Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Can you please enlighten me as to why a +2 bonus of all things is the common accepted bonus then? Surely there is no reason to be tied to any certain number since you can do whatever you want it seems given the scenario has no rules for it and a GM is given flexibility.
I am not the only one arguing the +2 roleplaying rule doesn't actually exist. There is still nothing posted which suggests there is either. At best you could give someone a +2 or -2 if somehow not a single person at a table knew how diplomacy worked if you base your argument off the CRB 403 pg.
If you won't take John's word for it, I don't know what you are expecting.
Why +2? Because it is easy to remember. It's based on the GM Fiat rule, so +2 just makes sense. If it needs to be more, GM has that option. (Note however, that the PFS roleplay bonus is entirely separate from GM Fiat and contained in the campaign rules, not CRB.).
You are right, the OP made the same argument that you have. John Compton corrected them.
|
I don't understand why you think I'm not accepting John's statement. I am clearly in agreement that
It's fairly common—not universal, but fairly common—for a scenario to either recommend that a GM grant a bonus on a skill check for good roleplaying or even waive the check altogether.
I disagree you can give a bonus when the scenario doesn't call for it. Which is why he said he noted that as feedback for a scenario which didn't include it.
At least now it is clear the +2 is simply an arbitrary number based off a rule intended for if you don't know the rules. A GM seems to be able to do whatever they would like. I don't think this is actually the case but whatever floats people's boats I suppose.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
At least now it is clear the +2 is simply an arbitrary number based off a rule intended for if you don't know the rules.
simply grant a player a +2 or a –2 bonus or penalty
to a die roll if no one at the table is precisely sure how a
situation might be handled by the rules
If a scenario doesn't provide a listed benefit for a creative argument, I'd feel pretty justified arguing that no one at the table would know how a situation involving that argument might be handled by the rules. The rules are likewise unclear about what benefit you get from impassioned or lively roleplay. Hence, +2.
|
I think the question comes down to whether, when you're playing a non-diplomatic character in a diplomatic situation, should you receive a benefit for doing a good job of being non-diplomatic? Well, that will depend on how you do it, but it's going to be a challenge and whether I'd give you a roleplaying bonus on a particular check would depend on how I think the NPC with whom you're interacting would receive it. Being insulting will hardly ever be helpful and roleplaying it well would not make it more helpful. I would give you a bonus on an aid check if you're making a good show of being intimidating and the NPC does not have a specified negative reaction to that. I don't think roleplaying a bad approach well should ever be helpful to your goal.
If the GM believes the player is giving a strong, believable, consistent performance (my definition of 'good' roleplay), then an in-game benefit may be appropriate, though it may be wise to introduce it from an unexpected angle.
Maybe after being (literally) thrown out of the Duke's meeting hall for speaking his mind, a figure could step out of the shadows and offer his condolences. "I say, it has been a long time indeed since anyone dared to trouble the Duke with uncomfortable facts. I admire your spirit, you're ten times the man he is, or any of his lickspittle cronies. Maybe you and I could be of use to one another?".