| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too caustic to have lay on hands. Sad now.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stay in the fiction and when the fiction calls for a roll, or triggers some mechanic, then we go to the mechanic. Once the mechanic resolves, we then go back to the fiction using this resolution to tell us which direction it goes.
That's a very articulate summary of a gaming philosophy. I think I'm gonna be chewing on that one for a good while...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Mechanic"? "Direction"? "Triggers"? Sounds like railroad talk to me!
Stay in the fiction and when the fiction calls for a roll, or triggers some mechanic, then we go to the mechanic. Once the mechanic resolves, we then go back to the fiction using this resolution to tell us which direction it goes.That's a very articulate summary of a gaming philosophy. I think I'm gonna be chewing on that one for a good while...
I'll recommend this article. It helps extrapolate on that concept of breaking down the whole process of a mechanic interrupting (or reinforcing) the fiction.
He's specifically talking about horror games, which I think are even more sensitive to mechanics that break the fiction, but it can still apply broadly.
On the other hand, if the player in question finds appropriate equipment that gives him a bonus to lifting, it can. For example if he's trying to lift a gate and he finds a lever or makes one, is it not allowed to help him because the player is being clever not the character? I'm sorry but "I diplomance him. What do I get?" Doesn't work for me.I’m also worried about this as a GM. My own current standard is “Roleplay it, you roll a proper check, with possible bonuses/negatives depending on how good an idea it was, though it will always mostly rely on your stats”. But it still worries me, because it’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t want to start balkanizing people out of the face role.
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?.
The characters ability to be a good talker should not be hindered or enhanced by the players any more than a character should get a bonus to strength because the player can bench press 400 pounds.
Basically I look at the general point the player is trying to get across, and the character says it as effectively as the rolls are.
The player can make an outstanding speech, but if he makes a bad roll, then his well intended compliment can come across as a back handed compliment.
I dont get what you are trying to say. Give an example and differiate between the character and the player so I can understood who is doing what if you don't mind.
I also never said "I diplomance him" was how I did things. Don't take my words out of context. I am saying that some people are terrible speakers, but even so I can figure out what they try to say.
As an example he can still RP the speech, but it should not penalize him or help him. That is how to keep things fair which is what the OP is asking. YOU are acting as if I am saying no RP'ing should be done.
Maybe what he's saying is that because a player bench press 400lbs it can help the character get a bonus, since he'd know the techniques and tools to minimise the effort and maximise the lift. Such a description could be worth a small bonus to your strength check, similar to an eloquent player getting a bonus to his characters diplomacy check.
Attacking offensive strength is different to lifting strength. Of course the rules confuse the two for convenience (convenient confusion?).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't cleave to that slavish devotion to the dice. I never have. I'm not attacking it, or even saying I don't understand it. I just don't buy into it, and never will. Won't do it to my players. Won't play in a game with a DM who's tyrannically devoted to the dice and the rules. Just how I feel about it.
To bring in an example from a popular game.
DM: To recap last session the party has just escaped execution and a dragon attack in the village of Helgen. You spoke at length with Alvor the blacksmith and he has asked you to bring news of the dragon to the Jarl of Riverwood. We stopped just short of the city last time as you approach the gate a Guard steps forward hand on his Sword "Hold there," he says "the city is closed due to rumors of dragon attacks."
Which of these examples would you accept and why not the others?
EX 1) I explain to the guard about what transpired at Helgan and our conversation with Alvor to try to get him to let us pass.
EX 2) I tell the guard that Helgan was attacked by a dragon and that it was seen flying this way from Riverwood. I press upon him the importance of speaking to the Jarl about this matter as some of his hold's citizens are worried.
EX 3) I approach the guard hands up speaking calmly and concisly "Sir we have seen the dragon these rumors are about. I attacked the town of Helgan and flew off this direction. Alvor the blacksmith of the town of Riverwood has asked us to come and speak with Jarl Balgruf about the danger it may present.
EDIT: Do understand that I purposefully left out examples such as "I roll Diplomacy to get in the gate.
|
BillyJoeJimBob the player is a gregarious out-going person who is confident in social situations.
Heff is the character BillyJoeJimBob is playing. Heff comes from a rural back woods area and is more comfortable with animals then the ‘civilized’ races, especially females of the ‘civilized’ races. No skill points, traits or feats were spent on social skills and Heff has a negative CHA mod.
The party enters a fairly big sized upper scale tavern. They are trying to find Jillian a female of the ‘civilized’ races who is might have some important info. The party except for Heff heads to the bar to talk with the bartender. Heff, being a highly perceptive person, saw someone at a far table who fits Jillian’s description. BillyJoeJimBob tells the GM that Heff walks over to Jillian and starts a conversation.
The rest of the party , after receiving directions from the bartender, head towards the far table where Heff talking to Jillian. The GM and BillyJoeJimBob have a witty back and forth dialogue between Heff and Jillian. As the rest of the party arrive at the table Jillian hands Heff 2 pieces of paper. The first paper has the need info and the second is the equivalent of Jillians’ phone number.
No dice were rolled. Was an example of ‘good character interaction’?
I know this isn’t a very good post but I’d like to see what people have to say.
BillyJoeJimBob the player is a gregarious out-going person who is confident in social situations.
Heff is the character BillyJoeJimBob is playing. Heff comes from a rural back woods area and is more comfortable with animals then the ‘civilized’ races, especially females of the ‘civilized’ races. No skill points, traits or feats were spent on social skills and Heff has a negative CHA mod.The party enters a fairly big sized upper scale tavern. They are trying to find Jillian a female of the ‘civilized’ races who is might have some important info. The party except for Heff heads to the bar to talk with the bartender. Heff, being a highly perceptive person, saw someone at a far table who fits Jillian’s description. BillyJoeJimBob tells the GM that Heff walks over to Jillian and starts a conversation.
The rest of the party , after receiving directions from the bartender, head towards the far table where Heff talking to Jillian. The GM and BillyJoeJimBob have a witty back and forth dialogue between Heff and Jillian. As the rest of the party arrive at the table Jillian hands Heff 2 pieces of paper. The first paper has the need info and the second is the equivalent of Jillians’ phone number.No dice were rolled. Was an example of ‘good character interaction’?
I know this isn’t a very good post but I’d like to see what people have to say.
If the roleplay was good and reflected the characters stats sure. Especially if there was a low/no DC to get the info. Now if Jillian were hesitant or unwilling to hand over the papers lets say dc25 then Heff should have rolled possibly with bonuses based on what was said or other information he might have had. If you simply ignore his stats based how a good conversation then expect that a guy picking a lock who knows how to do it will want to auto succeed based on his in-depth player ability/knowledge.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BillyJoeJimBob the player is a gregarious out-going person who is confident in social situations.
Heff is the character BillyJoeJimBob is playing. Heff comes from a rural back woods area and is more comfortable with animals then the ‘civilized’ races, especially females of the ‘civilized’ races. No skill points, traits or feats were spent on social skills and Heff has a negative CHA mod.The party enters a fairly big sized upper scale tavern. They are trying to find Jillian a female of the ‘civilized’ races who is might have some important info. The party except for Heff heads to the bar to talk with the bartender. Heff, being a highly perceptive person, saw someone at a far table who fits Jillian’s description. BillyJoeJimBob tells the GM that Heff walks over to Jillian and starts a conversation.
The rest of the party , after receiving directions from the bartender, head towards the far table where Heff talking to Jillian. The GM and BillyJoeJimBob have a witty back and forth dialogue between Heff and Jillian. As the rest of the party arrive at the table Jillian hands Heff 2 pieces of paper. The first paper has the need info and the second is the equivalent of Jillians’ phone number.No dice were rolled. Was an example of ‘good character interaction’?
I know this isn’t a very good post but I’d like to see what people have to say.
If the player's representation of Heff was reasonable (i.e., he implemented his shortcomings, rather than ignoring them), and Jillian's personality/circumstances/setup/etc were such that it was appropriate for her to give those things to a character of that type under those circumstances, then everything's fine.
However, if it's the more typical scenario of the city-girl Jillian having a distaste for country boys, and also requiring some persuasion to get her to give the information at all; and if it's the scenario I think you were implying where the player was not at all speaking like the nervous, uncomfortable hick that he claimed his character to be and got results anyway; if all of that was the case, then we're looking at a failure to roleplay, and the mechanics would have produced the better story.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One could also allow a person to act it out, giving a bonus or minus to a roll depending on the performance, as well as do the same for those who simply describe the particulars rather than acting it out because it's more their style. Then it affects the roll, but doesn't override it. In addition, a DM doesn't have to call for a roll if he or she doesn't want to. He could offer the option to play it out, and one could choose to either roll or role-play. There are plenty of options besides, "THE DICE HAVE SPOKEN."
I just don't cleave to that slavish devotion to the dice. I never have. I'm not attacking it, or even saying I don't understand it. I just don't buy into it, and never will. Won't do it to my players. Won't play in a game with a DM who's tyrannically devoted to the dice and the rules. Just how I feel about it.
The problem I have with the first paragraph is that you're creating a judgmental space at your table, literally. You are judging players based on the role-playing performance and giving them a bonus. Players who aren't as skilled at it don't receive the bonus and so are less likely for their characters to succeed.
For me personally, role-playing is its own reward. I'll give an example from a similar thing that I didn't like in my group: attendance XP. I didn't like rewarding people for showing up, because then it ipso facto becomes a withholding of reward to people who don't show up in an attempt to encourage them to do so. Hanging out with your friends should be its own reward, you should like these people to begin with (we're an old group that's been together since high school, everyone has been in the wedding party for at least one other person), I shouldn't need to induce you to come.
I feel similarly with roleplaying. You should do it because you enjoy it, not because I reward you for doing it by making the roll easier. Instead, my reward is engaging with the player and having a good time with them. The more they put into roleplaying, the more I put into roleplaying with them. My goal is to match them and push them just a little further.
To date, this has the nice effect of getting people who are often stuck in their shells to come out. I run games at conventions and this approach works very well to get people comfortable at the table. Usually by the end of a session I have even the normally quiet people standing up making sweeping arm gestures, dramatic pauses and wonderful facial expressions. Not everyone though and often times in different ways.
IMO, the game should be played so that everyone is comfortable expressing themselves, regardless of what level that expression is. I think that granting one person bonuses for a specific type of roleplaying and not giving them to someone who isn't comfortable or doesn't have that communication style creates a negative atmosphere. If you can get it to work for you, that's great. In my experience it creates an uneven playing field, the repercussions of which are not always immediately obvious.
As to your second paragraph, I rely on the dice because they're impartial. I strive to always tell my players what is at stake on a die roll though, so that they can choose if this is the course of action they want to pursue. Telling them the cost of failure and giving them the choice to move forward or not gives them agency and means I'm not springing awful consequences on them for no apparent reason. Sometimes players are willing to suffer those consequences, other times the rethink what they're doing and look for a new approach.
I do put my biases into the modifiers of the die roll and I do my best to make them make sense.
Also, I only use the dice for things that are important. Unless seducing the bar maid is part of the plot, I don't care. If you just want to use it for color to establish something about your character, go for it. It's when it becomes important to advancing a story line, that is when the roll comes in. Failure at the roll also has to be interesting, if I can't make it interesting, I prefer to have no roll and just roleplay success and continue moving forward.
I think it's mostly an immersion issue.
Random thought akin to the whiteboard idea upthread:
(probably only useful to the right sorts of characters, but it's a possible solution for at least a few folks)
Use the "R. Jordan Fighting Style" method with 3x5 or 4x6 cards.
While I've seen it a few other books, one of the iconic things about Robert Jordan's books was the fight sceners where instead of describing the singing of steel-on-steel or the complexities of move-thrust-twist, he had an metaphoric term for the exchange, rendering it down to a short hand.
...additional inspriation from Blacklist (Red's monologues - as James Spader's charisma is arguably the only thing that got the series through it's first [and subsequent] seasons).
I'd write down a few "classic" exchange types and probably flavor it something akin to...
"Pulling from my Lionblade training, and remembering your description of the guard, I use my 'Lost Lamb Routine' to try to talk my way past him."
Emphasizing body language, eye contact and tone, you attempt to indicate that a need for assistance or compliance in cooperation. The focus is on gaining the empathy for the target to your plight and reinforcing their own assumptions of authority, as well as making certain to downplay any possible negative reaction to your goal's accomplishment.
This routine works best on those with kindly dispositions and works least well on those who are routinely manipulated, are sadistic, or legalistic in their outlook.
... or ...
"Remembering a Bellflower friend of mine who used this trick to move around in Cheliax, a grab a handful of papers and put on a fearful expression as I walk under the gibbets up to the blood-spattered gates using the 'Doomed Messenger' routine"
Making sure your appearance is suitably apprehensive, you approach your target(s) with the implied intent to deliver very very bad news. Making sure that your relief is palpable when rebuffed from your goal, you mention that you would be very very glad to have someone else deliver the messages as long as you can get their name so that they will take FULL responsibility. The target should be persuaded to actually talk you into continuing with your goal rather than taking responsibility for delivering the "bad news" personally.
This routine works best when dealing with authorities who serve despots or those with known tempers and will often not work out at all when dealing with those who serve good aligned or less vindictive despots.
Hope that helps. Sympathize with both "sides" on this one.
-TimD
|
|
... and if it's the scenario I think you were implying where the player was not at all speaking like the nervous, uncomfortable hick that he claimed his character to be and got results anyway; if all of that was the case, then we're looking at a failure to roleplay, and the mechanics would have produced the better story.
Like I said, I suck at this but Jiggy your about what I was trying to imply in that scenario.
BillyJoeJimBob the player is a gregarious out-going person who is confident in social situations.
Heff is the character BillyJoeJimBob is playing. Heff comes from a rural back woods area and is more comfortable with animals then the ‘civilized’ races, especially females of the ‘civilized’ races. No skill points, traits or feats were spent on social skills and Heff has a negative CHA mod.The party enters a fairly big sized upper scale tavern. They are trying to find Jillian a female of the ‘civilized’ races who is might have some important info. The party except for Heff heads to the bar to talk with the bartender. Heff, being a highly perceptive person, saw someone at a far table who fits Jillian’s description. BillyJoeJimBob tells the GM that Heff walks over to Jillian and starts a conversation.
The rest of the party , after receiving directions from the bartender, head towards the far table where Heff talking to Jillian. The GM and BillyJoeJimBob have a witty back and forth dialogue between Heff and Jillian. As the rest of the party arrive at the table Jillian hands Heff 2 pieces of paper. The first paper has the need info and the second is the equivalent of Jillians’ phone number.No dice were rolled. Was an example of ‘good character interaction’?
I know this isn’t a very good post but I’d like to see what people have to say.
As others have said, if she's supposed to be a challenge, (and he hasnt rolled high), it makes no sense.
Anyway, I think I've got as much as I can out of this thread. There are unfortunately no more regimented methids proposed here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your words and/or description set the basic form and shape of what you say - your roll determines how well it came off and was presented. It's as if what you said was first given to a scriptwriter for polish then given to an actor to present in game. It's not a tape recording of what you said, it's a post-production edited film quality version of what you said modified by what you rolled.And I'm sorry, but at least the content and general thrust can help or hinder him. Yes, I realize it's said by a much more skilled speaker - which is reflected by the skill and the roll - but there are some arguments that would NEVER work on some listeners, no matter how high their diplomacy, and there are some lines of argument that would almost always work on a specific listener, even if said by the mumbling half Orc who is flipping off the eleven king while dancing naked in court.
That is why I said to go by intent rather than the words. Most of use know people who are terrible with words. A compliment about losing weight might come out as "You are not nearly as fat as you used to be". That might not be taken well by the recipient. That person should not suffer RP'ing because of a real life limitation. Many of use play the game to escape our real life limitations. To carry this forth if one person is not going to be hindered then another person should not be getting bonuses. It gives another player an unfair advantage.
To bring in an example from a popular game.
DM: To recap last session the party has just escaped execution and a dragon attack in the village of Helgen. You spoke at length with Alvor the blacksmith and he has asked you to bring news of the dragon to the Jarl of Riverwood. We stopped just short of the city last time as you approach the gate a Guard steps forward hand on his Sword "Hold there," he says "the city is closed due to rumors of dragon attacks."
Which of these examples would you accept and why not the others?
EX 1) I explain to the guard about what transpired at Helgan and our conversation with Alvor to try to get him to let us pass.
EX 2) I tell the guard that Helgan was attacked by a dragon and that it was seen flying this way from Riverwood. I press upon him the importance of speaking to the Jarl about this matter as some of his hold's citizens are worried.
EX 3) I approach the guard hands up speaking calmly and concisly "Sir we have seen the dragon these rumors are about. I attacked the town of Helgan and flew off this direction. Alvor the blacksmith of the town of Riverwood has asked us to come and speak with Jarl Balgruf about the danger it may present.
EDIT: Do understand that I purposefully left out examples such as "I roll Diplomacy to get in the gate.
I prefer at least number 2, but I understand 1 if the person is not comfortable RP'ing. It takes some people time to grow into it. Some may never grow into it, but they are making an effort to participate. I like 2 because he gives a general description from a character point of view, and it shows intent. Then the roll can determine how well he gets it across. 3 is similar to 2, but has more RP in it.
Not pointed at anyone-->At the end of the day there is no one perfect method. Do what works for your table, and let everyone know what that method is. Just don't be surprised if certain people ignore certain roles. Some will be intimidated if their words have too much weight. Others will feel cheated if their words don't have any weight, and only the dice matter.
I used to modify the rolls if there was particularly good roleplaying, the old 1-2 suggested in dm books in the past. But I would often forget to do it, since I wanted the game to keep going, I'm not tracking are they on a +1 or 2 on my side because they are doing the rolls and they tell me what they get.
Years back there was one game I really added a lot of bonuses for getting into it, but it fell out of use.
So since I was woeful at keeping track of it, I dispensed with it. I do remember reading it in dungeon masters guides to assist those that get stuck in, but I am convinced it privileges those with real world charisma and various ranks in perform: storytelling and be cool. :)
The problem I have with the first paragraph is that you're creating a judgmental space at your table, literally. You are judging players based on the role-playing performance and giving them a bonus. Players who aren't as skilled at it don't receive the bonus and so are less likely for their characters to succeed.I don't agree.
Did you not read the paragraph that followed it, where I said, "as well as do the same for those who simply describe the particulars rather than acting it out because it's more their style"? Asking for a description is by no means unreasonable, nor is it particularly demanding.
To be clear, are you saying you give the bonus for roleplaying, regardless of how well someone roleplays? Or do you judge their roleplaying and then choose whether or not they've earned the bonus?
Because your earlier comment made it sound like the latter. In which case, my comment is correct, since your judgement as DM is necessary to determine when they get the bonus or not.
Anyway, I think I've got as much as I can out of this thread. There are unfortunately no more regimented methids proposed here.
I probably missed it. What specifically are you looking for?
The problem I have with the first paragraph is that you're creating a judgmental space at your table, literally. You are judging players based on the role-playing performance and giving them a bonus. Players who aren't as skilled at it don't receive the bonus and so are less likely for their characters to succeed.I don't agree.
Did you not read the paragraph that followed it, where I said, "as well as do the same for those who simply describe the particulars rather than acting it out because it's more their style"? Asking for a description is by no means unreasonable, nor is it particularly demanding.
To be clear, are you saying you give the bonus for roleplaying, regardless of how well someone roleplays? Or do you judge their roleplaying and then choose whether or not they've earned the bonus?
There are situational die roll bonuses, which one can earn from either role-playing, describing one's action with sufficient cleverness that the intent is clear or both. Then there are experience point bonuses, which I would only award for actual role-playing, not just description.
I consider judging such things well within my purview as DM.
So, I point out that you are literally judging people's performance. You disagree, but then confirm that you are indeed judging people's performance.
Got it.
If that's your table, power to you. I've already stated why I don't like it.
BTW, you don't disagree with my conclusions, you actually just disagree on the effect on your table and state reasons how it doesn't impact your group. Your statements actually support my conclusion in that you point out factors in your group that mitigate what I'm talking about.
This isn't to say that you shouldn't do it, or that you're having badwrongfun. I'm just pointing out for clarity of discussion.
I don't just game at conventions. I have a group of old high school buddies too. With one exception, every person at the table has been in the wedding party of at least one other person. I use these practices there and have found improved results the past two years. It's actually helped quite a bit with one specific player who previously was much more reserved in his approach to games at the table.
I also have 3 other gaming groups, though those I've known for a lot less time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I point out that you are literally judging people's performance. You disagree, but then confirm that you are indeed judging people's performance.
Got it.
If that's your table, power to you. I've already stated why I don't like it.
You're talking like you don't judge what people do at your table. That seems odd to me - someone in the role of GM who won't judge? I know that as GM in any RPG, I'm doing that a lot - I judge how successful the PCs' actions are all the time. And I suspect you really are doing quite a lot of it too, but perhaps not recognizing it under that term because of some negative and possibly misplaced notion of what "judging" someone is.
That is why I said to go by intent rather than the words. Most of use know people who are terrible with words. A compliment about losing weight might come out as "You are not nearly as fat as you used to be". That might not be taken well by the recipient. That person should not suffer RP'ing because of a real life limitation. Many of use play the game to escape our real life limitations. To carry this forth if one person is not going to be hindered then another person should not be getting bonuses. It gives another player an unfair advantage.
Your words and/or description set the basic form and shape of what you say - your roll determines how well it came off and was presented. It's as if what you said was first given to a scriptwriter for polish then given to an actor to present in game. It's not a tape recording of what you said, it's a post-production edited film quality version of what you said modified by what you rolled.And I'm sorry, but at least the content and general thrust can help or hinder him. Yes, I realize it's said by a much more skilled speaker - which is reflected by the skill and the roll - but there are some arguments that would NEVER work on some listeners, no matter how high their diplomacy, and there are some lines of argument that would almost always work on a specific listener, even if said by the mumbling half Orc who is flipping off the eleven king while dancing naked in court.
Those "use" should be "us". I make enough typos without autocorrect help.
I was actually reported at least once by a person who was extremely angry that I told him he had to do some amount of roleplay to earn a diplomacy roll. He had built the character as a diplomacy monster, but insisted that all he needed to say is "I make a diplomacy check".
I laid down the law on requiring a minimal amount of interaction to earn a check or an assist, and he complied with it, but he was extremely unhappy about it. I have not modified my stance on this issue however.
You say "I make a diplomacy check", the guard/princess/merchant/lich/dragon/random-peasant says (the equivalent of) "what?"
So you modified your stance to what? I agree with your old stance btw, it is superior to the compromising falcon stance.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being an introvert is _NOT_ a character flaw, it's part of how some people's personalities are wired. I'm sure that this is not what any of you mean, but it ends up sounding like 'If you're introverted, you either let me fix that, or you're not welcome to play.' I know that if I played with someone and in the first few game sessions they were pushing me to be more fluent and outgoing than I am by nature, I would clam up even more. If I'm accepted for what I am, then after a few sessions, I'm likely to feel comfortable enough to open up and try. I wouldn't be bothered if the following happened:
me: I want to use diplomacy on the guard
DM: OK, what do you say?
me: Well, I remind the guard about <blank> that happened last week, and also that <city leader> said <blank>.
DM: OK, roll for diplomacy.
I would probably leave and never come back if the response was more like
me: I want to use diplomacy on the guard
DM: OK, what do you say?
me: Well, I remind the guard about <blank> that happened last week, and also that <city leader> said <blank>.
DM: No, you need to tell me exactly what you say. I need to judge how well you can roleplay for you to earn a roll.
My thoughts in the second case would probably resemble the following:
Why did I bother putting the skill points into diplomacy? And it's completely unfair that you're judging people for not being just like you. I'm not welcome here just because it takes me a while to get comfortable enough with people to roleplay the way you want.
Again, my main point is that being an introvert instead of an extrovert is not a character flaw or something that needs to be fixed. It's a major component of every system I've seen for classifying personalities (Myers-Briggs, 4 temperaments, Kelsey, etc.)
I think we're each clear on the other person's position. Probably best to let this go, now, since it's unlikely we're going to agree.
No, I don't think we are clear. I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my stance correctly, or if there's too much sniping in our recent history for it to be communicated correctly.
Honestly, I keep seeing aspects of your responses that indicate to me you actually agree with a lot of what I'm saying, then you put some piece of emphasis on it which indicates you're completely opposed to what I'm saying.
My whole point is to not judge people on the quality of their performance. Is that something you agree with?
It sounds like you do, since you make the comment about Ebert and Olivier. In this part:
I can gauge each differently and yet remain entirely fair, because I can take into account when it's difficult for someone, especially people I've known for years or decades, to participate, and factor that in.
It's actually precisely what I'm advocating for, but then you turn around and put so much emphasis into how much you're disagreeing with me. Am I being unclear? If I am, maybe instead of trying to put so much effort into attacking my position, you could ask questions of me to better understand it.
Also, it's fine if my situation doesn't apply to you. It doesn't make either of our situations less valid. At the same time, the original goal of this thread is someone seeking advice and counsel on the subject. So maybe instead of trying to tear down other people's point of view, ask them questions to help determine what might be useful about it to someone who does come to a thread like this looking for useful information.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.
An intriguing analysis; I suppose the other side of the coin is that talking through the situation in-character without making use of any relevant mechanics is merely roleplaying. It's not gaming. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.
I suspect that the vast majority of players do their thing in happy place where both elements are present. However, most of us have at some point encountered someone from a tiny minority; either the "I diplomacize him" player or the "But what EXACTLY do you SAAAYYYY" GM, or perhaps both.
Then, when one of these threads gets going, one of those ridiculous people shows up (I've not yet noticed a trend of which is more likely to make the first entrance, so for the sake of example we'll say that the "I diplomacize him" player appears first).
The person states their extreme-minority stance (such as "I should be allowed to just say 'I roll Diplomacy' and that's that").
Someone responds to that by saying they'd like to know a few details, such as whether you drop any names or what angle you work.
Then, someone sees the second poster's comment and absorbs nothing more than "I REQUIRE MORE", which they then assume means this person is one of those minority extremists who thinks talk is holy and dice are dirty. So they reply to that by saying that no, it should be sufficient to merely describe what angle you're working or what names you're dropping, etc. The same as the person they're arguing with.
Then, the person being argued with (or someone who agreed with them) sees this reply and just sees "LET ME DO LESS" and thinks that means "less than identifying what angle you're working and what names you're dropping", which of course can only mean this is another one of those "I diplomacize him" players. So they reply back and say—harsher this time—that no, you need to at least identify what angle you're working and what names you're dropping.
Then, someone sees that comment and absorbs nothing more than "I REQUIRE MORE", which they then assume means this person is one of those minority extremists who thinks talk is holy and dice are dirty. So they reply to that by saying—more harshly this time—that no, it should be sufficient to merely describe what angle you're working or what names you're dropping.
Then, the person being argued with (or someone who agreed with them) sees this reply and just sees "LET ME DO LESS" and thinks that means "less than identifying what angle you're working and what names you're dropping", which of course can only mean this is another one of those "I diplomacize him" players. So they reply back and say—harsher this time—that no, you need to at least identify what angle you're working and what names you're dropping.
Then, someone sees that comment and absorbs nothing more than "I REQUIRE MORE", which they then assume means this person is one of those minority extremists who thinks talk is holy and dice are dirty. So they reply to that by saying—more harshly this time—that no, it should be sufficient to merely describe what angle you're working or what names you're dropping.
And so on and so forth, until the aggression has escalated to the point of removing any hope of someone realizing that all but one or two people actually completely agree that identifying the angle you're working and the names you're dropping is an acceptable means of handling Diplomacy.
:/
|
|
It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.An intriguing analysis; I suppose the other side of the coin is that talking through the situation in-character without making use of any relevant mechanics is merely roleplaying. It's not gaming. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.
I suspect that the vast majority of players do their thing in happy place where both elements are present. However, most of us have at some point encountered someone from a tiny minority; either the "I diplomacize him" player or the "But what EXACTLY do you SAAAYYYY" GM, or perhaps both.
Then, when one of these threads gets going, <removing the details of a very interesting analysis for length>
I think you're right so far, but you're missing one important part. Those from the 'you must tell me what you say' side often phrase their comments to make it sound like listing an approach to diplomacy is a barely acceptable solution. I'm sure this is not what they intend, but they end up making it sound like they're looking down on those who can't give a word-by-word amazing oration. And those of us who are introverts have put up with enough already of people looking down on and trying to change us.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I do think, "Could you describe what you're saying/how you're going about it?" is a reasonable requirement, however
And I'd guess that 99% of people agree with you. The trick, if the player is shy/introverted/uncomfortable, is to phrase your request in a way that comes across in the same way as when they stab a creature with multiple resistances and you ask what type of weapon they're using, rather than sounding like you're putting them on the spot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing.
It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.
But " I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" Is fine in combat. Its the same thing, you are using the rules of the game for a result. So I'm have to really swing a sword to show the GM what I am doing? As a player I am unable to play the character the way i want to because me as a player sucks at social situations and I can't play the character as intended?