Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pazu" data-source="post: 35456" data-attributes="member: 679">Interesting question and POVs!I think that in some ways, the use of social skills is somewhat different than that of other skills, in that they tend to occur &quot;situationally&quot; rather than &quot;actively&quot;. This, of course, is highly dependent on playing style, but consider the following &quot;styles&quot;:Style 1.DM:&nbsp; &quot;You find your way blocked by a high stone wall.&quot;Player:&nbsp; &quot;I use my Climb skill, with a total modifier of +7.&quot;DM:&nbsp; &quot;You find your way blocked by a hulking brute of a thug.&quot;Player:&nbsp; &quot;I use my Intimidate skill, with a total modifier of +7.&quot;In this style of play, game actions are described mechanistically, and although I don't think there's anything technically &quot;wrong&quot; with this approach, I'd bet that there are few DMs who'd be willing to let the second scenario pass without the player at least attempting a description of just how they plan to intimidate the thug.&nbsp; On the other hand, the first action isn't particularly unusual.Style 2.DM:&nbsp; &quot;You find your way blocked by a high stone wall.&quot;Player:&nbsp; &quot;Can I climb it?&quot;DM:&nbsp; (Has noted that the DC for the climb is 20).&nbsp; &quot;Go ahead, make a Climb check.&quot;DM:&nbsp; &quot;You find your way blocked by a hulking brute of a thug.&quot;Player:&nbsp; &quot;I muscle up to him and draw my sword, saying 'Stand down if you don't want to get hurt, little boy.'&quot;DM:&nbsp; &quot;Not bad.&nbsp; Go ahead and make an Intimidate check.&quot; (Secretly sets a DC for the player to beat.)In this situation, while the first action doesn't functionally differ between the two styles, the second allows greater DM latitude in deciding what happens after the player's action (&quot;situational&quot; application of the appropriate skill). Had the player had their character snivel and beg, the DM would be fully justified in not even bothering to allow an Intimidation check (although some other skill might be appropriate).I guess that the upshot of this rambling message was to note that, if I were currently GMing, I would have the die rolls dictate the effects of the application of social skills, but I would require that role-playing dictate when and which skills are being used in a given situation (if any).Off soapbox now.--Pazu</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pazu, post: 35456, member: 679"] Interesting question and POVs! I think that in some ways, the use of social skills is somewhat different than that of other skills, in that they tend to occur "situationally" rather than "actively". This, of course, is highly dependent on playing style, but consider the following "styles": Style 1. DM: "You find your way blocked by a high stone wall." Player: "I use my Climb skill, with a total modifier of +7." DM: "You find your way blocked by a hulking brute of a thug." Player: "I use my Intimidate skill, with a total modifier of +7." In this style of play, game actions are described mechanistically, and although I don't think there's anything technically "wrong" with this approach, I'd bet that there are few DMs who'd be willing to let the second scenario pass without the player at least attempting a description of just how they plan to intimidate the thug. On the other hand, the first action isn't particularly unusual. Style 2. DM: "You find your way blocked by a high stone wall." Player: "Can I climb it?" DM: (Has noted that the DC for the climb is 20). "Go ahead, make a Climb check." DM: "You find your way blocked by a hulking brute of a thug." Player: "I muscle up to him and draw my sword, saying 'Stand down if you don't want to get hurt, little boy.'" DM: "Not bad. Go ahead and make an Intimidate check." (Secretly sets a DC for the player to beat.) In this situation, while the first action doesn't functionally differ between the two styles, the second allows greater DM latitude in deciding what happens after the player's action ("situational" application of the appropriate skill). Had the player had their character snivel and beg, the DM would be fully justified in not even bothering to allow an Intimidation check (although some other skill might be appropriate). I guess that the upshot of this rambling message was to note that, if I were currently GMing, I would have the die rolls dictate the effects of the application of social skills, but I would require that role-playing dictate when and which skills are being used in a given situation (if any). Off soapbox now. --Pazu [/QUOTE]

Verification