|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 7:59AM
#41
|
|
|
I suppose some DMs just like to work with their players more, considering it...I dunno...cooperative storytelling?
Other DMs have God complexes.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 7:59AM
#42
|
|
|
I entirely agree that since D&D is supposed to be a roleplaying game, the most important thing is not how well the player can act the role, but how they can play it. That means that the 20 charisma bard (or even the 8 charisma knight with 10 ranks in diplomacy) doesn't need to actually act out the interaction with the NPC - they just have to tell me what they want to say to the NPC, or how much information they're giving, or what they want to get out of it. The same way that in a fight they need to tell me who they want to attack, how they want to attack, where they're moving to attack, etc.
For example:
The players are speaking to the sub-commander of the kingdom's military, in a kingdom where the king is insane:
NPC: What do you want?
Player: We're messengers from the border fort. They sent us to ask for more troops.
NPC: You don't look like messengers.
Player: I hand him the scroll from the fort's commander and explain their situation there.
GM: The NPC reads the scroll, then looks up at you and says: "Well, you're welcome to present it to the commander. He could send out troops. Unfortunately, he's been replaced by a cat. Good day."
Player: I try to convince him to send out the troops on his own authority. *rolls*
GM: He's not interested. How willing would you be to overreach like that if you were taking orders from a cat because your king was insane?
Player: Ok, we leave.
GM: On the way out, the secretary tells you to go see the prince.
Note that we move back and forth between actual dialog and summarized conversation. The Player has to know what he wants to say, but I really don't care how he says it. He's playing a character, not acting one. Also note the roll. I don't remember what the result was, but it wasn't extraordinarily high, which is what it would take to get this guy interested. I don't generally have fixed DCs for diplomacy, because the given fixed ones are absurdly easy to a social-focused character (using them as-written, it's quite possible for an 8th level character to turn a unfriendly character into a helpful one (assuming no penalties, and trivial to turn them friendly even with penalties) - they have a +26 (CHA mod +4, 11 ranks, circlet of persuasion +3, bluff synergy +2, sense motive synergy +2, knowledge nobility synergy +2, eagle's splendor +2), and it's only a 25 to be friendly and 40 to be helpful. With a few extra spells, this number can get even higher....
Unrelated to that example, there's a flip-side to this argument. If you expect your players to be able to act their characters (and remove all mechanics from social interaction), you need to be able to act the NPCs in response... for some people, they can do this. For others (me included), it's the hardest part of GMing. So you're setting a bar on who can GM, as well as who can play social characters...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 8:10AM
#43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 8:17AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
Oh, I dunno, the referee of the game?
Because when an orc says "my bad' in character he deserves blue-bolting.
I'll decide what's impartial, thank you. I'll also decide what's important and whether a roll or actual conversation is needed to reach the proper goal. I'll allow rolls for unimportant things, most likely, the same way I do now. If you're just a poor conversationalist, well, tough luck.
Wait a second. You say that if a player is a poor conversationalist then his character will never get his way through social encounters even with exceptional skills, and at the same time that if the same player can't figure out the sharp end of a blade his characterscan still be a "God of War" because the character's fighting stats are great?
This creates a dichotomy in the game between rule-controlled actions (combat) and DM-controlled actions (social encounters). To me the DM is a facilitator not a referee. He should play by the same rules he enforces on the players not decide results on the fly. Maybe he can do that for small issues in order to speed up the process, but important issues should always take in great consideration what the character and not the player is.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 8:28AM
#45
|
|
|
I just have some questions for the people who say that players should always roleplay their characters' mental stats. How many Int20 people do you know? I know one, and I couldn't get him into D&D. How many Int18 people do you know? I can think of two, and they don't play either. I would consider myself of above average intelligence; probably around 16, so are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to play a wizard? Most D&D players probably fall into the 12-14 range of intelligence. This isn't a problem, but when such a player wants a really smart character, there should be some rules to help him express the problem-solving capabilities that he doesn't necessarily have. Knowledge skills are already a great way to deal with this, but in social encounters oftentimes a great way to get what you want is by use of solid logic representative of a high intelligence. Even if the player isn't familiar with formal logic or has no experience in constructive argumentation, his character should be able to simulate these things.
Furthermore, as already stated, having dice rolls for roleplaying scenarios doesn't kill the persona. Some players like to say their spiel then roll. Others like to roll, then base their spiel on the result of the roll (those are the true masters of roleplaying IMO). Yet others aren't really comfortable with the acting part of D&D and prefer to just roll the dice and give an account of what they're trying to say. All of these are fine. I know I get really uncomfortable acting in a way other than myself, which is why I only tried out for one play in high school. Not everyone should have to overcome this by inventing funny voices for their characters like I do. As long as the player is having fun, leave it up to him to decide how much roleplaying he has to do instead of trying to force your ideal of "true D&D" onto him. For some people, it is a miniatures strategy game, and that's ok to a point.
Cheers
Kyle
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 8:41AM
#46
|
|
|
It's important to make a distinction between punishing players for their deficiencies and encouraging them to overcome them.
Several people in our group have become a lot less shy, and improved their acting skills significantly. The game provides a safe atmosphere, and they're rewarded for getting just a little bit better at it.
It's positive reinforcement, not punishment. It's meant to be productive.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 9:38AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2006
|
My 2 cents.
This is supposed to be a role playing game not a pseudo miniatures game with elements of role playing in it.
Actually, that's precisely what, historically, this game is.
The game was developed from skirmish rules which in turn evolved from the hero-handling rules associated with a tabletop wargame.
The roleplaying element was added to provide a raison d'etre for groups who didn't like the 'kick in the door, kill the monster, grab the treasure, go up a level' monotony of early versions of the game.
For roleplayers - of which I count myself one - the addition of a decent rules system for social encounters should prove no threat at all. We can simply ignore it, or implement it when certain situations or encounters are sufficiently minor. I like to roll for the PC's ability to bluff monsters. But I make them do it for real - apply a bonus if their excuse is any good - and then have them role using their charater's charisma as a bonus.
If they don't, won't or can't come up with decent lie, or threat or promise, I impose penalties. I'm sure the new system will allow me to do the same, whether such bonuses or penalties are written into the system or not.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 9:45AM
#48
|
|
|
Oh, I dunno, the referee of the game?
So, the character is your intellectual property, and the player has no input in how they should play it?
Because when an orc says "my bad' in character he deserves blue-bolting.
Ah, because the player can't ever play a genteel Orc? I see that your campaign must have absolutely *amazing* role-playing if people must stick to stock characters and stereotypes.
I'll decide what's impartial, thank you. I'll also decide what's important and whether a roll or actual conversation is needed to reach the proper goal. I'll allow rolls for unimportant things, most likely, the same way I do now. If you're just a poor conversationalist, well, tough luck.
But no tough luck if the player of a master swordsman is 95 lbs. and incapable going the night without knocking over something at the table? It seems like your game will be heavily tilted towards combat monsters because you reward them for their stats but only punish social characters for failing to live up to theirs.
By the way, do you also penalize players for making Knowledge checks on matters that they don't know personally? Do you penalize them on Craft checks if they don't know how to make the item in real life?
Here's a flip-side situation: What do you do when a PC fails a save against a fear effect and the player still wants to act brave?
If you punish the player for not role-playing properly or take away control of their character from them, then you're already accepting that a dice mechanic can drive the success or failure of their character in an emotional/mental situation. So then why would you only accept this when it punishes the PC?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 10:05AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
No, it isn't. It's called enforcing roleplay. It's not elitist at all.
It is elitism. Telling your players "He can play a Bard, but you can't." is extremely elitist. And that's pretty much what a DM is saying when he arbitrarily penalizes a player for not being able to handle the spotlight well. It's also hypocritical and a horrible thing to do to another person.
It's also not enforcing roleplay. It's an attempt to force a player to act. Roleplaying implies only dictating the character's actions by what the character would do in a given situation, speaking in first person is theatrical and is called method acting. Making a shy person do this is something you don't want to do, unless you really have no idea of how shy people think. And if you don't (that is, if you aren't capable of seeing beyond your own nose), you shouldn't be allowed to DM.
Also, if you adhere to that principle, you pretty much are this guy.
It's the expectation that someone has their character act as that character can be expected to act based in the character's background and personality.
An extremely unfair expectation, and elitist to boot.
EDIT: Oh, wait. If not word for word, then it's not unfair to expect that.
Shy people can do it, but the ones that actually pull it off are few and far between due to lack of RL experience.
So the shy people get arbitraily penalized by you to represent that they can do it with some effort, meaning that they have to, in their opinion, humilate themselves in front of their friends to not get a penalty to their Diplomacy check?
If that's true, I'll have to ask yourself how you can even live with yourself after attempting to ruin someone's fun because of your own unwarranted self-importance.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2008 - 10:13AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
I'll decide what's impartial, thank you. I'll also decide what's important [...].
*LOLSPLOSION!* You are the best DM EVAR!! 
|
|
|
