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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1538257" data-attributes="member: 5171">Morning, everybody!  (my time)To the folks who prefer role-then-roll to roll-then-role (namely Bendris, Milotha, and Psion): do-able.  I've got people who like it both ways in my game, and I don't force either method.  So, in that respect, I was talking without thinking. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />My personal preference is, now that I think about it honestly, sort of a middle ground -- I say, for a given Bluff check, "This is a bluff check to convince him that XXXX", where XXXX is something I've just thought of, and then I roll, and then I play it.  I have no problem with roleplaying it and then rolling it.  I do have a problem with roleplaying it, rolling it, and then, if the roll doesn't work, complaining that it should have worked anyway because it makes logical sense.  Since that's not what you guys are suggesting here, I don't think we really disagree.Bendris, though, you said, "It seems to change the game from improvisational to script-reading."  I don't entirely agree -- I actually did entirely agree when I incorrectly read what you wrote as "change the game to improvisational script-reading".  You don't get complete creative freedom when describing your interactions with NPCs in combat, and now that social skills are integrated into the game with a codified ruleset, it seems reasonable to me that you don't get complete freedom when describing your interactions with them when attempting to meaningfully affect the course of the game through personality alone (as opposed to when you've got hard facts and evidence about something and don't need to convince them through persuasiveness, when you're just asking a simple informational question, or other "no rolls necessary" situations).  And I personally enjoy looking at the roll and thinking, "Okay, how would Karok the Merciless play a Diplomacy roll of 7?"  But that is just me, and doesn't have to be the situation for everyone.  It's equally valid to make your case, roll, see that the roll sucks, and then jokingly say that your character was drooling or making shifty eye movements or stuttering nervously while trying to be suave.  Or basically, all the good stuff Psion said about "intention versus result", with the comments about "trying to say charming thing to significant other versus result of what you said to significant other" being taken especially well this morning. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Milotha, you wrote "But it did mean that our actions were used as a basis for determining if we succeeded. Good role playing, creative ideas, and good fast talk were rewarded."  You were describing the good old days, but in my opinion, you could just as easily be describing things today.  It's unfortunate that you've had a bummer of a time with your 3.x group, but, having not been there, I don't really know how to judge that situation -- you could be describing it accurately, or your DM could have been altering things but not telling you.  I can tell you that the system works better for me.For instance, your statement that "No matter what I say, the DC stays the same" is not actually true according to the rules.  Bluffing someone with something they want to hear or are predisposed to believe carries a +5 bonus. Bluffing them with something utterly ludicrous carries a -30 penalty -- and note that I've played in a game where a high-level bard actually got one of the ludicrious bluffs off successfully.  If your DM kept the DC at 25 no matter what you said, then your DM was not reading the rules correctly.The "This was how it worked in my group, but then, we were all really good roleplayers" statement is probably not one that we want to get started on, because it carries an implicit "And if you disagree with me, it stands to reason that your group doesn't have good roleplayers," and I don't think that's something we can usefully debate.Again, I bring up the notion of roleplaying as tied into character creation.  You might be roleplaying a persuasive fast-talker just wonderfully, but if your character sheet says "Charisma 9", then I personally don't believe that you're doing a good job of roleplaying that character very well.  If you want to roleplay a persuasive fast-talker who always has a quip ready (and if you want to have it affect the game and not just be almost-out-of-character side comments), you need to put a better score into Charisma and you need to put some ranks into a specific skill.  If you don't -- if you make Charisma your dump stat -- then your DM is quite right to not let your personal roleplaying effectively negate your character's worst score, just like your Int-6 half-orc barbarian shouldn't be solving complex algebraic equations to solve the riddle of the haunted temple.  When I make a swashbuckling fast-talker (say, a melee-combat-oriented fighter/rogue), I usually make Wisdom my dump stat, taking a penalty on Will saves, Spot checks, and Sense Motive checks instead.  I do this because I want to be able to roleplay my character as being persuasive and charming, and I want to have good bonuses on my Bluff and Diplomacy checks.  I am taking a numeric penalty in one area in order to get a numeric bonus in another area, and to accurately reflect the character that I want to roleplay.  If I wanted to roleplay someone who was charming and wise and agile and strong and smart and hale & hearty, then (assuming Point Buy) I'd either give him decent-but-not-great scores everywhere in order to avoid having a dump stat, or I'd ask the DM if I could play a character with more points to spend than the other players, and if the character could start one level behind everyone else.It seems, from what you've said here, that the problem is not with the system.  The problem seems to be that you want to roleplay your character in a certain way when his relevant abilities and skills do not necessarily support playing him in that manner.  That's not a problem with the system.  That's a problem with your build.  Building a character which accurately reflects the person you want to roleplay, and which gives you the numerical abilities to do what you want to say your character does, is quite a bit different in 3e.</blockquote>

Verification