Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3310140" data-attributes="member: 1656">This is my preference.Just as we don't describe the result of an attack attempt before making the attack roll, my philosophy is that we don't describe the result of a Diplomacy check before making the Diplomacy roll.It's pointless to say &quot;I smash my axe through the orc's armor and deep into his ribcage&quot; when you haven't determined whether or not you made your concealment miss chance for the dim light yet.Similarly, if I'm playing the bard who's trying to convince the earl's wife that she needs to get us on the guest list for the banquet, 'Diplomacy +6' isn't enough to tell me how I should be portraying that.&nbsp; There's a huge difference between how I'd roleplay a Diplomacy result of 26 vs a Diplomacy result of 7, so until I've rolled the die, I don't know whether I should put in maximum effort, or go for a delivery that falls flat with an unfortunate social gaff thrown in for good measure.It may be that even on a good day, the best I could hope to actually aspire to would be the equivalent of a 17... but hey, I can use that 17 to represent the bard pulling off a 26.&nbsp; On the other hand, I can probably manage the 7 if I have to.If a player delivers a speech that leaves the other players in tears and the DM's jaw on the table, and then rolls a Diplomacy check of 4, then even with a circumstance bonus for the speech, the result will still in all likelihood be a dud.&nbsp; There is a disconnect, then, between what the player delivered, and what, presumably, the character said.&nbsp; This is not good roleplaying.&nbsp; It may be good oration, but since the player is playing the role of someone who is demonstrably not a good orator, by giving a stellar oratory performance, he is doing a poor job of playing that role.I think the objective should not be to make the best persuasive argument; it should be to make the argument that best matches the die roll.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3310140, member: 1656"] This is my preference. Just as we don't describe the result of an attack attempt before making the attack roll, my philosophy is that we don't describe the result of a Diplomacy check before making the Diplomacy roll. It's pointless to say "I smash my axe through the orc's armor and deep into his ribcage" when you haven't determined whether or not you made your concealment miss chance for the dim light yet. Similarly, if I'm playing the bard who's trying to convince the earl's wife that she needs to get us on the guest list for the banquet, 'Diplomacy +6' isn't enough to tell me how I should be portraying that. There's a huge difference between how I'd roleplay a Diplomacy result of 26 vs a Diplomacy result of 7, so until I've rolled the die, I don't know whether I should put in maximum effort, or go for a delivery that falls flat with an unfortunate social gaff thrown in for good measure. It may be that even on a good day, the best I could hope to actually aspire to would be the equivalent of a 17... but hey, I can use that 17 to [i]represent[/i] the bard pulling off a 26. On the other hand, I can probably manage the 7 if I have to. If a player delivers a speech that leaves the other players in tears and the DM's jaw on the table, and then rolls a Diplomacy check of 4, then even with a circumstance bonus for the speech, the result will still in all likelihood be a dud. There is a disconnect, then, between what the player delivered, and what, presumably, the character said. This is not good roleplaying. It may be good [i]oration[/i], but since the player is playing the role of someone who is demonstrably [i]not[/i] a good orator, by giving a stellar oratory performance, he is doing a poor job of playing that role. I think the objective should not be to make the best persuasive argument; it should be to make the argument that best matches the die roll. -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification