Swallowed it?
Did he want it back?
I gave him the option...
What if he said
I don't think I would like the process of recovery... :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me (when filling out Chronicles): How much gold did you get on your day job?
Player: I rolled a 17.
Me: That's nice. How much gold did you get?
Player: However much a 17 gets me.
Me: It's your day job check, dude, not mine. Look it up yourself instead of expecting me to memorize the table.
Maybe the player was trying to avoid looking like they were cheating or misreading the table. If he just said "75" or "100" would you just have nodded and carried on? Or for higher level, "150"?
I defer to the GM whenever something needs verifying. They sign the sheet after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own GM annoyances (things I annoy the GM with):
"Are we underground?"/"Are we in an urban setting?" whenever I'm perceiving. Sometimes, Favoured Terrain doesn't always look like favoured terrain. But I tend to ask all the time. Sorry Snorter.
Going very quiet when my character is about to die and there's nothing I can do about it. I think it guilt trips the GM, and I don't mean to.
Also, as the above dying is happening , frantically looking up random rules and also asking the GM on the exact timing, circumstance, 5'x 5' location and other stuff in order to suggest (but not outright state) that somehow the GM is wrong and my character is fine or "...shouldn't have been there". Again, sorry Snorter.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also make people declare that they're assisting a skill check in advance, and and saying how they're going to do it. Once the primary has rolled, no jumping in and say, "Wait, I'll assist you." Too late.
Because clearly its impossible to add a helpful comment (assisting with Diplomacy) or make a last-minute adjustment (with Craft) or any number of skill assists that could be done after the original roll.
To me this smacks of adversarial GMing which is something I dislike.
|
|
actually BigDTBone, that's exactly the definition of metagaming.
In character, if you want to say, I ran 30', or whatever, that's fine.
If it is something you could see yourself saying in real life, then its not metagaming.
But in real life, while I may be good at say climbing, and terrible at say swimming, I would never realistically have a conversation (except with another gamer nerd, and at that tongue in cheek)where I talked about my numerical bonus in linguistics because I had the equivalent of a 4 year college degree in Arabic from my Army training.
I'd say, I got 4 years worth of language training through the Army in 63 weeks.
I used numbers, but no declaration of, "I have a +12 in linguistics with a bonus of +4 for Ancient Osiriani".
When you take a game mechanic term, and use it as character knowledge, that is metagaming.
I'm making no particular judgement on this level of metagaming mind you.
But lets call a spade, a spade. Lets not prevaricate about this, because some feel this is an acceptable level of metagaming.
I concur. This is the definition of meta-gaming. I also make no judgment on whether its good or bad other than to say it can be both. I will however, say that in a time-crunched environment, which many times is what we have in PFS, this type of meta-gaming is necessary.
I use the GM's fiat a lot. If somebody role-plays a conversation and then rolls the diplomacy check, I give a +2 bonus (unless they hit a hot button topic like telling somebody who hates Pathfinders "I'm with the Pathfinder Lodge..." in which case they get a -2). If they role-play poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they get the -2 (or a -4 if they hit the hot button) but I explain that as rushing through the conversation, sort of "fast-talking". It does save time at the table though and it really runs pretty smoothly.
Also, if a group tells me that they will have the bard do certain checks and others will assist, it tends to make the social stuff feel more like a group effort. I'll ask how they intend to assist and usually get some pretty creative responses, but in the end, they roll, get the totals and I reveal the information.
If they choose to meta-game to set that up, so what?
Andy
EDIT: as I went back and read my post, I want to point out that I am agreeing with Andrew Christian and that might not be totally clear. My take is that this level of meta-gaming is necessary to finish on time in many cases.
|
]
In fairness, one place where people disagree greatly is in how much of the world/rules characters know.
Practically speaking it CAN'T all be reflected in knowledge skills since some characters just don't have the skill points to buy what their character "should" know. And what skill is "know in character what druid archetypes exist and what they look like?" anyway?
There are GMs that make cleric players roll knowledge religion checks to know information about the God the cleric worships, but I digress as this is a ways to annoy your GMs, not ways to annoy your players topic.
|
Me (when filling out Chronicles): How much gold did you get on your day job?
Player: I rolled a 17.
Me: That's nice. How much gold did you get?
Player: However much a 17 gets me.
Me: It's your day job check, dude, not mine. Look it up yourself instead of expecting me to memorize the table.Maybe the player was trying to avoid looking like they were cheating or misreading the table. If he just said "75" or "100" would you just have nodded and carried on? Or for higher level, "150"?
I defer to the GM whenever something needs verifying. They sign the sheet after all.
No, it happens far too frequently for that (otherwise it wouldn't be annoying). To be honest it is partially my fault. I am such a walking rules encyclopedia that some of the players have gotten used to simply asking me rules questions instead of going to the effort to look it up themselves. Normally it wouldn't bother me. Heck, if they ask and I don't know the answer I will often look it up for them just because I want to know the answer too. But when everyone is rushing me to fill out their ACs so they can get lunch before the next slot, then it gets annoying.
|
|
I also make people declare that they're assisting a skill check in advance, and and saying how they're going to do it. Once the primary has rolled, no jumping in and say, "Wait, I'll assist you." Too late.Because clearly its impossible to add a helpful comment (assisting with Diplomacy) or make a last-minute adjustment (with Craft) or any number of skill assists that could be done after the original roll.
To me this smacks of adversarial GMing which is something I dislike.
This is how I see scenarios like this normally play out. The party runs into a situation where a particular skill check is needed and only one person needs to do it. Frequently you have one person that may have a very high number in that particular check so that person takes the lead in dealing with that situation. This usually then turns into a short one-on-one between the DM and the skilled player while the other players lose interest and get distracted. When the skill check is made and a low number is rolled, suddenly everyone shows interest again and tries to jump in to fix the bad roll with Aid Another.
To a certain degree this makes sense. If you have a skilled person who isn't likely to fail at a skill you trust them to succeed. So why waste time rolling Aid Another when it is likely pointless. From a DM perspective, however, it is annoying because it is an indication that the other players weren't really paying attention.
Ironically, if nobody is particularly good at the skill in question, everyone is usually paying more attention because they expect to actually need to use Aid Another and in these cases, they usually state they are doing it before the primary die roll. It's only when they don't expect the primary to fail that they end up jumping in with cries of "I Aid!" after the fact.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?In a word? yes.
Oddly enough that is often all a GM requires to let it slide.lets say you are a ranger...
Which is more immersive In character?
I ask "what level are you?"
I ask "how much experience as a tracker/woodsman do you have?"and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"
This idea baffles me, considering I've been a member of real-world organizations that actually use the word "level" and a number to describe your degree of certified experience.
If I can be a Level 3 judge for M:tG in real life, why is it immersion-breaking for my PC to be a level 3 ranger?
|
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?In a word? yes.
Oddly enough that is often all a GM requires to let it slide.lets say you are a ranger...
Which is more immersive In character?
I ask "what level are you?"
I ask "how much experience as a tracker/woodsman do you have?"and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"This idea baffles me, considering I've been a member of real-world organizations that actually use the word "level" and a number to describe your degree of certified experience.
If I can be a Level 3 judge for M:tG in real life, why is it immersion-breaking for my PC to be a level 3 ranger?
I think the best real-world analogy would be martial arts. They use a color-coded belt system to determine how skilled/trained you are in that art. How is that any different than a number system?
BTW, I'm on your side jiggy. Just throwing this out there.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?In a word? yes.
Oddly enough that is often all a GM requires to let it slide.lets say you are a ranger...
Which is more immersive In character?
I ask "what level are you?"
I ask "how much experience as a tracker/woodsman do you have?"and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"This idea baffles me, considering I've been a member of real-world organizations that actually use the word "level" and a number to describe your degree of certified experience.
If I can be a Level 3 judge for M:tG in real life, why is it immersion-breaking for my PC to be a level 3 ranger?
I think the best real-world analogy would be martial arts. They use a color-coded belt system to determine how skilled/trained you are in that art. How is that any different than a number system?
BTW, I'm on your side jiggy. Just throwing this out there.
Exactly.
My employer has pay "grades".I'm a member of the M:tG judging system, which gives me a "level".
My education is referenced with a "degree".
The military has "ranks".
State jobs (at least in some states) are numbered (i.e., "Data Entry 1", "Data Entry 2", etc).
GMing in PFS has "stars".
These are all terms that rank someone's capabilities/experience into standardized units; why are some terms more or less "immersive" than others?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
vegeta what does the scanner say about his power level
|
|
OK, you hit a "hot button" for me on this one.
So we penalize someone for being shy, or tired, or young (and shy), or rushed, or ...o many other things... because they do not play the game the way we think they should.Do we do the same thing for someone who just rolls his climb skill checks? or his swim? Does he have to say "I'm doing a 'dog paddle' over to the wall and try to climb out... ah... using both hands to boost me out of the water and the wall as leverage."
How about in combat? should we penalize someone for just rolling the attack - without stating HOW they are attacking?
Diplomacy is just another skill check - to say "If they role-play poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they get the -2" would be like saying: "If they dance poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to show me some dance steps they use, they get the -2..."
No, I only do this for the social skills. Nobody has ever complained. I explain the way I run this and everyone seems cool with it. I'd listen if somebody objected.
I think you're reading a much harsher tone into what I'm saying. What I'm doing is giving people who want to role-play, a chance to do just that. I give them an incentive of +2 if you're good, 0 if not. If you'd like to just rush through it and roll without saying anything, you take a -2 for speed. Everybody that I've played with seems to like it. Or at least nobody hates it as much as you do.
Break it down like this:
Player A: "Honored Sir, the blade you keep in your possession was once used by a Taldan Legionnaire to repel the foul invaders from foreign lands. Now, as demons ravage the north at the Worldwound, would not the Taldan Legions of old have brought the formidable wrath of the Empire down on her enemies? Would it not be a better fate for this sword to go to that fight and allow the warriors of this age a glimpse into the might of Taldan of old? Would it not rekindle the spirits of our young to return us to our place of preeminence? I rolled a 13, with my bonus that's a..." Gets a +2.
Player B: "My character tells the old man that we need the sword to fight the demons at the Worldwound. I rolled a 13, with my bonus tha's a..." Gets a +0.
Player C: "I rolled a 13, with my bonus that's a..." gets a -2.
Andy
And, I play with players who are not always comfortable playing social stuff. They either let other players do it or try. Similar to the more tactical parts of the game, they get better with experience. I play with other players who hate the social stuff and get ticked off when those situations come up. Even they like how I run things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Diplomacy is just another skill check - to say "If they role-play poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they get the -2" would be like saying: "If they dance poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to show me some dance steps they use, they get the -2..."No, I only do this for the social skills. Nobody has ever complained. I explain the way I run this and everyone seems cool with it. I'd listen if somebody objected.
I think you're reading a much harsher tone into what I'm saying. What I'm doing is giving people who want to role-play, a chance to do just that. I give them an incentive of +2 if you're good, 0 if not. If you'd like to just rush through it and roll without saying anything, you take a -2 for speed. Everybody that I've played with seems to like it. Or at least nobody hates it as much as you do.
Of course, I take into account the skill level or age, etc. of the players involved. I give new players lengthier explanations than I give to experienced players. I explain potential outcomes for success and failure to new players in an effort to teach as I warrant most of the people here do.
We're talking about things that annoy GM's here. I don't believe anyone here has said they are annoyed by new players or young players who need extra help or coaching for whatever reason. We're talking experienced players here.
Regardless, we allow people to take actions that can bolster or penalize their skill checks all of the time. We use the GM fiat to do this. +2, 0 or -2 whenever it comes up. Just like any other skill check.
Andy
Repeating an earlier post and paraphrasing somewhat...
To impose a penility on the first guy... and have him fail because his 26 becomes a 24...
why are we doing that? Because we don't like the way he plays?
I don't know about imposing a penalty but that's definitely eye roll worthy. Its a roll playing game, and that's not doing it in either sense of the word.
|
|
Repeating an earlier post and paraphrasing somewhat...
If a player says:
"I take 10 on (insert skill here) check and get a 26..."
he could just as easily say...
"Wow! I haven't seen one of these outside of School! An Armstrong and Thornberry Mark IV! these are tough! Good thing I have my number four sprocket"-pulling a expanding backscratcher from his gaming pouch-"it's just the thing..." expanding it to 18" long "...for this job!" change of voice to not be In Character "I take ten and with my Masterwork tool for this skill get a 26".Both players are having fun... and that's what it's all about right?
To impose a penility on the first guy... and have him fail because his 26 becomes a 24...
why are we doing that? Because we don't like the way he plays?
Why would you penalize the first guy?
Why would the second guy get a bonus?
How are these actions affecting disable device?
Now if a character put grease on a door's hinges to open it quietly, I would give him a +2 bonus to the stealth check. No grease gets a 0. Trying to do it quickly and quietly probably gets a -2. Note the action (putting grease on a hinge) is germane to the action (opening the door quietly) a use of the stealth skill. As would be: talking to somebody is germane to the diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills.
Trying to do things quickly is harder. I give a -2 for that unless a stated penalty is present.
Andy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks here are having a difficult time with the idea of sarcastic analogy.
Of course you shouldn't give someone a penalty for saying "I use disable device" and similarly you should not give someone a penalty for saying "I use diplomacy"
If you want to encourage role play in that fashion then do so by role playing yourself. Ask questions in character, describe the actions of other NPCs. People who are upto interacting with you in that fashion will do so.
Side note: I find the idea that "bad role play" gets a +0, while "good role play" gets a +2 to be far more troubling than -2 for no role play.
Trying to do things quickly is harder. I give a -2 for that unless a stated penalty is present.
I don't understand this - the character is not trying to do things more quickly (otherwise they would need to use some rules for accelerated skill usage). The player is trying to gloss over details and not take as much time out of game - that does not mean that the character is acting more quickly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has always struck me that most of the time diplomacy role-playing is done completely backwards.
The numbers and the dice rolling are the mechanics of the results and laws of the game - and how people interact with the game is based on the results of those numbers.
Not with diplomacy (or bluff to a lesser extent)
If I rolled a 4 on diplomacy, shouldn't I then roleplay being undiplomatic? or bluffing poorly?
If a rolled a 21, shouldn't I roleplay being more effective?
Why is it people are expecting the good or bad argument before the roll - shouldn't how good or bad the roll tell us how to roleplay the effects.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Trying to do things quickly is harder. I give a -2 for that unless a stated penalty is present.I don't understand this - the character is not trying to do things more quickly (otherwise they would need to use some rules for accelerated skill usage). The player is trying to gloss over details and not take as much time out of game - that does not mean that the character is acting more quickly.
This.
The fact that I don't act out the dialogue with the NPC doesn't mean my PC is rushing any more than the fact that I don't physically pantomime the opening of the door would mean that my PC is opening it quickly/hurriedly.
Some folks here are having a difficult time with the idea of sarcastic analogy.
Of course you shouldn't give someone a penalty for saying "I use disable device" and similarly you should not give someone a penalty for saying "I use diplomacy"
If you want to encourage role play in that fashion then do so by role playing yourself. Ask questions in character, describe the actions of other NPCs. People who are upto interacting with you in that fashion will do so.
Side note: I find the idea that "bad role play" gets a +0, while "good role play" gets a +2 to be far more troubling than -2 for no role play.
Personally I use the concept of:
No RP - +0"bad" RP (hey, they tried) - +1 (or more)
"Good" RP (geeze is this guy an actor?) - +2 (or more)
Rolling first prevents you from using the argument presented as a circumstance bonus or penalty to the Diplomacy roll. On the other hand, presenting the argument first helps the DM decide which skill is applicable -- Diplomacy with an honest appeal, Bluff with a lie that is obvious to the DM and players (but not perhaps to the NPC), or Intimidate if the player is threatening the NPC. At the very least you would want to establish what the player is trying to do before he makes any skill rolls.
|
|
I also make people declare that they're assisting a skill check in advance, and and saying how they're going to do it. Once the primary has rolled, no jumping in and say, "Wait, I'll assist you." Too late.Because clearly its impossible to add a helpful comment (assisting with Diplomacy) or make a last-minute adjustment (with Craft) or any number of skill assists that could be done after the original roll.
To me this smacks of adversarial GMing which is something I dislike.
The problem is with players who decide to aid the high roll but roll their own check with the low roll.
So I try and make sure that everybody knows who is doing what before the dice hit the table.
It has always struck me that most of the time diplomacy role-playing is done completely backwards.
The numbers and the dice rolling are the mechanics of the results and laws of the game - and how people interact with the game is based on the results of those numbers.
This is why some people do make the dice roll first first before they start the role playing (which ticks off the people who want to RP and then do the dice rolls)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has always struck me that most of the time diplomacy role-playing is done completely backwards.
The numbers and the dice rolling are the mechanics of the results and laws of the game - and how people interact with the game is based on the results of those numbers.
Have you ever had to prepare for an important conversation with someone, and in doing so held the discussion several times in your head? In my head, they always go great. But then you either nail it or totally screw it up when you actually start talking?
I view the "Tell me what your character says" explanation as the in-your-head, perfect world conversation detailing what you want to say, and the dice-rolling part as the "Let's see how it actually comes out of your mouth" moment.
|
|
Trying to do things quickly is harder. I give a -2 for that unless a stated penalty is present.I don't understand this - the character is not trying to do things more quickly (otherwise they would need to use some rules for accelerated skill usage). The player is trying to gloss over details and not take as much time out of game - that does not mean that the character is acting more quickly.This.
The fact that I don't act out the dialogue with the NPC doesn't mean my PC is rushing any more than the fact that I don't physically pantomime the opening of the door would mean that my PC is opening it quickly/hurriedly.
This part is always explained first when I go over the ground rules at the start of the scenario. So, yes, saying "I'm rolling diplomacy" is established as precisely that...rushing through it. I would listen to an argument against this, but haven't heard one at the table yet. The players seem to think its OK or at least no big deal. And keep in mind, I consider the minimum effort to be, "My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z". That's not really a very high hurdle is it?
If you ever play at my table, I'll listen to your point of view.
Andy
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would listen to an argument against this, but haven't heard one at the table yet. The players seem to think its OK or at least no big deal.
Or they're afraid to challenge the guy who started the game by (perhaps to their ears) telling them how they'd better behave?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
I also make people declare that they're assisting a skill check in advance, and and saying how they're going to do it. Once the primary has rolled, no jumping in and say, "Wait, I'll assist you." Too late.Because clearly its impossible to add a helpful comment (assisting with Diplomacy) or make a last-minute adjustment (with Craft) or any number of skill assists that could be done after the original roll.
To me this smacks of adversarial GMing which is something I dislike.
The problem is with players who decide to aid the high roll but roll their own check with the low roll.
So I try and make sure that everybody knows who is doing what before the dice hit the table.
That's a little different. People definitely need to announce whether they are aiding (and who) before they roll their own dice. I just don't think that they should have to say who they are aiding before the other players roll their dice.
|
|
I would listen to an argument against this, but haven't heard one at the table yet. The players seem to think its OK or at least no big deal.Or they're afraid to challenge the guy who started the game by (perhaps to their ears) telling them how they'd better behave?
If you say so.
Andy
Sorry, edited for more content. I hit submit too soon!
Players argue with me all the time. This should stack. My elemental can do this. You gain the grappled condition from my stirge. On and on. Why would they not argue this obvious yoke that I throwing on them about diplomacy/bluff/intimidate?
I don't believe I broke their individual and collective wills with my opening comments. Nope. I'm going with the "it's no problem" school of thought.
Andy
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable.
|
An example of Meta-gaming...maybe?: I saw this in a game not to long ago, a group of experienced players, who know as players that they need to hit skeletons with blunt weapons NOT USING blunt weapons because no one at the table had Knowledge Religion - so... a bunch of players felt constrained to try to prevent "meta-gaming"... They knew that the monsters weren't taking full damage, but restricted their PCs, because they knew what to do (as players)- so they didn't do it (as PCs). The player "meta" knowledge constrained thier PCs actions ... If the monster had been something called a "Green Wiglet" and they noticed it wasn't takeing full damage they would have switched to different/back up weapons to try to find the DR type. It would have been a "puzzle" they would have enjoyed solving! (I can almost hear the table talk now..."Not Silver Blunt! switching to a Magic Slashing! You got that oil applied yet? Think it might be DR/Good then?")
Heck, these were not low level PCs! They all had blunt weapons on them (as well as magic, etc.)! they just were afread to appear to be Meta-gaming....
Regarding your anecdotal example of the battle with the skeletons, I must ask: how many times have you encountered this happening versus how many times you've seen players/parties using out of character 'gamer knowledge' that their character does not possess (due to lack of ranks in a knowledge skill or similar issue)?
My sampling (not just in PFS, but also in organized play campaigns using that 'other system') shows me I've encountered the former once, while encountering the other at least every three tables I've sat at.
This said, when I'm GMing, I usually allow characters a wisdom check to realize that the weapon/ability they are using is doing less damage to the creature than seems 'normal'.
|
|
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable.
Sorry about that, Jiggy. I think you responded before I finished editing my post. Carry on.
Andy
|
|
This is why some people do make the dice roll first first before they start the role playing (which ticks off the people who want to RP and then do the dice rolls)It has always struck me that most of the time diplomacy role-playing is done completely backwards.
The numbers and the dice rolling are the mechanics of the results and laws of the game - and how people interact with the game is based on the results of those numbers.
Wow! I feel foolish that I've never thought of this (I like to play face characters). I think I'm going to start rolling the diplomacy check (not announcing the result right away), then trying to roleplay how well I think I did! Thanks for the tip, BNW!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This said, when I'm GMing, I usually allow characters a wisdom check to realize that the weapon/ability they are using is doing less damage to the creature than seems 'normal'.
Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work.
If there was supposed to be a check, that would have been the place to mention it.
Characters automatically notice when damage is being reduced, they just don't necessarily know what they need to overcome it.
|
|
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable.
I'm not asking for play acting. The minimum I expect is:
"My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z"
That's really a burden?
Andy
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable.I'm not asking for play acting. The minimum I expect is:
"My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z"That's really a burden?
Andy
No, but it's also not what I thought counted for avoiding the -2.
So what's an example of earning that -2 that you were talking about?
|
|
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable.I'm not asking for play acting. The minimum I expect is:
"My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z"That's really a burden?
Andy
No, but it's also not what I thought counted for avoiding the -2.
So what's an example of earning that -2 that you were talking about?
I rolled a 13 diplomacy with my bonus that's a "whatever". Do I get "whatever" to happen?
Dang it! I did it again. Edited for more content!
I do this because being so vague as to not mention the content of the conversation allows the player to artificially avoid any potential pitfalls in the conversation. For instance "mentioning his dead wife gets a -4 on this and any future checks".
Andy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?In a word? yes.
Oddly enough that is often all a GM requires to let it slide.lets say you are a ranger...
Which is more immersive In character?
I ask "what level are you?"
I ask "how much experience as a tracker/woodsman do you have?"and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"This idea baffles me, considering I've been a member of real-world organizations that actually use the word "level" and a number to describe your degree of certified experience.
If I can be a Level 3 judge for M:tG in real life, why is it immersion-breaking for my PC to be a level 3 ranger?
I think the best real-world analogy would be martial arts. They use a color-coded belt system to determine how skilled/trained you are in that art. How is that any different than a number system?
BTW, I'm on your side jiggy. Just throwing this out there.
Exactly.
My employer has pay "grades".
I'm a member of the M:tG judging system, which gives me a "level".
My education is referenced with a "degree".
The military has "ranks".
State jobs (at least in some states) are numbered (i.e., "Data Entry 1", "Data Entry 2", etc).
GMing in PFS has "stars".These are all terms that rank someone's capabilities/experience into standardized units; why are some terms more or less "immersive" than others?
The thing is everything u listed were dealt with organizations. In pfs i dont see a problem hell even in homebrew games i dont either but how does one say they are whatever lvl and not be part of an organization? Its almost like the civilians levels. How do u tell someones a lvl 1 and someones a level 7 when they have the same job and age?
Me i personally told my group it was ok because in the game world class levels were known like birthdays are known. We the person know what age we are by the amount of birthdays whereas the classes know what level they are due to their experience. Its something ingrain in the population just like how age is determined by birthdays is.|
|
This said, when I'm GMing, I usually allow characters a wisdom check to realize that the weapon/ability they are using is doing less damage to the creature than seems 'normal'.Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work.If there was supposed to be a check, that would have been the place to mention it.
Characters automatically notice when damage is being reduced, they just don't necessarily know what they need to overcome it.
Thanks, I did not know that! So I'm going to let them know that all their damage didnt get through all the time now.