I'll grant you the ambush conversations, you should probably get like an initial decision point of 'Who would you like to talk?" type of deal, but outside of that, no, sorry. Someone failing at something they can't do at all is them failing because they NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT EVERYTHING. Your book example they already solved, when its an item or an area check, everyone gets a roll. But when you have a conversation with another person, you dont listen to each sentence, and then turn around to your group of friends saying "HEY WHAT SHOULD I SAY HERE? DOES SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO INTERJECT?" Thats not a conversation. Thats loading the dice. And if you DO do that, the person, creature, whatever, would ABSOLUTELY have a reaction to that situation, and would just say "ya I know what you are gonna do now and now you lose instantly." or something to the degree of making the roll EXTREMELY hard, even if you are proficient at the check, because you literally just announced to the room that you are changing it up for the sole purpose of 'winning' (for lack of a better word) the conversation. I realize when you play a tabletop game, with a DM, you all are CAPABLE of talking out of character, and making that decision as such. But this is you playing a character who is alive and truly acting things out as they come. The situation you are wanting does not have a place here. It just doesn't make sense, other than loading the dice in your favor.
Don't be ridiculous. In pen and paper around the tabletop, human players can jump into a conversation and interject at any time. The rules expect that. The rules are not designed for one person to be able to easily pass every check in the pen and paper version, so why are you insisting that one person and one person only has to make every single check in the videogame?
You're arguing in favor of loading the dice AGAINST the player to make success nigh-impossible at all.
Last edited by Stabbey; 08/10/2007:45 PM. Reason: clearing up who I'm responding to