|
mastershakeman posted:See, I think the opposite, but agree that mixing the two is wrong. The player shouldn't be saying 'i want to intimidate.' He should be roleplaying with the NPC as played by the DM in order to achieve his results. Then get rid of the charisma stat and all social interaction skills. Don't pretend that these are character abilities that you invest character resources into if they are not. At very least, don't act surprised when players are confused after being actively misled.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Bar Crow posted:Then get rid of the charisma stat and all social interaction skills. Don't pretend that these are character abilities that you invest character resources into if they are not. At very least, don't act surprised when players are confused after being actively misled. Why would you bother having non-hostile npcs if your interactions with them are going to consist of things like "I deceive them"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:See, I think the opposite, but agree that mixing the two is wrong. The player shouldn't be saying 'i want to intimidate.' He should be roleplaying with the NPC as played by the DM in order to achieve his results. I like my way: player: bla bla bla *rolls, gets Advantage if they did a really good job* After all, a dumbass can make even a really solid argument sound terrible. Your Persuasion or Intimidation roll should reflect the quality with which the character conveys' the players' argument or intent. And if you just let players get by without making any social checks, you've turned Charisma into a dump stat and neutered the Bard and the Paladin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:...what? How is that related? You can have both things here - you have to actually roleplay your character intimidating someone, and the roll determines if it succeeds. You can figure out how a conversation goes using skill checks without turning into it into a gamey "I intimidate" button. Because none of a character's other abilities are powered by the player's improv skills. They don't have to do this to cast a spell or fight a monster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Describing what you are doing or talking it out when you roll a skill has been the way I've roleplayed for 15 years. I don't get this either/or thing.Vengarr posted:I like my way: This seems about right for 5e
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:Because none of a character's other abilities are powered by the player's improv skills. They don't have to do this to cast a spell or fight a monster. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
I definitely think it's both. It's unfair to a player to not let them use their proficiency, training, and stats to get over checks that the player is having trouble with. Heck things like knowledge nature rolls on enemy beasts exist purely to give the character information that the player already knows. You certainly can't roleplay 'oh my character just has flawless knowledge of the MM because as a player I'm a nerd'. Though I understand that's not the exact same as say persuasion checks. I look at it more like this. If a player roleplays very well and makes cogent points that are in line with his character, then he can pass the check without rolling as a reward for doing good roleplaying. If roleplaying is something I want there to be a focus on in the group, then as a DM I should reward people who do it as a way to encourage the behavior. But if they don't feel up to it or don't improv well enough or w/e, then the roll is there to make up for that. I still don't like somebody who walks up to an npc and goes 'I try to persuade him, *roll*, I got a 26, so he should agree with me'. Honestly in that case I'd probably just fudge it and make the DC 30 because that is behavior I'd want to dissuade players from doing. A notable exception I've dealt with in the past. Krog the 8 int 8 wis 8 charisma barbarian being incredibly suave roleplaying and making cogent amazing points of argument. That's bad roleplaying. Sure the player is making great points and getting into it, but he's not getting into Krog, he's just arguing as a player. Krog needs to tackle problems like Krog would tackle problems, it is lunlikely krog would ever get a free pass on persuasion rolls, he has to approach the issues differently if he wants to get those sweet dm fiat roleplaying rewards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Lol I guess workarounds for not having social skills is an important rpg feature but that's not how my group rolls and strikes me as missing the point. If my group wanted that I probably wouldn't bother with too many NPCs because that sounds pretty boring to do repeatedly and basically just turns NPCs into monsters you attack with charisma. That's what a social encounter is, yeah. You are attempting to overcome the enemy, your arguments are your attacks, and your social skills are your weapons. You don't have to roll in every social context, just the ones where it makes sense (just like every other roll). A shopkeep doesn't need much persuading to show you his special wares, but if you want him to give you a discount--make an argument, roll, and we'll see what kind of mood he's in. It adds impartiality to the proceedings and gives socially-oriented characters a niche. Vengarr fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:Then get rid of the charisma stat and all social interaction skills. Don't pretend that these are character abilities that you invest character resources into if they are not. At very least, don't act surprised when players are confused after being actively misled. eh , just have charisma and dont have the skills. or if you're insanely tied to skills just a 'persuade' that can be anything - intimidation, wheedling, bluffing, negotiation, etc etc. then again i'm not too upset if you get rid of charisma entirely I just think you need to take rolling out of it entirely. If you're a bad roleplayer, well you can't just point at your character sheet and say 'i convince them with my stats' any more than you can get to a puzzle and say 'my intelligence solves it' As to the low int/wis stuff, I've always just told other people the good ideas i have and that my character couldn't come up with them mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
My point isn't really that you need to be as convincing as the character would be, just that you ought to interact with npcs like a person interacting with another person, not like a dude playing a video game. It's the DMs job to infer "ahh, they are trying to intimidate them" and roll the proper things to see if it works while keeping up the conversation. (While still rewarding good roleplaying.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Dungeon World, and PBTA games in general, work on the concept of "triggering moves" You don't say "I roll intimidate against him", you just describe what you're doing, and when you are doing something that falls appropriately into the use of a move, the DM tells you that it's time to roll. In D&D terms, you don't say "I roll Search", you describe yourself actually searching the room, or you say that your character begins searching the room. You don't say "I activate Find Traps", you say that your character is on the look-out for traps as you proceed down the hallway. From a gameflow perspective, it also helps that you the player are not the one declaring when you should roll, because if you were supposed to get an automatic success, or failure, or other outcome that didn't need to be rolled, the DM would interrupt you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ultimately alot of this stuff comes down to the DM determining the way he wants the players to approach problems and rewarding the play he considers most conducive to a good game. Whatever that may be depends on the DM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Also I don't know what the point of playing D&D is if your line of thinking is "[wrenches face derisively] ~improv skills~" at the idea of roleplaying but I guess it's cool that it appeals to different people in that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I wouldn't class "making some poo poo up instead of using the rules, because they suck/I can't be bothered to remember them" as being "good DMing", no. Endie posted:lawl that's awful I agree with P.d0t. It's not "good GMing" to pull something out of your rear end to replace a rule that was either too complex, too obtuse, or too hidden in the text to be useful. The players should be using the rules. If the rules are too badly organized, or too confusing, or too tedious to use, you replace them as a fallback, but that's an admission that the rules-as-written aren't good enough to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I just think you need to take rolling out of it entirely. If you're a bad roleplayer, well you can't just point at your character sheet and say 'i convince them with my stats' any more than you can get to a puzzle and say 'my intelligence solves it' Why not? Like, I often see this presented as a counter argument, but how would you handle a player wanting to play a super genius savant with like 25 intelligence? Maybe their character is the master of puzzles or like, the son of a Sphinx. Should the player be forced to go buy books of riddles just to match their character?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:My point isn't really that you need to be as convincing as the character would be, just that you ought to interact with npcs like a person interacting with another person, not like a dude playing a video game. It's the DMs job to infer "ahh, they are trying to intimidate them" and roll the proper things to see if it works while keeping up the conversation. (While still rewarding good roleplaying.) The last several pages of this thread have involved failures of communication between player and DM. If you play with people you know and have experience with RPGs so you can handle ambiguity that's great. However, I think in most cases clarity in communication between players, DM, and the rules is preferable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Also I don't know what the point of playing D&D is if your line of thinking is "[wrenches face derisively] ~improv skills~" at the idea of roleplaying but I guess it's cool that it appeals to different people in that way. I definitely know dudes who like the idea of killing dragons but aren't hyped at the idea of wasting time haggling with rando shopkeeps, even if their character certainly would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:Why not? Like, I often see this presented as a counter argument, but how would you handle a player wanting to play a super genius savant with like 25 intelligence? Maybe their character is the master of puzzles or like, the son of a Sphinx. Should the player be forced to go buy books of riddles just to match their character? Adding to this because I posted something similar earlier. It's true you don't get many Sherlock Holmes characters at level 1, but this argument doesn't just mean low level. A level 20 charming rogue might have a +17 modifier or more and be unable to roll below a 10 thanks to class features. That means at minimum they're hitting DC 27 poo poo. It's super reasonable to assume players might not be able to accurately portray somebody that smart/charming. It's beyond genius level. Vengarr posted:I definitely know dudes who like the idea of killing dragons but aren't hyped at the idea of wasting time haggling with rando shopkeeps, even if their character certainly would. IMO this is then an issue of DMs vetting players and explaining the sort of game he wants to run before hand. I've played in numerous 'roll playing' campaigns where you mainly just roll dice and fight things and blah blah blah, but I would never run my own campaign that way. So a player like that would be told in no uncertain terms that I'd like them to at least put in a bit of effort into being faithful to their character. Not rudely, just make it clear what sort of table the DM is trying to get. Agent355 fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:Why not? Like, I often see this presented as a counter argument, but how would you handle a player wanting to play a super genius savant with like 25 intelligence? Maybe their character is the master of puzzles or like, the son of a Sphinx. Should the player be forced to go buy books of riddles just to match their character? I legitimately don't see how that character could be played. Any of the mental stats (including cha) once taken to superhuman limits aren't really playable. And even if they were, do you want to have a game devolve to 'i convince everyone in the room i'm right' *rolls dice* 'i solve all these issues' *rolls dice* ? I've certainly been in many situations where I didn't want to argue out whatever with some random shopkeeper, but I'll just tell the DM what my character wants and have him make a call. Rolling a skill is still completely unnecessary. The DC is basically the DM making a call anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:IMO this is then an issue of DMs vetting players and explaining the sort of game he wants to run before hand. I've played in numerous 'roll playing' campaigns where you mainly just roll dice and fight things and blah blah blah, but I would never run my own campaign that way. So a player like that would be told in no uncertain terms that I'd like them to at least put in a bit of effort into being faithful to their character. Not rudely, just make it clear what sort of table the DM is trying to get. But it's perfectly fine to abstract a boring/unimportant conversation with a roll, or even just a quick summary. We abstract boring activities in D&D all the time. I don't make players verbally describe how they're tearing up a room looking for hidden shinies, they just say "We tear the room apart" and then make a roll. mastershakeman posted:I legitimately don't see how that character could be played. Any of the mental stats (including cha) once taken to superhuman limits aren't really playable. Is it really that different from high-level spells? At that level, a wizard is explicitly a world-breaking power. Being the Ultimate Diplomat isn't that big of a stretch. Obviously, your games have to include more than just negotiation or it WILL get boring. But that's a high-level problem in general. There aren't a lot of problems that can really challenge a level 20 party. Vengarr fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:But it's perfectly fine to abstract a boring/unimportant conversation with a roll, or even just a quick summary. We abstract boring activities in D&D all the time. I don't make players verbally describe how they're tearing up a room looking for hidden shinies, they just say "We tear the room apart" and then make a roll. 100% agree. I just took 'doesn't want to barter with shopkeepers' as 'just wants to get back in the dungeon and roll dice and find loot and avoid all roleplaying' which isn't exactly what you're saying. I getcha. E: vis a vis roleplaying 25 charisma characters. I wouldn't let somebody just try and throw dice at me to solve a problem. But I also wouldn't expect them to 100% faithfully portray something that super human. Have em give me at least a little bit more about what specifically they're trying to accomplish, how they go about it, and let the dice decide how well a job they do at it. If they're that good they'll succeed anyway. A sherlock holmes character for example, when faced with a murder mystery, might have his player simply ask the DM for clues and make an investigation check. The player has no idea what he's looking for, he's not some super detective, but his character is and the player makes a roll and has the DM give him information that his character has ferreted out from the environment. THe player is then expected to roleplay out getting this information, or if thats too repetitive and boring, what he does with it. Roleplaying must 100% still be involved or else I'd rather just be playing battletech, but roleplaying can't just replace dice and stats can't be thrown out. Agent355 fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
