As both a player and a GM, I've observed players who often insist on making Skill checks (most often Diplomacy) when their characters lack skill in the area compared to other characters.
1. From an IC perspective, why don't players have their characters attempt to ascertain who is best or most qualified at doing any specific task? If the Society wants the characters to cooperate, then that would mean letting the high charisma bard do the talking, as opposed to the dump stat dwarf. You can easily determine IC who is the best looking character or who is the strongest, or who is the most acrobatic
Or maybe an IC conversation, "Anyone think they can sell snow to a frost giant?"
2. On the OOC side, do players not think its rude or inconsiderate when the Fighter tries to be the face of the party, instead of the Bard? In combat, the player with the Barbarian/Fighter is usually getting a chance to feel she's making an impact. Why not afford the opportunity to the skill characters out of combat?
3. Do players have any sense of accountability when they screw up these skill checks because they were woefully unskilled in the area versus another player?
4. Do GMs feel any responsibility to curtail players from trying to make these checks when the player's characters are clearly not the obvious choice, or do GMs just let players like this run roughshod over the group?
5. The Confirmation actually makes a point to have the players discuss themselves, but the focus seems to be more on the background than the skills. As GM, I have often said that characters spend enough time together to know everything on each others' sheets. My goal is to get players to work together and make the obstacles easier to overcome. Yet, I haven't seen this technique used by other GMs.
Is there some benefit to having random players be completely oblivious to what the other characters are skilled at?
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
1. I wouldn't assume that a PC, like a real person, always has insight into their abilities (or lack thereof) to win friends and influence people. I find it very authentic when a low-CHA PC wants to do the talking for the group. It also keeps the other characters engaged with what is going on in the adventure.
2. It is only rude or inconsiderate if the player in question is deliberately trying to torpedo the encounter.
3. This is a rhetorical question.
4. Rhetorical question, again.
5. I don't think The Confirmation was supposed to establish a policy.
6. I know players who won't identify their character's class or level to the other people at the table. That's fine. Some people enjoy a 'make it up as you go along' technique for tackling encounters.
It's completely possible to over-analyze the game to the point where it is an exercise in dice-rolling and nothing unexpected happens. Remember, the point isn't to win the game, it's to have fun. Maybe 'fun' is the barbarian acting as the party's face.
Edit: You obviously have just had a miserable time at the table. If it makes you feel better, talk about it here and get it off your chest.
Well said, Doug.
As for number 4, I would say there's a line. For newer players, who don't know that Diplomacy is, I'll tell them what they're going for. In this case, before the brute goes up and talks to the fancy lady at the dinner party, I'll give them a nudge to say that they may want someone more charismatic to do the schmoozing.
If it's experienced players, and everyone's for it, then let them have at it.
Doug Miles wrote: 5. I don't think The Confirmation was supposed to establish a policy. If you read or play the Confirmation it indeed seems like a regular normal scenario, but there probably is a much deeper meaning to it all. Much like Gulliver's Travels and Animal Farm the Confirmation might be considered a Political Satire.
Is it a coincidence that like William Shakespeare the author of the Confirmation is also called 'The Bard'?
David Montgomery wrote: Well said, Doug.
As for number 4, I would say there's a line. For newer players, who don't know that Diplomacy is, I'll tell them what they're going for. In this case, before the brute goes up and talks to the fancy lady at the dinner party, I'll give them a nudge to say that they may want someone more charismatic to do the schmoozing.
If it's experienced players, and everyone's for it, then let them have at it.
Just a point, with the conversion inquisition, the best diplomacy at the table might not be a person with a high charisma - my best diplomacy character has a charisma of 5. Even without the inquisition a person with a bad/mediocre modifier but training (and class skill) can be as good as a person with a good modifier but no training.
And I have met quite a few brutes with decent charisma to be better at intimidating.
Auke Teeninga wrote: Is it a coincidence that like William Shakespeare the author of the Confirmation is also called 'The Bard'?
** spoiler omitted **
John Compton wrote: ** spoiler omitted ** I won't be at Paizocon :-( (Only the UK one)
Will there be another showing at GenCon?
Doug Miles wrote: 1. I wouldn't assume that a PC, like a real person, always has insight into their abilities (or lack thereof) to win friends and influence people. I find it very authentic when a low-CHA PC wants to do the talking for the group. It also keeps the other characters engaged with what is going on in the adventure. Actually, most people do have an awareness of what they are good at and what they aren't. It's called social feedback. In fact, there are experiments that people have a finely tuned and extremely rapid ability to assess how others perceive them. Even when their value is artificially determined.
Society does an incredible job of discouraging people from pursuing things that they are not skilled at. You're essentially trying to argue that the person with the worst public speaking skills in any classroom is constantly trying to raise their hand and speak, despite repeatedly getting laughed at or ridiculed. Sorry I have to reject your assertion as being contrary to actual facts and data from social research and common sense. It comes across as a way to rationalize anti-social/self centered behavior at the gaming table.
Quote: 2. It is only rude or inconsiderate if the player in question is deliberately trying to torpedo the encounter. So being inconsiderate is not rude? If two people are playing tennis and the worse player of the two is constantly running in front of the other player and hitting the ball into the net, it's only rude if the second player is deliberately trying to hit it into the net? Hitting the other person's ball isn't rude because you're not trying to fail? Is that how you see it?
Quote: 3. This is a rhetorical question.
4. Rhetorical question, again.
Neither of these are rhetorical questions. I'm legitimately asking players who do these things and cause failure feel any compunction for making the DIplo roll with a -1 modifier when they know the bard has +12? I'm asking the players who engage this behavior to explain how they rationalize it to themselves.
The same question to GMs who see this happening repeatedly.
Quote: 5. I don't think The Confirmation was supposed to establish a policy. I didn't say the Confirmation was supposed to establish a policy. I used it as an example of the first mission I've seen that actually tried to get the players to share any info IC. I don't know where you are coming away with the idea that I said this was trying to establish a policy?
Quote: 6. I know players who won't identify their character's class or level to the other people at the table. That's fine. Some people enjoy a 'make it up as you go along' technique for tackling encounters. Not sure what this is in response to.
Quote: It's completely possible to over-analyze the game to the point where it is an exercise in dice-rolling and nothing unexpected happens. So you think letting the character who is actually skilled in that area make the skill check is "over-analyzing" the game? Is that where we're headed?
Quote: Remember, the point isn't to win the game, it's to have fun. Maybe 'fun' is the barbarian acting as the party's face. Isn't having fun mean letting people do the things they designed their characters to do? Isn't having fun enjoying the courtesy that each player gives the other to allow each person's character to do the things they designed their characters to do?
I've never been in a party where anyone thought it was fun for the Barbarian to play the face with the mission success at issue. Nor have i seen it suggested. Now, maybe at higher levels where VO's have so many characters and have played so many games, they are looking for something to shake up the game, but admittedly, I haven't gotten any characters to level 12, nor am I sitting on bank of GM credit characters I need a motivation to even roll-up.
Quote: Edit: You obviously have just had a miserable time at the table. If it makes you feel better, talk about it here and get it off your chest. Nope. Swing and a miss on that one. I am GMing a scenario where I'm seeing this behavior and wondering why, however.
If the Confirmation indeed has a deeper meaning I'm quite sure that Doug Miles is the Venture Captain that inspired the initiate Kyle Baird to become the Pathfinder agent that he is today.
The nice thing about pathfinder is that nothing stops the bard from stepping up to talk along with the barbarian. No one is really locked into a role like that, and there are few social encounters where people aren't allowed to assist.
zefig wrote: The nice thing about pathfinder is that nothing stops the bard from stepping up to talk along with the barbarian. No one is really locked into a role like that, and there are few social encounters where people aren't allowed to assist. Agreed. I'm not seeing any issue with the barbarian assisting the bard. I'm trying to understand the subset of players who play the barbarian and ignore the fact that they have a bard in the party. I'm also trying to understand how other GMs perceive this.
