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 LIVE! 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
Skills used by players on other players.
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="iserith" data-source="post: 7533129" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>Per the rules, a player determines how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks. The player plays the game by describing what he or she wants to do. The DM then adjudicates and narrates. In your example, Barbie's player is still able to determine how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks despite Alice being hidden.</p><p></p><p>I will add that an ability check is a mechanic used to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action. It does nothing more than that. It's not a tangible thing in the context of the game world that could have an impact on anything. So, a "successful skill use" is in actuality an ability check that is simply resolving uncertainty as to the action the player (in this case) described as wanting to do. If there is no uncertainty, then there is no ability check. And because the player determines how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks there is never any uncertainty as to the result and therefore no ability check.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the disconnect is in treating "skills" as if they are some kind of power a player can activate. They aren't. A player describes his or her character as making a case to the other character (for example). The player of that character determines what his or her character thinks, does, and says about that. There is no uncertainty and therefore no ability check.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There were all sorts of problems with how the players chose to interact with each other here, and "using skills" on each other wasn't a good solution, nor supported by the rules of the game. The barbarian's player is the only person at the table who can decide what the barbarian will do. If I were the barbarian's player, I would have employed the improvisational technique of "Yes, and..." to figure out a way that I could accept the face's argument. I'd also be searching my personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws for a way do this and fish for Inspiration. If, for example, one of my personality traits is "I watch over my friends as if they were a litter of newborn pups...", I could say "Okay, I'll go with you to help the villagers, but only because I have to protect you pups from your own good intentions." Ding - Inspiration.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7533129, member: 97077"] Per the rules, a player determines how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks. The player plays the game by describing what he or she wants to do. The DM then adjudicates and narrates. In your example, Barbie's player is still able to determine how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks despite Alice being hidden. I will add that an ability check is a mechanic used to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action. It does nothing more than that. It's not a tangible thing in the context of the game world that could have an impact on anything. So, a "successful skill use" is in actuality an ability check that is simply resolving uncertainty as to the action the player (in this case) described as wanting to do. If there is no uncertainty, then there is no ability check. And because the player determines how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks there is never any uncertainty as to the result and therefore no ability check. I think the disconnect is in treating "skills" as if they are some kind of power a player can activate. They aren't. A player describes his or her character as making a case to the other character (for example). The player of that character determines what his or her character thinks, does, and says about that. There is no uncertainty and therefore no ability check. There were all sorts of problems with how the players chose to interact with each other here, and "using skills" on each other wasn't a good solution, nor supported by the rules of the game. The barbarian's player is the only person at the table who can decide what the barbarian will do. If I were the barbarian's player, I would have employed the improvisational technique of "Yes, and..." to figure out a way that I could accept the face's argument. I'd also be searching my personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws for a way do this and fish for Inspiration. If, for example, one of my personality traits is "I watch over my friends as if they were a litter of newborn pups...", I could say "Okay, I'll go with you to help the villagers, but only because I have to protect you pups from your own good intentions." Ding - Inspiration. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
Top