Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="OnlineDM" data-source="post: 5728029" data-attributes="member: 90804">As I said, I see absolutely no problem with a DM running things in a more &quot;old school&quot; way that challenges PLAYER skill rather than CHARACTER skill in social situations (or trap finding or whatever). If you have an NPC who is lying to the party and this NPC is the world's greatest liar and you (the DM) are not, then the &quot;conventional 4e&quot; approach would be exactly what you propose; the NPC rolls a Bluff check (let's say he gets a 50), and it's obviously higher than everyone's passive Insight, so you give no hint that it's a lie. If a player is suspicious and says, &quot;Sir Tanksalot is dubious about Merlek the Mad's statement,&quot; then you call for an active Insight check. If the PC doesn't beat the super-Bluff (and he probably won't in this case), then you say, &quot;Merlek seems to be on the up-and-up here.&quot; And the players are expected to role-play that belief appropriately. &quot;Okay, I guess he's telling the truth despite his Snidely Whiplash mustache and his evil cackle after every sentence...&quot;If you prefer the characters' credulity or suspicion to be based on whether you've done a good job with your portrayal of Merlek's lie or on how suspicious the players themselves are (either in general or in this particular situation), that's completely fine. It's different from the &quot;conventional 4e&quot; approach, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with social interactions tied more to player skill if that's the way you and your players enjoy playing D&amp;D. It sounds like it could be plenty of fun to me!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="OnlineDM, post: 5728029, member: 90804"] As I said, I see absolutely no problem with a DM running things in a more "old school" way that challenges PLAYER skill rather than CHARACTER skill in social situations (or trap finding or whatever). If you have an NPC who is lying to the party and this NPC is the world's greatest liar and you (the DM) are not, then the "conventional 4e" approach would be exactly what you propose; the NPC rolls a Bluff check (let's say he gets a 50), and it's obviously higher than everyone's passive Insight, so you give no hint that it's a lie. If a player is suspicious and says, "Sir Tanksalot is dubious about Merlek the Mad's statement," then you call for an active Insight check. If the PC doesn't beat the super-Bluff (and he probably won't in this case), then you say, "Merlek seems to be on the up-and-up here." And the players are expected to role-play that belief appropriately. "Okay, I guess he's telling the truth despite his Snidely Whiplash mustache and his evil cackle after every sentence..." If you prefer the characters' credulity or suspicion to be based on whether you've done a good job with your portrayal of Merlek's lie or on how suspicious the players themselves are (either in general or in this particular situation), that's completely fine. It's different from the "conventional 4e" approach, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with social interactions tied more to player skill if that's the way you and your players enjoy playing D&D. It sounds like it could be plenty of fun to me! [/QUOTE]

Verification