"I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM


Gamer Life General Discussion

501 to 550 of 551 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Berinor wrote:

To the people saying that you don't need any context for Diplomacy, do you think the same for Bluff? In that case, the content of what you're saying is explicitly relevant to the difficulty of the check. Also, it's related to what the result will be.

"I convince her that..." isn't the same as "I use my wiles to charm her so that she'll..." isn't the same as "I point out that our goals are the same for reason X, so she should..." They are all applications of diplomacy, but I'd allow the player a bonus if their approach was particularly well-suited to the NPC and a corresponding penalty if it's a particularly bad idea. The manner in which they deliver that information to me is largely irrelevant (although I admit I can be convinced, so a more glib player might have an advantage there :-( ), but the more context I have about what the character is doing, the better I can adjudicate it.

It is a skill check like any other. Really. Truely. this is what many posts on this thread have been about.

To treat it otherwise is to penalize some players because they are not as eloquent at other people. This would be like penalizing us poor old fat guys when our PCs are trying to do a Climb check. And often it is little more than an opinion...changeable on a whim.

Liberty's Edge

nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

but it would not adjust the To Hit roll - the roll to be matched against the DC (in this case the AC).

Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

I am not arguing anything about adjusting the diplomacy check, but what you say can give modifiers depending on the NPC write up (see the examples you made).

Successfully improving the NPC attitude before asking him stuff, as by the diplomacy rules, should decrease the check DC or give an equivalent bonus to the skill roll.


Berinor wrote:

To the people saying that you don't need any context for Diplomacy, do you think the same for Bluff?

Nope, for precisely the reason you pointed out.

The Exchange

I'll try to answer you in the thread...

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:
purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Where in the world did you get that idea?

nosig wrote:

replace the Player A response with this

Player A: I have no idea, if I knew that I would be a better diplomat - heck I might even be as good as my PC is. I actually can see no reason this guy is even taking the time to talk to us...

No. You don't have be as good as your PC is. I'm not asking for the role-played conversation. Just general points. Since I made this example out of thin air, I can't link to a real scenario. But in every scenario that I've run, I can't recall where there would not be knowledge checks or gather information (diplomacy) checks that would yield what to say and what not to say.

nosig wrote:
My point has always been, Diplomacy is just another skill. Is it possible to Role Play it? Yeah, easily. But then it is possible to role play every skill in the game. But this skill - in fact all the CHA skills except Use Magic Device - seems to have some people feeling that the players HAVE to role play them. Why? It's a skill check, just like any other.
We agree, it is a skill check like any other. In any check, certain information must be conveyed to the GM. What weapon you use in a combat scenario is needed by the GM, yes or no? .

Sometimes yes (for DR or such) - but not for the attack roll and in fact, I could easily say in most cases no. Did the PC hit? Yes? what damage (amount and type) did he do... Many games I can easily say I have run without knowing what weapon the PCs are using... "You hit AC 12? Damage? 8? next!"

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


The target, yes or no?
.

normally yes - though if the attack roll was a Nat. '1' I'm likely not even to check who the attack was against.

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


The intent, (lethal or non-lethal damage) yes or no?

Normally only if it attack results in success... a hit.

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


With picking a lock, the information is usually understood by both the GM and player but it is still understood (the lock on the chest, MW, normal or improvised tools, opening the lock being the obvious goal).
.

well... not always. Does the Judge need to know that the PC is using Master Work tools? I have never had one ask me. It is normally just factored in. Do we need to know if the attack roll was made with a masterwork weapon?

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


With diplomacy, the GM needs to know the subject (person being influenced), yes or no? .

Yes. Agreed. (Unless it is a Gather Information roll - or some other strange circumstance).

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


The goal, yes or no?

I'll agree here, though it sounds like BNW does not agree on this point, but maybe I am not understanding him correctly...which often happens.

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


The words used or topics brought up, yes or no?

No. No more than we need to discuss the tools or the methiod used to pick a lock, or climb a wall, or command an animal... so many other skills.

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


I know you don't approve my use of GM fiat for social skills.
Not my call to approve or disapprove - I'm not at your table.
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


That's cool. I use it in other things too, just not the ridiculous ways you like to imply. If a player took time to grease door hinges to make them...

I will often give "ridiculous" examples to better highlight what I am trying to say. Though often the more "ridiculous examples" I give I have encountered in games...

(EDIT: what other skills do you give penalities to if the player does not discribe what they are doing when they attempt the skill check? Climb? Disable Device? Fly? Heal? Sense Motive? Slight of Hand? Use Magic Device?)

wow... the thread cut off there. Guess that is a sign I have been talking to long again. Now we get to see if my playing around with the "Quote" thingies worked right....

The Exchange

Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

but it would not adjust the To Hit roll - the roll to be matched against the DC (in this case the AC).

Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

I am not arguing anything about adjusting the diplomacy check, but what you say can give modifiers depending on the NPC write up (see the examples you made).

Successfully improving the NPC attitude before asking him stuff, as by the diplomacy rules, should decrease the check DC or give an equivalent bonus to the skill roll.

Sorry Mr. Rossi, you have lost me completely. I do not even know how to respond....


Nosig wrote:
I'll agree here, though it sounds like BNW does not agree on this point, but maybe I am not understanding him correctly...which often happens.

The DM needs to know the goal but should be able to figure it out without the player saying it, just as if the melee character is standing next to only one orc and has had power attack activated since this mornings brand muffin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A situation I saw twice, the most recent i will quote as best as I can.

Combat has started. People have already attacked the enemy. A level 4 player's turn comes up

PC: I use diplomacy.
DM: To do what on who?
PC: I use Diplomacy to end the fight.
DM: Well if you want to talk the person out of combat by raising thier attitude your party would need to stop attacking them.
PC: No, I want to roll diplomacy to stop the fight.
DM: In this situation it will be very difficult, if not impossible.
PC: Fine whatever I sit there!
DM: Here is the rules on diplomacy if you want to read them.

The PC was used to having DMs let them do this i combat. They claimed a nat 20 will stop ANY fight.

Another scenario I see often, and how I resolve it.

PC:I use diplomacy.
DM: to gather informationin the area or to raise their attitude?
PC:To make them like us more.
DM ok great, how do you plan to do it, small talk about the town compliment them, or somethign else?
PC: Just small talk.
DM: Ok, roll

I did not allow "I use diplomacy" as an answer there. You can jump and say how horrible I am, but the action is more complicated then jsut that simple phrase. Many PCs have specific ticks that penalize or reward you for using. If you want to say how horrible i am. go ahead.

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
Sometimes yes (for DR or such) - but not for the attack roll and in fact, I could easily say in most cases no. Did the PC hit? Yes? what damage (amount and type) did he do... Many games I can easily say I have run without knowing what weapon the PCs are using... "You hit AC 12? Damage? 8? next!"

I say, always yes. Sometimes though, the impact of knowing is negligible.

The same with knowing what will be discussed in the social skill check. The effect might be negligible but the GM still needs to be aware. Why you ask? For the times when it's not negligible. Perhaps this is less frequently than I think, but I warrant it is more often than you think too.

nosig wrote:
(EDIT: what other skills do you give penalities to if the player does not discribe what they are doing when they attempt the skill check? Climb? Disable Device? Fly? Heal? Sense Motive? Slight of Hand? Use Magic Device?)

Easy, none. If they take an action to help the skill check in game, they can get a bonus. With social skills, they can get a bonus by demonstration (which is just showing me their action in game) or by taking action in game (like dressing for the part, bribing the target, etc).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
I did not allow "I use diplomacy" as an answer there. You can jump and say how horrible I am, but the action is more complicated then jsut that simple phrase. Many PCs have specific ticks that penalize or reward you for using. If you want to say how horrible i am. go ahead.

I think you're swell!


nosig, to end the madness, can you agree that a brief summary of what you're trying to accomplish with your diplomacy check is reasonable? I 100% agree that the in game character should reflect actions that the out of game character cannot do. You summarize your idea, and the DC gets adjusted for what you're trying to accomplish, and who you're trying to accomplish it through.

I feel most people here, including myself agree that it's silly to have a GM make you RP the diplomacy, then give you a penalty because they felt like your role playing wasn't good enough to persuade the enemy, or you were not very tactful in what you spoke. The in game character reflected by your die roll has got that all taken care of by smooth talking someone to do something that would normally make someone utterly disgusted, because of their charisma is being applied.


andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
I did not allow "I use diplomacy" as an answer there. You can jump and say how horrible I am, but the action is more complicated then jsut that simple phrase. Many PCs have specific ticks that penalize or reward you for using. If you want to say how horrible i am. go ahead.
I think you're swell!

Thanks

Dark Archive

DiegoV wrote:
Also, Forgotten Knight, how do you deal with the Diplomacy thing? The same player in my group has a tremendous diplomacy and he expects it to be an auto win for everything he does. I am usually pretty good about it but if it ever doesn't work how he wants he gets all angry. It's become a very frustrating point for me.

I try to take into account a few things.

1.) If combat has already started then I tell him it wont work while in combat, and he is ok with that and we move on.

2.) If not in combat I do a couple quick things. First I look at the alignment, the level of the encounter (peon...mid range...or main villian) and lastly if the creature can actually understand him. I will usually hold at least a round at that point and see what everyone decides to do. If everyone just waits I give him his chance.

3.) I start everything as unfriendly. I have him tell me exactly what he wants to say to them, and then go from there. After he has said his spill I let him make a roll and if he gets them the 2 steps to friendly I let it work.

I just make sure I have read the adventure well, know who the main players are (NPC's), and some times just wing it. If someone wants to invest in their character to be able to do that, I let them take a shot.

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:
Sometimes yes (for DR or such) - but not for the attack roll and in fact, I could easily say in most cases no. Did the PC hit? Yes? what damage (amount and type) did he do... Many games I can easily say I have run without knowing what weapon the PCs are using... "You hit AC 12? Damage? 8? next!"

I say, always yes. Sometimes though, the impact of knowing is negligible.

The same with knowing what will be discussed in the social skill check. The effect might be negligible but the GM still needs to be aware. Why you ask? For the times when it's not negligible. Perhaps this is less frequently than I think, but I warrant it is more often than you think too.

nosig wrote:
(EDIT: what other skills do you give penalities to if the player does not discribe what they are doing when they attempt the skill check? Climb? Disable Device? Fly? Heal? Sense Motive? Slight of Hand? Use Magic Device?)

Easy, none. If they take an action to help the skill check in game, they can get a bonus. With social skills, they can get a bonus by demonstration (which is just showing me their action in game) or by taking action in game (like dressing for the part, bribing the target, etc).

(Old guy moment:
Please realize that I am very much a role player - Most of the PCs I play have a very high "Face" quality, and even those who don't have "social skills" get role played to the MAX - I've been doing this for a long time, I know how to "smooze" with the best of them. I've been Role Playing in RPGs for 39 years now (almost 40)... I can remember before there was skills, let along before there was CHA skills...). Just felt that I needed to get that out there to let everyone know I am not approaching this topic with the intention of gaining some wierd advantage...

The only time I can think of when I (as a judge) would need to know what weapon someone is using in an attack is when that weapon effects the chance to hit. For example, if the target is Incorporial, or if my NPC has a +1 to AC vs. light blades or something like that. Why would it matter "always" that the PC is using a Masterwork Rapier or a simple club? How would this effect his "to hit"? His ability to make the DC? Did the player get a "to hit" number high enough to hit the monster? How is this effected more that a fraction of the time by what weapon he is using?

and in relating this to the Diplomacy skill - we are still getting hung up on what the Player says - how he discribes the actions of his PC. This would be like adjusting his skill check because of "what the Player says - how he discribes the actions of his PC" during his attack. Does he swing low or high? does he thrust with the weapon or what? After all, a dagger is both piercing and slashing, so if he uses it to thrust then it only does piercing damage... wait, that still doesn't effect his chance to hit.

Clearly we are going in circles now... and I've spent to much time posting anyway. I have to go update PCs ITSs now, so I wish you all well - and happy gaming.


@Nosig, there a chart that adjusts a DC of a diplomacy check for the request you're making. That is what tool is being used to reflect what the player is asking for in the situation being described. Having someone give you some food, vs having them dress like a dinosaur will be vastly different in the DC requirements. You simply summarize your goal, and then roll. The GM can access what you want to do, and set the DC appropriately. This is a very simple and reasonable thing in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Berinor wrote:

To the people saying that you don't need any context for Diplomacy, do you think the same for Bluff? In that case, the content of what you're saying is explicitly relevant to the difficulty of the check. Also, it's related to what the result will be.

"I convince her that..." isn't the same as "I use my wiles to charm her so that she'll..." isn't the same as "I point out that our goals are the same for reason X, so she should..." They are all applications of diplomacy, but I'd allow the player a bonus if their approach was particularly well-suited to the NPC and a corresponding penalty if it's a particularly bad idea. The manner in which they deliver that information to me is largely irrelevant (although I admit I can be convinced, so a more glib player might have an advantage there :-( ), but the more context I have about what the character is doing, the better I can adjudicate it.

It is a skill check like any other. Really. Truely. this is what many posts on this thread have been about.

To treat it otherwise is to penalize some players because they are not as eloquent at other people. This would be like penalizing us poor old fat guys when our PCs are trying to do a Climb check. And often it is little more than an opinion...changeable on a whim.

Not to be difficult, but let's use your climb example. You come to a cliff and would like to get past it. Someone says "I use climb". There are (at least) two reasonable interpretations. One is that they jump down and start going freehand. Another is that they attach a rope somewhere and climb that. They have drastically different difficulties.

Diplomacy has less drastically different difficulties for standard situations, but I'd like to know your approach. I think you'll forgive me if I say that Bluff is similar to Diplomacy and use examples around that.

There is a barracks that has a guard posted on it. I'd like to get in using Bluff. There is a difference in the difficulty of saying "I'm a guard from the other shift and I forgot my uniform. Can I sneak in before they notice and punish me?" vs. "I'm the king and I command you to allow me to pass." vs. "Your wife is screaming for you - she says it's an emergency. I'll cover while you're gone." (for the record, the way they say this isn't important, the idea of what the lie is what's important).

In the climb example, I would probably assume they're doing it freehand and suspect they would tell me otherwise as I start to describe it. For the bluff example, I don't know what I'd assume. For example, the wife option would be very believable if they had a wife and not believable if they didn't. If they're not confident about their bluffing, they might be more ready to roll the dice on whether it's possible to make it easy to stick it if it is. I don't think the character has psychic knowledge about that, though, so without the player saying so, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving them the easiest DC in that case.

That's why I want the player to tell me. The delivery isn't important and that's why I don't think I'm punishing a shy player. nosig, as the most expert person here on the other side of this, do you disagree? If you do and say that responding to follow-up/requests for specificity of content will trigger the shyness, I'll seriously reconsider my position.

The trouble I have is that what you have said so far reads as the difference between "Good sir, I see that we are both followers of the Gray Lady. These vampire fiends are an affront to her sacred mission for us. Will you not aid me in returning them to a proper grave?" and "I point out that Pharasma hates undead, so he should help me kill the vampires since we both worship her." I would give either of those the same bonus over "I use diplomacy to convince him to kill the vampires with me." I would give a corresponding penalty if the other guy were secretly a cultist of Urgathoa.

tl;dr I think we're getting caught in difference between the content of the request and the delivery. Is that true?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the diplomacy roleplaying discussion should be moved to a separate thread...


