I was curious how heavily people weigh roles for skills vs. what the character says and does and how they make use of BOTH in combination. I still feel a bit confused by this---the skills matter but I want decision to matter most.
I ask for ability checks whenever the decision the player has made for his or her character has an uncertain outcome.
I ask my players to describe what they do before I even let them make a check. I set the DC based on how likely their story is to work with the person they're interacting with. In general, I try not to penalize or reward players for their own skills but I still try to reward their creativity.
Imagine for exemple that the players are trying to get an audience with a local lord but his secretary doesn't want to let them in. If the PCs just say "I try to convince him", I wouldn't let them make the check. If they try to convince the secretary that he might get in trouble if he doesn't let them in, I would let them make the check.
Gnarl wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
You tend to view absolutely everything that isn't in your own personal comfort zone as the product of Evil Corrupt BadWrongFun Min/Maxing Munchkins, don't you? Even when it's objectively very different?
If you think this is about building a character compared to player tactical skill (including social tactics) instead of the disconnect experienced by forcing shy players to literally be as charismatic or suave as the character they are playing, then you simply do not get it, and I feel very, very badly for your players.
Yes, this is independent of level of optimization. Even if your players are perfectly tuned for your optimization expectations (i.e. even if they too feel that it's Evil Corrupt BadWrongFun), you are doing them a profound disservice by adopting this perspective, and don't notice the double standard you espouse even is a double standard.
Saying "Your daughter was real good last night" and expecting a high roll to save you is not what I am talking about - that's just poor decision-making, and saying such a thing more or less makes the task impossible (and with no chance of success, there's no dice to roll).
What I'm talking about is when your character is trying something appropriate, and is charismatic / convincing / whatever enough to believably pull it off, but the player is not, and the DM still says "No, you can't roll a check, be as charismatic or you fail". That's why I draw the comparison to other ability scores - you don't expect Gary to be as physically powerful as his barbarian Conan, nor do you expect Alexis to be able to change into an animal like her wizard Morgana, so why would you expect shy, socially-anxious Melvin to be as cool in high society as his rogue Bond?
Same holds for Intelligence. I'm nearly finished a PhD and I occasionally game with my much younger cousin, who dropped out of high school (yes, I know education is not a reliable proxy for intelligence, but work with me here). If he is playing a clever wizard and I am playing a simpleton barbarian, then in-game we would expect his wizard to decipher codes or tackle logic puzzles and riddles faster and with greater success than my barbarian. However, I'm the smarter player. You'll notice that having me solve all the intellectual problems is not just unrealistic - it's downright metagaming, since by definition it does not draw a distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge. Something that, I believe, grognards are prone to decrying as a bad thing - wouldn't you agree?
(Me? I don't make it obvious or automatic unless the puzzle really wouldn't add anything at the table. But I'm prone to using Intelligence as a guide for dropping hints to smarter players. Not directly, usually - more like in how I describe a room. Smarter characters might get extra bits of detail or a different analogy that reflect how their smarter character would percieve the room. Similar metrics apply to Wisdom, but this discussion is on Intelligence. In the case of Charisma, I don't care how the player says what they're trying to do, but I do care what they're trying to do - and a charismatic person may have more doors open in the first place (i.e. more people open to persuasion, so what would be an impossible result in other cases might warrant a check. Consider this like a social reaction adjustment from earler editions). It's still dependent on what direction they're taking - I just recognize that their character may be more or less persuasive than the player running them.)
Here's a simple analogy. Let's say I'm DMing for you. You're playing a very smart rogue this time. You come across a puzzle lock - and, when you examine the mechanism, I hand you a Rubik's cube and say "solve it and the door unlocks. It rescrambles itself if it isn't solved in two minutes". Is this fair?
Because that's basically what you're doing to the shy player of charismatic characters if you ask the player to actually say and do what their character could do. Except in a sense, it's more forgiving, because I'm allowing you to retry.
Simply put, I do not believe in "You Must Be At Least This Tall To Play That Character" gates.
I don't believe you need to be able to bench-press a refrigerator to play a strong fighter, and I don't give you special bonuses or penalties in-game for trying.
I don't believe you need to be able to actually wield magic to play a wizard, and I don't give you special bonuses or penalties for trying,
And, apropos of this thread, I don't believe you need to be Sean Connery to play a charismatic or charming character, and I don't give you special bonuses or penalties for trying.
So long as you actually are trying, that is - and I accept the descriptive approach as trying.
For me, as a new DM, I try to be flexible with the role playing. If someone is uncomfortable with actively role playing their character, that's perfectly fine. Even if I myself pretend to speak in the character's voice with the same mannerisms, but not everyone does this and I'd never force them to if they didn't wish to. I don't agree with arnwolf666's comment about penalizing players that are uncomfortable with active role play. I especially don't agree that he'd penalize the characters simply because the players can't solve a puzzle. My older brother is a DM and he ran a puzzle for us in one game, the basis of the puzzle was rather simple, figure out the correct patturn of gems you need to press to open the stone door, however, none of us were actually capable of figuring it out, so, he just said "Screw it, everyone make Knowledge (Arcana) checks." He didn't penalize any of us for not understanding the puzzle, nor did he punish our characters for taking a few minutes longer than he expected to figure it out. I personally believe that the point of a fantasy role playing game is for you and your character to be seperate beings. If you want to actively control your character's mannerisms and speech, that's up to you, but if you can't or don't want to do that, that's not a problem. You want to assume the character, not imprint yourself upon them. Making a character fail something simply because the player can't figure it out doesn't make for a fun situation. If the player opts to directly control the character and fails due to it, that's another story, however.
iserith wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
To add onto the social skills part, I make players speak in character before they can roll things like Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation. No, I don't make people actually break down a door before I let them roll Athletics, though I do ask how someone is going to break down a door (ex: what part of the body they use, what tools they use, getting a running start, from what angle, etc.) I never make the checks harder because of the quality of the player's roleplay. I would make a check harder if the content of the roleplay is completely off the wall (ex: "I try to knock down the door with a feather pillow.")
The reason I ask the players to speak in-character and detail their actions is to give them opportunities to lower or even eliminate DCs. I'm not keen on telling the fighter he can't be persuasive because of his 10 Charisma if he actually makes a really good point with his words.
TenaciousJ wrote:
There are handy social interaction rules in DMG, with DCs depending on the NPC attitude, how much the PC is asking for and how risky it is for the NPC. Otherwise you can always just roll a contest.
I usually ask players to describe what they say, or paraphrase it - some want to roleplay more than others. Personally I find it a big part of the fun. Depending on what they say I might give a bonus or penalty or adv or disad (if a check is required at all) - not unlike any other improvised bonus/penalty situation.
So I like a mix of both player smarts and PC stat's to influence the result. But each social interaction is a case by case basis. The stakes at hand matter. The approach matters. Some wont need a check at all. Some will be all check. Others will be all player spin. It's a spectrum.
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
The idea that player skill shouldn't matter and it's all based on character skill is absurd to me. Nowhere outside of tabletop RPGs have I ever heard this. You are playing a game, of course YOUR skill matters. Of course more intelligent people, more creative, more tactical people will have benefits.
I always want at least an approach before I allow a roll. If someone does an excellent job of convincing someone there might not even be a roll involved, sort of like when a player says he looks underneath the rug and instantly finds a now obvious trap, a player might use exactly the weakness of an NPC to get what he wants.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
This, absolutely. If the player really nails their roleplaying for a social check, or comes up with a crazy, gonzo plan, I’ll be more likely to reward their smarts and ingenuity.social check, or comes up with a crazy, gonzo plan, I’ll be more likely to reward their smarts and ingenuity.
I hate when people just say “with a roll of ##, do I succeed?” and I want to reward those that go above and beyond just relying on their dice rolls.
abs1nth wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I like to get enough of in character talking out of the player to:
a) Clearly establish his approach to the social situation (is he threatening or collaborative? is he using some intelligence he has access to to aid him?)
b) Give the player room to play out his character and create a memorable event for everyone around the table
Then he gets to roll. The difficulty of the check is determined by a), b) does not factor in. Roleplaying is its own reward. If the approach and arguments are good enough to warrant an automatic success, he gets an automatc success. If the approach and arguments are non-sensical he gets an automatic failure.
This is by and large similar to how I handle the other pillars, but out of practical neccessity the time given to describe individual turns in combat is somewhat limited.
kalil wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I hate employing double standards in regards to game rules. I'd just as soon allow someone to plough through a group of enemies without employing combat rules, through sheer force of descriptiveness, as I'd allow someone to bypass a trap or convince someone through theatricality. I could see the case for granting someone a small bonus in either of those cases, while still leaving the result at the hands of happenstance, or I could see the case for completely bypassing any of those hurdles completely if it is judged completely trivial, and thus irrelevant of the players' real life skills, but that's as far as I'd go with it.
I kinda like the idea of basing the difficulty on the soundness of the plan.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I swear by the Intent and Approach style of play.
The reason for this is that while Intent is usually obvious, it's what the PC wants to achieve, the Approach is equally important because the Approach IS the story. And the story IS the game as far as my group is concerned.
If I've placed an obstacle in the PC's path, like the infamous secretary, then the outcome needs to be more than a single sentence story.
"The secretary warned the heroes that Lord Importante wasn't to be disturbed but McBardson changed her mind."
Sure, the PC's got what they wanted but no one's going to be retelling that tale in a year, a week, or even at the end of that very session.
What I aim for is to coax some story out of a player. They don't have to act in character if they don't want to, they just need to provide some details.
McBardson's player decides to seduce the secretary and describes planting their foot on the desk to show off their passive mackage? That's when I'd ask for the persuasion roll. Hell, maybe even an Intimidate check just to get a laugh from the players.
"The secretary warned the heroes that Lord Importante wasn't to be disturbed. But when McBardson flashed his winning smile and gave her a glimpse of the goods she was suddenly much more accomodating."
It's no different for other challenges. PC wants to reach the top of the battlements? That's the intent.
Climbing is one approach, grapple and rope is another, casting Fly is another. This is where the narrative comes from and it's what I'll use to determine what check, if any, needs to be made.
But as usual, your game may vary and that's fine by me. 
Varden_Khol wrote:
I like to play high-CHR characters, even though I'm both slow and shy in IRL social situations. Sometimes I come up with something inspired as an effort at persuasion. I've described this before, so bear with me if you've already read it.
Situation: In LFR module, trying to persuade an Orc tribe to NOT join King Obould's expeditionary force which will join Netheril to fight against Cormyr. The group had already presented the chieftain with a long-lost Holy Axe to Gruumsh, as a sign that we brought His words and worked His will. We pointed out that the expeditionary force would go far away, be involved in somebody else's fight, and probably would never return home. We also stated that another tribe (of scouts) was fleeing Obould's reach rather than participate. (We had already talked to that tribe and negotiated with / persuaded them, but didn't see any reason to mention that part to these orcs.)
"In days of old, all creatures knew the place the gods had made for them. The men would speak of the orcs saying words like 'strong', 'brave', 'powerful'. And the orcs said of the men, 'crunchie-munchies'" (spoken in a tyro's voice).
"Nowadays, it is called Civilization when the men speak of the orcs saying 'pawn', 'advantage', 'expendable'. And Obould King of Orcs says to the men, 'Yes, sir.'" (spoken in a voice of contempt and loathing).
The DM looked around the table to see everybody else's reaction, turned to me and said, "Don't bother rolling; you've convinced them."
I've had many more situations where I did not have anything inspiring to add - or did not know what the NPC wanted - so I would tell the DM, "I talk to him and try to Persuade him to see things my way." And I pick up a d20.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Well, in my table the statistics do the most of the job: an 18 CHA character should be versatile in social interaction, just as a 7 CHA character should not. That should happen regardless of the actual player. However, I do demand at least an outline as to what they will be doing, when appropriate. This outline can be simply “I say to the guard to leave the duty (dressed as captain, high skill, etc.) or an entire improvisation as to what the character is doing (theater like style). Despite the latter being more fun, I won’t demand more than what is necessary if the player is shy or doesn’t like social interactions, or any reasonable reason. However, bad ideas and good ideas happen regardless of how much theatrical your player was. You could represent the entire conversation or just say, “I tell the guards that the princess is being kidnapped while she’s out in the garden, at night, etc.” If the idea is particularly good or bad, then chances change according. I do agree with Stormwind that we should not demand complex representations from shy players, however I must know what exactly is going, even if is just a short phrase, and such good or bad ideas should be so in the game world (given they happen regardless of how deep into theater the player went).
arnwolf666 wrote:
My main thing really is people doing stupid things, making ridiculous requests, and being so stupid with deception that they tell the guard or whoever something they know is false. In such cases I don't care what their charisma is, if they have the skill, or if they have expertise in the skill. I see those things happen quite a bit. I also see alot of Walocks being roleplayed with no intent to be charismatic, and they should be charismatic enough to charm the devil. Yet they make no attempt to do so. They roleplay their charisma like it is a high strength score, thank you agonizing hex.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
You still haven't answered my specific example about how you'd react in the scenario where, while playing a rogue and encountering a locked magical door, I pass you a Rubik's cube and say "the door will open once you solve it in under two minutes".
Or if you'd accept a shy player using the descriptive approach as a valid player at all.
You've been quite clear that apparently a shy person can't be charismatic in their fantasy because BadWrongFun, though. Which abjectly contradicts your statement that you "let people play their character".
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Either or would be fine with me. Now about the puzzle thing, I am not going to create a puzzle to just have it solved with a die roll. I would also not make solving the puzzle neccessary for progression in the adventure. Though solving it would help. Otherwise just have a lock with a DC and let them pick the lock.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
BRJN wrote:
TenaciousJ wrote:
CCS wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I encourage 1st person narration and ask for any relavant details. This doesn't always mean dialogue. The player can still say something like, I tell him that we were sent by the Red Wizards (a lie). Then I call for a roll. Even shy people can do this. Basically, I just want the player to answer the question, "what do you say?" Using character voice and speaking the dialogue is optional.
To tell the truth, I also accept 3rd person responses as long as it answers the key question. "My pc will say that the Red Wizards sent us."
Orethalion wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
And yet "smarter", more tactically aware, players do apply their edge in combat. They know to focus fire, as just one example. They might know to spread out when AOE's are looming (fireballs, dragons, etc.). Stuff like that. Do you, as a DM, stop the cloistered acolyte life cleric when he makes a tactically sound move in a fight? Tell him his character isn't "battle smart" enough to do the optimal thing?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
...So they might push a gnoll into the campfire, but never a troll. Cuz metagaming.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
In just last night's public game, at the table next to us, I heard one of the players lamenting something to this effect (they were fighting vampire thralls at the time)...
"Oh man, there's something I really wish I could do right now, but I don't want to metagame!"
[EDIT: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fixed typo. 
]
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Regarding puzzles (since it has been discussed upthread) here is a trick I use to both give the players a sense of accomplishment AND let them feel rewarded for having invested in Int/knowledge skills: Make the puzzle hard. Like REALLY REALLY hard. But allow them to use Int rolls and/or knowledge skill checks to get clues.
Here is an example. The PC's needed a passphrase for a door. The only clue they had was an inscription in the mural above the door. The inscription reads "CHARISMA OIL DROP". That isn't really solvable. But with some relevant skill checks the PC's could gain some clues:
1) The wizard how built this door was clever but quite senile. He probably needed a reminder for the passphrase.
2) The mural depicts the earliest phases of creation where the very first elementals are born
3) The section where the words are written seems to be the very source of creation
Now it is quite solvable, but they still need t think a little bit to solve the puzzle.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Good thing he never tried to push a troll onto a campfire...
But the real fact is, you're goalpost moving, as usual. You change the topic to speak on real player lower intelligence. We are talking about playing dumb. Totally different things. But you know that, right?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pointing out the fallaciousness of someone's argument, using sarcasm, is not trolling. It’s an art form.
Trolling is doing things like, going around calling people trolls (ironic, no?), or providing no useful input to a conversation..
ChrisCarlson wrote:
For me knowing a troll is hurt by fire is like know a dog has teeth and bites when scared.
Back to the persuasion roleplaying.
This is why I like it to be roleplayed out.
Suave sophisticated eloquent Bard is a prisoner and wants to convince the guard to let him go.
Player: My Bard tries to convince the guard to let me go from this prison.
DM: Well, what are you going to say to the guard
Player: I tell him I need to be released so I can make passionate love to his mother.
DM: The guard pulls out his bow and starts shooting you.
Roleplay has something to do with it weather you are shy or an extrovert. That's kind of what I am getting at.
abs1nth wrote:
That's a good point, you want the puzzles to be interesting from a narrative perspective.
arnwolf666 wrote:
neoinblack wrote:
We only roll if:
- the outcome is contested by another
- no clear outcome can be agreed upon and could have a varying degree of success
- someone reaaaaaally want to roll a die/some dice. (There's always one!)
Regarding the details within a social roleplay context? We encourage our players to express what their character's intent and how they have chosen to achieve it. If they want to do voices, speak the exact lines and so forth that's up to them. They'll get kudos and, in the spirit of fun, will most likely get a bonus on any rolls, if required, based on the effort they put in (rather than the quality of the performance.) Likewise, a player that can justify an action based upon reasoning may also enjoy a bonus.
We also make it clear that, while a player can ham it up as much as they wish (and be as specific as they wish with their description of intent and methods of achieving it), what is actually delivered, or at least, how it is perceived, is adjudicated by the DM.
So, a player can waltz up and fop out some delightful prose in a bid to charm the Queen of the Realm, but the Queen of the Realm's response will be based on the character's charisma score, ability check and the DM's reading of the situation. In other words, there's no real in-game mechanical advantage of speaking in character, other than the aforementioned DM's grace, represented by a good will bonus.
Of course, there's always a reason to speak in character, assuming the player themselves enjoys doing so. If they don't, that's fine. A roleplaying game doesn't have to be amateur dramatics hour for all, it can simply be exploring a role - be it through quiet discussion OOC or deep, immerse speeches IC.
I think the important thing is for the group to be able to distance themselves from their characters and remember that the goal of the game, at least for us, is to have fun. How that's achieved might differ from session to session and group to group, but with a little common sense and a commitment to clear, honest communication, it's certainly possible and ultimately, serves to generate an incredibly rewarding experience for all involved.
BenignFacist wrote:
warpiglet wrote: