Roleplaying mutes: What do you think? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Roleplaying mutes: What do you think?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
kamikazegerbil
Jun 25, 2009 20:49:13 I'd been playing around with backgrounds in the character generator and the idea suddenly came into my head of a mute character.

Not because of any physical disability or such (throat and vocal chords are all still there) but simply a hero who cannot talk. I see such a character being introduced to the party in play with someone giving the accompanying line "Oh her? She's never spoken. Not that any folk round these parts ever heard."

Chuck in the initial idea of a said character being unable to read or write (I'm envisioning a primal character, I know they aren't nessarcarily illiterate but they are the classes that would be most believable) and it offers alot of unique challenges as your only form of communication IC is body language.

It's also very different depending on how you play the character. A grim-faced, serious type will obviously take a back seat in many RP situations while a lively charming individual who trys to communicate through use of charades-esque hand signals would be involded and requitre you to think on your feat (and almost definately will result in occasional comedy situations). I'm sure there's other ways to roleplay such a flaw.

It also has the potential for dramatic situations. What if the mute character was the only witness who can prove an accused murderer who is dear to them is innocent? How will they cope when they can't get across their message? Maybe a big moment in your campaign is when said character somehow breaks whatever psychological barrier or magical curse it is that impeeds them and hoarsely speaks for the first time? (though some players may just use such an event to hog the spotlight I guess)

What I want to know is what others think of this? Would this sort of thing annoy your group no end or would they love to roleplay with such a PC in the party? Would you find it impeeds you too much in play or does it sound like a fun challenge?
#2
gregt_314
Jun 25, 2009 20:59:54 Do not ever, ever let your character disabilities get in the way of a fast-moving and exciting game. Communication is the medium that D&D lives in and you need to be very careful you're not going to make a roadblock for the other players to keep tripping over.

However you make your character, you need to make sure that you, as a player, are capable of making sure the players can understand what your character is doing, thinking, and needing. You need to make sure that you're up to providing expressive facial suggestions, useful hand gestures, and taking out-of-character time to smooth over wrinkles. You need to watch out you're not trapping yourself, too: if you're anything but the most boisterous and expressive player, a mute character can be a quick trip to irrelevance during any part of the plot that isn't action-based.

If you're up to all those challenges, you can have a blast. In a Star Wars game I'm in I play an Ithorian who refuses to speak anything but his native language (although he can understand everyone else just fine); it's comedy gold.
#3
incenjucar
Jun 25, 2009 21:24:06 I had a campaign centered around a demon prince trying to silence the whole of the cosmos, and so had a lot of NPCs with their throats damaged so that they could not speak, and only a few of them had telepathy.

I will never, ever, ever make that mistake again.

Being mute is an interesting thing, but it's a nightmare unless your players are -really freaking good- at charades.

If you're going to do it, I suggest making it cosmetic. Say, "Regdar signs that he's ready to go down into the dungeon where the thing with eyes of gold waits." Don't bother explaining how they communicate all of this, because it will bog things down terribly.
#4
pyro_azer
Jun 25, 2009 21:40:07 I have played a mute character before. It was an absolute blast. The only drawback is you need to make sure the party understands a few basic symbols before going adventuring (e.g. holding up a fist means stop) and you have to be good at miming things.
#5
satyxis
Jun 26, 2009 12:33:04 I have played mutes or near-mutes (strong silent types) and never had problems. Granted, I did not go through playing charades whenever I wanted to communicate something, I simply said "(Character) rolls her eyes at you." or "(Character) points down the hall, she looks worried." Simply saying what the character does or how they act at key moments (and not all the time) usually gets the job done for communication, while still keeping the "feel" of a mute character. It works best if you "communicate" sparingly. I think it would become annoying to have a player constantly acting out charades at the gaming table, or in the living room during a game, especially when their actions have to be taken into context with an imaginary background. It just wouldn't translate well, IMO.
#6
MrCustomer
Jun 26, 2009 19:35:36 It is a good idea, but remember that it can bog things down drastically whenever you communicate, simply because you have to break into charades and the group figure out what it is you are trying to say. Remember the group is playing DnD and not charades, and you can be constantly stealing the limelight for things as simple as asking directions to the bathroom.

What I suggest you do is talk to the DM and give your character Sign Language as a language as well as a "charades" skill. You can use these as skill chalenges or straight rolls as the case might require to communicate with others without taking too much time. Set DCs for how much or complicated the information you are trying to convey and then roll and quickly describe what you would be able to communicate across.

Example "Character gets your attention and nods in the dirrection of a man sitting in the back of the inn, guestures a finger in across his throaght to say the man is dangerous and we should keep an eye on him"

or if you rolled low "I point out that guy in that back with the cool necklace and that I have the hots for him"

Your disability is purely cosmetic so you can and should play it to be as untroublesome tot he group as possible. Simple discriptions of what you are trying to say and what you think they would understand is the best.
#7
MechaPilot
Jun 26, 2009 22:53:07 A mute character can be handled easily if there is a form of sign-language involved, whether a formalized language or not, even if only one member of the party can understand it.
#8
pschirf
Jun 26, 2009 23:10:20 One of the artifacts of my game world is the sword Mime Slayer, which was created by the god of songs. Woe to those who use gestures to communicate near Mime Slayer.
#9
MechaPilot
Jun 26, 2009 23:19:29
What I suggest you do is talk to the DM and give your character Sign Language as a language as well as a "charades" skill. You can use these as skill chalenges or straight rolls as the case might require to communicate with others without taking too much time. Set DCs for how much or complicated the information you are trying to convey and then roll and quickly describe what you would be able to communicate across.

Example "Character gets your attention and nods in the dirrection of a man sitting in the back of the inn, guestures a finger in across his throaght to say the man is dangerous and we should keep an eye on him"

or if you rolled low "I point out that guy in that back with the cool necklace and that I have the hots for him"

I would personally suggest that no additional skill is needed. Let those attempting to understand the character make passive Insight checks to see if they understand his charades/gestural-conversation.
#10
tourq
Jun 27, 2009 0:19:34 I don't recommend it. In fact, I would recommend NOT doing it.

Star Wars wookie, who few people could understand, did not make for a fun campaign. The player was happy to see him killed off. It was fun as a short-term novelty, but not in the long run.

I might suggest that your character goes mute only under certain conditions:
In front of a woman
During a fight
While drinking (talks horrible gibberish), etc.

These could be gold, in my group.
#11
gamerkale
Jun 27, 2009 0:37:37 Word of warning. I'm contemplating running a monk that's taken a vow of silence for a game a friend of mine is running this fall. I tried him out in a mock session a few days ago and we all died because of it. There was an orb guarded by a force field, a stone golem, and some statues. I thought to myself, orb plus magic statues equals orb controlling everything. So I make my way past the statues and the golem and jump over the forcefield to get at the pedestal with the orb on it. Well, on the one hand I was right. On the other hand, I couldn't use it since I wasn't a warlock and it wouldn't budge from the spot. So, I'm sitting there knowing how to win, but unfortunately the golem is blocking the only path between the orb and the warlock, and more importantly me and the warlock so I'm sitting there, waiting for the path to clear so I can get to the warlock and explain to him what to do since I can't just shout it and he goes and kills himself because he thinks we can't win. Admittedly, it was just a one shot so nobody cared about the repercussions.
#12
MrCustomer
Jun 27, 2009 1:10:47
I would personally suggest that no additional skill is needed. Let those attempting to understand the character make passive Insight checks to see if they understand his charades/gestural-conversation.

Well the skill is to limit the rolls everyone else would have to constantly make, the player could roll the die and then describe how much information he manages to get across. It goes much faster this way.
#13
bronski113
Jun 27, 2009 10:07:23 If its more for fluff reasons just describe his actions in a way that pretty much conveys the same information that you'd get if you could speak. Only situations that you'd be hindered in are the ones where you'd need to speak or yell.

I might not say he couldn't read or write just for the sake of you might need to convey something specific. But try it out, see how it goes. If it doesn't work try something else.
#14
kamikazegerbil
Jun 27, 2009 11:24:57 Alot of good responses and some food for thought. I've warmed to the idea of describing actions rather than physically miming them at the table. Of course I imagine the character concept I have in mind being a little flaky so it might end up with "[character]'s arms flail in a series of odd gestures. She either has urgent information or is having some kind of standing seizure. You'd better go see what's wrong."

The only mechanical representation I'd give is a low charisma to represent difficult getting communicating.

But yes I realise that every now and then a situation could crop up (like the monk story above) where this could be a notable drawback. Hence I wouldn't just spring such a character on a group. I guess I'm just a sucker for playing flawed characters or ones with powerful enemies. (I've yet to meet a GM who objects to a PC backstory giving them a scary NPC to play with. :P)

One thought on the sign language thing. It'd possibly be worthwhile the character knowing something akin to "ranger signs" if primal (or any nature dweller like say an actual ranger) with DM permission.
#15
MechaPilot
Jun 27, 2009 13:34:36
Well the skill is to limit the rolls everyone else would have to constantly make, the player could roll the die and then describe how much information he manages to get across. It goes much faster this way.

If we are talking 4e, which I assume we are, the passive check means no die rolling (everyone is assumed to have rolled a 10). The mute tells the DM what he wants to communicate, the DM decides the DC. In this way, no one has to make a die roll.

The only variation I can think of is having the mute make a passive Charisma check against the DC to communicate the info instead of having the others make passive checks to understand. In this way there is still no rolling required. The rolls should only be required if communicating as part of a skill challenge.
#16
Mad_Jack
Jun 27, 2009 19:54:31 The only way this has ever worked well in D&D is this...

The character is mute.
The player is not.

As another poster suggested, everything should just be played as "My character signals that he doesn't trust the NPC, because his clothing clearly indicates he from Thay, and no Thayan can be trusted."
He doesn't need to do charades, or hold up cards, he just describes it. It should just be handwaved that the rest of the party understands what they meant.
The most that the character's inability to speak should ever affect the game is that the character must be in the same room in order to effectively communicate, without having to debate over whether someone's back was turned or if they were paying attention to the mute character.
Anything else disrupts the game too much and requires too much effort from DM and other players to accomodate one individual.
#17
MechaPilot
Jun 27, 2009 20:15:08
The only way this has ever worked well in D&D is this...

The character is mute.
The player is not.

As another poster suggested, everything should just be played as "My character signals that he doesn't trust the NPC, because his clothing clearly indicates he from Thay, and no Thayan can be trusted."
He doesn't need to do charades, or hold up cards, he just describes it. It should just be handwaved that the rest of the party understands what they meant.
The most that the character's inability to speak should ever affect the game is that the character must be in the same room in order to effectively communicate, without having to debate over whether someone's back was turned or if they were paying attention to the mute character.
Anything else disrupts the game too much and requires too much effort from DM and other players to accomodate one individual.

That is the easiest way to handle it. Certainly. There is one unfortunate thing that happens with this. There is no possibility of miscommunication. In non-combat interactions, miscommunication can be a great source of in-game humor and character building. It can easily be abused; but if conservatively sprinkled into a campaign, it is a source of great fun.

I had this same experience with a character who wasn't fully fluent in the Common tongue. She was a monk from Rokushima Taiyoo (Ravenloft's oriental domain) and had a limited understanding of the Common language. Occasionally, during a non-combat scene, the DM would take what my character said & alter it to create a humorous moment. This kept the flavor of my character not being a native speaker and it involved no die rolling.
#18
zeratulcraft
Jun 27, 2009 20:44:51 My old drow character was something of a mute, in that he chose not to speak. This was no issue, though, because the whole party was drow and we all had Drow Sign Language as a bonus language.

When a tiefling joined our party, he started to speak normally though, but his voice was shattered from torture and sounded a lot like gravel, when being dragged over shattered glass that was ALSO made of gravel.
#19
esperifiel
Jul 05, 2009 3:44:58 No. At an RP level, the gimmick gets old very fast. More importantly, at a meta level, it slows everything down, combat and non-combat. DM + the rest of the party waiting around to deal with one RP quirk is not worth it.
#20
Caeric
Jul 06, 2009 20:51:21 I thought it'd be neat to have a mute wizard myself. He or she would use Ghost Sound to make voices to communicate. Similar to Bumblebee in the new Transformer movies. He or she would never have had a voice of his or her own, so he or she would just be using things he or she had heard.

Your idea goes above and beyond that in disability; your character, as you've said, can only make gestures to convey anything. This is going to slow down communication for certain. Check with your group if they're fine with that. If they're not, don't play it. You'll want people to be willing to go along with it while you mime stuff.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kamikazegerbil Jun 25, 2009 20:49:13	I'd been playing around with backgrounds in the character generator and the idea suddenly came into my head of a mute character. Not because of any physical disability or such (throat and vocal chords are all still there) but simply a hero who cannot talk. I see such a character being introduced to the party in play with someone giving the accompanying line "Oh her? She's never spoken. Not that any folk round these parts ever heard." Chuck in the initial idea of a said character being unable to read or write (I'm envisioning a primal character, I know they aren't nessarcarily illiterate but they are the classes that would be most believable) and it offers alot of unique challenges as your only form of communication IC is body language. It's also very different depending on how you play the character. A grim-faced, serious type will obviously take a back seat in many RP situations while a lively charming individual who trys to communicate through use of charades-esque hand signals would be involded and requitre you to think on your feat (and almost definately will result in occasional comedy situations). I'm sure there's other ways to roleplay such a flaw. It also has the potential for dramatic situations. What if the mute character was the only witness who can prove an accused murderer who is dear to them is innocent? How will they cope when they can't get across their message? Maybe a big moment in your campaign is when said character somehow breaks whatever psychological barrier or magical curse it is that impeeds them and hoarsely speaks for the first time? (though some players may just use such an event to hog the spotlight I guess) What I want to know is what others think of this? Would this sort of thing annoy your group no end or would they love to roleplay with such a PC in the party? Would you find it impeeds you too much in play or does it sound like a fun challenge?
#2 gregt_314 Jun 25, 2009 20:59:54	Do not ever, ever let your character disabilities get in the way of a fast-moving and exciting game. Communication is the medium that D&D lives in and you need to be very careful you're not going to make a roadblock for the other players to keep tripping over. However you make your character, you need to make sure that you, as a player, are capable of making sure the players can understand what your character is doing, thinking, and needing. You need to make sure that you're up to providing expressive facial suggestions, useful hand gestures, and taking out-of-character time to smooth over wrinkles. You need to watch out you're not trapping yourself, too: if you're anything but the most boisterous and expressive player, a mute character can be a quick trip to irrelevance during any part of the plot that isn't action-based. If you're up to all those challenges, you can have a blast. In a Star Wars game I'm in I play an Ithorian who refuses to speak anything but his native language (although he can understand everyone else just fine); it's comedy gold.
#3 incenjucar Jun 25, 2009 21:24:06	I had a campaign centered around a demon prince trying to silence the whole of the cosmos, and so had a lot of NPCs with their throats damaged so that they could not speak, and only a few of them had telepathy. I will never, ever, ever make that mistake again. Being mute is an interesting thing, but it's a nightmare unless your players are -really freaking good- at charades. If you're going to do it, I suggest making it cosmetic. Say, "Regdar signs that he's ready to go down into the dungeon where the thing with eyes of gold waits." Don't bother explaining how they communicate all of this, because it will bog things down terribly.
#4 pyro_azer Jun 25, 2009 21:40:07	I have played a mute character before. It was an absolute blast. The only drawback is you need to make sure the party understands a few basic symbols before going adventuring (e.g. holding up a fist means stop) and you have to be good at miming things.
#5 satyxis Jun 26, 2009 12:33:04	I have played mutes or near-mutes (strong silent types) and never had problems. Granted, I did not go through playing charades whenever I wanted to communicate something, I simply said "(Character) rolls her eyes at you." or "(Character) points down the hall, she looks worried." Simply saying what the character does or how they act at key moments (and not all the time) usually gets the job done for communication, while still keeping the "feel" of a mute character. It works best if you "communicate" sparingly. I think it would become annoying to have a player constantly acting out charades at the gaming table, or in the living room during a game, especially when their actions have to be taken into context with an imaginary background. It just wouldn't translate well, IMO.
#6 MrCustomer Jun 26, 2009 19:35:36	It is a good idea, but remember that it can bog things down drastically whenever you communicate, simply because you have to break into charades and the group figure out what it is you are trying to say. Remember the group is playing DnD and not charades, and you can be constantly stealing the limelight for things as simple as asking directions to the bathroom. What I suggest you do is talk to the DM and give your character Sign Language as a language as well as a "charades" skill. You can use these as skill chalenges or straight rolls as the case might require to communicate with others without taking too much time. Set DCs for how much or complicated the information you are trying to convey and then roll and quickly describe what you would be able to communicate across. Example "Character gets your attention and nods in the dirrection of a man sitting in the back of the inn, guestures a finger in across his throaght to say the man is dangerous and we should keep an eye on him" or if you rolled low "I point out that guy in that back with the cool necklace and that I have the hots for him" Your disability is purely cosmetic so you can and should play it to be as untroublesome tot he group as possible. Simple discriptions of what you are trying to say and what you think they would understand is the best.
#7 MechaPilot Jun 26, 2009 22:53:07	A mute character can be handled easily if there is a form of sign-language involved, whether a formalized language or not, even if only one member of the party can understand it.
#8 pschirf Jun 26, 2009 23:10:20	One of the artifacts of my game world is the sword Mime Slayer, which was created by the god of songs. Woe to those who use gestures to communicate near Mime Slayer.
#9 MechaPilot Jun 26, 2009 23:19:29	What I suggest you do is talk to the DM and give your character Sign Language as a language as well as a "charades" skill. You can use these as skill chalenges or straight rolls as the case might require to communicate with others without taking too much time. Set DCs for how much or complicated the information you are trying to convey and then roll and quickly describe what you would be able to communicate across. Example "Character gets your attention and nods in the dirrection of a man sitting in the back of the inn, guestures a finger in across his throaght to say the man is dangerous and we should keep an eye on him" or if you rolled low "I point out that guy in that back with the cool necklace and that I have the hots for him" I would personally suggest that no additional skill is needed. Let those attempting to understand the character make passive Insight checks to see if they understand his charades/gestural-conversation.
#10 tourq Jun 27, 2009 0:19:34	I don't recommend it. In fact, I would recommend NOT doing it. Star Wars wookie, who few people could understand, did not make for a fun campaign. The player was happy to see him killed off. It was fun as a short-term novelty, but not in the long run. I might suggest that your character goes mute only under certain conditions: In front of a woman During a fight While drinking (talks horrible gibberish), etc. These could be gold, in my group.
#11 gamerkale Jun 27, 2009 0:37:37	Word of warning. I'm contemplating running a monk that's taken a vow of silence for a game a friend of mine is running this fall. I tried him out in a mock session a few days ago and we all died because of it. There was an orb guarded by a force field, a stone golem, and some statues. I thought to myself, orb plus magic statues equals orb controlling everything. So I make my way past the statues and the golem and jump over the forcefield to get at the pedestal with the orb on it. Well, on the one hand I was right. On the other hand, I couldn't use it since I wasn't a warlock and it wouldn't budge from the spot. So, I'm sitting there knowing how to win, but unfortunately the golem is blocking the only path between the orb and the warlock, and more importantly me and the warlock so I'm sitting there, waiting for the path to clear so I can get to the warlock and explain to him what to do since I can't just shout it and he goes and kills himself because he thinks we can't win. Admittedly, it was just a one shot so nobody cared about the repercussions.
#12 MrCustomer Jun 27, 2009 1:10:47	I would personally suggest that no additional skill is needed. Let those attempting to understand the character make passive Insight checks to see if they understand his charades/gestural-conversation. Well the skill is to limit the rolls everyone else would have to constantly make, the player could roll the die and then describe how much information he manages to get across. It goes much faster this way.
#13 bronski113 Jun 27, 2009 10:07:23	If its more for fluff reasons just describe his actions in a way that pretty much conveys the same information that you'd get if you could speak. Only situations that you'd be hindered in are the ones where you'd need to speak or yell. I might not say he couldn't read or write just for the sake of you might need to convey something specific. But try it out, see how it goes. If it doesn't work try something else.
#14 kamikazegerbil Jun 27, 2009 11:24:57	Alot of good responses and some food for thought. I've warmed to the idea of describing actions rather than physically miming them at the table. Of course I imagine the character concept I have in mind being a little flaky so it might end up with "[character]'s arms flail in a series of odd gestures. She either has urgent information or is having some kind of standing seizure. You'd better go see what's wrong." The only mechanical representation I'd give is a low charisma to represent difficult getting communicating. But yes I realise that every now and then a situation could crop up (like the monk story above) where this could be a notable drawback. Hence I wouldn't just spring such a character on a group. I guess I'm just a sucker for playing flawed characters or ones with powerful enemies. (I've yet to meet a GM who objects to a PC backstory giving them a scary NPC to play with. :P) One thought on the sign language thing. It'd possibly be worthwhile the character knowing something akin to "ranger signs" if primal (or any nature dweller like say an actual ranger) with DM permission.
#15 MechaPilot Jun 27, 2009 13:34:36	Well the skill is to limit the rolls everyone else would have to constantly make, the player could roll the die and then describe how much information he manages to get across. It goes much faster this way. If we are talking 4e, which I assume we are, the passive check means no die rolling (everyone is assumed to have rolled a 10). The mute tells the DM what he wants to communicate, the DM decides the DC. In this way, no one has to make a die roll. The only variation I can think of is having the mute make a passive Charisma check against the DC to communicate the info instead of having the others make passive checks to understand. In this way there is still no rolling required. The rolls should only be required if communicating as part of a skill challenge.
#16 Mad_Jack Jun 27, 2009 19:54:31	The only way this has ever worked well in D&D is this... The character is mute. The *player* is not. As another poster suggested, everything should just be played as "My character signals that he doesn't trust the NPC, because his clothing clearly indicates he from Thay, and no Thayan can be trusted." He doesn't need to do charades, or hold up cards, he just describes it. It should just be handwaved that the rest of the party understands what they meant. The most that the character's inability to speak should ever affect the game is that the character must be in the same room in order to effectively communicate, without having to debate over whether someone's back was turned or if they were paying attention to the mute character. Anything else disrupts the game too much and requires too much effort from DM and other players to accomodate one individual.
#17 MechaPilot Jun 27, 2009 20:15:08	The only way this has ever worked well in D&D is this... The character is mute. The *player* is not. As another poster suggested, everything should just be played as "My character signals that he doesn't trust the NPC, because his clothing clearly indicates he from Thay, and no Thayan can be trusted." He doesn't need to do charades, or hold up cards, he just describes it. It should just be handwaved that the rest of the party understands what they meant. The most that the character's inability to speak should ever affect the game is that the character must be in the same room in order to effectively communicate, without having to debate over whether someone's back was turned or if they were paying attention to the mute character. Anything else disrupts the game too much and requires too much effort from DM and other players to accomodate one individual. That is the easiest way to handle it. Certainly. There is one unfortunate thing that happens with this. There is no possibility of miscommunication. In non-combat interactions, miscommunication can be a great source of in-game humor and character building. It can easily be abused; but if conservatively sprinkled into a campaign, it is a source of great fun. I had this same experience with a character who wasn't fully fluent in the Common tongue. She was a monk from Rokushima Taiyoo (Ravenloft's oriental domain) and had a limited understanding of the Common language. Occasionally, during a non-combat scene, the DM would take what my character said & alter it to create a humorous moment. This kept the flavor of my character not being a native speaker and it involved no die rolling.
#18 zeratulcraft Jun 27, 2009 20:44:51	My old drow character was something of a mute, in that he chose not to speak. This was no issue, though, because the whole party was drow and we all had Drow Sign Language as a bonus language. When a tiefling joined our party, he started to speak normally though, but his voice was shattered from torture and sounded a lot like gravel, when being dragged over shattered glass that was ALSO made of gravel.
#19 esperifiel Jul 05, 2009 3:44:58	No. At an RP level, the gimmick gets old very fast. More importantly, at a meta level, it slows everything down, combat and non-combat. DM + the rest of the party waiting around to deal with one RP quirk is not worth it.
#20 Caeric Jul 06, 2009 20:51:21	I thought it'd be neat to have a mute wizard myself. He or she would use Ghost Sound to make voices to communicate. Similar to Bumblebee in the new Transformer movies. He or she would never have had a voice of his or her own, so he or she would just be using things he or she had heard. Your idea goes above and beyond that in disability; your character, as you've said, can only make gestures to convey anything. This is going to slow down communication for certain. Check with your group if they're fine with that. If they're not, don't play it. You'll want people to be willing to go along with it while you mime stuff.