Description: Roll First, Talk Later?

[Hypersmurf]

Now, Bluff pretty much IS a "do they believe this one" type of thing, but its success is predicated on what you say first. The opponent gets a bonus on their roll based on how far out your lie is. Obviously, you HAVE to define that first.

Why?

The modifier is to the Sense Motive roll, not to the Bluff roll. The player doesn't know the opponent's Sense Motive result anyway, so it shouldn't change their delivery at all. Their delivery should reflect the Bluff roll, not the Sense Motive roll.

A Bluff roll of 15 should result in the same performance from the PC whether the opponent's Sense Motive roll is 5, 15, or 25.

-Hyp.

 

[DonTadow]

Why?

Quite often, players will describe what they're doing in combat rather than just "I attack", but despite how skilled in martial arts the player is, I don't give the character bonuses and certainly don't have their success be based on the player's knowledge of physical combat. Regardless of how good a Boy Scout a player might have been, I don't base his success at Survival or Use Rope on whether the player knows what root to eat or knot to tie.

Why then should a character's success in interaction-based skills be determined by the player's relative abilities in that area?

If you want to play that way, I would suggest removing Charisma-based skills entirely from your game, and just be honest with the players that it's mostly based on their own actions and abilities, with perhaps minor modifiers based on the character's stats.

That's certainly a valid way to modify D&D, but don't pretend you're playing the game the way it was designed.

-- Brian.

So what's the point in role playing? Is it just a really complicated board game? The charisma based skills are still important but they shouldn't take away from the meaning of the game. Dungeons and Dragon Role playing game. I think it was better stated in the last post, the bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and other charimsa based skills are there to tell you what hte result of your role playing ways, not to replace it. The person role plays out, the dm determines if the player is intiidmidating, lying or trying to convince and then gives the roll. I couldnt even imagine it any other way.

 

[DamionW]

Why?

Quite often, players will describe what they're doing in combat rather than just "I attack", but despite how skilled in martial arts the player is, I don't give the character bonuses and certainly don't have their success be based on the player's knowledge of physical combat. Regardless of how good a Boy Scout a player might have been, I don't base his success at Survival or Use Rope on whether the player knows what root to eat or knot to tie.

Why then should a character's success in interaction-based skills be determined by the player's relative abilities in that area?

If you want to play that way, I would suggest removing Charisma-based skills entirely from your game, and just be honest with the players that it's mostly based on their own actions and abilities, with perhaps minor modifiers based on the character's stats.

That's certainly a valid way to modify D&D, but don't pretend you're playing the game the way it was designed.

-- Brian.

That's my point exactly. I'm glad others see the validity in it. In combat, saying "I try and hurt the bad guy" is not specific enough to determine whether the mechanics define the rate of failure to success in all instances. Saying "I swing my long sword at this orc in the adjacent space," does define the standards to be applied and the combat proceeds. An attack roll is made and all relevant modifiers from the character's sheet that apply to swinging a long sword at an orc are put into effect with that roll and the DM arbitrates success or failure. No DM predicates that success or failure on the real player physically picking up a longsword and swinging it, i.e. mimicing the in-game action in a meta-game setting to adjuticate success or failure.

Now, I agree saying "I bluff the guard," is poor playing, but more importantly, it doesn't provide sufficient criteria to adjuticate success or failure of that action. On the other hand, saying "I try and convince the guard I'm the son of Count Monte Cristo and I'm late for an appointment, let me pass," does establish a specific enough course of action to decide my bluff's chances of working or not. My big gripe is with people of DonTadow's mindset that proper role-playing of social skills requires me to tell the story in character at the table that the guard would hear in game, and the believability of my intonation, the steadiness of my voice, and the eloquence I speak with should determine the outcome of the action. You are now applying a standard for some parts of the game where success is based on the player's (not character's) capacity to mimic an in-game action in meta-game space. That's not fair to arbitrarily decide simply because you enjoy acting in character.

I'm not a roll-player. I like having a strong character concepts and good plotlines. How many munchkin players would create rogue/wizard characters with most of their ranks in diplomacy and bluff and specialize in enchantment barring evocation. I made a character based on the idea that he is one of the best in the campaign world at manipulating people with words. I gave up fireballs and proficient sneak attacks to do that. If I as Mr. John Doe in the real world can't pull off a good lie to tell you acting as the guard at the table, why should my character concept get deflated for it? He has all of those bonuses because I invested character development to make it that way. To punish me for my acting skills is to say "stock up on combat abilities, because those are the only ones that work as advertized. Social concept characters are going to be what I think they should be, so start taking acting lessons."

Now, since the die roll determines the result, there could be a tendency in some players to not get into the spirit of things. "Why should I bother trying to play out this scene? The number's the same either way." But these are the same players I would expect to participate in a combat to the tune of "I hit... AC 21 for... 7 points of damage. Can I Cleave? Okay, AC... 16 for... 8 points of damage." In other words... people I'm not that excited to play with.

