|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Now apply the same logic as you're applying to social checks. oh I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding. when I've been talking about having the player give some sort of more detail on how they were persuading the guard, it wasn't to see if they were doing the 'right' thing or to give them some kind of mechanical benefit, but just to contribute to the narrative and make a decision that then I can play off of depending on how their roll goes
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Farg posted:yeah but the example put forth was someone just saying that they use a skill but refuse to give even the slightest bit of narrative as to how they do so No, sorry. I just re-read the last three and a half pages, and everybody who's presenting that as a possibility is arguing against it. It is not a real position that anyone holds; it's a straw man you've made up, and it's a dishonest way to engage with the conversation. Cut it out. What I am saying, and I think everyone else you're arguing against is too, is that it should be perfectly reasonable for a player to say "I try to persuade the guard to let us pass. My character would be better at this than I am and I'd like to roll for it", because that's the reason the skills are in the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
I guess my guideline is, if someone has spotlight time, they should try and entertain everyone at the table, themselves included. Rolling a 17, beating a social encounter without speaking in-character, and passing your spotlight time works in the context of progressing the game, but it seems like a waste of an opportunity to enrich the story. In my experience, the best part of adding that element to roleplaying is that is makes your own characters different and memorable, and helps you separate your own personality from the fictional one. Otherwise, you usually end up playing "Infinite Karma with sneak attack" followed by "Infinite Karma with a horse" and it's all very same-y.Farg posted:like to use the "describe how you attack" counter example from earlier, I'm not an expert sword fighter but if you asked me how I swung my sword at the goblin I could still go like "uhh I sidestep their blow and slash their right shoulder"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:No, sorry. I just re-read the last three and a half pages, and everybody who's presenting that as a possibility is arguing against it. It is not a real position that anyone holds; it's a straw man you've made up, and it's a dishonest way to engage with the conversation. Cut it out. Yeah that's fine they shouldn't have to be good at persuading in real life to persuade someone good I just want them to give me a little bit more explanation of what they are doing for a social encounter like that, I wouldn't even make them do it IC if they were uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Farg posted:oh I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding. when I've been talking about having the player give some sort of more detail on how they were persuading the guard, it wasn't to see if they were doing the 'right' thing or to give them some kind of mechanical benefit, but just to contribute to the narrative and make a decision that then I can play off of depending on how their roll goes If you didn't care what they were trying, you wouldn't be this hung up on making sure they detail it for you before they get to roll. If success/failure is entirely contingent on character skill / dice roll, you don't need to know any details of what's being attempted because you can have a conversation about how the result happened after you know what it is. If the player doesn't want to contribute, you can make something up for them. Infinite Karma posted:I guess my guideline is, if someone has spotlight time, they should try and entertain everyone at the table, themselves included. Rolling a 17, beating a social encounter without speaking in-character, and passing your spotlight time works in the context of progressing the game, but it seems like a waste of an opportunity to enrich the story. It's not just OK to pass the spotlight if you're not feeling it, it should be encouraged. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:If you didn't care what they were trying, you wouldn't be this hung up on making sure they detail it for you before they get to roll. oh this is the thing for you, I think I see where you are coming from now. I get your point but I suppose that the result might not always be contingent purely on the dice roll, even in non social circumstances like, if they 'use persuade on guard' by telling them there's a fight outside and they need to intervene , the DC would probably be lower then if they 'use persuade on guard' by telling them that they are the new king and they need to listen to what they say. To use an extreme example I guess a nonsocial version of this would be illustrated with a climb check, if they just wanted to climb a wall with athletics vs carry someone with them vs do a weird stunt or w/e. I think that example is less common because most people would be naturally less concerned with the details of how you climbed a wall then how you interacted with an npc, barring particular circumstances that you figure out how things went down post-roll is more reasonable then what I was reading your argument as, but I prefer to be giving the 'how' of the attempt before the roll because otherwise I don't know what it exactly is they are rolling to do. A lot of different things they could be saying to the guard would be governed by a persuasion roll, but those things could all have different outcomes on a success/failure and different DCs
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:If the player doesn't want to contribute, you can make something up for them. this just might be where we differ. I wouldn't want to force someone to do a bunch of uncomfortable IC roleplay, but providing an idea of how their character is trying to do something is such a baseline level of "im here playing the game" to me that I'd think a player unwilling to do so is so checked out that they probably don't want to be there, or so incredible paralyzed by anxiety that its causing issues in every decision point of the game
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
Farg posted:like before I play the game I got syllables and poo poo down so I don't need the book to tell me that just tell me what dice to roll after I do it How dare you gatekeep d&d by disallowing people who cant read, write or speak your language from playing it
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How dare you gatekeep d&d by disallowing people who cant read, write or speak your language from playing it it was maybe a flippant way for me to make a point
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Farg posted:oh I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding. when I've been talking about having the player give some sort of more detail on how they were persuading the guard, it wasn't to see if they were doing the 'right' thing or to give them some kind of mechanical benefit, but just to contribute to the narrative and make a decision that then I can play off of depending on how their roll goes Farg posted:like, if they 'use persuade on guard' by telling them there's a fight outside and they need to intervene , the DC would probably be lower then if they 'use persuade on guard' by telling them that they are the new king and they need to listen to what they say. To use an extreme example Yaaaaawn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Farg posted:it was maybe a flippant way for me to make a point Nah I'm doing the same thing . There's a certain baseline to be expected of someone who's going to show up at a group table with a bunch of other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Yaaaaawn. but those srent the same things. in post one im saying I'm not giving out bonus advantage because a player was super verbose in character, nor am I giving out disadvantage because a player is nervous and stutters in post 2 I'm saying that there are a variety of different things the player could be attempting to do while 'using persuade on guard', and that it isn't unreasonable to ask them how they are going about it OOC before rolling
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Our DM seemingly rewards us with a lower DC if we come up with something clever for our social checks. Actually, if it’s cool or funny the DM will up the chance of it happening. Sometimes we’ll even get away with real ridiculous stuff if we roll a natural 20. Our Earth Genasi activated another party members lycanthropy by rolling a nat 20 when he mooned him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:Our DM seemingly rewards us with a lower DC if we come up with something clever for our social checks. i like doing this stuff for "silly" non important rolls that are mostly for fun. like the quiet artificer using the cloak of many fashions to create a detailed likeness of an npcs face on their back
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:Our DM seemingly rewards us with a lower DC if we come up with something clever for our social checks. That's dumb as hell but more power to you I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Farg posted:but those srent the same things. in post one im saying I'm not giving out bonus advantage because a player was super verbose in character, nor am I giving out disadvantage because a player is nervous and stutters You're saying that they won't get a mechanical benefit for doing it right and it's solely about narrative, and then that they'll have a lower DC if they choose to do it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:That's dumb as hell but more power to you I guess cmon activating a lycanthropy curse by showing someone your bare rear end is pretty funny, assuming it didn't wildly break the tone of the campaign or w/e
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Nah I'm doing the same thing . There's a certain baseline to be expected of someone who's going to show up at a group table with a bunch of other people. Finish this sentence: "Unlike every other stat in D&D, a player should not be allowed to play the game unless they can perform similarly to their character when using Charisma-based skills, because..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:You're saying that how they do it doesn't matter, mechanically, then you're saying that how they do it will determine the DC. sorry I will clarify how well they do or do not roleplay does not affect the dc of their action or grant them advantage/disadvantage what they are actually attempting in universe is important, because telling the dm what you are trying to do and then rolling to see if you do it is a big part of the game. (and 'i attempt to persuade' is to vague because it could contain many different actions with many different potential results, so I ask them to clarify what their character is attempting to do, I'm not asking them to roleplay it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Finish this sentence: "Unlike every other stat in D&D, a player should not be allowed to play the game unless they can perform similarly to their character when using Charisma-based skills, because..." no this isn't true, it shouldnt matter if they are good performers or role players. My point is that sometimes "I use skill" is too vague and it is reasonable to ask them how they are using said skill
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Farg posted:sorry I will clarify Farg posted:no this isn't true, it shouldnt matter if they are good performers or role players. My point is that sometimes "I use skill" is too vague and it is reasonable to ask them how they are using said skill Again, you can make this same argument about literally any skill. Why are you only making it for social skills?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Farg posted:no this isn't true, it shouldnt matter if they are good performers or role players. My point is that sometimes "I use skill" is too vague and it is reasonable to ask them how they are using said skill I think you and I have come to an agreement. I'm specifically referring to mastershakeman's "There's a certain baseline to be expected" comment. e: I'd like to know why mastershakeman is okay with my friend whose brain cancer is slowly paralyzing her playing a character with high Str or Dex, or my young but earnest son playing a character with a high Wis, but everyone who plays a character with any sort of Charisma needs to meet a "certain baseline". I'm eager to hear any justification other than smug dismissal or "that's not what D&D is built for". Their last actual argument, "you roll a d20 and then add your modifier, and the DM comes up with a target number", is true of literally every check in the game, and it's absurd on its face to pretend that somehow it's bad to apply this to Charisma-based skills. SneezeOfTheDecade fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Again, you can make this same argument about literally any skill. im not, just some skills an situations can have a variety of approaches a player might take and I want to know what the player is trying to do if a player just said "I attack" on their turn in combat, I'd ask them to specify what attack they are using and on what target they are using it on, because depending on what attack they use on who they might have to roll over a different AC, or roll different damage dice, or take an opportunity attack or w/e, it wouldn't matter to me if they do a big speech while they attempt the attack, just that they make the decision of what they are attempting to do Farg fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:I think you and I have come to an agreement. I'm specifically referring to mastershakeman's "There's a certain baseline to be expected" comment. oh ok. i think maybe mastershakeman may mean 'baseline' in reference to providing a basic 'how' to their characters roll attempt, though I wouldn't want to speak for them, although I guess I just did
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
A suggestion I don't think I've seen: if a player wants their character to perform a Persuasion- or Deception-based check, but can't think of a way to do it, let them roll Perception with Charisma as a base instead of Wisdom, and based on that roll, offer them suggestions for how to proceed. Like: "I want to persuade the guard to let us pass." "Okay, take your Perception score, subtract your Wisdom score and add your Charisma score, and roll with that bonus." "...17." "All right. You see the guard checking the clock in the tower a bunch, like it's near the end of his shift. There's also a scuffle nearby, and guards are known for needing to clear up street fights." "Oh, okay. I tell the guard we're here to relieve him." "He smiles at you and gestures you into the booth, then makes his way off to the tavern. Judging by the clock, you've got five minutes before the next guard shows up." It might be more math than players are used to, but it allows the player and DM to collaborate on a solution rather than just rolling for the result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:
I have been wondering about this since I read the initial statement. Lets do real life dexterity/strength/constitution checks. Lets check our resistance to swords, maces and fireballs. Can I only play neck bearded male characters that never left their parents hut? Good charisma rolls come with their drawbacks. My wild magic sorc that was an actress (for mimic) and has advantage in persuasion deception and intimidation as well as disguise self shouldn't be limited by how smooth talking I am or how well i can mimic the DM's voice. Let the dice tell me if I bungle the words. Set the NPC's dice check at an appropriate level 10/15/20/25/30 for what they are trying to do. If its not possible roll the dice anyway and tell them nope you just made it mad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Farg posted:im not, just some skills an situations can have a variety of approaches a player might take and I want to know what the player is trying to do You are, though. I <ability> the <target> to try to get <result> . I <attack with my sword> the <leftmost orc> for <x damage> on a success. You've said this is fine. I <climb skill> the <center wall> to <move to the top of the wall> on a success. You've said this is fine. I <cast magic missile> on <bandit> for <x damage> on a success. You've said this is fine. I <persuade skill> the <guard> and <he lets me through the door> on a success. You've said this is not fine, you just can't figure out how to proceed, and you're unsure why the player even wants to play the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Minclark posted:Set the NPC's dice check at an appropriate level 10/15/20/25/30 for what they are trying to do. yes yes exactly! Their real life charisma matters for bumpkis, just let me know what you are trying to do
