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: 6239092" data-attributes="member: 6681948">So if I have a charismatic player who invests entirely in combat skills for the character, he should get 100% of the benefits from his combat skills, but still get half the benefits of non-combat skills due to player ability.  Meanwhile, a player who is not so charismatic, but invests all their character resources in interaction skills, should suck on ice in combat,  but only get half the benefits to interaction.Seems like only the charismatic player should buy interaction skills, since they are the only ones who will get the full benefit from that investment, and wallflowers should stick to combat characters.  Not the approach I prefer.First, I didn’t say bonuses in noncombat skill should be eliminated, but that they should be on a par with bonuses in combat.  A player does not get a bonus for showing you how skillfully he can fence in real life, so he should not get a bonus for being a great speaker in real life either.He might get a bonus for, say, having higher ground (set out in the rules). A similar bonus might apply to interaction skills because he has a bit of dirt on the other person trying to persuade the same target.  He may have physical evidence which would be persuasive to the target, or he might just purchase a gift for the target of his diplomatic efforts. But if the maximum bonus I would give in combat is, say, +4, and it scales down from there, I would suggest the maximum interaction bonus should similarly be +4, and scale down similarly.I do agree a more robust negotiation system would be good, but I can also see it implemented in play. If we just drop in on the King looking to get our desired result (whatever that may be), are our chances very good?  Maybe we should start by researching who has the King’s ear, and working on some of his advisors to build support for our position.  Perhaps we can find out some things of value to the King, and show that we have common goals and values by our actions.  In other words, apply some tactics to the efforts to win the King over, and not just say “I rolled a 22 – does the King agree?”Rather than a single die roll, the efforts to persuade the King now become a tactical exercise different from, but on a similar scale of complexity to, combat.I could also assert the STR and DEX of a character should play a part in determining success in combat, but should not play the game for the player.  Let’s see Charlie Couch Potato role play that shoulder roll.If he pulls sword and challenges the guard, what will we require for his success in combat?  Does he just get to roll and get a 22? Does that not equally suck the fun out of the game? I don’t disagree that the game is much more engaging when the players put some real thought and description into their actions, but the default level of description and effort should not differ between, say, Searching, swinging a sword and persuading a guard. If I can make a normal to hit roll with “I attack the guard”, then a normal diplomacy roll should arise from “I persuade the guard”. If I would allow a +1 bonus in combat for a well described attack, a similarly well described interaction should generate the same +1 bonus.Another option is certainly to say “Don’t bother with interaction skills – in my game, success or failure in interaction is determined by role playing”. But don’t let a player spend a pile of character resources on CHA and interaction skills, then say “Well, sure, you have a +15 roll, but Charlie made a good speech so his 8 CHA, no interaction skills character gets knighted and your character is tossed out on his ear“.  There is a reason CHA was commonly a dump stat in OD&D.Emphasis added.  If the player adds valid content, then this should influence the roll.  But the bonus should be independent of delivery. Having evidence of the Orc invasion plans may add, say, +4 to getting the Guard to summon the Captain at this late hour, but it is still much more likely that bonus will result in the skilled orator’s +15 base roll’s success than the surly dwarf’s -1.If those benefits did become life saving – rather than interaction being determined by player skill instead.  In the more recent editions, choice of stat allocation, and skill point allocation, makes this much more an issue.  To me, an 18 should be equally impressive in every stat.</blockquote>

Verification