Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bert1000" data-source="post: 6207768" data-attributes="member: 29013">Assuming the dice roll (modified by skills, etc.) is the mechanism that determines the reality of the in game fiction, then I actually prefer to let the dice influence what I say.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I find this actually supports good roleplaying.&nbsp; Roleplaying defined as “making decisions, taking actions, saying things, etc. as if I had the characters abilities, personality, experience, history, etc.” It certainly cuts down on your “freedom to play”, but in a good way I would argue.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you are playing a role, it’s nice to have some guidance that helps model that role (in this case the social skill check).I generally prefer:1) State intent&nbsp; (“I’d like to convince the landowner that the goblin threat is real and he should let us march through his lands”)2) Roll to determine outcome (Failure)3) DM / player jointly role-play description of outcome and dialogue (Player: “You have a wonderful heard of cattle, Lord Abernathy”&nbsp; DM:&nbsp; “I hate kiss ups.&nbsp;&nbsp; My cattle are the same cattle as my neighbors.&nbsp; Why are you here?&nbsp; Etc.”This has several advantages.&nbsp;&nbsp; It rewards resources spent on character traits/abilities, it avoids awkward retcons after the roll is made, it removes Player and DM personal ability and preferences from the outcome (a feature in this case), and it allows the player and DM to create a description of the result together, which is fun and easier.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the player rolls a failure he has all kinds of creative leeway in figuring out how it ends of being a failure and the DM can help.&nbsp;&nbsp; Same with a success.&nbsp;&nbsp; In groups that enjoy roleplaying for roleplaying’s sake, I think this method works well.&nbsp; Not sure this would “incentive” those who don’t want to do so.To me, this is more fun as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; I get to figure out how to lead the conversation, etc. toward the determined outcome and I get a partner to do so (the DM).It’s not my favorite but I don’t hate a more player ability influenced game like you are describing, but I do want it to be spelled out clearly upfront that that is the way things work.&nbsp; And I don’t want any options for character resources to be spent on the mental/social etc. abilities that get overridden by player skill.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bert1000, post: 6207768, member: 29013"] Assuming the dice roll (modified by skills, etc.) is the mechanism that determines the reality of the in game fiction, then I actually prefer to let the dice influence what I say. I find this actually supports good roleplaying. Roleplaying defined as “making decisions, taking actions, saying things, etc. as if I had the characters abilities, personality, experience, history, etc.” It certainly cuts down on your “freedom to play”, but in a good way I would argue. If you are playing a role, it’s nice to have some guidance that helps model that role (in this case the social skill check). I generally prefer: 1) State intent (“I’d like to convince the landowner that the goblin threat is real and he should let us march through his lands”) 2) Roll to determine outcome (Failure) 3) DM / player jointly role-play description of outcome and dialogue (Player: “You have a wonderful heard of cattle, Lord Abernathy” DM: “I hate kiss ups. My cattle are the same cattle as my neighbors. Why are you here? Etc.” This has several advantages. It rewards resources spent on character traits/abilities, it avoids awkward retcons after the roll is made, it removes Player and DM personal ability and preferences from the outcome (a feature in this case), and it allows the player and DM to create a description of the result together, which is fun and easier. If the player rolls a failure he has all kinds of creative leeway in figuring out how it ends of being a failure and the DM can help. Same with a success. In groups that enjoy roleplaying for roleplaying’s sake, I think this method works well. Not sure this would “incentive” those who don’t want to do so. To me, this is more fun as well. I get to figure out how to lead the conversation, etc. toward the determined outcome and I get a partner to do so (the DM). It’s not my favorite but I don’t hate a more player ability influenced game like you are describing, but I do want it to be spelled out clearly upfront that that is the way things work. And I don’t want any options for character resources to be spent on the mental/social etc. abilities that get overridden by player skill. [/QUOTE]

Verification