Can a swarm be grabbed?

[Nichwee]

Where in the whole goddamn world did I ever say I was "assessing" this roleplaying? Show me ONCE where I said that the roleplaying was ever "assessed". Please. I'd love to see it. Because I don't think I've ever said or done that inside of a game.



You're right. It's NOT a resolution mechanic. But, for that resolution mechanic to come into effect, you need to do something in the fiction to invoke it. "I use my Intimidate skill..." is unsatisfactory.

If "I use my Intimidate skill..." is unsatisfactory then you have assessed the roleplaying and found it lacking. Roleplaying is about thinking and acting like a person not yourself, not about having the ability to actually do it. So choosing to Intimidate with your character when you are a "natural diplomat" would be roleplay - You'd solve the problem with diplomacy, but your character is the "Do as I say or else" type so you go for that - even if you doubt it will work = roleplaying.

BTW is "I threaten to rip his arms off if he doesn't do what I want" enough to replace "I use my Intimidate skill." in your opinion? If not, then you are saying "Your RP wasn't good enough, you can't do what you want." = assessing.

People can bring RP to their characters without having to "act out the drama" by the simple choices they make and abilities they choose. A pyromaniac will choose fire-powers and use them all the time, even though having a range of elemental damage types would be more sensible and using a fireball can often be tactically unsound - does the pyromaniac care, no. So the player roleplays that by not worrying about hitting his own side much and learnign nothing but fire-powers.
My wizard is melee-obsessed (due to events that occured at Lvl 10) and a bookworm. He uses his MBA a lot more than is sensible, chooses utilities that require him in melee range dispite having low HP, took the WotST paragon path despite it being very weak mechanically. He also lists off monster knowledge "junk" as the fight goes, and geeks out at new magic or rituals he hasn't dealt with before. All examples of RPing my character, and none require me to justify my choices beyond "I choose to do ... and my roll got me a score of .....". If I was asked to say what I was looking for on a monster knowledge or Arcana check I would be fooked - as I have no clue what the "giveaways" are to identify a given monster or ritual.

Should a person have a goal in mind before they roll a dice? Yes.
So "I use my Intimidate skill ..." should have a fiction behind it, but it shouldn't require a player to know the correct way to imtimidate someone just so they can describe how they are doing it - that is what the check is for.
I roll well and the DM says "You grab him by the scruff of the neck and say you will remove his ears with your bare hands if he doesn't tell you what you want to know. He visably pales and begins to spill his guts."
I roll badly and the DM says "You grab him by the scruff of the neck and say you will remove his ears with your bare hands if he doesn't tell you what you want to know. He sniggers to himself and asks if you practice that speech in front of the mirror. He doesn't seem to be worried."

 

[Umbran]

Where in the whole goddamn world ...

Um, dude, you seem to be getting a touch hot here. Can we chill this out a little bit, please? This is supposedly about "grabbing a swarm"*, right? It probably does not merit such things as damnation of the world, hm?

Thanks, all.




*wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, IYKWIMAITYD

 

[P1NBACK]

Wow. So, this is getting entirely too long and you're ignoring most of my points. I'll try one more time.

Yep, it is if you start roleplaying in it. That's the point roleplaying as part of a game makes it a roleplaying game. If you use a houserule that says everyone has to come up with an idea for their Monopoly character and you should consider your decisions in terms of his/her personality then absolutely it's a role playing game.

This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple. You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction. I can't say, "Well, today boys I'm not traveling anywhere. I'm going to stay in my hotel on Boardwalk and play some poker with my colleagues."

Nope. You roll the dice on your turn. You must move that many spaces. Those are the rules of the game.

The same thing applies to D&D. By not allowing fiction in the game to impact the mechanical functions of the game, you're turning it into a board game. That's fine if you want to have that experience. I'm not knocking it. But, let's not be naive and call it roleplaying.

I generally, also like to have "improvement" mechanics in a game to qualify it as a True RPG. Which means getting XP and going up levels. Monopoly fails at this test, but it could certainly be a light RPG if played the right way.

XP and leveling is totally not a requirement for a game to be an RPG... And, improvement doesn't "mean" XP and leveling in all RPGs.

I think you need to broaden your horizons as far as RPGs. What games have you played?

Which is why I put quotation marks around "Realism". I use the world "Realism" to mean "Being in line with how you feel the world is supposed to function". Plausibility is just as good a word but not entirely accurate. It's certainly plausible that people have expanding hands and can grab an entire swarm in one hand(in the same way that it's plausible that people can make fireballs by waving their hands).

If they have that power and can justify it in the fiction, sure. There's also a social contract at the table that needs to be clear to all the players and what is acceptable to them. If you want to play a "anime" oriented game, and I'm interested in a more classic fantasy experience, we need to reconcile those differences and figure out what kind of theme we're going for in the campaign.

On the other hand, although it's plausible, it isn't "Realistic". People in real life don't have that ability. I find more people have objections due to "Realism" than "Plausibility".

I don't. We're playing elves and wizards (which, last I checked, don't exist). I don't give one about realism.

Nothing in any of the D&D books ever say that people DON'T have expanding hands capable of growing to a size big enough to grab a bunch of creatures at once. You only assume they don't have that ability because it doesn't work that way in real life. Therefore, the issue is one of "Realism".

When did I say this? I just described earlier in this thread that a rogue could stab a fire elemental's ember heart... Wtf is wrong with you? Are you not reading my posts? Quit replying to my posts and quoting me if you're not going to read them. I never once said anything about realism, except that I don't give a about it.

Seriously... Just stop.

The problem is, where is this "fiction" coming from?

It's coming from your imagination. The same as where mine is coming from. And, when we tell this story, when we describe our actions and our characters, we're created a shared story. It's not hard. You should try it. You might enjoy roleplaying.

I have an ability that says when I hit someone with it, they are grabbed. So, it's possible within the game "fiction" since the rules describe what you can do within the game world.

You're right. So describe it for me.

The rules ARE the fiction.

Nope. The rules are there to resolve the fiction. Fiction is the fiction. Seriously. Saying, "I roll my Intimidate skill" is NOT fiction. There's NOTHING there that is fictional. That is a real world thing you are announcing.

Simply roleplaying your version of the "fiction" isn't superior to roleplaying my version of the "fiction".

Agreed. I never said otherwise.

And both my version AND your version are simply "masturbating with our voices". In the end whatever we say matters only to us and the group of friends we are playing with.

Not if we're playing a roleplaying game. You're not masturbating with your voice if your fictional actions with your character(s) has a direct impact on the game (see my Monopoly example above).

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it is much easier to justify how to shoot the planet into the sun when you have magical powers than it is if you are a "normal guy" with a sword.

I think that depends on the magical power and the sword.

If you have to justify everything, you get a pass just by having the "fiction" say you are a magic user.

Not true.

Not to me. I want the combat to be over in less than 2 hours. If we stopped for every power someone used in order to justify things like this, we'd extend the time it took to nearly double.

This is an issue with 4E, not roleplaying.

Even if it's exciting to describe your magic missile the first or second time, but the 40th or 50th time you've used the power in the campaign, I just want to know how much damage it does.

That's fine. If you're playing "I roll to hit. I roll damage. Next?" Which is more boring? I don't want to hear that 50 times in a row. THAT to me is boring. I want to hear how you're using that Magic Missile NOW in THIS situation in THIS moment on THIS particular enemy.

Does it really take that much time to say, "Two bolts of bluish force streak out of my staff and strike at the two minions."

"Sweet. The bolts hit them with precise force and the wind is knocked out of them and they fall unconscious. Santos, you're up now."

Really? That was hard? You're telling me you want to hear. "I use my At-Will attack power Magic Missile. I got a 20. For 6 damage..." "Ok, The minions die."

Until your DM says "There is no ember that rests at it's heart. It's entirely made out of fire. It has no veins, no blood, and no vital areas. Now, describe to me how it is plausible at all that your ordinary poisoned blade can do anything at all to it?"

The DM must adhere to the rules and fictionally justify it as well. I never said the DM could give monsters powers fictionally. I said you have to justify your actions it fictionally. If the fire elemental is not immune to poison, the DM must supply a reason why, fictionally. Plain and simple.

You tell me, Majoru, why is a Fire Elemental not immune to poison?

Your powers then become the whim of your DM. After all, it isn't very plausible that weapons could harm a creature of pure fire at all. It would require an extreme justification just to be able to use your weapons on it.

Not at all. I gave a perfect example earlier in the thread. Powers are never the whim of the DM. I never said that. I said, "To do something with your character mechanically, you need to do something fictionally."

After all, there is fiction within the D&D worlds claiming that creatures like this need magic weapons to harm at all(since they did in previous editions). On the other hand, spells count as magic, so casters get a free pass again.

Again. No. no. Where in my example above did the Rogue not get to attack the elemental with poison? Please. Show it to me.

Understood. You like description.

I like fiction, i.e. roleplaying. Sure. I also like board games, but when I play D&D, I don't want to play a board game.

I like some flavor now and then myself. We currently use a lot more flavor description in our current games than I did back when I started D&D. Back then the DM would resolve initiative in clockwise order and he'd point at you and you'd say only two things: AC you hit and amount of damage dealt. Unless you wanted to move somewhere first. In which case you stated that.

How is this relevant at all? It's not.

There's certainly nothing wrong with this. Except maybe the DM stopping to ask "How do you do that?" I'd be prone to say "What do you mean 'How do I do that?', I have the ability to wave my arms and a poison missile shoots out at a target I choose. I do the same waving my arms motion I always do and I choose the elemental as my target. The same missile that always appears shoots at the enemy and then does 27 poison damage to him. It's not like anything has changed since the last time I used the ability."

Everything has changed, hopefully. You're telling me every battle you get in has the same enemies? The same circumstances? The same whatever? I find that hard to believe.

"Majoru, your wizard steps up onto the deck of the hovering airship. Lord Baltu is there and he has your sister in his arms, using her as a human shield. Now how do you use your Magic Missile?"

I think that is entirely a matter of taste. Whether someone describes how their power works or not doesn't change what the power does. It does the same amount of damage and has the same effect. The description is simply "masturbating with your voice". But that's ok. It just shouldn't become the basis of how the game works.

The description is not masturbating with your voice, because your description directly impacts the fact that you are using the power in the fiction.

As I've said, this "fiction" is heavily dependent on what is in your DM's head.

No. It's heavily dependent on what's in YOUR head.