You know, every time I read a long thread and look up to find that those 300+posts have taken me 2+ hours to read, I get irritated with myself at the waste of time. Then I'll keep reading (because by then I'm invested in it) and I come across the one shining nugget that makes the whole thing worth it.

Spoiler:
Dhjika wrote:

It has always struck me that most of the time diplomacy role-playing is done completely backwards.

The numbers and the dice rolling are the mechanics of the results and laws of the game - and how people interact with the game is based on the results of those numbers.

Not with diplomacy (or bluff to a lesser extent)

If I rolled a 4 on diplomacy, shouldn't I then roleplay being undiplomatic? or bluffing poorly?

If a rolled a 21, shouldn't I roleplay being more effective?

Why is it people are expecting the good or bad argument before the roll - shouldn't how good or bad the roll tell us how to roleplay the effects.

This... is brilliant. I am going to do this from now on, and it will be awesome.


Jason Hanlon wrote:

You know, every time I read a long thread and look up to find that those 300+posts have taken me 2+ hours to read, I get irritated with myself at the waste of time. Then I'll keep reading (because by then I'm invested in it) and I come across the one shining nugget that makes the whole thing worth it.

** spoiler omitted **

This... is brilliant. I am going to do this from now on, and it will be awesome.

I think tomorrow I'll share this with my friend, and we'll roll ahead of time, and then either sound amazing, or intentionally say something completely idiotic in front of everyone. This definitely is a great way to make memories with everyone at the table.

The Exchange

Rapanuii wrote:
Jason Hanlon wrote:

You know, every time I read a long thread and look up to find that those 300+posts have taken me 2+ hours to read, I get irritated with myself at the waste of time. Then I'll keep reading (because by then I'm invested in it) and I come across the one shining nugget that makes the whole thing worth it.

** spoiler omitted **

This... is brilliant. I am going to do this from now on, and it will be awesome.

I think tomorrow I'll share this with my friend, and we'll roll ahead of time, and then either sound amazing, or intentionally say something completely idiotic in front of everyone. This definitely is a great way to make memories with everyone at the table.

there's another thread for this...

Go to Role-Playing-the-Roll.


Tamec wrote:
I also (suggested by my VC) put red stars on my rules sheet for every permanent kill, but there are only 3 (level 4 fighter standing toe to ectoplasm with a wraith, samurai who decided to go off alone, and someone entered the magic circle in Night March of Kalkamedes)

I have never understood judges who take pleasure in PC deaths. Not in the 33 years I have been playing RPGs.


Low Templar in SE Asia wrote:

As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)

Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."

GM: "You guys suck."

Let them. When they attempt it, have said ally not want to come back. If he's really important, they'll need to go through a decent amount of additional trouble to convince the soul to return. I think Sending works for cross-plane communication with a reasonable success rate, though the soul might not be a familiar creature by RAW. If they have to go through all the trouble once, they might realize that the Costs of not playing out that encounter outweigh the immediate convenience of not playing out that encounter.


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

the uses of diplomacy are all interchangeable and generally all achieve similar results. i usually combine multiple uses for example, changing attitudes in the right direction is likely to grant favors if applicable

i'm not saying players should get away with "i use diplomacy on him"

but players should be able to give a basic and general description of what their diplomacy is for, and at the same time, a DM shouldn't penalize a player for not being able to act out the diplomacy check comfortably.

i am kind of in the middle ground

now saying "i use diplomacy to spread a good reputation of our group with the local king and score a favor or few in the form of assistance with a particular mission"

is a lot better in my opinion.

that is generally what i expect or even "my buddy Lem, has a good point, i offer my support upon that point" should be good enough to assist or even roll.

That is more than most GMs here have said they expect when they say they want more than "I use diplomacy."

it is also less than the people whom expect a full acting session, i'm not expecting players to act, just what i perceive a basic summary of how and why they are using diplomacy.

the two things that take up the most table time are, combat encounters, and long drawn out acting by people whom may or may not have the comfort level to enter the stage.

but yeah, a little more than some people. but i want something to work with, something i can create a response with. though unless you specify otherwise, i will assume the diplomacy check involved a bit of swallowing pride and trying to be politically correct.

Liberty's Edge

nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

but it would not adjust the To Hit roll - the roll to be matched against the DC (in this case the AC).

Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

I am not arguing anything about adjusting the diplomacy check, but what you say can give modifiers depending on the NPC write up (see the examples you made).

Successfully improving the NPC attitude before asking him stuff, as by the diplomacy rules, should decrease the check DC or give an equivalent bonus to the skill roll.
Sorry Mr. Rossi, you have lost me completely. I do not even know how to respond....

You remember these examples you made?

nosig wrote:


Kind of like when the scenario says: "If the PC speaks Halit, he gains a +5 on all CHA checks when interacting with the natives."

"XXXXX is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks ..."

If the player say "I roll diplomacy" I have no basis to apply those modifiers. If he say something there is a basis to apply them.

- * -

If the players first use diplomacy to change a character attitude and succeed, but the scenario writer gave a straight table of successful results, without taking in account a change of the NPC reaction, I would apply a modifier. Generally a NPC attitude, barring a different script for the character, is indifferent. If the PC has changed that attitude to friendly that would normally change the DC of the following checks made against that NPC. If the table witht eh effects of teh successful diplomacy rolls don't take that in effect I would give him a +5 bonus to the roll for each step of improvement in the NPC attitude.

PRD wrote:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers.

And your examples about "it don't matter what weapon it use" are questionable.

nosig wrote:


Sometimes yes (for DR or such) - but not for the attack roll and in fact, I could easily say in most cases no. Did the PC hit? Yes? what damage (amount and type) did he do... Many games I can easily say I have run without knowing what weapon the PCs are using... "You hit AC 12? Damage? 8? next!"

Really? So I can use a club and do 1d10 piercing damage because what weapon I use don't matter?

nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


The intent, (lethal or non-lethal damage) yes or no?
Normally only if it attack results in success... a hit.

Again, Really?

You are aware that using a lethal weapon to do non lethal damage give you a -4 to hit?
It don't seem so from your post.

You allow someone to decide after he has it if he was attacking to dela lethal or non lethal damage? It seem so.

nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


With picking a lock, the information is usually understood by both the GM and player but it is still understood (the lock on the chest, MW, normal or improvised tools, opening the lock being the obvious goal).

well... not always. Does the Judge need to know that the PC is using Master Work tools? I have never had one ask me. It is normally just factored in. Do we need to know if the attack roll was made with a masterwork weapon?

You don't care to know, you assume it is already factored. Mmmh. Never played with a novice? never played with someone that forget to factor a bonus or a malus?

At least until you are confident that the player know what he is doing and that he is factoring his modifiers the right way you should check.

nosig wrote:


The only time I can think of when I (as a judge) would need to know what weapon someone is using in an attack is when that weapon effects the chance to hit. For example, if the target is Incorporial, or if my NPC has a +1 to AC vs. light blades or something like that. Why would it matter "always" that the PC is using a Masterwork Rapier or a simple club? How would this effect his "to hit"? His ability to make the DC? Did the player get a "to hit" number high enough to hit the monster? How is this effected more that a fraction of the time by what weapon he is using?

You are aware that a masterwork weapon give a +1 to hit?

nosig wrote:


and in relating this to the Diplomacy skill - we are still getting hung up on what the Player says - how he discribes the actions of his PC. This would be like adjusting his skill check because of "what the Player says - how he discribes the actions of his PC" during his attack. Does he swing low or high? does he thrust with the weapon or what? After all, a dagger is both piercing and slashing, so if he uses it to thrust then it only does piercing damage... wait, that still doesn't effect his chance to hit.

I find fun that you have brought up specific examples of modifiers written right into an adventure and then you say that the player shouldn't have to give any indication if he doing something that can trigger those modifiers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my players (to be fair, kind of a newbie) was upset over the fact that she never hit anything or made any of her saves during one of my adventures. I found it a little odd, but told her that sometimes games just go that way due to the randomness of the die. Shortly before the session concluded, I glanced over in her direction and saw that she had been making all of her rolls with a d12 instead of a d20.

This is also the same player that tried to negotiate with an insane black dragon and got another party member killed.


My gaming group tends to have a lot of moments like these.

"That was really stupid jumping into the pit without using your sonar first! Really stupid! Why did you do that?"


The Morphling wrote:

To start, let me preface this by saying this is meant to be a light-hearted thread to point out a few annoying habits of some players, rather than an attempt to insult or shame anyone. I've noticed a couple of recurring things players seem to not realize they're doing wrong.

There is no phrase in the world more aggravating to me as a GM (or even as a player) when the rogue at the table says "I go into stealth" while in the middle of a wide-open, well-lit chamber. How difficult can it be to understand that hiding requires, well, something to hide behind? Most players who do this are repeat offenders, too. They go "Oh, okay." when their mistake is pointed out, and then attempt it again while marching down the center of the next well-lit hallway, fifteen feet in front of the paladin in full plate.

Another thing that bugs me is when a player looks at the GM and says "Give me a Will save." Especially when this is the eleventh time this evening that I've repeated the phrase "Okay, which monster? Against what? Which variety of Evil Eye are you using this time?" (It's probably baseless, but when I hear "Slumber Hex" every time I say "Ok, he failed, what did you use?" and "Evil Eye" every time I say "he made the save, what hex were you using?" it gets suspicious.)

What have your players (or other players or GMs, if not the GM) done that just make you grind your teeth a bit? Remember, please keep this civil and polite!

Would "I destroy the light source and go into stealth" be okay?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone in the party ALWAYS assists EVERYONE on EVERY ROLL they can

I can't stand that. Whether it be a crafting check or diplomacy, suddenly everyone in the party, who has been kibitzing and arguing, suddenly when there's a *gasp* potential for failure, all come together EVERY SINGLE ROLL, to ensure that they have no issues.

