"I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 551 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
The Exchange

talbanus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dhjika wrote:

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)
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!

we've got a thread for that...

Go to Role-Playing-the-Roll.

Liberty's Edge

nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
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:

andy McDonald 623 wrote:
"My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z"

That's really a burden?

Andy

so my wife might be ok when she reads from the back of her table tent - "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to convense (insert NPC here) to (insert what the group needs from the NPC here)." - but you know what? we're not likely to get that far.

You see, once you start the game by stating that you will be watching diplomacy skill checks she is apt not to play her diplomatic PCs - or if she does, then just not doing any checks. (Due to tramatic experiences in the past with judges who want the player to "do diplomacy checks right").

<frowns> That sucks for you and your wife, Nosig. I grew up a shy kid and I think that table top roleplaying helped me partially 'overcome' my shyness. Actually, I hate to use that phrase, as it makes it sound like there's something wrong with being shy, which I don't believe is true. But I digress.

Because I like table top roleplaying and I used to be very shy (can still be at times with and people and in situations I'm not familiar with), when I GM I try my best to draw new and/or shy players into the adventure through their character, make them feel they are on an adventure, and that their choices, made through their character, matter. I'd love to run a table for you and your wife sometime. Jiggy and his significant other, too.

Dark Archive

Andy, your approach seems very reasonable, and it's more than a little ironic that people are argueing that your way is wrong because everyone should be able to have fun in their own way.

Role playing is a part of the game as much as rolling dice. While I can completely sympathize with shy people who might not be completely comfortable roleplaying, I don't find that a legitimate reason not to encourage people to push their comfort zone a little. Tabletop gaming and roleplaying played an important part in being able to overcome my own shyness, and now that part of the game is what I have the most fun doing. If I hadn't received encouragement to go a little outside my comfort zone, it would have been much harder to grow as a person that way.

Now it's clearly possible for GMs to be jerks in these situation, and I don't think anyone is really advocating trying to force someone into doing something they are completely uncomfortable doing. But there is a BIG difference between that and providing some minor mechanical incentives and disincentives on some skill rolls. Andy's posts provided some clear examples of what he was talking about(and I'm suprised you missed them, Jiggy, because they were very blatently with even a quick read of his post about it).

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


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

Bolding mine. This is almost funny. We are talking about shy players (I am at least) - players it is hard to get to say anything - to get them to interact and overcome thier "speaking in public" issues, and the reason we have a penality is to punish those persons who might be gaming the system? what? the guys gaming the system will be the ones (like me!) who are using the flowery "Diplomat speach"! Not avoiding "the content of the conversation"!

Again, you're talking about one instance of a player you know (your wife no less). The rest of the thread is talking about players who annoy GM's and how they do it. No, if somebody tells me or it is obvious that they have an impediment of any kind, I'll work with them. New player, shy player, whatever. I'm talking about experienced players who may (or may not) be "gaming the system" so to speak, I have a minimum requirement.

So, to regurgitate: for experienced players, I expect the minimum. For special circumstances, I'll work case by case.

I'm still a little baffled here as nobody on the thread has said the have a problem with shy players acting shy.

Andy

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
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:

andy McDonald 623 wrote:
"My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z"

That's really a burden?

Andy

so my wife might be ok when she reads from the back of her table tent - "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to convense (insert NPC here) to (insert what the group needs from the NPC here)." - but you know what? we're not likely to get that far.

You see, once you start the game by stating that you will be watching diplomacy skill checks she is apt not to play her diplomatic PCs - or if she does, then just not doing any checks. (Due to tramatic experiences in the past with judges who want the player to "do diplomacy checks right").

I can't really comment on this as I trust your judgment on how she would respond. Knowing this from you, though, I'd approach carefully. From the GM's chair though, you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill. I'm not adding that, that's part of the mechanic.

And, my approach is this: "Two problem areas that have cropped up before are: ruling on social skill checks and aiding others on skill checks. Here's how I handle those...Any different ideas?"

Andy

Bolding mine...

"...you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill...." this is not true.
Example given here, in this thread.

It is no more needed than we need to know what a character is going to do to disable a device, or climb a wall, or Linguistics Old Osiriani... or any other skill. All can be RPed to the max by someone like us (me anyway - yeah I'm bragging a little).

The player needs to say what skill he is using and what outcome he wants ... simple. The judge defines (within the rules) the DC... and sets circumstance bonuses and penalities. You might not have noticed it, but what you were discribing above appears to be setting a penality to punish the Player for not playing the way you want them to...

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


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

Bolding mine. This is almost funny. We are talking about shy players (I am at least) - players it is hard to get to say anything - to get them to interact and overcome thier "speaking in public" issues, and the reason we have a penality is to punish those persons who might be gaming the system? what? the guys gaming the system will be the ones (like me!) who are using the flowery "Diplomat speach"! Not avoiding "the content of the conversation"!

Again, you're talking about one instance of a player you know (your wife no less). The rest of the thread is talking about players who annoy GM's and how they do it. No, if somebody tells me or it is obvious that they have an impediment of any kind, I'll work with them. New player, shy player, whatever. I'm talking about experienced players who may (or may not) be "gaming the system" so to speak, I have a minimum requirement.

So, to regurgitate: for experienced players, I expect the minimum. For special circumstances, I'll work case by case.

I'm still a little baffled here as nobody on the thread has said the have a problem with shy players acting shy.

Andy

please consider the above with attack rolls replaceing diplomacy skill checks...

"...for experienced players, I expect the minimum...."
"... if you just roll your attack, and don't discribe what you are doing, I will impose a -2 penality to your attack."

...but it's ok, I only do it to the experienced players...

????


Many scenarios do give either bonuses, penalties, or shifts in attitudes depending on what the person does or doesn';t say.

Liberty's Edge

Redneckdevil wrote:


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.

Oh, diety-of-your choice, please, NO! Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're saying is that player characters and non-player characters automatically know (in-character) the (game mechanic) level of one another? Like it's an MMO and they see the little bubble/block with a number in it above one another's head? Please tell me this isn't what you mean.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Many scenarios do give either bonuses, penalties, or shifts in attitudes depending on what the person does or doesn';t say.

Then if the player "doesn't say" the GM can apply the bonuses, penalties, and attitude shifts based on "doesn't say."

This is completely acceptable. Applying a general circumstance bonus beyond that isn't.

The Exchange

talbanus wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:


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.

Oh, diety-of-your choice, please, NO! Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're saying is that player characters and non-player characters automatically know (in-character) the (game mechanic) level of one another? Like it's an MMO and they see the little bubble/block with a number in it above one another's head? Please tell me this isn't what you mean.

I think he is saying it's like your age.

you know your age, and someone can maybe guess it... sometimes.

but mostly you know if someone is real young or real old just by looking at them.

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:


Bolding mine...
"...you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill...." this is not true.
Example given here, in this thread.

It is no more needed than we need to know what a character is going to do to disable a device, or climb a wall, or...

I just ran a scenario

:
the hellknight's feast where the party must influence a number of guests at a banquet using various forms of diplomacy and knowledge. They can gain information using other knowledge skills so that they know what to say and more importantly, what not to say. It was necessary in my judgment to have the players tell me what they said.

So, yes, I do need to know what you're saying to whomever and what you hope to achieve.

I think I said this only applies to the social skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate.

And yes, I treat experienced players different from newbies.

Andy

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


please consider the above with attack rolls replaceing diplomacy skill checks...

"I attack using Diplomacy. I roll a 12. I have a base Diplomacy score +8, I outrank him socially so I get a +1 social height advantage. Also, since I have Improved Verbal Grapple I negate any bonuses he may have for using Close Minded and I don't provoke a Rebuttal of Opportunity. Does a 21 hit his Social Armor Class?"


andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:


Bolding mine...
"...you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill...." this is not true.
Example given here, in this thread.

It is no more needed than we need to know what a character is going to do to disable a device, or climb a wall, or...

I just ran a scenario ** spoiler omitted **

So, yes, I do need to know what you're saying to whomever and what you hope to achieve.

I think I said this only applies to the social skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate.

And yes, I treat experienced players different from newbies.

Andy

DM: "With your knowledge checks you know it would be a good idea to include information x and not mention information y when you make your diplomacy check"

PLAYER: "ok, I do that."

Liberty's Edge

nosig wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:


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.

Oh, diety-of-your choice, please, NO! Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're saying is that player characters and non-player characters automatically know (in-character) the (game mechanic) level of one another? Like it's an MMO and they see the little bubble/block with a number in it above one another's head? Please tell me this isn't what you mean.

