Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DamionW" data-source="post: 2575332" data-attributes="member: 18649">That's my point exactly.  I'm glad others see the validity in it.  In combat, saying "I try and hurt the bad guy" is not specific enough to determine whether the mechanics define the rate of failure to success in all instances.  Saying "I swing my long sword at this orc in the adjacent space," does define the standards to be applied and the combat proceeds.  An attack roll is made and all relevant modifiers from the character's sheet that apply to swinging a long sword at an orc are put into effect with that roll and the DM arbitrates success or failure.  No DM predicates that success or failure on the real player physically picking up a longsword and swinging it, i.e. mimicing the in-game action in a meta-game setting to adjuticate success or failure.Now, I agree saying "I bluff the guard," is poor playing, but more importantly, it doesn't provide sufficient criteria to adjuticate success or failure of that action.  On the other hand, saying "I try and convince the guard I'm the son of Count Monte Cristo and I'm late for an appointment, let me pass," does establish a specific enough course of action to decide my bluff's chances of working or not.  My big gripe is with people of DonTadow's mindset that proper role-playing of social skills requires me to tell the story in character at the table that the guard would hear in game, and the believability of my intonation, the steadiness of my voice, and the eloquence I speak with should determine the outcome of the action.  You are now applying a standard for some parts of the game where success is based on the player's (not character's) capacity to mimic an in-game action in meta-game space.  That's not fair to arbitrarily decide simply because you enjoy acting in character.I'm not a roll-player.  I like having a strong character concepts and good plotlines.  How many munchkin players would create rogue/wizard characters with most of their ranks in diplomacy and bluff and specialize in enchantment barring evocation.  I made a character based on the idea that he is one of the best in the campaign world at manipulating people with words.  I gave up fireballs and proficient sneak attacks to do that.  If I as Mr. John Doe in the real world can't pull off a good lie to tell you acting as the guard at the table, why should my character concept get deflated for it?  He has all of those bonuses because I invested character development to make it that way.  To punish me for my acting skills is to say "stock up on combat abilities, because those are the only ones that work as advertized.  Social concept characters are going to be what I think they should be, so start taking acting lessons."And Hypersmurf, if I wanted my character to be able to say what I can say, to have to "throw myself" at the actions my characters try and undertake, I'd be in a costume somewhere playing LARP, taking swordfighting lessons.  Keep in mind there are Role- (not roll-) players out there that just happen not to be good actors, and we want equity in DMing with the munchkin combat fiends.</blockquote>

Verification