"Real role-players don't roll dice!" and other such madness

[Swordslinger]

In D&D they could take a huge number of options to fuck up the elves or get the king to attack. I dunno, here's a few off the top of my head:

1. Publicly murder someone while disguised as elves, continue doing this until the kingdom is fed up and wants to kill them.

2. Support a coup where the leader is vehemently anti-elf.

3. Go to the elven kingdom and get them to attack the humans.

4. Threaten the king.

5. Kidnap his daughter/wife and murder them if he doesn't go to war with the elves.

See, your players made a decision by talking to the king. Who the fuck cares exactly what is said to him?

Kidnapping the queen or princess and using them for ransom is actually a cool plot and quest. Going to the king and saying "blah blah blah blah" and having the king's opinion magical change isn't. I wouldn't even qualify that as storytelling.

The king whose blackmailed into war is likely going to be very merciful with his casualties, and only do what's absolutely necessary. He's always going to be looking for opportunities to turn the tables on the kidnappers and so on. And indeed if someone rescues the queen, the war can end, and the king can apologize. This is actually a character I can roleplay. I know why he's in the war, and I know what kinds of things can get him to stop the war. The character is looking to protect his family and is doing horrible things to do it.

The king who got hit with a diplomacy effect backed up with arbitrarium is not a roleplayable character. His motivations are a giant unknown and he's not acting like a person. That's just awful storytelling. Someone a few pages compared to a Uwe Boll quality plot, and that's a dead on comparison.

[Ice9]

But how they convince the king isn't what matters, what matters is that they decided to convince the king in the first place.

With all the other options mentioned, how they did it is important. Why would talking to the king be different?
In fact, a number of your other options are things that would qualify as a short mission or series of actions, not something you'd do in a single roll at all.

By your logic, this is how exploring some ancient ruins would go:
"Ok, we're going to go into the ruins, fight anything there, and find the rod of a couple parts. Knowledge (dungeoneering) 26, Attack roll 22."
After all, the important thing is that they decided to go into the ruins.

[TheFlatline]

If you have no evidence it's fine (mechanically) to say "I try to convince the king to go to war with the elves, DIPLOMACY!" You'll probably get a response of "That sounds reasonable if what you're saying is true, but do you have any proof?" but you should be able to do that.

I'm against bonuses due to speeches/RP and such. The player should make their performance fit the roll, rather than pretend their character gave an eloquent speech. Again, if I tied a knot and my character couldn't do that would my character succeed because I can do something? That's silly. Michael Phelps should never put ranks in Swim, I suppose.

Actually let's approach this logically: If you went to the king and tried to get him to attack the elves based on your wonderful personality and charm and wit, unless you're fucking him his response is almost certainly going to be "Get the fuck out of my audience hall." If you're lucky you won't be arrested or handed over to the elves.

And if you are fucking him, he'll probably say "I'll think it over right after you polish my knob again." Repeat ad nauseum until the sex dries up, and then things get interesting.

But again, even "I'm fucking the king" is roleplaying and a "justification" for arguing that the king should go to war. Hell, it worked in shifting Henry VIII away from the Vatican.

Rolling and then figuring out what the argument was based on the die roll is backwards and illogical. Paranoia does it that way, explicitly, so that people can throw in modifiers by spending XP to fuck/help other players. They even admit it's backwards and counter-intuitive. There's no point in doing it unless you're going to let people throw in character points before hand or you want the DM to do *all* the creative lifting.

Edit: Imagine if you cast spells that way. "Dude, make a reflex saving throw". If he makes it "oh that was a frost burst cantrip." If he doesn't make it "yeah, that was my disintegrate spell."

It makes no sense.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

But how they convince the king isn't what matters, what matters is that they decided to convince the king in the first place.

With all the other options mentioned, how they did it is important. Why would talking to the king be different?
In fact, a number of your other options are things that would qualify as a short mission or series of actions, not something you'd do in a single roll at all.

By your logic, this is how exploring some ancient ruins would go:
"Ok, we're going to go into the ruins, fight anything there, and find the rod of a couple parts. Knowledge (dungeoneering) 26, Attack roll 22."
After all, the important thing is that they decided to go into the ruins.

If there are no significant challenges or plot discoveries to be made in the ruins then yeah, that is the important part. Unless the king is going to be this huge challenge, which is pretty much impossible using D&D diplomacy since a DC 50 check means you win at talking forever, or do something important relative to the plot (aside from agree with you) it's a minor thing. Personal audience with the king, diplomacy at him, go kill some elves.

Ever played that part of Red Hand of Doom where you have to convince the local government to do shit (unless my MC made that up)? That was fucking terrible. It was supposed to be a courtroom drama of sorts but because it used D&D mechanics it shit itself.



Flatline, I'm suggesting you announce what you're rolling Diplomacy for "I try to convince the guard to let our caravan through" for example. If you got a bad result you'd alter your performance to be worse, representing that your character did not do well. "Mr. Guard! We...uhhh, we need to get through. Like, really badly. It's super important. Why is it so important? Gee, it just is. You sure look pretty today."

You don't change your intentions, you just change how well you perform. It's like how if you roll badly on an attack you say it missed/bounced off their armor/they blocked it or something. If you roll badly on diplomacy you don't sound convincing, so don't sound convincing if you're RPing that. If you rolled well you could say "We're transporting vital supplies for the kingdom, it is crucial that we be allowed to pass," in your most manly and important voice.

I'unno, I find that to be more fun than "I'll always give a good speech because the MC will make sure my character succeeds, and having a character fail at something is uncool." You're getting a mechanical benefit for NOT accurately roleplaying. Isn't that retarded? If I describe my attack as hitting it does not mean I get a bonus to my attack roll, so why should describing my speech as good give me a bonus to my diplomacy roll? You could give situational modifiers for having and using evidence, but for purple prose?

[fectin]

Go back and reread the thread. You're attacking strawmen, and it makes you look ignorant.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Rolling and then figuring out what the argument was based on the die roll is backwards and illogical. Paranoia does it that way, explicitly, so that people can throw in modifiers by spending XP to fuck/help other players. They even admit it's backwards and counter-intuitive. There's no point in doing it unless you're going to let people throw in character points before hand or you want the DM to do *all* the creative lifting.

Edit: Imagine if you cast spells that way. "Dude, make a reflex saving throw". If he makes it "oh that was a frost burst cantrip." If he doesn't make it "yeah, that was my disintegrate spell."

It makes no sense.

You can see that, right Fectin? I didn't make something up to argue against. I mean, Flatline put words into my mouth (decide what action I'm taking after the roll, rather than base performance off of it) but I was just correcting him. What the tits are you talking about?


I guess we're supposed to be talking about system agnostic shit, but the system heavily influences the type of story you will be telling.

To get back on track: all I've been *trying* (and, apparently failing) to say is as long as you fulfill the mechanical obligations of the system you are roleplaying in a perfectly serviceable way by providing a character who makes decisions based on how that character (and not the player) feels about whatever situation they're in. Roleplaying does not mean you have to talk in character or go above and beyond the call of duty (though the other players would appreciate it), you just need to be playing the damn character.

I've also been arguing against situational bonuses for good speeches, because I think the character's skill should be what matters. That's the point of skills/social combat mechanics. It also prevents the MC from playing favorites with bonuses.

There ya go, that's my position on whole shebang.

[TheFlatline]

Rolling and then figuring out what the argument was based on the die roll is backwards and illogical. Paranoia does it that way, explicitly, so that people can throw in modifiers by spending XP to fuck/help other players. They even admit it's backwards and counter-intuitive. There's no point in doing it unless you're going to let people throw in character points before hand or you want the DM to do *all* the creative lifting.

Edit: Imagine if you cast spells that way. "Dude, make a reflex saving throw". If he makes it "oh that was a frost burst cantrip." If he doesn't make it "yeah, that was my disintegrate spell."

It makes no sense.

You can see that, right Fectin? I didn't make something up to argue against. I mean, Flatline put words into my mouth (decide what action I'm taking after the roll, rather than base performance off of it) but I was just correcting him. What the tits are you talking about?


I guess we're supposed to be talking about system agnostic shit, but the system heavily influences the type of story you will be telling.

To get back on track: all I've been *trying* (and, apparently failing) to say is as long as you fulfill the mechanical obligations of the system you are roleplaying in a perfectly serviceable way by providing a character who makes decisions based on how that character (and not the player) feels about whatever situation they're in. Roleplaying does not mean you have to talk in character or go above and beyond the call of duty (though the other players would appreciate it), you just need to be playing the damn character.

I've also been arguing against situational bonuses for good speeches, because I think the character's skill should be what matters. That's the point of skills/social combat mechanics. It also prevents the MC from playing favorites with bonuses.

There ya go, that's my position on whole shebang.

You've been arguing for "whatever convinces the king to attack the elves if I roll a 30 for diplomacy" for pages and pages. That's determining the action after the roll. My point is that your argument is like burning off a spell. If you don't convince the king with the battle plans, you probably won't be able to use them again. Cross that option off.

Plus you're against rewarding players for going above and beyond and actually... you know... getting into character. You think "I diplomancy the king into attacking the elves: I rolled 35" is getting into character. Which the rest of the people in this thread says is not roleplaying. It's not even what any books describe as roleplaying. It's at best MMO levels of "roleplaying".

Anyway I quit. You win just by being stubborn and idiotic longer than my patience can hold out for. So you win the internets dude.

[Swordslinger]

Plus you're against rewarding players for going above and beyond and actually... you know... getting into character. You think "I diplomancy the king into attacking the elves: I rolled 35" is getting into character. Which the rest of the people in this thread says is not roleplaying. It's not even what any books describe as roleplaying. It's at best MMO levels of "roleplaying".

Pretty much. NPCs in his world aren't actual characters, they're rules constructs that you can only influence with game mechanics. As a DM he doesn't give a shit what you say to the NPC, only that you've got the right skills.

If you don't have the right skills, nothing you say will ever matter to an NPC, if you do, the NPC will ignore reason, logic and emotion to meet whatever request you have. Hell, even the rogue AIs in The Matrix Trilogy were more human than his NPCs.

[RobG]

What if you're fucking stupid. I mean, what if you're too stupid to play Lord Handsomeface (great name BTW) and roleplay him well, for whatever reason.

At Libertad: Is there some sort of 'fastest to 100 posts' prize I dont know about? Im not ragging on you, Im just curious. You sure dived in with both feet here.

[Chamomile]

Having a social mechanic governed purely by the actual mechanics has a significant roleplay advantage: It lets Aspie Annie play Charismatic Catherine. She can roll some dice and then, if she really can't think of anything to say at all (and being bad at talking is hypothetical Annie's only trait), the GM can just make something up for her based on the result which, with her insane diplomancer points, is probably going to be pretty good. We don't withhold combat bonuses from the 12-year old little brother because everyone else at the table could beat the crap out of him, nor do we grant them to the MMA master because he could murder the whole group in twelve seconds.

[Ice9]

We don't withhold combat bonuses from the 12-year old little brother because everyone else at the table could beat the crap out of him, nor do we grant them to the MMA master because he could murder the whole group in twelve seconds.

Actually, your real life skills do significant affect your combat performance, it just isn't your combat skills that do it.

Let's say we have Bob the Noob, playing Sun Tzu Caeser, the world's most brilliant warrior. Then we have Ed the Expert, playing Thog, a none-too-subtle orc thug. Now we have them actually go into battle, in D&D 3E (or most systems with "crunchy" combat, actually).
Bob will likely pull a number of stupid moves, such as walking past foes that get AoOs on him, standing in the wrong place so he has to waste turns moving, not focus-firing anybody, and so forth. Meanwhile, Ed is making competent tactical decisions. The result: Sun Tzu Caeser blunders around and does little of note, while Thog fights effectively and gets shit done.

Now sure, people can tell Bob when he's making a mistake, but short of completely playing his character for him, he's just not going to be super-effective. If it's because he's a noob, then he'll improve with time. If he's just horrible at any kind of tactical thinking, then he'll continue to flounder, despite how supposedly smart his character is.

That's the result of D&D being a game. Simulating the character's mental abilities only goes so far, because the players have actual mental abilities and they want to use them.

[Judging__Eagle]

Why not just make a combat game for diplomacy as a whole.

Give creatures a "morale" equal to their CR, and Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Listen, Intimidate and other mental skills can do a variety of things.

Often, the king can pull in a vizir/steward/barrister/courtier to tank the morale damage, and bring in guards to make the targeters choose if they want to escalate to an Combat encounter as opposed to merely a Verbal encounter.

Maybe even have some sort of "levels of escalation" when it comes to encounters?

[PhoneLobster]

This thread seriously seems to have the usual social mechanic retard suspects arguing that now they literally cannot accept the most basic concept of even having an abstracted roll incorporated into their social mechanic of choice even if that mechanic includes arbitrary bonuses that effectively eclipse the roll. Because even that would somehow circumvent their right to melodrama and make their "game" somehow "less talky flavored" because as we know with EVERY OTHER mechanic in the game if we want to preserve and focus on some sort of flavor the thing to do is to remove all mechanics governing it from the game up to and including even rolling something.

I point this out because I want to remind everyone how absolutely bat shit the majority of my critics in every social mechanics thread ever are.

How batshit? Fucking "No Rolls Evar!" batshit. Yeah. That batshit.

Now feel free to continue...

[Ice9]

Who's saying that? The main argument I can see is between "just declaring a diplomacy roll is all that matters, not even a vague hint of your argument is necessary" and "you don't have to actually give a speech, but you need to say what the basic gist of your argument is".

And then there's the usual "but what about people who can't even think of a vague reason", which I would take more seriously if people mentioned it for any other aspect of the game.

[PhoneLobster]

Who's saying that?

You are. Your strawmanning and no-true-Scotsman methodology in attacking ANYTHING that looks like ANY social mechanic has left you in a position where you are OPENLY arguing in a manner that strongly suggests you oppose ANY rolls, and indeed cannot be differentiated from that argument. I welcome you to try. Ideally without saying anything so outright stupid, dishonest and utter disregard for everything everyone has said on this thread as this...

which I would take more seriously if people mentioned it for any other aspect of the game

The most basic abstraction of any roll based mechanic REQUIRES that some amount of fluff be generated AFTER the fact. That amount can vary but we KNOW "pretty much all of it" is acceptable, and YOUR claims for how much you demand as a maximum are utterly unclear and your arguments in that regard are so broad and retarded as to suggest you don't HAVE a maximum.

You are arguing from a weak undefinable position and the result is a bunch of grasping bullshit that contradicts the most basic observed traits of existing successful RPGs.

Like basically everything you ever say.

[Chamomile]

-snip-

This is all true, but kind of moot. We grant good tactical thinkers an advantage over poor ones (regardless of character role) because the only way to not do so would be to simplify the combat system to the point where the only major decision made is "I'm attacking the orcs/trolls/darkness!" Even then, Bob the Noob is more likely to start fights he probably can't finish than Ed the Expert, with the end result that Sun Tzu Caesar still looks incompetent, just in a more Leeroy Jenkins kind of way. We let Ed the Expert have the advantage because we'd have to sacrifice huge swathes of the game to take it away from him, and that's just not worth it.

On the other hand, there's not nearly as much lost if we don't hand out circumstantial benefits for actually being persuasive.

[...You Lost Me]

PL, I read all (four) of Ice9's posts in this thread, and the only thing that even kind of maybe relates to your criticism was this:

I'm not saying people have to lay out their entire speech, or deliver it in character, but they do need to at least say what the gist of their argument is. When you attack, you need to say where from and with what. When you cast a spell, you have to say which spell and select any options it has.

"I'm going to convince the king that the Elves smell bad and so he should kill them all" will give you different results than "I'm going to convince the king that the Elves are a destabilizing force on his reign", in the same way that "I walk here (right past the foes with reach weapons), into melee, then shoot him with a hand crossbow" will give different results than "I charge him with a spear, Power Attack for 5".

Conclusion: PhoneLobster is dumb as bricks.

Ice9 literally restated his original opinion to you and you were like "OH NO YOU DIDN'T I HAVE TEH QUOTE MIXUP SIGNATURE YOU ARE SO DUMB YOU ARE REALLY DUMB FOR REAL WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE SO WRONG AND DUMB" ... I mean, seriously man. Stop waving your dick around.

PL, you have pulled a Frank--you ran into a conversation without actually understanding what it was about, people yelled at you, and now you're resorting to ad hominem. Man up and adjust your damn opinion.

[PhoneLobster]

PL, I read all (four) of Ice9's posts in this thread, and the only thing that even kind of maybe relates to your criticism was this:

Aside from the fact that he wasn't alone and was supporting a large number of posts by Swordslinger and others.

The argument he presents to support his position is an argument against ALL abstraction he says he cannot understand how a roll could possibly work if you got a poor result and THEN filled in the fluff with a poor angle of diplomatic attack.

But Rolls MUST have some level of post roll fluff filling in. If he attacks filling in fluff after rolling as a general concept. And he does in a desperate attempt to support his stupid position. Then that means that he is attacking abstraction and rolls at all.

And the important thing is THAT argument is stupid. THAT argument does not have firm boundaries at which it starts or stops and IT is indeed an argument against all abstraction. If he says it isn't... all the worse for him since he isn't even consistent.

Additional details with additional modifiers CAN be added to rolls. The poeple Ice 9 is arguing against presented that as an acceptable option but ALSO presented the scenario where additional details and additional modifers did not always apply. THAT is a consistent stance. Why? Because there MUST be a "default" scenario there MUST be a "zero modifier" scenario, a situation without complications, there in fact genuinely must be a social action or several hundred, where describing "I want to X to Y" IS in fact the entire description. Ice 9 denies this and demands EVERY situation have ADDITIONAL details WITH MODIFIERS.

That is unreasonable that is insanity.

[Swordslinger]

What if you're fucking stupid. I mean, what if you're too stupid to play Lord Handsomeface (great name BTW) and roleplay him well, for whatever reason.

Then you're probably not going to be as effective as you could be.

What if you're too stupid to play an archmage and can't choose the right spells to be effective? Do you expect to just tell your DM that your character is smarter than you and its your DM's job to pick the spells your character knows and prepares?

If you suck at the game, then you suck at the game. Keep playing, maybe you'll get better. Either that or you can bitch about how you think Modern Warfare should automatically aim your mouse for you because you're too slow to use it effectively.

[fectin]

No. Ice9 doesn't say any of that. This is why I accused you of strawmanning earlier: you're attacking something that isn't his position.

On your claim that his arguement is against all abstraction, don't be foolish. He wasn't arguing that at all, and you know it, and the slippery slope arguement you're trying to counter with applies equally well to you (PL's arguement that sometimes player choices aren't necessary is an arguement against all player choices ever!)

Your premise in your actual arguement is categorically false. When in combat with someone halfway up the stairs, you can attack from above or from below, but either way one of you has the higher ground. There is no "zero modifier scenario". There's a bazillion other examples, that's just a quick and easy one.

Fundamentally though, you have simply ignored everyone else and gone off on tangents. I pointed out that diplomacy doesn't actually do the things you want to do. Ice9 hasnt even been that rigorous, and only wants to know the actual content of your requests. You've responded with wild tangents about how players aren't necessarily as skilled as characters, or with some batshit basketweaving phobia.

