How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?

[Caliban]

Do you take into account who's making the case?

For example, the CHA 8 character's player makes a great argument to get past the guards, does the fact that he's not that charismatic factor in?

It factors into their Persuasion skill. I don't see why I should penalize them (or reward them) twice for it.

What if the player does this consistently, essentially ignoring the fact that the character isn't all that pursuasive?

Once again, how persuasive they are is determined by by their Persuasion modifier.

If I feel the player is using good role playing while making their case, they might get Advantage on the roll (or Disadvantage if they are doing a poor job or being deliberately insulting or something).

If they make good logical arguments (or good emotional arguments), or offering appropriate incentives, I'll usually have that modify the DC of the check.

In theory - like I said, I'm usually winging it myself and I'm not always consistent. It's a game, not a job.

And sometimes good enough roleplay or reasoning means there really isn't a need to roll the dice. Just like bad enough roleplaying or being really insulting to the NPC can mean you fail without needing to roll the dice. But that's fairly rare.

 

[Lanefan]

A true role player can role play the results of the persuasion check.

Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse? You know the end result up front and then you back-play from there, rather than playing it out first and allowing that to determine or influence the end result.

Somehow that seems...really odd.

And when someone says something like "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to talk us out of this false arrest" my response would be something like "Good. What do you say to the constable?", in an attempt to force the play back into character and out of meta. There's no meta-rolls without first role-playing it through in character.

 

[Mort]

Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse? You know the end result up front and then you back-play from there, rather than playing it out first and allowing that to determine or influence the end result.

Somehow that seems...really odd.

And when someone says something like "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to talk us out of this false arrest" my response would be something like "Good. What do you say to the constable?", in an attempt to force the play back into character and out of meta. There's no meta-rolls without first role-playing it through in character.

Conducted a poll a while back and about 10% of respondents actually do it this way.

I generally don't, but the post was more to make a point - roleplayers can adjust to the circumstances they're given.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The problem I have with your variation is that it's not explicit on how the player wants to resolve the situation. Sure, they want to talk...but there are several skills which cover "talking". Without specifying, I've been at tables where saying "I want to try to talk things out." gives the DM room to say "Oh well, that one skill that nobody in the party has? Yeah that's the talking skill you need."

Well, we're adult people in a social game -- if there are questions on approach, we resolve them. It's not anything like a "You said it, and now nothing else can be said." But, yeah, I guess if you have a gotcha jerk as DM, your last bit there might be a problem, but I'd rather just not play with that DM.

By specifying which skill they want to use, they're specifying how they want to resolve the situation, how they want to frame the talking. Are we big tough scary adventurers intimidating our foes? Are we suave smooth-talking criminals with a silver tongue? The player is deciding how they want to frame their attempt by naming the skill they want to use, instead of simply reacting to DM scene-framing by rolling whatever check the DM says is necessary.

Again, you miss the point. The player is still deciding how they engage the framing, but instead of going straight to mechanics they just naturally say what they want to.do. If the DM thinks that works without a roll, then it works, no mechanics needed. Only at the point a declared approach is uncertain are mechanics engaged, and they're engaged unsung the player stated approach, not a predetermined DM skill check.

And really, you're not going to reduce "skill-naming" by giving out DCs like that. It's just going to make the players reactionary. Oh there's a DC? I can roll for that.

The DC isn't given until the roll and stakes ate set based on the layers declared action and approach, so, again, you've missed the point.

When a player tells me they want to talk things out, my first response is "How?" then they'll usually indicate if they're going to use honey or vinegar and if they want to actually role-play what they're saying that's great and then I'll roll behind the scenes for how well their attempt was received.

Right up until your roll begins the screen is what hastens at my table. I don't roll dice for my players, though. If it's uncertain, they roll, and success and failure are clearly set.

There's no point in actually having skills, in doing the work to math out skills, in writing down all your skills if your DM is just going to tell you to turn your sheet upside down. You need to know what skills you have and you need to know when you want to use them.

Is it really so hard for a player to know that they have a good persuasion score to declare actions that frame advantage of that score without says "I roll persuasion!"? How the player forms action declarations is up to them. If you imagine your players turn stupid ou'd the can't just name skills on their character sheet, that's on you.

