The original poster clearly has a bias. They don't like Aid Another for social skills.
Actually, he has a bias against meta-application of the rules.
This is what set him off:
one of the other players immediately pipes up, "Hey I am going to aid too!" Then proceeds to roll dice and tell the player next to him to roll also. I ask them if they really want to do that and the first player responds, "Yeah it doesn't matter anyway, even if we fail."
It's the "just roll all the time, any time", cavalier attitude about the aid another check, regardless of the situation and poor skill/ability of the character.
Especially in a Diplomacy situation (or any "fail by 5 or more" circumstance), where bungling around can seriously screw things up. It's practically a trope in media.
The +/-2 rule and the wording of both the Diplomacy skill and the Aid Another rule all make this a perfectly normal application of the rules, as long as it was warned ahead of rolling (which it was).
I'm of the camp that while I might not inflict a penalty on a serious failure, I do expect people who want to contribute actually explain how they are. Sometimes there's not enough room for everyone to push a big block, and sometimes it's just not feasible for everyone to get their words in to convince someone.
Though I suspect that if the OP's players had actually stated what they were doing to aid (like the Cleric had) instead of just "I roll too, cuz why not pad the numbers?", it would have been received a bit better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a time limit in PFS. The goal is to complete the missions in the time allotted. Generally, more dice = better chance of success.
In a combat, do the fighters give the casters complaints when they are out of spells and just using a sling/light crossbow/whatever? No. The spell-less casters get to throw their 1d20 every round in the combat situation. It is expected they should try something to aid the group, and they are hurting the team if they are not even trying.
Is it really that big a deal to let the fighters throw 1d20 once per encounter, likely once per the session, in an attempt to aid (in some minor way) the Diplomacy or a spot check in Perception? For the other skills (e.g. Knowledges, Profession, Craft) they will likely have no points, and cannot even make most of those checks untrained at all.
In PFS, if you don't get to throw one die in a half an hour (and in a social/exploration setting those parts can run that long), the fighter got to do absolutely nothing for 10-15% of the allotted time.
This is really petty. They let the party face run the dialog, and just want to do an Aid Another at the end. It takes all of 10 seconds to get a d20 roll and modifiers applied, and that's so offensive that you have to penalize not just them, but the party?
Now, had I been informed of the -5 to the real roller for getting a total of 5 or less (getting 5 less than the DC10 for the aid roll), I like to think I would not have a charisma-dumped character try when the upside is only a possible +2. But after sitting around for as long as some of those interactions run, I too may have just chanced it to have my character have some chance of advancing the story outside of just pure combat.
Diplomacy:
Succeed- If you succeed, the character’s attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character’s attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.
Fail- If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step.
So, if you are giving the penalty of one step on attitude for failure by 5 on the Aid, are you also giving the bonus of one step on success by 5?
The DC is 10 on an Aid Another, and on Diplomacy, assuming a zero total skill modifier:
-1 step is 5 or less (5 numbers on the die) = 25%
unchanged attitude is 6 - 9 (4 numbers on the die) = 20%
+2 aid another is 10 - 14 (5 numbers on the die) = 25%
+1 step is 15 or more (6 numbers on the die) = 30%.
Mechanically, it would be well worth it to take that roll. How badly negative modifiers affect the math would be worth examining. Since I never dump charisma, I never actually had to bother with the computations myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The original poster clearly has a bias. They don't like Aid Another for social skills.Actually, he has a bias against meta-application of the rules.
This is what set him off:
one of the other players immediately pipes up, "Hey I am going to aid too!" Then proceeds to roll dice and tell the player next to him to roll also. I ask them if they really want to do that and the first player responds, "Yeah it doesn't matter anyway, even if we fail."It's the "just roll all the time, any time", cavalier attitude about the aid another check, regardless of the situation and poor skill/ability of the character.
Especially in a Diplomacy situation (or any "fail by 5 or more" circumstance), where bungling around can seriously screw things up. It's practically a trope in media.
The +/-2 rule and the wording of both the Diplomacy skill and the Aid Another rule all make this a perfectly normal application of the rules, as long as it was warned ahead of rolling (which it was).
I'm of the camp that while I might not inflict a penalty on a serious failure, I do expect people who want to contribute actually explain how they are. Sometimes there's not enough room for everyone to push a big block, and sometimes it's just not feasible for everyone to get their words in to convince someone.
Though I suspect that if the OP's players had actually stated what they were doing to aid (like the Cleric had) instead of just "I roll too, cuz why not pad the numbers?", it would have been received a bit better.
I read the OP, so I know that.
First of all, there is no "meta-application" of the rules. The rules are the rules, and applying them is legal, period. There is zero reason why a character with a Charisma score of 8 can't be helpful in a Diplomacy check. "Oh, Thungore, you forgot mention we the guys saved him nephew in other town last week." Stats are about probability, and that's why you roll. Being biased into the viewpoint that a low-Cha character should be penalized above and beyond their negative to the roll by labeling them a "meta-applier" is... punitive. That's being meta as a DM. "Your character doesn't deserve to use the Aid-Another rule because you dumped Cha, so I don't think you should even ask." << Seriously, that's exactly what the OP is saying. You shouldn't ask.
Second, there is nothing in the rules that say a player needs to - or even should - roleplay or justify their social interactions. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in real life that is an Int 18, or a Cha 18. No player can roleplay high-ability score social interaction. They can try, sure. But even then, we play fantasy games to do things we can't do in reality. The socially-awkward guy who can barely bring themselves to the table with all those people around... who can't think up HOW his Cha 8 (barely sub-average) character might help... the rules permit him to participate anyway. All he needs to do is invoke The Rules.
That's the bias I pointed out.
Now, as for the application of the "you failed the Diplomacy check by 5", okay, fine. The socially-awkward guy fails to Aid, and fails by 5. The target's attitude drops by one step. Meanwhile, the high-Cha face character succeeds on his check. What happens? Simple. The target likes the face character and dislikes the awkward guy. "Sure, I'll help you, but keep that scumbag out of my sight." Surprise... the rules support realistic social encounters.
I ran the statistics.
With a -1 to Diplomacy toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually helping. Characters with Charisma of 8 or 9, no ranks, and no other negative modifiers = player should roll.
With a -2 to Diplomacy toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually hurting the overall chance. Characters with Charisma of 7 or less, no ranks, and no other positive modifiers = player should not roll.
I read the OP, so I know that.
The original poster clearly has a bias. They don't like Aid Another for social skills.
You misrepresented in your original response then. Because the OP *did* like that the Cleric used aid another, but he had the ability to, and said how he was doing it.
There is zero reason why a character with a Charisma score of 8 can't be helpful in a Diplomacy check. "Oh, Thungore, you forgot mention we the guys saved him nephew in other town last week."
And that's all *I personally* need from a player.. to actually participate in the roleplaying, instead of treating this game like an excel spreadsheet.
(See, I can use hyperbole too!)I was responding to your (mis)representation of the OP as someone who "hates Aid Another in social skills", with nothing else offered after that. Now you've clarified it further that I've challenged your point on that.
All he needs to do is invoke The Rules.
Ayup. And like I said, it's totally within the rules for the GM to give a -2 circumstance penalty because of the circumstance. The GM didn't say "you can't do this", he just warned that he was going to apply a penalty if they failed hard enough, because he deemed it appropriate.
To use your own words, what the OP decided was also simply invoking The Rules.
More on topic of this discussion.
Now, as for the application of the "you failed the Diplomacy check by 5", okay, fine. The socially-awkward guy fails to Aid, and fails by 5. The target's attitude drops by one step. Meanwhile, the high-Cha face character succeeds on his check. What happens? Simple. The target likes the face character and dislikes the awkward guy. "Sure, I'll help you, but keep that scumbag out of my sight." Surprise... the rules support realistic social encounters.
Except that this was an Aid Another check, not a separate instance of Diplomacy. They are trying to influence the original Diplomacy check, so it behooves that failure would consequently affect the original check too.
There is a time limit in PFS. The goal is to complete the missions in the time allotted. Generally, more dice = better chance of success.
The diplomacy skill and aid another mechanics both offer open-ended rules for GMs to fit their interpretation.
This is why the OP is asking that maybe something be hammered out for PFS to make things more consistent between tables.
With a -2 to Diplomacy toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually hurting the overall chance. Characters with Charisma of 7 or less, no ranks, and no other positive modifiers = player should not roll.
That doesn't seem right.
There are
12, 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 : you help (9 numbers)
11 10 9 8 : You do nothing. 4 numbers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7: You hurt 7 numbers
With Stabby the 8th dwarf and a 5 charisma you break even
13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 : you help (8 numbers)
12 11 10 9 : You do nothing. 4 numbers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8: You hurt 8 numbers
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Stabby the 8th dwarf and a 5 charisma you break even
His name is actually Flabby.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, authors of PFS scenarios and other adventures can and should mention in their encounters if for any reason using aid another isn't possible (or it carries a risk of actually worsening the check result). Two caveats, though. There should be an plausible in-game reason for it (for example, an uppity NPC refuses to speak to anyone except whom he perceives as the PCs' leader). Also, the adventure should advise GMs to communicate this exception in rules to the players.
Conversely, if the adventure assumes aid another is possible, the DCs should be high enough. The difference between 5 successful aid another attempts and no aid another is +10, after all.
Anyway, I think getting more players involved in any encounter is good, and not allowing aid another should not be the rule but an exception. Ideally, the other players should be able to do *something* while one player is rolling.
I hope you weren't giving a serious reply to my hyperbolic statement (see the sentence after what you quoted).
Honestly, what I ask for is for someone to simply say what they intend to do, it doesn't even require an in-character speech or anything. And I'm not aggresive or confrontational about it; I will even give suggestions on how one can help (since as the GM I may have a clearer picture in my head as to where and how things are progressing, not everything can get through sometimes in the description).
Its about the same as when I ask how someone is going to help lifting a portculus or disable a trap, even if it is to simply "hold their tools for them", etc.
Something more than just "I'm rolling dice to add +2", cuz that doesn't feel like playing a roleplaying game at that point.
The character should be divorced from the concept of dice and +2 bonus, as much as one can in such a game.
.
Lastly, the -2 penalty isn't being applied to the guy who isn't "roleplaying" (so to speak), it's being applied to the main attempt only after a fail by 5 or more.
It is a consequence for failing badly, not some sadistic punishment for having a low stat or for being a "bad roleplayer".
You've confused the OP's on the spot ruling with what I prefer. I specifically mentioned I don't normally insist on a penalty. And as GM I make a point of working with the players, not against them.
A hyperbole is an exaggeration. So there needs to be something to exaggerate. That means that, to some extent, you are letting your personal criteria for roleplaying bleed over and apply to other people. It's like the Paladin who tries to hold everyone else to his code of conduct. So you go on to justify and condone the OP's decision on the matter, despite the fact that this isn't the situation for which the circumstantial penalty is meant for. So refuting your support of the notion also translates to refuting the OP's position.
It's hard to tell if you are trolling or actually sticking to your guns on this stance against me.
I ask that a person says what their character is doing in the game instead of just saying "I roll some dice to add a +2" (an out of character statement). My response to such a statement is usually "Okay, so what do you do?". They can still respond out of character if they aren't comfortable with in-character speaking, but I'd like to know things like: where they might be standing, what tools they intend to use, are they going to try speaking, etc.
These can have factors in the game (knowing the right language, someone may have been waiting for this person to talk before acting, if they instead whisper something to the main diplomat it could be treated differently, etc).
I want to know what their character is doing. I don't see how this is asking for much.
.
You've taken a single sentence about how I personally handle this kind of situation and conflated it with the overall OP's position, or somehow took it as an argument towards the OP's position.
That one sentence specifically listed "*I personally*" (in stars no less) to indicate that was my own separate position, and it was in direct response to the quote that I had placed right before it. It was part of the discussion between me in Anguish in this thread.
I feel this context was lost in your effort to pick apart my post. This wasn't an argument for the OP's -2 circumstance penalty, or how he handles aid another in general. It was a single sentence revealing how I personally handle this kind of thing, as a side note to my defense of the misrepresentation of the OP's position. Sorry if that was confusing; I had thought my noting it was a personal opinion was enough to indicate this.
.
In regards to your further comments on the situation: "the rules" are fuzzy enough that even your interpretation of lowering the guard down to Indifferent because of the failed aid another was not an automatically assumed thing.
The OP wasn't applying that strong of a rule, he was going for just a -2 towards the original check for failing by 5 or more, full stop.
Note that the guy who only failed within 4 or less did not reduce the original check at all.
You are actually applying a more impacting and negative interpretation towards Aid Another than even the OP or myself have mentioned. You, the person who is accusing myself (and the OP?) of 'applying punitive penalties because we think it's badwrongfun'.
It feels like you are coming off with this righteous indignation for perceived antagonism. I don't think the people you've targeted are doing the things you are angry about.
There's no such thing as meta application of the rules.
Some people feel that the characters in-game "don't know" the specific mechanics of the game itself. They will act out according to how things would normally seem appropriate (like you said, trying to help out wherever you can, etc), however they won't necessarily know specific mechanical processes or numbers involved.
A player saying "hey buddy, roll for aid another anyways, there's no drawback to failing", is looking at the game from a mechanics point of view that, as I said, "some folks" feel that a character shouldn't be aware of.
This would be meta-application of the rules.
.
Now if you want to argue that the characters should know these particular nuances of the rules, then that's another matter.
But that might be why you are seeing some folks say that there's meta thinking going on, when you yourself might not look at it that way.
.
I don't speak for anyone else, but my personal feelings on this is that most things should be "know-able" by the character, as they can see their application in the game world when used against other things.
If this means that high level characters have crazy personalities because they've gotten a peek into the matrix after surviving 100 foot drops and wading in lava, well.. so be it. High level characters don't exist in the Real World, and maybe they'd be just as insane if they could survive things like our PCs can!
Now, as for the application of the "you failed the Diplomacy check by 5", okay, fine. The socially-awkward guy fails to Aid, and fails by 5. The target's attitude drops by one step. Meanwhile, the high-Cha face character succeeds on his check. What happens? Simple. The target likes the face character and dislikes the awkward guy. "Sure, I'll help you, but keep that scumbag out of my sight." Surprise... the rules support realistic social encounters.Except that this was an Aid Another check, not a separate instance of Diplomacy. They are trying to influence the original Diplomacy check, so it behooves that failure would consequently affect the original check too.
I'm going to skip the inevitably circular argument over "you meant X" as it's not going to go anywhere and focus on this, which is quite interesting.
Here's the thing... if the low-Cha person doing Aid Another isn't making an independent Diplomacy check, then their check can't invoke the "failed by 5 penalty" independently. Said another way, if their check isn't a separate check and only modifies the check being done by the person they're aiding, then the only result is they either add +2 or they don't. If they fail to hit DC 10, the consequence is the real Diplomacy check doesn't get a bonus.
|
|
Different people enjoy playing the game for different reasons, and generally speaking I don't think it's a good idea to try to punish players for not doing or enjoying things the way you do.
On one hand, if you are trying to encourage them, the player's, to open up a bit more, or to think outside the box, that's a good thing, but should be handled a bit slower, and probably through suggestion rather than punishment. It would probably go a lot better to present the Aid Another as a reward for doing something interesting, (and that could be something as simple as standing back and appearing friendly, calm, and unobtrusive, or even going to grab a round of drinks and snacks for everyone). They don't have to actually say anything to help out with Diplomacy, though again, it could go a long way to encouraging them to do more if you nudge them towards it.
On the other hand, a big part of RPGs is in playing a character that is not you, and the numbers involved are there specifically to represent that. From what it sounds like (and I have not read most of the thread), the DM was both angry that two players said they wanted to try to Aid Another OOC rather than say exactly what they wanted to try to do to help out in flowery speech in character, but also because they, the player's, where not built to be very helpful in that particular case, but wanted to try anyway, under the impression that even if they failed, it wouldn't really hurt the overall attempt. Generally speaking, that is probably the base assumption for most Aid Another checks.
I don't believe that a DM should add in penalties for a failed Aid Another check, nor just to punish player's for wanting to remain engaged or part of the scene when they are not really all that great at it. Would you impose a penalty for the weak Wizard trying to Aid the Fighter in combat? Or the Monk for trying to distract t enemy to grant the Barbarian a boost to AC with Aid Another? If not, than why would you do it here? That is assuming that, those characters didn't actively do something in character, such as literally saying one of those things that "but also not saying the wrong things", which it doesn't seem they did if they didn't even say anything in character.
