Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Drifter Bob" data-source="post: 1631633" data-attributes="member: 17723">Why not?&nbsp; Why is that so different from detailing combat movement, attacks of opportunity, or the standard DC's for skills?As most people know, DnD evolved from war games.&nbsp; As a result, the most detailed parts of the rules mechanics have to do with combat.&nbsp; Leaving aside for a moment what the overall optimal level of detail or complexity in the game is, why not have a few rules for some of the other aspects of game play which people seem to enjoy bringing to the game, and have just as many player-DM disputes about as combat?For that matter, if current trends within the rules system seem to be pushing the game in the opposite direction, i.e. away from the level of role playing which seemed to prevail before, [as many people seem to feel]&nbsp; then why not adjust them back to restore the balance?I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything.&nbsp; We were simply discussing the perception of a problem with the bluff system and I pointed out a house rule solution which I use.I have to point out as well that I find it strange that you seem to feel that including a little role playing in your D&amp;D game is such an extreme, alien and radical idea.&nbsp; That is where the RP from RPG come from, in case you were wondering...If I as the NPC told a lie and the party seemed to buy into it 100%, then absolutely, why not?Again, who is forcing anything on anybody?&nbsp; If there was a rule whereby you could grant -4 to +4 for a Bluff check based on role playing, then how could this mess up your game?&nbsp; If you didn't like the idea as a DM then you would't have to do it.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't be standing behind you with a mace in your hand demading that you do so.&nbsp; And if your players complain, then do what other folks suggested I do if I don't like all the DC examples in the PhB.You are not coming off preachy, but you are making assumptions about what is being proposed here.&nbsp; Your contribution to the discussoin is certainly appreciated, but please don't conduct both sides of the argument in your head before chiming in!DB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Drifter Bob, post: 1631633, member: 17723"] Why not? Why is that so different from detailing combat movement, attacks of opportunity, or the standard DC's for skills? As most people know, DnD evolved from war games. As a result, the most detailed parts of the rules mechanics have to do with combat. Leaving aside for a moment what the overall optimal level of detail or complexity in the game is, why not have a few rules for some of the other aspects of game play which people seem to enjoy bringing to the game, and have just as many player-DM disputes about as combat? For that matter, if current trends within the rules system seem to be pushing the game in the opposite direction, i.e. away from the level of role playing which seemed to prevail before, [as many people seem to feel] then why not adjust them back to restore the balance? I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything. We were simply discussing the perception of a problem with the bluff system and I pointed out a house rule solution which I use. I have to point out as well that I find it strange that you seem to feel that including a little role playing in your D&D game is such an extreme, alien and radical idea. That is where the RP from RPG come from, in case you were wondering... If I as the NPC told a lie and the party seemed to buy into it 100%, then absolutely, why not? Again, who is forcing anything on anybody? If there was a rule whereby you could grant -4 to +4 for a Bluff check based on role playing, then how could this mess up your game? If you didn't like the idea as a DM then you would't have to do it. I certainly wouldn't be standing behind you with a mace in your hand demading that you do so. And if your players complain, then do what other folks suggested I do if I don't like all the DC examples in the PhB. You are not coming off preachy, but you are making assumptions about what is being proposed here. Your contribution to the discussoin is certainly appreciated, but please don't conduct both sides of the argument in your head before chiming in! DB [/QUOTE]

Verification