Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8090865" data-attributes="member: 16814">Fundamentally, the difference here is in the part I bolded.&nbsp; You're assuming this is the outcome.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; The player can present it any way they want, but I'm really only caring what their approach is and what their goal is.&nbsp; The prettiness of the words is fun, but not what I'm going to adjudicate.&nbsp; And, given our long discussions in the past, I'm confident [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] does the same -- but he can speak for himself.If you go on a long winded acting session, I'm going to clap (it's fun), but then clarify what you want to do and that your approach is &quot;use pretty words.&quot;&nbsp; If I think &quot;pretty words&quot; gets the job done, no questions, then, sure, you'll get a success.&nbsp; That's unlikely, though, so I'm probably going to rule this uncertain and ask for a CHA check (based on &quot;use pretty words&quot; approach).&nbsp; If you've dump-statted CHA and plan to often &quot;use pretty words,&quot; then you've not done a good job aligning your approach with your odds of success, and likely something a good bit farcical will result with you failing more than succeeding at your intent.The example [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] provided, though, wasn't convincing the GM to agree with you, but rather that a smart player, given the clues provided in the game, may deduce the correct answer to a mystery.&nbsp; If the player has their PC act on this player deduction, well and good.&nbsp; If that's the correct deduction, then play will show that out in actions based on that as successes.&nbsp; If it's not, then play will show out failures (probably automatic ones).&nbsp; The player can do this, but is cautioned that they may be incorrect.&nbsp; They can check their guess by declaring an action that does so, and that may go poorly or well for them, modified by their ability.&nbsp; Even if it goes poorly and they don't get confirmation, they can still proceed however the player wants.&nbsp; As [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] often says, there's always a good explanation for why a PC thinks or tries something, so why police what a PC can think or try?Ultimately, how you design your game will have a larger impact in encouraging the kinds of play you want than any amount of player policing.&nbsp; I do my work on the GM side of the screen and let the players do their on their side.&nbsp; No amount of pretty words is going to adjust how I adjudicate actions, and I've made that clear -- I'm looking for approach and goal.&nbsp; I encourage acting at my table, because it's fun, but acting doesn't trump adjudication, it serves it.&nbsp; So, I both do not care what justifications my player use to have their PCs think or try anything at my table AND I don't have the problem you're imagining.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8090865, member: 16814"] Fundamentally, the difference here is in the part I bolded. You're assuming this is the outcome. It's not. The player can present it any way they want, but I'm really only caring what their approach is and what their goal is. The prettiness of the words is fun, but not what I'm going to adjudicate. And, given our long discussions in the past, I'm confident [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] does the same -- but he can speak for himself. If you go on a long winded acting session, I'm going to clap (it's fun), but then clarify what you want to do and that your approach is "use pretty words." If I think "pretty words" gets the job done, no questions, then, sure, you'll get a success. That's unlikely, though, so I'm probably going to rule this uncertain and ask for a CHA check (based on "use pretty words" approach). If you've dump-statted CHA and plan to often "use pretty words," then you've not done a good job aligning your approach with your odds of success, and likely something a good bit farcical will result with you failing more than succeeding at your intent. The example [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] provided, though, wasn't convincing the GM to agree with you, but rather that a smart player, given the clues provided in the game, may deduce the correct answer to a mystery. If the player has their PC act on this player deduction, well and good. If that's the correct deduction, then play will show that out in actions based on that as successes. If it's not, then play will show out failures (probably automatic ones). The player can do this, but is cautioned that they may be incorrect. They can check their guess by declaring an action that does so, and that may go poorly or well for them, modified by their ability. Even if it goes poorly and they don't get confirmation, they can still proceed however the player wants. As [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] often says, there's always a good explanation for why a PC thinks or tries something, so why police what a PC can think or try? Ultimately, how you design your game will have a larger impact in encouraging the kinds of play you want than any amount of player policing. I do my work on the GM side of the screen and let the players do their on their side. No amount of pretty words is going to adjust how I adjudicate actions, and I've made that clear -- I'm looking for approach and goal. I encourage acting at my table, because it's fun, but acting doesn't trump adjudication, it serves it. So, I both do not care what justifications my player use to have their PCs think or try anything at my table AND I don't have the problem you're imagining. [/QUOTE]

Verification