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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4112767" data-attributes="member: 1003">You can disagree, of course, but I think it does have to be as effective. The meta-steps are this:1. DM states the issue/difficulty/challenge (aka, "You are being chased by guards.").2. PC states the Skill he wants to use to solve this problem, and narratively describes  (perhaps generally, perhaps broadly) (a) how it would solve the challenge (this is "Application") and (b) what "Success" looks like.3. DM decides if the Skill/Application can achieve the described Success. This is a binary decision - Yes/No.4. If the answer to #3 is yes, the PC rolls. The table could look like:0-4: Failure5-9: Success, but with new complications10-14: Basic success (Achieves result described by PC)15+: Success, with added bonusesOr whatever. Maybe those numbers change depending on the general skill of the foe you are trying to defeat ("Dragons in pursuit" is worse than "City guard in pursuit"), but Success is Success.This of it like an attack roll: whether you're using a spell, a sword, a fist or your opponent's torn off limb, you just have to beat AC to hit.  Hit the number, achieve success.This is a good example of "linked skill uses", which is key.  If you look at my meta-steps above, the DM might binarily decide that "No, the Skill/Applications described can not achieve the Success you are looking for; but it can get you half-way there if you can also make a Thievery check."Or whatever.  Social Encounters are always going to be fuzzier than combat. You'll have to expect a certain amount of negotiation between the DM and the PCs about what the various Skills can be applied to and the types of Successes they can achieve.</blockquote>

Verification