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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6239313" data-attributes="member: 3400">I think a good interaction system could suggest some bonuses, rather like combat bonuses, that could encourage more role playing and varied tactics. But I'd hesitate to really design too much structure. Whether a PC has a higher ground advantage in combat is fairly objective. Whether a PC is debating the NPC from a superior position (and should get a similar bonus) is subjective, but I think those are the kinds of bonuses that really should be considered. Does the player make a good argument for the PC, at least as far as the NPC is concerned? If so, offer the diplomacy version of combat advantage. That would allow the skilled player to adjust the odds in his or her favor.I think 4e's attempt at skill challenges at least tried to give a structure for such things. Trying to get the king to devote troops to a problem the PCs have uncovered could be improved by successfully bluffing, using diplomacy, realizing the king was a history buff, blah, blah, blah. The skill challenges just screwed the pooch on the terms of success - trying to get more involvement yet, probably inadvertently, making the chances of success more difficult as a result. But what I think can be salvaged is the idea of trying a number of supporting tasks to accomplish the goal. I'd just be more interesting in counting the number of overall successes compared to the number of overall failures rather than putting them in a race.</blockquote>

Verification