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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5083195" data-attributes="member: 63214">Are you okay with those disadvantages causing a player not to participate? Or rather, having the potential for causing it? Anyway, good points. But the goal isn't realism, it's getting players to participate and have fun. Here is what happens at my table when there is a social skill check or challenge, assuming I run it by the book:1. The player of the non-social characters will tell the other players the idea OOC, then we'll return to IC and the high diplomacy guy will just parrot it. It's just kind of ridiculous. I'd rather skip the middle man. Anyone can say their ideas and someone rolls a diplomacy. It's completely unrealistic, makes it so you really only need one guy trained in it, but I'm not convinced those are bad things. Is it different from having one guy trained in a knowledge skill or one guy trained in thievery? Or what have you? If you don't train Arcana you aren't punished, unless the guy with Arcana doesn't tell what his arcana checks confer, which is its own issue. Or...2. The player is intimidated and doesn't say anything at all.So, what I can do is encourage my players to participate no matter what their numbers say, because I'll assure them failure is fun too, or I can pull back a layer of restriction on the rules. Or I can try to force them to be in in character. Force + D&D = ...not me.EDIT: To be clear, the final idea still has to be good. The barbarian can't rage in saying "ME FOOOOD!" and the bard rolls a 40 diplomacy for him. It's just so the game can keep flowing easily and well, with the social situation occurring elegantly. Completely case-by-case.</blockquote>

Verification