New Noonage

[I'm A Banana]

This news makes me smile.

And not with sarcasm, either!

 

[Pamela]

I also like talk, then roll. If the "talk" is good, I'll usually skip the roll. If the talk is bad, I'll let the player roll to simulate the fact that his character might be a bit more suave than he is in person.

Psst, you've just been quoted in Dave Noonan's blog:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13551610&postcount=8

I also agree with you. If a player's done an excellent job in role-playing right before your eyes, then reward him accordingly.

 

[shikage]

I also like talk, then roll. If the "talk" is good, I'll usually skip the roll. If the talk is bad, I'll let the player roll to simulate the fact that his character might be a bit more suave than he is in person.

I only partially agree with this. After all, the player is not the character. I think it is important to include both talk and roll. Firstly, as you state the character might be a bit more suave than the player but it could go the other way. However, there should always be reward for excellent role play and dialoge, an effort to put themselves in the game beyond the stats but the stats still need to count for something so I'd just mentally add in a bonus or adjust the DC or something along those lines to give the good RPer a bonus in their attempt.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I only partially agree with this. After all, the player is not the character. I think it is important to include both talk and roll. Firstly, as you state the character might be a bit more suave than the player but it could go the other way. However, there should always be reward for excellent role play and dialoge, an effort to put themselves in the game beyond the stats but the stats still need to count for something so I'd just mentally add in a bonus or adjust the DC or something along those lines to give the good RPer a bonus in their attempt.

Problem with this 'mentally give them a bonus' is that the players don't know it and have no reason to put themselves into the effort to role play if they don't think they're going to be awarded for it.

On the other hand, I've seen some people trying to ham it up because they thought it'd lead to more awards in xp, etc... and all they really did was waste time.

But opinions vary and all that. Some other players might've thought the players were being highly entertaining for exmaple.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Reading carefully through Dave's blog suggests that the "roll then talk", "talk then roll" or "just roll" options are supported. Or potentially will be depending on playtest results.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

I also like talk, then roll. If the "talk" is good, I'll usually skip the roll.

So, if I'm really into martial arts, can I describe exactly what my monk is doing in order to skip the attack roll? At the least, you'll give me a +2 or +4 bonus if I'm sufficiently descriptive, right?

There's a reason why Charisma has always been the dump stat, why social interaction rules are so stunted in D&D. The player's ability to describe what he's doing with his sword is flavor, with no impact on the success or failure of the sword strike. Why should the player's ability to describe what he's doing with his speech be paramount, the defining (or even relevant) factor in determining success or failure of diplomacy?

As long as a 8 Str/16 Cha player can play a 16 Str/8 Cha PC, and effectively play him as having a 16 in both attributes, Charisma and social interaction skills are meaningless.

I'll admit that I'm guilty of this myself. Generally speaking, my personal diplomacy skill is usually higher than my PC's. If the player's skill at social interaction is going to be the determining factor, I'm fine with that. If the PC's skill at social interaction is going to be the determining factor, I'm also fine with that.

I'd just like a little consistency. The current system we have leads to uncertainty--if the dice roll is important, the group should push the socially maladjusted player who never talks (but has a Paladin with +17 Diplomacy) to be doing the negotiation; if not, the silvertongued salesman who loves the sound of his own voice (but plays a half-orc barbarian with -2 Diplomacy) is the best choice.

Switching back and forth, depending on the GM's whim and whether you can coerce a skill roll from him, is the worst of all worlds.

 

[Christian]

So, if I'm really into martial arts, can I describe exactly what my monk is doing in order to skip the attack roll? At the least, you'll give me a +2 or +4 bonus if I'm sufficiently descriptive, right?

This isn't necessarily how it works. (It probably is how some DMs do this, of course.) But may I revise your example? Session before last, our party's monk suggested a re-arrangement to our overland marching order to make us less susceptible to ambush. The tactical understanding of the player (an active-duty Marine) thus made his character, and the whole party, more combat-effective. Likewise, if a player's negotiation strategy takes advantage in some way of the game situation or the player's understanding of the NPC's needs or motivations, it makes sense to give him a bonus on his social interaction rolls ... If a DM is adjusting the character's success based on the player's persuasiveness, I agree that that's wrong. His character may be better at choosing his words than the player; but I like the idea of rewarding players that are paying more attention & figuring out what's really going on.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Psst, you've just been quoted in Dave Noonan's blog:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13551610&postcount=8

Sniff... it's that D&D sixth-sense that drew me to these boards all those years ago. The rampant speculation and irate bickering I see on these boards now makes me all nostalgic for those days!

 

[Stalker0]

I do a bit of both, but I prefer the roll then talk way of rp. I enjoy the variety of trying to rp a good roll and then having to give a messed up speech if I roll badly.

But regardless, I think social rules are greatly needed. As always, if a group wants to just completely rp through social stuff, they have the freedom to toss the rules. But for those of us who do want the stats to matter for social situations, we NEED a better system.

I am greatly in favor of having multiple steps to social situations. That's how it works in "real life" its give and take until a consensus is reached or someone gets angry and storms away.

Overall, I'm hopeful that all stats do some contribution to combat and social combat.

 

[Korgoth]

I like a "talk, no roll" system. I'd rather take charisma into account as part of the whole picture: situation, context, identity of the involved parties, charisma score, how the talk actually went. I might make a "high-low" roll if it's "on the fence", so to speak.

Sitting around the table, we have no access to swords, swordfighting, massive underground complexes or live dragons. But we are able to talk. It's the one thing we don't have to abstractify.