight being used in the way I suggested earlier: the player describes how he is going to keep mentioning NPC-B's name, looking for reactions from NPC-A. The first time he rolls high, and the DM says, &quot;It looks like the corner of his moustache twitched.&quot;&nbsp; The PC says, &quot;I'll do it again!&quot;&nbsp; Again a solid roll, and the DM says, &quot;It's clear his hands are trembling.&quot; At this point the PCs could accept that he's lying and do whatever it is they wanted to do with that information.&nbsp; But the player goes for it again, and the third time he crits, and the NPC totally loses it, breaking down in confession, or attacking the PCs, or whatever.Like I said, hard to improvise.But I'm trying to demonstrate that by describing specific approaches (actions that don't take ANY real-life player expertise) it creates narrative opportunities, that the actions represented by the dice rolls can be memorable, in a way that I just don't see happening with &quot;I roll Insight to see if he's lying.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7790826"] Ok, so I will take it at face value that this session was great fun. But it seems to me that is more about the DM taking input from the roll and using that to weave a good scene, rather than the action represented by the roll being dramatically interesting in its own right. Contrast that with my Athletics example: the actual outcome of the failed Athletics roll is something that got narrated in a way that itself became memorable. And had it succeeded, it might also have been narrated in a memorable way. Does that difference make sense? It's tough for me to improvise imaginary "memorable" scenarios because they tend to arise organically, but here goes... Iimagine Insight being used in the way I suggested earlier: the player describes how he is going to keep mentioning NPC-B's name, looking for reactions from NPC-A. The first time he rolls high, and the DM says, "It looks like the corner of his moustache twitched." The PC says, "I'll do it again!" Again a solid roll, and the DM says, "It's clear his hands are trembling." At this point the PCs could accept that he's lying and do whatever it is they wanted to do with that information. But the player goes for it again, and the third time he crits, and the NPC totally loses it, breaking down in confession, or attacking the PCs, or whatever. Like I said, hard to improvise. But I'm trying to demonstrate that by describing specific approaches (actions that don't take ANY real-life player expertise) it creates narrative opportunities, that the actions represented by the dice rolls can be memorable, in a way that I just don't see happening with "I roll Insight to see if he's lying." [/QUOTE]

Verification