Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5656246" data-attributes="member: 94022">Personally, I kind of like what he's talking about here, and I think it ties in well with last week's topic.&nbsp; I don't think its perfect as written necessarily, but I think it does provide a nice framework.&nbsp; &nbsp;I know for my money, it always kind of sucks when you get the super trained character (say the bard with the silver tongue) who rolls for diplomacy and rolls really bad, just barely missing and then the barbarian walks up and say &quot;What the heck, I'll give it a try *rolls* . . . Hey!&nbsp; Nat 20!&quot;&nbsp;DM:&nbsp; Yeah, you just barely make it.&nbsp;I know that its easy enough to explain this (the bard's having a bad day, or the barbarian suddenly has a brilliant insight or his diplomacy actually comes off as a bit of an intimidate, etc.) but it still tends to be frustrating for the player who invested in diplomacy (or whatever skill) only to have the day saved by the guy who completed neglected it.&nbsp; Even the rest of the group will often laugh about it, but still feel like they are breaking immersion.&nbsp;With this system, the bard might still roll poorly, but he's still going to be better off than the barbarian.&nbsp; You really can say &quot;No, step back Grok, you'll only make things worse.&nbsp; I might not make it better, but at least I won't make it worse.&quot;&nbsp; (Note, it really doesn't matter if from a mechanical perspective Grok actually CAN make it worse).&nbsp; &nbsp;The down side to this system is that some groups could use it as an excuse to reduce roleplay. (i.e. -- &quot;Ahh, well, you walk across the rope then.&quot;)&nbsp; Of course, nothing would prevent the group from roleplaying this, but the tendency would often be to not roleplay it simply because it could make it seem less important in the overall scheme of things.&nbsp; After all, we tend to associate the important moments in the game with a roll of the die.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5656246, member: 94022"] Personally, I kind of like what he's talking about here, and I think it ties in well with last week's topic. I don't think its perfect as written necessarily, but I think it does provide a nice framework. I know for my money, it always kind of sucks when you get the super trained character (say the bard with the silver tongue) who rolls for diplomacy and rolls really bad, just barely missing and then the barbarian walks up and say "What the heck, I'll give it a try *rolls* . . . Hey! Nat 20!" DM: Yeah, you just barely make it. I know that its easy enough to explain this (the bard's having a bad day, or the barbarian suddenly has a brilliant insight or his diplomacy actually comes off as a bit of an intimidate, etc.) but it still tends to be frustrating for the player who invested in diplomacy (or whatever skill) only to have the day saved by the guy who completed neglected it. Even the rest of the group will often laugh about it, but still feel like they are breaking immersion. With this system, the bard might still roll poorly, but he's still going to be better off than the barbarian. You really can say "No, step back Grok, you'll only make things worse. I might not make it better, but at least I won't make it worse." (Note, it really doesn't matter if from a mechanical perspective Grok actually CAN make it worse). The down side to this system is that some groups could use it as an excuse to reduce roleplay. (i.e. -- "Ahh, well, you walk across the rope then.") Of course, nothing would prevent the group from roleplaying this, but the tendency would often be to not roleplay it simply because it could make it seem less important in the overall scheme of things. After all, we tend to associate the important moments in the game with a roll of the die. [/QUOTE]

Verification