How would people feel if Skill mastery started at 5. This gives rogues an 11 minimum to start. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 +1 is gained on skill mastery. So you have a minimum 16 at 20 (not counting ability increases) and 11 at level 1.
It still precludes failure on easy and medium difficulty tasks and grants no real advantage. I'd rather just say re-roll one time if you get under 10 on the die roll...
I dont have a problem precluding failure for rogues. I do, however, feel 10 to start is too much.
Having someone at the table try and talk with the king is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than having someone just state that he talked to the king and rolled X.
I think we've found the disconnect here. No one is advocating that no one be allowed to talk at the table in character.
The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are:
Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters combined with rolls to determine the outcome.
Those that want to ignore the character's ability scores and skills altogether and use play acting to determine the outcome.
Nowhere does group 1 want to preclude talking. We simply think that the outcome should be determined by the dice and stats of the character, not the player. Here is an example:
DM "You come before the sturdy looking King on his throne of obsidian carved into the likeness of a dragon with its head looming over the room. You know that it will be no easy task to convince him to allow you to enter the Skull Gate that leads to the under dark, but you also know that it is the only way to get to the Svirfneblin city of Blingdenstone."
Player "I approach the throne and kneel on one knee while bowing my head. I say 'I humbly ask the mighty King of the Dwarven city of Thorin permission to enter the Skull Gate.'"
DM "Roll a Diplomacy or Charisma check."
Player Rolls, succeeds.
DM "The King rises from his throne clearly intrigued. He runs his fingers through his beard and says 'What do ye want in the underworld that would drive ye to seek the Skull Gate?'"
Player " 'We wish to lend aid to the Deep Gnomes of Blingdenstone, they are trying to reclaim their rightful home' "
DM "Roll a another Diplomacy/Charisma check."
Player Rolls, fails.
DM "The King scowls at you. 'You must be treasure seekers, probably willing to betray the Deep Gnomes trust for a handful of gems. What reason can you give that I should allow you to use my gate? We have held the Skull Gate against the hordes of the Underdark for centuries and you want us to open it to allow some foolish adventurers to stir up the creatures that live there. After you die or leave what happens to us? We have to fend off those creatures until they give up again.' "
DM "Roll an insight check."
Player Rolls, succeeds.
DM "You realize the King is fearful of what will happen if you fail and he is suspicious of whether you will complete the task or not."
Player " 'Oh mighty King of the Dwarves, we have slain the Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Ogres that lived in the Caves of Chaos, we are mighty warriors, clever scouts, devout holy people, and knowledgeable magicians, we will succeed where others have failed.' "
DM "Roll another check."
Player Rolls and succeeds.
DM "The King waves his hand at the guards and says 'Let the fools through the gate, mayhap they will do some good where others have failed.' "
So you see dice can be used in conjunction with play acting, its not an either/or choice...
I have never understood why it is that rolling is perfectly a-ok for combat and physical skills, which a player rarely if ever comes close to being able to approximate (but can describe brilliantly, often enough), yet it is anathema or some sort of affront to give the same weight mechanically to non-physical skills.
Really? You don't understand why its ok to roll for something you can't do but can describe, but it's better to actually do the things you can do rather than roll? I'm not really sure what else to say.
Well since you can't emulate an 18+ Charisma unless you are some kind of accomplished negotiator, movie star, or some other super charismatic person, then we don't understand how you can do that either. Since you can't emulate a high Charisma character in a social situation and you can't emulate a high Strength character in combat, that's what the dice are for...
So...can you tell me, because I'm genuinely curious: Why is it that roleplaying out combat, even when describing your actions in detail, still acceptably boils down to rolling, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then, yet roleplaying out non-combat, describing your actions and statements in detail, should not boil down to rolls, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then?
Because you don't describe your actions and statements in detail--you make your statements. It's the difference between describing a punch and throwing a punch. Your actual real punch won't be like Bruce Lee's, but it's still a punch at all and it's more interesting than describing it. In the same way, actually saying something is more interesting than describing what you say.
You, as a player, are likely to be about as competent regarding diplomacy as you are combat. Your character, on the other hand, is leagues beyond you, the player, in combat and/or diplomacy and/or underworld connections, etc, etc, etc. So why does it leave a bad taste in some people's mouth to simulate via mechanics what your character can do in social situations, that you the player simply can't?
