Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 4102550" data-attributes="member: 1465">You don't need rule to tell you how to act in-character.But you need rules to determine the outcome of out-of-combat tasks.Without such rules, the outcome of out-of-combat situations is totally at DM's discretion, which means most of the time that the DM will make the players &quot;win/lose&quot; depending on whether she likes how they acted in-character or what they make their characters say. This has a couple of potential problems for groups that don't have a really high trust in the DMs:- charismatic players trump non-charismatic players more if there aren't out-of-combat rules, which can be unfun for the latter- player's charisma make the PC's charisma irrelevant in those situations: it means it's hard to even simulate a charismatic character if you're not charismatic yourself- most often than not, the DM is faced with the dilemma on making the decision based on her taste: did the character tell a good lie to the guards? If the DM makes the PC lose too often, the players starts seeing the DM as unfair; if the DM makes them win too often, it's boring. The average DM will just make it &quot;political&quot; and make them win 2/3 of the times, &quot;whatever... you get past the guard&quot;.Having rules out-of-combat is not a restriction, it's a HELP.It helps the DM make the final decision: the DM still gives some bonus/penalty to rolls to represent his own adjudication, but if there are rules (and rolls), the players will not complain that the DM is &quot;unfair&quot; if they fail often (they may complain about excessive use of penalties, but not about the actual results).It helps the players make their character design meaningful: the player may be shy, but a high PC's charisma will compensate on the rolls.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 4102550, member: 1465"] You don't need rule to tell you how to act in-character. But you need rules to determine the outcome of out-of-combat tasks. Without such rules, the outcome of out-of-combat situations is totally at DM's discretion, which means most of the time that the DM will make the players "win/lose" depending on whether she likes how they acted in-character or what they make their characters say. This has a couple of potential problems for groups that don't have a really high trust in the DMs: - charismatic players trump non-charismatic players more if there aren't out-of-combat rules, which can be unfun for the latter - player's charisma make the PC's charisma irrelevant in those situations: it means it's hard to even simulate a charismatic character if you're not charismatic yourself - most often than not, the DM is faced with the dilemma on making the decision based on her taste: did the character tell a good lie to the guards? If the DM makes the PC lose too often, the players starts seeing the DM as unfair; if the DM makes them win too often, it's boring. The average DM will just make it "political" and make them win 2/3 of the times, "whatever... you get past the guard". Having rules out-of-combat is not a restriction, it's a HELP. It helps the DM make the final decision: the DM still gives some bonus/penalty to rolls to represent his own adjudication, but if there are rules (and rolls), the players will not complain that the DM is "unfair" if they fail often (they may complain about excessive use of penalties, but not about the actual results). It helps the players make their character design meaningful: the player may be shy, but a high PC's charisma will compensate on the rolls. [/QUOTE]

Verification