If your DM has the image of a ghost as having no vital organs. Since it is just a spirit, it has no weak points in his mind. Sneak Attacks rely on your hitting weak points in the fiction. So, in the DMs mind(and therefore, the fiction), Sneak Attacks cannot be done to undead.

Are you kidding? You don't think spirits and undead have weak points?

No matter what justification the Rogue comes up with, the DM is going to say it isn't supported in the "fiction".

That's not true at all (unless the DM wants it to be by design of the monster - certainly a DM can design a monster that has immunities and such things). But, if the DM has a creature with no such immunities, then certainly the rogue can justify hitting the creature. I'll come up with one right now.

"I strike at the zombie's sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head."

Bam. Sneak attack. It took me about 2 seconds of game time to come up with and say that.

Are there going to be some DMs who are more open to making up fiction as you go along? Sure. But where is the line? How often does your character have to suck in combat in order to fulfill the desire to "stay within the fiction"? And if you play in multiple D&D games are you going to have to guess at where that line lies for every DM you play with?

Not at all. Certainly every group has their goals for the game. Let's hope one of those goals is to create compelling fiction while they play. We've already established that the DM is held just as responsible for adhering to creating this fiction as the players, so there is no "line".

But I agree with that statement. The point I was trying to make was if the book says a particular creature is immune to poison, the game designers felt there was a fiction reason for that(it has no blood, or whatever).

Omg... The designers relied on fiction?? HOW DARE THEY!

If it isn't immune to fire, then there is likely a fictional reason for that as well(fire burns it the same as it does everyone else).

Agreed.

No justification is going to convince the DM that you should be able to poison the creature that specifically says it is immune to poison.

Why are you trying to argue with me about things I never said and things I agree with? Let's drop these antics. You're filling up your post with garbage that is not relevant to the topic and that we both agree on, yet you're phrasing it like we disagree and are arguing this matter. Just stop. Please.

However, why does using fire on the creature require a justification more than "I use fire on it"? I already used a dice to determine if I was capable of using the power and hitting the enemy. Do I need to answer a pop quiz in addition?

No. We just established that if a creature is immune to fire, it is immune to fire. Period. The DM should explain this in the fiction, just like you should.

I play my games in a very cinematic manner as well.

How is that possible if you don't describe anything? Doesn't make any sense to me.

The rogue gets to strike the ember heart of a flame elemental. That's why he gets his Sneak Attack damage. We just save time by not describing it every time.

Wrong. You never knew about the ember heart if you didn't describe it. Hell, I never imagined a fire elemental with an ember heart until this very thread where the fiction demanded we describe it. So, don't tell me that we'd have all imagined that somehow if we never described it.

And we keep the balance between the classes by not requiring a justification for each one of their powers. If the game lets them use their powers, then they can use their powers.

Sure. So long as they justify it in the fiction. Same as everyone being allowed to use "Bluff" so long as they bluff someone in the fiction.

See above. It's much easier to say "It's magic, of course I can do it" and convince most DMs than it is to say "My poison dagger can poison that ghost...because I....umm...hit it in it's head..and...I...twist the blade?"

Sure. If that's how you want to describe it. I'd probably help you out if you were struggling and tell you about the shimmering parts of the ghost that seem to come in and out of the material world, beckoning to be brought forth from its ethereal state. When you strike at the ghost, you can "sneak attack" it by striking these parts of it. ...

Or something. Whatever. Twisting your blade is fine too.

If you can justify it easier with some classes and whether you can use your powers requires justification then certain classes become more powerful than others.

Not at all. Justify how you use fireball underwater? The fighter doesn't have this problem.

It's a matter of "What IS the fiction?" Where does the standard of "the fiction" come from? If I'm playing a grappler fighter where all of my powers require a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand, and all grab my enemy(therefore no shield) and I say "I suck up all the insects into my glove by spinning my arm really fast. Faster than anyone has ever moved before." Does that fit the fiction? Or is that too magical to fit what a fighter can do?

Didn't we already cover this? I think so. Suit the fiction to YOUR group's preference. It's not the control of the DM the style of fiction your group wants to tell. It's your group's control.

Why are we playing the game for the explanation? I'm certainly not playing the game to determine how the metaphysical reality of the D&D world works whenever I cast my magic missile. I'm concerned with whether or not it hits my enemy and whether the enemy dies, so I can save my friend from being eaten and continue on my quest to save the princess from the evil archmage, become rich and famous, and then go to the tavern for ales and wenches.

Yup. Me too.

Whether the magic missile hits the enemies shoulder or chest doesn't so much matter to me.

Hopefully it does in the situation I presented earlier. If the enemy is holding your sister at his chest, hopefully you'd want to hit him in the shoulder.

It's an interesting fact to know. But not required by any stretch of the imagination. And if described every single time might cause it to take months instead of weeks(in real time) for me to save that princess.

Not really. Takes me about two seconds to describe my blue bolts of force striking at Lord Baltu's shoulder.

Because part of the game is seeing IF you succeed. You might die. One of your allies might die. The NPC you've been protecting might get kidnapped in the battle.

Ok. Sure. How does this go against anything I said?

It's also fun to fight things because you enjoy combat mechanics. I love the idea that my characters has the ability to shoot fireballs out of his hands. I like seeing if I can tactically outsmart the monsters and use my powers as effectively as possible to reduce the damage me and my allies take while maximizing the damage my enemies take.

Sweet. Glad to know. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

I derive the same fun out of playing through a battle as I do playing a game of Warhammer 40k or playing a game of Starcraft on my PC. With the added benefit that I get to spend time with more friends this way and the battle has a context behind it.

There is no context if there's no fiction. Unless your fiction is simply window dressing...

"This is the scenario guys... You're all on an airship because Lord Baltu has kidnapped Majoru's sister. Fight!"

We could play a boardgame with that exact premise. What makes it roleplaying is that our fight has fictional weight.

I get to play a character who has a personal stake in the fight. I get to think of it from his point of view. Which fulfills some of my desire to be someone else for a while.

Sure. Let's describe that. When you use your Magic Missile against Lord Baltu, do you SAY anything to him first? What about your sister? Is she crying? Are you scared for her?

To me, the fun parts of combat are being smart enough to use my immobilizing power on the big damage melee creatures on the back so they are effectively out of the battle while we take care of the ranged enemies before finishing off the melee enemies second. I like the idea that we used teamwork in order to defeat a challenge put before us.

Yeah. What does this have to do with fiction? You can still do this with fiction. Tactics and powers and skills, these things are all methods for resolving the fiction.

Which is part of the reason having a DM tell me "Sorry, your immobilizing power is shooting arrows at the enemies and pinning them to the ground. You can't pin Oozes to the ground, they flow around it" is so annoying. It takes my good plan and turns it around on a whim because my powers don't fit the sensibilities of the DM.

Like I've said about 100 times in this thread. The DM is just as responsible. If you're fighting an ooze that is not immune to immobilize, I would have described that...

"You strike the ooze with your arrows and while they go straight through it, tearing away globs of it's composition, your arrows strike into the gorund creating a barrier that it struggles to move past."

Imagination doesn't get you out of every bind. At least it shouldn't. I find it equally bad when a player can get away with murder simply by anticipating the DMs thoughts or when the DM restricts the players simply because they weren't creative enough.

You still need to roll Bluff checks to succeed at bluffing.

For instance, it's annoying when 3 players use their biggest daily powers against an enemy, each doing around 30-40 damage a piece against a big, nasty creature, realizing this is going to be hard. Then one PC suddenly has an idea. The roof of the cave was described as being unstable. He shoots a basic ranged arrow at the roof. The DM says "Excellent, you are being creative, the roof collapses and immediate does the other 500 points of damage needed to kill the monster."

There are rules that cover this on page 42 of the DMG. Check 'em out. 500 points of damage would have to be a pretty high level custom maneuver.

What really happened is that the DM planted an idea by giving a hint of what he wanted the players to do. Then rewarded them for coming up with the idea that he gave them. As soon as that happened, they ceased playing D&D and began playing the "Guess what the DM was thinking" game. Since, guessing what the DM is thinking lets you do 500 points of damage while everyone else has to roll to hit in order to do 30 damage.

So, if I put terrain powers on the battlefield as a DM, that's a BAD thing? Wtf... Naw. Sounds like you're making a poor example. There are clearly defined rules for terrain powers and custom stunts (page 42 of the DMG). You're making an exaggerated example to try to prove your point. It's not working.

Check out this website: Sly Flourish

Has tons of nice terrain power examples and suggestions for their rules.

The reverse can be true as well. If you come up with an explanation your DM likes, you get to use your powers. This requires knowing your DM well enough to know what he likes. The players who are better at reading the DM get to be more powerful in game.

Nah. That's not what I'm saying at all. Some DMs (like suggested above) might give small bonuses (the DMG suggests this - +2 bonus for especially creative methods for doing things - or another example is page 42 of the DMG where they suggest a lower DC for the rogue doing his stunt because you want to encourage "creativity"), but I've never suggested disallowing something because you DID something and it wasn't "good enough". I am saying, you have to DO something.

It ceases to be a game about playing a character who has cool powers in a fantasy universe and instead becomes a game about being yourself and attempting to use your power of imagination in order to wow your DM.

Not at all. I think we've exemplified that your examples are gross exaggerations and the DMG and rules clearly support the truth.

 

[P1NBACK]

BTW is "I threaten to rip his arms off if he doesn't do what I want" enough to replace "I use my Intimidate skill." in your opinion? If not, then you are saying "Your RP wasn't good enough, you can't do what you want." = assessing.

Yeah. That's perfect. Good job. Roll to see if it works.

Why do people assume the fiction is subject to "good enough" because I'm asking you to describe something in the fiction?

That makes no sense to me.

It sounds like many of you have severe negative associations with describing things. That's something that I find dysfunctional in a roleplaying game thread.

You don't have to "actually" be Intimidating to use the skill. I have absolutely no clue where this idea came from. I never once alluded to anything of the sort. Do you need to describe how your character is intimidating? Sure. And, I don't think that's out of line in a roleplaying game whatsoever. It happens every time we play at my table.

 

[Nichwee]

You don't have to "actually" be Intimidating to use the skill. I have absolutely no clue where this idea came from. I never once alluded to anything of the sort. Do you need to describe how your character is intimidating? Sure. And, I don't think that's out of line in a roleplaying game whatsoever. It happens every time we play at my table.

This draws a fine line tbh between being just "I ues my .... skilll" by any other name, and actually being a description. With an Intimidate roll it is no biggie - pick the first scary thing you can think of and say you threaten that. With Diplomacy it gets harder, as Diplomacy varies from culture to culture and by mood of those involved.
Complement a Klingon on his smooth skin and he will try to kill you (smooth skin is an insult to Klingons), so you suddenly find that some skills are easy to describe in basic form "I threaten him with ..." = Intimidate, "I move behind him slowly and quietly ..." = Stealth, but can get complex for others "I comment his ...." = wrong choice of words for a Diplomacy check.

So if you can just say "I complement him and discuss how he has been for 5 minutes and then ask him what I want to know" you may as well have just said "I use my Diplomacy skill" and saved the extra 20 odd words. If you actually have to come up with an idea what you should say to complement the guy and get on his good side it just became your OOC diplomacy that matters not your character's.

Roleplay can exist much more in the choice to use a given skill or power imo than in how you say you are using it.
Example:
Players want info from a barman.
Party Bard asks, barman lies, Bard thinks he is hiding something.
Bard heads back to his friends, and mentioned his concerns, and that he thinks he may be able to talk the guy round given some time.
Party Barbarian gets up half way through the planning and says "DM, I try to intimidate the barman to tell me what we want to know".
Barbarian PC rolls mediocare, and fails.
Barman gets shirty and calls for a local guard to throw the Barbarian and his friends out.
Bard Player laments the lost chance to smooze the barman with his insanely high Diplomacy skill.
Barbariab Player shrugs, and says "Sorry, I know it would have been better to let you do a Diplomacy roll, but my character gets annoyed when he thinks people are keeping things from him and tends to react agressively when it happens."
Bard Player shrugs and says "oh well, can't fault you for Rping your character properly".
End Example.
In this both the Bard and Barbarian were RPing well, it doesn't matter that the Barbarian Player just said "I use Intimidate on the barman". The attempt was good roleplay considering the player knew the odds were better leaving it to the Bard, but the character wouldn't be that patient.
Roleplay is in the decisions (playing the role), not how they are acted at the table or how the are resolved by the rules. Bonuses for good RP and dramatic explainations can be good - but should be a secret thing behind the DM Screen imo, or you get those who are good storytellers abusing the fact to their advantage (I knew a player who would try to never "lie" but would always "persuade the target to believe them" as they had merit bonuses to persuading - it was in Mage:Ascension iirc, which allows dice pools to gain numerous bonuses and penalties for all sorts of things)

 

[P1NBACK]

This draws a fine line tbh between being just "I ues my .... skilll" by any other name, and actually being a description. With an Intimidate roll it is no biggie - pick the first scary thing you can think of and say you threaten that. With Diplomacy it gets harder, as Diplomacy varies from culture to culture and by mood of those involved.
Complement a Klingon on his smooth skin and he will try to kill you (smooth skin is an insult to Klingons), so you suddenly find that some skills are easy to describe in basic form "I threaten him with ..." = Intimidate, "I move behind him slowly and quietly ..." = Stealth, but can get complex for others "I comment his ...." = wrong choice of words for a Diplomacy check.

I don't think there's a fine line. The fiction can be simple or complex. I'm not dictating either way. You can say, "I get in his face and say, 'Tell me where the girl is!'" or, you can elaborate much more... That's not the point. The point is: rolling my Intimidate skill doesn't = my character intimidating someone. Rolling Intimidate is a player action that occurs to resolve a character action. If there is no character action, there shouldn't be any rolling.

As for Diplomacy, I would suggest that a character trained in Diplomacy knows that a Klingon doesn't like to be complemented on their "smooth skin". As a DM, it's completely fine to say, "Actually, you'd know that to Klingons saying they have smooth skin is more of an insult and maybe an Intimidate."

Again, this is also goes with setting/character expectations and what we're deciding on at the table.

So if you can just say "I complement him and discuss how he has been for 5 minutes and then ask him what I want to know" you may as well have just said "I use my Diplomacy skill" and saved the extra 20 odd words. If you actually have to come up with an idea what you should say to complement the guy and get on his good side it just became your OOC diplomacy that matters not your character's.

Not at all. Are we skipping past this whole conversation? Is it really that much of a brush off? If so, why are we rolling in the first place. Is that really Diplomacy or is it Bluff?

If you did want to compliment the guy, I'd ask you, "Sure. What do you say to him?" Otherwise, why even have this encounter/skill check/challenge.

Honestly, I think this is why for some people Skill Challenges "fall flat". Because they're going around in a circle... "I use Diplomacy - sweet I succeed." DM, "Good job. You convince him. Sam, what do you want to do?" "Oh, I use Acrobatics." DM, "Oh, right on. Gimme a roll!"

And so on.

Of course it's not interesting. There's no fiction backing it up.

Roleplay can exist much more in the choice to use a given skill or power imo than in how you say you are using it.
Example:
Players want info from a barman.
Party Bard asks, barman lies, Bard thinks he is hiding something.
Bard heads back to his friends, and mentioned his concerns, and that he thinks he may be able to talk the guy round given some time.
Party Barbarian gets up half way through the planning and says "DM, I try to intimidate the barman to tell me what we want to know".
Barbarian PC rolls mediocare, and fails.
Barman gets shirty and calls for a local guard to throw the Barbarian and his friends out.
Bard Player laments the lost chance to smooze the barman with his insanely high Diplomacy skill.
Barbariab Player shrugs, and says "Sorry, I know it would have been better to let you do a Diplomacy roll, but my character gets annoyed when he thinks people are keeping things from him and tends to react agressively when it happens."
Bard Player shrugs and says "oh well, can't fault you for Rping your character properly".
End Example.

Sounds like a good 30 second recap of an actual play that may have taken 30 minutes. Hopefully you're describing things during this time.

I really hope you're not suggesting the player playing the Bard literally said, "I want info from the barman. I ask." With the DM replying, "He lies."

... I sincerely hope not.

In this both the Bard and Barbarian were RPing well, it doesn't matter that the Barbarian Player just said "I use Intimidate on the barman". The attempt was good roleplay considering the player knew the odds were better leaving it to the Bard, but the character wouldn't be that patient.

Your example above doesn't include much roleplay. It includes as summary of what might have been roleplay.

Roleplay is in the decisions (playing the role), not how they are acted at the table or how the are resolved by the rules.

I believe it encompasses all of those things. The decision you make, how it affects the fiction, how the rules resolution makes an impact and how that is portrayed at the table to all the other players. It's all an element of roleplaying.

Bonuses for good RP and dramatic explainations can be good - but should be a secret thing behind the DM Screen imo, or you get those who are good storytellers abusing the fact to their advantage (I knew a player who would try to never "lie" but would always "persuade the target to believe them" as they had merit bonuses to persuading - it was in Mage:Ascension iirc, which allows dice pools to gain numerous bonuses and penalties for all sorts of things)

Just for the record, I don't give bonuses to "good roleplayers". I think that's a poor method and doesn't encourage roleplaying. However, it was suggested earlier and I think it's a step in the right direction.

A better suggestion is to simply ask the player... "Hey cool, how does your character do that?"

And it works.

 

[Nichwee]

I don't think there's a fine line. The fiction can be simple or complex. I'm not dictating either way. You can say, "I get in his face and say, 'Tell me where the girl is!'" or, you can elaborate much more... That's not the point. The point is: rolling my Intimidate skill doesn't = my character intimidating someone. Rolling Intimidate is a player action that occurs to resolve a character action. If there is no character action, there shouldn't be any rolling.

So you are just asking for a different way of saying "I use .... skill" or you are assessing the RP and saying "Not good enough, you don't get a roll".
Basically you have
"I threaten him" = "I use Intimidate", "I massage his ego" = "I use Diplomacy" etc. Or you are asking someone who may not like to have to think up entire conversation to do so just so he/she can do a roll. You don't ask the players to cook so they can "roll to find food" do you. You just let them say "We need food, I'll go hunting. I got a .... on my Nature roll" - or I would hope so, or you just went from playing D&D to playing the Sims Tabletop, as D&D isn't about the minute moments, it is about the grand scheme of things being heroic - Bards inspire armies, Fighters defend nations they do so as a string of miniscule events but most can be glossed over and if you don't gloss them you have "buying a bun for as little as I can" becomes a 20 minute event the has the players just going "Sod it, I'll eat a trail ration instead".

As for Diplomacy, I would suggest that a character trained in Diplomacy knows that a Klingon doesn't like to be complemented on their "smooth skin". As a DM, it's completely fine to say, "Actually, you'd know that to Klingons saying they have smooth skin is more of an insult and maybe an Intimidate."

Again, this is also goes with setting/character expectations and what we're deciding on at the table.

If you will correct a player using the skill wrong, why not just let them say "I use Diplomacy" and describe what the conversation was like dependent on the success or failure of the roll - don't need to tell them if it succeeded or failed, just how the situation now stands?

Not at all. Are we skipping past this whole conversation? Is it really that much of a brush off? If so, why are we rolling in the first place. Is that really Diplomacy or is it Bluff?

If you did want to compliment the guy, I'd ask you, "Sure. What do you say to him?" Otherwise, why even have this encounter/skill check/challenge.

I have little to no social skills (as evidenced by my very formal attempts on these boards I expect) so I don't want, or feel I need, to know and state how a highly charismatic character I am playing chooses to be diplomatic - I just know that is what he does.

Honestly, I think this is why for some people Skill Challenges "fall flat". Because they're going around in a circle... "I use Diplomacy - sweet I succeed." DM, "Good job. You convince him. Sam, what do you want to do?" "Oh, I use Acrobatics." DM, "Oh, right on. Gimme a roll!"

And so on.

Of course it's not interesting. There's no fiction backing it up.

I am all for good narrative description, and from the DM it is very important, but as the players are limited in what happens by the rules I feel the description from the players should be "What I want to achieve" and the DM should fill in the "How it actually played out considering the rolls". This doesn't mean a player shouldn't put in some extra bells and whistle in the description, but they shouldn't HAVE to if they are not that kind of player.

Sounds like a good 30 second recap of an actual play that may have taken 30 minutes. Hopefully you're describing things during this time.

I really hope you're not suggesting the player playing the Bard literally said, "I want info from the barman. I ask." With the DM replying, "He lies."

... I sincerely hope not.

Your example above doesn't include much roleplay. It includes as summary of what might have been roleplay.

The example I gave invovled roleplay, it didn't involve indepth descriptions - not the same thing.

I believe it encompasses all of those things. The decision you make, how it affects the fiction, how the rules resolution makes an impact and how that is portrayed at the table to all the other players. It's all an element of roleplaying.

As roleplaying encompasses all the things why is not simply "playing the role" good enough - why do you ask all your players to be storytellers as well?

Just for the record, I don't give bonuses to "good roleplayers". I think that's a poor method and doesn't encourage roleplaying. However, it was suggested earlier and I think it's a step in the right direction.

A better suggestion is to simply ask the player... "Hey cool, how does your character do that?"

And it works.

But what if the player says "By using my character knowledge of the ..... skill to do it right."?
Eg.
DM : "How does your player want to pick the lock?"
Player: "By picking them. He has lockpicks and a lifetime's worth of experince at Theivery, does he need anything else?".

DM: "How does he try to analyse the conjuration?"
Player: "Look at it, think about it a bit, roll my Arcana check to see if it rings any bells with his studies."

Personally, this is how I think it should play out at a table:
DM: "How are you going to get the information"
Player: "Complement him a bit, chat casually for a while, and then ask nicely. My Diplomacy roll is ..."
DM: "He still isn't forthcoming but you think he is warming up to you."
Player: "I roll Sense Motive to see if I think he might be more open if I offer a bribe or if he would be insulted or suspicous if I tried it. I got ...."
DM: "You think a bribe would probably help, but you also sense he is worried people may realise he told you"
Player: "Offer him a bribe and assure him I wouldn't let anyone find out he was the one who told. I got a ... on my Diplomacy score"
DM: "That does it. He looks about nervously for a few seconds to make sure no one else can hear and he tells you ...."
This amounts to about 2minutes of gameplay and invovles some interaction and dynamic thinking and reactions, but at no point is the player required to justify how any roll worked or provide specifics beyond "My current goal is ..".



And to the OP issue. If the rules let you try to grab a swarm, then you should be allowed to try. If you succeed you or the DM can give a "hand-wavey" explaination of how you managed it (quite possibly a literal "I wave my hand fast and the insects are caught in the vortex") and if you fail you or the DM state you tried to grab it in the normal manner and swatted straight through the swarm. Your character realises that he is going to have to try a different tactic if he wants to restrain a swarm (so you can retry "grabbing" and maybe succeed next time).

 

[P1NBACK]

So you are just asking for a different way of saying "I use .... skill" or you are assessing the RP and saying "Not good enough, you don't get a roll".

No. "I threaten him..." is not an answer to "How do you do that?" Ok, you threaten him. We've established that this is what your intentions are. How do you threaten him?

Or you are asking someone who may not like to have to think up entire conversation to do so just so he/she can do a roll.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread because I've listed several ignored examples that are in no way shape or form an "entire conversation".

You don't ask the players to cook so they can "roll to find food" do you. You just let them say "We need food, I'll go hunting. I got a .... on my Nature roll".

"I go hunting..." is a description. That's acceptable. Unacceptable: "I use my Nature skill..."

or I would hope so, or you just went from playing D&D to playing the Sims Tabletop, as D&D isn't about the minute moments, it is about the grand scheme of things being heroic - Bards inspire armies, Fighters defend nations they do so as a string of miniscule events but most can be glossed over and if you don't gloss them you have "buying a bun for as little as I can" becomes a 20 minute event the has the players just going "Sod it, I'll eat a trail ration instead".

I JUST said that you should gloss over (and that means, not rolling) those things that aren't important to the narrative. If "finding food" is not important, why even roll for it? "Sweet. You have food. Now what?"

If you will correct a player using the skill wrong, why not just let them say "I use Diplomacy" and describe what the conversation was like dependent on the success or failure of the roll - don't need to tell them if it succeeded or failed, just how the situation now stands?

And this is the crux of it. Because whether you are using Intimidate or Diplomacy is important in the fiction. If you're ignoring those defined, unique skills, why have them as skills at all? Why not just have my "talking" skill (which some games do...)?

I have little to no social skills (as evidenced by my very formal attempts on these boards I expect) so I don't want, or feel I need, to know and state how a highly charismatic character I am playing chooses to be diplomatic - I just know that is what he does.

It doesn't take any social skills to describe how your character is diplomatic.

"I want to use Diplomacy on this girl to get her to open up to me about her father's mistress."

"Sure. How do you do that?"

"Well, my character approaches her and in his most suave voice woos her with a poem dedicated to her beauty."

"Oh that's good. Roll to see if you woo her."

Player rolls Diplomacy check.

I am all for good narrative description, and from the DM it is very important, but as the players are limited in what happens by the rules I feel the description from the players should be "What I want to achieve" and the DM should fill in the "How it actually played out considering the rolls". This doesn't mean a player shouldn't put in some extra bells and whistle in the description, but they shouldn't HAVE to if they are not that kind of player.

If they want their character to accomplish something in the fiction, shouldn't their character take fictional action? "I roll Intimidate" is not a fictional action.

The example I gave invovled roleplay, it didn't involve indepth descriptions - not the same thing.

Once again, you don't need "in-depth" descriptions for it to be fiction. Where did you get this?

I'll say it again, for those of you who aren't getting it:

In order for your character to do something in the fiction, you'll need to describe how they're doing it. Plain and simple.

As roleplaying encompasses all the things why is not simply "playing the role" good enough - why do you ask all your players to be storytellers as well?

