Andrew Christian wrote:
kinevon wrote:
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.
"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."
Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.
Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.
Would you agree?
I do agree Andrew. That as a GM you need to have a mechanical understanding of what the character (player) is doing and attempting to accomplish.
The problem I usually encounter with this and that at least in my area occurs almost exclusively with Diplomacy checks goes something like this:
PCs encounter desk clerk on their way to deliver a package to the clerk's superior. Bit of chat goes on:
NPC: what do you want
Party (frequently talking over each other) we are here to deliver a package to super NPC.
A few more back and forth on the lines of Ill see that she gets it ... no we are to give it directly to ....
GM: make a Diplomacy check.
*At this point I think we can agree that the mechanical aspects of the exchange have been covered. It certainly seems that if the GM has said "make a Diplomacy check" that they think they have enough to evaluate the meeting of the scenario's requirements. For me the next requirement of "What does your character say" is now pushing things in to the realm of requiring acting.
Diplomat PCs player picks up their d20 rolls it and starts doing the math.
GM: "What specifically are you saying"
Player: You said make a diplomacy check.
GM: "What exactly is your character saying"
GM won't listen to the result of the d20 + modifiers until given some thing that meets their rolE play requirements. I have actually heard GMs say that they will apply a -2 penalty to the result "unless there is a good reason for not giving me the exact words, because that is just lazy".
When challenged on the validity of that with something like "show me the rule that says you can require that (the exact in character action)". They almost always end up attempting to invoke the "GM fiat" rule; never by name of course.
Now depending on the result of the check [remember this was a roll that was triggered by the GM saying "make a diplomacy check"] one of three things happens.
1) Best case scenario: Result of the check is clear to the table either as success or failure say 30s range or near 10. Okay moving on.
2) Midrange scenario: Player and GM both come away from the (frequently) first or second encounter with their "nose bent out of shape" at each other.
3) Worst case scenario: Player knows they should have succeed at the check and knows the only reason they didn't was that the GM did apply a "laziness penalty"; and an "arms race ensues for the rest of the session on diplomacy checks. Where the player knows the GM is applying a penalty without reason or standing for. Thus effectively throwing out the entire skill check (and d20) rule system. Player figures that since the GM has tossed out the rules they are free to disregard them too and starts applying a +2 bonus to counter the GM's unjustified -2. Each following round of diplomacy checks the "penalty and bonus" get bigger so that by the end of the session the player is "failing" checks with absurdly high results.
So now we have a situation where a player decides they have the viable paths forward:
1) Quit PFS.
2) Only play characters who have no social skills at all; and can this dump their Charisma score.
3) Decide to play characters who are not Charisma based at all; so they don't have to deal with this issue again. Because by its nature Organized play means that if your character has a positive Cha modifier at least 1/4 tables you are at you will be the party's face character. Yes even the completely fire or acid scarred Sorcerer, if that is haw someone wants to depict their bloodline will end up being the "face PC". I've even seen tables where the pregenerated rogue was the face PC.
Unless the player opts to quit PFS entirely; they will likely carry a chip on their shoulder for a while over the whole thing.
