iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Excepting, of course, it's fun to act and my players will do it for that reason only.
And sometimes the flowery speech (or whatever) might be worth Inspiration, depending on the PC's personal characteristics.
Excepting, of course, it's fun to act and my players will do it for that reason only.
Having seen both sides of this fence, as I mentioned in my edit, I think it has more to do with a desire to preserve the fidelity of the roleplay. Like Hussar said, “You will almost always make a check, because making the check is how I enforce players actually playing the characters that they made. If you have no skill in persuasion and you have an 8 Cha, you don't actually say whatever it is you, the player, have said. What you actually said in the game world is defined by the check you made to persuade that NPC to do something.”
It’s not so much about giving the DM too much power (though I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case for some folks), it has more to do with insuring that the players don’t “cheat” by dumping mental and social stats and then roleplaying around ever having to make checks with them. That’s where the whole “player skill vs. character skill” argument comes from. And saying that you are only taking into account the goal and approach, not the performance, doesn’t really do anything to assuage those concerns. Because the primary concern isn’t about being fair to players of all social skill and comfort levels (though I’m sure that is a goal.) The primary concern is not letting the characters succeed in arenas they have low stats in without a lucky roll.
Partly, but it’s more than that. The thinking goes, no matter what your approach, if your goal is to kill the orc, you’re gonna need to make an attack roll. If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade the king, and you can do that without having to make a Charisma check with the right approach, then the game is unfairly favoring physical stats.Well, yeah, but I think part of that is a fear of letting DM judgment override mechanics. That is, that the DM will let him/herself be swayed by player eloquence.
Partly, but it’s more than that. The thinking goes, no matter what your approach, if your goal is to kill the orc, you’re gonna need to make an attack roll. If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade the king, and you can do that without having to make a Charisma check with the right approach, then the game is unfairly favoring physical stats.
Partly, but it’s more than that. The thinking goes, no matter what your approach, if your goal is to kill the orc, you’re gonna need to make an attack roll. If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade the king, and you can do that without having to make a Charisma check with the right approach, then the game is unfairly favoring physical stats.
My motto remains: "Challenge the player, not the build."
Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?
If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?
Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?
If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?
Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?
If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?