Why discriminate in favour of a particular sort of gamer nerd (socially retarded, good at abstract game tactics)? Why are their preferences privileged over eg people who aren't so good at rules minutiae, but are normally socially adept? I suspect there are a lot more of the latter kind of people in the world, even if not so many play D&D.
Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?
- Thread starter NewJeffCT
- Start date
Why discriminate in favour of a particular sort of gamer nerd (socially retarded, good at abstract game tactics)? Why are their preferences privileged over eg people who aren't so good at rules minutiae, but are normally socially adept? I suspect there are a lot more of the latter kind of people in the world, even if not so many play D&D.
Doug McCrae
Legend
In our most recent 3e game one player, John, maxed his diplomacy skill and wanted to be the diplomatic leader guy. Problem is, his words were always those for an intimidate check, a skill he didn't have. No matter what the situation he'd be making threats. He'd literally be in the king's court, with no one but the other PCs to back him up, threatening to kill the king. And then roll for his diplomacy check.
That's gotta be worth a -2 penalty, surely.
That's gotta be worth a -2 penalty, surely.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Cause that's the only sort of person who plays rpgs.
because the game is Dungeons & Dragons - at its heart, it is about going into dungeons and killing dragons for their treasure.
And, learning the basics of a cleave or a full attack is a lot easier for a person playing a fighter in D&D than it is to teach somebody that has been socially inept for their 20, 30 or 40 years of their life how to come up with interesting bluffs or intimidates or to be diplomatic in the right situation.
Plus, with learning the basics of being any class, we've always been pretty generous and helpful with newcomers: "OK, you're a melee tank, the best feats at this level would be A, B and C if you want to continue on your current path..." or, "You can attack the two goblins on you and likely finish them off, or you can take two attacks of opportunity and charge the leader that seems about to strike the party wizard..." or, "you learned you're going to be fighting a pit fiend your next adventure and it is immune to fire, so selecting spells that use fire might not be your best option."
That sort of thing is something you can teach and a person can learn. Creativity with their social skills is not nearly as easy to teach.
and, it seems that when you penalize a person for selecting a class that goes against their out-of-game personality, you're the one that is discriminating against those types of gamers when you say that somebody that is not a sociable person would not excel at playing a social class in your game (and vice versa, somebody not good at tactics wanting to play a tactician would not be able to excel)
I ask for a moderate capacity for role-assumption - you don't have to *be* charming and charismatic IRL, just act like those charming and charismatic characters you see on TV/movies. We can fill in the blanks.
What doesn't work for me is "I roll Diplomacy - 28" without anything more to go on, I have no way to know what that 28 means, no way to implement it in-game.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Talking in character, giving a voice to one's character, whether it's PC to PC, or PC to NPC, is one of my favourite aspects of roleplaying, so I don't want to reduce that to a die roll unless it's minor stuff like talking to shopkeepers.
In most of the games I've played over the last five years, we've used a mix of talking in character and die rolling. Usually the speech comes first and it acts as a modifier for the roll. For example in the 4e game I last ran, I would ask for an easy, moderate or hard diplomacy check depending on the likelihood of the dialogue being persuasive and any other pertinent factors. That seems to work okay for us. I don't remember a GM ever flat out banning a social skill roll, saying "That's impossible" or the like. However that's probably because, as players, we act in a pretty reasonable fashion. When we don't, as in the example of John above, our system breaks down a bit.
Impossible diplomacy checks could be allowed if the PC has a superhuman level of skill, though I'm not sure how high that would be in 3e. High level PCs can certainly make superhuman leaps, so why not superhuman persuasion? In a game of Silver Age Sentinels d20 (a superhero game) there actually was a PC with this power, I think he had both mind control and a ridiculously high diplomacy check and the way the GM played it, he pretty much could persuade anyone of anything. The other players all ran with this and we allowed the super-diplomacy guy to tell us what to do, which he didn't abuse. However I felt it didn't work terribly well as, even with no abuse, imo it stepped on our agency as players, our freedom to present a unique character's thoughts and actions.
In most of the games I've played over the last five years, we've used a mix of talking in character and die rolling. Usually the speech comes first and it acts as a modifier for the roll. For example in the 4e game I last ran, I would ask for an easy, moderate or hard diplomacy check depending on the likelihood of the dialogue being persuasive and any other pertinent factors. That seems to work okay for us. I don't remember a GM ever flat out banning a social skill roll, saying "That's impossible" or the like. However that's probably because, as players, we act in a pretty reasonable fashion. When we don't, as in the example of John above, our system breaks down a bit.
Impossible diplomacy checks could be allowed if the PC has a superhuman level of skill, though I'm not sure how high that would be in 3e. High level PCs can certainly make superhuman leaps, so why not superhuman persuasion? In a game of Silver Age Sentinels d20 (a superhero game) there actually was a PC with this power, I think he had both mind control and a ridiculously high diplomacy check and the way the GM played it, he pretty much could persuade anyone of anything. The other players all ran with this and we allowed the super-diplomacy guy to tell us what to do, which he didn't abuse. However I felt it didn't work terribly well as, even with no abuse, imo it stepped on our agency as players, our freedom to present a unique character's thoughts and actions.
Last edited:
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I'm going to go point by point for ease of conversation. Don't take this as aggressive argumentation on my part, please, as that's not the intent.
I won't play in a group that uses minis (I don't condemn them, but it kills the immersion too much for me, personally, while I understand it helps others in that same area). My group doesn't use minis. So, someone can say, "I'll move next to the bandit that looks badly wounded, and position myself next to another bandit as well, if possible," and that's fine. It doesn't mean that people will.
Just like it isn't assured that people will prepare spells that will be remotely useful.
When I GM, if someone says a lie that is too outrageous for their character (based on their Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), I'll let them know that it's a bad lie because of X. If there mental stats don't meet what I think is necessary to get it automatically, I'll give them a roll.
There's no real reason your Int and or Wis roll would apply to fire spells and not to lies, in my mind.
It's true about spells. Preparing all fire spells before going into the Abyss is worse than not positioning yourself for a cleave.
But, missing out on a cleave is only one missed opportunity, though it can make a big difference, potentially, when missed. Just like blowing a Bluff check is missing out on one opportunity, though it too can make a big difference if blown.
Our mileage has greatly varied. My group doesn't really suffer from either regularly, though we've been known to blow either (especially when we were new players). Just like new players often need help with combat tactics, I think new players players often need help with social practices as well.
After a while, though, you can't just get advice anymore, and you can't just say "I roll, and if I get a result of X, then I made something cool up" in my group. You need to say what your lie is, have it judged on believability, have the appropriate DC set, and then roll at it. You don't necessarily have to RP it out if you had some sort of crippling social disorder, but a "I tell him X" would be necessary. I'd potentially allow others players to help or give advice if your mental stats were high enough (as that character is probably better than any single member of the group, I have little problem letting players team up occasionally).
I'm not saying that you should play differently. I hope that's not what you're getting from this. I'm saying that you're not playing in any invalid way, but neither are the people you're arguing against. It comes down to what works for a group. Groups usually play their preferences, and usually have reasons for doing so. You may not agree with the reasons, but they sure aren't going to have less fun because of your disagreements.
This is my experience too, for new gamers (or gamers new to a particular system).
I have a list of 5 things to go over your character before you start to mechanically create him. Number 5 is "making sure that the player can play the character" and it's one of the more important rules. It doesn't mean you need to play to the same level as the character. It means that you need to be able to lie if you're lying, to be Lawful if you're a monk, be forgiving if you're playing a forgiving priest.
I know that some in this thread might strongly disagree with that, but D&D is not escapism for me or my group. It is not a place to go to create the Alternate Better Me. It is a game we play, with the intention of having fun, and often times with the intent of exploring new points of view, or to see what it's like to have another outlook on life. While my 5th rule does limit this exploration, if you can't play that type of character anyway, then it won't go over well even without that rule. You won't know what a Lawful monk is actually like if you can't be play a Lawful character.
Our mileage has varied, etc. etc.
I know this is true for many people, but I'll disagree from my group's experience with it. I think we have yet to experience a traditional dungeon delve. Traps are rare things indeed.
Maybe our group is just made up of very different people (I suspect it is), but this sounds so fringe to me.
If they're just lightly socially inept, then I hold that they can absolutely improve at making up lies or diplomatically dealing with NPCs. That's something they'll need advice on, need to practice, need reminders on, and maybe even need to state from a more detached viewpoint "I'll compliment him on his castle" rather than a more flowery description in-character complimenting the fountain, architecture, etc.
If, however, someone is highly socially inept, then it's a lot more fringe to me. Yeah, it'll be easier for them to learn Cleave then to be charismatic. I still hold that they can learn what types of lies might be good or bad, or that bowing in most games is universally understood as some sort of sign of respect. I don't believe, however, that if they're so socially inept that they cannot learn these basic things, that they should be playing with your average group. And that is not to ostracize them, but because if their social leaning is really that inept, that interactions with most people in general will have problems, and that people trained in the correct areas are best at changing this, not your average D&D group.
If they're somewhere in between, then I think it scales appropriately.
No, but you can just as easily give them tips and advice:
"OK, you're a noble diplomat, the best skills at this level would be A, B and C if you want to continue on your current path..." or, "You can attempt to lie to the duke, but you did find out earlier that he knows who paid for the assassin, or you can try to intimidate him, since you found out about his illegitimate son that he's been trying to hide from his wife..." or, "you learned you're going to be talking to a king in your next adventure and he especially hates elves, so bringing in your elven goods and singing your songs in elven like you normally do may not be a good idea."
Again, I see no reason not to give advice to both. It's been the standard in my group from the get-go (even if we're much better at it now than we used to be).
As always, play what you like
LostSoul
Adventurer
I see where you're coming from. I try to be as clear as possible about why you'd want to play the game. If you're looking for escapism where your character is as you imagine regardless of most choices during play, then I hope it's clear that my game is not the right one.
I think cruel is a harsh way of looking at it. We don't point and laugh at players when they say something stupid, especially if we know the player is shy or withdrawn.
Possibly. That's part of the point of the game. A tactical or strategic genius would have the same level of success in those areas.
It's not like character build resources don't have an effect on the game; the shy player with a highly socially-adept PC would tend to have NPCs react positively (Reaction Rolls modified by Cha) and more likely to succeed at any checks called for. The player of the low-Cha, unskilled PC would be forced to avoid skill checks and most NPCs would start off with an unfavourable reaction.
Here's my reaction roll table, by the way. It's basically the same as the one from Basic D&D, expanded for higher Cha modifiers. The high-Cha PC is going to have NPCs "interesting in dialogue" as the most typical response. There's a big difference between "Hi, can I help you?", "What are you doing here?", and "Get lost".
[sblock=Reaction Rolls]
Code:
3d6 Roll
+ Charisma Modifier Reaction Successes
4 or less Extremely hostile, no dialogue possible --
5-8 Hostile, possible attack 8
9-12 Uncertain, cautious, and wary 6
13-16 Interested in dialogue 4
17+ Looking to make friends 2I try to keep the "DM Plausibility Rule" for both combat and social situations.
Similar Threads