You also have to realize that while you are not a diplomat, your GM is not a king, either, so your discussion with him can still approximate. It's like reducing both sides of an equation by the same amount--everything is lesser, but it still has the same result. And it's still significantly more interesting just rolling a d20 and saying the negotiations went well.
It won't approximate if you are an above average talker and your DM is not all that clever when it comes to social situations. That simply means you are going to succeed most of the time. The same is true if the roles are reversed. If the DM is a good talker and you are not, then you will fail most of the time. None of that reflects the characters you or the DM are trying to portray...
Having someone at the table try and talk with the king is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than having someone just state that he talked to the king and rolled X.
I think we've found the disconnect here. No one is advocating that no one be allowed to talk at the table in character.
The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are:
Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters combined with rolls to determine the outcome.
Those that want to ignore the character's ability scores and skills altogether and use play acting to determine the outcome.
Nowhere does group 1 want to preclude talking. We simply think that the outcome should be determined by the dice and stats of the character, not the player. Here is an example:
*example snipped*
lokiare has the right of it, precisely. I can describe in great detail some amazing combat scenes, too. I've also actually engaged in a significant amount of such combat, wearing full armor, wielding real weapons, etc (I've also been roleplaying for 32 years, and I still have no clue why the amount of time one has been roleplaying matters one iota; I've known some amazing roleplayers less than half the age I've been roleplaying, who are total newbies, and people playing longer than I have who are simply miserable at actually roleplaying anything out).
No matter how amazing the maneuvers, no matter how cinematic a description, no matter how much fun is being had by all at the table listening to the amazing back and forth some people describe in combat, it will (and should) still require a roll to see if what is being described actually succeeds. The same should apply to other situations where your character interacts.
So...can you tell me, because I'm genuinely curious: Why is it that roleplaying out combat, even when describing your actions in detail, still acceptably boils down to rolling, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then, yet roleplaying out non-combat, describing your actions and statements in detail, should not boil down to rolls, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then?
Because you don't describe your actions and statements in detail--you make your statements. It's the difference between describing a punch and throwing a punch. Your actual real punch won't be like Bruce Lee's, but it's still a punch at all and it's more interesting than describing it. In the same way, actually saying something is more interesting than describing what you say.
See above this is a false dichotomy fallacy.
Moreover, that's YOUR opinion. To YOU actually talking it out and trying to approximating diplomatic is more interesting than describing it. Yet...many, many players over the years who aren't good at speaking in such a manner do in fact roughly lay out what they'd like to say in synopse form, as oppose to actually attempting to speak it out, in an informal, semi-out-of-character manner.
YOUR way of roleplaying isn't the only way, nor in my experience is it even the norm. Is it common? Sure. Yet even amongst very experienced roleplayers with above average skill at speaking publicly, or diplomatically, with full-blown accents and mannerisms, it often happens that they'll just give a brief description of what their character will say, instead of playacting it out. Happens all the time. Somehow, we all still manage to have a ton of fun, too.
Again, lokiare is quite right, and this is a total false dichotomy, and a severe disconnect.
You, as a player, are likely to be about as competent regarding diplomacy as you are combat. Your character, on the other hand, is leagues beyond you, the player, in combat and/or diplomacy and/or underworld connections, etc, etc, etc. So why does it leave a bad taste in some people's mouth to simulate via mechanics what your character can do in social situations, that you the player simply can't?
You also have to realize that while you are not a diplomat, your GM is not a king, either, so your discussion with him can still approximate. It's like reducing both sides of an equation by the same amount--everything is lesser, but it still has the same result. And it's still significantly more interesting just rolling a d20 and saying the negotiations went well.
It won't approximate if you are an above average talker and your DM is not all that clever when it comes to social situations. That simply means you are going to succeed most of the time. The same is true if the roles are reversed. If the DM is a good talker and you are not, then you will fail most of the time. None of that reflects the characters you or the DM are trying to portray...
I must also agree with lokiare regarding this, as well. A player who is a much better speaker, much more charismatic and convincing, or just a savvy liar, ad-libber and BS artist will run roughshod over the other characters, the DM, and the campaign in general if this is the metric being used. He could play a character with no training in anything social, with terrible social skills, and yet talk his way into or out of far, far, far more than his character could ever hope to.
Once again, your example of not rolling a d20 and playing it out is significantly more interesting to YOU. Which is wonderful. Nevertheless, for a sizeable chunk of players, the rules need some significant codification so they can successfully play the character they want to play, and have reasonable expectations of how it will perform within the game world relative to the other characters in the game world. As opposed to relying on the skills of the players themselves in simulating a character they may very well be horrifically bad at actually simulating.
