Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tzor" data-source="post: 3334845" data-attributes="member: 12826">After slogging through 5 pages of interesting discussion I still have one interesting question that I don’t think has been adequately addressed.&nbsp; Why are social skills different from combat?As I read the discussion I get the impression that many people treat social skill rolling in the same manner many used to treat combat in 2E – I roll … do I hit?&nbsp; No tactics, no role play, just roll play.&nbsp; No wonder they are opposed to it.So looking at combat because I think we can come into easy agreement in this area, I think it is easy to see that there are three elements to combat; tactics, the adjudicating dice, and finally the role play.&nbsp; Now not everyone is an expert in D&amp;D combat tactics, but in general most people try to have their characters avoid obvious attacks of opportunity, give them options to flank opponents and keep others from doing it to them and so forth.&nbsp; Still all the best tactics in the world still require the necessary dice rolls to see how successful they are. Finally until you know you are going to hit or not you don’t think about describing it, and if you make a mistake describing it, everyone laughs and moves on.If we look at combat tactics, we see all sorts of modifiers depending on the tactic and the conditions surrounding the situation.&nbsp; Generally these are all spelt out but they are also a part of common sense.&nbsp; Depending on the situation we can also get into the notion of the “collective” player where players can OOC give friendly combat tips to other players when they think the character would have such appropriate knowledge.So, why is this any different from social skills?&nbsp; Role playing social skills should come through tactics, mediated through the dice embellished by grand fluff.“I approach the bar maid and attempt to gather information … ugh, that’s not a good roll, ‘hey lady, is your ale as full bodied as you are?’”&nbsp; (Obviously I need better tactics than that!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tzor, post: 3334845, member: 12826"] After slogging through 5 pages of interesting discussion I still have one interesting question that I don’t think has been adequately addressed. Why are social skills different from combat? As I read the discussion I get the impression that many people treat social skill rolling in the same manner many used to treat combat in 2E – I roll … do I hit? No tactics, no role play, just roll play. No wonder they are opposed to it. So looking at combat because I think we can come into easy agreement in this area, I think it is easy to see that there are three elements to combat; tactics, the adjudicating dice, and finally the role play. Now not everyone is an expert in D&D combat tactics, but in general most people try to have their characters avoid obvious attacks of opportunity, give them options to flank opponents and keep others from doing it to them and so forth. Still all the best tactics in the world still require the necessary dice rolls to see how successful they are. Finally until you know you are going to hit or not you don’t think about describing it, and if you make a mistake describing it, everyone laughs and moves on. If we look at combat tactics, we see all sorts of modifiers depending on the tactic and the conditions surrounding the situation. Generally these are all spelt out but they are also a part of common sense. Depending on the situation we can also get into the notion of the “collective” player where players can OOC give friendly combat tips to other players when they think the character would have such appropriate knowledge. So, why is this any different from social skills? Role playing social skills should come through tactics, mediated through the dice embellished by grand fluff. “I approach the bar maid and attempt to gather information … ugh, that’s not a good roll, ‘hey lady, is your ale as full bodied as you are?’” (Obviously I need better tactics than that!) [/QUOTE]

Verification