Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6279054" data-attributes="member: 20323">I have a very biased opinion about social skills (skills in general, actually) in RPGs, so take this with a grain of salt. My bias is that good ideas should always be weighted more heavily than numbers. First of all the DM's best friend (the +2 modifier) is only a 10% adjustment. When a player comes up with a really good idea, my first instinct is not to say &quot;Ok, you are 10% more likely to succeed now.&quot; As an extension of that logic, I want to encourage good ideas, so why even bother with a chance for it to fail? Particularly in PC-NPC interaction this works very well for players who prefer to method-act rather than roll dice, and let's both types of players (method-actors &amp; rollers) play side by side.Now, D&amp;D Next would say about a +30% on average (what advantage works out to) is right. My thinking is why even bother with risk of failure? It's a good idea. Don't let it go to waste. I don't know how many times I've been in games where a player has a really great idea and then they flub their roll, only to get this dejected look on their face. It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me <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=":)" /> And that should be reserved for dungeon design!In regard to your other idea, if I make the roleplaying required to access a skill check, that's a change that affects both player types. IOW now the player who is not so good at method-acting or the role-playing side of things (who I'm calling the &quot;roller&quot;) is now requires to roleplay their interaction in order to make a skill check at all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it definitely is an imposition on the players that the DM should make sure they are cool with before implementing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 6279054, member: 20323"] I have a very biased opinion about social skills (skills in general, actually) in RPGs, so take this with a grain of salt. My bias is that good ideas should always be weighted more heavily than numbers. First of all the DM's best friend (the +2 modifier) is only a 10% adjustment. When a player comes up with a really good idea, my first instinct is not to say "Ok, you are 10% more likely to succeed now." As an extension of that logic, I want to encourage good ideas, so why even bother with a chance for it to fail? Particularly in PC-NPC interaction this works very well for players who prefer to method-act rather than roll dice, and let's both types of players (method-actors & rollers) play side by side. Now, D&D Next would say about a +30% on average (what advantage works out to) is right. My thinking is why even bother with risk of failure? It's a good idea. Don't let it go to waste. I don't know how many times I've been in games where a player has a really great idea and then they flub their roll, only to get this dejected look on their face. It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me :) And that should be reserved for dungeon design! In regard to your other idea, if I make the roleplaying required to access a skill check, that's a change that affects both player types. IOW now the player who is not so good at method-acting or the role-playing side of things (who I'm calling the "roller") is now requires to roleplay their interaction in order to make a skill check at all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it definitely is an imposition on the players that the DM should make sure they are cool with before implementing. [/QUOTE]

Verification