Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7742002" data-attributes="member: 996">It's not really any different.  The issue isn't in having a mechanic that might do that, the issue is more in using the mechanic consistently -  'framing of the resolution' or something (insert Forgite gobbledygook) - and that can depend heavily on the nature of system and the style of the table.For instance, in 5e D&D, players tend to declare actions and it's the DMs job to narrate the result, calling rolls to resolve uncertainty if he deems that necessary.  That leaves a lot of room to get boxed into this kind of situation, since the system doesn't make a lot of provisions for NPC-initiated tasks.  Technically the DM doesn't even need to roll, he can open with, "You are on a mission from the Duke to rescue his daughter."  "But, Idawanna!"  "Tough, you've been persuaded to do so, I determined there was no chance of failure! Mwahahahah!"  You can avoid that, in most systems, anyway, by taking the resolution mechanic as only that, it determines a result, it resolves a question, does A happen or does B.  How the result came about and what the various characters involved think/feel about it can be something worked out among the DM & players.  If you feel there's no way for B to happen, you should also probably bring that up before a test that could result in it is resolved - assuming the system in question empowers the player to do so, in the first place. So, like if the master chef prepares broccoli in a way that makes it look, feel, and taste nothing like broccoli, you still won't like it?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   There's significant resistance to the distinction, for me, at least.  Or, rather, there's a different distinction I'm more concerned with:  The distinction between resolving a task based on the abilities of the character imagined to be performing the task, rather than on the abilities of the player of that character.   It depends on the nature of the challenge.  If it's something the character is going to solve, 'within the fiction' of the game by dent of it's faculties, knowledge and experience, then it should be a test of that character, like an INT or WIS check in 5e, possibly with a proficiency applying.  If it's something the party can put their heads together on, it could be a group check (a really neat little mechanic, actually, IMHO).  The degree to which the DM describes the challenge could be similar to that of how most things get described.  "It's a sliding puzzle lock, you have to move the panels in the right order, to build the right picture or the trap goes off," for instance, might get the idea across, as well as "the goblin stabs you with it's shortsword" ever does.  The player isn't given enough information to solve the puzzle, in the first place, anyway, so there shouldn't be any second-guessing.OTOH, if there's nothing in the character's abilities that have any bearing on the 'puzzle' ("There are three levers next to the door, what do you do?"), it's just arbitrary, you pick the right action or not, then the player is as free to pick that action as any other.A DM can even design challenges in-between.  You present a puzzle, like either of the above, but with added detail and hints that can be gained from successful checks, like Investigation could reveal one of the levers is more worn than the others, or a religion check revealing what the final picture of the puzzle lock should look like.  (4e skill challenges could be like that for puzzles - the characters made checks to uncover details and hints until the players could solve it based on that information, or they accumulated their 3 failures).  Tradition, I suppose.  In the olden days, D&D had few rules to model the abilities or knowledge of the character beyond the specific specialties of its class, so many actions were resolved solely through the player doing a convincing job of describing how his character tried to accomplish something, and the DM judging (often, in the case of young DMs like myself back then, ludicrously, based on 0 applicable life experience) whether it worked or not.  Games are better than that, now, but many players & DMs still don't trust 'em.</blockquote>

Verification