Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8648746" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think it will go like this<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We earlier established that there is a mountain range to the north</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The kind of world there is, it's perfectly reasonable to speculate there are dragons in those peaks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To resurrect Jo, the party are hoping to claim at least 1000gp (individual creatures of CR 11-16 are pretty sure to have that)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ranger is (implicitly) directing the group to say more about that: they're demonstrating interest in that direction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As DM, I must respond to that direction, the conversation probably goes through a series of steps</li> </ul>Asking that question brings it into the conversation and makes it something we must now decide. There are two parts to that<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What is going to be true?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What does the ranger know about what is true?</li> </ol>As DM, my say is to decide if there is a dragon, following all that has gone before. Sure, I think, there's a dragon up there somewhere. So now all I need to rule on is what the ranger knows about that? The consequences matrix as I see it is<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Success - the party possess more knowledge about this world (but nothing that seems particularly rare, closely guarded, or obscure), and they are furnished with an option to get the gold they need (which is what I expect they are focused on: their intent)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Failure -<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the ranger can't recollect some knowledge that would be held by many, worth at most a few coins to interested parties: regarding party intents, further minor costs or efforts would need to be entered into</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the ranger recollects the knowledge as success, but with something mistaken</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the ranger gets it all horribly wrong (unlikely, but possible)</li> </ul></li> </ul>NOTE EDITThe main thing is to have a view to what works for your group, and consistently rule within that view. The player chose dragon as favoured enemy, meaning they "have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy". I'm close to calling no roll here. However, the chance of getting it horribly wrong, or even just something mistaken, means failure can have meaningful consequences.Known by many indicates it's easy - DC 10. For fun, let's say we land on success-with-complication. (The maths is something like +6 so roll would have been say 3 = 9 result. Even with advantage! In most worlds they roll success, but in this world, I have them manage to fail and narrate according to the consequences I had in mind that justified roll.)To be fair, the players mostly leave naming to me, but that's not down to any authority I've ever claimed over it. One specific player likes to name things: I'll assume they're the ranger in this case.  The ranger has learned the dragon is a terror, but the players know that alignment is contingent in my game world. So that's my chosen complication: an unfortunate mischaracterisation of Averandox, Protector of the Peaks.I think there is a metagame conversation possible here, that might have happened in some previous lore rulingBy this rubric, when wouldn't I call roll? One example would be the availability of corroboration. That's down to player description.This is where something like your Treant comes in. Description constrains DM. We've previously established that Autumn and Willow are friends, and as rangers in the order they have similar lore. I've far less freedom in this case for meaningful consequences of failure! So here, I very likely rule no roll. The situation at the table always contains more detail than what we write here, and that detail counts.I'll assume that the party previously learned about the wise Treant who has lived in those mountains for centuries. And what's more, they decide to visit the Treant on their journey to the peaks. Assuming they find it, the question isn't what the Treant knows, but what it will tell them. I'd need to know their approach to say more.They'll diverge. As to the type of play afforded. I think one can have one approach to lore recollection, another approach to the fight with the dragon (e.g. get out miniatures, lay down a grid, all that), and a third approach to the journey. Variety is the spice of life.Will we now tavel to those peaks? That's not up to me as DM. Might we learn more about Averandox prior to departing? Maybe, that will depend on the direction of players. Might I sketch a dragon lair and think about Averandox's means and motives? There's a good chance, even though we mightn't use it.EDIT to illustrate the overall flowPlayer intent (resurrect Jo) > player intent (get 1000gp) > player direction (uncover new truths) > DM say (about those truths) > player information (ranger's lore) > player intent (new intents) > all setting us up for what follows.*Nothing invalidated what went before: it followed from what we already knew. My say is not the same as player say, but they are equal. As I see it, I didn't arbitrarily decide there was a dragon. Rather, a player instructed me to perform construction according to their intentions. I think [USER=70468]@kenada[/USER]'s post above indicates how asymmetry with equality can be achieved.Maven alert. Notice the flat trajectory of momentum in this example. My favoured sand-box style is like an orrery. Parts moving and turning. Players are crucial catalysts. Parts accelerate, wobble, get knocked out of orbit, by their choices. Some moments in our conversation are ones where we increase momentum, others are where we dampen it. A few are explosive. Sometimes explosive moments arrive unexpectedly, without build up. Sometimes build up fizzles. A snowball is one possible trajectory.*Implicitly included at each step is fiction (what came before, what we know to be true, how things stand now), description (what players say), and system (what the game model and rules specifies), as appropriate.</blockquote>

Verification