Description: Roll First, Talk Later?

[DamionW]

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.

Exactly the approach I prefer. I want to role-play day-to-day life as my character, but in any situation or conflict where my success or failure changes the plot, I want equity in rulings from the DM, and you can't say dice + bonuses works in combat, and then arbitrarily say dice + bonuses might work for bluff, let me see if I like your portrayal.

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.

Don Tadow, trust me, I understand your underlying logic and concerns. Believe me, I hate the "I attack. 26. You hit. Roll for damage. The monster attacks. 24. You take 14 damage." interchanges just like you. Listening to other players min/max their fighter's feat chains and flipping through supplements to get the best new spell for their wizard to induce enemy crisping makes me nauseous. The thought of playing Warhammer miniatures and lining up little figures just to roll out a battle makes me crawl in my skin. I like talking in character, exploring their backgrounds, motivations, and working that into the plot the DM is creating. Where I draw the line is in actions that have chances of success or failure, combat or non-combat. So if I want to bluff or if I want to shoot an arrow, I expect equity from my DM. I'm not skilled at talking in character all the time, and I want my chance to have my character to succeed not depend on that.

It's very easy to slip from "quality of role-playing affects my arbitrations as DM," to "quality of role-playing determines outcomes of my arbitrations as DM." That simply isn't fair to me if I'm not quick at developing in-character dialogue and the player next to me is. I also feel there is some very basic motivation factors DMs overlook in their pursuit of less hack 'n slash and more role-playing. Players will develop non-combat characters only as much as the DM rewards those pursuits in character development. I could give you a descriptive case-study, but my posts are too long as it is.

Bottom line is if you dislike hack'n'slash, but let PCs be proficient in combat based on bonuses from RAW, just to dispense with it, you are showing that combat bonuses work without question. If you adjuticate social interactions not on a dice roll plus bonuses against target, as the RAW prescribes, but instead based on quality of play, you devalue those bonuses. You show that those bonuses and game mechanics don't work as advertised, only as you see fit; you say "don't pick this character path. Picking a combat character is more a cost effective use of the time you spend developing your character." So while you want less combat, more talk, if you don't treat talk fairly, you'll encourage it less.

 

[DamionW]

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?

If you don't do that, then you perfectly demonstrate my point against talk first, roll-second approach

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand... I just wanted to say that, DamionW, I find your avatar to be very frightening.

 

[DamionW]

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand... I just wanted to say that, DamionW, I find your avatar to be very frightening.

be afraid your majesty, be very afraid.

 

[DonTadow]

Exactly the approach I prefer. I want to role-play day-to-day life as my character, but in any situation or conflict where my success or failure changes the plot, I want equity in rulings from the DM, and you can't say dice + bonuses works in combat, and then arbitrarily say dice + bonuses might work for bluff, let me see if I like your portrayal.



Don Tadow, trust me, I understand your underlying logic and concerns. Believe me, I hate the "I attack. 26. You hit. Roll for damage. The monster attacks. 24. You take 14 damage." interchanges just like you. Listening to other players min/max their fighter's feat chains and flipping through supplements to get the best new spell for their wizard to induce enemy crisping makes me nauseous. The thought of playing Warhammer miniatures and lining up little figures just to roll out a battle makes me crawl in my skin. I like talking in character, exploring their backgrounds, motivations, and working that into the plot the DM is creating. Where I draw the line is in actions that have chances of success or failure, combat or non-combat. So if I want to bluff or if I want to shoot an arrow, I expect equity from my DM. I'm not skilled at talking in character all the time, and I want my chance to have my character to succeed not depend on that.

It's very easy to slip from "quality of role-playing affects my arbitrations as DM," to "quality of role-playing determines outcomes of my arbitrations as DM." That simply isn't fair to me if I'm not quick at developing in-character dialogue and the player next to me is. I also feel there is some very basic motivation factors DMs overlook in their pursuit of less hack 'n slash and more role-playing. Players will develop non-combat characters only as much as the DM rewards those pursuits in character development. I could give you a descriptive case-study, but my posts are too long as it is.

Bottom line is if you dislike hack'n'slash, but let PCs be proficient in combat based on bonuses from RAW, just to dispense with it, you are showing that combat bonuses work without question. If you adjuticate social interactions not on a dice roll plus bonuses against target, as the RAW prescribes, but instead based on quality of play, you devalue those bonuses. You show that those bonuses and game mechanics don't work as advertised, only as you see fit; you say "don't pick this character path. Picking a combat character is more a cost effective use of the time you spend developing your character." So while you want less combat, more talk, if you don't treat talk fairly, you'll encourage it less.

I see what you're saying, and force was the wrong word. MOre like encourage. And I want to make sure Im clarifying my position. The roleplaying is more or less flavor unless its awesome in which I apply bonuses. But I think the flavor is essential to the game. If you take the flavor away you're rolling dice. The person doesnt have to act like the lie (everyones not creative), but i think they should at least come up with a lie to avoid, (i bluff the oponenet rolled a 19, he should be effected). I think intimidate and diplomacy checks should accompany in game role playing. For instance, if I write up a scenerio where the pcs have to negotiate a trade between two factions, I don't want "i roll a 32 on my diplomacy, they argree to a treaty". I want the pcs to investigate what both factions want, put that on the table, add modifiers for the information and then roll the diplomacy explaining what they hope to accomplish and what are the bargaining chips.

I think we are not too far aooff. I actually believe that role playing enhances the skills and makes them more effective. I try to make sure that charisma skills are just as important as combat skills which are just as important as knowledge skills.

I want to make the charisma skills just as effective as the combat skills. Combat skills are enhanced by position, terrain and environment. Bonus's are provided for exeptional combats in combat. Knowledge skilsl are enhanced by ornaments, books, libraries and labratories. Should not there be bonus's for tactical diplomacy, bluff and intimidate checks.

Scenerio 1. : My character tells the guard that we are from the Fife kingdom with improtant news for the noble - rolls 18 on bluff

Scenerio 2: The Pcs used gather information checks and know that the noble likes peanut butter, they go and aquire peanut butter. - "We have a shipment of peanutbutter for the noble, may we enter, see look in the back". rolls 18 but +2 circumstance for going the extra mile with hte lie.

 

[Voadam]

DamionW, your complaint seems to be you want to play a character who interacts socially, but you want to play him entirely from the 3rd person and use game mechanics to do the interactions without stepping into 1st person as the character. You don't want to socially interact with NPCs as your character.

This is similar to a desire to make a character who is good at puzzles, riddles, mysteries, or investigation in the game (Sherlock Holmes) without ever trying to figure out anything yourself in the game (I'm playing him, I'm not him).

Or a character who is good at combat tactics (Hannibal, Ender Wiggins) without actually thinking tactically.

I have little sympathy for such complaints. In general I have no desire to play third person meta-games as a player or DM to handle talking to people or figuring things out or make choices in a roleplaying game. These are the first person aspects of the game I enjoy. These are aspects of RPGs that do not need game mechanics to represent or adjudicate them. Exceptions for when things like this should be handled in third person would be off-screen or behind the scenes actions, such as during downtime ("I spend the month working to convince the diplomat his country should support the king in the upcoming war") or when the DM doesn't want to handle things in first person.

 

[DamionW]

DamionW, your complaint seems to be you want to play a character who interacts socially, but you want to play him entirely from the 3rd person and use game mechanics to do the interactions without stepping into 1st person as the character. You don't want to socially interact with NPCs as your character.

This is similar to a desire to make a character who is good at puzzles, riddles, mysteries, or investigation in the game (Sherlock Holmes) without ever trying to figure out anything yourself in the game (I'm playing him, I'm not him).

Or a character who is good at combat tactics (Hannibal, Ender Wiggins) without actually thinking tactically.

I have little sympathy for such complaints. In general I have no desire to play third person meta-games as a player or DM to handle talking to people or figuring things out or make choices in a roleplaying game. These are the first person aspects of the game I enjoy. These are aspects of RPGs that do not need game mechanics to represent or adjudicate them. Exceptions for when things like this should be handled in third person would be off-screen or behind the scenes actions, such as during downtime ("I spend the month working to convince the diplomat his country should support the king in the upcoming war") or when the DM doesn't want to handle things in first person.

I don't think you have my complaint properly represented. My desire is not avoid first person interaction entirely, I just want the ability of my character to advance the plot to not be solely dependent of my capacity to develop specific in-character dialogue. I don't understand how DMs who enjoy good role-playing justify fighters combat prowess being irrespective of the player's martial skill in life, and a wizards spell repetoire and spell DC being disconnected from that person's actual knowledge of incantations here on Earth, but when you want to have a social character (or riddler, or tactician), suddenly that IS dependent on personal capacity to act in that manner. It's a fundamental lack of equity. I like plot development. I like background. I just am not always skilled at developing dialogue in first person.

If I design a character with all aspects in mind that this individual, in this specific fictional space is capable of lying through his teeth in the blink of an eye, if I can't do that here in real space, why should my character design suffer for it? I just don't see a valid argument for that. Part of being the DM is taking all players preferences in mind, what they find enjoyable and using that to arbitrate the game. Just because you enjoy getting into character shouldn't mean those who don't, but still contribute actively to your plot and your game should be treated as second-class citizens to the better actors of the group. That's your enjoyment factor you get out of developing different personality traits for different NPCs and flexibly portraying each in first person. My emotional kick is watching a satisfying plot flourish with all of its intricisies and twists and contributing actively to it with my character's decisions and actions. Does that make me less of role-player and more of a munchkin? I say no, I just have different motivations for playing.

