Now, I'm not ready to go completely on the other side and get rid of the skills like this. As has been mentioned, sometimes a character's skill at diplomacy, bluffing, sense motive or whatever may be far less are far more advanced than the player's. A barbarian from the untamed wilds who speaks eloquently and with decorum befitting one of noble birth is just as unrealistic as a highly skilled bard or diplomat who couldn't convince a beggar to take a coin. Skills like diplomacy give you some measure of how good or bad the character should be in these situations.
In my games, I allow a skill like diplomacy to be used in multiple different ways. A well rolled diplomacy check might provide a clue to a PC as to what might be the most effective argument would be given the NPCs apparent motivations. This represents the character's ability to read someone. I may also use it to adjust the NPCs attitude for the purposes of considering the player's argument, allowing the NPC to take what the player said in a more or less favorable light to represent how well the character actually delivered the message. And we also use the skill as a gauge to determine how the character should be roleplayed. If the character has no proficiency in diplomacy, then that should be reflected in how the character talks.







Reply With Quote



Bookmarks