I am continually amazed at the vast differences in what people consider good gaming. WoTC definitely has its work cut out for them to succeed in their stated goals for Next.
That's ok in the 5E play test you are told to never roll interaction checks, just let the dialogue work, so anyone that can sweet talk the DM pretty much gets what they want where the shy person never gets anything they want... yeah great inclusive system for everyone...
Most people are capable of normal dialog without any problems.
As the DM I would try my best to encourage the shy player to role play, but if all he wanted to do was sit back and roll dice then I would start to wonder why he is even playing a role playing game. The challenge for the shy player in that case would be to make an effort and to step out of his comfort zone. If he refused to do that then I would consider him to be a very poor role player. After all, what is the point of playing a character that is great at dialog if you don't get the chance to at least make some sort of personal effort role playing that? I think the worst thing a player can do at my table is to fall back on his own default personality. There really is no excuse for that, and if the player is extremely shy, to the point that he can't even make a decent effort to role play, I might conclude that the player has some sort of mental illness.
With that said, I've seen players with low charisma characters who were naturally exceptional at dialog. Anytime a player falls back on his own personality and his own personal charisma, I warn that player of his failure to role play. That way the sweet taking player never gets what’s beyond the capability of his character.
The basic questions that all DM's should ask in this case are
1. Is the character capable of such a feat? - This might require a roll or not 2. Is the player making an effort to role play? - The amount of effort demonstrated might result in automatic failure, a bonus to the roll, or even automatic success.
You really do need to examine both a players efforts and a character's capabilities. I've seen things go wrong on either end so many times it's not funny. 3 CHA fighters channeling Winston churchill and 18 CHA bards doing nothing but roll dice. Personaly I feel that using checks more often keeps DMS from being biased and shutting down players that might otherwise throw a wrench inot thier plans.
I am continually amazed at the vast differences in what people consider good gaming. WoTC definitely has its work cut out for them to succeed in their stated goals for Next.
That's ok in the 5E play test you are told to never roll interaction checks, just let the dialogue work, so anyone that can sweet talk the DM pretty much gets what they want where the shy person never gets anything they want... yeah great inclusive system for everyone...
Most people are capable of normal dialog without any problems.
As the DM I would try my best to encourage the shy player to role play, but if all he wanted to do was sit back and roll dice then I would start to wonder why he is even playing a role playing game. The challenge for the shy player in that case would be to make an effort and to step out of his comfort zone. If he refused to do that then I would consider him to be a very poor role player. After all, what is the point of playing a character that is great at dialog if you don't get the chance to at least make some sort of personal effort role playing that? I think the worst thing a player can do at my table is to fall back on his own default personality. There really is no excuse for that, and if the player is extremely shy, to the point that he can't even make a decent effort to role play, I might conclude that the player has some sort of mental illness.
Yeah, that's a play style (called play-acting) it is not role-playing. He can put himself inside the viewpoint of his character without actually mimicking what the character is saying and their accent. It seems you would punish someone for their play style rather than allow them to have fun in their own way. Some people just do not want to play act. There should be nothing wrong with this. Auto failing someone because they choose not to play act is not inclusive and should not be a base line assumption of the rules.
The idea of playing a character that is great at dialog when you aren't is the same point as playing a hulking fighter when you are a spindly nerd. Its called escapism...
Nice one conflating not wanting to play act with being insane... that's a great fallacy there...
With that said, I've seen players with low charisma characters who were naturally exceptional at dialog. Anytime a player falls back on his own personality and his own personal charisma, I warn that player of his failure to role play. That way the sweet talking player never gets what’s beyond the capability of his character.
So you try to force them to play-act to their stats even though they may not in real life have the equivalent abilities. That's like when the fighter player says he's lifting a boulder, making him go out in your yard and pick up a similar boulder. that's really not a fun game...
The basic questions that all DM's should ask in this case are
1. Is the character capable of such a feat? - This might require a roll or not 2. Is the player making an effort to role play? - The amount of effort demonstrated might result in automatic failure, a bonus to the roll, or even automatic success.
The questions the DM should ask are "Is my player having fun, and if not what can I do to make it more fun?"
I am continually amazed at the vast differences in what people consider good gaming. WoTC definitely has its work cut out for them to succeed in their stated goals for Next.
That's ok in the 5E play test you are told to never roll interaction checks, just let the dialogue work, so anyone that can sweet talk the DM pretty much gets what they want where the shy person never gets anything they want... yeah great inclusive system for everyone...
Most people are capable of normal dialog without any problems.
As the DM I would try my best to encourage the shy player to role play, but if all he wanted to do was sit back and roll dice then I would start to wonder why he is even playing a role playing game. The challenge for the shy player in that case would be to make an effort and to step out of his comfort zone. If he refused to do that then I would consider him to be a very poor role player. After all, what is the point of playing a character that is great at dialog if you don't get the chance to at least make some sort of personal effort role playing that? I think the worst thing a player can do at my table is to fall back on his own default personality. There really is no excuse for that, and if the player is extremely shy, to the point that he can't even make a decent effort to role play, I might conclude that the player has some sort of mental illness.
Yeah, that's a play style (called play-acting) it is not role-playing. He can put himself inside the viewpoint of his character without actually mimicking what the character is saying and their accent. It seems you would punish someone for their play style rather than allow them to have fun in their own way. Some people just do not want to play act. There should be nothing wrong with this. Auto failing someone because they choose not to play act is not inclusive and should not be a base line assumption of the rules.
No, that's role playing. You're just trying to change the definition of role playing to play acting which is very different. At no point did I say that I was forcing the player to play-act and mimick exactly what the character is saying with an accent. The player can speak in his normal every day voice, but if he makes no attempt to even engage in the dialog at any level and only resorts to rolling dice alone then I will auto fail him for a lack of effort. Let me make that clear, I do auto fail players for their lack of effort.
If I tell the group that the dwarf is really angry at the elven leaders at the war council, the player with the bard won't get away with simply rolling a diploamcy check across the table. In fact, my response will most likely be, "ok... the war council gives the bard an odd look as he rolls a die across the floor...."
The idea of playing a character that is great at dialog when you aren't is the same point as playing a hulking fighter when you are a spindly nerd. Its called escapism...
Nice one conflating not wanting to play act with being insane... that's a great fallacy there...
No, making an effort to engage in a dialog is something that everyone can do unless they are suffering from a mental disability like social anxiety disorder. Of course, if that was the case I would seriously help that player through the process.
When role playing you are making an effort to think and act the way you think your character should act. Much of those choices come from the personality that you have developed for your character. In addition, the choices your character makes should, to some degree, be based on your character's stats, which simply provide a guidline for your role playing.
Physical attributes should also be role played as they provide your character with in game options and restrictions. For example, if your character is a skiny wealking, he isn't going to run around trying to bash down all the doors in the dungeon. He won't try and bend the gates if he's likely to fail. He won't try to jump across the spiked pit if he has a 5 dex, well not unless he also has a low widsom. etc...
Again, this is not play-acting. You are simply trying to rationalize your characters actions with his personality and make in game choices based on that.
Moral choices (like massacring all the goblin childern) in game are handled the same way. You don't ever roll dice when the DM asks you to make a moral choice on behalf of your character. You must role play, and in order to do that you must consider how your character would view the situation at hand, which might be different than what you as a player would do.
With that said, I've seen players with low charisma characters who were naturally exceptional at dialog. Anytime a player falls back on his own personality and his own personal charisma, I warn that player of his failure to role play. That way the sweet talking player never gets what’s beyond the capability of his character.
So you try to force them to play-act to their stats even though they may not in real life have the equivalent abilities. That's like when the fighter player says he's lifting a boulder, making him go out in your yard and pick up a similar boulder. that's really not a fun game...
The basic questions that all DM's should ask in this case are
1. Is the character capable of such a feat? - This might require a roll or not 2. Is the player making an effort to role play? - The amount of effort demonstrated might result in automatic failure, a bonus to the roll, or even automatic success.
The questions the DM should ask are "Is my player having fun, and if not what can I do to make it more fun?"
And your solution to having fun is just to roll for awesomeness? That's a fine way to play, but just remember that when you do that you're not role playing.
I am continually amazed at the vast differences in what people consider good gaming. WoTC definitely has its work cut out for them to succeed in their stated goals for Next.
That's ok in the 5E play test you are told to never roll interaction checks, just let the dialogue work, so anyone that can sweet talk the DM pretty much gets what they want where the shy person never gets anything they want... yeah great inclusive system for everyone...
Most people are capable of normal dialog without any problems.
As the DM I would try my best to encourage the shy player to role play, but if all he wanted to do was sit back and roll dice then I would start to wonder why he is even playing a role playing game. The challenge for the shy player in that case would be to make an effort and to step out of his comfort zone. If he refused to do that then I would consider him to be a very poor role player. After all, what is the point of playing a character that is great at dialog if you don't get the chance to at least make some sort of personal effort role playing that? I think the worst thing a player can do at my table is to fall back on his own default personality. There really is no excuse for that, and if the player is extremely shy, to the point that he can't even make a decent effort to role play, I might conclude that the player has some sort of mental illness.
Yeah, that's a play style (called play-acting) it is not role-playing. He can put himself inside the viewpoint of his character without actually mimicking what the character is saying and their accent. It seems you would punish someone for their play style rather than allow them to have fun in their own way. Some people just do not want to play act. There should be nothing wrong with this. Auto failing someone because they choose not to play act is not inclusive and should not be a base line assumption of the rules.
No, that's role playing. You're just trying to change the definition of role playing to play acting which is very different. At no point did I say that I was forcing the player to play-act and mimick exactly what the character is saying with an accent. The player can speak in his normal every day voice, but if he makes no attempt to even engage in the dialog at any level and only resorts to rolling dice alone then I will auto fail him for a lack of effort. Let me make that clear, I do auto fail players for their lack of effort.
I'm breaking the definition into manageable chunks so that we all agree on what we are talking about. In this case you meant play-acting because the person is speaking in the words of the character even though they are not modulating their voice. What if the player says something like "My character says something witty and clever to try to convince them."? That's role playing (as in explaining what the character would do). Would you punish them if that was their definition of role playing and having fun? Even if you would not all DMs would do that and 5E needs to work for those DMs too.
If I tell the group that the dwarf is really angry at the elven leaders at the war council, the player with the bard won't get away with simply rolling a diploamcy check across the table. In fact, my response will most likely be, "ok... the war council gives the bard an odd look as he rolls a die across the floor...."
That's fine for you and your play style, but what about those DMs that would play it different. 5E needs to cater to all play styles, not just your play style.
The idea of playing a character that is great at dialog when you aren't is the same point as playing a hulking fighter when you are a spindly nerd. Its called escapism...
Nice one conflating not wanting to play act with being insane... that's a great fallacy there...
No, making an effort to engage in a dialog is something that everyone can do unless they are suffering from a mental disability like social anxiety disorder. Of course, if that was the case I would seriously help that player through the process.
No actually its not. Some people who have speaking and convincing jobs (like lawyers or politicians) may want to abstract out this kind of action in the game because they want a break from real life. There is nothing saying they are insane (I think politicians are insane, but for entirely different reasons). Even if you some how justify it, other DMs and players might want to play differently, under 5E how it is now they cannot do that.
When role playing you are making an effort to think and act the way you think your character should act. Much of those choices come from the personality that you have developed for your character. In addition, the choices your character makes should, to some degree, be based on your character's stats, which simply provide a guidline for your role playing.
Physical attributes should also be role played as they provide your character with in game options and restrictions. For example, if your character is a skiny wealking, he isn't going to run around trying to bash down all the doors in the dungeon. He won't try and bend the gates if he's likely to fail. He won't try to jump across the spiked pit if he has a 5 dex, well not unless he also has a low widsom. etc...
Again, this is not play-acting. You are simply trying to rationalize your characters actions with his personality and make in game choices based on that.
Moral choices (like massacring all the goblin childern) in game are handled the same way. You don't ever roll dice when the DM asks you to make a moral choice on behalf of your character. You must role play, and in order to do that you must consider how your character would view the situation at hand, which might be different than what you as a player would do.
That's because we don't have a moral stat that you are supposed to use as a guideline on how 'moralistic' your character is.
With that said, I've seen players with low charisma characters who were naturally exceptional at dialog. Anytime a player falls back on his own personality and his own personal charisma, I warn that player of his failure to role play. That way the sweet talking player never gets what’s beyond the capability of his character.
So you try to force them to play-act to their stats even though they may not in real life have the equivalent abilities. That's like when the fighter player says he's lifting a boulder, making him go out in your yard and pick up a similar boulder. that's really not a fun game...
The basic questions that all DM's should ask in this case are
1. Is the character capable of such a feat? - This might require a roll or not 2. Is the player making an effort to role play? - The amount of effort demonstrated might result in automatic failure, a bonus to the roll, or even automatic success.
The questions the DM should ask are "Is my player having fun, and if not what can I do to make it more fun?"
And your solution to having fun is just to roll for awesomeness? That's a fine way to play, but just remember that when you do that you're not role playing.
You roll, then role play the result. This is a valid style of playing. Yours is also valid. What isn't valid is 5E claiming its for everyone but leaving out my style of play (which by the way is wide spread)...
Doesn't matter how smooth you are the motivations of many creatures aren't going to change from eat you to hand over all the gold and send you on your way.
Except....thats exactly how Diplomancy works in 3.x. Even in your example of the LG king, the Diplomancer just makes an easy DC 20 diplomacy check, and the King decides to "take risks to help you" and let the PCs stay out of jail.
This here.
I didn't bring up Lolths knickers for nothing here, as this is exactly how the system works. Want to enjoy a nice evening with Asmodeus? Diplomance him into being allies. I think level 7 or 8 is sufficient. I know this is (very little hypoerbole, but that's exactly what you get when you produce crappy rules).
As for seeing a solution to this - the most common solution I've seen actually came from the Giant In The Playground forums, I think from Burlew himself? It was essentially a sliding scale DC that finally took into account whom you were trying to diplomance and what his own reasons were.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs.
Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!
I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
I think the whole don't call it a skill challenge to the players bit would have been excellent advise to put in the DMG.
I think you're patronising your players a bit if you're asking them to make 4-6 rolls in a row and thinking that they'll be ok with it because you didn't call it a skill challenge.
It's not a matter of them being ok with skill challenges because you are hiding the terminology. There are several people who said that they didn't mind skill challenges but that the announcement that they were entering one disrupted their immersion.
I've never understood the point of skill challenges. It just feels like a way for DMs to make things easier for themselves but to me it just feels like your putting non-combat situations on wheels.
The point of skill challenges was to create a framework for skills to be used in a challenging way, and then to reward overcoming that challenge by giving xp and/or treasure. While you could use skills in a challenging way before the introduction of skill challenges, there was no guide for what DCs actually constitute "challenging," "a cake walk," or "overwhelming odds." There was also no guide for an appropriate level of xp and/or treasure to award, mostly, again, because the challenge level for using skills to overcome obstacles was undefined. That is the point of skill challenges.
Why not just roll to climb the wall, then jump across the roof, then sprint hard after a bad guy using the appropriate skill on the appropriate action with a DC relevant to the action being attempted. It's much more immersive that saying "Yeah, you catch him if you roll 4 15s before you fail 2 rolls".
That is a skill challenge. Roll a skill check to climb, roll a skill check to jump, roll an endurance check to run the bad guy down. The only difference between what you describe and a skill challenge is that your method forces the skill checks to be resolved in a specific order and that the challenge must evolve beyond the three checks you described after the first failed check.
Sure you can dress it up to make it not feel as much like a skill challenge but if you're going to go this far to fool your players why not go the extra step and just make each individual check relevant?
You mean the way colorful descriptions are used to make combat feel like more than just recording randomly rolled numbers? You see, there are two elements to the skill challenge. The first is the in-game experience of roleplaying, attempting things, and dealing with the results. This experience is the same for both skill challenges and what you described. The second is the mechanical aspect of rolling dice against DCs, and tabulating successes and failures. In your example, you still have to roll dice against DCs, and you still have to succeed at a number of skill checks. The primary difference is that you don't predetermine the number of successful checks required, or the number of failed checks required to let the bad guy get so far away, or hide so well, that the PCs can't immediate catch up with him anymore.
