I play in a 4e group that meets regularly on Thursdays, and we have a cheater.
This is going to be long-winded, so please bare with me...
Background on the situation: We've been playing the same campaign for about a year and a half. Being a group with steady, recurring players, we sort of have settled into certain seating patters. I sit next to the player in question.
I have caught him cheating on a number of occasions. Just about every session, in fact. After the first few times, I decided to start paying closer attention to him, to verify if I was actually seeing what I thought I was seeing.
He used a laptop (more on this later), and he would make his rolls behind the screen on his laptop so that no one (save for me) could see them if they happened to be looking. When he'd roll poorly, he'd quickly rotate the number on the die to a higher number. In addition to the previous times, I witnessed him doing this 3 times in a single session, which I felt was more than enough to warrant a chat with the DM after the game.
The DM, who is fairly laid-back, had assumed we were all mature enough to you know, not lie about our rolls. His solution was simple; everyone rolls in the open from now on.
Alright, awesome - this should deter the player in question from cheating.
But no. No it hasn't
Despite not having his laptop to roll behind, in recent weeks I've noticed him cheating again. His same cheating tactic - quickly and gently switching the dice face to another preferable one - has reared it's ugly head again.
Last night, he cheated big time, and I called him out on it.
I have no idea if this was the "right" thing to do - but it made me feel better?
What happened this time:
He plays a bard, and he has some power that lets him roll an initiative for the entire group. I'm not sure about the details of the power, but he usually rolls it if we all roll poorly on our individual initiative rolls.
So, while we were all busy rolling our individual initiative rolls (and the DM was distracted), he lifted his character sheet to create a viewing-shield, cupped his hands to FURTHER create a shield (so I couldn't see, and he rolled the die, quickly cupped it back up as he exclaimed excitedly that it was a 20.
A 20! On a crucial roll, imagine that!
So I called him out on it, and he got very angry, "WHAT? So you want me to re-roll it?"
"Uh yes, that would be nice. You know. Rolling so everyone can see? I don't think the DM saw you roll that elusive 20, nor did the rest of us."
What happened? He re-rolled it, got a very low number, and of course blamed me for his misfortune. I lol'd.
But the really sad thing about this situation? Even after calling him out, I caught him cheating again later in the evening, towards the end of the session. Flipped a 1 to a 19. I locked eyes with him, and shook my head.
/end rant
So I guess the question I pose is: What the heck does one do with a cheater?
What should a player do? What should a DM do?
If he were a player in my game, I'd kick him out. Plain and simple. But this is not my game, I do not run it, and the DM running it has a soft heart and doesn't seem to know how to deal with the problem player. I shouldn't have to babysit him and monitor his rolls - nor do I want to. But at the same, no one in the group should have to deal with someone who cheats all the time.
I have no idea what to do in this situation. Do I give up? Do I talk with the DM again? I certainly don't want to quit the game over something like this (that shouldn't even really be a suggestion in my opinion).
- - -
But, now that you've caught him it's a different matter, because cheating or not you won't trust his rolling and that's going to detract from your fun going forward. If enough of the group cares that you're all willing to impose upon him a rolling ban then so be it, but I think that in the long term that's not a very tenable solution.
Which means that if you want him at your table and you don't want him cheating then someone really needs to figure out why he feels the need to cheat. Perhaps he doesn't grok that D&D isn't a game of winning and losing and that even a totally ineffective party member, especially due to luck, is not a reflection of the player's worth.
I would suggest seeing if someone can devise a way to roll that puts the dice out of anybody's reach until after they can be read ... a frisbee or shoebox that's in the center of the table, so Mr. Cheaty McJerkface can't shield them with his hands.
I will agree with ZeroSum that it would be nice to know why he feels compelled to cheat at a game that cannot be 'won' in the traditional sense.
At first blush my rule (as a DM and as a player) is that if it's not disrupting anyone else's fun I don't really care how you get your kicks. Put another way: if no one had ever noticed him cheating was his incredibly good luck a sore point in your game? (And it's entirely possible it was.)
But, now that you've caught him it's a different matter, because cheating or not you won't trust his rolling and that's going to detract from your fun going forward. If enough of the group cares that you're all willing to impose upon him a rolling ban then so be it, but I think that in the long term that's not a very tenable solution.
Which means that if you want him at your table and you don't want him cheating then someone really needs to figure out why he feels the need to cheat. Perhaps he doesn't grok that D&D isn't a game of winning and losing and that even a totally ineffective party member, especially due to luck, is not a reflection of the player's worth.
The fact that he very rarely misses/fails/etc has caused all of the players and DM to raise their eyebrows here and there. There are also frequent cases where he says he rolled something, the DM questions how he got such a night number, and he changes his answer so that the math makes for sense.
So yes, his "extroaordinary good luck" is a 'sore point', as you put it.
I haven't run across many players/DMs that wouldn't have their fun disrupted by a cheater. It's cheating? I mean, when I run games I follow a fairly similar rule about "if its not disrupting someones fun etc etc" - but cheating is cheating, ya know?
I wish I knew why he cheated. I really do. I suppose if I took a guess, it's that he likes being in the spotlight/pulling off crazy stunts, etc. Almost like he wants to be the best at everything, and never fail.
- - -
Furthermore, if you didn't see the roll cause his paper/hand blocked your view how do you know it wasn't a 20?
Change seats, put someone else next to him so they can catch him cheating.
accuser:you cheated!
DM: if I didn't see it, it didn't happen.
cheater: ha!
DM: that goes for your dice roll too, cause I didn't see you roll it. Make sure that I always do.
Communal rolling area is the way to go. That, or (since you mentioned he has a laptop) you could try a program that has a shared roller like maptools or fantasy grounds. Get all the other players to agree to this too. We found a secondary benefit to this. One of our other players who thought he was an "unlucky" roller turned out to just be terrible at adding his bonuses and knowing what he was supposed to roll, so he ended up failing a lot less when we had a more direct view of what was going on. Make sure this is the group + DM calling for the shared rolling area, and not just you vs cheater.
I had a similar problem with a player in a game I was in about 17 years ago. The guy would roll his die, say he made a hit (without even knowing the opponent AC), and quickly snatch it up off the table again. This made me suspicious so I watched a few more times later, and saw that he "hit" regularly on 3s 2s etc, well basicially the guy just never claimed a miss, and usually did max damage as well.
I brought it to the attention of the DM after the session who worked out an elegant non-confrontational solution. See the DM was a former math major specializing in statistics. He simply calculated his hit percentage and mean damage, and then adjusted the mean damage down by the statistical percentage of misses. Then anytime the guy said he hit, the DM just assigned the mean damage for the minus the percentage of misses which should happen to the monster and moved on. The player felt fine because he thought he was getting away with something, and the other players felt fine because they knew that he was only assigned a static damage to his opponent each round which was sub-par for an actual hit with no opportunity to excel in combat. Yes in essence he limited his character down to only causing re-occuring damage.
My personal solution as a DM is I own a awfully large set of specialty dice. If you get caught cheating on rolls in one of my games, then you are forced to use the oversized specialty dice right in the middle of the table, and not touch them or pick them up again until your next turn to roll. This usually discourages most cheaters from relapsing into bad habits.
How old is this cheater? The DM? You? And, the rest of the group?
Furthermore, if you didn't see the roll cause his paper/hand blocked your view how do you know it wasn't a 20?
Change seats, put someone else next to him so they can catch him cheating.
How old is the cheater? 32. I am not even kidding. And he wears wolf shirts. Again, not even kidding. Maybe I'll take a photo next week.
The DM? 50+
How old am I? And the rest of the group? I'm in my 20's. The DM's wife plays with us - she is 50+. The rest of the group is late 20's.
If I didn't see the roll, how do I know it wasn't a 20? You're right, I don't know for sure - but I am fairly confident it was not a 20. Why? Because when he does roll 20's, he leaves them out on the table for everyone to see/so he can show them off. Regardless, no one saw the roll, so the DM said it didn't count.
Changing seats is a great idea, I'll try that next week - but as a side note, I'm not the only one to have caught him cheating in the past. I just happen to have the "best seat in the house" for witnessing it.
Well, were I the DM, I'd tell him to knock it off, and if he didn't, he's out. But ... I'm not the DM and neither are you, so that solution comes up a little short.
I would suggest seeing if someone can devise a way to roll that puts the dice out of anybody's reach until after they can be read ... a frisbee or shoebox that's in the center of the table, so Mr. Cheaty McJerkface can't shield them with his hands.
I will agree with ZeroSum that it would be nice to know why he feels compelled to cheat at a game that cannot be 'won' in the traditional sense.
Sorry, I missed your reply when I responded to ZeroSum.
But wow, I think this might be the answer. That is perfect. The FLGS we game at even has some of those wooden-felt-lined-things for the war-gamers to roll their gobs of dice in. I'm sure we could snag one.
- - -
accuser:you cheated!
DM: if I didn't see it, it didn't happen.
cheater: ha!
DM: that goes for your dice roll too, cause I didn't see you roll it. Make sure that I always do.
.
I like this.
Very simply put - if someone cheats, then I can not have a sound personal relationship with them because I know they can not be trusted. If I can not have a sound personal relationship with them, then I don't want them in my personal life. Gaming is part of my personal life. It is as simple as that.
I hope this helps.
"This means that nat 20s, while still automatic hits and nice, don't give one player some big heads up. The players award the extra crit points to characters who have impressive crits (like Vicious Weapons or certain builds), and because the range is increased, everyone generally gets a chance to crit every session. I was willing to adjust the way I handled it to allow the group a decent amount of chances to crit, but no one could claim it was unfair without calling themselves out as wanting to get ahead of everyone."
Funny. It seems like you are resorting to insults instead of inteligent responses. I will take it to mean you have no real argument to counter my objections then.
I hope this helps.
I am sorry. In addition to insult, I thought I had addressed your argument. If more needs to be discussed, please elaborate.
(BTW I'm going to bed now. I will be several hours before I respond to any further posts.)
Funny. It seems like you are resorting to insults instead of inteligent responses. I will take it to mean you have no real argument to counter my objections then.
I hope this helps.
I am sorry. In addition to insult, I thought I had addressed your argument. If more needs to be discussed, please elaborate.
(BTW I'm going to bed now. I will be several hours before I respond to any further posts.)
For those keeping score Homoerectus 0 - Homosapiens 1.
hehe.
I hope this helps.
No, I just cheated and declaired myself the winner. Since you don't mind cheaters, I thought you would appreciate the irony.
I hope this helps.
Well played, sir, well played.
How does his cheating diminish your fun?
Very simply put - if someone cheats, then I can not have a sound personal relationship with them because I know they can not be trusted. If I can not have a sound personal relationship with them, then I don't want them in my personal life. Gaming is part of my personal life. It is as simple as that.
I hope this helps.
Why should I trust someone who cheats?
I hope this helps.
Funny. It seems like you are resorting to insults instead of inteligent responses. I will take it to mean you have no real argument to counter my objections then.
I hope this helps.
I am sorry. In addition to insult, I thought I had addressed your argument. If more needs to be discussed, please elaborate.
(BTW I'm going to bed now. I will be several hours before I respond to any further posts.)
For those keeping score Homoerectus 0 - Homosapiens 1.
hehe.
Hardly. I'll be back.
Hardly. I'll be back.
Enjoy your rest.
When you return please consider the post I made just above your post which ended in the quote above when you formulate your reply. It is clearly phrased as my objection to cheating in D&D as a microcosm of the world per your terms for the discussion. Since you have set that as a "rule" for the discussion, I am responding that my "rule" is you answer the question:
Why should I trust a cheater?
1. If the DM does not witness the cheater's roll then they did not happen and the cheater must roll again.
2. In lieu of the DM two players can act as witnesses of the cheater's rolls. If they did not see it happen then the cheater must roll again.
3. If the cheater has a problem with this then kick him out of the group and tell him not to let the door hit him in his backside on the way out.
Kicking out a player might seem like a harsh action, but I have no tolerance for cheaters.
Another option is something that a DM once did in a group I played in. We had a person who had been caught cheating a few times so the DM took the top from an old D&D boxed supplement and put it in front of the player. The box was put in the middle of the table. Whenever the cheater rolled he was required to lean foward and roll the dice in the box. Another player was then required to check the roll. The cheater was NOT allowed to touch the box at all except when another player slid it close to him so he could remove his dice, then said player would put the box back in the middle of the table. There was the additional rule that if the box was not in the middle of the table when he rolled the dice it did not count. After about 5 or 6 sessions of doing this the player got fed up and left the group. He even tried to play the "woe is me" and "it is not fair to single me out" cards when he quit, but we all reminded him that he had been caught repeatedly cheating.
Do not be afraid to single out cheaters. If a cheater is not going to be considerate enough to the rest of the group and play fairly then the cheater himself does not deserve to be trusted.
If I am playing DND, I expect to at least get along with the other players. If one of the other players is lying to me, I will not get along with him. If he is lying to me about something as petty as "I rolled a 20, not a 1" I will be very upset with them, and it will very probably be a "We are not friends anymore" sort of thing. That said, I will throw out a "Hey seriously, please don't cheat it ruins the fun for me," once I notice it the first time.
As a DM sort of off topic view
Show
When I am DMing, I am DMing for friends, and often times friends of friends. I don't care if my friends friends and I do not always get along. Therefore if they cheat, and no one cares, I don't feel the need to speak up or stop it. I just make a note not to hang out with them outside of DND. If one of my friends complains about a friends friend cheating I have no qualms throwing out a "If I catch anyone cheating they are gone, no questions" ruling. If a friend complains about a friend we settle it as friends.
None of my outside of DND friends cheat, because they feel the same way. (They care more about what friends of friends think of them, and are usually more tolerant of cheaters, but otherwise very similar)
If I am playing DND, I expect to at least get along with the other players. If one of the other players is lying to me, I will not get along with him. If he is lying to me about something as petty as "I rolled a 20, not a 1" I will be very upset with them, and it will very probably be a "We are not friends anymore" sort of thing. That said, I will throw out a "Hey seriously, please don't cheat it ruins the fun for me," once I notice it the first time.
As a DM sort of off topic view
ShowWhen I am DMing, I am DMing for friends, and often times friends of friends. I don't care if my friends friends and I do not always get along. Therefore if they cheat, and no one cares, I don't feel the need to speak up or stop it. I just make a note not to hang out with them outside of DND. If one of my friends complains about a friends friend cheating I have no qualms throwing out a "If I catch anyone cheating they are gone, no questions" ruling. If a friend complains about a friend we settle it as friends.
None of my outside of DND friends cheat, because they feel the same way. (They care more about what friends of friends think of them, and are usually more tolerant of cheaters, but otherwise very similar)
I'm choosing not to comment on the majority of them - one in particular (trolls be trollin') I am choosing not to dignify with a response, as others have already done so and I need not repeat what they have said.
But! I'd like to thank those of you who offered some helpful advice. So, thanks!
(This is my favorite respose to the trollin' all up in my thread, though)
No, I just cheated and declaired myself the winner. Since you don't mind cheaters, I thought you would appreciate the irony.
I hope this helps.
In other news! Regarding the game tonight:
1) I chose not to sit next to Cheatface this evening, and as per the DM's request he rolled out in the middle of the table.
2) It seems to have worked! Hopefully he will keep it up, but I suspect he'll try to hide a roll again at some point.
3) He was not wearing one of his many wolf shirts this week. Instead, he wore a Scooby Doo shirt? Regardless, I deliver.
- - -
T
(This is my favorite respose to the trollin' all up in my thread, though)No, I just cheated and declaired myself the winner. Since you don't mind cheaters, I thought you would appreciate the irony.
I hope this helps.
Thanks for the recognition. I do try to be of service.
3) He was not wearing one of his many wolf shirts this week. Instead, he wore a Scooby Doo shirt? Regardless, I deliver.
I'm guessing from the carefully sculpted "widows peak" that he is also a Vampire LARPer?
Is that a Crown Royal bag?
Yes, and another one of the players at the table has a black crown royal bag. I had never seen a black crown royal bag before, but it looks really cool with the gold stitching. Someone else uses a "mini" crown royal bag for d6's. It's significantly smaller than a regular crown royal bag, and I don't know what sort of liquor could possibly have originally fit in it (a sample, perhaps).
I'm guessing from the carefully sculpted "widows peak" that he is also a Vampire LARPer?
I've no idea about the Vampire LARPing, though looking at the photo I was just reminded of an amusingfrightening fact: he is married. If he cheats on die rolls, he probably cheats on...
EDIT: Bah, what the heck. Here's another photo from our game last night.
We were fighting ogres. The fight was far too easy, though, as I'm sure you can tell by the prone enemies and their many ringlets. The session left off just as we discovered their lair and the buddies of the ogres we had just slaughtered spotted a few of our less-than-sneaky party members.
My gaming area was very green, and for whatever reason this amused me, so I snapped a photo.
- - -
I'm guessing from the carefully sculpted "widows peak" that he is also a Vampire LARPer?
I've no idea about the Vampire LARPing, though looking at the photo I was just reminded of an amusingfrightening fact: he is married. If he cheats on die rolls, he probably cheats on...
- - -
I was noting the striking resemblance to Bella Lugosi as Dracula. I figured Vampire LARPing was a good venue for that look.
I was noting the striking resemblance to Bella Lugosi as Dracula. I figured Vampire LARPing was a good venue for that look.
In the very least, I'm sure he always has a fall-back halloween costume every year.
1. complain, hope for the best.
2. quit the game and be blunt about why you are.
3. wait till the DM solves the problem adequately and it if means holding up the session, do it.
4. join him and when others complain demand to know why it's a problem as the other offender is doing it and no one is complaining then.
As the DM, I'd tell him he apologises immediately and his choices are leave or someone else rolls every last dice roll required from him until further notice.
What's so damned complicated about this problem. I don't give a damn if you are my spouse, old buddy, co worker, cheating in a game is unacceptable. Doing nothing makes your complaint not worth listening to. So do something about it.
etc etc etc Doing nothing makes your complaint not worth listening to. So do something about it.
Thank you for your input.
As I'm sure you will note by reading the other posts I've made in the thread, something has been done.
Happy gaming!
- - -
Bottom line, when you are not the DM, you have no real power to do anything other than
1. complain, hope for the best.
2. quit the game and be blunt about why you are.
3. wait till the DM solves the problem adequately and it if means holding up the session, do it.
4. join him and when others complain demand to know why it's a problem as the other offender is doing it and no one is complaining then.
As the DM, I'd tell him he apologises immediately and his choices are leave or someone else rolls every last dice roll required from him until further notice.
What's so damned complicated about this problem. I don't give a damn if you are my spouse, old buddy, co worker, cheating in a game is unacceptable. Doing nothing makes your complaint not worth listening to. So do something about it.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as miarra has indicated earlier the DM has taken proactive measures to correct and monitor the behavior. I think forcing him to roll in the center of the table where the DM can clearly see the die result is a positive step forward. It does beg the question as Miarra has noted whether he will backslide if given the chance.
I do think giving someone a chance as having made a mistake is fair. I also think the term "correct and verify" should be applied to these situations. The player has lost a measure of trust with the gaming group, and needs to correct the behavior with verification to be accepted again. If that is too onerous for them, they have the option of leaving.
I was noting the striking resemblance to Bella Lugosi as Dracula. I figured Vampire LARPing was a good venue for that look.
Eh... not so much.
I agree with the advice given here.
Still, my problem related to cheaters is that usually they get very angry if someone points out they are cheating. BUT, if someone who is not cheating is claimed to be cheating, they will *also* get real mad about it.
So, what I am trying to say is that you better be quite sure that someone is cheating before pointing it out. Especially if you single out someone in particular and tell them to roll in a specific manner, while everyone else keeps doing what they did before.
As a DM, I prefer to make general measures against cheating, which basically means that the table rules are that all dice are rolled in the open and not picked up before the result of the roll is clear (did the attack hit or not, etc.)
With a general table rule that prevents cheating on rolls, nobody needs to be upset about cheating with dice. If someone really dislikes this rule, then I suspect their motives. However, I feel like it is ok to require the same standard from everyone to avoid having to deal with accusing some individuals. As a DM, I happen to roll in the open too - however, that is another subject entirely.
I agree with the advice given here.
Still, my problem related to cheaters is that usually they get very angry if someone points out they are cheating. BUT, if someone who is not cheating is claimed to be cheating, they will *also* get real mad about it.
So, what I am trying to say is that you better be quite sure that someone is cheating before pointing it out. Especially if you single out someone in particular and tell them to roll in a specific manner, while everyone else keeps doing what they did before.
As a DM, I prefer to make general measures against cheating, which basically means that the table rules are that all dice are rolled in the open and not picked up before the result of the roll is clear (did the attack hit or not, etc.)
With a general table rule that prevents cheating on rolls, nobody needs to be upset about cheating with dice. If someone really dislikes this rule, then I suspect their motives. However, I feel like it is ok to require the same standard from everyone to avoid having to deal with accusing some individuals. As a DM, I happen to roll in the open too - however, that is another subject entirely.
I agree that uniform enforcement is a good idea if you have some issue with calling out a particular player's action. I also would advise any player who thinks someone is cheating, to first point out their contention to the DM, and let the DM also confirm it for themselves before taking any action about it.
I agree that putting in place a house rule on clearly visable and untouched dice rolls from the very beginning of the campaign is fine. However, when it is done mid-play to correct a single player and applied to all, this can create other difficulties.
The main reason to address a particular player as an individual is if their actions with altering dice rolls have already disrupted the entire group. When a player has already lost the trust of all of their fellow players, making everyone go through corrective procedures over the one individual's acts can leave a sour taste in the mouths of those who have been above board on their playing. That is more likely to damage their trust even more since they are by default being put in the same category as the person who broke it.
I hope this helps.
Still, my problem related to cheaters is that usually they get very angry if someone points out they are cheating. BUT, if someone who is not cheating is claimed to be cheating, they will *also* get real mad about it.
This is why I roll everything out in the open where it's plainly visible.
I did once have a player in a game who was a pretty blatant cheater. No 'all 20s', but 'nothing below a 15' was certainly a regular occurance unless he was rolling a die just because (like a skill check in an untrained skill and keying off a dump stat, where he was going to fail anyway).
At one point, after clearing this with the DM (we all knew he was cheating, we just couldn't prove it), I sat next to him, and started intentionally calling my dice low, declaring 'miss' or 'fail' regardless of the die's roll, and making sure he could see that I was lying. I even got lucky and rolled 2 natural 20s for attack rolls ... which I declared to be misses, and he saw them.
After the game, he asked me what I had been doing. I remarked that it was no fun if it was too easy, and 'your incredible luck' was letting us walk all over things, so I was holding back.
I don't know that I've ever called a cheater out in public. Its best to take them aside and mention "Hey quit it" or impose broad rules to everyone. "OK guys, people are complaining of cheating, so now we are doing X, Y, and Z."
This is why I roll everything out in the open where it's plainly visible.
I did once have a player in a game who was a pretty blatant cheater. No 'all 20s', but 'nothing below a 15' was certainly a regular occurance unless he was rolling a die just because (like a skill check in an untrained skill and keying off a dump stat, where he was going to fail anyway).
At one point, after clearing this with the DM (we all knew he was cheating, we just couldn't prove it), I sat next to him, and started intentionally calling my dice low, declaring 'miss' or 'fail' regardless of the die's roll, and making sure he could see that I was lying. I even got lucky and rolled 2 natural 20s for attack rolls ... which I declared to be misses, and he saw them.
After the game, he asked me what I had been doing. I remarked that it was no fun if it was too easy, and 'your incredible luck' was letting us walk all over things, so I was holding back.
A fun solution I'm sure, but unlikely to change the methods of the player who cheats to make their character "shine" over the other players. However, it should work well for anyone who cheats with the goal of making the party more successful "against" the DM though. This really requires accurately grasping the motivation behind the cheating I think.
I also as a player tend to enjoy the role playing opportunities from a horrible roll as well or sometimes even more than a critical hit. I like to curse at that deviously slippery kobold who just wont fight fair and stand still long enough for me to paste him a good one. hehe.
A fun solution I'm sure, but unlikely to change the methods of the player who cheats to make their character "shine" over the other players. However, it should work well for anyone who cheats with the goal of making the party more successful "against" the DM though. This really requires accurately grasping the motivation behind the cheating I think.
I also as a player tend to enjoy the role playing opportunities from a horrible roll as well or sometimes even more than a critical hit. I like to curse at that deviously slippery kobold who just wont fight fair and stand still long enough for me to paste him a good one. hehe.
Actually, it worked at least for a while, because he read between the lines at my accusation of his 'incredible luck' and realized that meant we were on to him. Eventually, he started creeping back up, but moved out of state before we had significant issue with it again.
Actually, it worked at least for a while, because he read between the lines at my accusation of his 'incredible luck' and realized that meant we were on to him. Eventually, he started creeping back up, but moved out of state before we had significant issue with it again.
Your approach also reminded me how I handled a kibitzer at our Euchere game in my college days. Everytime they would stand behind me to watch our play in progress, I would deliberately play the worst possible card from my hand. Since Euchere was an individual win/loss game it wasn't against any rules to play the least optimal card possible, but it certainly drove them quite nuts to watch me play. For me winning was simply just less important than teaching them to not stand behind me and comment about my hand. It took a few weeks, but they eventually stopped standing behind me while I played for the rest of the year. They also never learned my in game playing tendencies, and I was always harder than the others for them to play against.
I hope this helps.
Your approach also reminded me how I handled a kibitzer at our Euchere game in my college days. Everytime they would stand behind me to watch our play in progress, I would deliberately play the worst possible card from my hand. Since Euchere was an individual win/loss game it wasn't against any rules to play the least optimal card possible,
I bet it pissed your partner off to no end, though.
he has three ways of cheating that several people have noticed so far
1: the good ol nudge the dice to a more favorable side
2: inconsistant math (for some people that doesn't bother me but this guy is an engineering major)
3: rolling two dice at once and using the best one
the third one may sound a little odd as to how he gets away with it. usually he says he is rolling for two seperate rolls at once (which i encourage my players to do to save time) however instead of calling which dice is which he min maxes to get the higest number of successes
for example
-on his turn he decided to make a discrete listen check on a gorup of people having a quite conversation
-I tell him to roll listen and move quietly (His modifiers for the sake of this example are +4 and +10 respectivly)
-He rolls both of his dice at once and gets a 5 and a 16 (if he had called his rolls beforehand the totals would be an 9 and a 26, meaning he couldnt get any information out of it but he wasnt spotted)
-he says he got a 20 on listen and a 15 on move quietly (both succeed)
I have told him many times to call his rolls, but most of the time he says he did and that I must not have heard him.
any advise?
Player: "I rolled a 50 total to get the merchant to lower his prices, so I succeed."
Me: "Yeah, probably- it depends, what do you say to him?"
Player: "say? I don't have to say anything. He lowers his prices, right?"
Me: so, what, you just walk in and say 'I rolled a fifty, gimme half price'?"
Player: "yeah, it doesn't matter, I rolled a 50"
Me: (facepalm) *sigh*"He looks at you strangely and takes a step back, one hand reaching slowly
under the counter.'Look, sir, you're not obligated to agree with how my merchandise is priced- but I
really can't afford to drop my prices. I already have to keep them low to be competitive, and I make little enough in this line of business as it is. I have my own needs to consider, and a kid to feed. Now, if you don't mind, caould you leave my shop? I've got some Inventory to do."
The player may as well jave specifically sid "my guy walk in and starts making demands while rambling on about numbers", which is pretty much what his character did. (Incidentally, the group's young, bookish spellcaster walked in soon afterward and struck up a conversation with the intent to haggle down a few prices; said die-fudger insisted, 'don't bother, that NPC won't give you anything off- I got a fifty'. The merchant was soon chatting up the wizard in an amicable mood, and budgeted in some lowered prices for 'slightly damaged goods' for the charming, awkward lad. The wizard hadn't rolled a single check- it was all in the roleplaying.
I had long since been using a 'die rolls are made in the open' rule, applying to everyone. In the end, though, we didn't need to demand that the cheater leave, or confront him, or anything of the sort; with the terrible roleplaying, he shot himself in the foot on most of his fudge occasions by not backing up the numerical bonus with appropriate actions by the character. Eventually, the holes he left in any story he'd compose to feed to the rest of the group about his character and incriminating actions he took without any heed to the story consequences, assuming that high rolls create all, turned the party against him; not necessarily player to player, but character to character. One must realize that if you try to keep some aspect of your character secret, the other players WILL speculate.
Indeed. Honestly, I think some of the fun with that "all 20's" player I had was to try to watch his make up for bad choices with high "rolls". I prefer to run a pretty highly rolepley-focused game; my players love this style as well, and I feel it adds a lot to our game. This player, too, seemed to insist on roleplay, but I'm not sure what precisely his definition of "roleplay" was. Example; for a while I used a variant I's seen in anther game I played, where a natural 20 was not a auto-success, but instead allowed you to roll d20 again, adding the results. That is, the pitiful kobold does NOT hit the AC 56 high level paladin 5% of the time. Now, if the kobold rolls two twenties in a row, followed by a 13, he hits. (I digress slightly) This would give rise to such situations as;
Player: "I rolled a 50 total to get the merchant to lower his prices, so I succeed."
Me: "Yeah, probably- it depends, what do you say to him?"
Player: "say? I don't have to say anything. He lowers his prices, right?"
Me: so, what, you just walk in and say 'I rolled a fifty, gimme half price'?"
Player: "yeah, it doesn't matter, I rolled a 50"
Me: (facepalm) *sigh*"He looks at you strangely and takes a step back, one hand reaching slowly
under the counter.'Look, sir, you're not obligated to agree with how my merchandise is priced- but I
really can't afford to drop my prices. I already have to keep them low to be competitive, and I make little enough in this line of business as it is. I have my own needs to consider, and a kid to feed. Now, if you don't mind, caould you leave my shop? I've got some Inventory to do."
The player may as well jave specifically sid "my guy walk in and starts making demands while rambling on about numbers", which is pretty much what his character did. (Incidentally, the group's young, bookish spellcaster walked in soon afterward and struck up a conversation with the intent to haggle down a few prices; said die-fudger insisted, 'don't bother, that NPC won't give you anything off- I got a fifty'. The merchant was soon chatting up the wizard in an amicable mood, and budgeted in some lowered prices for 'slightly damaged goods' for the charming, awkward lad. The wizard hadn't rolled a single check- it was all in the roleplaying.
I had long since been using a 'die rolls are made in the open' rule, applying to everyone. In the end, though, we didn't need to demand that the cheater leave, or confront him, or anything of the sort; with the terrible roleplaying, he shot himself in the foot on most of his fudge occasions by not backing up the numerical bonus with appropriate actions by the character. Eventually, the holes he left in any story he'd compose to feed to the rest of the group about his character and incriminating actions he took without any heed to the story consequences, assuming that high rolls create all, turned the party against him; not necessarily player to player, but character to character. One must realize that if you try to keep some aspect of your character secret, the other players WILL speculate.
Player: I hit an AC of 34 for 108 damage.
DM: Ok but what did you do?
Player: What do you mean?
DM: Like you just strolled up and said "I hit AC 34 for 108 damage."
Player: Well yeah.
DM: The soldier looks over his shield at you standing there giving him a math lessons, decided you're the town idiot and laughs at you. You lose your turn.
EDIT: The game has social skills because a character can and most likely will be better ina social situation then the player. He told you the purpose of the roll "to try and pay less for merchandise: and yet you acted like a complete douche ignoring his characters ability presented by RAW.
I'm sorry you won't be getting any sympathy from me. I can understand when someone says "I roll diplomacy" and you ask for what reason. It's the same as them saying "I attack" and you replay with what? A 50? He honestly just got a deal. Give him a few silver off. Say as much.
DM: Well I guess I can throw that rope in for free, been on the shelf a while will be happy to just get rid of it."
Look the game moves on the player feels like he accomplished something and didn't waste his trained skill on diplomacy when endurance or Athletics have a more mechanical use.
Given that MalikLucius prefaced the post with his game being a high roleplaying style, his reaction to the obtuse player was perfectly valid. If the single player has a problem with that style, as it sounds that the other players are ok with it and can work well within that style, then its time for the player with a problem to find another group.
No group should have to change their established style of game for one player.
Given that MalikLucius prefaced the post with his game being a high roleplaying style, his reaction to the obtuse player was perfectly valid. If the single player has a problem with that style, as it sounds that the other players are ok with it and can work well within that style, then its time for the player with a problem to find another group.
No group should have to change their established style of game for one player.
High Roleplay doesn't mean "disregard the mechanical uses/value of social skills" it means less combat encounters and more social encounters.
He used the skill correctly. The DM was stubborn douche that is playing the game incorrecly from the RAW.
Don't fret though most DM's from 1st or 2nd edition can't tell you how NPC reactions worked either, and that;'s where this BS you have to say exactly what your character says BS came from.
DM's like this one do the same for wishes. Instead of just letting most wishes fly. "I wish I was stronger." OK add 1 to your strength, continue game. Nope the DM is all "Well you didn't say how so you stick now, or you didn't so how long, you didn't say without any negatives you get +1 str but lose -1 in the other stats."
It goes back to old form of the game where you played gotcha.
"You didn't say you weren't using the handle of the door to open it, make a save versus poison.. oh you die."
You a see a body.. oh you get close? GOTCHA death grubs attack!
we have skills for a reason and like it or not they're there to protect the average player from the average DM. You know the one that says "Even though your diplomacy roll to get a lower price succeeded, you didn't say what you said so it fails."
Tell me what do you say to a King to get him to allow you to carry weapons in his kingdom? I don't know what to say that will work. But my +23 Diplomacy bard does.
Given that MalikLucius prefaced the post with his game being a high roleplaying style, his reaction to the obtuse player was perfectly valid. If the single player has a problem with that style, as it sounds that the other players are ok with it and can work well within that style, then its time for the player with a problem to find another group.
No group should have to change their established style of game for one player.
High Roleplay doesn't mean "disregard the mechanical uses/value of social skills" it means less combat encounters and more social encounters.
He used the skill correctly. The DM was stubborn douche that is playing the game incorrecly from the RAW.
Don't fret though most DM's from 1st or 2nd edition can't tell you how NPC reactions worked either, and that;'s where this BS you have to say exactly what your character says BS came from.
DM's like this one do the same for wishes. Instead of just letting most wishes fly. "I wish I was stronger." OK add 1 to your strength, continue game. Nope the DM is all "Well you didn't say how so you stick now, or you didn't so how long, you didn't say without any negatives you get +1 str but lose -1 in the other stats."
It goes back to old form of the game where you played gotcha.
"You didn't say you weren't using the handle of the door to open it, make a save versus poison.. oh you die."
You a see a body.. oh you get close? GOTCHA death grubs attack!
we have skills for a reason and like it or not they're there to protect the average player from the average DM. You know the one that says "Even though your diplomacy roll to get a lower price succeeded, you didn't say what you said so it fails."
Tell me what do you say to a King to get him to allow you to carry weapons in his kingdom? I don't know what to say that will work. But my +23 Diplomacy bard does.
First of all, calm down. No reason to get so upset about this.
Secondly, the fact is that it’s not unreasonable for a DM to expect a player to at least say something during a social encounter. The player in the example refused to say anything at all, they just rolled the dice.
The combat equivalent would be a player just rolling dice to hit during a fight while their character is out of combat range, then refusing to position his character into combat range. To most DMs, encounters, whether combat or social, require more from the player than simply picking up a d20 and rolling it.
EDIT: I almost forgot...
Tell me what do you say to a King to get him to allow you to carry weapons in his kingdom? I don't know what to say that will work. But my +23 Diplomacy bard does.
Sometimes there’s nothing a PC can say to change an outcome... unless you think a Diplomacy roll should be able to convince any NPC in a game to do anything your character wants?
He used the skill correctly. The DM...is playing the game incorrecly from the RAW.
That may be true, but it is only relevant if it was a game that adhered strictly to the RAW.
Don't fret though most DM's from 1st or 2nd edition can't tell you how NPC reactions worked either, and that;'s where this BS you have to say exactly what your character says BS came from.
Some people wonder why I call their "roll playing" for what it is. Role playing is saying exactly what your character says to the npc, and having the DM respond to the player in kind as the npc. This easily allows a Role Play oriented DM to determine whether the character is successful in achieving their desired effect without the need to "roll dice" to figure out what could have happened. It is also the most fun part of the game for Role Playing oriented characters.
If you prefer to not "act out" the "Role" of your character, and think the only proper way to play is to "roll" the dice against a listed skill to avoid all that "Bull S**t" talking stuff which is getting in the way of your "mashing the minis" on a combat map. Then that is the definition in my book of a "Roll Player" who does not likely belong in a Role Playing group. The play styles as evidenced by your personal distain just do not usually match, and it is better if the minority member leaves if they are unwilling to adapt their style to the group at large. The reverse also applies for a Role Player in a Roll Play focused group.
Learn to adapt to the group you joined, or find a different group which matches your play style better. It really is as simple as that. Neither one is the right way or the wrong way. It is only a preference difference.
Some people wonder why I call their "roll playing" for what it is. Role playing is saying exactly what your character says to the npc, and having the DM respond to the player in kind as the npc. This easily allows a Role Play oriented DM to determine whether the character is successful in achieving their desired effect without the need to "roll dice" to figure out what could have happened.
The problem with this is that a player is not his character. If you don't expect your players to be able to do Athletics checks like they have a +15 modifier, or do Stealth checks like they have a +15 modifier, it's unfair to expect them to be able to do Diplomacy like they have a +15 modifier. That's why we have skill checks; so our characters can do things we can't.
If you're going to pure RP for that, you should remove the social skills entirely. Characters shouldn't spend resources (feats, trained skills, etc) on things that won't matter.
Now, before there's any jumping involved, I do agree the player should have to say something, and what he says should influence the DC of the roll via the +2/-2 modifier advice. But the fact of the matter is, even if my character is trained in Diplomacy, I'm not. But my character should not be penalized because I'm not a silver-tongued devil, even though he is.
Some people wonder why I call their "roll playing" for what it is. Role playing is saying exactly what your character says to the npc, and having the DM respond to the player in kind as the npc. This easily allows a Role Play oriented DM to determine whether the character is successful in achieving their desired effect without the need to "roll dice" to figure out what could have happened.
The problem with this is that a player is not his character. If you don't expect your players to be able to do Athletics checks like they have a +15 modifier, or do Stealth checks like they have a +15 modifier, it's unfair to expect them to be able to do Diplomacy like they have a +15 modifier. That's why we have skill checks; so our characters can do things we can't.
If you're going to pure RP for that, you should remove the social skills entirely. Characters shouldn't spend resources (feats, trained skills, etc) on things that won't matter.
Now, before there's any jumping involved, I do agree the player should have to say something, and what he says should influence the DC of the roll via the +2/-2 modifier advice. But the fact of the matter is, even if my character is trained in Diplomacy, I'm not. But my character should not be penalized because I'm not a silver-tongued devil, even though he is.
Most D&D games do not exist at one pure point at either end of the spectum here. Your solution is a perfectly viable approach, say something and if you say it well enough, gain a bonus to your check is a perfectly fine way to hybrid the grey area between the two poles where most of us play.
The more Role Playing oriented a game is, then realistically a DM and players can easily bypass "social" checks in favor of direct verbal in character interaction. If a player isn't a silver tounged devil in a more Role Playing group, then they can still role play perfectly well as the gruff and quiet type of character. Know what character matches your play style is fully applicable to both Role Play and Roll Play elements of the game.
However, if someone really wanted to Role Play a silver tounged devil in game without being able to pull it off 100% convincing in real life, I would look at the skill stat on their sheet as a DM and make allowances for putting in the attempt and still give them the success without ever needing a dice roll to validate it.
As far as doing away with "physical skill checks" that takes a more Role Play oriented approach, but I have certainly seen, played, and run games where the players describe in detail the actions of the characters, and the DM once more looks at the stat listed on the sheet, and makes a reasonable determination regarding success or failure.
The only reason in most games the roll is in reality required in these instances is if the probablity between the two polar results remains fairly close, and many players just don't trust a DM to make a reasonable judgement regarding the outcome of the event. The Role Play approach to determining results also presents a chance to do something that most straight dice rolls do not allow in D&D 4E. The opportunity to define partial successes, and partial failures in the attempt. Some "skill challenge" systems attempt to replicate that gradiation with a tiered result across multiple rolls, but eventually its a touch mechanistic for some people's tastes who would rather trust the DM is going to simply make a reasonable judgement regarding the result of their attempted action.
This is not "proper" D&D by the strictly published rules, and will not pass in judged tournament style play of course. However, if a group finds it more enjoyable than sticking with only meta-game level playing of treating characters like pieces of paper and minis on a battle map, then I certainly don't find anything wrong with their play style preference.
Just as I don't find anything wrong with doing away with a DM altogether and just having a group of players set up tactical battles strictly following the tactical rule set for combat. If that's how they have fun, I hope they enjoy themselves and I wish them luck with it. The more Roll Playing oriented a group becomes, the less necessary a DM becomes in terms of playing since the rules clearly define the actions and dice not people determine the results. In that type of play things like dialog, plot, and setting are just "box text" that get in the way of the fun for that kind of player.
Its like playing football or any other organized team sport for example. Is it still football if only five of your friends are playing in a park somewhere? Does it require two full teams, uniforms, a stadium, coaches, and a referee or it isn't really football? In my mind both are the game football, but the rules are changed to adapt to the nature of the game being played by the players. Which is more fun? That's a personal choice.
I hope this helps.
Some people wonder why I call their "roll playing" for what it is. Role playing is saying exactly what your character says to the npc, and having the DM respond to the player in kind as the npc. This easily allows a Role Play oriented DM to determine whether the character is successful in achieving their desired effect without the need to "roll dice" to figure out what could have happened.
The problem with this is that a player is not his character. If you don't expect your players to be able to do Athletics checks like they have a +15 modifier, or do Stealth checks like they have a +15 modifier, it's unfair to expect them to be able to do Diplomacy like they have a +15 modifier. That's why we have skill checks; so our characters can do things we can't.
If you're going to pure RP for that, you should remove the social skills entirely. Characters shouldn't spend resources (feats, trained skills, etc) on things that won't matter.
Now, before there's any jumping involved, I do agree the player should have to say something, and what he says should influence the DC of the roll via the +2/-2 modifier advice. But the fact of the matter is, even if my character is trained in Diplomacy, I'm not. But my character should not be penalized because I'm not a silver-tongued devil, even though he is.
Agreed.
At the core of it all, though, the player is the character. That is the very nature of role playing games. Sure, you cannot expect a player to actually cast a spell or pick a lock, but in my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with expecting them to act out a diplomacy check. Nor is there any need to expect someone to act like they, the player, has a +15 modifier. The modifier does not impact the actual role playing. The point is NOT to act out the modifier (i.e. you do not have to use the words that someone with a +15 modifier would use). The point is to simply act it out, either a little bit or a lot or anywhere in between. The point is to get into character. And just because we, the players, have limitations that affect our roleplaying (i.e. someone with an IQ of 120 playing someone with an IQ of 200) does not mean that we should scrap the role playing and just roll the dice. It just means that we roleplay to the best of our abilities.
That being said, if groups want to scrap all role playing and reduce the game to nothing but rolling dice, that is fine, too. I just do not think one should automatically go that route (and I am not accusing you of doing this!) simply because they cannot expect to live up the stats/abilities of their character.
He used the skill correctly. The DM was stubborn douche that is playing the game incorrecly from the RAW.
Don't fret though most DM's from 1st or 2nd edition can't tell you how NPC reactions worked either, and that;'s where this BS you have to say exactly what your character says BS came from.
we have skills for a reason and like it or not they're there to protect the average player from the average DM. You know the one that says "Even though your diplomacy roll to get a lower price succeeded, you didn't say what you said so it fails."
Tell me what do you say to a King to get him to allow you to carry weapons in his kingdom? I don't know what to say that will work. But my +23 Diplomacy bard does.
"Playing the game incorrectly"? Surely, you jest. From its creation, D&D has ALWAYS been about RAI. Indeed, both the players handbook and DMG from any edition will specify "these rules are to be used as guidelines, and are not set in stone". That IS the only "Rule" as written.
Now, most 1st or 2nd edition DMs can't tell you how NPC reactions worked RAW, because we used to do a little something called "roleplaying".
And as for "Even though your roll to get a lower price succeeded, you didn't say what you said, so it fails.", The player DID specify what he said- he said absolutely nothing. In case you've forgotten, his response to "so, what, you just walk in and say, 'I got a fifty, gimme half price'?" was "sure, it doesn't matter, I don't say anything. I got a 50." the merchant's startled reaction was in response to the player's insistence that the merchant "give him half price", over and over, aggressively, etc. This is beyond the healing power of a "50" to fix. In my game, I rule that regardless of the degree of roleplaying to which the player prescribes, the effects are determined by the die roll, depending of the NPC and situation. A player might spin a complex yarn about the movement of trade routes in this area, how dangerous they are, and what have you to convince an NPC of his right to be overly- armed in a safe-zone between two warring nations. If he rolls badly, then even though his lie was fantastic, the NPC is likely to see through it. Likewise, in this weapon-ban safe zone, the player might roll natural 18 on a simple "I've heard rumours of bandits- you can't be too careful" and get away scot free. This, of course, still requires that the player(and character) actually say something.
Even on the slightly limited (and perhaps a little deranged) insistence of playing only by RAW, you can't argue that one can "talk down the merchant's prices" without actually saying anything.
And while we're on the subject, whether or not your +23 diplomacy bard knows what to say to "I cannot allow you before the king so armed", my wizard can get away with "surely, you would not part an old man from his walking stick?" without making a roll.
Secondly, the fact is that it’s not unreasonable for a DM to expect a player to at least say something during a social encounter. The player in the example refused to say anything at all, they just rolled the dice.
The combat equivalent would be a player just rolling dice to hit during a fight while their character is out of combat range, then refusing to position his character into combat range. To most DMs, encounters, whether combat or social, require more from the player than simply picking up a d20 and rolling it.
Nice to see that someone is paying attention to the actual point of the exercise, though I think more accurately, it's only RyndarLocke who isn't.
The sole reason that the player's check failed was because he specified "I don't say ANYTHING to him. I don't need to, because I rolled a 50" regardless of the obvious die-fudge on the 50.(That is, to refer back to this post's relation to the OP, that this player still often failed even with his ridiculous "rolls", because he took success by cheating for granted).
You can't very well make a diplomacy check or a bluff in a situation which would require you to speak if you don't say anything. It's about as effective as swinging your sword at that barghest who's still 20 feet away.
DM: "So, you move to attack him?"
Player: "No, I hit him from here. You said the ranger's arrow hit him on a 21, and I rolled a 24."
DM: "Well, you can't very well hit him unless you actually move up to where your sword can REACH him. You can even do that as part of the same action."
Player: "NO! I don't want to move, I should be able to hit him from here. I hit his armor class."
DM: "*sigh* Okay, you swing your sword majestically though the open air in front of you. It does look impressive, a perfect swing. But you miss the barghest."
Player: "No fair! I call shenanigans."
Now, beyond that, the goal is not for the player to be silver-tongued, but to get into the game and bullshit some. Just like positioning your minis and saying "I attack the goblin" mimic the action of movement and slashing with a sword your bullshit excuse for why you should be given a discount, "I tell him that we are on a noble quest," is but a mimickiry of the actual art of haggling.
Now, as to your specific examples Malik, I don't buy either of them:
First, the wizard very well may be denied his walking staff if the guard has a sense motive and some knowledge that wizard staffs can be very powerful. There are mechanics for determining this -- you would roll a bluff to hide the fact that your staff is an excellent weapon in the hands of a master such as yourself and the guard would roll a sense motive modified by all of the wonderful sense motive modifiers that represents such things as prior knowledge and believability.
For the combat example, movement, reach and combat are mechanically laid out quite extensively and it's not a matter of saying "your sword doesn't reach him" but a "your threatened range does not extend that far, as per page #X and you'll have to move such as described on page #Y to attack him this turn." (Granted, you wouldn't actually call out the specific rules in such a case unless the player was being truly obstinate and even then I probably wouldn't play with someone like that.)
And now we're ridiculously off-topic.
TL;DR: RP'ing social skills is a mimickry of the actual act and the goal is to get the players to bullshit with the DM some. Even social skills that seem obvious or trope-er-ific should still be rolled in a mechanical game like D&D to prevent the CHA 6 Orc from being the face of the party because his player is a master debater who improvs as a hobby.
Now, most 1st or 2nd edition DMs can't tell you how NPC reactions worked RAW, because we used to do a little something called "roleplaying".
To me one of the biggest misunderstandings of 2nd edition was the NPC reaction table. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I ran across players and DMs who thought that was how you determined the reaction of every NPC!
Given that MalikLucius prefaced the post with his game being a high roleplaying style, his reaction to the obtuse player was perfectly valid. If the single player has a problem with that style, as it sounds that the other players are ok with it and can work well within that style, then its time for the player with a problem to find another group.
No group should have to change their established style of game for one player.
High Roleplay doesn't mean "disregard the mechanical uses/value of social skills" it means less combat encounters and more social encounters.
He used the skill correctly. The DM was stubborn douche that is playing the game incorrecly from the RAW.
Don't fret though most DM's from 1st or 2nd edition can't tell you how NPC reactions worked either, and that;'s where this BS you have to say exactly what your character says BS came from.
DM's like this one do the same for wishes. Instead of just letting most wishes fly. "I wish I was stronger." OK add 1 to your strength, continue game. Nope the DM is all "Well you didn't say how so you stick now, or you didn't so how long, you didn't say without any negatives you get +1 str but lose -1 in the other stats."
It goes back to old form of the game where you played gotcha.
"You didn't say you weren't using the handle of the door to open it, make a save versus poison.. oh you die."
You a see a body.. oh you get close? GOTCHA death grubs attack!
we have skills for a reason and like it or not they're there to protect the average player from the average DM. You know the one that says "Even though your diplomacy roll to get a lower price succeeded, you didn't say what you said so it fails."
Tell me what do you say to a King to get him to allow you to carry weapons in his kingdom? I don't know what to say that will work. But my +23 Diplomacy bard does.
First of all, calm down. No reason to get so upset about this.
Secondly, the fact is that it’s not unreasonable for a DM to expect a player to at least say something during a social encounter. The player in the example refused to say anything at all, they just rolled the dice.
The combat equivalent would be a player just rolling dice to hit during a fight while their character is out of combat range, then refusing to position his character into combat range. To most DMs, encounters, whether combat or social, require more from the player than simply picking up a d20 and rolling it.EDIT: I almost forgot...
Tell me what do you say to a King to get him to allow you to carry weapons in his kingdom? I don't know what to say that will work. But my +23 Diplomacy bard does.Sometimes there’s nothing a PC can say to change an outcome... unless you think a Diplomacy roll should be able to convince any NPC in a game to do anything your character wants?
OK, first off YES a player should have a chance to modify the reactions and or attitude of all NPC's in the game. Did I say they should be set DC's that are easy to get? Maybe you need a 50 to get the King to see your side. Kinda hard to do at level 4 huh?
The player did say something, he described the outcome he wanted, then rolled his skill that allowed for the attempt of that outcome.
No it's not like being out of range. It's like he says I attack with x power got x to hit for x damage. And the GM replaying but you didn't describe how you attacked, or you didn't stand up and show me.
also Roleplaying games have had a system for NPC reactions since basic DnD. Not everyone is good at social interaction. What if the player had a bad lisp, and stutter, honestly had no idea how to act in a certain situation? Would you penalize him? I guess so. Sorry lisp ridden stutterer that is shy and ignorant to how commoners act in the presence of royalty. You can't play a Bard.
OK, first off YES a player should have a chance to modify the reactions and or attitude of all NPC's in the game. Did I say they should be set DC's that are easy to get? Maybe you need a 50 to get the King to see your side. Kinda hard to do at level 4 huh?
If, in certain situations, the DC is so high its impossible for the players to get, that is taking away the chance to modify the reaction. Its the same as making the NPC unpersuadable to the character.
The player did say something, he described the outcome he wanted, then rolled his skill that allowed for the attempt of that outcome.
Yes, the player said something, but the character said nothing. If you and your group are interested in games where characters never have to speak, thats great and good luck to you (not being sarcastic).
But most people, as others here have said, expect and like games where the characters interact on some level. In the example provided, the character said absolutely nothing. Its not unreasonable for the DM to want some sort of interaction to base the roll on. Even in the example they give for social challenges (DMG Pg. 77), the characters speak, interact and give the NPCs a reason to respond. They don't just roll dice without providing context.
No it's not like being out of range. It's like he says I attack with x power got x to hit for x damage. And the GM replaying but you didn't describe how you attacked, or you didn't stand up and show me.
If a character is out of range for an attack, should they be able to hit the target with a natural 20 roll?
also Roleplaying games have had a system for NPC reactions since basic DnD. Not everyone is good at social interaction. What if the player had a bad lisp, and stutter, honestly had no idea how to act in a certain situation? Would you penalize him? I guess so. Sorry lisp ridden stutterer that is shy and ignorant to how commoners act in the presence of royalty. You can't play a Bard.
This is a straw man argument. Of course I wouldnt penalize someone with those physical conditions, but thats not whats going on in the example we're talking about. The guy could interact, but refused to have his character speak even a single word. Thats the issue.
OK, first off YES a player should have a chance to modify the reactions and or attitude of all NPC's in the game. Did I say they should be set DC's that are easy to get? Maybe you need a 50 to get the King to see your side. Kinda hard to do at level 4 huh?
If, in certain situations, the DC is so high its impossible for the players to get, that is taking away the chance to modify the reaction. Its the same as making the NPC unpersuadable to the character.
But a DC that is out of reach of the PCs still gives the players a sense of hope. Instead of the players thinking that something is impossible they know that it is simply not possible at this moment in time. Some might argue that they both amount to pretty much the same thing, but in my experience there is a huge difference in perception of the two among players. And even if the players do not know the DC of the skill check the fact that the dice are being rolled makes them think that the action is possible. And is not player perception really what is the most important here? So long as the players think there is a chance then it matters not if something really is impossible.
I completely agree and this is how I DM.
But RyndarLocke wasn't speaking to that. He was making a point that PCs should have the chance to modify the reactions of all NPCs in the game, rejecting the idea that there are some situations where it might never be possible.
He also didn't address if a PC should be able to make a NPC do anything they wanted - which is what I asked - but went with the more tenable, generalized assertion of modifying the reaction/attitude.
I completely agree and this is how I DM.
But RyndarLocke wasn't speaking to that. He was making a point that PCs should have the chance to modify the reactions of all NPCs in the game, rejecting the idea that there are some situations where it might never be possible.
He also didn't address if a PC should be able to make a NPC do anything they wanted - which is what I asked - but went with the more tenable, generalized assertion of modifying the reaction/attitude.
Sorry. But my Post-Fu has been off lately. I did not make it clear that I was agreeing with you!
I completely agree and this is how I DM.
But RyndarLocke wasn't speaking to that. He was making a point that PCs should have the chance to modify the reactions of all NPCs in the game, rejecting the idea that there are some situations where it might never be possible.
He also didn't address if a PC should be able to make a NPC do anything they wanted - which is what I asked - but went with the more tenable, generalized assertion of modifying the reaction/attitude.
I was actually commenting on not allowing a player to use a social skill without "doing the talking himself".
The random innkeeper shouldn't require anything. "I want to try and get a free room from the innkeeper." DM shrugs and says roll Diplomacy. --Player rolls a 21. DM "Yeah he'll let you have a room for the night free of charge assuming you'll bounce for his tavern for a few hours, since his is off tonight." Or "Sure he agrees but you have to play that lute on your back for a few hours."
But instead it was "No you fail die ina fire, learn to play this is role play not roll play lol nom nom nom play wow loser."
3rd person is roleplaying. 1st person is also roleplaying. Hell even 2nd person is roleplaying.
Some people aren't comfortable pretending to be a Half-Elven Bard. I am. But if the shy guy wants to play one that fine. I as a GOOD DM step in and fill the gaps. Guess what those players roll dice I roleplay the situation everyone is happy.
Also to add.
Yes every NPC should be influence-able Skill Challenges work great. The king is super hard. 15 successes before 3 failures. Intimidation is an automatic failure, spouting off about religion automatic failure, a failed bluff is two failures. Go.
A Character can make an unarmed ranged attack at anytime in 4e. So yes the 20 still hits, and deals double damage if it hits the AC of the target.
Sorry. But my Post-Fu has been off lately. I did not make it clear that I was agreeing with you!
No its not your fault, I was being thick and didn't pick up on that.
RyndarLocke, I had a much different post before, one which got into a lot of detailed questions that quite frankly became pretty ridiculous on my part.
So instead I think I’ll say this: all your posts on this seem to have come from the assumption that this DM, or seemingly any DM, who prefers a player act out a social encounter rather than use a d20 roll are doing so because they like to screw the players over, either by disregarding a physical limitation of the player (stuttering for example), or being callous to a player who is overly shy, or simply that the DM wants to play some sort of weird “gotcha” game with the PCs. There are DMs like that, though I knew most of them when I was still in the 7th grade.
The reality is that most DMs, or at least those that I know, who want an acted out social encounter do so because they really, really, really enjoy games focused on character interaction. Some DMs go so far as to tell their players not to even bother with training Diplomacy because that will be decided by interaction and never a die roll (unless extenuating circumstances arise, such as physical limitations, etc). And like I said earlier, 9 times out of 10 it’s not so they can rub their hands together behind the DM screen, giggling with glee about how much they’re going to Eff over the party because the players have no recourse.
Which leads me to my next point: I understand your concern that players need to be protected from bad DMs, and I know some DMs need to be hemmed in like this. But honestly, if you need this level of meta-security for something as simple as one social encounter with an insignificant general store merchant because you have absolutely no trust in your DM, do you really want to be in that game to begin with?
By the way, I really admire your aggressive defense of those unable to act out social encounters for reasons beyond their control. I feel the same; I just don’t think it's applicable in every one of these situations.
First, I agree that the player should have to give some bullshit reason when using a social skill. However, if the player fails to (as this one did) the DM shouldn't just say, "Sorry, you failed," but instead should try to encourage the player to at least try lest you get exactly what happened: A DM who wonders why his player can't roleplay and a player who wonders why the NPC is immune to social skills. You'll note that the player had no understanding that his character failed because he didn't give any justification -- this is the DM's fault.
When I give my example of the interaction between the two of us, I've cut it down extensively; In actuality, I spent a good three minutes trying to convince him of the fact that his character needs to at least physically say something to succeed at the diplomacy check. Moments ticking by, players rolling their eyes, I nonetheless spent more than enough time delaying the game to explain simple commonsense conversation, even insisting that the roll succeeds if he says something- I told him the roll was a success, but his character needed to actually communicate, and he literally insisted that his character say nothing because the die roll should succeed anyway. Hell, he even acknowledged that he was going to fail intentionally because of it. The reason that this instance was given as an example was to illustrate my own method of dealing with the cheater- by placing a lower importance on the die roll, he'd have much less reason to cheat, particularly when more effective results would be achieved through extensive roleplaying. I don't force my players to roleplay; if the player wants to place high value on their die roll as just passively mention their interaction, that's fine, but I do expect the players to interact. And I don't feel that's unreasonable, considering that I run a High-Roleplay game. Some nights we might literally pass a session without a single die roll. Honestly, I'm surprised at the turn the conversation has taken; and I truly pity RyndarLocke in his closed-minded interpretation of "how D&D is" and "a good DM".
First, the wizard very well may be denied his walking staff if the guard has a sense motive and some knowledge that wizard staffs can be very powerful. There are mechanics for determining this -- you would roll a bluff to hide the fact that your staff is an excellent weapon in the hands of a master such as yourself and the guard would roll a sense motive modified by all of the wonderful sense motive modifiers that represents such things as prior knowledge and believability.
I know that- it was a BS example, it wouldn't hold up so simply in game. I was actually making reference to Lord of the Rings, when Gandalf is allowed before King Theoden of Rohan with, essentially, no more that a polite gesture on his part to convince Gamling to leave him his staff; and Gamling is no fool. He knows Gandalf's power well- more precisely, I suppose that Gandalf took a 10 to just pass it by, and Gamling made his check and realized that Gandalf most certainly doesn't need a walking stick. But, with his generally ambivalent in-game attitude and the consideration that he certainly doesn't want to deal with an angry wizard(not to mention his suspicions on Grima and Saruman's mischief), he lets it slide. It's amusing, but no, not a serious example, nor an accurate one to the discussion, I suppose.
No it's not like being out of range. It's like he says I attack with x power got x to hit for x damage. And the GM replaying but you didn't describe how you attacked, or you didn't stand up and show me.
The idea has nothing to do with being out of range, the example only provides a situation where the player insists upon trying to make only the die roll count as success when the character is not physically in a position to attempt the check, even when it can easily be remedied.
It goes without saying that if you swing your sword through the air in front of you, you don't hit the opponent standing 20 feet away. In the example provided, the player could easily move to stand adjacent to the target and ensure his roll's success, but actively chooses not to do so, after having had explained that he was only insisting upon his own failure.
It also goes without saying that to "talk the merchant into lowering his prices, the character must actually physically talk to the merchant in question. Since, in the example provided, the player actively insisted that his character didn't need to say anything to make a diplomacy check, and didn't say anything, the check failed. Again, it was explained to him extensively and repeatedly that his character needed to physically speak, and the player disregarded it.
I have not claimed ONCE that a player should actually have to do all the social interaction, verbatim, for his character, nor that a player should have to describe or demonstrate what he is doing in combat for the success of his character. I have only made the point that a skill check represents an actual action in-game on the part of the character, with the number representing the degree of effectivity.
The examples you've given, RyndarLocke, are precisely the opposite of my point. You seem to insist that in all the above points, the player makes a successful action, then the DM patronizes their play style and they fail. "Well, the roll succeeds, but you didn't say exactly what you said so you fail."
I am stating examples wherein the player makes the roll while insisting that his character doesn't take the action that his roll represents in game. Rather than your insistence of the big, bad DM saying "Well, the roll succeeds, but you didn't say exactly what you said so you fail.", it's a case of the player saying "Well, I got a 50 on the diplomacy check to bring down his prices, but I don't actually talk to him." Or, in the apparently misunderstood combat parallel, "Well, I got a 24 on my attack roll against the guard, but I don't actually move or attack him or anything."
"...But I succeed, right?"
Another thing- an unarmed ranged attack roll can be made at anytime? As in, a character can throw something they're not physically holding, being unarmed and thus presumably open handed? Interesting interpretation of being unarmed, there. Maybe it's just 4th that's illogical, but I won't argue with the "GOOD DM", it doesn't seem to be making a dent
Reminds me of a game I played in with the same player in question DMing; where he as the "good DM" insisted that he didn't think a dagger counted as a piercing weapon, I.E., you can't use a dagger to stab, only to slash. Or that a Soulknife's mind blade was not a physical enough object to affect other small physical objects (like, to test a pressure plate, to tip a vase, to slide a glass out of the way, or to use as a skewer to roast sausages) but that it was physical enough to, say, decapitate goblins. Never mind that the mind blade is considered to be "...identical in all ways (except visually) to a short sword of a size appropriate for its wielder...the blade can be broken (it has hardness 10 and 10 hit points); howevern, a soulknife can simply create another..." But I digress- you may ignore this rant, it really doesn't relate to the subject at hand. Anyway...
The sort of 'all players are victims, and all DMs take advantage of their player's trusting natures' logic that seems to fuel your examples and posts makes it sound like you've got a problem with authority ;) or, at the very least, you've played with a lot of very vicious DMs, who were, for some reason, actually out to take you for all you're worth. If that's the case, then that's very unfortunate and I'm sorry for that, but past DMs of your experience and their methods have no relation to any other DM's style.
One last bit, Ryndar- I'd like you to look on Page 8 of the Dungeons Master's Guide 3.5, under 'deep immersion storytelling'. This is part of the book's Introduction. You know, the important backgrounding and setting of simple standards. These are the loose outlines of what the game is, leaving no hold barred in the face of what any game has the potential to become. Take that in, digest it, roll it about(or role, whatever), and tell me what you think.
At the very least, it seems that you favor a very RAW, strict-outlines game, maybe with plenty of numerical bits. I don't, and neither do my players. That 'deep immersion storytelling example in the DMG? Take maybe three steps back from that, and you've got a decent outline of my game dynamic. And your opinion of "good DM" is hardly a fair estimation, it's extremely limiting. For the sake of your RAW-tooth, the DM's only actual 'job' is to make the game fun for everyone; and when the single player is trying so hard to make the game less fun for himself, the 'good DM' will allow him his choice of action rather than trying to control his character into being more 'fun'.
No it's not like being out of range. It's like he says I attack with x power got x to hit for x damage. And the GM replaying but you didn't describe how you attacked, or you didn't stand up and show me.
The idea has nothing to do with being out of range, the example only provides a situation where the player insists upon trying to make only the die roll count as success when the character is not physically in a position to attempt the check, even when it can easily be remedied.
It goes without saying that if you swing your sword through the air in front of you, you don't hit the opponent standing 20 feet away. In the example provided, the player could easily move to stand adjacent to the target and ensure his roll's success, but actively chooses not to do so, after having had explained that he was only insisting upon his own failure.
It also goes without saying that to "talk the merchant into lowering his prices, the character must actually physically talk to the merchant in question. Since, in the example provided, the player actively insisted that his character didn't need to say anything to make a diplomacy check, and didn't say anything, the check failed. Again, it was explained to him extensively and repeatedly that his character needed to physically speak, and the player disregarded it.
I have not claimed ONCE that a player should actually have to do all the social interaction, verbatim, for his character, nor that a player should have to describe or demonstrate what he is doing in combat for the success of his character. I have only made the point that a skill check represents an actual action in-game on the part of the character, with the number representing the degree of effectivity.
The examples you've given, RyndarLocke, are precisely the opposite of my point. You seem to insist that in all the above points, the player makes a successful action, then the DM patronizes their play style and they fail. "Well, the roll succeeds, but you didn't say exactly what you said so you fail."
I am stating examples wherein the player makes the roll while insisting that his character doesn't take the action that his roll represents in game. Rather than your insistence of the big, bad DM saying "Well, the roll succeeds, but you didn't say exactly what you said so you fail.", it's a case of the player saying "Well, I got a 50 on the diplomacy check to bring down his prices, but I don't actually talk to him." Or, in the apparently misunderstood combat parallel, "Well, I got a 24 on my attack roll against the guard, but I don't actually move or attack him or anything."
"...But I succeed, right?"
Another thing- an unarmed ranged attack roll can be made at anytime? As in, a character can throw something they're not physically holding, being unarmed and thus presumably open handed? Interesting interpretation of being unarmed, there. Maybe it's just 4th that's illogical, but I won't argue with the "GOOD DM", it doesn't seem to be making a dent
Reminds me of a game I played in with the same player in question DMing; where he as the "good DM" insisted that he didn't think a dagger counted as a piercing weapon, I.E., you can't use a dagger to stab, only to slash. Or that a Soulknife's mind blade was not a physical enough object to affect other small physical objects (like, to test a pressure plate, to tip a vase, to slide a glass out of the way, or to use as a skewer to roast sausages) but that it was physical enough to, say, decapitate goblins. Never mind that the mind blade is considered to be "...identical in all ways (except visually) to a short sword of a size appropriate for its wielder...the blade can be broken (it has hardness 10 and 10 hit points); howevern, a soulknife can simply create another..." But I digress- you may ignore this rant, it really doesn't relate to the subject at hand. Anyway...
The sort of 'all players are victims, and all DMs take advantage of their player's trusting natures' logic that seems to fuel your examples and posts makes it sound like you've got a problem with authority ;) or, at the very least, you've played with a lot of very vicious DMs, who were, for some reason, actually out to take you for all you're worth. If that's the case, then that's very unfortunate and I'm sorry for that, but past DMs of your experience and their methods have no relation to any other DM's style.
One last bit, Ryndar- I'd like you to look on Page 8 of the Dungeons Master's Guide 3.5, under 'deep immersion storytelling'. This is part of the book's Introduction. You know, the important backgrounding and setting of simple standards. These are the loose outlines of what the game is, leaving no hold barred in the face of what any game has the potential to become. Take that in, digest it, roll it about(or role, whatever), and tell me what you think.
At the very least, it seems that you favor a very RAW, strict-outlines game, maybe with plenty of numerical bits. I don't, and neither do my players. That 'deep immersion storytelling example in the DMG? Take maybe three steps back from that, and you've got a decent outline of my game dynamic. And your opinion of "good DM" is hardly a fair estimation, it's extremely limiting. For the sake of your RAW-tooth, the DM's only actual 'job' is to make the game fun for everyone; and when the single player is trying so hard to make the game less fun for himself, the 'good DM' will allow him his choice of action rather than trying to control his character into being more 'fun'.
This is a lot to comment on so bare with. First off you made my point for me. I underlined, bolded, and all that jazz the most important part of your post.
THE CHARACTER SHOULD TALK. CHARACTER does NOT always mean player.
Character =/= Player =/= Incorrect.
This is why we have skills to cover things a player can't do.
Like thievery, "well tell me how you disable the trap." I don't know how...I'm not a trap disabling thief in real life I'm a burger flipper maybe.
Like religion, "well I didn't actually memorize the entire pantheon from the books..." Well to bad your character knows jack. Like I'd let you just drop a die for a skill and have it work hahaha!
Like Athletics "I don't know if my character knows how to free face climb, I thought that's my check determined. "
Nature "Uhm I guess I eat the spotted ones...what do you mean I die? I had a 23?"
Since intimidate is based on Charisma instead of Strength a player need only say "I use intimidate to get him to do x" Not "If you don't tell me where the mayor is hiding I will do x." Because the player prolly doesn't intimidate soldiers irl. And therefore knows NOT what to say.
I understand roleplaying what I'm saying is if you deny these players the skills you're not using RAW and you're screwing them even if it wasn't your intentions to do so.
Lets assume I'm the most charismatic player at the table. I'm a detective in real life. Used to convincing people to help me so I can solve cases. We enter the general store to rope. I want to try and get a discount on rope. I don't want to parlay for 30 minutes to make it happen so I say "I'd like to use diplomacy to get a discount on this rope." My DM replies well what do you say? "Just never mind, I'd rather get on the adventure then have a 30 minute conversation with unamed useless NPC +11"
You know why I don't want to start "roleplaying" for that discounted rope? Cause I need info to do it without a skill role. "Well bro does it look old? Is their dust on the shelf saying it's not selling? What race/gender is the seller? Does he have a bum leg? What's he wearing? Are my companions standing around picking their noses." now we get a 20 minute pause while another player roleplays buying a shiot of whiskey/mug of ale. DM-No you can't just erase 1 gold and get an ale you have to ROLEPLAY DAMNIT!
DM- Listen guys I don't want to have to do any real DM work like adjudicating the game rules, and supply a(n) Heroic/Paragon/Epic adventure. I just wanna play medieval tabletop sims.
Ever since my earliest days of playing D&D every combat action as pretty much boiled down one question and one answer. The DM asks, "What do you do?" The player then replies, usually with something along the lines of, "I attack with my sword/I cast magic missile/I do X." Regardless of the varitions on these they all pretty much boil down to the character telling the DM what they did. Just giving a die roll and a damage result does not give the DM a clue as to what the heck the character did. To me it is just common courtesy to let the DM know what you are doing.
And the diplomacy rolling character DID tell the dm what he was doing.
"I am using diplomacy to attempt to get a better price on "x" item(s)."
This is the exact same as saying "I am using Cloud of daggers to hit "x" opponent."
They both result in a die roll that decides success or failure.
RyndarLocke, is there more than one way a group can play 4E DnD and still enjoy themselves?
Ever since my earliest days of playing D&D every combat action as pretty much boiled down one question and one answer. The DM asks, "What do you do?" The player then replies, usually with something along the lines of, "I attack with my sword/I cast magic missile/I do X." Regardless of the varitions on these they all pretty much boil down to the character telling the DM what they did. Just giving a die roll and a damage result does not give the DM a clue as to what the heck the character did. To me it is just common courtesy to let the DM know what you are doing.
And the diplomacy rolling character DID tell the dm what he was doing.
"I am using diplomacy to attempt to get a better price on "x" item(s)."
This is the exact same as saying "I am using Cloud of daggers to hit "x" opponent."
They both result in a die roll that decides success or failure.
No. They are not exactly the same thing. If they were the exact same thing the "fighter" would instead say, "I attack my opponent."
Or, from the "Diplomat's" point of view, the same thing might be something along the lines of, "I am going to try and persuade the storekeep that the item is flawed and thus worth less." Then the DM might request a Diplomacy roll or ask what skill the character is attempting to use.
My general DMing philosophy, one that I also encourage in my players, is to try and avoid mentioning the skill/ability that the character is using. Sure, sometimes you cannot avoid it (such as declaring that you are searching for secret doors or saying that you are tumbing out of the way of an attack), but for the most part it is, in my opinion, best to simply avoid saying, "I am using skill X."
For example, and to use a 3rd edition example. The group is chasing a lone NPC in a dungeon and they come upon an open door in a corridor. Looking through the door they see a cluttered room with lots of hiding spaces. The players have two choices. One choice is to simply declare that they are making a spot check to see if the NPC is hiding somewhere. The other choice is to say that they are going to scan the room and see if anything is out of the ordinary or possibly spot someone hiding. Sure, the end result will ultimately be the same (in that the player will have to roll a spot check), but the difference is one of perception. The first choice, to me at least, gives the impression that the player is doing the action, that the game is being reduced down to nothing but a collection of dice rolls. The second option, though, is more in character, gives more of an impression of roleplaying. I personally think that the second option is the better option for a roleplaying game.
RyndarLocke, is there more than one way a group can play 4E DnD and still enjoy themselves?
Of course.
HOWEVER, I will always jump in to defend people playing by RAW versus people passing on their housruled devaluing of social skills as the correct way to roleplay.
Furthermore, lets say I am a new player to the "gotcha social game" you run. And, I'm trying to play by RaW would you railroad me with the houseruled "you have to be a real life diplomat to win a social interaction" ruleset?
Or would you allow my diplomacy rolls, when I didn't feel like having a 30 minute roleplay scenario with Cleatus T-NPC of no impart?
Do you use skill challenges? If so how do they work?
I also find it interesting that you "make people talk word for word for their characters" when in second edition and before the only people playing were 9 times of 10 socially awkward people that fell into RPG's as a way to cope with being socially awkward.
Ever since my earliest days of playing D&D every combat action as pretty much boiled down one question and one answer. The DM asks, "What do you do?" The player then replies, usually with something along the lines of, "I attack with my sword/I cast magic missile/I do X." Regardless of the varitions on these they all pretty much boil down to the character telling the DM what they did. Just giving a die roll and a damage result does not give the DM a clue as to what the heck the character did. To me it is just common courtesy to let the DM know what you are doing.
And the diplomacy rolling character DID tell the dm what he was doing.
"I am using diplomacy to attempt to get a better price on "x" item(s)."
This is the exact same as saying "I am using Cloud of daggers to hit "x" opponent."
They both result in a die roll that decides success or failure.
No. They are not exactly the same thing. If they were the exact same thing the "fighter" would instead say, "I attack my opponent."
Or, from the "Diplomat's" point of view, the same thing might be something along the lines of, "I am going to try and persuade the storekeep that the item is flawed and thus worth less." Then the DM might request a Diplomacy roll or ask what skill the character is attempting to use.
My general DMing philosophy, one that I also encourage in my players, is to try and avoid mentioning the skill/ability that the character is using. Sure, sometimes you cannot avoid it (such as declaring that you are searching for secret doors or saying that you are tumbing out of the way of an attack), but for the most part it is, in my opinion, best to simply avoid saying, "I am using skill X."
For example, and to use a 3rd edition example. The group is chasing a lone NPC in a dungeon and they come upon an open door in a corridor. Looking through the door they see a cluttered room with lots of hiding spaces. The players have two choices. One choice is to simply declare that they are making a spot check to see if the NPC is hiding somewhere. The other choice is to say that they are going to scan the room and see if anything is out of the ordinary or possibly spot someone hiding. Sure, the end result will ultimately be the same (in that the player will have to roll a spot check), but the difference is one of perception. The first choice, to me at least, gives the impression that the player is doing the action, that the game is being reduced down to nothing but a collection of dice rolls. The second option, though, is more in character, gives more of an impression of roleplaying. I personally think that the second option is the better option for a roleplaying game.
If a player says "I attack my opponent" I say "roll to hit.
If a player says "I try and get a lower price." I say roll diplomacy
HOWEVER, I will always jump in to defend people playing by RAW versus people passing on their housruled devaluing of social skills as the correct way to roleplay.
Furthermore, lets say I am a new player to the "gotcha social game" you run. And, I'm trying to play by RaW would you railroad me with the houseruled "you have to be a real life diplomat to win a social interaction" ruleset?
Or would you allow my diplomacy rolls, when I didn't feel like having a 30 minute roleplay scenario with Cleatus T-NPC of no impart?
I also find it interesting that you "make people talk word for word for their characters" when in second edition and before the only people playing were 9 times of 10 socially awkward people that fell into RPG's as a way to cope with being socially awkward.
Now you're just ignoring any and all explanation or logic presented, Ryndar. I've stated multiple times that a player in my game DOES NOT "talk word for word for their characters". They do not have to be real life diplomats to win a social interaction encounter. And I have not claimed once that that's the "correct" way to roleplay, nor even implied that there IS a correct way. I have only stated that a roll by the player represents an in-game action by the character.
Essentially, you're insisting that if we were playing, with me as the DM and you as a player, and you make a successful attack roll (skill check, save, whatever), and I tell you it succeeds, that it is then reasonable for you to not only spontaneously decide that your character will not, in fact take the action you rolled for, and instead do something else, but insist that this neurotic behaviour of yours is the DM's fault.
The discusssion had no relation to players acting exactly as their characters, until you injected that interpretation yourself. The only point being made here (and the one which, despite terms of explanation which would be comprehensible to a sixth grade student for whom english is a second language, you don't seem to understand), is this;
You can't succeed at something that you don't do or try in the first place.
The whole point is that the roll was successful, and the player made aware of that, but he intentionally chose not to actually take the action with the understanding that he would fail just because he insisted on not making the successful check. Now, if the player can understand that and accept it, it doesn't seem reasonable that you, being completely unrelated to the situation and supposedly impartial, cannot.
If a player says "I attack my opponent" I say "roll to hit.
If a player says "I try and get a lower price." I say roll diplomacy
And that's a prime example of YOUR preferred style of play, but it's been made clear that that's not exactly a High Roleplay style. It has now also been made rather clear that you don't seem to acknowledge more than one way that a group can play D&D and still enjoy themselves, because only your own narrow interpretation of 'good DM' and 'correct D&D' may be allowed to stand as examples of the age-old pastime which, it also seems clear, that you prefer to play alone. Lest some other person's opinion of how they might have fun in the game intrude upon your private game utopia.
"...defend people playing by RAW versus people passing on their houseruled devaluing of social skills as the correct way to roleplay." Because you've clearly got the 'correct' way to roleplay down pat, right? With no other options being permissable, because you're SO open-minded about other people playing the game in a way they find fun. And how dare they have fun without trying to force their methods down other people's throats! The nerve.
Ever since my earliest days of playing D&D every combat action as pretty much boiled down one question and one answer. The DM asks, "What do you do?" The player then replies, usually with something along the lines of, "I attack with my sword/I cast magic missile/I do X." Regardless of the varitions on these they all pretty much boil down to the character telling the DM what they did. Just giving a die roll and a damage result does not give the DM a clue as to what the heck the character did. To me it is just common courtesy to let the DM know what you are doing.
And the diplomacy rolling character DID tell the dm what he was doing.
"I am using diplomacy to attempt to get a better price on "x" item(s)."
This is the exact same as saying "I am using Cloud of daggers to hit "x" opponent."
They both result in a die roll that decides success or failure.
No. They are not exactly the same thing. If they were the exact same thing the "fighter" would instead say, "I attack my opponent."
Or, from the "Diplomat's" point of view, the same thing might be something along the lines of, "I am going to try and persuade the storekeep that the item is flawed and thus worth less." Then the DM might request a Diplomacy roll or ask what skill the character is attempting to use.
My general DMing philosophy, one that I also encourage in my players, is to try and avoid mentioning the skill/ability that the character is using. Sure, sometimes you cannot avoid it (such as declaring that you are searching for secret doors or saying that you are tumbing out of the way of an attack), but for the most part it is, in my opinion, best to simply avoid saying, "I am using skill X."
For example, and to use a 3rd edition example. The group is chasing a lone NPC in a dungeon and they come upon an open door in a corridor. Looking through the door they see a cluttered room with lots of hiding spaces. The players have two choices. One choice is to simply declare that they are making a spot check to see if the NPC is hiding somewhere. The other choice is to say that they are going to scan the room and see if anything is out of the ordinary or possibly spot someone hiding. Sure, the end result will ultimately be the same (in that the player will have to roll a spot check), but the difference is one of perception. The first choice, to me at least, gives the impression that the player is doing the action, that the game is being reduced down to nothing but a collection of dice rolls. The second option, though, is more in character, gives more of an impression of roleplaying. I personally think that the second option is the better option for a roleplaying game.
If a player says "I attack my opponent" I say "roll to hit.
If a player says "I try and get a lower price." I say roll diplomacy
So would I (though in the first example I would first ask how they were attacking before telling them to roll the dice). That being said, though, I would discourage all players from saying, in the second example, "I make a diplomacy check to get a lower price."
Do you see the difference between "I try and get a lower price" and "I make a diplomacy check to get a lower price"? Do you see how one is more akin to role plalying and the other is more akin to "roll playing"?
HOWEVER, I will always jump in to defend people playing by RAW versus people passing on their housruled devaluing of social skills as the correct way to roleplay.
But are you really defending playing by the RAW in this situation? As far as I remember the RAW says absolutely nothing about how you describe your actions or whether or not a DM can expect a player to be in character in certain situations and/or for a certain percent of the time. Please correct me if I am wrong and quote the RAW where it says this. If not then it seems that in this situation you are not defending the RAW but are instead defending your preferred style of play.
Of course.
HOWEVER, I will always jump in to defend people playing by RAW versus people passing on their housruled devaluing of social skills as the correct way to roleplay.
Are you referring to me? If so, you are wrong. No where have I stated there is a correct way to roleplay. If you are lumping me into this category, please provide a quote of mine showing where I have stated this.
Furthermore, lets say I am a new player to the "gotcha social game" you run. And, I'm trying to play by RaW would you railroad me with the houseruled "you have to be a real life diplomat to win a social interaction" ruleset?
Again, you are wrong. Provide factual proof that I run a "gotcha social game", otherwise don't make ignorant claims you cannot justify.
Or would you allow my diplomacy rolls, when I didn't feel like having a 30 minute roleplay scenario with Cleatus T-NPC of no impart?
Yes, I would, because any game you'd want to play in would obviously be of the sort where players just want phat lewtz and big numbers on their character sheets.
Do you use skill challenges? If so how do they work?
I use skill challenges in a similar way to everyone else on this board who has responded to you does: the players, unless physically or emotionally unable to do so, are expected to speak the words their characters say. Extreme huh? ... Or maybe its not, since everyone but you has stated this is a reasonable expectation.
I also find it interesting that you "make people talk word for word for their characters" when in second edition and before the only people playing were 9 times of 10 socially awkward people that fell into RPG's as a way to cope with being socially awkward.
Perhaps your group growing up was filled with people unable to string basic sentences together for their characters, but people I'd introduce into gaming never had this problem.
My entire argument was against who ever made the original post about a player rolling diplomacy to get a lower price, and the DM denying them success because "well what did you say."
I am well aware you can play DnD a different way then RAW.
I would join games that did so and not complain.
If one player is playing by RaW and the DM is not, and the DM auto fails the RAW player. Are both having fun? I think not, and this is the example I am defending.
I played for a DM once that didn't allow me to intimidate a bouncer to get into a bar. I did "talk in character" showed them my detectives badge and said "I'm sure I could find any number of things to shut you down for the night." My DM let me roll my die, it came up a natural 20 I was +7, we were first level. A 27 Intimidate at level 1 should succeed most of the time. His reply "real life bouncer's can't be intimidated."
So yeah RaW is built to protect average players from average DMs.
Another instance with a high 30's diplomacy to get someone of attitude friendly to be more helpful. Almost succeeded by 15 points. Does the GM reply in character "I wish I could help more but I've already put myself in severe danger." no he flat out responds quite threateningly "No you can't do that."
Maybe I'm rambling. I mean I do have 5+ people attacking me for defending a diplomacy roll.
Why is "I want to try and get a lower price." ok.
but.
"I'll roll diplomacy to get a lower price uhm 35" not ok?
They both do the same, only difference is the second the player already knows the rule for doing what he wants and mentions it. It's like you're mad he didn't wait for you to tell him to roll diplomacy. Do you also get mad when a player says "I attack with (power)." Because you didn't say to "use a power?"
My grasp of english is fine. My ability to get my point across though must not be fine. Guess that means Im not +23 to diplomacy like my bard huh? Sure am glad the game has a rule that allows me to be that good, or else I'd be screwed I guess.
The DM in the original post was a dick. I know what he was trying to do, but he went about it all wrong. All he had to do was tell the player "Give me an idea what you say to the merchant. I don't expect you to perform a Shakespearian soliloquy or anything, just a little roleplaying. Oh and don't worry, I'm not going to penalize you for not being as smooth as your PC." A simple verbal exchange to clarify things and the situation could easily have been dealt with, instead the DM punished the guy for playing the game by the RAW. Not cool.
So yeah RaW is built to protect average players from average DMs.
If there is anything which leads to the heart of this discussion it is this statement which I find somewhat telling. The concept that players require "protection" from DMs. While I'm quite certain there are DMs who run "meat grinder" style games, the RAW approach does not prevent that or protect players from it. Nothing in making the players roll against a DC of 32 with a skill of 6 prevents a DM from using RAW to screw the characters with impossible checks if that is their intent. They can also overstock the encounters using RAW, and deny the party chances for extended rests until they are ground under as well. There is no guarantee that a DM who is out to get the players can't use RAW to achieve their goal.
The bigger issue here is the seeming lack of trust from RyndarLock's perspective of DMs in general. If I thought that a DM was in no way going to play the game in a fair manner, then I simply would not stay in their group. DMs who are abusive of players certainly should find themselves without any players pretty soon.
However, I have played plenty of RAW and non-RAW style RPGs over the years and found that a group of players who trusts their DM instead of viewing them like an adversary out to hinder their fun usually finds they have a pretty good time playing in most cases. It is a player who treats the DM like a hostile force to be countered who usually can't enjoy a game. I'm guessing this might be RyndarLock's experience, and thus explain his issues with trusting DMs to play fair even when they don't play strictly RAW.
My personal reason to start skipping parts of RAW as a DM. So I can single out "rules lawyer" players who would readily spend more game time arguing rules interpretations than playing their character "in character" as intended by the game design orginally. Take away their ability to argue about the game in meta-game mode, and suddenly quite often they find themselves just playing and enjoying it for a change.
The point I would challenge RyndarLock on is the concept that only through the rules is "fairness" achieved. That may well be true. However, fairness does not guarantee fun. By trusting the DM to provide fun in spite of the rules the players can immerse themselves in the situations and settings instead of books, papers, dice, and charts. The RAW provides a starting ground to have a common set of expectations about a game. The RAW itself does not provide the fun of the game. That comes from the people playing and their imaginations.
So yeah RaW is built to protect average players from average DMs.
No. RAW was "built" (odd choice of word) to give everyone a common framework upon which to hing their imagination. If games devaite from the RAW, it is essential that the DM makes certain everyone knows how that changes the game and his expectations.
This situation reminds me of The Dread Gazeebo. Most people read this story and say "what a stupid player", but I read it and say "what a jacass DM". It was clear the player didn't know what a gazeebo is, but instead of simply telling him the DM treated the guy like a frakking moron and laughing at his expense. Not cool.
The DM in the original post was a dick. I know what he was trying to do, but he went about it all wrong. All he had to do was tell the player "Give me an idea what you say to the merchant. I don't expect you to perform a Shakespearian soliloquy or anything, just a little roleplaying. Oh and don't worry, I'm not going to penalize you for not being as smooth as your PC." A simple verbal exchange to clarify things and the situation could easily have been dealt with, instead the DM punished the guy for playing the game by the RAW. Not cool.
I'm not the DM in question but I did want to mention that, in the original post sparking this debate the DM was dealing with a player who was cheating on dice rolls. The DM was trying to make it so that the consequences weren't based off of the dice so much, since this player was cheating, but more focused on the interaction, a method the player couldn't cheat.
I think you make a good case for your point, but in this specific situation the DM was in no way being a dick, the player was.
RyndarLocke, I have a greater understanding of what you're saying now. And in the specific examples you provided, since the style of a game allowed for Diplomacy rolls, yes those two DMs sucked and IMO should have allowed for success.
The one thing I will say though is that, if a single player and DM aren't going about the game the same way (one using all of the RAW and the other not), something bad is always going to happen. IMO the single player should conform to the DM or leave to find another group. If the majority of the players are doing things differently than the DM, the DM is the one who needs to conform or find another group, IMO.
So yeah RaW is built to protect average players from average DMs.
If there is anything which leads to the heart of this discussion it is this statement which I find somewhat telling. The concept that players require "protection" from DMs. While I'm quite certain there are DMs who run "meat grinder" style games, the RAW approach does not prevent that or protect players from it. Nothing in making the players roll against a DC of 32 with a skill of 6 prevents a DM from using RAW to screw the characters with impossible checks if that is their intent. They can also overstock the encounters using RAW, and deny the party chances for extended rests until they are ground under as well. There is no guarantee that a DM who is out to get the players can't use RAW to achieve their goal.
The bigger issue here is the seeming lack of trust from RyndarLock's perspective of DMs in general. If I thought that a DM was in no way going to play the game in a fair manner, then I simply would not stay in their group. DMs who are abusive of players certainly should find themselves without any players pretty soon.
However, I have played plenty of RAW and non-RAW style RPGs over the years and found that a group of players who trusts their DM instead of viewing them like an adversary out to hinder their fun usually finds they have a pretty good time playing in most cases. It is a player who treats the DM like a hostile force to be countered who usually can't enjoy a game. I'm guessing this might be RyndarLock's experience, and thus explain his issues with trusting DMs to play fair even when they don't play strictly RAW.
My personal reason to start skipping parts of RAW as a DM. So I can single out "rules lawyer" players who would readily spend more game time arguing rules interpretations than playing their character "in character" as intended by the game design orginally. Take away their ability to argue about the game in meta-game mode, and suddenly quite often they find themselves just playing and enjoying it for a change.
The point I would challenge RyndarLock on is the concept that only through the rules is "fairness" achieved. That may well be true. However, fairness does not guarantee fun. By trusting the DM to provide fun in spite of the rules the players can immerse themselves in the situations and settings instead of books, papers, dice, and charts. The RAW provides a starting ground to have a common set of expectations about a game. The RAW itself does not provide the fun of the game. That comes from the people playing and their imaginations.
It's not a lack of trust. I trust my DMs until they display they can't be trusted.
I play many LFR games. New DM's an groups every game. Some of those DM's actually more like half. Have no idea one rule to the next. Have no idea how to move beyond the rules.
Case in point. 10 pit that needs bypassed. Module says make a DC 10 athletics to get passed it. My paladin at the time, had a 10 str. Plate Mail and a heavy shield. -4 athletics. So the other players leapt across, tossed me a rope in case I fell which I tied around myself.
DM says ok, roll athletics. I assume he is giving me a bonus due to the rope so I roll. and get a 9. ie I rolled a 13. Nope I fell 20 feet took 2d10 damage and then got hauled up.
My point is bad DM's are plentiful.
If the player was cheating on die rolls, then handle that problem, don't create another one in game. That's silly and childish.
Stopping a cheater is easy. You say "Hey (insert name) stop cheating, if you cheat again, the door is over there. PERIOD." game on.
This situation reminds me of The Dread Gazeebo. Most people read this story and say "what a stupid player", but I read it and say "what a jacass DM". It was clear the player didn't know what a gazeebo is, but instead of simply telling him the DM treated the guy like a frakking moron and laughing at his expense. Not cool.
The DM in the original post was a dick. I know what he was trying to do, but he went about it all wrong. All he had to do was tell the player "Give me an idea what you say to the merchant. I don't expect you to perform a Shakespearian soliloquy or anything, just a little roleplaying. Oh and don't worry, I'm not going to penalize you for not being as smooth as your PC." A simple verbal exchange to clarify things and the situation could easily have been dealt with, instead the DM punished the guy for playing the game by the RAW. Not cool.
It seems, again, clear that people are misunderstanding the situation given in my original post. There were no house-rules concerning diplomacy that this player wasn't aware of. The player was told only that "you can't succeed on a diplomacy roll against the NPC if your character doesn't talk to him."
Hell, I didn't even ask him to speak in character at all. The problem I was addressing in that situation was the game's relation to a player's die roll. If the player rolls a die, it should be clear that that roll represents something their character is trying to do in-game. That's just how the d20 system works.
This was literally a case of the player insisting that his character could haggle with a merchant without speaking to the merchant. Again, I'm not saying the player needed to speak, only his character. I didn't ask for a roleplayed interaction(despite the fact that it is the norm in my game, and no other player would have had a problem with that); I accepted his "I make a diplomacy roll to talk down the price". The only problem with the situation was in the player insisting that his character didn't say anything to talk down the price, despite not having to do any talking himself as the player.
"Give me an idea what you say to the merchant. I don't expect you to perform a Shakespearian soliloquy or anything, just a little roleplaying. Oh and don't worry, I'm not going to penalize you for not being as smooth as your PC." That was made very clear to the player, Boraxe. And his response was "My character doesn't say anything to the merchant because I rolled high, so I can barter without actually taking an action." Again, it was explained to him that his character was the only one who needed to speak, here, and he became huffy and chose to intentionally fail, insisting that it was my fault as the DM that the character remained silent for no reason.
In the future, it would be appreciated if you payed more attention to the content of the posts explaining the original situation, rather than drawing such a vitriolic and unrelated conclusion as "what a jacass DM" from the basic content presented in one post.
It's not a lack of trust. I trust my DMs until they display they can't be trusted.
I play many LFR games. New DM's an groups every game. Some of those DM's actually more like half. Have no idea one rule to the next. Have no idea how to move beyond the rules.
Case in point. 10 pit that needs bypassed. Module says make a DC 10 athletics to get passed it. My paladin at the time, had a 10 str. Plate Mail and a heavy shield. -4 athletics. So the other players leapt across, tossed me a rope in case I fell which I tied around myself.
DM says ok, roll athletics. I assume he is giving me a bonus due to the rope so I roll. and get a 9. ie I rolled a 13. Nope I fell 20 feet took 2d10 damage and then got hauled up.
My point is bad DM's are plentiful.
If the player was cheating on die rolls, then handle that problem, don't create another one in game. That's silly and childish.
Stopping a cheater is easy. You say "Hey (insert name) stop cheating, if you cheat again, the door is over there. PERIOD." game on.
Based just on what you wrote that sounds like a DM made a mistake. It does NOT sound like a bad DM.
This situation reminds me of The Dread Gazeebo. Most people read this story and say "what a stupid player", but I read it and say "what a jacass DM". It was clear the player didn't know what a gazeebo is, but instead of simply telling him the DM treated the guy like a frakking moron and laughing at his expense. Not cool.
The DM in the original post was a dick. I know what he was trying to do, but he went about it all wrong. All he had to do was tell the player "Give me an idea what you say to the merchant. I don't expect you to perform a Shakespearian soliloquy or anything, just a little roleplaying. Oh and don't worry, I'm not going to penalize you for not being as smooth as your PC." A simple verbal exchange to clarify things and the situation could easily have been dealt with, instead the DM punished the guy for playing the game by the RAW. Not cool.
It seems, again, clear that people are misunderstanding the situation given in my original post. There were no house-rules concerning diplomacy that this player wasn't aware of. The player was told only that "you can't succeed on a diplomacy roll against the NPC if your character doesn't talk to him."
Hell, I didn't even ask him to speak in character at all. The problem I was addressing in that situation was the game's relation to a player's die roll. If the player rolls a die, it should be clear that that roll represents something their character is trying to do in-game. That's just how the d20 system works.
This was literally a case of the player insisting that his character could haggle with a merchant without speaking to the merchant. Again, I'm not saying the player needed to speak, only his character. I didn't ask for a roleplayed interaction(despite the fact that it is the norm in my game, and no other player would have had a problem with that); I accepted his "I make a diplomacy roll to talk down the price". The only problem with the situation was in the player insisting that his character didn't say anything to talk down the price, despite not having to do any talking himself as the player.
"Give me an idea what you say to the merchant. I don't expect you to perform a Shakespearian soliloquy or anything, just a little roleplaying. Oh and don't worry, I'm not going to penalize you for not being as smooth as your PC." That was made very clear to the player, Boraxe. And his response was "My character doesn't say anything to the merchant because I rolled high, so I can barter without actually taking an action." Again, it was explained to him that his character was the only one who needed to speak, here, and he became huffy and chose to intentionally fail, insisting that it was my fault as the DM that the character remained silent for no reason.
In the future, it would be appreciated if you payed more attention to the content of the posts explaining the original situation, rather than drawing such a vitriolic and unrelated conclusion as "what a jacass DM" from the basic content presented in one post.
Little elf girl holds up a piece of candy to show the shop keeper she wants it. In the other hand 3 copper coins. 1 short of the price of the candy. The Shop owner says "I'm sorry little girl that's 4cp you don't have enough." the little elf girl pouts and a single tear rolls down her cheek. The shop owner says "oh well I guess I can let it go once for a little girl."
I just made a diplomacy roll to get a discount without saying anything in character. Granted I roleplayed my characters actions and reactions to the shop owner.
But, I think my point is proven that your character doesn't need to speak. To make a diplomacy roll. Or a bluff. Or even an intimidate.
Now I agree that "I rolled so high I don't need to do anything in game to make it so" isn't going to fly. That's akin to saying "My attack roll is so high I automatically hit, and deal max damage.." Oh wait.....
Why is "I want to try and get a lower price." ok.
but.
"I'll roll diplomacy to get a lower price uhm 35" not ok?
They both do the same, only difference is the second the player already knows the rule for doing what he wants and mentions it. It's like you're mad he didn't wait for you to tell him to roll diplomacy. Do you also get mad when a player says "I attack with (power)." Because you didn't say to "use a power?"
Why do you automatically assume that the first player does not already know "the rules for doing what he wants and mentions it"? Is it not possible that the first player is actually well aware fo the rules but is trying to be in character? Choosing NOT to state the skill involved does NOT automatically mean that the players do not know the rules. In my group my players are very well versed with the rules, and whenever possible they avoid saying the name of the skill/ability/etc. when playing, not because they do not know the rules, but because it helps them to stay in character better. And THAT is why I encourage all players to do this, to help them get/stay in character, to make the game seem more like an adventure that is being acted out by the players, to make the game NOT seem like nothing but a bunch of dice rolls and quoting of the rules. And just to clarify I do NOT expect players to be in character all the time, to act out everything. I just encourage a style of play that is as close to in character as possible for the players.
Additionally, what you state as the "only difference" is in fact NOT the only difference. The first one is closer to role playing. The second one is closer to roll playing. There is a difference, and that difference is huge. In fact, it is so huge the the R in RPG stands for Role, not Roll. And based on the fact that your reply stated that you think the person trying to role play did not know the rules is a clear indication that you do not see the difference. To me it seems that all you really care about is boiling the game down to nothing but a bunch of numbers and dice rolls. It seems to me that you only care about the end results and not about how you get to those results.
As for your question, as I said in a previous post there are some skills/abilities where you have to clearly state the skill/ability that your character is using. A good example is elves searching for secret doors or a thief searching for a trap. The name of the skill is the same as the action. Another is combat. As I said you really cannot roleplay out combat so saying "I attack with (power)" would not be out of place in my game. So, I would not get mad at a player who did this. Nor would I get mad if the player clearly stated a skill when they could have just as easily paraphrased it a different way and not used the skill name. If appropriate I would more than likely respond "in character" as the NPC and act confused to give the player a subtle hint to try and stay in character, but I certainly would not get mad or even demand that the player get in character. Again, I encourage players to get in character and stay in character as much as possible. Again, because it bears repeating, I ENCOURAGE this. And if it is not clear I do not expect every player to as equally skilled at this as every other player. I fully understand that everyone is different and I always endeavor to take that into consideration in all aspects of the game.
Also, where have I said anywhere that I get "mad" (your word, not mine) if I do not get the chance to tell the person to make their skill roll? In fact, where did I even imply that? I clearly stated that I prefer one style of play over the other. That is it. Nowhere did I say that I demand that style of play or say anything anywhere along the lines that would indicate that I would get mad at someone who did what you said. That is all a figment of your imagination and/or the result of your not reading and/or not understanding what I wrote.
Why is "I want to try and get a lower price." ok.
but.
"I'll roll diplomacy to get a lower price uhm 35" not ok?
They both do the same, only difference is the second the player already knows the rule for doing what he wants and mentions it. It's like you're mad he didn't wait for you to tell him to roll diplomacy. Do you also get mad when a player says "I attack with (power)." Because you didn't say to "use a power?"
Why do you automatically assume that the first player does not already know "the rules for doing what he wants and mentions it"? Is it not possible that the first player is actually well aware fo the rules but is trying to be in character? Choosing NOT to state the skill involved does NOT automatically mean that the players do not know the rules. In my group my players are very well versed with the rules, and whenever possible they avoid saying the name of the skill/ability/etc. when playing, not because they do not know the rules, but because it helps them to stay in character better. And THAT is why I encourage all players to do this, to help them get/stay in character, to make the game seem more like an adventure that is being acted out by the players, to make the game NOT seem like nothing but a bunch of dice rolls and quoting of the rules. And just to clarify I do NOT expect players to be in character all the time, to act out everything. I just encourage a style of play that is as close to in character as possible for the players.
Additionally, what you state as the "only difference" is in fact NOT the only difference. The first one is closer to role playing. The second one is closer to roll playing. There is a difference, and that difference is huge. In fact, it is so huge the the R in RPG stands for Role, not Roll. And based on the fact that your reply stated that you think the person trying to role play did not know the rules is a clear indication that you do not see the difference. To me it seems that all you really care about is boiling the game down to nothing but a bunch of numbers and dice rolls. It seems to me that you only care about the end results and not about how you get to those results.
As for your question, as I said in a previous post there are some skills/abilities where you have to clearly state the skill/ability that your character is using. A good example is elves searching for secret doors or a thief searching for a trap. The name of the skill is the same as the action. Another is combat. As I said you really cannot roleplay out combat so saying "I attack with (power)" would not be out of place in my game. So, I would not get mad at a player who did this. Nor would I get mad if the player clearly stated a skill when they could have just as easily paraphrased it a different way and not used the skill name. If appropriate I would more than likely respond "in character" as the NPC and act confused to give the player a subtle hint to try and stay in character, but I certainly would not get mad or even demand that the player get in character. Again, I encourage players to get in character and stay in character as much as possible. Again, because it bears repeating, I ENCOURAGE this. And if it is not clear I do not expect every player to as equally skilled at this as every other player. I fully understand that everyone is different and I always endeavor to take that into consideration in all aspects of the game.
Also, where have I said anywhere that I get "mad" (your word, not mine) if I do not get the chance to tell the person to make their skill roll? In fact, where did I even imply that? I clearly stated that I prefer one style of play over the other. That is it. Nowhere did I say that I demand that style of play or say anything anywhere along the lines that would indicate that I would get mad at someone who did what you said. That is all a figment of your imagination and/or the result of your not reading and/or not understanding what I wrote.
Roleplaying vs rollplaying.
BOTH BY RAW ARE DECIDED BY A ROLL!
I am roleplaying a high diplomacy bard set in a high magic world where god's walk amongst mortals and dole out their divine powers as they see fit.
What I am rolling is a damn diplomacy check to get a lower price.
Your definition of the slang use of role vs roll is incorrect, or taken to such an extreme it makes me question your ability to understand the rules of the ROLEPLAYING game you are playing.
Roleplaying = Making decisions as if you the player are the character.
Rollplaying = Making decision based on the stats you have chosen for your character.
They are both correct. Neither is incorrect.
A player that shows up to play and just wants to roll dice and see what happens is just as much a roleplayer as any other guy. if you don't think so find a 35 year old player of 1st or 2nd edition and ask them how much good and bad things happened based on a single die roll.
Little elf girl holds up a piece of candy to show the shop keeper she wants it. In the other hand 3 copper coins. 1 short of the price of the candy. The Shop owner says "I'm sorry little girl that's 4cp you don't have enough." the little elf girl pouts and a single tear rolls down her cheek. The shop owner says "oh well I guess I can let it go once for a little girl."
I just made a diplomacy roll to get a discount without saying anything in character. Granted I roleplayed my characters actions and reactions to the shop owner.
But, I think my point is proven that your character doesn't need to speak. To make a diplomacy roll. Or a bluff. Or even an intimidate.
Now I agree that "I rolled so high I don't need to do anything in game to make it so" isn't going to fly. That's akin to saying "My attack roll is so high I automatically hit, and deal max damage.." Oh wait.....
Fair enough, and I agree that one's character doesn't necessarily have to speak to interact for the purposes of these skills, but the interaction itself does need to happen on some level. That's what I was trying to get across, and in the situation I mentioned the player insisted that it wasn't necessary, or even relevant to the game. But I'm glad we're fina;;y in understanding and agreement on this.
Now, the comparison of "My attack roll is so high I automatically hit, and deal max damage.." is a reference to the function of a nat. 20 crit in 4th, correct? In the combat points, I'd say yes, that's quite possible, but for clarity, in the campaign in which this diplomacy situation occurred, we weren't using the 'natural twenty automatically succeeds' rule. Remember that this player complained that all the die rolls he fudged to be twenties weren't auto-successes. That is, it was run in this campaign of mine that if a nat. 20 still didn't hit on an attack roll, then it didn't hit, rather than succeeding by virtue of it being a twenty.
Anyhow, seems we're clear on the interaction reasoning-shame it took so long, we could've taken the discussion somewhere else.
Little elf girl holds up a piece of candy to show the shop keeper she wants it. In the other hand 3 copper coins. 1 short of the price of the candy. The Shop owner says "I'm sorry little girl that's 4cp you don't have enough." the little elf girl pouts and a single tear rolls down her cheek. The shop owner says "oh well I guess I can let it go once for a little girl."
I just made a diplomacy roll to get a discount without saying anything in character. Granted I roleplayed my characters actions and reactions to the shop owner.
But, I think my point is proven that your character doesn't need to speak. To make a diplomacy roll. Or a bluff. Or even an intimidate.
Now I agree that "I rolled so high I don't need to do anything in game to make it so" isn't going to fly. That's akin to saying "My attack roll is so high I automatically hit, and deal max damage.." Oh wait.....
Fair enough, and I agree that one's character doesn't necessarily have to speak to interact for the purposes of these skills, but the interaction itself does need to happen on some level. That's what I was trying to get across, and in the situation I mentioned the player insisted that it wasn't necessary, or even relevant to the game. But I'm glad we're fina;;y in understanding and agreement on this.
Now, the comparison of "My attack roll is so high I automatically hit, and deal max damage.." is a reference to the function of a nat. 20 crit in 4th, correct? In the combat points, I'd say yes, that's quite possible, but for clarity, in the campaign in which this diplomacy situation occurred, we weren't using the 'natural twenty automatically succeeds' rule. Remember that this player complained that all the die rolls he fudged to be twenties weren't auto-successes. That is, it was run in this campaign of mine that if a nat. 20 still didn't hit on an attack roll, then it didn't hit, rather than succeeding by virtue of it being a twenty.
Anyhow, seems we're clear on the interaction reasoning-shame it took so long, we could've taken the discussion somewhere else.
Here's the deal though. I think a natural 20 should succeed on any skill check that isn't opposed by another higher skill check.
4e has a system to allow this to always be the case. Skill challenges. If you want to convey that a single die roll can't do an auto success on a natural 20, create a skill challenge.
If the player was a cheater. Then here's how you handle it. "Hello cheater. Leave my house/game."
The one thing I will say though is that, if a single player and DM aren't going about the game the same way (one using all of the RAW and the other not), something bad is always going to happen. IMO the single player should conform to the DM or leave to find another group. If the majority of the players are doing things differently than the DM, the DM is the one who needs to conform or find another group, IMO.
Really the DM should make it clear up front, before the game begins, what type of game he wishes to run and how he wishes to run it, ensuring that all the potential players undestand and agree to it before they ever sit down to play or even roll up characters.
In the future, it would be appreciated if you payed more attention to the content of the posts explaining the original situation, rather than drawing such a vitriolic and unrelated conclusion as "what a jacass DM" from the basic content presented in one post.
If you think my response was "vitriolic" then you have be blessedly able to avoid real vitriol. My statement "The DM in the original post was a dick" was uncalled for, though. It comes off a lot more harshly than intended and for that I apologize.
Roleplaying vs rollplaying.
BOTH BY RAW ARE DECIDED BY A ROLL!
I am roleplaying a high diplomacy bard set in a high magic world where god's walk amongst mortals and dole out their divine powers as they see fit.
What I am rolling is a damn diplomacy check to get a lower price.
Your definition of the slang use of role vs roll is incorrect, or taken to such an extreme it makes me question your ability to understand the rules of the ROLEPLAYING game you are playing.
Roleplaying = Making decisions as if you the player are the character.
Rollplaying = Making decision based on the stats you have chosen for your character.
They are both correct. Neither is incorrect.
A player that shows up to play and just wants to roll dice and see what happens is just as much a roleplayer as any other guy. if you don't think so find a 35 year old player of 1st or 2nd edition and ask them how much good and bad things happened based on a single die roll.
No. One is actually less of a role player, and that is the guy who just wants to roll the dice and see what happens. Sure, he is playing a role playing game but he is less concerned about his role in the game.
As for your definitions, that is how you see them. I see them slightly different.
Roleplaying vs rollplaying.
BOTH BY RAW ARE DECIDED BY A ROLL!
I am roleplaying a high diplomacy bard set in a high magic world where god's walk amongst mortals and dole out their divine powers as they see fit.
What I am rolling is a damn diplomacy check to get a lower price.
Your definition of the slang use of role vs roll is incorrect, or taken to such an extreme it makes me question your ability to understand the rules of the ROLEPLAYING game you are playing.
Roleplaying = Making decisions as if you the player are the character.
Rollplaying = Making decision based on the stats you have chosen for your character.
They are both correct. Neither is incorrect.
A player that shows up to play and just wants to roll dice and see what happens is just as much a roleplayer as any other guy. if you don't think so find a 35 year old player of 1st or 2nd edition and ask them how much good and bad things happened based on a single die roll.
No. One is actually less of a role player, and that is the guy who just wants to roll the dice and see what happens. Sure, he is playing a role playing game but he is less concerned about his role in the game.
As for your definitions, that is how you see them. I see them slightly different.
He is no less a roleplayer then the other guy. Usually these players are Fighter/Striker types of a martial bend in 4e. Just because the player doesn't show up dressed like a vampire with a foam sword doesn't mean he isn't a roleplayer.
Maybe he's roleplaying the strong silent type.
Roleplaying vs rollplaying.
BOTH BY RAW ARE DECIDED BY A ROLL!
I am roleplaying a high diplomacy bard set in a high magic world where god's walk amongst mortals and dole out their divine powers as they see fit.
What I am rolling is a damn diplomacy check to get a lower price.
Your definition of the slang use of role vs roll is incorrect, or taken to such an extreme it makes me question your ability to understand the rules of the ROLEPLAYING game you are playing.
Roleplaying = Making decisions as if you the player are the character.
Rollplaying = Making decision based on the stats you have chosen for your character.
They are both correct. Neither is incorrect.
A player that shows up to play and just wants to roll dice and see what happens is just as much a roleplayer as any other guy. if you don't think so find a 35 year old player of 1st or 2nd edition and ask them how much good and bad things happened based on a single die roll.
No. One is actually less of a role player, and that is the guy who just wants to roll the dice and see what happens. Sure, he is playing a role playing game but he is less concerned about his role in the game.
As for your definitions, that is how you see them. I see them slightly different.
He is no less a roleplayer then the other guy. Usually these players are Fighter/Striker types of a martial bend in 4e. Just because the player doesn't show up dressed like a vampire with a foam sword doesn't mean he isn't a roleplayer.
Maybe he's roleplaying the strong silent type.
Yes. He is less of a roleplayer simply by not even trying to stay in character!
Also, who in all of Hades said anything about dressing up and carrying a fake weapon? I certainly know that it was not me! Oh wait. That was all you, buddy. That was all you. Instead of actually taking the time to read and comprehend what I actually wrote you just jumped to some wild conclusion that had nothing to do with my post. And in doing so you stuck your proverbial foot in your mouth. Good job.
Here's the deal though. I think a natural 20 should succeed on any skill check that isn't opposed by another higher skill check.
4e has a system to allow this to always be the case. Skill challenges. If you want to convey that a single die roll can't do an auto success on a natural 20, create a skill challenge.
( this post would have been up tlast night, but my internet was out )
Ryndar, I agree that a natural 20 should succeed on most things- most DCs shouldn't be so high that 20 + an reasonable modifier can't succeed on them. Hell, most skill checks even allow some lesser degree of success if one doesn't meet the DC, For example, if you fail a jump by 5 or less, you can still attempt a DC15 reflex save to grab the edge. So I can see the original logic behind just making a natural twenty an automatic success at whatever the roll is being made for.
But then, does a natural twenty allow a character to swim vertically up a waterfal with a swim check?
To use escape artist to squeeze through a space smaller than her head?
To use sense motive to determine a character's in-game alignment?
To identify and defeat an Illusion with only a spot or listen check?
All these are set at DC 80 in the 3rd edition epic level handbook (I don't play 4th). I don't think it's reasonable that any character should be able to succeed at these tasks on the sole qualification of a natural twenty. That means that, theoretically, your character succeeds on an attack roll against the moon regardless of distance, 5% of the time.
For this reason, I implemented a natural twenty house-rule that I first encountered in one of my old DM's games; a natural twenty entitles the player to an additional d20 roll, with the results being added before the modifiers apply. So, while a natural 20 doesn't automatically succeed to swim up a waterfall, you could do it even with no modifier if you rolled four twenties in a row.
As you rise in level and power and your modifiers go up, these feats come closer within reach.
The one thing I will say though is that, if a single player and DM aren't going about the game the same way (one using all of the RAW and the other not), something bad is always going to happen. IMO the single player should conform to the DM or leave to find another group. If the majority of the players are doing things differently than the DM, the DM is the one who needs to conform or find another group, IMO.
Really the DM should make it clear up front, before the game begins, what type of game he wishes to run and how he wishes to run it, ensuring that all the potential players undestand and agree to it before they ever sit down to play or even roll up characters.
Thos was the case in the instance I dealt with; though. Just because the player professes to enjoy a certain style of play or insists that their interests concerning story and roleplaying run parallel with that of the group doesn't mean it's so. The player might mesh well with the group, or lash out, or simply not be any fun to play with. There's no way to guarantee that both parties are being open and honest when discussing their game preferences.
The above precautions were taken, and the problems became apparent once play began. These problems were addressed and dealt with, and that's all there is to it.
But then, does a natural twenty allow a character to swim vertically up a waterfal with a swim check?
Make a strength check for the waterfall. The score could be high as needed. I mean salmon swim up a waterfall. But I agree I would not allow this.
To use escape artist to squeeze through a space smaller than her head?
Maybe, if the player had a power/feat ect that made this seem possible. I call it roleplaying beyond powers/feats as written.
To use sense motive to determine a character's in-game alignment?
Alignment doesn't matter in 4th other then black and white and getting abused by **** unaligned players. And no, that is not a use of insight.
To identify and defeat an Illusion with only a spot or listen check?
Perception. And, illusions are attack powers in 4e so no.
For the rest of the lot, I mean a straight check with no mitigating factors in the player's favor (except for the modifiers, of course). That is, not considering a player with a spell that grants amorphous form for that escape artist check.
As for alignment, Insight and perception, I don't play 4th- tried it for months, didn't like it. The closest I play is Paizo's Pathfinder, but that's not "D&D" by wizards- as far as wizards' D&D goes I run 3rd.
[
For this reason, I implemented a natural twenty house-rule that I first encountered in one of my old DM's games; a natural twenty entitles the player to an additional d20 roll, with the results being added before the modifiers apply. So, while a natural 20 doesn't automatically succeed to swim up a waterfall, you could do it even with no modifier if you rolled four twenties in a row.
As you rise in level and power and your modifiers go up, these feats come closer within reach.
I like this and am stealing it, though in most cases in 4th a 20 will succeed on most things that a player attempt I often offer additional success for not only passing the DC but passing it by +5 or in extreme cases +10 or more.
Additional bonuses might come in the form of additional progress, short term extra modifiers, extra heal, discounts or in some cases you may find magic items or some such.
For instance a trap may have a DC of 20 (just pulling random numbers) hitting the DC 20 spot on will disable the trap, beating it at 25 will disable the trap and maybe be able to reset it against any enemy or salvage a minor useful component. Beating it by +10, so at 30, might yield a blueprint, be able to salvage almost the entire trap, or convert the trap to only work against enemies.
Likewise failure at 14-19, just means you fail, failure at 9-13 you get hurt by the trap for minor to moderate damage, and 8 and below, the trap fails catastrophically and does full damage to you and maybe people nearby.
Exploding 20's, (re-rolling a roll of 20 and adding the extra number) could really alter skill challenges.
Yes(though, again, I don't like 4th), I also use additional degrees of success for certain skills, such as the example you listed for disable device. In certain cases, these are abaout the same as comparing it to a higher DC, like making a high enough climb check to move at your full speed, or others as presented in epic level handbook. But the principle is the same.
Why don't you like 4th?
Why don't you like 4th?
Matter of personal preference- I feel the tone of the game has changed a great deal, and the mechanics are modified quite enough that it's not really an 'update' anymore. It's a total system overhaul; I didn't feel the way the game was rebalanced was necessary-mostly it's the idea of 'powers'. Every class runs more like a spellcaster, and though they're theoretically balanced against each other I begin to feel like when all powers are attended to I'm in a cause and effect computer simulation- when powers and opportunities are dropped, it feels to me like a part finished math equation. None of it's necessary for my group's style of play.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I liked the balancing and modifications made in Paizo's Pathfinder RPG, which is totally backwards compatible with D&D and runs under the open source liscensing. It keeps most functions of all the classes the same, only raising the power level of those that fall out and behind, like fighter and sorcerer might be considered to. Any given base class is balanced for all levels of play (and against each other), and continue to gain new and improved abilities at all levels.
It's not that there's anything inherently WRONG with 4th, I just don't care for it