Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4132838" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, this is going to go from honest inquisitorial to being somewhat confrontational.  Let me say up front that however you want to play is fine with me.  I'm explaining what makes me uncomfortable with this approach, and not that your way is wrong.Doesn't that seem metagamey?  As a DM I have no intention of communicating with my players on that level.  As a player, I have no interest in playing a through scenario where the DM has selected how I will approach the scenario.  I'd feel railroaded.  My natural rebellious nature would tend to respond to any proclamation of "This is a skill challenge.", with, "I draw my sword."  The notion of a 'skill challenge' works better I think in a system where everything that a player can do is just another skill and every event is just another scene.I would also like my players to be able to create 'skill challenges' on the fly simply by approaching the problem as something to be overcome with skill.But that's just it.  As a player I have no interest in how my 'skill check' is interacting with the situation.  I only want to know how my character is interacting with the situation.  That will indeed be interesting, but until then the whole system seems very narrow and heavily constrained.  It's like someone asked the question, "How can we integrate non-combat encounters into a tournament game such that they'll play roughly the same with different DM's?"  That's about all I can see it useful for.  Wow.  So ill concieved plans should never be allowed to occur?  This gets to be a problem when you combine highly descriptive language with non-abstract environments.  The more specific your language, the more likely it is in an concrete environment that I know that the plan doesn't contribute to your success.  I know that the murder weapon isn't in the pantry.  Searching thier doesn't contribute to your success in finding out how killed Mr. Peabody except in the sense of being one of hundreds of places you can elimenate from consideration - the problem you are complaining about in 3rd edition.Wow.  That is a very narrow and legalistic reading of the rules.  So, you are saying that I can get them to stop fighting with Bluff, by getting them to believe that they are friends even though I don't myself believe it, but not by convincing them to be friends with Diplomacy?  This would seem to be a specific problem with the admittedly ricible diplomacy rules (especially if so narrowly interpreted), than something that invalidates the general 3rd edition approach of skills being used to overcome specific problems in the current situation.Not in my campaign.  A 50 would probably do it even in the worst case.  I wonder how many DM's would agree with your assertion that Diplomacy can't be used to persuade.  If it's the majority, then I've been playing much more radically differently than I realize.   But is this true in the general case, or is this just a problem with diplomacy (and specifically your interpretation of it).  If for example, I roll a 100 on my climb check would I have no idea whether or not I could climb the roughened stone wall?  Suppose the dungeon is a literal donjon, and the PC's are trying to escape.  Seems like a decent oppurtunity for a 'skill challenge', as the PC's are presumably poorly armed to begin with.  So, 'skill challenge, escape from the donjon: 15 party successes/10 party defeats' or something like that.  The PC's come to a locked door.  The DM knows that the locked door leds to a dead end (an unused lower cell block with no exits).  The PC decides to use his 'Theivery' to open the door, hoping to contribute to the parties success total.  The DM knows that the door can be opened, but that it does nothing to advance the plan because as soon as the PC's are discovered missing, the whole complex will be searched.  It's a 'wasted turn' unless the DM changes the description of the donjon to accomodate the turn of events - that is to say, he renders the concrete location abstract and morphable.</blockquote>

Verification