Unfortunately, I think it was Monte Cook (no longer involved in 5th ED) who said "I hope skill challenges die in a fire" because they really need to.
The same Monte Cook who said that trap options to reward system mastery were a good idea in 3e? Forgive me if I don't take his every word on game design as gospel.
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?
DM "You see the Thief climb the roof and head east."
Rogue "I climb after him." Wizard "I use scry to follow where they're going." Fighter "I run along the street keeping an eye one them." Cleric I "Cast divine favor on the Rogue, then follow the Fighter."
DM "The Thief reaches the edge of the roof and jumps across to the next one. They run along it until they find a ladder which they slide down."
Rogue "I follow them, sliding down the ladder as they did." Wizard "I try to figure out where they are headed." Fighter "I sprint to keep up." Cleric "I try to catch up too."
DM "The Fighter and Cleric begin to gain on the Thief, his sliding down the ladder afforded you time to catch up. Wizard you gather that they are headed in the direction of the docks. Rogue, you are almost on top of them, but they stay just out of your reach."
Rogue "I try to throw some caltrops ahead of them." Wizard "I head to the docks to cut them off taking the most direct route." Fighter "I jump for them, trying to tackle them." Cleric "I pull my sling out and try to hit him with a sling bullet."
DM "Rogue you throw caltrops ahead of them, they step on them and slow down, unfortunately so do you. Wizard you head in the direction of the docks taking a more direct route, you reach the gate you believe they will run past to enter the docks. Fighter, you jump and tackle them, but they weasel their way out before you can get a good hold. Cleric you hit the Thief in the back with a sling bullet, it slows them down, but they continue to speed toward the docks."
Rogue "I jump the caltrops and chase after them." Wizard "I set up an ambush by casting web across the gate, and then I cast invisibility on the web." Fighter "I get up and sprint after them." Cleric "I keep chasing them."
DM "The Thief being harried by the Rogue, Fighter, and Cleric is too distracted to notice the Web and runs straight into it, trapped. Good job team you get 1400xp."
Guess what, that was a skill challenge...
What would happen if the Wizard just used Web to stop the Thief right from the start?
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome
Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012
DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
Unfortunately, I think it was Monte Cook (no longer involved in 5th ED) who said "I hope skill challenges die in a fire" because they really need to.
The same Monte Cook who said that trap options to reward system mastery were a good idea in 3e? Forgive me if I don't take his every word on game design as gospel.
Monte did say that he has changed his mind re: Ivory Tower game design, so I expect that it is possible for people to learn things from past experiences.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome
Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012
DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
Unfortunately, I think it was Monte Cook (no longer involved in 5th ED) who said "I hope skill challenges die in a fire" because they really need to.
The same Monte Cook who said that trap options to reward system mastery were a good idea in 3e? Forgive me if I don't take his every word on game design as gospel.
Monte did say that he has changed his mind re: Ivory Tower game design, so I expect that it is possible for people to learn things from past experiences.
I had suspected he might have seen the idiocy that lay at the heart of that thought module. Do you by any chance have a link to it or something? I'd be interested in reading more about his reasoning and so forth if you knew where it was.
Unfortunately, I think it was Monte Cook (no longer involved in 5th ED) who said "I hope skill challenges die in a fire" because they really need to.
The same Monte Cook who said that trap options to reward system mastery were a good idea in 3e? Forgive me if I don't take his every word on game design as gospel.
Monte did say that he has changed his mind re: Ivory Tower game design, so I expect that it is possible for people to learn things from past experiences.
It is very much possible to change one's mind. Lord knows I've done it often enough. However it also proves that he can be wrong about something very fundamental and basic about a game system. Having seen some people (not you, just for clarification) openly claim that they consider Monte the second coming of Gygax, it's an important thing to bear in mind whenever anyone trots him out like a show pony to try to prove their point.
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?
