Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MysterYvil 05-20-04, 07:38 PM	I've seen many posts wherein some DMs believe that it is fine to roll dice for combat tasks (regardless of the player's knowledge of martial moves), but that it is an affront to "role-playing" for a player to resolve social tasks simply by using the skill points he's invested (no matter that the player in question may not possess the requisite social skills to accomplish these tasks on his character's behalf). I don't see much difference between an armchair warrior rolling dice to cleave an orc and a shy, tongue-tied player rolling dice to woo the princess. IMHO, the "role-playing" aspect has more to do with establishing a character and staying in character than in acting out scenes to suit the DM. I've been running RPGs off and on since 1979 and consistently since 1991. I've sat on both sides of the screen, but more on the DM side than the player side. Over the years I've noted that the sessions that were most enjoyed by myself and my fellow players were those in which a character's actions, be they combat actions or social actions, were appropriate to the character. Nobody remembers the time So-and-so wowed us with his thespian chops, but everyone remembers the time that a player made an against-the-odds decision based on what his established character would do, not what was most rewarding from a metagame point of view. To be clear, however, this interpretation of "role-playing" has been refined over the years, and is one that our group has agreed upon. Everyone's clear on it, and everyone seems to find it both fair and entertaining. It also cuts down on the hams that give their characters an 8 Charisma and no social skills, but rely on their bombast to get them through the story. In our games, points spent on Charisma and social skills mean something, whether you as a player can back it up or not.
Autosponge 05-20-04, 07:43 PM	I totally agree. As time goes on and the players get more examples of good role playing they'll usually tend to let loose a little more. But especially with a new group--set the bar a little low.
PenderGrass 05-20-04, 09:01 PM	I agree that RPing should accommodate those that are less than bombastic and not penalize the shy. BUT You should also reward GOOD roleplaying - this means those that do RP their low CHA or low INT, allowing themselves to get into character (this is good RPing). ALSO You should not allow the Players to get out of making decisions that need to be made by them. It is true that hardly anyone out there is going to know what the exact somantic gestures for fireball are, or where exactly a Sneak Attack would be most effective on a Balor, but yet they still HAVE TO MAKE COMBAT DECISIONS - like when to make that 5' step, whether to make a full attack or a single blow, how to move (and where to move) in a Spring Attack. So should it also be in ALL the dice-rolling aspects of the game. No, you don't need to be a hollywood movie star to bluff your way past that guard - but you better come up with SOMETHING plausible. Anything is fine, you could say you are telling the guard his boots are untied and try to slip past while he looks down! But some sort of participation is required. OTHERWISE If you are going to let the Players tell you that..... "My Thief would know exactly how to bluff his way by - he has a bluff skill rank of 35 after all!" Then you might as well take the PC Sheet from that Player and say: "You are right, and he would also know everything else that he is doing without your help - you are no longer required to be here, thanks for coming." BECAUSE As sad as it is, D&D does require a certain amount of participation on the Players' parts as well as the DM's! Without participation, you might as well write on the Boards all day - oops:eek:
MysterYvil 05-20-04, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by PenderGrass If you are going to let the Players tell you that..... "My Thief would know exactly how to bluff his way by - he has a bluff skill rank of 35 after all!" Then you might as well take the PC Sheet from that Player and say: "You are right, and he would also know everything else that he is doing without your help - you are no longer required to be here, thanks for coming."Actually, the decision to try to "bluff his way by" is a large part of roleplaying. To be clear, my group does agree that a rough outline of how a character is attempting a social task is just as much a requirement as how a player conducts his movement during combat. We just don't require theatrics, or even necessarily detailed speeches. To us, the essence of roleplaying comes down to the decisions a character makes. Bluff his way by the guard, hack down the guard, avoid the guard, don't take the job to begin with, etc.; roleplaying is all about being consistent to your character's concept. We've been highly entertained when characters are put in the situation of having to do something that they know is going to cost them, but doing it anyway because it's what the character would do. The Wild Bunch could have just ridden out of Agua Verde with their gold. William Wallace could have asked for mercy. Frodo could have chucked the ring under a rock. They followed their concepts, and got hell for it, but it made for memorable stories!
thalious 05-20-04, 10:05 PM	It makes sense that a social situation cna be resolved partially through dice usage, but not soley. Much like combat. The players has to choose use their characters weapon, abilities, items, gear, etc. The same applies to social issues. For example, IMC, one of the players' character is Grey Elven Wizard who has maxed ranks in Architecture and Engineering, but in RL the players knows :censored: about that Stuff. I don't require him to submit blueprints, work details, and such. I allow him to make a series of rolls that correspond with the actions or orders of the PC. Another example, as the DM, I might want my BBEG to kill the PC outright, but lets say the PCs manage to corner the BBEG and there is little chance for victory. I wont discourage the PCs from trying to use their diplomacy or other skill to talk to BBEG into surrender. Sometimes in the interest of fairness, it is best to let the dice decide.
Spooky_Jester 05-20-04, 10:05 PM	I agree with you Pendergrass, if I am understanding you right. The player and the character need to be separate, I doubt you are going to find many players who fit the requirements of there characters. For example, a player who choses a rogue should not need to explain to you HOW he is going to build a given trap, doing so would require a strong grasp of mechanics in addition to research in related fields, nor should he be tasked with how to disarm a trap he encounters. Likewise, you would be hard pressed to find a player who fits the I.Q. requirement of having an 18 intellegence, or a player that can freestyle a grand song at a moments notice. Generally, in my campaign, for both players and npcs alike, generalizations are used and improvisation is frequent. If a bard is attempting to sing a song, the player need not ramble on ,'In the time of dawn when the lasting rays have gone...', you get the picture. Not many player would even want to sit through that, nevermind write it. This can easily be remedied with a generalization, such as,'My character is going to sing a song, its mournful song about the elves retreating from the tragedy of the world'. That should suffice, the quality of the song does not lie in how well the player can write, it lies in the modified roll that follows. The roleplaying is in that the player mentioned what the song is about, and the following reactions or talk. Likewise, when confronted with a puzzle, it is D&D custom for the DM to sit back and relish in his victory over the players, his wit in perplexing them all so he can relax for the next 45 minutes while the following ensues: Dorfius: I try to stand on the lever. Tret: I help him get on it and stabilize him. DM: The lever doesn't move under your weight Dorfius: I get down Tret: I'm going to try to spill some of the oil from my lamp into the gears DM: *dice roll* Okay, you do. Tret: I try the lever. DM: It doesn't seem to be budging any more than before. Well, do we need to sit around for the next hour and wait for the players to figure it out, or should the DM throw some hints at the smarter members of the party? Specifically, should the 18 intellegence wizard played by Edgar sit there silently because he isn't really the brightest person in life? The game should be in the minds of the players, not the minds of the players in the game. Picture a bunch of players sitting in a room... You have Kenny, the DM, a skinny dorky kid with geeky glasses sitting at the head of the table speaking to the players, he has a naturally feminine voice and kinda gets picked on alot. Across from him are three others, one of them is a fat guy with alot of acne, he is eating Doritos and smearing his face with orange cheese powder, this is Bill by the way. Next to him is an asian guy, he seems pretty normal, he speaks with an asian accent and is shaking his fist in the air as he talks to the DM,'Your going to regret that'. And also at the table is a ugly girl, she is a little overweight and has thick glasses, she dresses very frumpy and as the asian kid curses at the DM as I mentioned, in a somewhat badly mocked feminine voice she says,'Dorn, please, lets not make this any worse'. The last player, Henry, is a normal guy, nothing strange besides the unhappy look on his face. Now lets fade away from the room, everything gets foggy then fades back in. You see a large figure, perhaps 12 feet tall in black iron plate armor who glows with an unatural red hue, he speaks with a deep and coarse voice and is laughing slowly... the body of a human dressed in monkly robes lays in a pool of blood at his feet. There is a short dwarf, heavily armed and armored abouit 20 feet infront of the armored figure, the dwarf his holding up his axe and belting out in a deep and rolling voice,'You ganna regret dat!'. To his left flank of the dwarf, about 5 feet back is a beautiful elven woman, she is garbed in elegent robes and seems to be very distraught as she says in a very high pitched voice that sounds as if it resonates through crystal,'Dorn, please, lets not make this any worse'. The dwarf gives her a look as she speaks and lowers his axe. Meanwhile in the background a halfing slowly appraches the black figure. This is what D&D is, though the players are a sad bunch, it makes the point... we should be playing this game for fantasy, that which I just explained is fantasy. If we can not do this, perhaps we need to find a way to best judge our own stats and our own abilities and play in D20 Modern...
