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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7292095" data-attributes="member: 6919838">BTW... this is an aside... but i do feel it has some relation to the disagreements on the subject here and an element at the core of these different approaches.It seems like part of the pushback on "I move to the bar and lift a purse. i rolled a 17" is drawn from a sense of "GM must fill out the details - not the player" kind of logic. No not saying that is the whole of it but...As i said in the requested response to the "arcana check vs portrait of macguffins which might have been history check" example - the players is in this case asking for info and giving you his tool - so to speak - etc and i said i describe it as "Ok so from the images you see sigils on their robes... etc etc etc.." and give them whatever they could gain from an arcana check of that level for the circumstances.Did i have "notes: if arcana is used they can see..." - no. i used their arcana request and result to let some additional flavor be added into the scene. I let them, in effect, create part of the game, indirectly. They asked for brown sugar on their toast and i gave them some even though i had not put it out on the table.Other case example was someone using "nature" skill when maybe another check was...i think some described the "narrate the wrong skill check" approach as silly at one point but...Again, i take those chances as opportunities - cases where the player's choice helps add depth to the scene.They get what they should by their description and their aptitudes and their "fortune" etc... and frankly every called for "action" or "choice" is an opportunity for me to let them be more engaged in the scenes and the creative process. So, YES, a GM can just ignore their arcana request because they rolled at the wrong time, as some have suggested, tell them that will be a history-int check or whatever... and that may serve their game well.For me, it really feels a lot more like "you did not say you looked up" to do that and just move on."Looking at the painting, you see the sigils and the effects and that suggests they used lots of evocation magic, possibly tied to infernal sources but hard to tell much about their history beyond that, although you think you may have read..." and then aloow them to make  the suggested history check.Not only does this let the player's effort be of use but it helps to show the player(s) again "what arcana can do" vs "what history can do" a lot more than ignoring the roll for arcana and telling them its a history check. likely as not, they come away not feeling rebuked for acting out of turn or asking the wrong skill but with a sense of engagement and then follow-up with history check/questions. My general broad, quite broad simplest phrase to sum up my take on GMing is "Say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no..." and to me "you rolled without my permission, before i told you to..." is not a very compelling reason at all to push back at a player's attempt to engage his character and his character's aptitudes in the scene. heck, it helps when they do "play to their strengths" cuz it gives me more opportunities to help make that talent show itself without me having to work it in ahead of time. Does not mean their arcana check gives them history or their perception spots traps that can't be seen from where they are... just means they get to try and help keep their strengths relevant.</blockquote>

Verification