|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things you see moving between different areas is a lot of gaming conventions.
Some people diplomance then roll. Some people roll then diplomance.
When I have a face, i diplomance as well as i can and then roll, because the characters result is going to be WAY better than my raised by wolves charisma mod will allow. If i have a non face character somehow forced into the spotlight, i roll then figure out exactly how bad it is.
Sneaky NG druid froom hermea is at a fancy party
"So how are the nobles different here than where you're from?
Roll an 8 "well they're not 300 feet long and scaley."
"Whats the biggest difference between here and there?"
Roll a -1.....
"We work together. We cooporate. We make sure everyone has what they need and then worry about what people want. There's no way we'd be eating off of gold plates while half a mile away people die in the puddles because it's damp. "
...awkwardly ended dinner early...
Negotiating with a dragon. Dm asks for a roll to assist. Another of my famous 2s.
"pssssst. Tell the giant lizard he's an ambassador not a messenger boy. They eat that sort of malarkey up"
|
I agree.For the idea of talking out and all for diplomacy, I think what I need to start doing is explicitly stating when there is a circumstance bonus (like others do in this thread).
Something like...
Player: <gives an involved, moving speach>
Me: Great! Roll diplomacy at a +2 circumstance bonus.Instead of:
Player: <gives an involved moving speach>
Me: Great, roll diplomacy! <waits to see what the roll is... gives a bonus if close>That transparency would probably be helpful in getting players to play-act a little more, and let them know I am rewarding them.
Jack makes note to try and remember to do that!
You agree I should do that? ;-)
hee hee
chuckle... sure... but I also think I will try it out too.
|
The whole diplomacy 'speech' thing really irritates me - you never ask a player making a strength check to arm wrestle for a circumstance bonus -
No, but I ask them to describe their arm wrestling technique.
When players just say I attack, I sometimes ask players to describe their attacks. Are they big powerful overhand strikes? Nimble spinning blows? Darting jabs?
I need to know so I can answer how the monsters react rather than just removing another 17hp from their total.
I don't need a diplomacy speech but I do need yo know your approach. But that's not unique to diplomacy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole diplomacy 'speech' thing really irritates me - you never ask a player making a strength check to arm wrestle for a circumstance bonus -No, but I ask them to describe their arm wrestling technique.
When players just say I attack, I sometimes ask players to describe their attacks. Are they big powerful overhand strikes? Nimble spinning blows? Darting jabs?
I need to know so I can answer how the monsters react rather than just removing another 17hp from their total.
I don't need a diplomacy speech but I do need yo know your approach. But that's not unique to diplomacy.
I agree with everything Pirate Rob has said here.
But on a mechanical side of things:
I don't need to know how you swing your sword in combat to figure out whether you hit the creature. Unless the encounter has a mechanic by which the badguy's morale or attitude toward the PCs changes based on how they swing the sword (what combat techniques or styles they use.)
But in Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate I might often need to know exactly what you say. Certain phrases or words or talking about certain things might impact that social roll. If the NPC loves carrots but hates brussel sprouts I may need to know if you mention either of those vegetables to determine if he immediately goes hostile and attacks or instead becomes helpful and wants to marry your character. Indeed, depending on what you want the NPC to do for you, it determines whether certain modifiers get added to the check (asking for a favor adds difficulty to the check depending on how dangerous that favor would be to the NPC.) Bluff also has circumstance modifiers based on how believable your lie happens to be.
So no, you can't just say, "I roll diplomacy" and expect the GM to just follow the RAW of the game and not expect you to give details on what you are saying and how you are saying it. Because mechanically, from the Core Rulebook, both of those skills have modifiers based on what you say, ask for, and how you say it.
Nobody is saying you have to wax poetic and be as eloquent as TS Lewis or Emily Bronte. You just have to tell the GM what you want to accomplish, how you want to accomplish it, and anything specific you want to say or bring up. Some of these things can be sussed out by the GM with a back-n-forth question/answer session.
|
|
The whole diplomacy 'speech' thing really irritates me - you never ask a player making a strength check to arm wrestle for a circumstance bonus -No, but I ask them to describe their arm wrestling technique.
When players just say I attack, I sometimes ask players to describe their attacks. Are they big powerful overhand strikes? Nimble spinning blows? Darting jabs?
I need to know so I can answer how the monsters react rather than just removing another 17hp from their total.
I don't need a diplomacy speech but I do need yo know your approach. But that's not unique to diplomacy.
I agree with everything Pirate Rob has said here.
But on a mechanical side of things:
I don't need to know how you swing your sword in combat to figure out whether you hit the creature. Unless the encounter has a mechanic by which the badguy's morale or attitude toward the PCs changes based on how they swing the sword (what combat techniques or styles they use.)
But in Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate I might often need to know exactly what you say. Certain phrases or words or talking about certain things might impact that social roll. If the NPC loves carrots but hates brussel sprouts I may need to know if you mention either of those vegetables to determine if he immediately goes hostile and attacks or instead becomes helpful and wants to marry your character. Indeed, depending on what you want the NPC to do for you, it determines whether certain modifiers get added to the check (asking for a favor adds difficulty to the check depending on how dangerous that favor would be to the NPC.) Bluff also has circumstance modifiers based on how believable your lie happens to be.
So no, you can't just say, "I roll diplomacy" and expect the GM to just follow the RAW of the game and not expect you to give details on what you are saying and how you are saying it. Because mechanically, from the Core Rulebook, both of those skills have modifiers based on what you...
Sure, if they say nothing then they have no modifiers for saying the right or wrong thing to the person, they never mentioned either. Easy.
|
|
Having recently been involved in a pair of Bluffs with distinctly different outcomes, this seems far more relevant to me than Mr Hutchins seems to want to admit. A fellow Pathfinder and I were attempting to gain ingress to a certain warehouse through a locked door. I had my tools laid out, and was working on the lock when a passerby questioned what was going on. My compatriot tried to bluff by claiming to be someone very important. I believe his exact words were, "I own this town." At that point, I started packing up my tools and stepping away from the core breach that appeared likely to occur. As his claims became even more ludicrous, I explained that I was a duly certified professional locksmith who had been retained to work on what he had assured me was a building he owned. As I carry business cards stating the same thing, and am in fact a professional locksmith, this gave me considerable credibility, while his was shattered by his claims.
Yup... Modifiers would be:
You: +0 to your roll for believable lie and up to a +10 (I might go +5 since anyone can get a business card... +10 would be if you had some sort of official certified certificate from the local authorities) for convincing proof.
Him: -10 or -20 depending on whether the lies spiraled into impossible or were just far-fetched. Based on your description I'd be likely to assign a -20 to his roll.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
The whole diplomacy 'speech' thing really irritates me - you never ask a player making a strength check to arm wrestle for a circumstance bonus - if you tell the GM what you want to do/say, and you have the rolls / skill to back that up, that should be enough without having to orate war and peace.
This is a point that often comes up whenever we're having this discussion.
I think that many times in combat, you do do the equivalent of a speech thing. There's definitely a difference between:
- I attack him.
- I move into flank with Joe and attack him. [use an advantage]
- I use Power Attack with Furious Focus and attack him. [pressure]
- I put away my rapier and attack the skeleton with my boulder helmet. [use knowledge of weaknesses]
Compare this to:
- I use Diplomacy
- I tell him the Society wants to be his friend, but I also let him know I know about the incriminating letter we found. [use an advantage]
- I wine and dine him, pick up the tab, get him in a good mood and then put forward our proposal. [pressure]
- I switch topics and discuss how the Society can get his daughter into an exclusive college if he'll help us with our problem. [use knowledge of weaknesses]
I find that the most awkward PFS social events for me are the ones where I need to talk to someone with no prior information or talking points. I'm not that great at completely b&!&#%!&ting my way through that. Scenes where you get kicked into a gala with no information whatsoever - awkward. But if you can gather some personal tidbits about someone (when using the Influence rules - the Discovery stage), or if you uncovered something earlier in the scenario, you can apply social tactics.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That should be stated rather than just sprung on people. Also that is rather rare. Mostly it is just GMs who dislike aid another.To forewarn on when this would amount to metagaming. It's also partly to the players to correctly identify when aid another can be used or when it can provoke a backlash.
All mechanics are metagaming. There is no way to identify when aid another can be used.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
For the idea of talking out and all for diplomacy, I think what I need to start doing is explicitly stating when there is a circumstance bonus (like others do in this thread).
Something like...
Player: <gives an involved, moving speach>
Me: Great! Roll diplomacy at a +2 circumstance bonus.Instead of:
Player: <gives an involved moving speach>
Me: Great, roll diplomacy! <waits to see what the roll is... gives a bonus if close>That transparency would probably be helpful in getting players to play-act a little more, and let them know I am rewarding them.
Jack makes note to try and remember to do that!
*copies that note*
|
|
All mechanics are metagaming. There is no way to identify when aid another can be used.
There is always a way to have even a small guess of what to do or not do. All it needs is an effort from the player to discover it. In no way the GM is expected to babysit the said player unless he/she is new (or didn't play a lot to PFS).
More broadly, I am against stating the breakdown of the bonuses/penalties beforehand. Being more vague is better for pacing purposes, and if any questions explain why thereafter.
Sounds an awful lot like a justification for "fudging". I can think of very few instances where players do not know the modifiers for their checks. The only one I can think of off hand is if an opponent has the Disruptive feat.
|
|
As a gen-u-ine Osirionoligister, ah c'n tell y' tha' the 'fficial term f'r anythin' tha' y' can' figure ou' is 'Thingie'.
Usually wit' somethin' descriptive like 'mouth-Thingie' or 'plant-brain-Thingie'.
Then take g'd notes, an' repor' back. Some'un 'll know the book-larnin' version of the Thingie's name."
Yeah what they said^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite is when people can tell what a monster is through a lack of an ability to identify it. "Dungeoneering you say? Must be an elaborate ooze."
I only do it rarely (when a monster is pretty much intended to be potentially misidentified) but on occasion I'll ask the players to roll a D20 and hand me their character sheet.
When I'm playing online I have a macro that gives all my knowledge skills so the GM can see what I rolled and tell me what I know.
I also try reasonably hard to have all my monster ID skills be the same. That way I can just say "Identify monster 26. I don't care what type it is, 26" :-)
|
As a player, I always build my PCs such that all their knowledge modifiers are the same. That way I can just roll and give the GM the final number that applies to any of the knowledge skills for which I am trained. I have "trained" a number of players in our area to do the same. Helps to reduce some of the rampant meta-gaming and keep some mystery in a game where we as players often know more about the campaign world than our characters.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we are talking about it; had a GM once that was so concerned about metagaming that he refused to give us a description of the monster unless we passed the knowledge check (to prevent us from using meta knowledge). So we were just fighting unknown medium creatures... It was terrible, don't be that GM.
|
|
Since we are talking about it; had a GM once that was so concerned about metagaming that he refused to give us a description of the monster unless we passed the knowledge check (to prevent us from using meta knowledge). So we were just fighting unknown medium creatures... It was terrible, don't be that GM.
I've never had it quite that bad but its come close sometimes.
One problem is that Knowledge skills are pretty much broken for their primary purpose (identifying enemies). Only a few characters can play the "know a lot about a lot" game, others are limited to "know something about 1 or 2 monster types". ANY high level character should know a fair bit about monsters, at least the ones they've faced before.
I've run into table variation even with my simplest of tactics "If it looks vaguely undead and boney, hit it with a blunt weapon. If vaguely undead and fleshy, hit it with a slashy weapon". The kind of thing that ANY Pathfinder who has gone through Pathfinder school should know. But some consider even that to be metagaming.
One CAN get lots of clues just from the appearance. When facing monsters I the player have never encountered before the description alone can make me grab the right weapon or try the right tactic. Or, of course, not :-(
|
|
I've run into table variation even with my simplest of tactics "If it looks vaguely undead and boney, hit it with a blunt weapon. If vaguely undead and fleshy, hit it with a slashy weapon". The kind of thing that ANY Pathfinder who has gone through Pathfinder school should know. But some consider even that to be metagaming.
I'm one of those who considers that metagaming, but I also allow a really easy roll to know that stuff. After all, skeletons and zombies are the most common undead, so they're only DC 5 to identify, meaning that anyone can roll untrained. And even if the creature you're facing isn't a common skeleton or zombie, someone who knows about those more common creatures can make intuitive guesses if they can hit the DC 5 to know that much.
I also assume that anyone with a single rank in knowledge: planes would know that cold iron is good against demons and silver is good against devils, without having to roll. You might not know what type of demon or devil you're currently facing, but that much is a common knowledge thing. I might even allow an untrained DC 10 check to know that much. Same with fey and cold iron.
|
|
characters have so many weird abilities and situational modifiers that you almost have to tell them what they're being hit with to give them a fair chance to use them.My favorite is when people can tell what a monster is through a lack of an ability to identify it. "Dungeoneering you say? Must be an elaborate ooze."
Not entirely implausible. If i can't identify a leaf I start thinking its an ornamental that's not from around here. If you're familiar with all things animal and mineral and still don't know what it is vegetable becomes an option.
|
|
I'm one of those who considers that metagaming, but I also allow a really easy roll to know that stuff. After all, skeletons and zombies are the most common undead, so they're only DC 5 to identify, meaning that anyone can roll untrained.
Even a 5 is pretty high for some characters. Lets take a fighter who has NOT dumped intelligence. They still have a 20% chance of failing that roll. Regardless of level. And lets face it, putting a rank in Knowledge - Religion is a pretty low priority for fighters.
I'd think that an average intelligence person who has fought skeletons and zombies would have literally ZERO chance of not knowing the "bony == blunt, flesh == slashing" mantra.
You're also unusual, in my experience, in realizing that some monsters are so common that the DC to identify them by 5. Yes, I know that is what the rules say :-(. Many GMs seem not to :-( :-(
|
|
I am a fan of the roll first, then roleplay to the roll.
There's nothing more disheartening than giving a rousing speech in real life and rolling a 1 diplomacy.
Nothing more immersion breaking than quoting Monty Python and then rolling a natural 20 on diplomacy.
If the result is close to a success I'll inform the player that if they can think of an appropriate argument (diplomacy), threat (intimidate) or lie (bluff) then they'll get a circumstance bonus to succeed (based on the bonuses/penalties in the CRB).
|
|
With regards to knowledge checks, I do not recall ever seeing a player with a character journal of sorts that details all the encounters their PC has fought with physical descriptions of the creatures and any information provided by knowledgeable companions. I think I would be inclined to give them an auto-success on a knowledge check for something like that. Dunno. Think I'll start that with my next PC and see where it goes. It might not matter at all if they never encounter the same creature twice in their career. Other than some types of undead and elementals, the frequency of monsters repeating, especially as you gain levels is fairly rare, IME.
Also, I wonder how many GMs provide misinformation for a poor knowledge check? Say for instance the PCs encounter a lich. Its kinda looks undead, has gaunt skin, sunken eyes, smells of death, etc. You might decide the DC is 10+ or 15+ CR and with a low check, say 5+ misidentifying it as some sort of zombie.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nosig, I can understand where you are coming from with this; in certain groups or settings I might be that shy player. The only thing I would want to add is that there is a 2B option for the GM. He or she could say something like "Ok, we'll make this work. Can you tell me out of character a few things your character would like to mention?" If the shy player doesn't add anything after a short pause, the GM can look around the table and ask if anyone else has any ideas. And then just ask the player if they want to include those (yes or no is enough). And then weave the story together as you indicated above.
This approach very gently encourages a shy player to contribute more if they want, but without pressure. And it lets the other players help, if they want, but leaves the shy player as much in charge of her character as possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, but you didn't think that running a face character when the usual setting is talk in character was going to be problematic?
I've seen judges "hold her to the task" and say "What EXACTLY does your PC say?"
Some scenarios almost call for this. They have bonuses and penalties for things that you mention or don't mention ,including entire attitude shifts (which i don't know if authors realize it or not, is an auto fail in some situations)
Anyone else trying to help her (me, or any other player), to defuse the situation, was hushed by the judge ("you're character isn't there!")
The dm is absolutely right. Your character is not there. Your character can't tell them anything baring circmstance, creative role play, or setting up a telepathic link in advance.
(I once had a character with the perform skill take over the band to give a struggling character hints at a party
*we're here for that shiny green emerald* *cha cha cha*
*the one they said wasn't for sale* *cha cha cha*
"we're here for that shiny green emerald" *cha cha cha*
"so get him to tell us that tale..." *cha cha cha*
Not many judges are that bad, but some are almost as bad - without even realizing it. She's good enough at the rules to realize after the game that she failed a check by the 2 points the judge reduced her check result by
Unless she has memorized the scenario there is no way to "just be good enough" to do that. Diplomacy checks are modified by the targets starting attitude (which you can guesse with some DMs but not know) and their charisma modifiers (which you don't know) and mentioning or not mentioning other things (which you don't know)
Holding her to every word that she utters, ever stutter, every facial expression.
And you can't do this without mind reading.
This isn't as simple as the bad dming you'd like to present it as. You have a very unusual situation and have to try to work with the dm about if before hand, not in the middle of the game.
The dm is NOT (neccesarily) a moonlighting social worker or a mind reader. Geeks are notoriously bad at the kind of social signals you want them to pick up on.
o, can my PC have a bonus on the:
- "To Hit" and "Damage" rolls if I (the player) can actually demonstrate a fencing routine?No, but you CAN get your character and the party lots of allies if you can play chess of moving, delaying, and waiting for flanks, buffs, and trips. Smart play is definitely rewarded here (for the first round of combat and a few levels anyway)
- day job rolls as a Cook, if I bring cookies to the game (something I have done several times for my character with profession cook)
I will take cookies as a +2 on ANY roll.
- Disable Device roll for actually having lock picks, and demonstrating how they work?
If you can work a good description into the device i'm describing, sure.
- Knowledge rolls for being able to quote from the Bestiary entry about the monster we just encountered?
No, that would be metagaming, because that book doesn't exist for your character. Showiing me a chronicle sheet where you fought the Grassy Knolls of the Grassy knoll before would work though.