I want a player who'll reach for that 22 and throw himself into the conversation, even though the number is already on the table... and I want a player who will groan, put on a brave face, and roleplay out the natural 1 in all its horrific glory.

-Hyp.

And Hypersmurf, if I wanted my character to be able to say what I can say, to have to "throw myself" at the actions my characters try and undertake, I'd be in a costume somewhere playing LARP, taking swordfighting lessons. Keep in mind there are Role- (not roll-) players out there that just happen not to be good actors, and we want equity in DMing with the munchkin combat fiends.

 

[DamionW]

So what's the point in role playing? Is it just a really complicated board game? The charisma based skills are still important but they shouldn't take away from the meaning of the game. Dungeons and Dragon Role playing game. I think it was better stated in the last post, the bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and other charimsa based skills are there to tell you what hte result of your role playing ways, not to replace it. The person role plays out, the dm determines if the player is intiidmidating, lying or trying to convince and then gives the roll. I couldnt even imagine it any other way.

My counter-argument is what's the point of table-top gaming if it is just LARP for people that want to sit down and not dress-up? When you play DnD, you have the dice there to arbitrate success and failure. I'm pretty sure you probably prefer a low combat game, but when you do have fights in the game, you use the dice mechanics to arbitrate it, even if you don't like that, correct? You do this because you're unable to physically kill things at the table to determine in game battles. So what happens to those that want fairness for their social interactions, but can't verbally portray them the way they want their character to? Are they SOL in your game? If so I fail to see the equity and enjoyment for them in playing with you.

 

[DonTadow]

My counter-argument is what's the point of table-top gaming if it is just LARP for people that want to sit down and not dress-up? When you play DnD, you have the dice there to arbitrate success and failure. I'm pretty sure you probably prefer a low combat game, but when you do have fights in the game, you use the dice mechanics to arbitrate it, even if you don't like that, correct? You do this because you're unable to physically kill things at the table to determine in game battles. So what happens to those that want fairness for their social interactions, but can't verbally portray them the way they want their character to? Are they SOL in your game? If so I fail to see the equity and enjoyment for them in playing with you.

In that case why not break out the wizards and warriors or heroquest games... or for that matter talisman if you don't wnat to role play. I'm not saying judge the person on the basis of hte roleplaying but at least force the players to role play. I give bonus's if the person gives an exceptionla lie during a bluff, not how they act out the bluff. I have acampaign full of all types of players, some great rpgers and some lean towards tacticians. Everyone understands though that it is a role playing game, you got to roleplay. Ify ou're bluffing you got to have a lie (deostn even have to be good) but you got to try.

Even in my combat, I require some discription of the attack else you're getting into i roll 18 i hit him. i roll 12 i hit him. I cast fireball...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The point of the game is to use your imagination and be creative, not roll dice all day.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*
I'm not saying judge the person on the basis of hte roleplaying but at least force the players to role play.
*snip*.

If you have to FORCE your players to role play, why are you playing with them? A role player will role play without being forced. He or she will step up to the plate regardless of whether or not you are holding the proverbial gun to their head. That you feel that a DM has to force his players to role play says a lot more about your DMing style than anything.

On a side note, do you also penalize players for role playing beyond the ability of their character? Do I get minuses to my checks if I give a fantastic performance that my 9 int 8 cha barbarian couldn't possibly do?

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

So what's the point in role playing? Is it just a really complicated board game? The charisma based skills are still important but they shouldn't take away from the meaning of the game. Dungeons and Dragon Role playing game. I think it was better stated in the last post, the bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and other charisma based skills are there to tell you what the result of your role playing ways, not to replace it. The person role plays out, the dm determines if the player is intimidating, lying or trying to convince and then gives the roll. I couldn't even imagine it any other way.

I think it is just as accurate to describe portraying your roll as role playing. Your character's skill set is not your own, as such, you use the dice as the backbone of your role playing. The dice provide the direction, you provide the script.

 

[Hussar]

I think it is just as accurate to describe portraying your roll as role playing. Your character's skill set is not your own, as such, you use the dice as the backbone of your role playing. The dice provide the direction, you provide the script.

Yoink, that one's going into the sig. That's so true.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Yoink, that one's going into the sig. That's so true.

*beams*

 

[DragonLancer]

As far as I am concerned roleplaying takes place between dice rolls and encounters. Roleplaying is interacting with other PC's and NPC's where rolls aren't nessecary. You don't need to roll diplomacy or bluff nessecarily to talk to tavern patrons or beggers in the street, you can just play your character.

When it comes down to bluffing your way past a guard or local official how you roleplay that isn't always relevant to the roll. I'm very much for roleplay the basics sure, but ultimately you can just describe what it is your are saying or trying. Not everyone is a talented thespian (I know I'm not) and I don't think forcing a player to say what it is they are bluffing is the way to do it. Take the description of action and roll. Simple and easy.