|
I have a sheet of the following rules posted to the front of my GM screen.
1. Reroll items must be in use. (It says this in the Guide to PFS)
2. You must inform me if a spell is in effect before I say "roll for initiative"
Number 1 came about because I've had a lot of players say "I want to use a shirt/portfolio reroll." They aren't using the portfolio or wearing the shirt when I ask for it they stammer and say it's at home, in the trunk or go to the shelf and grab a portfolio still wrapped in shrink wrap.
Number 2 came about because or players always running around with enlarge person, bless, and lead blades going. Always power attacking is one thing, always having buff spells is another. Then when I say "roll for initiative" someone would always say "I cast bless before combat"
I also (suggested by my VC) put red stars on my rules sheet for every permanent kill, but there are only 3 (level 4 fighter standing toe to ectoplasm with a wraith, samurai who decided to go off alone, and someone entered the magic circle in Night March of Kalkamedes)
|
On the subject of the title of this thread, there was another player at a table I played at (and later died in lol) this past weekend. He stealthed in the hallway, then moved into the room and was surprised when he was seen.
As someone else explained to him why he had been seen, I couldnt help but chuckle because of this thread. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enough people with high intelligence spend years of their life dedicated to the study of magic. People who have intelligence and experience far beyond what people in our world have. Entire colleges and guilds are dedicated to unlocking the mysteries of their craft. Experimentation is done, over and over ad nauseam.
And you are telling me that they can't figure out spell level x caster level x (certain amount of stuff roughly equal to 12.5gp) = how much a scroll costs?
Dude, we have atomic super-coliders and found String particles. No one on earth has a 30 INT. The idea that millennia of study by entire societies can't come up with a simple axbxc+m=d formula is ridiculous. THAT is immersion breaking.
I agree, that if those were rules of the universe, the people in the universe would discover them. It's absurd that they would not.
But my point is they are not rules of a universe: they are approximations mean to allow the game to be played. They are a simplification. A world in which they are literally true, as a universal law, is one that is absurd. The kind of world that is mocked in Order of the Stick, in Erfworld, by Red Mage in 8-Bit Theater. One where buying diamond and ruby dust at a discount means you need to buy more of it to make the spell work. One where shopkeeps lack free will because they can't choose their own prices for the goods they sell. One where the raw materials for a longsword always cost exactly 5 gold pieces, regardless of the local supply of iron or the skill of the blacksmith.
Basically, a world as absurd as one in which every large sedan gets 15 miles per gallon, regardless of make or model, regardless of how it is being driven, regardless of how much weight you put in the trunk.
If the Pathfinder world were 'real', then the price of a scroll, or the cost of a material component, or the price of anything else, would fluctuate based on a large number of variables.
However, I agree that characters should be able to discuss something of their own abilities. They might not say '3rd level wizard', but they should have some analogue way of saying the same thing. I don't know what that would be, but I don't insist on speaking purely in character. If the Players can figure out that one of them has a +9 on diplomacy and the other has a +7, then the Characters can tell each other something with the same outcome. That isn't metagaming. To refer to your exchange a few posts up, the GM is being a jerk if he insists the character has no idea that some cars have better mileage than others.
But if we invert the example, lets say that same hypothetical 'modern' RPG goes on to say that large sedans all have 20 gallon gas tanks, so they have a range of 300 miles on a tank. If the player insists that his character knows that the car will run out of gas exactly 300 miles into a high speed chase, and will therefore always catch the villains in the SUV (with 12 miles per gallon and a 24 gallon tank), thus meaning he doesn't have to try to outmaneuver them, or run them off the road, or otherwise force them to stop. All because 'people in this universe would have figured out that all cars have exactly that mileage', then he, the player is metagaming, and possibly being a jerk. Because it isn't a law of physics, its a convenient approximation because the RPG is about cyberpunk, or spycraft, or superheroes (or whatever else modern RPGs are about), not just cars, so having a huge table for every make and model and driving conditions and the bookkeeping thereof isn't fun. (To be fair, saying the bad guys will probably run out of gas first isn't unreasonable, but if that were a real situation you have to account for the possibility that the SUV actually has a 30 gallon tank, or was being driven more efficiently, or gets better-than-average mileage.)
And that's the last I'm going to say about it in this thread. I'd be happy to continue discussion in another thread.
|
|
No the example is that they do not have one or "grab one off the shelf" i.e. not paying for it and planning on putting it back. This is history, and has happened. The player in questions was caught by the store doing this (not just the portfolio but all the books he needed for pfs) and banned (from the store) for it.
|
|
Thanks Nosig I didn't realize that my rules order was actually giving off a subliminal message there. :-) I'll just switch the reroll with the buffs one, because I find the "Roll for initiative", "I want to cast X before combat" more annoying.
I'm not upset by it I'm just tired of people wanting a reroll in combat then not having anything allowing them to reroll on them, then wanting to stop the game to go get their reroll item.
something that annoys me as a judge? when one of the players says something like: "I'm XXXXXXX, so I'm just role-playing my character." to explain doing something jerkish to another player/players.
There are limits to what is being done that is indeed jerkish, but I think it's completely valid and shouldn't be taken personally if a character behaves as such, because it's in their nature. It is however important not to bring a character who behaves in a way that would result in PvP I feel. As long as everyone is respecting the bounds of the game in terms of knowing the difference between role playing, and real life, then it's fine with me.
PS
I too try and explain to people that my character with a 22 Int shouldn't have to use my real life brain to solve a simple puzzle. I usually have a gripe when a GM forces me to say information that was really complicated, due to unusual crazy names and stuff. I'm pretty sure my character can easily say this stuff, and that me saying "My character says the shop keepers name" should be more than enough to have my character say the shop keepers name correctly.
something that annoys me as a judge? when one of the players says something like: "I'm XXXXXXX, so I'm just role-playing my character." to explain doing something jerkish to another player/players.
Its a balance. Sometimes (especially with strangers) you need to make sure that OOC IC barrier is established.
PS
I too try and explain to people that my character with a 22 Int shouldn't have to use my real life brain to solve a simple puzzle. I usually have a gripe when a GM forces me to say information that was really complicated, due to unusual crazy names and stuff. I'm pretty sure my character can easily say this stuff, and that me saying "My character says the shop keepers name" should be more than enough to have my character say the shop keepers name correctly.
When I DM I demand an idea of what you try to say. Your verbiage I would perfectly accept. But I do not accept "I use diplomacy". They need to be more specific than that.
When I DM I demand an idea of what you try to say. Your verbiage I would perfectly accept. But I do not accept "I use diplomacy". They need to be more specific than that.PS
I too try and explain to people that my character with a 22 Int shouldn't have to use my real life brain to solve a simple puzzle. I usually have a gripe when a GM forces me to say information that was really complicated, due to unusual crazy names and stuff. I'm pretty sure my character can easily say this stuff, and that me saying "My character says the shop keepers name" should be more than enough to have my character say the shop keepers name correctly.
I get annoyed when other players just play the game start to finish like it's a race. It's a role playing game, and I to expect you to describe to some degree what you're doing when you make almost any roll. I sadly am subjected to negative effects when speaking out my diplomacy instead of just rolling it, because the gm misunderstand my meaning to be something it's not. It's strange to think about how I feel the character in game should have complete understanding to what I'm trying to express, but if my gm was distracted, then I get a penalty to my check which all together makes me want to be lazy like everyone else.
I am going to try my hardest to force role playing in every game I attend from now on, and it's going to be awesome and terrible at the same time.Another annoying thing is when players don't respect when a particular player gets in game knowledge, and they just react to it. I'm told by the gm that in the room I went to alone, a potion was discovered. Suddenly a player who isn't even there says, "I take the potion!"
I get annoyed when people get mad at my in game decisions too. There is a creature I can't touch that's killing my party. My character would find an exit and leave. I open the door and another encounter happens. We all knew what was behind that door out of character, but people are genuinely mad at me, even though my character did a logical action.
A player goes into stealth to scout ahead, and when the character can tell it's all clear, they expect the party to move forward without informing them. That, or the party metagames by hearing the results of the scout, and just knows every detail and moves forward without any instruction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I DM I demand an idea of what you try to say. Your verbiage I would perfectly accept. But I do not accept "I use diplomacy". They need to be more specific than that.PS
I too try and explain to people that my character with a 22 Int shouldn't have to use my real life brain to solve a simple puzzle. I usually have a gripe when a GM forces me to say information that was really complicated, due to unusual crazy names and stuff. I'm pretty sure my character can easily say this stuff, and that me saying "My character says the shop keepers name" should be more than enough to have my character say the shop keepers name correctly.
Not in PFS play, they don't.
You are not the GM - you are only the judge at the table. Unless it's specifically called for in the scenario you don't get to adjust the DC of a diplomacy check based on your own personal preferences for role-playing rather than roll-playing, and that's what awarding bonuses and/or penalties is doing.
Why is it that people have no difficulty allowing a simple roll of the dice (without a detailed description) for attack rolls, damage rolls, ride checks, climb checks, saving throws, etc., etc., but somehow feel they have special dispensation to demand that players act out social interactions?
By all means encourage role-playing; I think it greatly improves the immersion in the game, which makes for a better experience for all concerned. But out-of-game activities such as play-acting should be encouraged by out-of-game accolades, not by in-game rewards and penalties.
I sadly am subjected to negative effects when speaking out my diplomacy instead of just rolling it, because the gm misunderstand my meaning to be something it's not. It's strange to think about how I feel the character in game should have complete understanding to what I'm trying to express, but if my gm was distracted, then I get a penalty to my check which all together makes me want to be lazy like everyone else.
Should be a law. Unless explicitly called out in the scenario my charisma dump shall not be held against my character...
Another annoying thing is when players don't respect when a particular player gets in game knowledge, and they just react to it. I'm told by the gm that in the room I went to alone, a potion was discovered. Suddenly a player who isn't even there says, "I take the potion!"
Keeping mini's on the table is the only thing that i've found that is remotely helpful for reminding characters that they're not all in the same place.
I get annoyed when people get mad at my in game decisions too. There is a creature I can't touch that's killing my party. My character would find an exit and leave. I open the door and another encounter happens. We all knew what was behind that door out of character, but people are genuinely mad at me, even though my character did a logical action.
Keep in mind, if your "what my character would do" is get the party killed then the parties "what our characters would do" is either leave you behind in the bar or turn you into a marmoset.
Always run back the way you came, not strait ahead. Everything behind you either ran away from you once or got killed.
A player goes into stealth to scout ahead, and when the character can tell it's all clear, they expect the party to move forward without informing them. That, or the party metagames by hearing the results of the scout, and just knows every detail and moves forward without any instruction.
Setting up a scouting procedure with a new party is hard. Its probably the second biggest obstacle to effective scouting in PFS. You have to get EVERYONE on the same page and not metagaming, both of which are hard on their own (much less in tandem)
1) Distance. Too far ahead and if the rogue gets made he will be lunch before sir clanks a lot gets there. Too close and they can hear sir clanks a lot.
2) Speed/movement pattern: Is the party moving behind you at a constant 30 feet? Are they moving, stopping, and waiting for your signal/report? Or comming up behind you. If you think they're stopped, and the party thinks they're moving, it looks like they moved up because of metagaming when they moved up because they thought they were moving.
