do people think "rollplaying" and "roleplaying" are mutually exclusive?

[Jiggy]

LazarX wrote:

And yes I've had people get incensed at the idea that they have to roleplay in order to make a diplomacy roll.

In this particular sentence, do you use the word "roleplay" to mean "speak in first-person"?

[Charon's Little Helper]

LazarX wrote:

When someone sits at a table I run and their character is in a social situation, and the only thing that comes out of their mouth is "I roll a diplomacy of 35", I'll not hesitate to call it what it is.... rollplay.

And yes I've had people get incensed at the idea that they have to roleplay in order to make a diplomacy roll.

To play devil's advocate here - does that mean that players who are wallflowers should be banned from playing charismatic characters?

[LazarX]

master_marshmallow wrote:

LazarX wrote:

When someone sits at a table I run and their character is in a social situation, and the only thing that comes out of their mouth is I roll a diplomacy of 35, I'll not hesitate to cal lit what it is.... rollplay.

I call it writer's block. Just because the player can't compose a well worded retort doesn't mean his highly charismatic and fateful character wouldn't.

Sounds like you are a little bigoted over there.

It wasn't writer's block... It wasn't an exception, It was the player insisting that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice. And he was playing a heavy social scenario... The HellKnight's Wedding... one of those Blakros scenarios. It was the way he approached every encounter in that scenario.

Call me names if it makes you feel better, but I call those examples as I see them.

[Covent]

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

[thejeff]

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I get the impression that to you some one saying regarding an in game social situation "I roll a diplomacy of 35" is undesirable correct?

In my game, I'd like to see more. I'd also like to see character actions not chosen solely for mechanical advantage, some personality expressed through the character and all of the other things we commonly refer to as roleplay.

It's not going to be done perfectly every time. Everyone has their off moments.
It's not even to everyone's taste. Some people are perfectly happy focusing on the tactical challenge aspect of the game and treating characters as nothing more than tokens to move around the board. That's not how I prefer to play. I'm sure some like even more roleplaying than I'm usually able to achieve, or interested in, for that matter.

[Texas Snyper]

I think there should be some middle ground allowance. Yes there should be more than just a simple "I roll for diplomacy." Some direction or description should be given. But you shouldn't also require the players to be as loquacious as they are proficient with their weapon in combat.

[master_marshmallow]

I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.

Am I incorrect in playing that way?

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

LazarX wrote:

And yes I've had people get incensed at the idea that they have to roleplay in order to make a diplomacy roll.

In this particular sentence, do you use the word "roleplay" to mean "speak in first-person"?

I can't speak for him, but I wouldn't say so. Though that usually helps with immersion and roleplay for me. Some description of the gist of what they're trying to say is better than just the bare skill roll though. For longer speeches or conversations, summaries actually often work better.

[thejeff]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.

Am I incorrect in playing that way?

Do you think just rolling your skill check, without describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play?

[Grey Lensman]

Texas Snyper wrote:

I think there should be some middle ground allowance. Yes there should be more than just a simple "I roll for diplomacy." Some direction or description should be given. But you shouldn't also require the players to be as loquacious as they are proficient with their weapon in combat.

That's one thing I have noticed a lot over my years - players who do have the force of personality (or volume) to dominate roleplay often make characters with charisma scores in the low single digits, no social skills to speak of, yet insist on acting like they do. No other ability score (and related skill sets) seems to get this treatment. I've never seen a GM force a player to lift something heavy, run any distance, or explain things in detail when his character (but not him) has that knowledge.

[LazarX]

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Yes it is definitely my stance, that in a roleplaying game, in a module that's heavily roleplay as opposed to just being a dungeon crawl series of combats, that the player should actually do some roleplay if he expects to succeed in the module's goal.

I busted my hump to try to encourage him to do so, not to mention there was the living example of the other players who DID roleplay and was the only reason his faction did not fail their mission.

[Texas Snyper]

thejeff wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.

Am I incorrect in playing that way?

Do you think just rolling your skill check, without describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play?

Do you require your players to describe their attacks in intricate detail?

[master_marshmallow]

thejeff wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.

Am I incorrect in playing that way?

Do you think just rolling your skill check, without describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play?

Depends on the context I suppose. In an instance where I would understand what the skill checks are for (implicit searching for traps or surveying the area, e.g.) then I don't really find it necessary. Things like climb checks and swim checks usually also explain themselves.

As far as diplomacy goes, depending on the importance of the interaction I would accept just a die roll. A shopkeeper or merchant for example. If it's an important encounter then I basically just need a gist of what the character's goal is and then I can usually describe the scene well enough for the players to get into the game.

Most good role play doesn't happen without a DM that stays positive and promotes it from the players, rather than demand it.

[Chess Pwn]

Can you give an example of what you wanted from him if he were to "roleplay" as you were wanting him to? What would you have liked for him to have done?

[Covent]

LazarX wrote:

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Yes it is definitely my stance, that in a roleplaying game, in a module that's heavily roleplay as opposed to just being a dungeon crawl series of combats, that the player should actually do some roleplay if he expects to succeed in the module's goal.

I busted my hump to try to encourage him to do so, not to mention there was the living example of the other players who DID roleplay and was the only reason his faction did not fail their mission.

OK.

I can see why you might be frustrated in that situation.

But, can you see why choosing to label a behavior that you do not see as "correct" or perhaps do not enjoy with a pejorative is not helpful?

I believe that your post I quote here is a valuable and very defensible position. It is very different from simply labeling behavior or individuals with a simple and negative word and dismissing them.

I will be honest, in your first post I found your stance offensive and pugilistic. Your latest explanation and pejorative free stance while not having changed on your side I am sure, creates a more healthy atmosphere for discussion in my opinion and at least personally makes me want to engage and discuss, perhaps even learning something, with you.

I hope this helps you understand why I feel so strongly why use of slurs is hurtful both to the person or people applied to and also to the one who applies the slur.

[Insain Dragoon]

If a player wanted to gather information in a town would you require him to "roleplay" that or would a simple diplomacy roll be acceptable?

If a player wanted to track down someone would you require them to "roleplay" by describing how they search under bushes n such or would a survival roll be enough?

If a player wanted to search for traps/hidden doors/ect would you require them to describe how they put their eyes to the brickwork or would a perception check be enough?

Sub out diplomacy with any other d20 related action in the game and ask yourself if the same argument holds water.

[TarkXT]

LazarX wrote:

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Yes it is definitely my stance, that in a roleplaying game, in a module that's heavily roleplay as opposed to just being a dungeon crawl series of combats, that the player should actually do some roleplay if he expects to succeed in the module's goal.

I busted my hump to try to encourage him to do so, not to mention there was the living example of the other players who DID roleplay and was the only reason his faction did not fail their mission.

In absolute fairness I've lived this nightmare myself.

It's not eye rolling so much as eye twitching when the notes in front of you have specific actions or attitude adjustments for npc's based upon the actions and information exchanged during a scenario and they're blithely ignored in favor of just trying to get through it with a die roll.

When it's someone without a character built for that kind of scenario simply trying to get through a bad situation it's one thing. When a character is specifically built for it and the player refuses to take the rolls further from their basic guiding number it can become infuriating for a GM who wants to see their players succeed.

[Hitdice]

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Well, I had to do more than "insist the only thing I should be required to do is roll dice" when I was playing boardgames as a kid, right? (I don't mean Risk, I mean Clue)

Y'know, I think I remember a Dragon magazine column where Gygax preferred roll-play to role-play, but don't quote me on that, it's been 30 years.

What about Hack'n'Slash, does that feel pejorative?

[Nox Aeterna]

LazarX wrote:

When someone sits at a table I run and their character is in a social situation, and the only thing that comes out of their mouth is "I roll a diplomacy of 35", I'll not hesitate to call it what it is.... rollplay.

And yes I've had people get incensed at the idea that they have to roleplay in order to make a diplomacy roll.

I dont really mind what you call it , i will mind it if you stop the player from doing it.

Unless you require similar things for EVERY other skill roll , which means doesnt matter what is rolled , from knowledge to climb/acrobatics the player better justify having the right to roll , this having nothing to do with the PC or what the sheet says, i will get up and thank you for the invite just before leaving your table.

Like i said , it grinds my gears when a DM goes after charisma rolls but doesnt require anything extra for the other kinds of rolls.

I just wont stand it.

[Insain Dragoon]

TarkXT wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Yes it is definitely my stance, that in a roleplaying game, in a module that's heavily roleplay as opposed to just being a dungeon crawl series of combats, that the player should actually do some roleplay if he expects to succeed in the module's goal.

I busted my hump to try to encourage him to do so, not to mention there was the living example of the other players who DID roleplay and was the only reason his faction did not fail their mission.

In absolute fairness I've lived this nightmare myself.

It's not eye rolling so much as eye twitching when the notes in front of you have specific actions or attitude adjustments for npc's based upon the actions and information exchanged during a scenario and they're blithely ignored in favor of just trying to get through it with a die roll.

When it's someone without a character built for that kind of scenario simply trying to get through a bad situation it's one thing. When a character is specifically built for it and the player refuses to take the rolls further from their basic guiding number it can become infuriating for a GM who wants to see their players succeed.

Player rolls a 38, not very good at roleplaying but wanted his character to be a suave dude.

DM realizes this and realizes that sometimes players don't play this game to solve esoteric social puzzles. DM being a good guy combines the player's roll with the character's alignment and attitude to decide how the character would likely say things.

Asks player if it's ok for the roll to represent "X and Y and Z"

Story goes on awesomely
Player feels like he's sauve
DM is a bro

[Wei Ji the Learner]

As a GM from elsewhere (and trying to line up a branching into PFS GM), I'd request that players give me something more than 'chess notation' ('I roll *skill*') when they're attempting a thing.

It could be something as simple as "Guy's a mage, right? I'm a wizard, we chat it up and talk shop and we learn stuff" Or even "I'm a bit of a lunkhead as far as it goes, but I know how to beat on stuff with my sword and I want to talk to other folks who do the same"

Give the GM something to *work with* and it increases the play at the table. It doesn't have to be War and Peace, heck, I know some folks have issues with being social, I get that.

Just using 'chess notation' leaves the scene flat, imo.

[Chess Pwn]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

LazarX wrote:

When someone sits at a table I run and their character is in a social situation, and the only thing that comes out of their mouth is "I roll a diplomacy of 35", I'll not hesitate to call it what it is.... rollplay.

And yes I've had people get incensed at the idea that they have to roleplay in order to make a diplomacy roll.

I dont really mind what you call it , i will mind it if you stop the player from doing it.

Unless you require similar things for EVERY other skill roll , which means doesnt matter what is rolled , from knowledge to climb/acrobatics the player better justify having the right to roll , this having nothing to do with the PC or what the sheet says, i will get up and thank you for the invite just before leaving your table.

Like i said , it grinds my gears when a DM goes after charisma rolls but doesnt require anything extra for the other kinds of rolls.

I just wont stand it.

Or the opposite, the 7 cha cavalier is all chummy with the king because he "roleplays" and his backstory is a "bastard noble" so of course he has the reason to be allowed a private conversation with the princess and can gather information and have her do favors because the player can make a good speech. Doesn't even need to roll anything for it.

[Avoron]

reappears out of mist

Here's my two cents:

The problem with just saying "I try to make them like me" and rolling Diplomacy in a social situation isn't just that it lacks roleplaying and flavor, although in my opinion those can make it infinitely more enjoyable.

The problem is that it takes away the burden of making decisions from the player. Does the player try to make them like him by complimenting their clothing? Or by expressing his hatred for the orcs that attacked their village? It makes a big difference, and it's things like that that make social interactions more than just numbers on a spreadsheet. If you're not comfortable speaking and interacting in character, fine. But at least make a decision on how your character is acting.

And no, that's not exclusive to social interactions, although that might be where it shows up most frequently. If you're gathering information, what sort of people do you try to talk to? If you're looking for someone, where do you look? If you're searching for traps, where do you search?
Even in combat, you have to say where you're moving and what tools you're using to fight with.

Sometimes these things aren't important, and sometimes they represent things that the character would know but the player doesn't. But in basic choices about how to act, or if your GM asks you to, I believe it's always useful to identify the decisions your character is making.

Then, roll the dice.

And maybe add a little flavor to it. Just for me.

[Insain Dragoon]

Have you ever met someone with low social skills? Something as simple as getting them to say "I roll to try and make them like me" is a feat unto itself. Just because you were lucky enough to be graced with real life social skills does not give you the right to bully players who weren't.