Let's talk about Bluff briefly instead. Consider a gate with a guard. You need to get by, and you have bluff +$Texas. Obviously, you can get through using bluff. You could tell him "look over there!" then sprint through (guards are after you pretty quick). You can tell him "gate inspectors" (may be escorted, and are likely to be reported, but not immediately). You can tell him that he is secretly a prince, and needs to go slay a dragon (free rein, at least until the next shift change). All these things are bluffing your way past the guard, but they don't all have the same outcome. It doesn't matter even a little if the player is supernaturally persuasive. Even Swordslinger hasn't claimed that it does. But it matters very much what the character uses his supernatural persuasiveness to actually do. The same thing applies to diplomacy. After you have used diplomacy to make the king into your numbah one fan, he's very likely to take your advice. But how long that sticks (if it does at all) is determined by what you tell him. E.g. if you tell him that elves have stolen his daughter, the war's going to get called off whenever she wakes up from her nap.

[PhoneLobster]

No. Ice9 doesn't say any of that. This is why I accused you of strawmanning earlier: you're attacking something that isn't his position.

I shall make this very simple for you with sock puppets.

Ice_9 and friends : You cannot leave fluff up in the air until after you roll!

Me: Then we may as well not roll because we cannot leave success or failure up in the air until after you roll.

You : They did not want their argument to apply to that!

Me : Too bad, it does, now fix it or shut the fuck up.

The whole POINT is that he doesn't INTEND to argue for that, because that is stupid, but his argument as it stands does extend that far. Demonstrating that an argument natural extended or applied in similar circumstances causes blatantly ridiculous results is a VERY BASIC means of demonstrating that an argument is itself stupid. Do you not understand how this works?.

Your premise in your actual arguement is categorically false. When in combat with someone halfway up the stairs, you can attack from above or from below, but either way one of you has the higher ground. There is no "zero modifier scenario". There's a bazillion other examples, that's just a quick and easy one.

Okay, so you really need an intro to "how arguments work". So for instance if I say "There are countless scenarios with no modifiers" you saying "there are countless scenarios WITH modifiers" does not in fact demonstrate that my claim is false. Especially since I actually pointed out there ARE scenarios with modifiers as well. But really you are missing some pretty basic concepts of logical set theory to even TRY and make that sort losers argument and not expect to be laughed out on your ass.

You've responded with wild tangents about how players aren't necessarily as skilled as characters, or with some batshit basketweaving phobia.

Hm. I think you may be mixing me up with someone else. I should get You Lost me to complain at you about that.

I mean not that I'm disavowing myself of Pseudo's statements about player skill. That's some basic shit and the fact that criticism of such a basic requirement of RPG theory is allowed to fly in this forum these days is pretty remarkable.

Let's talk about Bluff briefly instead.

Here is the thing about your entire inane argument. There.

So what.

OK you step in, you pick and choose specifically a scenario with specific modifiers to difficulty. When the social character rolls high or wins or whatever you still have to generate the fluff for the result.

The argument that "you roll and then if you succeed you SOMEHOW convince him" is not negated by the fact that someone gave you DC modifiers for the GOAL of "You can tell him that he is secretly a prince, and needs to go slay a dragon". Because you know what? That additional goal doesn't tell us how the fuck you convinced him of those facts. Indeed to be honest the higher your situational goal DC is the harder that gap is to fill, effectively making your preferred scenarios a WORSE argument for your position than the rather bland zero modifier scenarios.

You yourself, in your scenarios, are leaving large blank assumptions in the identical places that would be left in the scenario where your entire goal is simply "I make friends with the guard".

You can argue yourself blue and come up with increasingly elaborate and detailed scenarios all day. But they ALL rely on abstraction in the SAME ways in the SAME places and unless you can demonstrate they do not you are NOT making an actual attempt at arguing against abstracted social roll results. Because all your examples use abstraction.

What's even funnier is the more sane posters here have ALL said rather succinctly "fine have modifiers and extra details, it's not like it makes a difference" and you guys keep going "but but but modifiers and extra details!" Post after post after post, without ever addressing the basic methodology of abstraction in any kind of head on manner. Well other than "Abstraction bad, um um, me no say that for always! sometimes abstraction OK, no wait, ME NO SAY THAT EITHER!"

