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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frostmarrow" data-source="post: 3197679" data-attributes="member: 1122">For me, the role-playing that takes place around the table is the game. Moving minis around and rolling dice is just a game within the game. It's good old fun. However, there is a reward in role-playing around an obstacle that just isn't awarded by rolling dice. There is no denying that.For sure, if your character is a silver-tongued devil then the system needs to take that into account. If your DM won't listen to your person he might have to listen to your scores. Still there are other ways that will allow a player to eat the cake as well as keep it.The problems of adventure design and DMing, as you mention, does keep rearing its ugly head. To me that says the diplomacy rules as written aren't perfect. On the other hand the idea of moving pieces around and rolling dice is. Its been around for at least a century and people keep doing it and having fun whilst. So, there is a problem with the diplomacy rules.In Vampire the Masquerade there were rules for social interaction including rules for domination and awe that used hand signals. It worked better than dice rolling since it allowed people to have strengths, but the method used stayed within the medium of talking to one another. I'm not saying D&D:ers should start using hand signals just that there is a reason many people question the diplomacy rules, and that we should keep discussing them until someone comes up with something better.We have today several options: RAW, Rich Burlew's variant, and straight role-playing á la 1st Ed (in 1st aid a people-person casts Charm Person a lot; a spell for those who lack charisma IRL.)</blockquote>

Verification