Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8145456" data-attributes="member: 29398">As a starting point.  From that initial reaction things then develop organically, largely depending on what the PCs try to do and-or how they approach it.OK - first you complain about there being no way to read the NPC's personality and-or motives, and then you complain again when an obvious means of telegraphing them is brought up.  Which half of the road do you want?It is, though, in that a player (usually) has to put more thought and effort into roleplaying a scene than into saying "Just roll the dice".Why not?  I mean, if there's a chance that would happen (and there's certainly stakes involved), doesn't internal fiction consistency demand such a check even though the result might not be what anyone wants?To me, not calling for a check just because there's the potential for an undesirable result hews rather close to fudging a damage roll so as not to kill off a PC that both its player and the GM are fond of.Agreed in theory.However, I've seen enough players (and IME at least one GM) who think the point IS to eschew the talky bits and skip to the roll that I've come to concude that this theory isn't reliable enough in the wild to be useful.The only way these people will roleplay is if there is no roll to skip to. (and I'm not talking about people with limited social skills here)IME it was used, depending on the situation, for both.Can't speak to that - while I played a fair bit of 3e I generally took a 1e approach to this aspect and left as much of the math in the DM's hands as I could. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification