Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8939987" data-attributes="member: 6785785">But really, what more needs to be said? &quot;Ah my good yeoman, please allow me entry to yon soiree post haste. I assure you I am on the guest list.&quot;That doesn't really do anything more. It adds the thinnest veneer of color, but otherwise works just the same. Now, if there's more to this interaction that what it seems, I don't think it's bad to expand on things. To ask questions or to prompt the player in some way. But otherwise, I have a couple of issues with it. First, it seems to be more about me convincing the DM to let the attempt work, rather than Jerelei convincing the guard. Second, stats (whether in the form of attributes or skills or what have you) tell us about a character; my skill in Bluffing will inform how I proceed here. If I don't have such a stat, then I have no idea how good my character is at Bluffing people. In the absence of that... it's hard to see it as a game. I'm not making an informed decision to try Bluff (versus other approaches), I have no sense of my odds at all, and there's no random element like a die roll to help determine the outcome. It's just the DM making me speak in character, and then deciding if what I've said is &quot;good enough&quot; in whatever sense he feels &quot;good&quot; to be. Now, some folks really enjoy character portrayal. And that's cool. My play isn't entirely without it, I just don't tend to focus on it so much, and save it for more meaningful scenes. Likely, in this example, whatever's going on in the ball. I find that roleplaying... for me... is more about the decisions I make for the character than about the dialogue I choose to use for them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8939987, member: 6785785"] But really, what more needs to be said? "Ah my good yeoman, please allow me entry to yon soiree post haste. I assure you I am on the guest list." That doesn't really do anything more. It adds the thinnest veneer of color, but otherwise works just the same. Now, if there's more to this interaction that what it seems, I don't think it's bad to expand on things. To ask questions or to prompt the player in some way. But otherwise, I have a couple of issues with it. First, it seems to be more about me convincing the DM to let the attempt work, rather than Jerelei convincing the guard. Second, stats (whether in the form of attributes or skills or what have you) tell us about a character; my skill in Bluffing will inform how I proceed here. If I don't have such a stat, then I have no idea how good my character is at Bluffing people. In the absence of that... it's hard to see it as a game. I'm not making an informed decision to try Bluff (versus other approaches), I have no sense of my odds at all, and there's no random element like a die roll to help determine the outcome. It's just the DM making me speak in character, and then deciding if what I've said is "good enough" in whatever sense he feels "good" to be. Now, some folks really enjoy character portrayal. And that's cool. My play isn't entirely without it, I just don't tend to focus on it so much, and save it for more meaningful scenes. Likely, in this example, whatever's going on in the ball. I find that roleplaying... for me... is more about the decisions I make for the character than about the dialogue I choose to use for them. [/QUOTE]

Verification