New Noonage

[KarinsDad]

Dave also mentioned:

4) Maybe the biggest change that we're contemplating is that no matter where you are on the roll-talk continuum, it's going to be more than a single exchange that determines whether you overcome the challenge. Or at least let me put it this way: A single exchange is as likely to determine a social outcome as a single attack roll is likely to determine a combat outcome.

Quite frankly, I'm not too keen on making 10 social rolls in a 10 minute time frame to resolve an interaction.

 

[Blue]

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.

To me, social interactions fit more under ROLE playing then ROLL playing. When I DM, I keep track of the characters and what they can do, and the general RP of social encounters will be influenced by the numbers on the sheet, but will be driven by what's being said.

This isn't to say I don't have social rolls - I do. All come out at various times, but it's more to push something home. Think of it like this - there is no Knowledge (Tactics) roll in order to move intelligently around a battle map. Same there is no skill rolls for general interactions. There are attack rolls, and there are rolls to convince someone of something that has been set up by the RP.

In the game I run, one character is playing a diplomacy heavy build, a real talker instead of fighter, and it's been successful a good number of times. I'm sure he wouldn't complain that I'm not rolling against his skills every round.

I can see the other side of the coin. I play an 18 Chr Halfling Sorcerer in another game, and because the DM has pidgeonholed how halflings are I'm treated the same as a 10 Chr halfling. Somewhat annoying.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)