N N 959 wrote: Doug Miles wrote: 1. I wouldn't assume that a PC, like a real person, always has insight into their abilities (or lack thereof) to win friends and influence people. I find it very authentic when a low-CHA PC wants to do the talking for the group. It also keeps the other characters engaged with what is going on in the adventure. Actually, most people do have an awareness of what they are good at and what they aren't. It's called social feedback. In fact, there are experiments that people have a finely tuned and extremely rapid ability to assess how others perceive them. Even when their value is artificially determined.
Society does an incredible job of discouraging people from pursuing things that they are not skilled at. You're essentially trying to argue that the person with the worst public speaking skills in any classroom is constantly trying to raise their hand and speak, despite repeatedly getting laughed at or ridiculed. Sorry I have to reject your assertion as being contrary to actual facts and data from social research and common sense. It comes across as a way to rationalize anti-social/self centered behavior at the gaming table. OTOH, we all have known "that guy" who had no social skills whatsoever, but was still loud and pushy. In general, I agree, but exceptions do exist. More generally, roleplaying is part of the game. People who aren't playing face characters want to interact with the NPCs too. (Or may just want to push the game along when it's bogged down in player indecision.)
Some of it may be a GM issue. Requiring the check as soon as the first player talks or from the player who talked most, rather than letting the highest skill roll and the other talkers assist.
thejeff wrote: OTOH, we all have known "that guy" who had no social skills whatsoever, but was still loud and pushy. In general, I agree, but exceptions do exist. True. The guitar player in my band was constantly trying to get on the microphone and engage the audience. It was painful. We eventually got enough negative feedback he stopped doing it.
Quote: Some of it may be a GM issue. Requiring the check as soon as the first player talks or from the player who talked most, rather than letting the highest skill roll and the other talkers assist. That's a good point. It actually reminds me of 1e D&D which encouraged the group to choose a leader so that these things wouldn't happen inadvertently.
It doesn't have to be roleplaying skills, in fact it often doesn't have any RP involved.
Some players seem to treat the other players as "NPC supporting cast" - just along for when they need a skill or ability they do not have themselves.
Not to long ago, a "one man party" player we had at the table needed to look into a dark room from outside a skylight (at night). He had flown up to the building we were going to scout (on his own, without mentioning anything to anyone else) on a broom. (I fear we laughed when he said he was going to pull out a continual flame to shine into the room... pointing out that anyone in the room would easily see him backlighted against the sky. "Every peeping Tom should use a high beam flashlight!")
He thought a second, remembered that there was a Dwarf in the party (my PC) and flew back and ...
O.M.P.: "I pick up the dwarf and fly back to the window"
Me: "not my guy you don't. I'm to heavy."
O.M.P.: "I can carry 400 lbs."
Me: "I'm a dwarf, in full plate, with a Tower shield and a full kite. I just might weight more than 400 lbs. Let me check the figures..."
O.M.P.: ... unable to respond, speechless...
My wife running her Helpful wizard player chimes in with: "you need a fly spell dwarf?"
Me: "Nah, remember I got Travel domain - so I have my own Fly, and I have prepped Communal Airwalk, and Dim Door, and Teleport, or I could just Dimentiional hop up there and look in. Heck, I could teleport most of us up there if we think we need to."
Party Tank: "Front door then?"
Me: "Sure, let's knock".
and the O.M.P. went back being sure to roll first whenever the judge asked for a skill check (talking over the other players to be sure the judge knew his roll first - even on skills that were easily in another PCs area of expertise). After all, the rest of us were just background for his PCs adventures.
zefig wrote: The nice thing about pathfinder is that nothing stops the bard from stepping up to talk along with the barbarian. No one is really locked into a role like that, and there are few social encounters where people aren't allowed to assist. Except the judge. I have several times played for judges who only take the first players roll for many skill checks (not just social encounters).
How to get the judge to change this? I have no idea. Though I do try to set a good example and teach the beginers at my table that this is a game about "a team of adventurers, working together."
thejeff wrote: N N 959 wrote: Doug Miles wrote: 1. I wouldn't assume that a PC, like a real person, always has insight into their abilities (or lack thereof) to win friends and influence people. I find it very authentic when a low-CHA PC wants to do the talking for the group. It also keeps the other characters engaged with what is going on in the adventure. Actually, most people do have an awareness of what they are good at and what they aren't. It's called social feedback. In fact, there are experiments that people have a finely tuned and extremely rapid ability to assess how others perceive them. Even when their value is artificially determined.
Society does an incredible job of discouraging people from pursuing things that they are not skilled at. You're essentially trying to argue that the person with the worst public speaking skills in any classroom is constantly trying to raise their hand and speak, despite repeatedly getting laughed at or ridiculed. Sorry I have to reject your assertion as being contrary to actual facts and data from social research and common sense. It comes across as a way to rationalize anti-social/self centered behavior at the gaming table. OTOH, we all have known "that guy" who had no social skills whatsoever, but was still loud and pushy. In general, I agree, but exceptions do exist. More generally, roleplaying is part of the game. People who aren't playing face characters want to interact with the NPCs too. (Or may just want to push the game along when it's bogged down in player indecision.)
Some of it may be a GM issue. Requiring the check as soon as the first player talks or from the player who talked most, rather than letting the highest skill roll and the other talkers assist. yep! and the only way I know of to try to change this would be by example - to try real hard not to do this myself, and to not let this happen in games I am the judge for.
Just because you can talk faster than the 13 year old girl beside you, and are a bit bigger and are more of a "squeaky wheel" does not mean you are going to get more of my attention, or deprive her of her "time in the spotlight". And I hope other judges playing at my table notice it and try to copy it too...
N N 959 wrote: 1. From an IC perspective, why don't players have their characters attempt to ascertain who is best or most qualified at doing any specific task? I agree - it should be assumed characters have learned each other's skills at the beginning of a scenario, and it's been abstracted - for the sake of time management. Character introduction helps too, but shouldn't detail every skill, for the sake of convenience.
Quote: 2. On the OOC side, do players not think its rude or inconsiderate when the Fighter tries to be the face of the party, instead of the Bard? I think you might have worded this wrongly. It's not rude or inconsiderate, it's in-character. But I think what you're trying to say is that it's rude/inconsiderate for players to leave other players out instead of letting them play up their strengths, and that is inconsiderate (though sometimes necessary - they might just not know what to do). It's good if every player knows when to step back for a moment and give other players a nudge.
Quote: 4. Do GMs feel any responsibility to curtail players from trying to make these checks when the player's characters are clearly not the obvious choice, or do GMs just let players like this run roughshod over the group? Sometimes, but (for me, at least), it's kind of rare that you can suggest this unless you're playing with newbies. As a GM, you need to wait until the opportunity presents itself, because the players are writing the story. If that means the weaker character is making bad diplomacy checks - and the rest of the party is letting that character do so - the best I can do is tell them it's hilarious that they're all letting him take the stand. Though sometimes that's enough to let the other players suddenly realise what they're doing and turn things around (and sometimes, it's not).
You can never say "your skill is too low, you need to stop and let the other players try it".
Quote: Is there some benefit to having random players be completely oblivious to what the other characters are skilled at? No, that's ridiculous - and should be thoroughly avoided. Abstract, abstract, abstract.
The only thing worth noting is the difference between players and characters, and I'm not sure if you've said it like that intentionally. It's ridiculous for players to be oblivious, but it can make for a better game if characters are oblivious, especially low wisdom characters.
Avatar-1 wrote: N N 959 wrote: 2. On the OOC side, do players not think its rude or inconsiderate when the Fighter tries to be the face of the party, instead of the Bard? I think you might have worded this wrongly. It's not rude or inconsiderate, it's in-character. But I think what you're trying to say is that it's rude/inconsiderate for players to leave other players out instead of letting them play up their strengths, and that is inconsiderate (though sometimes necessary - they might just not know what to do). It's good if every player knows when to step back for a moment and give other players a nudge. I'm actually asking about player OOC mentality when the player knows that there is someone else in the party who actually is good at this skill.
Yes, I've seen the trite dump CHR dwarf who acts like he doesn't know how rude he is. That player always thinks his RP is the cat's meow, or, as Doug suggest, "how crazy am I trying to be the bard with a 5 CHR, isn't that fun for everyone watching me offend NPC after NPC?" /sarcasm.
So my question is do other people, as players, find it inconsiderate when said player with the dwarf character, intentionally robs the woman playing the bard, an opportunity do her thing?
I've noticed that there is a strong "don't tell me how to run my character" sentiment in RPG's. That ethos seems to overshadow the natural response of "then don't play your character in a manner that is intentionally stupid and/or infringes on another player's enjoyment." It's like there's this gap in the "don't be a jerk" rule that this behavior seems to find shelter.
Avatar-1 wrote: Quote: 4. Do GMs feel any responsibility to curtail players from trying to make these checks when the player's characters are clearly not the obvious choice, or do GMs just let players like this run roughshod over the group? *** You can never say "your skill is too low, you need to stop and let the other players try it".
Perhaps not, but at what point does this IC behavior which is causing the party to fail the mission, constitute "being a jerk?"
The hard part for me is that I find this behavior objectively inconsiderate, but just below the threshold of being a jerk. It's more selfish than jerkish and there doesn't seem to be a rule against that.
As GM, I'd like to say, the person with the highest mod gets first crack at the skill, but that seems a bad solution and robs the party of an opportunity to make that decision themselves.
In most cases, especially social skills, the skill check is a meta thing. The character is talking. The player and/or GM makes the call for a skill check.
I'd be perfectly happy as the GM, when the -1 Diplomacy Barbarian starts talking to the crucial NPC to ask the other players what they're doing and then, assuming some of the others join in the conversation, ask them who wants to make the main roll and who wants to Aid.
Everyone gets to talk. Everyone gets to roll dice. Usually the person with the good skill will actually get to make the main roll.
If the unsocial barbarian still wants to be the one, then you've got a player issue.
In PFS at least, where pretty much everything is assumed to be a team effort with everyone pitching in and only one success needed. In a home game, from time to time everyone is going to have to do their own one on one social interactions for one reason or another. At least in most games I've run or played in.
thejeff wrote: I'd be perfectly happy as the GM, when the -1 Diplomacy Barbarian starts talking to the crucial NPC to ask the other players what they're doing and then, assuming some of the others join in the conversation, ask them who wants to make the main roll and who wants to Aid. Yeah, I need to use that approach. But there is subtlety to how this is communicated that I need to work out. As I stated above, I need to have some feeling that this is the players making the choice.
Part of the problem is I'm GMing PbP so players will make rolls ahead of others. Perhaps I can just ask the players to appoint a party face/skill designee and that player gets to make the main roll.
Actually, it's quite common for someone to not realize their incompetence in a certain subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
nosig wrote: zefig wrote: The nice thing about pathfinder is that nothing stops the bard from stepping up to talk along with the barbarian. No one is really locked into a role like that, and there are few social encounters where people aren't allowed to assist. Except the judge. I have several times played for judges who only take the first players roll for many skill checks (not just social encounters).
How to get the judge to change this? I have no idea. Though I do try to set a good example and teach the beginers at my table that this is a game about "a team of adventurers, working together." For skills that you cannot retry, like diplomacy to change attitude, I expect the party to know who their face is and who will be merely helping out. I don't think that is unreasonable. Working as a team does not mean you get six rolls, take the highest.
Hrothdane wrote: Actually, it's quite common for someone to not realize their incompetence in a certain subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
That's not what the article says. Let's look at a quote from a different set of researcher that may be what you are focusing on:
Your Link wrote: Research conducted by Burson et al (2006) set out to test one of the core hypotheses put forth by Kruger and Muller in their paper "Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance," "that people at all performance levels are equally poor at estimating their relative performance." In order to test this hypothesis, the authors investigate three different studies, which all manipulated the "perceived difficulty of the tasks and hence participants’ beliefs about their relative standing."[10] The authors found that when researchers presented subjects with moderately difficult tasks that the best and the worst performers actually varied little in their ability to accurately predict their performance. Additionally, they found that with more difficult tasks, the best performers are less accurate in predicting their performance than the worst performers. The authors conclude that these findings suggest that "judges at all skill levels are subject to similar degrees of error."[11] So this particular quote is talking about evaluating your own performance at a task compared to others. The test subjects were given moderately difficult tasks and then asked to assess how they they think they scored scored compared to others. This is completely different than asking someone if they think they are a good climber or a good swimmer, or good at gymnastics, or good at public speaking, or a good liar. There's nothing in that quote or that part of the article that says people don't realize that they are inept at things when they are.
Where does it talk about ineptness?
Your Link wrote: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias which can manifest in one of two ways:
Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.
So the article is pointing out that if you're dumb, then you have trouble knowing what you don't know. Neither Doug nor I am talking about dumb characters, we're talking about the average character who has little or no training in a particular are, but insist on making the primary skill check.
Sure, people have a tendency to think they are more skilled than they actually are, but this isn't about the character's decision, it's about the player's decision to engage in behavior that infringes on other players' characters. The player is deliberately rolling skill checks for which they know another player's character class is predicated on performing. Doug seems to want to rationalize this by suggesting that a person would have no sense that he or she might not be able to make a soufflé to impress the Queen of England, and more importantly, ignore the the fact that there is a chef in the group who might.
Thanks for the article.
it is also possible to have a PC that has a low CHA because people just ignore him. They don't pay attention to the geek in the corner babbling on about weird stuff.... even when he's right. In fact, it's a bit of a trope isn't it?
Occasionally I run a table where the 7 CHA character insists on talking despite there being a more qualified "face" in the group.
Err, maybe I'm thinking of my own 7 INT / 7 CHA character...
Either way, what I started doing as a GM when I encounter groups like that is to ask who's the "champion" and who's the "assister". As long as there are no OOC disputes going on, usually the PC with the higher skill champions, and the rest assist. Everyone gets to roleplay, and everyone gets to rollplay.
If there's an OOC war of personalities, that's a different issue, and there's probably no one way that's best in handling it. Situations will vary.
Avatar-1 wrote: *** You can never say "your skill is too low, you need to stop and let the other players try it". N N 959 wrote: Perhaps not, but at what point does this IC behavior which is causing the party to fail the mission, constitute "being a jerk?" This seems to be the million dollar question of your whole post.
It's a judgement call. Both the GM and the players need to develop a "feeling" of when a player is getting to "that point" where one character is going too far and not letting the others do more - and then bring it to their attention so they have an opportunity to step back.
I'm pretty sure in almost every case this is more about a lack of self perception rather than the malicious intent you're talking about where the jerk rule comes into play.
I don't think I've suggested that anywhere in this discussion I've seen "malicious" behavior or such an intent with regards to the players I'm generalizing about.
IMO, it's more about a player choosing a play style that tends to preclude others and takes advantage of the fact that the other players can't ever kick that player from the group or engage in PvP to discourage that behavior on an IC level.
Hrothdane - thank you so much for that wikipedia-link! :D
This is awesome:
"The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_Wheeler:
"In order to disguise himself, Wheeler covered his face in lemon juice. Lemon juice has been used as a type of "invisible ink"; when used as ink on paper and allowed to dry, lemon juice only appears when heated. Wheeler used this fact as a basis to reason that placing unheated lemon juice on his face would render him invisible to bank security cameras. […] When shown the surveillance tape from the robberies, Wheeler was shocked and objected: "But I wore the juice". Wheeler had tested his lemon juice hypothesis prior to proceeding with the robberies. After covering his face with lemon juice, he took a picture of himself using a Polaroid camera. At the time of Wheeler's arrest, he explained to one of the detectives handling his case, Sergeant Wally Long, that his face had failed to appear in the resulting photograph; a seeming confirmation of his theory. Detectives would speculate this result was caused by bad film, incorrect camera operation, or lemon juice in Mr Wheeler's eyes."
...sorry for the threadjack - this was just too good not to highlight :)
Response to the initial post>
Those are all wrong questions. It does not matter who rolls the Diplomacy check if he role-playes along with the check in a way consistent with his character. It might be fun for everybody. If the other characters are having problems with this, thay have to tell him IC. Unless they do so, everything is fine. The point is to have a game which is fun for everybody, not to play the best way possible.
Lacking skill points in a certain skills can not prevent you in trying that skill (minus some special skills). It is like you would be offended by a noicy character trying to make a stealth check or a character with low wisdom and no ranks in Perception rolling Perception check.
On the other hand, if you have a player who annoys other players (not a character annoying other characters - that is fine), than do not play with him next time or even kick him out during the play.
Unless Pathfinder Society rules say you have to play with jerks... ;-)
Jetty wrote: Response to the initial post>
Those are all wrong questions. It does not matter who rolls the Diplomacy check if he role-playes along with the check in a way consistent with his character. It might be fun for everybody. If the other characters are having problems with this, thay have to tell him IC. Unless they do so, everything is fine. The point is to have a game which is fun for everybody, not to play the best way possible.
Lacking skill points in a certain skills can not prevent you in trying that skill (minus some special skills). It is like you would be offended by a noicy character trying to make a stealth check or a character with low wisdom and no ranks in Perception rolling Perception check.
On the other hand, if you have a player who annoys other players (not a character annoying other characters - that is fine), than do not play with him next time or even kick him out during the play.
Unless Pathfinder Society rules say you have to play with jerks... ;-)
So, as you run things, the first (pushiest?) player to jump up and say "I use Diplomacy" is the one who makes the Diplomacy check? Anyone else can do no more than Aid him?
After all there are no rules to determine who acts or which try will take precedence so it must just be the first to say anything, right?
Talking to someone is an in-character action. Making the Diplomacy roll is a metagame decision. I feel perfectly justified as a GM in listening to the -2 Diplomacy barbarian make a fool of himself and then asking the other characters what they're doing before calling for a Diplomacy roll. If they stand aside, the barbarian makes the real roll. If the bard steps in and smoothly covers the faux pas, he makes the real roll and the barbarian rolls to assist. Everyone who wants to gets to talk. Everyone who wants to gets to roll. Highest skill counts, the others assist.
If a player objects and demands to be the one making the roll, then that's an player level problem and comes close to the "Don't be a jerk" rule. There may be cases where characters are asking for different things with the social skills and then there may be in character reasons. One trying Intimidate and the other Diplomacy, for example. I'm still hesitant to always rule that the player who speaks first goes first, though.
Especially in PbP, where it's often just a matter of who's online when.
@thejeff
You are making assumptions or I might not have been clear enough. I never said what you are implying.
The issue in the original post was not who goes first, but why the characters/players with low skills attempt them. That is what I was responding to.
Moreover I wrote it is important to role-play the encounter, so any "I use Diplomacy" statements from my players are just OOC info about what they are trying to do, but it is pointless to roll unless they actually attempt something.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs.
Jetty wrote: @thejeff
You are making assumptions or I might not have been clear enough. I never said what you are implying.
The issue in the original post was not who goes first, but why the characters/players with low skills attempt them. That is what I was responding to.
Moreover I wrote it is important to role-play the encounter, so any "I use Diplomacy" statements from my players are just OOC info about what they are trying to do, but it is pointless to roll unless they actually attempt something.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs.
The assumption I made seems implied in the question.
If the low skill character tries it when no one else wants to there's no issue. If the low skill character tries it and anyone else can also try it, there's also no issue.
Even with Diplomacy, if everyone wants to go out and make a Gather Information roll, for example, that's fine. The high skill guy is going to bring back the most info anyway.
The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.
If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.
thejeff wrote: The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.
If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.
That depends on the situation and should be decided IC, even if the solution is not always the best one.
As you put it - the question is not "player behaviour regarding skill checks", but "player behaviour in general". And as I said in my first post:
wrote:
On the other hand, if you have a player who annoys other players (not a character annoying other characters - that is fine), than do not play with him next time or even kick him out during the play.
Unless Pathfinder Society rules say you have to play with jerks... ;-)
It is worth nothing that, for the most part, Aid Another can only be used when the assisting character is capable of succeeding at the skill check he is aiding.
So that 7Cha character with no ranks in Diplomacy can't actually assist with a DC 20 Diplomacy check.
This means that this 7 Cha unskilled diplomat can only hurt the group by stepping up to talk.
