How do I really pis...
- Thread starter Ferret
- Start date
Henrix
Explorer
If you really want to roll to see how well the character does, as opposed to how verbose the player is, I'd use, well, I don't know.
Depends on what sort of insult it would be.
Innuendo - for the sly underhand suggestion that might pass over the opponent's head, but leave the bystanders chuckling.
Perform - for the exact right comment at the exact right time. Would also let the character know more entertaining insults.
Intimidate - perhaps, to provoke a fight.
Bluff - ah, for the outright slander.
etc, etc.
But most of it should be left to pure roleplaying.
(Robin Laws had an article in a recent Dragon (295?, 294?) which might help.)
Depends on what sort of insult it would be.
Innuendo - for the sly underhand suggestion that might pass over the opponent's head, but leave the bystanders chuckling.
Perform - for the exact right comment at the exact right time. Would also let the character know more entertaining insults.
Intimidate - perhaps, to provoke a fight.
Bluff - ah, for the outright slander.
etc, etc.
But most of it should be left to pure roleplaying.
(Robin Laws had an article in a recent Dragon (295?, 294?) which might help.)
Crothian said:
I find this rather a common yet elitist attitude among veteran roleplayers. But I disagree with it.
Why? Well, what if the player character isn't as witty and sharp as the player, himself? Or what if the player himself isn't as witty and sharp as his character is supposed to be?
To let roleplaying totally decide the situation, without any influence from the player character's abilities and skills, and the dice, is wrong. Just as soon play a LARP or a diceless roleplaying game.Sure, as a DM, reward good roleplaying. Give the character a +2 bonus on the dice if the player roleplays him well and comes up with a particularly clever and penetrating insult. But don't demand that the player come up with such an insult.
Last edited:
Crothian
First Post
Azlan said:
I find this rather a common yet elitist attitude among veteran roleplayers. But I disagree with it.
Why? Well, what if the player character isn't as witty and sharp as the player, himself? Or what if the player himself isn't as witty and sharp as his character is supposed to be?
Sure, as a DM, reward good roleplaying. Give the character a +2 bonus on the dice if the player roleplays him well and comes up with a particularly clever and penetrating insult. But don't demand that the player come up with such an insult.
You are absolutely right, it is a very elitist position I've taken. However, it is not without reason for this position. I've found that many people are willing to allow the dice to dictate too much with the role playing. People don't even attempt to role play it out, they just roll dice. So, I take the other extreme: role play it all and no dice. I only take that extreme postion on the boards. In my own game I do a mix. I like to have the die roll and the role playing. However, to make a more drastic point on these boards sometimes you need to take the extreme position.
I did put my suggestion that this best fits under the perform skill. I've seen some insult comics and it is nothing less then a good performance. They read the audience and their target and are very elogant and creative.
Crothian said:
Extremes are seldom if ever a good thing. But we're getting off onto a tangent, here.
To answer Ferret's question the way he (she?) originally intended it to be answered...
I'd use Intimidate or Inuendo, with Intimidate resulting in a more overt (and perhaps even crass) insult, and with Inuendo resulting in a more subtle (but perhaps far more clever and penetrating) insult. The former would be more effective on orcs and the like; the latter, against knights and nobles. Performance may be a good skill to apply in this situation, but only if the performer is a comedian or a jester.
Neither Bluff nor Diplomacy would apply in this situation, I think.
Last edited:
