Issues of Roleplaying

[Triskavanski]

I had a talk with my DM the other day, and he was happy about the roleplaying of my new character, but didn't like the lack of roleplaying with my other character.

We got into some discussion about it, when I can to realization of why the old character didn't seem to do much of roleplaying, while the new one is like a 180 turn.

This is what I'll call Do-er Syndrome.

Basically my current character has more roleplay to him, because he is a failer. He fails at things, so the roleplay is about him failing at it. You don't need to roll dice to fail at something, you can just fail at it.

So if I want to fail at reading a book, i can easily do that. After all, my character is Illiterate.

There is also a "sayer". Sayers say they do things, but never actually do it. For example, a vampire slayer could say he slays vampires and how awesome he is at slaying vampires. Even carry around bunch of vampire slaying gear. makes a few comments here and there about slaying vampires and the like.

Then there is the Do-er. This is a guy who is suppose to do something for his roleplaying. For example a Hitman. Beyond giving him an english accent and having him carry around a few hitman like things, once it comes time to prove he is in fact a hitman, he now has to roll dice.

I mean, how can you possibly roleplay a hitman without ever needing to roll dice to prove you are? What if you are actually faced with a vampire as a vampire slayer and then you completely fail in the encounter?

If you present yourself as "Awesome" you will be asked to prove it. But if you present yourself as a failure, you are given a free pass to do so. Thus the people who tend to make the worlds worst charactes ever, such as the dwarven sorcerer with 6 cha, are actually power-roleplayers (Or idiots).

[tribble]

Well, try giving your Do-er some interesting traits outside of English Accent and hitman-gear. For example... A Wife. An Addiction. A Crippling infatuation is always good for a laugh. Try finding a reason for a Doer to Do not.

[Triskavanski]

I mean, if you were trying to say role play james bond. Your routine would go along the lines of

English accent
Gambling (But never actually plays)
Drinking vodka martinis, shaken not stirred.
Cool, but useless gadget.


Then things that would probably invoke a skill check or an attack roll.
Sweet talk your way out of something. (Not everyone is fully capable of preforming in such a way on the spot.)
Hit on a woman (See sweet talking)
Shoot a crossbow
Use a useful gadget
Investigate an area.
ect.


Overall, yes, you could say you were "James bond" but you couldn't be James bond, without some heavy help from the DM.

Even if you were to give the hitman Do-er a wife, that just means you are roleplaying a character with a wife, not roleplaying a character who is a hitman with a wife.

[JamesonCourage]

Even if you were to give the hitman Do-er a wife, that just means you are roleplaying a character with a wife, not roleplaying a character who is a hitman with a wife.

I don't follow your logic here.

[golentan]

For the james bond, you haven't even scratched the surface of how to get in character. It varies bond to bond, but here's some starting questions which are good for each of them. Start out with an obsession with appearances: How does he put on his tux? How do his eyes move when he sees his new car/woman/gadget. How does he smile, and at what, and when does it reach his eyes? Is emotional detachment natural or deliberately holding things at arms length. Why? How does it affect his friendships (note he has no non-work friends). You can always throw in some wisecracks to show that detachment, forced or otherwise. Which possessions does he have an irrational fondness for, and how does he touch them? How does he interact with authority: does he listen and justify or does he just aggravate? Same with enemies: It's not how high he rolls the bluff check, it's what he says while doing so. When a foe is down, does he finish them and how? Does he tighten up and show no weakness when in pain, and what are his tells?

In general, the key with such characters is not what you do but how and why. You can pack worlds of roleplaying in without saying a word in character

[SiuiS]

I got frustrated with my most recent character, because despite the rather detailed psychology and such I'd developed, it didn't come across in-game. Ao I looked at my last few characters.

I could write books about em. Not good books, as I'm poor at marketing and writing more than blurbs, but still.

So the answer was to force a combination of the say-er and do-er.
hitman is easy. Be jumpy. Take things in a context which lends itself to making people think ("yeah, I'm familiar with meat hooks". Have a wife? "honey, don't move the flowerpots by the window! You know I get worried when you move the flowerpots. Now what's the safeword, doppleganger?")

During stops in town, be crude and visceral. Your job is watching the light of the soul fade in a man's eyes because money means more than his right to live. Be crude. Specify that you sit back to a wall in the tavern. Yell at the serving wench who blocks your view. Scope out folks who might be rivals (those rough guys who came in after you did? Sense motive, spot, listen; make sure the baker's family from last time you were in duckberg didn't find out it was you who did in their son, and hired some goons to be on the look-out for you).

The onus of bringing someone to life is on the player, it's not a problem with the game at all. The problem is when, after hit with an insanity spell, you say "I rolled a [XX]%, that means I attack my ally trollgar with a 23. 5 damage if I hit." instead, roll the percent, gibber in terror about all the mouths in the sky trying to eat your memories and save trollgar by trying to cut the evil out of him before the worms crawl too far into his ears to see the blue sky! (23, 5 damage if I hit)

[Triskavanski]

I don't follow your logic here.

The logic is this..

I make a character who is suppose to be a hitman, and I look for ways to roleplay him as a professional hitman. Giving the character a wife will only enhance his appears as a hitman in a very far stretch, it would take alot of fin-dangling to actually get the wife to be useful in showing that the character is a hitman.

If the wife is in no way used to roleplay the hitman aspect of the character, then the character won't appear to be a hitman just from the use of a wife aspect.

In a more abstracted game, such as Wushu or Diaspora, its far more easy to roleplay a character with a do-er aspect. For example my Doctor has a number of roleplay things, that show he is a doctor and wealthy. Such as commanding servants to do things and the like. In wushu, I played Freddy, the silent bard, who was suppose to be totally a manly man. Again, easy to roleplay him, as I could go to underground brawls and fight barefisted and then ride a horse out of there. Or put on a shirt to rip it off so I could jump off a boat and rescue someone.

On the further of james bond roleplaying..
Yes, however at our table we don't write books on the characters mannerisms.

For example our bard, plays two bards. The Emo-depressent and the Happy-go-lucky. They are exactly the same when it comes to rolls, but when she does non-roll stuff, that's when their personalities come out. Basically her characters are "sayers", as just saying things doesn't require dice rolls.

Our Truenamer while a doe-er, is also a fail-er. He gets lost because he is always reading a book. But he so far hasn't failed knowledge rolls.

Our kobold druid, is a kinda a fail-er and a say-er. Because she is only 2.1 feet, the joke is she is very short and has to stand on things to become noticed.

My new character, is a fail-er. Cannot read, so I can easily make fun of things. Played "poker" but during the game, I say things like "do you have any fours?" and "Go fish" maybe even through in words like Bingo!

[Triskavanski]

I got frustrated with my most recent character, because despite the rather detailed psychology and such I'd developed, it didn't come across in-game. Ao I looked at my last few characters.

I could write books about em. Not good books, as I'm poor at marketing and writing more than blurbs, but still.

So the answer was to force a combination of the say-er and do-er.
hitman is easy. Be jumpy. Take things in a context which lends itself to making people think ("yeah, I'm familiar with meat hooks". Have a wife? "honey, don't move the flowerpots by the window! You know I get worried when you move the flowerpots. Now what's the safeword, doppleganger?")

During stops in town, be crude and visceral. Your job is watching the light of the soul fade in a man's eyes because money means more than his right to live. Be crude. Specify that you sit back to a wall in the tavern. Yell at the serving wench who blocks your view. Scope out folks who might be rivals (those rough guys who came in after you did? Sense motive, spot, listen; make sure the baker's family from last time you were in duckberg didn't find out it was you who did in their son, and hired some goons to be on the look-out for you).

The onus of bringing someone to life is on the player, it's not a problem with the game at all. The problem is when, after hit with an insanity spell, you say "I rolled a [XX]%, that means I attack my ally trollgar with a 23. 5 damage if I hit." instead, roll the percent, gibber in terror about all the mouths in the sky trying to eat your memories and save trollgar by trying to cut the evil out of him before the worms crawl too far into his ears to see the blue sky! (23, 5 damage if I hit)

Cept that is less of playing what I'd envision a hitman to be and more of psychopath. Infact, when I last played a hitman that way, everyone thought he was a psychopath and not a hitman. Anytime I heard a loud noise or was forcefully woken from my sleep i fired off a ray spell or yelling about a fatman who I didn't trust. But that really is still more of a fail-er.

And that sense motive, spot, search? all of mine would be failures with my hitman, despite having many ranks and score in them.

I have many times said I do something awesome. Then I roll the dice.. and well according to the dice.. no. No i didn't. Like the last character would use attacks, like wolf fang strike, which was then followed up by hidden toe-blade, which was then followed up by Dance of steel. Impressive names, pathetic effects. meanwhile other characters were actually doing stuff, and I would have hit only once, out of the 6 attacks I got in those three turns.

I'm actually the only player at our table who has failed so much at riding a horse that my character almost died when it stopped. like 3 natural 1s in a row, and one more failure the DM was going to have my character decapitated.

[Hammerhead]

Your weak low-level vampire slayer can't be a vampire slayer in training?
:smallconfused:

I don't think this is a matter of self-gimping -> super roleplay as it is roleplaying a character incongruously to its abilities -> false-seeming roleplay.

Of course, as you say, this is somewhat a matter of gaming system. D&D tries to do a lot of things; RP isn't very high on its list of priorities.

[KillianHawkeye]

Maybe you just need to be more realistic about the things you try to do. You can't be totally badass if you're a level 1 Rogue or something. Instead, attempt to do things that a level 1 character could accomplish.

Or get some new dice! :smallwink:

[JamesonCourage]

The logic is this..

I make a character who is suppose to be a hitman, and I look for ways to roleplay him as a professional hitman. Giving the character a wife will only enhance his appears as a hitman in a very far stretch, it would take alot of fin-dangling to actually get the wife to be useful in showing that the character is a hitman.

If the wife is in no way used to roleplay the hitman aspect of the character, then the character won't appear to be a hitman just from the use of a wife aspect.

In a more abstracted game, such as Wushu or Diaspora, its far more easy to roleplay a character with a do-er aspect. For example my Doctor has a number of roleplay things, that show he is a doctor and wealthy. Such as commanding servants to do things and the like. In wushu, I played Freddy, the silent bard, who was suppose to be totally a manly man. Again, easy to roleplay him, as I could go to underground brawls and fight barefisted and then ride a horse out of there. Or put on a shirt to rip it off so I could jump off a boat and rescue someone.

On the further of james bond roleplaying..
Yes, however at our table we don't write books on the characters mannerisms.

For example our bard, plays two bards. The Emo-depressent and the Happy-go-lucky. They are exactly the same when it comes to rolls, but when she does non-roll stuff, that's when their personalities come out. Basically her characters are "sayers", as just saying things doesn't require dice rolls.

Our Truenamer while a doe-er, is also a fail-er. He gets lost because he is always reading a book. But he so far hasn't failed knowledge rolls.

Our kobold druid, is a kinda a fail-er and a say-er. Because she is only 2.1 feet, the joke is she is very short and has to stand on things to become noticed.

My new character, is a fail-er. Cannot read, so I can easily make fun of things. Played "poker" but during the game, I say things like "do you have any fours?" and "Go fish" maybe even through in words like Bingo!

It seems like you're getting caught up on one aspect of your character. Characters are three dimensional. If your character is an assassin, he has a personality that leads to that. Play those aspects up. If they don't clash with other things (like love), he can have a wife, and while it doesn't accentuate the assassin side of him, it still adds to his character. It fleshes him out.

Characters are more than their profession, just like people. I'd suggest making a sincere effort to play those aspects of the character, too.

[Triskavanski]

Well this is what people remember of my old character..

1) he liked to dissect things, even though he didn't even know what he was doing.
2) he had an unhealthy obsession with bacon. (Boars killed him on the job he heavily suggested for the group.)
3) he was worthless in both combat and doing anything else. A total drag on the other characters, like Hiccup in HTYD.

They didn't really take note to his hunt for the necronomicon when a necromancer appeared. His mentions of working for a family of necromancers, or that of his brothers. They didn't even get to really know all of his equipment was lined with lead to prevent scrying. Or that he had a prehensile tail. Or his desires to rise to the highest position in the city's power structure and kill the king so that he could do anything he wanted, despite him saying so to another who was reading the book of law as well.

[SiuiS]

They are exactly the same when it comes to rolls, but when she does non-roll stuff, that's when their personalities come out.
then your friend needs to expand their builds to support the character, and you all need to specify your rolls. Remember, you add flavor text to your actions. And it's canon.


I have many times said I do something awesome. Then I roll the dice.. and well according to the dice.. no. No i didn't take ten. You're not rushed. It's not combat. You can't fail, unless things are out of proportion (I.e. the DM is over-engineering basic thugs/ugly farmers, with high ranks in a skill they don't have access to).
Sense motive DC 15; "do I get a bad feeling about those guys over there?" done. Spot, same thing. You can get a total of like, +14 circumstantially if you're being specific- look for dominant hands that drift into cloaks, eyes that shift about, posture that signifies looking for a fight, flanking stances, and the direction their toes are pointing, which idicates direction of interest even in people who are trained not to look at targets.


Cept that is less of playing what I'd envision a hitman to be and more of psychopath. Infact, when I last played a hitman that way, everyone thought he was a psychopath and not a hitman. that also describes professional soldiers, gangsters, people who like the second amendment and live near gangsters, and the paranoid.

This, and your last post sound like your trouble is with your gaming group. They don't "get it" when you try to role-play stuff, and that bothers you. But that doesn't mean the characterisations given don't work, just that they are not sure-fire with your group. Take charge! Teach em.
Have your hitman correct the fighting methods of other characters to be more precise and calculated. And if you want a character to be a stoic, emotionless sun-glasses wearing super-cool hitman, who can read other people like a book... Then take ranks in proper skills or drop the cash on circumstance boosting items.

You can't argue that your back story makes you athletic and agile, and then complain when you're outshone by someone with the athletic and agile feats.

[Triskavanski]

I was doing an over simplification on their characters.

When you are dealing with traps, or in combat though, you can't take 10. And often that's where most of my "cool" things ended up happening.

The hitman couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, due to horrible dice rolls though out the entire sum of his life. So him correcting the characters who average at least a hit every other round.. Not happening.

Took ranks and feats that said my character can do X. Made backstory that says my character can do X. The dice say my character can't do X.


Those farmers? the DM doesn't even have to give them a single rank in anything. I'll get 15, he'll get 19. I went up against a minotaur with the hitman character to try and use a maneuver I had that could counter a charge. Dex was my highest stat and its lowest. I even botched and gave my self a +4. I rolled a 16 all together. It rolled 18, thus not only did I not push him aside, but I instead gave him bonuses to hit me. And so it did, and nearly killed my character.

[JamesonCourage]

I was doing an over simplification on their characters.

When you are dealing with traps, or in combat though, you can't take 10. And often that's where most of my "cool" things ended up happening.

The hitman couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, due to horrible dice rolls though out the entire sum of his life. So him correcting the characters who average at least a hit every other round.. Not happening.

Took ranks and feats that said my character can do X. Made backstory that says my character can do X. The dice say my character can't do X.


Those farmers? the DM doesn't even have to give them a single rank in anything. I'll get 15, he'll get 19. I went up against a minotaur with the hitman character to try and use a maneuver I had that could counter a charge. Dex was my highest stat and its lowest. I even botched and gave my self a +4. I rolled a 16 all together. It rolled 18, thus not only did I not push him aside, but I instead gave him bonuses to hit me. And so it did, and nearly killed my character.

It sounds like you just want to be a badass at level 1. While you can be decent, the power gap is very small at this level compared to other level 1's. James Bond wasn't a level 1. He went through training, beginning missions, had mentors, etc. Not to mention he still often gets beat down, captured, etc., even at his skill level.

Level up. Then kill low level characters. Low level NPCs. If you're level 8, go kill some level 1 goblins. Hell, make a quest out of it. Specify you're not looking for a challenge, just a way to prove your own skill to yourself. Then see how cool you look. The difference between level 1 and level 8 will be massive.

[absolmorph]

If you build your character well, you can have an awesome character in both word and deed.

For example, my fifth character was a sorcerer. He was a little bit bonkers, had a thing for fire and necromancy, was a bit of a sociopath and was pretty damn scary. By talking to the DM, I traded my familiar for a wolf skeleton. I used Prestidigitation to enhance my intimidation techniques, and I made sure that I could unleash some heavy firepower on anyone who got on my nerves.
Y'know what the result was? The most interesting character of the campaign (until we switched to 4e). He was powerful. He was willing to face off against just about anything.
He was a booping maniac.
And I, my DM and the other two players all loved him. It was awesome roleplay and he had almost no failures. The closest were his introduction (where he was hanging from the roof of a cave for no discernible reason) and when a boss had fire resistance. And then he dropped a fireball on the whole party (less of a fail for having the foresight to cast Resist Energy against fire on the party beforehand).

The idea that failure is better roleplay is a falsehood, and one that makes games harder to play. Saying it's better to play someone who fails because it's easier is just being lazy. Someone who struggles against the world and has failures and successes? That's an interesting character.

