|
Roll20, at a minimum, allows using any size die that you can type up: /roll 1d31
I know I have done some very weird (IMO) numbers when I was filling in an NPC's spellbook with spells. And that was only using the CRB and, amybe, the APG, IIRC, for sources.
1d57, I think it was, for first level spells.
|
Over-all, a fairly unsatisfying game. Is PFS usually like this?
It's both role play and roll play.
Players actively role playing helps the other players/GM get into their own role playing. Not every player/GM will be role playing at the start.
In most role play groups I've attended, it takes time for people to get out of their "shells" and really role play their PC. While in the shell, they "roll" play.
Since most PFS groups are one-off isolated missions, some players never remove their shells and actually role play.
It's not unlike how many groups won't have the right knowledge skills for a particular area. Random groups and missions just makes it tough to get into the characters.
|
|
TOZ you know characters should speak to each other and to NPC's...no funny voices or acting required..
Indeed. And Version 1 is the characters speaking to each other. Just as characters in a movie are still speaking to each other even if the director does not make the dialogue known to the audience.
|
Version one is not roleplaying you are not playing the role of Bob the barbarian!As long as what the player says Bob is doing is based on Bob's character, it's role playing. What you are claiming to be roleplaying is actually acting. You can roleplay perfectly well without acting.
Its kinda role playing the way bowling is a sport...
|
TOZ you know characters should speak to each other and to NPC's...no funny voices or acting required. If all those years ago 1st edition I would have been bored senseless and left missing out on some years of fantastic experiences, with awesome people...Version one is not roleplaying you are not playing the role of Bob the barbarian!As long as what the player says Bob is doing is based on Bob's character, it's role playing. What you are claiming to be roleplaying is actually acting. You can roleplay perfectly well without acting.
Yes they should. But it doesn't require you to do it AS THE CHARACTER. Describing what you want your character to say, how they say it, and what their goal is should be completely acceptable.
|
|
Over-all, a fairly unsatisfying game. Is PFS usually like this?It's both role play and roll play.
Players actively role playing helps the other players/GM get into their own role playing. Not every player/GM will be role playing at the start.
In most role play groups I've attended, it takes time for people to get out of their "shells" and really role play their PC. While in the shell, they "roll" play.
Since most PFS groups are one-off isolated missions, some players never remove their shells and actually role play.
It's not unlike how many groups won't have the right knowledge skills for a particular area. Random groups and missions just makes it tough to get into the characters.
Role-playing does not require one to voice-act out all the dialogue. I like that kind of roleplaying. But not everyone does.
Your preferred way to roleplay is not the only correct way.
|
|
Yes they should. But it doesn't require you to do it AS THE CHARACTER. Describing what you want your character to say, how they say it, and what their goal is should be completely acceptable.
Indeed, you don't even have to have everyone roleplaying the same way at the table. One player can be Version 1, another can be Version 2, and so on through the permutations.
|
|
Yes they should. But it doesn't require you to do it AS THE CHARACTER. Describing what you want your character to say, how they say it, and what their goal is should be completely acceptable.Indeed, you don't even have to have everyone roleplaying the same way at the table. One player can be Version 1, another can be Version 2, and so on through the permutations.
Yup. And my favorite tables are where everyone is having fun and being accepting of everyone else's style.
|
|
Yes they should. But it doesn't require you to do it AS THE CHARACTER. Describing what you want your character to say, how they say it, and what their goal is should be completely acceptable.
This is what I was trying to describe as my requirements as a DM, and why I do not accept "I use diplomacy".
Infact I will describe how a character does, and it's results and role-play it for the table to some degree. I feel the DM should story tell for this situations.
|
|
Over-all, a fairly unsatisfying game. Is PFS usually like this?It's both role play and roll play.
Players actively role playing helps the other players/GM get into their own role playing. Not every player/GM will be role playing at the start.
In most role play groups I've attended, it takes time for people to get out of their "shells" and really role play their PC. While in the shell, they "roll" play.
Since most PFS groups are one-off isolated missions, some players never remove their shells and actually role play.
It's not unlike how many groups won't have the right knowledge skills for a particular area. Random groups and missions just makes it tough to get into the characters.
Role-playing does not require one to voice-act out all the dialogue. I like that kind of roleplaying. But not everyone does.
Your preferred way to roleplay is not the only correct way.
Huh?
You've got me quoted, so you must be addressing something I said, but I don't see where I'm talking about voice-acting OR a specific "way" of role playing. Perhaps you quoted me on accident?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.
"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."
Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.
Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.
Would you agree?
I do agree Andrew. That as a GM you need to have a mechanical understanding of what the character (player) is doing and attempting to accomplish.
The problem I usually encounter with this and that at least in my area occurs almost exclusively with Diplomacy checks goes something like this:PCs encounter desk clerk on their way to deliver a package to the clerk's superior. Bit of chat goes on:
NPC: what do you want
Party (frequently talking over each other) we are here to deliver a package to super NPC.
A few more back and forth on the lines of Ill see that she gets it ... no we are to give it directly to ....
GM: make a Diplomacy check.
*At this point I think we can agree that the mechanical aspects of the exchange have been covered. It certainly seems that if the GM has said "make a Diplomacy check" that they think they have enough to evaluate the meeting of the scenario's requirements. For me the next requirement of "What does your character say" is now pushing things in to the realm of requiring acting.
Diplomat PCs player picks up their d20 rolls it and starts doing the math.
GM: "What specifically are you saying"
Player: You said make a diplomacy check.
GM: "What exactly is your character saying"
GM won't listen to the result of the d20 + modifiers until given some thing that meets their rolE play requirements. I have actually heard GMs say that they will apply a -2 penalty to the result "unless there is a good reason for not giving me the exact words, because that is just lazy".
When challenged on the validity of that with something like "show me the rule that says you can require that (the exact in character action)". They almost always end up attempting to invoke the "GM fiat" rule; never by name of course.
Now depending on the result of the check [remember this was a roll that was triggered by the GM saying "make a diplomacy check"] one of three things happens.
1) Best case scenario: Result of the check is clear to the table either as success or failure say 30s range or near 10. Okay moving on.
2) Midrange scenario: Player and GM both come away from the (frequently) first or second encounter with their "nose bent out of shape" at each other.
3) Worst case scenario: Player knows they should have succeed at the check and knows the only reason they didn't was that the GM did apply a "laziness penalty"; and an "arms race ensues for the rest of the session on diplomacy checks. Where the player knows the GM is applying a penalty without reason or standing for. Thus effectively throwing out the entire skill check (and d20) rule system. Player figures that since the GM has tossed out the rules they are free to disregard them too and starts applying a +2 bonus to counter the GM's unjustified -2. Each following round of diplomacy checks the "penalty and bonus" get bigger so that by the end of the session the player is "failing" checks with absurdly high results.
So now we have a situation where a player decides they have the viable paths forward:
1) Quit PFS.
2) Only play characters who have no social skills at all; and can this dump their Charisma score.
3) Decide to play characters who are not Charisma based at all; so they don't have to deal with this issue again. Because by its nature Organized play means that if your character has a positive Cha modifier at least 1/4 tables you are at you will be the party's face character. Yes even the completely fire or acid scarred Sorcerer, if that is haw someone wants to depict their bloodline will end up being the "face PC". I've even seen tables where the pregenerated rogue was the face PC.
Unless the player opts to quit PFS entirely; they will likely carry a chip on their shoulder for a while over the whole thing.
|
|
Request Diplomacy DC Modifier
Give simple advice or directions –5
Give detailed advice +0
Give simple aid +0
Reveal an unimportant secret +5
Give lengthy or complicated aid +5
Give dangerous aid +10
Reveal an important secret +10 or more
Give aid that could result in punishment +15 or more
Additional requests +5 per request
In PFS games the DC of diplomacy checks is fixed by the text of the adventure. Effectively removing this second table from applying to a Diplomacy check. But if the GM feels that thy need to sort out which of these modifiers may be applicable a particular check. They should have enough to work with from what occurred BEFORE requesting the check.
|
|
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.
"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."
Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.
Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.
Would you agree?
I do agree Andrew. That as a GM you need to have a mechanical understanding of what the character (player) is doing and attempting to accomplish.
The problem I usually encounter with this and that at least in my area occurs almost exclusively with Diplomacy checks goes something like this:
PCs encounter desk clerk on their way to deliver a package to the clerk's superior. Bit of chat goes on:
NPC: what do you want
Party (frequently talking over each other) we are here to deliver a package to super NPC.
A few more back and forth on the lines of Ill see that she gets it ... no we are to give it directly to...
I agree.
I don't necessarily agree with the instant angst, and I have never (nor have I ever seen a GM) asked for more once I ask for a check to be made. I may ask a couple leading, yes/no questions to clarify something that I'm unclear on. But once I ask for a check, I feel the players have delineated the what they are saying, what they are trying to accomplish, and how they are trying to accomplish it.
|
|
I tend to love to interact and be the face. I have trouble, sometimes, playing the low Charisma characters as low Charisma.
I also created one of those (I know, one, right?) to challenge myself in the *other* direction.
Also been a very interesting experience, because the communication style is different, for lack of a better term. No, not incomprehensible, just 'dumbed down' from what I normally do at work, with some slurring because the character has lost teeth from fighting, etc.
|
|
I tend to love to interact and be the face. I have trouble, sometimes, playing the low Charisma characters as low Charisma.
I also created one of those (I know, one, right?) to challenge myself in the *other* direction.
Also been a very interesting experience, because the communication style is different, for lack of a better term. No, not incomprehensible, just 'dumbed down' from what I normally do at work, with some slurring because the character has lost teeth from fighting, etc.
I have a Hunter who is basically the boy and his reindeer from Frozen (and I made him before watching that movie and knowing anything about it, and when I saw it, I was like, "Oh my gosh, that's Hamish Setwald III!") except he's got a moose. Good Charisma, sorta a face. But stupid (7 Int).
He is a boat load of fun to play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low Charisma RP can vary as much as high Charisma RP. I have a few CHA 07 face characters. Your stat is only one component of being a face. It's the ranks, feats, abilities and magic items that I believe make a bigger impact. I have an Int 5 character that volunteered to forge documents once. One person at the table didn't think that was something I should have offered or been able to do, but I pointed out that although his Intelligence was a severe hindrance, he had also trained in Linguistics, and had a forgery kit. Just don't ask him to forge some kid's math homework =P.
|
Where did this idea that the DM is going to keep demanding to hear exactly what the character is going say over and over?
Version one is not roleplaying you are not playing the role of Bob the barbarian! This is where you start the process experienced players and DM's should be modeling and asking questions. What does Bob say to the guards?
|
|
That's a non-sequitur. No one has said characters aren't going to talk to each other.
I refer you to my earlier posts.
As long as what the player says Bob is doing is based on Bob's character, it's role playing. What you are claiming to be roleplaying is actually acting. You can roleplay perfectly well without acting.
TOZ you know characters should speak to each other and to NPC's...no funny voices or acting required..Indeed. And Version 1 is the characters speaking to each other. Just as characters in a movie are still speaking to each other even if the director does not make the dialogue known to the audience.
|
|
So the thing which i think a lot of players and GM's and this thread seems to overlook is the mechanics of diplomacy.
A lot of what you're listing is social mores and traditions, not mechanics of the game, which is INCREDIBLY important not to conflate in an organized play setting where people may have different ideas about how the game and campaign works.
Making a request or trying to talk someone out of fighting you, happens in real time. You can't just roll to make that indifferent guy like you and therefore not attack. What you say is what you say (what what you as a player say that your character says is what is said)
Varies a lot by the scenario, situation and dm. Its a rare DM that stopwatches you for 6 seconds for the speech.
Where i see people going wrong is that they "i go up to this guy and i ask him X" So they've skipped the small talk and gone straight for the favour. Try that on a woman at a bar and see how far it gets you (only slightly worse than when i do the small talk first admittedly but i'm low cha)
Many people figure the few minutes of small talk is covered by the diplomacy roll, and don't have to act it out.
So the first diplomacy roll is i introduce myself i dont say something obnoxious and we try and settle down into polite conversation. AND IT TAKES A MINUTE.
Then you make your requests one at a time and each one is a different roll.
What you don't do is roll gather information at this time and heres why.
Many scenarios just have a flat diplomacy check to ask around , which aren't quite using the mechanics for diplomacies influence and ask a favor mechanic or the gather info roll. Its just a "diplomacy dc15 gets you x diplomacy 20 gets you Y". Since the player can't see how the scenario is working, there's absolutely no way they can know what mechanical options they're supposed to be calling out.