Side note: Way to annoy players:

"The king will see you for your request, but first, please adhere to the standard no-magic rules. No magical equipment allowed at all, nor active spellwork during your time with the king. If we detect any magic at all, you'll be escorted out, as we've long known about subtle lying magic and its persuasive ilk. Now choose the one person who will speak for your group..."

Of course the King gets all of his CHA boosting gear, but there's no reason in a fantasy kingdom that a king should be subject to Glibness or a thousand other +bluff +diplomacy gear


Alternately, warn them, but let them try their little end around ... then escort them to the gaol after their magics are detected.

To paraphrase Foley in An Officer and a Gentleman:

"In every audience, there's always one joker who thinks that he's smarter than me." Yeah, you're smart—just smart enough to get your group thrown in the pokey.

"Oh, we'll be happy to commute your sentence. You'll have to do the Crown a little favor, though ..."


Doug Miles wrote:

Player: "I shoot the monster with my bow. Using rapidshot and haste I'll have four attacks this round...Does a 23 hit?"

GM: "Yes, a 23 hits. Damage?"

Player: "Ummm, 12 points of damage. Next shot, does a 24 hit?"

GM: "..."

YES!!!!!!!


Viskous wrote:

Our local VL, which I gm for a lot always pulls the make a save routine when playing his bard.

I've gotten used to it.

All of these things mentioned can be annoying.

But the truly most annoying is the person who doesn't pay attention and is sleeping or playing around on his laptop when we are playing and is never ready for their turn and then demands answers about the knowledge check that others players made, while they weren't paying attention.

I used to ban all electronic devices at my table until Hero Lab, d20 pfsrd, etc. Now, if they miss the info, I make the other party members tell them. I move on. Amazing how much the info changes in the translation.


Zerombr wrote:

Everyone in the party ALWAYS assists EVERYONE on EVERY ROLL they can

I can't stand that. Whether it be a crafting check or diplomacy, suddenly everyone in the party, who has been kibitzing and arguing, suddenly when there's a *gasp* potential for failure, all come together EVERY SINGLE ROLL, to ensure that they have no issues.

Side note: Way to annoy players:

"The king will see you for your request, but first, please adhere to the standard no-magic rules. No magical equipment allowed at all, nor active spellwork during your time with the king. If we detect any magic at all, you'll be escorted out, as we've long known about subtle lying magic and its persuasive ilk. Now choose the one person who will speak for your group..."

Of course the King gets all of his CHA boosting gear, but there's no reason in a fantasy kingdom that a king should be subject to Glibness or a thousand other +bluff +diplomacy gear

I had a GM who sent an assassin squad for my character early in the game. With the aide of the party, I was able to break up their attempt but always looked over my shoulder. The characters paranoia eventually got so bad that he faked his own death and bought an amulet of non-detection, spent a 4th level slot everyday on detect scrying, and wore a hat of disguise.

When that eventual trip into the protected palace came up and the guards asked us to remove our gear and dismiss any long term magics my character said, "I'm just going to wait out here."


Matthew Morris wrote:
s_gmusic wrote:
Don Walker wrote:

Player1: <constantly rolling dice> <stops>

GM: OK Player1 your turn.
Player1: I hit for XX damage. <begins to start rolling dice again>

I do the constant die rolling thing both as a player and GM. As a player, it's a "let's kill all the low rolls so when I need to really do something, it'll be high" superstition. As a GM, it feeds the paranoia well, especially in Wrath of the Righteous.

Another GM paranoid trick but requires a screen.

Want to make players paranoid? Grab a bunch of dice but make the damage dice special (like all of your red d6 but you grab a fist full of dice.) Roll all the dice for a horrendous noise, then lament your bad dice luck and announce the damage. Your players will simultaneously panic at the racket and breathe a sign of relief at your luck.

Stealing....


nosig wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit.

So if the player of the INT 22 wizard fails to act like a genius (say by making a tactical error or needing to write down a name to remember it), is he also a "moron" who "doesn't understand doing things in character"?

I have been trying to see the humor of much of this thread - I even chimed in with a list of peeves myself... but I kind of wish I had not.

But I have to chime in on this topic -
** spoiler omitted **...

What you have here, nosing, is a GM who wants the game to run HIS way. Meaning: there is only one way to play, his.


Zerombr wrote:

Everyone in the party ALWAYS assists EVERYONE on EVERY ROLL they can

I can't stand that. Whether it be a crafting check or diplomacy, suddenly everyone in the party, who has been kibitzing and arguing, suddenly when there's a *gasp* potential for failure, all come together EVERY SINGLE ROLL, to ensure that they have no issues.

Side note: Way to annoy players:

"The king will see you for your request, but first, please adhere to the standard no-magic rules. No magical equipment allowed at all, nor active spellwork during your time with the king. If we detect any magic at all, you'll be escorted out, as we've long known about subtle lying magic and its persuasive ilk. Now choose the one person who will speak for your group..."

Of course the King gets all of his CHA boosting gear, but there's no reason in a fantasy kingdom that a king should be subject to Glibness or a thousand other +bluff +diplomacy gear

I disagree with this. One could argue that a party that has a lot of internal argument wouldn't be content just letting one person do the talking, so everyone would actively try to convince the NPC themselves (everyone assist rolls).

