Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="helium3" data-source="post: 3952013" data-attributes="member: 31301">I'm sort of in the middle of the road here. I'm not as focused on the "story" that's told as I am on the experience at the table. If the dice dish out a roll that's going to make the "experience" really suck I generally start to consider how I'll use rule zero.As for Diplomacy, the way I handle it is to let the players roll their check if they want to at the start and then we basically role-play out the encounter, with the understanding that the outcome will be whatever the dice roll said it was. The dice may say that the diplomacy check is successful, but they don't say how long it takes to happen. This usually works pretty well for me.What also helps is that I haven't fallen prey to this weird idea that a lot of players seem to have that using the Diplomacy skill is like giving a really convincing speech. Real diplomacy isn't like that at all. It's more like a slow and methodical conversation. Both sides have an agenda and Diplomacy is the act of finding a middle ground that makes both sides reasonably happy.I also, as the DM, make all the Diplomacy rolls "behind the veil." So when I said earlier that I let the players roll their check, I meant I let them decide to roll a check. They don't have to if they don't want to. Alternatively, they can choose to roll the check later in the encounter.</blockquote>