Falstaff the Fighter 05-21-04, 12:12 AM	I disagree. You don't act out combats because someone could get hurt. its impractical. Actions which require nothing but talking though are easy to simulate though. I see it that if a playerscannot supply the personality to back the stats up, then he needs to make a chracter whose personality he can supply. Part of the fun of this game is taking on the role, and that means acting, not just chunking dice to solve all your problems. That's roll playing. If your not going to both acting your chracter out and spend your time talking and acting in the third person and relying on dice rolls to get yo by, your missing the point of the game. Its become no more than a video game played without a computer where cold, hard number rule all. D&D was split off from Chainmail and other war games to facilitate a more personal touch in the game. The interacting of players with each other and NPCs. If you put that down to a mere level of decision on action and a dice roll for the outcome, you might as well be playing Chainmail, because you sure aren't playing a role playing game.
Aliquid 05-21-04, 12:41 AM	If you completely role play without using skills and dice when it comes to interactions... there is no point in having the charisma stat. On the other hand, if you simply roll the dice and say, "I bluff him", then you are not role-playing at all.... and that's no fun. There is no reason you can't have a mix of the two. When I DM and lets say... a character has been caught doing something bad, and tries to bluff his way out of it. I get the player to role-play the conversation. If he says the sort of thing that his adversary would fall for, then I ask him to roll his bluff skill, and I use a low DC. It is very likely that he will succeed, but he does have the chance of rolling low... in which case, I say "that was a great argument, but your character did an insincere job of delivering it.... they are on to you" If he makes some half arse excuse that no-one would buy, then I make him roll his bluff skill, and I use a high DC. It is likely that he will fail, but if he has a good bluff skill, and he rolls high, then... he made a crappy argument, but his character said it in such a smooth manner... that they bought it. Just my 2 cp
Naeron 05-21-04, 07:27 AM	Fallstaff I completely disagree, Role Playing is, by definition playing out a role, making sure that your character acts and reacts in a manner approriate to their background, beliefs and worldview. This is not acting, and it would be unfair to restrict someone from playing a silver-tongued bard because they cannot meet the acting requirements to simulate such activity. As long as their character is acting in the manner that tey should the person is roleplaying. If such a player says "I'll try an bluff my way past that guard by pretending to be a deliervy person" then I consider that more than sufficent roleplay, the player has accurately described what their character would indeed do in the situation presented.
Rickenbacker 05-21-04, 08:17 AM	Right- since this thread is a not-so-subtle reference to mine, I'll reply. Once again- I am *not* asking my players to recite Shakespeare. Just give me a *little* something resembling roleplaying. You don't have to be an actor. You don't have to be a social butterfly in real life. I never penalize the shy. If the palyers were that shy, they probably wouldn't participate in a face-to-face, interactive game in the 1st place. I agree 200% w/ Falstaff here & much of PenderGrass' & Aliquid's statements.
astute1 05-21-04, 09:53 AM	I agree, MasterYvil. I award minor bonuses or penalties to the skill rolls for good or poor roleplaying, but basically, the result is determined by the dice. DnD is derived from a wargame, and basically, I try to play it as such. And here's a question for all the major "roleplaying" advocates out there. What do you do with all the guys who consistenly play a "strong, but silent" character? Do you award them bonuses for not talking? Or, do they just get to do whatever they want? Seems to me that most smart players would figure that loophole out pretty quickly. Mine did.
hexgrid 05-21-04, 01:02 PM	Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter Part of the fun of this game is taking on the role, and that means acting, not just chunking dice to solve all your problems. For me, a game in which I'd be expected to attempt to act is about the least fun thing I can think of. I have no interest in improvisational theater.
Spooky_Jester 05-21-04, 09:40 PM	As they say, "Different strokes for different folks". People play as they see fit. I can personally go both ways and find both ways entertaining... however, I think I pay more attention to the world and the game when I describe a characters mannerisms or voice or song, rather than emulate it... emulation usually leads to a distraction of how much a jackass I look like, rather than attention to content.
bitnine 05-21-04, 10:06 PM	There is a long and interesting thread that relates to this topic right here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147184), if anyone's interested. Apparently my own statements included:Hm. Bah. This very subject came up at least twice that I remember, and yet an excellent example that I had typed out (still fresh from memory then) was pruned. Let me see if I can still recall it. At the time, I was playing a fighter who had actually put some skill ranks into diplomacy. One session, I got hit by a particularly nasty magical trap that among other things cause my character's personality to shift a little bit, sort of compulsions. Getting back to town, one party member, a charismatic yet blunt (higher cha, no diplomacy ranks) gone party member noticed such and went to have me detained and examined by the local wizard's guild. It basically came down to a situation where the town gaurd needed to either take his word or mine, and we both spoke to them. Not to try to sell myself here, while the other player, Gnomey, was good and stayed in character, I gave a very convincing plea (heartfelt from the character) and they chose my word over his. The thing is that in the moment, I honestly forgot about all of the affects that that particular trap had had on my character. As in, it had reduced his charisma to *4*. (There were stat modifiers to the on the side of a small scribbled note.) Now, this was more relevent in the previous thread, where some people argued that your characters diplomatic and social skill should entirely be handled by a player's actions, and that any attention to skill ranks was "rollplaying", as they were numbers on a sheet of paper. Nonetheless, it remains a strong example of how - in this case inadvertantly - a player's skill can circumvent his character's characteristics.
Pongolyn 05-22-04, 12:45 AM	Objective ability scores and subjective roleplaying should not compete with each other; they should support each other. Problems between "role" and "roll" playing only come about when this maxim is ignored. That is the real problem. Playing a charismatic character well is almost always a function of the amount of time spent playing the game, because it goes hand-in-hand with confidence, which comes from hours of practice and familiarity with the rules. It's the main reason I wouldn't recommend Joe Newbie to play a bard or "face" character even if he's got an Academy Award in his basement. On the other hand, even a timid "geek" with zero real-life social skills is perfectly capable of playing charismatically if he knows the rules and has been through enough encounters to realize that (for example) faking an illness in front of the prison guard is one way to call for a Bluff check in-game no matter how tired the cliche is.
Foolosophy 05-23-04, 09:14 AM	concerning diplomacy and similar checks I like to see/do it that way: I roll the dice depending wether the outcome is good or bad I roleplay my character. i.e. a character with good charisma and diplomacy checks rolls high: I will give my best acting out how he tries to convince the person he was "rolling against" if I roll low on a character that usually is a good talker: I try to roleplay him making a stupid mistake in his otherwise good speech or maybe just let him have a moment of utter stupidity if I roll a high check on a low cha/diplomancy character: I could for example roleplay him talking, nearly messing everything up but getting just the right argument to save the situation, by accident or just stroke of luck low on a check with a low cha/diplo char: roleplay his usual unsocial or shy or whatever behaviour, from getting out no word to talking too much without coming to a point --- depending on the character what i want to say: => roll first => roleplay the results is my best bet. If I would just roleplay everything some of the more introvert players in my group with cha 22 bards would stare at the wall while my cha 10 druid would talk the foreign ambassador to the wall.... and just resolving the checks is boring aswell
Aliquid 05-23-04, 10:36 AM	I might be mistaken, but I think that people are getting "acting" and "role playing" a bit mixed up.... in my games you don't have to "act", but just rolling the dice doesn't work for a bluff/diplomacy situation either. I try to encourage my players to play creatively and think about their actions. To use an example that from another post. The character that decides to bluff his way past a guard into a building.... originally posted by Naeron "I'll try an bluff my way past that guard by pretending to be a deliervy person" In this situation I would already give the player a bonus on his roll. The bonus would be for saying "pretending to be a delivery person". If the player just said "I am bluffing past the guard", I would make the DC very high.... but if the player was creative and thought through the problem, I would give him bonuses to his roll. Some other examples for creative thinking: I do a knowledge check to find out what sort of things would be delivered to this place... so I can make my "delivery person" more believable. I go check find a local business that would deliver such an item and look at how the delivery boys dress... and disguise myself with that uniform. I do a gather info check to find the name of the servant who would recieve deliveries. So I can sound more legit with my bluff. I do a gather info check to see if there is a specific guard who is a bit less bright than the rest. If so I will bluff him. I am sure there are plenty more ideas like that..... The point is, the more creative ideas the player comes up with, the better the chance will be of bluffing. A player that says "my character would know how to bluff.... so I just roll the die and bluff him"... well I find that boring, no real thought put into it, and as a result, I make the DC very high to discourage such behaviour. You can actually make a point of telling the player. Make your bluff roll and add 2 as a circumstance bonus for the delivery boy idea, 2 for the disguise, 2 for knowing the butler's name.... etc. That way the player gets some positive reinforcement for actually taking the game beyond the toss of the dice. In my opinion, this is just as much role playing as trying to "act" out a charisma based skill.
