Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8084946" data-attributes="member: 6801845">It's great if someone is good at the social aspects of the game, but if there is uncertainty on how an NPC will react I still rely on die rolls.&nbsp; The target DC may be affected by the content of what is said and I take into consideration what the PCs have done previously but how they say it has no impact.&nbsp; I want the abilities and proficiencies of the PC to matter more than the abilities of the player.But ultimately, yes, you will &quot;punish&quot; people who aren't good at figuring out the right things to say or the right approach. But the same can be said of combat.&nbsp; I've DMed for multiple groups at the same time with the same assumptions, rules, and general campaign style.&nbsp; One group could handle significantly tougher combat than the other.So if the group (or an individual) isn't good at the social aspects I adjust the difficulty so that they still have fun.&nbsp; I may go as far as giving them insight or intelligence checks and giving them hints or direction.&nbsp; I just don't think having a set of rules would make much of a difference.I don't think it's possible to make rules for out-of-combat resolution* that will not ultimately negatively impact the RP aspects of the game.&nbsp; To me, having free form and free flowing, non-combat aspects to the game is part of D&amp;D's appeal.*Skill challenges in 4E were a valiant attempt, but honestly I don't think they worked very well.&nbsp; Use them too much and RP doesn't matter.&nbsp; Use them sparingly and why even have them in the first place?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8084946, member: 6801845"] It's great if someone is good at the social aspects of the game, but if there is uncertainty on how an NPC will react I still rely on die rolls. The target DC may be affected by the content of what is said and I take into consideration what the PCs have done previously but [I]how [/I]they say it has no impact. I want the abilities and proficiencies of the PC to matter more than the abilities of the player. But ultimately, yes, you will "punish" people who aren't good at figuring out the right things to say or the right approach. But the same can be said of combat. I've DMed for multiple groups at the same time with the same assumptions, rules, and general campaign style. One group could handle significantly tougher combat than the other. So if the group (or an individual) isn't good at the social aspects I adjust the difficulty so that they still have fun. I may go as far as giving them insight or intelligence checks and giving them hints or direction. I just don't think having a set of rules would make much of a difference. I don't think it's possible to make rules for out-of-combat resolution* that will not ultimately negatively impact the RP aspects of the game. To me, having free form and free flowing, non-combat aspects to the game is part of D&D's appeal. [I]*Skill challenges in 4E were a valiant attempt, but honestly I don't think they worked very well. Use them too much and RP doesn't matter. Use them sparingly and why even have them in the first place?[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification