Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8091708" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>This explanation is orthogonal to the discussion about whether players should be asking for ability checks (or skill checks, if you prefer). I know this because I do this, and just got strongly contested in a different thread for suggesting that no myth or light myth games are possible in 5e. I don't allow players to ask for ability checks AND I rarely have prep to stick to, much less throw out, because I'm already following the fiction. This style of play isn't enabled by letting players ask for skill checks, it works with or without it.</p><p></p><p>Primarily, the difference I see is that I create fiction in game in response to player actions, you do it when the players ask for a roll and then roll well enough (or poorly enough). There's a bit of an important difference, here, in how we approach the same goal, but that goal doesn't justify either approach, nor does it uniquely enable it. I think there's a pretty big difference in what's generated, though, in that your approach it's the GM that introduces whatever the GM wants when prompted, where I introduce either fiction that aligns with the goal of the PC's action if they succeed or is opposed to it if they fail. The difference, as it appears to me, is who's interests are being served.</p><p></p><p>As for your last, that's a weird thing to say. It sets up like a strawman, but has just enough plausible deniability because you didn't explicitly say anyone thinks differently. So, either it's a banal non-sequitur statement of agreement (I don't think anyone actually disagrees with this statement at all) or it's a cloaked strawman intending to suggest I don't think players should use their skills. I assure you, the later is highly incorrect -- ability checks and therefore skill use is the engine of my game -- it's the crux of play. I love my players using skills, and they gets miles out of them. Heck, my alt game right now is Blades, which is entirely skill based, so, yeah, a weird thing to say.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8091708, member: 16814"] This explanation is orthogonal to the discussion about whether players should be asking for ability checks (or skill checks, if you prefer). I know this because I do this, and just got strongly contested in a different thread for suggesting that no myth or light myth games are possible in 5e. I don't allow players to ask for ability checks AND I rarely have prep to stick to, much less throw out, because I'm already following the fiction. This style of play isn't enabled by letting players ask for skill checks, it works with or without it. Primarily, the difference I see is that I create fiction in game in response to player actions, you do it when the players ask for a roll and then roll well enough (or poorly enough). There's a bit of an important difference, here, in how we approach the same goal, but that goal doesn't justify either approach, nor does it uniquely enable it. I think there's a pretty big difference in what's generated, though, in that your approach it's the GM that introduces whatever the GM wants when prompted, where I introduce either fiction that aligns with the goal of the PC's action if they succeed or is opposed to it if they fail. The difference, as it appears to me, is who's interests are being served. As for your last, that's a weird thing to say. It sets up like a strawman, but has just enough plausible deniability because you didn't explicitly say anyone thinks differently. So, either it's a banal non-sequitur statement of agreement (I don't think anyone actually disagrees with this statement at all) or it's a cloaked strawman intending to suggest I don't think players should use their skills. I assure you, the later is highly incorrect -- ability checks and therefore skill use is the engine of my game -- it's the crux of play. I love my players using skills, and they gets miles out of them. Heck, my alt game right now is Blades, which is entirely skill based, so, yeah, a weird thing to say. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?
Top