Community

What I've always done with my characters is I made them a part of me, so it wasn't so much acting as putting on a different face.

For example: In Iron Kingdoms (d20 steampunk setting game) I played a Bodger. Looking at the class I got excited because they're mechanics and I've always been interested in stuff like that in my real life, I also grew up quite the little tomboy. So I took that part of my personality and put it into this character and exaggerated it a bit. She was still a part of me so it wasn't so much acting for me as narrowing down a specific part of my personality.

Also I have a bard who I look at myself and basically say 'what would I be like if I was rich (she's from a noble family, beautiful and intelligent' so I just place myself into the situation that my bard is in and I become the character, I'm not acting for that short session I am her. It's a difficult thing to explain but I had to come to do it this way because I cannnot act but I can put myself into situations and build on that.

What helps me a lot too is to picture how the character looks, for some reason that visual aspect really helps me along. I also try to write outside of the game, I've always loved the written word and though it's nothing I plan to publish I sit down for a few hours and physically write out what happened to my character in the past to bring her here.

I'd like to clarify something: "roleplaying" isn't "talking." Roleplaying is:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:07AM, SwampDog wrote:

One key part of roleplaying is "Make the decisions the character would make, and not the player."   In other words, you are acting (playing the role) of someone other than you.

You, Hooded_Boy, are already a good roleplayer. How do I know?

At that point I was personally worried, but as my character would do I agreed.

That's roleplaying.

But, you still want to know how to be good at interaction. That's a fair question, and a definite concern, so I'll try to address it.

Basically, if I were you I wouldn't expect to get good at it on my own. The characters we love who are good at it, are usually in a story written for them, in which the author makes sure they come across as a smooth, subtle, in-control character. You are not that character.

But look at what that character has that you don't have: an author rooting for you. What do you have? A DM. You need to get the DM on your side, to want you to be a hero who succeeds.

Talk to your DM. Tell them about the kind of character you want to make, and that you'll do your best being that character, but that you'll have to rely on the character's skills, and in-game description. Bear in mind that the description doesn't have to come entirely from you, but can also come from others at the table who understand what you're trying to do with the character.

This can be an uphill battle. Some DMs are deadset against dice rolls doing anything more than serving as a baseline that's modified by the player's performance. Some don't like rolling for "roleplaying" at all. Some players are happy with those approaches. If you find your DM's approach makes playing certain character types difficult, you'll need to talk to your DM about meeting you halfway. You seem like you're interested in playing a character, not breaking the DM's game, but you'd just like to play a character a little closer to what you imagine.

There is a diference between RPing and Acting,  RPing is taking decisions based on the perspective from someone who isn't you and dictated under your character persona,  i will say this...it was one of the hardest things for me to learn, because of my condition....thought now i have been got used to it, and only shyness would be a barrier for me when i am on a group i don't feel confortable...hence the reason i couldn't never DM for a group i am not confortable with....as of now, i freaking love RPing & Acting NPCs.  

Acting is diferent, and it just how you convey those decisions into the game, this require alot more work and practice thought and it varies alot between people, and as a DM i should never expect my players to be very actors like (hence the reason i actually support social skill checks...it help players that are not very good actors...ofcourse they need to tell me what they want to tell to the NPC to convince him first...and the DC will change depending on what they say...but the way they say it...i will take it as a skill check, it would be very harsh for people that can't act as well to be hindered in game for that)

In one of your examples, it doesn't seem like you roleplayed poorly so much as your character made a bad decision influenced by some feminine wiles.  Nothing potentially out of character there.  If your character is supposed to read people better than you played him, consider asking the DM to make insight rolls to see 1. how trustworthy someone seems and 2. what kinds of things you could say to win them over.  If you can get the DM on board to help you figure out what kinds of things to say that can help especially in the short term until you become more comfortable making dialogue in character.

Nov 6, 2012 -- 10:37PM, The_Hooded_Boy wrote:

Hey, I play a bit of D&D but this problem can relate to any tabletop game that I play. I am pretty good at building characters, but I have found that I am horrible at roleplaying.

I have tried making social characters with great charisma and good skills to try and counteract this by utilizing the "the character is his own person and not exactly you" thing so that I could replace my bad roleplaying with some good skill checks and minor roleplaying. Thing is, I am so bad at roleplaying that even when I played those characters I could never roleplay well enough to get to the skill checks or anything and would screw many things up (I will list an example or two a little later in the post). And characters that I don't build to be social I figure won't have any problem, but they seem to always be put into social situations where I end up not being able to do anything and henceforth screwing up again.

I am a bit tired of having trouble with roleplay, screwing things up for the party, and most of all having my character developed throughout time with the party as one kind of character but then when interacting with important NPCs end up breaking character and fumbling around trying to figure out what to say.

Some examples of this follow (you don't have to read these if you don't want to):

1. Most recently I was playing a Fighter/Warblade in 3.5, and we are looking for a woman who could be dangerous for information on a big bad guy we are looking for. We recently went through some magic which is enhancing our abilities, so for the moment he didn't have bad charisma. So we found out that she was somewhere in or around a local tavern/strip club that we were familiar with. Everyone started scouting except for me and the cleric. I was hoping the cleric would be able to handle the talking with everyone since he was great with words and also had connections with the ruler of the area which everyone feared. Instead his character told my character to go out and see what I could find out while he watched over everyone to make sure there was no trouble. At that point I was personally worried, but as my character would do I agreed. With my charisma a bit higher, a character that has attracted plenty of women in his past, and a woman we are looking for I asked what woman I saw around the place other than the ones I came in with and the ones on the stage. Out of all the descriptions there was one that the DM said looked sad, I immediately thought "That's her." I sat next to her and ordered a drink. I then attempted to flirt with her to get information, but I ended up giving her the information I had. Unfortunately it was her, and now because I failed at roleplaying well she knew that we were looking for her. She said she had some information on the person we were looking for and led me outside (which I wasn't worried about splitting the party due to our current situation). She then tried to attack me swearing that no one could stop her from getting revenge on the gods. Now that magic I mentioned earlier actually turned my party temporarily into gods, so I thought she knew and was saying this because of my holy aura. So I ended up saying something, telling her that I was a god thinking she already knew, and causing even more problems for my party.
2. A little while back I played a Beguiler also in 3.5. Now that class, whether it be their skills or spells is all social. I had developed him with extremely high social skills, gained every language, and had a lot of awesome social feats that let me do a lot of nice things. It was built as a social tank, anything social that needed to be done it could do. The only problem was my personal roleplay. A few problems came up with this, but one of the simplest (since last example was so long) was that I tried talking down the price for an item for a party member. I ended up not being able to lower the price, plus the man put some extra cost for inconveniencing him. My barbarian party member was not happy. But the point is, I roleplayed with the merchant so horribly that I never got to the point of being able to make a roll to try and convince him.

I will leave it there since those examples took up some room, but if any of you could give me advice on how to improve, that would be great. Thanks. ^_^

Here is your best bet...

If you are having issues knowing what to say or do, lean on the mechanical portion of the game. Let your DM know you intend to do this because it will help you learn. Now, when you go into situations that can be resolved with a mechanical solution like rolling Bluff or Diplomacy or what-have-you, tell the DM what you are trying to achieve (What! Not How!) and simply roll and get a resolution from that roll. For instance, if you are going to be attacked by someone and don't want that to happen you can roll a Diplomacy check to try to convince them not to attack you. Let the DM know that that is your intent ("I want to try to shmooze them into not attacking us") for instance, and then roll to see if this can be done. This could also apply to lying to get past someone or whatnot as well. At that point, it's your DMs place to come up with a reasonable lie or plea or whatever to create the resolution.

There is nothing wrong with this. It also gives you the opportunity to observe how to resolve these situations.

Now, this is dependent on two things...1) that your DM allow you to use the mechanics of the game that exist to resolve in-game situations and 2) that your DM is able to reasonably come up with social solutions for his own situations.

If the DM doesn't allow #1 it's gonna suck for you...if the DM CAN'T do #2 it will also be rough for you but at that point he'd be punishing you for something he can't do either so that's a bit silly.

If you do run into #1 or #2, however, I'll recommend reading quite a bit and writing when possible. Sign up for some boards where you can do freeform roleplay in a genre that you like. Writing/acting in-character is a learned skill...it's a mind-set you're adopting...social interactions are also a learned skill...and these things have to be practiced. A forum board that does freeform roleplay is really good for this because you are under no time constraints to post. You post and write at your own pace. When you remove the pressure created by time it will give you the luxury to consider your responses and actions. As you repeat and practice this it will come to you faster, like most skills.

Hope that helps.

My best advice is to make your character real to you.  Write a background that molds and shapes her personality.  What I'd recommend is to give her goals, fears and (if your party is okay with it), sexual tastes.  Maybe she dreams of one day setting down her blade or spellbook and becoming an author.  Maybe she's terrified of kobolds (perhaps she was abducted by them at a young age)?  These are just my thoughts (with a few examples) on what may help and I apologize if I am not much help.

Here's how you get better at roleplaying:  choose a character from a TV show.  Think how that character would act in each situation and how they might grow in each situation.

In application, don't be afraid to have a belief for your character ()beyond combat that is).

Also, don't be afraid to STOP talking sometimes and let the other characters chime in.

What really works for the group is to ask the other players what they think their character would do in that situation (yes, you as a player, not always instigated by the DM).

Lastly, don't be afraid to be a dork.  Yes, sometimes talk in a funny voice (my current character is a french-sounding elf with profession barber).  Put your character in less than ideal situations becuause "that's just what he would do."  Now, mind you the "what he would do" gets old really quickly when it annoys the other players so you've got to ask them, "How is your dwarf different from you Zach?  What would his mother say about his choices?"

JH

I am in agreement with YagamiFire - Use game mechanics whenever you cannot come up with good role-playing.  As YagamiFire said, this puts the impetus on the DM to describe the results.

That being said, Whenever I am in the spotlight in game social situations, I typically ask for a moment and compose myself.  I take that time to think about what my character's motivation is (what is it he/she wants to get out of the situation), sometimes I even jot down some notes.  Once I know what I want to have happen, I just start talking to the DM like he/she's the NPC.  I speak carefully and with purpose - make believe you are giving a speech/presentation to a group.

And WHEN (it will happen) the DM responds in an unexpected way ask for another moment.  YOU being flustered does not mean your character is, and your DM should know this and grant you the opportunity to re-compose yourself.  If he/she does not...well /shrug

I also agree with Sir-Zalphon regarding creating characters like yourself...to a point.  I have seen too many players play the EXACT SAME character type over and over and over again simply because they fear trying something different.  So, I would also recommend that you make a character that is the antithesis of you - if you have fears make your character fearless, if you are normally very out-going make your character introverted, etc.  This way, you can have the same thought processes "what would I do?" but instead your character does the opposite

Nov 16, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Emirikol wrote:

Put your character in less than ideal situations becuause "that's just what he would do."  Now, mind you the "what he would do" gets old really quickly when it annoys the other players so you've got to ask them, "How is your dwarf different from you Zach?  What would his mother say about his choices?"

"It's what my character would do" can be risky. The reason it becomes annoying is because what one's character "would do" inconveniences the other players. For any given choice there's usually no one thing a given character would do, so just try to choose something that's both in-character and not at odds with the other characters.

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:17PM, DaBeerds wrote:

I am in agreement with YagamiFire - Use game mechanics whenever you cannot come up with good role-playing.  As YagamiFire said, this puts the impetus on the DM to describe the results.

That being said, Whenever I am in the spotlight in game social situations, I typically ask for a moment and compose myself.  I take that time to think about what my character's motivation is (what is it he/she wants to get out of the situation), sometimes I even jot down some notes.  Once I know what I want to have happen, I just start talking to the DM like he/she's the NPC.  I speak carefully and with purpose - make believe you are giving a speech/presentation to a group.

And WHEN (it will happen) the DM responds in an unexpected way ask for another moment.  YOU being flustered does not mean your character is, and your DM should know this and grant you the opportunity to re-compose yourself.  If he/she does not...well /shrug

I also agree with Sir-Zalphon regarding creating characters like yourself...to a point.  I have seen too many players play the EXACT SAME character type over and over and over again simply because they fear trying something different.  So, I would also recommend that you make a character that is the antithesis of you - if you have fears make your character fearless, if you are normally very out-going make your character introverted, etc.  This way, you can have the same thought processes "what would I do?" but instead your character does the opposite

I do believe there was a misunderstanding.  I mean make the character feel real--I don't mean clone yourself.  Give your character emotional flesh to their numerical bones.  Make them realistic in that they have aspirations beyond: "Slay all the monsters and get money!" 

Nov 16, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Sir-Zalphon wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:17PM, DaBeerds wrote:

I am in agreement with YagamiFire - Use game mechanics whenever you cannot come up with good role-playing.  As YagamiFire said, this puts the impetus on the DM to describe the results.

That being said, Whenever I am in the spotlight in game social situations, I typically ask for a moment and compose myself.  I take that time to think about what my character's motivation is (what is it he/she wants to get out of the situation), sometimes I even jot down some notes.  Once I know what I want to have happen, I just start talking to the DM like he/she's the NPC.  I speak carefully and with purpose - make believe you are giving a speech/presentation to a group.

And WHEN (it will happen) the DM responds in an unexpected way ask for another moment.  YOU being flustered does not mean your character is, and your DM should know this and grant you the opportunity to re-compose yourself.  If he/she does not...well /shrug

I also agree with Sir-Zalphon regarding creating characters like yourself...to a point.  I have seen too many players play the EXACT SAME character type over and over and over again simply because they fear trying something different.  So, I would also recommend that you make a character that is the antithesis of you - if you have fears make your character fearless, if you are normally very out-going make your character introverted, etc.  This way, you can have the same thought processes "what would I do?" but instead your character does the opposite

I do believe there was a misunderstanding.  I mean make the character feel real--I don't mean clone yourself.  Give your character emotional flesh to their numerical bones.  Make them realistic in that they have aspirations beyond: "Slay all the monsters and get money!" 

Another good tool for this is to give your character an interest that you yourself don't have. Then do research on it. Try to see from the characters point of view how it would be interesting. not only will you learn some stuff (wikipedia is your friend) but you give the character something outside your own comfort zone to call his own and draw on.

For example, a player in my game is currently playing a...well, let's call it a Viking-Orc who is a former privateer and sailor. Now, the player doesn't really know anything about ships because he's never been out on anything larger than a small rowboat...but he loves the Treasure Island movie with Christian Bale and so decided he wanted to play someone with that frame of reference (sailor/pirate sort). So while he's been playing, in-between games he's been reading up on the golden age of piracy and such...it's given him an always-ready touchstone with his character where he can put on his "sailor hat" and slip into his character a lot more easily. Once you start learning how to walk-the-walk (even a little) it makes talking-the-talk a lot easier because it shifts your mind-set.

Nov 17, 2012 -- 8:23AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Sir-Zalphon wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:17PM, DaBeerds wrote:

I am in agreement with YagamiFire - Use game mechanics whenever you cannot come up with good role-playing.  As YagamiFire said, this puts the impetus on the DM to describe the results.

That being said, Whenever I am in the spotlight in game social situations, I typically ask for a moment and compose myself.  I take that time to think about what my character's motivation is (what is it he/she wants to get out of the situation), sometimes I even jot down some notes.  Once I know what I want to have happen, I just start talking to the DM like he/she's the NPC.  I speak carefully and with purpose - make believe you are giving a speech/presentation to a group.

And WHEN (it will happen) the DM responds in an unexpected way ask for another moment.  YOU being flustered does not mean your character is, and your DM should know this and grant you the opportunity to re-compose yourself.  If he/she does not...well /shrug

I also agree with Sir-Zalphon regarding creating characters like yourself...to a point.  I have seen too many players play the EXACT SAME character type over and over and over again simply because they fear trying something different.  So, I would also recommend that you make a character that is the antithesis of you - if you have fears make your character fearless, if you are normally very out-going make your character introverted, etc.  This way, you can have the same thought processes "what would I do?" but instead your character does the opposite

I do believe there was a misunderstanding.  I mean make the character feel real--I don't mean clone yourself.  Give your character emotional flesh to their numerical bones.  Make them realistic in that they have aspirations beyond: "Slay all the monsters and get money!" 

Another good tool for this is to give your character an interest that you yourself don't have. Then do research on it. Try to see from the characters point of view how it would be interesting. not only will you learn some stuff (wikipedia is your friend) but you give the character something outside your own comfort zone to call his own and draw on.

For example, a player in my game is currently playing a...well, let's call it a Viking-Orc who is a former privateer and sailor. Now, the player doesn't really know anything about ships because he's never been out on anything larger than a small rowboat...but he loves the Treasure Island movie with Christian Bale and so decided he wanted to play someone with that frame of reference (sailor/pirate sort). So while he's been playing, in-between games he's been reading up on the golden age of piracy and such...it's given him an always-ready touchstone with his character where he can put on his "sailor hat" and slip into his character a lot more easily. Once you start learning how to walk-the-walk (even a little) it makes talking-the-talk a lot easier because it shifts your mind-set.

What YagamiFire said

There is also a creative writing aspect to it.  Even if you have no idea what the world you are about to play in is like, you can still come up with an outline of something:

birth
parents
siblings
rivals
allies
why are you the class you are?
why are you adventuring?
the list goes on.

Ironically, the more outside the box you think, the more likely the character will "feel real." The typical, I'm a street rat orphan; I'm a member of the city guard; my parents gave me to the church; etc, rarely inspire creative thought.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 3:08PM, DaBeerds wrote:

Nov 17, 2012 -- 8:23AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Sir-Zalphon wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:17PM, DaBeerds wrote:

I am in agreement with YagamiFire - Use game mechanics whenever you cannot come up with good role-playing.  As YagamiFire said, this puts the impetus on the DM to describe the results.

That being said, Whenever I am in the spotlight in game social situations, I typically ask for a moment and compose myself.  I take that time to think about what my character's motivation is (what is it he/she wants to get out of the situation), sometimes I even jot down some notes.  Once I know what I want to have happen, I just start talking to the DM like he/she's the NPC.  I speak carefully and with purpose - make believe you are giving a speech/presentation to a group.

And WHEN (it will happen) the DM responds in an unexpected way ask for another moment.  YOU being flustered does not mean your character is, and your DM should know this and grant you the opportunity to re-compose yourself.  If he/she does not...well /shrug

I also agree with Sir-Zalphon regarding creating characters like yourself...to a point.  I have seen too many players play the EXACT SAME character type over and over and over again simply because they fear trying something different.  So, I would also recommend that you make a character that is the antithesis of you - if you have fears make your character fearless, if you are normally very out-going make your character introverted, etc.  This way, you can have the same thought processes "what would I do?" but instead your character does the opposite

I do believe there was a misunderstanding.  I mean make the character feel real--I don't mean clone yourself.  Give your character emotional flesh to their numerical bones.  Make them realistic in that they have aspirations beyond: "Slay all the monsters and get money!" 

Another good tool for this is to give your character an interest that you yourself don't have. Then do research on it. Try to see from the characters point of view how it would be interesting. not only will you learn some stuff (wikipedia is your friend) but you give the character something outside your own comfort zone to call his own and draw on.

For example, a player in my game is currently playing a...well, let's call it a Viking-Orc who is a former privateer and sailor. Now, the player doesn't really know anything about ships because he's never been out on anything larger than a small rowboat...but he loves the Treasure Island movie with Christian Bale and so decided he wanted to play someone with that frame of reference (sailor/pirate sort). So while he's been playing, in-between games he's been reading up on the golden age of piracy and such...it's given him an always-ready touchstone with his character where he can put on his "sailor hat" and slip into his character a lot more easily. Once you start learning how to walk-the-walk (even a little) it makes talking-the-talk a lot easier because it shifts your mind-set.

What YagamiFire said

There is also a creative writing aspect to it.  Even if you have no idea what the world you are about to play in is like, you can still come up with an outline of something:

birth
parents
siblings
rivals
allies
why are you the class you are?
why are you adventuring?
the list goes on.

Ironically, the more outside the box you think, the more likely the character will "feel real." The typical, I'm a street rat orphan; I'm a member of the city guard; my parents gave me to the church; etc, rarely inspire creative thought.

What y'all said.

I'm having a particular player that plays the same very strong fighter with power attack and a great sword with every single character... he is always the orphan whose parents gave him to the church and he became a city guard! But he always has knowledge arcane as well. And his life goal is to slay the monsters and get all the money to buy more equipment to slay more monsters to get more money to buy more equipment to slay more monsters to get more money to buy more....

We have 5 campaigns going on... a jungle setting, a desert setting, a sylven setting a romanesque setting and a medieval european-style setting and I can't remember any of his character's names or what is the difference from one to the next.

I like the idea of asking him to try playing something the 'opposite' of his usual character, though. I've been racking my brains on this one player. His enthusiasm never wanes but his characters bore the rest of us. It seems his entire existence is to 'steal the kill'. Which means if we want to have the occasional hero moment, we need to either gang up and off his character or else make the same min/max character he always does.

Sorry. Only meant to say thanks, not much else to add.

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:20PM, Centauri wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Emirikol wrote:

Put your character in less than ideal situations becuause "that's just what he would do."  Now, mind you the "what he would do" gets old really quickly when it annoys the other players so you've got to ask them, "How is your dwarf different from you Zach?  What would his mother say about his choices?"

"It's what my character would do" can be risky. The reason it becomes annoying is because what one's character "would do" inconveniences the other players. For any given choice there's usually no one thing a given character would do, so just try to choose something that's both in-character and not at odds with the other characters.

Totally agree here.  Some players do not have the self-awareness to know when it goes beyond "interesting idea" to "you know, you just killed the group because your stupid paladin couldn't keep his sword in his scabbard."

Some players simply screw things up

jh

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:14PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 3:08PM, DaBeerds wrote:

Nov 17, 2012 -- 8:23AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Sir-Zalphon wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:17PM, DaBeerds wrote:

I am in agreement with YagamiFire - Use game mechanics whenever you cannot come up with good role-playing.  As YagamiFire said, this puts the impetus on the DM to describe the results.

That being said, Whenever I am in the spotlight in game social situations, I typically ask for a moment and compose myself.  I take that time to think about what my character's motivation is (what is it he/she wants to get out of the situation), sometimes I even jot down some notes.  Once I know what I want to have happen, I just start talking to the DM like he/she's the NPC.  I speak carefully and with purpose - make believe you are giving a speech/presentation to a group.

And WHEN (it will happen) the DM responds in an unexpected way ask for another moment.  YOU being flustered does not mean your character is, and your DM should know this and grant you the opportunity to re-compose yourself.  If he/she does not...well /shrug

I also agree with Sir-Zalphon regarding creating characters like yourself...to a point.  I have seen too many players play the EXACT SAME character type over and over and over again simply because they fear trying something different.  So, I would also recommend that you make a character that is the antithesis of you - if you have fears make your character fearless, if you are normally very out-going make your character introverted, etc.  This way, you can have the same thought processes "what would I do?" but instead your character does the opposite

I do believe there was a misunderstanding.  I mean make the character feel real--I don't mean clone yourself.  Give your character emotional flesh to their numerical bones.  Make them realistic in that they have aspirations beyond: "Slay all the monsters and get money!" 

Another good tool for this is to give your character an interest that you yourself don't have. Then do research on it. Try to see from the characters point of view how it would be interesting. not only will you learn some stuff (wikipedia is your friend) but you give the character something outside your own comfort zone to call his own and draw on.

For example, a player in my game is currently playing a...well, let's call it a Viking-Orc who is a former privateer and sailor. Now, the player doesn't really know anything about ships because he's never been out on anything larger than a small rowboat...but he loves the Treasure Island movie with Christian Bale and so decided he wanted to play someone with that frame of reference (sailor/pirate sort). So while he's been playing, in-between games he's been reading up on the golden age of piracy and such...it's given him an always-ready touchstone with his character where he can put on his "sailor hat" and slip into his character a lot more easily. Once you start learning how to walk-the-walk (even a little) it makes talking-the-talk a lot easier because it shifts your mind-set.

What YagamiFire said

There is also a creative writing aspect to it.  Even if you have no idea what the world you are about to play in is like, you can still come up with an outline of something:

birth
parents
siblings
rivals
allies
why are you the class you are?
why are you adventuring?
the list goes on.

Ironically, the more outside the box you think, the more likely the character will "feel real." The typical, I'm a street rat orphan; I'm a member of the city guard; my parents gave me to the church; etc, rarely inspire creative thought.

What y'all said.

I'm having a particular player that plays the same very strong fighter with power attack and a great sword with every single character... he is always the orphan whose parents gave him to the church and he became a city guard! But he always has knowledge arcane as well. And his life goal is to slay the monsters and get all the money to buy more equipment to slay more monsters to get more money to buy more equipment to slay more monsters to get more money to buy more....

We have 5 campaigns going on... a jungle setting, a desert setting, a sylven setting a romanesque setting and a medieval european-style setting and I can't remember any of his character's names or what is the difference from one to the next.

I like the idea of asking him to try playing something the 'opposite' of his usual character, though. I've been racking my brains on this one player. His enthusiasm never wanes but his characters bore the rest of us. It seems his entire existence is to 'steal the kill'. Which means if we want to have the occasional hero moment, we need to either gang up and off his character or else make the same min/max character he always does.

Sorry. Only meant to say thanks, not much else to add.

i had a similar player and something I considered, but did not do, was a game where the dice determined the class.  Normally groups do a point buy or some variation of 4d6 arrange to taste.  In games like I am suggesting, players do 4d6 in order (in front of witnesses, preferably you the DM), they then look at their stats and see what class best suits those stats.

I've played and run in these types of games.  Two pieces of advice:

1-once the stats are rolled and the class is chosen, add in some point buying power because a lot of the time, the rolled stats are not "heroic"
2-do a one off adventure or two to start.  While some love the novelty others may not (like your orphan PA GS friend).


this type of game gives players a chance the explore other classes they may not normally play.

For every character you create, try some of these ideas:

Describe your character in a way that does NOT include his class, race, profession, or physical description.   Come up with at least five words/phrases  (generous, aloof, timid around the opposite sex, studious, and cranky in the mornings).    Every player should be able to do this.   You can describe your close friends without mentioning their appearance or profession, you can do it with your character.

Come up with something your character does that has nothing to do with adventuring nor a profession.   Try to mostly avoid obvious ones like drinking or gambling. (juggler, gourmet, book collector, making hand shadows, etc.)   I die a little every time I hear a player tell me ("I'm motivated by killing things and getting treasure."

Include a physical trait beyond a standard description.  (always smiling, has a stutter, blinks often, allergic, etc)

Open up a newspaper and select a half dozen controversial subjects.   Ask yourself what side of the argument for each of these that you stand on vs your character.   If it's the same every time, you may wish to alter that character.

Add at least one character motivation that does not directly tie to important events of the character's past.   "My brother was killed by an orc named Shrumgug and I must avenge his death" is ok to have for a motivation but you need something less personally tied to his past.   Use real life as an example.   Perhaps you've always wanted to visit the vatican.   Your character might have a unique, far away temple he's always wanted to see, or a library, or an unusual town, or a famous person he's always wanted to meet, etc.

Do all this on top of all the other stuff; race, background, why he became a (CLASS), goals, physical description, etc.   When you are done (and done any back and forth with your DM), read it again and again.   Keep this information with your character sheet.  Read it again before the start of every night's adventure.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 5:16PM, Emirikol wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:20PM, Centauri wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Emirikol wrote:

Put your character in less than ideal situations becuause "that's just what he would do."  Now, mind you the "what he would do" gets old really quickly when it annoys the other players so you've got to ask them, "How is your dwarf different from you Zach?  What would his mother say about his choices?"

"It's what my character would do" can be risky. The reason it becomes annoying is because what one's character "would do" inconveniences the other players. For any given choice there's usually no one thing a given character would do, so just try to choose something that's both in-character and not at odds with the other characters.

Totally agree here.  Some players do not have the self-awareness to know when it goes beyond "interesting idea" to "you know, you just killed the group because your stupid paladin couldn't keep his sword in his scabbard."

Some players simply screw things up

jh

Which isn't to say that characters can't be at odds with one another; that's just classic, after all. But players should be working together, and any in-character argument or conflict or troublemaking should occur with out-of-character buy-in from the rest of the table.

Nov 26, 2012 -- 12:32PM, Centauri wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 5:16PM, Emirikol wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 3:20PM, Centauri wrote:

Nov 16, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Emirikol wrote:

Put your character in less than ideal situations becuause "that's just what he would do."  Now, mind you the "what he would do" gets old really quickly when it annoys the other players so you've got to ask them, "How is your dwarf different from you Zach?  What would his mother say about his choices?"

"It's what my character would do" can be risky. The reason it becomes annoying is because what one's character "would do" inconveniences the other players. For any given choice there's usually no one thing a given character would do, so just try to choose something that's both in-character and not at odds with the other characters.

Totally agree here.  Some players do not have the self-awareness to know when it goes beyond "interesting idea" to "you know, you just killed the group because your stupid paladin couldn't keep his sword in his scabbard."

Some players simply screw things up

jh

Which isn't to say that characters can't be at odds with one another; that's just classic, after all. But players should be working together, and any in-character argument or conflict or troublemaking should occur with out-of-character buy-in from the rest of the table.

Agreed, but when this is a problem, it is generally a problem because a player uses his character as an excuse to act like a jerk.  

Nov 27, 2012 -- 7:19AM, rednblack wrote:

Agreed, but when this is a problem, it is generally a problem because a player uses his character as an excuse to act like a jerk.  

I'm not sure of this anymore. I think a lot of times the player is actually doing what they think they're supposed to be doing, such as a thief stealing, or a paladin hitting a thief for stealing, or a barbarian making insulting comments in polite company. Then they get told no, and they think the person telling them no is being a jerk and then there's a arms race of jerkiness.

Nov 27, 2012 -- 10:45AM, Centauri wrote:

Nov 27, 2012 -- 7:19AM, rednblack wrote:

Agreed, but when this is a problem, it is generally a problem because a player uses his character as an excuse to act like a jerk.  

I'm not sure of this anymore. I think a lot of times the player is actually doing what they think they're supposed to be doing, such as a thief stealing, or a paladin hitting a thief for stealing, or a barbarian making insulting comments in polite company. Then they get told no, and they think the person telling them no is being a jerk and then there's a arms race of jerkiness.

Fair point.  

For players that use their character as an excuse to act like a jerk (I'm a rogue so I steal the group's treasure, I'm a Paladin so I kill the rogue, I'm CN so I murder everyone in their sleep at the flip of a coin) it comes down to a DM enforcing consequences.

Consequences quickly settles such behaviour and cause players to look for more roleplayable choices and actions, and it's easy to do right away at low levels. If you follow this by placing them in some social situations where they need to behave positively while in character then you can encourage more roleplaying.

The Thief acting this way ends up arrested or "punished" by the local thieves guild. The rude barbarian ends up having the group tossed into the street instead of rewarded for their heroics, or ends up being beaten up in a barfight, tossed outside into the street at night, where he is robbed by some thugs that take advantage of him being already beaten up. The Paladin ends up being targeted by the local thieves guilds, criminal element for stirring up trouble, and possibly arrested for his "vigilanty" justice.

And thieves guilds don't need to be stabby to target anyone, it can be as simple as telling all the merchants that pay them protection money to not deal with them. When the magic sword they want is on the wall behind the counter and the smith is saying, "sorry we don't carry those here" and "no that's for display only, sorry, perhaps you should try in " then you have the player's attention.   

Dec 3, 2012 -- 9:05AM, MrCustomer wrote:

For players that use their character as an excuse to act like a jerk (I'm a rogue so I steal the group's treasure, I'm a Paladin so I kill the rogue, I'm CN so I murder everyone in their sleep at the flip of a coin) it comes down to a DM enforcing consequences.

Consequences quickly settles such behaviour and cause players to look for more roleplayable choices and actions, and it's easy to do right away at low levels. If you follow this by placing them in some social situations where they need to behave positively while in character then you can encourage more roleplaying.

The Thief acting this way ends up arrested or "punished" by the local thieves guild. The rude barbarian ends up having the group tossed into the street instead of rewarded for their heroics, or ends up being beaten up in a barfight, tossed outside into the street at night, where he is robbed by some thugs that take advantage of him being already beaten up. The Paladin ends up being targeted by the local thieves guilds, criminal element for stirring up trouble, and possibly arrested for his "vigilanty" justice.

And thieves guilds don't need to be stabby to target anyone, it can be as simple as telling all the merchants that pay them protection money to not deal with them. When the magic sword they want is on the wall behind the counter and the smith is saying, "sorry we don't carry those here" and "no that's for display only, sorry, perhaps you should try in " then you have the player's attention.   

And horrifically enough there are people that will bemoan the DM doing that by claiming they are infringing on the players desire to play a character a certain way.

I totally agree with you, however.

My advice on how to be a good role-player for the general gamer:

• Don't try to make epic speeches or use twenty dollar words every time your character talks.
• Have a general idea of your character's personality and story.  Let it direct what he/she does or says.  But remember most of what your character does won't have some important meaning or purpose relating to his/her backstory.
• Use a manner of speaking that is most comfortable for you as a player.
• Describe your character's actions as much as what he/she says.
• Don't force the story.  It'll happen naturally.  Focus on just playing a character in a scene rather then trying to use the character as a vehicle for progressing some overall story (that will happen naturally, and sometimes with prodding from the DM when appropriate).
• Remember to let your character do the wrong thing if it fits the character.  In combat, this may mean not doing the best, most strategic things.  However, it does make combat more fun, since it becomes more focused on a story-scene and role-playing rather than a strategy game.
• Enjoy it and have fun with it.

S'all I got for now. =P

Dec 3, 2012 -- 9:05AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Consequences quickly settles such behaviour and cause players to look for more roleplayable choices and actions, and it's easy to do right away at low levels. If you follow this by placing them in some social situations where they need to behave positively while in character then you can encourage more roleplaying.

I have rarely seen this work to bring out more roleplaying. What I have seen bring out more roleplaying is not handing out punishing consequences for character behavior, but rather accomodating, as much as possible, how players want to play their characters. This means letting go of one's stories and plans, much of the time, but it can be worth it for the trust it can earn a DM.

Oops, that advice is more for a DM. Forgot which forum I was in.

Centauri, perhaps I used poor language, I said consequences, those can be either good or bad. The point is if the world reacts to their actions, then they will be more likely to interact with the world.

Anti-social behaviour discourages roleplaying because of the mess it creates. It is nearly impossible to roleplay in a tavern, as an example, if it becomes a combat scene in a bar fight.

It is the DM's job not to just accomodate the players, but to also be a neutral judge.

If the character belly flopped off cliffs all the time, would you A: roll fall damage each time or B: have a passing Giant Eagle save his life at the last second and similair occurances to "accomodate" the character?

Option A is how a neutral, unbiased judge would handle it, and would quickly stop the Wiley Coyote cartoonish behaviour, option B: would quickly degenerate the game into a Loonies Toons episode.

 Good consequences would be that (not starting a fight) interacting with someone
 will make them more favourable to the party and help out those Bluff/Diplomacy/gather information checks. bad consequences occur when the Rogue tries to pick that same NPC's pockets while the barbarian pushed him off the bar stool so he can have a seat to interogate the bartender and a barfight quickly ensues.
  
This is really advice for the DM though.

As a Player, keeping in mind that there are consequences for your actions will help you roleplay. Having a Dark, complex backstory won't help you roleplay, in fact it might make it harder to roleplay. Trying to manipulate the desired outcome as a consequence of your actions will help more then a prepared speach.

Another hard part of roleplaying is what to talk about. Because what does one imaginary character say to another imaginary character? The easiest is to talk about things that have happened in game

The barbarian who comes in, sits at the bar and orders a pint, saying he really needs a drink after all he's been through and recounts his last adventure and how annoying that stick in the mud paladin was and now we are in town looking for information on.... can end up finding more information then the Rogue who spends the night getting caught picking pockets and had just tossed the dice, "I roll gather information and try to slip behind the counter when the bartender is busy talking to the barbarian"

The barbarian player doesn't have to be "good" at roleplaying, and in need of something to say he simply highlights a few events of the last adventure. As a consequence the town might view the party as local heros, he makes those listening more favourable to them and as a consequence gets an easy gather information (or doesn't even need to roll it at all)

When going to buy new weapons/armor, talking to the blacksmith about how your current sword's lack of balance and poor grip has caused you to drop it in the middle of several fights (because you rolled alot of natural "1"s on the last few adventures with it)   Instead of just buying something like Mithril armor, go to the armorsmith and talk about how heavy and akward your armor is, and ask what can be done to get lighter, less hindering armor.

That sounds rather  simplistic at first, always talking about the obvious, but as you do this you will find yourself drawn into the character and will start to spread out and talk about other things as well. This gives a starting point.

Some people it helps to have a detailed, complex past to create a character that they know how they will roleplay in advance. For some that aren't too sure, this complex, detailed past will be akward to actually use.  So it is often best to start out as simple and bareboned as possible, and then develop the character. It starts with a mundane conversation on the merits of Lightening bolt over Fireball while buying a scroll, and then develops with use to more emersive interactions.
  

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Centauri, perhaps I used poor language, I said consequences, those can be either good or bad. The point is if the world reacts to their actions, then they will be more likely to interact with the world.

Depends how it reacts to them. If it shuts them down, and they're left feeling punished or shamed, then they will clam back up.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Anti-social behaviour discourages roleplaying because of the mess it creates. It is nearly impossible to roleplay in a tavern, as an example, if it becomes a combat scene in a bar fight.

It might be impossible to talk but it's not impossible to roleplay.

Anti-social behavior does not create messes. DMs create messes.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

It is the DM's job not to just accomodate the players, but to also be a neutral judge.

If the character belly flopped off cliffs all the time, would you A: roll fall damage each time or B: have a passing Giant Eagle save his life at the last second and similair occurances to "accomodate" the character?

What cliff? Oh, the cliff the DM decided to put there, because they're not impartial, but thought having a cliff around would be interesting and fun? Well, if it's not fun, I imagine that DM won't put cliffs around in the future.

It's not necessary to have a DM for the impartial, neutral aspects of the game. Anyone could roll that falling damage.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Option A is how a neutral, unbiased judge would handle it, and would quickly stop the Wiley Coyote cartoonish behaviour,

Sounds like that judge isn't being neutral and unbiased, but has a personal issue with the "cartoonish" behavior, and has an agenda to stop it.

And I don't for a moment believe that Option A would put a stop to the behavior.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

option B: would quickly degenerate the game into a Loonies Toons episode.

Or an awesome action movie, depending on the circumstances and description.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Good consequences would be that (not starting a fight) interacting with someone  will make them more favourable to the party and help out those Bluff/Diplomacy/gather information checks.

Boring.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

bad consequences occur when the Rogue tries to pick that same NPC's pockets while the barbarian pushed him off the bar stool so he can have a seat to interogate the bartender and a barfight quickly ensues.

Boring.
 

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

This is really advice for the DM though.

Yep.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

As a Player, keeping in mind that there are consequences for your actions will help you roleplay. Having a Dark, complex backstory won't help you roleplay, in fact it might make it harder to roleplay.

There's no reason to think that.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Another hard part of roleplaying is what to talk about.

Only if the roleplaying involves talking. Picking a pocket, or pushing someone off a barstool is also roleplaying.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

The barbarian who comes in, sits at the bar and orders a pint, saying he really needs a drink after all he's been through and recounts his last adventure and how annoying that stick in the mud paladin was and now we are in town looking for information on.... can end up finding more information then the Rogue who spends the night getting caught picking pockets and had just tossed the dice, "I roll gather information and try to slip behind the counter when the bartender is busy talking to the barbarian"

Sounds like the barbarian is being rewarded with actual gameplay by jumping through the DM's preferred hoops, and the rogue is getting stonewalled for not doing so, even though he, too, is roleplaying: roleplaying a thief.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

The barbarian player doesn't have to be "good" at roleplaying, and in need of something to say he simply highlights a few events of the last adventure.

Which presumably everyone was present for, and doesn't need a recap on.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

As a consequence the town might view the party as local heros, he makes those listening more favourable to them and as a consequence gets an easy gather information (or doesn't even need to roll it at all)

Good barbarian. Have a cookie.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

When going to buy new weapons/armor, talking to the blacksmith about how your current sword's lack of balance and poor grip has caused you to drop it in the middle of several fights (because you rolled alot of natural "1"s on the last few adventures with it)

Side note: don't use that optional rule.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Some people it helps to have a detailed, complex past to create a character that they know how they will roleplay in advance. For some that aren't too sure, this complex, detailed past will be akward to actually use.  So it is often best to start out as simple and bareboned as possible, and then develop the character. It starts with a mundane conversation on the merits of Lightening bolt over Fireball while buying a scroll, and then develops with use to more emersive interactions.

And, with any luck, eventually you'll actually get to adventure.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Centauri wrote:

What cliff? Oh, the cliff the DM decided to put there, because they're not impartial, but thought having a cliff around would be interesting and fun? Well, if it's not fun, I imagine that DM won't put cliffs around in the future.

LMFAO Sorry, man but that is utterly ridiculous. If a player decides to jump off a cliff it is the DMs fault for putting a cliff there.

Really? Really? REALLY?

This is why so many people have bad players. Heck, this is why so many people in the world have bad children. Oh no it's not your fault something bad happened to you...it's someone elses fault.

Bullocks.

And, with any luck, eventually you'll actually get to adventure.

When all someone is is a statblock used for "adventure" (IE combat) there is no roleplaying to be had.

Centauri, I hope you aren't arguing for the sake of arguing. Are you saying that games shouldn't have DM's?

The World reacting to the PC's actions  is how a game becomes emmersive and the players feel like they are a part of that world. When you make them a part of that world and they see how their interactions with it shapes that world.

When their actions, positive or negative, don't change anything, then they aren't part of that world, they are sitting on the edge looking in, their actions are meaningless to that world.

Sounds like the barbarian is being rewarded with actual gameplay by jumping through the DM's preferred hoops, and the rogue is getting stonewalled for not doing so, even though he, too, is roleplaying: roleplaying a thief.

I am suprized that you shot down the Barbarian/Rogue example here. Ok the Rogue made a Gather Information check, and he does have a high skill, but he also didn't do anything to actually gather that information either.

If he was trying to craft a sword without a forge, iron, or any other material or time spent, by simply rolling the dice and walking away, would you give him a sword?

If a player at your table said, "I am going to rent a room for the night, lock the windows and doors, and then hide under the bed and sleep, oh and by the way" rolls dice "I make a Gather Information check" what information do you give him, beyond "this town doesn't sweep under the beds very often, judging from the dust bunnies you find"?

The Half Orc barbarian with no skill ranks, negative Charisma score, is going to find more information without rolling then the rogue who didn't actually do anything to gather information. The Rogue is stonewalling himself here. 

As for him being a thief, yes that is rollplaying, but there are risks to pick pocketing as well as Rewards, if it is just press button, get treat, then that is all you will ever, if they are clumsy about it, Such as spending an entire night in one location steeling from every customer that comes into the one tavern, getting caught is pretty inevitable, but I am not going to punish him for looking for a good mark, or planning a heist/con job, only a foolish DM would object to the players creating their own plot hooks.

As for the optional rules of rolling a natural "1" and dropping your weapon, hurting yourself with it, or hitting another players, -rolls eyes- I hate that rule and would get rid of it except my players absolutely and totally love it, their eyes sparkle and light up one each natural "1" even more then when they score critical hits. They have literally house ruled me to be an absolute abusive jerk, break their weapons, score a critical hit on themselves, slip and fall, drop their sword off a cliff, lost forever, if I did this any other time it would be a fight, but they roll a 1 and they beam and smile and laugh in excitement over it.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 6:59AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Centauri wrote:

What cliff? Oh, the cliff the DM decided to put there, because they're not impartial, but thought having a cliff around would be interesting and fun? Well, if it's not fun, I imagine that DM won't put cliffs around in the future.

LMFAO Sorry, man but that is utterly ridiculous. If a player decides to jump off a cliff it is the DMs fault for putting a cliff there.

Really? Really? REALLY?

This is why so many people have bad players. Heck, this is why so many people in the world have bad children. Oh no it's not your fault something bad happened to you...it's someone elses fault.

Bullocks.

Thank you.

There are plenty of locales where cliffs come into play.  Is it my fault, as the DM, when a player decides to jump off a cliff just because it happens to be there?

However, it could be said that the reason the player decided to jump off that cliff was to spice things up.  In that case, it is the DM's fault for not engaging the players enough.

Two sides to every arugment and I argue both

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Centauri, I hope you aren't arguing for the sake of arguing. Are you saying that games shouldn't have DM's?

I'm saying that games don't need DMs to do things like roll falling damage, or provide other impartial interactions with the rules. That's the worst use of a DMs time.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

The World reacting to the PC's actions  is how a game becomes emmersive and the players feel like they are a part of that world. When you make them a part of that world and they see how their interactions with it shapes that world.

That's one way. But this does not justify a DM making the game unfun for players who don't fit the DM's idea of what players should be doing.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

When their actions, positive or negative, don't change anything, then they aren't part of that world, they are sitting on the edge looking in, their actions are meaningless to that world.

Their actions change things. Obviously. Goes without saying. But that doesn't mean that the DM has to arrange things so that the changes are boring.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Sounds like the barbarian is being rewarded with actual gameplay by jumping through the DM's preferred hoops, and the rogue is getting stonewalled for not doing so, even though he, too, is roleplaying: roleplaying a thief.

I am suprized that you shot down the Barbarian/Rogue example here. Ok the Rogue made a Gather Information check, and he does have a high skill, but he also didn't do anything to actually gather that information either.

That's fine. If I need description, I or someone else at the table can offer one, and get feed back from the player.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

If he was trying to craft a sword without a forge, iron, or any other material or time spent, by simply rolling the dice and walking away, would you give him a sword?

If I could see some other way that he could come by the sword, or simply didn't care how he came by it, then sure. Maybe even without rolling the dice. He wants a sword. That's cool. It's a gift to me as the DM. Why should I obfuscate it?

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

If a player at your table said, "I am going to rent a room for the night, lock the windows and doors, and then hide under the bed and sleep, oh and by the way" rolls dice "I make a Gather Information check" what information do you give him, beyond "this town doesn't sweep under the beds very often, judging from the dust bunnies you find"?

That's different than just not describing what led to the roll.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

The Half Orc barbarian with no skill ranks, negative Charisma score, is going to find more information without rolling then the rogue who didn't actually do anything to gather information. The Rogue is stonewalling himself here.

It's plausible to assume he did do something, if he rolled. It's uncharitable to assume that just because the rogue didn't describe anything that nothing happened, and then to punish the rogue for that.

I'm a big fan of "establishing the fiction" that leads to a roll. I understand the desire for that. But I also understand the desire to punish a player who doesn't engage, and I recognize it and advise against it.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

As for him being a thief, yes that is rollplaying, but there are risks to pick pocketing as well as Rewards, if it is just press button, get treat, then that is all you will ever,

That's not just what it is. The character is roleplaying is thief. Most people would consider that to be worth a little reward. And there might easily not be risks, if the character's skill is high enough. Or, more to the point, if it's not interesting for there to be risks.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

if they are clumsy about it, Such as spending an entire night in one location steeling from every customer that comes into the one tavern, getting caught is pretty inevitable, but I am not going to punish him for looking for a good mark, or planning a heist/con job, only a foolish DM would object to the players creating their own plot hooks.

Do you require characters with certain skills to know how to use those skills? I don't, and I would think it was pretty cool if a movie or a book featured a thief that was so good that he could rob everyone in the tavern and not be caught.

I'm sorry this has become a post about DMing here in the Player forum, but look: Don't assign risk just because you think there should be a risk. Assign risk when everyone thinks the risk would be interesting. Boring risk in a game is a waste of everyone's time.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

As for the optional rules of rolling a natural "1" and dropping your weapon, hurting yourself with it, or hitting another players, -rolls eyes- I hate that rule and would get rid of it except my players absolutely and totally love it, their eyes sparkle and light up one each natural "1" even more then when they score critical hits. They have literally house ruled me to be an absolute abusive jerk, break their weapons, score a critical hit on themselves, slip and fall, drop their sword off a cliff, lost forever, if I did this any other time it would be a fight, but they roll a 1 and they beam and smile and laugh in excitement over it.

Terrific. It's good to give players what they enjoy, and to derive enjoyment from that.

Anyway:
Roleplaying is not just talking. Anything a player does in character, even just rolling a particular skill, is roleplaying.
"Roleplaying" should not be used as an excuse by players or DMs to be a jerk.
There's not much a player can do if a DM has a certain idea about roleplaying and will concoct boring consequences for anyone who doesn't conform. Talk to your DM about it out of game, and be respectful.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:59AM, DaBeerds wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 6:59AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Centauri wrote:

What cliff? Oh, the cliff the DM decided to put there, because they're not impartial, but thought having a cliff around would be interesting and fun? Well, if it's not fun, I imagine that DM won't put cliffs around in the future.

LMFAO Sorry, man but that is utterly ridiculous. If a player decides to jump off a cliff it is the DMs fault for putting a cliff there.

Really? Really? REALLY?

This is why so many people have bad players. Heck, this is why so many people in the world have bad children. Oh no it's not your fault something bad happened to you...it's someone elses fault.

Bullocks.

Thank you.

There are plenty of locales where cliffs come into play.  Is it my fault, as the DM, when a player decides to jump off a cliff just because it happens to be there?

However, it could be said that the reason the player decided to jump off that cliff was to spice things up.  In that case, it is the DM's fault for not engaging the players enough.

Two sides to every arugment and I argue both

Yeah, but from what I've been reading, there are DMs that put a cliff there just because the character made a jump check. And then do a reverse and give the player a parachute because he crafted it on the way down. And a robotic jetpack with missile launchers... that stop working when the player kills an NPC with them.

ACME company... Walla Walla Washington? (Old School Reference)

It seems like there's a lot of over-correction going on. No wonder the players are having a hard time roleplaying. Actors need direction. It's hard enough that the players must ad lib the dialogue (a good thing), but to control the set as well is a bit much.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:19PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

It seems like there's a lot of over-correction going on. No wonder the players are having a hard time roleplaying. Actors need direction. It's hard enough that the players must ad lib the dialogue (a good thing), but to control the set as well is a bit much.

The belief that players are actors and the DM is a director is the source of many, many of the problems people ask about in these forums.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 2:10PM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:19PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

It seems like there's a lot of over-correction going on. No wonder the players are having a hard time roleplaying. Actors need direction. It's hard enough that the players must ad lib the dialogue (a good thing), but to control the set as well is a bit much.

The belief that players are actors and the DM is a director is the source of many, many of the problems people ask about in these forums.

I think the abdication of DM responsibility because DMs in the past have abused their position, leading to a general directionlessness of game tables and the game in general has compounded those problems.

The way I do my character is there me with a different name. Which makes it easy to role-play for me. There a fighter but instead of just strength I invested into my intelligence because I am very smart and so is my character I also trained heal and perception because they describe me.
Hope this helps
    -Erik Farven
      P.S That's the name of my character.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 10:57AM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:53AM, MrCustomer wrote:

As for him being a thief, yes that is rollplaying, but there are risks to pick pocketing as well as Rewards, if it is just press button, get treat, then that is all you will ever,

That's not just what it is. The character is roleplaying is thief. Most people would consider that to be worth a little reward. And there might easily not be risks, if the character's skill is high enough. Or, more to the point, if it's not interesting for there to be risks.

There is always the option of making the risk interesting, and using the situation to make other things interesting.

If the thief picking pockets rolls a natural 20, that mark just became someone he would need a natural 20 to pick the pocket of. Maybe an experienced official or adventurer. What he gets is... interesting. Maybe a map or something. Why would such a character be carrying that in his pocket, and what will he do when he finds that it's missing?

Ooops, a new plot hook and a new conflict within the adventure.

Centauri, nowhere did I describe as making "boring risk" or anythign else, when i stated that a gme world should react to the player's actions (or lack of actions) and it goes without saying that if a PC stabs a guard, that the stabbed guard dies, and the guards standing right beside him don't just stand there and do nothing.

And since I never specified what the risk entailed, I am wondering how you reached that conclusion? 

As for the barbarian/Rogue I was illustrating that actually doing something will reward you more then doing little to nothing. The player could do several things to use gather Information, they could

1: just toss the dice and do nothing else "ok I gather information" Ok they get information as if they spent the night doing that

2: Make a roll, And do things to gather information beyond that roll, thus earning additional modifiers to their roll

3: They can make a roll, and do something else that isn't related to Gather Information, the rogue who tosses the dice and then goes and spends the evening picking pockets has not spent the time needed to gather information, ie "A typical Gather Information check takes 1d4+1 hours" in 3.5, so spending 10 minutes to do a 3 hour job isn't going to get much information.

From the player's perspective, my advice to the player that wants to learn to roleplay more, that this is a good starting point as it gives them a subject and a purpose and they will see an emmediate reward. Gather Information? Talk to people. Their goal is to get a better check, and they can visualize what they need to do to get what they want to help them roleplay it.

The difficulty those who aren't sure of how to roleplay is generlly, what do I do. That is the same way they would be in real life in any situation that they didn't know what to do. Having a goal and steps in mind helps break the ice. It's like bringing a bottle of wine to a party that you aren't entirely sure you were invited to, at the very least it will get you past the door.

Yes, as a player, all you can do to get better at "roleplaying," is to find out what your DM thinks "roleplaying" means, and walk that tightrope. Most DMs will be overwhelmingly vocal about what they think "roleplaying" means, so it shouldn't be hard to find out everything you need to do to fit in. You may find that getting better at jumping through those hoops is not worth your time, in which case you'll need to talk to the DM, find a new group (people with strong feelings about roleplaying often just become DMs, so they can control it), or just be passive aggressive and take your licks from the DM in hopes of wearing them down.

Dec 10, 2012 -- 10:13AM, Centauri wrote:

Yes, as a player, all you can do to get better at "roleplaying," is to find out what your DM thinks "roleplaying" means, and walk that tightrope. Most DMs will be overwhelmingly vocal about what they think "roleplaying" means, so it shouldn't be hard to find out everything you need to do to fit in. You may find that getting better at jumping through those hoops is not worth your time, in which case you'll need to talk to the DM, find a new group (people with strong feelings about roleplaying often just become DMs, so they can control it), or just be passive aggressive and take your licks from the DM in hopes of wearing them down.

The bolded part in light of the rest of the post is hilarious.

Centauri, if by jumping the DM's hoops you mean playing the game? If Goblins attack the PC's are they forced to "jump through the DM's hoops?"

It's not jumping through the DM's hoops to build circumstance modifiers for yourself with your actions. Gather information in 3.5 takes 1d4+1 hours. Depending on the time spent and what the characters are doing to gather information they could earn modifiers (or penalties) to their roll.

ie, gather Information from an Inn

PC1: Makes his roll, but spends a good portion of the time picking fights in the bar. -5 to his roll for not spending the required time and +2 to the DC because he has made everyone hostile to his questions.

PC2: Just rolls his dice. He gets a normal result, no modifiers

PC3: Pays for information, and spends the evening socializing, buys rounds of drinks for everyone, etc and generally makes everyone friendly towards him, he gets a +2 to his roll.

That isn't a Hoop, the circumstance bonus is part of the ruleset. This is no different then making a swim check in full armor as oppsed to taking the armor off and building a raft. Dms will generally modify the DC or give a bonus or penelty to a skill check if the Player engages with roleplaying rather then simply tossing the dice. 

  Goal oriented roleplaying can give a player an edge to make the Dm jump through hoops (by earning modifiers etc)  but more importantly it gives the Player a goal and purpose.

A new player who doesn't roleplay or hasn't roleplayed before is often up against a wall of not knowing what their character would do beyond rolling a skill check. Goal Oriented Rollplaying gives them somethign for their character to be doing. How would this character go about the task? What can they do to help succeed? What can I do to overcome being a low charisma Orc to be treated less hostile? Can I use a Diplomacy check to help as a high Charisma Paladin? This will get them engaged, and the more they are engaged the more they will be drawn into character.

And that is the point, getting into character. To get into character you have to take actions for that character, not just roll dice.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Centauri, if by jumping the DM's hoops you mean playing the game?

No, I mean play the DM's game, which might mean something fun that you both enjoy, or it might mean him making you dance for his amusement.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

If Goblins attack the PC's are they forced to "jump through the DM's hoops?"

Possibly. There are plenty of boring and DM-serving ways to run any encounter. Did the PCs state they were making Spot checks? Did they state they had their weapons out? Did they talk to the one NPC who knows about the goblin attacks? No? Oh, well, I hope they enjoy the monsters' surprise round. Perhaps that will teach them where the hoops are.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

It's not jumping through the DM's hoops to build circumstance modifiers for yourself with your actions. Gather information in 3.5 takes 1d4+1 hours. Depending on the time spent and what the characters are doing to gather information they could earn modifiers (or penalties) to their roll.

Depending on whether the DM thinks that what the players did earned that bonus, and on whether the DM is content with serving up boring results in order to leash the players into his way of thinking.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

PC1: Makes his roll, but spends a good portion of the time picking fights in the bar. -5 to his roll for not spending the required time and +2 to the DC because he has made everyone hostile to his questions.

Boring and punitive. Instead, maybe the PC earned some respect, or noticed some important exchange between two PCs who thought no one would notice during the fight.

If the player's intention was to cause there to be downsides, then the downsides are appropriate. Otherwise, it's just the DM choosing to penalize the player's roleplaying choices, in an effort to get the player to conform to the DM's idea of roleplaying.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

PC2: Just rolls his dice. He gets a normal result, no modifiers

Boring, but fine.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

PC3: Pays for information, and spends the evening socializing, buys rounds of drinks for everyone, etc and generally makes everyone friendly towards him, he gets a +2 to his roll.

Boring, but fine. Trivially obvious, so why bother granting a bonus?

It's called "jumping through a hoop," because it's trivial and boring, rather than creative, and it's something someone else set out for you to do. It's checking a box, and doing it just for a cruddy little coupon - or worse, out of fear that without that coupon, the next stage of the story can't be purchased.

It's roleplaying by the numbers.

I'm as tired as anyone else of the barbarian who can't think of anything to do other than beat people up, but punishing them for that behavior is even more tiring. There's a better way, and when they finally get tired of that behavior, it's on their terms, and not because the game was made arbitrarily boring for them.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

That isn't a Hoop, the circumstance bonus is part of the ruleset. This is no different then making a swim check in full armor as oppsed to taking the armor off and building a raft.

Different because it's at the DM's discretion, and many DMs see it as an opportunity to teach the players a lesson about the relative value of realism over fun.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Dms will generally modify the DC or give a bonus or penelty to a skill check if the Player engages with roleplaying rather then simply tossing the dice.

If the player conforms to the DM's idea of the game.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

A new player who doesn't roleplay or hasn't roleplayed before is often up against a wall of not knowing what their character would do beyond rolling a skill check. Goal Oriented Rollplaying gives them somethign for their character to be doing. How would this character go about the task? What can they do to help succeed? What can I do to overcome being a low charisma Orc to be treated less hostile? Can I use a Diplomacy check to help as a high Charisma Paladin? This will get them engaged, and the more they are engaged the more they will be drawn into character.

Fine. What disengages them is being told, directly or indirectly, that the DM didn't like the roleplaying decision they made, and that it earned them a penalty, which might very well block their access to further gameplay. That's the problem.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

And that is the point, getting into character. To get into character you have to take actions for that character, not just roll dice.

And players will take actions when they are given the impression that, while their actions have consequences, those consequences can be interesting and move the game forward.

There's nothing a player who doesn't like hoops can do about this, outside of talking to the DM, if the DM is a hoopster. What tends to happen is that players prefer to roleplay the anti-social (and more interesting) behavior, rather than drop out of their perceived character just for treats. DMs often lose their nerve when it comes to penalizing the characters, because they've set up the scenario so that the PCs have to pass the checks, or everyone's stuck doing boring stuff. Or the DM punishes them, and the players go more and more off on a tangent to see how far they can push the DM. Can they get him to just shut them down completely? That becomes their new winning condition, because at least it gave them a modicum of narrative control.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Argument with Centauri

In Centauri's games the PCs run everything and the DM is not supposed to direct, help, influence or hinder the PCs in any way.  This includes rules.  Centauri believes that if you let players use whatever interpretation of the rules they want and never challenge any of their rulings, they will default to the rules that are the most fun.  Centauri believes this situation always works with players because the players want to have fun and will realize immediately that making their characters more powerful than they should be (by inventing rules / twisting current rules / ignoring current rules) that it detracts from overall fun at the table.  Centauri doesn't think anyone comes to the game and consistently makes characters with obscure or invented rules for the sole purposes of power will continue to do so for long because it isn't fun for anyone.

I don't agree on any of those points, but just so you know where he is coming from before this continues. 

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:10PM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Argument with Centauri

In Centauri's games the PCs run everything and the DM is not supposed to direct, help, influence or hinder the PCs in any way.  This includes rules.  Centauri believes that if you let players use whatever interpretation of the rules they want and never challenge any of their rulings, they will default to the rules that are the most fun.  Centauri believes this situation always works with players because the players want to have fun and will realize immediately that making their characters more powerful than they should be (by inventing rules / twisting current rules / ignoring current rules) that it detracts from overall fun at the table.  Centauri doesn't think anyone comes to the game and consistently makes characters with obscure or invented rules for the sole purposes of power will continue to do so for long because it isn't fun for anyone.

I don't agree on any of those points, but just so you know where he is coming from before this continues. 

If this is in fact "true", then Centauri I ask, what is the DM supposed to do in a game like this?

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:24PM, DaBeerds wrote:

If this is in fact "true", then Centauri I ask, what is the DM supposed to do in a game like this?

It is not, in fact, true.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:24PM, DaBeerds wrote:

If this is in fact "true", then Centauri I ask, what is the DM supposed to do in a game like this?

It is not, in fact, true.

I believe that was a fairly accurate paraphrasing of you from the DM quiz thread, from the dicussion about Ichoice and from another thread as well.  What part of my statement about what you believe is incorrect?

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:10PM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Argument with Centauri

In Centauri's games the PCs run everything and the DM is not supposed to direct, help, influence or hinder the PCs in any way.  This includes rules.  Centauri believes that if you let players use whatever interpretation of the rules they want and never challenge any of their rulings, they will default to the rules that are the most fun.  Centauri believes this situation always works with players because the players want to have fun and will realize immediately that making their characters more powerful than they should be (by inventing rules / twisting current rules / ignoring current rules) that it detracts from overall fun at the table.  Centauri doesn't think anyone comes to the game and consistently makes characters with obscure or invented rules for the sole purposes of power will continue to do so for long because it isn't fun for anyone.

I don't agree on any of those points, but just so you know where he is coming from before this continues. 

This is just about the most disingenius, obfuscating, dirty misrepresentation of a person's position that I have ever seen, and I've been to Star Wars forums.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Zaramon wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 12:10PM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 9:40AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Argument with Centauri

In Centauri's games the PCs run everything and the DM is not supposed to direct, help, influence or hinder the PCs in any way.  This includes rules.  Centauri believes that if you let players use whatever interpretation of the rules they want and never challenge any of their rulings, they will default to the rules that are the most fun.  Centauri believes this situation always works with players because the players want to have fun and will realize immediately that making their characters more powerful than they should be (by inventing rules / twisting current rules / ignoring current rules) that it detracts from overall fun at the table.  Centauri doesn't think anyone comes to the game and consistently makes characters with obscure or invented rules for the sole purposes of power will continue to do so for long because it isn't fun for anyone.

I don't agree on any of those points, but just so you know where he is coming from before this continues. 

This is just about the most disingenius, obfuscating, dirty misrepresentation of a person's position that I have ever seen, and I've been to Star Wars forums.

Hey, if some part of it is wrong please point it out.  That was what I was honestly thinking his position on the matter was.  I'm not trying to be offensive.  After I thought that was his point of view I stopped trying to discuss things that seemed directly in opposition to that mind set and it seemed to work.

So.. if I'm wrong please say how.

Edit: To explain it a different way his point of view seems to be that the DM should do minimal oversight minimal correction and minimal influence in the story of the players.  The reasoning that this will turn out well is that players want to have fun and will get quickly bored of trying to bend the rules to let them always win. 

Matyr, what Centauri is arguing against is the DM who very deliberately puts stumbling blocks in front of the players that don't conform to a certain variety of roleplay.  He isn't saying that the DM should do nothing and let the PCs run the story, but he is saying that the DM shouldn't force the players to run their character counter to how they envision them.  The player shouldn't be penalized for playing an encounter in the tavern just as their rough, uncivilized Barbarian PC would behave--if that means they start a bar fight, then the events might have to adapt, but not necessarily should the DM just say "Well, you don't find out a bloody thing, because you didn't spend your entire time schmoozing with the patronage of the tavern like the charismatic Bard did.  And furthermore, you're now in trouble with the local guard, and will now be barred from this town as a result."

An option in such a situation might be to have an NPC who finds the bar fight uproariously funny, and likes the way the Barbarian thinks.  So he might spill a little information about something he's heard--a good fight to be had, and this bruiser who just took out three Dragonborn at once might be up for it.  Or those town guards summoned to break it up might inform the Barbarian and his comrades that they'll have to undertake a mission to hunt down an aggressive tribe of local Hobgoblins as restitution for what they did.

The same goes for the "shopping the marketplace" event.  The DM shouldn't go giving a bonus to one PC for bargaining or talking it out to get a blacksmith to assist them, then a penalty to the player who simply says that they roll to find things or otherwise don't verbally act it out.  It might not be in their PC's personality to bargain and wheedle, or the player might not be comfortable or able to act it out as the DM sees appropriate.

In general, this is similar to the argument against accepting roleplay in place of or despite the appropriate skill rolls.  Don't allow the CHA 7 Barbarian to act out the information gathering scenario and find out everything while you ignore the fact that he rolled a 2, and then say that the Bard who rolled nat 20 fails to find out anything because he doesn't roleplay it.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 4:02PM, Rogue_Elendae wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The same goes for the "shopping the marketplace" event.  The DM shouldn't go giving a bonus to one PC for bargaining or talking it out to get a blacksmith to assist them, then a penalty to the player who simply says that they roll to find things or otherwise don't verbally act it out.  It might not be in their PC's personality to bargain and wheedle, or the player might not be comfortable or able to act it out as the DM sees appropriate.

Penalty to the other player?

Is giving the first player a bonus and not giving one to the second player a penalty? Or it that simply rewarding the first player?

As for me, I reward the first player and the second player gets the roll. Period. If one person puts in more effort and does more, they get a bonus. The other person just rolls the die...because that's what they did.

This to me is VERY fair.

Rogue, none of that seems mutually exclusive to what I was saying.  Maybe my phrasing was a bit negative, but basically all the same things can apply to both situations.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 4:42PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 4:02PM, Rogue_Elendae wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The same goes for the "shopping the marketplace" event.  The DM shouldn't go giving a bonus to one PC for bargaining or talking it out to get a blacksmith to assist them, then a penalty to the player who simply says that they roll to find things or otherwise don't verbally act it out.  It might not be in their PC's personality to bargain and wheedle, or the player might not be comfortable or able to act it out as the DM sees appropriate.

Penalty to the other player?

Is giving the first player a bonus and not giving one to the second player a penalty? Or it that simply rewarding the first player?

As for me, I reward the first player and the second player gets the roll. Period. If one person puts in more effort and does more, they get a bonus. The other person just rolls the die...because that's what they did.

This to me is VERY fair.

