Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8730849" data-attributes="member: 6779196">[USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] and [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] I think rather than focusing on what is or isn’t RAW, it may be more useful to consider the gameplay outcomes of each approach. If one or the other has outcomes one finds preferable, then I think one ought to rule that way, whether it’s RAW or not, and so the argument about what the RAW says is mostly a distraction.Personally, I’m inclined to favor iserith’s ruling because I use the goal and approach the player describes in my assessment of whether or not to call for a check in the first place. If the player had said in the first place that they’re relying on their knowledge of the construction techniques in this, their ancestral home, to know how best to move the statue, it’s possible I might not have even called for a check. By adding that detail after the fact, they have changed the parameters of the action, and therefore I would have to re-assess whether or not a check is required.I think, perhaps, it might be best to say that what I need the player to describe is not just goal and approach, but goal, approach, and any tools or specialized knowledge they are using to assist them. I mean, the tools and specialized knowledge should be covered as part of the approach, but I think this discussion makes it clear that isn’t obvious to everyone.</blockquote>