[Covent]

Hitdice wrote:

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Well, I had to do more than "insist the only thing I should be required to do is roll dice" when I was playing boardgames as a kid, right? (I don't mean Risk, I mean Clue)

Y'know, I think I remember a Dragon magazine column where Gygax preferred roll-play to role-play, but don't quote me on that, it's been 30 years.

What about Hack'n'Slash, does that feel pejorative?

Honestly, I am against any kind of non-definitive and functional labeling.

Changing the exact words used for a slur does not make it any less a slur.

Just to be clear an example of acceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely likes the tesla motors company and may have some beliefs on either the environment or cars."

An unacceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely is a eco-hippy."

[LazarX]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Can you give an example of what you wanted from him if he were to "roleplay" as you were wanting him to? What would you have liked for him to have done?

I'm not going to spoil too much here, but a major part of the scenario is that you are told that the Society needs to get as many of them on a favorable basis as possible in order to get access to some crucial dig sites. the players get the chance to dig in and discover some of their personality traits, quirks, and prejudices. The player is supposed to engage him and win influence points by making good impressions, which means engaging them socially is the main challenge of the scenario. Generally each player then goes one on one with the NPC's they choose to engage during the roleplaying window.

If the player makes at least a minimal effort at conversation they get to roll an applicable skill. I generally make an adhoc adjustment on the DC at that point if the player's performace warranted it.

This particular player refused to do that much, Insisting that the only thing I should need from him is his die roll result plus adjustments.

For those who ask if I have players describe their swings, I liken my requirements to those of the player positioning him/herself in order to make a strike.

[DM_Blake]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Player rolls a 38, not very good at roleplaying but wanted his character to be a suave dude.

DM realizes this and realizes that sometimes players don't play this game to solve esoteric social puzzles. DM being a good guy combines the player's roll with the character's alignment and attitude to decide how the character would likely say things.

Asks player if it's ok for the roll to represent "X and Y and Z"

Story goes on awesomely
Player feels like he's sauve
DM just played the guy's character for him

There, fixed that for you.

If you played poker with someone who didn't like the betting part of the game (he only likes getting cards and making hands), would you bet for him? If you played Risk with someone who only liked rolling the dice but didn't like placing and reinforcing his armies, would you move his armies for him? If you played frisbee with a guy who liked throwing it but not catching it, would you catch it for him?

I'm 100% totally for the idea of helping him, guiding him, leading by example, prompting, even manipulating (nicely), all to get him to join the game and play the game as presented.

But I"m never for playing half of his game for him.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I'd request that players give me something more than 'chess notation' ('I roll *skill*') when they're attempting a thing.

It could be something as simple as "Guy's a mage, right? I'm a wizard, we chat it up and talk shop and we learn stuff" Or even "I'm a bit of a lunkhead as far as it goes, but I know how to beat on stuff with my sword and I want to talk to other folks who do the same"

Give the GM something to *work with* and it increases the play at the table. It doesn't have to be War and Peace, heck, I know some folks have issues with being social, I get that.

Just using 'chess notation' leaves the scene flat, imo.

I agree with this guy, and I'm a professional chess coach; I like chess notation, but there's no place for it in a RPG.

[Milo v3]

LazarX wrote:

It's all in the play where the difference comes out. You can have an absolutely min-maxed character that's actually roleplayed as something that's not a cariacature. Players who do this however, aren't generally the ones who tend to min-max. It's also quite possible to have a rollplayer who can't build characters even with a pre-gen to guide them.

Question, how does this interact with people who make build choices because of roleplaying?

[LazarX]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Player rolls a 38, not very good at roleplaying but wanted his character to be a suave dude.

DM realizes this and realizes that sometimes players don't play this game to solve esoteric social puzzles. DM being a good guy combines the player's roll with the character's alignment and attitude to decide how the character would likely say things.

Asks player if it's ok for the roll to represent "X and Y and Z"

There's a big difference between a player who makes an effort and is not very good at roleplay and someone who refuses to even try.

[TarkXT]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Have you ever met someone with low social skills? Something as simple as getting them to say "I roll to try and make them like me" is a feat unto itself. Just because you were lucky enough to be graced with real life social skills does not give you the right to bully players who weren't.

In my experience they have an equally difficult time even having the initiative to roll the dice. So not readily applicable. There's a mountain of difference between a timid person and one who treats every encounter as a mathematical formula to brute force witg the rng.

And no there is no such thing as "Esoteric social puzzles" in pre-written adventures, sorry. Usually it's just "If X is mentioned the NPCs may do Y".

If you want to play the character for them and be the bro that's fine. I'd rather not rob them of their agency and encourage them to come out of their shell. I suspect LazarX is on the same page.

[Chess Pwn]

LazarX wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Can you give an example of what you wanted from him if he were to "roleplay" as you were wanting him to? What would you have liked for him to have done?

I'm not going to spoil too much here, but a major part of the scenario is that you are told that the Society needs to get as many of them on a favorable basis as possible in order to get access to some crucial dig sites. the players get the chance to dig in and discover some of their personality traits, quirks, and prejudices. The player is supposed to engage him and win influence points by making good impressions, which means engaging them socially is the main challenge of the scenario. Generally each player then goes one on one with the NPC's they choose to engage during the roleplaying window.

If the player makes at least a minimal effort at conversation they get to roll an applicable skill. I generally make an adhoc adjustment on the DC at that point if the player's performace warranted it.

This particular player refused to do that much, Insisting that the only thing I should need from him is his die roll result plus adjustments.

For those who ask if I have players describe their swings, I liken my requirements to those of the player positioning him/herself in order to make a strike.

So can you give me a generic statement as to what you wanted that player to say? Maybe not for this exact instance. But I'm trying to find out what words you were wanting to come out of his mouth.

And did the guy say "I roll diplomacy" or did he say "I go talk to the guy, diplomacy 35"

[LazarX]

Chess Pwn wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Can you give an example of what you wanted from him if he were to "roleplay" as you were wanting him to? What would you have liked for him to have done?

I'm not going to spoil too much here, but a major part of the scenario is that you are told that the Society needs to get as many of them on a favorable basis as possible in order to get access to some crucial dig sites. the players get the chance to dig in and discover some of their personality traits, quirks, and prejudices. The player is supposed to engage him and win influence points by making good impressions, which means engaging them socially is the main challenge of the scenario. Generally each player then goes one on one with the NPC's they choose to engage during the roleplaying window.

If the player makes at least a minimal effort at conversation they get to roll an applicable skill. I generally make an adhoc adjustment on the DC at that point if the player's performace warranted it.

This particular player refused to do that much, Insisting that the only thing I should need from him is his die roll result plus adjustments.

For those who ask if I have players describe their swings, I liken my requirements to those of the player positioning him/herself in order to make a strike.

So can you give me a generic statement as to what you wanted that player to say? Maybe not for this exact instance. But I'm trying to find out what words you were wanting to come out of his mouth.

And did the guy say "I roll diplomacy" or did he say "I go talk to the guy, diplomacy 35"

It's been a couple of years so I really don't recall, it may have been more of the second but that's not sufficient for the purposes of the scenario. The requirement is that you actually have to engage him or her in conversation. Or talk to other people to dig some useful dirt.

[Hitdice]

Covent wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Well, I had to do more than "insist the only thing I should be required to do is roll dice" when I was playing boardgames as a kid, right? (I don't mean Risk, I mean Clue)

Y'know, I think I remember a Dragon magazine column where Gygax preferred roll-play to role-play, but don't quote me on that, it's been 30 years.

What about Hack'n'Slash, does that feel pejorative?

Honestly, I am against any kind of non-definitive and functional labeling.

Changing the exact words used for a slur does not make it any less a slur.

Just to be clear an example of acceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely likes the tesla motors company and may have some beliefs on either the environment or cars."

An unacceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely is a eco-hippy."

. . . given my upbringing, I always assumed "eco-hippy" was an accolade.

[Chess Pwn]

What would have been "sufficient for the purposes of the scenario?" If you can't remember the detail, or don't want to spoil it change a name or something. I'm curious as to what words you think need to be said to make it "roleplay" instead of "rollplay"

[Nox Aeterna]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Player rolls a 38, not very good at roleplaying but wanted his character to be a suave dude.

DM realizes this and realizes that sometimes players don't play this game to solve esoteric social puzzles. DM being a good guy combines the player's roll with the character's alignment and attitude to decide how the character would likely say things.

Asks player if it's ok for the roll to represent "X and Y and Z"

Story goes on awesomely
Player feels like he's sauve
DM is a bro

This is mostly how i see it.

