Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7591532" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, you very clearly indicated that a failure for insight would be no information. This is not a consequence, it's just the status quo.&nbsp; Nothing has changed, so therefore no consequence.I've said this before, you ignored it last time as well.&nbsp; This evasive answering is very indicative of less than earnest engagement.Didn't say gotchas, said I dislike using mechanics to instill paranoia.&nbsp; You, clearly, enjoy using mechanics to engender paranoia, via asking for approach just to instill it or answering success with not resolving the uncertainty, just smearing it around a bit and leaving it uncertain.&nbsp; Personally, I think a door that tries to eat someone to be damn cool.&nbsp; My players would, too, and they'd be able to clearly see how their approach led to getting eaten by it.Sometimes goals are obvious.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that a statement of approach is no longer needed, or that the goal doesn't exist.&nbsp; Sometimes, though, the goal isn't obvious.&nbsp; If a player is sniffing a door for perfume in my game it would be because I've already established that the scent of perfume is a marker for a thing the character cares about.&nbsp; If your assuming that I'd have this happen in my game at a random door, you're off base by a large margin.&nbsp; That declaration in my game would be a specific set of circumstances that had a clear line traced through previously established fiction to the present moment, and it would be very important that perfume is or is not on the door.&nbsp; You keep assuming we play as you do, with vague traps that might be on any given door, but this is not the case.&nbsp; You cannot evaluate it as if it is.Sure they do, to highly competent tomb raiders.&nbsp; There's holes in odd places, discolorations, mismatched tiles, etc.&nbsp; If you actually treat traps as utterly invisible until the player guesses it's time to make a check and succeeds (or invests in a high passive score to avoid secret traps), then you should take it as given we play very different games.&nbsp; To me, traps aren't gotchas that players can stumble into, but are encounters all their own -- they have tells and signals because I want the players to interact with them, not hide them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7591532, member: 16814"] Yes, you very clearly indicated that a failure for insight would be no information. This is not a consequence, it's just the status quo. Nothing has changed, so therefore no consequence. I've said this before, you ignored it last time as well. This evasive answering is very indicative of less than earnest engagement. Didn't say gotchas, said I dislike using mechanics to instill paranoia. You, clearly, enjoy using mechanics to engender paranoia, via asking for approach just to instill it or answering success with not resolving the uncertainty, just smearing it around a bit and leaving it uncertain. Personally, I think a door that tries to eat someone to be damn cool. My players would, too, and they'd be able to clearly see how their approach led to getting eaten by it. Sometimes goals are obvious. That doesn't mean that a statement of approach is no longer needed, or that the goal doesn't exist. Sometimes, though, the goal isn't obvious. If a player is sniffing a door for perfume in my game it would be because I've already established that the scent of perfume is a marker for a thing the character cares about. If your assuming that I'd have this happen in my game at a random door, you're off base by a large margin. That declaration in my game would be a specific set of circumstances that had a clear line traced through previously established fiction to the present moment, and it would be very important that perfume is or is not on the door. You keep assuming we play as you do, with vague traps that might be on any given door, but this is not the case. You cannot evaluate it as if it is. Sure they do, to highly competent tomb raiders. There's holes in odd places, discolorations, mismatched tiles, etc. If you actually treat traps as utterly invisible until the player guesses it's time to make a check and succeeds (or invests in a high passive score to avoid secret traps), then you should take it as given we play very different games. To me, traps aren't gotchas that players can stumble into, but are encounters all their own -- they have tells and signals because I want the players to interact with them, not hide them. [/QUOTE]

Verification