Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3730518" data-attributes="member: 3192">When talking with an NPC, my PC has a 50% chance of changing his attitude.&nbsp; Straight up or down.&nbsp; Maybe he has a +5% or +10% bonus because of Charisma, but any wider differentiation than that and all of a sudden roleplaying becomes suboptimal for every other player except the ones with specialized &quot;social combat&quot; characters.Violent combat is one aspect of play.&nbsp; Would you play a character that was demonstrably weaker in all violent combat?&nbsp; Why sit on the sidelines just because you boosted &quot;social combat&quot; over violent?&nbsp; It makes the game less fun to play at certain times rather than always fun to play what ever the situation.I'm not denying others their preference.&nbsp; Keep it an option.&nbsp; Do not make it core.&nbsp; They aren't.&nbsp; I'm saying, &quot;we've never needed social combat rules before.&nbsp; Why do we need them now?&quot;&nbsp; Of course, the option has always existed.&nbsp; In 3e, one of the Penumbra books had an extraordinarily detailed social combat system.&nbsp; I personally find it extraordinarily limiting to have to think of every next phrase and argument under an arbitrary framework.&nbsp; I don't find any false form of speaking particularly edifying or enjoyable.&nbsp; Reality works just fine.Resolving conflicts peaceably have never needed an attack roll.&nbsp; Conversation is key in creating peace.&nbsp; Conversation does not need hard and fast rules on how it works.&nbsp; The risk is 50/50.&nbsp; If a player is a poor performer, guess what?&nbsp; He will get better the more he roleplays.&nbsp; I find the socially inept only roleplay because there are codified rules on how to act.&nbsp; You don't have to be creative.I agree with you above on this.&nbsp; I'm saying, you don't need rules on how to speak to NPCs either.&nbsp; The 3 skills 3e uses are completely arbitrary to that system.&nbsp; A straight 50/50 is all that is required.&nbsp; A DM rules on the rest.&nbsp; Or do you believe games can have built into them judgment of a player's roleplaying?The &quot;Character's&quot; abilities should be taken into consideration a great deal less than they have been.&nbsp; That's my choice.&nbsp; I've been pushing for 4e to be modularly optional for a while now.&quot;Bad roleplaying&quot; is not a false meta-mechanic tying together all possible codified traits so they each influence each other according to their relation.&nbsp; Again, that is all arbitrary.&nbsp; &quot;Bad roleplaying&quot; is playing your character as smart when you said he was dumb.&nbsp; It is gaming the system by metagaming.&nbsp; It is speaking in rules terminology in stead of in world terminology.&nbsp; It is breaking the 4th wall.&nbsp; Roleplaying is pretty easy.&nbsp; It isn't a contest.&nbsp; It's a matter of actually doing and, above all the rest, trying your damnedest when you do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3730518, member: 3192"] When talking with an NPC, my PC has a 50% chance of changing his attitude. Straight up or down. Maybe he has a +5% or +10% bonus because of Charisma, but any wider differentiation than that and all of a sudden roleplaying becomes suboptimal for every other player except the ones with specialized "social combat" characters. Violent combat is one aspect of play. Would you play a character that was demonstrably weaker in all violent combat? Why sit on the sidelines just because you boosted "social combat" over violent? It makes the game less fun to play at certain times rather than always fun to play what ever the situation. I'm not denying others their preference. Keep it an option. Do not make it core. They aren't. I'm saying, "we've never needed social combat rules before. Why do we need them now?" Of course, the option has always existed. In 3e, one of the Penumbra books had an extraordinarily detailed social combat system. I personally find it extraordinarily limiting to have to think of every next phrase and argument under an arbitrary framework. I don't find any false form of speaking particularly edifying or enjoyable. Reality works just fine. Resolving conflicts peaceably have never needed an attack roll. Conversation is key in creating peace. Conversation does not need hard and fast rules on how it works. The risk is 50/50. If a player is a poor performer, guess what? He will get better the more he roleplays. I find the socially inept only roleplay [i]because[/i] there are codified rules on how to act. You don't have to be creative. I agree with you above on this. I'm saying, you don't need rules on how to speak to NPCs either. The 3 skills 3e uses are completely arbitrary to that system. A straight 50/50 is all that is required. A DM rules on the rest. Or do you believe games can have built into them judgment of a player's roleplaying? The "Character's" abilities should be taken into consideration a great deal less than they have been. That's my choice. I've been pushing for 4e to be modularly optional for a while now. "Bad roleplaying" is not a false meta-mechanic tying together all possible codified traits so they each influence each other according to their relation. Again, that is all arbitrary. "Bad roleplaying" is playing your character as smart when you said he was dumb. It is gaming the system by metagaming. It is speaking in rules terminology in stead of in world terminology. It is breaking the 4th wall. Roleplaying is pretty easy. It isn't a contest. It's a matter of actually doing and, above all the rest, trying your damnedest when you do. [/QUOTE]

Verification