Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7890064" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I've had that discussion with people on these boards before:&nbsp; Skill resolution via RP and discussion with the DM.I have players in my group with nothing resembling a silver tongue.&nbsp; Do should we penalize them, forever, because they aren't a glib as someone else?I had a player who tried to quiet a horse he was stealing by giving it some beef jerky.&nbsp; (Player's suggestion, not character's skill.)&nbsp; This highlights that character knowledge and skill is separate from player knowledge and skill.&nbsp; For someone in a horse-and-carriage world, the Animal Handling or Knowledge Nature needed to know that horses don't eat meat is pretty much a gimme', but the player doesn't live in that world.For many/most skill checks I let the player describe their plan/action and use that as a circumstance modifier on the dice roll.&nbsp; You can get a +/- 2 on a check that way, which can be good, but you still need the skill.As for my wilderness Ranger at sea example, I have to ask:&nbsp; Doesn't your DM ever throw unexpected twists at the party?&nbsp; Haven't player decisions ever impacted the course of a campaign?&nbsp; If not then by all means have players pick the PC skills and lock them in for a lifetime.If, on the other hand, adventures take unexpected turns, then it's better to able to adapt to the unexpected.In the 4e version of skills my Ranger could be sailing for a year and never learn how to tie a knot, what port and starboard mean, or what &quot;avast&quot; or &quot;belay&quot; refer to.&nbsp; From a simulationist POV, that sucks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 7890064, member: 6669384"] I've had that discussion with people on these boards before: Skill resolution via RP and discussion with the DM. I have players in my group with nothing resembling a silver tongue. Do should we penalize them, forever, because they aren't a glib as someone else? I had a player who tried to quiet a horse he was stealing by giving it some beef jerky. (Player's suggestion, not character's skill.) This highlights that character knowledge and skill is separate from player knowledge and skill. For someone in a horse-and-carriage world, the Animal Handling or Knowledge Nature needed to know that horses don't eat meat is pretty much a gimme', but the player doesn't live in that world. For many/most skill checks I let the player describe their plan/action and use that as a circumstance modifier on the dice roll. You can get a +/- 2 on a check that way, which can be good, but you still need the skill. As for my wilderness Ranger at sea example, I have to ask: Doesn't your DM ever throw unexpected twists at the party? Haven't player decisions ever impacted the course of a campaign? If not then by all means have players pick the PC skills and lock them in for a lifetime. If, on the other hand, adventures take unexpected turns, then it's better to able to adapt to the unexpected. In the 4e version of skills my Ranger could be sailing for a year and never learn how to tie a knot, what port and starboard mean, or what "avast" or "belay" refer to. From a simulationist POV, that sucks. [/QUOTE]

Verification