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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5586451" data-attributes="member: 82106">Interesting. I agree that player skill is simply inevitably going to play a role in any significant scene, and eliminating that isn't either possible or desirable. It is desirable to allow a player to have a PC that is more adept in something than the player is (that is probably the normal case for most PCs and most situations really). So the clever rogue who's tossed 100 rooms in inns in the course of his larcenous lifetime should be pretty adept at doing a quick thorough search, in general. He's probably got a pretty decent Perception check result to demonstrate that aspect of the character. What KS is suggesting seems like it would work fairly well. The character's talent at searching drives success and failure, but the player's creativity and ingenuity in knowing where and when to apply that talent is equally important.On the other subject of 'Roll First', my theory is to do basically out of combat what naturally happens IN combat. For example in combat:Player: OK, I am going to attack the orc using my Brute Strike. I roll an 8.DM: OK, you miss.Player: Gorgonzola takes a mighty overhand swing with his axe. The orc catches the blow at the top of the swing with his scimitar and they stand with weapons locked together! Note that the DM could as easily narrate this, but naturally you simply cannot perform this narration before the attack roll is resolved, it makes no sense. The player can't say "I attack with Brute Strike, my axe cleaves into the orc's helmet!" and THEN roll an 8 and miss... What I notice is that out of combat this is often exactly what happens, something like:Player: OK, I am going to make an eloquent speech about duty and honor to try to convince the Duke to help us.DM: OK, make a Diplomacy check.Player: I roll a 4....Why is his (presumably high CHA character) making an eloquent speech and failing? There could be reasons, but maybe it would be better like...Player: OK, I want to convince the Duke to help us.DM: OK, make a Diplomacy check.Player: I roll a 4...NOW he can describe his ham-handed attempt to browbeat the Duke. The player is going to have to engage with his PC's and the Duke's psychology to do that, it might be a whole dialog with the DM taking part of it, or the player might just explain it in 3rd person, or whatever. Exactly what gets decided before and after the check may also vary a lot depending on the situation.Yes, it may give the player some agency in some cases. However since the DM probably does the RP of the NPC (in this example) it isn't likely to get out of hand. If the NPC is not well defined, a minor character for instance, then the DM can easily give the player as much rope as he wants, perhaps suggesting some reasons for the success or failure etc. The real point being they each KNOW that the result is either success or failure already and can guide their RP and descriptions based on that. It is pretty hard to do that ahead of the check. It can work, but it often excludes some interesting RP possibilities.</blockquote>

Verification