Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DamionW" data-source="post: 2704851" data-attributes="member: 18649">Overall I think it's been clarified that much of this debate can be left to the area of personal preference and these type of interactions can be resolved in whatever manner the group wants.  The key is just to have that resolution mechanism discussed and in the open from the beginning.  However, because I like intellectual discourse, I'll respond to a few points...Sometimes the problem isn't talking in character.  The problem is convincing an NPC in character.  As I've stated, I'm not new to roleplaying and I do enjoy 1st person exchanges and developing my character's identity.  However, I will never be as persuasive as a 15+ CHA 5+ Bluff/Diplomacy type of character should be.  I am simply not capable of maintaining suspension of disbelief, inputting the dialogue coming from the DM's roleplaying, formatting a persuasive response and then translating it into first person dialogue for my character.  The skills needed to role-play in first person speech are different than those needed to be persuasive and convincing.  That's why I always advocate that there should be some form of dice mechanic to drive a dialogue where an NPC is used as an obstacle.  For example, you can determine the basic premise of your bluff/diplomacy/intimidate attempt, roll to see how bad or how well you succeed, and then have a first person exchange that matches that rough estimate of who persuades who.  I've never advocated that first person exchanges should be removed, only that making them a deciding factor can leave a lot of character design not utilized.My question for you if you felt cheated because you couldn't succeed with your great argument is:  "What did you risk?"  If I spend my character design in CHA and CHA-based abilities, that is character "capital" that hasn't been spent elswhere.  That 16 CHA could sure improve my hp if I put it in CON instead.  Picking the Persuasive feat is a big difference from picking Dodge or Enlarge Spell, or any other feat.  If you as a player just happen to be good at creating a lie or negotiation and running with it no matter what the other person says, you give up nothing.  You can use that skill whether your character is Grom the powerful fighter, Nicademus the cloistered wizard, Griznar the savage barbarian or whatever character you make.  All you have to do is change your tone of voice and choose a modified chain of dialogue to portray.  But did you lose anything for that?  Is your character less capable in one area to gain the advantage of bypassing NPCs through convincing speech?  If not, than how are you cheated?I agree about incentives, but I think you're missing a few things.  To resolve an NPC's attitude to solely the limits of what a player can convincingly deliver in first person, what incentive is that really giving?  If I know I just have to improve my personal oratory and improvizational skills in order to talk an NPC into changing their minds, what incentives are there to explore non-combat oriented characters?  Choosing charismatic abilities quickly lose their incentive if they can never exceed the player's limits of charisma.  Throwing a fireball as a wizard or performing a great cleave have some very high-fideilty, tangible incentives for the player to choose those for their character.Imagine this if you will:  If those heroics represent the martial and arcane capabilities to exceed the player's abilities meta-game, imagine a character designed to exceed a meta-game mortal in oratory abilities.  Instead of locking a rogue into picking feats and skills to maximize their flanking and sneak attack capacity, instead the rogue's player is incentivized to grow their diplomacy ranks and the number of languages they speak.  Each extra language opens a whole new realm of intelligent beings to use their guile and their ever-present force of will on.  Imagine a level 12 character who has focused on charismatic abilities so efficiently that their Diplomacy checks are able to out-bargain a devil at its game.  Would that be feasible for a player to do using their own vocabulary and skills?  Probably not unless their oratory abilities in real life rivaled Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln.  However, these characters in the game exceed our mortal limits, so if you trust the mechanics work and don't limit it to just what is exchanged in first-person speech, it opens whole new adventure hooks and character designs.Imagine a character so powerful they can stop an army in their tracks with a well-placed monologue from a soap-box.  Could many players truly accomplish this with their personal choice of vocabulary?  Maybe, but maybe not.  I think these create some very interesting incentives and they don't need to preclude first-person dialogue.  You just need to trust that some of the mechanics allow the character to step beyond the specific words the player picks.  At that point, the players whose spells and feats are limited to what can aid them in combat quickly see there's another road to take to make a powerful character.  Not everything has to be about how many baddies you can kill in a round, but how many obstacles you can bypass in your career.  These I think truly make for good incentives to diversify character design.Absolutely.  If that's the way you and your group want to play, that's the way you want to play.  Just make sure you know it is not the only one and when you ever game with a new group you are open in communicating that preference.  Waiting until those interactions come up in play can lead to potentially dissatisfied players.  That's all I've ever promoted and to promote the idea that using Level 2 abstraction as a possible resolution mechanism that doesn't have to detract from the game.</blockquote>

Verification