Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 El_Condoro Feb 09, 2015 0:56:53	I have seen discussions about how to handle role playing and questions during play. I like the approach that encourages role playing and describing actions but can imagine times when some form of OOC communication is needed, at the risk of affecting immersion.   I play in a PBEM game using a Google doc to track the action and I am wondering how different DMs would handle something like what I wrote (below) if it were being played at a table.   Tordek: The stonework in this place makes Tordek want to stop and admire the workmanship, or at least check its quality. So far, time has not allowed him to but this room piques his curiosity and he examines the frescoes and other stonework to determine their history, if he can. (Using Stonecunning - an Intelligence (History) check at +7.) At the same time he will look for signs of recent activity, moved objects or secret openings as a secondary objective.   What I was trying to do was avoid saying "Tordek uses his Stonecunning ability", and at a table I would not include the bracketed part, but how would a player at a table indicate he wanted to use an ability without saying so. Further, how should a player remind a DM about abilities without risking sundering immersion?   For example, if the player spoke the description above and the DM secretly rolled a History check, how would the player remind him of the Stonecunning ability without seeming to be metagaming?
#2 iserith Feb 09, 2015 6:17:21	El_Condoro wrote:
#3 bawylie Feb 09, 2015 7:16:27	It's isn't metagaming to say "Hey, I have stonecunning - what's up?
#4 abs1nth Feb 09, 2015 7:55:57	I really like thinking about your interactions in terms of what skills you have. Saying for instance: "I want to use my history to recall some lore about this statue." is something I encourage because it shows that the player is making use of the mechanics at his disposal and it's a very active way of participating. Of  course I can always say that a roll won't be needed or that this wouldn't really apply instead it would be x.   But to me a big part of the appeal is being aware of the mechanics and making clever use of them while still adhering to your character. I don't like when someone would just say "I use stonecunning." but I do like when they say "I use stonecunning to examine the stone to learn more about...".
#5 CCS Feb 09, 2015 10:02:06	Look, there's things that might sound/read better phrased "in-character", and then there's simply times when a game mechanic should be referenced directly. Making sure the DM remembers your stone cunning bonus is the later.
#6 Imaculata Feb 11, 2015 11:44:45	When a player wants to use his stonecunning knowledge, they simply ask me if they can roll for their stonecunning to learn more. I then describe to them what they learn, and how they learn it, rather than the other way around. It is fine if the players refer to a game mechanic, and the DM translates it for them into a narrative.   Example from my own campaign:   I have an elf in my party, who can of course find hidden doors. So often I'll tell him: "Your keen elves ears pick up a soft whistle of wind from the wall on your left". He'll then ask me if he can search for a hidden door, which I as a DM translate as: "Your fingers trace the lines in the stonework, trying to find the source of the draft. After a few minutes you feel a sharp edge, and uncover what seems like a hidden switch."
(Reply to #6) bawylie	Imaculata wrote:
#8 El_Condoro Feb 09, 2015 11:52:04	iserith wrote:
#9 Archon007 Feb 09, 2015 11:57:35	iserith wrote:
#10 bawylie Feb 09, 2015 12:02:50	At the basic level, all we really require is an intent/goal and an approach. So when a players says they use their stonecunning to work out anything unusual about the nearby masonry, that's literally "enough."   Your adjudication of the outcome of that action & your framing of the new situation requires complete information, but not necessarily beautiful prose.    It is literally enough to say "you spend time examining the masonry and determine that lots of it was recently replaced by a different person than whoever originally put it here."   But. If you want a shortcut to better prose, ask your player "describe what that looks like" and when you give your info ask yourself "describe what that looks like." The answer to this will pay off a lot and frequently.    Read some of the Actual Play Transcripts - you can see where that question is unspoken, but answered.
#11 iserith Feb 09, 2015 12:12:32	El_Condoro wrote:
#12 Archon007 Feb 09, 2015 12:48:04	El_Condoro wrote:
#13 alienux Feb 10, 2015 13:06:55	Let's take a look at this example of play directly out of the rules (copied and pasted from the Basic rules, page 2):   Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles? Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations? DM: Make an Intelligence check. Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply? DM: Sure! Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven. DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?     Ok, here in the example directly from WotC in the rules themselves, on the 6th line down, Phillip asks, "Does my Investigation skill apply?"   In other words, it's still a game, so don't sweat it.
#14 iserith Feb 10, 2015 13:12:35	alienux wrote:
#15 Noctaem Feb 10, 2015 13:40:46	iserith wrote:
#16 Archon007 Feb 10, 2015 14:32:49	iserith wrote:
#17 alienux Feb 10, 2015 14:54:26	Archon007 wrote:
#18 Saelorn Feb 10, 2015 15:59:02	El_Condoro wrote:
#19 abs1nth Feb 10, 2015 17:37:47	alienux wrote:
#20 Archon007 Feb 10, 2015 18:09:47	Saelorn wrote:
#21 iserith Feb 10, 2015 18:36:34	abs1nth wrote:
#22 alienux Feb 11, 2015 6:07:40	iserith wrote:
#23 bawylie Feb 11, 2015 7:25:22	I don't know what skills you have and I won't remember. I ask for an ability check.
(Reply to #23) AaronOfBarbaria	bawylie wrote:
#25 Archon007 Feb 11, 2015 8:10:04	iserith wrote:
#26 Devils-Advocate Feb 11, 2015 9:16:54	I prefer the background proficiencies option from the DMG over skills anyway. I call for an ability check and if you the player can describe how their character's prior training applies to the task, they can add their proficiency bonus. If they have expertise or other features that apply to certain skill checks, they chose specific situations those bonuses apply to, such as "when studying stone carving" for stonecunning, or "when attempting to pick pockets" for Expertise in Sleight of Hand.
#27 Imaculata Feb 11, 2015 11:52:41	bawylie wrote:
#28 Archon007 Feb 11, 2015 12:35:14	Imaculata wrote:
#29 iserith Feb 11, 2015 12:41:54	Still, if you're asking to make a check, you're asking for a chance to fail. It's better to just state the action and see what the DM says. "I want to see what I can learn about the history of this place by examining the stonework." Now wait for the DM to either tell you what you hope to know, tell you that you learn nothing by that action, or whether the result of your examination is uncertain and thus deserving of an Intelligence check. Apply your stonecunning if and when you roll.
#30 Archon007 Feb 11, 2015 13:05:57	iserith wrote:
#31 Saelorn Feb 11, 2015 16:28:58	iserith wrote:
#32 iserith Feb 11, 2015 16:32:39	Saelorn wrote:
#33 Saelorn Feb 11, 2015 17:13:56	iserith wrote:
#34 iserith Feb 11, 2015 17:16:36	Saelorn wrote:
#35 Archon007 Feb 11, 2015 19:11:31	Saelorn wrote:
#36 Captain_Kobold Feb 12, 2015 11:40:26	Saelorn wrote:
#37 Devils-Advocate Feb 12, 2015 11:57:58	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#38 iserith Feb 12, 2015 12:27:00	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#39 Psikerlord Feb 12, 2015 14:07:24	abs1nth wrote:
#40 Psikerlord Feb 12, 2015 14:10:29	Archon007 wrote:
#41 Devils-Advocate Feb 12, 2015 14:13:26	Psikerlord wrote: