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.
Forcing face characters to act out the occasional social encounter is metagaming?
Shenanigans.
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.
+1.
I had a feeling this was the case. Good luck talking to your DM, and see you in the caster threads.
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.
Demanding that of him is no different then handing the wizard the campaign setting book and telling him to look it up when he rolls a knowledge check. We are all mortal human beings. I no more have a 26 charisma when I play a bard then I have a 26 intelligence when I play a wizard or a 26 strength when I play a barbarian. I am but a mortal man, and my character should not be limited by my own personal abilities.
Insisting that a face character MUST be a good liar in order to bluff is no different then insisting the fighter know how to use an actual great sword. It isnt fair either way.
I dont know about you but I play pathfinder to be things I am not. I like the escape of it. I dont roleplay a software engineer. I do that every day of my life. So why should my fantasy have to involve my actual skills and abilities?
As for the OP, i would talk to the dm, and if he is truly insistant that you be able to actually lie, ask him to retire the character and play something else. But honestly I think it is very bad form of him.
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.
You could also accidentally shoot the king's son, or the King in disguise, or the cleric with the lesser restoration potion that was rushing toward your Con-damaged fighter...
But seriously, my point was that social encounters shouldn't be easier than combat, and I think we're basically on the same page because your point seems to be that it's easier to contribute to combat. Maybe I didn't get the point across very well because I was, ya know, sleepy.
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.
Silly question, but why not just take this as a chance to improve your role-playing? Ask your GM for a little leniency and see if he will give you some time to come up with your lines based on your skill. If you have +1 to +5, you get 30 seconds. +6 to +10 gives you 1 minute. +11 to +15 gives you more time, etc. You'll find that the more you do it, the less time you will need and the house rule will fade away on its own.
I don't like playing bards either so I would switch based on that alone. I don't have any issues with the class. I just don't enjoy playing a bard.
Since there are modifiers to the bluff check depending on what lie is being told, I'd GM that a bluffing character has to at the very least provide some details on the lie.
If an illusionist comes around and casts silent image, he'd better pick an image that would be situationally useful, rather than some vague, "something distracting," because who's to say what's considered distracting? Sometimes characters make the wrong call, good roll or bad.
This is not how bluff has been used in a few games I have played with. Sometimes it is something as simple as telling a bugbear the city is burning and come out that it is great news. and it tricked the bugbear into coming into caltrops and being attacked by the party. Someone had cast a burning hands spell and that helped as well. This is why I dump charisma becuase I cannot lie or do other things.
| 10 people 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.
Forcing face characters to act out the occasional social encounter is metagaming?
Shenanigans.
And I rest my case. You should have to force anything. If you're forcing something on it, then yeah, shenanigans. You dun goofed. Welcome to sucky-GMsville, population: "????".
Why not, oh, I dunno, actually encourage roleplaying through positive encouragement. If you're so amazingly set on acting stuff how, why not lead the way with your NPCs? Either he'll catch on or he won't feel comfortable. The game is about having fun, not forcing people to do stuff they don't feel comfortable doing. Just because the dice fall a certain way doesn't mean roleplaying suddenly stops anymore than rolling attack rolls means you should describe combat less vividly.
Player A: "Um...I'll...try to convince...that guard...to let us pass."
GM: "Ok! As you approach the guard, he glances in your direction momentarily before focusing in on you as you approach. He asks, what can I do for you, citizen? in a burly voice. So how would you like to go about getting the guard to let you pass?"
Player A: "Um...I dunno...maybe try to create a diversion...or something?"
GM: "Well, perhaps you might be able to convince him that there was a suspicious person elsewhere. Or, maybe since you know the name of the big bad, you could try to pass yourself off as an old friend of his, or something else."
Player A: "Hmm, actually, I like the idea of pretending to be his friend. I'm going to try that." *rolls his Bluff for a 24*
GM: "When you introduce yourself to the guard, you drop the name of Vinkerson. You mention that you met him at a social gathering some time ago, and you received an invitation to be an investor in his next project. The guard is a bit skeptical at first, but you at least seem sincere and calm enough to not appear to be lying. The guard makes a bit of small talk as you go. So you must be one of those ironlords from the south. Are these guys, he says pointing to the rest of the party, your bodyguards?"
Player A: "Oh...uh, yeah, my bodyguards. Um, you can never be too careful after-all. Especially, um...being an...Ironlord was it? "
GM: ""
Player A: "Oh, oh, ok, yeah that sounds good. I'm pretending to be an ironlord!"
Player A: "Yeah...uh, I'll tell them I'm an ironlord, like last time. And...what do you think guys? Maybe that we want to pay off the...uhh...thieves' guild to stop raiding the caravans to place-place?"
Player B: "That sounds pretty good. We could use the signet ring we got from that badguy, and perhaps throw in some gold or something to make it look right?"
Player A: "Yeah, how about that silver statue we got from the orcs?"
GM: "That might work."
Player A: "Ok, well, I'll tell him I am an ironlord from the south, and...uhhh, show him my signet ring...but not like in his face or anything weird like that..."
GM: "You mean casually make sure it's noticeable."
Player A: "Yeah, that. Ok, and...uhhh...I'll sit the silver statue on the table and say it's...a gift or something...for good will, maybe?"
GM: "Sounds pretty good. Gimme a Bluff check to see if he buys it. The signet ring helps you out a bit so I'm going to drop a +2 bonus on your check. Then I need a Diplomacy roll, and the gift also helps with that a bit, 'cause it makes you seem more important and it's a good offer."
Player A: "Awesome, here goes!" *rolls a 23 and a 25*
GM: "Ok, the man looks at you while running his finger around the edge of his wine glass with one hand, and stroking the hair of one of his servant girls with the other. You seem to be a man of wealth, he says. I like that. But why should I give the order to hold up on the raids against the southern caravans, merely because you ask? Perhaps you have something that could make it worth my while? he suggests. You're pretty sure that he would probably call off the raids if you were to give him some sort of cut under the table. Paying him off. You know the raids cost him as well if they fail, and a sure thing is a better deal."
Player A: "Hmmm...so...can I haggle?"
GM: "Of course."
Player A: "Um, how about 10 gold per month?"
GM: "You would know that he's been stealing easily a hundred times that each week. Ideally he'd probably want half as much. He might settle for lower, but 10 gp would probably just irritate him or at best be found as an amusing jest before your real offer."
Player A: "Um, ok, then maybe 200?"
GM: "Let's say that every 100 gp you want to lower it by, the Diplomacy DC increases by +2. However, you might be able to sense his motives to get an idea as to how low he would go."
Player A: "Hmmm, okay, well I'm going to try that." *rolls Sense Motive vs the Merchant Lord's bluff, and rolls a 12.*
GM: "Doug, your character is standing right next to Sam's. You can roll a Sense Motive as well."
Player B: *rolls Sense Motive and gets a 32*
GM: "Very nice roll. While Sam's character can't see past the merchant's poker face, you could advise him. You're pretty sure that, given the cost of actually fencing the stolen goods, he'd probably accept around 350 and call it even."
Player A: "Well Mr. Merchant Lord, I think you...are...ummm, a man of great...umm...what's that word for clever with deals or something?"
GM: "Uhh...savvy?"
Player A: "Yeah, that. I think you're a real savvy guy. You understand the..um, value of money. How does 300 gold sound?"
GM: "He smirks, amused by the fact you didn't begin with a pitiful amount. He suggests No I don't think so, it is too little. 450. he says, trying to haggle you up. However, with Doug's character advising you, you are confident he will accept lower and is just testing the waters."
Player A: "Hmmm, well I have to make some profit. Or else I might as well not ship stuff at all, right? So then we...both don't make money, right? Uhhh...that sounded good, right?"
GM: "Oh yes, keep going."
Player A: "So...let's do it 350 for you to ignore the caravans from Ravenport, and make sure they're safe in your lands, and we both make good."
GM: "Hmmm, I hadn't thought about suggesting he protect them in his lands. I guess that makes sense, because if he's not raiding them and you're not shipping them, he makes no money. Good plan! He says you are a shrewd businessman, but one who knows the value of a good deal. Very well, your trade shall go unhindered as long as I get my cut. I'll throw in an extra 50 XP per level for you guys, since you went a bit above and beyond."
Players: "Awesome!"
Player A: "Look my good knight, we're are the heroes from Ravenport, and the ones who ended the raids on the trade caravans a month ago. You must let us pass, because we must reach Daggerdale in time to intercept the Duke before he is crowned the new Reagent of the land, and inform the people that her ladyship is still alive and on her way from Watercrest."
Player B: "............"
GM:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like people have different interpretations of how to play the game (omg!)
To make this an actual post, I, as the GM would work with the player, not stonewall and say 'if you can't do it, your character can't do it'... thinking on your feet is tough for a lot of people and as such, in a fantasy game, it's something they may want their character to do - so if he could give me a general idea of what he wanted to do
lie to a guard
swing a sword at an orc
cast a spell
I, as a GM, can take these requested actions and turn them into an in-game scene with my description, it's what I'm at the table for. The players tell me what they want their character to do and I make it happen.
Although I agree it's easier if he can tell me THE WORDS HE USES, if he can't come up with something, I won't punish him, I'll show him how it's done and hope he gets better at it.
And to get back on track, talk to the GM and tell them you don't find the character fun anymore because of this, if he won't suggest any work you can do together to change things, I'd say my bard has an epiphany or his more latent magical abilities manifest due to his consistent use of performance-based magic and multiclass into sorcerer... if he's THAT into the roleplaying side of the game that a roll can't help you make up a good lie in game to get a desired result, he should be thrilled by this choice and might help you somehow.
stuff
Don't put words in my mouth. Never said I was against positive encouragement; in fact, in an earlier post I suggested that the GM can give hints and clues as to what would be the best course of action, and that things like perception, knowledge, ability checks could all facilitate this. The scenes that you lay out don't seem (at a glance; I have deadlines) unreasonable.
I also addressed the issue that the OP didn't seem to be having fun, which is why I suggested rolling up a new character. Is that unreasonable? Is that metagaming? Well, kind of, but it gets him back on track to having fun, doesn't it?
If one of my players wasn't having fun and wanted to roll up a new character, I would talk about the problem, but wouldn't push and cajole them to keep playing the old character if they really didn't want to. That seems akin to the dad making his kid play soccer when he has no aptitude for it and clearly wants to join the computer club. Sometimes all the "but it's fun; here, let's try and work on it and MAKE it fun!" in the world isn't going to help.
stuff
Don't put words in my mouth. Never said I was against positive encouragement; in fact, in an earlier post I suggested that the GM can give hints and clues as to what would be the best course of action, and that things like perception, knowledge, ability checks could all facilitate this. The scenes that you lay out don't seem (at a glance; I have deadlines) unreasonable.
I also addressed the issue that the OP didn't seem to be having fun, which is why I suggested rolling up a new character. Is that unreasonable? Is that metagaming? Well, kind of, but it gets him back on track to having fun, doesn't it?
If one of my players wasn't having fun and wanted to roll up a new character, I would talk about the problem, but wouldn't push and cajole them to keep playing the old character if they really didn't want to. That seems akin to the dad making his kid play soccer when he has no aptitude for it and clearly wants to join the computer club. Sometimes all the "but it's fun; here, let's try and work on it and MAKE it fun!" in the world isn't going to help.
I'm not the ones suggesting that you force your players to do something, even if it makes them uncomfortable, for entirely metagame reasons.
If your computer-game loving kid wants to pretend be a professional athlete on his video soccer game, but he has trouble seeing the screen, you get him a pair of glasses, not force him play real soccer.
And I rest my case. You should have to force anything. If you're forcing something on it, then yeah, shenanigans. You dun goofed. Welcome to sucky-GMsville, population: "????".
*rest of post of awesome snipped.*
Thank you Ashiel, that is GM Guide level advice.
Let me add my agreement as well. Very well done.
Wow, thanks guys. I really appreciate the positive feedback. ^-^
On a side note, it really does work. Remember the guy I mentioned earlier in the thread who was easily frustrated with his words, and had a hard time expressing himself, etc?
Well, I'd say he's probably one of the better roleplayers at our table. He's all about talking to people in character and such. Now and then he'll put a hand on his chin and say "Let me think...", but he has improved dramatically over the past couple of years.
Believe me when I say he didn't make this progress 'cause I was trying to punish him for having difficulties or being uncomfortable. I never forced him into anything either. Just offered him a hand and let him take it as he was ready. It wasn't because he was a power gamer either. He still isn't super rules savvy, and usually gets advice from the rest of the group on how to build the character to suit his concept.
I'm our resident power gamer (see my thread where I figured out how to begin play as an 8 HD undead mummy at 1st level, while following the GM's character creation guidelines). :P
|
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?
Because that's part of the fun too -- and if the charismatic player can cake-walk a CHA7 character, you're robbing "face" from the other PCs.
<character rolls a 1 in tandem with player's charismatic performance>
GM: "Your soliloquy is eloquence personified, but unfortunately everyone is *ahem*ing to alert you to your still-open fly."
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?Because that's part of the fun too -- and if the charismatic player can cake-walk a CHA7 character, you're robbing "face" from the other PCs.
<character rolls a 1 in tandem with player's charismatic performance>
GM: "Your soliloquy is eloquence personified, but unfortunately everyone is *ahem*ing to alert you to your still-open fly."
I didn't write that. I am being misquoted. That was someone else.
I also addressed the issue that the OP didn't seem to be having fun, which is why I suggested rolling up a new character. Is that unreasonable? Is that metagaming? Well, kind of, but it gets him back on track to having fun, doesn't it?
