Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do you handle a skill check if needed.
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7792211" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm not sure if you're framing this in a "step on up" context or more generally. I don't play much of the former and so will try and speak to the latter.</p><p></p><p>When I actually reflect on how action resolution unfolds in my game I can see that specificity of action is a very variable thing.</p><p></p><p>For instance, in Classic Traveller when the PCs were trying to jury-rig communicators to increase their broadcast range the player narrated inversions of flux capacitors and connections to ATV power sources - but this was really all just colour, as none of as has any working conception of how the Traveller technology works (they can make interstellar journeys but can't built communicators as small or powerful as 90s-era mobile phones?). Key to the framing of the check was the skill-set the PCs brought to bear, their possession of the requisite skills, and (when it came to setting a DC) me being guided by some pretty generic examples found in the rulebooks. As far as consequences were concerned when they succeeded but not super-well, I made something up about overloading the device so they got the longer range for the scene (where they wanted it) but then the communicator was burned out (so they lost that bit of their gear).</p><p></p><p>In the same Traveller campaign, when a PC was wrestling with a NPC for control of the latter's sub-machine gun we had a detailed sense - at the table - as to who had a grip on the gun at what point and who was able to fire it. This created some implications as to (say) who was on top and had what sort of hold on the other, but that stuff wasn't spelled out in detail. It was left implicit.</p><p></p><p>Reflecting on these examples, but many others, I suspect that I give <em>player's intention for the outcome of the PC's action </em>a pretty high degree of importance in adjudicating outcomes. Specificity can be a means to that end, and also can be relevant to framing, but that depends quite a bit on the system (how much specificity is needed for framing - eg consider combat positioning in 4e compared to Prince Valiant) and on how the system handles outcomes (in Burning Wheel injuries need to be to a location; in Prince Valiant it's mostly just a bit of narration over the top of temporarily-depleted Brawn).</p><p></p><p>And back to 4e: this is where I have the most experience of "monster knowledge" checks, and I tend to just follow the rules and dump information based on the degree of success. I think that 4e combat works best when the players have a general sense of what their opponents can do but there is the odd surprise combined with fear of what it can do. </p><p></p><p>I've only used a handful of monsters in BW: zombies, a mummy, a sphinx and a dark naga. The approach to learning stuff about them is very different from 4e, as it turns on the use of Wises and failure can always yield unhappy consequences. (I can't remember the details, but I think at one stage a failed attempt to learn more about the mummy - by reading symbols on a scrap of bandage it had left behind - established a curse in the fiction.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7792211, member: 42582"] I'm not sure if you're framing this in a "step on up" context or more generally. I don't play much of the former and so will try and speak to the latter. When I actually reflect on how action resolution unfolds in my game I can see that specificity of action is a very variable thing. For instance, in Classic Traveller when the PCs were trying to jury-rig communicators to increase their broadcast range the player narrated inversions of flux capacitors and connections to ATV power sources - but this was really all just colour, as none of as has any working conception of how the Traveller technology works (they can make interstellar journeys but can't built communicators as small or powerful as 90s-era mobile phones?). Key to the framing of the check was the skill-set the PCs brought to bear, their possession of the requisite skills, and (when it came to setting a DC) me being guided by some pretty generic examples found in the rulebooks. As far as consequences were concerned when they succeeded but not super-well, I made something up about overloading the device so they got the longer range for the scene (where they wanted it) but then the communicator was burned out (so they lost that bit of their gear). In the same Traveller campaign, when a PC was wrestling with a NPC for control of the latter's sub-machine gun we had a detailed sense - at the table - as to who had a grip on the gun at what point and who was able to fire it. This created some implications as to (say) who was on top and had what sort of hold on the other, but that stuff wasn't spelled out in detail. It was left implicit. Reflecting on these examples, but many others, I suspect that I give [I]player's intention for the outcome of the PC's action [/I]a pretty high degree of importance in adjudicating outcomes. Specificity can be a means to that end, and also can be relevant to framing, but that depends quite a bit on the system (how much specificity is needed for framing - eg consider combat positioning in 4e compared to Prince Valiant) and on how the system handles outcomes (in Burning Wheel injuries need to be to a location; in Prince Valiant it's mostly just a bit of narration over the top of temporarily-depleted Brawn). And back to 4e: this is where I have the most experience of "monster knowledge" checks, and I tend to just follow the rules and dump information based on the degree of success. I think that 4e combat works best when the players have a general sense of what their opponents can do but there is the odd surprise combined with fear of what it can do. I've only used a handful of monsters in BW: zombies, a mummy, a sphinx and a dark naga. The approach to learning stuff about them is very different from 4e, as it turns on the use of Wises and failure can always yield unhappy consequences. (I can't remember the details, but I think at one stage a failed attempt to learn more about the mummy - by reading symbols on a scrap of bandage it had left behind - established a curse in the fiction.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do you handle a skill check if needed.
Top