Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8990020" data-attributes="member: 82106">DMG P74 "Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill."Couple that with this on P75: "However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge."I think between them these make clear that the player MUST describe the ACTION which the check covers, and must describe it in a way that allows it to be related to pushing the narrative forward within the context of the current fiction. I'd also note that SCs actually have a specific mechanism for "stuff that might be useful but doesn't move things forward", these are discussed on Page 76 in the first section "Skill Checks" where it is explained that not every check has to involve changing the success/failure tally of the challenge, they can have other minor benefits. This allows players to come up with useful things to do that don't advance the fiction towards its conclusion. Often they provide a bonus to a later check, or cancel out a bad effect caused by a failure, something like that. They could also unlock another skill, or provide access to a resource which could be useful.Sure, but annecdotes or not, the GM who allows a skill check without a defined action description, purpose within the fiction, and logic that moves the challenge forward towards success, and then counts that check on the success/fail tally, is not doing a good job of running Skill Challenges.I think they are what I've said they are. I grant you that the description in DMG1 is a mass of verbiage which largely fails to properly emphasize the key points and provides examples which are mostly bad (I will avoid more pointed language on that one). DMG2 and the Rules Compendium vastly improve the description, tighten up the definitions, and even introduce some formal terminology and process to deal with things like checks that contribute but don't move things forward, etc. Honestly, even the RC version IMHO still isn't quite at the level of say what [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] has posted <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-slave-and-her-sovereign.694228/" target="_blank">The Slave and Her Sovereign</a> here, but its still a solid description. Definitely if you follow the rules in the RC things will move forward at each check! There should ALMOST never be a situation where the PCs can keep doing the same thing over and over and get closer to winning (or losing). I only say 'almost' because I can kind of imagine some ways to construct a corner case, maybe.</blockquote>

Verification