Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8488473" data-attributes="member: 42582">I find the whole "magic words" thing a bit of a distraction.But I do think that if the action declaration is I give a rousing speech, and if the table is one that tends to resolve the outcome of that via a check, then it makes sense to adjust the check (either DC or bonus/advantage, depending on the conventions at use at that table) if an actual speech is given that everyone can see is actually rousing.This makes it advantageous, if playing (say) a paladin, to be capable of expressing oneself. I don't see that as any different from it being advantageous, if playing a rogue, of being able to think of cunning stratagems (see [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] not too far upthread):In Burning Wheel, the action declaration for I speak a prayer has to include intent and task, like anything else. The intent is chosen from a list of possible effects (Bless, Boon, Minor Miracle, Purification, etc - standard fantasy cleric stuff). The task is the player speaking the prayer. We work out how long the prayer takes, in the fiction, by considering how many words are in the player's prayer.Another example: there is a trait, most easily acquired via the Courtier lifepath, called Rapier Wit: In a Duel of Wits, if you (the player) inject a searing bon mot as your opponent speaks, you gain +2D to your next verbal action.This reminds us that, in a Duel of Wits, while the intent is again chosen from a menu (Dismiss, Rebut, Incite, Obfuscate, etc) the task is the player speaking the part of their PC.It also reminds us of the advantage rules: anyone in BW can get a +1D advantage die by (i) calling for it and (ii) explaining why they deserve it. So for the trait to be valuable, it has to give +2D advantage.Now of course the player might speak the part of their PC in 3rd person, or via more abstract description. But that player won't be getting the benefit of Rapier Wit, or other advantage die for the impassioned, witty, cutting, or otherwise significant effect of what it is that their PC actually said: because we don't know what their PC actually said!In BW, a stat or skill bonus definitely tells us something about the character - the notion of being highly muscled yet having a low Power is right off the table!But it also tells us how likely the character is to succeed in endeavours where the descriptor in question is put to the test. And when narrating failure, there is no obligation to narrate the failure as a result of the descriptor not being up to the job - eg a failed Power test needn't be narrated as the PC was too weak on this occasion but could be done in other terms (all the standard stuff you're familiar with).To drift 5e in this direction I think you'd need to adopt various BW-isms, like Say 'yes' or roll the dice (ie no GM adjudication of uncertainty or automatic success based on fictional positioning as the first input into a check) and intent and task, and probably also the Inspiration rules to try and mitigate the swinginess of the d20.There is a third option being flagged in this thread: describe their stratagem for stealing the skull in such detail (eg they oil the creaky hinges, they use a net to reach the skull, etc) that the attempt succeeds with no need for a check.To me, that part of the discussion in this thread is the 5e version of the original debate over the effect, on adjudication-by-way-of-fictional-positioning, of the introduction of thieves and thief skills into the game.And the way it's being developed - which is different from that original debate as best I can tell - is to reduce the in-fiction meaning of ability scores, skill proficiency etc. While still very much hanging onto that, as best I can tell, for spell casting ability and at least some aspects of combat ability. To me, at least, it doesn't seem very appealling.</blockquote>

Verification