[LordBlades]

IMHO this is where optimization comes in.

If you want to make a character that, RP-wise is good at something, it only makes sense that you build it crunch-wise in such a way that he's good at that particular thing. If you want to RP a dragonslayer, then your char should probably be able to slay dragons.

Also, being good does not equal never failing. It usually means succeeding more than failing. Let's say you're a vampire slayer. You have slain vampires before (in your background), your char is built in such a way that he's good at slaying vampires, and he probably will slay more vampires in the course of the campaign (depending on how much your DM involves your background). Let's say you meet a vampire and you fail. So what? As long as you usually manage to slay the vampires you are encountering, you are a vampire slayer, regardless of the occasional screwup.

[Ozreth]

D&D tries to do a lot of things; RP isn't very high on its list of priorities.

AD&D 2e would beg to differ. With a pretty rules light system and the books being like %70 fluff/story/history/gaming ideas and %30 crunch.

But anyways I'm of the camp that good role-play can be had despite the system. As a previous poster stated it's all about stating events and reactions as opposed to dice and damage results/percentages.

[golentan]

IMHO this is where optimization comes in.

If you want to make a character that, RP-wise is good at something, it only makes sense that you build it crunch-wise in such a way that he's good at that particular thing. If you want to RP a dragonslayer, then your char should probably be able to slay dragons.

Also, being good does not equal never failing. It usually means succeeding more than failing. Let's say you're a vampire slayer. You have slain vampires before (in your background), your char is built in such a way that he's good at slaying vampires, and he probably will slay more vampires in the course of the campaign (depending on how much your DM involves your background). Let's say you meet a vampire and you fail. So what? As long as you usually manage to slay the vampires you are encountering, you are a vampire slayer, regardless of the occasional screwup.

Not even. As long as you have slain vampires, continue to go at it, and haven't died you're a vampire slayer. The bar gets set a lot lower in those sorts of professions, and 8 attempts for one success is pretty good if you aren't taking losses along the way. That sets him up for the possibility of persistence being a major character point, and meticulousness as well (if things go charlie foxtrot and you consistently walk away, that says some pretty awesome things about you).

And if someone points out "hey, you're batting what, 12 and a half percent. Not too impressive," you give them a self assured smile and say "I've killed 12. How many have you got?"

Just saying.

[Triskavanski]

Well maybe your 2nd ed did have actual RP, the other group i was in for a while didn't.

I join in with a lupin just as the party is fighting werewolves, I help them but I look kinda-like a werewolf. They attack me.. till they knock me out.. then suddenly I'm part of the party, and they are giving magical items.

After that, any crazy idea i came up with that went beyond the whole "I am a drow ranger with duel scimitars" (the DM's favorite character) was met with a large amount of loathing as i played a wild mage gambler, or a chronomancer.

The gambler was probably one of my best roleplayed characters, even though the DM went into total hate mode against me and kicked me out of that group. (On the account of they didn't want to read the rules of wild mages, and couldn't understand what I was doing as a result of it)

But for the hitman in the 3.5 campain it wasn't at all "never failing"

Battle 1 - we fight zombies.
Our fighters killed them so fast that combat was pretty much over as it started. Not really a bit deal though.

Battle 2 - More zombies. See battle one

Battle ? - I as a player wasn't there, but apparently it was a very tough battle and my character nearly died.

Battle 3 - Fight the minotaur and minions. Hit the minotaur once after attacking him about 3-4 times. Tried to jump and tumble away using a maneuver. Failed the minotaurs tumble check, and was promptly eating dirt. ranger gives potion and I stand up, minotaur charges and I use Counter Charge maneuver vs his dex. Minotaur still rolled higher than me and knocked me out again. Would have died had he not rolled all ones. rangerr gives another potion.

Event - Locked door - failed the open lock check by rolling a 3, was promptly attacked by some creature I forgot the name of. Had to be saved by the bard, as my maneuver to throw the thing also failed. (rolled a 2 on touch attack.)

Battle 4 - Choker - tried to use maneuver to throw it again, and missed as well. had to hide behind the whip using bard until she tripped it.

Event 2 - Blade trap - using my roleplaying, I produce the idea that the blades could be stopped by hard metal item, took metal pot from ranger and tried to use it to stop blades. Ended up slicing pot into pieces before finally stopping all the blades. (Which did work to my advantage as I could use pieces to stop other blades)

Event 3 - Locked chests - Tried to disarm trap - failed. Tried to open lock -failed so badly that the lock become broken. Used maneuver to throw a creature and succeeded, smashing one chest against another chest to find key, but set off another trap, and failed reflex save.

