|
Farg posted:I mean, then what is your viewpoint? I don't think anyone is arguing that roleplay should be required. I think the difference in opinion is if asking "how do you go about persuading the guard" is unreasonable. We've talked about this. My viewpoint is that "I persuade the guard to let us past, and since (my character is better at this than I am/I'm having a lovely day/I'm exhausted/etc.), I'd rather not be forced to roleplay it out" is a reasonable thing to say at the table, and "I don't know/I can't come up with something this quickly/I'm too tired to figure it out" is a reasonable response to "how do you go about persuading the guard". I even gave an alternate mechanic that lets the DM suggest ways the character might do the persuading so that the player with social anxiety/exhaustion/etc. isn't put on the spot. At no point, I feel obliged to clarify, has anyone on my side of the argument demanded that everyone be forced to use dice instead of roleplaying an encounter out. If you are happy and comfortable with roleplaying it out, go for it. Only one side of the argument is saying that a particular way to resolve the situation shouldn't be allowed, and it isn't the one I'm on. On the other hand, this whole discussion started when mastershakeman said, out of the blue, mastershakeman posted:Social skills should be houseruled by every DM to cease to exist. That wouldn't solve all this argument about skill checks but it would help! and that's who you're arguing alongside: someone who believes that not only should players not be allowed to just say "I persuade the guard (but I'm not sure how)", but that every social interaction should be fully roleplayed and no one should ever be allowed to roll at all, and who - judging by their posts - thinks the only possible alternative to that is mastershakeman posted:roll[ing] dice over and over while being completely silent SneezeOfTheDecade fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Mar 20, 2019 |
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
I guess I just view it as such a bare minimum of participation in the game that if you are too beaten down or otherwise unable to do so you should probably just talk to your group and get some bed rest. I think if that's the way you wanna personally play then go for it, but it sounds wooden and lifeless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Is there such a thing as beating a dead strawman?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
I've totally lost the thread of this argument at this point. It's totally reasonable to in any conflict/tension situation in the game have your players qualify what their strategy is. This includes using a social roll, and doesn't require adept personal oratory or even social sense. The examples provided earlier in the thread are missing this important point by collapsing combat to "I attack the guy with my sword [to damage the guard]" or "I cast magic missile" and equating that to "I use persuasion on the guard". The important missed clause is "with my sword", or specifying a specific spell instead of saying "I cast a spell". You do indeed need to provide a "with my sword" for other checks. Just like in combat with a character who isn't up with their different abilities and just says "I attack" without sufficient context to understand what they mean, it's totally okay to prompt your players for missing information and isn't ableist (?) which seems to be the underlying accusation ITT. It's also okay to suggest new/unsure players with an overview of their options and go from there, just like you might to help someone in combat by handling their scores and prompting rolls. If there's a player that wants to be a face but really isn't creative or inventive beyond "I roll persuasion" and this ends up bogging down your entire game... perhaps provide them with a card that highlights some common uses of social skills as a jumping off point, eg: Misdirection/Blather - Starting a distracting meaningless conversation to occupy a target while another player acts. Command - Pretending to be a target's superior in some way to command them to act. Sob Story- Gets the target to want to help you via a pity or sympathy." Hopefully after pointing to their card for a while, they'll start to pick up on ideas for strategy. None of which requires improv any more than literally any other element of the game, or requires people to do funny voices or whatever. Yes this generalizes to all skills and isn't a specific issue with social skills themselves really - almost unique when talking about 5e, the issue isn't the game it's players having weird sticking points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
yeah what they said
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:We've talked about this. My viewpoint is that "I persuade the guard to let us past, and since (my character is better at this than I am/I'm having a lovely day/I'm exhausted/etc.), I'd rather not be forced to roleplay it out"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
And also, if the guard isn't important and it's just being an annoying roadblock for no reason from the gm, why not ask the GM "Is this really important"? and move on if it's really not important how you go about it, without a roll. You can do both, have some situations where "I just persuade him to let us through, and he's a no-name idiot and there are no stakes so we just do it" and "Okay, this is the royal prison and the guard is in plate armor and smartly stands at attention, stopping you from progressing. How do you get past this challenge?" in the same game..
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
I think whether or not these rolls matter or if the dm is just throwing meaningless roadblocks at you is a different issue entirely, though. Ideally you wouldn't be in a position where you are persuading the guard if it didn't matter or if there was no possibility for interesting failure/success
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
I just want to say that reading through chapter 3 of SKT is a loving chore and wotc should have at least had the foresight to list these locations by geographical proximity, so DMs have at least a rough idea of which locations are going to come up in consecutive sessions, rather than listing them alphabetically and going "go memorize the map, fucko"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:The examples provided earlier in the thread are missing this important point by collapsing combat to "I attack the guy with my sword [to damage the guard]" or "I cast magic missile" and equating that to "I use persuasion on the guard". The important missed clause is "with my sword", or specifying a specific spell instead of saying "I cast a spell". You do indeed need to provide a "with my sword" for other checks. No, that's not a missed clause, and you're ignoring the posts where that's clarified. "I <perform action> using <mechanic that allows me to perform action>." "I <attack the gnoll> using <my sword>." "I <attack the goblin> using <my Magic Missile spell>." "I <get past the guard> using <my Persuasion skill>." Splicer posted:When you say role play it out, where are you falling on the spectrum of "I pretend I'm someone who's supposed to be here you pick who" to "Ho Constable! How art thou this fine morrow?" Either, frankly. "I do not have the expertise or the energy to figure out what would work in this situation, but my character does" should be a reasonable approach to the problem and it's genuinely weird to me that people don't get that. If this isn't something you'd be comfortable doing as a player, that's fine. Don't do it! If this isn't something you'd be comfortable allowing as a DM, that's fine. Tell your players that! But neither of those cases mean you get to dictate that for every other group on the loving planet. Anyway. I've said all I intend to say on the subject. I don't know how I can make this any clearer and I'm just repeating myself at this point. SneezeOfTheDecade fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Seems like people are conflating these two problems. The "What if I'm just not in the mood to ~roleplay~" statements make a lot more sense if you're expecting that every interaction requires explicitly explaining everything. Like.. you don't need to specify how your character takes a poo poo, it's just assumed that you do it in the normal way. If you're having to roll a skill in a situation where you seriously don't think it matters at ALL how you go about doing that skill, perhaps suggest that it not be a roll/talk to your GM after the game along the lines of "Do we really need to be rolling if it's not a real challenge?" Personally, I do something akin to "passive" rolls for situations where someone proposes something that doesn't have a significant amount of challenge, but where I don't want to make skill choices meaningless: I either outright say "Roll for funny side effects" (aka, yes you do that, but let's just have a random chance roll for flavor) and/or ask what their score is and narrate what happens based on that context. You can also re-contextualize rolls somewhat, in this case a persuasion roll doesn't have to mean directly an opposed roll to sway the target's opinion. Perhaps you're rolling persuasion to notice something about the guard that's guaranteed to get you past! My advice for dealing with DMs who don't do this is to have a stock phrase you can pull out to suggest that they provide you with concrete options. Along the lines of "My character is expert at X topic and/or Y skill. What options occur to them for dealing with X using Y skill? Do any of Y options seem unlikely to work to them?". Take the guard example, you're presented with a guard who won't let you past. You don't really have any ideas for convincing the guard to let you past, you don't want to actually talk in character to do this, and perhaps you've offered a dud. Whip out, "My character is great at persuasion, and has been getting past guards since being a kid, but I don't know what he'd do here... [look a questionmark at your dm]"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Why the gently caress are people playing with someone who is too exhausted to think straight, let this person go home and go to bed and just reschedule, goddamn
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Why the gently caress are people playing with someone who is too exhausted to think straight, let this person go home and go to bed and just reschedule, goddamn
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:No, that's not a missed clause, and you're ignoring the posts where that's clarified. Yeah no, that's still a gross simplification of what's happening there anyways. Using your sword how? I don't mean "Now you must describe your exact sword move", miss me with that stupid strawman. Do you move into melee and use your sword? That's the general strategy, cool! Do you move around interposing enemies, or walk past them? How about field hazards? Hell, do you throw your sword instead? Are you attacking him more than once with extra attacks? Did you choose that target because of positioning rules? Heck, the challenge isn't "reduce this gnoll's hp to zero" it's "deal with this combat scenario to do X", so skipping ahead to choosing an attack on an assumed target is ignoring a large part of the decision making there. Likewise, using a magic missile appears to be a good example only because it's skipped ahead to the end of a decision tree. These are not optional "fluff" roleplaying elements of attacking a gnoll with your sword, they're really basic parts of how the decision system works. Really. Basic. If there is a social challenge, even assuming that -because it's less of a focus of the system- it's a challenge of far further complexity than combat, it's still a challenge. Keeping in mind that trivial challenges can have trivial scenarios and require trivial input from players (or even none, just handwave them: see the challenge of figuring out how to poo poo in a city with no public toilets): Okay, you want to get past the guard. You've decided to use your <social skills> instead of <physical violence> Right! You've decided to use <persuasion instead of intimidation> instead of (in a physical scenario) <sword instead of spell>. The challenge here is that he doesn't want to let you. Are you... Lying/misdirecting or telling the truth? If lying, having the guard let you through, or trying to get the guard to go away? If trying to get let through, will you have to redo a challenge to get back out? These are simpler quesions than even the most basic "I hit the gnoll with my sword" questions, depending on the context. It's really fine, and it's totally fine to sometimes handwave it, and sometimes stick to it, and sometimes guide players through it more or less just like any other system in the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I've been wondering this. The amount of qualification is seriously mystifying: "We are playing with my uhh friend, who made the choice to play a character with a high Persuasion skill relative to the party and also specifically decided to use that skill to solve this obstacle instead of sneaking around back or killing the guard, but also my friend is brutally shy and also simultaneously exhausted and bored to the point that they can't even begin to think of ways you can even try to persuade someone, and also is this really that important? I mean I know it was specifically put in the game as a obstacle but maybe this is the kind of obstacle we can just like skip, or well not skip but just do a quick roll because gently caress it? Also who are you to tell me how to play this game?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
uhhhhhhhhh o_o Hey guys, I have a player whose personal mission (ie, side goal unrelated to the "main quest") is finding an old flame. He got a message from her about, uh, either doing a job together or helping her fence something, and when he went to the town she specified, it was sacked by marauding drow (figuring out what is up with the drow is the main quest), and she was nowhere to be seen. The campaign is now also about the player stronghold near this town, rebuilding it, local politics, etc, while figuring out why the drow are suddenly so bold. What are some good twists some of you DMs out there might employ at your table, that have nothing to do with this slavering abomination of a discussion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Remora posted:uhhhhhhhhh o_o She was forced--because the inaction of the traditional town leadership--to scrounge together and lead an underground resistance movement to Drow invaders
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
Pro tip: put casters under the goalposts so they're easier to move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
If your players are so zonked out that they can't form complete thoughts or sentences please look after them instead of forcing themselves to harm themselves playing an elfgame
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Remora posted:uhhhhhhhhh o_o Then is the thing vital to (bad Drow plan) or vital for foiling (bad Drow plan) or just something the Drow want that causes them to stumble upon (bad Drow plan) or none of the above and the Drow only attacked because they thought she was calling in adventurers to mess with (bad Drow plan) but actually it was something super mundane. Also throw in a slavering abomination
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Pro tip: put casters under the goalposts so they're easier to move. Pro tip put fighters under the goalposts if you want to move them they're stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Remora posted:uhhhhhhhhh o_o The drow aren't acting out of aggression, but out of desperation. Below ground, they're losing a war and raiding for supplies and slaves topside is what they've resorted to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Pro tip put fighters under the goalposts if you want to move them they're stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
If I want to be a fancy Elven Swordsman that's not a fighter how is the Kensei? Is it fun? Is it actually any good mechanically?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Remora posted:uhhhhhhhhh o_o The girl was a Drow infiltrator all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Those are excellent! Do any of those bring to mind any good D&D anecdotes about how similar twists paid off (or failed to) in any of your campaigns? I would be genuinely interested in reading them! Also, taking statblock suggestions for a slavering abomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Remora posted:uhhhhhhhhh o_o
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Also throw in a slavering abomination you should have several at the table ahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Remora posted:Those are excellent! Do any of those bring to mind any good D&D anecdotes about how similar twists paid off (or failed to) in any of your campaigns? I would be genuinely interested in reading them! A literally indescribable horror AC: 10 + X for each word used to describe the player's attack. Saves: 8 + X for same. HP: Yes Attack: Roll 1d6 to choose an attack. None of them have descriptions and they all deal Y damage. Persuade: Bonus Action. The player takes Y psychic damage and is Persuaded Special: The Slavering Abomimation can be defeated by a player defeating it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
it can also take a legendary action once per round. It can take this legendary action after another creatures turn
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Pro tip: Shoot the slavering abomination until it dies
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Slavering Abomination I'll assume that neither the GM nor the players are allowed to describe how the Slavering Abomination dies if it is finally killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
TotalHell posted:I'll assume that neither the GM nor the players are allowed to describe how the Slavering Abomination dies if it is finally killed. If the players describe how the Slavering Abomination dies it returns to life with 25% max HP. Also "Slavering Abomination of a thread" seems like a good new title.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
We have a player at my table who does not like to roleplay, it clearly makes her uncomfortable. That is OK. This is not a problem for her we are trying to solve on her behalf. So in any situation where she has to interact with an NPC we just kind of gloss over that with as little awkwardness as possible and move on, although everyone is friends enough that asking her to RP is basically an in-joke and not a weekly hazing. While it's not technically necessary to ask her how she attempts to intimidate an NPC because the task resolution is so simple, it always happens because otherwise the next narrative beat is unclear, in the same way you want to specify how you're using your Athletics skill to climb a tower. She is not required to "do a voice" but if she has a line of argument, great. I suppose at a less mature or more "serious" table where you have to speak in-character at all times or something (not anyone's taste where I play), we would be obliged to insist on making her "learn" (be uncomfortable and then eventually leave the group, most likely). We all can barely keep a straight face while playing elfgames as it is so that's never coming up at my table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
evol262 posted:No, because I only started reading this thread yesterday, and now I wish I wouldn't have, since it's apparently populated by extremely literal grognards who can take extremely uncontroversial statements like "the DM makes the rules" (in the context of "rolling for social skills is not sufficient for my playgroup" or "firearms are not allowed here" or "classes/races from these sourcebooks only") to mean that I believe the DM has the purview to alter the fundamental rules of the game on the fly, rather than setting expectations at session zero Tough day huh? They were talking to me. I said that. Everyone is making fun of you because you said "the DM is god." This isn't what you're quoting yourself as saying, and I figure it would do you good to note the distinction. One of the statements is sort of noteworthy as an inflammatory chunk of rhetoric you mostly see in grogblogs and bad RPG marketing literature. It's actively detrimental to what friends should be doing at a table, which is even communication. It puffs up the ego of your buddy so they think they don't have to listen to their friends anymore. You probably didn't mean any of that. It's just what that phrasing tends to suggest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:We have a player at my table who does not like to roleplay, it clearly makes her uncomfortable. That is OK. This is not a problem for her we are trying to solve on her behalf. So in any situation where she has to interact with an NPC we just kind of gloss over that with as little awkwardness as possible and move on, although everyone is friends enough that asking her to RP is basically an in-joke and not a weekly hazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Tough day huh? No. I'm just amazed even as someone who's been playing tabletop wargames, mtg, and RPGs for 20 years how spergy and antagonistic the last few pages have been. It's like a microcosm of everything that's wrong with discussions on the internet and a melange of comic book guy tropes. theironjef posted:They were talking to me. I said that. Everyone is making fun of you because you said "the DM is god." This isn't what you're quoting yourself as saying, and I figure it would do you good to note the distinction. theironjef posted:One of the statements is sort of noteworthy as an inflammatory chunk of rhetoric you mostly see in grogblogs and bad RPG marketing literature. It's actively detrimental to what friends should be doing at a table, which is even communication. It puffs up the ego of your buddy so they think they don't have to listen to their friends anymore. You probably didn't mean any of that. It's just what that phrasing tends to suggest. Well, I don't read grogblogs or RPG marketing literature. "The DM/GM is god" has been a trope since at least first ed (when I started playing), and my take is basically that anyone who reads it as "authority of the DM extends outside of the game" has either had really bad experiences, is actively trying to take offense, can't take a joke, or a combination of the above. Again, better to just chill out. Life's too short to be angry or snarky all the time. Not directed at you, just in general. Back on topic, this seems like a great time to throw in a bunch of mooks or dead villagers and a devourer
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
lightrook posted:The adventure is basically fine even if everyone is playing characters they rolled up themselves, so one small permutation is a complete non-issue. Games are meant to be fun, so try things that seem fun! I figured, I just wanted to be sure. Also this is kind of a clunky group for a couple reasons (session one had 7 PCs which was poor, a player or two aren't really into it, etc.) and everybody but one haven't played D&D in a decade or more, so I don't want to overwhelm the group with how much of a deep dive I've done into the PHB. Though I will vent the double-sided frustration of not being too nosy in regards to other people's characters while at the same time knowing they're not reading all the stuff on their character sheet (I had to point out the bonus healing Life domain gives the clerics, for example). I think what I'm leaning towards pitching to the group is that when we hit level 3 we all take a look at the options that would have been available to us and if we want to tweak some things (clerics changing domain, etc.) we can. There's another fighter player who I'm hoping will back me up when he sees our big level 3 pick-up under the railroaded rules is...+1 crit range.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
The premade characters all use the most boring archetypes (seriously, two champions?) so you're doing everyone a favor
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Any tips for cutting down LMoP to scale for three PCs? I assume I should cut a Goblin here and there from various encounters, but anything beyond that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:44
|
|