|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This isn't quite my issue tbh. There's a lot of collective frustration at the difficulty in finding non-5e games out there. I think learning about other game systems is super interesting and have learned about a ton of them in this thread, that's one of my favorite parts. This is also a really good point. Table top RPGs are this insanely hosed thing to get going, where you need: a) Have a group of people that are all friendly and familiar with eachother and work well together in a social situation. b) Have similar interests and enthusiasm for trying table top RPGs in the first place. c) All be interested in the same genre and style of game to play a specific RPG. Without all of those working, you don't get a game or you don't get a game going in the first place. D&D as the gatekeeper game acts as this weird middle ground where if you all have rpg people, everyone has probably played it or has absorbed it through cultural osmosis and therefore will grudgingly accept playing it. When something else would put people off for X reason that usually results in 'I don't want to learn something new that I may not like while I can accept D&D even if its not my first choice'. People say that its gotten easier than ever to play RPGs but thats a complete loving lie and/or complete ignorance of how anything in the world works. As someone who is a forever GM, its a genuine impossibility to find something that matches even 50% of what I'm after now that I'm currently looking to be a player. The result is a bunch of people who would probably be happier playing something else now stuck playing and running D&D.
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:^^^roll20. I'm not clear why it takes him so long. I don't know how well integrated the 5e tools are for monster creation, but if he doesn't like them 5e is simple enough that he can do what I do which is just use the tokens as shells, slap HP in the first slot and give it a red bar, and AC in the second slot, and then roll manually. And the key for mapping in roll20 is to use a different app to generate maps, import them and snap to tiles, done.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
I guess I've just never had trouble getting together enough people to run whatever I want so I really don't identify with that struggle at all. The idea that you have to tell someone to play something else because otherwise it might be like the bad ol' d20 days strikes me as just kind of overbearing and presumptuous about people in general
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:My point is about game design and not rubber meeting road play, which is probably the disconnect here. You don’t approach building a game like a tabletop rpg like you do a game like bowling, and saying that because the latter does x it’s okay the former does is a pretty bad take. So if we make that distinction that Bowling is a game where you have to be good at the component parts (be strong and precise) and D&D is not, we now say you don't have to be fast, don't have to be strong, don't have to be tough (and thus far, I don't think anyone's got a complaint) but you can also be stupid, unwise, and unlikable and expect to do as well as anyone else. At that point why are we even playing a game? The players picked their numbers. They're good at the things they're good at and bad at the rest and the DM can just autopilot narrate the story if nothing about the player matters. "I rush in and start a fight." "Actually you'll find your character is too wise to do this." "Guys, I don't trust this merchant." "You didn't take proficiency in Insight. You believe everything he says." It's a game about decisions. Sharp, clever people are going to be better at it than not-so-sharp ones. By all means use ability scores to let characters do things the players can't, but don't enforce some baseline that you have to leave your brain at the door. I don't see what's so apocalyptic about rewarding your fighter for paying attention instead of treating a Bard's expertise and charisma score as an "I win this conversation" button. Either option taken to hideous extremes is going to be bad, but the occasional advantage roll for having a clever idea isn't gonna bust the game any more than helping a wallflower narrate why his character is good at social interaction. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:The idea that you have to tell someone to play something else because otherwise it might be like the bad ol' d20 days strikes me as just kind of overbearing and presumptuous about people in general Blockhouse posted:I guess I've just never had trouble getting together enough people to run whatever I want so I really don't identify with that struggle at all. Nods sagely
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:At that point why are we even playing a game? The players picked their numbers. They're good at the things they're good at and bad at the rest and the DM can just autopilot narrate the story if nothing about the player matters. I don't really want to get into a side argument but are you trolling or are you serious with this post because I can genuinely not tell with this hot take.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
I've toyed with the idea of running a different system but everyone just seems fine with d&d and not super interested in learning a new system so whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I don't really want to get into a side argument but are you trolling or are you serious with this post because I can genuinely not tell with this hot take. It's admittedly kind of an over the top way of saying player input matters and should matter.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:It's admittedly kind of an over the top way of saying player input matters and should matter. I'm trying not to be a dick or anything but you know there are many games that do this right? That actively encourage you to play up your character and even directly reward you for it. A character with low insight being someone who is very gullible and taking the bait is something that SHOULD be happening in an rpg. It's just that D&D punishes you for this when in other games its actually just a bait to pull you into a story if you are willing to play into it you get a direct reward for it despite being something the out of character audience knows is a bad decision.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
I think my players deeply value the part of the game where they try to figure out what the best decision is - I don't think they want to pretend their characters are less insightful than they are, it would break the interface between them as players and the world as they see it. I would go as far as to say that player and not character decision-making is a core part of any given session, at least in this game. I think games that are less focused on that would still be really fun and would potentially lead to more interesting narratives, but you *are* explicitly getting rid, or at least mitigating, something valued there. It's not the only way to play but making smart decisions and asking good questions as a player is at least as reasonable a thing to center a game around as tactical grid combat is.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I think my players deeply value the part of the game where they try to figure out what the best decision is - I don't think they want to pretend their characters are less insightful than they are, it would break the interface between them as players and the world as they see it. I would go as far as to say that player and not character decision-making is a core part of any given session, at least in this game. I think games that are less focused on that would still be really fun and would potentially lead to more interesting narratives, but you *are* explicitly getting rid, or at least mitigating, something valued there. It's not the only way to play but making smart decisions and asking good questions as a player is at least as reasonable a thing to center a game around as tactical grid combat is. I mean absolutely its a valid form of play I'm not saying it isn't but the problem is a game should be open about that and encourage it rather that doing a half way measure. In D&D if i'm a very persuasive player who is very charismatic and a quick thinker in an argument is that more, less or equally as important as my character having a high charisma/persuasion score. Also Jeffrey could you answer this part for me: quote:It's a game about decisions. Sharp, clever people are going to be better at it than not-so-sharp ones. By all means use ability scores to let characters do things the players can't, but don't enforce some baseline that you have to leave your brain at the door. If the game is about sharp and clever people, should people who are not very clever or quick on their feet, or people with some social anxiety issues of their own just not play the game or should they be told they are at an inherent disadvantage? I do not have a right answer here but it's an important question none the less. kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:19 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I'm trying not to be a dick or anything but you know there are many games that do this right? That actively encourage you to play up your character and even directly reward you for it. Yeah I've played some games that care about you acting on flaws and such. But I think this idea that someone's character is profoundly stupider and less likable than the player isn't all that realistic. If the average player can come up with a plan or a good argument, their character probably can, too. I don't think any of us are running 16s across the board IRL. kingcom posted:If the game is about sharp and clever people, should people who are not very clever or quick on their feet, or people with some social anxiety issues of their own just not play the game or should they be told they are at an inherent disadvantage? I do not have a right answer here but it's an important question none the less. This kinda got lost in an earlier post because it's a shitstorm argument with a bunch of people shouting at each other and I feel like I'm not staking out some particularly extremist side of it, but yeah I think if someone wants to play someone better than they are at brain-stuff, you let the ability scores help them do that and as a DM you help provide the narrative links that make it possible. Your socially awkward player gives a real basic explanation and you sort of narrate what makes their argument convincing, for example. I'm totally cool with that. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
"Are we playing a game where we always play as characters that have traits other than our own, or are we playing those traits only when doing so would give the character an advantage over what the player could achieve? Or are we doing that for some things (eg, physical stats) but not others (eg, mental stats)?" Not being snarky, that's a question that it's worth asking before the game starts and everyone's setting expectations.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Yeah I've played some games that care about you acting on flaws and such. But I think this idea that someone's character is profoundly stupider and less likable than the player isn't all that realistic. If the average player can come up with a plan or a good argument, their character probably can, too. I don't think any of us are running 16s across the board IRL. I mean yeah absolutely some people are not good at it. Some people are not good at improv, some have anxiety, I've played with a person who has panic attacks when they are put up to make a decision in an rpg. This is a thing that happens and is absolutely something that is realistic. I'm not sure what part of 'my character is profoundly less likeable than the player' or 'my character is profoundly more likeable than the player' is some unrealistic statement.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
I don't buy campaign guides so I can't say anything about whether or not MToF is copy-pasted, but I really like what it says about some of the races and Tieflings in particular. Also the monsters are weird, which I love, because I like things that have wider implications. P.cool all told, still 5e, but p.cool.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I mean absolutely its a valid form of play I'm not saying it isn't but the problem is a game should be open about that and encourage it rather that doing a half way measure. Gonna split that answer - no matter what, your charisma score affects all bard/warlock/sorcerer spells and that's pretty important if you are one of those things. I'm okay with that being what the charisma number on the character sheet means. (I'd be able to talk about charisma saving throws too if I had any clue what one entailed and there were more than a handful.) Same goes for intelligence, which I'd still use for things like recalling knowledge in addition to wizard spells. Persuasion I'm honestly not sure what to do with - I ask for it occasionally when two reasonable consequences show themselves but I don't really like it as a binary way of convincing someone of something or not. I think, in my game, being a quick thinker is much more influential on how any given social scene plays out, at least in situations that are explicitly social and unlikely to turn violent. "In D&D" might imply that I'm to answer to the rulebook and not just my own thoughts and I can't say that I am. None of this is to be taken as a defense of dnd 5e as written.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
"I shouldn't have to be charismatic in real life to play a persuasive character!" is sorta valid, but it also sorta misses the point. Characterization is one of the key elements of roleplaying, which is conveyed in a number of ways, but mostly through description, dialogue, and quirks. How hard you swing your sword isn't really relevant to characterizing you - if you're strong, saying, "I'm very strong" is generally enough to get the point across. "Chronix the barbarian does something appropriate" doesn't really characterize him the same way as describing what he says and does might. Robbing players of that opportunity to flesh out their character on the altar of fairness is sort of undermining the whole point of the exercise. I'd say it really doesn't matter if your table agrees on the right degree of that poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
kingcom posted:In D&D if i'm a very persuasive player who is very charismatic and a quick thinker in an argument is that more, less or equally as important as my character having a high charisma/persuasion score. Obviously it depends on the DM, or what you as players and the DM agree on beforehand. What I usually do is allow arguments I find convincing to lower the DC, but I'll have them roll anyway with some new hangups to introduce from my back pocket if they miss that 5 DC from their convincing argument. edit: So to answer your question, at least for me, it depends on your argument. It's going to be easier for you to hit a DC 5 with a convincing argument than it will be for the high CHA character to hit like a 20 by saying "I try to convince him with no specific leverage other than what my character can pull out of their rear end." Baby T. Love fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:So if we make that distinction that Bowling is a game where you have to be good at the component parts (be strong and precise) and D&D is not, we now say you don't have to be fast, don't have to be strong, don't have to be tough (and thus far, I don't think anyone's got a complaint) but you can also be stupid, unwise, and unlikable and expect to do as well as anyone else. How you got anything from this post from my argument is literally dumbfounding.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:How you got anything from this post from my argument is literally dumbfounding. Cool. I don't care. Seems like everyone else here is capable of disagreeing in a way that moves the conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:How you got anything from this post from my argument is literally dumbfounding. I think he's upset that stupid people who are bad at roleplaying are... allowed to play D&D? Or that they aren't shamed for their character creation decisions? Or that they don't "fail" like in a game of bowling?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Gonna split that answer - no matter what, your charisma score affects all bard/warlock/sorcerer spells and that's pretty important if you are one of those things. I'm okay with that being what the charisma number on the character sheet means. (I'd be able to talk about charisma saving throws too if I had any clue what one entailed and there were more than a handful.) Same goes for intelligence, which I'd still use for things like recalling knowledge in addition to wizard spells. I can kind of dig this, but honestly at that point I feel like you might as well say DTAS. This pretty solidly uninvites Charisma from the party for literally everyone that isn't a Cha-caster, so having it on the sheet just becomes a trap. Intelligence is basically out the door too unless you're a loremaster or a wizard, only being needed for a very specific roll. At that point you could really roll their spellcasting abilities into Wisdom, and make it a general Spirit or Magic stat. Then you have Strength and Dexterity, where characters generally use one or the other but rarely both thanks to how useful Finesse is in 5E, and Constitution, which everybody kinda likes but nobody makes #1 priority. By this point we're basically modern-day WoW, with 3 mutually exclusive main stats and stamina. So keeping to the 6-ability score framework just seems questionable. I know goons always propose DTAS at the drop of a hat, but it's honestly my first thought seeing how Cha and Int are used here.