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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 3309622" data-attributes="member: 2209">That's funny. I dislike social rolls. I am old school. I don't think it is because I play favorites, but because I like the actual roleplaying where people get into character, talk as their character and interact with NPCs by talking with them in actual conversations.That is a fun aspect of the game.Interrupting it with dice rolls and modifying how NPCs act after I figure out how their level of modified dice roll success against a target number equates into a narrative change on a chart (his reaction is shifted one category more friendly, what was it to start with?) and then figure out how this should modify his interaction then try to implement that, is annoying for me. It can lead to incongruous results based on die results and modifiers that have nothing to do with the situation. I find it better to just keep the flow going and handle the interactions without the dice. I find it more fun and less jarring.True, saying "I convince him," would be no resolution whereas "I convince him, I got a 32 against his resisted 14" can generate a concrete resolution. Except for how the DM has the NPC react now that he believes your lie temporarily according to the skill roll result or now that you have made him a little more friendly. But it gives you a number to argue with instead of how the interaction actually went, common sense, and the relevant circumstances.The rules as written still allow a ton of DM adjudication and can still allow a game to be just a matter of "Mother may I". A DM could say "He is convinced that you are right but says he unfortunately still can't let you pass." or even "The skill doesn't do that. Diplomacy only changes an attitude.""I convince him. I roll a 32" is actually one of the things I dislike about social skill rolls.</blockquote>

Verification