You're painting the picture that you assume all people with Diplomacy skills just yell "DIPLOMACY" and throw a D20 like a chimp hurling its feces.
The skill check merely determines the effectiveness of the roleplaying, it does not take its place. When I DM, if a player doesn't at least make a sincere effort to roleplay the interaction then he doesn't get to roll the skill check.
Do you houserule that the player must have a satisfactory dialog improv before the player can roll vs. the DC for the encounter? If so, does that really fix anything if you have to go outside of RAW to accomplish it?
The RAW for such shouldn't even exist. There shouldn't be DC's for social skills in a socializing game.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
You're painting the picture that you assume all people with Diplomacy skills just yell "DIPLOMACY" and throw a D20 like a chimp hurling its feces.
The skill check merely determines the effectiveness of the roleplaying, it does not take its place. When I DM, if a player doesn't at least make a sincere effort to roleplay the interaction then he doesn't get to roll the skill check.
Do you houserule that the player must have a satisfactory dialog improv before the player can roll vs. the DC for the encounter? If so, does that really fix anything if you have to go outside of RAW to accomplish it?
I require them to legitimately try; you can tell when someone is just going through the motions. As far as fixing anything, it does make the players attempt to roleplay in social situations. All of the players I've used this rule with eventually got to the point where I no longer had to say "you can't make that roll yet." They were doing work on their own.
The RAW for such shouldn't even exist. There shouldn't be DC's for social skills in a socializing game.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the difference between THAC0 or BAB and Diplomacy. They all account for character skill. If we were going solely on player skill, then we'd have to reinact combat, at which point we'd be larping.
As for your opinion that the RAW for that shouldn't exist, I vehemently oppose your opinion. If you choose to not use those rules, that's all well and good. Some people prefer to use them. There's nothing wrong with that, and the option should be there for them.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Naki, the game isn't broken. Roleplaying IS the game. Trying to reduce everything to a mechanical equation is just turning it into a board game. It is extremely relevant what he does in his game because every game is different.
Also, the argument that player ability vs. character ability is fallacious. You don't want you sub-intelligent PC to act like Sloth from the goonies, and "wise" PC's make unwise decisions all the time based upon player input. So player ability is highly impactful on the game, irregardless of the PC's ability score.
Someone doesn't like to roleplay a situation? OMG! why is he/she playing a ROLEPLAYING game? Sometimes people lose the forest for the trees. Everytime someone somewhere disagreed with a DM ruling, all of the sudden there has to be mechanical equations for all in game actions. What a boring dry game.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM playing the situation that the priest gives automatic deference to a fellow man of the faith. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for a bard to come in and woo the priest. He probably would have a tough time getting an audience with that type of NPC.
Plus, telling that player to basically "sit back and keep your mouth shut" doesn't help the player grow as a roleplayer, and really doesn't help him play the 18 CHR paladin.
1. No adding rules to interaction does not turn it into a board game. The thing is every thing I do with my character is roleplaying. when I decide to slide in low and slash the ankles of the ogre I am roleplaying, and yet it is determine by a roll, when I jump across a chasm and catch onto a vine I am roleplaying and yet the success is determined by a roll, when I carefully pick the lock of the servants entrance on the manor I am roleplaying and yet it is determined by a roll. Why all of a sudden when I describe my actions in conversation is it the only time I am roleplaying and therefore not determined by game mechanics in your mind?
2. Um no the player skill argument is not fallacious. I do expect a dumb character to act dumb, almost like he was rolleplaying his character. If the player wants to hand an idea off to another PC I am all for it, but a 6 int guy wont routinely come up with brilliant plans just because the player is smart.
3. There is a difference in not wanting to roleplay and just sucking at it. I don't penalize people in a game because they personally suck at talking. The stuttering adhd guy in my game, if he wants to play a bard or in shadowrun terms the face of the party good for him, I don't penalize him for it and claim it is because he isn't roleplaying it correctly or whatever.
4. no one claims there can't be circumstantial modifiers to situations. If in the game you are talking to your brother(woot you gave me a back story where all your family isn't dead) you wont have to roll any interaction tests for most things. If you want to convince him to use his daughter as bait yeah you will need o roleplay it and make a roll, but you will have a much lower TN than the bard he does not know. OTOH we are saying don;t create an artificial barrier by adding circumstantial modifiers to the test for all but one guy. It is one thing to say the paladin wil have a much lower TN to succeed it is another to say no matter how good the bard does he will fail because on;y he paladin can do it. Though yeah there can be reasons for that to some degree, but it would have to be something a bit more than the priest likes the paladin so will only listen to him, and more along the lines he hates the bard be he caught the bard crapping on the alter of his god.
5. no one is telling players to sit back and not talk. They are telling people that if your character is a 8 chr troglodyte you might want to roleplay your interactions in a way that reflects that, OTOH if you are playing a mr suave character and can't pull it off just give it your best shot that is why it is a game it has rules. I am not going to have the 8 chr character trump you just because he is being played by a salesman.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the difference between THAC0 or BAB and Diplomacy. They all account for character skill. If we were going solely on player skill, then we'd have to reinact combat, at which point we'd be larping.
Here is the issue with the statement you made.
If we were larping, and instead of relying on physical skill to score hits, we stopped to roll dice to determine the outcome. It doesn't make sense to roll dice for combat results in a physical combat game. By the same token, it does make sense to roll dice for results in a game where the combat is conducted via dialogue. It does not make sense to roll dice for dialogue in a game based around dialogue; it is the same thing as stopping during an amptgard game to roll dice because someone doesn't have the same physical ability as someone else.
@Ahglock, If you aren't getting "in" character, then you are just driving a videogame on paper, not actually playing a roleplaying game. It is assumed that you are assuming the role of the person you are portraying, not just calling out various dice rolls. D&D has a combat section where dice rolls are necessary to prevent the physical acting out of the conflict. The rest is best handled through dialogue and player ingenuity. It's not like if the player fails at doing something socially it's "Boom! Game over!" And if the "dump" PC's palyer is tabletalking metagame ideas at the table, then the whole immersion is lost and it may as well be a boardgame since the PC is acting upon knowledge he wouldn't have. It doesn't necessarily have to even be GOOD improv dialogue, but the player interacting with the NPC should do just that. Pretend he's talking to his minister at church, or pretend he's talking to his sociology professor. It's not like RPG'ers go through life not interacting with anyone in the real world. Why shouldn't they have to interact with NPC's in the game world?
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Naki, the game isn't broken. Roleplaying IS the game.
Hah. That's good. I sure do like roleplaying being determined by dice rolls. Some DMs require you to roll diplomacy before saying anything. Some don't even care about what you say, just the roll. Purely because those rules are in the game. Some just don't care to learn there are other aspects. Some don't have the time for it (See, basically any event, like LFR or Encounters)
[qipte]Trying to reduce everything to a mechanical equation is just turning it into a board game. It is extremely relevant what he does in his game because every game is different.
Except it's not. The game cannot account for what everyone does in their personal game. By that very logic, I should demand ship sailing and ship-to-ship combat in core, because it's something I use regularly in my game. But I don't, because I know it's both niche and the support for it would be relatively small. If it attempts to cater to your personal set of houserules, as well as each other group's set, then the rules bloat will be enormous. This forum is for the RAW interpretation. For those people who don't roleplay. There's a forum for the roleplay aspect of the game. If the social aspect of the game doesn't work on both the roleplay spectrum and the mechanical spectrum, then why bother making it a pillar at all?
Also, the argument that player ability vs. character ability is fallacious. You don't want you sub-intelligent PC to act like Sloth from the goonies, and "wise" PC's make unwise decisions all the time based upon player input. So player ability is highly impactful on the game, irregardless of the PC's ability score.
No, it isn't. You spout "Well, roleplaying is the game!" Then, if that's the case, shouldn't then the game should strive to make it clear that player ability isn't important, and make it clearer that character ability is not a bunch of numbers you can abstract and ignore if you want. I'm afraid you don't get it both ways. You cannot say 'Well, the Paladin should be better in this situation because he's a paladin, and the bard can stuff himself, despite devoting himself to socialization and learning not to step on toes.', and then turn around and go "Meh, the Fighter has 8 int, but can solve this highly complex puzzle that he could never realistically solve, but the player can." You either apply these rules consistently or not at all. I'm all for more roleplaying, but not in ways that are intended to punish and marginalize players.
[Someone doesn't like to roleplay a situation? OMG! why is he/she playing a ROLEPLAYING game? Sometimes people lose the forest for the trees. Everytime someone somewhere disagreed with a DM ruling, all of the sudden there has to be mechanical equations for all in game actions. What a boring dry game.
Oh, I'm sorry, is everyone in your group a professional actor or public speaker? If so, I can imagine that they never have problem with having such scenes pushed on them. But not everyone is like that. Some people are meek and timid, and play certain archetypes to avoid that. If you let that player roll up a 10CHA paladin, and never told them you would then force the player into situations that would make them uncomfortable, then penalize the party because of it, you're a douchebag. Pure and simple. That doesn't facilitate roleplaying, and is basically akin to bullying. The player isn't going to contribute in any meaningful way, and you're likely to get them to do the opposite. If the player feels comfortable with doing so, okay. Cool. But that's all about knowing your group.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM playing the situation that the priest gives automatic deference to a fellow man of the faith. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for a bard to come in and woo the priest. He probably would have a tough time getting an audience with that type of NPC.
I'm not saying there is. But the players have to choose that route. If the DM says "You are called to the High Priest, who then refuses to listen to anyone but the Paladin." then it's not the player's choice, is it?
Plus, telling that player to basically "sit back and keep your mouth shut" doesn't help the player grow as a roleplayer, and really doesn't help him play the 18 CHR paladin.
Neither does forcing them to do it. They have to choose it with some prodding. Kicking them in the ass and telling them do or die doesn't help them any more than ignoring the matter does.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the difference between THAC0 or BAB and Diplomacy. They all account for character skill. If we were going solely on player skill, then we'd have to reinact combat, at which point we'd be larping.
Here is the issue with the statement you made.
If we were larping, and instead of relying on physical skill to score hits, we stopped to roll dice to determine the outcome. It doesn't make sense to roll dice for combat results in a physical combat game.
I'll stop you right here because this is the point where you're imposing your preferred playstyle on others. D&D is not just a roleplaying game. You clearly use it to roleplay, so do I. Others use it for dungeon crawling. I'm sure a lot of groups mix both in varrying amounts that can make the game more about RP or more about combat. However people want to play is fine. If you don't want to use the social skill rules, I want absolutely no part of trying to tell you that you should. They should be in the rules though, for people who do want to use them.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Naki, the game isn't broken. Roleplaying IS the game.
Hah. That's good. I sure do like roleplaying being determined by dice rolls. Some DMs require you to roll diplomacy before saying anything. Some don't even care about what you say, just the roll. Purely because those rules are in the game. Some just don't care to learn there are other aspects. Some don't have the time for it (See, basically any event, like LFR or Encounters)
[qipte]Trying to reduce everything to a mechanical equation is just turning it into a board game. It is extremely relevant what he does in his game because every game is different.
Except it's not. The game cannot account for what everyone does in their personal game. By that very logic, I should demand ship sailing and ship-to-ship combat in core, because it's something I use regularly in my game. But I don't, because I know it's both niche and the support for it would be relatively small. If it attempts to cater to your personal set of houserules, as well as each other group's set, then the rules bloat will be enormous. This forum is for the RAW interpretation. For those people who don't roleplay. Ugh. I need to proofread. That is definitely not what I meant. Rather, for people who want to ensure consistent mechanics with the roleplaying aspect. As what pointed out. I roleplay my attacks, and my actions, but not my talking when dice get involved. Yawn. That's all kinds of wrong. There's a forum for the roleplay aspect of the game. If the social aspect of the game doesn't work on both the roleplay spectrum and the mechanical spectrum, then why bother making it a pillar at all?
Also, the argument that player ability vs. character ability is fallacious. You don't want you sub-intelligent PC to act like Sloth from the goonies, and "wise" PC's make unwise decisions all the time based upon player input. So player ability is highly impactful on the game, irregardless of the PC's ability score.
No, it isn't. You spout "Well, roleplaying is the game!" Then, if that's the case, shouldn't then the game should strive to make it clear that player ability isn't important, and make it clearer that character ability is not a bunch of numbers you can abstract and ignore if you want. I'm afraid you don't get it both ways. You cannot say 'Well, the Paladin should be better in this situation because he's a paladin, and the bard can stuff himself, despite devoting himself to socialization and learning not to step on toes.', and then turn around and go "Meh, the Fighter has 8 int, but can solve this highly complex puzzle that he could never realistically solve, but the player can." You either apply these rules consistently or not at all. I'm all for more roleplaying, but not in ways that are intended to punish and marginalize players.
[Someone doesn't like to roleplay a situation? OMG! why is he/she playing a ROLEPLAYING game? Sometimes people lose the forest for the trees. Everytime someone somewhere disagreed with a DM ruling, all of the sudden there has to be mechanical equations for all in game actions. What a boring dry game.
Oh, I'm sorry, is everyone in your group a professional actor or public speaker? If so, I can imagine that they never have problem with having such scenes pushed on them. But not everyone is like that. Some people are meek and timid, and play certain archetypes to avoid that. If you let that player roll up a 10CHA paladin, and never told them you would then force the player into situations that would make them uncomfortable, then penalize the party because of it, you're a douchebag. Pure and simple. That doesn't facilitate roleplaying, and is basically akin to bullying. The player isn't going to contribute in any meaningful way, and you're likely to get them to do the opposite. If the player feels comfortable with doing so, okay. Cool. But that's all about knowing your group.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM playing the situation that the priest gives automatic deference to a fellow man of the faith. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for a bard to come in and woo the priest. He probably would have a tough time getting an audience with that type of NPC.
I'm not saying there is. But the players have to choose that route. If the DM says "You are called to the High Priest, who then refuses to listen to anyone but the Paladin." then it's not the player's choice, is it?
Plus, telling that player to basically "sit back and keep your mouth shut" doesn't help the player grow as a roleplayer, and really doesn't help him play the 18 CHR paladin.
Neither does forcing them to do it. They have to choose it with some prodding. Kicking them in the ass and telling them do or die doesn't help them any more than ignoring the matter does.
There is a difference in not wanting to roleplay and just sucking at it. I don't penalize people in a game because they personally suck at talking. The stuttering adhd guy in my game, if he wants to play a bard or in shadowrun terms the face of the party good for him, I don't penalize him for it and claim it is because he isn't roleplaying it correctly or whatever.
There is a reason D&D has a Dungeon Master and not a co-processor. DMs can listen to the ADHD stuttering player and adjust their judgement of how the character succeeds at the diplomacy. I have a stutterer in my game (although I don't know if he is ADHD or not), and he still rarely rolls his social skills, unless he is unsuccessful at role-playing first.
Your response is common among gamist, mechanics focused individuals. You can't understand how to imagine what your ADHD stutterer sounds like as his character so you rely on the crutch of a mechanic and a die roll rather than engaging in imagination and role-play.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
Hah. That's good. I sure do like roleplaying being determined by dice rolls. Some DMs require you to roll diplomacy before saying anything. Some don't even care about what you say, just the roll. Purely because those rules are in the game.
Which is the best argument yet to remove them entirely from the game.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
The first 2 questions: short answer: we haven't decided that yet. Fine! it still gave me an idea of where they're headed.
Third question: I've never, never, ever, in all my years of playing Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, felt pinched about splitting my abilities among combat and anything else. The pinch comes when you haven't thought about how you were spending your effort (like scattering your 3e skill points all over the place and not being particularly good at anything).
But not everything seems to work like spreading skill points: most 3e Feats were combat-related or relevant regardless of whether you were fighting or not. Even in 4e, most resources could only be spent on combat (A/E/D Powers and Feats) or non (Skills). Utility was the only thing splitable, and if you were a Fighter it was combat anyway. In the few places they are not divided, there don't seem to be enough "non-combat" options to compromise combat effectiveness.
On roll-play: I understand some DMs roll the result and then ask the player to roleplay the result. I suppose the result of their role-play has role-play effects. In any case, I may use CHA/skill as +/- leeway for a role-play situation. A slightly different way: if they roll bad, DM fabricates a slip they had, and the player must role-play a cover for it. If they roll well, a hint is dropped.
On skills that can be role-played: my group dropped all skills in favor of straight ability scores with a background proficiency (ie animal training, herbology, etc).
