What players should do, is challenge the rogue if they think he's lying. Just like in real life you can read his response, his body language, whether or not his face turns read, and make a real sense motive check. This is by far a much richer role play experience and the rogue won't feel cheated by some BS die roll. You have fun trying to find out the rogue, and if the rogue is good, he enjoys trying to convince you otherwise. Die rolling ruins what can be a very fun role playing experience.
Sure, if you're a really good poker player.
However, if you're someone who couldn't 'lie their way out of a paper bag' and you want to play a sneaky, mischievious and dishonest thief, you're out of luck. This is a roleplaying game, where the idea is you can adopt roles that you don't normally.
Dice help mitigate weaknesses a person has. I don't expect my bards to sing well so why should I expect my thieves to lie well?
As an aside, I do understand your point. I'm very good at convincing people to do what I want and it's frustrating when my diplomacy roll does not match my brilliant speech. You just have to learn to roll with the punches is all.
However, if you're someone who couldn't 'lie their way out of a paper bag' and you want to play a sneaky, mischievious and dishonest thief, you're out of luck. This is a roleplaying game, where the idea is you can adopt roles that you don't normally.
Dice help mitigate weaknesses a person has. I don't expect my bards to sing well so why should I expect my thieves to lie well?
As an aside, I do understand your point. I'm very good at convincing people to do what I want and it's frustrating when my diplomacy roll does not match my brilliant speech. You just have to learn to roll with the punches is all.
And I think that's BS too. I feel for you. If you were in my game, you wouldn't even need a diplomacy check if your roleplay was convincing. As for the player who can't lie well, then I'm sorry, in my game your character is as bad a liar as you are. It's part of the challenge.
I hate to get all, 'Kids these days!' but seriously, kids these days. In older editions many of the checks that exist now, didn't. And you had to role play your way through a lie or an inspiring speech. Now, for every kid who has cut their teeth on 3rd, they just want to reach for the die when they run into this kind of situation because that's all they know from the books. The role play is hurt, and dearly, when interparty social interactions are allowed to be resolved through die rolls.
What's more memorable, the whopper the rogue's player told the fighter to get out of trouble after trying to rob him while he slept, or the 20 bluff check he threw while the fighter threw a 12 on his sense motive? Everyone gets cheated when interparty social action is resolved through die rolls.
I hate to get all, 'Kids these days!' but seriously, kids these days. In older editions many of the checks that exist now, didn't. And you had to role play your way through a lie or an inspiring speech. Now, for every kid who has cut their teeth on 3rd, they just want to reach for the die when they run into this kind of situation because that's all they know from the books. The role play is hurt, and dearly, when interparty social interactions are allowed to be resolved through die rolls.
Ah, the good old days where the needs of the roleplayer were met and gamers in groups were assured to have the same motivations at the table. Sadly, the game has evolved to also incorporate the power-gamer and the battlefield tactician so that one specific demographic isn't the only one to get enjoyment.
Trust me, I would love all social encounters to be resolved without dice. But, most of the people at my table, including the new wallflowers, would stop showing. And you can't have a game of one.
What's more memorable, the whopper the rogue's player told the fighter to get out of trouble after trying to rob him while he slept, or the 20 bluff check he threw while the fighter threw a 12 on his sense motive? Everyone gets cheated when interparty social action is resolved through die rolls.
Or, how about that nine headed cyrohydra that the team took down through a combination of clever tactics, dirty ploys and solid teamwork? We use dice and mechanics to bring this about and, frankly, the more time you spend lying and stealing from one another the less you're spending fighting BBEGs.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that little social interactions like this should dominate the game. And I love the mechanics when it comes to fighting, fights should be resolved with die rolls. I think everything should be in balance though, and every element of game play has the opportunity to be engaging and memorable. So I don't see why the role play should be glossed over in a hurry via die rolls, while combat takes ages. That's all I'm saying here.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that little social interactions like this should dominate the game. And I love the mechanics when it comes to fighting, fights should be resolved with die rolls. I think everything should be in balance though, and every element of game play has the opportunity to be engaging and memorable. So I don't see why the role play should be glossed over in a hurry via die rolls, while combat takes ages. That's all I'm saying here.
True, but you also don't think that someone who is bad at social skills be allowed to play a social build because you don't want to dice that aspect. The problem with that is, during the RP elements, these people just clam up and wait bored until you get into the fights.
Worse, there are some people who just skip RP altogether because they just want to toss some dice.
It sucks, but alas, that's the breaks.
But it's not that you can't still "pull a fast one" on the fighter. Let's see, he only gets 2 skill points a level up, plus Int (which is likely low) so he's doubtedly putting those in Sense Motive. A Rogue has a boat load more skill points and is pumping their Bluff. On an average dice roll, the rogue will be pulling a fast one on the fighter quite easily.
But it's not that you can't still "pull a fast one" on the fighter. Let's see, he only gets 2 skill points a level up, plus Int (which is likely low) so he's doubtedly putting those in Sense Motive. A Rogue has a boat load more skill points and is pumping their Bluff. On an average dice roll, the rogue will be pulling a fast one on the fighter quite easily.
By level 10 or earlier, the fighter will never be able to tell when the rogue is lying and will believe even the most outlandish of lies based on the dice result. I just never see any good coming from this I guess. Also, none of my players are mousey little wall flowers either so I've never had to press them to role play.
In terms of rolling versus speaking, character versus player, I think there are times for both.
For example, I myself as a player probably have a Cha of 12 max, if not lower. I don't have a charming "fill-the-room" personality. My lies are quickly discovered at times. I as a player probably have zero ranks in bluff for a bluff skill check of about +1 (or less). Similarly I am not good at talking and if I was actually using my real words as the character's words talking to a king or lord or captor, I might be killed for breach of etiquette or at least fail at communicating and convincing. As such, in a role-play only situation, I can only really play characters who cannot do those things either. And heaven help me if I have to DM and roleplay an NPC lord. The only way I can back up my characters skill and prowess is with dice rolls and modifiers. Especially true if you have a pro bluffer character. No mortal human has a Cha of 24 and few have 20 ranks in bluff.
When in a situation where I would doubt the words coming out of the rogue's mouth, there is often RPing indicating I am doubtful. However, the dice rolls even out the situation.
And having a die roll situation is almost needed because there is no way a DM and a player can be 100 percent sneaky. Even a DM passing a note is going to make other players wonder what is the note about when the rogue is in the hidden alcove.
By level 10 or earlier, the fighter will never be able to tell when the rogue is lying and will believe even the most outlandish of lies based on the dice result. I just never see any good coming from this I guess. Also, none of my players are mousey little wall flowers either so I've never had to press them to role play.
Currently, I'm with two. One is new to the game, so is just quiet because she doesn't know what to do. The other one... has his reasons for being quiet.
When it came time to gather information and I wasn't around, our DM tried to get the first to roleplay the encounter... it was a little painful. She got flustered and upset because she didn't know what to ask. On the flip side, I've convinced gods to give us artifacts well beyond what appropriate for our party at the time.
Course, not everything is dice rolled in our group. Just inter-party problems as it's the only impartial method.
Some people have a bit of trouble understanding the difference between in-game and real-life.
Yes, which is another reason I am fairly discriminating in my gaming circles. I've taken plenty of nastier-than-usual hits in game from a fellow PC/player as well as parceled them out, only to find myself smoking & joking w/ them later in a non-game venue. It's in the delivery, intent, and one's prowess at dramatic improvisation, the meat and potatos of good gaming. There is no ego injected at my game table if it can be helped.
Dmg Control: I've (like to think I do :confused got the 1,000 yrd stare as a DM and/or socialite over the years and can see a personal sleight, perceived or otherwise, way the Hell out in/out of game in advance. I usually let it play out if I know there will be no bad blood and the players are mature, to which, mine are (I do not suffer fools or inflict them on my like-minded players [my friends). My loyalties are as a friend 1st, not DM. On the otherhand, if I smell a rat, know it's gonna' compromise the evening's entertainment, I'll take measures, discretely, at first, so as not to embarrass any parties and maintain impartiality. If they wish to press the matter and it's revealed as a personal matter, then I handle it in a personal fashion; I'd rather not go into it as there are some things I'm not proud of in this capacity.
..but little things like palming a couple coins before the party's treasure gets tallied gets taken personally.
They can, but if you groom your players properly, differentiate between in and out of game, I don't see the issue. Not all of us have this luxury though to which I sympathize. More often that not, when these things surface, nothing has really come of it in my past XP's gaming. Hell, I've done it myself as character concept, not player concept, made it a likely and actionable transgression. That should be the motive, not simply $ for $'s sake. But, I do not endorse it from a professional approach. I have bigger aspirations. That is to say, I do not like to play rogues as petty thieves that take stupid chances. And robbing the ppl that protect you/support your otherwise questionable (para)illegal designs is in bad form if not incompetant (IMO anyway).
Anyone seen "Heat"? Consider DeNiro's speach about risk vs. gain.
What you're calling stealing from the party I call funding the adventure.
I never drew that comparison. Please do not infer that I did. The action is theft, this much is true, the motivation on the other hand, may very well be as you've described. Depends entirely on the PC/player. This is not to say I would forbid it. I rarely forbid anything as a DM, much less evil PCs. It's simply, "How smart are you?" is the big question. Is there a smarter alternative? Rogue's are all about the independent variable (usually).
A party's rogue should be trying to hone their skills that way. If they get good enough they can lift the purse off a party member...they will be very good at it by the time that skill is needed against an NPC. That lets the rest of the party act as willing participants in the training of their rogue.
