Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 1437420" data-attributes="member: 2238">last question first- I will answer with a question.&nbsp; If the player cant fail, then why roll at all?&nbsp; If it requires a die roll, by the very nature there must be room for failure.&nbsp; If there isn't don't roll that die.I am not really nerfing the diplomat.&nbsp; If thats what I am doing than I am nerfing everyone.&nbsp; Even myself as DM (mooks come out of the books, NPCs are rolled if I am not using a module).&nbsp; It doesn't have to be hard.&nbsp; There just has to be a significant chance of failure.&nbsp; I do let the player reap the bennies of putting a lot into pumping up diplomacy.&nbsp; Thing is, I don't set up the situation.&nbsp; Why do I do this?Because it keeps the game fun.&nbsp; Billions of gamblers can't be wrong.&nbsp; A whole city has been built on the fact that there is a rush associated with games where you can loose.&nbsp; Translating it to D&amp;D, there should always be a chance of failure and success.&nbsp; Otherwise the game stops being fun.&nbsp; I guess I left out another side of the equation.&nbsp; The reason random works is because everything is random.&nbsp; If the players decide to go to Naightfang Spire (A real location IMC) at 5th level, then they go.&nbsp; I am not going to stop them.&nbsp; So they probably will get attacked by a mooncalf, its the decision they made.&nbsp; A random world is best met with a random character.&nbsp; If I created encounters and tailored what happens to the characters, then an intentional min/maxed character causes problems.&nbsp; However a statistical outlier vs status quo is a very different situation, because I am not setting the DCs.&nbsp; And everything hypersmurf said.&nbsp; Aaron.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jester47, post: 1437420, member: 2238"] last question first- I will answer with a question. If the player cant fail, then why roll at all? If it requires a die roll, by the very nature [I] there must be room for failure.[/I] If there isn't don't roll that die. I am not really nerfing the diplomat. If thats what I am doing than I am nerfing everyone. Even myself as DM (mooks come out of the books, NPCs are rolled if I am not using a module). It doesn't have to be hard. There just has to be a significant chance of failure. I do let the player reap the bennies of putting a lot into pumping up diplomacy. Thing is, I don't set up the situation. Why do I do this? Because it keeps the game fun. Billions of gamblers can't be wrong. A whole city has been built on the fact that there is a rush associated with games where you can loose. Translating it to D&D, there should always be a chance of failure and success. Otherwise the game stops being fun. I guess I left out another side of the equation. The reason random works is because everything is random. If the players decide to go to Naightfang Spire (A real location IMC) at 5th level, then they go. I am not going to stop them. So they probably will get attacked by a mooncalf, its the decision they made. A random world is best met with a random character. If I created encounters and tailored what happens to the characters, then an intentional min/maxed character causes problems. However a statistical outlier vs status quo is a very different situation, because I am not setting the DCs. And everything hypersmurf said. Aaron. [/QUOTE]

Verification