Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 4162403" data-attributes="member: 63763"><p>Well, seeing as the person is able to perform a careful autopsy while the body is still hung up is quite odd. It would require someone getting the body down from the tree, or AT LEAST, the person getting up to the body to perform a very difficult autopsy on a corpse hanging from a tree. There should probably be some skill checks involved. Also, after the autopsy, you still have no idea WHAT the device is inside. Some sort of skill check would be required to let the Thievery skill know how to remove the trap succesfully.</p><p></p><p>Basically, in this example, the players have metagamed/handwaved a number of skill checks out of the sequence. They've made assumptions about the trap, instead of using skill checks to verify those assumptions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In this case, it isn't that the trap spontaneously goes off. It is that their accumulated failure has lead to them being completely WRONG in their assumptions, and any skill checks they make to "succesfully" disable the trap will instead cause them to set off the trap.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>At this point, they have apparently figured out the absolutely best way to disable the device. They can now perform a series of very simple skill checks to disable the device safely. In the previous example, they THOUGHT they had reached this point, and in their carelessness, set off the trap.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the party chooses to intentionally set off the trap, then it is possible to do that as well. And of course, chopping down the body with my battle axe would require a certain number of skill checks to get AT the body in the first place. Also, there could be skill checks made by the REST of the party to prevent their insane barbarian from "disabling the trap".</p><p></p><p>In general, the 6/4 concept is they must succeed at skill checks that are "working towards" success in the encounter, and the 4 would failing in those particular skills. It is possible, outside of the x/y for complete failure, or time wasting, if the actions are not "working towards" success in the encounter.</p><p></p><p>Thus, the DM as arbiter, requires that their player explain how the skill they are going to use will work towards the success of the encounter. Otherwise, it will either have no net effect [time waster], or it will possibly be counted as one or more failures [as the actions risk setting off the trap, or making them appear stupid/rude/etc in a social situation].</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WalterKovacs, post: 4162403, member: 63763"] Well, seeing as the person is able to perform a careful autopsy while the body is still hung up is quite odd. It would require someone getting the body down from the tree, or AT LEAST, the person getting up to the body to perform a very difficult autopsy on a corpse hanging from a tree. There should probably be some skill checks involved. Also, after the autopsy, you still have no idea WHAT the device is inside. Some sort of skill check would be required to let the Thievery skill know how to remove the trap succesfully. Basically, in this example, the players have metagamed/handwaved a number of skill checks out of the sequence. They've made assumptions about the trap, instead of using skill checks to verify those assumptions. In this case, it isn't that the trap spontaneously goes off. It is that their accumulated failure has lead to them being completely WRONG in their assumptions, and any skill checks they make to "succesfully" disable the trap will instead cause them to set off the trap. At this point, they have apparently figured out the absolutely best way to disable the device. They can now perform a series of very simple skill checks to disable the device safely. In the previous example, they THOUGHT they had reached this point, and in their carelessness, set off the trap. If the party chooses to intentionally set off the trap, then it is possible to do that as well. And of course, chopping down the body with my battle axe would require a certain number of skill checks to get AT the body in the first place. Also, there could be skill checks made by the REST of the party to prevent their insane barbarian from "disabling the trap". In general, the 6/4 concept is they must succeed at skill checks that are "working towards" success in the encounter, and the 4 would failing in those particular skills. It is possible, outside of the x/y for complete failure, or time wasting, if the actions are not "working towards" success in the encounter. Thus, the DM as arbiter, requires that their player explain how the skill they are going to use will work towards the success of the encounter. Otherwise, it will either have no net effect [time waster], or it will possibly be counted as one or more failures [as the actions risk setting off the trap, or making them appear stupid/rude/etc in a social situation]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome
Top