Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5482458" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>This seems to be an argument for more rules for roleplaying.&nbsp; Afterall, combat only seems objective by comparison because the various factors that comprise the formula have been predetermined within the ruleset.&nbsp; A +2 sword gives a +2 bonus because someone has decided that is what it is, not because there is an inherent actuality of fact.&nbsp; Therefore, one could surmise that any roleplaying obstacle that is possible to overcome via roleplaying has, let's say, a 50/50 chance to be overcome.&nbsp; If, in certain circumstances, an NPC needs convincing but it is an NPC with little patience, a shorter attempt at roleplaying rather than a long-winded attempt might increase rather than decrease the chance of success.&nbsp; Perhaps, also, the NPC has a trigger that gains automatic success, like offering a certain sum of money, and an automatic failure, such as mentioning the NPC's missing eye.&nbsp; This has always been the way roleplaying is handled and while it might appear at the table to an observer that it is subjective by examining the underlying process one sees that it has an objective basis even if it is not as numerically defined as a non-roleplaying situation.&nbsp; So it might work well enough if rules were then written that more clearly defined ways of delineating situations on the fly without requiring die rolls, e.g. NPC &quot;Tom&quot; needs to be convinced to loan his cart to PC &quot;Karl&quot; for some purpose.&nbsp; Tom has had past dealing with the PCs so start him at 70% likely to loan the cart.&nbsp; Karl mentions he will pay 20 gp on its return, so add 20 bringing the likelihood up to 90%.&nbsp; Karl also states that he will help Tom remove a tree stump in the yard which will otherwise require ten hours of work for Tom so add 10% more, beining the total to 100% and the cart is loaned.&nbsp; Each factor defined and seemingly as valid as a +2 magic bonus, a handful of hit points, or a reflex save.&nbsp; Now Karl is more accomplished and confident.&nbsp; Why should his success in this case not effect his combat as much as his success in swinging his sword effect his ability to climb a tree, or resolve a verbal dispute through diplomacy, or learn to shoot a bow while riding a horse?&nbsp; It's all abstract to a certain extent and ultimately just as easy to justify it in one direction as in the other if that is the goal.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5482458, member: 10479"] This seems to be an argument for more rules for roleplaying. Afterall, combat only seems objective by comparison because the various factors that comprise the formula have been predetermined within the ruleset. A +2 sword gives a +2 bonus because someone has decided that is what it is, not because there is an inherent actuality of fact. Therefore, one could surmise that any roleplaying obstacle that is possible to overcome via roleplaying has, let's say, a 50/50 chance to be overcome. If, in certain circumstances, an NPC needs convincing but it is an NPC with little patience, a shorter attempt at roleplaying rather than a long-winded attempt might increase rather than decrease the chance of success. Perhaps, also, the NPC has a trigger that gains automatic success, like offering a certain sum of money, and an automatic failure, such as mentioning the NPC's missing eye. This has always been the way roleplaying is handled and while it might appear at the table to an observer that it is subjective by examining the underlying process one sees that it has an objective basis even if it is not as numerically defined as a non-roleplaying situation. So it might work well enough if rules were then written that more clearly defined ways of delineating situations on the fly without requiring die rolls, e.g. NPC "Tom" needs to be convinced to loan his cart to PC "Karl" for some purpose. Tom has had past dealing with the PCs so start him at 70% likely to loan the cart. Karl mentions he will pay 20 gp on its return, so add 20 bringing the likelihood up to 90%. Karl also states that he will help Tom remove a tree stump in the yard which will otherwise require ten hours of work for Tom so add 10% more, beining the total to 100% and the cart is loaned. Each factor defined and seemingly as valid as a +2 magic bonus, a handful of hit points, or a reflex save. Now Karl is more accomplished and confident. Why should his success in this case not effect his combat as much as his success in swinging his sword effect his ability to climb a tree, or resolve a verbal dispute through diplomacy, or learn to shoot a bow while riding a horse? It's all abstract to a certain extent and ultimately just as easy to justify it in one direction as in the other if that is the goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification