Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7597066">The only nitpick I would have with this is the implication, perhaps imagined by me, that the DM is designing challenges that are specifically meant to be solved in a certain way by certain PCs, or that are meant to force other PCs to use skills they are bad at, just to remind them that they are bad those things.However, I'm all for:a) Creating a variety of challenges, across all three pillars, without the DM expecting (or requiring) specific solutions to each one.b) Rewarding players who find interesting ways to solve those challenges using the unique strengths of their characters by allowing those solutions to succeed (or giving them a decent chance, at least).As I said upstream, if the player has to figure out how to use his/her character's unique strengths to solve a problem, that's far more interesting than cases where it's obvious which character should use which strength.So, yeah, include a neutral PC who has something the players need, as well as trait/bond/flaw/ideal.&nbsp; If the silver-tongued player learns the flaw or ideal or whatever, and wants to leverage that to convince the PC to help the party, either give him an autosuccess or have him roll a die, depending on how effective you think that approach will be.Another less eloquent character trying the same thing might have a much harder time, and might want to use a different strategy.But I think the important part here is that persuading the NPC to help is just one possible &quot;solution&quot; to the problems the party faces. They might be able to progress without his help, or steal the McGuffin that he has locked up, or blackmail him with a secret they find, or cast a Charm spell, or....etc.&nbsp; The adventure shouldn't be planned such that persuading this NPC is a &quot;toll booth&quot; that must be passed.Does that make sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7597066"] The only nitpick I would have with this is the implication, perhaps imagined by me, that the DM is designing challenges that are specifically meant to be solved in a certain way by certain PCs, or that are meant to force other PCs to use skills they are bad at, just to remind them that they are bad those things. However, I'm all for: a) Creating a variety of challenges, across all three pillars, without the DM expecting (or requiring) specific solutions to each one. b) Rewarding players who find interesting ways to solve those challenges using the unique strengths of their characters by allowing those solutions to succeed (or giving them a decent chance, at least). As I said upstream, if the player has to figure out [I]how[/I] to use his/her character's unique strengths to solve a problem, that's far more interesting than cases where it's obvious which character should use which strength. So, yeah, include a neutral PC who has something the players need, as well as trait/bond/flaw/ideal. If the silver-tongued player learns the flaw or ideal or whatever, and wants to leverage that to convince the PC to help the party, either give him an autosuccess or have him roll a die, depending on how effective you think that approach will be. Another less eloquent character trying the same thing might have a much harder time, and might want to use a different strategy. But I think the important part here is that persuading the NPC to help is just one possible "solution" to the problems the party faces. They might be able to progress without his help, or steal the McGuffin that he has locked up, or blackmail him with a secret they find, or cast a Charm spell, or....etc. The adventure shouldn't be planned such that persuading this NPC is a "toll booth" that must be passed. Does that make sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification