Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7656481" data-attributes="member: 42582">When I think about this in relation to my own group, I can identify one player who is more inclined to point to corrections that run his/the players' way, and another who is more inclined to point to corrections that run against them.The latter player's PC has a feat that grants a bonus to skills used for rituals. As published, I think that what was meant was &quot;rituals&quot; in the technical 4e sense. The player interprets it as applying also to uses of the skills for &quot;rituals&quot; in the fictional sense - ie complex manipulations of magic - including page 42/skill challenge scenarios that go beyond the technical scope of the ritual mechanics (eg using Arcana to shut down a portal to stop the demons coming through). I accept the player's interpretation, and furthermore almost always just let him decide when the bonus applies and when it doesn't.How do others handle takebacks/corrections based on forgetfulness/oversight? We have a phrase - &quot;bad Magic player&quot; - to describe someone who has an option/combo &quot;in hand&quot; and fails to deploy it. When the players miss something like this, after their turn is over I will sometimes comment that so-and-so is &quot;a bad Magic player&quot; - in the spirit of friendly mockery! As GM, when I have missed something like this for my monsters/NPCs, I will occasionally retroactively deploy it, if it doesn't disturb the in-fiction situation too much but just - for instance - adds to the damage taken by the PCs. The same player who likes to correct rules/rulings in the players' favour will sometimes suggest to me &quot;Haven't you been a bad Magic player?&quot; but I claim GM's prerogative!Do other's have experience with/approaches to this?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7656481, member: 42582"] When I think about this in relation to my own group, I can identify one player who is more inclined to point to corrections that run his/the players' way, and another who is more inclined to point to corrections that run against them. The latter player's PC has a feat that grants a bonus to skills used for [I]rituals[/I]. As published, I think that what was meant was "rituals" in the technical 4e sense. The player interprets it as applying also to uses of the skills for "rituals" in the fictional sense - ie complex manipulations of magic - including page 42/skill challenge scenarios that go beyond the technical scope of the ritual mechanics (eg using Arcana to shut down a portal to stop the demons coming through). I accept the player's interpretation, and furthermore almost always just let him decide when the bonus applies and when it doesn't. How do others handle takebacks/corrections based on forgetfulness/oversight? We have a phrase - "bad Magic player" - to describe someone who has an option/combo "in hand" and fails to deploy it. When the players miss something like this, after their turn is over I will sometimes comment that so-and-so is "a bad Magic player" - in the spirit of friendly mockery! As GM, when I have missed something like this for my monsters/NPCs, I will occasionally retroactively deploy it, if it doesn't disturb the in-fiction situation too much but just - for instance - adds to the damage taken by the PCs. The same player who likes to correct rules/rulings in the players' favour will sometimes suggest to me "Haven't you been a bad Magic player?" but I claim GM's prerogative! Do other's have experience with/approaches to this? [/QUOTE]

Verification