At risk of derailment, I let people roleplay as much or as little as they want, with no penalties or bonuses either way.
If someone wants to act out their monologue, that's great. If someone wants to narrate their monologue, that's also great.
I'm also happy when people collaborate (if it's requested, or welcomed), so that players can make a cool story with their characters even if they may not be able to think of every detail. Sometimes a little brainstorm session at a critical juncture can make roleplaying much more fun for people who aren't as comfortable acting it out, or don't quite know where to go.
---
I also think that there is huge variety in how a social roll can go. If you miss a Deception check it isn't necessarily because your lie was bad, or dumb, or you made a rookie mistake. People don't believe lies or even truth all the time, for many different reasons. A poor Diplomacy check doesn't have to be your character suddenly being a jerk to someone; they may just not be buying what you're selling.
I think someone mentioned it upthread, with low Charisma = ugly, and same thing there. I also dislike that, if it's a "houserule." I always tell my players that the mental attributes don't mean your character talks like "Me Ugg," or is an ugly scoundrel, or has to be "lol random". Low Charisma is just less of an ability to figure out what people want, or how to navigate complicated social queues. Someone with high Charisma could be also not physically attractive one way or another, but be extremely compelling. Low Intelligence can be as simple as just not being interested in figuring out why things are the way they are, and low Wisdom can simply be a lack of hawk-like perception, rather than someone literally daydreaming or bouncing off the walls or suffering from ADHD.
I think a lot of times players (and DMs) throw nuance out the window and make caricatures with stats and with social skills.
|
I'm happy to suggest ideas if the player's having a hard time coming up with anything, but there needs to be a specific lie that gets told and the player and GM both need to know what it was, or the world can become really inconsistent in a really bad way.That I could probably do. Pick between a couple or three options to go with. But coming up with something on my own doesn't work so well. Blank page problem to the extreme...
Though, it might work even better to come up with the options after the dice are rolled. That way we could come up with either a lie that is believable if the dice show a success, or something incredulous if they show failure. To me that seems more in line with how things work - make the rolls, then describe the action. You don't start describing the effects of your awesome sword routine until after you roll the attack roll.
I enjoy "roll it, then roleplay it." It lets players role-play failure, and avoids situations were a character gives a lovely speech only to role a natural 1.
I also think that there is huge variety in how a social roll can go. If you miss a Deception check it isn't necessarily because your lie was bad, or dumb, or you made a rookie mistake. People don't believe lies or even truth all the time, for many different reasons. A poor Diplomacy check doesn't have to be your character suddenly being a jerk to someone; they may just not be buying what you're selling.
I think part of the problem is that real life social encoutners generally aren't resolved by one or two lines of dialog.
But in D&D we've boiled down that system to a single die roll. "Ah your check failed, I guess that's that. Got something else you want to try?"
I mean, look at the Sturdy Shield thread. 600 posts and no one's managed to convince anyone of anything, but no one's stopped trying either.
Hell, the entire reason that the Con Man functions is to talk so fast that people can't keep up with what he's saying in order to suss out the truth from the lies. And they don't do it by bluffing someone they've just met, they socialize, hang out with them, make friends, have a beer...then the bluff comes out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's reasonable to let a shy person have their rolls do the talking, but when I'm really impressed with someone's cleverness, to quietly set the DC a little lower. I don't think that's actually a houserule either, but a legitimate use of GM discretion.
Thoughts? Me bad GM?
There is a potential when using that kind of DC adjustment that your players no longer feel they are playing the game so much as they are playing the GM - because if they guess the approach you'll favor, they get better odds of success.
Some people think that's a problem. I don't, even though I don't like that play-style myself because I always felt like I was playing favorites when I used to play that way.
You'd only be a "bad GM" for it if you weren't aware you were doing it, or the divide between 'impressed me' and 'didn't impress me' were such that players felt that had unreasonably low chances of success unless they happen to impress you.
Right, they are playing the GM. I'm responsible for what's happening in the minds of the NPCs, so there's no clean line between where I end and the game begins. I can't think of any other way to play a game where soft skills have value.
If a GM is unwilling to be influenced by anything outside of hard mechanics, then the game's math is the only thing that matters and other forms of intelligence are not useful. That's not "bad" either, but it wouldn't appeal to me.
I dislike rules that amplify the effects of 1s & 20s. A lot of them seem like they shouldn’t matter in the first place, because of how rare that level of die rolls should be. So to me why have them at all? If they do matter then they matter in a way that hurts the PC, because sure the PCs May roll that triple 20 that auto kills something more often. But it’s most likely to be on a mook. The GM only has to make that roll once in the campaign to ruin someone’s entire game. The same with failure. They also make player luck, which is already important, even more impactful. It’s already no fun to be the player who can’t roll over a ten, why are we making that person’s day worse?
On the bluff discussion I highly suggest working with others at the table. Someone else is likely willing to offer suggestions on what to say, and it takes some of the pressure off the GM to come up with both your lie and their character’s reaction. I don’t have trouble with this but I do basically the same thing when my group plays high tech games. I like playing building characters, but I’m no where near as computer savvy as our GM and another player who both work in computers and programming. So when I need to do something more delicate I just point them at each other and let them go while I make rolls.
A non PF example would be the rogue sneak attack in D&D5e. So many new DMs see the sneak attack damage as "OP" especially at lower levels and will do anything they can to deny the advantage you need to get it. When in reality the rogue is balanced around getting sneak attack the majority of the time. Nerfing it makes the class objectively worse then any other martial class.
I will never judge a GM for nerfing gwm and ss bonuses if a player is utilising them to their full power though -laughs-
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1, Knowledge checks to identify monsters as the player gets one question to ask the GM for each 5 over the DC. This house rule is so universal that many players are shocked when I point out that it is in fact a house rule and not written in the game.
It's not the worst of house rules, but the actual rule says that the player recalls a bit of useful information, plus another piece of useful info for every 5 over the DC. I feel like the house rule q&a version often doesn't result in useful information. Like, no it doesn't have any special abilities, isn't really what I'd call a useful bit of info.
Mostly this house rule just bugs me because so many people don't realize it is a house rule. I've had pfs players get mad at me because I just told them a few bits of info about a monster and they were like where's my questions, and I had to be like sorry, pfs uses raw. Then I had to show them that what they thought was raw was a house rule because they were so sure they were right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Let's roll ability scores" being followed with some wild process like (to use an exaggerated example, but not so exaggerated as to never have been something someone told me they use) 5d6, re-roll 1s and 2s, keep 3 highest, and if you don't get at least one 18 swap your best roll for one.
It's fiddly and obnoxious and doesn't have a clear goal because if you want random scores what's with all the mitigations, and if you want high scores why not just have high scores? And if you're really dead-set on random scores but only within a higher range, you can get there more simply like using 3d6, trade lowest for 6.
And then if you're like me and somehow still end up with an array of 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 13 they start telling you to redo it until some arbitrary minimum threshold is met.
PF1, Knowledge checks to identify monsters as the player gets one question to ask the GM for each 5 over the DC. This house rule is so universal that many players are shocked when I point out that it is in fact a house rule and not written in the game.
It's not the worst of house rules, but the actual rule says that the player recalls a bit of useful information, plus another piece of useful info for every 5 over the DC. I feel like the house rule q&a version often doesn't result in useful information. Like, no it doesn't have any special abilities, isn't really what I'd call a useful bit of info.
Mostly this house rule just bugs me because so many people don't realize it is a house rule. I've had pfs players get mad at me because I just told them a few bits of info about a monster and they were like where's my questions, and I had to be like sorry, pfs uses raw. Then I had to show them that what they thought was raw was a house rule because they were so sure they were right.
Monster Lore
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.
Check: In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
I think maybe you misunderstood the post. This wasn't saying that the number of pieces of information gained is a houserule, but that the player asking questions to determine WHICH pieces of information are gained is a common houserule.
I think "table practice" is possibly a better phrase than "houserule" here, since there is no default rule about determining which information is given out, but the point that many people assume the common practice is a rule is not wrong.
I think maybe you misunderstood the post. This wasn't saying that the number of pieces of information gained is a houserule, but that the player asking questions to determine WHICH pieces of information are gained is a common houserule.
I've also seen it run the other way where the player made the knowledge check and the GM went "you get two pieces of information, it has very high AC and Fortitude."
Two pieces of information we, as players, already knew from having attacked it (with it shrugging off both effects).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asking questions can be a good way for the players to tell the GM what would be useful to them. For the psychic with one highest-level slot left to Mind Thrust, it's pretty useful to know if the monster is immune to mind-affecting effects.
But I've also seen people ask bad questions, like "does it have any weaknesses" - a very intuitive question until you realize that only like 1% of all monsters have special weaknesses.
And sometimes questions don't get you to the important information fast enough. If I say "it's a woman with weird snake hair" you might ask if she has any special attacks and I tell you about her gaze attack. But if "it's some kind of walking corpse" and you get one piece of info, do you know whether you need to ask about special attacks or what specific weapon gets through its unusually high DR?
As a GM I generally do a mix of questions and pieces of info chosen by me. Always with the intent that the player gets useful information.
Sometimes even, that's not "how to fight it", but "it has this ability that matches a clue you found earlier, so this might be the monster whodunnit".
Asking questions can be a good way for the players to tell the GM what would be useful to them. For the psychic with one highest-level slot left to Mind Thrust, it's pretty useful to know if the monster is immune to mind-affecting effects.
Every creature has a low save :)
But yeah, I get players to ask a question just to give me an idea / direction in how to answer usefulness wise. If there is something MORE useful than what they are asking I will always answer that first (sometimes throwing in a little bit of a freebie if I can for their question).
That said, any GM that gets them to ask a question and refuses to give any knowledge on a successful roll because they didn't ask the right question is doing it to the detriment of their players.
When I GM I don't let players ask question on recalling knowledge about monsters, but I do try to give out useful info.
However saves and AC are at the bottom of the list for stuff I'll give out. Really any statistic that all creatures have is at the bottom of the list for me to tell players a monster has. I try to mention stuff that other creatures don't have first, and usually is related to something that the group would or wouldn't do.
Like if we have a sorcerer who typically uses a lot of fire spells, and the creature has fire weakness/resistance that's definitely getting a mention.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What with the way the math is set up for PF2 monsters, I think that's reason for a re-think of what you can tell players about its statistics.
I never give out numbers like "it has fire weakness 10" but I might say "it's very flammable".
Since AC and saving throws are mostly driven by the tables, I'm not going to being up "it has typical AC for its level" as an exciting usable factoid. However, the difference between best and worst save can be big, big enough to make a difference in monsters usually failing or succeeding at that save. So that's certainly useful information.
However, best/worst save is also stuff players can often take a guess at just by listening to the monster description and watching what the monster does. Is the monster acting sneaky and trying to do hit and run tactics? Probably good Reflex save. Is it a nerdy wizard? Fortitude is probably not the strongest save. So if I picked that as information as GM to volunteer, I might be shortchanging my players because they could have figured this out themselves.
Typically when players do Recall Knowledge I check up quickly, is there something this monster would be well known for, or that's really important to know ("the blood of a basilisk can cure its petrification"). That might be my first answer. However, if a player specifically spent an action to Recall Knowledge to know if casting a particular spell was a good idea, I'm probably going to answer that.
It's just, players can do well for themselves by at least deducing some of the answers themselves.
Asking questions can be a good way for the players to tell the GM what would be useful to them. For the psychic with one highest-level slot left to Mind Thrust, it's pretty useful to know if the monster is immune to mind-affecting effects.Every creature has a low save :)
Not really.
I'm not sure I'd call a monster with saves of +8, +8, +9 as having a "low" save.(Arbitrary numbers, having gone through the entire bestiary plugging data in (down to needing the copious number of level 1s) I have seen save layouts that basically boil down to "everything's moderate." Adult Blue Dragons, for instance)
Of course, moderate values are "about as likely to succeed as you are to fail" comparable to High AC. Its not particularly vulnerable, but not particularly resistant either.
I definitely try to always mention either worst or best save when giving out monster information - mostly because the party bard has very good Fort spells and very good Will spells, but most of them will bounce off hard against a successful save* so knowing what to target makes her feel a lot more useful. Especially since she is usually the one making the knowledge check in the first place (yay bardic lore).
*I get that frightened 1 is a valuable condition, but Phantasmal Killer never advancing the damage on a successful save no matter how much you heighten it kinda feels bad.
I definitely try to always mention either worst or best save when giving out monster information - mostly because the party bard has very good Fort spells and very good Will spells, but most of them will bounce off hard against a successful save* so knowing what to target makes her feel a lot more useful.
My technique is to identify the monster on a successful Knowledge check, give its name and its types (which usually conveys its best saves). From there, I allow the player to ask one specific question for each 5 by which they beat the base DC. That allows them to pick up on weaknesses, best saves, special attacks, personality, etc. Whatever is most useful in the situation.
Depends on the PC's Charisma.
A low-Cha player who wants to play a high-Cha character, I will handle with rolls; a high-Cha player who wants to play a high-Cha character, i will encourage to roleplay interactions.
This is the ideal I strive for, definitely.
It's a complicated issue, because I have shy players with excellent optimization skills and other players with great social intuition whose brains hurt when they have to do simple math. I don't want to punish either of them, but I do want to value what each is bringing to the table.
I think it's reasonable to let a shy person have their rolls do the talking, but when I'm really impressed with someone's cleverness, to quietly set the DC a little lower. I don't think that's actually a houserule either, but a legitimate use of GM discretion.
Thoughts?
Depends on the PC's Charisma.
A low-Cha player who wants to play a high-Cha character, I will handle with rolls; a high-Cha player who wants to play a high-Cha character, i will encourage to roleplay interactions.
(A high-Cha player who dumps Charisma and then tries to use out-of-character fast talk skills in roleplaying, I will come down on like a ton of bricks. And a player who is not self-aware about their Charisma and willing to play accordingly is usually someone I'd prefer not to play with, that combination is IME prone to leading to all manner of other social problems.)
I think this is a toxic mindset. One, you're allocating stats to your players mental/social stats. That's f*+@ing bizarre. 2. You're basically deciding that who you've deemed low cha shouldnt even attempt to do a good job of playing the role. You'll just roll the dice and fill in the gaps. But then people who you realize are actually decent socially, you "punish" for doing what's natural to them.
Social skills are exactly that: SKILLS. They can be worked on and improved. Instead of categorizing your supposed friends based on levels, why not allow them to just practice those skills and get better as players too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traditionally people call players-who-like-to-talk "high charisma". It's just a phrase. Not like they're saying low int.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I think it should be about how comfortable the players are with speaking in character and how much they enjoy it, versus how good they are at it. I have 5 players currently, 4 as experienced as I am or more, and one that's completely new to TTRPGs. But the new player enjoys acting and speaking in character as much as the other ones do, even if she's not good at it. If I started summing up her important interactions to rolling, I'm pretty sure that would kill the game for her, so I let her roleplay like I do with the others, but I consider that her character is probably speaking in a more concise manner than she is. Now, if the player really was uncomfortable with the acting thing, I would run things more akin to the book.
I totally agree adapting the way you run these things to your players is the right way to go, but I think this is the wrong parameter to base on.
As a person who grew up being held to higher standards than my siblings and my peers at school because I was perceived to be "smarter than them" - I have a deep dislike of any kind of sliding scale of expectations such as is described by one player being able to just roll and move the game forward while another 'has to' do more than that to get the same result.
Either it's good enough, or it isn't, and maybe someone goes above and beyond - but if you slide your scale then someone is 'failing' by only doing what is expected of others.
To clarify my own position -
I don't "require" anything of any of my players unless I require it of all of them. If anyone is having an off day or feeling down and just wants to make the roll and move on they are free to.
What I do do is encourage the people whom I know are comfortable roleplaying to do so, within their own level of comfort, while trying to avoid putting any pressure on the people who aren't comfortable to do the same.
I don't really know what to say to that other than to say that I know my gaming group really well, and I'm very cautious with people I don't know well. ~shrug~ Like I said - it's an ideal I strive for, not something I always get right.
Traditionally people call players-who-like-to-talk "high charisma". It's just a phrase. Not like they're saying low int.
The guy literally says he sits at a table where they discuss the players RL stats lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not tailoring your encouragement to different players is bad gming in my book. I have one player who likes to do unorthodox things in combat, so I encourage that, I have another player who likes to use stealth and trickery yo their advantage,so I encourage that. The social rp player is no different.
Encouraging a player who performs a tactic well and enjoys doing it to do it more frequently is a bit different than judging whether or not a player should attempt a roll or play out a social encounter based on your interpretation of their social abilities.
Not tailoring your encouragement to different players is bad gming in my book. I have one player who likes to do unorthodox things in combat, so I encourage that, I have another player who likes to use stealth and trickery yo their advantage,so I encourage that. The social rp player is no different.Encouraging a player who performs a tactic well and enjoys doing it to do it more frequently is a bit different than judging whether or not a player should attempt a roll or play out a social encounter based on your interpretation of their social abilities.
Exactly, it shouldn't matter how comfortable a player is we have those skills as skills for a reason. I've seen GMs just let players talk their way through everything without a single roll more times than I can count with several of those talkers have no ranks and Negative CHA mods.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Called Shots, easily and by a mile.
They tend to fall into one of two categories:
1) Balanced so they don't cause encounters to instantly end on a single good roll (Often after obscene buffing to ensure it hits).
2) The clear and obvious choice for tactic in that it aims to meet the expectations of the player who envisions shooting somebody in the head or cutting off their arm.
Every variant I have seen in play or read has fallen into one of these categories and neither were, in my opinion, good for the game, much like coup-de-grace rules but with wider scope since once you introduce it players will often opt to use called shots exclusively or ignore the mechanic altogether.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean just let them ignore the rules. Just that if you've got a player who likes to talk to NPCs, give them moments to shine, just like you would include interactive combat elements for the player who likes to push bookshelves in the grand library etc.
I wasn't saying that your statement about tailoring encounters to suit the things your players like engaging with was wrong, I was just saying that it's a bit apples to oranges with the other persons idea of classifying the players RL social abilities and requiring just a roll from the player they perceive as socially inept while allowing the player with natural social ability IRL to just play it out verbally.
One (what you described) encourages the use of skills and gives everyone at the table a moment to shine, the other creates an unnecessary imbalance that highlights things that may make a player feel singled out.
Ellocuence and a lot of talking should not grant a free pass anymore than someone who knows how to use an advance weapon demonstrating it when their own character has no proficiency.
Which is exactly why the charismatic character should be allowed to engage with the charisma based challenge how they want to rather than the GM deciding "Even though Kargrim Delvington is a natuarally charismatic face for the party, you're not great with words Bob - so just roll it instead."
Disagree. If the 8 cha barbarian wants to be boastful and overbearing I'll give the player time to rp that. It probably won't have a beneficial effect so they arent going to be rewarded mechanically
Where are you disagreeing? That seems to be the thrust of Temperans' point too.
FWIW I think the position is being mischaracterized a bit. The original complaint wasn't about RPing, it was about GMs giving players free passes or punishing other players in ways you'd never do for other skill checks, which is entirely different and I think unequivocally bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was planning on leaving this thread alone. But this one got to me again.
And I don't mean to call you out specifically, ExOichoThrow. But I do want to illustrate the point I am trying to make.
Social skills are exactly that: SKILLS. They can be worked on and improved. Instead of categorizing your supposed friends based on levels, why not allow them to just practice those skills and get better as players too?
Fly is also a skill usage just like intimidate and lie are. Try practicing that one and let me know how much you improve.
Give me a potion of fly and I will.
Ah, but remember - you have to do it IRL, at least a little bit, before you are allowed to even roll the check.
Give me a potion of fly and I will.Ah, but remember - you have to do it IRL, at least a little bit, before you are allowed to even roll the check.
Bah. You probably meant that If I IRL gave you a potion of fly then you could practice.
Sorry. I am a bit slow on the understanding.