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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7793614" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Oh, good, we can finally stop beating around the bush.Maybe we’re using the term “magic words” differently. To me, “Magic words” implies that there is a specific set of words or phrases the DM already has in mind that, if said, is a magic win button. It also implies that nothing but the Magic Words the DM has in mind will be successful. That is not what we do. We set the challenges, and leave it to the player to come up with solutions, which we will evaluate and narrate the results of. That’s why when you ask us directly, “what words do I have to use to be allowed to make an Insight check?” or “what action can I take to find out this monster’s weakness,” we can’t give a direct answer. Because we don’t have a specific set of words or specific action in mind (and in my opinion, it would be bad DMing form to do so, because that really would be what I’d consider “magic words”.)But maybe thats not what you’re using the term “magic words” to mean? It seems from this comment that you’re just using it to mean that it is possible for a PC to achieve a goal without having to pass a check based on the approach they describe. And if that’s what “magic words” means to you then yeah, I guess our play style does make that possible? But I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. That’s a good thing, in my opinion. If an action a character takes doesn’t leave any room for failure, it should succeed without a check. Otherwise you’re left with a situation where the dice clearly indicate failure, but failure contradicts the narrative.I suspect this is our first major point of divergence in taste: I prefer to begin from the narrative, and use the mechanics when necessary to determine what happens when the outcome of a narrative action is in doubt. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect you prefer to start with the mechanics and form a narrative based on the outcomes the mechanics indicate. I believe these are two equally valid ways to approach the game, but I personally do not care for the latter.I can agree that it makes success and failure without reference to the character sheet possible, and requires the DM to play a very active role and the players to pay attention to the DM. I do not consider that to be a bad thing, and I’m not sure why anyone would. I also disagree that it discourages engaging with the fiction; on the contrary, in my experience it encourages engagement with the fiction first and foremost, rather than allowing players to disengage from the fiction in favor of engaging only with the game rules.Here is our second major point of divergence in taste. I do not see any problem with the player utilizing player knowledge, at all. Perhaps you could explain to me why you think this is a bad thing? I honestly don’t see any reason to want to take player knowledge out of the equation, and in fact, I have seen a great many problems arise specifically as a result of trying to do so. Not the least of which is the problem of trying to navigate deciding what actions you need to take in-game before it is considered acceptable to act on knowledge the player undeniably has, which you illustrated quite eloquently in your question about Intellect Devourers. You solve this problem by asking the DM out of character what they want you to do. I solve this problem by not trying to separate player knowledge from character knowledge in the first place.I dunno, skills to pay the bills, I guess? Have I ever accidentally left out an important detail because I have given myself too much to keep track of? Of course. But I learn from that mistake and I do better next time. At this point I’ve had a lot of practice and I’ve gotten pretty good at keeping track of a lot of stuff, and also at knowing my limits and not making my own job harder than I can handle (or, not too much harder, anyway. If I don’t push myself, I won’t continue to improve). That’s an important part of being a DM in my opinion.Honestly? If the player can’t think of a way to frame an action, there’s a good chance that what they are trying to accomplish would be better executed by means other than an action. This is one of the points where my style diverges from Iserith’s. Where he would have you phrase your desire to know more about a creature, or recognize a lie, as an action so that he can resolve it as per the core mechanic, I feel that is unintuitive for most players, and clunky for me, and I prefer to handle such things by way of the player’s passives. If the NPC lies to you, I’ll make a check against your passive Wisdom (Insight), and I’ll make it clear if he fails. If you want to know a particular fact about a creature, tell me what you want to know, and there’s a good chance you’ll know it. Especially if you have a relevant Proficiency. If you don’t, you’ll need to take action steps to find out, maybe by researching the creature when you have an opportunity to do so, or by trying things and seeing how it reacts.Again, I think this is just a matter of being jozu enough. My games used to get slowed down by this, for sure. They don’t as much any more. I’m still not as fast at it as Iserith reportedly is, but my game doesn’t run noticeably slower any more than it did before I adopted this technique. I don’t think it’s any slower than most games I’ve played in under DMs that let players initiate checks any more either.Yo, man, I am not ignoring the direct quote about being able to discern lies in Insight. I’ve explained to you twice now that what I meant by “a successful Insight check doesn’t allow you to discern lies” was not that discerning lies isn’t a thing that is possible with Insight, but that a check doesn’t allow you to do anything, it determines whether or not the thing you did do was successful. I’m getting pretty fed up with you trying to misrepresent my comment in order to try and use it as ammo against Iserith, who by the way, agreed with the comment in question.But people keep asking him why he runs the game the way he does. What, you want him to lie and say it’s for some reason other than that it’s the way he understands the rules in the book? You don’t have to interpret the rules the same way he does. It’s fine, you do you.Look, I’m sorry for whatever those DMs did to you, but we ain’t them. Have you considered the possibility that maybe those DMs were so bad, not because they used a particular approach to action resolution, but because they were bad at DMing in general? That maybe they’d have been just as bad at it if they used the action resolution style you prefer? Cause I’ve got news for you: you’re not the only one who has had terrible gaming experiences at the hands of terrible DMs. And for some of us, those DMs did use your style of resolution, and made the exact same arguments you make in support of it. But I don’t hold that against you. I know you’re not those DMs. Hell, a lot of those DMs probably aren’t those DMs any more. Most of our worst RPG experiences have a lot more to do with the fact that we were teenagers at the time than they do with what ever method of task resolution was being used.</blockquote>

Verification