A little rant & question on the "social" aspect of skills


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

CapeCodRPGer wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

Here's the thing.

It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.

But " I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" Is fine in combat. Its the same thing, you are using the rules of the game for a result. So I'm have to really swing a sword to show the GM what I am doing? As a player I am unable to play the character the way i want to because me as a player sucks at social situations and I can't play the character as intended?

No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.


BigDTBone wrote:
CapeCodRPGer wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

Here's the thing.

It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.

But " I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" Is fine in combat. Its the same thing, you are using the rules of the game for a result. So I'm have to really swing a sword to show the GM what I am doing? As a player I am unable to play the character the way i want to because me as a player sucks at social situations and I can't play the character as intended?

No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

Yup. I've shot down a player before who swung their sword and rolled the dice, and when they described how and what they wanted to do they overlooked/neglected/didn't care about the scene as presented, and were very upset to find out that vast overhead chopping strokes wouldn't work in the cramped tunnels they were fighting in.

In fact, the game derailed for about thirty minutes as we found yardsticks and display swords and looked at just how much room you actually need to do various things with a blade while surrounded by your friends and enemies.

I didn't -- and don't -- expect anyone to be a master fencer (although I played with someone who was), but I do expect them to pay attention to where they are and what they are doing. I expect a bit of detail from any player, be it for what they are looking for when they search, what they are doing in combat, where their items are on their person if needs be and so on. I don't ask anyone for anything hard, but I do ask for some participation. People who just throw dice and answer questions with monosyllabic grunts are people I don't enjoy playing with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
LazarX wrote:

I was actually reported at least once by a person who was extremely angry that I told him he had to do some amount of roleplay to earn a diplomacy roll. He had built the character as a diplomacy monster, but insisted that all he needed to say is "I make a diplomacy check".

I laid down the law on requiring a minimal amount of interaction to earn a check or an assist, and he complied with it, but he was extremely unhappy about it. I have not modified my stance on this issue however.

You say "I make a diplomacy check", the guard/princess/merchant/lich/dragon/random-peasant says (the equivalent of) "what?"

So you modified your stance to what? I agree with your old stance btw, it is superior to the compromising falcon stance.

I thought I made it prettty clear that I have not changed my stance on rolling social skills. I still use the same rules that made that player so unhappy.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CapeCodRPGer wrote:


Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

If you're not playing at their table, why does it matter? Find a table compatible with the style of game you want to play.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

And if you have friends with which you game, they should be taking into account your issues. Like I said, I judge every person at my table according to their fears and desires, their strengths and weaknesses, not anyone else's.

It's the rules of a role-playing game. That requires role-playing. Your ability to role-play, if limited by your Aspergers, should be taken into account by your long-time DM. You just can't expect that level of cooperation from complete strangers.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

What many are saying about giving more information doesn't require any facial cues, vocal tones, or anything else. It requires dispensing data and that's it. You aren't actually seeing the guard or whatever you are speaking with, you are not trying to judge anything about what their bodies are doing or the tone of their voice. Rather, you are telling the GM "I am going to tell the guard the following in order to intimidate/negotiate/etc with him."

No muss, no fuss. This isn't about some sort of discrimination -- indeed, about 1 in 3 people (it seems) have Asperger's online. I've played with a number of them in online games, they were able to do more than just roll dice. I've played with a number of people across the spectrum in face to face games who were able to deal with relaying information rather than just hoping that the sheet will do all the work.

No one is turning you away from the game but yourself -- it's words on the screen that you seem to be reading into and believing that there is some discrimination. It's a different way to play than perhaps you've been exposed to and -- here is the kicker -- doesn't affect you at all! It's a totally separate game on another table. If reading that people do it different is so overwhelming that it forces you to leave the hobby ..


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.


Irontruth wrote:

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

I apologize if CapeCodRPGer is the only one who's supposed to answer this, but ... I thought my response relevant because we've had some miscommunication.

1. This is wholly unacceptable, not to mention freakin' boring.
2. This is entirely acceptable; it may not be preferred, depending on what style the group leans towards, but it's certainly a good way to fulfill role-playing requirements if you're not a yammering pontificator like me. [ Back me up on this, Irontruth. ;) ]


2. I'm fine with that.
1. Not good enough, give me more, tell me how.

Shadow Lodge

Jaelithe wrote:

It's the rules of a role-playing game. That requires role-playing.

^^^ I find this statement annoying.

I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in the rules that says a player has to do anything but say, “I’ll use {skill} to try and accomplish my goal. I make a roll.” ‘Requiring/wanting more out of a play’ That is nothing more than just Player/GM preference.

All you NEED to play the game is: a set of dice, pen/pencil and paper, and an imagination.

That being said I agree with Jaelithe here

Jaelithe wrote:


1. This is wholly unacceptable, not to mention freakin' boring.
2. This is entirely acceptable; it may not be preferred, depending on what style the group leans towards, but it's certainly a good way to fulfill role-playing requirements if you're not a yammering pontificator like me.

Shadow Lodge

Of course rule books for the particular genre/setting your playing in help to some extent as well.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
All you NEED to play the game is [...] an imagination.

Not according to some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

I apologize if CapeCodRPGer is the only one who's supposed to answer this, but ... I thought my response relevant because we've had some miscommunication.

1. This is wholly unacceptable, not to mention freakin' boring.
2. This is entirely acceptable; it may not be preferred, depending on what style the group leans towards, but it's certainly a good way to fulfill role-playing requirements if you're not a yammering pontificator like me. [ Back me up on this, Irontruth. ;) ]

I was mostly directing it towards CapeCodRPGer. Partially because someone in the thread keeps referring to statements similar to "I diplomacy him", as if anyone in this thread is actually advocating it, which I don't really think anyone is.

Essentially I think it's being used as a hyperbolic/strawman to argue against and being assigned as a stance people are taking, except it isn't.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

It's the rules of a role-playing game. That requires role-playing.

^^^ I find this statement annoying.

Certainly there's no intent to annoy anyone ... but I stand firmly by the statement.

Quote:

I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in the rules that says a player has to do anything but say, “I’ll use {skill} to try and accomplish my goal. I make a roll.” ‘Requiring/wanting more out of a play’ That is nothing more than just Player/GM preference.

All you NEED to play the game is: a set of dice, pen/pencil and paper, and an imagination.

Note that nothing below is specifically directed at Jacob Saltband, but is instead a generic response to the point he raises above.

I'd posit that such isn't explicitly included in the rules because it's so self-evident the writers never envisioned people saying, or even wanting to say, "I Diplomacy him," which is so determinedly anti-social and/or lazy (though, again, sometimes neither of these and understandable because of various social anxiety and/or other disorders) as to be non-participatory.

According to "Getting Started" on page eight of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, "If you are a player, you make all of the decisions for your character, from what abilities your character has to the type of weapon he carries. Playing a character, however, is more than just following the rules in this book. You also decide your character’s personality." That implies more than declaring what skill you're using, bare-bones, in my opinion. "Why" and/or "how" are required as well. A few lines later, they describe the DM's role: "If you are a Game Master, you control the world that the players explore. Your job is to bring the setting to life and to present the characters with challenges that are both fair and exciting."

It's my opinion that clearly implied in the above is "If you are the player, it's your character the other players and DM interact with. It's a player's job to bring their character to life and to present the DM and other players with something that spurs their imagination and gives them something—anything—to play off of."

The game is supposed to be a shared experience, in which our imaginations are employed to enhance the experience for ourselves and each other. "I Diplomacy him; I roll a twelve," doesn't do that particularly, and barely does so marginally, if at all. "I'm going to use Diplomacy here ... I'll try and mix in a little flattery and imply that not letting us through the gate would make him remiss in his duties. I roll a twelve." That's something besides the imaginary equivalent of bread and water that "I Diplomacy him" is.

Unless someone told me that they had real issues, psychological or emotional, that prevented them from giving even something like the short narrative piece I provide above when describing actions, I'd likely eventually tell them that their gaming style—I'd mean "near utter lack thereof," but I wouldn't say that, because it wouldn't serve any purpose other than to start a fight or make the person feel bad and unwelcome—might not be compatible with those of my group, and indicate that they should consider finding a group that preferred that ... ahem ... "methodology."