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Also Jeffrey could you answer this part for me: I think they have to be willing to try? I would certainly notice if they a player didn't seem so involved in social situations and talk to them about how they feel about it and what I could do to help. I don't think there are any shortcuts to actually knowing your players and knowing if someone isn't having fun or engaging. I'd like to think my tabletop is a pretty encouraging and supportive place. It's still a middle ground between actually being charming and rolling for persuasion - you have more time to gather your thoughts, I don't enforce that you have to decide or speak within some real-time window. I think social anxiety is probably going to make it more difficult to play most rpgs, with or without straight-up persuasion rolls, and my style as stated here probably does potentiate the effect. Ultimately some people are going to be less skilled at whatever areas your game does focus on, I don't think trying to be fully general will actually prevent that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
You didn't even disagree with anything about my arguments, you just....started talking about something completely different. Which, I mean, more power to you if you want to talk about that, but it has nothing to do with any of my points.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Sorry y'all if I'm making this thread bad, feeling a bit self-conscious about posting too much, but I will answer this. Eh. It's a bit of a derail, but it's honestly more interesting than most ability score debates I've seen here. Then again, I always like seeing debates on DMing style, and while I don't agree with all of what you're saying it's definitely got me thinking more solidly on my own way of reconciling narrative vs. statistical proficiency. I mean, I thought of the tactical advice idea on the spot due to this back-and-forth, so I gotta thank you for that one.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Cool. I don't care. Seems like everyone else here is capable of disagreeing in a way that moves the conversation. You kinda talked completely past his point lol. He said that the design goals for a tabletop rpg and bowling are completely different so its not logical to make any comparisons between what they require and what their goals are. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Gonna split that answer - no matter what, your charisma score affects all bard/warlock/sorcerer spells and that's pretty important if you are one of those things. I'm okay with that being what the charisma number on the character sheet means. (I'd be able to talk about charisma saving throws too if I had any clue what one entailed and there were more than a handful.) Same goes for intelligence, which I'd still use for things like recalling knowledge in addition to wizard spells. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Sorry y'all if I'm making this thread bad, feeling a bit self-conscious about posting too much, but I will answer this. Never stop posting friend, this thread is always bad. I think more the point im trying to make is that a lot of systems actively do things to shortcut knowing your players and helping if they are having issues. Creating mechanics to allow people who aren't that good at stuff is really helpful! Persuasion is a great example for you to bring up, I go back to my Star Wars Edge of the Empire example every time here. The dice pool generates results that you can spend to have things happen as a result of the persuasion check. You're argument can be worked out AFTER the roll if you want to because of this. Say you pass and its a huge crazy success to get a guard captain to let you go but the player wasn't sure what they would say to get that to happen (but their character might!). The dice result was such a success that maybe he convinced him he was a robin hood type character and the guard captain caught him mid burglary to take down a truly evil main. The player can spend the dice pool results to turn that captain into a long term ally as its just something listed as a default function of a persuade roll if you get a critical success. The dice pool is basically a way to create an improv prompt for the players which is often really useful for helping people come up with something. If the pool says 'while convince this guard to let you go, something bad happens and something super good happens' it can be a bit more helpful than 'why should he let you go'. I'm not saying your bad or your group is bad, I assume you are enjoying yourself but having seen this and being a player in a game where at least some of the people have completely checked out, its definitely a problem I've encountered. kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:24 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Here's a classic problem to illustrate the issue of, "I can't or refuse to describe my interactions." Chronix the Barbarian attempts to gain entry to a private club for nobles. The bouncer is well dressed, but also well armed. Seeing Chronix, the bouncer puts his hand out. "Sorry bub, invite only." Chronix's player, Tim, announces he would like to roll Persuasion. Chronix is a leopard-man of a race no one in the city is familiar with and is clad only in the blood-stained skins of the trolls he has recently slain. How do I narrate a success here? Well, I have a lot of options. I could say that guy recognizes Chronix's people and is a big fan of troll-murder. I could say this guy is a veteran from far afield. I could say that the bouncer is actually a traitor to the people he's supposed to protect and would like nothing more than to let this big oaf into the party. Or maybe he just thinks it would be funny. Or maybe it's bribery. Or maybe it's flirting. Or I could just argue Persuasion isn't an option here, though that kind of fails the, "Yes, but" test. The player has now offloaded all of the narrative foundation of the thing onto me, because there's no system for narrating this. Like just about everything else in D&D, if there's no clear answer, I, the DM, have to work harder to make it work. Asking the player for a modicum of interaction doesn't seem like it's asking so much. Conversely, in combat, there's no need for that; the space is described. The action is described (generally by what kind of action is taken). More adjectives and adverbs helps but for the most part the combat space is very clear - if you hit, how hard you hit, where you hit from, how you did it, how the environment responds, etc. Social interaction doesn't work like that. If I had a player that had bad social anxiety and they wanted to play a social character I would help them the same way I'd help any other player at my table who needs my help but that's not the baseline. "How do I help my friend with social anxiety play D&D" could be an entirely different topic, honestly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:How do I narrate a success here? I agree with you that that can be a serious problem, especially if the player does it often, but you've always got the option of resolving the conversation "in the background" or "out of focus," as if the rest of the party watches him walk up to this guy in disbelief or begin talking amongst themselves, and if he rolls well he just walks back and says "we're in" and let the mystery be a part of the story. Obviously you can't do this every time but if he's bad at that thing you won't have to. Baby T. Love fucked around with this message at 05:23 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Here's a classic problem to illustrate the issue of, "I can't or refuse to describe my interactions." You have now pointed out one of the big loving problems I have with D&D and have been trying to lead people to understand. The game does not handle this in any way and because so much of the books answer to a problem is 'up to the GM' it becomes more work for the GM. For a game that already overloads the GM with poo poo to do, its a very frustrating answer. In another game, the entire group would be actively encouraged to crowdsource the answer to this question or even be able to invent new details into the scene so that the GM doesn't even need to provide all the tools to solve a problem in the first place if the player comes up with an idea.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
I would like to go on record as never having tweeted at Mike Mearls.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would like to go on record as never having tweeted at Mike Mearls. I would like to go on record as not having a twitter account.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would like to go on record as never having tweeted at Mike Mearls. hell i got blocked and never once tweeted at him
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
kingcom posted:You have now pointed out one of the big loving problems I have with D&D and have been trying to lead people to understand. The game does not handle this in any way and because so much of the books answer to a problem is 'up to the GM' it becomes more work for the GM. For a game that already overloads the GM with poo poo to do, its a very frustrating answer. In another game, the entire group would be actively encouraged to crowdsource the answer to this question or even be able to invent new details into the scene so that the GM doesn't even need to provide all the tools to solve a problem in the first place if the player comes up with an idea. I don't want this to become my catchphrase, but "If this is the hurdle you're stumbling on then D&D is not the system that can prop you up." What's wrong with saying "I won't allow a persuasion roll without some kind of leverage?" Or talking to that player about the problem they are creating by refusing to engage in roleplaying in this roleplaying game. Is this really the fault of D&D as a system or is the spirit of this thread possessing innocent goons?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
Baby T. Love posted:I don't want this to become my catchphrase, but "If this is the hurdle you're stumbling on then D&D is not the system that can prop you up." What's wrong with saying "I won't allow a persuasion roll without some kind of leverage?" Or talking to that player about the problem they are creating by refusing to engage in roleplaying in this roleplaying game. Is this really the fault of D&D as a system or is the spirit of this thread possessing innocent goons? Again cause I can never tell in this thread are you just trying to do a drive by shitpost or is this a serious opinion you've formed after reviewing the discussion and after you've taken a look at how these problems may or may not affect people in different ways with different circumstances? EDIT: Okay that was harsh but really do you want me to give an answer to this? Cause I already did one big post today and it would require another lol. kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:54 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around regarding that entire Charisma discussion, is if the book says "it takes a Diplomacy check DC 15 to turn someone from Unfriendly to you, to Indifferent to you", and