Event 4 - ran into necromancer, asked about necronomicon. Necromancer tries to leave and I try to follow. Promptly roll a string of <5 numbers, and necromancer is gone.

Battle 5 - Unhealthy obsession with bacon creeped up and I got the party to take a job to kill boars. Boars killed me instead.

Thats just one character failing at everything he ever tried to do and said he could do.

But thats not a fail-er. its a do-er trying to do, but failing at the do. A fail-er would instead not even try to do, and just forgo the chance to.

A fail-er being easier to RP is not a falsehood, example:

You have a sleeping guard, and two characters. The Do-er and the Fail-er. Both want to get to the guard (not the same guard, each has their own separate guard)

The do-er wants to be sneaky and go up the guard. The fail-er just walks up to the guard. Who gets a dice roll?

(say-ers wouldn't exist in this situation due to there actually being something to do.)

[Totally Guy]

It's not what you do. It's why you do it.

[JamesonCourage]

A fail-er being easier to RP is not a falsehood, example:

You have a sleeping guard, and two characters. The Do-er and the Fail-er. Both want to get to the guard (not the same guard, each has their own separate guard)

The do-er wants to be sneaky and go up the guard. The fail-er just walks up to the guard. Who gets a dice roll?

(say-ers wouldn't exist in this situation due to there actually being something to do.)

Both people are doing things. Rolling dice does not determine how easy something is to roleplay. Failing does not mean you aren't roleplaying. That's incorrect.

[Xefas]

AD&D 2e would beg to differ. With a pretty rules light system and the books being like %70 fluff/story/history/gaming ideas and %30 crunch.

Being rules light and having a novel/encyclopedia attached does not make it a good roleplaying game. Having roleplaying mechanics that actively encourage, support, and progress roleplaying makes something a good roleplaying game. No edition of D&D has these things.

In fact, "roleplaying" as a leisure activity, a game genre, and an industry was an emergent property of the original Dungeons and Dragons - it had no roleplaying in it, but people added that on later just as a side thing. D&D has continued that philosophy ever since.


But anyways I'm of the camp that good role-play can be had despite the system. As a previous poster stated it's all about stating events and reactions as opposed to dice and damage results/percentages.

I would encourage you to play some games like Inspectres, Lacuna, Dogs in the Vineyard, Free Market, Burning Wheel, or Mouse Guard. I think you'll find that instead of having a good time "despite" the system (as you put it), the system will actively support your roleplaying with its every mechanic and die roll.

EDIT:

It's not what you do. It's why you do it.

Glug knows what's up. Burning high-five!

[Totally Guy]

Glug knows what's up. Burning high-five!

High five!

I've yet to try something by Vincent Baker... I met the guy once but didn't realise it was him.

[kamikasei]

So, the problem is that, if you want to play your character as being good at something, you have to back that up with mechanics that allow them to do that thing well?

I don't see how this is a problem. Yes, if you want total freedom to describe what your character does without the mechanics ever limiting you in any way, you can play a character who's so totally useless at everything that she always fails and never even makes an attempt that would call for a check or roll. You wouldn't be playing such a character for long in any group I'm familiar with, though, because there'd be little reason for such a character to go adventuring and less for anyone to want to team up with them.

Depending on system, making a character mechanically capable of the feats you have in mind for them can be tricky. Partly you just need to calibrate your expectations based on the system at hand, and don't try to make characters who automatically succeed at anything. At the same time you can ask your DM to plug the gap a little, if the system yields a high chance of failure even for what should be trivial tasks for a given level of investment, by not requiring you to roll for every little thing.

[Samurai Jill]

Basically my current character has more roleplay to him, because he is a failer. He fails at things, so the roleplay is about him failing at it. You don't need to roll dice to fail at something, you can just fail at it.
I don't think this is a question of success vs. failure so much as it's a question of monomaniacally pursuing certain goals vs. having a multi-faceted personality. Characters with any amount of depth or subtlety or conviction will have beliefs or relationships or motives that can, at least potentially, make conflicting demands upon their behaviour. For example, your Hit Man might be ambitious, yet saddled by a code of honour which demands honesty toward his fraternity or employer. What happens when his honesty conflicts with his ambition?

