Does a DM ask for an Intelligence check to see if the Dwarf with a 7 Int could come up with the awesome idea his player suggested?No. That would be asinine.
So a player who makes a great speech to the king about how he needs to help the party shouldn't be shafted because his character can't make a diplomacy roll for crap.
Heh, I've been asinine then. Because if someone is playing an int 5 dwarf and the player comes up with some brilliant idea, I absolutely WILL say "huh, that seems a bit beyond 'Hulk SMASH!' there. What's up?"
So what I do is I ask the players to discuss the idea and if it is one that the gruop likes, then another character might introduce it. Just exactly the same as if the cha 5 half-orc's player had suggested some brilliant oratory. Sure, but let someone else do it.
Now, having said that... int 7 is not the same as int 5. Int 7 is getting pretty close to the average human intelligence range, so it is not implausible that an int 7 dwarf MIGHT come up with a brilliant idea once in a blue moon. So I'd probably let it slide unless it became a habit.
Then I DEFINITELY would have a conversation with the player about how they were role playing their dwarf.
Just a though I had. If you had a character with a high social skill, and wanted to make sure you got a good roll, and didn't get shafted, I'm pretty sure you could take 10.
do that, plus take some time to prepare for maybe a +2 circumstance bonus, and get someone to assist for another +2. Then you're guaranteed a 14. Say, level 1, 20 cha, trained in diplomacy with it as a class skill.
14+1+3+5=23
A 23 would do the job on pretty much anything that isn't hostile for a diplomacy check. Then the well said speech works and you're not getting screwed by a bad roll.
Yeah, we do it like this when it makes sense. But we do the same for non-social skill checks too.
Is there some reason you do?
Yes, as clearly pointed out in my post you just responded to.
And no, for the reason you yourself pointed out in an earlier post:
encourage stat dumping of the de-emphasized attributes and skills
For this reason alone I've decided that it's generally best to stick with emphasizing the stats and skills over roleplaying ability. The consequences of the above outweigh the benefits for myself and my group.
Though I can see others valuing such things differently.
For example, let's say I'm a genius. I should be able to improve my intelligence based skill checks with a simple differential equation derivation. Or I can complete the NY Times crossword puzzle to gain advantage on knowledge checks. I mean those are "mental" aspects. By your logic I should be able to do that.
By my logic? Clearly not. Your examples don't make sense, and don't related to what I said. But your example of being a genius is an excellent one - it absolutely does indeed affect the game, in your favor. You will much more likely run better analyses and make better decisions for your character (and your group, when you make suggestions) than you would if you were a complete half-wit. (I would think this is self-evident.) Do people make smart players with dumb and/or unwise characters make Int or Wis checks?
As I said - this is a 'mental' game, which uses 'mental' attributes; physical attributes/examples are completely and utterly irrelevant, and should never ever be used as a competing example. (I'm happy to hear examples of why one shouldn't emphasize good roleplaying/acting skills over the game stats, but comparing it to physical attributes is foolish, wrong, and irrelevant. Why do people continue to do so? Because they usually can't come up with examples... likely due to subconsciously (if nothing else) realizing that yeah - this really is a 'mental' game after all. Huh. [Though with all that said, there are a couple reasons why mentioned in this thread, that if valued, are good reasons.])
So, while I myself make the distinction (because there is one, regardless of what people might say), I don't follow through in the game for the consequences mentioned earlier - it wouldn't be a good 'fit' for my group and I.
As I said - this is a 'mental' game, which uses 'mental' attributes; physical attributes/examples are completely and utterly irrelevant, and should never ever be used as a competing example. (I'm happy to hear examples of why one shouldn't emphasize good roleplaying/acting skills over the game stats, but comparing it to physical attributes is foolish, wrong, and irrelevant. Why do people continue to do so? Because they usually can't come up with examples... likely due to subconsciously (if nothing else) realizing that yeah - this really is a 'mental' game after all....
Which is why I changed my "bench press 400 pounds" example to "complete the NY Times CW puzzle" to make exactly the same point Arnwyn. Comparing one MENTAL attribute to another MENTAL attribute.
Here's the deal. Whether you accept the logic of it or not, there is NO MORE CONNECTION between a player and his character's MENTAL stats than there is between a player and his character's PHYSICAL stats. So there is no more reason to reward mental skills than physical skills.
Not likely we're going to agree.
I have to say your post gave me a good laugh though.
I have all the players in my game compete in a foot race every night. The winning players' character gets a +2 bonus to his initiative in combat.
I also hide a stuffed monkey somewhere in my house, that's players' character gets a +2 to perception that evening as well.
Is there a problem with this?
I have all the players in my game compete in a foot race every night. The winning players' character gets a +2 bonus to his initiative in combat.
I also hide a stuffed monkey somewhere in my house, that's players' character gets a +2 to perception that evening as well.
Is there a problem with this?
LOL! I TOTALLY love this! I am definitely going to do something like this in the future. Just to demonstrate how silly it is to treat role playing the way it is so frequently treated...
Maybe we've covered this, but some things you just can't do... Is anyone saying a high Charisma/Diplomacy roll is even as good as Enchantment (Charm Person)?
The moment you try to convince someone of something that is detrimental to their "well being" (interpret as loosely or as narrowly as you wish), they snap out of it. Diplomacy should be indirect, a give and take.
A good Diplomacy check will keep them from beheading you... "immediately".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what happens when the 30 int wizard just make bumb decitions? that choices are just discarded by the DM?
I have absolutely, in really dire situations, said "uh... your character has an int of XX, I don't think they would do that. Do you want to re-think that?"
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can I use Disable Device untrained if I can roleplay the hand movements involved? I mean, if I say "I move my hands like this, then like this, then this, then pop the pin up this way, then twist", then my character does that. If that's the series of motions that would pop the lock, it should work, right? If I (as a player) know the right way to pop a lock, and I roleplay it, then that's what my PC does and it should work.
What's that? I should separate player knowledge from character knowledge? You mean if I have player knowledge of diplomatic techniques, I should keep that separate from character knowledge (or lack thereof)?
I think this is actually one of the major facets of the game that differentiates "old school" play from modern: player versus character ability. I'm not making blanket statements, nor am I saying either playstyle is better or more fun than any other. However, I will say that I personally prefer to leave diplomacy, clever planning, and the like up to the players, not the characters. Of course, skilled characters can certainly help average players.
To avoid stereotypes, lets say someone intelligent is playing an elf with an INT score of 5. Not the sharpest tool in the shed. But, the player is smart and decides to make a clever tactical gambit. I'm going to allow that because the way I prefer to play RPGs is not to simulate what an elf with a certain array of stats will do in certain situations, but rather to play a game. I am more concerned with the player's great idea than I am with the elf's stupid brain.
Another example: A half-orc bard with a CHA score of 17 is making a quick pep-talk to rally a unit of soldier to stay and defend a key point. If the player rolls a natural 20, or even maybe an 18 or something, depending on situational modifiers, it works. If the player rolls a 10-12, but makes a really rousing speech, it also works. If the character has a CHA score of 10, a good roll would have to be combined with a rousing speech to warrant any success. IF the character has a CHA score of 6, there may not be a chance of full success. But, another player could jump in, or the captain might have a change of heart and some men follow him. Good scores help, good roleplay helps, but either one on its own may or may not be enough.
I don't try to make rules and contingencies for every combination of modifier, roll, and roleplay level. I make rulings. Are they always right? No. But my players trust that we all want to have fun together, so we move on.
I'll finish up with a quote from the OSR Primer, which is available for free on Lulu.com. It's worth a read even if you don't care for old school play, just to see another side of the game from another set of eyes.
[Old school style] games aren’t simulations of what a dwarf raised in a particular society, and having a particular level of intelligence, would do when faced with certain challenges. Old-style play is about keeping your character alive and making him into a legend. The player’s skill is the character’s guardian angel – call it the character’s luck or intuition, or whatever makes sense to you, but don’t hold back on your skill as a player just because the character has a low intelligence.
Once more, I don't disagree with either (any) playstyle. I have played and run games both ways, and loved them. But, I prefer for player skill to have merit.
|
Something that ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS happens (unless you are very strict about it) is that the PCs will pool together and act as a group when they roleplay negotiations of any kind. The cleric has the 16 CHA and the Wizard has the 7 CHA, but the cleric's player is somewhat shy and the wizard's player is brash, and so he will be chiming in with lots of good asides and advice, etc.
This is just fine.
In any social encounter, I start with the roleplay. Exchange information between NPCs and PCs so that the players get a feel for who the NPCs are and what their attitude is. Don't go to mechanics right away. If the players immediately want to roll diplomacy or bluff checks, ask for specifics first: "What exactly is your character saying during this check?" "What reasoning is your character going to give? What is your character's posture going to be?" Get the details out there first.
THEN ask for checks. (Always ask for checks. Your players invested in those skill points - they need to use them.) Before the roll happens, though, adjust the DC up or down based on the roleplay interaction. If the PCs made a really unconvincing case or were rude/inappropriate, DC+5, or +10 if they really messed up. If the PCs were decorous and presented themselves well, DC-5 or -10 if they were particularly eloquent or offered a very attractive deal to the NPC.
Another trick: Memory checks. There's some important bit of information or some clue that the players have heard (and that their PCs should know) but which the players themselves have temporarily forgotten/misremembered or haven't picked up on. Ask for an intelligence check (D20+Int Bonus). The DC is between 15 and 20. The PC with the highest check is the one who remembers/figures it out.
But, sometimes she is shy, and needs to just roll the dice. Don't penilize her for this, please?
I wouldn't dream of it. One thing that I overlooked in my last post is that, as much as good roleplay helps, bad roleplay never hurts. Basically, it's not fair, and that's OK. Players can only ever benefit from roleplaying in my games.
LOL! I TOTALLY love this! I am definitely going to do something like this in the future. Just to demonstrate how silly it is to treat role playing the way it is so frequently treated...I have all the players in my game compete in a foot race every night. The winning players' character gets a +2 bonus to his initiative in combat.
I also hide a stuffed monkey somewhere in my house, that's players' character gets a +2 to perception that evening as well.
Is there a problem with this?
To be honest the game always falls apart when we start doing the fortitude save bonus competition- shots tequila.
But, sometimes she is shy, and needs to just roll the dice. Don't penilize her for this, please?I wouldn't dream of it. One thing that I overlooked in my last post is that, as much as good roleplay helps, bad roleplay never hurts. Basically, it's not fair, and that's OK. Players can only ever benefit from roleplaying in my games.
This is how I do it to. I never punish anyone for "bad role playing" (in part because I don't believe there is any such thing. Just the ATTEMPT to role play is something I want to encourage as much as possible).
However, and this is a BIG "however"....
The benefit from "good roleplaying" should never be so much that it allows players to overcome neglecting or deliberately dumping key stats that support what the character is trying to do.
This is a difficult thing to balance, and on the margins I would rather err on the side of promoting good role play, but only so much. I am keenly aware of the fact that doing this provides certain players with advantages in game over other players based purely on their willingness to be socially active and outgoing. I've seen this sort of thing make less socially adept players feel bad about their game play.
My usual "circumstance bonus" for good role play is in the range of +1 to +3 on their diplomacy, bluff or other social skill roll. And +3 would be for some really memorable role playing.
That's more than enough to encourage role playing, but not so much that it allows players to exploit their acting ability to gain an advantage in game over less outgoing or socially adept players.
I try to use situational bonus or negatives with any skill if I can. I had a player once say I stand on the table and climb the rest of the way from there. He got a bonus to his climbing up the wall that the rest of the group did not get. The same goes for social skills. Threating an enemy requires a skill check, threatening an enemy pretending to be menaically insane, holding the head of his fallen comrade while liking your bloody knife gets a bonus on the roll. In the past I have played some pretty legendary charasmatic characters (in our group). When I play low charasmatic characters I typically remind the DM my charisma sucks but I say this anyway, because I have played low charsima characters and felt they were getting bonuses because I came up with good fibs, or great one liners. There is a certain give and take that needs to happen.
Now when it comes to shy friends, new players or others that may be out of sorts at the table there should be some room for them to shine. That is just part of the fact that it is a game and people should be kind.
@ Adamantine Dragon - Agreed. If someone put his CHA score in the crapper on purpose, I expect him to generally act less than perfect. Really, though, I hope/think that my players are generally putting the group's fun over their own, and would never intentionally take advantage of another player's shyness by dumping a mental stat and compensating for it in roleplay. I'm sure you can tell that I'm a very relaxed GM who would rather just say "yes" than try to apply rule after rule to every little thing. Not that anyone is doing that here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jacob, I've only had one player in all my years of GMing that I felt was trying to "game the system". He was also an awesome and energetic role player. He frequently asked me for "role play XP" after a particularly awesome example of role playing and I just told him that I factored his role playing into the situation at hand. That way the whole party benefited from it.
This, in fact, was one reason I stopped using XP. I got tired of players lobbying for extra XP for this, that or the other thing. Plus I just felt like characters should level up according to plot, mostly because that made my job as a GM easier. :)
Not likely we're going to agree.
No, we aren't.
I have to say your post gave me a good laugh though.
I try! :D (Especially when the end result is that we're doing the same thing!)
Dragon, I'm right there with you on XP. I still use it, but I pretty much just dish it out at my discretion. I might as well be saying "you just earned 2/5 of a new level" instead of giving it an actual number.
Roleplaying XP is silly to give out to one player and not the others for that very reason. It's just like giving the fighter more XP for a combat just because he did more damage.
As for players "gaming the system," that is one thing that I will draw the line on. The entire purpose of roleplaying is defeated if any one player is out for himself at the expense of the other players of the GM.
Anyways, I think my work here is done, and I would hate to derail the topic at hand. Enjoy the rest of your chat!
|
I struggle because I don't force players to pick up 400lb items to prove their strength, nor do I expect players to demonstrate their dexterity. Yet, charisma is central to roleplay, specifically the act of pursuading others through negotiation and dialogue in matters of diplomacy. Allowing 1 character's statistic in CHA seems to promote the over-ruling of good roleplay with a simple dice roll, modified by a +5. And this isn't the kind of game I wish to run.
We had a GM that had a example lock setup that the rogue player had to really pick. He also would have puzzles you would have to solve as the player. You'd be like wtf, I am not REALLY a rogue!! I want to roll dice!
I personally use a mixture of the diplomacy/intimidate roll, roleplaying, and any other relevant information from the character sheet to shape such encounters. Race, class, background, the full list of trained skills, personalities, all of them are relevant in shaping the final number needed on the roll to get what the player wants. Also, high CHA is not always helpful; generally, the greater the difference of the CHA between the parties involved, the more likely other factors are going to come into play, such as the immediate circumstances of the scenario, what is being requested, how it is being requested, and the factors listed above. People can roleplay it out or simply describe what they are trying to do, either way, it's still more than a simple dice roll, even if that dice roll is still important to the final outcome in most circumstances.
|
I like to just keep role playing just to player back grounds if any. If the player roles high on his check i let him have some fun with it for a bit. I do agree with a lot of the posts on this topic but i found with role playing to much can start being big head aces down the road and some people just have the gift of gab witch can turn other players away but in the end role playing is part of the game,its just on DM brake time for me
When I play a character, I rarely dump Charisma because I know I am going to inevitably roleplay a highish Charisma score. The lowest it's ever been for any character is a 10.
In a similar light, those who cannot pull off roleplaying a high Charisma (or even Intelligence and Wisdom) should not play characters who have those maxed out. Now, people may get on me "but Nepherti, it's a game...the point is to play something different from yourself" and "that's too limiting." In my opinion, it's not the same. Each of our characters has a part of ourselves imbedded somewhere inside. In a way, all our characters are like some aspect of ourselves.
Now, there can be times when we step outside our comfort zones (for me that would be either a girly girl or a scarred up gladiator-type or --heaven help me--an orc). With the right table, these games can be a fun experiment. But...if you are a person who is shy, backwards, and not willing to open up, even at the table, then please don't max Charisma. Don't max it unless you're planning on playing it up. And for those who have good natural Charimsa, don't dump the stat if you can't turn it off at the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see roleplaying as earning a bonus, I see it as a minimum requirement to roll.
If you want to give a big soaring speech, you've gotta give be your personal best attempt, then you roll to see if you pulled it off, or if something went wrong.
For shy players, a lot of it is creating a safe environment. If they're playing a high cha/diplomacy character, I'll give them extra time, some hints, ask for advice from others, or just change the attitude of the audience to fit some of their ideas. This doesn't make the roll easier, it's just to help them roleplay it out.
The DC is the DC. You can get bonuses, but it won't be by more talking, you'll need to offer something the target wants, lower your expectations, etc.
Good roleplaying is what gives you the opportunity to use y our social skills.
When I play a character, I rarely dump Charisma because I know I am going to inevitably roleplay a highish Charisma score. The lowest it's ever been for any character is a 10.
In a similar light, those who cannot pull off roleplaying a high Charisma (or even Intelligence and Wisdom) should not play characters who have those maxed out. Now, people may get on me "but Nepherti, it's a game...the point is to play something different from yourself" and "that's too limiting." In my opinion, it's not the same. Each of our characters has a part of ourselves imbedded somewhere inside. In a way, all our characters are like some aspect of ourselves.
Now, there can be times when we step outside our comfort zones (for me that would be either a girly girl or a scarred up gladiator-type or --heaven help me--an orc). With the right table, these games can be a fun experiment. But...if you are a person who is shy, backwards, and not willing to open up, even at the table, then please don't max Charisma. Don't max it unless you're planning on playing it up. And for those who have good natural Charimsa, don't dump the stat if you can't turn it off at the table.
This is fine, to a point, but consider the person who could easily describe a scene, the overall impression they want their character to leave, and other pertinent facts about the scene but wouldn't be even be able to begin to act it out or come up with precisely the right exact words. Having a high charisma character should not require the player to be a great actor or orator, even if it does require them to a solid communicator so that they can get the idea across effectively and a good imaginer so that they can come up with the ideas in the first place. There are multiple ways of playing up or down whatever you put on the character sheet, and yet, when it comes to Charisma, it seems that many people are stuck on acting it out, which is not the only way. In the end, the best method is the one that everyone is satisfied with and gets the point across; as long as effort is put into it and the end result is satisfactory, the exact methods should not matter.
Agreed, sunshadow21, as a player or GM, if you're willing to work with us and at least try, I'm willing to work with you on playing it right.
I don't see roleplaying as earning a bonus, I see it as a minimum requirement to roll.
If you want to give a big soaring speech, you've gotta give be your personal best attempt, then you roll to see if you pulled it off, or if something went wrong.
For shy players, a lot of it is creating a safe environment. If they're playing a high cha/diplomacy character, I'll give them extra time, some hints, ask for advice from others, or just change the attitude of the audience to fit some of their ideas. This doesn't make the roll easier, it's just to help them roleplay it out.
The DC is the DC. You can get bonuses, but it won't be by more talking, you'll need to offer something the target wants, lower your expectations, etc.
Good roleplaying is what gives you the opportunity to use y our social skills.
I think the problem is that this is a very narrow definition of roleplaying. A lot of people who either can't or don't want to act or orate everything in great detail can still roleplay very well through how they describe their actions and the nature and diversity of the actions they are describing. I personally hate giving speeches of any kind under pretty much any circumstances; that does not mean I can't imagine what it takes to give one, or set the scene is such a way that everyone understands what my character is trying to do and how my character is trying to do it. Both are roleplaying; just because one uses 1st person and the other 3rd person shouldn't make one better than the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that this is a very narrow definition of roleplaying. A lot of people who either can't or don't want to act or orate everything in great detail can still roleplay very well through how they describe their actions and the nature and diversity of the actions they are describing. I personally hate giving speeches of any kind under pretty much any circumstances; that does not mean I can't imagine what it takes to give one, or set the scene is such a way that everyone understands what my character is trying to do and how my character is trying to do it. Both are roleplaying; just because one uses 1st person and the other 3rd person shouldn't make one better than the other.I don't see roleplaying as earning a bonus, I see it as a minimum requirement to roll.
If you want to give a big soaring speech, you've gotta give be your personal best attempt, then you roll to see if you pulled it off, or if something went wrong.
For shy players, a lot of it is creating a safe environment. If they're playing a high cha/diplomacy character, I'll give them extra time, some hints, ask for advice from others, or just change the attitude of the audience to fit some of their ideas. This doesn't make the roll easier, it's just to help them roleplay it out.
The DC is the DC. You can get bonuses, but it won't be by more talking, you'll need to offer something the target wants, lower your expectations, etc.
Good roleplaying is what gives you the opportunity to use y our social skills.
I said "personal best". I also said I'm willing to accommodate people of different skill levels.
What I don't want: "I roll diplomacy to make him friendly"
What I want: "I start with some small talk, ask him about his family... Then I mention how another family got attacked by the dragon and how sad it was... Then I ask if there's anything he can do to help us kill the dragon, like a discount on swords."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said "personal best". I also said I'm willing to accommodate people of different skill levels.
What I don't want: "I roll diplomacy to make him friendly"
What I want: "I start with some small talk, ask him about his family... Then I mention how another family got attacked by the dragon and how sad it was... Then I ask if there's anything he can do to help us kill the dragon, like a discount on swords."
That is perfectly reasonable. Some people I've run across seem to think that you unless you give the full spiel in 1st person, it's not roleplaying, and those are the ones that tend to drive me nuts.
...those who cannot pull off roleplaying a high Charisma (or even Intelligence and Wisdom) should not play characters who have those maxed out.
I actually think this is an important point. No one is saying that you shouldn't play whatever sort of character you want, merely to be cognizant of your own capabilities and limitations for the sake of believability. As a GM, my strong preference is for each character's stats and skills to reflect how they are roleplayed — particularly in a PbP. I realize this goes directly against the 'Old School' credo that was linked the up-thread, but then treating a PbP as just-a-game (rather than as a shared story) is a playstyle that doesn't appeal to my preferences.
On a related note, it's not only my belief that you should invest character-building resources in what you want your PC to be good at, but that you should also get the benefit of what you pay for.
Modeling the crunch after the fluff: If you roleplay your character like a complete airhead and as a player frequently fail to pick up on in-game cues, I'm going to suggest we either revise that 16 Wisdom you've got or offer you the option of taking a character flaw such as 'Clueless' to reconcile the discrepancy. In this case, the player gets to continue roleplaying their character as they see fit, and they get a perk for the abilities of their character that they aren't able to utilize due to their own limitations.
...as a player or GM, if you're willing to work with us and at least try, I'm willing to work with you on playing it right.
As much as I'd love it if everyone could play an 18 or 8 Wis appropriately, I am willing to work with someone who is simply passionate about trying to play a particular role. This is moreso the case when the character's abilities exceed the player's.
Facilitating a player playing the opposite of their strengths: This is perhaps more closely related to Adamantine Dragon's position. Let's say we have a player who really wants to play a gruff yet sagacious inquisitor. The player does the right thing by investing heavily in Wisdom, Knowledge skills, and Intimidation (Str-based), and likewise has little to no proficiency in any Charisma-based skills. While they'll play bad-cop from time to time, they generally leave the more delicate negotiations to the bard.
Unfortunately, by some cruel twist of fate, the player themselves has an absolutely terrible memory for detail — they'd be lucky to remember the name of their own PC's father let alone the various clues their PC has unearthed. Now unlike with the charming enchantress in the first example, simply creating a flaw called 'Forgetful' and calling it a day isn't going to work out. Perceptiveness isn't central to the first character's party role or theme, but making your sage warrior senile before middle age is going to severely handicap their main contributions to the party and their theme.
In this case, my request to the player is instead to ping other players and myself for whether or not there's any information pertinent to the situation at hand that their character would be aware of. Similarly, I'll ask them to be mindful of their shortcoming and not just blindly have their character rushing headlong into situations since there are probably factors they'll want to consider first.
That is perfectly reasonable. Some people I've run across seem to think that you unless you give the full spiel in 1st person, it's not roleplaying, and those are the ones that tend to drive me nuts.I said "personal best". I also said I'm willing to accommodate people of different skill levels.
What I don't want: "I roll diplomacy to make him friendly"
What I want: "I start with some small talk, ask him about his family... Then I mention how another family got attacked by the dragon and how sad it was... Then I ask if there's anything he can do to help us kill the dragon, like a discount on swords."
That would drive me nuts as well.
There's another game, Dungeon World, that is chock full of really good gaming advice (IMO, it's also up on Kickstarter if you're interested). They actually present it as a rule, not because they're pretentious, but because they think it improves the 'roleplaying' of a game, the rule goes something like this:
Players should never initiate actions based on the desired rule they want to engage. Rather, they should describe their actions in the fiction, and the rule that needs to be used should become obvious from their description of the action.
The guys writing the book wrote it better and with more depth than that, but you get the idea. They also cribbed it from another author, Vincent Baker, who has designed a lot of really cool games that incite some really good roleplaying out of people, but specifically it came from Apocalypse World. A player might reference the rules to clarify their intent, but everyone at the table should always try to start with narrating the story before adding in rules jargon.