I gave a little, and now they want...

[diaglo]

No offense intended, but I've no idea what you're trying to say here. Care to restate it?

none taken.

read the story hour in my sig.

Olgar is/was the DM.

one player as a response to a possible social interaction would automatically roll his d20. if he rolled high. all he would say is "Smooze". and state his score with modifiers. and keep telling everyone "but i got a 50" if he rolled low...he would try to butter up the DM by going into longwinded speeches. and then reroll.

another player would remember items my rogue character stole, even tho he wasn't around or didn't see it when it happened.

later talking in character he would say "you know so and so" when talking about the BBEG we had been chasing for four or five 6 hour sessions. and then turn to me to fill in the name for him. again either my character wasn't there in character or i wasn't willing to answer for him. just b/c i keep a player journal (so i remember and show an interest in the campaign) doesn't mean i am his journal. he should do the work or show some interest himself as far as i'm concerned.

 

[jasper]

The dinosaur and Whitey both are saying take your game and shove it. Because the player wants it give to them. Hmm as a Dm if I set up a campaign with the theme King Arthur in Roman Empire 2004 with Hollywood dash of salt but no warner brothers themes. So the player wants to play a Wild E Coyote barbarian from the new Warner Brothers and Dot splat book. I am a bad dictator Dm because I say no but here is the Curly Howard Prc, and I will allow you to pick and choose parts out of that.

…DM's would do well to remember that the player only has one character that they invest quite a bit of thought and effort and enjoyment into bringing to life… darn one these days I going to hunt down hong and whitey, then club over the head and steal their great players. IMXP most people who want special priviliges are either flavor of month club, or munckins.

Now a couple of my players have accepted my no and then slow ask for mother may I’s. And create a new prc class which is similar to what they wanted but drops what I found unacceptable in the splat books prc.

 

[Grazzt]

You can take your dictatorial DM'ing style, people, and shove it.

You kiss your mother with that mouth? So, if I disagree with your style of play/DMing, whatever, should I tell you to shove it? No- I dont think so.

My group(s) have, and always will, use a COLLABORATIVE gaming style, not a DM-is-god one.

Key Word here: YOUR group. Just because you guys play it a certain way, doesnt mean everyone does. It also doesnt mean your way is any more right or wrong than anyone else's.

The DM is just one person in a GROUP.
RPGing is about a DM leading around a group of players that contribute to the game, NOT about the players shrinking into nothing behind the DM's lordly inability or non-desire to incorporate any ideas other than his own.

True- the DM is one of a group. But ultimately in the end, it is HIS/HER call as to whether or not to incorporate any ideas other than his own. Still doesnt make him/her a bad DM. Just different way of playing and running things.

Do they HAVE to be so intractable about what is allowed in their world?
Why can't they simply listen to the players requests, and try to accomodate them?
/quote]

Because sometimes what players want simply have no place in the campaign at all...whether it is from a power-level standpoint or from a "story" aspect. Nothing at all wrong with listening to a player's request, and if accomodation is possible..cool. Otherwise, no dice. The player's request/idea is rejected.

BTW: DM's would do well to remember that the player only has one character that they invest quite a bit of thought and effort and enjoyment into bringing to life -

So? What about all the time, thought, and effort the DM puts into developing/designing/whatever his campaign to bring it to life, etc. DMs should listen to player's ideas, but not to the point of accomodating or sacrificing his vision/idea/whatever of the campaign he has laid out.

the DM has tons of NPC's that he can bring to life. Therefore, the players should have more leeway in making memorable characters than your NPC's (this presumes that the players are playing memorable, heroic-type characters).

No. The players should have no more leeway in making memorable characters than the DM has in making a memorable campaign. Werent we just arguing above that the DM is a part of a GROUP or something?

 

[Nightfall]

Thank you Scott.

 

[Nightfall]

Telperion, I just want to say that I would love to play in your game, and I don't even particularly like the Scarred Lands. You just sound like such a good DM, that I'd happily be your player.