 

[pemerton]

I know when I speak about skilled play I am not usually referencing skilled play of the mechanics nearly as much as skilled play of the fiction (or game world if you prefer). The fundamental skill of playing a roleplaying game is utilizing your knowledge of the game's underlying fiction to enact meaningful changes through your characters' capabilities. You can't spotlight balance around fictional positioning because outcomes can't be dictated ahead of time while respecting it.

I think this is a similar point to my response to [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION].

It seems to me that the only way to ensure that players who don't engage the fiction get as much "attention"/"spotlight", or have as much effect on play, as those who do engage the fiction, is for the GM to manage the fiction so that engagement doesn't matter that much.

And that's not an approach to RPGing that I enjoy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse? You know the end result up front and then you back-play from there, rather than playing it out first and allowing that to determine or influence the end result.

Somehow that seems...really odd.

From what I recall, this is similar to how Gygax might have done it. The example that's stuck in my head, because it runs counter to so much of what I understand about how an RPG is supposed to work, was a description of saving against a dragon's breath weapon. In the example, the fighter is chained up to a rock as a dragon bears down on him to breathe fire; but the saving throw is successful, which is narrated as the chain having a loose link, so the fighter must have broken free at the last second to hide behind the rock.

The way I would run it, being chained up to a rock would cause the fighter to automatically fail the save, and hiding behind the rock before the dragon breathes would give an advantage on the saving throw.

 

[Mort]

The way I would run it, being chained up to a rock would cause the fighter to automatically fail the save, and hiding behind the rock before the dragon breathes would give an advantage on the saving throw.

While I see your point, I hate auto fail on saves. Sometimes massive luck is a thing.

Also, rolling first and then describing the result seems a much easier for saving throws /attack rolls etc. Then for a social check - even though, strictly in game terms, it is the exact same concept.

I'd be willing to bet that many of not most actually do roll the saving throw or attack roll before describing the result as opposed to a social check - where very few tables roll first.





Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[DireHammer]

I give 100 experience points per character level for a paragraph of background, and this can be cashed in once per level. If you give me a paragraph at the beginning of a campaign and then another every time you level you can keep racking up those bonus xp.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

While I see your point, I hate auto fail on saves. Sometimes massive luck is a thing.

Sure, but massive luck doesn't come up even five percent of the time, and the die is incapable of finer granularity than that. That's why you can't dodge while paralyzed or restrained, and an attack against you is automatically a crit if you're unconscious.

I'd be willing to bet that many of not most actually do roll the saving throw or attack roll before describing the result as opposed to a social check - where very few tables roll first.

I agree, but I doubt the narration at most tables would alter the circumstances to quite the degree of the example. In most games, the initial integrity of the chain is not something which can causally be affected by your ability to evade dragon fire; likewise with where you were standing at the time the dragon breathed. Most tables (in my experience) would narrate that you somehow managed to turn your back to the blast, which is why you took half damage instead of full.

That is somewhat of an inconsistency in play, now that you mention it. I guess that making the social process conform to the standard process might cause problems, because players expect to have a high degree of control over what they say, and telling someone to verbalize the exact words of a failed check would seem like an artificial constraint on their ability to role-play; so instead, the character says exactly what the player intends for them to say, and the roll determines how that approach is received.

 

[RobertBrus]

I don't require anything above what the rules require to create the character. However, I strongly urge/cajole/promote the importance of building a multi-dimensional character. If we play RPG's, yet only play the stats, are we really playing an RPG? And if so, what constitutes the "Role?"
The character should be more than a tool wielded by the player, in which it is simply used as an extension of the player without any regard for the inner life of the character. I am not suggesting we become trained actors, though that would make things more interesting, but to bring some of the personality of the character into the game the game. Otherwise I would suggest we are not playing an RPG, but a glorified form of Yatze or Farkle.
The character needs a personality different from the player, with its own wants and needs. The player then has the additional joy of playing with these things. To pretend to be a fantasy character in a story told round a table is part and parcel of the joy of an RPG.
In short, why not encourage bringing in storytelling elements that include personalities that have a life of their own. Not what would I do, what would my character do? And to answer that question, I need first establish what makes my character tick. And that is far more than numbers and die rolls, that is backstory.