Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7029127" data-attributes="member: 20564">My tables like to roleplay.  We chat up a storm.  And when it comes to persuading people, it could happen without any die rolls at all.  On the other hand, do I give chatty players with CHR 10 characters a dieless victory, when the CHR 18 with three social skills can fail, just because the player isn't as good at chatting?  The other side is just like smart tactics in combat, should I ignore good roleplay and rely on just the dice.  (I think I'd have a revolt if I DMed it that way.)  The unhappy medium was setting DCs (or giving bonuses) based on how persuasive the player was, but a great speech at a trail with collaborating evidence of the villain's diary in his own hand and sworn testimony of his mother that he's a no-good-rotten-kid could still bomb with a 1.  So I've got one idea, but I'd like to brainstorm with you on if it's a good one or what other systems people use.  I am not married to this at all, just throwing out one idea but open to others.Taking a cue from some other RPGs, think of this.  When starting a roleplaying scene, each character present (not just the party face) adopts a tone.  (Persuasive, Deceptive, or Intimidating).  If you stay in the background, I use your "passive" skills (10 + mods) without a roll, which is usually* enough not to start or end trouble.I have a DC, or more likely one per type.  If you start interacting you roll three checks against your type.  (Also though about less checks, with more if you are trained.)  Each that makes the DC gives you a "bump".  You can use these anytime during the scene when you are interacting as per the type you chose.Whenever you are talking and you want to enhance what you are saying because your character is good at delivering that type of tone, you can use a "bump" and as DM I'll give it extra weight above and beyond what you are saying.On the other hand, if you fail by 5 or more (including the passive PC), that's an "anti-bump" where as DM I'll discount what you're saying.  I'll go out of my way to point out why.  "You say your representing the Duc, but look how that guy is dressed" (the barbarian who failed his intimidation roll by 7).If you want to change your tone (go from persuasion to intimidation) you can turn in your bumps and get a roll for each.  This is very inefficient, since you are turning in your success for a possible success, neutral, or failure.  But if you want to change up when you can use them, such as you see that intimidation isn't working and you need to bribe someone, that's the breaks.  You only get one chance to make a first impression.You only get the results of those three rolls for the whole scene.  If you use them up early, you're back to just your own persuasiveness.I have though also of giving a second "bump" if you succeed by more than 5, for the really social-focused PCs.  (The bard has expertise in persuasion?  Oh boy.)  But that starts to get even further from a D&D vibe with that many degrees of success.  At least a "fail by 5" has a honorable history in things like setting off traps you are trying to disarm and the like.It's just three rolls per player, shouldn't be very complex or time consuming in play.Thoughts?  Better ways to get the same goal?</blockquote>

Verification