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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rogue Agent" data-source="post: 5737058" data-attributes="member: 6673496">Interesting. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that social checks are most useful when (a) they're resolving specific goals and (b) they're binary (or, at most, give a narrow range of flavored binary results -- exceptional success, success, failure, exceptional failure, for example).Even complex computer programs suck eggs at modeling complex social interactions, so the idea that any tabletop mechanic is going to succeed at producing plausible results is just silly. This rules out any kind of specificity or complexity in the model, IMO.Using mechanics to check for the success or failure of specific goals -- can I convince the king to give us troops?; does Barda belief my lie? -- is useful. The simple binary (or flavored binary) result can then be interpreted through human creativity to produce plausible results.The big problem with 3E Diplomacy basically boils down to the fact that the skill does something completely unlike any other skill. If it instead modeled the success or failure of specific actions (just like every other skill), the skill would be just fine.In general, I think the poll is flawed. At my table, the method is generally "roleplay first, then roll for some specific action which needs to be resolved, then more roleplay". Roleplaying has to happen first because that's what establishes the action being attempted and the conditions of the attempt (which may modify the roll), but accomplishing a social goal rarely means "this conversation is over" -- it usually just defines how the conversation will proceed.</blockquote>

Verification