With a +17 modifier, the Ultimate Diplomat doesn't have to roll for almost anything. You are so supernaturally charismatic, you are essentially a walking Charm Person spell. Women want you. Men also want you. When you turn on the charm, your words shape the perception of anyone that hears them. And perception is reality. Maybe something like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:With a +17 modifier, the Ultimate Diplomat doesn't have to roll for almost anything. You are so supernaturally charismatic, you are essentially a walking Charm Person spell. Women want you. Men also want you. When you turn on the charm, your words shape the perception of anyone that hears them. And perception is reality. I've pondered what to do with forces of will like a high level paladin because that time is quickly coming in the game I'm running. At that point in a campaign's life the mundane world should just really bend to his (benevolent) will should he want it to. That sort of thing makes players feel powerful, like a high level game should. Make an army stand down by hoisting his banner on a hill. Convince the king to grant the entire treasury to his disposal, that sort of thing. That's when you put him up against demon lords and other extraplanar threats, some superior force to test his will against.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:I definitely know dudes who like the idea of killing dragons but aren't hyped at the idea of wasting time haggling with rando shopkeeps, even if their character certainly would. I think this kind of goes for the entirety of the game - spend more time on something the more important it is. You don't have to roll initiative and a save to coup-de-grace that sleeping goblin either. This does mean it's hard to roleplay someone with superhuman intelligence or whatever, and that's fine. If someone is IRL not a very bright person, they probably shouldn't roleplay one. Recalling memories and facts that your character would know by asking the DM is also fine - there's a line there. But an active conversation going on right now that the results of are important? Tell me what your character says. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If someone is IRL not a very bright person, they probably shouldn't roleplay one. I would disagree with this bit, but not the rest of it. Lots of the fun in dnd is exploring a character wholly different from yourself. Drawing a line at intelligence isn't something I would consider doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:I would disagree with this bit, but not the rest of it. Yeah, this is the point I was driving towards. We don't expect players to be as physically competent as their characters, but often the mental capabilities are required to be the same in either puzzle solving or social skills. I definitely agree that reducing all situations to "I solve the problem with my massive intellect *roll dice, win*" is boring, but I also think it's interesting to discuss ways that all players can play mentally focused characters. Charisma stuff is a little easier in that you can ask the player what their goal is for a conversation and the general tack of their arguments are, but the Int problems get a bit more complex. Like, if I'm playing Sherlock Holmes it would be weird if I roll and get all the clues but still can't connect the dots I obviously should be able to. But again, reducing the problem to just a single die roll to unfurl the entire mystery is boring too. I don't actually have a solution here, so I'm interested what other people can come up with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Shouldn't that just depend on how central the mystery is to the fun of the story you're telling? There's a big difference between spoiling a big mystery with a big fun reveal and telling them "you deduce from the marks in the dirt that the bodies were dragged to the north"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
The goal should still ultimately be to have the player come to the problem's conclusion themselves. What I started to do was that high INT characters, should they want it, can roll Investigation to get some clues leading to the solution to the puzzle. I don't generally stick puzzles like that in my games though because I found them tough to design in a way that's fun for tabletop play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
I think the problem is that DMs should design those sort of things knowing that their high int players are just going to instantly figure it out. It then becomes just a reward and a power fantasy for those players. Murde rmyseries are hardly any good in a dnd setting anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:I would disagree with this bit, but not the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I mean, I wouldn't tell a player they weren't allowed to, but I can't imagine it working too well. It's cool to explore characters different from you but, to the extent that a human is controlling the character and choosing what actions to take, you can't just make the character have good ideas the character won't. If the player chooses not to run out of harm's way when they're at 1 hp, even if his character certainly would, that's ultimately their choice. If the player chooses not to run, it's the job of everyone to figure out what circumstances are in play that the intelligent character wouldn't run either. Is the player just being aggressive in combat? Then the attack that downs them isn't an orc getting the last hit it. It's a ceiling tile shaking loose and knocking out the adventurer just as they're about to take the head of the orc. D&D culture doesn't really go in for this anymore. But it used to be the case that the reason your 68 HP fighter survived the rolling boulder that dealt 50 damage was because your fighter just happened to notice the concealed alcove in the wall. That wasn't on the DM's map, isn't in the DM's notes, and otherwise didn't exist until it was a necessity to explain how a human being could survive a boulder rolling down the corridor even as it crushes the wizard, cleric, and hirelings behind the fighter into a pulp. I think the anecdotal example that Gygax used was a fighter chained in front of an angry dragon using its breath weapon. Even on a failed save the fighter who survived broke the weak point in the chains and ducked behind some convenient as yet undescribed cover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Why