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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3308124" data-attributes="member: 1757">I would argue that by rewarding good tactics and sound decision-making, the game is already favoring players with those skills. The question is whether it should reward players who are clever and eloquent in their role-playing. I say yes. However, I do think that, at the same time, shy or non-eloquent players should have the option of investing in a social maven PC. So, I use the following rule:Whenever using a social skill (Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy), you have two options: Either you can describe the action in general terms ("I tell the guards I'm a king's messenger"), or you can play out the interaction in detail. If you do the former, roll a skill check as normal. If, OTOH, you do the latter, your role-playing effort is used in place of the die roll: A minimum of 8 for a poor or uninspired performance, to a maximum of 20 for a truly inspired performance. I find this works quite well in play. Since instituting this house rule, I have yet to see a player choose to roll a social skill check.As an aside: I might play devil's advocate and argue that while there's no reason to prevent anyone from playing exactly the kind of character they want, it's probably a bit boring to have a social PC being played by a shy or inarticulate player. A big part of the fun of tabletop play is everyone getting into their role; A quiet and non-interactive player running a talk-a-blue-streak, charming, ingenious rogue isn't really likely to contribute much to play, especially if he's afraid to act much out of fear of seeming little like his character.</blockquote>

Verification