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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6201975" data-attributes="member: 17106">That doesn't sound like something I would say. There is a difference between something abstract like Diplomacy and something discrete like an attack roll; there is clearly a lot more room for interpretation on the former. That's largely a consequence of the level of granularity in the system, as well as the nature of the acts being described. Fighting and talking are not a dichotomy, and their scope is not equivalent.I can think of plenty of examples where a player might want to do something in combat but not get exactly what he wants, but it does happen less often there than with skills. If there was a skill called "combat", and you simply rolled vs a DC and the battle was over, I imagine there would be more need for the DM to make rulings on that skill.Because you've tried fighting one of my battles? Well, that makes you a very hard line player.Once you define the DM as being something less than all-powerful, it's a very slippery slope. If it's your choice as to when to roll Diplomacy, for example, is it also your choice when to throw in a +2 circumstance bonus? Do you determine whether a retry is viable? Where does the player's control end?Since you're taking a hard line position on a metagame consideration, you'd probably be happier with a combat character in my approach. That's fine. Different characters attract different types of people. I do find that players who are insecure about these things swing that way somewhat. Playing a rogue is an exercise in trust. Playing a cleric is inviting extraplanar forces to screw with you. Playing a wizard is rather like being a lawyer; everything has to be cataloged and everything's up for debate. Playing a fighter, you do know what you're getting more often than not, and that is part of the appeal.However, if you were just any player, you might well be more concerned with something other than how much granularity with which the mechanics define your actions. If you were simply concerned with getting a good outcome and didn't care how, you might be well served to make a versatile character with combat and non-combat abilities, knowing that you can try to talk your way through things or sneak around them or whatever, but that when that fails, which is sometimes out of your control, you'll have options.Which is exactly what the character's perspective should be on these issues; he has no idea who adjudicates his actions, he only observes what happens.</blockquote>

Verification