|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't like the mechanical incentives for one guy to do most of the talking. I don't have an answer besides "don't call for them very often" unless you want a full-blown social combat subsystem. In general I'd rather you say what your character would say and maybe then roll if the other person doesn't want to act but you have leverage, or you're lying overtly, or something like that. I don't think you gotta be an expert liar to lie in-game but I want to hear what you say. This is distinct from lifting heavy things because "players speaking as their characters" is a core part of a tabletop RPG to me in a way that lifting heavy things isn't. It's a good idea to let everyone play as their characters IC, and then mechanically let the character with the best social skill make the roll. When the dumb barbarian goofs, the slick bard can smooth it over, etc. As long as the players are working together, it should be that way. Likewise, if one character is abrasive or strange constantly, don't penalize the rest of the party or stop the adventure - you have to overlook some weirdness, or the players OOC are going to tell that player to shut up which is no fun. The only time you need to have individual players roll their bad social skills is when they're acting independently of the group, or at cross-purposes.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Is there a god of mechanics, or Warforged, or similar? Something to do with Mechanus maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Is there a god of mechanics Jeremy Crawford?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Primus is the god/leader of the Modrons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
We've had this exact same argument before but players shouldnt just say "I roll to convince the npc" anymore than they should say "I don't know how to make this decision I'll just roll against my high int/wisdom and the dm will tell me the right choice " It's ridiculous It's not like I'm saying people need to act and do funny voices, describing your plan/argument is sufficient and thinking that rolling a 1 or 20 afterwards is the right way to decide is silly. The DM already has to decide a bunch of factors - is the npc friends with you? Enemy? Racial hatred? Religious Ally? Etc so the roll and skill are pointless . Its not like high charisma stat classes are suffering otherwise in the game and need this one thing to make them viable . Quite the opposite really mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Is there a god of mechanics, or Warforged, or similar? Something to do with Mechanus maybe? * I hate it when people use Warforged outside of the Eberron setting but that's my baggage
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's not like I'm saying people need to act and do funny voices, describing your plan/argument is sufficient and thinking that rolling a 1 or 20 afterwards is the right way to decide is silly. The DM already has to decide a bunch of factors - is the npc friends with you? Enemy? Racial hatred? Religious Ally? Etc so the roll and skill are pointless . But getting into the habit of everybody talking in-character during social scenes, instead of "I ask for directions" or "I see if the sheriff has any bounties" makes a big difference in immersiveness, and just in getting into character. A low-charisma Fighter can still make small talk with a random shopkeeper, find out that they're both veterans, and parley that into something else that doesn't necessarily need a persuasion roll to advance. It also allows PC characters to talk to each other and develop characterization and relationships much more naturally when you're role-playing instead of just game-playing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Doing voices for characters is fun though
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Youtube video about the new Artificer I don't agree with much of what they say. I don't feel like this new Artificer actually reflects Tinker Gnomes, Izzet Guild Alchemists, or Eberron Artificers. Nor do I agree that the subclasses actually really focus the class. In my opinion the two subclasses make almost no difference and are pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
you should talk in character and maybe do a voice if you can, makes game better
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
you can always do an Italian accent
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:you can always do an Italian accent It's-a me, Mordenkainen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Doing voices for characters is fun though 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Every idiot out there wants to do a ridiculous voice/accent for every character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Doing voices for characters is fun though I guess I'm railing against the insufferable guy who has every Goblin, Kobold, Gnome, and Halfling talk like Elmo, and his buddy who plays a low-Int character like a 4-year-old child, and also talks like Elmo. If you're not great at an accent or a fake voice pitch... don't make that the signature of a character you're going to play for months or years on end. Please. I'm begging you. Do something that won't annoy everyone at the table, probably including yourself. As a GM, I did a thick Russian accent for some characters once, for about 45 minutes, and it was about the limit before it went from performance to parody.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
so just don't do overtly lovely joke voices for your player characters and major npcs
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Critical Role is really loving up the game in this regard. Every idiot out there wants to do a ridiculous voice/accent for every character. A low-charisma character being played by a socially-apt player isn't the problem, and I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. The problem is a high-charisma character being played by a player who isn't socially apt. Demanding that someone roleplay out a social interaction when their character could do it easily but they themselves could not is ridiculous, and the dice provide a way around that. We don't need more lovely gatekeeping around the hobby. e: The comparison to describing combat is actually an important one! We accept "I hit him with my sword" as a combat maneuver, when someone who was actually an experienced and skilled swordfighter would be able to be much more dynamic and precise than that. We don't expect that everybody who gets into combat give a skill-accurate description of what their character is doing - and we certainly don't ask them to act it out. We don't ask someone who's lifting a gate or bending a bar to actually lift a gate or bend a bar. Why should social interaction be different? If a player is comfortable with being social, by all means, let them act out being social - but if a shy player wants to try out being the face, they shouldn't be kept out of that role by their social difficulty. SneezeOfTheDecade fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:A low-charisma character being played by a socially-apt player isn't the problem, and I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. The problem is a high-charisma character being played by a player who isn't socially apt. Demanding that someone roleplay out a social interaction when their character could do it easily but they themselves could not is ridiculous, and the dice provide a way around that. We don't need more lovely gatekeeping around the hobby. Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis. Dave's an awkward kid playing a bard and they're trying to talk their way past a bouncer. Dave mumbles his way through some dumb boring poo poo. Do you say "Magnifico stutters and stammers, the bouncer is unimpressed"? Because gently caress you if you do. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:A low-charisma character being played by a socially-apt player isn't the problem, and I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. The problem is a high-charisma character being played by a player who isn't socially apt. Demanding that someone roleplay out a social interaction when their character could do it easily but they themselves could not is ridiculous, and the dice provide a way around that. We don't need more lovely gatekeeping around the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Sure, but people are talking about not rolling social skills at all, and judging the roleplay to determine the result. Which is bullshit. "I hit it with my sword", "I use Stunning Fist", "I cast gently caress You I Win", "I climb the wall", and "I convince the guard to let me pass" are equivalent. The last one isn't some special case where if you don't do a good job pretending to do it IRL you don't get to try. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:People are talking about not rolling social skills at all. "I hit it with my sword", "I use Stunning Fist", "I cast gently caress You I Win", "I climb the wall", and "I convince the guard to let me past" are equivalent. The last one isn't some special case where if you don't do a good job pretending to do it IRL you don't get to try. Like I can give an out, if a player really isn't feeling it today but they gotta be the one talking, we can fallback to more rolling than usual, but I'd always rather they say what they say, and if they say something that would genuinely convince an NPC no-bullshit, they're convinced. If instead that's a long term preference on the player's part, then they're asking for a pretty different game than what I had in mind when I started. It's totally valid to design a game that works how you've posited re: social scenes, just like you can make a game where you roll for "tactics" to figure out what your character does each round, but it's not the one I'm running. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
I don't know if you're getting this or not, but for some people who want to play D&D anything much in the social line beyond "I try to negotiate the release of the hostages, I roll a 16" is "out of their comfort zone" like telling someone with no legs to walk to the shops is "out of their comfort zone". Their escapist fantasy involves "being someone who can use their words effectively". I get that that's hard to understand if you're someone who can do it naturally, but it's important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Hey so remember when you said this:Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Are you talking about whether they say the "I tell him that" part or not? I...don't think that's really a meaningful difference? That sounds fine to me. I would probably guide it towards speaking as the character by asking a follow-up in-character, but if this is our only disagreement, it's pretty inconsequential. A few hours ago? I sure do. Pick a consistent stance and stick to it. And then apply it consistently too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
I'm not getting either. It's a role playing game. If you want "choose option A, B, or C, with [Persuasion]" after it, play a video game (and even most of those require muddling your way through a conversation to get to that point instead of "I roll a 16") I've had players try to use insight to figure out puzzles in ToA, Persuasion to completely avoid role playing a conversation, etc. It's not high school debate, but meet me halfway, at least. If I wanted to play "combat simulator", I'd just break out heroquest or talisman or gloomhaven or whatever. It's style and preference, but I'm personally not interested at all in playing an RPG with someone who isn't even a little interested in actually role playing. Your opinion may vary
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
i wouldn't solely judge success in a social encounter on rp but i would require at least a little more than "i say something convincing to the guard i rolled a 17"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Hey so remember when you said this: Speaking with one another using words is a core part of playing a tabletop RPG. I think it's going to be extremely difficult to play without being able to do that effectively, no matter what, and the stuff you say in character is a very small portion of that. I, of course, would want to work with anyone who wants to play in figuring out what works for them, but that's definitely a session-0 expectations setting sort of conversation. It's the exact same sort of conversation I'd have with someone for whom picking out actions in combat is as difficult as a person with no legs walking. I think the answer is probably "we play a different sort of game", but I don't think that makes the sort of game where you talk as your character invalid, and personally I don't think I'd be all that interested in a game where you don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
"But what if the player is not himself, charasmatic?!" This is... sort of a nonsense question. First of all it reduces "talking like a human" down to a kind of magic that only special people can access. "Charisma" IRL is not magic. In fact, it's a terrible word because it reduces skills of oratory, vocabulary, confidence and rhetoric down to a vague tummyfeel that other people have about that person. A person feels that a politician is charismatic, but the politician does not practice charisma, she practices those other tangible skills. Second, I can probably count on one hand the number of times that someone actually couldn't articulte what their character might do or say to convince a target of something. What people run up against isn't an inability to convince ths NPCs; it's an inability to convince the DM. If somebody gives me a half-baked response, I tell them why it's half-baked and ask them if they would like to amend their response. If the DM is stonewalling you, and not telling you why, that's the problem, not your IRL "charisma". Skills let players bypass that bullshit by reducing judgement to rules. That's why social rolls are popular. If I ever did have a player who was supposed to have a smooth character and didn't want to or more importantly, could not (as is the case with certain neurological conditions) roleplay that, I would accomidate them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
evol262 posted:I'm not getting either. It's a role playing game. If you want "choose option A, B, or C, with [Persuasion]" after it, play a video game (and even most of those require muddling your way through a conversation to get to that point instead of "I roll a 16") If your group spends more than 5 minutes on a puzzle and you don't let them roll to solve it then you're a bad DM. I once spent a whole afternoon trying to solve a puzzle by a poo poo DM as a wizard with 24 intelligence who by game logic would have solved it in seconds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Farg posted:i wouldn't solely judge success in a social encounter on rp but i would require at least a little more than "i say something convincing to the guard i rolled a 17" I'm this way too. Are people playing games where a player says "I tell the guard a lie" and then they just expect to roll? Edit: to expand a bit: it's important because there's about a billion different ways to lie and equivocations going on during these sorts of interactions, and they all might have differing degrees of difficulty Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I'm this way too. Are people playing games where a player says "I tell the guard a lie" and then they just expect to roll? yeah I'm curious how common that type of player is and also baffled as to what the appeal of the game even is if it's that abstracted granted the games ive done lean heavily on "let's all talk about how we are feeling in character for most of the session" so i have my biases
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Farg posted:yeah I'm curious how common that type of player is and also baffled as to what the appeal of the game even is if it's that abstracted Honestly I play D&D for similar reasons I play gloomhaven, because I like tactical combat and kicking rear end with a directed storyline along the way. Setting a spell in the perfect spot to catch enemies in so the Barbarian can come in and wipe them out is fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Piell posted:Honestly I play D&D for similar reasons I play gloomhaven, because I like tactical combat and kicking rear end with a directed storyline along the way. huh, see i like the combat and character progression but i need the investment in my character and their arc and their connection to the other party members to really care about those things. the other way around is kinda foreign to me honestly, I think I'd get bored within a session or two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
I feel there's a middle ground between "I roll to convince the guard" and fifteen minutes of in-character bon mots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
yeah like a minute or two of in character bon mots
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
I don't think anyone's actually saying that "what if the player just sits there in silence and goes 'Persuasion' *rolls dice* 17" as an actual (sincere) argument, though. I'm sure somewhere that does happen, but that's some absurdly weird edge-case in which there are definitely better games for that person to be playing, even within D&D itself. Knowing roughly what you want to say but being unable to articulate that effectively is absolutely fine, incredibly common and should be accommodated. Like, has no one arguing against that really never had a moment where you just either completely forget a word, or how to explain something? Stuff you can do literally any time when not put under immediate pressure? Like, giving time for someone to sit there and try and piece it together themselves is fine and all, but it obviously has its limits and issues. Personally, what I do (as both DM and player) is generally try to keep things in-character where i can, but sometimes a thing just isn't important enough for that and it'd drag things out. Not even just for Shopping, The Eternal Timewaster. Basically, if you can keep things up in-character the whole time every session without stumbling or issue, great, bonus! I just don't think it should be a mandatory requirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
This sort of back and forth seems pretty ridiculous, since every table is going to be different. Of course all the skills should be used, and you should also be encouraging fellow players to engage with the level of roleplay that they are comfortable with. Some players love doing the first-person performance, others are going to want to remain in third-person and be more narrative, and there's others who need to be coaxed into speaking up without an initiative table. When players are confronted with a problem, they should describe what they want to do and then roll some sort of skill check to see how it goes - they should do both. If a player has a particularly good or bad plan, then feel free to hand out advantage or disadvantage to a check. It's fun to have a hail mary work out, as well as to have a sure bet crumble in the face of unlucky dice. It sounds like some folks are largely having issues with DMs introducing non-failable contests, which I agree cheapens the whole experience. But the answer should be to find interesting fail conditions - if the Rogue somehow fails the lockpicking check, then maybe they broke the lock, or opened it but damaged the goods inside.Piell posted:If your group spends more than 5 minutes on a puzzle and you don't let them roll to solve it then you're a bad DM. Both players and DMs underestimate how difficult it is to have a meaningful mystery in a campaign. Players only get tidbits of information - imagine a mystery novel that was only a few pages long. So often either there's not much of a mystery to unravel, or the investigation is just overwhelming for the players who get frustrated with the lack of progress and give up. I definitely think that players should have opportunities to use their skills to garner real clues, of which they should need no more than three. And if the party starts to get stuck then they should be encouraged to use stuff like Insight, Zone of Truth, or Divination to get real advice from the DM. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
For my players, I generally leave it up to them to decide. I try to keep in mind not only what they're saying, but also what the character they're playing is like; this is based both on how their stats look on the character sheet, as well as how the player portrays them. I don't demand that everyone perfectly acts out every encounter their character has, because that would be silly, but I try to encourage it when I can. The three players at my table are pretty evenly distributed across the spectrum, with our Cleric (formerly Barbarian) taking any chance he can to act out scenes, our Paladin describing what he says or does generally without embellishment, and our Warlock falling somewhere in the middle. The Cleric isn't automatically "better" at talking to people because he likes acting more, especially since the other two should theoretically have a leg up on him stat-wise. Same thing with voices: some people can do them, some can't. That same Cleric used his normal voice with a slightly deeper tone for his last character. The Warlock tries to be a bit verbose, but otherwise uses his normal voice. The Paladin occasionally tries to use a New York accent, but he doesn't speak in character much. Personally, as DM, I try to use voices and mannerisms that leave a lasting impression, but you have to consider how long a character will be around when choosing a voice. It might be fun to talk like Jigglypuff for a little while, but by hour 3 that poo poo starts to grate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Piell posted:If your group spends more than 5 minutes on a puzzle and you don't let them roll to solve it then you're a bad DM. Spells to help solve these problems exist, but I also specifically said "puzzle in ToA". Part of the experience of a dungeon crawl is actually figuring out the puzzles. Yes, I give hints if they get stuck. No, your wizard cannot translate his 50 INT into solving a puzzle by making a roll. The party gets to work together to figure it out, and I help them if needed. Sometimes they find clever solutions which I never would have thought of. Sometimes they completely bypass it. Sometimes they get hints. In real life, "my IQ is 250" doesn't help you automatically solve a class of problems you've never seen before. Sure, you'll learn the methodology faster, but you still need to experiment and puzzle it out. Sorry you had a grognard who wanted to prove his superiority for a DM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Farg posted:yeah like a minute or two of in character bon mots And if you can't come up with that, you shouldn't be playing the game, right? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Besesoth posted:And if you can't come up with that, you shouldn't be playing the game, right? yes precisely, nailed it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:14
|
|