3) How much time before the party assumes you've been eaten. This is a hard one. Advanced Dungeon and Dragons was not the only ADD in many of our lives. Sitting around while the rogue does roguey stuff can get a little boring for the rest of the group. The rogue and the DM need to work together and get in synch to do it fast
4) Communication. Are you coming back to report? Leaving notes? Using a message spell? They all have their own pitfalls. Wandering monsters can find notes, the message spell can be heard, and coming back means the party needs to be a bit further away or not moving.
Why is it that people have no difficulty allowing a simple roll of the dice (without a detailed description) for attack rolls, damage rolls, ride checks, climb checks, saving throws, etc., etc., but somehow feel they have special dispensation to demand that players act out social interactions?
Role playing game. You try to get people to well.. roleplay.
I think that people holding the charisma of the player against (or sometimes for) the player is what causes a lot of the "I diplomazice him and maintain my right to remain silent, so my actions are not held against me in a diplomacy check" reactions
I always try and make it clear to say, "we'll stay behind until you give the all clear, but if you take too long, then we're coming in" the gm usually likes this. The party doesn't care and does what it wants anyways, and the gm puts their head in their hands.
The situation of opening the door, our party was blocked off from going where they originally came from, and in a halfway with only one option, being the door. Shadows came out, and only one party member had a magic weapon (which I'm sure he didn't and confused the masterwork for magic, but I'm not going to ask him to show me his sheet), and our knowledge check said that we were screwed. My guy choose to open the door and tank whatever was on the other side in order to save lives/escape from the seemingly at the time invulnerable creature (this was before the player spoke up about having the weapon). In the spirit of the thread, the gm seemed annoyed that he had to do two encounters.
Why is it that people have no difficulty allowing a simple roll of the dice (without a detailed description) for attack rolls, damage rolls, ride checks, climb checks, saving throws, etc., etc., but somehow feel they have special dispensation to demand that players act out social interactions?Role playing game. You try to get people to well.. roleplay.
I think that people holding the charisma of the player against (or sometimes for) the player is what causes a lot of the "I diplomazice him and maintain my right to remain silent, so my actions are not held against me in a diplomacy check" reactions
i like the option of being able to play a persuasive character, even if i am personally IRL, not a very persuasive or convincing individual and don't have the skill in politics, law, public speaking or anything required to use diplomacy IRL and don't want my diplomatic character to be penalized for being unable to finangle a proper diplomatic contract due to my poor player diplomacy
we don't require anything beyond a basic summarized description for attack rolls? why can't the same apply for social skills? give a basic summary of the general intent and allow the result of the roll to determine how persuasive the argument was? rather than allowing the more charming player to get a free bonus for his excellent acting skills
it's like making puzzles based off player intellect rather than character intellect.
If a summary isn't accepted, or a gm holds the ooc personality against the ic/skill check, then I think that's bad gming.
I though it was weird that I found in pfs that the players themselves had to figure out puzzles (which was fun once I admit), but it doesn't reflect the characters skills and stats. If I fail it outside of character, my genius looks like a complete fool for screwing up something they should have firmly have known, where as in real life, some dude wouldn't stop bothering me about some sci fi movie they saw over the weekend while I tired to pay attention to the story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I DM I demand an idea of what you try to say. Your verbiage I would perfectly accept. But I do not accept "I use diplomacy". They need to be more specific than that.PS
I too try and explain to people that my character with a 22 Int shouldn't have to use my real life brain to solve a simple puzzle. I usually have a gripe when a GM forces me to say information that was really complicated, due to unusual crazy names and stuff. I'm pretty sure my character can easily say this stuff, and that me saying "My character says the shop keepers name" should be more than enough to have my character say the shop keepers name correctly.Not in PFS play, they don't.
You are not the GM - you are only the judge at the table. Unless it's specifically called for in the scenario you don't get to adjust the DC of a diplomacy check based on your own personal preferences for role-playing rather than roll-playing, and that's what awarding bonuses and/or penalties is doing.
Why is it that people have no difficulty allowing a simple roll of the dice (without a detailed description) for attack rolls, damage rolls, ride checks, climb checks, saving throws, etc., etc., but somehow feel they have special dispensation to demand that players act out social interactions?
By all means encourage role-playing; I think it greatly improves the immersion in the game, which makes for a better experience for all concerned. But out-of-game activities such as play-acting should be encouraged by out-of-game accolades, not by in-game rewards and penalties.
They can not use the words "I use diplomacy" as an action and expect me to read their mind. I refuse to accept the ambiguity of it. Tell me how you use diplomacy. I have had many people walk up to people and say they use diplomacy. Making me guess what they are trying to do. That to is the same as "I use combat to win the fight". You do no have to roleplay it, but you need to explain what you are trying to do with diplomacy. Just like im combat someone needs to say they are using thier longsword.
They can not use the words "I use diplomacy" as an action and expect me to read their mind
.. how on earth is any mind reading required? They've told you exactly what their character is doing, mechanically. If you have a problem with the lack of role playing thats understandable, but feigning ignorance is not a solution.
They can not use the words "I use diplomacy" as an action and expect me to read their mind.. how on earth is any mind reading required? They've told you exactly what their character is doing, mechanically. If you have a problem with the lack of role playing thats understandable, but feigning ignorance is not a solution.
Going back to what Finlander had mentioned before, he requires at least some detail of how this is being done. Simply "I'm using diplomacy" is different from, "I am using diplomacy to convince the townsfolk that we are not here to harm them, but rather, we were sent to protect them." From there he can conduct the npc's to actually respond in a way that makes sense and keeps the game not be weird and awkward.
They can not use the words "I use diplomacy" as an action and expect me to read their mind.. how on earth is any mind reading required? They've told you exactly what their character is doing, mechanically. If you have a problem with the lack of role playing thats understandable, but feigning ignorance is not a solution.
actually I see his point.
I use Diplomacy.To do what?
I use power attack.
On what?
There is no stated goal in either example.
You need to state your goal or you are just wasting every ones time.
]actually I see his point.
I use Diplomacy.
To do what?
Well here the DM knows better than the player does. There are three used of diplomacy
1) Change someones attitude
2) Ask for a favor
3) Succeed on a flat dc check to do X as described in the module.
The player doesn't actually know which system is in effect, so "I diplomance him!" is all the mechanical information they have available.
I use power attack.
On what?Maybe the orc they're standing right next to?
]actually I see his point.
I use Diplomacy.
To do what?Well here the DM knows better than the player does. There are three used of diplomacy
1) Change someones attitude
2) Ask for a favor
3) Succeed on a flat dc check to do X as described in the module.The player doesn't actually know which system is in effect, so "I diplomance him!" is all the mechanical information they have available.
Incorrect. They know there are 3 options; Because a good GM has made it clear what those three options may be. pick one.
Maybe the orc they're standing right next to?I use power attack.
On what?
and if they are standing next to three orcs?
Incorrect. They know there are 3 options; Because a good GM has made it clear what those three options may be.
No, for two reasons. 1) There's No guarantee of a good DM and 2) There is absolutely NO difference on the player side. They have a d20 + number either way. The diplomacy check does NOT failboat just because they asked for a favor when the mod wants them to improve an attitude.
pick one.
Maybe the orc they're standing right next to?I use power attack.
On what?
and if they are standing next to three orcs?
Then you ask "hurt one or unhurt one" or if they're all un hurt you can ask for which one after the damage roll.
Needless specificity is something I see slowing down a lot of games.
Needless specificity is something I see slowing down a lot of games.
Lack of specificity is something I see sowing confusion in both the players and the GM which in turn slows the game even more.
Better to be specific than not.
I use Diplomacy to XXXX.
That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.
I use Diplomacy to XXXX.
That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.
And again, the player doesn't know x. The DM has no reason to ask for x. X is completely irrelevant. Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x.
I use Diplomacy to XXXX.
That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.And again, the player doesn't know x. The DM has no reason to ask for x. X is completely irrelevant.
The only way the player doesnt know x if they were
1) not paying attention2) making a preemptive check (which means they are trying to "race" through the mod)
3) attempting to game the system
all three of which in any game I GM would be grounds for the player being dismissed (which of course is one of many reasons I refuse to GM PFS).
The only way the player doesnt know x if they were
1) not paying attention
2) making a preemptive check (which means they are trying to "race" through the mod)
3) attempting to game the systemall three of which in any game I GM would be grounds for the player being dismissed (which of course is one of many reasons I refuse to GM PFS).
Absolutely not on everything. Not your interpretation, not how you see it, not how you do it, absolutely, objectively, certified wrong.
The ONLY way the player can know what system the mod is using is to have read it. "Paying attention" is NOT , under any circumstances, going to let you deduce whether you're making a flat DC, shifting an attitude, or asking for a favor because they are not used consistently. They are used very interchangeably.
Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x. The only possible conclusion I can come up with is you want to negate the characters skill by nitpicking exactly how they're doing it.
The only way the player doesnt know x if they were
1) not paying attention
2) making a preemptive check (which means they are trying to "race" through the mod)
3) attempting to game the systemall three of which in any game I GM would be grounds for the player being dismissed (which of course is one of many reasons I refuse to GM PFS).
Absolutely not on everything. Not your interpretation, not how you see it, not how you do it, absolutely, objectively, certified wrong.
The ONLY way the player can know what system the mod is using is to have read it. "Paying attention" is NOT , under any circumstances, going to let you deduce whether you're making a flat DC, shifting an attitude, or asking for a favor because they are not used consistently. They are used very interchangeably.
Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x. The only possible conclusion I can come up with is you want to negate the characters skill by nitpicking exactly how they're doing it.
Which again shows you are making assumptions.b (If I wanted to negate the players skill I would just flat out tell them they failed.)
Those GMs that ask for more than just "Diplomacy check!" from the player will give you clues (and not very subtle ones in most cases) as to which option is going to be needed.If you think he isnt doing that then see my previous post about not paying attention.
Those GMs that ask for more than just "Diplomacy check!" from the player will give you clues (and not very subtle ones in most cases) as to which option is going to be needed.
If you think he isnt doing that then see my previous post about not paying attention.
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be witty? Its not. Its snide, smug, arrogant, passive aggressive dreck with an ad hom cheese filling. You're not making your point, you're not demonstrating that people aren't paying attention, and you're making up some absolute baloney about snagging a PFS number and moving to the other side of the screen somehow means you start telegraphing the near indistinguishable uses of diplomacy, which, for some unexplained reason, is essential to the characters actual use of diplomacy.
Which again shows you are making assumptions.
A conclusion. Which your circular "pay attention" blatherskite is doing nothing to change.
the uses of diplomacy are all interchangeable and generally all achieve similar results. i usually combine multiple uses for example, changing attitudes in the right direction is likely to grant favors if applicable
i'm not saying players should get away with "i use diplomacy on him"
but players should be able to give a basic and general description of what their diplomacy is for, and at the same time, a DM shouldn't penalize a player for not being able to act out the diplomacy check comfortably.
i am kind of in the middle ground
now saying "i use diplomacy to spread a good reputation of our group with the local king and score a favor or few in the form of assistance with a particular mission"
is a lot better in my opinion.
that is generally what i expect or even "my buddy Lem, has a good point, i offer my support upon that point" should be good enough to assist or even roll.
the uses of diplomacy are all interchangeable and generally all achieve similar results. i usually combine multiple uses for example, changing attitudes in the right direction is likely to grant favors if applicable
i'm not saying players should get away with "i use diplomacy on him"
but players should be able to give a basic and general description of what their diplomacy is for, and at the same time, a DM shouldn't penalize a player for not being able to act out the diplomacy check comfortably.
i am kind of in the middle ground
now saying "i use diplomacy to spread a good reputation of our group with the local king and score a favor or few in the form of assistance with a particular mission"
is a lot better in my opinion.
that is generally what i expect or even "my buddy Lem, has a good point, i offer my support upon that point" should be good enough to assist or even roll.
That is more than most GMs here have said they expect when they say they want more than "I use diplomacy."
|
Incorrect. They know there are 3 options; Because a good GM has made it clear what those three options may be.No, for two reasons. 1) There's No guarantee of a good DM and 2) There is absolutely NO difference on the player side. They have a d20 + number either way. The diplomacy check does NOT failboat just because they asked for a favor when the mod wants them to improve an attitude.
My character has a goal, finding a missing letter. The party has a goal, finding where Lucas live.
We approach the only barkeeper in the village, the adventure say that he know were Lucas live and don't know about the letter per se but know that generally people that want a missive delivered leave it at the general store to be picked up when the recipient get there the next time he is in town.My character approach the barkeeper and I say "I use diplomacy on him." The GM as no idea of what I am asking to the barkeeper.
I want to know about the letter?
I want to know about Lucas?
I want to know if something strange happened in town the last week?
I want a discounted drink?
Without further information's it is a "I kill the orc" situation.
With what? Spell, weapon, bare fist, supernatural ability?
You need to roll a to hit or it is the orc that need to roll a saving throw?
You shift the goal when you change "we need to know what you are trying to accomplish" to "it is a failboat because you don't make a speech".
Your argument
Well here the DM knows better than the player does. There are three used of diplomacy1) Change someones attitude
2) Ask for a favor
3) Succeed on a flat dc check to do X as described in the module.The player doesn't actually know which system is in effect, so "I diplomance him!" is all the mechanical information they have available.
is wrong.
The player could be trying to change a creature attitude first to get a lower DC when asking a favor or pump it for information. If I, the GM know that the creature has a starting disposition of unfriendly and will give the needed information only on a check result of 25+, but if made indifferent it will give the information on a check result of 15+ and the player say "I use diplomacy", what I should do?Arbitrarily decide what he is trying to accomplish or ask him for clarifications?
The player should know how the diplomacy skill work, so he should at least say "I want to increase his reaction" or "I want to pump him for information" or "I want to ask him a favor".
Your point 3) normally fall in one of the skill options:
a) change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters; b) make requests; c) Gather gather information about a specific topic or individual.
The player should know how his character skill work and what are his options.
My character approach the barkeeper and I say "I use diplomacy on him." The GM as no idea of what I am asking to the barkeeper.
Step 1) Try to coax some Role playing out of the player. I have never had this be a problem to get some at least.
Step 2) This is a pretty standard gather info check. I give him the information his diplomacy check deserves. If I think the letter is a separate issue I'll have him make a second roll for it.
To me, how you handle step 1 is infinitely more important than part 2.
|
|
My character approach the barkeeper and I say "I use diplomacy on him." The GM as no idea of what I am asking to the barkeeper.Step 1) Try to coax some Role playing out of the player. I have never had this be a problem to get some at least.
Step 2) This is a pretty standard gather info check. I give him the information his diplomacy check deserves. If I think the letter is a separate issue I'll have him make a second roll for it.
To me, how you handle step 1 is infinitely more important than part 2.
So you assume that he is asking about the letter in front of the other member of the party and that he is not trying to increase the barkeeper attitude first?
And step 1) seem exactly the same thing we are trying to accomplish and that you seem adamantly against.
Strange.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use Diplomacy to XXXX.
That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.And again, the player doesn't know x. The DM has no reason to ask for x. X is completely irrelevant. Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x.
Not wanting to imply You'reDoingItWrong, but in a roleplaying game, why would a player not want to tell the GM x? Interacting with the game world inhabitants in a free-form way is one of the pleasures unique to an RPG.
YMMV, of course!
|
|
Needless specificity is something I see slowing down a lot of games.
I'd like to see a poll on this. I find that I agree with most of your stuff, BigNorseWolf, but here, I find exactly the opposite to be true. More, more, more specificity is what I want to see as a GM. Not to overload the players, but to speed up the game.
We've been arguing up and back over the difference between three skills (Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate) and all the others for some time in this thread. One common question (and a very legitimate one) is why do these three skills need to be treated differently than others. Or even why do these D20 rolls need to be treated differently. They don't, at least not really.
In most cases, such as combat or removing a trap, the check, the modifiers, the DC, the target are mostly understood. Consequently, the check is very straightforward. As an example, a player says to the GM, "I roll a 16 plus 8 is a 24, do I hit?" If the GM knows he is swinging a great axe at the ogre, that information is all he needs. If the GM does not know this information or it's in doubt, he asks. Right?
That same player quote in a use of diplomacy (or bluff or intimidate) is OK if the GM knows who is the target, what is being said and what the outcome desired is. If not, he should ask the player. But, make no mistake, that information is necessary just as it's analogous information is in combat.
The fact of the matter is, combat, via the tactical rules that exist, is far better defined with much less left open for interpretation. The social skills are far less defined and the situations to use them could not all be covered in the rules. Consequently, you see more variability in these from table to table. But, the information that the GM needs to judge the check is still necessary and very far from obvious in most cases.
Andy
|
|
On the subject of the title of this thread, there was another player at a table I played at (and later died in lol) this past weekend. He stealthed in the hallway, then moved into the room and was surprised when he was seen.
As someone else explained to him why he had been seen, I couldnt help but chuckle because of this thread. :P
you know, I have a question sort of about the title of this thread. If a party of adventurers are moving down a hall, and a player would like his PC to do so quitely - you know, as the kids say "on tip-toes" and sneak along... how do they say it?
Rogue Player - "I going to stealth down this hall up to the door at the other end."
It sounds like some people are going to tell him: "you have no cover/concealment and the party is carrying lights, no chance to stealth."
Is that correct?
I mean, wouldn't he get his stealth check? and the modification for the Door (which I think is +5)? against the Perception of the creature/creatures in the room?
I think there are perfectly acceptable times to use it, and no, there probably isnt a better way of phrasing it.
I think the problem is that MMOs have made 'stealth mode' a thing that people can do at the drop of a hat. So when you get new players who have that experience, they think it translates over exactly as they expect.
I doubt the OP was posting that as an example of something he would want to yell at someone for doing the first time they played, but its likely in the same category with many things that get posted on these messageboards. *sigh* "Again? Really? How often does this need to come up?"
I use Diplomacy to XXXX.
That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.And again, the player doesn't know x. The DM has no reason to ask for x. X is completely irrelevant. Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x.
Not sure how can the player not know his own personal goal when trying to use diplomacy.
And step 1) seem exactly the same thing we are trying to accomplish and that you seem adamantly against.
Strange.
I am not. In every conversation I've ever had with you, you've blatantly misread what I've written.
Not sure how can the player not know his own personal goal when trying to use diplomacy.I use Diplomacy to XXXX.
That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.And again, the player doesn't know x. The DM has no reason to ask for x. X is completely irrelevant. Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x.
X is not a personal goal. X is one of three very subtle mechanical variations that are often interchangeable. They exist to the player, not the character. The character knows what they want to do. the different uses of diplomacy are how the game emulates that.
Do you really accept a "I use Diplomacy on the NPC. Got 35.", with no indication of what the player wants from it?
I will try to coax the player into saying something for the joy of role playing. This is strictly for fun, I don't need it for anything mechanically.
What favor? Just making the NPC friendlier? Nothing? How do you decide what the result is?
The mod in front of me has that information, and they're (mechanically) no different on the players end. He has a diplomacy roll of x. In front of me is either
Make a DC XYZ check to get bits of information X Y Z
Make a DC Y check to ask then to XXXX
Make a DC Y check to improve their attitude and then a DC Z check based on Y to ask for a favor