NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DamionW" data-source="post: 2703020" data-attributes="member: 18649">The thing is, a lack of skill in developing in-character dialogue rapidly is not limited to newbies.  I started playing RPGs over 10 years ago and like playing characters with a strong identity and background and speaking in first person to add flavor.  The problem arises when there is a 1st person exchange with an NPC standing as an obstacle.  Certain NPC interactions are as important to overcome as traps or monsters in dungeons.  To overcome them, you must convince them by using either falshoods (Bluff skill), negotiations (Diplomacy skill), or threats (Intimidation skills).  To not overcome these NPC obstacles means to not progress the plot and/or character development.  I can usually deliver the first premise of my lie/offer/threat in first-person.  Where it breaks down for me is having a continual reparte with the NPC back-and-forth to develop my lies/counter-offers/threats beyond the first push such that they're believable.  Now the skill to do those things is EXACTLY the same abstraction at Level 3 as it is to tie a knot in front of you to show you I can succeed on a Use Rope check.I challenge you to show me how those two circumstances are not equal.  Not one person who prefers a RPing dialogue as a task resolution has been able to prove that to me.  How is me developing a lie proficiently as a player, to keep a straight, believable face and interaction while telling a falsehood any different than me climbing a wall, or dodging an attack or any other Level 3 abstraction?  If I happen to be smooth-talking better than a used car salesman, but my CHA 8, 0 Bluff barbarian couldn't convince someone of anything, why should my lie being delivered well be rewarded by overcoming the NPC obstacle if I didn't make the character investment in any CHA ability or bluff ranks?  If I did invest the abilities and ranks to get a Don Juan character with 17 CHA and 8 ranks in Bluff, how does it make me feel about that investment when the player next to me blows right by an NPC obstacle just based on his improvisation skills and fast-talking ability without regard for character concept?  It makes me feel like I'm wasting time playing this game because the deck is stacked against me.At that size of circumstance bonus, you're essentially returning it to the realm of auto-success or auto-failure based on player ability.  It shows a bias towards those with improvizational skills over those who are not good at rapidly creating dialogue.  You are just better off admitting you want dialogue to trump dice rolls up front and telling your players not to invest ranks in Bluff or Diplomacy because you will be arbitrating those based on player performance.  A full +10 or -10 swing in one direction is essentially the same thing.That seems fair to me.  You're the DM, you decide what's acceptable and what's not.  Just be honest with your players about how you will make rulings and don't assume everyone feels that RPing dialogue is paramount, because other people's playstyles might see the game differently.ThirdWizard spoke for me.  The lack of fairness I'm refering to is being a persuasive player and using those skills meta-game at the table to overcome obstacles in the game for your character.  If a player wants a character to be convincing and persuasive, as DM you should enforce an investment in character concept that supports that (a high CHA score, or the Negotiator feat, or ranks in CHA skills, whatever).  If you don't enforce that, you can't turn around and wonder why everyone is using CHA as a dump stat for their characters, because they know any manifestation of that ability in game can be RPed away to a success even if they don't make a persuasive character design.</blockquote>

Verification