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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6151813" data-attributes="member: 6681948">As I said eariler, I cleary interpreted your "finality" to be more "final" than you intended.  I think "binding", rather than "final", might be a more appropriate term.  Your successful use of Diplomacy (whatever mechanics we adopt for same, be they the present one skill roll &D model, or some more granular social combat system) does not make the target your loyal friend for life, come what may, but it does mean the immediate objective of your diplomacy attempt is successful, and not either vetoed as "out of character" or eliminated before the benefits are realized (ie the guard does not have second thoughts and raise the alarm as you enter the camp) by a change of heart that effectively renders the initial success irrelevant.  Adding to this, it also means that the abilities of the character (such as high interaction skills) have in game relevance.  The GM cannot decide that, since the player did not make a convincing speech, neither did the player.  The character's 17 roll + 13 bonus = 30 is determinative, and the player's lack of similar oratorical skills is irrelevant.  The reverse also applies - a brilliant and impassioned speech by the player combined with a 3 on the d20 and a -1 for 8 CHA and no ranks in social skills may, for example, indicate that the PC stuttered and encountered a "say it, don't spray it" moment in his impassioned efforts to persuade the Earl to see things his way.  The PC's get abilities dictated by the in-game resources spent on those resources, not the metagame player skills.  I'm all for that - a 375 pound couch potato who has to stop for a break climbing the stairs can play a battle-hardened warrior or an agile acrobat, and the stuttering introvert should be just as able to play a smooth talking social butterly or a suave, persuasive diplomat.</blockquote>

Verification