Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8486407" data-attributes="member: 6921763">It seems to me that you presume that ability scores and proficiencies define how a player must play their character or how a DM must treat a character.Sure, if a player wants to invoke the fact that they have special training when describing what their PC is doing, it might earn them auto-success or it might allow them to use that proficiency for any roll that might be called.&nbsp; But I'm not setting DCs or declaring auto success/failure based on the character sheet.&nbsp; I'm doing that based on the approach the PC is taking to solving the challenge I've set before them. If the approach is one that is better, then yes.&nbsp; There are plenty of ways to describe approaches that do not require special expertise.&nbsp; I would caution that first player, though, that if they are not good at X they might not want to be the one to volunteer to do X as they will be worse off than the player that is good at X if a roll is called for.I think it is also worth mentioning that, in game, the PCs can communicate to each other (most of the time).&nbsp; If the PC who is bad at X has a good idea, they could share it with the PC who is good at X.&nbsp; That way, the good X PC could give it a go.&nbsp; Seems like a good strategy, in some circumstances anyway.&quot;Fast talking&quot;, &quot;magic words&quot;, &quot;flowery language&quot;.&nbsp; No, just no.&nbsp; Can we avoid that language to have a productive discussion?Does it need to be said, just because a player described a great approach to a challenge (in 4 words or 40) does not mean that it will be granted auto-success.Again, the players can roleplay their PCs however they like.&nbsp; Just better hope that the adjudication doesn't call for a roll because there really is no such thing as &quot;roleplaying around the penalties&quot; once the dice come out.Is that really how you envision our table?If that truly bothers you, another approach is not to introduce puzzles that the players can solve &quot;out of game&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8486407, member: 6921763"] It seems to me that you presume that ability scores and proficiencies define how a player must play their character or how a DM must treat a character. Sure, if a player wants to invoke the fact that they have special training when describing what their PC is doing, it might earn them auto-success or it might allow them to use that proficiency for any roll that might be called. But I'm not setting DCs or declaring auto success/failure based on the character sheet. I'm doing that based on the approach the PC is taking to solving the challenge I've set before them. If the approach is one that is better, then yes. There are plenty of ways to describe approaches that do not require special expertise. I would caution that first player, though, that if they are not good at X they might not want to be the one to volunteer to do X as they will be worse off than the player that is good at X if a roll is called for. I think it is also worth mentioning that, in game, the PCs can communicate to each other (most of the time). If the PC who is bad at X has a good idea, they could share it with the PC who is good at X. That way, the good X PC could give it a go. Seems like a good strategy, in some circumstances anyway. "Fast talking", "magic words", "flowery language". No, just no. Can we avoid that language to have a productive discussion? Does it need to be said, just because a player described a great approach to a challenge (in 4 words or 40) does not mean that it will be granted auto-success. Again, the players can roleplay their PCs however they like. Just better hope that the adjudication doesn't call for a roll because there really is no such thing as "roleplaying around the penalties" once the dice come out. Is that really how you envision our table? If that truly bothers you, another approach is not to introduce puzzles that the players can solve "out of game". [/QUOTE]

Verification