Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6024821" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Yes, definitely. This is a reaction roll in 1e. I think it's the best way to integrate RP and PC stats.Yes. 3e changed the reaction roll to a diplomacy check.Now, yeah sure you can change it back. It's a trivial houserule if you&nbsp; know what you're doing. But if you don't know what you're doing, or you&nbsp; don't like making houserules for some other reason, then you won't.&nbsp; Certainly most people who started playing D&amp;D with 3e are not going&nbsp; to use reaction rolls. They're going to allow players to &quot;diplomacize&quot;&nbsp; NPCs, because that's what the text implies. Defaults matter. It matters whether the text implies that the player initiates a Diplomacy roll, or the DM does.Again, totally agree. This is the best way to do it*. But there IS&nbsp; tension between this playstyle and other aspects of the 3e game&nbsp; (rules+text), as Water Bob has pointed out. Specifically that the game&nbsp; presents skill selection as a major component of the player's character&nbsp; build. I think it's totally fair to criticize 3e for this.*I mean think about it. The skill rules are there to allow the poor,&nbsp;&nbsp; overworked players to roll-play instead of role-play? Are you kidding&nbsp;&nbsp; me? The players have ONE character! The DM is expected to&nbsp; portray a&nbsp; cast of hundreds. The DM doesn't get to lean on the NPC's&nbsp; stats instead&nbsp; of describing them via roleplay. Why should the players?&nbsp; The skill&nbsp; rules should be a DM tool, not a player tool. The DM should&nbsp; use the&nbsp; skill rules to help them come up with the NPCs' responses to the&nbsp; PCs,&nbsp; not the other way around. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 6024821, member: 6688858"] Yes, definitely. This is a reaction roll in 1e. I think it's the best way to integrate RP and PC stats. Yes. 3e changed the reaction roll to a diplomacy check. Now, yeah sure you can change it back. It's a trivial houserule if you know what you're doing. But if you don't know what you're doing, or you don't like making houserules for some other reason, then you won't. Certainly most people who started playing D&D with 3e are not going to use reaction rolls. They're going to allow players to "diplomacize" NPCs, because that's what the text implies. [U]Defaults matter.[/U] It matters whether the text implies that the player initiates a Diplomacy roll, or the DM does. Again, totally agree. This is the best way to do it*. But there IS tension between this playstyle and other aspects of the 3e game (rules+text), as Water Bob has pointed out. Specifically that the game presents skill selection as a major component of the player's character build. I think it's totally fair to criticize 3e for this. *I mean think about it. The skill rules are there to allow the poor, overworked players to roll-play instead of role-play? Are you kidding me? The players have ONE character! The DM is expected to portray a cast of hundreds. The DM doesn't get to lean on the NPC's stats instead of describing them via roleplay. Why should the players? The skill rules should be a DM tool, not a player tool. The DM should use the skill rules to help them come up with the NPCs' responses to the PCs, not the other way around. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification