Conan 321

[Supplement Four]

So you object to high stats, but high stats are fine?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Heroic chargen guarrantees high stats = no good. With standard chargen, high stats happen occassionally and rarely are all six stats high.

 

[Supplement Four]

My objection to random variation in stats is not that it is in some sense "unfair" but that a poorly balanced party is less enjoyable (and harder to design encounters for) than a balanced one.

This doesn't quite compute for me. I mean, if all party members are bad-asses, then cool. You've got Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli.



Otoh, if you've got a strong character and two weak ones, you've got Aragorn, Frodo, and Samwise.


Either way, you've got the makings of a good story.

So, in your game, nobody wants to play Frodo or Samwise?

 

[kintire]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Heroic chargen guarrantees high stats = no good. With standard chargen, high stats happen occassionally

Heroic chargen does not guarentee high stats, though it produces them more often than standard.

Point buy, on the other hand, does not produce them at all if you don't want it to.

Otoh, if you've got a strong character and two weak ones, you've got Aragorn, Frodo, and Samwise.


Either way, you've got the makings of a good story.

So, in your game, nobody wants to play Frodo or Samwise?

No. Because Frodo and Samwise don't get to do anything until they split off from Aragorn.

You are comparing two different genres. RPGs have stories, but they also have problem solving and action sequences. Players should be able to participate in all of these. If they are too weak to contribute to the combats and too incompetent to contribute to the problem solving, then they can be as deep in the story as you like, and they're still twiddling their thumbs for a good chunk of the game.

It CAN work, if the weaker character has a defined, different role in the group. A weak statted wizard in a group of fighters, for example. But you can't rely on getting that with a random generation system. they might roll the wrong stats!

 

[Supplement Four]

No. Because Frodo and Samwise don't get to do anything until they split off from Aragorn.

It's your game. You can have Frodo and Samwise get into whatever trouble you want them to.

You are comparing two different genres. RPGs have stories, but they also have problem solving and action sequences. Players should be able to participate in all of these. If they are too weak to contribute to the combats and too incompetent to contribute to the problem solving, then they can be as deep in the story as you like, and they're still twiddling their thumbs for a good chunk of the game.

You're the GM. Make the game challenging for the weaker characters as well as the strong.

It CAN work, if the weaker character has a defined, different role in the group.

You bet, it can work. You could make the players roll up 1st level Commoners and still come up with an interesting, challenging story.

The PCs don't have to all be "Aragorns". Merri and Pippin can be fun characters to play, too.

 

[cbrunish]

The PCs don't have to all be "Aragorns". Merri and Pippin can be fun characters to play, too.

I have to agree with the above statement. Aragorn was an experienced traveller. That is why the Conan system works well. At 1st level the character might not be the best stat wise. But by 20th level he has increased all his stats by 4 with an additional 5 to be added on anywhere else.

If you are looking for more "heroic" type of characters start them out at higher levels. The group I play with usually starts out at 3rd level. It's just what we all agreed on. But you can start at 10th. Starting at 20th would not work due no epic levels in Conan.

 

[kintire]

It's your game. You can have Frodo and Samwise get into whatever trouble you want them to.

And what's Aragorn doing while this happens?

Its all very well for a novelist to split Frodo and Sam from the group and devote entire books to their doings. If you try the same procedure with players in an RPG, the players not on stage at the time are sitting around doing nothing for an hour or so. Not good.

You're the GM. Make the game challenging for the weaker characters as well as the strong.

I'm the GM. I present the challenges. Its up to the PCs how to confront them, and if the obvious choice is "Aragorn breezes through these weak challenges and then Aragorn takes on the strong challenge" then that's what they'll do.

You bet, it can work. You could make the players roll up 1st level Commoners and still come up with an interesting, challenging story.

The PCs don't have to all be "Aragorns". Merri and Pippin can be fun characters to play, too.

Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry and Pippin can all be fun characters to play. But not as part of the same group.

 

[Supplement Four]

Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry and Pippin can all be fun characters to play. But not as part of the same group.

Just about my whole gaming life I've ran groups that weren't "balanced" (unless I was playing a game, like D6 Star Wars, that generates balanced characters), and I've never had a problem running the group or coming up with challenges--and that's with Aragorn, Gandalf, Merri and Pippin all in the same party at the same time.

 

[kintire]

Just about my whole gaming life I've ran groups that weren't "balanced" (unless I was playing a game, like D6 Star Wars, that generates balanced characters), and I've never had a problem running the group or coming up with challenges--and that's with Aragorn, Gandalf, Merri and Pippin all in the same party at the same time.

I wasn't there, of course, so I can't comment. My experience has been different.

And incidentally, it has also been my experience that when problems due to players getting excluded from the action do occur, the GM is always the last to notice. This is because the GM is always involved in everything, so it is hard to spot when players are not.

Of course, it is much less of a problem in games with a lot of roleplaying and little action.

 

[Vortigern]

Just about my whole gaming life I've ran groups that weren't "balanced" (unless I was playing a game, like D6 Star Wars, that generates balanced characters), and I've never had a problem running the group or coming up with challenges--and that's with Aragorn, Gandalf, Merri and Pippin all in the same party at the same time.

I wasn't there, of course, so I can't comment. My experience has been different.

And incidentally, it has also been my experience that when problems due to players getting excluded from the action do occur, the GM is always the last to notice. This is because the GM is always involved in everything, so it is hard to spot when players are not.

Of course, it is much less of a problem in games with a lot of roleplaying and little action.

I tend to agree with Kintire. Party balance is something I tend to agree with, with some exceptions for a variety of reasons, but mostly what he has been saying about the effects it can have on the ammount time and attention a player gets and their feeling of contribution to the game.

I've already said why I don't like random stat generation and thus 321, it being just another variant thereof. That aside, 321 for what it is doesn't eliminate the idea of the 'dump stat'.

It restricts without eliminating a players ability, during chargen, to dump. It doesn't change their priorities, mode of thinking, or play style etc.

Now you have now affirmed my inference that you don't use the social mechanics of the game prefering instead to rely on pure roleplaying. This is fine, but is clearly -not- the game as intended/written or in other words the RAW.

A given ammount of deviation from the RAW is normal in my experience. Every GM is different and I have no problem with that. But let us not confuse that with playing the system as designed/written.

Your basic problem, as I can understand it, is that you want charisma to be more valued by your players... and I've been trying to explain to you how you can do that, and why you have arrived at the point you are at where it isn't valued. The counter impression I get however is that you don't think you should need to change your role-play heavy, mechanics lite social resolution style to make it valuable.

This makes me speculate a bit, in order to understand events as they might transpire around your table S4.

1.) Imagine that social scholar character I was talking about before. Now lets put him in a scene where he tries to use those stats to get out of a fight.

- Scholar is riding hard and fast across the endless ( well, not quite ) sands of stygia, heading towards an ( dum dum dum ) evil temple of notrightness to steal the shiny thing and rule all the babes from sea to sea. Suddenly he is surrounded by shemish nomads who want his money, his horse, and his backside. So to speak.

Now, I playing this character would spout the best line or three of diplomatic garbage I could think of, then reach for my d20 and announce that the OOC mechanism of my speech was that I was using diplomacy to try and make nice with bulgars before they bugger me. So to speak.

Ok, forget the couple of other scenarios I had in my head and I'm going to focus on this one. Why? Because it best illustrates my 'ultimate' point.

This encounter, by a lot of GMs, would have a single point in mind. Combat. It would be described more than roleplayed, and then the GM would ask for init rolls and the combat style carnage would start. Pretty straight and forward.

I hate that. Like, the son of set eyeing you with the shiny red thing in your hand style of hating.

It takes all potential for a social character to do anything in this scene and chucks it straight out the window, even though they very well could have acted ICly.

The scene should not be designed with a given point or a given outcome in mind by the GM, but created and then played through with a 'I wonder what is going to happen?' type of anticipation.

That addresses one issue. The other is the idea that somehow including social skills in the game somehow detracts from gameplay and roleplaying. I am of the opinion that it most decidedly does not detract at all, if played properly. Actually I think it brings something to the game.

Rewind the nomadic carnage in your imagination a bit, back to where the scholar starts talking nice and all of that. Introduce the diplomacy check with the fancy words.

This does something beyond 'creating demand for charisma'. It gives that skill check a firm mechanical way of potentially resolving this conflict without fighting. If you make a good speech, you get a bonus. You make a bad speech... you get a minus. But ultimately it is the character's suavity that matters, not the player's right? Play the character, not character the player, right?

But what about all of those 'roleplaying' concerns being overriden by the die rolls? And the combat guys who just had their show stolen?

How is the social character, using their stats and rolls to resolve a situation, any different than a combat character doing so? Why is resolving a social outcome with a die roll any different than a combat event?

It is purely a matter of taste and convention.

As long as players aren't balking at the very idea of rolling charisma skill checks, it actually works out rather well I think. The same kind of suspense can be built around a diplomacy check as a very important attack roll.

i.e. you could find yourself with the whole group huddled around the table hoping the scholar makes his diplomacy check or they are all -screwed-.

That is a good thing.

It gives that kind of tension and suspense to the social event without it feeling like a GM freebie. You can feel like your social character just pulled the group out of the fire by having that monstrous +30 to diplomacy that lets him talk cannibals into having them for dinner instead of having them for dinner. A good guy to have on your team, as long as that +30 -means- -something-.

 

[Supplement Four]

And incidentally, it has also been my experience that when problems due to players getting excluded from the action do occur, the GM is always the last to notice. This is because the GM is always involved in everything, so it is hard to spot when players are not.

I have to completely disagree with that. A good GM, if he is indeed "good", should keep his finger on the pulse of the game at all times. If the players aren't having fun, it's the GM's fault, because it's the GM's job to run the game in such a way that all players remain interested and continually come back for more.

Telling a good story isn't always easy to pull off, I understand. But, the GM should always strive to keep all of his players involved.

The key is finding what gets them "excited", and then give them some of whatever "that" is.

Of course, it is much less of a problem in games with a lot of roleplaying and little action.

I plan on my Conan campaign to be action-heavy. But, my group are indeed role players. I know from playing with them in the past that they will find avenues to role play.

I think a balance of both (interesting role playing and heart-stopping action) is needed to conduct a good Conan game.

Other rpgs may require a different mix (or the same items mixed to different weights).

 

[Supplement Four]

Party balance is something I tend to agree with, with some exceptions for a variety of reasons, but mostly what he has been saying about the effects it can have on the ammount time and attention a player gets and their feeling of contribution to the game.

I have to disagree, of course. Take my group right now. Two 1st level thieves, both with STR 7 and 9 HP/ 7 HP respectively. They use poinards, doing 1d6 damage, but they're at -2 because of their STR penalty.

That means these guys, when they hit, will do 1-4 points of damage in melee, with the emphasis on 1 (1-in-3 chance they'll do 1 point of damage).

The other player in my group runs a solder, using a war sword and has STR 14. He's doing 1d10 +2 damage. 3-12 damage is a lot more than 1-4. And, this soldier has 12 HP.

So, I wouldn't say the group is "balanced" with respect to melee at all.

The thieves were no armor. The soldier is in steel cap and leather, with DR 5.

The thieves may have their 1d8 sneak attack, but the soldier has his x1.5 damage for using two hands.

Obviously, the soldier is a better melee character than the two thieves.

Will that hamper the "fun" in our game?

No way.



To us, it's all about playing characters. And like people, different characters are different.

You could say that I've got an "Aragorn" and "Frodo & Samwise" situation.

That aside, 321 for what it is doesn't eliminate the idea of the 'dump stat'.

It does.

It restricts without eliminating a players ability, during chargen, to dump. It doesn't change their priorities, mode of thinking, or play style etc.

You're wrong here.

I've already observed my two players, with the weaker thieves, attempting to do the best with what they've got. Obviously they wouldn't have gone with STR 7 (and the -2 damage that brings with it) if they were allowed to fully adjust throws to taste.

And, now, what they're doing is exploring other methods for making these characters effective in combat. Sneak Attack situtations. One is interested in poison. One is real interested in the feint. They're starting to look at distance weapons as a primary weapon, etc.

Now you have now affirmed my inference that you don't use the social mechanics of the game prefering instead to rely on pure roleplaying. This is fine, but is clearly -not- the game as intended/written or in other words the RAW.

I don't think any role playing game would encourage one to roll play when a situation can be role played.

We hare heavy role players.

But, I do roll some social mechanics. I'll roll NPC's first impressions. I'll use CHR with certain mechanics if we're not role playing.

You're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I don't use CHR or CHR based throws. What we do (and what the Conan rpg encourages) is that we role play.

A given ammount of deviation from the RAW is normal in my experience. Every GM is different and I have no problem with that. But let us not confuse that with playing the system as designed/written.

It's really absurd to say I'm not playing it as written.

I can think of two things that aren't RAW. I'm using Active Defense (which is 100% compatible with RAW and suggested in other 3.0 and 3.5 d20 games). And, I'm not using the stupid method suggested in 2E for gaining Fate Points--I'm using the optional RAW method instead.

That's about as RAW as one can get. It's 99.99999% RAW.

Your basic problem, as I can understand it, is that you want charisma to be more valued by your players...

You understand wrong, then, if that what you think.

 

[Vortigern]

...

Honestly you seem incoherent S4. You say you don't use a given set of mechanics, outlined in the RAW, as your social mechanic... instead preferring pure roleplay and GM fiat.

I say that is fine, but don't call that RAW, because it clearly is not. Which is precisely my understanding.

How then is it absurd for me to take your statement that you don't use a given portion of the RAW as designed, and instead give it minimized play, and make a logical conclusion from that?

If you don't use a given part of the system which isn't 'optional' ( you seem to like that word. ) then you aren't playing RAW.

And I really don't care. Non-RAW-Play all you want. RAW isn't everything by a long shot. I'm ok with house rules for sure. But it is illogical to blame the system for things that are logical results of your play style.

And insulting to say, that by quoting you, I'm putting words in your mouth.

 

[Supplement Four]

...

Honestly you seem incoherent S4. You say you don't use a given set of mechanics, outlined in the RAW, as your social mechanic... instead preferring pure roleplay and GM fiat.

Do me a favor and find a quote where I said I don't use the CHR mechanics.

 

[Vortigern]

I get the impression your game uses roleplaying-centric methods for handling all social things and very little of the actual skill rolls for diplomacy or intimidation etc.

Yes. My group are strong role players, and its much more important to us to role play an encounter rather than just roll it up and see what the dice say.

If roll is involved, I typically judge their role play as a modifer on the dice throw. But many times, there is no dice throw.

It does however confuse me how you seem to think of this outcome as a flaw in the system when, to my mind, you simply aren't playing it as designed.

I play it as designed. I wouldn't roll play a feint maneuver, for example. I'd roll it (and CHR and Bluff would be important to that throw).

I will throw CHR checks behind the GM's screen to guide me in how I play NPCs, if I don't already have a pre-conceived notion.

And if you would read my own post a bit more closely:

How then is it absurd for me to take your statement that you don't use a given portion of the RAW as designed, and instead give it minimized play, and make a logical conclusion from that?

I didn't make ( or at least intend to make I suppose. ) a blanket statement to the effect that you 'never' use charisma checks. You have said you use them sometimes, and I believe you. You have also basically said that you don't use them often, preferring a pure roleplay approach, and that is exactly what I'm quoting you on.

Infrequent or minimized use of charisma skills and checks, being a part of your play style.

You have said that about yourself more than once in this discussion.

Now I've simply pointed out the inconsistency of calling the results of that play style decision a system design flaw.

Right now however you seem intent on defending what you see as a critique to either your logic or play style one, or both I don't know. Just don't do it by being belligerent.

 

[Supplement Four]

Right now however you seem intent on defending what you see as a critique to either your logic or play style one, or both I don't know. Just don't do it by being belligerent.

I wasn't being belligerent. It seems that you weren't "getting" what I was "saying", so I wanted to see where you got what you thought.

If you're really interested in my play style (and something that might clear this up), why not give me an example. Show me an encounter in a game (make it up, or take from your own experience), and I'll tell you how I would game it.

Like viewing a picture, that will probably give you a clear understanding of why I think my game is RAW and uncross some of our wires.

 

[Vortigern]

You should either not talk to people or do them the courtesy of reading all of their responses. I've already done exacly that, twice. Here is the most current.

I present a very basic scenario and then inject what I view as the 'proper' and most fun way of interpreting social mechanics in the game in that scenario, with the obvious intent of provoking some response and discussion as to your disagreements.

This makes me speculate a bit, in order to understand events as they might transpire around your table S4.

1.) Imagine that social scholar character I was talking about before. Now lets put him in a scene where he tries to use those stats to get out of a fight.

- Scholar is riding hard and fast across the endless ( well, not quite ) sands of stygia, heading towards an ( dum dum dum ) evil temple of notrightness to steal the shiny thing and rule all the babes from sea to sea. Suddenly he is surrounded by shemish nomads who want his money, his horse, and his backside. So to speak.

Now, I playing this character would spout the best line or three of diplomatic garbage I could think of, then reach for my d20 and announce that the OOC mechanism of my speech was that I was using diplomacy to try and make nice with bulgars before they bugger me. So to speak.

Ok, forget the couple of other scenarios I had in my head and I'm going to focus on this one. Why? Because it best illustrates my 'ultimate' point.

This encounter, by a lot of GMs, would have a single point in mind. Combat. It would be described more than roleplayed, and then the GM would ask for init rolls and the combat style carnage would start. Pretty straight and forward.

I hate that. Like, the son of set eyeing you with the shiny red thing in your hand style of hating.

It takes all potential for a social character to do anything in this scene and chucks it straight out the window, even though they very well could have acted ICly.

The scene should not be designed with a given point or a given outcome in mind by the GM, but created and then played through with a 'I wonder what is going to happen?' type of anticipation.

That addresses one issue. The other is the idea that somehow including social skills in the game somehow detracts from gameplay and roleplaying. I am of the opinion that it most decidedly does not detract at all, if played properly. Actually I think it brings something to the game.

Rewind the nomadic carnage in your imagination a bit, back to where the scholar starts talking nice and all of that. Introduce the diplomacy check with the fancy words.

This does something beyond 'creating demand for charisma'. It gives that skill check a firm mechanical way of potentially resolving this conflict without fighting. If you make a good speech, you get a bonus. You make a bad speech... you get a minus. But ultimately it is the character's suavity that matters, not the player's right? Play the character, not character the player, right?

But what about all of those 'roleplaying' concerns being overriden by the die rolls? And the combat guys who just had their show stolen?

How is the social character, using their stats and rolls to resolve a situation, any different than a combat character doing so? Why is resolving a social outcome with a die roll any different than a combat event?

It is purely a matter of taste and convention.

As long as players aren't balking at the very idea of rolling charisma skill checks, it actually works out rather well I think. The same kind of suspense can be built around a diplomacy check as a very important attack roll.

i.e. you could find yourself with the whole group huddled around the table hoping the scholar makes his diplomacy check or they are all -screwed-.

That is a good thing.

It gives that kind of tension and suspense to the social event without it feeling like a GM freebie. You can feel like your social character just pulled the group out of the fire by having that monstrous +30 to diplomacy that lets him talk cannibals into having them for dinner instead of having them for dinner. A good guy to have on your team, as long as that +30 -means- -something-.

 

[Supplement Four]

You should either not talk to people or do them the courtesy of reading all of their responses. I've already done exacly that, twice. Here is the most current.

I read your response before. I was looking for a better example. For one, I haven't read anything yet on Scholars at all. I didn't allow them in my group yet, and I know little about them. Therefore, it's hard for me to tell you how I would judge the scenario.

Got an example that features a theif, soldier, commoner, or borderer?

 

[Vortigern]

You should either not talk to people or do them the courtesy of reading all of their responses. I've already done exacly that, twice. Here is the most current.

I read your response before. I was looking for a better example. For one, I haven't read anything yet on Scholars at all. I didn't allow them in my group yet, and I know little about them. Therefore, it's hard for me to tell you how I would judge the scenario.

Got an example that features a theif, soldier, commoner, or borderer?

I don't think 'scholar' is essential to the point I made above. The basic premise of what I said applies equally well across all classes, and indeed into regular D&D style d20 as well. At least... it seems to in my mind.

 

[Supplement Four]

OK, then....

You've got a thief riding hard across the sands of Stygia, heading towards the evil temple.

I take it this is a one character scenario.

On the road, you happen across some bandits. We'll say you stopped at an oasis for some water, and they approached while you had your head down the well.

In my game, we wouldn't go to the dice as fast as you did in your example. And, I do not think that's not running the game RAW. I think the dice are there "when in doubt".

The bandits would approach and demand to know what you think you're doing drinking from "their" well.

As a GM, I'd wait for your response.

We'd role play back and forth. I'd look for a clue (a gut feeling) for a direction to take this thing (either they attack immediately, or maybe you talk them out of it...it all depends on how the role playing went).

If nothing is coming from the role playing, I won't force it. If I don't have a clear "clue", then I'll let the dice decide.

I would say to you something like this, "As you finish your sentence, you notice the man isn't saying much. He seems to be deciding your fate. You see his eyes wash all over your gear. Since you don't really have anything of value showing, except your horse, I'm going to roll this one out. Roll your Diplomacy. Give yourself a +2 mod for the role playing you just did and the fact that the bandit can't see anything valuable on you."

And, boom, we're into dice rolling. RAW.



Now, let's say that the thief had just picked up a jewel-handled dagger from our last encounter. The thing is stuck on the thief's hip.

I may roll Spot to see if the bandit notices the dagger with all the robes your character is wearing. You never said anything about taking steps to hide it, and the bandit is purposefully scanning what he can see. So, I'll give the Spot check a DC 10.

I roll. The bandit sees it.

"Oh...", says the bandit to you, "I think we can spare some water!" He looks at his companions, smiling. "Can't we, men?"

They all shake their heads.

Then, the bandit locks his eyes on you and smiles the grim smile of the lusty. "But, you'll have to pay for it."

"How much do you want?" You say, still trying to get out of this fight on your own.

"One jeweled dagger" He replies, and then points to the one dangling at your belt.

At this point, it would be your move...I'd judge what happens from what you do.







I'm trying to think back to two days ago when I ran my first game. You might have read about it in the And So It Begins... thread.

I described the opening scene. Then, the Watch Sargent came in and splashed water on the PCs to wake them up.

We role played that.

When the Watch Sargent turned and included the two thieves to accompying the PC Watchman along with them, one of my players immediately said, "I'm not being conscripted! No way!" And, his character took off in the opposite side of the bar.

OOC, he asked me if the tavern had a back door? I didn't know, so I said, "Let's roll higher die and see." We both picked up a d6 and threw it. The player won. There was a back door.

"How far?" The player asked, wondering how long it would take his character to get out of there. I thought for a second and said, "Linerally, it's not that far. You could easily cover it with a Run action in one round. But, there are tables and benches and 1d6 passed out drunks between you and the door, not to mention the trash and vomit on the floor. Let the dice decide. You roll 1d6. That's how many rounds it will take you to clear the obstacles and exit the back door if you run at full speed."

He rolled. Got a 6. It would take him 36 seconds to exit the room.

"My character takes off, arse-holes and elbows."

And, we started the chase.



So, you see, I roll dice, and I role play.

What we do depends entirely on the moment.

The player with the character running, himself, rolled a d20 for INT or less when I was role playing one of the gaurds yelling at him to "Halt in the name of the Governor!" The new player in my game actually said, "You know, you don't have to roll...you can just do whatever you want."

The running PC players responded, "Usually I would, but I don't know this guy well enough yet"...meaning his own character. He was letting the dice decide his own actions.

I'm the same way. I'll sometimes use a player CHR check to govern how I play an NPC.

Then again, sometimes, I'll have a gut feeling and just go with my gut without rolling dice at all.

It all depends on the moment.

 

[kintire]

You're wrong here.

I've already observed my two players, with the weaker thieves, attempting to do the best with what they've got. Obviously they wouldn't have gone with STR 7 (and the -2 damage that brings with it) if they were allowed to fully adjust throws to taste.

And, now, what they're doing is exploring other methods for making these characters effective in combat. Sneak Attack situtations. One is interested in poison. One is real interested in the feint. They're starting to look at distance weapons as a primary weapon, etc.

You've hardly started yet...

In any case low strength isn't a disaster for a finesse fighting thief. But I wonder if your players are having a better time than if they had those solid stats? couldn't they explore these options anyway?

Not to mention the fact that their skill points will give them lots to do in the problem solving areas. Its not the soldier vs thief balance you want to worry about so much, its the thief/thief one. I hope they've specialised in different areas.

I don't think any role playing game would encourage one to roll play when a situation can be role played.

Part of the point of a roleplaying game is to play characters unlike yourself. As far as I can tell, in your games the Charisma of the character depends completely or almost completely on the Charisma of the player. The point of using dice for social situations is partly so that the charisma stat and social skills mean something, and partly so that a player who does not have the gift of the gab can play a PC who does.

Also, having read your encounter report, for someone who doesn't believe in "Roll playing" you roll for the darndest things. Whether an inn has a back door? We DO have different styles.

Oh well, horses for courses.