Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7373291" data-attributes="member: 97077">I think this goes in part back to my comment about where we think about uncertainty and automatic success in the resolution process. Let's break it down.1. The DM describes the environment. He or she describes something ahead that can detect PCs if they are not sufficiently stealthy. 2. The players describe what they want to do. The fighter and rogue want to sneak past and describe an approach to that goal.3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. But before I can do that, I have to decide on certainty (auto-success or auto-fail) or uncertainty (roll). Because I have already established that there's something ahead that can detect PCs who are not sufficiently stealthy, I decide it's uncertain. I set a reasonable DC and call for a check. The players roll and the results determine the outcome I can then narrate.Now, the determination of uncertainty is on the task or, as I would say, the approach to the goal - without reference to the PCs' abilities. Sneaking past this thing by the approach offered by the players is uncertain. It remains so until after the dice fall and a result is determined, regardless of whether the rogue ultimately taps the DC. Similarly, auto-success is when the DM determines that the approach to the goal offered to the players works with certainty, not after the DM has determined it's uncertain and the rogue taps the DC. Resolving the result for the rogue happens further downstream in the adjudication process than when certainty/uncertainty is determined.In this way of thinking, I don't have to give even a single flumph about who I want to succeed or don't. It's the approach I'm judging and nothing else. Does that make sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7373291, member: 97077"] I think this goes in part back to my comment about where we think about uncertainty and automatic success in the resolution process. Let's break it down. 1. The DM describes the environment. He or she describes something ahead that can detect PCs if they are not sufficiently stealthy. 2. The players describe what they want to do. The fighter and rogue want to sneak past and describe an approach to that goal. 3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. But before I can do that, I have to decide on certainty (auto-success or auto-fail) or uncertainty (roll). Because I have already established that there's something ahead that can detect PCs who are not sufficiently stealthy, I decide it's uncertain. I set a reasonable DC and call for a check. The players roll and the results determine the outcome I can then narrate. Now, the determination of uncertainty is on the [I]task[/I] or, as I would say, the approach to the goal - [I]without reference to the PCs' abilities[/I]. Sneaking past this thing by the approach offered by the players is uncertain. It remains so until after the dice fall and a result is determined, regardless of whether the rogue ultimately taps the DC. Similarly, auto-success is when the DM determines that the approach to the goal offered to the players works with certainty, not after the DM has determined it's uncertain and the rogue taps the DC. Resolving the result for the rogue happens further downstream in the adjudication process than when certainty/uncertainty is determined. In this way of thinking, I don't have to give even a single flumph about who I want to succeed or don't. It's the approach I'm judging and nothing else. Does that make sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification