Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rickenbacker 05-19-04, 09:05 AM	I was looking over the 'Moving Away From D&D" thread & I have to say I had some of the same concerns about role-playing vs. simply rolling a skill check. In *my* games, there *must* be role-playing. It's a role-playing game. The way I handle that is when a situation arises where Bluff or Gather Info or the like is needed, I make my players speak to me. THEN I make the skill roll. Depending on how convinced (or unconvinced) I am of their performance, I may throw in a + or -2 to the roll. But I'd never let em get away with just rolling cold. No way.
Salla 05-19-04, 09:27 AM	I agree. There's two things that 'RP Skill Checks' cover ... 1. Things the character can do that the player can't. 2. Things the player can do that the character can't. The first I went over in the 'moving away' thread. The second came up more recently, when a game's Fighter (actually playing Arcana Unearthed, Warmain, but I'm translating here) was running a Bluff to keep people distracted so the Wizard and Rogue could get into town. No ranks in Bluff, but it was a believable story ... I would have made him roll a Bluff check, but a fairly easy one. A big part of any plan is the ability to actually PULL IT OFF. For instance, yeah, you might come up with a plan to disguise your party as a group of entertainers to smuggle them into a castle ... but unless everybody has Perform, you're outta luck on actually accomplishing the plan. This also prevents the smooth-talking ladies' man that is the 4 Charisma Half-Orc Barbarian that I'm sure we've all seen.
Naeron 05-19-04, 09:50 AM	Originally posted by Rickenbacker I was looking over the 'Moving Away From D&D" thread & I have to say I had some of the same concerns about role-playing vs. simply rolling a skill check. In *my* games, there *must* be role-playing. It's a role-playing game. The way I handle that is when a situation arises where Bluff or Gather Info or the like is needed, I make my players speak to me. THEN I make the skill roll. Depending on how convinced (or unconvinced) I am of their performance, I may throw in a + or -2 to the roll. But I'd never let em get away with just rolling cold. No way. The big problem is that you are penalising players based on their acting ability rather than their roleplaying ability. A PC with a +15 bluff modifier is much better at bluffing than any player and will instinctively word the bluff in an effective manner, this is something that the player invariably will not be able to do. If you don't penalise the fighters attack roll for the player not describing accurately their parry/counterthrust maneuver why should penalise a Bluff roll. If you want to base social skills on a players acting ability then go ahead, but realise that that is what you are doing. If you want to base social skills on roleplaying ability have the player describe what their PC would do, consistent with the PC's reality, and roll the dice because the PC will probably be far better at the skill and the techniques behind it than the player is.
Salla 05-19-04, 09:59 AM	I think (and I may be wrong) that what Rickenbacker was getting at was how 'well concieved' the lie is. For example, proclaiming oneself the Prince of Somelandia, even with having forged papers, is going to take quite a bluff check if the person you're speaking to knows that the Queen of Somelandia is a virgin queen. However, if there's a prophecy that the long-lost Prince of Somelandia will return, and he bears a distinctive marking (and you apply said marking to your body in the appropriate place), then things get easier.
Rickenbacker 05-19-04, 12:52 PM	Originally posted by Salla I think (and I may be wrong) that what Rickenbacker was getting at was how 'well concieved' the lie is. Bingo. How well the player can act means nothing to me. But they have to give me *something* to work with in terms of role-playing. If I just say "Roll your Bluff." & just assume the character will instinctively word the bluff in an effective manner, then where's the role-playing?
Arrowhen 05-19-04, 01:49 PM	If I just say "Roll your Bluff." & just assume the character will instinctively word the bluff in an effective manner, then where's the role-playing? Yeah, exactly. You shouldn't be able to just say, "I walk up to the guard and use Bluff on him." But at the same time, I'm a player with a Charisma of about 7. If I want to play a character with a Charisma of 16, that character is going to be screwed if in the "interest of good roleplaying" I'm not allowed to roll any dice. If I say, "I pick out the youngest looking guard and start chatting with him, acting like I'm maybe ten years older than I really am. I imply that I myself was a guard at this castle when I was his age. I mention how strict my commanding officer was and how the guards used to take naps and gamble and sneak off for drinks whenever we could get away with it. I try to get him to gossip about any similar lapses in security," does that make me a bad roleplayer because I'm not speaking my part word for word?
Arbitrary Aardvark 05-19-04, 02:03 PM	Originally posted by Arrowhen Yeah, exactly. You shouldn't be able to just say, "I walk up to the guard and use Bluff on him." But at the same time, I'm a player with a Charisma of about 7. If I want to play a character with a Charisma of 16, that character is going to be screwed if in the "interest of good roleplaying" I'm not allowed to roll any dice. If I say, "I pick out the youngest looking guard and start chatting with him, acting like I'm maybe ten years older than I really am. I imply that I myself was a guard at this castle when I was his age. I mention how strict my commanding officer was and how the guards used to take naps and gamble and sneak off for drinks whenever we could get away with it. I try to get him to gossip about any similar lapses in security," does that make me a bad roleplayer because I'm not speaking my part word for word? Yes. Unless you do it with a fake British accent (German accent for a dwarf), throw in enough "m'luds" and "m'ladys" for a Renfair, and make at least three references to your deities anatomy, and a reference to either Monty Python, The Gamers, or The Dead Alewives, you can't possibly win the "best roleplaying" award for the game at a convention.
Arrowhen 05-19-04, 02:32 PM	I thought all dwarves had Scottish accents.
astute1 05-19-04, 03:57 PM	Originally posted by Rickenbacker Depending on how convinced (or unconvinced) I am of their performance, I may throw in a + or -2 to the roll. But I'd never let em get away with just rolling cold. No way. I agree completely. This is actually the exact same thing I do in my campaign. It forces the player to roleplay, but it also rewards those who can afford to put the skill ranks into diplomacy and bluff.
jtgalt 05-19-04, 04:15 PM	Wow. So, you're saying that I, who personally has a CHA of 3 and a Bluff of -5 have to take a penalty in-GAME to these skills because I can't satisfy the DM with a spoken bluff?!?!!?! Does that mean that the spindly armed, lanky player with long hair who's playing the dwarf fighter w/ 28 STR has to take a pentaly to his attacks and damage because the player can't demonstrate how he cleaves thru one orc and dismembers the 2nd one? Explaining what you want to say(in a general sense) to the town guard to get your companions thru the gates should be sufficient to roll the dice and get the intended result. Otherwise, don't roll the dice at all, and base everything upon real-life abilities.
Rickenbacker 05-19-04, 04:38 PM	Originally posted by jtgalt Wow. So, you're saying that I, who personally has a CHA of 3 and a Bluff of -5 have to take a penalty in-GAME to these skills because I can't satisfy the DM with a spoken bluff?!?!!?! Does that mean that the spindly armed, lanky player with long hair who's playing the dwarf fighter w/ 28 STR has to take a penalty to his attacks and damage because the player can't demonstrate how he cleaves thru one orc and dismembers the 2nd one? Explaining what you want to say(in a general sense) to the town guard to get your companions thru the gates should be sufficient to roll the dice and get the intended result. Otherwise, don't roll the dice at all, and base everything upon real-life abilities. Oh come *on*. Ok- Dunno about anyone else- but in *my* games I don't ask em to role-play fighting. I leave that to LARPS. So that means that in my campaign, that spindly armed, lanky player with long hair who's playing the dwarf fighter w/ 28 STR takes no penalty to his attacks and damage because the player can easily demonstrate ( via die rolls alone) how he cleaves thru one orc and dismembers the 2nd one. Combat is one thing, but for me, I want a little more participation when it comes to certain social situations that arise within the game. I'm not asking em to recite Shakespeare. Just give me a *little* dialogue. Role-play as per the game. As far as very low Charisma players trying to smooth talk the guard, well, 1st of all, most parties would probably tell that particular player to shut up & let the paladin do the talking. So I don't come across that myself often. But if it was inevitable, I'd do what I always do as per above. It would just all depend on what was said & how it's said. If they talk to the guard in an uncaring, aloof way when they're trying to make a *good* impression...they're in trouble. I'd probably just let a really low Char. character roll it straight. (*after* talking to me) But if that same character/player sounded convincing, hey- I may slap in that +2. Good ol' DM's discretion.
PenderGrass 05-19-04, 04:39 PM	So, you're saying that I, who personally has a CHA of 3 and a Bluff of -5 have to take a penalty in-GAME to these skills because I can't satisfy the DM with a spoken bluff?!?!!?! Yes. Players should ALWAYS be penalized for things they can't do. If you are playing a dwarf or elf, then I suggest you get some elective surgery real soon if you expect to survive in any REAL D&D Game! ..... uh, yeah. No. It is as simple as the difference between these two Players that are trying to use Bluff: ********** Player #1: I walk up to the Guard and use Bluff on him - do I get by him? DM for Player #1: :rolleyes: or Player #2: I walk up to the Guard and use Bluff on him - telling him that I am the Queen's tennis instructor and I need to get my balls. DM for Player #2: >rolls a natural 19!< gaw-danggit :rolleyes: ********** See the difference? Most DMs prefer the Player #2 scenario. Also, when things are done this way it helps your fellow gamers get more involved in the game because they can see when the world is reacting in a reasonable way. Not just the die roll. There is no "needed" play-acting (although it is nice when it happens - er, sometimes), just a somewhat plausible or less than plausible justification for making the roll.
Arrowhen 05-19-04, 04:47 PM	As far as very low Charisma players trying to smooth talk the guard, well, 1st of all, most parties would probably tell that particaular player to shut up & let the paladin do the talking. And then after the lawful evil duke tosses the paladin in the dungeon it's up to the silver-tongued bard to talk his way in and rescue him.
eudas 05-19-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by Rickenbacker As far as very low Charisma players trying to smooth talk the guard, well, 1st of all, most parties would probably tell that particular player to shut up & let the paladin do the talking. I should be so lucky. I *am* the paladin's player, and the (lower charisma) rogue and druid both tell me to keep quiet all the time. Oh well -- time to arrange a situation such that they get kicked out of a castle or meeting for being rude and uncouth, and I get to stay because I know how to present myself (through knowledge (nobility & royalty)). *evil grin* eudas
was_fired 05-19-04, 05:07 PM	It is up to the player to come up with what their character then bluffs. If the player does something stupid like my favorite bluff so far, "I am not Tom the Bard" I gave a +20 modifier to the sense motive since the question was, "Who are you?", and that was in fact his name and the first reply he gave to a group of people he didn't know.
Sarta 05-20-04, 02:23 AM	Originally posted by Rickenbacker Dunno about anyone else- but in *my* games I don't ask em to role-play fighting. I leave that to LARPS. Actually, most LARPS will not tolerate any sort of reenactment of combat. The possibility of injury or forming the wrong impression with bystanders is simply too high. Combat is usually resolved in a far more crude and swift fashion than it is in pen and paper games. Typically, the ideal combat will entail no more than a couple of minutes of rock/paper/scissors depending on how large the combat is. The focus of LARP is almost completely on role-play and combat only serves to cause game play to come to a screeching halt. In terms of role-play vs. roll play for pen and paper, I allow the die rolls to make the decisions so as to not penalize people who have dedicated their characters to excelling in non-combat oriented endeavors. However, a player who role-plays out the exchange will quite often gain bonuses (or penalties) to their required DC's depending on the approach they take through role play. A player whos character says something very convincing when attempting to bluff their way past a guard will receive a substantial bonus. Sarta
Naeron 05-20-04, 06:46 AM	Originally posted by Sarta Actually, most LARPS will not tolerate any sort of reenactment of combat. The possibility of injury or forming the wrong impression with bystanders is simply too high. Combat is usually resolved in a far more crude and swift fashion than it is in pen and paper games. Typically, the ideal combat will entail no more than a couple of minutes of rock/paper/scissors depending on how large the combat is. The focus of LARP is almost completely on role-play and combat only serves to cause game play to come to a screeching halt. <snip> Sarta I laugh, I look at my bruises from Larping, and I laugh again :) While this may be true of Vampire it certainly is not true of most fantasy Larps. I belong to a UK group called Heroquest, and have done so for 15 years. While we use carbon fibre/foam and latex weaponry these days we still simulate combat as well as we can (i.e. you draw your weapons and charge into melee) with the rules being: pull your blows, No face hits, no body contact, no shield bashing and no thrusts (the latter being because the carbon fibre rod has the ability to come through the tip of a weapon). In my 15 years I have been momentarily knocked out (by the infamous Brick on a Stick) and collected more bruises than I can count. There have been many injuries over the years but when you join you sign the consent form, so if you sprain your ankle jumping over a ditch in ringmail its your own fault (but at least I got to be carried back to the cars). Try www.heroquest.org and look in their gallery for combat. The UK has any number of fantasy LARP groups and they all include combat as a major element of their systems. And when you are Larping in public areas as long as you respect other people right not to be interrupted while they walk their dog you usually get a spectator or two rather than any hostility.
Mister Mayhem 05-20-04, 07:34 AM	Originally posted by Rickenbacker Oh come *on*. Ok- [snip]. So, basically, you would let somebody who is an incredible weakling and barely knows which end of a sword to hold play a might half-orc barbarian without penalty. You'll let a friend who can barely open a door-handle, let alone pick a lock, play a nimble fingered rogue who can pick a lock in a blink of an eye, without penalty. But you wouldn't extend the same courtesy to a player who happens to be a little shy and quiet, who isn't a very good actor, but who wants to play a silver-tongued elven bard? Doesn't seem very fair. ********* Or looking at it from the other direction. Bob, a charismatic player playing a low CHA character with no diplomacy skill, makes a stirring speech about how the peasents should arm themselves and follow him into battle against the goblins that have been attacking their village. Impressed with Bobs speech, the DM gives Bob's character a +2 bonus to his diplomacy check. Later, during a fight with the goblins, Bob picks up a D20, and from clear accross the other side of the room throws it so that it hits the DM with pin-point accuracy right between the eyes. Surely it is only fair that impressed with Bobs accuracy, the DM should give him a +2 to hit when his character throws a dagger? :smirk:
Rickenbacker 05-20-04, 08:13 AM	Originally posted by Mister Mayhem So, basically, you would let somebody who is an incredible weakling and barely knows which end of a sword to hold play a might half-orc barbarian without penalty. [chop] Once again, this is a role-playing game. I, for one, have never played or DMed a game where actual displays of opening locks or throwing daggers were required real-life skills. Question to all: Has anyone else here? If you're willing to push for that level of realism- more power to you. The game emphasizes role-playing. Not your real-life fighting/combat/D20-throwing abilities. Thus, my bonuses or penalties on role-playing. Is it just me, or has that aspect of D&D vanished?
Stuntman 05-20-04, 01:11 PM	Originally posted by Rickenbacker I was looking over the 'Moving Away From D&D" thread & I have to say I had some of the same concerns about role-playing vs. simply rolling a skill check. In *my* games, there *must* be role-playing. It's a role-playing game. The way I handle that is when a situation arises where Bluff or Gather Info or the like is needed, I make my players speak to me. THEN I make the skill roll. Depending on how convinced (or unconvinced) I am of their performance, I may throw in a + or -2 to the roll. But I'd never let em get away with just rolling cold. No way. I do not go quite as far. I do require them to at least determine what they want to say. I judge the bluff or other such skill based on what they are trying to convey rather than their ability to role play it. I am not a drama critic, but I do give bonuses or penalties on based on the feasibility of their idea. For example, if a PC wanted to try to convince a guard that they are actually the prince in disguise, I would give them penalties because the idea is so unbelievable no matter how good their acting skill was. However, if the players knew that the guard has some emotional attachment to a particular person and tries to convince the guard to leave his post and come to the aid of that person, I would give bonuses to the check since the player is smart enough to take advantage of this knowledge.
eudas 05-21-04, 11:20 AM	i side on the 'roll play' side of things, because if i wanted to be an actor, i would've been in drama in high school. i'm here to play a game, not try out for a part. eudas
Trydan 05-21-04, 11:24 AM	Curiously, I've met players who, when faced with a puzzle or riddle, just ask: "Can I make an intelligence check to solve it". To me, part of the fun of D&D is to put yourself into these situations, and have a go at it on your own. To simply roll a Solve Puzzle (int) check (DC 17) seems to destroy the fun and the atmosphere, but I can see exactly where these players are coming from, and agree in principle that it is their character, and not the player that is being tested. Tough call, but ultimately it depends on your gaming group.
Slippery Mind II 05-21-04, 11:35 AM	I can see what you all are saying and it does make sense. As a player of one of those silver tongued rogues, I can confirm it is much more fun to RP out the bluff, especially when you can do it *against* you own group (I did it quite effectively, I might add, padding my characters bankroll nicely, and not even having to roll bluff checks, but it was against other pc's, so... I got kickbacks for selling cursed items to the group and they thought they were getting such great deals.) The fun thing is trying to get away with a bluff when you are surrounded by compulsive truth tellers. Don't even bother asking for a roll then. *sigh*
Rickenbacker 05-21-04, 03:58 PM	Originally posted by Trydan ultimately it depends on your gaming group. That's the bottom line, really. I fully agree.