Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3034324" data-attributes="member: 18280">From either a role-playing (ala Kamikaze Midget) or meta-gaming standpoint, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.&nbsp; When our rogue takes 20 on his Search check, all he knows is that, if there is a trap, it is beyond his skill to discover.&nbsp; At that point, the questions ought to be (again, from either perspective) &quot;What is this lever here for?&quot; and &quot;Should we pull it?&quot;Now some meta-gaming questions enter the mix perforce:&nbsp; &quot;Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?&quot;&nbsp; Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit).&nbsp; &quot;Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?&quot;&nbsp; Again, the answer must be No.&nbsp; Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are supposed to be overwhelming.So, we have good reason not to pull the lever.&nbsp; OTOH, fortune favors the bold, and sometimes so does the DM (or gods, if role-playing).&nbsp; So, should we pull the lever or not?Well, it would certainly be simpler if there was some means in the game to &quot;read the DM's mind,&quot; as it were.&nbsp; Some kind of spells to gain information, perhaps.&nbsp; Divination, we could call them.&nbsp; If there was some sort of low-level spell that could determine if an action would cause weal or woe in the near future, then life would be so much easier.&nbsp; But, alas, there is only one way to approach any challenge in the game......&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> (Needless to say, any lever protected against divination spells should be treated with great caution, even if the rogue finds nothing.)RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3034324, member: 18280"] From either a role-playing (ala Kamikaze Midget) or meta-gaming standpoint, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When our rogue takes 20 on his Search check, all he knows is that, if there is a trap, it is beyond his skill to discover. At that point, the questions ought to be (again, from either perspective) "What is this lever here for?" and "Should we pull it?" Now some meta-gaming questions enter the mix perforce: "Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?" Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit). "Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?" Again, the answer must be [i]No[/i]. Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are [i]supposed to be[/i] overwhelming. So, we have good reason [i]not to[/i] pull the lever. OTOH, fortune favors the bold, and sometimes so does the DM (or gods, if role-playing). So, should we pull the lever or not? Well, it would certainly be simpler if there was some means in the game to "read the DM's mind," as it were. Some kind of spells to gain information, perhaps. Divination, we could call them. If there was some sort of low-level spell that could determine if an action would cause weal or woe in the near future, then life would be so much easier. But, alas, there is only one way to approach any challenge in the game...... :lol: (Needless to say, any lever protected against divination spells should be treated with great caution, even if the rogue finds nothing.) RC [/QUOTE]

Verification