Im not saying that a player should at every turn just roll diplomacy. The player should still make the questions or should still say what he wants the PC to meet...

The thing im saying is , linking how the PC speaks to how the player speaks is annoying.

What insain said fits it perfectly , a player doesnt know what exactly to say , but his PC with 26 CHAR and a 38 diplomacy roll , probably does.

So yeah if the NPC has useful information , sure the players need to ask the right questions themselves... but the PCs should meet them half the way with how to ask these question when the player has invested tons in CHAR/diplomacy.

If the player wants to defuse a tense situation rolls and a 40+ in diplomacy, but doesnt know exactly what to say , his PC probably does and thus he should be able to do it even if his "roleplay" is obviously not enough to do so.

[thejeff]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Have you ever met someone with low social skills? Something as simple as getting them to say "I roll to try and make them like me" is a feat unto itself. Just because you were lucky enough to be graced with real life social skills does not give you the right to bully players who weren't.

Perhaps I could make characters for those who aren't good at character building and determine actions for those who aren't good at tactics.

Sure, if someone's trying and struggling, I'll try to help draw them out. I have lousy real life social skills. I struggle with it. But it's still the whole point of role playing games for me. Not just speaking in character or even describing the gist of what you're trying to say, but actually playing the character rather than moving a token around the battle map. Making decisions for character reasons, some personality, something to make the game roleplaying rather than just tactical.

At some point though, you're just not playing the same game as the rest of the table and it drags it down for everyone. Assuming that's what the group wants: If the bulk of the group is just into the tactical challenge, then the roleplayer wanting to spend an hour playing out the shopping trip is a problem.

If we're talking something like PFS, you have to deal with who shows up at the table. In a home game, not everyone fits every game.

[Insain Dragoon]

I guess I should clarify. I have played rpgs with players on the autistic spectrum and frankly a lot of the things I'm hearing would be absolutely horrible to do to a player on the spectrum.

So what if the DM has to play the guy's character a little bit, if it makes the player feel suave and cool then THAT'S PERFECT.

Maybe this player can't pick up on

Quote:

players get the chance to dig in and discover some of their personality traits, quirks, and prejudices. The player is supposed to engage him and win influence points by making good impressions, which means engaging them socially is the main challenge of the scenario

And wants to escape by playing as a character who can do all that as simply as a d20 roll.

[LazarX]

Chess Pwn wrote:

What would have been "sufficient for the purposes of the scenario?" If you can't remember the detail, or don't want to spoil it change a name or something. I'm curious as to what words you think need to be said to make it "roleplay" instead of "rollplay"

See answer 5 posts above.

[thejeff]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I guess I should clarify. I have played rpgs with players on the autistic spectrum and frankly a lot of the things I'm hearing would be absolutely horrible to do to a player on the spectrum.

So what if the DM has to play the guy's character a little bit, if it makes the player feel suave and cool then THAT'S PERFECT.

Maybe this player can't pick up on

Quote:

players get the chance to dig in and discover some of their personality traits, quirks, and prejudices. The player is supposed to engage him and win influence points by making good impressions, which means engaging them socially is the main challenge of the scenario

And wants to escape by playing as a character who can do all that as simply as a d20 roll.

Leaving aside the question of playing with people on the autism spectrum or otherwise not neurotypical, is there a point at which we're no longer roleplaying?

If we're dropping the term "rollplaying" as offensive, are we also broadening "roleplaying" to be meaningless other than "playing an RPG"?

[Insain Dragoon]

thejeff wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Have you ever met someone with low social skills? Something as simple as getting them to say "I roll to try and make them like me" is a feat unto itself. Just because you were lucky enough to be graced with real life social skills does not give you the right to bully players who weren't.

Perhaps I could make characters for those who aren't good at character building and determine actions for those who aren't good at tactics.

Sure, if someone's trying and struggling, I'll try to help draw them out. I have lousy real life social skills. I struggle with it. But it's still the whole point of role playing games for me. Not just speaking in character or even describing the gist of what you're trying to say, but actually playing the character rather than moving a token around the battle map. Making decisions for character reasons, some personality, something to make the game roleplaying rather than just tactical.

At some point though, you're just not playing the same game as the rest of the table and it drags it down for everyone. Assuming that's what the group wants: If the bulk of the group is just into the tactical challenge, then the roleplayer wanting to spend an hour playing out the shopping trip is a problem.