Personally I think it's always good when the party works together, but if you want to discourage people from assisting on rolls they're really terrible at, you could impose a -2 penalty from failed assist rolls (just getting in the way).

The Exchange

^ I agree with a penalty to failed rolls, but I think DC10 is too easy to aid another for Diplomacy. At a point, everyone just automatically succeeds if they care at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with doing the diplomacy roll before roleplaying it is the Player will lose out on helpful circumstance bonuses. If someone makes a good argument, I may give them a bonus or just tip them to success, especially with good RPing

Not to mention it's not hard to retroactively figure out why there was an epic failure.

"I tell the King how lovely his mother is"

Go ahead and roll diplomacy *rolls a 1*
*DM thinks*
"He looks at you funny, then yells 'That's my wife!"


MattR1986 wrote:

The problem with doing the diplomacy roll before roleplaying it is the Player will lose out on helpful circumstance bonuses. If someone makes a good argument, I may give them a bonus or just tip them to success, especially with good RPing

Not to mention it's not hard to retroactively figure out why there was an epic failure.

"I tell the King how lovely his mother is"

Go ahead and roll diplomacy *rolls a 1*
*DM thinks*
"He looks at you funny, then yells 'That's my wife!"

LOL. That was great, Matt. :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystically Inclined wrote:

You know, every time I read a long thread and look up to find that those 300+posts have taken me 2+ hours to read, I get irritated with myself at the waste of time. Then I'll keep reading (because by then I'm invested in it) and I come across the one shining nugget that makes the whole thing worth it.

** spoiler omitted **

This... is brilliant. I am going to do this from now on, and it will be awesome.

I was at a game where this happened. One player was playing a very very charismatic Halfling paladin, and attempting to smooth over a situation with some of the local guards.

"Gentlemen, surely we can overcome this misunderstanding..." *rolls a natural 1* "... you bunch of cock-nosed whoresons."

We laughed and laughed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I handle the diplomacy rule (and anything similar) like this:

You tell me what it is you actually want to do, and then I'll tell you if and how it involves using the diplomacy rule. If you want to negotiate a treaty with the King to get him to send his army to protect your lands in the event of invasion in return for a percentage of your crop yield this year, then say that, and if it requires any dice-rolling to determine his response I'll let you know.

In the above case, obviously the percentage you offer is also going to affect the difficulty of said diplomacy roll, if I determine one is required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^TY

And if there is something that has annoyed me it's usually stuff that happens before the game starts. People getting pissy they can't use a 3.5 conversion class or whatever else to suit their "concept". Feeling out players before them joining the group is a good way to avoid having problem players. The one getting on my nerves lately is people not responding to e-mails, like ever. Like...do you have a computer and check your email more than twice a month? Coupled with that, just showing no effort to where I have to pull teeth to get anything out of a Player and ask repeatedly for things. Things that benefit THEM not me. To me it says they really could care less about the game and show up because it was something to do.


MattR1986 wrote:

^TY

And if there is something that has annoyed me it's usually stuff that happens before the game starts. People getting pissy they can't use a 3.5 conversion class or whatever else to suit their "concept". Feeling out players before them joining the group is a good way to avoid having problem players. The one getting on my nerves lately is people not responding to e-mails, like ever. Like...do you have a computer and check your email more than twice a month? Coupled with that, just showing no effort to where I have to pull teeth to get anything out of a Player and ask repeatedly for things. Things that benefit THEM not me. To me it says they really could care less about the game and show up because it was something to do.

Do you find that those two attributes exist in individual players? It has been my experience as a DM that players who request the use of outside content are generally responsive to communication and enthusiastic about the game experience.


Disk Elemental wrote:

Important NPC: "What are you doing, get away from him you filthy Heathens!" draws weapon

At least they know the dad has something they can sell.


No, not both in one player. The players who get really fussy about not being able to use 3pp never make it to the game since they aren't getting their way and go elsewhere (I assume).


MattR1986 wrote:

No, not both in one player. The players who get really fussy about not being able to use 3pp never make it to the game since they aren't getting their way and go elsewhere (I assume).

Well, I hope you continue to find players in the "sweet spot" between "enthusiastic enough to commit to a 4-5 hour weekly game and give undivided attention" and "enthusiastic enough to do their own research and spend their own money on stuff."

In my experience that is an incredibly narrow window to find people in and I couldn't possibly find enough of people in that gap to fill a table. I've found that by being less controlling about what I let players bring to the table that I am able to find a bunch of really neat people to come and be happy and have a good time, even if it means I sometimes have to bump the power level of the encounters to adjust for some outlier ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't give bonuses to Diplomacy for "good roleplay". I see roleplay as the minimum entry requirement to engage with the game. I find that most players I play with want to roleplay well, some of them just feel uncomfortable, unsure or just not quite in the right mindset.

Since I like the people I game with (even the strangers), I don't withhold my approval of their actions just because they don't meet some arbitrary standard that I've set.


I don't find allowing anything in the PRD to be controlling (save Summoner archetypes and gunslinger). If 170+ (guestimating) options isn't enough I don't know what to tell you. It's simply a matter of I'm not going to go through and judge the merits of something every time a player comes with some player companion feat or a 3pp class. I've seen enough snowball in both of those to just not allow it. Also, it opens the door to people getting butthurt when I allowed Person A one thing and now Person B wants to argue that their option that was denied is no more OP than Person A's option.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:

I rolled a 13 diplomacy with my bonus that's a "whatever". Do I get "whatever" to happen?

