Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8442436" data-attributes="member: 97077">How about we don't guess or retcon? How about we just establish what the character is doing with reasonable specificity before the adjudication step? Certainly there are traps that can noticed or deduced without touching things, right?I know it doesn't say that. I'm putting it in the context of the rules for ability checks so that the entire thought process can be fully understood. All of these rules work together.When you say things like &quot;allow the roll,&quot; you are signaling to me that the player desires to roll and are trying to say the things that will get them there, when that should not be the case in my view. As well, &quot;I search for traps&quot; sits at the level of &quot;I search the room&quot; to me. I don't know exactly what you're doing and so I can't decide if you succeed, fail, or need to make a check.That the lock is &quot;oddly shaped&quot; is also me telegraphing. But what needs to be clear is that there isn't a specific set of words that a player needs to say to be &quot;allowed to roll.&quot; I'm not &quot;allowing rolls.&quot; I'm adjudicating actions. They didn't roll because they searched the locking mechanism. They rolled because their action declaration (whatever it was at the time of play) was sufficient where I didn't need to assume what they were doing and also it wasn't an automatic success or failure, but rather was uncertain, and carried with it a meaningful consequence for failure. (In this case, 10 minutes lost which calls for a wandering monster check and pushes the clock further toward adding an additional villain to the adventure location. The latter occurred hourly.)Again, there is no requirement outside of stating a goal (what you want to do) and an approach (how you set about doing it) with reasonable specificity so I don't have to assume or establish what your character is doing.Really the player just needs to say what they're trying to accomplish and how. That's all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8442436, member: 97077"] How about we don't guess or retcon? How about we just establish what the character is doing with reasonable specificity before the adjudication step? Certainly there are traps that can noticed or deduced without touching things, right? I know it doesn't say that. I'm putting it in the context of the rules for ability checks so that the entire thought process can be fully understood. All of these rules work together. When you say things like "allow the roll," you are signaling to me that the player desires to roll and are trying to say the things that will get them there, when that should not be the case in my view. As well, "I search for traps" sits at the level of "I search the room" to me. I don't know exactly what you're doing and so I can't decide if you succeed, fail, or need to make a check. That the lock is "oddly shaped" is also me telegraphing. But what needs to be clear is that there isn't a specific set of words that a player needs to say to be "allowed to roll." I'm not "allowing rolls." I'm adjudicating actions. They didn't roll because they searched the locking mechanism. They rolled because their action declaration (whatever it was at the time of play) was sufficient where I didn't need to assume what they were doing and also it wasn't an automatic success or failure, but rather was uncertain, and carried with it a meaningful consequence for failure. (In this case, 10 minutes lost which calls for a wandering monster check and pushes the clock further toward adding an additional villain to the adventure location. The latter occurred hourly.) Again, there is no requirement outside of stating a goal (what you want to do) and an approach (how you set about doing it) with reasonable specificity so I don't have to assume or establish what your character is doing. Really the player just needs to say what they're trying to accomplish and how. That's all. [/QUOTE]

Verification