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.
I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??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.
There have been several threads of discussion about deception use, at least as I read the thread. Though they seem to blend a bit.
Breithauptclan’s point seems to be that for some people those skills are not things that they can gain out of game. At least not in a span of time relevant to any gaming group. And I don’t think that’s an unfair or untrue point. Their complaint that GM(s) have required the use of out of game abilities they didn’t have to use in game abilities their character did have.
To take a less absolute position, though in another genre. How would you feel if you you wanted to play a Decker(hacker) in a shadowrun game. But any time you went for a dive the GM required you to breach a computer system they choose? Computer use at that level is also a skill, and very likely one that could be as useful as any social skill in today’s world. But it certainly doesn’t seem like something you should be required to have to play in game.
Not every skill is something everyone can master. And for some regardless of effort they will continue to have issues that others don’t.
I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??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.There have been several threads of discussion about deception use, at least as I read the thread. Though they seem to blend a bit.
Breithauptclan’s point seems to be that for some people those skills are not things that they can gain out of game. At least not in a span of time relevant to any gaming group. And I don’t think that’s an unfair or untrue point. Their complaint that GM(s) have required the use of out of game abilities they didn’t have to use in game abilities their character did have.
To take a less absolute position, though in another genre. How would you feel if you you wanted to play a Decker(hacker) in a shadowrun game. But any time you went for a dive the GM required you to breach a computer system they choose? Computer use at that level is also a skill, and very likely one that could be as useful as any social skill in today’s world. But it certainly doesn’t seem like something you should be required to have to play in game.
Not every skill is something everyone can master. And for some regardless of effort they will continue to have issues that others don’t.
I think perhaps you guys have missed the context of this thread. All of my posts have been in response to a person who assigned stats to the actual players, and decided to not even ask them to roleplay their social checks because they were bad at it. I think that this is a toxic and negative mindset. I dont think hacking or flying are comparable by any means to basic attempts at persuasion or deception with little expectation of execution. My main point is that you should still try, and be subject to bonuses/penalties if the attempts are good or bad--so long as it makes sense.
I do not believe and in fact strongly oppose the idea that using some degree of logic in social situations is against the spirit of roleplaying. In fact, I would argue that it's the antithesis of role playing to simply treat negotiation as solely as a dice roll with no other contributing factors.
Again, nobody is saying you have to master the art of the deal here. I'm saying roleplay should matter, and people shouldnt be excluded for being perceived as "bad", but rather encouraged to try their best and hopefully find themselves improving at it as a player as well as a character.
I think not adjusting for how a person role plays means you may as well play a video game, personally. To each their own. But more importantly, you still seem to be missing my point. I was responding to somebody who specifically judged other people's capabilities and didnt even bother to present opportunities to roleplay because he thought they were so bad at them. Moreover, he was saying he would punish people who actually wanted to engage in that kind of activity past rolling a dive, because their character would be bad at it and it somehow meant they were trying to cheat by doing what's natural to them.
I strongly get the feeling you think I'm out here advocating for some weird table where you have to be a master negotiator or something to use your stat. And I'm not sure why my argument is being presented in that light. I am, however, advocating that in a role playing game, role play and what you actually choose to say should matter to some extent. It seems very strange to me that that's an apparently controversial stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??
Cool then, you must be able to demonstrate your climbing abilities before we play so I can see whether I let you roll for them.
You must show me how good of a swimmer you are before you are allowed to roll.
How is your balancing?
Hey let's extend this to swordsplay or martial arts... Do you REALLY know where to hit a fellow human for that critical hit?
I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??Cool then, you must be able to demonstrate your climbing abilities before we play so I can see whether I let you roll for them.
You must show me how good of a swimmer you are before you are allowed to roll.
How is your balancing?
Hey let's extend this to swordsplay or martial arts... Do you REALLY know where to hit a fellow human for that critical hit?
Luckily for me, language and communication skills are relatively universal in first world countries and practically required to play rpgs.
You know what isnt? Climbing
Also, what is this strawman? Where did I ever say I wouldnt allow someone to roll because they didnt know how to do something IRL?
I think perhaps you guys have missed the context of this thread. All of my posts have been in response to a person who assigned stats to the actual players, and decided to not even ask them to roleplay their social checks because they were bad at it. I think that this is a toxic and negative mindset.
Actually the last post was in response to and quoting the person who stated they were autistic and that for them performing a bluff to the standards their GM required was as doable as shooting fire to cast a spell. If you didn’t realize that before you might see why you got quite so enthusiastic a response.
I do think a GM needs more info for use of the diplomatic skills than that you’re using them. But there are multiple ways to get that info as have been mentioned.
As to the stats thing? I don’t think that’s particularly toxic in it self. It absolutely could be so, but it comes down to how it’s done. I’ve had various discussions to that effect in groups I’ve been in and for us at least it’s much more likely to be a positive discussion as as persons A & B point out that person C definitely has higher ___ than that. Or that yes they have a low ___ but it’s balanced by ___. We never got around to putting them on sheets but I can certainly see that particularly if they wanted to play a transported to another world type game. As with most things it depends on how it’s handled.
What, you mean like pilot checks for initiative every round?Again, give me a potion of fly and I will.
On topic, round by round initiative. I'll just take zero, thanks.
I had to do that in a different game, it’s definitely disruptive and makes things harder to follow. It also makes things a nightmare to make sure no one gets missed. Purely by coincidence my character in that game quickly built initiative bonuses into themselves until on a 1 they beat anything else on a 20. Made it much easier when I knew when I was going regardless of the roll. I think I’d have even taken the inverse if necessary rather than constantly shifting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think not adjusting for how a person role plays means you may as well play a video game, personally. To each their own.
My problem with this approach is that it inevitably leads to the mindset where everyone but the bard and champion dumps Charisma because they can make up the 2-3 point stat difference with good roleplay.
I feel like good roleplay in PF2 is more properly rewarded with hero points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Luckily for me, language and communication skills are relatively universal in first world countries and practically required to play rpgs.
You know what isnt? Climbing
Also, what is this strawman? Where did I ever say I wouldnt allow someone to roll because they didnt know how to do something IRL?
Yeah and you know what also isn't, being a skilled diplomat or conman.
Given the overall context of the discussion and your posts I would hardly call it a strawman. The idea of someone having to match their in game choices to their real world capabilities is ridiculous, especially when the same expectation isn't levelled elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is definitely a middle ground on the things we’re specifically debating at the moment.
We have one GM saying that they rate their players real world charisma and determines whose character rolls for charisma based checks and who gets to attempt to talk through it based on their assessment of their players ability.
We have a poster who reacts to that by suggesting that all players should have to try to talk it out, and other posters who balk at that idea.
The idea of a GM using their judgement about their players real world abilities and “stats” to make the kind of determinations is a bit on the extreme side and I see why the previous poster reacted negatively to it. I did as well.
The middle ground I think we can all agree on is player agency. Let the player determine if they want to try to role play it out with an actual conversation or by rolling their dice. Put the choice in their hands.
I think not adjusting for how a person role plays means you may as well play a video game, personally. To each their own.My problem with this approach is that it inevitably leads to the mindset where everyone but the bard and champion dumps Charisma because they can make up the 2-3 point stat difference with good roleplay.
I feel like good roleplay in PF2 is more properly rewarded with hero points.
Players aren't robots either, you know. Some GMs (me) have been with the same player base for a long time and know them really well and have tailored their GM style appropriately.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a toxic mindset. One, you're allocating stats to your players mental/social stats. That's f&+#ing bizarre.
It really isn't. I think every group I've ever played with we idly speculated on what our stats would be in some game or other. We don't take it seriously, but I don't think there's any evidence that the nerve-eater does so either.
Saying 'low-Charisma player' is a shorthand for 'player with bad social skills' in jargon all roleplayers will understand, not some weird cult-like thing where anyone thinks stats actually equate directly to real world stuff.
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.
This really assumes facts not in evidence. You could be right, I suppose, or the basics might well get said, they're just not inclined to try and force people to attempt to be more persuasive than they are in real life. The latter assumption is just as easy to get from what they wrote as the one you assumed...and yet you leapt to the worst possible conclusion.
Basically, you're making a huge assumption that the most draconian and implausible version of what they said is what they do. That's...actually a really weird assumption 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?
I very much doubt they're preventing people from roleplaying. In context, it sounds like they're avoiding forcing people to do so, which strikes me as entirely reasonable.
I think not adjusting for how a person role plays means you may as well play a video game, personally. To each their own. But more importantly, you still seem to be missing my point. I was responding to somebody who specifically judged other people's capabilities and didnt even bother to present opportunities to roleplay because he thought they were so bad at them.
Again, this is not the only interpretation of what they wrote. It is an assumption on your part that you made with very little supporting evidence.
It could be true, but I wouldn't call it likely and you certainly leapt to this conclusion with insufficient evidence.
Moreover, he was saying he would punish people who actually wanted to engage in that kind of activity past rolling a dive, because their character would be bad at it and it somehow meant they were trying to cheat by doing what's natural to them.
No, they said that they'd punish people who took low social stats and then tried to ignore the drawbacks of that by using real world social skills to b@&$@$#% the GM. That's a very different thing and a perfectly reasonable thing to punish, since they're basically trying to cheat by taking a mechanical down side and then using real world skills to ignore it, effectively getting free points.
I strongly get the feeling you think I'm out here advocating for some weird table where you have to be a master negotiator or something to use your stat. And I'm not sure why my argument is being presented in that light. I am, however, advocating that in a role playing game, role play and what you actually choose to say should matter to some extent. It seems very strange to me that that's an apparently controversial stance.
The reason people are reacting like you're being unreasonable is not necessarily that you run your table weirdly, it's that you leapt to a really bizarre assumption about how someone else ran theirs with little evidence and then acted like that was gospel. Your reaction was way more extreme than what the person you're responding to actually wrote.
This makes it a lot easier for people to assume your gaming style is equally extreme in other ways.
|
I had to do that in a different game, it’s definitely disruptive and makes things harder to follow. It also makes things a nightmare to make sure no one gets missed. Purely by coincidence my character in that game quickly built initiative bonuses into themselves until on a 1 they beat anything else on a 20. Made it much easier when I knew when I was going regardless of the roll. I think I’d have even taken the inverse if necessary rather than constantly shifting.What, you mean like pilot checks for initiative every round?Again, give me a potion of fly and I will.
On topic, round by round initiative. I'll just take zero, thanks.
Indeed. In the PF1 game I played that had it, I started delaying to the end of every round after the enemy got to act twice in between my high init one round and low init the next.
|
|
My problem with this approach is that it inevitably leads to the mindset where everyone but the bard and champion dumps Charisma because they can make up the 2-3 point stat difference with good roleplay.
I wouldn't call it good roleplay if they're actively playing contrary to their role.
"Role playing" and "talking to NPCs" aren't synonymous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Luckily for me, language and communication skills are relatively universal in first world countries and practically required to play rpgs.
*whistles*
Well, thanks for excluding me entirely. Guess I will just go sell off all my books and climb back into a hole in the ground.
OK. That is probably a bit too harsh. But I'm suspecting you missed the part where I mentioned being autistic, and having an actual disability in social communication.
So yes, the idea that
in a role playing game, role play and what you actually choose to say should matter to some extent.
is probably reasonable for the group of people that you play with. It is likely a good houserule for you to be using.
But if you encounter someone who is actually bad at social interaction, it may be a good idea to recognize that your houserule is a houserule. And one that is excluding to some people.
------
And where I was getting at with this:
Fly is also a skill usage just like intimidate and lie are. Try practicing that one and let me know how much you improve.
What is the difference between a disability and an inability? How your abilities compare to others. If everyone else can do it and you can't then it is a disability. If everyone else is also unable to do it, then it is just an inability. Right? But to a person individually - without comparing to others - there really isn't any difference between the words disability and inability.
So you have an inability to fly. How much is practice going to help with that? Go ahead. Stand up right now and start flapping your arms around. Practice for an hour. Two hours. As long as you want. At the end of the day, you still won't be able to fly.
Same goes with someone who is color blind. They can stare at those colored circle cards for as long as they want. All the practice in the world won't help them see anything in them.
Same with someone who is blind. No matter how much time they are on a basketball court practicing, they are not going to become skilled enough to make the team.
So why is it suddenly different for social interaction?
I'm pointing out that it isn't. Someone with a social communication disability isn't going to be able to make that go away through practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with this approach is that it inevitably leads to the mindset where everyone but the bard and champion dumps Charisma because they can make up the 2-3 point stat difference with good roleplay.I wouldn't call it good roleplay if they're actively playing contrary to their role.
"Role playing" and "talking to NPCs" aren't synonymous.
And yet, that was advice passed around on the Wizard of the Coast forum during 3.5 era: always dump charisma, because you can make up for a weak diplomacy or bluff roll if you're good enough at roleplaying.
The entire topic I was responding to was someone saying they gave a player a bonus on their roll for good roleplay during a diplomacy or bluff check. I was saying I'd reward that with a hero point instead. I see little point in debating the semantics on what I am and am not allowed to describe it as.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people with disabilities is an exception to what I've been saying, rather than a rule. I've worked with and coached people with autism and other developmental disabilities, and I reject the idea that all people with autism are literally incapable of developing their social skills. In fact, there are lots of programs specifically to help people with autism work on social skills.
I want to be clear: This is not to minimize your experience, but it's just my experience and what I've seen in terms of programs and education for people with autism. I don't think it's equivalent to a blind person and asking them to see something--although I do think special considerations should be made for anyone who isn't comfortable with something for whichever reason--especially disabilities.
I think it's misunderstanding to see what I was saying as being exclusive--I think that for the most part, in real life, you would see that I'm probably one of the most accommodating people you'll meet, believe it or not. In fact, this conversation started because I viewed it as particularly excluding to rate people's social skills and decide whether or not they should even bother role playing if their perceived skills IRL are too low.
With that being said,I feel like the thread is being kind of derailed and I apologize for being a contributing factor to that. I will not bother arguing this further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people with disabilities is an exception to what I've been saying, rather than a rule.
1 in 54, which is approaching 2%. Though that would be for a random sampling of the population, rather than the ratio of people showing up to play.
And whether that should be considered exceptional or not, I can't say. Though people were complaining earlier that rolling 2 20s in a row (a 0.25% chance) causing player death was too high of a rate.
And yeah. Misunderstanding is par for the course. I bear you no ill will personally.