This is not what I'm arguing against.  The discussion seemed to rather be suggesting that there are people in this thread who find it appropriate to not only give the person who roleplays a bonus or to ignore asking them for a mechanical confirmation to what they do (as in, rolling the social skill needed), but to also apply a mechanical disadvantage to the person who uses the mechanics instead of acting the scenario out.  So it's essentially saying that one person who didn't even make a Streetwise (or Gather Info, if you're a 3.x-er) check is getting an automatic Take 10, or in some cases being treated as if they'd rolled a nat20 for acting it out, while the person who'd rather let their dice help determine what they find is taking at least a -2 no matter what they rolled.

It's ignoring the mechanics of the skills, and instead placing a greater value on the players' ability to act, which is an unfair measure.  It's the scenario I posed later in my post, of the DM who lets the Barbarian with almost no Charisma charm the entire crowd (often with behavior that runs counter to the way the character has acted until now) in spite of rolling 2, or even perhaps without being asked for a Diplomacy or other such roll to back it up, because the player is talented at acting it out.  Then, when the Bard with incredibly high Charisma asks if they can make a Diplomacy/Insight/whatever roll to find out information and gets a nat20, they're told they either didn't find out a lot, or they're given a pittance of information compared to that Barbarian player because they didn't act it out.  It's often full of the potential for rewarding OOC-ness, and also for unfairly penalizing players who are not comfortable acting, or who simply lack the talent to do so.  It's also putting forth a strong sense of "people who roll for these things don't even say what they're doing, they just roll the skill," which is also quite untrue from what I've experienced and what I've seen from other groups I've observed in play.

I have often had players in my group that are of both ends of this spectrum.  I would find it wholly unjust to say to my player who is often awkward in finding her words that she fails spectacularly at a diplomatic situation when her Paladin is a CHA-build and has incredibly high Diplomacy skills, just because she's not able to act it all out, and asks if she can roll and give a general outline of what her PC will say instead.  It would be equally unfair for me to reward the theatre major in our group for acting out the same scenario without a roll or with a poor roll, and say he gets the entire opposing group behind him, while he's playing his low-CHA, antisocial Artificer.  And I would find it even more unjust to use that as an excuse to tell a person they can't play a high-Charisma PC because they can't properly act as the character, which I can recall seeing proposed frequently back in the pre-4e forums.

Dec 14, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Rogue_Elendae wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 4:42PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 13, 2012 -- 4:02PM, Rogue_Elendae wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The same goes for the "shopping the marketplace" event.  The DM shouldn't go giving a bonus to one PC for bargaining or talking it out to get a blacksmith to assist them, then a penalty to the player who simply says that they roll to find things or otherwise don't verbally act it out.  It might not be in their PC's personality to bargain and wheedle, or the player might not be comfortable or able to act it out as the DM sees appropriate.

Penalty to the other player?

Is giving the first player a bonus and not giving one to the second player a penalty? Or it that simply rewarding the first player?

As for me, I reward the first player and the second player gets the roll. Period. If one person puts in more effort and does more, they get a bonus. The other person just rolls the die...because that's what they did.

This to me is VERY fair.

This is not what I'm arguing against.  The discussion seemed to rather be suggesting that there are people in this thread who find it appropriate to not only give the person who roleplays a bonus or to ignore asking them for a mechanical confirmation to what they do (as in, rolling the social skill needed), but to also apply a mechanical disadvantage to the person who uses the mechanics instead of acting the scenario out.  So it's essentially saying that one person who didn't even make a Streetwise (or Gather Info, if you're a 3.x-er) check is getting an automatic Take 10, or in some cases being treated as if they'd rolled a nat20 for acting it out, while the person who'd rather let their dice help determine what they find is taking at least a -2 no matter what they rolled.

It's ignoring the mechanics of the skills, and instead placing a greater value on the players' ability to act, which is an unfair measure.  It's the scenario I posed later in my post, of the DM who lets the Barbarian with almost no Charisma charm the entire crowd (often with behavior that runs counter to the way the character has acted until now) in spite of rolling 2, or even perhaps without being asked for a Diplomacy or other such roll to back it up, because the player is talented at acting it out.  Then, when the Bard with incredibly high Charisma asks if they can make a Diplomacy/Insight/whatever roll to find out information and gets a nat20, they're told they either didn't find out a lot, or they're given a pittance of information compared to that Barbarian player because they didn't act it out.  It's often full of the potential for rewarding OOC-ness, and also for unfairly penalizing players who are not comfortable acting, or who simply lack the talent to do so.  It's also putting forth a strong sense of "people who roll for these things don't even say what they're doing, they just roll the skill," which is also quite untrue from what I've experienced and what I've seen from other groups I've observed in play.

I have often had players in my group that are of both ends of this spectrum.  I would find it wholly unjust to say to my player who is often awkward in finding her words that she fails spectacularly at a diplomatic situation when her Paladin is a CHA-build and has incredibly high Diplomacy skills, just because she's not able to act it all out, and asks if she can roll and give a general outline of what her PC will say instead.  It would be equally unfair for me to reward the theatre major in our group for acting out the same scenario without a roll or with a poor roll, and say he gets the entire opposing group behind him, while he's playing his low-CHA, antisocial Artificer.  And I would find it even more unjust to use that as an excuse to tell a person they can't play a high-Charisma PC because they can't properly act as the character, which I can recall seeing proposed frequently back in the pre-4e forums.

I can see nowhere in the thread that contains posts that supports what you are saying here.

Yagami, while I will admit that I did misinterpret what was being said by MrCustomer in particular as saying there was an actual mechanical negative being given to a player who was using their mechanical skills as opposed to acting it out, his language did strongly imply to my interpretation that he was the sort of DM who effectively gave a free pass to a player who "roleplayed."

He mentions (post #27) about a Barbarian coming into the tavern and going into outright RP versus the Rogue who goes out picking pockets and then rolls Gather Info before going back to doing Rogueish things, with no interactions.  The way that this reads to me is that he wouldn't even ask for a roll from the Barbarian, because he's conforming to his standard of "roleplaying," while not even considering that the Rogue potentially could be gathering information while in the midst of his pickpocketing, nor considering what the Rogue is doing to be actual "roleplaying."  It might not be what he was aiming to say, but it felt like he was presenting a scenario wherein not only does the PC he interprets as "roleplayed" trump the PC whose player rolls his skill, but where he also illustrates his particular "hoop," as Centauri termed them.  He doesn't see the potential for the Rogue to have found information while he's cutting purses, so the Rogue isn't "roleplaying," and therefore gets shut down even though he's actually trying to use the mechanics.

As I said, this is the sort of thing that can have a high potential to reward OOC actions; is that Barbarian always roleplayed as the friendly, talkative guy in that scenario, or is this only his "Gather Info" face in counterpoint to a normally "Hulk SMASH!" Barbarian?  I've seen players try to abuse this sort of "roleplay trumps rolling skill checks" style of DMing; there's a player in my group who would frequently go into a well-spoken, deliberately tailored personality that was one he only put on when he was trying to do things like gather information or otherwise gain something from interactions with NPCs.  It had nothing to do with his PC's normal behavior or mannerisms, was not at all tied to his stats (the PC was fairly low CHA), and in general was only used when wanting to get in good with someone of import.  As a result of this, no matter which DM is in charge of a particular campaign in our group now, we always ask for a roll of the requisite skill no matter how good the roleplay was.  If the roll is made first, the player has to interpret their roleplay the way the dice indicated, good or bad.  If the roll is made after the roleplay, the DM interprets it, and will say that a low roll meant that the PC "pushed the wrong button" somewhere in the conversation, or otherwise triggered a poor result, no matter how good the RP was.

It reads to me very much like Centauri said: this is a case of a DM with a set mentality regarding what roleplay is, and who refuses to adapt events to match his PCs' actions if they do not meet up with it.  It's making the PCs jump through hoops, conforming not to the way they want to roleplay their character, nor what they might want to be doing in the scenario, but to how they'll actually get what they're looking for from the DM.

By comparison, a DM who doesn't create such hoops would simply have done as warrl said--have one of the people he pickpockets have some useful missive, a map, a peculiar key or other mcguffin in his purse.  If the Barbarian picks a fight, have someone admire him for his fighting spirit and offer information, or use the town guard breaking it up as a way to introduce a new plot hook.  Don't just expect the players to bend to you or to see and do things in precisely the way you want them to; meet them in the middle.  If their IC actions don't conform to the typical methods, find an interpretation as to how it actually would work to do what they're out to do, so that you can advance your plot.  Don't throw things (like in the "PCs jumping off cliffs" scenario) that the players will deliberately misinterpret or otherwise make light of in front of them if you want a serious plot, because you won't get what you're looking for if you keep giving them openings to be ridiculous.  It helps the players to use their characters in whatever way they're comfortable using and interpreting them, and it lets the DM continue his story without having to throw in the unwanted "break out of prison" scenario, etc.  Win-win, yes?

Dec 14, 2012 -- 10:59PM, Rogue_Elendae wrote:

Yagami, while I will admit that I did misinterpret what was being said by MrCustomer in particular as saying there was an actual mechanical negative being given to a player who was using their mechanical skills as opposed to acting it out, his language did strongly imply to my interpretation that he was the sort of DM who effectively gave a free pass to a player who "roleplayed."

He mentions (post #27) about a Barbarian coming into the tavern and going into outright RP versus the Rogue who goes out picking pockets and then rolls Gather Info before going back to doing Rogueish things, with no interactions.  The way that this reads to me is that he wouldn't even ask for a roll from the Barbarian, because he's conforming to his standard of "roleplaying," while not even considering that the Rogue potentially could be gathering information while in the midst of his pickpocketing, nor considering what the Rogue is doing to be actual "roleplaying."  It might not be what he was aiming to say, but it felt like he was presenting a scenario wherein not only does the PC he interprets as "roleplayed" trump the PC whose player rolls his skill, but where he also illustrates his particular "hoop," as Centauri termed them.  He doesn't see the potential for the Rogue to have found information while he's cutting purses, so the Rogue isn't "roleplaying," and therefore gets shut down even though he's actually trying to use the mechanics.

As I said, this is the sort of thing that can have a high potential to reward OOC actions; is that Barbarian always roleplayed as the friendly, talkative guy in that scenario, or is this only his "Gather Info" face in counterpoint to a normally "Hulk SMASH!" Barbarian?  I've seen players try to abuse this sort of "roleplay trumps rolling skill checks" style of DMing; there's a player in my group who would frequently go into a well-spoken, deliberately tailored personality that was one he only put on when he was trying to do things like gather information or otherwise gain something from interactions with NPCs.  It had nothing to do with his PC's normal behavior or mannerisms, was not at all tied to his stats (the PC was fairly low CHA), and in general was only used when wanting to get in good with someone of import.  As a result of this, no matter which DM is in charge of a particular campaign in our group now, we always ask for a roll of the requisite skill no matter how good the roleplay was.  If the roll is made first, the player has to interpret their roleplay the way the dice indicated, good or bad.  If the roll is made after the roleplay, the DM interprets it, and will say that a low roll meant that the PC "pushed the wrong button" somewhere in the conversation, or otherwise triggered a poor result, no matter how good the RP was.

It reads to me very much like Centauri said: this is a case of a DM with a set mentality regarding what roleplay is, and who refuses to adapt events to match his PCs' actions if they do not meet up with it.  It's making the PCs jump through hoops, conforming not to the way they want to roleplay their character, nor what they might want to be doing in the scenario, but to how they'll actually get what they're looking for from the DM.

By comparison, a DM who doesn't create such hoops would simply have done as warrl said--have one of the people he pickpockets have some useful missive, a map, a peculiar key or other mcguffin in his purse.  If the Barbarian picks a fight, have someone admire him for his fighting spirit and offer information, or use the town guard breaking it up as a way to introduce a new plot hook.  Don't just expect the players to bend to you or to see and do things in precisely the way you want them to; meet them in the middle.  If their IC actions don't conform to the typical methods, find an interpretation as to how it actually would work to do what they're out to do, so that you can advance your plot.  Don't throw things (like in the "PCs jumping off cliffs" scenario) that the players will deliberately misinterpret or otherwise make light of in front of them if you want a serious plot, because you won't get what you're looking for if you keep giving them openings to be ridiculous.  It helps the players to use their characters in whatever way they're comfortable using and interpreting them, and it lets the DM continue his story without having to throw in the unwanted "break out of prison" scenario, etc.  Win-win, yes?

So it's unfair for the DM to reward someone trying to directly interact with the world in a way that is far more amusing and interesting for everyone at the table as compared to a dice roll?

If the entire game can just boil down to dice roles, why roleplay? Why even have a DM? At what point is it just a computer sim?

And no, not win-win...DM's shouldn't have stories.

Also are you suggesting that if a cliff is put before a players and one of them jumps off it it is unfair to have that person take falling damage? Because that was, somehow, Centauri's point.

I am going to be putting up a post when I get some free time that basically boils down to the fact that survability/success in a game will NEVER be made easier by rules so long as the game has a legitimate challenge to it. All you are doing is empowering CHARACTERS which does nothing to empower the players...it only creates the illusion of empowerment through power-fantasy. That does nothing directly for player agency, the only legitimate empowerment possible in a game.

This mentality though? This whole thing? It's the removement of empowerment from players. It is the reduction of them to numbers on a piece of paper. Yes, people that roleplay and make a legitimate effort should be rewarded. Does that mean people that simply roll should be penalized? Only if you conclude that a lack of bonus is a penalty...which is as ludicrous as saying Jews get penalized on Christmas by not getting Christmas presents. If the barbarian player roleplays a way to legitimately uncover information, no roll SHOULD be required because player action trumps dice.

PS.

D&D 7th Edition Playtest

"You see a dungeon"

"I roll to clear it! I got a 17!"

"You clear it!"

"YAY!"

Idea for how to become better at role-playing:

Study personality profiles, like Myers-Briggs, Four Humours, things like that to get a good idea for how different people think

I found some good links if anybody wants to take a look:

Humours:
archive.fighunter.com/?page=temperaments

MB:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Myer...
www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperam...
www.personalitypage.com/html/home.shtml
www.typelogic.com/
www.discoveryourpersonality.com/abouttyp...

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.  No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.  There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.  No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.  There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

If you want to determine what happens in a game be a player or write a book.

Dec 15, 2012 -- 7:06PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.  No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.  There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

If you want to determine what happens in a game be a player or write a book.

Or be a DM with players that can actually integrate things you give them into their goals .

I know, me having fun with the players may seem like a sin... but if it is... yay sinning! 

Dec 16, 2012 -- 12:16AM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 15, 2012 -- 7:06PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.  No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.  There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

If you want to determine what happens in a game be a player or write a book.

Or be a DM with players that can actually integrate things you give them into their goals .

I know, me having fun with the players may seem like a sin... but if it is... yay sinning! 

Thou shalt not lie :P

Dec 14, 2012 -- 10:59PM, Rogue_Elendae wrote:

Yagami, while I will admit that I did misinterpret what was being said by MrCustomer in particular as saying there was an actual mechanical negative being given to a player who was using their mechanical skills as opposed to acting it out, his language did strongly imply to my interpretation that he was the sort of DM who effectively gave a free pass to a player who "roleplayed."

He mentions (post #27) about a Barbarian coming into the tavern and going into outright RP versus the Rogue who goes out picking pockets and then rolls Gather Info before going back to doing Rogueish things, with no interactions.  The way that this reads to me is that he wouldn't even ask for a roll from the Barbarian, because he's conforming to his standard of "roleplaying," while not even considering that the Rogue potentially could be gathering information

To answer this, there are ussually, especially if the DM lets the players write the game, are more then one solution to anything. Gather Information is only one solution out of many for getting the information. Talk to the right person and ask the right questions is another solution. Researching in the city records with a Knowledge skill might be another solution.

To this end the barbarian may well have chosen one of the possible solutions. he first engaged to make the enhabitants more friendly to him, and then to get to know people, and then to ask the right questions. To this end he has succeeded (in the even of happening upong the right people) or at the very least earned a modifier to his rolls. Again there are other ways to have solved this and all may be more or less or equally valid approaches, some the DM may have thought of ahead of time and some that may not have occured to him, but that he should roll with.

The Rogue's approach? Yes rolling Gather Information is a perfectly valid solution. However it tyically takes 1d4+1 hours time to do, (2 hours minimum basically) and the Rogue has spent the time focused on other activities, no doubt he may succeed in breaking intot the inn's vault, or pickpocketing some pocket change and jewelry. But he won't have gotten much success in Gathering Information if he isn't even trying. Yes he could spend some of the time actually gathering information, but his success/failure is going to reflect the amount of time and effort he actually spent focused on the task.

So increasing the DC for not spending the entire time needed, ie rushing the task, is called for.  This would be the same as if using any other skill while rushing, after all if he is literally trying to do 2 hour's work in 15 minutes, it's going to be more difficult.

My point was for people new to roleplaying who need a focus, a "what to do?"  to start them, working to gain modifiers for the skill, rather then just tossing the dice, is a good way to break out of the shell, it gives them a goal oreinted purpose that will help get into character. The Rogue could be using the same method while pickpocketing.

There is nothing dickish in a world that is reactive in a realistic manner either. Having the world behave realistically and reactively is one of the best way to make the game immersive.  
   

  


   
    

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.

I have to admit I got a chuckle out of this, but it's still a mis-representation of Yagami's position. 

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.

I don't remember anyone saying that. Except for you, just now, in the post that I'm quoting. 

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

See my previous two points above.

Dec 15, 2012 -- 7:06PM, YagamiFire wrote:

If you want to determine what happens in a game be a player or write a book.

This is 100% true. Creative fiction writing and running a tabletop RPG are two entirely different beasts. There are skills from both that can overlap and serve you well in either field, but they are not the same thing. Now, my English instructor may not be the greatest master of literature in the world, but he knows his stuff, and he runs tabletop RPGs pretty regularly, one of them of his own design that he has been iterating for a long time, and he realized all this a long time ago. When I talked with him about this, all he did was confirm what I thought.

Here are some excerpts from the 3.5 DMG, from page 44 and 45, respectively.

"Choices: A good adventure has at least a few points where the players need to make important decisions. What they decide should have significant impact on what happens next. A choice can be as simple as the players deciding not to go down the corridor to the left (where the pyrohydra waits for them) and instead going to the right (toward the magic fountain), or as complex as the PCs deciding not to help the queen against the grand vizier (so that she ends up being assassinated and the vizier’s puppet gains the throne). Difficult Choices: When a choice has a significant consequence, it should sometimes be a difficult one to make. Should the PCs help the church of Heironeous wage war on the goblins, even though the conflict will almost certainly keep them from reaching the Fortress of Nast before the evil duke summons the slaadi assassins? Should the PCs trust the words of a dragon, or ignore her warning?"

"Leading the PCs by the Nose: A bad event-based adventure is marked by mandates restricting PC actions or is based on events that occur no matter what the PCs do. For example, a plot that hinges on the PCs finding a mysterious heirloom, only to have it stolen by NPCs, is dangerous—if the players invent a good way to protect the heirloom, they won’t like having it stolen anyway just because that’s what you had planned beforehand. The players end up feeling powerless and frustrated. No matter what, all adventures should depend upon player choices, and players should feel as though what they choose to do matters. The results should affect the campaign setting (albeit perhaps in minor ways), and they should have consequences (good or bad) for the PCs."

These are both taken from the good/bad structure section.

I wrote this huge thing out, then tapped a button by mistake.  It's all gone, so you get this instead.

Out of all the descriptions there was one that the DM said looked sad, I immediately thought "That's her." I sat next to her and ordered a drink. I then attempted to flirt with her to get information, but I ended up giving her the information I had. Unfortunately it was her, and now because I failed at roleplaying well she knew that we were looking for her.

This was not bad roleplay.  This was awesome roleplay.  Take my advice.  You just made a memorable event that people will not forget so easily.

I saw the second example but it really sounds like is that you are not getting the words right. 
Rollplay is playing by rolling the dice.  It's unimaginitive, and gets you nowhere.  You played to have fun, remember? 
Roleplay is where you act as the character would.  Doing badly does not make it any less.  In fact, things are much more eventfull that way.

Dec 15, 2012 -- 7:06PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.  No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.  There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

If you want to determine what happens in a game be a player or write a book.

If the DM didn't determine what happens in a game the PCs would be sitting in a tavern doing nothing for a very, very long time.

The DM's job should be to create an immersive, interactive and organic world in which the players incert themselves into.  A world that behaves and reacts realistically, one in which the NPCs are every bit as alive as their own characters is one that they can immerse themselves into. Good or bad, the world should react and behave accordingly.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 7:32AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Dec 15, 2012 -- 7:06PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 15, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Remember Rogue_Elen if the DM has any plans, goals, wishes or desires that means he automatically loses the game of DMing.  No DM should ever make any difference to their game beyond facilitating anything and everything for their players.  There can be no fun in any game that doesn't revolved exclusively around the mind of the players.

If you want to determine what happens in a game be a player or write a book.

If the DM didn't determine what happens in a game the PCs would be sitting in a tavern doing nothing for a very, very long time.

The DM's job should be to create an immersive, interactive and organic world in which the players incert themselves into.  A world that behaves and reacts realistically, one in which the NPCs are every bit as alive as their own characters is one that they can immerse themselves into. Good or bad, the world should react and behave accordingly.

Agreed. And in such a world, just like in real life, a DM will have little ot no ability to determine what will happen. The onus is on the players, therefore the DM has little to no ability to determine, for himself, what happens.

With a trap, for instance, you cannot determine whether the players encounter it...you cannot determine whether it harms a player...you cannot determine whether they by-pass it or not...etc etc. Only the players and the rules can determine that. The DM should always be as far removed from determination as possible.

In truth, I'm sure we agree, I think we may be looking past one another though. Lemme know if you need any more clarification...it's a weird concept.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:19AM, YagamiFire wrote:

With a trap, for instance, you cannot determine whether the players encounter it...

Cept for, as a DM, you actually do determine some/many/all of what the characters encounter and whether they encounter it.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:19AM, YagamiFire wrote:

With a trap, for instance, you cannot determine whether the players encounter it...

Cept for, as a DM, you actually do determine some/many/all of what the characters encounter and whether they encounter it.

Incorrect. The players may choose to avoid the place its in...they may never go to that place...or they may stop short of it.

Additionally, the trap may be generated randomly in which case you did not determine it, it is as much a surprise for you as the players.

So no, there is never a time when you determine whether they encounter it or not. They simply do or they don't...and the onus is on the players.

I think you are misconstruing what I mean by "determine"...you do not decide that they do something. Things need to be cut & dry...either something DOES happen or it doesn't. The DM does not "determine" that...the rules, the players or logic do. The DM should need to determine very little on the part of the game world. The DM DOES have to determine certain things on behalf of the players, but that is aiding them because there are many situations PCs can come up with that the game is not necessarily made to arbitrate. This is when the DM steps in...however, even then the PCs have the ability to determine whether or not they still undertake the action and then they or the dice decide what happens.

Dec 16, 2012 -- 2:54PM, MrCustomer wrote:

There is nothing dickish in a world that is reactive in a realistic manner either. Having the world behave realistically and reactively is one of the best way to make the game immersive.

At some point (and that point is not very far along) the game must diverge from apparent "realism," and veer down a path of (at least) "unlikely but plausible" to keep things interesting. Consequences for character actions don't always need to be strictly positive, but there's no excuse for making them boring.

(And I bet most DMs who make the whole town angry and closed off to a party don't see it as boring. They probably don't see prison or death as boring. Think of all the movies in which the character is ostracized or killed or imprisoned, and the scenario turns out to be very interesting. So, shouldn't a DM and party let these sorts of scenarios arise and see what interesting things come of them? It really depends on the kind of time they have. It should be acknowledged though that certain scenarios, when played "realistically," are likely to limit interesting development and play for arbitrarily long swaths of game time, partly due to the fact that the DM is then obliged to keep the PCs in that scenario in order to maintain realism. A prison the PCs can just smash their way out of, or a town that quickly changes its mind about a miscreant isn't that realistic, after all, right? If the DM is resorting to "realism" as an excuse for punishing certain players, there's even more incentive for the DM to keep things boring.

(What's a player to do? Know what you might be getting into if your DM touts "realism" and "immersion." They're double-edged swords.)

Dec 17, 2012 -- 9:15AM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 16, 2012 -- 2:54PM, MrCustomer wrote:

There is nothing dickish in a world that is reactive in a realistic manner either. Having the world behave realistically and reactively is one of the best way to make the game immersive.

At some point (and that point is not very far along) the game must diverge from apparent "realism," and veer down a path of (at least) "unlikely but plausible" to keep things interesting. Consequences for character actions don't always need to be strictly positive, but there's no excuse for making them boring.

(And I bet most DMs who make the whole town angry and closed off to a party don't see it as boring. They probably don't see prison or death as boring. Think of all the movies in which the character is ostracized or killed or imprisoned, and the scenario turns out to be very interesting. So, shouldn't a DM and party let these sorts of scenarios arise and see what interesting things come of them? It really depends on the kind of time they have. It should be acknowledged though that certain scenarios, when played "realistically," are likely to limit interesting development and play for arbitrarily long swaths of game time, partly due to the fact that the DM is then obliged to keep the PCs in that scenario in order to maintain realism. A prison the PCs can just smash their way out of, or a town that quickly changes its mind about a miscreant isn't that realistic, after all, right? If the DM is resorting to "realism" as an excuse for punishing certain players, there's even more incentive for the DM to keep things boring.

(What's a player to do? Know what you might be getting into if your DM touts "realism" and "immersion." They're double-edged swords.)

This is why logic "sometimes" doesn't work because there is no line to draw. "What is fun" means absolutely nothing so it is impossible to fully determine. Imprisonment doesn't mean an end to the character...though it can. A player is free to give up on a character if they so choose and leave them to their fate. This is also a big reason my players have satellite characters like henchman and friends & allies (from their 3x3) so that they can pick up that person and shift focus to that character as their PC if they so wish.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 9:09AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:19AM, YagamiFire wrote:

With a trap, for instance, you cannot determine whether the players encounter it...

Cept for, as a DM, you actually do determine some/many/all of what the characters encounter and whether they encounter it.

Incorrect. The players may choose to avoid the place its in...they may never go to that place...or they may stop short of it.

Additionally, the trap may be generated randomly in which case you did not determine it, it is as much a surprise for you as the players.

So no, there is never a time when you determine whether they encounter it or not. They simply do or they don't...and the onus is on the players.

I think you are misconstruing what I mean by "determine"...you do not decide that they do something. Things need to be cut & dry...either something DOES happen or it doesn't. The DM does not "determine" that...the rules, the players or logic do. The DM should need to determine very little on the part of the game world. The DM DOES have to determine certain things on behalf of the players, but that is aiding them because there are many situations PCs can come up with that the game is not necessarily made to arbitrate. This is when the DM steps in...however, even then the PCs have the ability to determine whether or not they still undertake the action and then they or the dice decide what happens.

You can say it is incorrect and try to muddle it up as much as you want.  But it is the DM's role to determine some things for the players.  Yes they might not go way A and get to thing B, but most DMs arent running exclusively with random generators (at least in my experience).  If they are improvising they are doing it on the fly, using their imagination and suggestion from the players to build the world.  But they are still putting things in front of the players.  Unless you play a game where everything is either player built or randomly created that is how it has to be.  Now I'm not saying you can't do it that way.  I am saying that professing that as the only way to do things is absurd.  Even if you are building things randomly you probably still picked the generator to draw things from, the list of random names to draw from etc etc.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 9:09AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:52AM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 8:19AM, YagamiFire wrote:

With a trap, for instance, you cannot determine whether the players encounter it...

Cept for, as a DM, you actually do determine some/many/all of what the characters encounter and whether they encounter it.

Incorrect. The players may choose to avoid the place its in...they may never go to that place...or they may stop short of it.

Additionally, the trap may be generated randomly in which case you did not determine it, it is as much a surprise for you as the players.

So no, there is never a time when you determine whether they encounter it or not. They simply do or they don't...and the onus is on the players.

I think you are misconstruing what I mean by "determine"...you do not decide that they do something. Things need to be cut & dry...either something DOES happen or it doesn't. The DM does not "determine" that...the rules, the players or logic do. The DM should need to determine very little on the part of the game world. The DM DOES have to determine certain things on behalf of the players, but that is aiding them because there are many situations PCs can come up with that the game is not necessarily made to arbitrate. This is when the DM steps in...however, even then the PCs have the ability to determine whether or not they still undertake the action and then they or the dice decide what happens.

You can say it is incorrect and try to muddle it up as much as you want.  But it is the DM's role to determine some things for the players.  Yes they might not go way A and get to thing B, but most DMs arent running exclusively with random generators (at least in my experience).  If they are improvising they are doing it on the fly, using their imagination and suggestion from the players to build the world.  But they are still putting things in front of the players.  Unless you play a game where everything is either player built or randomly created that is how it has to be.  Now I'm not saying you can't do it that way.  I am saying that professing that as the only way to do things is absurd.  Even if you are building things randomly you probably still picked the generator to draw things from, the list of random names to draw from etc etc.

The point is entirely that the PCs still have control over their fate. If they run into something they can choose to encounter it or ignore it...they can pursue it to the extent that they wish. When properly run, the DM can determine NONE of that.

You are right in that the DM places things in the world...however, I find it important that the DM places no importance on whether or not the players encounter it and see it through. PC attention and focus is entirely on the players part...they determine that. The DM can have NO INVESTMENT in wanting the players to do certain things...that way lies madness.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 9:15AM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 16, 2012 -- 2:54PM, MrCustomer wrote:

There is nothing dickish in a world that is reactive in a realistic manner either. Having the world behave realistically and reactively is one of the best way to make the game immersive.

At some point (and that point is not very far along) the game must diverge from apparent "realism," and veer down a path of (at least) "unlikely but plausible" to keep things interesting. Consequences for character actions don't always need to be strictly positive, but there's no excuse for making them boring.

Never suggested they need to be boring, negative nor positive, just that the world reacts organically in a plausible fashion. realism being limited to the fantasy genre, and here I am talking of generating modifiers and circumstance bonuses.

the world acting organically, players can take actions to create better or worse circumstances, and there is a section of the DMG that discusses Circumstance modifiers, ussually they are plus or minus 2 to the DC or Skill roll. And what I mentioned concerning Gather Information is no different then giving a +2 Climb bonus for having climbing tools, or changing a difficult climb down a cliff to easy because they used a rope.

(And I bet most DMs who make the whole town angry and closed off to a party don't see it as boring. They probably don't see prison or death as boring. Think of all the movies in which the character is ostracized or killed or imprisoned, and the scenario turns out to be very interesting. So, shouldn't a DM and party let these sorts of scenarios arise and see what interesting things come of them? It really depends on the kind of time they have.

Or more importantly the degree of actions the Players took to get in that situation. Does a barfight exchange of drunken fisticuffs do more then get them tossed out the bar, perhaps land them in a cell for the knight and released when they are sober the next morning? Petty crimes cann't be solved with a bribe, or paying a fine, or by fleeing the scene and laying low till they leave town?

I've got to ask what exactly the character or party did to warrent Imprisonment? Did they kill a dozen people in the barfight in cold blood and then proceed to attack the city guards? 20 corpses later...?

I am refering to realistic consequences, much the same way that if I suggest chalenging encounters that I don't mean to imply that level 1 characters should be attacked by ancient red dragons.  I suggest the game be run with a sense of realism and using circumstance modifiers in response to their actions and you jump to DMs being abusive and tossing characters in prisons .

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:32AM, MrCustomer wrote:

the world acting organically, players can take actions to create better or worse circumstances, and there is a section of the DMG that discusses Circumstance modifiers, ussually they are plus or minus 2 to the DC or Skill roll. And what I mentioned concerning Gather Information is no different then giving a +2 Climb bonus for having climbing tools, or changing a difficult climb down a cliff to easy because they used a rope.

You're right, it's not much different: some DMs punish players for not remembering to buy rope, too.

But it is different in how generally vague the "circumstances" for Gather Information are. It's not as straightforward as having a rope or not (and I doubt even that is particularly straightforward). It's much easier for a DM to slip into the roll of trying to goose players into line with penalties and rewards for Gather Information (which, thankfully, isn't a skill in 4th Edition, replaced by a skill challenge that the rules strongly advise have interesting failure).

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:32AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Or more importantly the degree of actions the Players took to get in that situation. Does a barfight exchange of drunken fisticuffs do more then get them tossed out the bar, perhaps land them in a cell for the knight and released when they are sober the next morning?

Yes, it does, because what it does is something interesting, not boring for the sake of realism.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:32AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Petty crimes cann't be solved with a bribe, or paying a fine, or by fleeing the scene and laying low till they leave town?

Sure they can. Is that interesting, or punitive? It could be made interesting, but not when "realism" is the watchword.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:32AM, MrCustomer wrote:

I've got to ask what exactly the character or party did to warrent Imprisonment? Did they kill a dozen people in the barfight in cold blood and then proceed to attack the city guards? 20 corpses later...?

It doesn't matter. Imprisonment should be off the table, unless the players are expressly seeking it, or the DM can be trusted to make it interesting. I could see some players deciding that getting tossed in prison with other ne'er-do-wells , or making inroads with the local criminal element could be the way to gather the information they need.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:32AM, MrCustomer wrote:

I am refering to realistic consequences, much the same way that if I suggest chalenging encounters that I don't mean to imply that level 1 characters should be attacked by ancient red dragons.  I suggest the game be run with a sense of realism and using circumstance modifiers in response to their actions and you jump to DMs being abusive and tossing characters in prisons .

Not all DMs who rely on realism and use circumstance modifiers are boring and abusive. But almost every DM who is boring and abusive relies heavily on realism and circumstance modifiers. No, I can't logically deduce that realism and modifiers are guarantees of a bad DM, but they should certainly be red flags for every player.

Centauri, then that is more appropriately in the DM section on "how to be a Good DM" here is "how to be a Good Role Player" And here I am suggesting to the players how to create Circumstance Modifiers via roleplaying, especially in social situations.

Buying the tools of the trade will help in other situations, even "easy" tasks such as climbing or swimming can be the death of a fighter in full plate and a tower shield. Buying some rope and climbing gear and other supplies is good advice. It is the same thing, creating modifiers to your benifit.   


If there happens to be a cliff in a dungeon, the DM isn't "punishing the players for not buying rope" there is just a cliff in the dungeon. The DM shouldn't be crossing it out simply because the player's didn't come prepared.   

It doesn't matter. Imprisonment should be off the table, unless the players are expressly seeking it, or the DM can be trusted to make it interesting. I could see some players deciding that getting tossed in prison with other ne'er-do-wells , or making inroads with the local criminal element could be the way to gather the information they need 

like it or not, an individual player's actions can be ruining the game for the rest of the group when he goes on a murder spree and slaughters a town. A good DM will not and should not enable that kind of behavior, especially not at the expense of the rest of the players.

IMO if the player is running around all stabby, then he is expressly seeking to be stabbed back. If he doesn't want to be imprisoned or killed, then it is entirely up to him to make sure he can get away with it.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 12:44PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Centauri, then that is more appropriately in the DM section on "how to be a Good DM" here is "how to be a Good Role Player" And here I am suggesting to the players how to create Circumstance Modifiers via roleplaying, especially in social situations.

Buying the tools of the trade will help in other situations, even "easy" tasks such as climbing or swimming can be the death of a fighter in full plate and a tower shield. Buying some rope and climbing gear and other supplies is good advice. It is the same thing, creating modifiers to your benifit.

There is nothing a player can do that is guaranteed to create modifiers to their benefit in the case of gathering information, diplomacy, or anything else. The only way is to find out what the DM expects, which might not actually have anything to do with a player roleplaying in a consistent manner, and everything to do with the players behaving in a certain way in certain circumstances and being punished in game if they don't.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 12:44PM, MrCustomer wrote:

like it or not, an individual player's actions can be ruining the game for the rest of the group when he goes on a murder spree and slaughters a town. A good DM will not and should not enable that kind of behavior, especially not at the expense of the rest of the players.

Handling out-of-game issues with in-game punishments has a sad history as long as that of the game itself. Avoid this approach. Talk about the game outside of the game.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 12:44PM, MrCustomer wrote:

IMO if the player is running around all stabby, then he is expressly seeking to be stabbed back. If he doesn't want to be imprisoned or killed, then it is entirely up to him to make sure he can get away with it.

Why would anyone involved in the game want to see the character imprisoned or killed? Unless those circumstances are being made much more interesting than they traditionally have been, this is basically telling the player that if they make a mistake or misjudge something, that they have to sit out of the game until the DM either releases their old character or incorporates the new one.

Do you see how choosing boring consequences is a passive-aggressive way to leash the players into one's preferred style of play? Do you see how much of a waste of time that is for everyone?

Not to construct a straw-man, but the classic come back to this is that the DM gets to have fun too, and sometimes player behavior is boring for the DM. I understand that. But what it comes down to is arranging one's play so that choices by the players can't disrupt a DM's fun, because the DM can roll with those changes while at the same time keeping the game interesting and fun for the players. Yes, it's more of a matter for the DM forum, but it can be done.

What's a Player to Do? Find out what the DM wants and give it to him as much as possible. Don't hinge your fun on the DM acting a particular way. Stay flexible.

(For a complete experience, swap "Player" and "DM" in the previous paragraph.)

Dec 17, 2012 -- 10:29AM, YagamiFire wrote:

You are right in that the DM places things in the world...however, I find it important that the DM places no importance on whether or not the players encounter it and see it through. PC attention and focus is entirely on the players part...they determine that. The DM can have NO INVESTMENT in wanting the players to do certain things...that way lies madness.

Which is what I meant to a certain extent the DM determines what is in the world.

Secondly, while I know it is your heartfelt belief that the DM cannot have any investment in seeing what the players will do, it is not the only good way to play the game.  I'm sorry we just won't be able to see eye to eye on this point ever (apparently). 

Dec 17, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Matyr wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 10:29AM, YagamiFire wrote:

You are right in that the DM places things in the world...however, I find it important that the DM places no importance on whether or not the players encounter it and see it through. PC attention and focus is entirely on the players part...they determine that. The DM can have NO INVESTMENT in wanting the players to do certain things...that way lies madness.

Which is what I meant to a certain extent the DM determines what is in the world.

Secondly, while I know it is your heartfelt belief that the DM cannot have any investment in seeing what the players will do, it is not the only good way to play the game.  I'm sorry we just won't be able to see eye to eye on this point ever (apparently). 

Oh I have investment in what the players will do...its what I'm there to see. I just have no expectations to thrust upon them.

Also no need to apologize.

We've overlooked the other example from the OP: haggling down the price.

Ignoring for now what a waste of time haggling scenes generally are, what's worth considering is that the player "roleplayed with the merchant so horribly" that far from gaining circumstance bonuses or penalties, the player didn't even get to roll at all, yet still incurred a penalty in the form of a higher cost for the item in question.

This was with a high Charisma character.

We don't know what the DM expected from the character. It's possible that the OP did something that any one of us would be hard pressed to take in an interesting direction, even accounting for how uninteresting haggling already is. But what I've seen much more of is DMs who simply have no intention of budging on a particular point, no matter what the player does, and then penalizes the character for even trying, to ensure that they won't try again.

This is the hoop. Players usually can't see the hoops or even know they're there, so they try this roleplaying thing they've heard of and get a cookie or a slap. If they get a slap, they're not likely to try it again, and will do everything they can not to make any choices, so as not to make any the DM doesn't want them to make.

Some players come into a game pre-slapped, but slapped over the wrong things, so the DM has to get them to come out of their shell in order to slap them over the right things.

I would bet that the OP is a great roleplayer, and it's to their credit that they want to keep trying to appease this DM despite what has happened so far. They clearly want to roleplay, but the DM doesn't seem to want to let them. All the player can do is ask the DM where the hoops are, and their extents, and stick to those.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 3:06PM, Centauri wrote:

We've overlooked the other example from the OP: haggling down the price.

Ignoring for now what a waste of time haggling scenes generally are

Needless judgement call.

, what's worth considering is that the player "roleplayed with the merchant so horribly" that far from gaining circumstance bonuses or penalties, the player didn't even get to roll at all, yet still incurred a penalty in the form of a higher cost for the item in question.

This was with a high Charisma character.

We don't know what the DM expected from the character. It's possible that the OP did something that any one of us would be hard pressed to take in an interesting direction, even accounting for how uninteresting haggling already is. But what I've seen much more of is DMs who simply have no intention of budging on a particular point, no matter what the player does, and then penalizes the character for even trying, to ensure that they won't try again.

This is the hoop. Players usually can't see the hoops or even know they're there, so they try this roleplaying thing they've heard of and get a cookie or a slap. If they get a slap, they're not likely to try it again, and will do everything they can not to make any choices, so as not to make any the DM doesn't want them to make.

Some players come into a game pre-slapped, but slapped over the wrong things, so the DM has to get them to come out of their shell in order to slap them over the right things.

I would bet that the OP is a great roleplayer, and it's to their credit that they want to keep trying to appease this DM despite what has happened so far. They clearly want to roleplay, but the DM doesn't seem to want to let them. All the player can do is ask the DM where the hoops are, and their extents, and stick to those.

You've been abused by DMs in the past, haven't you? Here this might help...

hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/12/on-...

And as for haggling scenes (and other similar scenes)...what scene told us more about Luke Skywalker, him shooting Tie Fighters with Han Solo or him arguing with Uncle Owen about going to Toshi station?

Haggling always presents a problem to the DM because the expectation of the players is always on the value of the item never costing more then base price and never selling for less then the standard rate (ussually 50% cost) The expectation is just too skewed one way because the haggling is starting at the base price.

Typically when something is haggled over, the price starts higher then normal and is haggled down to the median price. Ie a 1000 gp item should start at 1,300 to 1,500gp and be haggled down to 900 to 1,100 gp. (median of 1000gp) Inevitable a player will end up paying more sometimes, and is not going to be happy.

This can be exasperated if the player, while haggling says something rude to the merchant, "tsk, typical Gnomes, always greedy little refuges thinking you can swindle us humans? I will pay no more then 500 gp" (refering to a 2,000 gp magic item that costs 1,000 gp to craft) Insulting the shopkeeper, especially by an offer below cost for the item, is generally a bad idea.

gotta run, not finished postin    
  

Dec 17, 2012 -- 6:20PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Haggling always presents a problem to the DM because the expectation of the players is always on the value of the item never costing more then base price and never selling for less then the standard rate (ussually 50% cost) The expectation is just too skewed one way because the haggling is starting at the base price.

Typically when something is haggled over, the price starts higher then normal and is haggled down to the median price. Ie a 1000 gp item should start at 1,300 to 1,500gp and be haggled down to 900 to 1,100 gp. (median of 1000gp) Inevitable a player will end up paying more sometimes, and is not going to be happy.

This can be exasperated if the player, while haggling says something rude to the merchant, "tsk, typical Gnomes, always greedy little refuges thinking you can swindle us humans? I will pay no more then 500 gp" (refering to a 2,000 gp magic item that costs 1,000 gp to craft) Insulting the shopkeeper, especially by an offer below cost for the item, is generally a bad idea.

gotta run, not finished postin    
  

Exactly. Many of my merchants sell things ABOVE regular cost. I mean...that's real life. So if something is 800 gold, the merchant might be asking for 900 or 1000. Then the haggling can take place and they can interact with the merchant, maybe learn something in doing so or pick up a hook or something and get the price down to the normal price and even, with a bit of luck and some insight, they can even get it for less.

Heck, my players have taken that time to develop their characters like the rude Barbarian (from a race that can't stand haggling) interjecting and such while the street savy rogue (and player) tries to weasel every nickle out of the merchant.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 6:20PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Haggling always presents a problem to the DM because the expectation of the players is always on the value of the item never costing more then base price and never selling for less then the standard rate (ussually 50% cost) The expectation is just too skewed one way because the haggling is starting at the base price.

The problem is that the characters could probably be making much more money per out-of-game minute just by adventuring, and arguing is boring, so unless there's something particularly interesting about this haggling session it's probably a waste of time for everyone at the table, including the people actually haggling.

Actually, I can think of some fun ways to run a haggling scene, but one in which either side actually cares how much the item goes for is not one of those ways.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 6:35PM, Centauri wrote:

The problem is that the characters could probably be making much more money per out-of-game minute just by adventuring, and arguing is boring, so unless there's something particularly interesting about this haggling session it's probably a waste of time for everyone at the table, including the people actually haggling.

Actually, I can think of some fun ways to run a haggling scene, but one in which either side actually cares how much the item goes for is not one of those ways.

Nope. The "problem" would be a boring DM with boring NPCs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Never finished my post.

The other reason that PCs haggle is to attempt to buy items that they shouldn't have and the wealth by level doesn't let them buy, and the DM really isn't about to let them haggle a 50% discount to get (or get under any circumstances) and item they shouldn't have yet.

The other thing the DM has to worry is a Player with high charisma who tries this to get ahead, and gains an unfair advantage over the rest of the group with an uneven wealth distribution. This ussually happens when an inexpereinced DM caves in and is taken advantage of, because it has to be taken to an extreme to happen.     

Haggling does work, if that is what the players want (sometimes they want to open a storefront, which can work too) but it requires a system in place that the DM and Players can agree upon. The Players need to understand that the vendors will be asking 20% to 50% more for items, and that they might end up paying more for some items, and less for others.  But this must be established in advance.

Actually the secret to making this work is the illusion of success, The players save more then should and sell their loot for more, but the DM subtly adjusts the treasure they get to compensate. Ussually the net savings aren't enough to matter, but if they are the DM can easily reestablish the wealth-per-level in a round or 2 at most.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:00PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Actually the secret to making this work is the illusion of success, The players save more then should and sell their loot for more, but the DM subtly adjusts the treasure they get to compensate. Ussually the net savings aren't enough to matter, but if they are the DM can easily reestablish the wealth-per-level in a round or 2 at most.

Then it sounds as though haggling truly is a waste of their time, unless it's about something other than the money.

The OP's situation didn't seem to have anything to do with any plan for making haggling work. They got slapped with an extra fee even before they rolled.

What's a player to do? Talk to your DM about what makes a scene worth roleplaying for you. Explain that you don't need to succeed every time, but that both success and failure might as well be interesting.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 11:00PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Actually the secret to making this work is the illusion of success, The players save more then should and sell their loot for more, but the DM subtly adjusts the treasure they get to compensate. Ussually the net savings aren't enough to matter, but if they are the DM can easily reestablish the wealth-per-level in a round or 2 at most.

Then it sounds as though haggling truly is a waste of their time, unless it's about something other than the money.

The OP's situation didn't seem to have anything to do with any plan for making haggling work. They got slapped with an extra fee even before they rolled.

What's a player to do? Talk to your DM about what makes a scene worth roleplaying for you. Explain that you don't need to succeed every time, but that both success and failure might as well be interesting.

The group I'm currently DMing loves to haggle, for whatever reason.  My wife especially, who has been known to be a  little bit of a mark for fast-talking salesmen becomes shrewd and ruthless at the negotiating table in-game.  It's really been a sign to me of the kinds of ways that I can adjust encounters with quest-givers, merchants, etc.  Lately, I've been figuring out ways to adjust the leverage in these interactions.  You really want horses, fine, but you're also going to have to. . .They've got another plot-hook and it arose organically from character wishes.

We don't spend hardly any time on mundane bookkeeping but they sure do love getting torches on a buy 3 get 1 basis. 

Dec 18, 2012 -- 1:32PM, rednblack wrote:

Dec 18, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Centauri wrote:

Then it sounds as though haggling truly is a waste of their time, unless it's about something other than the money.

The group I'm currently DMing loves to haggle, for whatever reason.  My wife especially, who has been known to be a  little bit of a mark for fast-talking salesmen becomes shrewd and ruthless at the negotiating table in-game.  It's really been a sign to me of the kinds of ways that I can adjust encounters with quest-givers, merchants, etc.  Lately, I've been figuring out ways to adjust the leverage in these interactions.  You really want horses, fine, but you're also going to have to. . .They've got another plot-hook and it arose organically from character wishes.

We don't spend hardly any time on mundane bookkeeping but they sure do love getting torches on a buy 3 get 1 basis.

So, it sounds to me like it's about something other than the money. If it were all about counting their coppers from those torch deals, as I DM I'd ask them how much money they ever hoped to make from undercutting torch sellers and then have them find that amount in the bottom of one of their packs.

It's most definitely about something other than the money.  Just good DMing taking cues from the players 

Dec 18, 2012 -- 1:41PM, rednblack wrote:

It's most definitely about something other than the money.  Just good DMing taking cues from the players 

True, but when it comes to things that get boring fast, such as general haggling, or argument, even if it's what the players seem to want, it's a good idea to dig a little deeper and see what they would actually consider to be a win (or loss). If it's just some interaction with the world, great. If it's a few coppers, they're wasting time.

Haggling is tricky, because there's absolutely no reason for a fictional merchant, with fictional needs, and fictional money to either argue with or give in to a player character. At the same time, what's it to the player character if the merchant takes a bath on the deal? Even if he's not lying about his starving children, they're still fictional, whereas the +1 from the item the player is after is not. And anyway, the PCs might be trying to stop some existential threat against the whole continent. Why are they paying for anything? (Answer, they're not, the acquisition of items is not as literal as actually handing gp to a merchant in a magic item shop. This isn't a video game.)

Roll a die or just decide which side is going to get their way (one, both, or neither) and play a short scene. Whee. Moving on.

Speaking of, this long ago stopped being about What's a Player to Do.

Three points:

1.  As a DM, I will most certainly speak to one of my players for having their character act in a way that I find questionable.   That way is by taking actions that are diametrically opposed to the personality that player/character has already established.    Some deviation is normal, but I expect as much consistency from my players as they do from their DM.   If a character has been shown to be a snarling, impatient half-orc barbarian, and that player is suddenly playing the character as someone who is charming royalty with thier amusing anecdotes, then yeah, I'll later call the player out for metagaming (out of session, ofc).

2.  I most certainly do affect the world as the DM.   The players choose their actions in the world, and I decide how the world responds.   As mentioned above, I try hard to do this in a consistent manner.

3.  A player who, during the course of the game, does something I personally find amusing or interesting may receive a +2 bonus chip from me.   It's entirely subjective, and my players don't mind a bit.  

Dec 18, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Centauri wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Haggling is tricky, because there's absolutely no reason for a fictional merchant, with fictional needs, and fictional money to either argue with or give in to a player character.

There's no reason for a fictional dragon with fictional motivations and fictional evilness to either protect or destroy a fictional town either.

At the same time, what's it to the player character if the merchant takes a bath on the deal? Even if he's not lying about his starving children, they're still fictional, whereas the +1 from the item the player is after is not. And anyway, the PCs might be trying to stop some existential threat against the whole continent. Why are they paying for anything? (Answer, they're not, the acquisition of items is not as literal as actually handing gp to a merchant in a magic item shop. This isn't a video game.)

It can be entirely literal in the context of the game setting.

Roll a die or just decide which side is going to get their way (one, both, or neither) and play a short scene. Whee. Moving on.

Speaking of, this long ago stopped being about What's a Player to Do.

You seem to really hate haggling...or shopping in general...I think many DMs find it to be a great opportunity for characters to express themselves and to meet & interact with NPCs while also potentially picking up all sorts of interesting info.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Centauri wrote:

Then it sounds as though haggling truly is a waste of their time, unless it's about something other than the money.

Generally, if it is about saving themselves fictional money, then yes it is a waste of time, and they should accept the median values offered in the books.

Alot seems to bore you. You should talk to your doctor about this, depresion is no laughing matter -winks-

There are reasons, gainign a particular item might be a plot point, or the players might enjoy social interaction as a chalenge. Playing an urban game in a city where they might start enterprizing businesses etc.

The OP's situation didn't seem to have anything to do with any plan for making haggling work. They got slapped with an extra fee even before they rolled.

That might be appropriate if:

A: They are trying to haggle to get something that is beyond their level range (ie a 5th level player trying to buy a +4 Keen, Shocking Burst greatsword of wishing) and this is the DM's way of ending the attempt. 

B: The PC Said or did something to offend the merchant. Such as bidding well below the item's cost to create (ie trying to buy a +2 Greatsword, 2345 gp price, for 500gp) or insulting the owner (such as saying, "you Dwarfs always trying to overcharge us humans for your so-called craftmenship, How do I know this magic sword is even masterworked?")

Dec 17, 2012 -- 6:10PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 3:06PM, Centauri wrote:

We've overlooked the other example from the OP: haggling down the price.

Ignoring for now what a waste of time haggling scenes generally are

Needless judgement call.

, what's worth considering is that the player "roleplayed with the merchant so horribly" that far from gaining circumstance bonuses or penalties, the player didn't even get to roll at all, yet still incurred a penalty in the form of a higher cost for the item in question.

This was with a high Charisma character.

We don't know what the DM expected from the character. It's possible that the OP did something that any one of us would be hard pressed to take in an interesting direction, even accounting for how uninteresting haggling already is. But what I've seen much more of is DMs who simply have no intention of budging on a particular point, no matter what the player does, and then penalizes the character for even trying, to ensure that they won't try again.

This is the hoop. Players usually can't see the hoops or even know they're there, so they try this roleplaying thing they've heard of and get a cookie or a slap. If they get a slap, they're not likely to try it again, and will do everything they can not to make any choices, so as not to make any the DM doesn't want them to make.

Some players come into a game pre-slapped, but slapped over the wrong things, so the DM has to get them to come out of their shell in order to slap them over the right things.

I would bet that the OP is a great roleplayer, and it's to their credit that they want to keep trying to appease this DM despite what has happened so far. They clearly want to roleplay, but the DM doesn't seem to want to let them. All the player can do is ask the DM where the hoops are, and their extents, and stick to those.

You've been abused by DMs in the past, haven't you? Here this might help...

hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/12/on-...

And as for haggling scenes (and other similar scenes)...what scene told us more about Luke Skywalker, him shooting Tie Fighters with Han Solo or him arguing with Uncle Owen about going to Toshi station?

I think the TIE Fighter scene told us just how much of a bloodthirsty son of a bitch he really was. I mean, when you get right down to it, he was celebrating the death of a person. There's a part of him that really enjoys his killing.

@centauri, I don't forsee a lot of future in the party's haggling.  Like anything else, hitting the same notes over and over gets dull.

As for an attempt to get this back in line with the purpose of this forum, I think that if players want to spend time roleplaying haggling a DM should oblige those players.  Since I DM a group of mostly new players I let them make rolls when they want to but ask leading questions about the kinds of things they want those rolls to represent.  I think that successful roleplaying for someone who doesn't feel comfortable with it should be attempted incrementally.  You're not going to win an oscar for your dnd game, but that doesn't mean that you won't feel foolish when you're playing pretend with a group of adults, even if that's the whole purpose for showing up at game day.  A character will develop as the game does, and it's fine to struggle along the way as you find out who that character is.  I've found that giving a character a flaw or putting your character in a compromising situation is a great way to develop those roleplaying skills because you start to see your character as a person with flaws and ideas of his or her own outside the cookie-cutter slash-kill-profit mode. 

Dec 19, 2012 -- 1:12AM, Zaramon wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I think the TIE Fighter scene told us just how much of a bloodthirsty son of a bitch he really was. I mean, when you get right down to it, he was celebrating the death of a person. There's a part of him that really enjoys his killing.

Haha Death Star go boom M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M--M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-ulti-kill!

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Dec 18, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Centauri wrote:

Then it sounds as though haggling truly is a waste of their time, unless it's about something other than the money.

Generally, if it is about saving themselves fictional money, then yes it is a waste of time, and they should accept the median values offered in the books.

Or, the DM should give them the item at the price they're interested in, and make up for it (if need be) later. Meanwhile, they important business of whatever the adventure is can be attended to, rather than sidelined.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Alot seems to bore you. You should talk to your doctor about this, depresion is no laughing matter -winks-

I'm far from the only one who finds haggling over a few fictional gold pieces boring.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

There are reasons, gainign a particular item might be a plot point, or the players might enjoy social interaction as a chalenge. Playing an urban game in a city where they might start enterprizing businesses etc.

Fine, as long as it's not about money, but about the scene.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

The OP's situation didn't seem to have anything to do with any plan for making haggling work. They got slapped with an extra fee even before they rolled.

That might be appropriate if:

A: They are trying to haggle to get something that is beyond their level range (ie a 5th level player trying to buy a +4 Keen, Shocking Burst greatsword of wishing) and this is the DM's way of ending the attempt.

That's not a good or appropriate way of ending it. A good way would have been not to make the item available in the first place. 4th Edition deals with this by not allowing characters to buy items above their level. Failing that, a better way would be to talk to the player and be straight with them that they can't obtain the item through haggling, and then tell them what they could do to obtain it.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

B: The PC Said or did something to offend the merchant. Such as bidding well below the item's cost to create (ie trying to buy a +2 Greatsword, 2345 gp price, for 500gp) or insulting the owner (such as saying, "you Dwarfs always trying to overcharge us humans for your so-called craftmenship, How do I know this magic sword is even masterworked?")

That's also not necessarily appropriate. Just because the DM imagines those approaches would make bargaining impossible doesn't mean they would. Even in the real world, it can be appropriate to offer an insultingly low price, to begin with, and certainly in fantasy or sci-fi cultures a certain amount of healthy insult might be considered part of a good haggle.

The aggravating insipidness of haggling aside, this is a prime example of a DM setting up hoops for the player. The player has to know what the DM considers the "proper" way to roleplay a haggle, or might as well not bother. The player could be roleplaying to the hilt, and just get shut down cold. An attempt at roleplaying should not by itself open every door, purse, or bodice, but it at least deserves interesting failure rather than a complete stonewall.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

@centauri, I don't forsee a lot of future in the party's haggling.  Like anything else, hitting the same notes over and over gets dull.

Hear, hear.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

As for an attempt to get this back in line with the purpose of this forum, I think that if players want to spend time roleplaying haggling a DM should oblige those players.

I agree. In the case of the original post, the DM didn't seem to have any interest in obliging the player, choosing instead to stonewall him, and punish him.

Sounds like a great approach.

And this is the key reason why anyone's attempt at roleplaying should be rewarded with an interesting outcome, be it failure or success. A DM should want a player to feel like their attempt at roleplaying was cool, even if it didn't succeed. Players, if you're in a game in which the DM punishes roleplaying that isn't up to his or her standard, avoid that game. You need it like you need pernicious anemia.

I recommend these approaches, but the standard approach to D&D is antithetical to them, because failure tends to be extremely boring, and flaws or compromising situations can get characters killed, which tends to be extremely boring, especially when it's intended as a disincentive.

Players, talk to your DMs about ways to have your character fail in interesting ways, so that you can explore the characters imperfections and irrationalities.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 10:04AM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Dec 18, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Centauri wrote:

Then it sounds as though haggling truly is a waste of their time, unless it's about something other than the money.

Generally, if it is about saving themselves fictional money, then yes it is a waste of time, and they should accept the median values offered in the books.

Or, the DM should give them the item at the price they're interested in, and make up for it (if need be) later. Meanwhile, they important business of whatever the adventure is can be attended to, rather than sidelined.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

Alot seems to bore you. You should talk to your doctor about this, depresion is no laughing matter -winks-

I'm far from the only one who finds haggling over a few fictional gold pieces boring.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

There are reasons, gainign a particular item might be a plot point, or the players might enjoy social interaction as a chalenge. Playing an urban game in a city where they might start enterprizing businesses etc.

Fine, as long as it's not about money, but about the scene.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

The OP's situation didn't seem to have anything to do with any plan for making haggling work. They got slapped with an extra fee even before they rolled.

That might be appropriate if:

A: They are trying to haggle to get something that is beyond their level range (ie a 5th level player trying to buy a +4 Keen, Shocking Burst greatsword of wishing) and this is the DM's way of ending the attempt.

That's not a good or appropriate way of ending it. A good way would have been not to make the item available in the first place. 4th Edition deals with this by not allowing characters to buy items above their level. Failing that, a better way would be to talk to the player and be straight with them that they can't obtain the item through haggling, and then tell them what they could do to obtain it.

Dec 18, 2012 -- 9:35PM, MrCustomer wrote:

B: The PC Said or did something to offend the merchant. Such as bidding well below the item's cost to create (ie trying to buy a +2 Greatsword, 2345 gp price, for 500gp) or insulting the owner (such as saying, "you Dwarfs always trying to overcharge us humans for your so-called craftmenship, How do I know this magic sword is even masterworked?")

That's also not necessarily appropriate. Just because the DM imagines those approaches would make bargaining impossible doesn't mean they would. Even in the real world, it can be appropriate to offer an insultingly low price, to begin with, and certainly in fantasy or sci-fi cultures a certain amount of healthy insult might be considered part of a good haggle.

The aggravating insipidness of haggling aside, this is a prime example of a DM setting up hoops for the player. The player has to know what the DM considers the "proper" way to roleplay a haggle, or might as well not bother. The player could be roleplaying to the hilt, and just get shut down cold. An attempt at roleplaying should not by itself open every door, purse, or bodice, but it at least deserves interesting failure rather than a complete stonewall.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

@centauri, I don't forsee a lot of future in the party's haggling.  Like anything else, hitting the same notes over and over gets dull.

Hear, hear.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

As for an attempt to get this back in line with the purpose of this forum, I think that if players want to spend time roleplaying haggling a DM should oblige those players.

I agree. In the case of the original post, the DM didn't seem to have any interest in obliging the player, choosing instead to stonewall him, and punish him.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

Since I DM a group of mostly new players I let them make rolls when they want to but ask leading questions about the kinds of things they want those rolls to represent.

Sounds like a great approach.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

I think that successful roleplaying for someone who doesn't feel comfortable with it should be attempted incrementally.  You're not going to win an oscar for your dnd game, but that doesn't mean that you won't feel foolish when you're playing pretend with a group of adults, even if that's the whole purpose for showing up at game day.

And this is the key reason why anyone's attempt at roleplaying should be rewarded with an interesting outcome, be it failure or success. A DM should want a player to feel like their attempt at roleplaying was cool, even if it didn't succeed. Players, if you're in a game in which the DM punishes roleplaying that isn't up to his or her standard, avoid that game. You need it like you need pernicious anemia.

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:13AM, rednblack wrote:

A character will develop as the game does, and it's fine to struggle along the way as you find out who that character is.  I've found that giving a character a flaw or putting your character in a compromising situation is a great way to develop those roleplaying skills because you start to see your character as a person with flaws and ideas of his or her own outside the cookie-cutter slash-kill-profit mode.

I recommend these approaches, but the standard approach to D&D is antithetical to them, because failure tends to be extremely boring, and flaws or compromising situations can get characters killed, which tends to be extremely boring, especially when it's intended as a disincentive.

Players, talk to your DMs about ways to have your character fail in interesting ways, so that you can explore the characters imperfections and irrationalities.

Seriously, what did a DM do to you in the past? A lot of the stuff in this post points to some SERIOUS abuse by a DM

Dec 19, 2012 -- 8:17AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Dec 19, 2012 -- 1:12AM, Zaramon wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I think the TIE Fighter scene told us just how much of a bloodthirsty son of a bitch he really was. I mean, when you get right down to it, he was celebrating the death of a person. There's a part of him that really enjoys his killing.

Haha Death Star go boom M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M--M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-ulti-kill!

Willing to kill a truckload of people to save the people he cares about....not unlike his dad.

Edit: Hehe, Ulti...Yeah, that would be a good ulti for a Jedi fighter pilot, destroy battle-station.

Centauri. Most would find haggling over prices boring, especially as it not really going to save them anything significant in the long run. But some groups do find it interesting. Sorry but who crowned you King of what's cool in the playground?


Secondly, this ussually occurs when the players have finally been given the opportunity at the end of a particualr stretch of play, to return to town, sell their loot, level up characters, and buy new gear. They are all pouring through the books and there are ussually discussions on "what feats do I need to make a spiked chain work?" and "should we pool our resources to buy a Wand of Break Enchantment?" and abit of haggling and roleplaying isn't going to make a difference to your emo bordom.

As for the rest of your post "blah blah blah, DM hoops! Blah blah blah I'm Bored, Blah blah blah"

So what do you suggest? That the NPCs should just stand there and "take it like the b&*^hes they are?" That if a PC decides to stab the king to death in his throne room, theat the loyal guards standing by go "well it's not my business" That every NPC be lifeless drones? And Oh I'm sorry, putting the treasure at the end of the dungeon and expecting the PCs to jump through all the DM's hoops by going through all the encounters and traps to get at it. Want to get rid of DM hoops? Put the PCs floating in space, alone and immortal, with nothing to do, PCs "hey there is nothing to do." DM "yay! You win! 5,000,000,000,000 XP each, you all made it to Epic, yay!", PCs "......"

Dec 20, 2012 -- 6:38AM, MrCustomer wrote:

So what do you suggest?

I've made that abundantly clear.

I am like the OP.  The problem is; RPG to all of us is like making a movie in our own mind with our toon as its main character.  And like the movie we expect our toons to be in character, saying the right line at the right time in the right way in front of our friends at the table, whom we treat as our audience.  But reality is movies got scripts.  If those actors had no script, and had to impromptu act on the spot, they would also blunder, babble, be awkward and not be so good.  Yet some of us have this expectation of ourselves and others in RPG, as if that's the name of the game.

It helps not to define good role playing in dnd as an impromptu good acting on the spot trying to have a quick mind and witty response with perfect verbiage while in character to situations created by the DM.  That expectation is not realistic, and can often lead to frustrations, and inadquate feeling.

It helps to define good role playing as the one you have FUN doing.  You don't got to act to be role playing  in RPG anyway.  You already are roleplaying just by playing your paladin, barbarian, wizard...unless you are one in real life.

Relax and focus at having fun.  Try not to frustrate yourself in anyway. If what you are trying to do feels too hard, trying to act out your charator for real, then don't bother.  Act, talk and respond like you would if you yourself was there.  After all, your charactors soul...is you.

Having a good, fun relaxing time with friends is the name of the game, and not trying to win an Oscar at your table. 

Dec 21, 2012 -- 3:00AM, Ghost007 wrote:

I am like the OP.  The problem is; RPG to all of us is like making a movie in our own mind with our toon as its main character.  And like the movie we expect our toons to be in character, saying the right line at the right time in the right way in front of our friends at the table, whom we treat as our audience.  But reality is movies got scripts.  If those actors had no script, and had to impromptu act on the spot, they would also blunder, babble, be awkward and not be so good.

Yet actors work without scripts all the time, in improvisational theater scenes. Ninety percent of the ability to improvise come from getting support from the other actors: having them say "Yes" to your ideas, your offers, and then adding on to them, as if it were something you'd all decided on in committee. There is absolutely nothing stopping a D&D game from being run this way, except a general perception that it's the DM's job to block the players and even discourage them.

Dec 21, 2012 -- 3:00AM, Ghost007 wrote:

It helps to define good role playing as the one you have FUN doing.  You don't got to act to be role playing  in RPG anyway.  You already are roleplaying just by playing your paladin, barbarian, wizard...unless you are one in real life.

This is quite true, but the examples in the original post are of situations in which the DM made the scenes not fun for the player. In general, roleplaying in a fun way will get a character in to trouble. Ideally that trouble is interesting, but even when it is some players wonder why they bothered roleplaying if it's just going to get them into trouble. This is the key issue with combat vs. non-combat. Non-combat is considered to be less lethal, so players can act like their character, instead of in some optimal, careful way. Combat is lethal, so players choose the course that will keep their character alive, instead of the course their character might take.

There are ways around this, but they're mostly on the DM side, and they usually don't get a friendly response on these boards. All players can do is decide that they can deal with anything that happens to their character, and place a higher priority on roleplaying than on having an optimal outcome.