That is well then, perhaps even clever. But, is he keeping the gains?
There is a world of difference between the fun-loving antics of Tasslehoff's insatiable curiosity as a kender rogue "finding" other's belongings per his racial handicap and your trusted buddy making you his guinea pig dupe. If it's implied training, I'm all for it. Money returned, strategy analyzed, knowledge gleaned, yes, your proposal is sound if you're not dicking your friends/allies/contemporaries. Rogue is a support function often enough. W/out the support, what then? You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you and keep your ill-gotten gains under the pretext of "training". Well, not from the party anyway.
Who neutralizes the poison that a trap inflicted upon you, or heals, or Ress's? Who renders you invisible to evade a potential nasty arrest/beating/etc? Who provides you a flank to better vanquish your enemy (that would otherwise kill you)?
You see where this is going, yes? Truly, a rogue's potential is untapped until an ally can augment it IMO. Flank is a textbook example for one. Skill assists, perhaps a lesser example as well. If you take w/ one hand (theft from an ally), you should get realistic to losing something in exchange for the other metaphorically speaking.
Additionally, a rogue palming a couple coins here and there gives him the coins he needs to do things a paladin wouldn't allow if he knew about it. If I need a couple coins to bribe a guard, I might not be able to get Sir Snootypants to agree to the plan. But if I've been skimming for a couple adventures, that pallydingaling might scratch his head as we sneak in past an unmanned* guard posts to confront the evil king.
This is relative. Plus "might" is a big word w/ many implications. In this isolated incident/theoretical, many a Pal would whole-heartedly agree, even sacrificing their own coin in noble fashion to spare further bloodshed/achieve a greater good. Plus, if your team can't pony up a few gold for a team goal, you've got bigger problems than a perceived moral dilemma of 1 team member.
RunCDFirst: There reasons to be dishonest with your party are almost negligable, and the few there few reasons there are will be rather extreme circumstances that don't serve as a valid defence of disruptive behaviour.
There is something to be said for a thorough debriefing of intel to party 'x' before they infiltrate castle 'y' and the Pal is baffled as to 'z'. Holding out select intel has a nasty habbit of getting good ppl killed often enough. If I'm risking my life w/ my friends, I need to know we're all on the level basically. I can deal w/, "Oh, man, I needed those sp's for ale!", not, "Oh, sh-t, where the Hell did he come from?!"
And, as for not taking the game serious, say you play paint-ball with a buddy of yours. You get along swimmingly when not playing but every time you suit up, he is as disruptive to your team as possible - shooting people in the back, calling out positions, etc. I think it would be understandable for you to be angry at him.
Funny you should say that. A friend of mine had me dead to rights at 6-8ft. You're not supposed to fire under 10ft, it's just assumed "a kill" to which I conceeded. No, despite witnesses and my embarrassing acceptance of the inevitable, he shot me in the hand. It looks like I've got this weird stigmata scar now at my ulnar process to this day (shot around '96 or so). The irony is this was my gun hand-> I recoil in pain, trigger is depressed, errant paintballs fly, one of which struck him in his junk (or inner thigh as he claims). I'd rather had taken a rnd in the nuts w/ boxers and BDUs on than another one in my bare right hand again. Still, Craig's my boy and one of my favorite gamers of all time. Minutes later, the cold beer he got me felt pretty good on that bloody appendage. The buzz helped the ego and the pain...
When a man meets a force he cannot destroy he destroys himself instead. -Marlow, "30 Days of Night"
Funny you should say that. A friend of mine had me dead to rights at 6-8ft. You're not supposed to fire under 10ft, it's just assumed "a kill" to which I conceeded. No, despite witnesses and my embarrassing acceptance of the inevitable, he shot me in the hand. It looks like I've got this weird stigmata scar now at my ulnar process to this day (shot around '96 or so). The irony is this was my gun hand-> I recoil in pain, trigger is depressed, errant paintballs fly, one of which struck him in his junk (or inner thigh as he claims). I'd rather had taken a rnd in the nuts w/ boxers and BDUs on than another one in my bare right hand again. Still, Craig's my boy and one of my favorite gamers of all time. Minutes later, the cold beer he got me felt pretty good on that bloody appendage. The buzz helped the ego and the pain...
Well, I was going for more 'spur of the moment' anger, than lasting friendship damage. After reading the other posts, I feel I may have been arguing something others were not.
I got one on the leg once (not inner but outer thigh) and near point blank shots do hurt like... well... hell. I didn't get any battle scars though :P.
got the 1,000 yrd stare as a DM and/or socialite over the years and can see a personal sleight, perceived or otherwise, way the Hell out in/out of game in advance. I usually let it play out if I know there will be no bad blood and the players are mature, to which, mine are (I do not suffer fools or inflict them on my like-minded players [my friends). My loyalties are as a friend 1st, not DM.
