Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Turtlejay" data-source="post: 4891421" data-attributes="member: 70267">This is leaving rules far behind and delving into roleplaying, where I am not really qualified to give advice.&nbsp; I'll give it a shot, however...&nbsp;I think this situation is part of playing a character.&nbsp; You build someone, a whole person, and you sit inside their head and drive them around.&nbsp; So if you are playing a Ranger who is no good at Diplomacy, then think &quot;what would he *do* instead?&quot;&nbsp;Make a skill check that reflects what your tongue-tied or ill mannered outdoorsman might contribute to sensitive negotiations.&nbsp; Perhaps it is a key piece of information (Dungeoneering or Nature) or a whispered observation to the face (Insight or Perception).&nbsp; That is part of the challenge of the game, right?&nbsp;This might also be why skill challenges aren't for everyone.&nbsp; When you build a character, it has a defined role in combat.&nbsp; No matter what, 90% of the time you know you can contribute when you are killing things.&nbsp; Social and other interactions. . .not so much.&nbsp; You might feel like you are missing out if the party has an 'encounter' and you don't have a defined role.&nbsp; Another thing that changes is failure.&nbsp; In combat there are three clear options: 1)win&nbsp; 2)run&nbsp; 3)die.&nbsp; It is more complicated than that of course, but the idea is that you don't generally lose fights.&nbsp; Skill challenges have the idea of failure built in to them.&nbsp; When is the last time you read a module and each combat encounter had a paragraph about what to do in the event of a TPK?&nbsp;So. . .I'm no great thinker so I'm sure there are better analyses than that out there, but it's what I think, and I hope it helped.&nbsp;Jay</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Turtlejay, post: 4891421, member: 70267"] This is leaving rules far behind and delving into roleplaying, where I am not really qualified to give advice. I'll give it a shot, however... I think this situation is part of playing a character. You build someone, a whole person, and you sit inside their head and drive them around. So if you are playing a Ranger who is no good at Diplomacy, then think "what would he *do* instead?" Make a skill check that reflects what your tongue-tied or ill mannered outdoorsman might contribute to sensitive negotiations. Perhaps it is a key piece of information (Dungeoneering or Nature) or a whispered observation to the face (Insight or Perception). That is part of the challenge of the game, right? This might also be why skill challenges aren't for everyone. When you build a character, it has a defined role in combat. No matter what, 90% of the time you know you can contribute when you are killing things. Social and other interactions. . .not so much. You might feel like you are missing out if the party has an 'encounter' and you don't have a defined role. Another thing that changes is failure. In combat there are three clear options: 1)win 2)run 3)die. It is more complicated than that of course, but the idea is that you don't generally lose fights. Skill challenges have the idea of failure built in to them. When is the last time you read a module and each combat encounter had a paragraph about what to do in the event of a TPK? So. . .I'm no great thinker so I'm sure there are better analyses than that out there, but it's what I think, and I hope it helped. Jay [/QUOTE]

Verification