You can ignore the rules designed to help those players to your heart's content. However, those players will have a vastly harder time doing the reverse; trying to make rulings on the fly to see if their characters succeed in a social situation said characters are brilliant at, but the players are not.
Yeah, you need to actually read my post on the matter. I explicitly said you could do the 'talk it out' approach without rolling any dice.
Well, I never said no dice--I said roll the dice once at the end if the outcome is in doubtful.
That's probably a better way for me to explain it--the outcome of a fight is almost always in doubt (and if I really felt like it wasn't, I would roll for that, either), but the outcome of social situations are not so doubtful.
The example I use frequently when discussing this issue in regards to other games is that of the indomitable willed mook. Let's say we're playing a modern roleplaying game. PC1 is in an argument with a mafia thug and pulls a gun on the goon. Is the thug afraid? The rules of almost every game would call for some kind of intimidation roll, possibly with a bonus for having a gun pulled. I, however, find that absurd. A gun is a gun, and people are afraid of guns. Unless he knows you're bluffing (say, you have a history of bluffing or he knows you're a pacifist or something), he's going to be scared of a gun, and it shouldn't matter how intimidating you are because you have a gun.
So, in that situation, the thug should just be scared automatically, no roll required.
On the other hand, if you had no gun and just made some kind of threat, you have to roll, because telling someone you'll murder their family with a shaky voice or something isn't going to be convincing.
That same thing can apply to all sorts of social situations--if you're trying to ask for help from someone else, for example, and you, the PC, makes a cogent and convincing point about why the NPC should help, then he ought to help automatically. If your request is only "ok," or you don't feel like coming up with a real answer or something, then you roll.
But this stuff generally doesn't apply to physical stuff--the outcome of physical challenges are more in doubt. I'm not saying it's never a sure thing, though (for example, if (again, in a modern game), you tell me you use a bump key to open a locked door, you just do it--no roll required. Little kids can work bump keys), it's just usually something riskier that needs rolls.
What I was proposing was for the people like me that think the outcome of an action should be based on the character not on the player. Your way is perfectly fine and should get a few paragraphs dedicated to it, but it doesn't really need much explanation and no matter what the rules are people like you will do the whole play acting thing and ignore the dice mechanics anyway.
Like I said above, I must not have been clear--I don't ignore dice. I just only use them if there's doubt, and I don't want focus on them, which is what would happen if every situation required 4 or 5 rolls to overcome.
Not exactly--I think traversing point A to Point B is boring. I think exploring and discovering stuff is cool, but it's the stuff you're finding that's interesting, not the dozen rolls you made to prove you could get there and find it.
and like play acting social situations. Nothing wrong with that. I'd be fine if my method was put into a module or had a sentence at the start saying "The method described below is optional, if you want to simplify it simply have a single skill check." That way we both get what we want.
Yeah, ok, that's fine. I'm not really after denying anyone else their playstyle--I just don't want my style to be ignored and relegated to "yeah, you'll do what you want anyway, so we don't need to worry about you in the rules." I want my style showcased right besides others because I want more people to try it and see for themselves how they like it.
Just go to the Rogue. The gist is that their skill tricks duplicate spell effects, but do so in mundane ways justified by good descriptions and special equipment. You can effectively Charm Person someone by being so awesome at Diplomacy, effectively Animate Rope by being so good at Sleight of Hand, or effectively Glitterdust by having the right alchemical powders, etc.
The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are:
Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters combined with rolls to determine the outcome.
Those that want to ignore the character's ability scores and skills altogether and use play acting to determine the outcome.
No, but I see that is a very common way of your side viewing mine. I don't want to ignore ability scores and skills at all. I want the character's actions to determine the outcome. Yes, the player is talking, but they are talking as their character, so it is the character's argument. And yeah, we'll definitely rag on the guy who is making a MENSA argument with his 8 Intelligence Barbarian, but those are the perfect times for when rolls are appropriate. If the argument or whatever is wildly out of whack with what the character should be capable of, the outcome is in doubt--time for a roll. If it's not, and it's a good argument, there shouldn't be doubt.
Nowhere does group 1 want to preclude talking. We simply think that the outcome should be determined by the dice and stats of the character, not the player. Here is an example:
That looks pretty much like what my game would look like with a few differences:
1) I don't think this situation would call for a Diplomacy roll--the PC's argument was good--it should work. 2) I would be fine with the Insight check, but I would never prompt the player for one--they'd ask me if they can figure out what's making the king hesitant. 3) None of us would say "I say" or "he says," we'd just say it. We are definitely immersive.
