Optimizing a character isn't a bonus because everyone is given the same point buy and the same options. If someone's character isn't performing as well as it could be (and they want it to be better) part of my role as a GM is to work with them to find the rules to make their character better.
As for people mentioning things like flanking giving a bonus or system mastery as being a bonus, as above, I see it as my job to help those players learn the rules and to use them to their advantage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that's galling for me is that I can with absolute authority say that players who are good at combat optimization and tactics do that because they enjoy it to, because I do both. Why is it that one aspect of what I enjoy is more deserving of reward than another aspect I also enjoy?
You've got something wrong here. Optimization works equally as well for skills AND combat: as such you're asking why you can't double dip bonuses [one set for optimization and one for out of character RP talent]. As such, i find it galling that you want double the bonuses.
Why is it that one aspect of what I enjoy is more deserving of reward than another aspect I also enjoy?
Because one is in character and based on mechanics and one isn't?
This is my point - your stance is a double standard.
from my perspective, it's YOU that's asking for double standard: you want the ability to both optimize your skill AND use out of character skills, while other sections of the game do not offer you the opportunity to allow outside skills to influence them. For it to NOT be a double standard, I should be able to use player knowledge for knowledge checks, use my knowledge of acrobatics for jump checks or my woodworking ability for craft checks. As I can't, you're inventing a double standard for cha skills that other skills and parts of the game can't benefit from.
Do we take the athlete and force them not to exercise so they won't make the out of shape feel bad?No, but if you have an eager nine-year-old playing an Int 18 wizard, and an adult who is obsessed and very experienced with puzzles playing an Int 8 barbarian, as a GM I would see it as essential to rein in the adult if they use their RL skills to jump all over in-game puzzles in ways that are both out of character for their barbarian and getting in the way of the nine-year-old playing to their character's strengths.Part of why I hate puzzles in RPGs. Most of the time, there's no way to solve them in character, they break me out immersion completely and it just becomes me trying to solve a puzzle whether my character would be any good at it at all.
And I'm normally pretty good at it, so if I'm not playing the smart guy, I've still got to pitch in or we'll likely just sit there and stew.
I can't agree more. On one hand, i enjoy those handout puzzles and I too am good at them: the rub is when my character is on the lower int scale... Do I point out the solution and try to pass it off as an 'idiot savant' moment or hold my tongue and let the 'smart' characters player try to figure it out. Neither is particularly palatable a a solution.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is another double standard (or maybe another example of the same one I've been fighting against) I don't get right here. Why is it that it is okay for you to flatly reject my perspective yet demand that I respect yours? Why is it that you are comfortable saying "I think what you do is biased and bad, and I'm totally unwilling to budge on that", but my attempts to demonstrate how your position is, itself, biased (just in a different way) are somehow an attack?
I am not trying to persuade you to adopt roleplay bonuses, that has never been my project. I am saying that you don't get to judge my gameplay as "bad" or "biased" without reply. My position this entire time has been that giving roleplay bonuses is (or at least can be) good, and that the corollary to that is that they are not inherently or necessarily biased. I don't care if you like them or not, or if you use them or not. I'm trying to get you to see that the position of "this type of play is bad and biased and nothing that you ever do or say can convince me otherwise" is, itself, a biased and highly toxic (in my opinion) position to take. It's also utterly unnecessary - if you don't like RP bonuses, just don't use them. You can dislike something without delegitimizing it. Frankly, in this entire thread, there has only ever been one side that has been seeking to delegitimize, demean, police and or judge other people's gameplay, and it is not mine.
Your style of play does add additional potential for bias though. This is a clear fact.
IMO, the person that loves to embellish roleplaying does it because they enjoy doing it: as such, they aren't doing it for the bonus but instead because it's fun.This. This right here is the basis of why I wouldn't give someone a bonus (no matter how small) just because they're eloquent.
Most every role-player that I know does it for fun. What they consider fun can vary wildly from person to person. Some want to play the Face because it's their own personality and they want to play an awesome version of themselves. That player is going to have fun whether I give them a bonus for a good speech or not.
This strikes me as a fairly pointless argument. Why offer any bonuses for anything since we're all having fun, right? Hell, why have success at all, because we're having fun, right?
Part of having fun in most games is being successful through good play, being able to affect the outcome of challenges by our choices and our actions and not just riding out the variances of random trials. And yes, if my players play well, they'll have an easier time achieving success than if they don't play as well, as they should. You could achieve success through just being lucky, and while that's sometimes fun, it's not particularly sustainable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that a kind of bias?
No, not even a little. Wanting a reward and deserving one are different thing. IMO, the bias is using non-character skills to influence character abilities: YOUR acting abilities aren't part of your character...
my roleplaying skills as a player are just as much a part of my character as those mechanical choices.
Not even slightly correct. The character's skills are clearly defined by mechanics: 'roleplaying bonuses' are NOT included because those are your skills... Double dipping, double standard bonuses.
This line is not nearly as bright as you think - indeed, I've argued repeatedly that it does not exist at all.
It's neon bright and flashing along with a band playing... It clear for anyone to see: anything past the mechanics is YOU not the character. So easy to figure out. You being professional actor has no impact on your character's abilities.
Specifically, if you'll recall, the distinction I drew was between saying "I deserve a bonus on my strength check because I can lift this heavy thing in real life", which wasn't engaged with the story in any way, and a situation where a player used his real-world knowledge of weightlifting (which was narratively connected to the game through his character's established background as a former carnival strongman) to flavor what could have been either a strength check or an intimidate check.
So what this means is that I can automatically make know checks because I memorized the bestiaries? I mean, I can list off the exact stats and since I can use out of game skills/information [ie meta-abilities] I can just rattle them off right? What you advocate is removing the line between player and character for complete meta knowledge use. You know, because you think it's somehow hard to figure it out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
as they should.
If the CHARACTER has done something worthy of a bonus, sure. If the PLAYER does? I enjoy a pizza and I'm sure other would too but bringing one doesn't give a bonus on die rolls. Having the CHARACTER "affect the outcome of challenges by our choices" and "being successful through good play" and not on the PLAYERS ability to act. My ability to use accents isn't a CHARACTER 'choice'. If an eloquent speech brings up good points, sure the GOOD POINTS might be worthy of bonuses: the eloquent speech though... That's the die roll.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is given the same options, but not everyone inherently has the same capacity to evaluate and use those options, in precisely the same way that not everyone has the same capacity to be a good roleplayer in social situations.
Absolutely correct! Some people aren't as mechanically inclined with the rules which is why I will offer to help, direct them towards guides, have other players offer suggestions... things like that.
Furthermore, in any given social situation, all players have the also start with the same options - indeed, often there are essentially unlimited ways in which the players could approach a social situation (which is why the mechanics for social situations are necessarily more fluid and less crunch oriented). As such, it seems evident to me that the rest of what you are saying should apply just as much to social RP.
I agree... If a player is confident in how they're reacting and respond in a suitable way (let's say they're in a diplomatic situation with the king of a nation) they can act it out or they can give me an idea of what they want to say and roll the die. If they aren't confident and don't know what they should say or do the player can say "I have no idea what I should say in such a political situation but I'm going to roll my die and tell you my result so that you realize my character would know what to say even though I have no freaking clue." Whichever option they go for they roll the die and I take that into account, thereby helping them even though they don't know the best thing to say/do.
If someone feels like they are missing out by not RPing as well as they could (and they want to change that), part of your role as a GM is to work with them to find ways in which they can be more engaged in the game without being uncomfortable.
If someone wants to try to become more outgoing, I will fully support them and do what I can to help. I would things like provide them with ideas, give them time to collect their thoughts, or ask them leading questions to get them on the right track.
In my experience, I don't feel that a bonus is the right way to do this. I feel like it puts undue pressure on introverted people.Players who aren't comfortable, creative, or knowledgeable enough to act something out are likely going to feel they are being penalized even though their character, by the stats, should know exactly what to do and say.
By using bonuses to encourage charismatic speech from players, an outgoing player who has made a non-charismatic character would be receiving a reward for poor role-playing (ie: acting out of character).
A non-charismatic person is going to have moments of eloquence or smart-assery. Likewise a charismatic person can trip over their tongue or put their foot in their mouth once in awhile. This is exactly where the dice and stats come in.
So let's say that the PCs are RPing a bluff situation and they manage to concoct a lie that I believe would be particularly amusing if this NPC believed it, and delighting in the opportunity to RP as this NPC who happens to believe this ridiculous lie, I just handwave the bluff check away because "the lie is believed" is the thing that both I and my players want to happen.
On one hand, sure, this is a bias towards "ideas that amuse me" but, on the other hand everybody is getting what they want and we're keeping the game moving. I feel like some amount of "a player has an idea that the GM thinks is cool, so that's what happens, is intrinsic to the game.
as they should.If the CHARACTER has done something worthy of a bonus, sure. If the PLAYER does? I enjoy a pizza and I'm sure other would too but bringing one doesn't give a bonus on die rolls. Having the CHARACTER "affect the outcome of challenges by our choices" and "being successful through good play" and not on the PLAYERS ability to act. My ability to use accents isn't a CHARACTER 'choice'. If an eloquent speech brings up good points, sure the GOOD POINTS might be worthy of bonuses: the eloquent speech though... That's the die roll.
You may notice that throughout this discussion (I'm right up there on the first page with one of the first responses) that giving a good speech is only one route to achieve gaining a bonus - though it is true - I do consider it one route to gain a bonus. I give them out for considerably more than including clever ideas and shrewd judgment.
It's also the PLAYER moving the character across the board, avoiding or minimizing AoO, moving into flanking position, using the segmented nature of the movement rules to minimize their risks or maximize teamwork, equipping the character for success on missions, understanding the narrative expectations of the genre emulated by the game, and a host of other things that are inseparable from the role of the player and not just the character. What I don't understand is the desire to draw some kind of bright red (even neon) line around things like social skills when player skill and knowledge affects so much of the play of the game.
What I don't understand is the desire to draw some kind of bright red (even neon) line around things like social skills when player skill and knowledge affects so much of the play of the game.
Do you allow players to use OoC knowledge in regards to monsters? Let's say they're fighting a nereid but the characters don't have much knowledge Arcana. The characters don't know that the nereid's shawl is important because they didn't roll well but a player does.
Do they get a bonus to their knowledge check because it's a random fact they know?(This is an honest question as I'm trying to better understand where you're coming from.)
Your style of play does add additional potential for bias though. This is a clear fact.No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't.
Does every player receive the bonus in equal proportions? If so, what method do you use to ensure that all players receive it equally?
To be clear, I'm not asking if all players are equally eligible to get the bonus. I'm asking, do they in fact all receive it an equal number of times.
See, I can guarantee that all my players receive the bonus for "good roleplaying" equally, because there is no bonus, so all players have received it 0 times. Equal.
Why would a player care if one person at the table gets more bonuses for good RP or paying attention or quality tactics or whatever?
I mean, when player A passes their rolls, that benefits the entire party whether they're doing so via circumstantial bonuses/adjusted DCs or not doesn't it? Presumably the entire party wants the same things (this is a cooperative game after all) so if the player to my left is trying to talk a guard into just ignoring the party, I want them to succeed on their roll no matter how they manage it. It doesn't benefit me to say "well, I wouldn't give a bonus to someone else using a different skill, so your I won't give a bonus here". When I'm playing I want every player to get all the bonuses they can finagle.
Like here's an example that does not benefit me- I am bad at remembering names (why I keep copious notes when GMing). So if I'm a player and we meet an NPC 5 sessions ago who mentions their grandchildren, and 5 sessions later we encounter them again there is no way I will be able to remember these grandchildren's names, and it's not like there's a skill for remembering names I could invest ranks in. So I will never get a bonus for "asking about an NPCs grandkids by name" unless I wrote it down somewhere, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge anybody else who did.
Why would a player care if one person at the table gets more bonuses for good RP or paying attention or quality tactics or whatever?
Sadly, because the ones getting mad about someone getting a bonus and them not getting one seems to come down to the fact that they want to be the best character in the group.
(Most noticeable when the players roll for stats and the one that wants to be better than everyone rolled medium to bad compared to everyone else.)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't understand is the desire to draw some kind of bright red (even neon) line around things like social skills when player skill and knowledge affects so much of the play of the game.Do you allow players to use OoC knowledge in regards to monsters? Let's say they're fighting a nereid but the characters don't have much knowledge Arcana. The characters don't know that the nereid's shawl is important because they didn't roll well but a player does.
Do they get a bonus to their knowledge check because it's a random fact they know?(This is an honest question as I'm trying to better understand where you're coming from.)
If they've got something in their character backstory that indicates experience with fey creatures, I'd be willing to give them a +2 circumstance bonus. Or if they're attempting to use what they know to steer the encounter in a way that will drive the story in an interesting direction, I'd give them the bonus for that too. If they manage to achieve some results on the knowledge and are trolling for info on the shawl in particular, I'll make sure it's part of the first parcel of info rather than withhold it for a higher degree of success.
What info to give out for different levels of success with Knowledge skills is fuzzy enough that I'm willing to prioritize what they're particularly trolling for whether it's a weak save, energy resistances, or vulnerabilities like the shawl.
Sadly, because the ones getting mad about someone getting a bonus and them not getting one seems to come down to the fact that they want to be the best character in the group.
(Most noticeable when the players roll for stats and the one that wants to be better than everyone rolled medium to bad compared to everyone else.)
I mean, I get that players all want their turn in the spotlight and nobody wants to feel like they are superfluous. But generally, in my experience you don´t generally have two diplomancers in a party and if you do they aren't going to be working at cross-purposes. I mean, my Hell's Rebels game ended up with 4 characters whose charisma scores were in the 20s by the end (and one with a charisma of 5), and we resolved the whole spotlight issue by "not all talking at the same time, instead we took turns and played off each other."
Feels like the whole "one player does everything" problem is more likely to rear its head in combat than out of it, as the GM can make sure the smart one, the sneaky one, and the charming one all get their turn to shine by varying the challenges the players encounter.
Speaking for myself, probably not, no. If there's no real reason why the player's character should know that information, then I wouldn't give a bonus to the knowledge check, because that player knowledge isn't engaged in the narrative in any way.
However, there are certainly some situations where I would. If the player specifically built the character to be something of a monster expert because the player wanted to get more use out of heir personal skill of knowing a bunch about monsters without feeling like they were metagaming, and especially if the player had taken pains to establish those real world skills in the context of the narrative (say the character has a notebook of all the monster lore they've collected that they review every night, and in every town they seek out the town loremaster to share info, then I could probably be persuaded to come up with a bonus on the roll, though in truth if the character is built that way it's hardly likely to matter except at very low levels.
Maybe the better example might be something like this - lets say this encounter was the culmination of something of a mystery adventure, and I had been seeding clues throughout that the players hadn't completely put together yet. If the final encounter happens and the player with the OoC knowledge suddenly puts two and two...
Right, so, I might see what the problem is... I think, and tell me if I'm wrong, in regards to bonuses to social skills you're giving slight bonuses to characters when they're good with the skill and the player is saying something appropriate to the situation?
I think that others are thinking that you're giving the same bonus to anyone even if the character isn't built to be good at social skills.As for the knowledge example that you gave: The player has developed the character to be good at knowledge skills and is keeping track of things. That's an easy to produce, in game mechanic that makes sense. They've accumulated a small library (or, at least, a book or three) and that item is giving them a bonus.
For the mystery one: The bonus would be from solving the puzzle, right? (FYI: I don't like puzzles in games because, as someone else said earlier, there's not really a mechanic for solving them and a player good at solving puzzles has a huge advantage over everyone else regardless of the characters intelligence score.)
That bonus is from the player figuring it out and therefore the character figured it out so that's something in the game, isn't it?
Full disclosure: I don't see a point to a +2 bonus for social role-playing most of the time but I completely agree with letting someone pass a check if they're really close and it gives a better result/moves the story along so it's kind of, almost the same thing. (Especially used when I want the players to know something/something will have a huge impact if they figure it out but they didn't quite roll high enough.)
Sadly, because the ones getting mad about someone getting a bonus and them not getting one seems to come down to the fact that they want to be the best character in the group.
(Most noticeable when the players roll for stats and the one that wants to be better than everyone rolled medium to bad compared to everyone else.)
I do make my players roll their stats (hell, I make them roll hit points). So if a player whose PC has middling stats feels driven to be top dog, they're going to have to really bring it in play and be creative, smart, productive, shrewd, and elevate the level of the game. To which I say, "Bring it on!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like that Pathfinder inherently rewards mechanical knowledge and optimization. It is something I also work to minimize. I consider it a major weakness of the game system.
So no, I don't feel it is a double standard at all.
Besides, for any player at my table who is bad at mechanical optimization, I print them out a class guide to help them make decisions. There are other people on the internet who have done the optimization thinking for them already, so they can just enjoy their character.
That relates to the original topic. What I like about Pathfinder is the customization of characters. Players can dream up a character concept and in most cases build it. The tools for customization also allow optimization. Fortunately, characters built for concept often work as well as characters built for optimization, especially when I rewrite the adventure path to embrace that concept.
The only strix tribe in Golarion is in Cheliax. One player needed a strix tribe closer to Numeria for her strix skald to participate in the Iron Gods adventure path, so I put a second tribe in the mysterious Shudderwood in Ustalav. The dwarf gunslinger was a gadgeteer, so I let the party salvage a wrecked shuttle ship and get it flying again. The magus joined the evil Technic League to spy on them; strangely, the module had no rules for joining that collection of wizards and magi, so I invented the recruitment process. Actions of the new player's fighter are shaped by the player's desire to win at this Pathfinder game, but the other players and I treat it as roleplaying the fighter's ambitions.
By shaping the narrative, I give each player character a chance to shine in the way that the player wants the character to shine: as the exotic musician, as the nerdy gadgeteer, as the brainy magus, or as the victorious fighter.
If a player created a smooth-talking bard, with the Charisma and skills to support that, then having the bard speak eloquently would give the character many chances to shine. But if the player cannot form stirring words to match his excellent Diplomacy check, then the job falls on me. We pretend the words were there and move on to the reaction of the listeners, so that their actions reflect the concept of the character. Some description of what the bard said would make my job easier, but the imperative is that the game goes on.
If a player created an uncouth barbarian, with the lack of Charisma and skills to match, then having the barbarian speak eloquently would be odd. The dwarven gunslinger in my game often found herself in situations where she had to speak persuasively, because she organized the party. And the player flubbed the words deliberately, despite her years of playing silver-tongued bards, because the dwarf was a geek and an introvert. Failing in character was part of the excitement of the game. In contrast, our imaginary barbarian's player set up his character to fail and then stepped out of character to try to succeed instead. This would give me a quandry: which concept is the player after? And if the player would simply want that his character can morph at will to never fail, then I get angry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your style of play does add additional potential for bias though. This is a clear fact.No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't.
Does every player receive the bonus in equal proportions? If so, what method do you use to ensure that all players receive it equally?
To be clear, I'm not asking if all players are equally eligible to get the bonus. I'm asking, do they in fact all receive it an equal number of times.
See, I can guarantee that all my players receive the bonus for "good roleplaying" equally, because there is no bonus, so all players have received it 0 times. Equal.
So we can't, then? Okay, that's too bad. Sorry everyone else!
To answer your questions - yes, they all get equal bonuses. One question that I think you should have asked that I will answer is "How do you make sure the bonuses are cool and fun, and not something the players just expect if they know everyone is going to get the same amount?" and the answer to that is that I use my judgment about what seems cool to me, and ideally pace it out so that everyone gets one bonus every session, but not all at the same time. The method I use to ensure that? There's this cool invention, it's called "numbers", and you can use them to keep track of all sorts of things:
How many times a player has gotten a bonus
How many times a player has killed an enemy
How many times a player has done something cool outside of combat
How many roads a man must walk down before you can call him a manI mean, really, are you serious with this? Like, really? I'm sorry that I'm snarking you, but... come on. That was low-hanging fruit.
Does this in any way alleviate your concerns that I am doing wrongbadplay?
It's interesting that every time I ask you a question to try and get to the truth of things, you respond with snark, sarcasm, and telling me that I'm doing the wrong thing.
All I do is ask one or two questions, but you respond as if this is an insult based conversation.
Perhaps stop imagining there are insults, and you'll stop seeing insults. Here, try it in reverse. Ask me a simple, direct question.
|
I'm curious how you handle the naturally extremely eloquent/talkative player who always comes up with really cool ideas playing the charisma 5 character with negative social skills?
*cowers* My GMs make ME roll the bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy.
Which is why I started making all my characters have at least a decent diplomacy. I can't seem to keep my mouth shut in social encounters.
So let's say I was interested in running a game that is less combat-focused (put aside the idea that other systems are better at this for a moment). So I institute a rule where every roll out of combat where a player says anything relevant in the first person (including possibly an anecdote of something similar in their backstory) gets a +2. Hopefully, this makes "avoiding combat" more desirable because non-combat solutions are suddenly more reliable.
Is this going to affect all players equally? No, because if someone brings an low-intelligence fighter, warpriest, or cleric who specializes in combat over everything that player's not really going to be rolling for anything other than perception. Is that a problem though, really?
|
But personally, I've never been in a situation where I don't know what my character should say as part of a social check and another player has given me suggestions ("Tell the guard we're maintenance workers!"). I have been in situations where I'm struggling to think of something to say and a player with a less socially adept character stepped in and made the check instead. This keeps the game moving but does not encourage me to play social characters. Even if someone else comes up with the conversational tactics, I'd feel good about being able to make the roll with the skill bonus I invested in, and about the fact that my character is a smooth talker.I have actually seen that happen, not too infrequently either. But those are the bonus for specific points kind of things ("offer your condolences for her kids", tell her we can stop more bloodshed"), not help with the smooth talking oratory kind of phrasing we're mostly worried about here. Not even really sure how to give that kind of coaching or how well it would go over.
I've also seen GMs shut down even the first kind or only allow it with Aid Another rolls or separate attempts.
Have you seen GMs shut down OOC discussions of tactics? Things like “If you move in this way you won't provoke” or “Could you delay your charge until after I cast Fireball?”
If someone wants to try to become more outgoing, I will fully support them and do what I can to help. I would things like provide them with ideas, give them time to collect their thoughts, or ask them leading questions to get them on the right track.
In my experience, I don't feel that a bonus is the right way to do this. I feel like it puts undue pressure on introverted people.
Players who aren't comfortable, creative, or knowledgeable enough to act something out are likely going to feel they are being penalized even though their character, by the stats, should know exactly what to do and say.
That is the kind of approach that I personally would appreciate, as someone who roleplays partly to stretch my social skills.
However, there are certainly some situations where I would. If the player specifically built the character to be something of a monster expert because the player wanted to get more use out of heir personal skill of knowing a bunch about monsters without feeling like they were metagaming, and especially if the player had taken pains to establish those real world skills in the context of the narrative (say the character has a notebook of all the monster lore they've collected that they review every night, and in every town they seek out the town loremaster to share info, then I could probably be persuaded to come up with a bonus on the roll, though in truth if the character is built that way it's hardly likely to matter except at very low levels.
If the character built the player to be a monster expert, then they should have ranks in skills that are important for monster identification and possibly abilities that would further improve their ability to identify monsters (such as the Inquisitor's first-level Monster Lore ability). If it is important to the character concept that they be good at something, then that should be reflected in the mechanics. If the player isn't sure how to do that, it's because they haven't taken me up on my repeated and possibly annoying offers to share my character-building obsessiveness with anyone who wants it. >_>
Now, if the character's not supposed to be a monster expert but has a specific relevant pre-established backstory of “a nereid killed my brother,” I can give you some basic information without a check, but that will only happen a handful of times in a campaign (and it's probably a pre-planned character moment).
In fact, you might say that my strategy is to give mechanical rewards for mechanical skill and narrative rewards for narrative skill. You write a cool backstory, and I'll make that backstory relevant to the narrative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue i have with most of these "RP-threads" is how they are so negative in tone. *Punishing* bad RP, how do i *Enforce* RP, how do i *Make* my players RP, etc.
How about we put the RP aspect in more of a brighter light and lure them with honey instead of hellfire? Theres a reason why you have skillpoints after all, and the whole "RP" aspect of the game is that you are playing the role of your character and no further demands that "Require" any further player input than your attendance really.
The problem in a tabletop game in general and the whole aspect of "social gameplay" is based on several factors. The game should have aspects that allow that, and Pathfinder at best is "meh" (even after all of the expansions). The players should have the will to do so. The GM need to properly design a encounter to allow for such. And all of these three rarely can stand on their own, maybe except for mechanics where you can just "free form" past the bad bits.
If you need to force or punish your players for not subscribing to your wanted playstyle, you just dont have the right players to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they can provide a good and creative reason that meshes with their character background why they might know more about this thing, perhaps.What I don't understand is the desire to draw some kind of bright red (even neon) line around things like social skills when player skill and knowledge affects so much of the play of the game.Do you allow players to use OoC knowledge in regards to monsters? Let's say they're fighting a nereid but the characters don't have much knowledge Arcana. The characters don't know that the nereid's shawl is important because they didn't roll well but a player does.
Do they get a bonus to their knowledge check because it's a random fact they know?(This is an honest question as I'm trying to better understand where you're coming from.)
The background skill system and the "Lore" skill was added for just this reason. Forexample if in your background was attacked by a Bear, your lore could be about Bears in particular to manifest that characters way of studying how to kill bears as a revenge.
Personally i think the background skill system that add +2 skillpoints to dedicated "background skills" is a good way to flesh out mechanically a background without sacrificing the utility of far more useful skills. (Who would take Proffersion over Perception forexample?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
..."How do you make sure the bonuses are cool and fun, and not something the players just expect if they know everyone is going to get the same amount?" and the answer to that is that I use my judgment about what seems cool to me, and ideally pace it out so that everyone gets one bonus every session, but not all at the same time. The method I use to ensure that? There's this cool invention, it's called "numbers", and you can use them to keep track of all sorts of things...
You seem to be contradicting yourself here so I'm hoping you can clarify this for me. You reward people for good role playing, which would indicate that if someone doesn't do it they don't get a bonus. But you also say that you try to give it to each person once per session.
Does your group have anyone that's shy/quiet? Do you have anyone that doesn't say things in character?(By saying that you only give the bonus to someone when they do something cool but that you try to give them out evenly tells me that your group all plays in a very similar fashion. That's not an experience that I've ever had.)
Also, something else I was wondering:
If a low charisma, not very social character tries to use diplomacy and the player uses his OoC ability to suck up to people and says that the character gives a grand speech (even though the character isn't designed to do such a thing) would you allow them to earn a bonus?
(Asking because I see outgoing and charisma as personality traits that some players have that others don't much in the same way that I see monster knowledge as something that some players have that others don't.)
|
Why do social skills get rewarded for being good at them IRL but not other types of skills?Because we are playing a roleplaying game.
If you would like a bonus for your real physical abilities, try LARP'ing. However, I do grant a small bonus if players describe their skill check with vibrant detail. In your Sleight of Hand example, if you were to describe how you misdirect your mark's attention from what you're pick pocketing, I'd give a +1 or +2 bonus.
Conversely, this isn't Night at the Improv, either. I have DM'd shy players who've had social characters and just let their Diplomacy roll be their check. I didn't penalize them for not acting it out.
This is what I do. If someone can give me a description of how they are using a skill I give them circumstance bonuses. Its a role playing game, not a roll playing game. I feel that there are plenty of games that are strictly about rolling dice which are better suited for combat then any pen and paper RPG to satisfy those who only want to destroy minis on a map with their minis on a map..so anything that lends depth is normally rewarded at my tables.
If you are playing the dull witted, rush in and smash barbarian, great but if you want to attempt an acrobatics to avoid an AoO and say even something as basic as "I try to juke him and fake him out as I dodge around him", I'm gonna give you a circumstance bonus just because it makes your character more then a page full of numbers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In what way did I fail to answer your questions?
Why am I not justified in seeing your position as an attack?
If you are not committed to delegitimizing my views, why are you unwilling to accept my proposed middle ground where I accept that maybe you have a point, even if I don't agree with it, and you accept that maybe I have a point, even if you don't agree with it?
You've side stepped questions, or answered a different question instead of the one I've asked. You claim you've answered them, but in my estimation, you have not. Or at best you've given an answer, but it isn't the answer you think it is.
You can view my posts however you want. If you feel like this way is making for better conversation, continue. If not, perhaps come at my posts in a different way.
I think certain points you've made are factually wrong. Not just a difference in preference, but in how you justify and portray them. I'm willing to have a conversation about your method, but you refuse to admit certain facts that are true about it, so we have to debate these facts instead. Maybe they aren't true facts, and I am mistaken, but in that case I'm going to need to see a lot of clarification, and the best way for me to get there is precise answer to my questions. For the time being, I'm not enthused about reading the walls of text.
...given the incredibly wide scope for what "good roleplaying" is, I have never experienced, as a player or as a GM, or even as a spectator of other people's games, a situation where an entire session went on and I wasn't able to find a single solitary thing praiseworthy about an individual players actions. I don't seek to limit what counts as "good roleplaying" beyond "did something that added to the experience at the table", and the reason I'm adamant that what I'm doing isn't biased or bad is because I have never been in a situation where a player didn't add something of value to a session (even when overall I felt the player was a net drag on the table and had to have a conversation about...