you have a character sheet that defines what and how you will roll Diplomacy, why would you want to upend that model? Now, that DC definition is taken from 3rd Edition 5e's definition is somewhat more vague: quote:Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact. social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk. but the underlying model of the Ability Check should still apply: quote:An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. so if the player wants to influence an NPC to do A Thing, and then the DM decides that they're not certain that the influence attempt is going to automatically work, they will assign a DC, and then ask for a Charisma(Persuasion) check. If the d20 result is equal to or higher than the DC set, the player gets what they want. What is the point of deliberately stepping outside of that process? If the player decides that the "in-character" way to get what they want is through Persuasion, and of that specific NPC, and by asking them to do that specific A Thing, is it still not roleplaying to go through that thought process and to come to that decision?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Again cause I can never tell in this thread are you just trying to do a drive by shitpost or is this a serious opinion you've formed after reviewing the discussion and after you've taken a look at how these problems may or may not affect people in different ways with different circumstances? Cause beyond a couple of posts you've not really done much more than drive by shitpost. Answer my questions and I'll answer yours, friend. I'm just trying to understand this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Chronix the Barbarian attempts to gain entry to a private club for nobles. The bouncer is well dressed, but also well armed. Seeing Chronix, the bouncer puts his hand out. "Sorry bub, invite only." If the player opens with "I've your your invitation right here" then no problem, we got a fight, we know how to resolve that. If the player opens with "Hey now friend... don't I know you?" then no problem, we got some roleplaying. There will be a check once we figure out what the player is trying to do, exactly. (I guess this is similar to PbtA's "conversation", in that nobody's gonna say either "I roll X" "roll X" until we both know what's happening, what the stakes are, etc). In this case, the success sorta narrates itself through the roleplaying. If the player literally opens with "I want to roll persuasion", ask them how, or ask them what a success will look like, and either way you're 90% of the way to figuring out how to narrate the success. If they really don't get it, say "Success is you getting to go in the pub, but how would that play out? If they still don't get it, let the roll happen and then follow up with "Success! You walk into the pub... Is the bouncer now cowering away from you? Is his arm round your shoulder and he's already calling for drinks? Does he just grunt and say "On your head be it..."? Something else?", and you've got something to work with. I guess it could fail to get anything at all out of the player, but I've never seen that happen.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so if the player wants to influence an NPC to do A Thing, and then the DM decides that they're not certain that the influence attempt is going to automatically work, they will assign a DC, and then ask for a Charisma(Persuasion) check. If the d20 result is equal to or higher than the DC set, the player gets what they want. There is also the scenario that the DM decides that no roll will make that persuasion attempt work, and that leveraging arguments would make them automatically work. If you look at it that way, using Persuasion as a skill with a roll would only apply in the in-between, and we're back to this mess without deliberately stepping outside of that process.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
Baby T. Love posted:There is also the scenario that the DM decides that no roll will make that persuasion attempt work, and that leveraging arguments would make them automatically work. If you look at it that way, using Persuasion as a skill with a roll would only apply in the in-between, and we're back to this mess without deliberately stepping outside of that process. I don't agree - the DM can decide that no roll will every work, and the DM can also decide that the player's intent will work automatically with no roll required. Those are valid outcomes supported by the game, because it says that rolls are only to be used when uncertainty applies. If the DM goes from the former to the latter based on a discussion between themselves and the players of what the action actually involves, then the system still works.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If the player literally opens with "I want to roll persuasion", ask them how, or ask them what a success will look like, and either way you're 90% of the way to figuring out how to narrate the success. If they really don't get it, say "Success is you getting to go in the pub, but how would that play out? If they still don't get it, let the roll happen and then follow up with "Success! You walk into the pub... Is the bouncer now cowering away from you? Is his arm round your shoulder and he's already calling for drinks? Does he just grunt and say "On your head be it..."? Something else?", and you've got something to work with. I guess it could fail to get anything at all out of the player, but I've never seen that happen. Well right. Every time somebody says, "But what about my friend who literally was raised in an attic, devoid of human contact?!" I have to wonder if the problem exists outside of hypotheticals. "My players have gotta give me something" is basically identical to the scenario you've painted.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:12
|
|