not just seperate skills from attributes, and allow bonuses to be stacked however? Sweet Tooth the Bard intimidates with charisma, Thunderpunch Hateguts uses strength. Just combine the relevant attribute with the skill level, and remove attribute bonuses from skill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Ran the first session for a party of 4, of which 3 have never played D&D or any pen & paper. The 4th hasn't played D&D since 3.5. We were running Phandelver. Took us about 2 hours to roll characters, answering questions as we went. We ended up with a Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, and Cleric. They rolled really well on their damage and did just fine, though the rogue managed to scramble up to the boss room of the first cave and they had a pretty hectic fight as no one else was in a position to help for a few rounds (and I took it a bit easy on them). 5E seems fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:Yeah, this is the point I was driving towards. We don't expect players to be as physically competent as their characters, but often the mental capabilities are required to be the same in either puzzle solving or social skills. This is something I have a bit of successful experience with. The problem is that Sherlock Holmes is just impossible to play (And is just a poo poo example of how detectives work). You *can* play a great detective, but you have to not think in terms of Sherlock Holmes, but in terms of real life cops. Detectives in real life just follow the clues to the next most obvious person. It seems magically Sherlockian if you don't see all steps, but it's really just talking to a person, talking to the next person, talking to the next person, and repeat until they have so many pieces that the puzzle is obvious. In game terms, you can simulate great detectives by just giving them more clues to work with. If a regular person looks at a crime scene, they find a bloody sword. Maybe they decide to talk someone whose an expert in swords, like a blacksmith or a museum curator. If Lennie Brisco searches a crime scene, he finds a sword, and he also recognizes the elvish craftsmanship that could only come from Jim the local Elf blacksmith, and he knows that Jim worked exclusively for a certain noble Halfling family. Both people can eventually solve the crime, but Lennie Brisco gets a few more clues, a bit more story, and gets to skips a few steps in his investigation. His skills make him a great detective without removing player agency. As a DM you do have to build mysteries that can be solved by just following the clues. (Which is how most real life homicides are solved.) And you have to triple up on clues in case the players forget to search somewhere. There should be multiple arrows pointing in the the same direction. In my experience each scene should have: - An obvious clue that they don't have to roll to find. (A bloody sword.) - Two other clues that aren't immediately obvious, but they could find with a good roll or some smart role-playing. (A halfling hiding in the closet, and a maid who has been magically charmed.) And then any good rolls or role-playing beyond that should give them more pieces of the story. You can improvise that as you go. One house-rule I have in 5e to support all the above is degrees of success on skills like persuasion, intimidation, investigation, history, etc. I keep it easy: <10 - Something interesting not related to what they're looking for. (Like a hint of an upcoming adventure, or about a plot thread they've forgotten about or purposefully ignored.) 10-14 - One clue or piece of the story. 15-19 - Two clues or pieces of the story. 20-24 - Three clues or pieces of the story. etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
empathe posted:Ran the first session for a party of 4, of which 3 have never played D&D or any pen & paper. The 4th hasn't played D&D since 3.5. You don't understand, that wasn't fun, the system is broken, and you should consider playing [my favorite other RPG]
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
empathe posted:Ran the first session for a party of 4, of which 3 have never played D&D or any pen & paper. The 4th hasn't played D&D since 3.5. Zodack posted:You don't understand, that wasn't fun, the system is broken, and you should consider playing [my favorite other RPG] You can have fun with any game, and any system as long as you play it with friends and get along. That doesn't make it good, and that doesn't make it balanced. 2 hour character creation is loving ridiculous for a modern rpg though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:2 hour character creation is loving ridiculous for a modern rpg though. We did each player one at a time as they had a lot of questions being complete newbies. The experienced player took about 10 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Also they never played a pen and paper game before. 2 hours seems perfectly reasonable in that scenario.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
empathe posted:We did each player one at a time as they had a lot of questions being complete newbies. The experienced player took about 10 minutes. Even then, I ran a game with 12 people doing DungeonWorld, Character creation took like 45 minutes, even with questions, and only 3 of them had played DND before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Even then, I ran a game with 12 people doing DungeonWorld, Character creation took like 45 minutes, even with questions, and only 3 of them had played DND before. I'm sorry our character creation wasn't as efficient or min-maxed as other games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:57
|
|