If on the other hand they did tell me they had such issues, I and my group would strive to make them welcome, encourage them without pressing them to contribute more to the narrative, and see where it went from there. I don't envision myself tossing a person like that out of the group. I'd more likely just think, OK, well, that's just John's way, and work with it as best I could.

If instead it was some stance on ridiculous principle, as in, "Technically, that's all I have to do," I'd toss the guy out on his ear. There's struggling and then there's being a willful jerk. Two entirely different things ... and "no style" ain't a style.


Irontruth wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

I apologize if CapeCodRPGer is the only one who's supposed to answer this, but ... I thought my response relevant because we've had some miscommunication.

1. This is wholly unacceptable, not to mention freakin' boring.
2. This is entirely acceptable; it may not be preferred, depending on what style the group leans towards, but it's certainly a good way to fulfill role-playing requirements if you're not a yammering pontificator like me. [ Back me up on this, Irontruth. ;) ]

I was mostly directing it towards CapeCodRPGer. Partially because someone in the thread keeps referring to statements similar to "I diplomacy him", as if anyone in this thread is actually advocating it, which I don't really think anyone is.

Essentially I think it's being used as a hyperbolic/strawman to argue against and being assigned as a stance people are taking, except it isn't.

But I thought this is precisely what CapeCodRPGer is advocating, and that others have come to his defense. His stance, though, seems based more on his Aspergers.

Then, from what I saw when rereading, others seemed to support the idea, at least in theory, of saying, "I Diplomacy him," even without such reason as he has, based on accompanying examples. Perhaps I'm reading too much into such responses.

Still, that means there's at least a purpose to presenting "I Diplomacy him" as a position some extremists might take, if only to chart positions along the spectrum, that one representing extreme minority viewpoint on the far right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

I apologize if CapeCodRPGer is the only one who's supposed to answer this, but ... I thought my response relevant because we've had some miscommunication.

1. This is wholly unacceptable, not to mention freakin' boring.
2. This is entirely acceptable; it may not be preferred, depending on what style the group leans towards, but it's certainly a good way to fulfill role-playing requirements if you're not a yammering pontificator like me. [ Back me up on this, Irontruth. ;) ]

I was mostly directing it towards CapeCodRPGer. Partially because someone in the thread keeps referring to statements similar to "I diplomacy him", as if anyone in this thread is actually advocating it, which I don't really think anyone is.

Essentially I think it's being used as a hyperbolic/strawman to argue against and being assigned as a stance people are taking, except it isn't.

Since what I see most often put forward is "explain the general tack you are taking and what kind of points you bring up" and people then object to it, how can that objection be interpreted as other than "I diplomacy him" if any other description than that is objected to as a requirement?

"I don't object to all traffic laws, just to any traffic law you try to apply to me."


Well, as the OP, I am definitly not in a state of saying "I diplomacy them". I do all the acting, the accents, the attempts to play a character. My problem was more with GMs who dont make you roll at all.

But I digress. I believe even in a case where one has no capacity to communicate well, there can at least be a short description (IE, I attempt to convince the bandit of the value of not robbing us) rather than the stereotype. Effectively, it gives the same thing (mostly roll-focused, no acting), while still at least giving clear goals. I know I wouldnt accept "I diplomacy him" at my table, but if anyone simply said "I want to convince the of X" I would respond immediately with "Roll your diplomacy".

Now that I think of it, I think my main problem with "I roll diplomacy" isnt boringness, but rather that the statement lacks clear goals & intent, especially with such a broadly used skill.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RDM42 wrote:
Since what I see most often put forward is "explain the general tack you are taking and what kind of points you bring up" and people then object to it, how can that objection be interpreted as other than "I diplomacy him" if any other description than that is objected to as a requirement?

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that "explain the general tack you are taking and what kind of points you bring up" was too high of a requirement. Can you link an example?


If someone hits the reply button to argue the point each time someone posts just that, what conclusion should be reached?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I get that some folks at my table are introverted, may have anxieties or be on a spectrum. Both my kids are on a spectrum and have social issues of their own. I try to be as sensitive to that as I can.

As a result I generally allow my players to say as little or as much as they'd like. Typically a social encounter or a social aspect of a larger encounter is a joint effort. Something prompts the interaction in game. The player announces their intention, I ask for a roll and while they're rolling I ask them to give me some kind of direction of what they're doing.

For example last game session the PCs were gathering info on a couple different points. There is a boggard witch harassing a village and the PCs want to know about her, but there's also a wicked ranger in town stirring up trouble. The party decided to split up. Two guys went to talk to a mysterious little girl, an abarrent leftover of a now-defunct Lamashtu cult. One PC just wanted to gather info in general about the witch and the other wanted to talk to a high-priestess about specific questions.

We broke off into three different skill challenges.

The 2 guys talking to the little girl did some prep work; they gathered apples she likes, got some fresh clothes to give her and went over their talking points. While this was happening I turned to the guy wanting to get general info. He's not much in the way of social skills so I confirmed with him his intent. Then I asked for a Diplomacy roll. While he was rolling I just asked to describe how his guy would use his Diplomacy. He said he'd start at the inn and ask around the villagers, try and get the "mythology" of the witch.

When he was done he rolled well enough to get the info he was looking for. I described it in a montage. "You ask the innkeep and he tells you to talk to old Jed. Old Jed tells you some creepy story going back a year, then his wife pops in. She describes the recent attack and how it's nothing compared to what the witch'll do to you if you go out in the swamps. She then sends you to her sister Mirelda who tells you about the old runestones at the edge of the marsh; past those is the witch's domain. This goes on for a few hours (three) and here's all the details you learn..." and then I finished his challenge by relating all the general info on the boggard witch.

I come back to the guys talking to the little girl and they tell me how they've prepped and how they want to talk to her. After a Diplomacy check to coax her out and start the dialogue they begin asking their questions. All three of us went back and forth, in character, having a conversation about all the little girl knew. I hunched my body, spoke through one side of my mouth and tried to talk like a 10 year old kid would. Their Diplomacy roll got the ball rolling and was high enough to justify some very specific answers (Total of 26 on the check plus the gifts they brought gave a hidden circumstance bonus of +4 pushing them to a total of 30) so we just roleplayed it instead of me giving it in a summary.

Thirdly there was the guy talking to the high-priestess. Said cleric is a devout of Gozreh and a grippli, but she also venerates Pharasma and lives out of the burial caves at the swamp-waters' edge. Needless to say she's creepy. He made his way down to talk to her, described wanting to do an exchange of knowledge with her for the info he wanted, and then made a Diplomacy roll which bombed (total 13). The priestess, referred to under the title the "Marmer" invited him into her chambers and meant to sit with him; the first thing she did was offer him some stale biscuits, tree-sap syrup and a home-rolled cigar. Since the PC is an elf and gets played as highly civilized I was not surprised when the player kind of turned his nose up. Working with the player we described the failure together, the elf taking a cracked earthen cup in his dainty hand, pinky out, to drink some revolting tea. Then the Marmer acting disgusted that SHE would need HIS help learning what's going on in the village; if she needed lore she'd ask the wind or the water and they'd whisper all she needed to know. Finally she turned invisible and jumped up on the ceiling, telling him to leave.

Everyone had fun and everyone's strengths got played to. The point of all the above is that there's no one set way to do it; you have to roll with your players, know them and work with them organically to resolve social skills. The one thing I DO ask of my players though is to add SOME kind of description to their action or at least an explanation. I don't accept "I attack" or "I use Profession: Librarian" in other situations so "I use Diplomacy" isn't a complete answer for me. I either prompt with "HOW do you do it" or "What goal are you trying to achieve" or something if they don't feel like roleplaying and I reserve the right to describe the scene once the roll has been made working WITH them as necessary.


williamoak wrote:

Well, as the OP, I am definitly not in a state of saying "I diplomacy them". I do all the acting, the accents, the attempts to play a character. My problem was more with GMs who dont make you roll at all.

But I digress. I believe even in a case where one has no capacity to communicate well, there can at least be a short description (IE, I attempt to convince the bandit of the value of not robbing us) rather than the stereotype. Effectively, it gives the same thing (mostly roll-focused, no acting), while still at least giving clear goals. I know I wouldnt accept "I diplomacy him" at my table, but if anyone simply said "I want to convince the of X" I would respond immediately with "Roll your diplomacy".

Now that I think of it, I think my main problem with "I roll diplomacy" isnt boringness, but rather that the statement lacks clear goals & intent, especially with such a broadly used skill.

