Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7868793" data-attributes="member: 97077">I think it's helpful to keep things in terms of recalling lore (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion) or making a deduction based on available clues (Investigation). &quot;What do I know about...?&quot; or &quot;Do I recognize...?&quot; needs to be restructured into an action that justifies having had access to the lore and suggests what edge the player hopes to gain in my view. This makes it easier to adjudicate for the DM and, as an added bonus, often fleshes out the character as details are established to justify having the information.We're told as DMs to provide the basic scope of options when describing the environment and I take that to mean that whatever lore is required to make reasonably informed decisions should also be included. I don't gate that stuff behind checks. When I do call for a check, it's typically because the player wants to dive deeper to gain an advantage of some kind. On a failed check, I do something like progress combined with a setback: You get some interesting information, but it's not quite what you wanted and it's on you to take additional steps to make it useful.Inherent in this method is making sure to be generous with information while asking that the players be explicit about what they want. &quot;What do I know about...?&quot; is insufficient. I've already told you what you know when I described the environment. If you want to recall something on top of that or make a useful deduction to gain some kind of advantage, you have to tell me what you're looking for and what you're doing before I can decide how to adjudicate. If the player is performing his or her role in this regard, it's a cinch to adjudicate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7868793, member: 97077"] I think it's helpful to keep things in terms of [I]recalling lore[/I] (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion) or [I]making a deduction based on available clues[/I] (Investigation). "What do I know about...?" or "Do I recognize...?" needs to be restructured into an action that justifies having had access to the lore and suggests what edge the player hopes to gain in my view. This makes it easier to adjudicate for the DM and, as an added bonus, often fleshes out the character as details are established to justify having the information. We're told as DMs to provide the basic scope of options when describing the environment and I take that to mean that whatever lore is required to make reasonably informed decisions should also be included. I don't gate that stuff behind checks. When I do call for a check, it's typically because the player wants to dive deeper to gain an advantage of some kind. On a failed check, I do something [I]like [/I]progress combined with a setback: You get some interesting information, but it's not quite what you wanted and it's on you to take additional steps to make it useful. Inherent in this method is making sure to be generous with information while asking that the players be explicit about what they want. "What do I know about...?" is insufficient. I've already told you what you know when I described the environment. If you want to recall something on top of that or make a useful deduction to gain some kind of advantage, you have to tell me what you're looking for and what you're doing before I can decide how to adjudicate. If the player is performing his or her role in this regard, it's a cinch to adjudicate. [/QUOTE]

Verification