The problem is that the game simply becomes a dice game if everything can be solved using in game skills.
This game then becomes:
I roll a 15. I make it. I know what the problem is.
I roll a 17. I make it. My character implements the solution.
How much experience do I get for completing the mission?
Imagine if other games worked like that:
"Should I buy Boardwalk? I think my shoe would know better than I would. What do I roll to see if my shoe can figure out if it's a good idea or not?"
it is a role playing game... we play a role... I don't understand why I can't play a role that I am not good at but the character is... oh wait I can as long as what I am no good at is combat...
player A is an Olympic fenser who can run a mile in just over the world record and jump like a kangaroo, but sucks at mystery and if he makes a smart but not tough character then his character sucks at both (because he himself can't use his skills)
player B can't throw a piece of garbage into a can 3 feet away, can't run a mile with out collapseing and is super smart with an edetic memory and really good at mystories... he can make a combat monster PC and be good at BOTH because his skills match what you make people metagame...
if fair is using out of game skill for B why not let A use his combat and physical real life skill???
If my players forget something, I'll give them an Int check to remember it. But I normally use this in a "I can't remember what that guy's name was again..." "Make an Int Check. You make it? His name was Bob." sort of way. If players don't ask about something, they don't get the check. Unless they are REALLY stuck and I think something is fairly obvious. Then I'll actively say "Alright, you guys seem pretty lost. Everyone make an Int check to remember something you've obviously forgotten." But I won't volunteer until the player's have been trying for a bit on their own.
me too, except I often just say "Oh it's X" no roll needed...
I suppose this is the real question. What is wrong with that? If all the decisions are made by the character then we are watching a tv show and not playing a game.
and if all decisions are made out of game instead of in game they aren't role playing at all...
Well, the person in question is a food critic who gladly tells anyone who asks that he's trying a new soup on the menu made from stuff from the forest.
It's one possible clue you can get. The entire point of the adventure is that each clue your group is clever enough to get before the lightning triggers, the easier it is for you to figure out the puzzle. It is designed to reward players with thinking. I love anything that rewards players for thinking.
There is a skill check to identify the bow. But you need to say "I look at the bow, it's oddly purple, why is that?" If you don't take interest in it, it is assumed your character has no interest in it either. You determine your characters actions which includes your character's focus.
again... bad.
player A is an investigator with maxed out skills, but can't think to ask the right quastions...
player B has no skills other then physical but figures out the trick quick...
in a ROLE playing game player A IN game should get it... he is playing Sherlock and player B is playing Conan... but again out of game skill is all that matters... until a fight.
I can definitely see both sides of this. Your character is good at something, he should be good at that. But by the same token, the game does involve players and their input should matter.
I agree 100%
It's like saying that a 18 Cha character should be able to say "I convince him that it's a good idea to side with us. How? I don't know. I say something that convinces him."
I always give in game speaches and figure things out quick... when I first ran a game with Joe, he wouldn't try to talk to anyone, infact he refused to play a character with CHa above 13... because he had a DM who made him "Plya out what he says" and he hated that I could. You know what I told him... try, just take the skills.
to this day Joe says things like "Can I pull a leverage like Bluff" or "Can I diplomancy this" and me or Kurt pick up with "Oh, you could totally do X or Y" then he picks and rolls. It lets him play a bard...
I like to think that the players come up with the STRATEGY for their character, their character just provides the actual ability to do the things the player decides. So, a player says "My character plans on using the King's indiscretions against him, he'll point out that he wouldn't want his infidelity to be known and he should help us." The character gets to provide the flowery words that makes that strategy convincing.
like Joe... who would say "Can I use cha to blackmail him but without pissing him off"
It's 50/50 for both player and character. The player in question wanted it to be 100% character and 0% player. That is what frustrated me about the situation. I'm asking the player "What do you want your character to do?" he's replying with "What does my character want to do?"
that wasn't the example though... it was "Can I roll X to figure it out?"
The adventure in question has a "release valve". If the players don't figure it out in time an NPC tells them the answer. I think that all good puzzles should have something like this. I understand that puzzles can be frustrating for some people. But I do think they are pointless if the answers are just given up by the DM.
my head would explode and I would be baned from this board if I used every word I am thinking right now.. so I will instead quote praxis
This adventure sounds horribly written. The NPC that shows up and just solves it for them is so wrong.