-Matt
Jetty wrote: The issue in the original post was not who goes first, but why the characters/players with low skills attempt them. That is what I was responding to. That is incorrect. That is not the basis of my questions. What I am asking about is, in fact, what Jeff is talking about. A player who knows or has reason to believe that their character is the least qualified person to attempt any given skill check, and yet insists on trying to make that check in a manner which precludes the skilled person from making the check.
So your entire response is off the mark. No where am I suggesting people can't aid another or participate in a dialogue.
Mattastrophic wrote: It is worth nothing that, for the most part, Aid Another can only be used when the assisting character is capable of succeeding at the skill check he is aiding.
So that 7Cha character with no ranks in Diplomacy can't actually assist with a DC 20 Diplomacy check.
This means that this 7 Cha unskilled diplomat can only hurt the group by stepping up to talk.
Based on this, I assume: Quote: In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. I always took that to mean things like "Need to have trapfinding to disarm magic traps", not just "Can't make the DC even with a 20."
Mattastrophic wrote: It is worth nothing that, for the most part, Aid Another can only be used when the assisting character is capable of succeeding at the skill check he is aiding.
So that 7Cha character with no ranks in Diplomacy can't actually assist with a DC 20 Diplomacy check.
This means that this 7 Cha unskilled diplomat can only hurt the group by stepping up to talk.
-Matt
from the PRD:
Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
so, it appears to me that the restriction you mention only applies for skills the PC can't DO, ... sort of like having a Nurse "Aid" a Doctor when they can't do the procedure alone. The nurse has enough training to be able to "aid"...
(edit: Indeed, I could see where this would become SOP for some parties of adventurers... "Jo takes ten on her Gather Information roll, and we all aid her - everyone rolls - and that gives us the BEST G.I. we can get, because Jo is the best at that skill...". This keeps everyone in the game and helping, even the -4 Diplomacy guy who does his Gather Info in the Dockside Bar.)
Jetty wrote: thejeff wrote: The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.
If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.
That depends on the situation and should be decided IC, even if the solution is not always the best one. Who talks is an IC decision. Who rolls the dice and whether they're rolling Aid or the main check is an OOC decision. The characters aren't rolling dice.
thejeff wrote: Jetty wrote: thejeff wrote: The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.
If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.
That depends on the situation and should be decided IC, even if the solution is not always the best one. Who talks is an IC decision. Who rolls the dice and whether they're rolling Aid or the main check is an OOC decision. The characters aren't rolling dice. This is true as long as the Judge runs it that way.
Sad to say, not all of them do it that way, and that teaches some players to "Speed roll a D20". Everytime the Judge says "I need someone to roll - ", and dice are already rattleing the table top....
Speed-Roller: "I got a 17!"
Judge: "In what?"
Speed-Roller: "what you were asking for?!"
Judge: "finishing my statement now...a suicide attempt."
Yeah, I actually saw that in a PFS game.
thejeff wrote: I always took that to mean things like "Need to have trapfinding to disarm magic traps", not just "Can't make the DC even with a 20." In classic Paizo fashion, the text is not as clear as it could be.
-Matt
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
nosig wrote: thejeff wrote: Jetty wrote: thejeff wrote: The only time it's a problem is when the low skill character trying and failing prevents the high skill character from doing it. Or makes it harder by angering the NPC or drawing attention by sneaking poorly while scouting or something.
If only one character gets to try a particular skill check, then someone has to decide who that is. All I'm saying is that even if the low skill player jumps up and says "I try to talk the guard into letting us past", that doesn't mean he has to be the one to make the roll.
That depends on the situation and should be decided IC, even if the solution is not always the best one. Who talks is an IC decision. Who rolls the dice and whether they're rolling Aid or the main check is an OOC decision. The characters aren't rolling dice. This is true as long as the Judge runs it that way.
Sad to say, not all of them do it that way, and that teaches some players to "Speed roll a D20". Everytime the Judge says "I need someone to roll - ", and dice are already rattleing the table top....
Speed-Roller: "I got a 17!"
Judge: "In what?"
Speed-Roller: "what you were asking for?!"
Judge: "finishing my statement now...a suicide attempt."
Yeah, I actually saw that in a PFS game. That's still an OOC decision. It's just the Judge's.
And that's awesome.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
