D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

strictly following the letter of skill challenges in 4E (which I'm not picking on 4E, it's just more likely to be a commonly understood system), RP made no difference whatsoever.

This is utterly false, in my experience. The player's action declaration - which includes telling the table what their character says - affects the skill check required, the difficulty of that check, and the consequences of that check.

 

[pemerton]

Part of the reason a show like The Diplomat (good show by the way) is so fun is because we never know who we can really trust, who has ulterior motives. If the ruleset is too transparent we lose some of that.

It's not conjecture, it's my opinion and experience.

What "too transparent" ruleset do you have in mind, in forming your opinion?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is utterly false, in my experience. The player's action declaration - which includes telling the table what their character says - affects the skill check required, the difficulty of that check, and the consequences of that check.

Is it in the rules that those things affect the skill check, DC, and consequences, or did the DM make sure they mattered in practice? I honestly can't remember.

 

[pemerton]

To me, something resource external to character abilities that I could use to force an outcome is a metagame currency. For example if a character is dealing with a diplomat they may try to convince the diplomat to help them. When I DM I will take into account the diplomat's disposition towards the group and decide on a charisma based check. The DC of that check can depend on many factors including past relationship with the PCs, the diplomat's goals, what the diplomat's political backer's disposition is towards whatever faction the PCs are supporting, what the PCs say and so on. At that point I adjust target DC based on all those factors and can result automatic success, failure, or an attempt at deception on the part of the diplomat. Chance of success or failure is largely determined by in world considerations and PC capabilities to present a convincing argument.

A metagame currency would be one that the players can spend to force or influence the decision point in their favor, or that the GM could spend to influence the outcome in a different direction. To me, and again I don't know or particularly care about forge terminology, those are clearly two different approaches. There's minor overlap of course, because in D&D we have simple codified capabilities of the character's reflected by ability scores and proficiencies but they are not at all the same thing.

Suppose there is a rule that says If your character makes an impassioned plea, you may spend a <point/token> to have a NPC agree to do as you ask, provided that it is not already established that they are implacably opposed to you.

That requires the player to portray their PC's words and deeds - by making the impassioned plea. Then, instead of making a check D&D style, they spend the point/token. Why is this "not at all the same thing"? What difference does it make to spend a point/token rather than roll a die?


EDITed for formatting.

 

[pemerton]

Is it in the rules that those things affect the skill check, DC, and consequences, or did the DM make sure they mattered in practice? I honestly can't remember.

The rules are written loosely in the DMG, and a bit less loosely in the DMG2. The examples in the DMG and Rules Compendium are consistent with what I have said.

I can quote the relevant text if you like.

 

[Oofta]

This is utterly false, in my experience. The player's action declaration - which includes telling the table what their character says - affects the skill check required, the difficulty of that check, and the consequences of that check.

That wasn't my experience. It didn't matter what I said, whether I said my PC was standing on their head blowing bubbles. The target DC was the target DC.

Almost as if neither one of us has universal experience. In any case, it was just an example of the impact rules can potentially have on play. I certainly didn't use skill challenges that way.

 

[Oofta]

What "too transparent" ruleset do you have in mind, in forming your opinion?

Skill challenges is one example. The DM was told (in the first revision anyway) to tell people what the appropriate skills were and what the DC was.

To a degree though it is a hypothetical that was only part of the overall conversation.

 

[Oofta]

Is it in the rules that those things affect the skill check, DC, and consequences, or did the DM make sure they mattered in practice? I honestly can't remember.

Not really outside of adding or subtracting a +2 bonus or -2 penalty. For example I remember reminding the NPC of something critical (that should have bypassed the entire challenge) and it had no impact on the fact that I needed to make a skill check and we still needed X successes before Y failures. That may have been bad DMing to some, but the DM was running it by the book.

Spoiler: From the 4E DMG

...​

Running the challenge itself is not all that​

different from running a combat encounter (see Chapter​

3). You describe the environment, listen to the​

players’ responses, let them make their skill checks,​

and narrate the results.
​

Roll initiative ... every player character​

must make skill checks to contribute to the success​

or failure of the encounter. Characters must make a​

check on their turn using one of the identified primary​

skills (usually with a moderate DC) or they must use​

a different skill, if they can come up with a way to​

use it to contribute to the challenge (with a hard DC).​

A secondary skill can be used only once by a single​

character in any given skill challenge.
......​

You can also make use of the “DM’s best friend”​

rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or​

penalize the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus​

or –2 penalty to the check​

I didn't have an issue with the basic idea, it was just overused by some DMs and modules.

 

[Oofta]

Suppose there is a rule that says *If your character makes an impassioned plea, you may spend a <point/token> to have a NPC agree to do as you ask, provided that it is not already established that they are implacably opposed to you>.

That requires the player to portray their PC's words and deeds - by making the impassioned plea. Then, instead of making a check D&D style, they spend the point/token. Why is this "not at all the same thing"? What difference does it make to spend a point/token rather than roll a die?

If I'm rolling a die it's because the DM is uncertain of the outcome. The die roll and the modifiers to it represent how eloquent my character is. It's a result based entirely on the character's words and delivery in the fictional world.

 

[soviet]

Everyone knows you can't like more than one type of game or even multiple games. You have to choose one and stay in that lane, and that lane is how you will be labeled on this forum.

Quite right too. I only ever eat my favourite food, watch my favourite film, and listen to my favourite song. I know they are my favourites because they were the first ones I ate/saw/heard and I have never been tempted to waver and try something else. I'm not ignorant of the other options, I simply know nothing about them.