You and I have had this discussion before, WB. You said that you wouldn't even allow the PC a dice roll until and unless the player could describe the medical care they were attempting.
That's still true. If a player says, "I'll use my Heal Skill on the downed character, attempting to stabilize him," I'll as that player, "Ok, well, what are you doing to stabilize him."
I want to hear the player describe what he's doing.
But, I'm not an ogre about it. And, once the same type of check comes up once or thrice, the player "gets into it" and doesn't say, "I want to make a check" anymore. They just start describing what they do. Many times, I'll look across the table, listening to a player's description of action and say, "That just earned you a FILL-IN-THE-BLANK check".
I never let PCs use skills they don't have, no matter how well the player describes how it works.
In d20 games, don't all characters have all skills? At different ranks, sure. And, with a Trained-Only skill, the max a character can throw is 10, total.
But...it's not possible for a PC to use a skill he doesn't have, because he does have all skills.
Unless you play with a House Rule? Or, maybe some non-standard skills that you don't default to every PC like the core skills?
There's a separation between player knowledge and character knowledge. Likewise, it's unfair to deny PCs their skills just because the players don't have them.
As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not an ogre about it. I'll help a Player...give him suggestions. Most players who are attracted to role playing are usually pretty smart cookies. At least, that's been my experience with the various people I've played with over the decades.
And, they don't even have to use real medicine on a Heal check. They can describe how their character is making the object of the check chew on the root of the ju-ju tree, which is known as a pain killer. (Or, whatever. I just made that up.)
Once something like that is set, I'll feed off the player and even throw in some ju-ju trees in the game so that the character can dig up some roots.
I mean, seriously, do you know the formula for Greek Fire? What the ingredients are?
Nope. But, I could look it up on the net before a game. Or, I could just make up something that sounds convincing (and then probably correct myself once I had a chance to look it up on the net).
OH...almost forgot. I've got a pretty cool d20 gaming book called
From Stone To Steel. Greek Fire is made up of...sulfur, naphtha, and quicklime.
Would you make players describe them before you allowed them that Craft Alchemy roll?
Not necessarily the specific ingredients (but, now that we know what they are, then, why not?). But, I do require the player to tell me what he's doing.
Something like, "First, I'll make the naphtha as a base. I'll make a concoction of tree sap, then heat the and mix with lamp oil, adding in some lard as a thickener. Then, in goes the quicklime, and finally the sulfur. Brew for 17 minutes. Viola, I've got Greek Fire."
Now, I totally made that up, but that's what I'm looking for from a player--description of what he's doing.
Also, we won't go through all of this if we're not focussing on the creation of the Greek Fire. If the focus of the game is somewhere else, then the alchemist can just go off, make a couple of rolls, and then return with the Greek Fire after the appropriate time.
The thing with the Heal check is that it usually is a focus. When a character is dying, it's a focus.
I've got a situation right now, in my game, where dying characters aren't a focus. The players are chasing the bad guys away from the battlefield. NPCs will try to heal the injured NPCs. Well, I'll just do that in between games with some quick dice throws. By the time the players get back to this area, it will be at least a game day--much likely longer--so, whomever needed medical attention already got it.
But, most of the time, it's the players giving the medical attention, and like picking a lock, they need to describe what they're doing.
Should I force players to describe a riposte, a disengage, or know the difference between attacking en quarte (position 4) v position 1?
We routinely describe how our blows are made in combat. So, the answer is "yes".
GM: "The Grath warrior steps in with a low thrust of his spear." Rolls attack.
Player: "I'll knock it aside with my sword, step back, follow through, and bring my sword around to my right to chop down on his left shoulder." Defense throw, followed by his next attack on the next round.
That type of thing is heard in my game all the time. I don't like: "You attack. What did you get? A 17. Ok, it missed. My attack."
I like combat to be much more colorful than that.
Yeah, adding detail is wonderful game color. I give circumstance bonus for it. But I don't require it, nor do I deny PCs their skills just because players haven't taken a Boy Scout or Red Cross first aid course, studied under a locksmith, or trained with a blade.
Different people play differently.
To be blunt, it's a stupid requirement.
To be really blunt, that is an ignorant statement because you have no idea of the enjoyment level me or my players are getting out of my game.
The same campaign is going on now for over two years, so, I guess I'm doing something right.
I mean, do you actually think players keep coming to my game for that long because they hate the way I play?
You might want to watch your statements until you understand what you are talking about. Obviously, you don't.