If we're talking something like PFS, you have to deal with who shows up at the table. In a home game, not everyone fits every game.

You're totally right. My friend who struggles to sound cool or diplomatic should never be allowed to play a face because he'd be bad at describing it. I'm sure he'd be so happy to hear that.

Would you like to tell him that he's dragging us down or do you want me to?

[Chess Pwn]

LazarX wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

What would have been "sufficient for the purposes of the scenario?" If you can't remember the detail, or don't want to spoil it change a name or something. I'm curious as to what words you think need to be said to make it "roleplay" instead of "rollplay"

See answer 5 posts above.

This one?

Hitdice wrote:

Covent wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

Covent wrote:

@LazarX

I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.

I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.

Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?

Well, I had to do more than "insist the only thing I should be required to do is roll dice" when I was playing boardgames as a kid, right? (I don't mean Risk, I mean Clue)

Y'know, I think I remember a Dragon magazine column where Gygax preferred roll-play to role-play, but don't quote me on that, it's been 30 years.

What about Hack'n'Slash, does that feel pejorative?

Honestly, I am against any kind of non-definitive and functional labeling.

Changing the exact words used for a slur does not make it any less a slur.

Just to be clear an example of acceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely likes the tesla motors company and may have some beliefs on either the environment or cars."

An unacceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely is a eco-hippy."

. . . given my upbringing, I always assumed "eco-hippy" was an accolade.

[Chess Pwn]

LasarX Obviously if I'm still asking for you to tell me the words you want a player to say I feel you have yet to do so. The only descriptions are non-defining words. "a minimal effort at conversation", "a player who makes an effort and is not very good at roleplay and someone who refuses to even try." and the like.

I feel you have yet to describe what this "minimal effort" is. What constitute the lowest effort needed? What words would be needed to make it an attempt rather than just a die roll?

[Insain Dragoon]

Shoot, I quoted the wrong person, fixed that post.

[LazarX]

Chess Pwn wrote:

LasarX Obviously if I'm still asking for you to tell me the words you want a player to say I feel you have yet to do so.

I really just want them to say words period... To talk to the NPC they want to influence, not just the DM. I'm pretty sure I was quite clear on that. If you're asking for exact words, that's absurd.

[thejeff]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Have you ever met someone with low social skills? Something as simple as getting them to say "I roll to try and make them like me" is a feat unto itself. Just because you were lucky enough to be graced with real life social skills does not give you the right to bully players who weren't.

Perhaps I could make characters for those who aren't good at character building and determine actions for those who aren't good at tactics.

Sure, if someone's trying and struggling, I'll try to help draw them out. I have lousy real life social skills. I struggle with it. But it's still the whole point of role playing games for me. Not just speaking in character or even describing the gist of what you're trying to say, but actually playing the character rather than moving a token around the battle map. Making decisions for character reasons, some personality, something to make the game roleplaying rather than just tactical.

At some point though, you're just not playing the same game as the rest of the table and it drags it down for everyone. Assuming that's what the group wants: If the bulk of the group is just into the tactical challenge, then the roleplayer wanting to spend an hour playing out the shopping trip is a problem.

If we're talking something like PFS, you have to deal with who shows up at the table. In a home game, not everyone fits every game.

You're totally right. My friend who struggles to sound cool or diplomatic should never be allowed to play a face because he'd be bad at describing it. I'm sure he'd be so happy to hear that.

Would you like to tell him that he's a bad roleplayer or do you want me to?

I don't know. Is he a bad roleplayer? Is he even roleplaying at all? What do you mean by "roleplaying" anyway?

If we were playing a different game and someone else had to do all the work for him, should I tell him he's good at it?

Is your question "I've a got a friend who's really bad at X. Should I tell him he's bad at X?" Or are you using a definition of roleplaying for which this isn't a significant part? Note that I've mentioned several other things I think go into roleplaying.

Again, I'm not asking for off the cuff Shakespearean oratory here. I'm asking for something: Some actual speech. A rough description of what you're trying to say. Are you flattering him? Bringing up mutual interests or old history? Offering a deal? If you're bluffing, what's the basic lie you want to tell?
Something to make me feel like I'm not talking to myself. If I'm just going to sit there and roleplay out a conversation between a PC and an NPC, maybe we should just skip to the next fight?