Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6885447">It doesn't bother me if you don't like that.&nbsp; It's more to allow for the fact that not every player is as great with words as their character is and I see no benefit in telling people who lack the words IRL, that their characters must summarily lack the words in game.&nbsp; It is also, to an extent an effect to help mitigate highly charismatic/intelligent players playing very low charismatic, unintelligent characters.&nbsp; And mind you, players don't have to roll dice against each other in social situations if they don't want to.&nbsp; Actions in the game must be bound to the metrics of the game.&nbsp; If we start allowing people to ignore their character's skills and stats in favor of what they actually know IRL, we are losing something important in the game.&nbsp; Even if it fuzzy at times, there must be a line between players and characters.The idea is not to just say &quot;I attempt to argue in favor of our objectives *dice roll*&quot;.&nbsp; The idea is to create a middle ground that aids people who can't formulate a great argument but statistically their character should be able to and restrains people who can, but whose characters shouldn't.&nbsp; It also, to some extent, saves time too.It's statements like these I want to preface my response with &quot;no offense intended&quot; but I suspect that even if I did, offense would either be taken, or I would have intended it.&nbsp; So here it is: That is incredibly black-and-white.&nbsp; And honestly, I wouldn't want such an attitude at my table either.&nbsp; Players at my table need to be willing to adapt, adjust and sometimes do things they don't enjoy for the betterment of everyones gameplay.&nbsp; I'll readily admit that everyone is going to draw a line somewhere and that's fine.&nbsp; I draw my line at rape and sexual assault.&nbsp; I probably wouldn't want to play in a Game of Thrones TTRPG.&nbsp; However, I find the argument that you don't want to roll dice in a game that involves rolling dice as a primary resolution mechanic when you are attempting to resolve a situation, regardless of if it is PC-NPC or PC-PC to be absolutely absurd.&nbsp; Rolling to see how well your argument sounded in character or how your character reacted to it is completely optional.&nbsp; YOU don't have to do it, your argument is then just as good as you are able to make it, or not make it.Inform?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; Constrain?&nbsp; Possibly.&nbsp; Control?&nbsp; Out of the question.&nbsp; Sometimes NPCs don't even make &quot;reaction&quot; checks.&nbsp; I know exactly how they would respond to certain actions and statements by the players and that is exactly how they will respond.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6885447"] It doesn't bother me if you don't like that. It's more to allow for the fact that not every player is as great with words as their character is and I see no benefit in telling people who lack the words IRL, that their characters must summarily lack the words in game. It is also, to an extent an effect to help mitigate highly charismatic/intelligent players playing very low charismatic, unintelligent characters. And mind you, players don't [I]have[/I] to roll dice against each other in social situations if they don't want to. Actions in the game must be bound to the metrics of the game. If we start allowing people to ignore their character's skills and stats in favor of what they actually know IRL, we are losing something important in the game. Even if it fuzzy at times, there must be a line between players and characters. The idea is not to just say "I attempt to argue in favor of our objectives *dice roll*". The idea is to create a middle ground that aids people who can't formulate a great argument but statistically their character should be able to and restrains people who can, but whose characters shouldn't. It also, to some extent, saves time too. It's statements like these I [I]want[/I] to preface my response with "no offense intended" but I suspect that even if I did, offense would either be taken, or I would have intended it. So here it is: That is incredibly black-and-white. And honestly, I wouldn't want such an attitude at my table either. Players at my table need to be willing to adapt, adjust and sometimes do things they don't enjoy for the betterment of [B]everyones[/B] gameplay. I'll readily admit that everyone is going to draw a line somewhere and that's fine. I draw my line at rape and sexual assault. I probably wouldn't want to play in a Game of Thrones TTRPG. However, I find the argument that you don't want to roll dice in a game that involves rolling dice as a primary resolution mechanic when you are attempting to resolve a situation, regardless of if it is PC-NPC or PC-PC to be absolutely absurd. Rolling to see how well your argument sounded in character or how your character reacted to it is completely optional. YOU don't have to do it, your argument is then just as good as you are able to make it, or not make it. Inform? Sure. Constrain? Possibly. Control? Out of the question. Sometimes NPCs don't even make "reaction" checks. I know exactly how they would respond to certain actions and statements by the players and that is [I]exactly[/I] how they will respond. [/QUOTE]

Verification