Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7608121" data-attributes="member: 996">It's really just peeling another onion-layer off action declaration.&nbsp; Implicit in many action declarations is a reason for the choice of method that goes with the goal.&nbsp; If that reason is predicated on knowledge and the PC having or recalling that knowledge is in doubt, then in calling for the check the DM is just breaking down a declared action into necessary smaller actions.&nbsp; DMs have been doing that forever - there's an example of it in the 1e DMG, IIRC - a player declares an action that the DM rules will take several rounds to play out all it's steps.And, yeah, it's common, and, no, it's not cross-pollenated from other RPGs, it was quite a common thing for DMs to do back in the day, IMX, even though the game had no actual official mechanics for 'making an intelligence roll,' DMs, confronted with a use of 'player knowledge' - be it knowledge of the MM, or &quot;my character's going to try mixing sulfur and charcoal, hey, I think I'll add some saltpeter, just because&quot; - would sometimes, rather than just flat-out saying &quot;you can't do that, you're character wouldn't think of it,&quot; call for one, typically roll under INT on d20, sometimes some sort of percentile check...&nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; Think about it as what choices are available.&nbsp; &quot;Hit the troll with your usual weapon&quot; probably doesn't come off the table very often.&nbsp; But /some/ choices may have a bar to clear before you can make them available.&nbsp; Not entirely crazy or unfair, just depends on what the play aesthetic of the group is like.D&amp;D saw a lot of it in the past, and 5e - by design, intent on supporting past play styles - grants plenty of latitude for it, if the DM cares to run that way.OTOH, if you are going to rely on those attributes being provided by the player, why give the character INT, WIS, CHA, or knowledge/social skills, at all?&nbsp; Just simplify the system by cutting them out.&nbsp;Maybe at a high, almost philosophical level.&nbsp; At a practical level, the consequence is the number of choices available to the player.&nbsp; Characters limit the choices available to players all the time.&nbsp; A wizard can't cast Cure Wounds, a fighter can't cast fireball (oh, wait EK, er, Cone of Cold), etc.&nbsp; &nbsp;I suppose, in an adversarial play aesthetic, it could break down that way. In a 'shared storytelling' or troupe-style play, though, they're just engaged in a back-and-forth dynamic that builds a story not entirely under the control of either …...'playing to find out what happens' on both sides of the screen, I guess.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7608121, member: 996"] It's really just peeling another onion-layer off action declaration. Implicit in many action declarations is a reason for the choice of method that goes with the goal. If that reason is predicated on knowledge and the PC having or recalling that knowledge is in doubt, then in calling for the check the DM is just breaking down a declared action into necessary smaller actions. DMs have been doing that forever - there's an example of it in the 1e DMG, IIRC - a player declares an action that the DM rules will take several rounds to play out all it's steps. And, yeah, it's common, and, no, it's not cross-pollenated from other RPGs, it was quite a common thing for DMs to do back in the day, IMX, even though the game had no actual official mechanics for 'making an intelligence roll,' DMs, confronted with a use of 'player knowledge' - be it knowledge of the MM, or "my character's going to try mixing sulfur and charcoal, hey, I think I'll add some saltpeter, just because" - would sometimes, rather than just flat-out saying "you can't do that, you're character wouldn't think of it," call for one, typically roll under INT on d20, sometimes some sort of percentile check... Nod. Think about it as what choices are available. "Hit the troll with your usual weapon" probably doesn't come off the table very often. But /some/ choices may have a bar to clear before you can make them available. Not entirely crazy or unfair, just depends on what the play aesthetic of the group is like. D&D saw a lot of it in the past, and 5e - by design, intent on supporting past play styles - grants plenty of latitude for it, if the DM cares to run that way. OTOH, if you are going to rely on those attributes being provided by the player, why give the character INT, WIS, CHA, or knowledge/social skills, at all? Just simplify the system by cutting them out. Maybe at a high, almost philosophical level. At a practical level, the consequence is the number of choices available to the player. Characters limit the choices available to players all the time. A wizard can't cast Cure Wounds, a fighter can't cast fireball (oh, wait EK, er, Cone of Cold), etc. I suppose, in an adversarial play aesthetic, it could break down that way. In a 'shared storytelling' or troupe-style play, though, they're just engaged in a back-and-forth dynamic that builds a story not entirely under the control of either … ...'playing to find out what happens' on both sides of the screen, I guess. [/QUOTE]

Verification