The everlasting and often heated discussion between Role players and Roll players is nowhere more evident than in the application of that typically 3rd edition novelty, the skills-system. The potential for both sides are enormous as some proclaim it to be a huge help in Role-playing their non-combat or combat situations, others see it as the doom of all Role-playing due to the roll of a single die.
So what is that section of the game that is so often deferred to the second page of a PC sheet, never to be in the spotlight until needed? I view it as the non-combat stat part of the game. In its extensive collection of different skills you can combine just about every wacky plan ever made by a group of PC's, yet it is hugely under lit in my opinion. A good set of skills make or break a PC just as high stats or powerful equipment and/or spells. It's the sole reason rogues are fun to play again, and one of the few (if not only) part of the ranger that never gets modified.
And since the 'social skills' like Innuendo and Gather Info and Diplomacy (to name a few) are inserted now, even a PC of a poor Role-player can shine now. Heck, with the right set of skills the PC outdoes any attempt at Role-play that the player could ever think up! Can you talk down a crowd to calm the frenzy they had when they were planning to burn your wizard? A high Diplomacy Paladin can! Can you lie convincingly enough, whilst offering a perfect copy of a writ by the King, standing on a little pewter block of wood, whilst the rope around your neck slips closed, to get out? A rogue with high enough Bluff, Forgery, Balance and Concentration can. In essence, no Role-playing is ever needed again with the right skills. You just have to name which ones you use, and roll the die.
In essence, 3rd edition *is* pure Roll playing. Isn't that just the way combat works? Pick the tactic and roll the die? If you were a sticky for the rules would you ever consider giving a player an extra partial action in combat, because he described his actions so beautifully? Would you indeed suddenly confirm that missed critical, just because the PC wielding the weapon just threw out one of the coolest one-liners in the campaign so far? Probably not. You'd laugh about, possibly give him some extra XP and move on. Then why be so lenient with skills? More often than not I see a party questioning the mayor or acquiring useful hints in a city, only to find out that the only skills the questioner had rhymed with Procrastinate. No roll was made, no check was necessary. Role-playing was done, and everyone was delighted. Only the player of the rogue or bard felt like a dumb brick, that he chose that "wimpy" class, because he never got to do anything cool. Everyone screams game-balance or power-gaming when some brings up a Combat God, yet when it comes to situations where the skills come into play, everybody seems to be allowed to take twenty on them all. I can see you all thinking: "So what? Now the dumb fighter is no longer allowed to speak? The angry half-orc barbarian can't have a fancy personality anymore? It's now all numbers and no fun?" Added player ingenuity is completely negated at the table? No, it isn't. And here's why.
Evading the oncoming rotten tomatoes of all the Role-Players amongst you, I shall now explain where Role-playing does come in.
In the situational modifiers! Just like combat has a tactical advantage for lying prone, being on higher ground or flanking, so do the skills. What if during that bartering session with the shopkeeper and the bard, the fighter kept asking about swords during the conversation? I see a -2 penalty on bartering for the Shopkeeper right there. If the fighter does the same in a king's court, when the bard speaks to the king, you turn that penalty around and the bard gets the diplomacy penalty for the fighters rudeness. Any RP idea that somehow has a chance of failure should be rolled, with any skill-help or RP idea adding bonus to the roll made.
Here is another example. The rogue tries to get info from a magic guild leader about a missing magical sword. He rolls gather info if he just wants the info. He rolls diplomacy if he wants to make friends first. He gets a -2 on his roll if he doesn't use the proper respectful tone to the leader (Role-play moment), he gets a +2 bonus on his roll if he shows to be "one of them" by bluffing to have been an apprentice once (Role-play too.). If the wizard asks him for some nugget of knowledge, he could even know that (knowledge roll) or Role-play that out too.(Thats a +2 to bluff that he is the aforementioned apprentice.) He could get a +2 on his roll if the fighter stands besides the rogue ready to smash a crystal orb with his hammer if he doesn't answer. (This could be a RP thought at the table.)
The point is one could hugely improve one's chances of succeeding in social skill-rolls with some imaginative Role-Playing. And still use the skills for what they're for. Now, I can understand the objections that this way of role-playing (or indeed roll-playing) is tedious, due to the high amount of extra die-rolls. But remember that it only sounds like that. Most questions are easily asked and even more easily answered. Only when it gets tough or somewhat difficult should skill-rolls come into play. Just like the average level 6 party who encounters a group of goblins, and just throws out the idea of tactics, since the battle is easy enough already. The fact that they may be wrong in this is a fault only PCs can make. Thats the danger of the road, nest pas? And now, players who dont always want to RP can get on with the story too, by just relying on their skills and rolls. Only theyd have a lesser chance to succeed, due to the absence of Role-playing.
An added perk is by playing like this, theres essentially no dump stat anymore. Since any stat gives bonus to at least some skills, and since especially Charisma is *the* social stat, if PC fighters should want to participate in talking, they think twice about having a Cha of 3 just to maximize strength or con. Provided their Intelligence goes over 4 of course, but then theyd have no skill at all to worry about, let alone the capacity to do so. And last but not least, it solves that pesky problem of having godlike skill-heights and no way to Role-play it. Its all fine and dandy that you have that climb +54 which allows you to climb empty air without breaking a seat, but how would you describe or Role-play diplomacy of +56? Simple, just try and RP it out, then roll with your skill, and add all the fantastic elements in your arguments and speech that fooled the God of truth standing in front of you. Some things should be left to the PC and through it to the die, because at one point he *will* be better than you. That is when RP is still important for the involvement, but skills are paramount for progression of the story.
Yours truly,
Pieter van t slot
A.K.A. Thalantor or "He Who Thinks Skills are Neat."
|
