|
Wow, that's not the least bit judgmental. It's a good thing for the rest of us that you've sussed out the one true way to play and to participate in PFS scenarios. I've sat at tables with shy people (hell, I've been the shy person before) that want to be around other people and be social, but are too shy to roleplay. Given time, some of those "exp-grubbing lumps" might decide to make a social character, might try to participate more in the non-combat aspects of the game. But not if you are judging them and acting like a snob.There are many different ways to play the game, just because their way is different doesn't make it wrong.
There's 'How can I help the party achieve its goals?' and 'Oh, go do stuff until I can do stuff.' There's two different schools of thought there.
I've sat at tables with shy people, but I've *asked* them and reached out to them, and helped some of them realize that yes, there are lots of things a character can do.
What I was trying to refer to are the folks that show up to a table and it appears that all they are doing is filling the table numbers out. No interaction, no contribution, no feeling that they're even really 'there'?
I make no claims as to knowing the 'one true way'. Eesh. If I did, I'd be applying it to RL situations and we'd all have sunshine and lollipops, right?
|
|
That's fair enough. I suppose I just don't see the issue with, the first time the situation comes up in the scenario, saying something like, "I would like to try to aid another, but not if there's a chance I could actually hurt the situation." And if necessary, adding, "Will a low roll to aid result in a negative impact?" to be clear it's an out of character question about the rules. The GM will either say, "Yes, you could hurt things," or "No, you can't hurt things, how would you like to aid?" Or some variation or combination of the two.
There's two problems with that.
First is that people learn rules from the dm and other players far more than the rule books. To some extent this is necessary , but it means that if a players usual group does things a certain way they stop questioning it, accepting it as a rule. For example, some local groups do knowledge checks to ID a monster as X number of questions and answers and don't realize that the question and answer thing isn't part of the rules. A player that has always played that way isn't likely to think to ask how someone does knowledge checks. Before this conversation you probably wouldn't have thought to ask about that because you'd never seen that interpretation.
Secondly, try to think about EVERY rule, nuance, or interpretation there is to this game and a player stopping stopping to ask you about every. Single. one of them. works. It really breaks the flow of the game.
Sorcerers get 2+Int skill points and Int is not a necessary stat for them for anything else.
Second if not first most useful skill in PFS, and it fits their stat. Sorcerers can dual major in diplomancy for the price of a corespondents course :)
|
There are scenarios where the higher the diplomacy roll the more successful it is (any of the social scenarios that use the influence mechanic). You can succeed with a low DC, but the higher it is, the more successful it is. In those situations, I would definitely want to know what the Barbarian is doing to help.Not talk.
Some DMs are quick to impose a penalty if you role play your charisma.
If you fail a diplomacy check by 5 or more you drop them a catagory, the DC to assist is 10. So by the odds grock and his -2 diplomacy has...
35% Chance to impose what is effectively a -5 on the check by dropping their attitude one step
a 40% chance to roll a 12 or higher and add a +2.
Thats IF the dm is letting that many people assist (how many people can assist a diplomacy and whether you need to be talking is a matter of table variation)
Sorry... one more minor point of clarification... The Influence mechanic I'm referring to above is a specific mechanic presented in (at least 3) scenarios. It is separate from the regular Diplomacy rules, and it does not include a penalty for failing by 5 or more. There are no instructions that I'm aware of in those scenarios to remove an Influence point if the roll is failed by 5 or more. It does, however, grant more Influence points the more you exceed the DC of the check by. It also specifically calls out that other characters may spend their turn assisting, instead of making their own roll. It seems to have been designed to encourage participation by all characters present so as not to leave less socially capable characters out. So, in that situation, barring an extreme interpretation by a GM that should hopefully be made clear, there is nothing to lose by the Barbarian attempting to aid other than the time spent doing so.
A player is always within their rights to decide not to do something, and I certainly don't think they are being a jerk by not participating if they don't feel comfortable doing so. But if they aren't participating because they don't want to hurt the situation or feel their role-play would be unwelcome, and it's a situation that they can't hurt (short of taking out their great sword and rolling for initiative) as a GM I'd assure them of that and see if they feel better about taking part. If they still don't, I wouldn't try to force a player to do something they aren't comfortable with.
Some of the best and most humorous role-play comes from socially awkward characters interacting at events like a wedding.
Sometimes in such scenarios, alternate skills are offered instead of Diplomacy. I recently ran one of these, and the Barbarian gained the second most Influence points for the party, by himself with no one aiding him, because they were told that one of the guests might be able to be intimidated based on the information the PCs had about the guest. This was a 10 or 11 year-old kid running the character. He could very easily have thought, "This is boring. I'll wait for combat." Instead, he listened to the introductions of the characters, found one where he thought he could contribute, and did so. He didn't do a lot of roleplaying, but he did tell me what he wanted to do, and he made the rolls. I think that was much appreciated by the table and a good sign for his future success in PFS.
|
Wow, that's not the least bit judgmental. It's a good thing for the rest of us that you've sussed out the one true way to play and to participate in PFS scenarios. I've sat at tables with shy people (hell, I've been the shy person before) that want to be around other people and be social, but are too shy to roleplay. Given time, some of those "exp-grubbing lumps" might decide to make a social character, might try to participate more in the non-combat aspects of the game. But not if you are judging them and acting like a snob.There are many different ways to play the game, just because their way is different doesn't make it wrong.
There's 'How can I help the party achieve its goals?' and 'Oh, go do stuff until I can do stuff.' There's two different schools of thought there.
I've sat at tables with shy people, but I've *asked* them and reached out to them, and helped some of them realize that yes, there are lots of things a character can do.
What I was trying to refer to are the folks that show up to a table and it appears that all they are doing is filling the table numbers out. No interaction, no contribution, no feeling that they're even really 'there'?
I make no claims as to knowing the 'one true way'. Eesh. If I did, I'd be applying it to RL situations and we'd all have sunshine and lollipops, right?
As soon as you start judging people and putting them down for their preferred style of play ("exp-grubbing lumps"), you are saying that your way is better, that they are playing wrong. Which does nobody any good. Remember that, at it's core, Pathfinder is a combat-oriented system. Judging people because they only like one aspect of the system is silly. Quit being silly, you silly goose.
|
|
As soon as you start judging people and putting them down for their preferred style of play ("exp-grubbing lumps"), you are saying that your way is better, that they are playing wrong. Which does nobody any good. Remember that, at it's core, Pathfinder is a combat-oriented system. Judging people because they only like one aspect of the system is silly. Quit being silly, you silly goose.
Okay, now that there's food in the belly after eighteen hours of not eating...
Yes, exp-grubbing would be a judgmental addition that was out of line.
'lump', though, isn't as much judgmental as a player concern that I've had in the past that I might be 'overpowering' the table and not letting others talk.
But then when the GM and the players look at the person, GM calls on them, and the player gives sort of a blank stare... What DO you do?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a character which one player had a serious problem with and did push the edge but some find brillant.
His response was to call my character concept stupid in front of the table and would not drop the subject. My mistake
It was, bluntly, my second worse PFS experince, and it was partly my fault.
Lesson for me:
Pay attention to what table I use this character at and what kind of shape I'm in.
Lesson related to this subject. Pay attention to yourself. That way, you know when playing in character crosses the line into being a jerk.
|
|
Sorry... one more minor point of clarification... The Influence mechanic I'm referring to above is a specific mechanic presented in (at least 3) scenarios. It is separate from the regular Diplomacy rules, and it does not include a penalty for failing by 5 or more. There are no instructions that I'm aware of in those scenarios to remove an Influence point if the roll is failed by 5 or more. It does, however, grant more Influence points the more you exceed the DC of the check by. It also specifically calls out that other characters may spend their turn assisting, instead of making their own roll. It seems to have been designed to encourage participation by all characters present so as not to leave less socially capable characters out. So, in that situation, barring an extreme interpretation by a GM that should hopefully be made clear, there is nothing to lose by the Barbarian attempting to aid other than the time spent doing so.
At one point during a given scenario, I 'sold' an NPC (via the GM) so hard that the GM actually stood up and walked over and shook my hand, explaining that even if I screwed up my roll on it, I hit every single point that the NPC was concerned about, and highlighted the options for dealing with them in a fluid sales-pitch.
That was sans Diplomacy or even a positive Charisma modifier, simply by using the information that had been gained previously within the module.
Now I'm wondering in retrospect... was I being a jerk for doing that?
|
|
Secondly, try to think about EVERY rule, nuance, or interpretation there is to this game and a player stopping stopping to ask you about every. Single. one of them. works. It really breaks the flow of the game.
If I am bringing a scroll of Breath of Life to a table in a spring-loaded wrist sheath, and I know that might or might not be allowed by the GM, then I'm going to ask before it comes up in game.
If I am bringing a Barbarian with a negative modifier to a social scenario, and I know (now) that the GM might or might not cause my attempt to help to hurt the party, then I'm going to ask before it comes up. Anyone reading this thread should be aware of that possibility now, and my suggestion to them is to ask if they find themselves in that situation. I clearly don't expect anyone not reading this thread to be aware of the advice given in it.
If I don't know that either of those rules might be an issue, but I have reason to believe that they won't (my local group allows it, my local GM doesn't penalize me for aiding another), then I'm going to try to do them when the opportunity comes up. If the GM *then* imposes a penalty, I would first let them know that it isn't how I thought things worked. If they won't let me change my action, that's fine. I'm not going to repeat that action with that GM, though.
You asked how I interpreted what you said to mean the character should never contribute. I think that is because your response when I asked what the Barbarian might want to do to contribute was "Not talk." A player certainly might make that choice, depending on their past experiences. You went on, however, to give the reason that some GMs might penalize them for doing so. When you sit down to a table, you aren't playing with "some GMs." You're playing with whatever GM you are at the table with. What it sounds like you are saying is that since you don't know how a GM will rule ahead of time, you shouldn't try. Or are you just pointing out that a player *might not* know how a GM will rule and therefore might not try? I am saying until you know how a GM will rule, you should feel free to try if you are comfortable. If you have reason to believe that will be a problem, feel free to ask before you do instead of assuming you know how the GM will rule and not participating in the scenario.
If it's a situation where locally or in most of the player's experience the GM has penalized them for trying to contribute, then I would expect that they might not talk. If I'm running such a scenario, and someone seems reluctant to participate, I'm going to reach out to them and let them know they don't have anything to lose. If they still don't want to participate, that's their choice. I was pointing to a specific mechanic in which the amount of a party's success is dependent on the amount of influence they gain (prestige is at stake). If I see a character not participating, I'll give them a friendly nudge. If I find out the reason why is that they think they might make things worse, I'll assure them that isn't the case.
Sorcerers get 2+Int skill points and Int is not a necessary stat for them for anything else.Second if not first most useful skill in PFS, and it fits their stat. Sorcerers can dual major in diplomancy for the price of a corespondents course :)
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. I agree that a Sorcerer can make an effective Diplomacy character. But just because they can do something, it doesn't mean they should. Maybe there are two other traits they'd rather have. Maybe they want Perception as a class skill instead, as it's also widely considered the most important skill in PFS and they don't get it as a class skill, either. Maybe they've just played a series of face characters and they want to play something else. The fact that they could build a diplomatic character doesn't change the fact that some Sorcerers won't and will find themselves in a situation where they are untrained in Diplomacy, but the party needs them to try to contribute. Whether or not the Sorcerer's player could have made different choices is irrelevant at that point. Either a +3 in a skill has a chance at negatively affecting a situation on a 1 or a 2 or it doesn't. If it does, there's not that much difference between a 16 CHA Sorcerer and an 8 CHA Barbarian. The chances the Sorcerer will hurt things are smaller than the Barbarian, but they are still there, and not insignificant, so in many situations where it's not critical that a high DC be beat, the Sorcerer will also be better off keeping quiet.
|
|
Sorry... one more minor point of clarification... The Influence mechanic I'm referring to above is a specific mechanic presented in (at least 3) scenarios. It is separate from the regular Diplomacy rules, and it does not include a penalty for failing by 5 or more. There are no instructions that I'm aware of in those scenarios to remove an Influence point if the roll is failed by 5 or more. It does, however, grant more Influence points the more you exceed the DC of the check by. It also specifically calls out that other characters may spend their turn assisting, instead of making their own roll. It seems to have been designed to encourage participation by all characters present so as not to leave less socially capable characters out. So, in that situation, barring an extreme interpretation by a GM that should hopefully be made clear, there is nothing to lose by the Barbarian attempting to aid other than the time spent doing so.
At one point during a given scenario, I 'sold' an NPC (via the GM) so hard that the GM actually stood up and walked over and shook my hand, explaining that even if I screwed up my roll on it, I hit every single point that the NPC was concerned about, and highlighted the options for dealing with them in a fluid sales-pitch.
That was sans Diplomacy or even a positive Charisma modifier, simply by using the information that had been gained previously within the module.
Now I'm wondering in retrospect... was I being a jerk for doing that?
No...? I'm not sure if that's a response to what you quoted from my post, or to the rest of the thread. If you managed all of those things, that's fantastic. I'd be thrilled to have a player pay that much attention during the scenario.
|
|
But then when the GM and the players look at the person, GM calls on them, and the player gives sort of a blank stare... What DO you do?
You just have to press on. I've GM'd for people like that, and when you have people who don't want to interact, you just have to focus on the people who do. If you're a player at the table, just ignore the person and focus on the people that are interacting. You can ignore them without having to judge them.
Threads like this remind me of what Mom always said:
"Don't just be yourself. Be your best self."
Characters should be multifaceted enough that you can come up with multiple ways to react to any given situation. Pick the best one.
So realizing that talking isn't your forte and staying out of trying to convince someone of something isn't one of those options?
|
|
So realizing that talking isn't your forte and staying out of trying to convince someone of something isn't one of those options?Threads like this remind me of what Mom always said:
"Don't just be yourself. Be your best self."
Characters should be multifaceted enough that you can come up with multiple ways to react to any given situation. Pick the best one.
I'm not seeing where I said that.
Choosing to stay quiet is a reaction. In fact, my 7 charisma magus usually does so. I RP him as having a small attention span for anything that doesnt relate to his small range of interests, so he usually isn't even paying attention to conversations.
So realizing that talking isn't your forte and staying out of trying to convince someone of something isn't one of those options?Threads like this remind me of what Mom always said:
"Don't just be yourself. Be your best self."
Characters should be multifaceted enough that you can come up with multiple ways to react to any given situation. Pick the best one.
I'm not seeing where I said that.
Choosing to stay quiet is a reaction. In fact, my 7 charisma magus usually does so. I RP him as having a small attention span for anything that doesnt relate to his small range of interests, so he usually isn't even paying attention to conversations.
Forgive the misunderstanding then. I had wrongly interpreted your response as one saying that an action would be better than inaction.
...I have no time for gamer Nuremberg defense.
I like that way of putting it.
It's especially worthy of eye-rolling when it's effectively a matter of "I was only following orders issued by my imaginary character!"
Any player who feels the need to say "sorry, but it's all Not Me's fault", especially in a group of people who are normally pretty good at the whole "yes, and..." routine, has totally failed to communicate and cooperate in a social hobby that depends on communication and cooperation.
|
|
If I am bringing a scroll of Breath of Life to a table in a spring-loaded wrist sheath, and I know that might or might not be allowed by the GM, then I'm going to ask before it comes up in game.
Thats A biggie. That might be worth asking. But how long do you have before the game? How many really weird rules interpretations have you seen on the boards? How long before the dm starts to wonder what you're up to. Are you going to go through them ALL?
Its not feasible. Its definitely not for everyone. Someone may very well assume the worst and play with that in mind.
|
|
If I am bringing a scroll of Breath of Life to a table in a spring-loaded wrist sheath, and I know that might or might not be allowed by the GM, then I'm going to ask before it comes up in game.Thats A biggie. That might be worth asking. But how long do you have before the game? How many really weird rules interpretations have you seen on the boards? How long before the dm starts to wonder what you're up to. Are you going to go through them ALL?
Its not feasible. Its definitely not for everyone. Someone may very well assume the worst and play with that in mind.
I'm not saying to necessarily go through it before the game. It depends on the situation. The scroll of BoL I ask about at the beginning, because if the GM isn't going to allow it, I'm not going to buy it or if I already have, I don't want to plan on using it. Getting that wrong can mean a character death, so it's important.