Here we go with this "good enough" thing. For real? Have I not addressed this enough?

But what if the player says "By using my character knowledge of the ..... skill to do it right."?
Eg.
DM : "How does your player want to pick the lock?"
Player: "By picking them. He has lockpicks and a lifetime's worth of experince at Theivery, does he need anything else?".

First of all, there's no "Pick the Lock" skill. There's a thievery skill. "I want to use my thieves tools to pick the lock" is a fictional description that invokes "Roll Thievery" mechanic.

The player has ALREADY used fiction to invoke the mechanic by saying. "I use my thieves tools to pick the lock."

DM: "How does he try to analyse the conjuration?"
Player: "Look at it, think about it a bit, roll my Arcana check to see if it rings any bells with his studies."

Again, "I analyze the conjuration" is a fictional description of "Roll Arcana".

I wouldn't let the character say, "I want to make an Arcana check" without supplying the "By analyzing the conjuration". That's the fictional element.

Personally, this is how I think it should play out at a table:
DM: "How are you going to get the information"
Player: "Complement him a bit, chat casually for a while, and then ask nicely. My Diplomacy roll is ..."
DM: "He still isn't forthcoming but you think he is warming up to you."
Player: "I roll Sense Motive to see if I think he might be more open if I offer a bribe or if he would be insulted or suspicous if I tried it. I got ...."
DM: "You think a bribe would probably help, but you also sense he is worried people may realise he told you"
Player: "Offer him a bribe and assure him I wouldn't let anyone find out he was the one who told. I got a ... on my Diplomacy score"
DM: "That does it. He looks about nervously for a few seconds to make sure no one else can hear and he tells you ...."
This amounts to about 2minutes of gameplay and invovles some interaction and dynamic thinking and reactions, but at no point is the player required to justify how any roll worked or provide specifics beyond "My current goal is ..".

Complementing him = Fiction
Roll Diplomacy = Mechanic

Seeing if he is susceptible to a bribe = Fiction
Roll Insight = Mechanic

Offer a bribe = Fiction
Roll Diplomacy = Mechanic

Use my shield to pin down the swarm = Fiction
Make Grab Check = Mechanic

How are you not seeing this? You're arguing against me when you're saying exactly what I am saying... I'm confused by this.

And to the OP issue. If the rules let you try to grab a swarm, then you should be allowed to try. If you succeed you or the DM can give a "hand-wavey" explaination of how you managed it (quite possibly a literal "I wave my hand fast and the insects are caught in the vortex") and if you fail you or the DM state you tried to grab it in the normal manner and swatted straight through the swarm. Your character realises that he is going to have to try a different tactic if he wants to restrain a swarm (so you can retry "grabbing" and maybe succeed next time).

I literally said in my original post that started all this, "If you can fictionally justify "grabbing" or "restraining" something, then do it. Otherwise, no."

Fiction is not "hand-wavey". It's very important to the game. Otherwise, you might as well be playing a board game (like people apparently do when they enter combat in 4E) using "Condition Red" and "Condition Blue"... Except, "Condition Blue" requires you to be lying down... (weird... you mean me? No, silly... Your character. IN THE FICTION).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

And, the next time "Mike" says he wants to Bluff the vizier, simply ask him, "Awesome. How is your character doing that?" I bet you see results.

Try giving out a +1 or +2 bonus depending on how good the description is to any skill checks made during a skill challenge. You'd be surprised what your power gamers can come up with.

Been there, done that. You just don't know Mike.
He really enjoys the mechanical aspect of the game, the challenge of building characters, and the stacking of various elements. He does not enjoy being descriptive and doesn't think a piddly +1 or +2 is worth the effort when his character only needs a 3 or better in the first place.
He has fun playing this way. He enjoys it.

Should I force him to play in a style that is less fun for him when the impact of his style on the rest of the group is neglible?
I don't think so.

P1nback, my personal experience with DMs that require description has had some poor examples in which the game turned into a 'guess the strategy to win', with the DM being inconsistant with the effects of the PC powers based on descriptions. As such, I prefer a system like 4e that ensures the player that the power will accomplish what the player thought it would, regardless of the DM.
As both player and DM, that makes it more important to flavor those mechanics in an entertaining and descriptive fashion in order for some gamers to enjoy it... but not all gamers are the same.

As you said you are no longer posting here, speaking for myself at least.. this would be a good place to say we agree to disagree in some aspects of this.
Thanks for the dialog, see you in the next thread!

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple.

That is a very narrow - and, oddly, mechanical - definition of an RPG. Surely, an RPG is a game in which you assume a role. Much broader.

You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction.

Well, you could let your assumed role influence your decision as to which property to buy "My, uh, shoe, really likes the beach, and his mother was run over by a train, so he'll buy the Boardwalk, but never a railroad...."


Anyway, if you assume the role of an Heroic uh, wretstler, of herculaen proportions (Brawling Fighter), you're going to want to grab a lot of stuff. The rules say what you can and can't grab and what grabbing does. Swarms are in the former set, so you can grab them. How you grab them, 'fictionally,' is up to you. Whether you choose to grab them is also up to you, so if you really can't wrap your head around it, you can choose not to use a power that grabs when you attack a swarm. On the other extreme, you might want to 'fictionally' say "I grab the orc by the throat and crush his windpipe," but if the Orc isn't a minion, that's not going to happen.