Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6238618" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I generally get concerned about "player skill" when we deal with interaction skills.  I game to play someone with abilities different from my own.  A player who is not well spoken, perhaps a wallflower, should be able to play a suave, smooth talking con man, or a diplomat, or whatever (just like an obese couch potato can play a nimble acrobat or powerful warrior).  No one would think of asking a player to "role play" the Kirk shoulder roll coming up, dagger drawn, to slice an adversary.  But "role play your speech" is far more common.  The glib, well spoken player who thinks on his feet should not get better results with his 8 CHA, no social skills character because of "player skill" than the 18 CHA PC who maxes out his social skills (at the expense of other abilities) who is played by an introverted, stuttering wallflower.  Put another way, the glib player's bonuses for a well made speech should be no greater than the combat bonus awarded our wallflower because he, IRL, has a black belt, and he demonstrates some martial arts moves in describing his character's actions.  Similarly, if the wallflower is penalized for an insipid real-life speech, I want to see Tubby role play that sprint across the rocks and shoulder roll into an imaginary opponent, regardless of his character's acrobatics roll and BAB.  The relative impact of character and player skill should be consistent across all tasks.Or be upfront and state no one should waste skill points on interaction skills, or stats on CHA, as you will evaluate success and failure of interaction based on role playing and player skill alone.  That's pretty much the pre-3e model as there were no social skills - and what was the lowest stat on most characters in 1e and 2e?</blockquote>

Verification