So I'm playing a bard who emphasized deceit, and I'm horrible about being deceitful in real life.
I can't concoct a convincing lie to save my life, and my DM doesn't really let the roll determine the effect if I can't come up with a good bluff.
As a result, I'm really starting to hate my character. Aside from role-playing sudden suicidal tendencies in hopes of a reroll, what can I do in this situation?
So the GM uses your real life ablitity to lie, bluff, and intimidate instead of what is on the character sheet?
Some possibilities:
1. Talk to your DM and see if you can come up with a non-suicide way to reroll.
2. Change your character's character. Starting deceitful doesn't mean he has to be this way to level 20. I've even heard character development is a great RP opportunity. ;)
You are not your character. If the GM insisted on being a jerk I would insist on looking for a new group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My morning ritual consists of the following:
Hasn't it been proven for like 20 years now that you are your character?
Leeeeeeeee rrrrrrrroooooyyy jeeeeeeeeeenkins
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bring some Nerf weapons and proceed to make actual attacks at the GM when you make attacks rolls.
Insist on bonuses if you actually hit him based off the fact that in real life his defense sucks.
I can sympathize with both sides.
Your personal ability shouldn´t need to correlate to the PC´s abilities.
But if the lines you come up with just break the role-playing immersion for everybody, that sucks too.
(the GM doesn´t want to hand-wave the NPC as temporarily dropping to INT/WIS/CHA 3)
Anyways, assuming that won´t change... Why can´t you play this character?
I mean, if you already have tons of ranks in those skills that is somewhat of a disparity, and perhaps you can talk to the GM about implementing some sort of ´Character Fault´ Bonus Feat (some new thing you choose) to compensate for applying some big penalty to those Skills (to make their ranks match the PC´s demonstrated ability in those areas). Or just ask to re-allocate skill ranks. Even if the GM is a stickler on not hand-waving (in favor of dice roll) horribly not-convincing attempted bluffs, they can probably see the conflict just as much as you, and probably would be happy to find a solution that maintains crunch/RP coherency. Just because they like a certain style of game immersion doesn´t mean they´re against you personally... Certainly nothing you wrote suggested that to me.
In any case, you can decide to continue playing the character as horribly bad in said areas, and not put any more Ranks in those areas, which over several levels should result in them matching the actual (played out) skills. Why can´t you play a Bard who can´t Bluff? That seems a perfectly reasonable character personality to me. Perhaps the PC Bard has until this point THOUGHT that they were a really good bluffer, and played off all their failures on other factors, but why can´t they come to terms with reality and admit they are a horrible bluffer? Or NOT, and CONTINUE to think of themselves as a great bluffer, even though they are not? Another great character concept to me. Whatever the case, or how you want to develop this character personality, there isn´t anything wrong with not being good at Bluffing.
(Brace yourself for flippant advice.)
Just tell the truth all the time, man. Then use your Bluff check anyway and tell the GM you're trying to get the other guy to disbelieve you. Same skill, right??
The Brain: Actually, we are two lab mice in the early stages of an elaborate scheme to take over the world.
NPC: Haw haw! Well, my fault for asking!
This has blown my mind in a hilariously unsafe way.
Although some seem eager to light torches and heft pitchforks to hunt down this bad GM, I'd suggest a brief repriece so as to get a better idea of what's going on here.
As I GM myself, although I wouldn't require that a player be able to convincingly roleplay telling a lie, at the very least I'd require that they be able to tell me what the lie is. If the player can't even formulate a story that he wants to sell an NPC how am I to judge what the the skill's DC should be or the NPC's reaction whether he believes it or not?
Is that what we're talking about here? If confronted with, say nosy city guardsmen that he'd rather have leave a scene, does the OP hope to simply roll bluff and have them wander away no questions asked?
Although some seem eager to light torches and heft pitchforks to hunt down this bad GM, I'd suggest a brief repriece so as to get a better idea of what's going on here.
As I GM myself, although I wouldn't require that a player be able to convincingly roleplay telling a lie, at the very least I'd require that they be able to tell me what the lie is. If the player can't even formulate a story that he wants to sell an NPC how am I to judge what the the skill's DC should be or the NPC's reaction whether he believes it or not?
Is that what we're talking about here? If confronted with, say nosy city guardsmen that he'd rather have leave a scene, does the OP hope to simply roll bluff and have them wander away no questions asked?
I agree that the basis of the lie should be formed by the player. I did assume the entire lie had to be made up.
Maybe the OP can give us some examples.
I think that this is a great opportunity for you to role-play a change of heart.
You have a smooth talking deceitful bard who because of your DMs ruling is not very smooth talking nor deceitful. If I were you I would "See the errors of my ways" and consider taking the character in a new direction.
Perhaps after you get caught in a horrible lie and nearly die or a friend nearly dies you decide to turn over a new leaf.
Alternatively, harakiri would necessitate a character reroll...
Bring some Nerf weapons and proceed to make actual attacks at the GM when you make attacks rolls.
Insist on bonuses if you actually hit him based off the fact that in real life his defense sucks.
Yes. Hell, let's take it a step further. You can borrow my brother's Daisho and hit him with metal swords instead. It's all in the name of good roleplaying, right? Or shoot him with a compound bow. Maybe you can set his table on fire when you use fireball.
GMs like this kind of deserve these roleplaying aids, right? :P
He's getting off lucky with nerf weapons. *smirks*
Tell him he needs to be move 30ft in 6 seconds for every character that moves 30ft in a turn. 60ft if double move and 120ft if running. Then repeatedly him with a metal bat till he dies.
Tell him he needs to be move 30ft in 6 seconds for every character that moves 30ft in a turn. 60ft if double move and 120ft if running. Then repeatedly him with a metal bat till he dies.
He has to wear armor also. :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would bring an actual musical instrument, and use it to inspire courage.
A kazoo would be best, but any instrument that is shrill in some way would be ideal. If you suck at the instrument, that's even better.
Then sing "Wanted Dead or Alive" by Bon Jovi every time the dungeonmaster rolls initiative. Sing it f&%@ing loud too. And if you really suck at singing, that's even better.
In fact, if you actually sing really well, then sing it all f+!*ed up any way.
And loud. And for a very long time. Until the joke's really not funny any more.
That's even better.
Here's the lyrics:
"AMMA CALBOAH. OWNA STEEEL HOSE ARRAHD. um Wownid. WOWNIIIIIIIIIIHIHIIIIID!!! DID EARL LAAAAV! DID EARL LAAAAAV."
PAIZO don't have music notes or nothing, but you don't need them.
And then do the guitar part on a f*+@ing kazoo. That's even better.
Serious. In ten or twenty years you'll have a really good funny story to tell mofo's. And that's all you really need.
Damn. Now I wanna do this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As fun as this thread is, I think I have to kind of take the DM's side on this. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is happening:
KK: I bluff him.
DM: Okay, what do you tell him?
KK: I don't know. Something deceitful.
DM: So what is it? Just make something up.
KK: ... I can't. Can I just roll a bluff check?
DM: Yeah, sure, but what's the lie? What are you bluffing?
KK: Um... something deceitful.
DM: Okay, so the Bard stands there and looks at the guy with his mouth closed... deceitfully. The guy is unswayed. Anyone else?
IMO, a deceitful face character should be RP heavy. There has to be some creativity involved, or you might as well be playing a video game, yeah?
As for what now... well, you could just try and learn to come up with convincing lies. Or even unconvincing, if your skill modifiers are high enough. If not, then just ditch the bluff thing and focus on something else for this bard. How much do you have invested in being deceitful?
|
As fun as this thread is, I think I have to kind of take the DM's side on this. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is happening:
KK: I bluff him.
DM: Okay, what do you tell him?
KK: I don't know. Something deceitful.
DM: So what is it? Just make something up.
KK: ... I can't. Can I just roll a bluff check?
DM: Yeah, sure, but what's the lie? What are you bluffing?
KK: Um... something deceitful.
DM: Okay, so the Bard stands there and looks at the guy with his mouth closed... deceitfully. The guy is unswayed. Anyone else?
IMO, a deceitful face character should be RP heavy. There has to be some creativity involved, or you might as well be playing a video game, yeah?
As for what now... well, you could just try and learn to come up with convincing lies. Or even unconvincing, if your skill modifiers are high enough. If not, then just ditch the bluff thing and focus on something else for this bard. How much do you have invested in being deceitful?
If this is how the exchange went, I would be on the DM's side as well.
However, if the player described the lie rather than speaking it (e.g. "I convince him I'm the sheriff" rather than "The name's Jeff and I'm the new sheriff around these parts. You got a problem with that?") then I'd side with the player: Not everyone will be able to state the exact words in an eloquent fashion.
As fun as this thread is, I think I have to kind of take the DM's side on this. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is happening:
KK: I bluff him.
DM: Okay, what do you tell him?
KK: I don't know. Something deceitful.
DM: So what is it? Just make something up.
KK: ... I can't. Can I just roll a bluff check?
DM: Yeah, sure, but what's the lie? What are you bluffing?
KK: Um... something deceitful.
DM: Okay, so the Bard stands there and looks at the guy with his mouth closed... deceitfully. The guy is unswayed. Anyone else?
IMO, a deceitful face character should be RP heavy. There has to be some creativity involved, or you might as well be playing a video game, yeah?
As for what now... well, you could just try and learn to come up with convincing lies. Or even unconvincing, if your skill modifiers are high enough. If not, then just ditch the bluff thing and focus on something else for this bard. How much do you have invested in being deceitful?
Or maybe the bard walks up the guard trying to sneak in rolls bluff and says "I tell the guard the queen sent a message that she wants to see me" the DM asks "What message" The player who isn't good at thinking on his feet either
A; says he isnt sure the DM then applies a negative to the roll for it being to hard to believe.
B: gives a not so good reason and gets the same penalty.
As fun as this thread is, I think I have to kind of take the DM's side on this. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is happening:
KK: I bluff him.
DM: Okay, what do you tell him?
KK: I don't know. Something deceitful.
DM: So what is it? Just make something up.
KK: ... I can't. Can I just roll a bluff check?
DM: Yeah, sure, but what's the lie? What are you bluffing?
KK: Um... something deceitful.
DM: Okay, so the Bard stands there and looks at the guy with his mouth closed... deceitfully. The guy is unswayed. Anyone else?
IMO, a deceitful face character should be RP heavy. There has to be some creativity involved, or you might as well be playing a video game, yeah?
As for what now... well, you could just try and learn to come up with convincing lies. Or even unconvincing, if your skill modifiers are high enough. If not, then just ditch the bluff thing and focus on something else for this bard. How much do you have invested in being deceitful?
Or maybe the bard walks up the guard trying to sneak in rolls bluff and says "I tell the guard the queen sent a message that she wants to see me" the DM asks "What message" The player who isn't good at thinking on his feet either
A; says he isnt sure the DM then applies a negative to the roll for it being to hard to believe.
B: gives a not so good reason and gets the same penalty.
And again I would kind of side with the DM. Bluff checks are very circumstantial. If a Bard strolls into the throne room and tells the king that he was actually the king all along, and that the guy sitting on the throne is actually a bard and that they should switch clothes immediately - Natural 20 or not, +45 modifier or not, there's just no way that the king believes him based on a bluff check alone. Even if the player acted out that scenario well enough for an oscar, to even try it was a poor roleplaying choice (unless distraction was the goal).
And thats fine but if he walked up the the king and tried to bluff his way into an invatation to that nights ball he shouldn't have to expain to the DM his characters entire made up indentity down to his patence 5 generations back and his favorrite food.
And thats fine but if he walked up the the king and tried to bluff his way into an invatation to that nights ball he shouldn't have to expain to the DM his characters entire made up indentity down to his patence 5 generations back and his favorrite food.
And there should probably be more to the scene than "I bluff my way into the ball" depending on how much time the DM wants to enrich the story. And if a guard does ask for proof of ancestral origin, the player should RP a response supplemented by a knowledge Nobility roll.
And thats fine but if he walked up the the king and tried to bluff his way into an invatation to that nights ball he shouldn't have to expain to the DM his characters entire made up indentity down to his patence 5 generations back and his favorrite food.And there should probably be more to the scene than "I bluff my way into the ball" depending on how much time the DM wants to enrich the story. And if a guard does ask for proof of ancestral origin, the player should RP a response supplemented by a knowledge Nobility roll.
How would you want it played if it was your game?
It really depends on how much time these characters were supposed to spend there, and how important the ball was to the plot. If this was a stop along the way on a quest, and I wanted to get them to the next encounter, I'd probably say, "sure, no problem, you're in" and streamline him towards the relevant info, gem, magic potion, whatever, or just give him some coins for performing or a swooning young lady if he's just there to show off his bardness/charm.
If, on the other hand, the campaign is more like a sandbox town, and I had established characters in power, etc, or if this ball is the setting for an endgame of a long quest, I'd want a little more effort put into sneaking in than a dice roll. Also, if this is the FIRST thing the character does, it shouldn't be glossed over in a montage, right? It should be a you-are-there scene, with some descriptive detail.
But now I feel like I'm hijacking this thread. I'm gonna give Kaptain Krunch a little tough love and then what I hope is a relevant and useful anecdote.
First of all, what are ya doing rolling up a deceitful face bard if ya can't tell a convincing lie, ya knucklehead? That's like rolling up a half-ogre barbarian smasher and then letting someone else roll all the damage dice. There, tough love's over.
I thought it would be a great idea to roll up a halfling bard and then bring my banjo and actually play whatever songs he was playing in character. This was pretty much every combat, for most of the combat, since he was using Inspire Courage or Dirges of Doom.
It was fun at first, but got old REAL fast. The time when I should be playing the loudest and most creative, fun, exuberant is my turn, right? Oops, forgot that I have to shuffle papers, look up spells, roll dice, mark things down, move my character, and actually tell the DM what I was doing (although sometimes singing it was fun). On everybody else's turn is when my hands were free. So now of course it's time to KEEP IT DOWN or else you're being a rude attention grabber. And even though he was great at his job (buffing and debuffing in combat, being a curious troublemaker OOCombat), I got really bored of this character really quickly.
So I started rolling up the sneaky kobold alchemist that I really wanted to play, and talked to the DM about ways that we could switch them out. I was honest about how bored I was with the character and made it clear that I didn't blame anybody for it, but that I wasn't having as much fun.
Since we were dungeon crawling, my idea was to have the halfling get seperated and killed in a trap, and then the kobold takes his place with a hat of disguise. DM got really into how it could be done and came up with the much better notion of having the halfling become enchanted by a painting of a kobold next to a tree, and then touch it and the kobold is suddenly there and the halfling is in the painting. Okay, it's his dungeon, why not? The point ended up being mooted when he dropped the halfling with a critical hit from a miniboss before this could take place. BUT - I still definitely made the right call going to the DM and collaborating on how the halfling could be removed from play as a seamless part of the story.
So my advice is to roll up the character you really want to play (and make sure it's not too close to the one you're playing now), and then simply talk to the DM about switching them out. Don't give ultimatums like "I refuse to play this bard anymore because you're being unfair, this new character right now or nuthin!". Work with him on how the bard could be phased out and the new character phased in. Make it part of the story. And then play your old character until it's time for the new one to enter. Now is when you can be wild and unrestrained, and give him a memorable sendoff. And try not to do this too often.
If you really hate this character, and you're kicking yourself about it (which it kind of sounds like you're doing), then maybe this is the way to go. Otherwise, give it a go, and good luck coming up with those slippery fibs.
First of all, what are ya doing rolling up a deceitful face bard if ya can't tell a convincing lie, ya knucklehead? That's like rolling up a half-ogre barbarian smasher and then letting someone else roll all the damage dice. There, tough love's over.
No see its a roll playing game I can be the world's biggest douche and my character can be the most diplomatic person ever.
Do Wizards in your game have to be able to qoute relevant in setting facts on knowledge checks?
Does your Fighter have to know how to use every weapon he wants to attack with?
Do you make druken ragers drink when their characters would?
Do I need to know the history of a religion's Dogma to make a knowledge religion check.
First of all, what are ya doing rolling up a deceitful face bard if ya can't tell a convincing lie, ya knucklehead? That's like rolling up a half-ogre barbarian smasher and then letting someone else roll all the damage dice. There, tough love's over.
No see its a roll playing game I can be the world's biggest douche and my character can be the most diplomatic person ever.
Do Wizards in your game have to be able to qoute relevant in setting facts on knowledge checks?
Does your Fighter have to know how to use every weapon he wants to attack with?
Do you make druken ragers drink when their characters would?
Do I need to know the history of a religion's Dogma to make a knowledge religion check.
Meh. Does the player playing a bard have to spout off the intricate details of a noble house? Nah, but a character (especially a charisma-based face character) still has to do some talking, and you have to tell us what he says, and from time to time that ought to be more or less in the first person. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable, unlike your wild straw man examples.
If you're the world's biggest douche, why am I sitting at a table to play with you? How well you roll seems like the least of my worries. And if I'm DM, then, yeah, you have to ACT polite when speaking politely to people that require politeness.
And yeah, the Fighter does have to know how to use his weapons, or else he's gonna take a penalty. Not my rule. The player, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as long as we only punish players who can't talk their characters and not everyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My morning ritual consists of the following:
Wake up
Go to the bathroom and exercise the good ol' bowels.
Prepare my spells
Shower
Breakfast
Go to work. Hasn't it been proven for like 20 years now that you are your character?