malakaiunseen 05-23-04, 04:06 PM	I think it is important to remember that as DM's we all have a certain capacity to "role-play" characters, obviously, we role-play a whole dog-manned world, but when we are introducing players into the game, or playing with long-term playing friends, its always going to be the same: some are good at role-playing social situations and some aren't. Those who enjoy the role-playing side of the game will obviously put a lot more description with their character's actions, but those who simply like to get down to the nitty-gritty, are more likely to say, "my rogue bluffs her way past the guard", "oh look I rolled a 2... +35, will that be enough?", "that's what I thought", although from my point of view, this is heresy, and can quite possibly lead to the destruction of the game, there are a couple of things to look at here; 1: Players who do this either; don't care exactly what their rogue does to get past the guard, in fact they probably feel quite proud with themselves that they even bluffed the guard and didn't smash his face into the wall, or they are relying on the DM to give the lavish descriptions of their characters actions either because he does it better, or they couldn't be bothered, <if a character says"My rogue bluffs her way past the guard" then *the DM describes how*, then this not only inspires the characters but gives the DM a real chance to narrate the story, which is what a some players are looking for, essentially making the game more like a choose-your-own-adventure than a complete role-playing game, but is there anything wrong with this???> 2:If a DM insists that players describe social actions in detail regardless of whether their character has a plus 30 mod. or a minus 2 then the DM is discouraging less socially adept players to play socially challenging classes. Someone who's no good at talking simply won't bother to play a bard, if their ranks in Diplomacy and their Cha 23 isn't enough to calm down an angry barkeep, but they actually need to "know what to say" as well. Don't put players in boxes, its no fun for anyone. In the end, I feel that as a DM who has also done a bit of acting, I can't expect the players to have the same zeal as me or nessessarily even try to role-play every social situation, but every time I use an exciting description of the actions that the players have presented me with for their characters, I can see their eyes light up, and then the next time they are more likely to give the desription themselves. Players who won't say " Lidda strutts up toward the guard but then accidently on purpose trips over on the corner of a cobblestone, "accidently" dropping a silver piece, letting it roll a little way past the guard down the hall, and then gliding past him in to the doorway *if* he falls for the bait" are either not that imaginative or simply don't care, but either reason shouldn't stop them from being able to play a rogue or other skill-using class, just because anyone can say, "regdar swings his sword in the general direction of the guards neck" or "hennett casts a silent hold person from down the corridor" doesn't mean that the diplomacy, bluff and intimidate checks should be any harder to use from a role-playing point of view. Its just that as DMs we like to role play. Noone can take that away from us, but not every one does.
memberZ 05-23-04, 09:09 PM	For skill checks like bluff/diplomacy I make them state their actions and their intended outcome.Allow them to attempt a ploy or statement and use the dice roll to see how it was taken by the npc/bbeg. The ones that bug me are the fighter types that dump crappy stats in INT and CHR and play their character just like every other character they play.CHR is my real pet peeve ;it's not just looks as the min/maxing munchkins like to think.I went so far as bringing back combliness scores from 1st ed.So they couldn't just say my guy is ugly so I don't need to play him as rude or grumpy. My brother played a dumb as a box of rocks fighter( 5 INT 7 Wis) who when the party came across a puzzle spurted out "i know this answer it's ........."Almost cracked his head open on the foundation wall I slapped him so hard. You don't act out combats because someone could get hurt. its impractical We did this also way back when, as young knuckleheads it was a blast.We even had war campains fought with handmade weapons in the woods.Man those were the days(though you do need a large group of friends that can take a beating{hockey and football players work well rugby players(myself) seem to dominate though})
Falstaff the Fighter 05-23-04, 09:17 PM	I have no interest in improvisational theater. You do realize than an RPG, by its very definition, is a game about acting?
Mister Mayhem 05-24-04, 03:12 AM	Not necessarily. Many players - especially shy ones - choose to refer to their characters in the 3rd person - "Deavis tries to convince the guards to let him go" instead of "I try to convince the guards to let me go" - and there is nothing wrong with this. ********** Here is the question: A charismatic, silver tongued player has a half-orc barabarian character has a low INT, WIS and CHA and has no ranks in any social skills. When in trouble with the law, he makes an impassioned plea to the guards trying to arest him to let him go, and as a result, the DM gives him a +2 bonus. Why? He wasn't roleplaying. The actions the player took were totally out of character for the PC. In what way has he earned a reward?
ThoughtfulOwl 05-24-04, 07:26 AM	Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter You do realize than an RPG, by its very definition, is a game about acting? It isn't as much about acting as about portrayal. As long as a player can convey to the other partecipants a clear picture of what his character is doing and how is behaving, the player is role-playing. Acting is a possible way, but not the be-all end-all: certain players are more comfortable with different routes; certain complex situations are better handled with a brief but vivid description than with a long winded act; certain interactions are so heavy with character- and situation-specific cues that any attempt to graft them directly onto a player-DM interaction is simply pointless.