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: 2576012" data-attributes="member: 18649">Exactly the approach I prefer.  I want to role-play day-to-day life as my character, but in any situation or conflict where my success or failure changes the plot, I want equity in rulings from the DM, and you can't say dice + bonuses works in combat, and then arbitrarily say dice + bonuses might work for bluff, let me see if I like your portrayal.Don Tadow, trust me, I understand your underlying logic and concerns.  Believe me, I hate the "I attack.  26.  You hit.  Roll for damage.  The monster attacks. 24. You take 14 damage." interchanges just like you.  Listening to other players min/max their fighter's feat chains and flipping through supplements to get the best new spell for their wizard to induce enemy crisping makes me nauseous. The thought of playing Warhammer miniatures and lining up little figures just to roll out a battle makes me crawl in my skin.  I like talking in character, exploring their backgrounds, motivations, and working that into the plot the DM is creating.  Where I draw the line is in actions that have chances of success or failure, combat or non-combat.  So if I want to bluff or if I want to shoot an arrow, I expect equity from my DM.  I'm not skilled at talking in character all the time, and I want my chance to have my character to succeed not depend on that.It's very easy to slip from "quality of role-playing affects my arbitrations as DM," to "quality of role-playing determines outcomes of my arbitrations as DM."  That simply isn't fair to me if I'm not quick at developing in-character dialogue and the player next to me is.  I also feel there is some very basic motivation factors DMs overlook in their pursuit of less hack 'n slash and more role-playing.  Players will develop non-combat characters only as much as the DM rewards those pursuits in character development. I could give you a descriptive case-study, but my posts are too long as it is.Bottom line is if you dislike hack'n'slash, but let PCs be proficient in combat based on bonuses from RAW, just to dispense with it, you are showing that combat bonuses work without question.  If you adjuticate social interactions not on a dice roll plus bonuses against target, as the RAW prescribes, but instead based on quality of play, you devalue those bonuses.  You show that those bonuses and game mechanics don't work as advertised, only as you see fit; you say "don't pick this character path.  Picking a combat character is more a cost effective use of the time you spend developing your character."  So while you want less combat, more talk, if you don't treat talk fairly, you'll encourage it less.</blockquote>

Verification