So "preparing spells" is, essentially, reading The Farmer's Almanac on the commode?
Just as long as we only punish players who can't talk their characters and not everyone.
Agree to disagree.
I guess with me it's a philosophical issue. If you just want dice rolls to determine outcomes based on a vague idea of what your character is doing, and can't be bothered with speaking in the character's voice, you have lots of options - Board Games like WotC's Ravenloft and whatever other dungeon crawl stuff they're putting out now, Warhammer, Warcraft, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, etc, etc.
For me, a game like Pathfinder gets the most special in roleplay moments. I love's me a good combat, but the stuff that sticks with me, that I remember and occasionally tell stories about, is roleplay moments.
Social encounters are (or at least, should be) different from combat in that while dice rolls can help guide where the encounter is going, they don't restrict what can happen nearly as much as in combat. The bread and butter of social encounters, therefore, is not so much how well you have built your character, but how well you can play that character. The hard part of combat is probably when you're picking feats, spells, gear. Hours or days before the combat actually happens. The hard part of roleplaying a social encounter is when you're sitting at the table and the DM asks you a question. Am I really the only one that thinks so?
Now, that's not to say that if you can't tell a convincing lie that Pathfinder has nothing for you. Just don't play a liar. Or play a bad liar. Every single character class can be one of those two things.
Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?
How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?
I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.
Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?
How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.
Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?
If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.
Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.
I will say that a player (especially a new one, or one new to a class) can make a perception roll, or sense motive, or knowledge roll, or just straight up Int or Wis check and might get a hint/clue if it's okay. I can remember playing a ranger fighting a troll. I didn't know anything about (DnD style) trolls and their vulnerabilities fire, and even when I was clued in to that I still didn't know about their regeneration. I was trying to decide whether to spend a round making fire arrows or to simply unload some rapid shots into him. I was genuinely frozen in indecision, and DM had me roll an Intelligence check to clue me in to the fact that the fire arrows were totally worth it.
And maybe KK's DM should be doing something like this from time to time, give him a clue as to what lie would be most effective. OTOH, maybe he's getting the clues but not GETTING the clues.
Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?
How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.
Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?
If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.
Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.
So basically, you love metagaming and not roleplaying. Gotcha.
So basically, you love metagaming and not roleplaying. Gotcha.Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?
How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.
Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?
If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.
Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.
Is he really comparing something as simple as "I want to shoot that guy" with a lie, which if does not make sense to the person being liked to could really get the party in a lot of trouble?
At least if you don't shoot the most important guy you have still made a contribution. Tell the wrong lie, and you have not helped at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, you love metagaming and not roleplaying. Gotcha.Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?
How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.
Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?
If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.
Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.
Is he really comparing something as simple as "I want to shoot that guy" with a lie, which if does not make sense to the person being liked to could really get the party in a lot of trouble?
At least if you don't shoot the most important guy you have still made a contribution. Tell the wrong lie, and you have not helped at all.
Metagaming in RPGs means you can't separate reality from the game. Using game knowledge as PC knowledge. Also, if you can't separate yourself from your character, you should probably seek medical help.
I have a player who is amazingly charismatic as a person playing a Barbarian with nothing but penalties in his social skills. Meanwhile, I have a friend who stumbles on his words and gets frustrated easily and tends to talk in circles when he's thinking on his toes, but also loves playing things like Bards and social rogues.
When they come into a situation, I let them roleplay it out. Have fun with it. But the ultimate deciding factor is the dice, because like the Joker says, chaos is fair. So both players give an idea as to what they're character is trying to say, and then the dice determine how well they said it. Maybe their character used poorer phrases, hit nerves, or had issues that got in the way of that message. Maybe their characters put it better than they could have a thousand times over.
So their characters are separate, nobody is screwed, and everyone has fun. Everyone gets to be happy when they invested in social skills, or gets to consider the drawback of not doing so.
What is being described her would be like preventing players from playing elves because they're not skinny androgynous people, or preventing someone from playing the Iconic Paladin pregen because they're not of African descent. Get it? It's metagaming, and it's also stupid.
Well this is a fun thread.
I have a question for the OP; what level is your character? I ask because if your under lvl3 you can just focus on other things and use your bluff ranks on the opposed disbelief roles mentioned above ( not a flippant idea). If you've bought social feats nag till you can retrain.
If your level 8, you may just need to retire the bard and start over. Even an absolute prick GM can't force you to play a character against your will, he can try but you can use all of the brilliant derailing advice in this thread to make his life miserable till someone leaves or gives in.
I really think this thread illuminates why starting at level 1 is a good idea. It allows everyone at the table to grow the dynamic organicaly. When something doesn't work in the interaction between RP and mechanics it's much easier to spot and avoid. I feel from the original post that this is a case of starting at an advanced level with a player/GM relationship that is as yet undefined. That's a recipe for trouble sometimes.
There are more than one way to roleplay.
Not every player around a table is comfortable speaking In character. Ive been playing rpg in different version now for 19 years and in that time only about half of the players ive encountered has been comfortable speaking in first person.
The rest state the intention of what they are doing, and roll their skills. Ofcourse just saying "I try to bluff the guard to get inside" isnt enough, i do want to know how he tries to Bluff him, and if he comes up with a real bad idea, i might give a penalty to his Bluff roll, and if he has a great idea i give him a bonus to the bluff, but in the end, it is the Roll that decide.
Bluffing someone is not only about what you say, but how you say it, as well as your body language (and in some instances, even how you dress). And no matter how much role playing you get into around the table, you can never BE your character. Thats why you roll. It represent how well you pull the bluff off.
Well this is a fun thread.
I have a question for the OP; what level is your character? I ask because if your under lvl3 you can just focus on other things and use your bluff ranks on the opposed disbelief roles mentioned above ( not a flippant idea). If you've bought social feats nag till you can retrain.
If your level 8, you may just need to retire the bard and start over. Even an absolute prick GM can't force you to play a character against your will, he can try but you can use all of the brilliant derailing advice in this thread to make his life miserable till someone leaves or gives in.
I really think this thread illuminates why starting at level 1 is a good idea. It allows everyone at the table to grow the dynamic organicaly. When something doesn't work in the interaction between RP and mechanics it's much easier to spot and avoid. I feel from the original post that this is a case of starting at an advanced level with a player/GM relationship that is as yet undefined. That's a recipe for trouble sometimes.
Just to clarify, I kind of agree with the DM in my group - it's fun when the player can role-play a situation rather than roll-play. I understand that the skills are there to compensate for ability.
But the fact is, I thought I could be a good liar when I started the character, and I really feel like I just suck at it now. More importantly I don't feel like I have the opportunity to use it so much when diplomacy is simply the more logical choice. I guess my problem is is that I didn't take diplomacy because "so and so" had it covered.
It's really all my fault though. Mechanically my Bard is fine. He's okay in combat. I like the illusion spells. He's a good archer. But honestly, I don't think I like using the Bard's other abilities and I think I'd be happier as a caster.
I guess I'll just have to talk to my DM about switching.
Just as long as we only punish players who can't talk their characters and not everyone.
Oh hell nah. If a wizard needs to get into an important ball, and he wants to use Charm Person to do so, the player controlling the wizard sure as hell better cast the spell too.
Jack Chick taught us that YOU are your character.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? That's what the skill points are for.
Now you can reward/penalize role playing with the precious 'circumstance bonus'.
Great Role player: (Intimidate) "Wrong!" Westley’s voice rang across the room. "Your ears you keep, so that every shriek of every child shall be yours to cherish—every babe that weeps in fear at your approach, every woman that cries 'Dear God, what is that thing?' will reverberate forever with your perfect ears. That is what 'to the pain' means. It means that I leave you in anguish, in humiliation, in freakish misery until you can stand it no more; so there you have it, pig, there you know, you miserable vomitous mass, and I say this now, and live or die, it’s up to you: Drop your sword!" (+2 bonus)
Good Role player: (Intimidate) I need new boots. Unless you want your skin peeled and tanned you will fetch your commander AT ONCE! (ok, give a +1 bonus)
Average role player (Bluff) "These aren't the druids you're looking for." (Meh, no penalty)
Poor Role Player: "She turned me into a newt! *mumbles* I got better." (-1 penalty)
Abysmal role player: Um, yeah, I tell him something. (-2 penalty).
Now it's all subjective. I'd give the average "Wake me when combat begins" player more slack if he's playing outside his comfort zone than a city councilman playing a slick rogue. But that's how I do it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as long as we only punish players who can't talk their characters and not everyone.Oh hell nah. If a wizard needs to get into an important ball, and he wants to use Charm Person to do so, the player controlling the wizard sure as hell better cast the spell too.
Jack Chick taught us that YOU are your character.
Jack Chick is a lying jerk. I played barbarian, and I still can't fly off the handle, grow claws, and charge someone for massive damage. :(
