Some people play one way, some people play another way. I've played the monty haul campaigns and I've played in groups where we rarely rolled a die. They each have their merits and flaws.
You happened to meet a group with a playstyle that you didn't like, and apparently they felt the same. No one is right or wrong here. You just have to find or assemble a group that fits your playstyle. If that's how they have fun, they're doing it right and vice-versa.
Acknowledge, move on.
We recently discovered in one of our campaigns that the GM hates diplomacy checks. We learned it the hard way of course when one of the players needed to make one... His chances of rolling well were good and so he thought he'd be successful.
He rolled a die and the GM says yeah. I dont care what you rolled. Convince me.
The rollplay made the player the enemy of an entire section of town who promptly decided to lynch the character, decree a public hanging on the spot and in the end we had to pay nearly 3000 credits to buy him freedom, after they cut off his ear....
You might have rolled a 15, but your mouth just rolled a 1.
Goodness... What on earth did this person say? A lynching based on something he said. I mean it can happen. A people on edge about something, say demonic possession, and the character spouting off about how messed up the town is because the demon in his head knows more than anyone in this rat infested garbage pit.
I am totally curious what the player actually said now. Please tell.
You might have rolled a 15, but your mouth just rolled a 1.That's hilarious! So when you guys make strength checks, does that player have to run outside and lift a car off the ground before he succeeds?
I had that problem when I made a Bluff check with one GM. As a player, I paused, but my PC (with high bluff) would have never paused. GM ruled it an auto failure (based on me pausing for 1 second as a player), which is total GM incompetence imo.
Both of those scenarios aren't quite the same as what the guy mentioned. While I don't work with that Diplomacy rule, it sounds like a good way to get players to roleplay. It does, however, penalize players for not being as charismatic as their character.
Personally, I go the standard route: I let them roll, then have them tell me what they're saying. If what they're saying is bad, they take penalties.
C'mon cats, I watched Raging Bull again this week: that is a good film!
I left Avengers and realised I couldn't remember any of the superheroes' real names, and if any of them had died, I wouldn't have cared.
I also like comics, that's why I've got all of The Invisibles and am re-reading Asterios Polyp.
Movie snob rant:
I left the theater excited, winded, and very satisfied. I'm an Avengers fanboy(Marvel comics in general), and I studied film in college for a couple years.
Comparing Raging Bull to The Avengers is just apples and oranges. Avengers is an over the top, comic super hero movie for comic book fans.
We're not talking about a Victorian period piece or Shakespeare, we're talking Hulk Smash and flying robots.
About the discussion upthread, what says a good campaign can't incorporate influences of both Hulk Smashing and drawn out political diplomacy? No one game is all one thing all the time, I would think. A versatile DM can find room to appease both the serious RP'ers and the guys who like flinging dice.
I feel middle of the road works best in roleplaying/rollplaying situations.
If your character is good at bluffing, diplomicizing, whatever, and you can't honestly think of what they should say to convince them, then at least their high skill can help them out on it.
On the other hand, if your character is terrible at the diplomacy/bluff stuff, but you, in game, can come up with a pretty reasonable argument/lie, then that can work well enough to get you through.
This keeps from penalizing people who want to play social characters, but who aren't so great at thinking quickly in such situations. It also keeps from penalizing people who didn't build their character in that way but who, as players/characters, are able to have a meaningful contribution in NPC interactions.
Ah ! The same old discussion about RP vs Roll Dice in social situation!
As A GM , I consider there is three choices
* The player is eloquent , I listen to his speech , give bonus for salient points and then ask him to roll
* The player is wary/shy/not accustomed to RP his character but still describre what he does. Same treatment as before with bonus for salient points
* The player just roll the dice without any effort on his part. Big malus (-4 to -5 ) .A salient point can be anything from using knowledge gained with Sense Motive/ gather information to pure chance ( the character swears by the divinity favored by the cible )
The first choice and second choice give the same results . there is no reason to penalize a player who, in himself, lack charisma.
There is still a dice roll. Otherwise, the 6 Charisma Dwarf with no skill but played by a forceful person will always succeed when the 20 charisma paladin who has taken the effort to put his points in diplomacy but who is played by a shy person will always fail ( I saw this in a game once ot twice ...)
Mostly agree, but I don't give bonuses, unless ther are actual things being used in the game that might give a bonus.
To me, the roleplaying, either in first or third person, is the minimum bar to earn the roll. Bonuses are saved for things that might actually improve success,like offering extra money to the merchant, or presenting something physical that backs up their bluff.
I definitely wasnt the GM in question that day.
The character that lost an ear basically in order to protect another player who was thought to be a tax man that the townies were of a mind to string up, valiantly said something to the effect of 'settle down folks. he's with me'
Which the townies interepreted as 'oh, so you're a tax man too'
So these townies (most of them part of the local thieves guild since we were in a bad part of town) decided to string him up. When we came out to sort the situation out we were left with the option to buy his freedom or they'd hang him on the spot. We could almost afford it so they took the partial payment and kept his ear to cover the balance.
It's a warhammer gm so 'grim and perilous' blah blah blah. Not really my style especially when you're making him talk instead of rolling a die. He really wanted to roll the die because he knew whatever he actually said would end badly with this particular GM.