Community

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.

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!"

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!