Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7599364" data-attributes="member: 6801228">There is a lot here, so forgive me if I'm missing some parts. But I don't see how this making your point that it is better for the DM or GM to tell you the consequences of your actions. Looking at this for example, if the player chooses to rush forward and smash the liquid containers, in the example you gave, bad things happen because the liquid was a retardent for the reaction. If the DM stops the player, and tells them the consequences, there are two options for that.1) Vague: You tell them that breaking the glass might have negative consequences because of the arcane nature of the machinery and their limited understanding of it. This likely does not tell the player anything they did not already know. Smashing a magic machine is a tactic generally employed by characters who are limited in their ability to solve the problem in other ways. It is taken as a risk, and they know it is a risk, so they will have gained no new information from your vague consequence. They will likely take the same action with the same result. 2) Specific: You tell them the liquid is acting as a magical retardent and that smashing it will send the machine into a meltdown. Well, now they know something they didn't know before. It has prevented them from being at the mercy of the DMs notes or whims, by instead opting to simply tell them how the machine works and gives them a fairly obvious route to shutting it down (getting more of that fluid, to slow the reaction to standstill). Since you didn't tell them this information before they took an action, it wasn't something you thought they should know immediately. However, in telling them this you have given them the information they might have obtained by analyzing the machine for the cost of no action except the declared intent to smash it, which would have had negative consequences. So, instead of smashing it, the DM stops their character and says "No, you can see smashing it is a bad plan, and your analysis tells you why it is a bad plan". But the player didn't say their character analyzed the machine, they said their character smashed the machine. Honestly, this bit from Mr. Baker is very interesting, but I fail to see how it applies to telling someone the consequences of their actions. Task resolution -> Do you tell the player consequences for failure to break the safeConflict resolution -> Do you tell the player the consequences for failure to break the safeNow, we can talk about these two types of resolutions, but neither one requires me to tell the players more information than the other. In fact, I do quite like utilizing Conflict resolution at times. I might know that the players are looking for dirt, and that it would make sense they could find some. Maybe I know that the evidence is in the desk, but they ask about a safe. A safe is also a fine place, and if they can successfully break in they might find something useful, it is about whether their intent makes sense within the goal. But, also, task resolution has its place. IF I have set up a puzzle with multiple types of clues, and they choose to target a red herring, they are likely going to get that red herring. The enemy is trying to throw them off the trail, and sometimes they are going to stumble into those, it adds a small scent of realism to the game if they can look and find something that isn't useful, winning leading to a failure. But, this is a very specific type of campaign and style that I would be using. It is a fun little example, but at what point did you tell the butler character the consequences for a failed roll before they made the attempt? That is what my posts were about, and that seems to be something you are only glancing over and makes no appearance in this example. Yes, the player's decisions had consequences that wouldn't have existed without the character, and the player could make many assumptions based off the game, the genre, and their own observations, but when the Butler was loading the canister, before they made their roll, did you tell them that if they failed they would spill the mysterious fluid all over their character? If you had not told them that, would it have changed any of the rest of your example. I agree with this. If we are talking about the player knowing so they can make an informed decision, then they must know not have assumptions based of their knowledge. They might know that the liquid is dangerous, but they do not know what the consequences for failure were, they can only assume it was bad. Then the player does not know the real stakes. The entire point I've been told is that we have to tell the player the consequences of their actions, or otherwise they cannot make an informed decision about the fate of their character. "This is important, failing is bad" is not what I have taken that to mean. Of course failing is bad. Of course the liquid is important. But there is a big difference between it being important because it was a clue to the monster involved in the plot, and it being important and melting the player to bone killing them instantly. The player is not making an informed decision unless they know what the consequences are(according to the position I have been told pemerton and I assume you are taking), but you are saying that even the DM doesn't know the consequences... so nobody is informed enough by the standards my quotes were responding to in the original thread. Or reading the next few posts, is knowing the consequeces for an action are simply bad, and that failure will have an effect on the game, all you were going for? Because if that is the case, then I see no reason to tell the players this before every single roll, which was what I was arguing against in the original thread. Telling the player the consequences for their actions is meaningless, the roll can continue either way, because they are not being told anything that would change their actions. And if they are being told something that is changing their actions, why?</blockquote>

Verification