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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 1107508" data-attributes="member: 2525">Ran: I totally agree, it is fun to role play even spells and sword strikes.  But if the DM doesn't like how well you describe such things, does he/she give you a negative modifier to the sword hit or spell DC check? I doubt it.  Take for example a person who has a masters degree in biology, who has memorized Gray's anatomy, and is a fencing instructor for a living in real life.  Would that person get a bonus every time he describes a sword hit in a D&D game?  I doubt it.  Because that would not be as fun.  The description that player gives is fun, but you wouldn't likely benefit that player for their personal knowledge.Reverse the situation:  A player in the same game as the Bio/Fencing ezxpert has no knowledge at all of biology or real life fencing - they just say "I try to hit the creature on the left". Would you give them a negative modifier to hitting and damage? I doubt that as well.Now me, I have a law certificate in dispute resolution from the 5th best university in the nation for such degrees.  I also negotiate for a living.  Should I get a bonus to my Diplomacy checks simply because I know persuation techniques better than most, and bring those real life skills into the game when my character uses the Diplomacy skill? I wouldn't think so.  Nor should the player that has massive stage fright, and is trained in a field that rarely brings them in contact with others, and is shy and hates speaking in front of a crowd, and stutters, and often takes more time to come up with what they are going to say, be given a negative modifier when their character uses the Diplomacy skill.The role playing decides what your character does in a general sense.  It adds color and fun to the game.  It points the character in a direction.  But you shouldn't punish or reward the player's use of a skill, or an ability, or a spell, or anything that their character does well simply because the player of that character isn't as good at it as their character would be (as long as they are trying to role play it as best they can, and are not being intentionally lazy about it).Now, that isn't to say you shouldn't try to encourage good role playing.  A minor (MINOR) circumstance modifier to encourage people to play more in character is often useful.  But that goes for swordplay, spellcasting, turning checks, jumping, and everything else a player does in a game.  It shouldn't be more important to the DM that you role play the Diplomacy skill than every other kind of skill, just because the DM thinks of Diplomacy as a role-playing opportunity rather than the turning check as a role-playing opportunity.  EVERYTHING is a role playing opportunity, and if you want to reward players for getting more into character, or punish them for getting lazy, then that is certainly a fair thing to do...for all things they do.But I don't think it is fair to take it out more on the character who focuses everything into Diplomacy rather than killing things with a weapon or a spell.</blockquote>

Verification