Satyrn
First Post
TL,DR: Some people are exasperated that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has a fun way to play 5e
I roll an insight check to see if Dave's telling the truth . . . 13!
Does that beat the DC?
TL,DR: Some people are exasperated that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has a fun way to play 5e
I roll an insight check to see if Dave's telling the truth . . . 13!
Does that beat the DC?
The real question is, if he thinks he's telling the truth, is he really telling the truth even if it's not true? What if he thinks he's probably telling the truth but isn't certain? What if he starts posting in all caps that YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
You left out always telegraphed giant rolling wine bottles and creativity, you fiend!!!!Game of Thrones? Everyone you care about dies. If they haven't died yet, they're about to die.
Or did you mean the never-ending thread? You have two basic camps.
One takes what I consider a very hard-core approach that a PC cannot ask to do a skill check (i.e. "I make an insight check to see if they're lying") and instead have to state goal and method. Depending on who you ask there also has to be a requirement for a significant cost of failure. Oh, and in the case of the OP the player could not ask for a skill check because players can't ask for skill checks. Only the DM can call for a skill check and they won't because there's no chance of failure.
In addition, players should avoid skill checks at all costs and instead describe how they're accomplishing the goal in such a way that it's guaranteed to succeed.
The other (that I support) doesn't really care how people say what they're doing or how as long as it's clear. If it's not clear, I just ask for clarification. As far as the the OP I'd ask for (or allow) an insight check because people meta-game even if they don't realize it and if I don't ask (or allow) for one there was no attempt at deception.
Now I'll probably be accused of completely misrepresenting the former opinion and not being sincere. That and I run boring games where all people do is sit around grunting at each other and rolling dice because I don't let people bypass the skill check entirely by describing how they disable a trap.
You left out always telegraphed giant rolling wine bottles and creativity, you fiend!!!!
[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], I don't want to waste time on this any more. Obviously if someone has a key to a door they don't need to use lockpicks. If they can bypass a trap by taking another route, they take the other route.
On the other hand if they have to disable a simple trap (complex traps are a different beast) or unlock a door with lockpicks, I will ask for a check no matter how they describe it.
That's just not how I run it. Run it differently at your table? As long as people are having fun you're doing it right.
That’s fine, but after all these pages you could at least characterize what we’ve been saying with a modicum of fairness.
This post had absolutely nothing to say about how you run your games.
I obviously disagree with you on several points, I'm just relating how I run my game.
I was referring to the previous page.
What are you talking about?
Look, I don't know how much more plainly I can say it. At my table, if you think of an idea that seems like it would probably work, chances are pretty good that it just will. If there is a risk involved, I will tell you so, and give you the option to proceed, or change tactics. It's really not that hard.
I don't know, I didn't plan out a foolproof escape plan for you. Try something, and I'll use my best judgment to adjudicate it.
In other words, you are reading my statements as uncharitably as possible, and then claiming that I am uncharitable in my adjudication. It's clear that you are not making an earnest attempt to understand my DMing style, so unless you actually come to one of my games to see it firsthand, you're just going to have to take my word for it that it is really not that hard to be successful.
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't require an explanation. Here's how it actually goes in my game:
Rogue: I use my theives' tools to pick the lock.
Me: Ok, that'll take about 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check.
Rogue: I have +7 with Thieves' Tools and Reliable Talent, do I still need to roll?
Me: Nah, you're good, you can totally pick this lock with 10 minutes of work.
Rogue: Cool, let's do it!
Me: *Makes note of 10 minutes passing* Ok, the door unlocks with a click.
Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that action and check are two different things. You're the one confusing yourself with all this meaningless pedantry.
No. "I roll perception" and "I listen at the door for the sound of other creatures" are qualitatively different.
No, you're still thinking in terms of action=check. You should be thinking in terms of action as the thing your character does and check as a mechanical process that is sometimes required of you to perform to find out what happens as a result of your character's action.
Something wrong with that?
By imagining your character as an entity in a world that behaves more or less like the real one. Think about what that character might do in the situation being narrated, and what might happen as a result. If you are uncertain of the results, there's a good chance it will require a check. If you're pretty confident about what you think would happen as a result, there's a good chance that is exactly what will happen. Describe your character's actions accordingly, and I will do the same. If I am uncertain of the outcome, I will ask you for a check to help me decide what happens. Easy.
Me too. The fact that you think the process looks different in my games is a clear indication that you are not understanding me.
Woah, back up a second there. When did I ever make such a claim? That would be a very strange thing for me to have done, because it's not something I believe.
Not at all. The story is the most important thing. Do what you think your character would do. If what your character would do is avoid things they are not good at when stakes are high... That seems plenty realistic to me. And it's none of my business whether or not you arrived at that decision by looking at your stats.
Again, this misunderstanding of my method is coming from you thinking in terms of action = check. If the barbarian's player has an idea for an awesome speech they think could switch the tide, they should just go ahead and give that speech. If they aren't an expert wordsmith and can't think of a way to make it sound good, that's fine, they can phrase it in terms of goal and approach, "I try to convince the king by playing to his sense of honor and tradition" or whatever. There's a good chance they won't need to roll. You're so worried about not wanting to have to make a check that you might have a chance of failing, you're completely overlooking the very good possibility that no check will be called for. And if it will be, I'll give you fair warning. There is absolutely no risk in describing a social action with your 8-charisma barbarian. Worst case scenario, I'll let you know exactly what the risks are, and if you're still that worried about failing, you can say "nah, nevermind."
And my own experience in this sort of game is that if players have the choice between declaring an action that their PC will have only a modest chance of success in, or just conceding whatever it is that is at stake, then they will declare the action. For instance, I see this in my 4e game quite regularly - the player of the low-CHA fighter with no social skills nevertheless has his character talk to NPCs and try to persuade them of things, because (1) the player doesn't want his PC to just be standing there looking like a fool, and (2) because he ha views about what the NPCs should do, and wants those views to be realised. It's the same sort of reason that means that the wizard fights back when attacked, even though the wizard is a relatively weak combatant.
I'm intrigued that you divorce these things. In RPGing I tend to find them closely connected (although not necessarily co-extensive).
This is a somewhat separate thing from the other points in this post: on its face, what you say here seems to be the GM telling the player what action to declare or not to declare.
I appreciate that, especially in the heat of the moment, the GM can have a special duty to ensure that action declarations fit the genre and preconceptions of the game, and respect good taste and the established fiction. A silly example given by Luke Crane in a Burning Wheel rulebook: "No roll is allowed for the chance to find beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet!"
But I can't easily imagine a D&D game where mind controlling a guard into letting one go would be genre-breaking or bad taste in this way. It seems more like the very paradigm of genre-appropriateness: if it's good enough for Obi-Wan, it's good enough for a PC in a FRPG!