Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[Satyrn]

Okay, in both the examples gave, it was just the goal. Can you give me an approach useful for:

"I track the wolves prints we found."

"I pick the lock on the chest with my thieves' tools." (Is "with my thieves' tools" enough for an approach?)

"Do I know anything about these symbols?" (for a character with several knowledge skills, some trained.)

(I'm not picking on you, I'm just going back to the original premise of social skills oft having different expectations.)

For some of these, isn't picking an appropriate approach something inherent in the character knowledge of having a good and/or trained skill?

Would you allow "My character is trained in tracking and woodcraft, so I'm using all of my character's knowledge to follow the wolves."?

Huh. "I track the wolves" sounds like the approach to me, with an implied goal of "to discover where those wolves are now."

Similarly, picking the lock would bd the approach, with "to open the chest being the goal."

 

[Oofta]

Huh. "I track the wolves" sounds like the approach to me, with an implied goal of "to discover where those wolves are now."

Similarly, picking the lock would bd the approach, with "to open the chest being the goal."

I sometimes wonder if people really make as big an issue of some of these things in real games as they seem to imply. I find it hard to believe most DMs wouldn't accept "I track the wolves" or similar.

In the rare case that intent isn't clear, I just ask for clarification.

 

[Satyrn]

I sometimes wonder if people really make as big an issue of some of these things in real games as they seem to imply. I find it hard to believe most DMs wouldn't accept "I track the wolves" or similar.

In the rare case that intent isn't clear, I just ask for clarification.

I think it's more that, in our forum discussions, we use these simple obvious examples to illustrate our points, but because they are simple obvious examples that are readily resolved and understood at the table, it looks to "the other side" that we're extraordinarily picky.

The examples get in the way of our point.

My point was supposed to be that, as far as it relates to how @iserith doing things, @Blue is mistaking the approach for the goal, and in doing so, is concluding that iserith needs more detail than he does.

That is, by suggesting to Blue that if he considers "locating the wolves" is the goal, "tracking them" looks like a viable approach. If "unlocking the chest" is the goal, "picking the lock" probably suffices as the approach. And maybe he'll see that iserith isn't requiring all the extra detail thinks is needed.

 

[5ekyu]

I sometimes wonder if people really make as big an issue of some of these things in real games as they seem to imply. I find it hard to believe most DMs wouldn't accept "I track the wolves" or similar.

In the rare case that intent isn't clear, I just ask for clarification.

I have long believed that rhe vast majority of games play out well between the extremes oft presented on the forums.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . And so, once "I track the wolves in an attempt to locate them" or "I pick the lock (approach) to unlock the chest (goal)" are understood as the sort of thing iserith's talking about, it should be fairly obvious how to apply that to every other situation.

You want to get a guard to let you pass: "I tell him I'll hurt him, badly, if he doesn't stand aside" tells the DM your goal and approach. Gives him something to adjudicate, without the player acting anything out.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] One trick I use at my table is using high skill bonuses as an indication of how much “help” the player can receive from other players OOC. I’ve seen this apply to negotiations, wilderness survival, D&D monster lore, engineering, and puzzles. I generally allow more “group think” / “yeah! what (s)he said” the higher the acting PC’s relevant skill is.

 

[Blue]

A statement of goal and approach that is reasonably specific will be whatever the DM finds, in context, to be sufficient to adjudicate the action without having to assume or establish what the character is actually doing. Outside of its actual context, it's hard to say whether any of these would be okay.

What I see a lot of is the player not performing this role adequately and the DM stepping in to say what the character is doing. That is not how the roles of DM and player are laid out.

It does seem that you treat social skills the same as other skills. The consistency, plus what you were talking about earlier in terms of descriptive RP in an earlier email, do open things up.

 

[guachi]

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] One trick I use at my table is using high skill bonuses as an indication of how much “help” the player can receive from other players OOC. I’ve seen this apply to negotiations, wilderness survival, D&D monster lore, engineering, and puzzles. I generally allow more “group think” / “yeah! what (s)he said” the higher the acting PC’s relevant skill is.

What do you mean, exactly? Do you mean that a player with a +8 in a skill, for example, can better make use of help because the skilled PC can either better direct the helper and/or the skilled person is better able to judge the usefulness of information from the helper? Or is it something else?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Can you give me an approach useful for:

"I track the wolves prints we found."

"I pick the lock on the chest with my thieves' tools." (Is "with my thieves' tools" enough for an approach?)

Those are actually pretty good requests from players. The problem is when you don't get both intention and approach.

Player: Where is the wolf den?
GM: You don't know, so how are you going to find out?
Player: I don't know.

P: I open the chest.
G: It's locked. How are you going to open it?
P: I don't know.
G: You could pick it, you could smash it, you could search around for a key,...
P: I dunno, I just open it alright!

P: I convince the guard to let us pass.
G: That's a good move, how are you going about that?
P. Oh, this is too hard, I attack the guard!

Or one from my game recently...

P: I investigate the statue.
G. OK, you discover it's made of stone but is covered with a sticky substance that soaks through your gloves. CON save please.
P. I didn't say I touched it!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Hmm...

"Some people are good at playing a LG Paladin. Some should avoid it at all costs". -Me, a couple decades ago.

That' pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. Yes, "Harry" can make a glib, silver-tongued bard...but if Harry is absolutely horrible at being glib or silver-tongued, then he should just accept that he sucks at it and either enjoy the character 'in his mind' and let the mechanics do the talking...or, probably less of a let down...he should just accept he can't play "glib, silver-tongued rogues" if his life depended on it and play something else.

Harsh as it sounds, everyone is bad at something. Sometimes that thing happens to be something a person really enjoys. I have one friend who has tried playing a Paladin two or three times. He is absolutely HORRIBLE at it. He just can't "think like a paladin". He may get through, at most, two entire sessions before he gives up and goes back to the raging barbarian or cleric. He can play those. He "gets" them. He really likes the idea of being all heroic and chivalrous and good...but he, personally, just can't "do it right". So he doesn't play paladins.

Mechanics are there to handle stuff where the outcome is uncertain or where using dice can heighten the feeling of excitement. Most of the time, at least in my games, players have their PC's do stuff...and if it's reasonable that they should succeed, then they do. No skill checks, no dice rolling, etc. Well, depending on game system; at least with 5e the dice rolls tend to be infrequent except during combat.

Sorry, Harry, you suck at playing bards.

^_^

Paul L. Ming