Well since you can't emulate an 18+ Charisma unless you are some kind of accomplished negotiator, movie star, or some other super charismatic person, then we don't understand how you can do that either. Since you can't emulate a high Charisma character in a social situation and you can't emulate a high Strength character in combat, that's what the dice are for...
You're moving goalposts here. I never said you could emulate an 18 Charisma character--I said you could have a conversation at all. You can't emulate any Strength character at the table, be it 1 or 18, becaue you cannot do anything physically at the table. There is a huge difference here--I'm saying talk at all, and you're insisting that talking at all doesn't count because it's not good enough talking. I don't think the quality of the talking is as important as the existence of it, though.
Moreover, that's YOUR opinion. To YOU actually talking it out and trying to approximating diplomatic is more interesting than describing it. Yet...many, many players over the years who aren't good at speaking in such a manner do in fact roughly lay out what they'd like to say in synopse form, as oppose to actually attempting to speak it out, in an informal, semi-out-of-character manner.
To be blunt, I have no interest in roleplaying with those people. They can and should roleplay, and that's cool, just not with me because they'd just drive me nuts.
In my experience, when someone is so bad at social situations that they can't even have a conversation in character, they're going to be bad at describing social situations as well, so they'll just be a drag all around if they don't stay out of the "interaction pillar" to use the Next terminology.
But like I said, if both options get equal billing, that's cool. I just want to make sure both ways get print space, and not just your way.
YOUR way of roleplaying isn't the only way, nor in my experience is it even the norm. Is it common? Sure. Yet even amongst very experienced roleplayers with above average skill at speaking publicly, or diplomatically, with full-blown accents and mannerisms, it often happens that they'll just give a brief description of what their character will say, instead of playacting it out. Happens all the time. Somehow, we all still manage to have a ton of fun, too.
I've honestly not seen that much. I have seen it, yes, and those players bug the crap out of me, but they're so rare, it's not been a huge issue. They're fine people, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather play board, card, or video games with them than roleplaying games.
I must also agree with lokiare regarding this, as well. A player who is a much better speaker, much more charismatic and convincing, or just a savvy liar, ad-libber and BS artist will run roughshod over the other characters, the DM, and the campaign in general if this is the metric being used.
And a player who is good with math, numbers, and rules will run roughshod over the other characters, DM, and campaign in general because their characters will be more optimally made. So what? I don't have a problem with any of that at all. If you're good at a game, you'll do better at it. Do you think the rules of Poker should be rewritten to even the playing field between good bluffers and bad bluffers? Should say, Soul Caliber 3 be remade into a turn based game so that players with slower reflexes and poor hand-eye coordination can match the experts?
He could play a character with no training in anything social, with terrible social skills, and yet talk his way into or out of far, far, far more than his character could ever hope to.
No, because his words would not be believable, so if he acted wildly out of character like that, he'd have to roll. But at the same time, even the most ineloquent slob can make a logical argument.
Personally I am a fan of rolling first and then roleplaying the outcome to the best of your ability. You have an 8 charisma, no social skills and rolled a 5, roleplay that. Don't go all flowery awesome on us just because you can.
But I am not a snob about who I play with an accept people of all skill levels in social arenas.
To butcher Lokiare's example if you roll bad.
"I approach the throne, noticing the kings daughter my eyes stray toward her. Wishing her bodice was cut a bit lower, I give her a quick wink. After a quick bow to the king. I say 'I ask the King of the Dwarven city of Thorin to um give us permission to enter the Skull Gate.'"
On the other hand one of my players has some adhd issues and it might be something more like this on a good roll. "I approach the throne and say um, yeah, you should um, you know, let us go in the skull gate, we will kill things on the other side, you know. That is what we want, it would be like good for you." Add some stuttering in that sentence and you might get close to how it would sound. Without a really awesome DM in a mostly role play with slight rolling how would he fair? I'm guessing not very well, and he is still a great guy who I want to game with.
Yet...many, many players over the years who aren't good at speaking in such a manner do in fact roughly lay out what they'd like to say in synopse form, as oppose to actually attempting to speak it out, in an informal, semi-out-of-character manner.
Conversely my 7 year old will talk and gesture in character smooth and natural ... in ways that freak out her dad. I suspect I am going to climbing the roof when she hits teen age years.
