Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="replicant2" data-source="post: 3307587" data-attributes="member: 16498">I've seen it espoused, time and time again on this board and others: People who disregard &quot;social&quot; skills such as diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, in some cases even gather information. Their reasoning is typically as follows: Why should I let a player roll to resolve an action that should be addressed by good role-playing?Hogwash.Let's face it, not all players are created equal. I've seen my share of shy players during games. I've seen games where amateur actors dominate the role-playing, causing others who don't possess the same thespian ability to fade into the background. Other people just have different playing styles: They love the tactical side of D&amp;D, but don't feel the need to get into character.Should these types of players be prevented from playing bards, or information-gathering rogues? Should they be prevented from playing fighters who can inspire a group of townspeople to defend their town from invading orcs? Of course not. But DMs who handwaive away skills such&nbsp; as diplomacy or intimiate do just that.Put another way: Why don't DMs who prefer to resolve diplomacy through role-play do the same for other skills? The player who has an uber-powerful fighter doesn't have to describe the feint and series of crafty parries and counterthrusts that result in a critical strike; the rogue who disarms a highly complex trap can do so with a die-roll, not by a player who thinks like McGyver and can describe how a complex spring mechanism works.Now, I'm not espousing the elimination of good role-play. Being in character is what separates D&amp;D from other board games. Encourage role-play, but in the end, let the dice decide. If you want to tack on a modifier for a great speech&nbsp; by the player, feel free. But don't penalize the shy player.Anyways, just some food for thought.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="replicant2, post: 3307587, member: 16498"] I've seen it espoused, time and time again on this board and others: People who disregard "social" skills such as diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, in some cases even gather information. Their reasoning is typically as follows: Why should I let a player roll to resolve an action that should be addressed by good role-playing? Hogwash. Let's face it, not all players are created equal. I've seen my share of shy players during games. I've seen games where amateur actors dominate the role-playing, causing others who don't possess the same thespian ability to fade into the background. Other people just have different playing styles: They love the tactical side of D&D, but don't feel the need to get into character. Should these types of players be prevented from playing bards, or information-gathering rogues? Should they be prevented from playing fighters who can inspire a group of townspeople to defend their town from invading orcs? Of course not. But DMs who handwaive away skills such as diplomacy or intimiate do just that. Put another way: Why don't DMs who prefer to resolve diplomacy through role-play do the same for other skills? The player who has an uber-powerful fighter doesn't have to describe the feint and series of crafty parries and counterthrusts that result in a critical strike; the rogue who disarms a highly complex trap can do so with a die-roll, not by a player who thinks like McGyver and can describe how a complex spring mechanism works. Now, I'm not espousing the elimination of good role-play. Being in character is what separates D&D from other board games. Encourage role-play, but in the end, let the dice decide. If you want to tack on a modifier for a great speech by the player, feel free. But don't penalize the shy player. Anyways, just some food for thought. [/QUOTE]

Verification