D&D 5E How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?

[Guest 6801328]

Because this leaves it unspecified whether the proficiency bonus from a skill can be added or not.

Ok, but everything in this discussion should apply (shouldn't it?) to both ability checks with a related skill proficiency, and to ability checks without a related skill proficiency. So having the discussion in the context of "skill checks" would suggest that it's excluding straight ability checks, whereas calling them "ability checks" suggests both.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's handled by way of the second sentence in what you quoted: "I prepare adventures with challenges with the potential to engage across more than one pillar of play." I don't need to know anything about the PCs' skill proficiencies.

Some skills are rather narrow in their application. My original example used 'animal handling' for a reason.

 

[Rabulias]

And my advice is the opposite. Plan obstacles and let your players decide what to do about them without trying to guess ahead of time what you think they will “likely” do about them.

In my prepping I try to foresee at least one avenue (if not more than one) that players can take to overcome an obstacle. I don't want to create an obstacle they cannot overcome in some way. They might not think of it, or they may find the method too risky or a resource cost too high, but there is at least one way to try to surmount it that could succeed. I just feel that's fair.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my prepping I try to foresee at least one avenue (if not more than one) that players can take to overcome an obstacle. I don't want to create an obstacle they cannot overcome in some way. They might not think of it, or they may find the method too risky or a resource cost too high, but there is at least one way to try to surmount it that could succeed. I just feel that's fair.

Yep. The same way that you are supposed to gauge whether the combat challenges are actually beatable.

 

[iserith]

Some skills are rather narrow in their application. My original example used 'animal handling' for a reason.

That depends on the structure of your game and is particularly true in plot-based games. I try not to run such games.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is in practice even possible to not anticipate or predict likely outcomes. We all have been players, so when you plan an obstacle as a GM you will already be thinking what you would do about it as a player.

Sure, you’re naturally going to have a pretty good idea what you would do in the scenarios you prep. If you regularly play with the same group of people and are familiar with how they tend to play their characters, you might have some sense of what they might do as well. But I’m sure we’ve also had the experience where the players did something totally unexpected. If you plan for what you think the players are likely to do, that effort gets wasted if they do something completely different, and that can push you to nudge them towards the solution you planned for.

In my prepping I try to foresee at least one avenue (if not more than one) that players can take to overcome an obstacle. I don't want to create an obstacle they cannot overcome in some way. They might not think of it, or they may find the method too risky or a resource cost too high, but there is at least one way to try to surmount it that could succeed. I just feel that's fair.

I don’t think it’s necessary to plan for a potential solution in order to know if an obstacle can be overcome or not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, you’re naturally going to have a pretty good idea what you would do in the scenarios you prep. If you regularly play with the same group of people and are familiar with how they tend to play their characters, you might have some sense of what they might do as well.

Yes, exactly. And assuming that you're gonna prepare for something, but not for everything, then it makes sense to prepare for what you think is most likely.

But I’m sure we’ve also had the experience where the players did something totally unexpected.

Yes, of course. That's the best.

If you plan for what you think the players are likely to do, that effort gets wasted if they do something completely different,

Sure. Perhaps it can be altered and recycled later, and if not it's not a big deal.

and that can push you to nudge them towards the solution you planned for.

That won't, but what will is if they get stuck. And that I think is perfectly fine. There is nothing worse than frustrating dead ends and the game grinding to a halt.

I don’t think it’s necessary to plan for a potential solution in order to know if an obstacle can be overcome or not.

How else would you know? You have to at least have a vague idea of potential approaches that might be successful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In my prepping I try to foresee at least one avenue (if not more than one) that players can take to overcome an obstacle. I don't want to create an obstacle they cannot overcome in some way. They might not think of it, or they may find the method too risky or a resource cost too high, but there is at least one way to try to surmount it that could succeed. I just feel that's fair.

The only way to create an obstacle that cannot be overcome is to decide no solution will overcome the obstacle before it even gets into play. This is part of prescripting solutions -- you have planned for the obstacle to be insurmountable, often foreclosing avenues of approach by design. The other option is that you do this by accident, and that's still exceedingly unlikely or part and parcel of deciding lines of approach aren't feasible instead of remaining flexible and letting the players have a fair go with their actions. I mean, I can't think of an accidental closure like this but I can think of lots of ways to force a closure like this. Don't force it, either in planning or in play, and this won't happen.

That isn't to say that there are bad approaches to things and that consequences or automatic failure should be avoided -- absolutely this can happen. Follow the fiction first. But, truly impossible challenges are either boogeymen or part of the GM doing something intentional by closing off avenues of approach in planning.

 

[Charlaquin]

How else would you know? You have to at least have a vague idea of potential approaches that might be successful.

There is a difference between “having a vague idea of potential approaches that might be successful” and “planning for a potential solution.”

 

[Hriston]

In my prepping I try to foresee at least one avenue (if not more than one) that players can take to overcome an obstacle. I don't want to create an obstacle they cannot overcome in some way. They might not think of it, or they may find the method too risky or a resource cost too high, but there is at least one way to try to surmount it that could succeed. I just feel that's fair.

Let the players come up with the avenue to overcoming the obstacle, and if it's within genre and they have the fictional positioning, let it succeed or move to action resolution.