Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite surprised to see so much difference of opinion on such a commonplace issue. But English is an ambiguous language that doesn't have nice separate terms for inclusive and exclusive Or. And there are cases to be made for explanation in either direction.
Maybe it would be illuminating if we could get John Compton to say what he has in mind when editing these fairly standardized text blocks? In the case of briefing knowledge checks at least, we could have the truth from the horse's mouth.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am seeing good arguments on both sides, a player recently did roll for each of the applicable knowledge checks... I was about to stop him... but I didn't really have an ironclad reason to do so. After all, if you could have to gain this information through various channels...
And I agree with Lau, some clarification what is intended by the scenarios would be very welcome.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
players are entitled to a consistent application of the rules.In a world-wide campaign based on a game with rules that are often written intentionally to allow, even encourage GM adjudication? Good LuckThe PFS guide explicitly states that GMs have to follow the rules as written. If the rule says it's a free action to draw an arrow to shoot a bow, then players are entitled to that rule at every table in PFS games. In fact, the very reason I play PFS and only PFS is that GMs can't pull house rules out of their nether region whenever it suits them, as I've experienced in homebrew
Adjudication is only allowed when a situation arises that is not covered by the rules. But I can certainly attest to GMs not abiding by that and believing that they are free to change the rules at their own discretion.
You are correct, there should be as little table variation as possible, and certainly not when it comes to areas where the rules are very clear.
Unfortunately, sometimes information is missing from scenarios (like ceiling height, and the climb DC of that wall etc.) and GMs will have to improvise and as you mentioned even then GMs are supposed to use their best judgment to stay as close to the scenario as possible.
If you are made aware of GMs not following this rule, talk to them, if that doesn't work try to inform the next Venture Officer, so he can try to advise said GM about the problem.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I can't believe that the number of rolls a PC can make at a post-mission Knowledge briefing should be up to GM discretion.
Until this discussion I had never considered that there was any doubt.
On our tables the argument is usually over "if he's using History to attempt the check, can I use Geography to aid him?"
But the opposing argument isn't crazy, so now I'd like to hear the authorial intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am assuming that this convo is all about the Knowledge checks needed for the lovely bits of 'fluff' information that players may pick up in a scenario.
No scenario (that I have read) is dependent on a such a check, they can be completed with all fails. The only thing they give is background, at best a slight clue on the motivations of the BBEG. All they really do is heighten the enjoyment of the players...I love that look of 'Ah! That's why!' on the player's faces when something pulls together, it makes it worthwhile to me.
I want the players to have a way in game to have access to some of the cool background that I as a GM have and the in game Knowledge checks is a way to do this. We aren't playing Call of C'thulhu.
Reading 'or' as being noninclusive limits the enjoyment for players, it doesn't reward players for having a breadth of skills. I strongly believe that PFS scenarios don't do that nor is it the intent of the designers.
This does need clarification, however, as some GMs do see 'or' as being noninclusive.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Not just the checks at the start of the scenario, but also checks that allow repeated tries. My main issue with that is that it takes all the tension out of a scenario. It devolves from "did I roll well enough to know this?" to "do I have enough ranks to eventually beat the DC?" In that case, the GM might as well just ask "is anyone capable of beating a DC 40?" and handing out the information without rolling. Pathfinder is a game of chance, hence the d20. Eliminating that chance through repeated rerolls isn't intended, I think.
I do sometimes weave the background information into scenarios or tell them outright, because as you said, it heightens the enjoyment of the scenario.
Yeah, this is also covering things in scenario like.
"To find the tracks it's a DC X survival or X+5 perception."
1) can you try both?
2) can you try repeatedly?
I believe are the questions being asked here.
1) Absolutely. You get one check for each relevant skill.
2) Nope. See above.|
|
Yeah, this is also covering things in scenario like.
"To find the tracks it's a DC X survival or X+5 perception."
1) can you try both?
2) can you try repeatedly?
I believe are the questions being asked here.1) Absolutely. You get one check for each relevant skill.
2) Nope. See above.
I read it as OR is exclusive. You can try survival or perception, but not both. As both are effectively you just looking for tracks, It doesn't make sense that when you look and fail that you can look again and succeed, you already tried looking.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I have in the past limited players to using only one skill check when multiple options are listed, the discussion here makes me think that unless there is a negative consequence for failure, each should be allowed. I think that having training in a wide variety of topics should allow a greater chance to recall the essential piece of knowledge you need. While it is true that in real life, we don't separately consult different memory banks for the different types of information we might recall on a topic that ties into different disciplines of knowledge, the game system abstracts memory recall to a random die roll and you should apply that abstraction to each of your areas of knowledge. To those who argue that this amounts to allowing re-rolls until success is achieved, I say that you are creating a straw man - we are talking about a limited number of rolls based on how many skills are listed as applicable, not an infinite number.
I read it as OR is exclusive. You can try survival or perception, but not both. As both are effectively you just looking for tracks, It doesn't make sense that when you look and fail that you can look again and succeed, you already tried looking.Yeah, this is also covering things in scenario like.
"To find the tracks it's a DC X survival or X+5 perception."
1) can you try both?
2) can you try repeatedly?
I believe are the questions being asked here.1) Absolutely. You get one check for each relevant skill.
2) Nope. See above.
I read OR as inclusive.
Who is right?That is why input about the intent from "The Others" will resolve this, otherwise we'll just have circular arguments.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless there is some reason the character cannot use his Perception skill at this point (checking the body triggered a modify memory spell that made him forget what kinds of insects and how many there were, AND one of the other party members has driven them off with a smokestick or a spell so they're no longer there to study; or, say, the character has been attacked by someone wanting to prevent him from studying the body too closely), refusing to allow it makes absolutely no sense. "You can't see because you're a doctor."
....and is metagaming.
Horsefeathers.
His character is starting to be extra suspicious because the DM told his player that something was up. His character has no reason to do that. The character is trying to act on information from the player that the character should not have. Thats metagaming, the kind that qualifies as cheating. (not the acceptable breaks from reality kind of metagaming like NOT killing your party members when you character really would try to kill them or running into a dungeon with a random bag of mixed nuts)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Not just the checks at the start of the scenario, but also checks that allow repeated tries. My main issue with that is that it takes all the tension out of a scenario. It devolves from "did I roll well enough to know this?" to "do I have enough ranks to eventually beat the DC?" In that case, the GM might as well just ask "is anyone capable of beating a DC 40?" and handing out the information without rolling. Pathfinder is a game of chance, hence the d20. Eliminating that chance through repeated rerolls isn't intended, I think.
I do sometimes weave the background information into scenarios or tell them outright, because as you said, it heightens the enjoyment of the scenario.
If the writer wants to build tension with a roll, there are several ways to do it;
- Use a skill that can't normally be retried. With a given Knowledge skill, you either know something or don't; you normally don't get a retry. You might get a retry with a different Knowledge skill, representing re-thinking the issue from a different angle. But unless you heavily invested in both of them, the retry has worse odds than your favorite skill.
- Put an external limit on the number of tries. Each time you don't make the Diplomacy check, the listener's patience grows thinner, and the DC goes up. If you don't open the lock and escape within five tries the guard gets you. You can try Survival to pick up the track again, but there's an hour cooldown time in the rules. In that time the enemy gets farther away/has more time to prepare.
Those are entirely fair and plausible ways to keep things interesting.
"It's a DC 30 check to find the needle in the haystack, but the PCs have all the time in the world because the BBEG will just wait in his room" is the writer's fault, not the mechanics.
|
|
I read OR as inclusive.
Who is right?That is why input about the intent from "The Others" will resolve this, otherwise we'll just have circular arguments.
If OR was contained in vacuum I might read it as inclusive, but it isn't in a vacuum. There are other cases where AND is used instead. AND is very much inclusive. OR is exclusive.
Also from a logic perspective, AND is inclusive, OR is exclusive.
No, the OR in logic is inclusive.
OR is "If any input is true then the output is true".AND is "If any input is false then the output is false".
Venture-Captain, Texas—Waco
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking I might try something different the next time the situation comes up and possibly add circumstance modifiers based on what other skills the character in question has...
Upside: One roll/shot at a given knowledge to prevent a crudtonne of rerolls.
Downside: Roll might be obscenely high or pathetically low, and player may feel robbed despite investing in the skills in question.
EDIT: eg. Skill roll calls for K: History, K: Nobility, or K: Religion. My current thinking is an unspoken +2 for each additional skill they have that could apply to the roll, barring any sort of indication of skill focus or the like.
I've normally seen the OR as allowing only one roll - "Pick your best" - in order to keep things moving, but the discussion of a well-educated character who has invested ranks in many different skills has swayed me to seriously considering Wei Ji's proposal to reward them for that. For example, pick your best but your knowledge in other related areas helps you correlate the information more thoroughly. Knowledge History could be augmented with a +2 per applicable skill if you've also studied geography and nobility, and those are relevant to the skill check. Effectively, you're giving yourself Aid Another bonuses.
This could apply to the "Knowledge Local or Diplomacy (gather information)" rolls. My character likes talking to people, but his preexisting knowledge of local matters can be used to fill in the gaps of what people tell him, mechanically with a +2.
If the information revealed by the two skill checks is not identical, you should definitely make them separately. I am less sure what to do if multiple skills lead to the exact same information.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, for some reason, two skills are mutually exclusive in a situation, (for example, you cannot both Swim and Fly at the same time) then it is one or the other. However, such situations are usually pretty rare. Most skills, especially those based off mental skills, cross over. So I usually treat it as one check for each skill. It does not make sense to me that if you have a PHD in History and a PHD in Medicine that your odds of knowing something about medical history are no better than someone who only had a PDH in one of those.