From what i understood of the OP he didnt have fun because his gm would let him play his character. In essence the GM wont let anyone except the most proficient Improvising Actors play charismatic roles, and everyone else just have to keep hitting stuff with a sword.
Yay for two cents!
I would be on the side of not switching the character. What I would recommend is writing a really good back-story. Think about WHY your character became a really good liar. Who was he lying too? Why was he lying? Things like this not only help a GM in understanding why the character uses bluff but it will also help you to define what lies your character would tell, which I think is mostly the problem here.
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?Because that's part of the fun too -- and if the charismatic player can cake-walk a CHA7 character, you're robbing "face" from the other PCs.
<character rolls a 1 in tandem with player's charismatic performance>
GM: "Your soliloquy is eloquence personified, but unfortunately everyone is *ahem*ing to alert you to your still-open fly."
I didn't write that. I am being misquoted. That was someone else.
Yup. I sure am.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(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!
oh man this is the best post EVER!!!!
but i have to admit, many people apply logic or enforce rules when its something they like or dont like, but seem to ignore that same mentality when it comes to other things.
i had a disagreement with my GM a while ago about monks not being able to damage a dragon unarmed " it just dosent make sense " he says.
i looked at him like he was speaking Chinese for about 3 sencond then screamed at the top of my lungs (yeah i was pissed) " THAT A$! H%+% WIZARD JUST SHOT A FIRBALL OUT OF HIS ASS, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN PUNCHING A DRAGON MAKES NO SENSE!!!!"
the point is that EVERYONE does this at some point, just point out to the person the logic they are enforcing on you while doing activity X has to be applied to all aspect of the game.
stuff
Don't put words in my mouth. Never said I was against positive encouragement; in fact, in an earlier post I suggested that the GM can give hints and clues as to what would be the best course of action, and that things like perception, knowledge, ability checks could all facilitate this. The scenes that you lay out don't seem (at a glance; I have deadlines) unreasonable.
I also addressed the issue that the OP didn't seem to be having fun, which is why I suggested rolling up a new character. Is that unreasonable? Is that metagaming? Well, kind of, but it gets him back on track to having fun, doesn't it?
If one of my players wasn't having fun and wanted to roll up a new character, I would talk about the problem, but wouldn't push and cajole them to keep playing the old character if they really didn't want to. That seems akin to the dad making his kid play soccer when he has no aptitude for it and clearly wants to join the computer club. Sometimes all the "but it's fun; here, let's try and work on it and MAKE it fun!" in the world isn't going to help.
I'm not the ones suggesting that you force your players to do something, even if it makes them uncomfortable, for entirely metagame reasons.
If your computer-game loving kid wants to pretend be a professional athlete on his video soccer game, but he has trouble seeing the screen, you get him a pair of glasses, not force him play real soccer.
Sure, maybe force was a poor choice of words. But aren't we pretty much on the same page? Isn't this pretty much the same idea that you elaborated on at length in your admittedly well written post?
Why ya gotta fight and call me a metagamer? Where's the luv?
(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!oh man this is the best post EVER!!!!
but i have to admit, many people apply logic or enforce rules when its something they like or dont like, but seem to ignore that same mentality when it comes to other things.
i had a disagreement with my GM a while ago about monks not being able to damage a dragon unarmed " it just dosent make sense " he says.
i looked at him like he was speaking Chinese for about 3 sencond then screamed at the top of my lungs (yeah i was pissed) " THAT A~% H&%& WIZARD JUST SHOT A FIRBALL OUT OF HIS ASS, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN PUNCHING A DRAGON MAKES NO SENSE!!!!"the point is that EVERYONE does this at some point, just point out to the person the logic they are enforcing on you while doing activity X has to be applied to all aspect of the game.
No, this is the best post ever.
One time, a PC with an absurd Bluff and Charisma was sneaking into a laboratory tent camp near a crashed space ship.
In his investigations through the tents in the camp, he found an ID badge just sitting idle on a desk and took it. He donned a Haz-mat suit with a one-way visor to perfect his disguise, and walked out into the camp. He walked directly into the six-foot tall flaming Brazilian dragon girl with the nine-foot long tail.
Did I mention this was a Mutants and Masterminds game? :)
She turns to him, reads his namebadge and says, "Oh! Hey Allen." A puzzled look comes across her face, and she says, "I thought you were in the crash site with Ashley?"
The player rolled bluff, nearly maximum. It was something close to 40. Using his sound manipulation power, he made his voice deeper, muffled and distorted to try to account for all angles. "Yeah. I left her in there for a bit, but I'm going back now."
He had the entire camp coming down on him by the time he was within arms reach of the crashed ship.
Why?
Ashley was actually a man. (To be specific, this entire team was a cameo from another game everyone in the group had played in. No one caught on that Ashley was _that_ Ashley until it was time for running. The amount of light-bulb-flicker looks around the room was amazing as everyone suddenly realized who it was.)
Anyways, to the point: Apparently, I'm a bad GM and should be heckled for having the roleplaying negatively impact the PC's dice roll. What's the point of roleplaying if you can just roll the dice and say "I do a thing that says the stuff and ask all the good questions" instead of actually talking?
What's the point of roleplaying if you can just roll the dice and say "I do a thing that says the stuff and ask all the good questions" instead of actually talking?
This approach certainly has to be an option for players, just as the whole fighting thing is in combat, as has been pointed out above.
The nice little combat spiel illustrates the RP aspect very well.
The only advantage to the combat is there is a nice set of rules to guide you in combat, you still have to plan tactically to take full advantage of it...
"I use my fighting skills to dominate this battle, my attack roll is 22, my intimidate is 23 and my character has lots of awesome gear that lets him be prepared for any situation, what else do I roll?"
Vs
"I declare power attack for the round, enter rage and will do a vital strike on the bandit in front of me. My attack roll is 22"
DM: hit, roll damage
"I do 19 damage"
DM: the bandit drops
"I take a 5-foot step to the left, as I leave my square I use a free action to drop the torch I'm holding into the puddle of grease the mage cast (which includes my initial square) 2 rounds ago to discourage the bandits in the back from moving through and getting to our casters. My boots of traction magically let me ignore slippery surfaces and allow normal movement out of the grease"
DM: you will need to roll a reflex check DC 15 to avoid getting burned as the oil ignites, because you are already leaving the square, failure is half damage and success is no damage
"I roll an 18. I have a move action left, and will use my Intimidating Glare on the bandit diagonally left of me to roar 'burn in the fire or die by my blade, but you are not getting past here'". My intimidate roll is 23.
DM: the bandit's grip on his weapon loosens and the front of his trousers is suddenly wet
The social aspect is a bit harder to regulate because it is less structured, but a DM needs material to work with in any aspect of the game. If you just say:
"I move through the crowd all stealthy and use my sleigh of hand, I roll a 25"
then I don't blame the DM for filling in the blanks and declaring "congratulations, nobody notices you picking your nose".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, look, it's not that freaking hard.
To hit an opponent, you must select an opponent and weapon, but do not have to describe exactly how you connect the two. (BAB)
To convince someone to do something, you must choose what you're convincing them to do, but need not act out the entire minute or so of back-and-forth involved. (Diplomacy)
To create an illusion, you must choose what the illusion is meant to resemble, but do not have to describe every tiny detail. (Spells)
To forge a document, you must choose what type of document you are forging and what it indicates, but do not have to be able to describe how it would be done or what that document looks like. (Linguistics)
To lie, you must choose what lie you wish to tell, but do not have to specify the exact wording. (Bluff)
This pattern is in all abilities of the game. You need to specify just enough information for the DM to know your intent, then the rolls take over. That's it. Done.
That said, here are some examples where it is okay to say "I need more":
You tell the DM "I lie to them", but do not specify what you're trying to convince them of. Fix: Say something like "I tell them I'm the sheriff."
You tell the DM "I attack" without specifying a target. Fix: Specify a target (such as "whatever attacked me through the grate").
You tell the DM "I create an illusion" without specifying of what. Fix: Specify a form (such as "a wall to block their line of sight").
You tell the DM "I forge some papers" without specifying which papers or at least for what purpose. Fix: Specify the documents *or* the purpose (such as "I want to get into the ball, but don't have an invite")
She turns to him, reads his namebadge and says, "Oh! Hey Allen." A puzzled look comes across her face, and she says, "I thought you were in the crash site with Ashley?"
The player rolled bluff, nearly maximum. It was something close to 40. Using his sound manipulation power, he made his voice deeper, muffled and distorted to try to account for all angles. "Yeah. I left her in there for a bit, but I'm going back now."
He had the entire camp coming down on him by the time he was within arms reach of the crashed ship.
I wouldn't say you're a bad DM at all, you just take the roleplaying above the mechanics - I would likely use the appropriate modifiers in such a situation - In Pathfinder, the check would have an immediate -20 as the lie would qualify as 'impossible' after this, if the rolls of the situation still result in a win on the side of the player, I may rule that a CHARACTER skilled in lying more than the PLAYER would know a situation like this may occur, and as such, would have actually left the response more vague in regard to the sex of the person they were talking about, even though it's like a thousand to one chance that Ashley would be a male name...Keep in mind I say I (may) rule it this way, seems more comical and fun to have gender confusion result in this type of event.
It's been smacked back and forth in this thread that some people would say a roll does it, while others would say that it has to be thought up by the player on the spot, and then some of us choose some combination of the two. As I alluded to before it means different people play different ways based on what they like or appeals to their own logic...You can just as easily choose the right tactics in combat and be in the right spot with the right weapon but roll a one and miss even though you did everything right and it makes no sense to fail.
|
|
Exactly Stabbity, but a lot of the GM haters here seem convinced that asking for what is the lie and what you try to get saying it is asking too much.
A good lie should give a small modifier like a +2, and a bad one a -2 but glaring impossibilities should not be glossed over because of a awesome roll.
In the above scenario about Ashley the player had several factors against him (he was in the wrong location for the character he was impersonating, he was impersonating someone know to the dragon and he did a erred about Ashley gender) but still, if the roll was high enough,after the modifiers, and the dragon sense motive roll was low enough (he is a dragon, he should have a good sense motive), he should have succeeded.
If the guy speaking sound right we tend to miss a lot of small inconsistencies.
In the bard and king example a few post above the bard has no hope to succeed (unless the king has some kind of mental disease) independently from his roll.
(Note: conceivably the bard could succeed using a lot of rolls and skills if he were capable to convince the kind that is mad and suffering from a form of delusion in thinking that he is the king. But that would not be a single bluff roll. More like using illusions to alter reality around him, so that he notice that things aren't like he think they are, using several bluffs and so on, but that would be a very long session and would work only if the bard did know very well his target weaknesses)
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?
Talk to the DM and have him write your current character out of the game and introduce a new one. Life is too short to play games you don't enjoy.
Failing that, there are plenty of ways to die in Golarion. Some of them actually entertaining, I think.
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?
Talk to the DM and have him write your current character out of the game and introduce a new one. Life is too short to play games you don't enjoy.
Failing that, there are plenty of ways to die in Golarion. Some of them actually entertaining, I think.
I had a player whose fighter/bard was a bit of a loose cannon, but somehow always managed to get the job done. During one adventure, the party was getting owned by a green dragon, so he charged the dragon and grappled him. He wasn't even trying to pin him, just hive him a good hug. That was when he broke the necklace of fireballs he as wearing (as in, he pulled all the beads off at once).
Miraculously, he survived. Primarily do to the fact the party's cleric had cast shield other on him and was taking half his damage. The cleric was not amused as she burst into flames from across the battlefield, and started smoking. The Fighter/Bard staggered away from ground-zero, and the dragon was KO'd. If it wasn't for his life-link with the Cleric, he would have been toast - but what a way to go!
If you had a social combat system, this might be much easier. Having to make it through the entire scene based on one skill check is difficult.
Imagine if it worked the other way...horrible ogres appear out of the woods
I make a fight check...(rolls)...I got a 28.
The ogres are defeated.
Because the pathfinder rules for social conflict are thin, there is a lot of room for gms to interpret.
As for the OP, why not establish a cover story? Think up a false identity now, forge a document, buy a disguise. Give the cover ID one strong personality trait, like arrogant or snooty. Next time you need to bluff, you have a starting place.
/\ This is good advice. Especially if you know you might stall for time in a social interaction situation.
Just one more approach.
Learn how to lie.
Simply put, people lie to bridge the gap between what is, and what they wish was true.
If you can remember that, you might be able to think of convincing lies at the table for your character. When asked "what are you doing in my bedroom", ask yourself what your character would wish was true and say "I'm an apprentice locksmith and I've been practicing... the innkeep told me this room was empty. My apologies... I must have mis-counted doors."
As in, the character wishes there was a good reason for his actions. Think in terms of what reality could fit the circumstances you're trying to lie about, and say that.
I don't know about anyone else, but generally we roll first, then decide what our char actually says based on the roll.
Aka, I'm bluffing a guard into believing that I, in fact, had nothing to do with that small explosion that happened in the pub I just walked out of.
On a high roll I burst out with "It was crazy! I was just standing in there and a big fella and some small weedy guy where having a heated discussion, when suddenly he pulls a knife! Joke was on him though, coz the weedy little guy just turned around muttered some words and BOOM everything just goes up in smoke, then disappears right on the spot!"
On a low roll I fall flat on my face, drop a catalyst from a bomb i'd been about to make and have a bout of flatulence.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Exactly Stabbity, but a lot of the GM haters here seem convinced that asking for what is the lie and what you try to get saying it is asking too much.
A good lie should give a small modifier like a +2, and a bad one a -2 but glaring impossibilities should not be glossed over because of a awesome roll.
In the above scenario about Ashley the player had several factors against him (he was in the wrong location for the character he was impersonating, he was impersonating someone know to the dragon and he did a erred about Ashley gender) but still, if the roll was high enough,after the modifiers, and the dragon sense motive roll was low enough (he is a dragon, he should have a good sense motive), he should have succeeded.
If the guy speaking sound right we tend to miss a lot of small inconsistencies.
Snip, I'll have to agree here. A penalty wouldn't be out of the question, even a big one, but often when we're expecting something we miss the details.
Funny example* I have a bluetooth headset. (I call it my 'Borg Implant') I'll be wearing it and someone will comment on how handy the hands free thing is. I've often replied, "Oh yeah, I love this thing. It used to be you'd see someone walking down the street talking to themselves, you'd think they were crazy. Now people just assume I'm on the phone!"
Ususally if they catch it, it takes a few seconds or a minute.
And yes, a high bluff means that the character does know tricks the player doesn't. It's like with a knowlege check. The player may be new and not know the Black Dragon spits acid, but if he rolls high enough, the character knows and the GM tells the player. A highly trained bluffer would know to leave things vauge or leave pronouns alone. "Yeah, but I had to use the head and told Ashley I'd be right back, so got to go now. Okloveyoubyebye!"
*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point of roleplaying if you can just roll the dice....
What's the point of dice if you can always just roleplay?
(I.e., player GM considers most charismatic always gets his way; campaign is the him-him-him show, and you have to suck it up eternally. Might as well sell your CRB at Half-Priced Books right now.)
Apparently, I'm a bad GM and should be heckled for having the roleplaying negatively impact the PC's dice roll.
Consider if you'd done this:
GM (out of character): "You DO realize that Ashley was a man, right?"
Player (OoC): "Oops!"
<everybody laughs>
GM: "You somehow manage, due to your stellar ability to commit deception, to avoid saying anything incredibly stupid, and so manage to slip past the enemy.
-- This would have permitted everyone at the table to have a good laugh, and let the player enjoy success running a character who was better at doing something than he-the-player was.
|
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?
I get what you are saying... BUT
When I run a game, I do require at least a description of what your character is doing. A fighter will say "I attack the ogre with my scimitar", so the bard should be expected to come up with "I try to fast talk my way past the guard, saying that the king has summoned me", or something. If what the player comes up with is particularly clever, then he might get a bonus. But, even if he can't come up with anything, I'd still give him a roll (but probably at a penalty).
Even if you aren't a good lier, or diplomat, or singer, you should be able to describe what you are trying to do.
I do know some players and GMs that refuse to use social interaction skills, and claim that this should all be "role-played". Sure, that's great, but then be clear, and allow the players to move their skill ranks out of the now useless skills. Others will say that social interaction skills don't affect PCs... I think that is as much B.S. as the above. If you are a good role-player, you should be willing to role-play the situation where your character is bamboozled/fast-talked/bluffed.
One time, a PC with an absurd Bluff and Charisma was sneaking into a laboratory tent camp near a crashed space ship.
In his investigations through the tents in the camp, he found an ID badge just sitting idle on a desk and took it. He donned a Haz-mat suit with a one-way visor to perfect his disguise, and walked out into the camp. He walked directly into the six-foot tall flaming Brazilian dragon girl with the nine-foot long tail.
Did I mention this was a Mutants and Masterminds game? :)
She turns to him, reads his namebadge and says, "Oh! Hey Allen." A puzzled look comes across her face, and she says, "I thought you were in the crash site with Ashley?"
The player rolled bluff, nearly maximum. It was something close to 40. Using his sound manipulation power, he made his voice deeper, muffled and distorted to try to account for all angles. "Yeah. I left her in there for a bit, but I'm going back now."
He had the entire camp coming down on him by the time he was within arms reach of the crashed ship.
Why?
Ashley was actually a man. (To be specific, this entire team was a cameo from another game everyone in the group had played in. No one caught on that Ashley was _that_ Ashley until it was time for running. The amount of light-bulb-flicker looks around the room was amazing as everyone suddenly realized who it was.)
Anyways, to the point: Apparently, I'm a bad GM and should be heckled for having the roleplaying negatively impact the PC's dice roll. What's the point of roleplaying if you can just roll the dice and say "I do a thing that says the stuff and ask all the good questions" instead of actually talking?
The player rolled well, that represents luck. Maybe the person they were trying to bluff gave something away about Ashley's gender that a good lier would pick up on and use.
The player is skilled at bluffing. To me this is often represented by having confidence. I think of Ferris Buller in the scene at the restuarant. Maybe the character said things with enough bluster and confidence that the person listening is focused on their body language and not their words.
The person being bluffed rolled badly for their sense motive. That could represent them being distracted or just not caring. Just because the player used the wrong pronoun doesn't mean the listener noticed. Maybe they just heard what they were expecting to hear. Just because you, as a DM, know it to be an obvious lie does not mean the NPC in question would notice or care.
Yes, I would say you are a bad DM for the simple reason that you let one word completely overshadow a lucky roll on the player's part, a good skill on the players part, AND a bad roll on your part. This would be akin to a player rolling a 20 to hit in a clutch moment of a fight, and you decide it missed because fists really shouldn't hurt a dragon.
You should have assigned a reasonable penalty for the player not knowing the correct gender and being in the wrong place, but in the end you should let the dice decide.
In one of the games we were playing, another player's character wanted to get into a burning town to loot it. The town was surrounded by a giant wall which we couldn't scale and the only way in was through the door guarded by four heavily armed guards. He walked up to the guards and asked them if he could enter and, of course, they said no, he couldn't, because the town was on fire. He then shouted, "But I left my favourite coat in there!" and proceeded to roll a natural 20 on his bluff check. The guards responded, "Well why didn't you say so? Hurry up and go get it!" and opened the doors for him.
It was hilarious
In one of the games we were playing, another player's character wanted to get into a burning town to loot it. The town was surrounded by a giant wall which we couldn't scale and the only way in was through the door guarded by four heavily armed guards. He walked up to the guards and asked them if he could enter and, of course, they said no, he couldn't, because the town was on fire. He then shouted, "But I left my favourite coat in there!" and proceeded to roll a natural 20 on his bluff check. The guards responded, "Well why didn't you say so? Hurry up and go get it!" and opened the doors for him.
It was hilarious
*falls down giggling*
Do you make druken ragers drink when their characters would?
I do now.
|
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.
Not always a good idea. I used to have holes in my ceiling where I would get over enthusiastic gesturing with a real sword while DMing.
We had at least one discussion that did devolved into an armed conflict when my roommate grabbed his mace and shield off the wall and took a few swings at me.
/sigh: the good old days.
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.
Not always a good idea. I used to have holes in my ceiling where I would get over enthusiastic gesturing with a real sword while DMing.
We had at least one discussion that did devolved into an armed conflict when my roommate grabbed his mace and shield off the wall and took a few swings at me.
/sigh: the good old days.
Reminds me of a DM who owned a Boston Terrier and would let it sit in his lap until some Big Evil Monster got the jump on use then he would lean back and wisper something to the dog who would jump on the table behind the DM screen and Growl.
In combat, I award pluses and minuses for maneuvers, clever ideas, odd circumstances and the like. 'Same for every other skill roll that happens' is a sound policy. If I'm laughing too hard to talk equates to a +1, rolling on the floor to a +2. I gave out one of those last month...
Your gm ask players to use theyr real str in combat?
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. ;)
Wanted to comment on the second point here.
When you change your character's direction after character creation, you're still that much weaker than if you planned your character the "correct" way from the beginning.
Anyway, bumping this because I really hate my character, and no one will let me switch because "They like the bard's buff". Think I might just quit.
|
Nobody will let you switch? What'll they do to stop you?
Here's a thought. You're obviously frustrated with this character, and that's likely been bleeding into your roleplay, especially if the bard has been failing at a lot of things. So, next level-up, take a level of barbarian. Roleplay it as repressed anger at your shortcomings. Don't worry about whether or not barbarian was the character you would've rather played, just stay with me for a second.
Next combat you get into, play it cool for a little while, but at the first sign of things going downhill, just rage and go completely batsqueak insane on anything in eyeshot. Drop your bardic performance-- you're too psycho to maintain it. You'll take down a few enemies, but the plan is to get yourself killed so you can reroll. If all the hostiles die before you do, then don't stop raging. Start sundering anything in your path-- trees, tables, doors, whatever. The idea is that your party should get the idea that you're just too unstable to adventure with.
Rage disallows spellcasting and I believe bardic performance, so the party will get the idea that they can't force you to play a bard just for the buffs. A few combats of this, and even if you don't get taken down, your group will probably let you switch just because this character's gone off his own rails.
The best way to come with stuff on the fly at the table...is to do it beforehand. During the week before the game, spend a bit of time thinking of different scenarios/stories that they bard can use during a bluff check, make them campaign specific or as generic as you like. Write them down in a Bards Big Book of Lies (Dont let anyone see it though to maintain some mistique). Different types of lies for different situations are always handy, say a page for town guard type lies, a page for lies to tell the local merchants, nobility, guilds etc.
Then you can tick off the ones you have used and keep a record of what you told who and when. This is also a handy way of keeping track and not getting caught in a lie.