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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
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: 8091944" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>I said they were things I do well. I work in a customer environment that requires skill at reading people, so, yeah, you just showed that you don't read what I say or that you're willing to ignore it for the jab.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This actually goes directly to the difference I've been trying to illuminate. Intentionally placing challenges by looking at character skill selections is definitely one way to do it, and dovetails nicely into letting the players feel their skills matter, but only really has lots of value in games where asking for rolls is the approach most often used. This is because you put out a challenge that expects the ask, and so everyone's rewarded. It also leans into presenting a challenge with an expected solution.</p><p></p><p>The other way is to not do this at all. I honestly couldn't tell you what skills the PCs in my game actually have outside of a few -- I know the ranger has perception and nature and the wizard arcana, but I couldn't tell you much more than that. I'm crafting a problem in my prep, one that doesn't have a solution planned by me, like the performance/singing challenge above. Instead, I put obstacles down between where the PCs are and where they want to be and let them tell me how they're going to engage that problem. It might be that I present a situation where the PCs want to gain an audience with the king, but they don't have the social clout to do it, what are they going to do? A PC might decide that gaining a noble patron is a good way to go, and so decides to sing to gain that patron's attention. My initial framing has nothing to do with singing, and doesn't expect it, but the players have the freedom to approach the problem however they want and use the skills and abilities of their character. This part of the approach is to frame problems, not solutions. My player get good use of their skill choices not because I design challenges with those skills in mind, but because I don't and allow the freedom to approach the challenge to my players.</p><p></p><p>Both are valid approaches, and engage the player choices, but how you do skills and how you structure challenges lead to very different play experiences. One of these (or some other way) is the best way to play, and it's the one that's fun at your table. They do result in very different play experiences, though, even though there are superficial differences.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8091944, member: 16814"] I said they were things I do well. I work in a customer environment that requires skill at reading people, so, yeah, you just showed that you don't read what I say or that you're willing to ignore it for the jab. This actually goes directly to the difference I've been trying to illuminate. Intentionally placing challenges by looking at character skill selections is definitely one way to do it, and dovetails nicely into letting the players feel their skills matter, but only really has lots of value in games where asking for rolls is the approach most often used. This is because you put out a challenge that expects the ask, and so everyone's rewarded. It also leans into presenting a challenge with an expected solution. The other way is to not do this at all. I honestly couldn't tell you what skills the PCs in my game actually have outside of a few -- I know the ranger has perception and nature and the wizard arcana, but I couldn't tell you much more than that. I'm crafting a problem in my prep, one that doesn't have a solution planned by me, like the performance/singing challenge above. Instead, I put obstacles down between where the PCs are and where they want to be and let them tell me how they're going to engage that problem. It might be that I present a situation where the PCs want to gain an audience with the king, but they don't have the social clout to do it, what are they going to do? A PC might decide that gaining a noble patron is a good way to go, and so decides to sing to gain that patron's attention. My initial framing has nothing to do with singing, and doesn't expect it, but the players have the freedom to approach the problem however they want and use the skills and abilities of their character. This part of the approach is to frame problems, not solutions. My player get good use of their skill choices not because I design challenges with those skills in mind, but because I don't and allow the freedom to approach the challenge to my players. Both are valid approaches, and engage the player choices, but how you do skills and how you structure challenges lead to very different play experiences. One of these (or some other way) is the best way to play, and it's the one that's fun at your table. They do result in very different play experiences, though, even though there are superficial differences. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?
Top