If you did decide that a penalty was in order, I'd suggest just the overall -2 Penalty for unfavorable conditions, once, to represent the other characters trying to help but getting it the way inadvertently. Not per character, just the straight -2 to the overall Diplomacy.
|
|
Would "I present myself in such a way that the speaker seems more impressive, <roll Aid Another>" suffice, or does the player need to say, out loud, "I present myself in such a way that the speaker seems more impressive, I stand tall and confident, pulling out, as if from nowhere a white board. On it are already drawn out diagrams, charts, and statistics, and as the speaker makes a comment, (<inserting voice of the other player as if they where speaking>"if we work together and become pals". . .), I also whip out my wand of laser pointing at this point, slapping the chart that shows the overall average of gain and potential tax write-offs, but also projected advantage for being considered friends, (<back to other player's voice> "we both come out ahead with minimal investment"), "oh, by the way, I make sure that I also make a "cracking <Kapish!!!!> sound as my soundless laser buzzes the correct display. No, I didn't actually buy a white board, wand of laser pointing that deals -1 point of non-lethal damage to paper, . . . sorry, magic paper, or even a Masterwork Tool: Diplomacy, but . . . ok, your the DM, so I shrug and just act friendly."?
The point I guess is that simply saying something like "Roll Playing AND Role Playing" is meaningless. It's just a crutch.
If example one is fine than there is no issue. If example 2 is what you need, than the best, most productive, most engaging, most encouraging, most fun, and just overall better way of making this happen is a simple statement and question, "Ok, Cool. But how are you going to try to pull that off? You could go grab a round of drinks to show you are interested, or stand back and act friendly, or . . ."
I'm honestly surprised this is so contentious and that these players are being left completely off the hook.
If your GM explicitly states, "Okay, you can attempt to do X, but if you fail, the result is going to be Y," and you attempt to do it anyway and *fail*, to then start whining and complaining about it is ridiculous.
Also, add this whole discussion to reason #2679 why I don't do organized play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I read through the first few posts, I kind of came away with the idea that the penalty was a little excessive and also intended specifically to discourage trying to help out unless you had both a masters degree in stage drama and at least a +5 to the check.
If I'm wrong, than that's fine. But that's the overall takeaway I got from the first page.
You need to take into account that the failure or surplus of a step in the Diplomacy check is -5 or +5.
The typical Aid Another is just +2.
And there are a couple of 0 results as well.
Once you do that, you will see that the math comes out as follows.
Charisma of 6 or 7 (those with -2 penalty):
1 - 7 = -5 * 35% chance = -1.75 [a rolled 7 still fails the DC 10 by 5 if you have a -2 penalty]
8 - 11 = 0 * 20% chance = 0
12 - 16 = +2 * 25% chance = 0.5
17 - 20 = +5 * 20% chance = 1.0 [a rolled 17 is needed to beat the DC 10 by 5 if you have a -2 penalty]
Net Total = -0.25 detriment to the aid {definite harm to the attempt on average over time}
Charisma of 8 or 9 (those with -1 penalty):
1 - 6 = -5 * 30% chance = -1.5 [a rolled 6 still fails the DC 10 by 5 if you have a -1 penalty]
7 - 10 = 0 * 20% chance = 0
11 - 15 = +2 * 25% chance = 0.5
16 - 20 = +5 * 25% chance = 1.25 [a rolled 16 is needed to beat the DC 10 by 5 if you have a -1 penalty]
Net Total = 0.25 bonus for the aid {positive, but barely}
Charisma of 10 or 11 (those with 0 modifier):
1 - 5 = -5 * 25% chance = -1.25 [for failing by 5]
6 - 9 = 0 * 20% chance = 0
10 - 14 = +2 * 25% chance = 0.5
15 - 20 = +5 * 30% chance = 1.5 [for succeeding by 5]
Net Total = 0.75 bonus for the aid {nearly a +1 net effect on the aid}
That's the math behind my statements:
With a -1 to Diplomacy {or better} toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually helping. Characters with Charisma of 8 or 9, 0+ ranks, and no other negative modifiers = player should roll.
With a -2 to Diplomacy {or worse} toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually hurting the overall chance. Characters with Charisma of 7 or less, no ranks, and no other positive modifiers = player should not roll.