NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5613048" data-attributes="member: 8835">By author, I meant the person who posted the example here, which at the time I couldn't remember.  Now I see it is you on page 19.As long as there are some trigger words the players can say that get the DM to expound upon the objects and clue in that more checks are possible.  If the players have to play "guess the secret skill check" with no clues, that's probably not fair.  If the players express any indication that they examine the objects and the GM asks open questions like "what all do you examine, or what are you looking for"  Then I think the players can get the chance they need without resorting to game speak and having to say the exact skill needed.</blockquote>I think the challenge here is that JC's examples show his players making mistakes and getting problems for it.  Which somehow makes it look fishy.I don't think JC should give examples anymore <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I kid, he can do whatever he wants.  But I think the conversation has been: "social skills are too powerful""no they're not, look how my players failed""you just screwed your players""no I didn't, they're idiots!"I suspect they right answers is, JC screwed his players because they screwed up.Supposedly, I see two sides to the problem.  Hussar's not on crack that the more skill checks you make him make, eventually he will fail.  It's actually a trick I employ in Dread, the jenga RPG game.  If I make you make more skill checks, the odds are better that one of them will fail.So I'm throwing him a bone, to indicate that the bluff's success could be handled that the PC didn't fail, but in fact avoided deeper trouble.  He's not wrong that making somebody do more skill checks increases their risk of failure.I think the angle that JC specifically did so to block the party may be a bit much. It's not nice, and it assumes the worst about JC, rather than that other extenuating circumstances (that his players weren't careful, and I mean that in the nicest way possible).It sounds like JC gave them some rope to hang themselves with. They could have avoided the trouble.So, moving on, are social skills too easy?for JC, apparently not.for those who let a single skill check bypass an encounter, quite possibly, given how easy it is to pump those skills.I also suspect that the skills were not intended for un-roleplayed use.  You can't say "I Bluff the guard, got a 19!" and make the GM figure out the result (because in that style game, he is stuck figuring out what you could have done to "win").Conversly, when I have to declare what my bluff is "I'm the diplomat".  the GM only resolves what my success means.  It then means, I might still make a tactical mistake in the social engineering (by choosing the wrong person).I like roleplaying, so i prefer everybody say what they're going to do, rather than hammer at the GM with skill checks.  it also puts in a tactical layer to the social aspect.  Who you impersonate, and what you say are your weapons and moves in the social skills game.[/QUOTE]

Verification