NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8485227" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, here I think we can contrast different types of game, and their underlying effective agendas become more apparent:In 5e there is, in principle, some sort of 'objective state' in which their is a notional kobold who 'knows' something. So, it might be seen as 'nonsense' in that system, yes. Either the action of intimidation can or cannot achieve its goal, and that is a known (to the GM) quantity. Checks are notionally only intended to adjudicate success or failure at carrying out possible tasks, it makes no sense to roll Intimidate if the kobold knows nothing. In Dungeon World checks have nothing to do with task execution whatsoever, or little at any rate. Whether or not the PCs succeed in a task is not really germane to the agenda of the game, and THERE ARE NO FACTS. There is no kobold who has knowledge, there is only a narrative in which a kobold character will or will not be intimidated by a PC. The check is simply the 'game' part of the RPG, the 'playing to find out what happens' element. If the player says "I force the kobold to tell me the wizard's name" and gets a 10+, then his goal is achieved! The character now has the name of a wizard, and the game moves off in whatever direction that implies. If he gets a 6- then maybe the kobold won't tell, or maybe it lies, or maybe it doesn't know, or maybe it bites on its hollow poison tooth and dies, cursing the character with its last breath. Play now continues in some direction, and we have, perhaps, learned something about that PC.4e is yet another story, where the authors kind of didn't contradict the D&D-like paradigm of GM-established backstory, which implies that there are 'facts'. Yet it also clearly evokes story game type sensibility in terms of putting at least some of the responsibility for the narrative on the players. Exactly how that plays out heavily depends on the participants. It could look a lot like 5e, except interestingly the check to intimidate the kobold is now part of an SC, and thus not learning the wizard's name is merely a setback, and the next scene should, if the game is played by RAW, focus on some other way for the PCs to achieve their goal. It could also be run in a more pure story game mode where a success on the Intimidate check means that the kobold gave up the relevant info, or at least something that moved them closer to overall success (maybe he just tells them "The dark man knows, find him in Greenvale." or whatever).Well, by classic 5e, I don't think a check was REQUIRED. By long convention GMs have traditionally obscured the backstory in order to avoid giving up information via a 'meta-channel' by asking for checks which are meaningless. I don't know if 5e's rules ever point out this technique or not, but I would say your example COULD be a case of this.</blockquote>

Verification