Ah, okay... I think I see a thing that is causing a misunderstanding... You're talking about rewarding everyone for doing something cool, not just on social skill based things, right?
The original post specifically says "I've come to the conclusion that giving circumstance bonuses to social-skill checks for good roleplay, and thereby ENCOURAGING players to try and play something out without strictly requiring it of them, is best practice." so I think the majority of the conversation is people thinking that you're talking about only giving bonuses on social based skills.But you're talking about giving bonuses to anything that has a cool result/description, right?
(ie: an unsocial barbarian can get a bonus to acrobatics if the player describes doing something in a really interesting way)
Am I right?
Irontruth -- Were you under the impression that MrTsFloatingHead was only talking about bonuses to social skills?
Can't speak for Irontruth, but insights get lost in boilerplate.
Yes, people are saying this. There are posts from multiple people in this thread saying how they do this....His success is influenced, if not outright determined by the quality of the conversation rather than result of the diplomacy check. He knows all the right things to say and do to secure a deal and comes off as the smooth-talking diplomat he is IRL instead of the tongue-tied nitwit the investment into his character dictates the character is.No, nobody is saying this at all, and I confess I don't understand how this is even a contentious issue. Let's be crystal clear:
My theory as to the source of original mixed up communication here:
(1) born_of_fire conflated a player's speech ability 'influencing success' with their ability 'determining success' even though these aren't really the same thing.
(It is, of course, a sliding scale. Is +2 too much of a bonus? Is +10 too much of a bonus? Should we award bonuses for eloquence or for being true to the character?)
(2) MrTsFloatingHead skipped past the 'influenced' part of b_o_f's comment and jumped on the 'outright determining success' bit and said "no-one is saying this".
(3) Irontruth responded as if MrTsFloatingHead's "this" meant "no-one is allowing speech skills to influence success", which many people were saying.
(4) A lot of back and forth stuff that was a waste of time.
Ah, okay... I think I see a thing that is causing a misunderstanding... You're talking about rewarding everyone for doing something cool, not just on social skill based things, right?
Bingo!
The original post specifically says "I've come to the conclusion that giving circumstance bonuses to social-skill checks for good roleplay, and thereby ENCOURAGING players to try and play something out without strictly requiring it of them, is best practice." so I think the majority of the conversation is people thinking that you're talking about only giving bonuses on social based skills.
But you're talking about giving bonuses to anything that has a cool result/description, right?
(ie: an unsocial barbarian can get a bonus to acrobatics if the player describes doing something in a really interesting way)
Am I right?
That's my stand on it. Mind - giving a really good off the cuff speech in character is something that's really cool so points for good acting is there - it's just a subset of everything worth getting a bonus.
*Snip*Sure, I've played with people who where shy, and people who didn't say things in character. All players play differently, too, of course. But honestly, I don't see a contradiction - given the incredibly wide scope for what "good roleplaying" is, I have never experienced, as a player or as a GM, or even as a spectator of other people's games, a situation where an entire session went on and I wasn't able to find a single solitary thing praiseworthy about an individual players actions. I don't seek to limit what counts as "good roleplaying" beyond "did something that added to the experience at the table", and the reason I'm adamant that what I'm doing isn't biased or bad is because I have never been in a situation where a player didn't add something of value to a session (even when overall I felt the player was a net drag on the table and had to have a conversation about being rude to other players). Every player brings something unique and cool to the table in my experience, and I cannot imagine a situation where that is not true.
This is as much out of curiosity as anything, just wanting to know... can you give an example of rewarding good roleplaying with a combat-focused character? And I mean something other than, say, a flanking bonus or other such bonus that is hard-coded into the basic mechanics of the game, and not counting stuff like the instance of "I'm a body builder IRL so I use my bodybuilding knowledge to influence these barbarians in this social encounter" but an actual judgement-call based bonus in a combat situation. Something that would make the BSF or Sneak Attack Rogue feel special (ignore that specific wording if it disagrees with you, as stated before I'm not the best wordsmith, but just that idea of "you did really good, have a bonus") for doing their big thing of fighting.