Community

Valdrax wrote:

arderkrag]Oh, I dunno, the referee of the game?

So, the character is your intellectual property, and the player has no input in how they should play it?

Does the referee in a football game own the game plans for the coaches involved? No, he just tells them that "No, that's invalid. You can't sneak three extra balls onto the field and use them as distractions." The plans are still the coach's (or the managers, or the team owners, or something. They're the teams', is the point). The referees (and the organization they represent) set the rules, but what's done within them is up to each team.

Oh, I dunno, the referee of the game?[/quote]
So, the character is your intellectual property, and the player has no input in how they should play it?[/quote]
Does the referee in a football game own the game plans for the coaches involved? No, he just tells them that "No, that's invalid. You can't sneak three extra balls onto the field and use them as distractions." The plans are still the coach's (or the managers, or the team owners, or something. They're the teams', is the point). The referees (and the organization they represent) set the rules, but what's done within them is up to each team.

Here's a flip-side situation: What do you do when a PC fails a save against a fear effect and the player still wants to act brave?

If you punish the player for not role-playing properly or take away control of their character from them, then you're already accepting that a dice mechanic can drive the success or failure of their character in an emotional/mental situation. So then why would you only accept this when it punishes the PC?

This one's a really good example. I'm going to have to use it next time I get in this debate

OravennasBrother wrote:

The problem with allowing a mechanical resolution to social interaction to occur is you WILL get players who want to get past the guards with their "+12 bluff"

NO account of how they might try to fool the guard, they just want to roll their "+12 bluff"

SO either the system gives bonuses to players who are clever and penalties to idiots (and combat does the same - I've seen stupid players, generate high level spellcasters, be virtually useless because of the player)
Which is labeled discriminatory
OR
the system is purely mechanical and the "+12 bluff" works just fine,.

I'll take the label

Not quite true. There's a third alternative: You don't roll anything, and the entire system is based on letting players who are clever win and keeping those who are idiots from even trying. That's what most people in this thread that are arguing against a mechanical system for social interaction are advocating (as far as I can tell, I may be overgeneralizing). Personally, the first option you list (and thus the middle of the road one) makes the most sense to me. Give a bonus for offering a high enough bribe, give a bonus for appealing to the guard's morality, get a penalty for implying that the guard isn't doing his job.... That's not discriminatory provided you don't penalize for doing nothing other than "I talk my way past the guard - bluff +12"

Another Gnome wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, the point is that they are supposed to be playing a roleplaying game, not taking acting classes from the DM.

Maybe, just maybe, I said "comfortable in trying to emulate" not "trying to win an Oscar."

If a player's PC has personality traits that they aren't willing to portray - never mind about how well or badly they act it - there's not much point in them having the traits.