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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9478808" data-attributes="member: 2067">Sure, that's just meaningful chance of failure. My point was just that in the play of the game, swinging a sword isn't ALWAYS a die roll. By default, it's not. We need to have an excuse to roll the dice. I mean, I accept that you can make an argument for wanting to roll dice for social interaction. My point was that you can also make an argument for not wanting that, and that argument isn't hollow or thoughtless.Like, if I'm putting together a jigsaw puzzle, there are, of course, random elements that might interfere with me completing it. I could lose a piece. I could have a major life event crop up. I could spill hot tea on it. Someone's cat could take an interest in it. But the randomness that exists there doesn't feel like a meaningful part of completing the puzzle or not. Would you roll a die for someone completing a jigsaw puzzle in D&D? Certainly, you could make a case for it. But I also can see why in 50 years of the game we don't have a "Puzzle" skill and that attempts to introduce skills like it tend to fall a little flat. At the end of the day wanting to roll dice or not on social interactions isn't about the argument you make, it's about if the group finds it adds to the fun. A lot of groups don't. Because the more basic rule, "pretend to be your character," covers most social interaction just fine. No need for the complexity.You don't HAVE to roll dice to see if you hit. We often choose to because it's more fun that way.Again, you're making an argument for something that isn't really being debated.The point I'm making is that for a lot of groups, "pretend to be your character" covers social interaction just fine,  but people have a desire for more complexity in combat. That doesn't mean that other groups won't hold the exact opposite perspective.</blockquote>

Verification