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.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Skill Challenges
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="Mesh Hong" data-source="post: 4996175" data-attributes="member: 73463"><p>You know, I have never thought of that. It's an interesting idea, and I suppose in keeping with normal use of skills:</p><p> </p><p>e.g. player declares they are going to pick a lock = make thievery check = result of check points towards the description given by the DM.</p><p> </p><p>I am just not 100% sure it would work in conversation, and might confuse players by pointing towards the outcome before the event (so to speak), I think it might stilt any conversation to a greater degree than the normal <em>speak then roll when asked</em> order.</p><p> </p><p>conversation start:-</p><p>DM: what are you going to say?</p><p>PC: brief description</p><p>DM: makes allowances for the context then asks for roll</p><p>PC: makes roll and is informed on the outcome by DM</p><p>PC: says what they were intending to say, but altering it within the context of their success/fail dice roll</p><p> </p><p>Having written all that I am assuming I must be overcomplicating it somewhat as it is far too unwieldy.</p><p> </p><p>PC: declares use of diplomacy skill, makes roll calls result</p><p>DM: gives single word response - Great, good, OK, poor, terrible etc</p><p>PC: says what they were going to say, either with the confidence that it will be well recieved or intensionally bad due to poor roll.</p><p> </p><p>I suppose it might work, with the right group. I still think it is best to just let the player say their piece and respond, calling for checks as necessary. After all you never know what's going to come out of your players mouths, it could be an inspired and elequently put point, or it could be a well meaning but offensive or undiplomatic statement (whether that is what they intended or not!)</p><p> </p><p>For conversation I generally work on the general level of skill, position and context of the PC speaking and only call for checks when they say something that might require it (e.g. they don't <em>in</em> <em>reality</em> realise that what they have said was inappropriate - the check is to let me pretend the character said something subtley different which wouldn't cause offence - this is an example of where character skill seperates itself from player skill)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mesh Hong, post: 4996175, member: 73463"] You know, I have never thought of that. It's an interesting idea, and I suppose in keeping with normal use of skills: e.g. player declares they are going to pick a lock = make thievery check = result of check points towards the description given by the DM. I am just not 100% sure it would work in conversation, and might confuse players by pointing towards the outcome before the event (so to speak), I think it might stilt any conversation to a greater degree than the normal [I]speak then roll when asked[/I] order. conversation start:- DM: what are you going to say? PC: brief description DM: makes allowances for the context then asks for roll PC: makes roll and is informed on the outcome by DM PC: says what they were intending to say, but altering it within the context of their success/fail dice roll Having written all that I am assuming I must be overcomplicating it somewhat as it is far too unwieldy. PC: declares use of diplomacy skill, makes roll calls result DM: gives single word response - Great, good, OK, poor, terrible etc PC: says what they were going to say, either with the confidence that it will be well recieved or intensionally bad due to poor roll. I suppose it might work, with the right group. I still think it is best to just let the player say their piece and respond, calling for checks as necessary. After all you never know what's going to come out of your players mouths, it could be an inspired and elequently put point, or it could be a well meaning but offensive or undiplomatic statement (whether that is what they intended or not!) For conversation I generally work on the general level of skill, position and context of the PC speaking and only call for checks when they say something that might require it (e.g. they don't [I]in[/I] [I]reality[/I] realise that what they have said was inappropriate - the check is to let me pretend the character said something subtley different which wouldn't cause offence - this is an example of where character skill seperates itself from player skill) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Skill Challenges
Top