[Ice9]

You appear to be arguing against some posts only you can read, because I'm not even talking about modifiers. That's orthagonal. I'm talking about selecting what method you use to convince people, because it changes what the fucking results are. As a bunch of people have pointed out.

Look, if you are in combat with several foes, you do not just say "Attack roll 25". People would look at you like you were an idiot, which you would be. You need to say who you are attacking, and with what maneuver/spell. Hitting the random fleeing goblin with Finger of Death will have different effects than hitting the Illithid. Saying "I cast Spellcraft 30" means fuck all, and people will laugh at you if you try to claim that it does.

Social stuff is the same fucking way. What you convince people of matters, and it will have different results. That's not some houserule, that's actually how the Diplomacy rules work.

And if you're talking about some hypothetical set of Diplomacy rules, and saying that they shouldn't care about anything except the raw bonus, then I'll say that those would be fucking boring rules, about as interesting as reducing combat to "everybody roll a d20 and add your level, the side with the higher total wins combat".


Of course, why do I even bother to say anything? It's PhoneLobster, talking to a brick wall would be more productive.

[PhoneLobster]

I'm not even talking about modifiers. That's orthagonal. I'm talking about selecting what method you use to convince people, because it changes what the fucking results are. As a bunch of people have pointed out.

Congratulations. That is a modifier.

Look, if you are in combat with several foes, you do not just say "Attack roll 25".

Targetting information is neither unique to combat nor especially notable in any regard to anything you are saying.

If you seriously intend to advance as a genuine argument the fact that some examples of diplomacy have left out targeting information because it is irrelevant to the argument and would only add unnecessary detail and text then you are a total moron.

But then again you DID just deny you were talking about modifiers and said "instead I am talking about... mooooodddddiiiiiifffffiiiieeeeerrrrrssss!". So I suppose anything goes.

Social stuff is the same fucking way.

In that you target a guy with an abstracted attack that may or may not have modifiers then you arbitrarily fill in the fluff to explain the success afterwards? Your point? Oh that's right you don't even have a firm definable point.

Of course, why do I even bother to say anything? It's PhoneLobster, talking to a brick wall would be more productive.

I'm just going to take the opportunity to make fun of you even more over your modifier denial/definition line. Because that shit is stupid even for you.

[Ice9]

What definition of "modifier" are you using? If you have two chests, they both take a DC 20 check to open, but one of them has gold and the other has a swarm of angry bees, that isn't different modifiers. It's different results.

As fectin pointed out, if you get past the guard by saying "you have to let me in, there's a monster chasing me", that will have different results down the line than saying "you have to let me in, I'm the duke's cousin". Even if doing so has the exact same difficulty.

Of course, your response to this previously was "lalala, that's complicated, complicated examples don't count". Which is a pretty dumb position. Sure, if all that matters is that you get the gate open for a second so your friend can launch a fireball through it, then feel free to give any reason that pops into your head. That's not an argument against handling more complex situations correctly, any more than "sometimes you're fighting a dozen identical orcs" is an argument against deciding which foe you're attacking in combat.

Now if you're claiming that "results" are part of "modifiers", and therefore opening the chest of bees should have the same result as opening the chest of gold, then fuck off, that's not even how D&D works. D&D is a fucking task resolution game. Rolling high does not mean "you win", it means you succeeded on a task. The actual results are going to depend on what that task was.

[PhoneLobster]

that isn't different modifiers. It's different results.

Hm. So lets just check this, after completely screwing yourself over in a laughable manner with a text book definition of modifier you are going with this "results may differ!" angle.

But I suspect you... have either forgotten what you are arguing against or you haven't checked your timeline here.

Cause you seem to be saying "You cannot leave determining the result of the action until after the roll because at some point after the result of the roll the result may have differing outcomes!".

Do you... fail to see the somewhat fundamental problem with your own argument there?

It's kinda basic. I'll let you put it together yourself, if you can borrow the family brain cell for a day or two, here is a hint, it's all about timing.