Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7600086" data-attributes="member: 4937">An excellent example.&nbsp; The Search skill or acts of searching that use things like a Perception skill are troublesome because they leave vague the fictional positioning of the character.The player's call &quot;Is it Sturdy?&quot; was treated as a proposition by the DM, and validated as an action which needed a resolution.In fact, the problem was poor proposition filtering.&nbsp; The DM should have probably rejected the proposition (&quot;You don't know.&quot;, &quot;You can't tell.&quot;, &quot;How do you plan to find out?&quot;) or at the very least assumed that since it was a call and not a proposition that the player should only be informed of what they can learn from passive observation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Either way, the DM should be prompting for a valid proposition - again, harkening to what others have called out as the &quot;method&quot; of the goal.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have a goal here from the call, but not a methodology.&nbsp; &nbsp; This seems obvious in simple examples like this but in play properly figuring out what fictional positioning the player is in and what fictional positioning the player thinks that they are in, and getting them to match is very difficult and one of the most challenging tasks for a DM.&nbsp; I get them wrong all the time, and the only real good that has come out of it for me is that I'm very sensitive as a player to cases where I may not have the fictional positioning correct.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm finding it's easier for a player than the DM to know when things are off, and be able to phrase things in such a way that we get back on the same page.&nbsp; But wow is it hard when you have a bunch of different players all of whom may be thinking in different ways and none of whom necessarily have any discipline with respect to what they are telling you.&nbsp; (It occurs to me, just in this moment, that aside from the large number of players at his table, this may be one of the reasons Gygax preferred to work with a leader/caller.&nbsp; The leader/caller was probably more disciplined in phrasing his propositions.)Moreover, to really do this well you have to be disciplined about filtering in the situations that don't matter, so that you are less likely to have problems in the situations that do matter.&nbsp; The above situation likely comes about because in the past, players have called, &quot;Is it sturdy?&quot;, and the DM responded, &quot;You grab the handle and give it a few tugs.&nbsp; It seems solid and doesn't budge.&quot;, and neither party objected to it or realized the trouble that was brewing with that sort of process of play.Finally, I've seen at least one player that deliberately tried to game and manipulate the DM in this way, by continually making vague propositions and if they didn't work out, demanding a retcon because the DM got his fictional positioning or his intended method wrong.&nbsp; Or he would say something like, &quot;I was only thinking of doing that.&nbsp; I didn't say I actually would!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Essentially the way he played is he'd do vague calls and ask questions about mechanics, particularly calls concerning the outcome of potential proposition, until he'd get the DM to agree that if he were to make a proposition, this would be how it be resolved, and only when he was given little or no chance of failure would he then offer a proposition.&nbsp;&nbsp; And then if things didn't go the way he expected, he'd start up again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7600086, member: 4937"] An excellent example. The Search skill or acts of searching that use things like a Perception skill are troublesome because they leave vague the fictional positioning of the character. The player's call "Is it Sturdy?" was treated as a proposition by the DM, and validated as an action which needed a resolution. In fact, the problem was poor proposition filtering. The DM should have probably rejected the proposition ("You don't know.", "You can't tell.", "How do you plan to find out?") or at the very least assumed that since it was a call and not a proposition that the player should only be informed of what they can learn from passive observation. Either way, the DM should be prompting for a valid proposition - again, harkening to what others have called out as the "method" of the goal. We have a goal here from the call, but not a methodology. This seems obvious in simple examples like this but in play properly figuring out what fictional positioning the player is in and what fictional positioning the player thinks that they are in, and getting them to match is very difficult and one of the most challenging tasks for a DM. I get them wrong all the time, and the only real good that has come out of it for me is that I'm very sensitive as a player to cases where I may not have the fictional positioning correct. I'm finding it's easier for a player than the DM to know when things are off, and be able to phrase things in such a way that we get back on the same page. But wow is it hard when you have a bunch of different players all of whom may be thinking in different ways and none of whom necessarily have any discipline with respect to what they are telling you. (It occurs to me, just in this moment, that aside from the large number of players at his table, this may be one of the reasons Gygax preferred to work with a leader/caller. The leader/caller was probably more disciplined in phrasing his propositions.) Moreover, to really do this well you have to be disciplined about filtering in the situations that don't matter, so that you are less likely to have problems in the situations that do matter. The above situation likely comes about because in the past, players have called, "Is it sturdy?", and the DM responded, "You grab the handle and give it a few tugs. It seems solid and doesn't budge.", and neither party objected to it or realized the trouble that was brewing with that sort of process of play. Finally, I've seen at least one player that deliberately tried to game and manipulate the DM in this way, by continually making vague propositions and if they didn't work out, demanding a retcon because the DM got his fictional positioning or his intended method wrong. Or he would say something like, "I was only thinking of doing that. I didn't say I actually would!" Essentially the way he played is he'd do vague calls and ask questions about mechanics, particularly calls concerning the outcome of potential proposition, until he'd get the DM to agree that if he were to make a proposition, this would be how it be resolved, and only when he was given little or no chance of failure would he then offer a proposition. And then if things didn't go the way he expected, he'd start up again. [/QUOTE]

Verification