Geez...and here I thought I was a good Dm too.

 

[Vlos]

Few different threads appears to be going on here or thought tracks.

As for social role/roll playing. We(see below) usually have the player try to role play it out. If they are good enough then often we don't require a roll. Or if we do its a modifed DC. If its a tough situation or the player doesn't want to give input(role play), then it becomes a straight roll usually with a higher DC.

We, I see gaming as a group task. Yes when I am GM I am open to many inputs, from PrCs to rule calls. I do have last word, but I try to take input. I do have a fairly defined world but there are spots which are not defined, so if a player comes to ask me for something special, first I need a copy, then I see how it fits into my world. If I can fit it in, I usually ask the player to write up a very detailed background to fit it in, since it is non-normal. I usally plop this new culture down somewhere then and that defines that area.

In a few games I have played where the GM was "GOD". We had no input other than our actions and often we ended up railroad. These were some of the worst games I played in. And if I didn't quit, it was only because I was friends with them out of game.

As a player I hate to say I am one of the worst at introducing new materials. I buy a lot of splat books, mainly as sources for my worlds and games. And I like to play the strange and unusual. But I fully undestand if the GM won't allow a PrC and/or needs to modify it. Happens often.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Minor rant warning!

It seems that to me that D&D isn't about playing base classes anymore. You need a prestige class to play a character, and also about a half a’ dozen player guides and various resource books. The 3. edition was supposed to make things simple, or so I have heard. Instead we seem to have more resource books that ever (thanks to the Open Game license) and players who want to customize their characters straight into munchkin land.

Currently I'm having a minor argument over what a social character is supposed to look like. The player wants to pull some PrC from a book I have never heard of and use in my campaign. I don't like the idea and told him to stick to the Scarred Lands and core books. Well, the thing is that he feels there isn't anything there worth taking, and creating a social character requires something more than what the core books and various Scarred Lands supplements can offer.

I told him to stock up on social skills, and also supplied him with a lengthy list of PHB 3.5 feats, which are aimed at social interaction. The problem seems to be that those feats don't offer any cheesy "special effects", but simply give a bonus on two skills.

I don't want my game to lose its appeal because social encounters are handled with dice rolling and mouthing secret incantations like "I have 10 lvl's of PrC X, so I know all your secrets!".

So, what do I say to this player? How do I convince him that the best way to go is with old-fashioned role-playing, accompanied with suitable skill selection? I feel rather frustrated at the moment, so I'll leave the more colorful comments to some other time...

And that brings up an interesting question: is role-playing getting old fashioned? Should we just all sit around and mumble these "secret incantations" to each other and roll dice when confronted with a problem?

End of rant.

You are lucky that your character is interested in social interaction. I have one player who never spends a skill point or feat on anything social related. He takes this one step further and always runs fighter types whose Charisma he leaves at the starting 8.

Then he bitches at me when he tries to walk into a merchants shop and doesnt get the best deal. Or how the local nobility find him to be the last adventurer they want to deal with, etc etc.

 

[Arnwyn]

Now the question is, how much _player interaction_ do you want in your game to accompany those die rolls, and clearly some people prefer more personal interaction than others. However, let's stop with the canard that a campaign is "roleplaying oriented" just because you prefer character interaction to involve a significant degree of player interaction as well.

Ah yes, hong... I forgot that you like to waste bandwidth by arguing semantics. It appears you don't realize that some people might use "roleplaying" in place of "player interaction". I'm sorry about that. I understand how it might be a bit confusing for you. So, I shall reiterate my statement using the words you do not find confusing: "my game is oriented towards a higher degree of player interaction".

It's nonsense, it does a disservice to a large percentage of the gaming community, and it reflects a skewed point of view as to what "roleplaying" is about. Or I will be forced to resort to big words.

