Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5465108" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't see the "explaining away" or the "glossing over".A sorcerer backs away while wreathing himself and his implements (staff and dagger) in lightning - thereby intimidating a bear. Where is the explaining away or glossing over?A fighter jumps into the animated, surging pond, waits for the water to surge up, and then drives the stones into the spring, blocking the flow of water into the bond. Again, where is the explaining away?Again, I don't see the difference from what I've described.In my OP, I explained how the sorcerer wanted to back away and intimidate. I asked how he was achieving this (given that backing away would normally not be very intimidating). He explained how. This looks to me exactly like "some cations won't work unless the player can convincingly explain how it would".To me, this all seems to turn on what counts as convincing explanation by a player.Apparently I'm the only GM on ENworld (other, perhaps, than Mallus) who is happy to let a bear be tamed by a combination of intimidation and empathy. This has nothing to do with 4e or the skill challenge structure. Exactly the same issue could arise in any rules system. At most, one might say the connection to 4e is this: that the structure encourages the players to look for ways to engage the situation, and therefore makes it more likely the the GM will have to decide what is convincing. I personally like this - I want my players to be looking for ways, including wacky ways, to enage the situation. I prefer it to a situation where the only player who is interested in the bear is the one whose PC is a ranger.</blockquote>

Verification