Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6611437" data-attributes="member: 42582">But not so different, at least in this respect.From the 4e DMG (pp 74-75):Sometimes, a player tells you, &quot;I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.&quot; That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, &quot;I want to make a Diplomacy check.&quot; In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: &quot;I want to scare the duke into helping us.&quot; It's up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and 
call for the appropriate check. . . .

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn't expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . .

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, &quot;Can I use Diplomacy?&quot; 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.So the player is obliged to describe what his/her PC is doing in the fiction. Which is necessary for the GM to do his/her job, which includes having to &quot;describe the environment, listen to the players' responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results&quot; (p 74).I think the difference from 5e is that the player gets to indicate what skill s/he thinks his/her PC's fictional move falls under. In general, in 4e the relationship between resolution mechanics and fiction is meant to be established somewhat consensually, and this is an illustration of that. I think 5e might be more unilateral in its approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6611437, member: 42582"] But not [I]so[/I] different, at least in this respect. From the 4e DMG (pp 74-75): [indent]Sometimes, a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest." That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. 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. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: "I want to scare the duke into helping us." It's up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . . . In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn't expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . 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.[/indent] So the player is obliged to describe what his/her PC is doing in the fiction. Which is necessary for the GM to do [I]his/her job[/I], which includes having to "describe the environment, listen to the players' responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results" (p 74). I think the difference from 5e is that the player gets to indicate what skill s/he thinks his/her PC's fictional move falls under. In general, in 4e the relationship between resolution mechanics and fiction is meant to be established somewhat consensually, and this is an illustration of that. I think 5e might be more unilateral in its approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification