Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archmage" data-source="post: 4091208" data-attributes="member: 6760">People are hanging on this one thing like this is what has to happen. Any changes made to the environment are still the DM's decision. Sure, you didn't originally map an alley there, but maybe there is one? Or a crack in a wall the PC can duck into. Or they spot something they can use to climb up to a 2nd floor window. Or whatever makes sense in the context of the encounter. People are clinging to this "PC creates a secret door argument" far too tightly - that's just a decision one DM made in one specific scenario.You design where each apple cart in your towns is? Really? The apple cart example seems like a perfect usage for this system, because it's a random element that's easily added.But it's OK if the DM rolls a die to make him corrupt? That makes absolutely no sense. If you're allowing a random chance for random guard #347 to be corrupt, why does it make a difference if the die roll is the DM assigning an arbitrary percentage or a PC making a skill check against a DC set by the DM? Again, this seems like a great usage of the system. And if they stand around in the town square they get caught. Obviously they have to be actively trying to get away - this skill system is just a way to help adjudicate if they succeed or not. I am currently running a Ptolus campaign - there is no way I could reasonably expect the player of the rogue to know the streets a fraction as well as her character would. In a chase with guards then, why would it be fair to ask her to choose which way her character runs? If she succeeds on checks, she eventually winds up near a handy sewer grate or even escapes cleanly. If she fails, the guards are on her heels and possibly catch her. And your players can't be reasonably expected to know your world as well as you do, regardless if their character would or not. We are not discussing a skill called "create secret door" here. The DM decides what skill the character is checking against, and the DM decides what the result of the check means. I don't see players creating anything.That's exactly the point.So it turns up something else. Again, what the check means is the DM's decision.That's what the DM decided in that particular instance - you would have likely decided something different. However, in 3e, I would have settled this with a single Diplomacy check, potentially given +s or -s depending on other checks.  If the other lord was corrupt, then a successful knowledge, nobility check on this info would give a +2 on the Diplomacy.  It all came down to the one roll, however.</blockquote>I think breaking it down into multiple rolls encourages more roleplaying of the encounter. They get the negotiations to a certain point and make a check, which if they succeed at guides the tone of the next set of negotiations, etc. "The councilman seems to be considering your points with a newfound respect" or "As you speak the disdain is clear on the councilman's face." Any particular reason to boil it down to one check? There are some goals that it makes sense for, but it seems to me something like a negotiation lends itself to "X successes before Y failures" multiple check solution. I can definitely see opposed checks as part of the sequence that the PCs have to succeed at.While I still fail to see where these rules oppose said philosophy, I agree with your conclusion here.[/QUOTE]

Verification