Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 5898256" data-attributes="member: 1">People who have only 140 characters to convey a concept which requires several paragraphs talk like that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I was addressing it to Mike and Trevor, and it was shorthand, but they confirmed they got what I meant and that yes, indeed, one of the intentions is that the skill system stucture will change how players talk about their actions, rather than referring to skill names. I believe it's a clever but subtle way of using skills in the system, and is tied into the concept that due to the "You have 17 STR so you can automatically break open the chest" aspect, means that the player (a) does not have a list of skills names to call out and (b) has no way of knowing whether a check is required. Therefore there is no process by which he can say "I use Intimidate!" - he doesn't have a set list of 20-odd skills to pick from, and he has no way of knowing whether a check is needed. So he's stuck with saying "I crush the mug in my fist"; and then wondering if the DM will say "You're strong, the mug crushes easily" or "I'll need a strength check, please".  This is because in earlier editions, a check was still technically necessary; it's just that the DC may have been very low - the player knew what 20 skills he had to pick from, knew how those skills worked, and was in a position to literally tell the DM what rules he was using, rather than what action he was taking. He'd look down his list in a social situation and see he has a high Bluff, and a low Intimidate, so he'd choose to use the skill called "Bluff". In 5E, a check may not be necessary, and even if it is, it's just one of six ability checks. These six abilities are very broad, and thus, unlike prior edition skills, don't virtually form a list of "actions" (skill names that are largely verbs) for the player to choose from.  It partly ties in to player psychology. Now, before people get all up in arms and shout "I'm wonderful! Me and my players NEVER do that! We write 12-page essays describing every action in intimate detail! Here, let me describe to you how WE do it! See? It's easy!", one has to understand that we're talking about a general trend, not every game, and that not everyone is Super DM; most of us are just average. So if you don't do that - cool. I envy you. The psychology is that when presented with a finite list of options (say skills, or powers), the player is predisposed to choose from that list rather than simply interacting freehand with the game world. All too often, the player will look at his list of 20 skills, and name which one he's using.  If you don't have a predetermined set list of 20 skills, you can't do that. You instead naturally simply interact with the game world. And the DM may - or may not - ask you for an ability check.  Powers in 4E, in my opinion, have the same effect. When you have a bunch of powers with specific names and effects, you're naturally predisposed - and the game structure encourages you to - simply choose one of those options. You're not punching the orc; you're using one of the finite list of powers you have to select from. It's hard to explain - I know what I mean, and that was a terrible example. The rule system (not explicitly - simply by its very structure) encourages you to name rules/skills/powers etc. rather than describe actions. I'm not saying it's a magic wand; just that the a game system can affect the way players interact with that game system. That's why different RPGs feel different to each other; the players interact with each system in subtly different ways. The system itself is a contributor to the gaming atmosphere (the people involved are too, of course, but we're discussing the system here). So a system can subtly encourage natural language interactions with the game world rather than the calling out of the name of an option on the character sheet simply by virtue of the rules structure (irrespective of what advice the game book may provide in addition). And that probably made no sense. I'm rambling and typing while eating my dinner, and used pretty poor examples. I could think of better examples if I put my mind to it, but I hope my general gist got across.</blockquote>

Verification