Gather information takes 1d4 hours- aka it is the amalgamation of a whole lot of conversations. So in the case of a bar which has 20 people sitting on 5 different tables its the fast track way of spending 30 minutes with each of them to ask some less specific requests. And boy does it save time.
Sometime you role play that part out with the guy who got you the info (either because the dm would prefer to give out information in character or the scenario gives you an NPC to tell them)
So i'm going to go against a lot of people here and say that "just rolling" is an essential tool for stopping the game from getting bogged down. But that more GM's and players need to be savvy about its mechanics and how it's supposed to work.
There is no right standard to hold your players too here. Thinking you have the right one or just making your players guess is absolutely horrible in an organized campaign where different groups all have equally valid ways of doing this. Some DM's expect you to try to act out with the NPC before giving you a roll, some dm's won't do anything if you do that and will wait for the exact mechanism you want to use no matter how clear you make it. Unless you have a preferred method tattooed on your forehead, players can't know what they're supposed to be doing.
|
|
a lot of what i've listed is my opinion as to how it should be. But the mechanics i've listed aren't social mores and traditions and this is what i'm saying. If we were talking about a spell duration or casting time or a combat action there would be no "well i think it should work this way but it doesnt really matter- expect table variation" We see talking as something which shouldn't be as set in stone.
Core rulebook 94 "action" using diplomacy to influence a creatures atttitude takes 1 minute of coninuous intersaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or mour rounds of interaction etc.etc.
Thats not wishy washy. Thats as concrete and as absolute as knowing that it takes a move action to draw a weapon (without quick draw)
Nope. Because the question arises of whether you can get the creature to listen to you for long enough to make a check, which is usually something the DM has to decide on their own and that decision will be VERY subjective.
When asking a specific person specific questions eg. a venture captain who gives you text blocks if you ask him the right question. This is not gathering info. This is making a request =1 round (or more)
There's a LOT more variation than that. Gods market gamble is, i think, one of the few scenarios that actually uses the friendly/ask a favor mechanic. Most other scenarios just have flat Dc.s There are also other scenarios where you can talk your way out of a fight with a social check that would probably not give you a minute to do so RAW.
Now if this person starts off indifferent and u just ask about the daughter your DC roll is higher than if you had. Introduced yourselves, talked about how horrible it is that his daughter is missing and told him not to worry because now you are here to make it all better. That'd take about a minute and now he might be helpful. But you can just ask him straight off.
This is a huge (and i would say illegal) curveball to throw at players.
Because my character is WAY better at social interaction than I am and I as a player have NO idea how the rules of the world are working tonight. Requiring the player to do the small talk before making the request is your own personal operating procedure, not a rule of the game. I've never seen or heard of anyone doing it that way. Expecting the player to do it is throwing a HUGE curve ball. Most players assume that the check covers the "hi yadda yadda yadda," and jump right to roleplaying "So about those gnoll attacks..."Its like giving the enemy a free AOO because someone goes all cinimatic and describes something really cool looking but stupid to do with a weapon.
There is a single 1 correct way that the mechanics work. It is clearly written in Core rulebook.
Which part of those rules requires small talk? Or acting out the entire minutes long interaction? You are paradoxally insisting on an adherence to the rules that the scenarios don't follow and badly breaking them with your own personal preferences.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what that has to do with anything I've been saying.
I'm not talking about just rolling a die and waiting for the GM to talk.
Your personal preferences are not being judged.
Ditto!
Hack & slash aka beer & pretzels is a style of play.
I have always seen "Hack & Slash" and "Beer & Pretzels" as being 2 different play styles, with "Hack & Slash" focusing on combat and "Beer & Pretzels" being a more relaxed, casual play style that doesn't focus on the details. Of course, they aren't mutually exclusive (few play styles actually are), so you could do one or the other or both at the same time. Regardless, they are still valid choices.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
One thing I haven't really seen discussed here is that this is not just a case of Fred wanting to act things out and Joe wanting to just roll the dice. At least as far as I am concerned, sometimes I want to act things out and sometimes I just want to roll the dice. I am not all one way all the time. I may switch back and forth between those two and everything in between in a single session. It can depend entirely on how I feel, how much real time we have available and how receptive the audience is. And, let's face it, what is the point of acting things out with funny voices and accents if it is not for the benefit of the audience?
