Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 8939955" data-attributes="member: 48965">Yeah this is where I usually differ from both of the major sides in this argument as I prefer the 5e approach and it gets me accused of everything from claiming 5e can do everything to arguing in bad faith but I like what I like.IMO, I would rather have the framework, skeleton, etc of the mechanics to perform something like a buff check, or the ideals, flaws, bonds, etc. of 5e, even though the mechanical effect may be less than a game where one stance or the other is taken firmly... mainly because when I GM I can choose (based upon my group of players or even an individual player) how heavily I lean into them.For example if I have a D&D player with tastes similar to yours then I'm going to use the roleplaying out of the bluff as the main determiner for whether it succeeds or not with the die roll only coming into play as a determiner if you've said something nebulous or that this NPC would be hostile against.  On the other hand if I have a player whose shy, may not particularly enjoy that aspect of the game, or may not possess the oratory skills to express themselves as their character would, I see no problem with that player giving me a goal and how their character approaches it with success based on the die roll and the system in the DMG.</blockquote>