I agree with your first paragraph; the acting is fine and all, but the roll matters as well. The two should work together to help tell what is going on rather than either being the only thing that matters.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

number 2. fine. I thought the example I used before showed the intent of the character saying I try to charm someone to get info.

I will need to give the GM info as to my intent. My issue is with the GM and players that expect me totally play out what I say/ do when me as a player would have no idea. Sorry if I was not clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And we're right back to all of us not being so far apart as we thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
And we're right back to all of us not being so far apart as we thought.

This is the internet.

Disagreeing on how much we agree is a time honored tradition.

Shadow Lodge

PIXIE DUST wrote:

^^^ this

I have seen this problem more than a few times.

Which is wrong, because very few Role players I know have a Cha over 12...

I would love to have a CHA of at least 10 in real life.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This has been an insightful thread. Here are my takeaways so far:

1) Be flexible, especially if you are a GM working with new players. Some posters came across as a bit dismissive of CapeCodRPGer's special needs, specifically because s/he already has a gaming group who accommodates their needs, so why should we have to care?

But EVERYONE has special or specific needs, so it pays to be flexible, and to communicate with your fellow gamers to arrive at a table style that ensures comfort and enjoyment.

2) Some players emphasize the "RP" and others emphasize the "G." Balance is best, but fun trumps everything. If a table of gamers can go through a session without rolling a single die and still have a great time, ain't nothing wrong with that. Likewise, if everyone at the table agrees that the dreaded "diplomance" approach is copacetic, fine.

Find a group of like-minded weirdos and do what comes naturally.


Jaelithe wrote:
And we're right back to all of us not being so far apart as we thought.

This was kind of my point and that CapeCodRPGer was being attacked for a position he didn't actually hold. Not by you, but someone else.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RDM42 wrote:
If someone hits the reply button to argue the point each time someone posts just that, what conclusion should be reached?

I'd be happy to talk about what conclusion should be reached when that happens, just as soon as you can show me where it did indeed happen.

So, who hit the reply button and "argued the point" when someone said that it was fine to just "explain the general tack you are taking and what kind of points you bring up"?

I tried asking you this once, but you somehow thought I was saying that a different conclusion should be reached. I'm not contesting your claims of what conclusion can be reached when X happens, I'm asking for an example of X having happened.

So, example?


Liberty's Edge CapeCodRPGer Friday, 06:42 pm | FLAG | LIST
| REPLY
1 person marked this as a favorite. +
King Ezelgar
Jaelithe wrote:
Here's the thing.
It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.
But " I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" Is fine in combat. Its the same thing, you are using the rules of the game for a result. So I'm have to really swing a sword to show the GM what I am doing? As a player I am unable to play the character the way i want to because me as a player sucks at social situations and I can't play the character as intended?

Talonhawke Mon, Jun 8, 2015, 12:13 pm | FLAG | LIST
| REPLY
1 person marked this as a favorite. +
Zalsus
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?

Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?

Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.

This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.

Talonhawke wrote:
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?

1 person marked this as a favorite. +
King Ezelgar
BigDTBone wrote:

No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

***********
Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.
I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.
*******


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
...

This is off topic, but please oh please oh please for the sake of us all learn how to use Quote tags. There is a help section just below the submit button that tells you how to use 'em.

The reason I am saying this is because it isn't clear what your post is supposed to be doing due to the lack of clarity with regards to who is being quoted saying what.

If you need to put quote tags in manually, just wrap the text like so:
(quote=Person you are quoting)Very Important Things(/quote)

But replace the ( with [

The above turns into:

Person you are quoting wrote:
Very Important Things


Look at Jiggy one up claiming no one said, in essence, that providing structure and form to a diplomacy roll was unnecessary.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
All you NEED to play the game is [...] an imagination.
Not according to some.

My opinion.....

If your not playing the game with dice and characters sheets(pen and paper, electronic versions included) then your not playing Pathfinder the Fantasy Roleplay Game, your play some homebrew game that uses pathfinder material.

Edit: Not meaning to saying that there is anything wrong with that.


RPGs existed before Pathfinder. Likely they'll exist long after it's gone.


Old argument brought back around. It all comes down to preference.

I prefer players saying what their characters actually say, and then rolling the check. If they roll amazing, even if they say something bad, then the person they are trying to influence is likely pushed to agree with them, though maybe begrudgingly. If they roll poorly but have a very persuasive argument, then the person they are trying to influence does not agree with them, but commiserates with them to some degree.

I will accept at a minimum an explanation of HOW the character says things, and what type of persuasion they're trying to use. f/x: I want to try to persuade the guard to let me pass with anger in my voice and a hand on my sword.

I will not accept "I use diplomacy," unqualified.

Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

As a GM you could simply fill in the blanks for the players, or ignore those areas, but that is more than half of the fun in my opinion. Not to mention that as a GM I'm already doing boat loads of work; I don't need any more.

Shadow Lodge

Jaelithe wrote:

RPGs existed before Pathfinder. Likely they'll exist long after it's gone.

I uaed Pathfinder becuase this is a the Paizo forums, replace Pathfinder with any number of other rpgs from over the past 37-ish years. And you used Pathfinder in one of your last posts.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
I used Pathfinder because this is a the Paizo forums; replace Pathfinder with any number of other rpgs from over the past 37-ish years. And you used Pathfinder in one of your last posts.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but ... OK.


Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game. Why cant it be so for those other things? Why cant we find a way to do this? It really bugs me, because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not, and yet so many people have these invisible walls that have to intersect with people's real abilities. It's frustrating.

Shadow Lodge

Jaelithe wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
I used Pathfinder because this is a the Paizo forums; replace Pathfinder with any number of other rpgs from over the past 37-ish years. And you used Pathfinder in one of your last posts.
Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but ... OK.

Ok... then what were these two sentences meant to say and to who/what?

'RPGs existed before Pathfinder. Likely they'll exist long after it's gone.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
williamoak wrote:
because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not,

Only for some people, and only to some degree.

I, for one, think how much RPGs are about "being someone you're not" to be vastly overstated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
williamoak wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.

Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.

Quote:
Why cant it be so for those other things?

Because if you take away talking and imagination, it's just a dice game. ;P

As my other post stated, I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me.


williamoak wrote:
See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game. Why cant it be so for those other things? Why cant we find a way to do this? It really bugs me, because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not, and yet so many people have these invisible walls that have to intersect with people's real abilities. It's frustrating.

You can find a way if you wish - as I said, it is all preference. To this date, I have not seen a single suggested way that I would consider to be satisfactory, but to each their own.

I've enjoyed CRPGs where you're presented with options in the form of a radial menu. You select the choice you want to make, and then you're presented with the results. While that's fine for CRPGS, I consider that to be a limitation of such a game, not a feature.

In order to allow people to be amazing at ideas when they themselves don't have the desire or ability would require the GM to either (as I previously mentioned) make something up that fits or to abstract the something and not describe it.

The first is boring as a GM and takes control out of a player's hands, while the second destroys immersion and the story of the game.

If you manage to think of a different way, I'd be interested in hearing it.


Tormsskull wrote:


If you manage to think of a different way, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I've been trying. I've started up a few threads before on the subject, but the general conclusion of each of those threads tends to be more arguments about the nature of the game than any actual ideas. I have had a few myself, and I've been trying to build something, but it aint terribly entertaining. And I expect if I show it to anyone the primary response will be ardent refusal of any kind of more granular approach to social conflict.

And I'll admit, I dont favor the CRPG approach; I'll agree it doesnt make for fun GM-ing. But much of the reason I play TRPGs is escapism. To be something I'm not or to be a "better" me. I know other people play for other reasons, but escapism's my prime one.

Kobold Cleaver: While I agree that if you remove imagination & talking it's just a dice game, resolution of any "conflict" (IE, situations where the outcome is uncertain) without dice kinda has the same, inverse effect.

I guess I'm a little bitter as well. In my current game (the one where I have face stats), I've gotten a number of groans from the other players, who are clearly on the same wavelength as the GM, but not me apparently. Unexpected (by me) negative consequences ensue. It gets irritating to try & try and get nothing but negative feedback on that front. I accept the primacy of the GM in these situations, but it's still frustrating.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
I used Pathfinder because this is a the Paizo forums; replace Pathfinder with any number of other rpgs from over the past 37-ish years. And you used Pathfinder in one of your last posts.
Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but ... OK.