I think he is saying it's like your age.

you know your age, and someone can maybe guess it... sometimes.

but mostly you know if someone is real young or real old just by looking at them.

Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:


Bolding mine...
"...you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill...." this is not true.
Example given here, in this thread.

It is no more needed than we need to know what a character is going to do to disable a device, or climb a wall, or...

I just ran a scenario ** spoiler omitted **

So, yes, I do need to know what you're saying to whomever and what you hope to achieve.

I think I said this only applies to the social skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate.

And yes, I treat experienced players different from newbies.

Andy

Andy, there are always circumstances in selected scenarios where what the player says effects the outcome, and not just social skills. This does not mean that the special rule for a selected scenario applies in the entire game.

It is possible to have a scenario where if the PCs speak Halit they get a +5 on all social interactions with the natives. This does not mean that in the scenario you mentioned above that my PC will get a +5 in diplomacy because he speaks Halit.

If the scenario says: "the players have to remove thier weapons before being allowed on the ship" it doesn't mean that all weapons are removed before boarding all ships in every scenario.

Special scenario rules apply in each scenario. When able - please brief the players about them so they can help watch for them too.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
nosig wrote:


please consider the above with attack rolls replaceing diplomacy skill checks...

"I attack using Diplomacy. I roll a 12. I have a base Diplomacy score +8, I outrank him socially so I get a +1 social height advantage. Also, since I have Improved Verbal Grapple I negate any bonuses he may have for using Close Minded and I don't provoke a Rebuttal of Opportunity. Does a 21 hit his Social Armor Class?"

I wasn't sure whether to laugh or to cry, Bill. I wanted to laugh at the shear epic absurdity/irony of your post. I wanted to cry at the thought that some might actual want us to conduct social skill checks with such a mechanic.

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:

DM: "With your knowledge checks you know it would be a good idea to include information x and not mention information y when you make your diplomacy check"

PLAYER: "ok, I do that."

Or:

DM: "With your knowledge checks you know it would be a good idea to include information x and not mention information y when you make your diplomacy check"

PLAYER: "OK, I'm using diplomacy on X by saying Y in hopes that she'll do Z"

These are so very different.

Andy

And just so you know, I'd accept your example as meeting the requirement as long as you told me the desired outcome.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
talbanus wrote:
I wasn't sure whether to laugh or to cry, Bill. I wanted to laugh at the shear epic absurdity/irony of your post. I wanted to cry at the thought that some might actual want us to conduct social skill checks with such a mechanic.

Bill, please don't break talbanus, I need to have someone to actually roleplay at my PFS tables...

The Exchange

BigDTBone wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:


Bolding mine...
"...you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill...." this is not true.
Example given here, in this thread.

It is no more needed than we need to know what a character is going to do to disable a device, or climb a wall, or...

I just ran a scenario ** spoiler omitted **

So, yes, I do need to know what you're saying to whomever and what you hope to achieve.

I think I said this only applies to the social skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate.

And yes, I treat experienced players different from newbies.

Andy

DM: "With your knowledge checks you know it would be a good idea to include information x and not mention information y when you make your diplomacy check"

PLAYER: "ok, I do that."

or even...

Judge: "with your ability (CHA) and training in social skills (Ranks), you are able to practice a code of behavior that delineates expectations for social behavior according to contemporary conventional norms within the society, social class, and group that you currently find yourself."

Player: "ah... yeah, what you said"

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


Andy, there are always circumstances in selected scenarios where what the player says effects the outcome, and not just social skills. This does not mean that the special rule for a selected scenario applies in the entire game.

It is possible to have a scenario where if the PCs speak Halit they get a +5 on all social interactions with the natives. This does not mean that in the scenario you mentioned above that my PC will get a +5 in diplomacy because he speaks Halit.

If the scenario says: "the players have to remove thier weapons before being allowed on the ship" it doesn't mean that all weapons are removed before boarding all ships in every scenario.

Special scenario rules apply in each scenario. When able - please brief the players about them so they can help watch for them too.

All I'm saying is that a player needs to tell a GM what they're trying to do.

Let's use your example of combat: I'm using my long sword to stab the goblin. Albeit, in this case the unspoken outcome is fairly obvious: so as to kill him.

Let's use your example of picking a lock: I'm picking the lock on the chest.

Let's use my example of diplomacy: I'm using diplomacy to convince the old man we need his sword to fight demons in the worldwound.

If somebody just rolls a d20 in combat, I as GM, need to know who they swung at, what the swung and actually, in some cases if they wanted to do lethal or non-lethal.

If somebody picks a lock they don't need to say they're using disable device because it's the only thing the can use. I do need to know "the lock on the chest" part.

If somebody wants to use a social skill, it's a lot more open ended. There could be different modifiers for the NPC, the skill itself or the desired outcome. Hence, as GM I need to know: which skill, who you're taking to, what you're saying and what you hope to achieve.

I never said any of the other stuff so I will hold my tongue.

Andy

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
talbanus wrote:
nosig wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:


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.

Oh, diety-of-your choice, please, NO! Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're saying is that player characters and non-player characters automatically know (in-character) the (game mechanic) level of one another? Like it's an MMO and they see the little bubble/block with a number in it above one another's head? Please tell me this isn't what you mean.

I think he is saying it's like your age.

you know your age, and someone can maybe guess it... sometimes.

but mostly you know if someone is real young or real old just by looking at them.

Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I am reminded of the tale of 2 Samurai who both come to opposite ends of a narrow foot bridge at the same time. It would have been customary for the lesser of the two samurai to yield crossing to the better. If neither agreed who was the better, then a duel would be fought. In this case, the 2 Samurai were so skilled they were able to size up their opponent just by staring at them. Having determined they were both of equal skill, they both turned around and went back the way they came rather than both dying in a duel.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

I try to GM by a very simple rule: out-of-character actions have no in-game effects.

That means that saying "Diplomacy roll: 15 on the die, +6 equals 21" is mechanically every bit as good as the most brilliant role-playing exposition of how you're going to persuade the stall-holder to invite you to the private auction that evening.

Sure, I'd like you to role-play the encounter: it makes for a richer experience (hopefully for everybody at the table). But this is a fantasy game, and players are not their characters. I'd no more insist that you have to play out the social skills of your character than I would insist that you had to take actual physical damage should your character get wounded in combat.


talbanus wrote:
nosig wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Oh, diety-of-your choice, please, NO! Unless I'm misunderstanding, what you're saying is that player characters and non-player characters automatically know (in-character) the (game mechanic) level of one another? Like it's an MMO and they see the little bubble/block with a number in it above one another's head? Please tell me this isn't what you mean.

I think he is saying it's like your age.

you know your age, and someone can maybe guess it... sometimes.

but mostly you know if someone is real young or real old just by looking at them.

Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I dunno. There's a well-established genre trope of being able to tell roughly how dangerous someone is in a fight just by how they move and how they carry themselves. Whether it's a real thing or not, I don't know, but there's definitely precedent outside of little bubbles with numbers in them.

I've been reading REH lately and that kind of thing is all over it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

talbanus wrote:
Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I think whoever-it-was-in-that-quote-chain wasn't necessarily saying you could know someone's level by looking at them, just that their level was an actual thing in-character.

Imagine:
Real-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Black belt." And the mugger knows what that means.

Game-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Tenth level." And the mugger knows what that means.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Francis wrote:
I'd no more insist that you have to play out the social skills of your character than I would insist that you had to take actual physical damage should your character get wounded in combat.

Wait... this isn't the norm?

I feel lied to.

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:


Andy, there are always circumstances in selected scenarios where what the player says effects the outcome, and not just social skills. This does not mean that the special rule for a selected scenario applies in the entire game.

It is possible to have a scenario where if the PCs speak Halit they get a +5 on all social interactions with the natives. This does not mean that in the scenario you mentioned above that my PC will get a +5 in diplomacy because he speaks Halit.

If the scenario says: "the players have to remove thier weapons before being allowed on the ship" it doesn't mean that all weapons are removed before boarding all ships in every scenario.

Special scenario rules apply in each scenario. When able - please brief the players about them so they can help watch for them too.

All I'm saying is that a player needs to tell a GM what they're trying to do.

Let's use your example of combat: I'm using my long sword to stab the goblin. Albeit, in this case the unspoken outcome is fairly obvious: so as to kill him.

Let's use your example of picking a lock: I'm picking the lock on the chest.

Let's use my example of diplomacy: I'm using diplomacy to convince the old man we need his sword to fight demons in the worldwound.

If somebody just rolls a d20 in combat, I as GM, need to know who they swung at, what the swung and actually, in some cases if they wanted to do lethal or non-lethal.

If somebody picks a lock they don't need to say they're using disable device because it's the only thing the can use. I do need to know "the lock on the chest" part.

If somebody wants to use a social skill, it's a lot more open ended. There could be different modifiers for the NPC, the skill itself or the desired outcome. Hence, as GM I need to know: which skill, who you're taking to, what you're saying and what you hope to achieve.

I never said any of the other stuff so I will hold my tongue.

Andy

(bolding mine)

from your post above - ": I'm using diplomacy to convince the old man we need his sword to fight demons in the worldwound."

that's really all you need.
(the PC) using (skill) to (create outcome or condition).

It works the same for all skills - and even attacks.

Placing additional restrictions on it because it is one skill over another is not needed (unless called for by special circumstances).

It would be like a judge placing additional restrictions on any skill, like saying you get a -2 to yy skill because you failed to do XX (action the judge feels you should do). Like saying, "If you don't play the way I think you should, you suffer a -2 penality".

Because at it's core, the social skill checks are just SKILLS. Just like all the others. They mechanicly work the same.

Is it possible to Role Play them up? SURE! that's what this game is about (for many people like me)!

But it is possible to Role Play almost all the parts of this game - yes even combat. This is why I can turn a 3 hour game into a 5 hour Role Playing game - even if there is zero social encounters in the game.

Can we Role Play the VC briefing? do it all the time right? how many social skill rolls there? Oh - yeah, I forgot the Gather Information roll... wait, should we give a -2 to that check then? I mean, unless the player states how they are doing it?
(gaming the system) "I do the Gather Information roll by going back to bed and sleeping an extra 3 hours... my skill check is a 25 with a Take 10 and I think I avoided the -2"
(shy Player): "I have a 26 with a take 10"
Sorry shy guy, that nets you the -2 because you didn't give me anything to work with... "gaming the system" has a goofy methiod, but failed to hit anything listed as a penality, so he had the high roll.

derailing even more - not on the same track at all:

Player: "my PC will use Diplomacy to get the NPC to be friendly"
Judge: "Expand on that or I will penalize you a -2 on your check"
Player: "ah..." glances around at under age players at the table "...you know...wink-wink"
Judge: "yeah! moving on"
(half an hour later)
Underage player: "my PC will use Diplomacy to get the NPC to be friendly"
Judge: "ah...."

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I think whoever-it-was-in-that-quote-chain wasn't necessarily saying you could know someone's level by looking at them, just that their level was an actual thing in-character.

Imagine:
Real-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Black belt." And the mugger knows what that means.

Game-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Tenth level." And the mugger knows what that means.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

tongue-in-cheek

What I want to know is what kind of black belt would let a mugger that just attacked them step back, keep standing, or speak?

That mugger might have a gun or knife, or his buddies might step out behind you. Not taking that mugger out as efficiently as possible would be a pretty non-black belt kind of mistake to make.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Francis wrote:


I try to GM by a very simple rule: out-of-character actions have no in-game effects.

That means that saying "Diplomacy roll: 15 on the die, +6 equals 21" is mechanically every bit as good as the most brilliant role-playing exposition of how you're going to persuade the stall-holder to invite you to the private auction that evening.

Sure, I'd like you to role-play the encounter: it makes for a richer experience (hopefully for everybody at the table). But this is a fantasy game, and players are not their characters. I'd no more insist that you have to play out the social skills of your character than I would insist that you had to take actual physical damage should your character get wounded in combat.

Yes! this!

and you know what, the reward I am getting from "the most brilliant role-playing exposition " will be the fun I get from the DOING it... and the fun I see on my fiends faces when they watch me do it. What I rolled doesn't matter - it's all in the fun of the moment...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I think whoever-it-was-in-that-quote-chain wasn't necessarily saying you could know someone's level by looking at them, just that their level was an actual thing in-character.

Imagine:
Real-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Black belt." And the mugger knows what that means.

Game-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Tenth level." And the mugger knows what that means.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

How many people remember the old comic in the PHB (or was it the DMG?) with the fighter looking at the clerics shield that had 18th level Patriarch written on it, and the cleric is saying, "well no, but it scares the more literate of the monsters"

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:

from your post above - ": I'm using diplomacy to convince the old man we need his sword to fight demons in the worldwound."

that's really all you need.
(the PC) using (skill) to (create outcome or condition).

It works the same for all skills - and even attacks.

Yes. In my system, that minimum nets you a regular check, no bonus, no penalty.

I knew you'd see it my way. ;-)

Andy

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:

from your post above - ": I'm using diplomacy to convince the old man we need his sword to fight demons in the worldwound."

that's really all you need.
(the PC) using (skill) to (create outcome or condition).

It works the same for all skills - and even attacks.

Yes. In my system, that minimum nets you a regular check, no bonus, no penalty.

I knew you'd see it my way. ;-)

Andy

you lost me here....

(the PC) using (skill) to (create outcome or condition).

situation: Party of adventurers are gathered outside the suspects door. The intention is to scare him away from doing something, to get him to leave town. The rogue has checked the door for traps, found an alarm and removed it, unlocked door, and steped to the back of the party.

Me: "Katisha (the PC) is using Intimidate (skill) to convense the Mook to leave town (desired outcome)... I take 10 and get a 35."

Cleric player: "and I aid by...ah... opening the door"

this nets a penality? or not?

If not - what could be left out to give a penality...

actually what played out:

My discription: "The Bard, in misty Mistmail steps to the door and, as the cleric swings open the door, steps into the room. Swirling the cape with the continual flame spell on the lining around to her back so the "flames" swirl up around her, she pulls her whip that bursts into flame (Hellfire). Looking at the target sitting on the bed, she points the whip and says "So, do we talk? or do we move on to other options?" Target sees a Cheliaxian woman, clothed in fire & smoke, with a flaming whip that is scorching the carpet. Intimadate check? - ah, can I take 10?"

and at this point it didn't really matter to me if I made the check or not... I'd had my fun.

The Exchange

leaving stuff out....to see if I can figure out when we should impose a penality...

situation one:
Player: "using Intimidate (skill) to convense the Mook to leave town (desired outcome)... I take 10 and get a 35."
Judge: "who is?"

Situation two:
Player: "Katisha (the PC) is convenseing the Mook to leave town (desired outcome)... I take 10 and get a 35."
Judge: "you get 35 in what?"

Situation three:
Player: "Katisha (the PC) is using Intimidate (skill) to convense the Mook ... I take 10 and get a 35."
Judge: "convense him to do what?"

In which of those would the judge say "you get a -2 circumstance penality to that skill check"?


Seth Gipson wrote:
... I really wish people would stop using a Druid as their first character. :P

Oh, my god, yes please! I don't GM in PFS, but the last two newbies to join my home game insisted on playing druids.

Please, please, newbies of the world, pick a fighter or a rogue or a ranger or ANYTHING other than a druid for your first PC. They're just horribly complex to run. I know, they've got great flavor and strong abilities, but if you're having trouble remembering which die is for attack and which is for damage, Wild Shape and natural attacks are going to make your brain explode.

And no, it's nothing like WoW! *cries a little inside*


Dazylar wrote:

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 (which can take 30 minutes in real time!), 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.

I don't blame you. My only character death was due to the GM forgetting that even masterwork handcuffs had to be for either Small or Medium characters, and the other players forgetting that the Blackguard prestige class had prerequisites they couldn't meet at 3rd level.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I think whoever-it-was-in-that-quote-chain wasn't necessarily saying you could know someone's level by looking at them, just that their level was an actual thing in-character.

Imagine:
Real-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Black belt." And the mugger knows what that means.

Game-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Tenth level." And the mugger knows what that means.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

Uggggh. A character talking about their level is immersion breaking for me. I'm not aware of any lore that supports characters from Golarion talking in terms of their level. Maybe you can show me where in any of the Golarion source books that any of the organizations a character can be a member of/was trained by ranks their members/trainees competency or seniority by assigning/rewarding Levels to the members. It just sounds and feels to me so ... video gamey. I know that PFS IS a game, but for a few minutes a session I like to pretend that it's more than that -- that we're actually our characters having an adventure somewhere on Golarion. The immersion and story-telling aspects are what seperate Pathfinder from MMORPG's, other types of computer games, and warband skirmish games. Join me and we shall become (momentary) legends.


