| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play acting is not necessarily roleplaying. Ignoring one aspect of mechanics in the book doesn't make you a superior gamer. Suggesting that using those rules makes someone a child or anything else is insulting though.
Look, I dont think BigDTbone was trying to be insulting (though he might have failed his diplomacy roll... hehe). I've known some a&@~$!!s that do, but he seems to simply want to present the difficulty in finding games with expectations that match one's capacity.
Even play-acting aint enough. I can play-act, but if you can convince the GM of the quality of your argument & you cant use rolls, you are basically playing with your own charisma.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were we not talking about substituting Diplomacy checks for the roleplaying?The situation has become... mixed up. My own problem is that many GMs remove rolls altogether in social situations and make us play with our own charisma (which aint high for many of us).
What a lovely way to motivate the quiet players in the group to get even more quiet. Why even include Charisma in such a system? That works better for a more casual game like Swords and Wizardry, but even then, the GMs I've played with have allowed very vague diplomatics.
I can see requiring some sort of roleplay before making a check, and I can see giving bonuses or penalties based on what the player says. Though I'd only give penalties for the player saying something obviously terrible, like mentioning how awesome elves are to a gang of dwarves. Even then, though, such requirements should be tailored to the individual player—I'd be more likely to reward an "okay" speech from a normally quiet player than a "good" speech from an extrovert.
Personally, I do kind of favor Gark's style. Here's how my games work: They roll. I ask them what they say. They tell me, as clearly or as vaguely as they prefery. I apply bonuses if they say something I like, penalties if they say something idiotic and/or offensive. Then I follow the rules.
Obviously, it's not perfect, because roleplaying itself has an imperfect relationship with the "game" side of the equation. Always has. But that's where the interpretation of the GM comes into play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play acting is not necessarily roleplaying. Ignoring one aspect of mechanics in the book doesn't make you a superior gamer. Suggesting that using those rules makes someone a child or anything else is insulting though.
Again, you're taking the comparison too literally.
"Aha! You've fallen for a classic blunder, and now, just like Napoleon at Waterloo, you have..."
"ARE YOU CALLING ME FRENCH?!"
He's not calling anyone a child. He's saying that people who can't roleplay in this manner are, well, less good at something than other people. Which is exactly the truth. Someone who's blind can't see too great, someone with autism tends to be worse at on-the-fly verbal roleplaying and "improv".
"I can't understand/am sick of working out the grapple rules for 3.5, so we switched to Pathfinder/4E."
Same deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Kobold.
Normally I am an EXTREME extrovert so I have no problems but my bf is the exact opposite and more than a few times he runs into difficulties when playing faces where as I seem better at diplomacy than him 90% of the time, even though I don't play faces.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if all the members of the group are aware of my limitations and they still force me to play like that it's my problem for having a condition I can't do anything about?To an extent that is correct. You described your condition as "social blindness," so allow me to borrow your metaphor. A blind person joins a meetup group that does art outings once a month. The first month they go to a poetry reading, the next they go to an orchestra concert. The third month they go to a play. For the fourth month they plan to go to a gallery.
The seeing impaired individual says, "hey, I can't really get anything out of that plus last time we did a play and I didn't get as much from that as the other stuff. I think we should not do the gallery thing."
It is completely appropriate for the group to reply, "This is an art society. We intend to do all manner of outings including some which are purely visual. We understand that you may not choose to participate in those activities but we have no intention of providing alternative choices or outings. If this is deal breaker for you then we understand that you must fill your desires as you see fit and there are no hard feelings. Please understand that we will continue to fulfill our free time desires in a way that we most enjoy as well."
The same is true of the gaming group. If they have fun doing the social stuff then that's how they have fun. You can't expect them to stop doing the things they enjoy.
Your example makes sense to an extent but it makes the people in the Art Society sound not very inclusive in my opinion, specifically because they are refusing to adjust to a members needs.
I'm not saying I expect that Art Society to completely abandon ship for visual art but I would expect them to be willing to try and help the blind person by either:
1) Having alternative trips (assuming others would want to).
2) Possibly having less visual art based trips in general.
3) Doing things to help the blind person appreciate the trip, such as describing the art they see, how it makes them feel, etc.
Maybe the group doesn't want to do any of those things but in my opinion it makes that particular group sound either snobbish and/or uncaring.
Note: I'm not trying to suggest that a DM/Group should just give up on what they like, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for a group to adjust at least a little for someone who, for whatever reason, finds the roleplaying aspects of the game hard and who would like to augment/support their play with roles. It's not stopping anyone else from acting to their hearts content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three out of four is pretty good, considering how huge visual mediums are in art.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A problem as old as dnd itself. I think real-world charisma counts more than the scores and stats on the page for getting what you want and shaping it to what you wish. This is obvious when a low charisma player is ignored and what he does rarely seems to go his way, with their always being a cost. I try to not let it affect me too much as a dm, but it has. A charismatic friend playing in my games was a force to be reckoned with.
A problem as old as dnd itself. I think real-world charisma counts more than the scores and stats on the page for getting what you want and shaping it to what you wish. This is obvious when a low charisma player is ignored and what he does rarely seems to go his way, with their always being a cost. I try to not let it affect me too much as a dm, but it has. A charismatic friend playing in my games was a force to be reckoned with.
Something I start to feel with great regret. I largely quit video-games because it never had the flexibility I wanted, and now I see that I cant get what I want in TRPGs either because I'm not convincing enough. It is very depressing. Sigh. I guess that's why I tend to get so much more joy out of DM-ing a game (assuming I have decent players) than I get in playing most games. Double sigh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chat to your dm, and say you would like to go for a declare actions and what you are trying to achieve rather than rp everything as if it is you saying it. Show this thread if you like and say you are really struggling but want to still have fun and be helpful.
For example, "I try to trick the guard that I am someone important so I can be let through without a hassle", rather than elaborate roleplaying while pretending to be an important official or noble.
Being clear and direct won't win you any extra wiggle room prior to the roll, but hopefully it can just go straight to the roll and your real world charisma won't matter much. :) Good luck!
Or, and I hope this doesn't sound derogatory, at least get him to lower his standards a little. :P
The problem is that usually it ends up that what you say is what your character says, which makes it so that dumping CHA has almost 0 impact in game if you yourself can make up for the character's lack of charisma.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i much prefer the hybrid of dice and a general idea of what you want to say/do rather than totally trying to act it out or just tossing dice and letting it go at that.
I've had a number of shy and reserved people at the table, those who have felt self conscious being put on the spot. The trick is to work with them to get an idea of where they want the conversation to go rather than expecting them to fill in all the little details and be a Master Communicator. Most people, even those who are good talkers, can talk themselves into a hole if they get too carried away. Better to give a brief outline and move on from there.
That said, I to caution my players new and old that if you aren't comfortable in certain roles you might want to consider if that is the role you want to take. I work with players when I GM if they want to play something social or out of their range; however, I don't just let you toss dice and leave it there. If you want to be the party face or a master tactician or whatever, I expect you to carry a bit of the burden as well. The above mentioned outline of what you want to say, for example, or be willing to take tactical hints and elaborate on them.
A pet peeve are those who repeat exactly the information the GM says. That is just .. lazy isn't the right word, but it isn't something I am fond of. But that's another thread :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute! There will also be rp scenes for their character. :D
Later encourage and slowly help them to grow. They level us as the game continues. One of our shy players is no longer shy after three campaigns.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me: " I want to be charming to the bad guys girlfriend when I see Her at the party so she will give me the key code. I rolled a critical success."
GM: "What do you say to the women at the party to charm Her and have Her reveal the key code to you?"
Me: "Well since me, the player, has no idea how to handle myself in this situation, I don't know what to say. But my character has done this hundreds of times before, and I made the roll, so my character says the right thing."
Thats how it should be handled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I come from the other end of the spectrum where I Looooove playing talky characters. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I have a good CHA in real life, but I'm a writer by profession, and I think thinking obsessively about characterization and motivations and so forth all the time helps me in terms of Playing the Talky. I find myself having to constantly bite my tongue when I play low-CHA characters, because it drives me batty when, say, the story we're playing has featured numerous hints on how NPC Joe loves his daughter above all else and is torn between his loyalty to the king and his desire to protect his daughter, but he's a proud man who was a fierce fighter in his youth.... and then we get to the diplomacy, and our designated party face, the one with the +10 to Diplo, is like "You should help us because the king needs taking down" and rolls a Diplomacy and is like 'cool, that's a 25, so we're done, right?'
(*Exaggerated situation made up for purposes of demonstration. But I have absolutely been in many, many games where a character narrated their character being, at best, an arrogant jerk to an NPC, issuing demands, making insults, and then rolls and has a 30 diplo and expects to have now 'won'.)
And this is just as maddening, in the other direction, as it is for the people in this thread who have a legitimate frustration in that their character is suddenly expected to soliloquize out a brilliant speech even though they themselves don't have the inclination or skills for that and now feel put unfairly on the spot.
So, what is the solution? I don't know. The suggestion of roling first and rp-ing after is a good one. Building on that, I would suggest this:
(Caveat; this only works with GMs who will work with you) For those of us who don't feel gifted with the gab in an OOC sense, discuss it aforehand with the GM and propose the following arrangement:
"Hey, I'm playing a character who's supposed to be pretty socially savvy-- check out my charisma, the points I've put into Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc-- but you know me. In real life, especially if I feel put on the spot, I might botch it. Can I do things like Sense Motive rolls to get a GM hint on what the best line of approach is, in a social situation? Or can I make my Diplomacy check and, if it's high enough, get an idea of the stuff my character would reasonably know NOT to say, because it would just make our situation worse? I WANT to roleplay out what my character is saying, but I don't want my OOC skill-gap here to result in screwing the party over, when my character would know better. So if we can use my skills and rolls as a 'warning system' if I'm inadvertently moving in the wrong direction when I try to RP, it might save us all some headache."
This, again, only works if a GM is sympathetic to your situation. If you have a GM who takes what I agree is an unreasonable approach that social skills must only be used if you can back it up with Hamlet at the table, well.... it does put you a little SOL. But I feel that a lot of the time, explaining in advance to a GM can make the difference between the GM being frustrated ("god, they just don't want to roleplay at all") and the GM realizing that no, this is something you really struggle with, but you need to be met halfway.
/my two cents
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute! There will also be rp scenes for their character. :D
Later encourage and slowly help them to grow. They level us as the game continues. One of our shy players is no longer shy after three campaigns.
Or they leave your table and the hobby never to return because you decided that you should play amateur therapist and fix them rather than let them enjoy the game.
See my description of A above.
I knew it, I just knew someone would go the aggressive route and throw an insult in for good measure.
Well here is the deal Krensky, I am not an amateur psychologist and this wasn't therapy, they didn't leave the table and through encouragement and putting them in the spotlight they became a better roleplayer. This applies to the latest as it applies to other previous shy players before them. I have been doing this for a long time.
If you have a problem with my methods which help players become better roleplayers, come to my table. I welcome you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute! There will also be rp scenes for their character. :D
Later encourage and slowly help them to grow. They level us as the game continues. One of our shy players is no longer shy after three campaigns.
Or they leave your table and the hobby never to return because you decided that you should play amateur therapist and fix them rather than let them enjoy the game.
See my description of A above.
I knew it, I just knew someone would go the aggressive route and throw an insult in for good measure.
Well here is the deal Krensky, I am not an amateur psychologist and this wasn't therapy, they didn't leave the table and through encouragement and putting them in the spotlight they became a better roleplayer. This applies to the latest as it applies to other previous shy players before them. I have been doing this for a long time.
If you have a problem with my methods which help players become better roleplayers, come to my table. I welcome you.
I would expect someone to go the aggressive route too. Considering that what you wrote reads like "A player of mine is a bit shy. That is unacceptable. I shall ambush them with surprise mandatory improv RP and repeatedly target their weak social skills by putting them on the spot until they stop being introverted caterpillars and start being a big, colorful, extroverted social butterfly like I absolutely demand that they should be".
It might not be what you meant, but I personally wasn't sure if you did or did not mean it like that. Someone else apparently took it as if you did mean it like that.
If you didn't mean it like that, then perhaps you should clarify.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what you wrote reads like "A player of mine is a bit shy. That is unacceptable. I shall ambush them with surprise mandatory improv RP and repeatedly target their weak social skills by putting them on the spot until they stop being introverted caterpillars and start being a big, colorful, extroverted social butterfly like I absolutely demand that they should be".
If someone did that to me (minus the hyperbole), and it actually worked, I would be very grateful to them. Shyness is a crippling social ailment, not an alternative lifestyle that people choose.
Contributor
|
what you wrote reads like "A player of mine is a bit shy. That is unacceptable. I shall ambush them with surprise mandatory improv RP and repeatedly target their weak social skills by putting them on the spot until they stop being introverted caterpillars and start being a big, colorful, extroverted social butterfly like I absolutely demand that they should be".If someone did that to me (minus the hyperbole), and it actually worked, I would be very grateful to them. Shyness is a crippling social ailment, not an alternative lifestyle that people choose.
I think the bolded is a big part of it.
Plus, they might not be able to withstand it long enough to see improvement. I know I'd buckle pretty quick. ^_^
|
Contributor
|
what you wrote reads like "A player of mine is a bit shy. That is unacceptable. I shall ambush them with surprise mandatory improv RP and repeatedly target their weak social skills by putting them on the spot until they stop being introverted caterpillars and start being a big, colorful, extroverted social butterfly like I absolutely demand that they should be".If someone did that to me (minus the hyperbole), and it actually worked, I would be very grateful to them. Shyness is a crippling social ailment, not an alternative lifestyle that people choose.I think the bolded is a big part of it.
Plus, they might not be able to withstand it long enough to see improvement. I know I'd buckle pretty quick. ^_^
Didn't you describe yourself as a diva only a short time ago?
Divas are not known for buckling. :)
I'm way, way more shy among people I'm not extremely familiar with.
Among those I know well, I'm a bit... different. It's complicated.
When I "buckle" among them, it can be a bit loud. Or at best, just pouty. ^_^
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute! There will also be rp scenes for their character. :D
Later encourage and slowly help them to grow. They level us as the game continues. One of our shy players is no longer shy after three campaigns.
Or they leave your table and the hobby never to return because you decided that you should play amateur therapist and fix them rather than let them enjoy the game.
See my description of A above.
I knew it, I just knew someone would go the aggressive route and throw an insult in for good measure.
Well here is the deal Krensky, I am not an amateur psychologist and this wasn't therapy, they didn't leave the table and through encouragement and putting them in the spotlight they became a better roleplayer. This applies to the latest as it applies to other previous shy players before them. I have been doing this for a long time.
If you have a problem with my methods which help players become better roleplayers, come to my table. I welcome you.
I would expect someone to go the aggressive route too. Considering that what you wrote reads like "A player of mine is a bit shy. That is unacceptable. I shall ambush them with surprise mandatory improv RP and repeatedly target their weak social skills by putting them on the spot until they stop being introverted caterpillars and start being a big, colorful, extroverted social butterfly like I absolutely demand that they should be".
It might not be what you meant, but I personally wasn't sure if you did or did not mean it like that. Someone else apparently took it as if you did mean it like that.
If you didn't mean it like that, then perhaps you should clarify.
The nonsense continues! I'm not making them into extroverted butterflies, it is an rp game and I include them, making sure they have a place and there are scenes for their character (some solo and tied to backstory and identity, most are along with the rest of the group but where they also have to contribute as doing nothing and giving nothing is a waste of everyone's time). There is the requirement that they participate and yes, use social skills in a social game with friends. We are pretty understanding and chill, so it isn't a pressure-cooker, all that is required is some effort. Slowly they get better and rp gets easier, and they can do more in the rp games.
Results have been great. No, they didn't become extroverts or butterflies but they did become roleplayers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I can't find the words for my characters who are in this situation, or when I know my characters skill far exceeds mine I like to take a third person narration approach. For example: "My character attempts to find a convince King SoAndSo to trust the party with this mission, extolling the parties virtues and successes, while underplaying our proclivity to bar brawls." The GM would then ask for a role applying an appropriate modifier if the king had been particularly worried about our inexperience, or rowdiness.
It leaves you the player responsible for shaping your characters words to suit the problem, while leaving your character to actually make the flowery nuanced speech.
Not sure what will help turn the conversation, you can use other skills to help you, its a matter of asking the right questions, and listening. So diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge local can all be used in various contexts to help you. You can say use a diplomacy role on the king to guide the conversations to the route of his concern, before shaping his opinion, and use sense motive to determine if your diplomacy was really up to snuff or if the king is hiding something.
The goal is to make sure you are engaged in solving the problem rather the abrogating that to a single skill roll. Just like in combat, you don't just roll one die and determine the fight. You chose positioning, and tactics for your character as a player. You help shape your character and his identity by sometimes, even in the third person, asking interesting questions, or using, intentionally, bad tactics or positioning (or good.)
Best thing to do is check with your GM if this approach is appropriate for your table, I would be surprised if they said no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
If that's the game you want to play then sure. Many people don't want to play that game. For many people part of THE FUN OF GHE GAME comes from those social interactions. Your example is the exact same example as in the OP, and it ignores the fact that it isn't about a logical argument, it is about how people choose to play the game. It's about how people have fun.
If you don't have fun that way then no hard feelings but you may decide to look for another group or play a character that isn't the face.
|
|
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
The player still makes the choice for the route they wish to tumble past a foe, as in tumbling they may tumble through a trap, hazard, or square threatened by a foe they can't see.
Your diplomacy example is also in line with this, the player is attempting a specific goal, and while unembellished they can attempt the roll. If they said instead "I try to secure us some additional reward from the mayor, mentioning how precious his daughter is that we saved." then that might grant the player an additional +1-2.
The embellished request gives the player a risk/reward opportunity, as the GM may rule in this case the mayor perceives this as a threat to his daughters safety, and give a minus instead of a plus.
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
If that's the game you want to play then sure. Many people don't want to play that game. For many people part of THE FUN OF GHE GAME comes from those social interactions. Your example is the exact same example as in the OP, and it ignores the fact that it isn't about a logical argument, it is about how people choose to play the game. It's about how people have fun.
If you don't have fun that way then no hard feelings but you may decide to look for another group or play a character that isn't the face.
And fun should be had by everyone at the table. I don't know the OP's specific situation so I can't give a deep example here but did the GM inform players up front that Cha based skills were to be roleplayed and that dice wouldn't effect the outcome? Does he allow an example like my post or would he ask for specifics such as "Well that's fine but what do you say to convince him? At the end of the day it is about a logical argument why follow the rules at all with skill checks if those checks are useless? I'm not advocating for a simple "I roll Diplomacy" But if those skills have no purpose for the person making the check then why even have them on the sheet?
If I were to go play at a PFS table I would expect that my bard would be able to succed on a Bluff/diplomacy/perform check even if I was incapable of comprehending the "how" of my wording as long as the "what" of the wording and goal were clear and I rolled high enough.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Under The Bridge, do you honestly not understand why people reacted negatively to your post? Here, take another look at what you said (I'll add some bolding to help):
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute!
You said that.
So, are you not aware that "put them on the spot" is a decidedly negative term? It very specifically refers to putting someone under pressure; generally enough pressure that even someone who might otherwise have been perfectly comfortable might end up faltering.
Since you later said "it's not a pressure cooker", then either you're changing your story or you used the term "put them on the spot" to mean something entirely different than what it actually does mean.
Furthermore, when you say that at your tables "they must contribute", the word "must" means you're placing a requirement on them. It implies demands or social coercion. Perhaps this was another poor word choice? In any case, what you actually said communicated a level of demand and force that of course people would react negatively to.
Go back and re-read what you originally wrote, one last time. Surely you can see how negative it sounded, yes? The responses you got are very far from "nonsense".
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
If that's the game you want to play then sure. Many people don't want to play that game. For many people part of THE FUN OF GHE GAME comes from those social interactions. Your example is the exact same example as in the OP, and it ignores the fact that it isn't about a logical argument, it is about how people choose to play the game. It's about how people have fun.
If you don't have fun that way then no hard feelings but you may decide to look for another group or play a character that isn't the face.
And fun should be had by everyone at the table. I don't know the OP's specific situation so I can't give a deep example here but did the GM inform players up front that Cha based skills were to be roleplayed and that dice wouldn't effect the outcome? Does he allow an example like my post or would he ask for specifics such as "Well that's fine but what do you say to convince him? At the end of the day it is about a logical argument why follow the rules at all with skill checks if those checks are useless? I'm not advocating for a simple "I roll Diplomacy" But if those skills have no purpose for the person making the check then why even have them on the sheet?
If I were to go play at a PFS table I would expect that my bard would be able to succed on a Bluff/diplomacy/perform check even if I was incapable of comprehending the "how" of my wording as long as the "what" of the wording and goal were clear and I rolled high enough.
PFS is its own beast with its own problems. This isn't a PFS forum so I'm not going to get in to the problems that organized play brings to the table.
At any particular table you may need to spend some time to determine if your desires match up with the the group. A GM may not think or know to tell someone that their table works a certain way. It could just be the way they play. The logical argument wont help you if that group is looking for certain things in their play. It doesn't matter how "fair" it is or isn't if the group wants the interaction.
Look a particular groups social contract is important. Important enough that if a new player is joining said group or a new person is taking over a role they have never filled before and the rules aren't going to be run as the game lays them out they need to be told. Being told after play has started about any house-rules that negatively affect your character sucks regardless if they are affecting social skills or combat or spell-casting finding out after you decided to play the affected character and after you finished making it sucks. Even more so if don't get told till it comes up that it doesn't work that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
Therein lies the difficulty. Let's take your last comment: You want to secure some additional rewards. What rewards are you going for? How much are you trying to get?
I don't think it is too much to ask the player to participate a bit more than "Me roll dice give me results bad GM!" (An exaggeration there)
It's a role playing game and part of that is theoretically some form of interaction. And to be honest, yeah, if you are doing something, whatever it is be it social or otherwise, I'd like a clarification on what you are doing. You want to go all flippity across the battlefield to get around the orc and want to go to cover .. which side are you aiming to get to? This is the cover available, which are you going for?
While the blacksmith doesn't have to tell me the temperature they forge the sword at, if you would like it to look a certain way that would certainly be something that would be good to know.
Otherwise, you get the opposite reaction where a player says "I wouldn't say THAT!" or "I wouldn't have gone that way!" or whatever other reaction when they just toss dice and say "I do blah." The GM interprets the results and tells you what happened, but it isn't the way you wanted, because you couldn't bother to clarify.
It isn't asking you to be an Oscar winning actor or somehow infringing on your character in some way to have you clarify your positions, words, or actions. For me, it's part of the game. Otherwise, why do I need you there if you are just someone rolling dice and offering little else?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM Under The Bridge, do you honestly not understand why people reacted negatively to your post? Here, take another look at what you said (I'll add some bolding to help):
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute!You said that.
So, are you not aware that "put them on the spot" is a decidedly negative term? It very specifically refers to putting someone under pressure; generally enough pressure that even someone who might otherwise have been perfectly comfortable might end up faltering.
Since you later said "it's not a pressure cooker", then either you're changing your story or you used the term "put them on the spot" to mean something entirely different than what it actually does mean.
Furthermore, when you say that at your tables "they must contribute", the word "must" means you're placing a requirement on them. It implies demands or social coercion. Perhaps this was another poor word choice? In any case, what you actually said communicated a level of demand and force that of course people would react negatively to.
Go back and re-read what you originally wrote, one last time. Surely you can see how negative it sounded, yes? The responses you got are very far from "nonsense".
Thsi is actually a rather funny and ironic example of how a person can say something, but due to low Diplo/Cha scores, it comes out completely wrong. xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look a particular groups social contract is important. Important enough that if a new player is joining said group or a new person is taking over a role they have never filled before and the rules aren't going to be run as the game lays them out they need to be told. Being told after play has started about any house-rules that negatively affect your character sucks regardless if they are affecting social skills or combat or spell-casting finding out after you decided to play the affected character and after you finished making it sucks. Even more so if don't get told till it comes up that it doesn't work that way.
It does suck, and in a perfect world people would know exactly what to say up front to help you make your choice. Human interactions are imperfect. That doesn't change the fact that for many tables the fun of the game is the social play. Those groups don't have to accommodate players who aren't looking for the same things.
Funny thing is that, groups that do pretty much ignore the social skills do not help the whole "lets dump CHa to the ground" thing at all since the only use for CHA (outside the casters) IS the social skills..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some third person "This is what my character is trying to accomplish" is all I require, as I would require that as the minimum for anything else. If anyone wants to add some more detail or flourish, by all means.
This is coming from someone what actually has a high charisma in real life. I can talk my way out of any situation, but I hang out with a lot of introverted and shy people. I know it doesn't come as easy to them. And even with my ability, sometimes I just don't have the exact words.
And knightnday, I disagree with that last statement wholeheartedly. With the minimum input of "I'm trying to do this", the player is already injecting the human element beyond dice rolling. Why not just cut some people some slack. We can't all be gifted role players, but that shouldn't stop people from enjoying the game.
Look a particular groups social contract is important. Important enough that if a new player is joining said group or a new person is taking over a role they have never filled before and the rules aren't going to be run as the game lays them out they need to be told. Being told after play has started about any house-rules that negatively affect your character sucks regardless if they are affecting social skills or combat or spell-casting finding out after you decided to play the affected character and after you finished making it sucks. Even more so if don't get told till it comes up that it doesn't work that way.It does suck, and in a perfect world people would know exactly what to say up front to help you make your choice. Human interactions are imperfect. That doesn't change the fact that for many tables the fun of the game is the social play. Those groups don't have to accommodate players who aren't looking for the same things.
I wouldn't expect them to accomodate the player if thats how the group plays. But I would expect them to let someone know. If I'm going to play a bard and I let the group know that I'll handle social skills someone should say "hey heads up we really like those to be played out more than just a roll", just as much as if I said I was going to play a spell caster and the group uses a rule that casting in combat is considered distracting and requires a concentration check accordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I have people roll and play it out. Then I spent a moment and imagine the player's arguments being presented by somebody with the character's mechanical effectiveness.
This allows both parts to be important, and it works no matter which way things are going. A prideful noble isn't going to be swayed by an insult to his skills no matter how smooth it is. At best he'll take it like a joke. On the other hand, choosing the right words can really help somebody's cause. Saying that helping will show the populace how much the prideful noble cares for them is not overt flattery, but it will likely go over well.
By having people roleplay even when they aren't so great, it will build confidence and experience.
|
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
No, but there are many parts of the game where the GM needs to know *how* you are doing something, as well as *what* you are doing.
For instance, if you want to attack a monster, I need to know what weapon you are attacking with, and any special modifications you are making to the attack (ie Charging or Power Attack). I need this, because, unbeknownst to the player, the monster may have DR, or a special defense (like a Flowing Monk's attack interrupt) which is effected by whether or not Power Attack has happened.
Similarly, if you are trying to talk to someone and get information, I need to what your basic approach is. We don't need to roleplay it (although we can) but I will at least need to know your opening move. Because, unbeknownst to the player, there may be inbuilt modifiers to the situation, +5 if you mention knowing his brother, or -2 if you say you're from a particular town.
As a GM, all I expect is a sentence or two of intent. For the story part of things, the real weight of the interaction ends up on the GM, which is where it belongs, but the more info you can give them to work with, the easier it will be for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said earlier asking for a basic outline isn't and issue. From my understanding of the OP the roll doesn't matter He is having to come up with the entirety of his argument or speech and that is the sole determiner of the outcome, or a major influence on the roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player who lacks charisma should not be penalized when playing a character with charisma.
This is one of many ways to handle it.
Before we start an in character interaction I might have the player make an charisma check and/or a heraldry or perhaps a local history check so that he addresses the NPC by his proper title. Assuming success I would relay to the other players a quick description of what the players character is doing.
You see Ramius take a knee and places his right hand over his left brestpocket and greets the magistrate as Thotar, son of Yolis, slayer of Genthor the horrible. Thotor has a surprised look upon his face.
"I did not expect an outsider to know the ways of the Lower Denborian". Thotar smiles and says "Arise traveler that I might know your name"
Now at this point I hand the mic to the player. What was established what the characters skill and charisma put them in good favor. I give a great deal of leeway to the player as long as he makes a reasonable attempt to be in character.
What I never do is speak for the character. I might relay what he is doing as it relates to a skill or attribute check but I never give voice to a PC.
It never hurts to remind your GM that your players charisma is High. You would be amazed how often GM's forget about those things.
Some third person "This is what my character is trying to accomplish" is all I require, as I would require that as the minimum for anything else. If anyone wants to add some more detail or flourish, by all means.
This is coming from someone what actually has a high charisma in real life. I can talk my way out of any situation, but I hang out with a lot of introverted and shy people. I know it doesn't come as easy to them. And even with my ability, sometimes I just don't have the exact words.
And knightnday, I disagree with that last statement wholeheartedly. With the minimum input of "I'm trying to do this", the player is already injecting the human element beyond dice rolling. Why not just cut some people some slack. We can't all be gifted role players, but that shouldn't stop people from enjoying the game.
That's quite alright, I don't mind being disagreed with. :)
My counter would be, cut them some slack on what, exactly? I am not asking them to be a gifted role player, whatever that might mean. I am asking them to interact. Yes, some do go beyond tossing the dice and asking for the GM to do the heavy lifting, but others .. not so much. Again, it isn't a matter of "I am doing this" that is the problem or the issue, but more of "Come on, if you try just a little you could actually add some detail to all this."
We all "enjoy" the game in different ways. I do not enjoy taking people for a drag. In that I mean that I am not really interested in people that aren't willing to put forth a bit of effort and seem engaged in the game. Can you say "I diplomacy him" and be engaged? Perhaps, but in my experience it hasn't been the case.
The people I've run across that aren't willing to add anything else to the conversation are less shy and withdrawn and more eager to get to the "good" parts of the game: killin' and lootin'. Which, hey, those are great parts of the game but they aren't all the game. As I believe has been stated above, it's about the table you are at and how your fellow players are interested in having fun.
And yeah, how you resolve or want to resolve these issues ought to be part of your table agreement and house rules documentation, so that players coming in understand what is or isn't desired.
It isn't a matter of doing it right or wrong; it's a matter of finding a ground that likes to do it the same way or is at least on the same spectrum of what they'd like to see.
Funny thing is that, groups that do pretty much ignore the social skills do not help the whole "lets dump CHa to the ground" thing at all since the only use for CHA (outside the casters) IS the social skills..
Many people dont think that is a thing that needs help.