You say social actions don't need adjutication at all. So how do those players who want to move your plot forward and explore interesting character concepts out, but aren't proficient at first-person dialogue receive equity to those who are proficient speakers, or those who are combat munchkins whose failsafe mechanics work fluidly? I propose you can't unless you give some allowance that there are mechanics to develop social characters and if a player wants to utilize them you should empower them, not detract from them.

 

[DonTadow]

I don't think you have my complaint properly represented. My desire is not avoid first person interaction entirely, I just want the ability of my character to advance the plot to not be solely dependent of my capacity to develop specific in-character dialogue. I don't understand how DMs who enjoy good role-playing justify fighters combat prowess being irrespective of the player's martial skill in life, and a wizards spell repetoire and spell DC being disconnected from that person's actual knowledge of incantations here on Earth, but when you want to have a social character (or riddler, or tactician), suddenly that IS dependent on personal capacity to act in that manner. It's a fundamental lack of equity. I like plot development. I like background. I just am not always skilled at developing dialogue in first person.

Again, I think we're close to the same weavelength, but even combat is not dependent on the dice rolls alone (as proven in my many failed attempts at winning the rpga open). It honestly depends a lot on tactics which is solely up to the players knowledge of tactics. Knowing when to charge, flank, run, seek higher ground is just part of it. A player must know when to use certain player abilties and when not to. Should the dm give the player with the experienced fighter tactical advice. Technically, if we are just talkinga bout the characters abilities, the character would already know exactly what to do tactically in combat.

Everything in d and d or any role playing game is a combination of the dice rolls and roleplaying. Even with puzzles I"ll let players roll knowledge rolls concerning the type of roll for clues as to how to solve the puzzle, thus not taking away from the puzzle but giving the player with high intelligence credit for his high skills.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

DamionW, your complaint seems to be you want to play a character who interacts socially, but you want to play him entirely from the 3rd person and use game mechanics to do the interactions without stepping into 1st person as the character. You don't want to socially interact with NPCs as your character.

This is similar to a desire to make a character who is good at puzzles, riddles, mysteries, or investigation in the game (Sherlock Holmes) without ever trying to figure out anything yourself in the game (I'm playing him, I'm not him).

Or a character who is good at combat tactics (Hannibal, Ender Wiggins) without actually thinking tactically.

From his posts, I'd say these are entirely unfair comparisons. Its more like he wants to play someone who is good at combat tactics, and uses tactics in game, but the DM won't let his character tumble into a flanking position unless he can do three backflips and land in the right spot. :\

Social skills need to roleplayed sufficiently to express the tactics used so that bonuses and penalties can be applied. If you use decent tactics and have good stats, I'm ok with you describing the conversation in third person. If you have bad stats, no matter how eloquent your roleplay is it will only get you the same tactical bonus to apply to your crappy roll. If you have good stats but use horrible tactics, neither eloquence nor good rolls will make the bad tactics work.

 

[DamionW]

DonTadow, after discussing I agree we're on similar wavelengths, but based on Voadam's posts, it shows there are DMs out there of a different mindset out there:

In general I have no desire to play third person meta-games as a player or DM to handle talking to people or figuring things out or make choices in a roleplaying game. These are the first person aspects of the game I enjoy. These are aspects of RPGs that do not need game mechanics to represent or adjudicate them. Exceptions for when things like this should be handled in third person would be off-screen or behind the scenes actions, such as during downtime ("I spend the month working to convince the diplomat his country should support the king in the upcoming war") or when the DM doesn't want to handle things in first person.

In other words, any plot action which involves one PC talking to one NPC should be extracted to that player talking to the DM in first person, and the quality of that dialogue should let the DM determine the unfolding of the plot. You and I see the value of combining descriptions and intent of actions meta-game with dice rolls to guide that social first-person action. Some feel that meta-game discussion is extraneous to the intent of the game. I can't call that wrong, simply a preference, but I can say from a player's perspecitve it demonstrates an inequity to me that some mechanics work for the sake of working, but others are inneffective. I would never want to try out a manipulative type of character design in a game run by Voadam, only a combat character because I know if I take the time to pick feats and skills that rely on social actions, they'll never be looked at by the DM. So why take my time doing that? If I make my uber-barbarian, hey, at least his concept will work as advertised when the fight comes around because there's an objective dice roll involved, not just Voadam's interpretation of my acting skills.