Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
So what's gold gonna be for?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3841648" data-attributes="member: 3192"><p>The old debate that there should be a roll to emulate high Cha characters was won before it began IMO. The game has had a Reaction Adjustment since the beginning. It was a simple 2d6 roll with a slight chance of your character having an ability modifier to it. (13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +4... and yeah, +4 was too much)</p><p></p><p>I prefer to give players an incentive to roleplay by letting them know what they do can affect that roll too. (just like any roll) Reaction Adjustment can even be dropped, if you want to roleplay without random consequences. Even then that's just applying the rules for PC vs. PC to NPCs. The game never expected players to have to change their minds because someone rolled better than they did when they talked to each other. They just wanted to roleplay and have fun. No one wanted a super smooth PC to force their PC into agreeing with them just because the dice said so. </p><p></p><p>When interacting with NPCs, I have no problem allowing roleplaying to decide results alone when those end results are in the PCs' favor. In such a case, I would still make a roll, but it'd be a roll with modifiers so high it could not fail. In the opposite case, where they failed horribly at roleplaying (like foully insulting the king), I'd try and think of <em>some</em> way for them to succeed and then apply a negative modifier on their roll that does <u>not</u> negate the possibility of success. </p><p></p><p>Do they need to know some rolls are automatic successes beforehand? No. But roleplaying is rewarded when it is the only significant means to modify the roll. Making characters with mechanical bonuses beyond what roleplay can alter, roleplaying is actually hindered. Roleplaying should always be the most important modifier to a roleplaying encounter's success.</p><p></p><p>Is it okay once in awhile for it not to be? Sure, but it shouldn't be the status quo according to the rules IMO. Roleplaying game rules should encourage and reward roleplaying rather than stifle it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3841648, member: 3192"] The old debate that there should be a roll to emulate high Cha characters was won before it began IMO. The game has had a Reaction Adjustment since the beginning. It was a simple 2d6 roll with a slight chance of your character having an ability modifier to it. (13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +4... and yeah, +4 was too much) I prefer to give players an incentive to roleplay by letting them know what they do can affect that roll too. (just like any roll) Reaction Adjustment can even be dropped, if you want to roleplay without random consequences. Even then that's just applying the rules for PC vs. PC to NPCs. The game never expected players to have to change their minds because someone rolled better than they did when they talked to each other. They just wanted to roleplay and have fun. No one wanted a super smooth PC to force their PC into agreeing with them just because the dice said so. When interacting with NPCs, I have no problem allowing roleplaying to decide results alone when those end results are in the PCs' favor. In such a case, I would still make a roll, but it'd be a roll with modifiers so high it could not fail. In the opposite case, where they failed horribly at roleplaying (like foully insulting the king), I'd try and think of [i]some[/i] way for them to succeed and then apply a negative modifier on their roll that does [u]not[/u] negate the possibility of success. Do they need to know some rolls are automatic successes beforehand? No. But roleplaying is rewarded when it is the only significant means to modify the roll. Making characters with mechanical bonuses beyond what roleplay can alter, roleplaying is actually hindered. Roleplaying should always be the most important modifier to a roleplaying encounter's success. Is it okay once in awhile for it not to be? Sure, but it shouldn't be the status quo according to the rules IMO. Roleplaying game rules should encourage and reward roleplaying rather than stifle it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
So what's gold gonna be for?
Top