Ok... then what were these two sentences meant to say and to who/what?

'RPGs existed before Pathfinder. Likely they'll exist long after it's gone.'

Did I quote you and then reply? Don't worry about it. I wasn't attacking you.

It was meant to say exactly what it said: I don't give Pathfinder, D&D or for that matter any game system too many props. It's about the imagination of the participants.

I respect Paizo, but they didn't invent the freakin' wheel. They just rolled out the latest generation of it ... well, until 5E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
williamoak wrote:
And I expect if I show it to anyone the primary response will be ardent refusal of any kind of more granular approach to social conflict.

I don't doubt it. Certain aspects of the game are considered critically important to some, while others don't really care about them. I personally think character advancement with little or zero risk of character death is boring. In addition, I don't think you can compare characters from a kid gloves campaign to one from a gritty campaign.

Of course there are players on both sides of the issue, but if someone wanted to try to give me advice how I could make it more fun for some people, by making the game easier or reducing the chance of death for those PCs, I would consider the suggestion to be attacking a core concept of D&D/Pathfinder.

williamoak wrote:

To be something I'm not or to be a "better" me. I know other people play for other reasons, but escapism's my prime one.

I think all fantasy campaigns do this to some degree, its just what degree people are comfortable. When I see people try to indicate that their characters should never be able to make a major mistake because their characters would simply know better, it indicates to me that a person is putting too much of themselves into their character. They then interpret the character's failures or weaknesses as their own, which is bad.


williamoak wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game. Why cant it be so for those other things? Why cant we find a way to do this? It really bugs me, because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not, and yet so many people have these invisible walls that have to intersect with people's real abilities. It's frustrating.

Just curious, and while my question is directed at you, my intention or purpose for asking you is to actually direct the information that results at other people.

Do you think that talking and imagination should be removed from the game?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Do you think that talking and imagination should be removed from the game?

That seems awfully inflammatory, but I'm going to answer.

I think comfortable roleplaying comes with experience. Not just experience roleplaying but roleplaying in the game. If someone is new or awkward concerning roleplaying (or talking), forcing them is not going to help this problem. If you let them play, they'll most assuredly warm up to it.

And sometimes, they never warm up to that. But should they be shunned from the game (which is fun in and of itself)? No. Getting together with friends and rolling dice can be fun. Some people aren't good at talky bits. Some people aren't creative. This game can still be fun to play.

The only players we should be excluding are people that are jerks. People that aren't very good at some aspects still deserve to enjoy this game.


Irontruth wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game. Why cant it be so for those other things? Why cant we find a way to do this? It really bugs me, because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not, and yet so many people have these invisible walls that have to intersect with people's real abilities. It's frustrating.

Just curious, and while my question is directed at you, my intention or purpose for asking you is to actually direct the information that results at other people.

Do you think that talking and imagination should be removed from the game?

Yeah, I dont think imagination & talking should be removed from the game. But I do think all consequences (in all situations where the result isn't certain) should be "gaged" through dice rolls, rather than GM fiat (and I hold this philosophy as a GM as well). I might give bonuses for good ideas or good speeches, but in the end I believe the dice should "decide". Both for good or for ill. In the end, the GM decides what a good vs a bad result is, but the players still nominally have the "power" with the dice.

This has actually got me thinking about agency in different roleplaying systems (like "PC rolls everything, NPCs roll nothing", "offense roll, defense static" to "everything is rolled for everyone"). Might be worth another discussion.


Irontruth wrote:
CapeCodRPGer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

To me both are acceptable. To avoid repeating myself from another post I will give the short version--> Some people RP, and some can't/won't. Some of us just have to grow into it, and some of us never come around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:


It's the rules of a role-playing game. That requires role-playing.

I am too lazy to add this to the meme thread, but people making things up is pet peeve of mine. Stop it. "I really like it, and I wish things were this way", is NOT a rule.

It might be the basis/intent of a RP'ing game that you RP, but it is not a rule anymore than having fun is a rule because it is a game. Yeah you should have fun, but it is not a rule.

201 to 250 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / A little rant & question on the "social" aspect of skills All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.