To give a simple example, I recently played an apostate cleric who decided she wanted to heal some wounded refugees, even though expending spell points in this fashion would negatively impact her potential performance in an upcoming combat. (i.e, compassion vs. pragmatism, or loyalty to the party/self vs. loyalty to strangers.) I didn't fail at healing those refugees, I was simply demonstrating a commitment to something other than the single-minded goal of progressing through the railroad plot.

[Fallbot]

I can see where you're coming from. Just last night I had my crazy awesome assassin detected and then kneed in the groin and held at knifepoint by a lower level rogue/prostitute, and yeah, it was humiliating. Or having a character supposed to be an excellent climber fail a good 4 times in a row at scaling a short section of cliff that the rest of the not so athletically inclined party members got up with ease.

The way to avoid complete and total humiliation in these situations is to lie your ass of and come up with mitigating factors. My assassin would totally have kicked her ass, if he hadn't had those few drinks in that bar he visited earlier that I didn't really mention at the time. And I could easily have gotten up that cliff if I wasn't covered in slippy slime from that monstrous toad we just fought.

Disclaimer: this does rather depend on the disposition of your DM - mine is happy to tolerate this and thinks it's funny, but a crueller one might start imposing real penalties for your imaginary handicaps, which you most certainly don't want, so use with care.

Further disclaimer: this works to cover for the odd embarrassing slip up, but if you're consistently failing at what your character is supposed to be good at, it might be worth looking at your build and maybe reworking a few things.

[MarkusWolfe]

*snip*
Let's go over that again:

-Did not take 10s on open lock and disable device checks and failed checks
-Failed to countercharge a minotaur after tripping up in it's area
-Nearly died several times (squishy?)
-Fails at shadowing someone
-Dies on a boar hunt (what's squishy doing on the front lines?)

Here's my diagnosis:

-incompetence on players part
-did not make a good build
-did not make a build that matched the character concept
-does not play the character in a manner which maximizes build potential
-does not take tens where it may be beneficial to do so
-bad luck
-low rolls
-situationally bad luck

Come up with a new character concept, design a build that is solid and will synergize well with the character concept. Until you do that, all I hear is "I put no ranks in jump, but I should be able to jump 20 ft because character concept, durrrrrrrrrr." Also, check out your dice. They might have some bad mojo on them.

[Triskavanski]

I can see where you're coming from. Just last night I had my crazy awesome assassin detected and then kneed in the groin and held at knifepoint by a lower level rogue/prostitute, and yeah, it was humiliating. Or having a character supposed to be an excellent climber fail a good 4 times in a row at scaling a short section of cliff that the rest of the not so athletically inclined party members got up with ease.

The way to avoid complete and total humiliation in these situations is to lie your ass of and come up with mitigating factors. My assassin would totally have kicked her ass, if he hadn't had those few drinks in that bar he visited earlier that I didn't really mention at the time. And I could easily have gotten up that cliff if I wasn't covered in slippy slime from that monstrous toad we just fought.

Disclaimer: this does rather depend on the disposition of your DM - mine is happy to tolerate this and thinks it's funny, but a crueller one might start imposing real penalties for your imaginary handicaps, which you most certainly don't want, so use with care.

Further disclaimer: this works to cover for the odd embarrassing slip up, but if you're consistently failing at what your character is supposed to be good at, it might be worth looking at your build and maybe reworking a few things.

Yep that is exactly what I mean. Its not so much my builds, but the roll of the dice. Every single time an important check came up, i basically failed the roll, whether it was attack rolls or a skill check.

As my DM says, I'm the most unluckiest person he has ever seen in a game.

[absolmorph]

You have a sleeping guard, and two characters. The Do-er and the Fail-er. Both want to get to the guard (not the same guard, each has their own separate guard)

The do-er wants to be sneaky and go up the guard. The fail-er just walks up to the guard. Who gets a dice roll?
Let's say this do-er is a thief. Now, let's continue on to say that this thief tries to avoid using magic as much as possible, because they like to be self-reliant. So, even if they do have a scroll of Silence, they don't use it because it's out-of-character. They could still be optimized well and easily succeed on sneaking up to the guard, because they're built to succeed. And they just made that Move Silently roll into a bit of RP.

I think this is a similar idea to the Stormwind Fallacy; Triskavanski is arguing that weaker characters (the ones who fail) are easier to RP than the stronger characters (who succeed).

