Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7857691" data-attributes="member: 20323">In theory, I totally get both of those solutions – strictly enforcing "you can make checks only when DM says" & using group checks for lore rolls. It makes sense, especially with how aggravating pile-on checks can be for a DM.However, in actual play, I have only rarely seen those work when it comes to lore rolls, specifically. At least in my games.Here's how those two approaches have played out at my table. Of course, YMMV!The first plays out with a player asking "what do I know about ___?" or "can I make an Intelligence check to recall what I know" or rolling and saying "I rolled a 19 for History if it's relevant" as a shorthand way for an experienced player to anticipate the DM's call for a check and speed the game along. My experience of actual play is that – sure, I as DM technically have the final say over when a  check is called for – but it's much more collaborative than that. If there's a definite narrative reason why making a check would not be possible, sure I'll unequivocally say "no", but more often it makes sense to say "yes, and..."The second plays out with a player wanting to know something and the DM (me) calling for a check – then either me forgetting to ask if anyone else wants to join in on a group check OR the scenario precluding the possibility of a group check (e.g. one PC acting independently or separated from party) OR it not make sense for any other PCs to participate in a group check because that one PC is the specialist – and then after the check, the players conversing and another player wanting to make a check after the initial check.I think the root of the problem lies in interpreting a lore roll as "the character focuses and tries to recall what they know." It's a very easy to grasp interpretation, but it limits the stakes to "you misremember ____." Which can work every now or then, but it can get old doing it on every failed lore check. It's also not something that every player is comfortable role-playing.Whereas interpreting a lore check more like a flashback scene offers a lot more in the way of potential stakes, because then the DM can introduce complications into the past of the PC or the monster/NPC/place/faction in question.</blockquote>

Verification