Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kingius" data-source="post: 5973865" data-attributes="member: 85123">Yes, I use a mix of both. A player should be rewarded for using common sense. For example, if a player says, I tap the floor in front of me as I walk, I will definitely have them hear the hollow nature of the pit trap before them. Will they recognise that the change in sound means a pit? Hopefully. Of course, the easy option is to roll for searching traps and get a success, but in my view, there should always be more than one way of doing anything within the game system because it's more fun that way for everyone at the table. Note that my example is equally applicable to secret door finding. This means that adding skill points is a sort of shortcut to solving these kinds of problems. Even then, I tend to make the roll and describe the results, thereby letting the players interpret them and experiment. A search for secret doors might lead to one definitely being found ... or it might lead to a strange indentation in a wall that /might/ be a secret door and might not be. If it is, what opens it?Note that this is applicable to old school D&amp;D, with its thief class, as it is to 3.5, with its skill system.I know you asked about diplomacy so here's the answer on that one: it's up front roleplaying with tricky bits resolved by skill checks. If an NPC doesn't agree, doesn't want to do what the player wants, then a skill check might be enough to swing them around. But that happens /after/ normal means have been tried (i.e. roleplaying). If the roll fails... the conversation doesn't just carry on in the same vain as before but actually goes against the player. That makes it a risk, which is also a bit more fun.Hope that helps with your theory in some way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kingius, post: 5973865, member: 85123"] Yes, I use a mix of both. A player should be rewarded for using common sense. For example, if a player says, I tap the floor in front of me as I walk, I will definitely have them hear the hollow nature of the pit trap before them. Will they recognise that the change in sound means a pit? Hopefully. Of course, the easy option is to roll for searching traps and get a success, but in my view, there should always be more than one way of doing anything within the game system because it's more fun that way for everyone at the table. Note that my example is equally applicable to secret door finding. This means that adding skill points is a sort of shortcut to solving these kinds of problems. Even then, I tend to make the roll and describe the results, thereby letting the players interpret them and experiment. A search for secret doors might lead to one definitely being found ... or it might lead to a strange indentation in a wall that /might/ be a secret door and might not be. If it is, what opens it? Note that this is applicable to old school D&D, with its thief class, as it is to 3.5, with its skill system. I know you asked about diplomacy so here's the answer on that one: it's up front roleplaying with tricky bits resolved by skill checks. If an NPC doesn't agree, doesn't want to do what the player wants, then a skill check might be enough to swing them around. But that happens /after/ normal means have been tried (i.e. roleplaying). If the roll fails... the conversation doesn't just carry on in the same vain as before but actually goes against the player. That makes it a risk, which is also a bit more fun. Hope that helps with your theory in some way. [/QUOTE]

Verification