[quote=Tempest]Look at it more this way.You have done nothing to this NPC to have them act in any particular way to you. You begin to talk to you and they interact well, you have said plenty of reasonable things and they logically have no qualm. It works out... But suddenly have to do a success roll. You fail. Suddenly, everything you did doesn't actually matter. You don't get the information you needed. Because a roll dictated that as opposed to basic interaction skills.

Another situation, a player walks up and starts talking to an NPC trying to get closer to them. They out that they killed the last person who rebuffed their affections. Suddenly, alarm bells are going off in their head. By sheer luck, the player rolls a success. Guess what, the NPC goes completely against character and accepts this and happily deals with the player.These are highly illogical situations that highlight the problems with a roll system for diplomaxy. [/quote]

I disagree that those are problems with diplomacy being rolled, and more of a problem with how you're doing rolls in general. People shouldn't roll for actions that are too easy to fail, or too hard to succeed. I wouldn't roll strength for someone to pick something up that they shouldn't be able to lift, and I wouldn't have them roll it for something on the other end of the spectrum either.

Regardless, I believe we have a fundamental disagreement on roleplaying. Just because you can't do a character great doesn't mean you shouldn't do that character. If I want to play a doctor I should be able to write the gist of 'they do the doctor thing', and not actually have extensive medical knowledge in order to play it at all. Otherwise you're basically limiting people to 'fantasy versions of yourself who are better at fighting or something' and that's... dumb.