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Farg posted:yes yes exactly! Their real life charisma matters for bumpkis, just let me know what you are trying to do Persuade the guard to let me pass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:You are, though. I would define it as <action> the <target> with my persuade skill to accomplish <result>.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Farg posted:im not, just some skills an situations can have a variety of approaches a player might take and I want to know what the player is trying to do I make an attack roll against the guard with my sword, +7 to hit. I make a persuasion roll to have the guard let us in, +7 to Persuasion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Re: Not roleplaying social stuff at all, I guess you do you, but that just seems drastically unfun. I wouldn't want to run or play in a game where we didn't get to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
No one's saying you have to force everybody to do third-person. Just let people do first, or third, as they see fit. Hell, even second if they could find a way to do it without it being weird.Besesoth posted:A suggestion I don't think I've seen: if a player wants their character to perform a Persuasion- or Deception-based check, but can't think of a way to do it, let them roll Perception with Charisma as a base instead of Wisdom, and based on that roll, offer them suggestions for how to proceed. I think this is a good compromise, but you do have to keep in mind that it adding a second check inherently increases chance for failure. The example given here is fine, since it doesn't add a second roll and instead it just changes the context of the one roll, but for anything more complicated it's an important consideration. Lotus Aura fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Persuade the guard to let me pass. cool, are you just trying to be friendly and ask him to make an exception, or maybe bribe him, or convince him his boss is a dick? Gimme a general idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:No one's saying you have to force everybody to do third-person. Just let people do it if they want. Oh, sure. I'm suggesting this as an alternative for people who don't like the idea of using dice checks instead of roleplaying through the encounter. This is a replacement dice check that doesn't bypass the roleplaying element of the encounter, and instead gives the player ideas for how to proceed with the roleplaying element. And I'm aware that this may be a penalty or a bonus, depending on the character; with the bard I'm playing, I'd much rather have do the RP work myself and get the +11 to Persuasion than let the DM shoulder part of the burden and take the +8 from Charisma+Perception, for instance. (It was my first 5e character and I took Investigation rather than Perception as a specialty.  )
SneezeOfTheDecade fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Farg posted:cool, are you just trying to be friendly and ask him to make an exception, or maybe bribe him, or convince him his boss is a dick? Gimme a general idea I'm using my persuade skill. It's right here next to my climb skill that I'm allowed to say I'm using and then roll the dice. PublicOpinion posted:Re: Not roleplaying social stuff at all, I guess you do you, but that just seems drastically unfun. I wouldn't want to run or play in a game where we didn't get to. You should get to but not have to. This really isn't a controversial idea. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Piell posted:I make an attack roll against the guard with my sword, +7 to hit. I guess maybe it gets weird mapping combat rules onto it because you could start defining targets in the social situation as like, guards sympathy, guards cowardice, guards dislike of boss, analogy gets clunky
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I'm using my persuade skill. It's right here next to my climb skill that I'm allowed to say I'm using and then roll the dice. are you persuading the guard by making him like you, or convincing him it's in his best interest? are you climbing up the rough portion of the wall with your bare hands or are you using your pickaxe to create a foothold on the smooth portion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Farg posted:are you persuading the guard by making him like you, or convincing him it's in his best interest? I'm not intetested in the details of this scene and am not having fun. I would like to pass the spotlight while still moving the game forward by using the written game mechanics that define my character as effective in this situation, please. Alternatively, I'm not having fun etc as above but ok, I'm willing to choose one or the other of your options. Please let me know what the mechanical difference between them is supposed to be, and how I'm supposed to decide which is the best option. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I'm not intetested in the details of this scene and am not having fun. I would like to pass the spotlight while still moving the game forward by using the written game mechanics that define my character as effective in this situation, please. elector thanks for joining our campaign you seem like a fun dude and your character concept is cool but your being a little aggro about this, can we talk about that
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 02:46
|
|