For Diplomacy, if it's a social scenario and I'm aware of that, I'd probably ask at the beginning, because I can expect the situation to come up. Otherwise, I would ask when the situation does come up. Few timeslots are ever under so much of a time crunch that you shouldn't be able to ask how an ability works before you use it if it isn't clear. Even if the GM rules in a way you disagree with, at least you know and you can move on. That's preferable to rolling the die, being told the NPC attacks because you tried to assist, and getting into an argument about the rules after the fact.
It's a matter of knowing your character and the potential issues that are likely to come up. If you aren't carrying a scroll of BoL, no reason to bring it up. If you have a +5 or better Diplomacy, likewise.
EDIT: "Someone may very well assume the worst and play with that in mind." This is absolutely true, and I don't think I ever said otherwise. As a GM, I try to spot those people if I see it happening. As people posting on the boards, we can only address those who are actually reading the thread. My advice to them would be to ask if you aren't sure. Or if they are the GM, to encourage people to participate when there are no consequences to them doing so. (note, encourage, not force. A player doesn't have to role-play or roll a die if they don't want to).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to sum up this thread...
You are a jerk for building an overpowered character
You are a jerk for building an ineffective character
You are a jerk for making a character that is better than my character
You are a jerk for making a character that is almost as good as my character
You are a jerk for interrupting a table through omission
You are a jerk for interrupting a table through inclusion.
You are a jerk for bringing a character that conflicts with the party
You are a jerk for portraying a 2 dimensional card board cut out with no personality
You are a jerk for everything you do.
You are a jerk for everything you DON"T do.
Do you start to see why people get defensive and don't listen when you invoke this rule? The appropriate response when people angrily tell you you are a horrible person because you're not giving them two mutually exclusive things at the same time IS to flip them the bird.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to sum up this thread...
You are a jerk for building an overpowered character
You are a jerk for building an ineffective character
You are a jerk for making a character that is better than my character
You are a jerk for making a character that is almost as good as my character
You are a jerk for interrupting a table through omission
You are a jerk for interrupting a table through inclusion.
You are a jerk for bringing a character that conflicts with the party
You are a jerk for portraying a 2 dimensional card board cut out with no personality
You are a jerk for everything you do.
You are a jerk for everything you DON"T do.
Pretty much.
|
|
On a separate note, in a recent session we had someone who had necromancy and Raise Dead as a spell.
And to their credit, they put it out there in the open. "I rarely use it, but if we need it in emergencies, does anyone have an objection to my using it?"
And the general consensus of the table was "If we get caught in that bad of a position, yes, PLEASE do so, don't ask, we'll sort it out after." It wasn't one person saying that, it was the rest of the table, having come to an understanding.
Thankfully, we didn't need it... but it did get a bit close there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you're not the jerk for doing any of those things and maybe the other guy is being the jerk for complaining about it, but holding fast to your insistence that you're not the problem doesn't make the game any more fun for anybody, so why do it?
Because that statement is objectively wrong and insulting.
You are somebody. You are not a no body. Your individual happiness and enjoyment of the game matters.
When you say that no one's enjoyment of the game is diminished by having someone micro manage your persona decisions you're saying that you're nobody and the person ordering you around is someone.
Accepting that you are someone and your personal enjoyment of the game is JUST as important as anyone elses is not being a jerk.
You are a jerk when you think that your personal enjoyment is the ONLY thing that matters.
There is an enormous difference between the two and conflating them gives jerks carte blanch to passive aggressively walk all over other players and dictate their whims all over everyone's game.
Compromise. Adapt. Enjoy the game
The golden mean is a logical fallacy. Not a goal.
He's the jerk. He's not going to change, even if he should.
He probably won't, but I'm not going to let him think he can walk over me or the other gamers like that. I'm not going to enable that sort of bad behavior with silence.
I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.
Now, I don't make it a habit to pick a fight while someone is using diplomacy on the bad guys, but if a character is so good at diplomacy that he or she is robbing me of ALL my opportunities to fight, I might get to the point where I just take a swing at one of those bad guys out of frustration.
|
|
I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.
Now, I don't make it a habit to pick a fight while someone is using diplomacy on the bad guys, but if a character is so good at diplomacy that he or she is robbing me of ALL my opportunities to fight, I might get to the point where I just take a swing at one of those bad guys out of frustration.
And if I was the character doing the Diplomacy I'd step into the way of that swing to even *further* enhance my argument that the bulk of the party is trying to avoid the fight and even to indicate that our own people aren't so keen on the idea but willing to go along with it.
Heck, that could even turn into an 'aid' effort on your part as you attack. That's only a DC 10! As long as you're not trying to kill someone when the party's parlaying? AWESOME!
That'd have to be worth some negotiating points. It's not PvP, even.
Which would you rather have from a sheer economics perspective?
A. A knock-down drag-out fight where you burn through three cure potions and ten arrows and get a bit of gear sundered and possibly loses a prestige point or two because some of the opponents got away and possibly don't finish on time...
OR
B. A carefully negotiated situation that nets both prestige points, no potions used, no arrows used, and possibly even gives you access to one of the opponents as a future resource (ie, a boon/trait/vanity item)and possibly finish an hour earlier than the slot?
NOTE: Not all situations are like this. There are some horribly punitive ones lately that actually punish you HARDER in terms of combat if you Diplomance your way through, apparently. In those circumstances, by all means death-vagrant away, please!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not going to lie, I'd probably have to take "A" once in a while. While you may enjoy diplomacizing out of every encounter, not everyone does.
Honestly, I'm kind of tired of all of the "Boo Murderhobo" stuff. Sometimes we gotta do what earned us our reputation. I was playing a season 6 7-11 where we were sent into obviously hostile territory exploring something where followers of a certain hostile being were, we entered the site and saw some dudes that were obviously hostile and meant us harm. My tengu Living Monolith won initiative, went swift action Righteous Might and cut down one of the bad guys only to have the CN, "I'm so much smarter than you why are you even here" alchemist balk at the fact that I just cut this [/i]thing[/i] down. Later on, we tried to negotiate with a dude for some stuff we were sent to get, but failed to do so. Despite the protests of some of the party, me and someone else beat the guy down and took the stuff we were sent to get by force (earning our second PP, by the way).
Just because you play the game a certain way, doesn't make it the only right way to play. Diplomacizing out of an occasional encounter can be fun, having run person insist on diplomacizing out of every encounter no matter what the rest of the party wants is significantly less fun. Note this doesn't apply to missions that are specifically diplomacy oriented, like at a wedding for example.
|
|
Derailing the game over a conflict with a jerk doesn't make the game more fun for anyone. It might well be less fun for you than if he hadn't been a jerk, but that's not happening in our hypothetical.
"Could you....
"No.
If it goes further than that you're not derailing the game, they are. I got enough detentions in highschool for being punched in the head to know that it does not in fact take two to fight.
|
I do think there is a point where almost any action taken far enough will make you a jerk. But throwing accusations across the table likely won't go anywhere pleasant during the game. I would say it is up to the GM to keep jerk-tendencies in check, but not by telling a player to stop being a jerk, but stepping out of role of pure rules judge to make sure people are having a good time.
It won't help for the GM to call out the player for being a jerk, there are generally better ways to defuse situations between the group.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.
When I'm playing a "will try and defuse ALL combat" character I try really hard to remember to tell the table that at the beginning of a session and ask them if they mind if I do this. If I've been succeeding in defusing a lot of situations I'll try and remember to ask the fighting sorts if they mind before I defuse the next one.
As a GM, if the players come up with a good plan to avoid or trivialize a combat I give them the option of that plan failing so that they can have the fight anyway. Usually they refuse but sometimes they want the fight.
|
|
I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.
When I'm playing a "will try and defuse ALL combat" character I try really hard to remember to tell the table that at the beginning of a session and ask them if they mind if I do this. If I've been succeeding in defusing a lot of situations I'll try and remember to ask the fighting sorts if they mind before I defuse the next one.
As a GM, if the players come up with a good plan to avoid or trivialize a combat I give them the option of that plan failing so that they can have the fight anyway. Usually they refuse but sometimes they want the fight.
This is also SOP for me.
Ask during the briefing - check again several times.
|
|
Keep in mind that Diplomacy takes 1 minute and can only improve a target's attitude by 2 steps. So at best, you'll get a hostile creature to indifferent, and that is assuming that you aren't rolling initiative as soon as you encounter them. Indifferent should've good enough to avoid combat, but in most cases would require beating the DC by 5. Diplomacy also doesn't work against unintelligent creatures or creatures that can't understand you. So while there may be scenarios that can be completed entirely through Diplomacy, it won't work in every scenario or potential combat.
|
|
Keep in mind that Diplomacy takes 1 minute and can only improve a target's attitude by 2 steps. So at best, you'll get a hostile creature to indifferent, and that is assuming that you aren't rolling initiative as soon as you encounter them. Indifferent should've good enough to avoid combat, but in most cases would require beating the DC by 5. Diplomacy also doesn't work against unintelligent creatures or creatures that can't understand you. So while there may be scenarios that can be completed entirely through Diplomacy, it won't work in every scenario or potential combat.
As with almost all things in this game, these rules are subject to change and\or exceptions
Cloak of the Diplomat for example allows a chance of three steps..
Though what you state is true in most cases.
|
|
Yes, there are ways to get around those. The Silver Tongued alternate racial trait also allows improving by three steps. There are apparently skill unlocks that reduce the time needed as well, which would be available to Unchained Rogues. Just pointing out that, in general, there are limits to it, so worrying that someone with a diplomacy build will completely take over every scenario isn't really warranted, unless they've gone to extremes. High diplomacy combined with Silver Tongued and an Impossible Sorcerer with a high DC Charm Person for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bit off topic... but I wish non-gamers were familiar with when the phrase, "it's what my character would do." It's the easiest way to shorthand my feelings when a corporation talks about, "maximizing shareholder value." (also known as sticking it to the employees and customers simultaneously.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace your character? Sure, that's an option.
The hell it is. Replace the player. Or just ignore them. The odds of needing to do that ina situation where it ends the game are infinitesimally low. (3 players)
Other people do not get to determine if you get to play your character. They don't get to pick what dice you use. They don't get to pick what actions you take. That's your decision, not theirs. If they have a problem with that then they are THE problem and need to be eliminated or ignored.
Not putting any more thought into the situation than two people fighting both must be at fault and siding equally against both just enables the worst behaviors. Don't do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit off topic... but I wish non-gamers were familiar with when the phrase, "it's what my character would do." It's the easiest way to shorthand my feelings when a corporation talks about, "maximizing shareholder value." (also known as sticking it to the employees and customers simultaneously.)
VIVA LA GALT!
|
|
Honestly, I'm kind of tired of all of the "Boo Murderhobo" stuff. Sometimes we gotta do what earned us our reputation. I was playing a season 6 7-11 where we were sent into obviously hostile territory exploring something where followers of a certain hostile being were, we entered the site and saw some dudes that were obviously hostile and meant us harm. My tengu Living Monolith won initiative, went swift action Righteous Might and cut down one of the bad guys only to have the CN, "I'm so much smarter than you why are you even here" alchemist balk at the fact that I just cut this [/i]thing[/i] down. Later on, we tried to negotiate with a dude for some stuff we were sent to get, but failed to do so. Despite the protests of some of the party, me and someone else beat the guy down and took the stuff we were sent to get by force (earning our second PP, by the way).
Hey, I know this game, that was my first experience with a VTT!
The first guy, yeah I did have an issue with that. It hadn't acted and no one had even identified what the thing was before it was cut down. The mission briefing had suggested multiple groups might be active in the area. Knowledge is power!
The second one I think was more of a problem with communication over the VTT than anything else. When we failed to diplomacize him I wanted to try the sneaky options first then, failing that, kill him and take his stuff. Because that's totally what my character would do. Though I was expecting that final option to cost us a PP instead of gaining one.
I guess the question is *why* did you cut the first thing down? Was that a player choice or, if your living monolith sees something he doesn't recognize, is he going to attack it because "that's what my character would do?"
I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.
When I'm playing a "will try and defuse ALL combat" character I try really hard to remember to tell the table that at the beginning of a session and ask them if they mind if I do this. If I've been succeeding in defusing a lot of situations I'll try and remember to ask the fighting sorts if they mind before I defuse the next one.
As a GM, if the players come up with a good plan to avoid or trivialize a combat I give them the option of that plan failing so that they can have the fight anyway. Usually they refuse but sometimes they want the fight.
This seems like a good way to handle things and keep a balanced table.
I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.
Now, I don't make it a habit to pick a fight while someone is using diplomacy on the bad guys, but if a character is so good at diplomacy that he or she is robbing me of ALL my opportunities to fight, I might get to the point where I just take a swing at one of those bad guys out of frustration.
And if I was the character doing the Diplomacy I'd step into the way of that swing to even *further* enhance my argument that the bulk of the party is trying to avoid the fight and even to indicate that our own people aren't so keen on the idea but willing to go along with it.
Heck, that could even turn into an 'aid' effort on your part as you attack. That's only a DC 10! As long as you're not trying to kill someone when the party's parlaying? AWESOME!
That'd have to be worth some negotiating points. It's not PvP, even.
Which would you rather have from a sheer economics perspective?
A. A knock-down drag-out fight where you burn through three cure potions and ten arrows and get a bit of gear sundered and possibly loses a prestige point or two because some of the opponents got away and possibly don't finish on time...
OR
B. A carefully negotiated situation that nets both prestige points, no potions used, no arrows used, and possibly even gives you access to one of the opponents as a future resource (ie, a boon/trait/vanity item)and possibly finish an hour earlier than the slot?
NOTE: Not all situations are like this. There are some horribly punitive ones lately that actually punish you HARDER in terms of combat if you Diplomance your way through, apparently. In those circumstances, by all means death-vagrant away,...
I think it's all about balance, I think there needs to be times when the "face guy" gets to shine, and there needs to be times when the "ass kicker" gets to shine. I could give two craps about resource economics, I'm playing the game to have fun. However, I believe that everyone should have fun and if two people have conflicting ideas of fun, then there needs to be balance between RP encounters and ones where combat can't be avoided so that everyone gets to have fun.
|
|
Honestly, I'm kind of tired of all of the "Boo Murderhobo" stuff. Sometimes we gotta do what earned us our reputation. I was playing a season 6 7-11 where we were sent into obviously hostile territory exploring something where followers of a certain hostile being were, we entered the site and saw some dudes that were obviously hostile and meant us harm. My tengu Living Monolith won initiative, went swift action Righteous Might and cut down one of the bad guys only to have the CN, "I'm so much smarter than you why are you even here" alchemist balk at the fact that I just cut this [/i]thing[/i] down. Later on, we tried to negotiate with a dude for some stuff we were sent to get, but failed to do so. Despite the protests of some of the party, me and someone else beat the guy down and took the stuff we were sent to get by force (earning our second PP, by the way).Hey, I know this game, that was my first experience with a VTT!
The first guy, yeah I did have an issue with that. It hadn't acted and no one had even identified what the thing was before it was cut down. The mission briefing had suggested multiple groups might be active in the area. Knowledge is power!
The second one I think was more of a problem with communication over the VTT than anything else. When we failed to diplomacize him I wanted to try the sneaky options first then, failing that, kill him and take his stuff. Because that's totally what my character would do. Though I was expecting that final option to cost us a PP instead of gaining one.
I guess the question is *why* did you cut the first thing down? Was that a player choice or, if your living monolith sees something he doesn't recognize, is he going to attack it because "that's what my character would do?"
Because we were in a place that worships an evil elder kraken, and we saw something that looked like it was part squid, and part human, and it looked hostile. If something is obviously hostile to me and my party members, I will kill it before it can hurt me or my teammates ten times out of ten. If that makes me a murderhobo, then so be it.
We're being paid to do a job, so by god it's going to get done.
|
Keep in mind that Diplomacy takes 1 minute and can only improve a target's attitude by 2 steps. So at best, you'll get a hostile creature to indifferent, and that is assuming that you aren't rolling initiative as soon as you encounter them. Indifferent should've good enough to avoid combat, but in most cases would require beating the DC by 5. Diplomacy also doesn't work against unintelligent creatures or creatures that can't understand you. So while there may be scenarios that can be completed entirely through Diplomacy, it won't work in every scenario or potential combat.
Also this:
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
People seem to forget that part a lot, and many encounters are set with people/creatures intending you some level of bodily harm.