Well, hong, in regards to my game, I don't give a if it "does a disservice to a large percentage of the gaming community". Of course, some people in such a "large percentage" may not get as confused as you when certain terms are used.

Fair enough, although it does limit the range of options for possible characters, if you're not in fact a reasonable speaker. Since one of the fundamental reasons for playing RPGs in the first place is to pretend to be someone else, this seems a strange impost. After all, nobody ever seems to mind that an overweight, unfit geek can pretend to be the most competent warrior in the land, but they do seem to mind that a shy, tongue-tied geek can pretend to be the most persuasive diplomat.

Meh, too bad for them. For our group, this is a somewhat social game, as opposed to a physical one. So we have no problems with the concept that "an overweight, unfit geek can pretend to be the most competent warrior in the land", while expecting everyone to put at least a little effort into interacting with each other in the context of the game. But that's just us (I certainly do not expect it from other groups).

That's ridiculous. The DM doesn't have to roleplay his/her ass off any more than the players have to do the same, even if they want their character interaction to be predominantly determined by the dice. The DM is perfectly free to say "you are struck by the baron's strong personality and presence", or "the used potion salesman is a weaselly sort of guy with a grating voice". You then trust the player to have his character react accordingly, just as the player trusts the DM to have NPCs react accordingly.

Absolutely, and that's what we do.

Recall that a great success on a Diplomacy roll doesn't mean that the NPC is mind controlled. It just means the NPC is now favourably predisposed to the PC, whereas they might not have been before. Similarly, just because an NPC is described as really slick doesn't mean a PC has to act in a prescribed manner. It does mean that the player should take it into account when describing his PC's reactions. If the player doesn't do that, then that's just poor roleplaying no matter how you define it.

Agreed. And I never said otherwise. However, as seen by many posts on ENWorld, there is a horde of "poor roleplayers" out there... and that does present a problem when social skills (PC or NPC) are involved. Just saying "that's just poor roleplaying no matter how you define it" doesn't solve any of the related problems.

Edit: typo and formatting.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I haven't read the whole thread, so my points might have been made already. If so, I apologize and you can please consider this post as "what they said"

What I have read are the old classics: Rolling For Diplomacy Is Rollplaying, and I Am DM I You Are Nothing.

So using the diplomacy skill instead of talking is bad? You're absolutely right. The player should use his own social skills. But why stop there? Next time that elven archer (ranger 20) with dex 25 want to shoot a target 300 yards away (something he might very well accomplish with his attack bonus), give him a small plastic ball and tell him "See the red light on the TV over there? Hit it with this ball, if you can do that, your ranger hits." When he starts to whine something about dexterity score and BAB, tell him that this would be roll-playing, and that he has to show off his own dexterity.
Sounds absurd? Of course it is! As absurd as forcing players to carry around cupboards in order to have their barbarian succeed on a strength-check. As absurd as forcing players to talk like an experienced diplomat instead of using Diplomacy.

You think getting high cha and ranks in diplomacy to roll instead of speaking is powergaming, munchkinism or something like that? Well, what about those dwarven fighters with Cha 6, zero ranks in diplomacy whose players talk as if they were the above-mentioned diplomat? IMO it is far worse to put dump stats in Int and Cha and invest not a single point in any Knowledge or social skill but running around talking with a golden tongue and knowing everything, including solutions to the most difficult puzzles.

Sure, not talking in character, but talking like "I try to convince him with my bluff +200" is not exactly good form, but completely disregarding every skill with cha before it is as bad. The best solution, IMO, is to use any of the combinations that have been discussed here earlier. Remember that not only the clumsy or weak have a right to play agile thieves or powerful barbarians, the shy guys should also get the chance to play the master courtier.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

What I have read are the old classics: Rolling For Diplomacy Is Rollplaying, and I Am DM I You Are Nothing.

I would suggest you actually read the thread. We've already gone through the trouble of dispelling this kind of tripe.