GM Freedom

[Fynnzle Wyddlebower]

I’ve been GMing for some friends who are interested in PFS and we want to be able to open up the table to others in the area as we know sessions can be hard to come by, but one concern I would have is that we are a more “immersion” group and love lore as much as action. How much authority does a GM has to enforce the RP side of things?

For example, at my home brew table someone can’t just role a Diplomacy Check,they have to say something (really *anything*) within reason to make the roll to start to make an interaction. This prevents trolling and foster immersion and the “RP” part of Pathfinder. I try to give them equal respect and have in character responses from NPC’s that match the interaction- not simply “you fail.”

I guess in a sense I am asking how much authority the GM has to foster RP at a table.

When we start I intend fully to make that clear to anyone how I run things as a heads up.

[DrParty06]

Encouraging role playing is definitely encouraged. Ultimately though, if someone just wants to roll the appropriate skill check, because they don't know what to say, you have to allow them to do so.

There are ways to help prompt people as a GM that can encourage the role play aspect without saying unless you say something you can't make a roll. I wouldn't state upfront that you require it, but instead if someone rolls a check ask them what it is they say. If it's at all close to the actual objectives, give them the benefit of the doubt.

[RealAlchemy]

There are certain scenarios which give a bonus or penalty depending on what you say. In those circumstances, I would ask the player what their general negotiating tactic was. Beyond that, you can't just force someone to do immersive RP. Some players are not as charismatic as their 20 CHA bard and should not be penalized for it.

[Fynnzle Wyddlebower]

Thank you for the input! I was thinking along these lines but just wanted others’ insights!

[Belafon]

Fynnzle Wyddlebower wrote:

For example, at my home brew table someone can’t just role a Diplomacy Check,they have to say something (really *anything*) within reason to make the roll to start to make an interaction. This prevents trolling and foster immersion and the “RP” part of Pathfinder. I try to give them equal respect and have in character responses from NPC’s that match the interaction- not simply “you fail.”

So this is exactly how I run Society games. If a player wants to make attempt Diplomacy they have to say *something*. If the players aren't comfortable with in-depth roleplaying (yet!) I will just ask something like "what line of conversation do you want to use? What do you want to tell her about?" Even if the player splutters and doesn't really phrase it as a conversation ("I tell her about the book we found") that's enough.

Similarly I don't allow the "I aid" phenomenon of the player who has been staring mutely at his phone grabbing a die as soon as I ask the bard to roll her Diplomacy check. You have to participate. It doesn't have to be in-depth, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be.

So yes, you can foster RP.

Your best tool is the circumstance bonus. You'd be amazed how many players get more involved in RP after the first time you say "give me a Bluff check with a +1 circumstance bonus for that dizzying but somehow believable jump in logic."

[BigNorseWolf]

I have seen dms do this (sometimes with cause. Sometimes ... not so much. )

A few solutions are better than just nuking someone's character investment...

1) just pull the non verbal person aside, especially since it's a new group, and ask them not to play the face if they're going to just roll dice, as it sucks the fun out of your dming. The DM is a player too and if something at the table is really going to bother them, thats an issue worth addressing just as much as a problem between two players (at minimum)

2) Let the talky player talk, use the diplomacy guys roll. Hand mister I roll to face a sign that says " "what my friend means to say is... " fade to black " and go from there.

Mister silent face gets to roll
Talky player gets to talk
You get to role play with SOMEONE.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I've sat down at the table, I'm a good roleplayer (at least I'd like to think so!) and gotten partway through the slot, wound up for the big Diplomatic ROLEPLAY pitch ANNNNDDDD....

*crickets*.

Not because the table isn't engaging, it's because I had this brilliant chain of thought and suddenly it was *GONE* and I'm unable to recover it. And that's usually when I go to something like "I say something nifty because eff if I can remember what I was going to say".

So it's not just some people that might prefer rolling dice, or others that are reserved... it can happen to anyone at anytime.

[Woran]

Kevin Willis wrote:

Fynnzle Wyddlebower wrote:

For example, at my home brew table someone can’t just role a Diplomacy Check,they have to say something (really *anything*) within reason to make the roll to start to make an interaction. This prevents trolling and foster immersion and the “RP” part of Pathfinder. I try to give them equal respect and have in character responses from NPC’s that match the interaction- not simply “you fail.”

So this is exactly how I run Society games. If a player wants to make attempt Diplomacy they have to say *something*. If the players aren't comfortable with in-depth roleplaying (yet!) I will just ask something like "what line of conversation do you want to use? What do you want to tell her about?" Even if the player splutters and doesn't really phrase it as a conversation ("I tell her about the book we found") that's enough.

Similarly I don't allow the "I aid" phenomenon of the player who has been staring mutely at his phone grabbing a die as soon as I ask the bard to roll her Diplomacy check. You have to participate. It doesn't have to be in-depth, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be.

So yes, you can foster RP.

Your best tool is the circumstance bonus. You'd be amazed how many players get more involved in RP after the first time you say "give me a Bluff check with a +1 circumstance bonus for that dizzying but somehow believable jump in logic."

Kevin does it the exact way I do it.

[andreww]

DrParty06 wrote:

Encouraging role playing is definitely encouraged. Ultimately though, if someone just wants to roll the appropriate skill check, because they don't know what to say, you have to allow them to do so.

I don't believe that this is true. If someone wants to engage with an NPC then I require them to tell me something, how they are doing it, what approach they are using, something that gives me a handle on how to respond. I don't expect a soliloquy but I need something to work with.

I don't allow "I rolled a 22, do I pass" with nothing else. Likewise, if people want to assist I expect them to have been in the conversation at some point normally.

[DrParty06]

andreww wrote:

DrParty06 wrote:

Encouraging role playing is definitely encouraged. Ultimately though, if someone just wants to roll the appropriate skill check, because they don't know what to say, you have to allow them to do so.

I don't believe that this is true. If someone wants to engage with an NPC then I require them to tell me something, how they are doing it, what approach they are using, something that gives me a handle on how to respond. I don't expect a soliloquy but I need something to work with.

I don't allow "I rolled a 22, do I pass" with nothing else. Likewise, if people want to assist I expect them to have been in the conversation at some point normally.

For checks called out in the scenario, you certainly have to let them roll at least the main check. It’s hard to imagine any of those happening without role playing at least to the smallest extent, but it could happen in some circumstances and it’s on the GM to accept that not the player to be told they are doing it wrong.

[Philippe Lam]

If not allowing the check because of the RP being nonexistent blocks the game, a GM can relent and allow it anyway, but if circumstancial bonuses can be allowed for being creative or making a proper RP, a penalty can also be in order for the lack of effort. It happened to me a couple of times because I lacked of RP inspiration, and I didn't object as it's fair game.

There is a minimum to do. I saw some players only roll and wait the result. It's rare but when it happens, it's dispiriting.

[RealAlchemy]

Philippe Lam wrote:

If not allowing the check because of the RP being nonexistent blocks the game, a GM can relent and allow it anyway, but if circumstancial bonuses can be allowed for being creative or making a proper RP, a penalty can also be in order for the lack of effort. It happened to me a couple of times because I lacked of RP inspiration, and I didn't object as it's fair game.

There is a minimum to do. I saw some players only roll and wait the result. It's rare but when it happens, it's dispiriting.

On the other hand, even the best RPers can get fatigued in a scenario that is nothing but RP and negotiation. I've hit a point where my RP ends up as "Just like with the other NPCs, I flirt heavily, talk up what great allies and friends we should be, etc, etc."

[Wei Ji the Learner]

RealAlchemy wrote:

On the other hand, even the best RPers can get fatigued in a scenario that is nothing but RP and negotiation. I've hit a point where my RP ends up as "Just like with the other NPCs, I flirt heavily, talk up what great allies and friends we should be, etc, etc."

This has happened to me, as noted above.

Sometimes it happens when a table goes to 'lather, rinse, repeat' mode and/or the venue has a time-frame that the game has to be resolved by.

...Or the other players are face-deep in phones because they've tuned out a thing or are worried about ending on time to catch transportation home...

[TOZ]

Sometimes all my oracle wants to do is roll his d20 and say "I implore you to reconsider."

[Silbeg]

Tineke Bolleman wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Fynnzle Wyddlebower wrote:

For example, at my home brew table someone can’t just role a Diplomacy Check,they have to say something (really *anything*) within reason to make the roll to start to make an interaction. This prevents trolling and foster immersion and the “RP” part of Pathfinder. I try to give them equal respect and have in character responses from NPC’s that match the interaction- not simply “you fail.”

So this is exactly how I run Society games. If a player wants to make attempt Diplomacy they have to say *something*. If the players aren't comfortable with in-depth roleplaying (yet!) I will just ask something like "what line of conversation do you want to use? What do you want to tell her about?" Even if the player splutters and doesn't really phrase it as a conversation ("I tell her about the book we found") that's enough.

Similarly I don't allow the "I aid" phenomenon of the player who has been staring mutely at his phone grabbing a die as soon as I ask the bard to roll her Diplomacy check. You have to participate. It doesn't have to be in-depth, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be.

So yes, you can foster RP.

Your best tool is the circumstance bonus. You'd be amazed how many players get more involved in RP after the first time you say "give me a Bluff check with a +1 circumstance bonus for that dizzying but somehow believable jump in logic."

Kevin does it the exact way I do it.

I will go on record as saying "Me, too!"

[TwilightKnight]

Not allowing the check unless the player role-plays is a bit too hard a line to take. I have had a player, when prompted by a social encounter, simply say [paraphrasing], "I am not a social role-player, however my orator with a diplomacy of 20+, [feat], and [trait] is a master of it. So...[rolls dice] with a 37, he knows precisely what to say and how to say it."
Surely its not ideal and I would choose not to play with that person in my home games, but in organized play at a convention I have to acquiesce to his action.

[aboyd]

I don't mind if a person doesn't want to act out the conversation, but I mind if a person wants a roll without an explanation. I have bare minimums for combat, too. For example, if a player is mid-combat and his/her turn comes up and the player just rolls dice and looks at me expectantly, I'm going to ask for communication about what is happening. If that player hasn't even bothered to move the mini into position, or never bothered to buy a weapon and still expects to do 2d6 lethal greatsword damage, I'm going to say no. There is a minimal expectation of participation. If you can't participate, I can't include you.

I have that same minimum standard around social skills. If your character is not in the room, has not said anything in the ongoing conversation, and you can't even tell me what the conversation is about, then no, your character can't lead the conversation nor even Aid Another. I say this because this actually happened. I had a player who was literally playing Candy Crush on his phone and whenever he heard the keyword "diplomacy" he would -- without looking up from his screen -- roll a d20 and say, "I assisted."

He finally broke my brain when, after a fight, he went back to his phone, and then remained there for an hour while the rest of the group carried on. They closed out a mission goal, cleared 3 rooms, and were now on the other side of the map. Mr. Candy Crush? His mini was still back in the room where the fight had happened an hour earlier. He heard someone make a Diplomacy roll and absent-mindedly rolled for himself and said he assisted. I asked how. He looked up from his phone and said, "What?" I repeated my question. He said, "I got a 12. That's enough to Aid Another." And I said, "Yeah, but doing what? What are you aiding, and how are you doing it from 3 rooms away?"

He shrugged, tossed his mini across the map, said he was there, and that he aided in "whatever." Then, he went back to Candy Crush. So I barred it. I was later backed up by the Venture Caps/Lieuts, so I feel comfortable saying that you need to meaningfully participate to be included. You don't have to act anything out, but you have to pay attention and explain how you're accomplishing your goals. If you are too timid or lazy or bored or unwilling to accomplish that bare minimum, then you are not really playing the game, and I'm OK to have a minimum standard there.

[MrBear]

TOZ wrote:

Sometimes all my oracle wants to do is roll his d20 and say "I implore you to reconsider."

I've used this exact line several times. Most often, I get a blank stare and confusion. Once, I got a hearty laugh and was then told it wasn't enough.

[Philippe Lam]

When the RP fatigue strikes due to repetitiveness or tiredness, this is different. Won't blame players to implicate themselves less in the game (I'm tiring very fast myself) and I often have to quit the game before the end of the session because I fear missing the last train back home. I'll then give my printed character sheet to either one of the other players or the GM to handle it with the resources I still have and fingers' crossing I won't die in the meantime.

aboyd nailed it. I was more targeting those who show this level of disrespect, if not completely focusing on a game, the player should at least tell the GM how the PC is acting in the most important cases.

[thorin001]

There is very often a time problem with the "I don't allow assists unless the player speaks" paradigm. You spent X amount of time having the main character do his spiel. Now you have to give the other (potentially) five players a chance to speak. This probably adds nothing of value to the discussion, but is now a required time expenditure.

Then there is when the GM does not give others a chance to aid. The diplomat says his spiel and the GM immediately calls for a Diplomacy check without any opportunity for input, unless the other players are interrupting the speaker.

[Hmm]

Not all assists in social skills have to be verbal. I allowed an entire table of half-orcs to assist each other in Diplomacy when one of them said, “All five of us turn to him and give him Orcish Puppy Dog Eyes.”

Then all five players gave me Puppy-Dog Eyes and said, “Pleeeeeeeeease?”

It was hilarious.

Hmm

[aboyd]

thorin001 wrote:

Now you have to give the other (potentially) five players a chance to speak. This probably adds nothing of value to the discussion

This is my favorite part of role playing, and probably where I derive the most meaning & "gameplay" out of the game. :(

[Philippe Lam]

thorin001 wrote:

Then there is when the GM does not give others a chance to aid. The diplomat says his spiel and the GM immediately calls for a Diplomacy check without any opportunity for input, unless the other players are interrupting the speaker.

Some social parts of a scenario can disallow diplomacy aid check for various reasons, so it's not surprising.

[pauljathome]

aboyd wrote:

I had a player who was literally playing Candy Crush on his phone

I've never had a player be this rude to me. If I did, I'd warn him once and then ask him to leave the table.

I'm spending my time and money GM'ing (hey, those TTC tokens and caffineted fuel cost money :-) :-)). I'm not willing to do that for a player who isn't paying any attention to the game.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Paul Jackson wrote:

aboyd wrote:

I had a player who was literally playing Candy Crush on his phone

I've never had a player be this rude to me. If I did, I'd warn him once and then ask him to leave the table.

I'm spending my time and money GM'ing (hey, those TTC tokens and caffineted fuel cost money :-) :-)). I'm not willing to do that for a player who isn't paying any attention to the game.

We won't talk about the amount of time required to prep something.

But will note that sometimes folks do this because they don't feel engaged, and it's a habit that's re-inforced if there's focus on a given character over others.

Would it be a violation of PFS rules to request players turn off or mute their electronic non-currently played scenario devices (ie, not HeroLab or whatnot, but phones?

[Chess Pwn]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Would it be a violation of PFS rules to request players turn off or mute their electronic non-currently played scenario devices (ie, not HeroLab or whatnot, but phones?

I think so as long as they aren't being disruptive to the table or the flow of the game. Like he's there to have fun and that's what he's doing. If he's not forcing you to retell stuff or taking long for his turns then I don't see the harm in it. Sure you might not appreciate or feel that he shouldn't be doing that. But I think it's his choice if he wants to and that you can't force him to stop or not play if there's no affects to the game.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

If someone is playing Candy Crush they're not playing Pathfinder? I don't care what people say, true multi-tasking is a myth based on personal experience.

[Jurassic Pratt]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

[Chess Pwn]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

If someone is playing Candy Crush they're not playing Pathfinder? I don't care what people say, true multi-tasking is a myth based on personal experience.

right, they aren't playing pathfinder when it's not important for their character to be involved, and then play pathfinder and not candy crush when they want to be involved in the pathfinder game. There isn't any multi-tasking, just task swapping.

but again, if they aren't impacting the pace of the game then what's the harm of them doing something else while they play? This seems to me to be on the level of being annoyed at someone's shirt or way they talk and telling them they need to leave because of it.

[Christopher Rowe]

I'm curious about the notion (not explicitly expressed in this thread thus far, to be sure, but hinted at) that it's in any way cool to check out of a game when your character happens to not be in the spotlight. By checking out I mean reading something or playing a video game or whatever. I don't guess it always rises to the level of disruption (though I think it can), but it certainly always rises to the level of rudeness. These games are collaborative and social, after all. All the players (including the GM) share the responsibility of creating a good time for the whole table. That responsibility isn't curtailed just because you don't happen to be rolling dice or talking at any given moment, in my view. Give everyone the courtesy of your actively engaged attention and they're much more likely to return the favor than not.

[GinoA]

I'd like to provide a different perspective on phone-games at the table.

Some days. Not all of them, but some, if I don't spend time fiddling with *something* the ADD will win. I'll completely lose track of what's happening at the table. Most often, this takes the form of playing a mindless game on my phone. Frequently Solitaire. It has also taken the form of inventorying my entire dice collection at the table. I'm an admitted dice-addict. Inventorying 1000-2000 dice by sides, size, color, pip-vs-number and whether part of a set; is a lot more disrupting, I can assure you.

Without something to engage the ADD beast, I'm as likely to wander away from the table on those days as anything else. My daughter (who definitely earns that H in ADHD) will frequently dance next to the table. She's a trained ballerina. We're not talking white-guy, finger-snapping and we'll call it dancing. I have no idea what the right names for the moves she'll practice are, but I know they're in French.

I know a lot of people see it as rude. I don't want to be rude, I'm just trying to cope.

Some food for thought.

[Christopher Rowe]

Gino Melone wrote:

I'd like to provide a different perspective on phone-games at the table.

Some days. Not all of them, but some, if I don't spend time fiddling with *something* the ADD will win. I'll completely lose track of what's happening at the table. Most often, this takes the form of playing a mindless game on my phone. Frequently Solitaire. It has also taken the form of inventorying my entire dice collection at the table. I'm an admitted dice-addict. Inventorying 1000-2000 dice by sides, size, color, pip-vs-number and whether part of a set; is a lot more disrupting, I can assure you.

Without something to engage the ADD beast, I'm as likely to wander away from the table on those days as anything else. My daughter (who definitely earns that H in ADHD) will frequently dance next to the table. She's a trained ballerina. We're not talking white-guy, finger-snapping and we'll call it dancing. I have no idea what the right names for the moves she'll practice are, but I know they're in French.

I know a lot of people see it as rude. I don't want to be rude, I'm just trying to cope.

Some food for thought.

I can, quite literally, relate. We have different strategies, though. On the days that the 110 mg of methylphenidate I take daily along with various coping strategies and techniques I've learned from my therapists and doctors just don't do it--on those days, to use your words, that I know the "ADD will win," and so I know I'm likely to spend time fiddling with something or etc, then, well, on those days, I don't sit down at the gaming table. To paraphrase the poet Wendell Berry, it's not the only way or the easiest way. It's one way.

[pauljathome]

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Would it be a violation of PFS rules to request players turn off or mute their electronic non-currently played scenario devices (ie, not HeroLab or whatnot, but phones?

I think so as long as they aren't being disruptive to the table or the flow of the game. Like he's there to have fun and that's what he's doing. If he's not forcing you to retell stuff or taking long for his turns then I don't see the harm in it. Sure you might not appreciate or feel that he shouldn't be doing that. But I think it's his choice if he wants to and that you can't force him to stop or not play if there's no affects to the game.

If they're playing Candy Crush I think that they ARE being disruptive to the GM (me).

I feel that the GM deserves and can and should expect to receive some minimal level of respect from the players.

Note - This is mostly hypothetical. I've never actually banned a player for anything like this. I HAVE made it clear when behaviour similar to this sort of thing is unacceptable to me and gotten the behaviour to change (we're Canadians, we compromise :-))

[pauljathome]

Gino Melone wrote:

I know a lot of people see it as rude. I don't want to be rude, I'm just trying to cope.

If I knew that somebody had a genuine disorder I'd try REALLY REALLY hard to cut the person LOTS and LOTS of slack.

I'll admit that I'm not sure that I'd totally succeed, though. Especially when very tired (I can get quite impatient when tired).

But, at some point, its PFS and PFS has limited time slots. I'd find a trained Ballerina dancing beside the table very, very distracting. It IS going to seriously affect my game and the game of the rest of the players.

If it happened a lot I suspect that its possible that I'd just quit running PFS. On the one hand I'd feel incredibly guilty for pressuring somebody with a genuine disorder. On the other hand, I just wouldn't be having fun. Quitting is an obvious possible solution.

[Chess Pwn]

Paul Jackson wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Would it be a violation of PFS rules to request players turn off or mute their electronic non-currently played scenario devices (ie, not HeroLab or whatnot, but phones?

I think so as long as they aren't being disruptive to the table or the flow of the game. Like he's there to have fun and that's what he's doing. If he's not forcing you to retell stuff or taking long for his turns then I don't see the harm in it. Sure you might not appreciate or feel that he shouldn't be doing that. But I think it's his choice if he wants to and that you can't force him to stop or not play if there's no affects to the game.

If they're playing Candy Crush I think that they ARE being disruptive to the GM (me).

I feel that the GM deserves and can and should expect to receive some minimal level of respect from the players.

Note - This is mostly hypothetical. I've never actually banned a player for anything like this. I HAVE made it clear when behaviour similar to this sort of thing is unacceptable to me and gotten the behaviour to change (we're Canadians, we compromise :-))

Them on a phone isn't disruptive to you, it annoys you, but it's not disruptive unless it's forcing you to repeat yourself or wait on him. The respect he shows to you is that he's at your table and accepts your rulings. There's no need for players to be paying attention to everything you say if their character's don't need to know about it.

[pauljathome]

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Them on a phone isn't disruptive to you, it annoys you, but it's not disruptive unless it's forcing you to repeat yourself or wait on him. The respect he shows to you is that he's at your table and accepts your rulings. There's no need for players to be paying attention to everything you say if their character's don't need to know about it.

Well, annoying me DOES actually disrupt my ability to run the game. I'm human, my emotions affect my performance.

I'm getting the impression that I'm overstating my position. If the player is engaged and prepared when his turn comes up and he hasn't been making lots of noise then I'm not even going to notice if a player checked his phone or quickly glanced at his tablet. Heck, they were quite likely looking up the spell they're hoping to use this round.

I DO notice if the player constantly has to be reminded when its their turn, if at that point they start looking up rules, if they start a conversation with their neighbour, etc.

[TwilightKnight]

I have personally experienced this twice in PFS and once in a home game. IMO if you don’t want to pay attention, that’s on you, but don’t expect me/us to accommodate it. Meaning if combat starts and you don’t know what’s going on, don’t expect us to catch you up. I try to enforce the aid another rules in that someone needs to declare being the primary skill user and the rest declaring their aid actions BEFORE the primary roll and deciding it needs help. If you had your nose in Candy Crush or whatever and missed the chance, don’t cry to us about it.
In one case I had to insist the cell phone be stored or I would not allow them to play and that applied to the player at future tables as well. In another case, I was forced to kick the. From the table for repeated occurances and warnings. That seemed to do the trick as the player did not demonstrate that behavior at future tables. Sometimes a little tough love is all it takes

[Chess Pwn]

Paul Jackson wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Them on a phone isn't disruptive to you, it annoys you, but it's not disruptive unless it's forcing you to repeat yourself or wait on him. The respect he shows to you is that he's at your table and accepts your rulings. There's no need for players to be paying attention to everything you say if their character's don't need to know about it.

Well, annoying me DOES actually disrupt my ability to run the game. I'm human, my emotions affect my performance.

I'm getting the impression that I'm overstating my position. If the player is engaged and prepared when his turn comes up and he hasn't been making lots of noise then I'm not even going to notice if a player checked his phone or quickly glanced at his tablet. Heck, they were quite likely looking up the spell they're hoping to use this round.

I DO notice if the player constantly has to be reminded when its their turn, if at that point they start looking up rules, if they start a conversation with their neighbour, etc.

so player 1 that "maybe was looking up spell or playing candy crush" is what I'm talking about. He's not disrupting the game.

Player 2 that "needs reminders" is disrupting the game, this is something that you can use as what needs to be fixed, he is disrupting the flow of the game because of his other activity.

[thorin001]

aboyd wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Now you have to give the other (potentially) five players a chance to speak. This probably adds nothing of value to the discussion

This is my favorite part of role playing, and probably where I derive the most meaning & "gameplay" out of the game. :(

Sure, but you were probably already engaged in the discussion, so this likely does not apply to you. I am not knocking role play, but I do have an issue with "the player must take certain actions for the character to participate".

[thorin001]

Philippe Lam wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Then there is when the GM does not give others a chance to aid. The diplomat says his spiel and the GM immediately calls for a Diplomacy check without any opportunity for input, unless the other players are interrupting the speaker.

Some social parts of a scenario can disallow diplomacy aid check for various reasons, so it's not surprising.

That should be stated rather than just sprung on people. Also that is rather rare. Mostly it is just GMs who dislike aid another.

[Philippe Lam]

thorin001 wrote:

That should be stated rather than just sprung on people. Also that is rather rare. Mostly it is just GMs who dislike aid another.

To forewarn on when this would amount to metagaming. It's also partly to the players to correctly identify when aid another can be used or when it can provoke a backlash.

[chris manning]

The whole diplomacy 'speech' thing really irritates me - you never ask a player making a strength check to arm wrestle for a circumstance bonus - if you tell the GM what you want to do/say, and you have the rolls / skill to back that up, that should be enough without having to orate war and peace.

Often in scenarios I feel like saying "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!", backed up with a roll of 46, apply any penalty you like..

[chris manning]

Also - if you dont participate in the talky part at all - expect me to ignore your barbarians 'aid' roll

[JulianW]

Christopher Rowe wrote:

I'm curious about the notion (not explicitly expressed in this thread thus far, to be sure, but hinted at) that it's in any way cool to check out of a game when your character happens to not be in the spotlight. By checking out I mean reading something or playing a video game or whatever. I don't guess it always rises to the level of disruption (though I think it can), but it certainly always rises to the level of rudeness. These games are collaborative and social, after all. All the players (including the GM) share the responsibility of creating a good time for the whole table. That responsibility isn't curtailed just because you don't happen to be rolling dice or talking at any given moment, in my view. Give everyone the courtesy of your actively engaged attention and they're much more likely to return the favor than not.

100% agree with this. Even if its not specifically disruptive it is just plain rude.

[Tallow]

Tineke Bolleman wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Fynnzle Wyddlebower wrote:

For example, at my home brew table someone can’t just role a Diplomacy Check,they have to say something (really *anything*) within reason to make the roll to start to make an interaction. This prevents trolling and foster immersion and the “RP” part of Pathfinder. I try to give them equal respect and have in character responses from NPC’s that match the interaction- not simply “you fail.”

So this is exactly how I run Society games. If a player wants to make attempt Diplomacy they have to say *something*. If the players aren't comfortable with in-depth roleplaying (yet!) I will just ask something like "what line of conversation do you want to use? What do you want to tell her about?" Even if the player splutters and doesn't really phrase it as a conversation ("I tell her about the book we found") that's enough.

Similarly I don't allow the "I aid" phenomenon of the player who has been staring mutely at his phone grabbing a die as soon as I ask the bard to roll her Diplomacy check. You have to participate. It doesn't have to be in-depth, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be.

So yes, you can foster RP.

Your best tool is the circumstance bonus. You'd be amazed how many players get more involved in RP after the first time you say "give me a Bluff check with a +1 circumstance bonus for that dizzying but somehow believable jump in logic."

Kevin does it the exact way I do it.

Thirded.

[Tallow]

Let me address the issue of someone not knowing what to say, not knowing how to say it, or not wanting (can't) to role play:

Allowing them to just tell you what they want to accomplish, much like a player saying, "I swing my sword at the orc." Is often enough to start the dialogue.

PC: I want to use diplomacy to convince the guy we mean well.

ME: ok, is there anything specific you want to mention to him?

PC: Well our wizard discovered that he's a forest creature that wants to save the trees, so I will talk about my love of trees.

GM: excellent, roll diplomacy. <expound briefly on what might have been actually said in a roll appropriate wat.>

This isn't a hard and fast rule. But I find it fun if the player at least tries to engage with me. And I can help that by asking leading questions that only require short answers but shows engagment.

[Silbeg]

For the idea of talking out and all for diplomacy, I think what I need to start doing is explicitly stating when there is a circumstance bonus (like others do in this thread).

Something like...

Player: <gives an involved, moving speach>
Me: Great! Roll diplomacy at a +2 circumstance bonus.

Instead of:
Player: <gives an involved moving speach>
Me: Great, roll diplomacy! <waits to see what the roll is... gives a bonus if close>

That transparency would probably be helpful in getting players to play-act a little more, and let them know I am rewarding them.

Jack makes note to try and remember to do that!

[Tallow]

Jack Brown wrote:

For the idea of talking out and all for diplomacy, I think what I need to start doing is explicitly stating when there is a circumstance bonus (like others do in this thread).

Something like...

Player: <gives an involved, moving speach>
Me: Great! Roll diplomacy at a +2 circumstance bonus.

Instead of:
Player: <gives an involved moving speach>
Me: Great, roll diplomacy! <waits to see what the roll is... gives a bonus if close>

That transparency would probably be helpful in getting players to play-act a little more, and let them know I am rewarding them.

Jack makes note to try and remember to do that!

I agree.

[Silbeg]

Tallow wrote:

Jack Brown wrote:

For the idea of talking out and all for diplomacy, I think what I need to start doing is explicitly stating when there is a circumstance bonus (like others do in this thread).

Something like...

Player: <gives an involved, moving speach>
Me: Great! Roll diplomacy at a +2 circumstance bonus.

Instead of:
Player: <gives an involved moving speach>
Me: Great, roll diplomacy! <waits to see what the roll is... gives a bonus if close>

That transparency would probably be helpful in getting players to play-act a little more, and let them know I am rewarding them.

Jack makes note to try and remember to do that!

I agree.

You agree I should do that? ;-)

hee hee

[Ascalaphus]

In our area it's practice that to Aid on the Diplomacy check you had to be involved in the conversation. An interesting effect of this is that people playing Diplo-heavy characters have learned to give a bit of breathing room to the other players, to get some words in so that they'll be able to Aid the roll. Now and then they forget and make the roll before other people can get a word in, but then they get denied Aid. The next talky bit after that they're usually much better at giving the rest of the players some spotlight too.

We don't demand a huge amount of contribution to count for Aid; it can really be as modest as "I pose as his impressive bodyguard, making him seem more important". In fact, for a nice bit of RP it's usually nicer if one player is doing the main speech instead of three people falling over each other to try wildly varying gambits. When the players know that they'll all get a chance to say something they tend to relax and give each other more room too.

I've found that while quite a lot of people find Diplo-RP challenging at first, it's something that you can definitely learn. We don't set the bar too high, and you can also learn by watching how other people do it. Make people feel safe giving it a try, and encourage them to at least give it try. The example Tallow gave above would be perfectly welcome at our table.