Every time a character buys a scroll and asks "how much" they are talking about character level in character.


talbanus wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I think whoever-it-was-in-that-quote-chain wasn't necessarily saying you could know someone's level by looking at them, just that their level was an actual thing in-character.

Imagine:
Real-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Black belt." And the mugger knows what that means.

Game-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Tenth level." And the mugger knows what that means.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

Uggggh. A character talking about their level is immersion breaking for me. I'm not aware of any lore that supports characters from Golarion talking in terms of their level. Maybe you can show me where in any of the Golarion source books that any of the organizations a character can be a member of/was trained by ranks their members/trainees competency or seniority by assigning/rewarding Levels to the members. It just sounds and feels to me so ... video gamey. I know that PFS IS a game, but for a few minutes a session I like to pretend that it's more than that -- that we're actually our characters having an adventure...

I don't know. It's kind of hard to imagine casters not having some way to talk about caster level at least. So many things depend on it. From what spells you can cast to their ranges and effects.

Alignments are detectable at 5th level. That should be known thing that people can talk about, right?

Obviously, they're not going to use the word "level", but we're just translating from Common to gamer.

The Exchange

so, how many gamers sit thru a fantasy movie and say ...
""That Aragorn dude - ranger right? maybe a level of fighter just to get an extra feat or two, but mostly ranger. What level?"

I have played RPGs with no classes... Rune Quest had not difference between a fighter and a rogue... nothing like "class"... so every time you use a term for a Character Class you are "braking immersion" right?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

BigDTBone wrote:
Every time a character buys a scroll and asks "how much" they are talking about character level in character.

I think characters can have a perception of some magic being more complicated than other magic without knowing there are 9 levels of spells and 20 levels of casters.

Unless everyone in your game world is from the Order of Red Mages.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Every time a character buys a scroll and asks "how much" they are talking about character level in character.

I think characters can have a perception of some magic being more complicated than other magic without knowing there are 9 levels of spells and 20 levels of casters.

Unless everyone in your game world is from the Order of Red Mages.

PC: "Why is it that the cure light wounds, magic missile, mount, and identify spells all cost exactly the same amount and this scorching ray and cure moderate wounds cost exactly 6 times more?"

SCROLLMONGER: "There is a vague perception about the complexities of magic that allows us to understand this cost exactly 6 times more"

PC: "???"


talbanus wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Yes, I agree that the PC's and NPC's know their OWN relative level of competence. Being able to guess what it is of anyone else that they haven't fought/sparred with/adventured with ... erm, no. You can estimate someone is a good fighter by the quality of their equipment, how big/muscular they are, etc ... that's a guess. They may just have inherited a lot of money/equipment -- doesnt mean they know how to use it super effectively. On the other hand, their reputation as a bad@ss (knowledge local anyone?) may precede them ...

I think whoever-it-was-in-that-quote-chain wasn't necessarily saying you could know someone's level by looking at them, just that their level was an actual thing in-character.

Imagine:
Real-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Black belt." And the mugger knows what that means.

Game-world person gets jumped in an alley by a mugger. But he knows how to fight, and starts whooping the mugger. The mugger staggers back and cries, "Holy crap! Where'd you learn to fight like that?!" The man smiles and replies, "Tenth level." And the mugger knows what that means.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

Uggggh. A character talking about their level is immersion breaking for me. I'm not aware of any lore that supports characters from Golarion talking in terms of their level. Maybe you can show me where in any of the Golarion source books that any of the organizations a character can be a member of/was trained by ranks their members/trainees competency or seniority by assigning/rewarding Levels to the members. It just sounds and feels to me so ... video gamey. I know that PFS IS a game, but for a few minutes a session I like to pretend that it's more than that -- that we're actually our characters having an adventure...

You are correct its not stated nor would i say is raw or rai or even intended. Its something i do for home games so theirs an explanation for players to have some type of knowledge for npcsand other player characters. Now its mainly for allies and i do not state or let them learn what classes the enemies are, thats up to them to figure out. Pretty strange but its like i play a serious version of that comic strip. It working so far for my group which is a mix of new players and some gronards and everyone having fun with it. Helps they are a fan of the comic strip as well. Its like if u annoucebir a bard, somebody is gonna know roughly some of ur abilities and may even get scared of ya or may even heckle ya. We leave some of the 4th wall material out but we play it as the world knows about classes and the popular ones peoplewill know some or be familiar with what ya can do. Doesnt mean everyones out proclaiming or wearing a sign above their heads what their class makeup is but in the world we play, classes are known and while they dont know no where near of what everything the class can do or purpose, their is common knowledge of some of what the classes can do.

basically someone saying they are a fighter is the equalvalant of saying someone is a policeman. We know what policemen are and rougjly what they do but we dont ALL of what they do. Not saying fighters are policemen but u know what i mean

It works for our games and wont work for others, but i chaulk that up to different playstyles

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Every time a character buys a scroll and asks "how much" they are talking about character level in character.

I think characters can have a perception of some magic being more complicated than other magic without knowing there are 9 levels of spells and 20 levels of casters.

Unless everyone in your game world is from the Order of Red Mages.

PC: "Why is it that the cure light wounds, magic missile, mount, and identify spells all cost exactly the same amount and this scorching ray and cure moderate wounds cost exactly 6 times more?"

SCROLLMONGER: "There is a vague perception about the complexities of magic that allows us to understand this cost exactly 6 times more"

PC: "???"

Pretty much, yeah. Don't look at it too hard. Would you prefer the game authors to have gone through and designated that a wand of cure light wounds gost 789 gp, while a wand of magic missile costs 742 gp, just to inject some false variety?

There are certain parts of the game that work the way they do because it is a game. That doesn't (necessarily) make those things laws of physics for the universe. It makes them game rules.

If you're Red Mage, fine. Or if your whole game group is closer to Order of the Stick than the Fellowship of the Ring. But that doesn't make it globally applicable.

Because asserting that is saying shopkeepers never charge any other price. Even to other NPCs. Even when selling in bulk, or wholesale. They never have a 10% off sale, or they never have a shortage of healing potions that raises prices. I'm fine with those things never happening to PCs, because I want to play Pathfinder, not 'Sales and Spreadsheets', and handwaving that and assuming averages work out in the end makes the game more fun. But you can't imagine a world exists where there's no actual economy underneath.

Or to put it another way, you're simultaneously asserting that:
1) Certain classes of NPC, such as shopkeepers, lack free will
and
2) People as a whole are smart enough, well informed enough, and have a large enough sample size to reverse engineer the magic system from in-universe data, without just assuming the Wizarding Guild is price-fixing like DeBeers.

I think those two are a bit contradictory.


Huh, how come pigs are always 3 gp....

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Huh, how come pigs are always 3 gp....

And how come prices always end in 99 cents? Clearly, there is an underlying universal law.


Ross Byers wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Huh, how come pigs are always 3 gp....
And how come prices always end in 99 cents? Clearly, there is an underlying universal law.

Here is why the .99 cents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing


Not sure this has been mentioned yet, but when players roll during other players turn... by all appearances just casually twiddling their thumbs - until they make a good role, then they 'hold' it til their turn arrives and they announce their 19.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Wiggz wrote:
Not sure this has been mentioned yet, but when players roll during other players turn... by all appearances just casually twiddling their thumbs - until they make a good role, then they 'hold' it til their turn arrives and they announce their 19.

Yeah, I've seen that. And also the guy who rolls two d20s for all his attacks "In case I need to roll to confirm a crit." But of course, he always reports the higher result as his initial attack roll.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:

Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.

I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.

Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.

I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.

Their world's function doesn't actually depend on that understanding. If you want a good example of that read any of the Pathfinder Tales novels. All of those characters exist in the world of the game and none of them think in game mechanics terms.

Shadow Lodge

The thing that annoys me most about the use of numbers as in character knowledge (mostly hp, but not limited to) is that it makes certain in game things meant to overcome these difficulties completely useless, ie deathwatch, a spell designed to tell a healer how close to death his teammates are can be rendered null and void by saying "I'm down 15 of 20 hit points." Essentially making it a spell that no one ever prepares because "why would I ever prepare that if I can just ask what your hp is at?"


Daedalaman wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.

I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.

Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.

I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.

Their world's function doesn't actually depend on that understanding. If you want a good example of that read any of the Pathfinder Tales novels. All of those characters exist in the world of the game and none of them think in game mechanics terms.

You cannot scribe a scroll unless you know how much it will cost. You cannot know how much it will cost unless you understand spell level and caster level. This is particularly true knowing you can artificially lower the caster level below your own to make items more price/benefit efficient.

301 to 350 of 551 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / "I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.