I do this because being so vague as to not mention the content of the conversation allows the player to artificially avoid any potential pitfalls in the conversation. For instance "mentioning his dead wife gets a -4 on this and any future checks".

Andy

nosig wrote:
Bolding mine. This is almost funny. We are talking about shy players (I am at least) - players it is hard to get to say anything - to get them to interact and overcome thier "speaking in public" issues, and the reason we have a penality is to punish those persons who might be gaming the system? what? the guys gaming the system will be the ones (like me!) who are using the flowery "Diplomat speach"! Not avoiding "the content of the conversation"!

No, Andy is correct.

The player who goes into detail is taking a risk, that they accidentally let information slip, that could be used against them.

  • Do they reveal their true identities, in the hope that works in their favour? It could work against them, place them at the scene of a crime.
  • Do they reveal their membership of a secret organisation, in the belief the NPC is also a member? They could be mistaken, or worse, the NPC could be an impostor from a rival organisation.
  • Do they reveal information they have discovered, in the hope this adds urgency to their request? The NPC could be in league with the BBEG, and is now aware their plans have been discovered.
  • They may make offers of payment, reward, or mutual favour, which may be in excess of what they needed to convince the NPC.

The player who gives no detail, negates that risk. They get the result they want, but it's not clear to either side, just what exactly just got discussed, if anything. What's the motivation for the NPC to aid you? Don't know. Only that they feel compelled to do so, because you 'rolled a 20'.
They don't know why they've come with you, they don't know what they agreed to do, they don't know what they've been promised in return...

How do I, as GM, run that NPC believably?

GM: You travel back into the hills, and watch the goblins going in and out of the cave entrance. Black Bart kneels beside you, and spits in the dust. "My boys are tailin round back, to take their scouts down, so we can git in there and gut those creepers. When they're down, how we gonna git this silver back to town?"

Player 1: "Whoah! We never told him about the silver!"

GM: "You wanted him to risk his gang fighting goblins, for a few copper pieces? Of course you told him about the silver. Why do you think he agreed to help you?"

Player 1: "Nuh-uh. We wouldn't have told him."

GM: "I asked you how you were going to approach him. You got defensive, wouldn't say anything in character, I had to ask and ask, until you told me you were 'telling him what you did last session'. Well, last session you found the goblins had killed the guards at the silver mine. So that's what you told Black Bart."

Player 1: "Nuh-uh. We wouldn't have told him."

GM: "Why do you think he's here? Of course you told him. If you hadn't, he wouldn't have come."

Player 1: "You can't put words in my mouth."

GM: "Well, if you won't tell me what you're saying, what are my options? Am I going to have to retcon this session? Black Bart and all his gang disappear into thin air..."

Player 2: "Whoah, no! We would have told him some other story."

GM: "Oh, so now you decide, retrospectively, that you would have said something else? Wouldn't the time for telling me that have been back in town, when you were talking to him?"

Silver Crusade

I think a balance is the best way forward with mental skills.

We shouldn't accept 'I use Diplomacy. I rolled a 20. Did we get want we want?' any more than we could accept 'I use combat. I rolled a 20. Did we win?'

On the other hand we can't insist players of high Int/Wis/Cha/Diplomacy (etc.) characters to also be just as good, anymore than we expect players of barbarian PCs to be able to lift a horse.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As long as they state what info is being traded, it's enough for me.
I'd prefer an actual conversation, but if it has to be in bullet points, so be it.

What I don't like, is someone hedging their bets, and backing multiple negotiation strategies simultaneously.

If the NPC proves to be reliable, he gets a retroactive up-front payment; if he's unreliable, we retroactively never paid him anything.

If one of us gets KO'd by the ghost, we would have retroactively warned the NPCs about the ghost, so they could have brought anti-ghost measures to save us; if the ghost doesn't drop any of us, we retroactively didn't tell the NPCs about the ghost, so we can double-cross them at the end.

If I wander off invisible, and fall into a trap, I would have retroactively told people exactly where I was going, so they can find me: if I don't encounter any trouble, and find all the treasure, I retroactively never told anyone where I was going.

Schroedinger's Diplomat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I think a balance is the best way forward with mental skills.

We shouldn't accept 'I use Diplomacy. I rolled a 20. Did we get want we want?' any more than we could accept 'I use combat. I rolled a 20. Did we win?'

On the other hand we can't insist players of high Int/Wis/Cha/Diplomacy (etc.) characters to also be just as good, anymore than we expect players of barbarian PCs to be able to lift a horse.

I find; "I try to impress upon him the benefits of mutual cooperation given that we have a common enemy. Also, I try to allude to our role in defending the town of Whereveritis from the goblin raiders." To be perfectly acceptable. I can paint a scene of sorts in my mind from it and get an idea how that particular NPC might naturally react to that approach(modifiers) which can then be applied to the diplo roll for a resolution. Shakespeare is not needed, although welcome.

501 to 550 of 551 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / "I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.