NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7867389" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] Thanks for aggregating that and the 3rd party clarification.1)  So in the initiating post, I was leaving the actual GMing ethos in the mediation of the action resolution up in the air in order to have (i) (possible player stipulation - basically soliciting input on if there were any GM's out there who would allow "knowledge checks as player stipulation") and (ii) (GM preconception of all things due to Hexcrawl or AP) serve as the filter for conversation about handling Intelligence/Knowledge Skills in 5e.  I wasn't sure if anyone out there was using (i) or if everyone was using (ii) due to Hexcrawl procedures or as AP plot rationing.2)  In my last post about it, I took (i) out of the equation (which would have been the "Poor Man's Dungeon World" ethos in mediation) and constrained the conversation by (ii) (GM preconception of all things due to Hexcrawl).It seems to me that the subsequent conversation skipped the filter of my 1) above, instead assuming (i) (possible player stipulation) and focusing on that without explicitly conveying that was happening.I guess that is why the later bit became more difficult, because I intentionally constrained things to (ii) (GM preconception of all things due to Hexcrawl) to take player stipulation via Knowledge check off the table to focus solely on the Complication/Cost/Hindrance handling of that hypothetical moment of action resolution.</blockquote>

Verification