Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reimagining 5e's skill system using AD&D inspiration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8599674" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>I like that idea just from a "character sheet as menu" philosophy of DMing.</p><p></p><p>I'm thinking more about some of the differences I'm noticing between how types of skills / checks work at my table. Knowledge checks and Perception/Insight/Investigation checks are examples, but the one at the forefront of my mind right now are Charisma checks involving Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion.</p><p></p><p>What I notice among my players – and this is not just my players who onboarded during 3e, but even strangers relatively new to the game who I've been running one-shots for – is that they ask to make Intelligence-based and Charisma-based checks more often than they ask to make other checks like Athletics or Stealth. With those more action-oriented skills, it seems to be rarer for players to interrupt that engagement / flow to say "can I make a Stealth check now?" In other words, they're much more comfortable waiting for me the DM to call for the check. Whereas, more often my players are the ones beating me to the punch asking, "Can I make an Arcana check to see what I know about the orb?" or "Can I distract him with Deception or Performance?"</p><p></p><p>Do other DMs notice that trend?</p><p></p><p>It's really interesting to me. What if for Charisma checks to influence NPCs I flipped the script so that instead of 5e's baseline assumption that the DM calls for the check, instead the player proposes the check? And what if part of that proposal involved agreeing with the DM on what happens on a failed check? My idea is to harken to the old school sentiment, "if you can avoid rolling with clever play, avoid rolling." So instead of players jumping for their dice, the style of play would be the player RPing to see how much they can convince the NPC before coming to a social loggerhead point and really wanting to make a check to breakthrough it. For instance, maybe they can lean on something they know about the NPC or have over the NPC to avoid the check altogether (or, another way of saying it would be gain an auto-success). This would build tension, as in... <em>Oh man, I really want to Persuade this guard to let us pass right now, but I can't think of anything to say to convince him, and can we risk the fallout if I fail my check? </em></p><p></p><p>Examples of fallout for a failed Charisma check might include an increased risk of hostilities, a lower returns on rewards, an inability to network, being denied access to an area, popular sentiment in that area/among that group turning against you, being elevated as their deity-to-be-sacrificed, and so forth. Probably to flesh it out, I'd pin down a couple examples of fallout conditions for each Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion.</p><p></p><p>So instead of something like Stealth, where you need to take action (e.g. get behind cover or turn invisible) in order to attempt the check, with this approach to the Charisma skills, you can <em>always</em> attempt the check <em>but</em> doing so requires articulating what the consequences for failure will be. This regulates how often the players are going to be willing to take that risk, encouraging them to ask for Charisma checks only when they're really invested or really need it.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Maybe even some kind of risk vs. reward system, where the higher your Charisma skill value, the more you can raise the stakes for better rewards along with more dangerous risks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 8599674, member: 20323"] I like that idea just from a "character sheet as menu" philosophy of DMing. I'm thinking more about some of the differences I'm noticing between how types of skills / checks work at my table. Knowledge checks and Perception/Insight/Investigation checks are examples, but the one at the forefront of my mind right now are Charisma checks involving Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion. What I notice among my players – and this is not just my players who onboarded during 3e, but even strangers relatively new to the game who I've been running one-shots for – is that they ask to make Intelligence-based and Charisma-based checks more often than they ask to make other checks like Athletics or Stealth. With those more action-oriented skills, it seems to be rarer for players to interrupt that engagement / flow to say "can I make a Stealth check now?" In other words, they're much more comfortable waiting for me the DM to call for the check. Whereas, more often my players are the ones beating me to the punch asking, "Can I make an Arcana check to see what I know about the orb?" or "Can I distract him with Deception or Performance?" Do other DMs notice that trend? It's really interesting to me. What if for Charisma checks to influence NPCs I flipped the script so that instead of 5e's baseline assumption that the DM calls for the check, instead the player proposes the check? And what if part of that proposal involved agreeing with the DM on what happens on a failed check? My idea is to harken to the old school sentiment, "if you can avoid rolling with clever play, avoid rolling." So instead of players jumping for their dice, the style of play would be the player RPing to see how much they can convince the NPC before coming to a social loggerhead point and really wanting to make a check to breakthrough it. For instance, maybe they can lean on something they know about the NPC or have over the NPC to avoid the check altogether (or, another way of saying it would be gain an auto-success). This would build tension, as in... [I]Oh man, I really want to Persuade this guard to let us pass right now, but I can't think of anything to say to convince him, and can we risk the fallout if I fail my check? [/I] Examples of fallout for a failed Charisma check might include an increased risk of hostilities, a lower returns on rewards, an inability to network, being denied access to an area, popular sentiment in that area/among that group turning against you, being elevated as their deity-to-be-sacrificed, and so forth. Probably to flesh it out, I'd pin down a couple examples of fallout conditions for each Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion. So instead of something like Stealth, where you need to take action (e.g. get behind cover or turn invisible) in order to attempt the check, with this approach to the Charisma skills, you can [I]always[/I] attempt the check [I]but[/I] doing so requires articulating what the consequences for failure will be. This regulates how often the players are going to be willing to take that risk, encouraging them to ask for Charisma checks only when they're really invested or really need it. EDIT: Maybe even some kind of risk vs. reward system, where the higher your Charisma skill value, the more you can raise the stakes for better rewards along with more dangerous risks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reimagining 5e's skill system using AD&D inspiration
Top