Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7589404" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, to be properly pedantic, no, a chance for success does not mean there's a chance for failure, nor vice versa.  If the chance for success is 100%, the chance for failure is 0%.  So, then, there's a range between no chance for failure (100% success), a chance for success AND a chance for failure, and no chance of success (100% failure).  While what you're responding to is a bit wordy and a tad clunky, it's very accurate that the style calls for a chance of success between (but not inclusive) 100% and 0% and a corresponding chance for failure.Ergo, all three are, indeed, required.  [/pedant]No, that's not a consequence, it's no change.  Before I failed, I didn't know and after I failed I also didn't know.  No change.  No change isn't really a consequence, it's just maintenance.Consequence means there's actually a cost to failure.  Your proposition has no cost for failure, just no gain. And, this is fine.  I have plenty of stuff that is important, though, so I'm not going to spend time on things that don't.  If there's no consequence for failure, then it's not important (in my game, natch).  I find there's plenty of uncertainty in the game without me needing to make rolls to add more uncertainty.Or, in another way, a door that only serves as device to increase player uncertainty just will not exist in my game.  This is a strong preference I have -- my gaming time is limited and precious and I'd rather not use it in this way.This also has little to do with goal and approach, except that such a method helps by already moving past anything like this I do accidentally include with a minimum of fuss.Detail is a red herring, here.  It's the approach that matters, not the details of the approach.  How much detail you add to carefully licking the doorknob clean won't result in an autosuccess, ever (unless, maybe, you're immune to poison?).  On the other hand, being skilled at poisoner's tools and wiping off the contact poison may very well result in autosuccess.  Don't make the mistake that we're looking for a long, detailed explanation for anything done -- that sounds horribly boring. Yes, you are, and no, it's not.  The game revolves around actions, not skill checks.  Skill checks are used when an action is uncertain and there's a cost of failure.  You don't call for a skill check when a player declares their character walks across a room, do you?  Is this a case where hairs have been split because there should be a roll?In other words, I say that a discussion about how to handle skills has placed the cart before the horse because we do not yet know how we handle actions.  Skills come after we get a handle on actions.I think there's a bit of an excluded middle here (things can be more verbose than 'You're scared of the dragon' and less verbose than a novel with flowery descriptions, after all).  Still, it's a fair point and entirely a preference in play.  I find myself using such descriptive  shortcuts on occasion, and I'm pretty big about not telling a player what they think.  My players know it's descriptive and they're free to have their characters react however they want.This is where I'll harp on my hobby horse of not hiding the game.  There's always going to be information disparity between the GM and the players in any game where the GM has secret stuff the players are trying to learn (what's in the next room, what the Duke is up to, did this shopkeep steal his own jewels, etc.).  This is because the GM already knows the secret and is trying to get the players to learn it in a fun way.  Because of this, GMs tend to create mysteries that depend on the players not knowing stuff, and then err on the side of hiding too much information.  This is what leads to players spamming knowledge skills or investigation and perception checks to try to convince the GM to give up this hidden information via a high roll.  In reality, these checks aren't doing anything in the fiction except convincing the GM to drop the next bit of hidden information.  I say, don't do this as a GM.  Make your mysteries based not on hiding information from the players, but instead on what will the players do once they learn the information.  Then the GM's motivation isn't to hide information because getting it gives away the game, so to speak, but instead get the information to the players clearly so that the game of what they do with it can be played.If my players are asking for these things (or fishing for them with action declarations), then I take that as me not doing a good job presenting the world to the players.  This doesn't mean I don't expect my players to have to do things to learn things, just that such events are clear that they need to do something and with enough detail they can readily form an approach to how they want to do it.Well, that seems to benefit you.I agree with this analysis (surprise!).  I hate the "knowledge" mechanic of D&D.  There's no real consequence I could possibly level at this to justify a check under my preferred method (actions cause changes to the fiction on success and failure) outside of telling the player, that knows they just rolled poorly, that they know a wrong thing.  Ew.I'm pretty sure [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] just ignores this problem and uses knowledge checks as kinda freebies that don't have a consequence outside of not confirming your suspicions (or gaining new knowledge).  As I've said, I strongly dislike this.  So, I avoid it -- poorly.  I tend to provide information based on proficiency and backgrounds for free.  You see an X, and are proficient in that thing or have experience in an area, well, you know stuff about it -- here's some game stats.  Again, I don't use hidden information as the point of an encounter -- my players can know everything about all of the badguys and the encounter will still be fun because I don't care to play gotcha with abilities.  In fact, I dislike this as a player, so I avoid it as a GM.This still leaves the knowledge skills in a weird place.  So, I use them in the exploration pillar.  You have religion?  That's awesome for figuring out a ritual or ceremony detail that can help you do something.  A recent example was a sarcophagus with a detailed carving around it in a a language none of the players could read.  The Wizard reached for his Comprehend Languages ritual, but the Grave cleric tried to decipher what the carvings might mean based on her experience as a Grave cleric.  She rolled poorly on her religion check, and so accidentally triggered a curse that resulted in the occupants of the sarcophagus animating as mummies.  On a success, she would have discovered that those in the sarcophagus were sealed in to protect against a cursed axe found in the sacrophagus (a beserker axe).  As it was, the party didn't get this information and the dwarven barbarian attuned to it.  Later fun was had!  This would be a very poor assumption in my games.  I freely reskin and repurpose creatures to fit themes, so assuming that you know something would be a poor choice.  Of course, I'll probably just tell you anyway, so... eh?</blockquote>

Verification