Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8442397" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Maybe that’s what you do, but it is not what I do.Sorry, but this is just incorrect. “I attack that monster with this weapon” conveys more information about the events in the fiction than “I check for traps” does. This is just a fact. We won’t get anywhere if we can’t agree on basic epistemology.That’s dis-analogous. The combat rules take out of the players’ hands whether or not their approach (swing my sword at the gnoll) successfully achieves or makes progress towards their goal (kill the gnoll), but it does not take their approach out of their hands. You don’t accidentally punch the gnoll instead if you fail your attack roll. On the other hand, in the case of the chest, we have a clear goal (find out if it’s trapped) and an unclear approach (check it). This action can’t be resolved without taking the approach out of the player’s hands. You might accidentally touch the chest with your hands if you fail the investigation check. This is a situation I seek to avoid, by asking the player to state their action with reasonable specificity. What is your character actually doing in the fictional world? That’s up to you, not me or the dice.That would truly be pixel moaning. No specific approach is or ought to be required. Infinitely many approaches may require an Investigation check to resolve, which is why a DM is needed to make the determination of whether any given approach a player describes does or not. If a player describes an approach that the DM determines requires an Investigation check to resolve, the rules inform us what an appropriate DC would be for that check.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8442397, member: 6779196"] Maybe that’s what you do, but it is not what I do. Sorry, but this is just incorrect. “I attack that monster with this weapon” conveys more information about the events in the fiction than “I check for traps” does. This is just a fact. We won’t get anywhere if we can’t agree on basic epistemology. That’s dis-analogous. The combat rules take out of the players’ hands whether or not their approach (swing my sword at the gnoll) successfully achieves or makes progress towards their goal (kill the gnoll), but it does not take their approach out of their hands. You don’t accidentally punch the gnoll instead if you fail your attack roll. On the other hand, in the case of the chest, we have a clear goal (find out if it’s trapped) and an unclear approach (check it). This action can’t be resolved without taking the approach out of the player’s hands. You might accidentally touch the chest with your hands if you fail the investigation check. This is a situation I seek to avoid, by asking the player to state their action with reasonable specificity. What is your character actually [I]doing[/I] in the fictional world? That’s up to you, not me or the dice. That would truly be pixel moaning. No specific approach is or ought to be required. Infinitely many approaches may require an Investigation check to resolve, which is why a DM is needed to make the determination of whether any given approach a player describes does or not. If a player describes an approach that the DM determines requires an Investigation check to resolve, the rules inform us what an appropriate DC would be for that check. [/QUOTE]

Verification