I'd like to point out that having a character whose actions entirely focus on failure (repeated ones, at that) is unrealistic, as most people in real life have a mixture of successes and failures.

[Triskavanski]

Let's go over that again:

-Did not take 10s on open lock and disable device checks and failed checks
-Failed to countercharge a minotaur after tripping up in it's area
-Nearly died several times (squishy?)
-Fails at shadowing someone
-Dies on a boar hunt (what's squishy doing on the front lines?)

Here's my diagnosis:

-incompetence on players part
-did not make a good build
-did not make a build that matched the character concept
-does not play the character in a manner which maximizes build potential
-does not take tens where it may be beneficial to do so
-bad luck
-low rolls
-situationally bad luck

Come up with a new character concept, design a build that is solid and will synergize well with the character concept. Until you do that, all I hear is "I put no ranks in jump, but I should be able to jump 20 ft because character concept, durrrrrrrrrr." Also, check out your dice. They might have some bad mojo on them.

Again, the build was made to specifically do the things I set out to do. It was not me wanting to do something and then not taking any ranks/feats in it.

Yes, I know that I shouldn't be in the front lines. I was suppose to be a quick striker who came in, stabbed and got out. But the player who played our tank.. well didn't play a tank. He took a bit of damage, retreated behind our squishies and started shooting monsters with a bow. I bravely sacrificed my character to get between the bard and the boars. (She was at 1 hp)

Our DM doesn't let you take ten to do traps. Didn't even have a chance to take 10 on the lock as the first failure ended in me getting attacked by creatures who were awakened by our tanks torch. (I had darkvision, but it wasn't good enough for him.)

The minotaur, No, it was my area. Maneuver from tomb of battle - Counter charge. My dex was higher, and i got bonuses either because we botched or he was actually large (I forget) but my roll was horrible and his was awesome.

The necromancer.. well to be honest the DM wasn't gonna let me follow him regardless. But I still rolled really low on the rolls for it. (Rolled really high though to follow the sent into a wall.. no secret door.)

And again, I maxed out my primary skills and got as many synergies as possible.

I'm currently in the process of replacing all my dice, burning my dice bag, and blessing a new set of rubber coated adamantain-silver dice with mercury cores.

[kamikasei]

I think this is a similar idea to the Stormwind Fallacy; Triskavanski is arguing that weaker characters (the ones who fail) are easier to RP than the stronger characters (who succeed).
I think the argument is more that the character who'd expect to succeed might roll badly, and thus her mechanics prevent her from playing her intended role, whereas the one who'd expect to fail doesn't even need to roll because she doesn't try, and so her mechanics fully support her role (by never being used).

[Greenish]

Or get some new dice! :smallwink:And melt the old ones in microwave while the new ones watch, just to set an example.

[Triskavanski]

Let's say this do-er is a thief. Now, let's continue on to say that this thief tries to avoid using magic as much as possible, because they like to be self-reliant. So, even if they do have a scroll of Silence, they don't use it because it's out-of-character. They could still be optimized well and easily succeed on sneaking up to the guard, because they're built to succeed. And they just made that Move Silently roll into a bit of RP.

I think this is a similar idea to the Stormwind Fallacy; Triskavanski is arguing that weaker characters (the ones who fail) are easier to RP than the stronger characters (who succeed).

I'd like to point out that having a character whose actions entirely focus on failure (repeated ones, at that) is unrealistic, as most people in real life have a mixture of successes and failures.

No, remember there are three archtypes. The do-er, the say-er and the fail-er.

The say-er can say anything, cause he doesn't actually have to do anything.

I volunteer at a local town soup kitchen.

This doesn't have to be proven through the means of random dice rolls. Yes, there is sometimes a take 10 action, but it doesn't apply to every situation and often at least many of my DM's would have me roll if I was to say "I am chef who makes really good soup." for I have to prove that my soup is infact good.

This leads us to a Do-er. Who actually has to prove he can do. When the do-er does, then he is easy to roleplay. When he doesn't he gets harder. and when he nevers it gets to the point he isn't really a do-er anymore. Alternatively you could be a fail-er.

The fail-er automatically fails. Thus all actions of the failure is done on their own terms at all times when they want to fail. For example I fail to make a spot check for I'm too busy reading a book. So the book reader can almost nearly describe the entirety of his failure.

Time was set aside last session when our book worm, wandered all over town attempting to find the library but was too busy reading a book and kept getting lost.



I think the argument is more that the character who'd expect to succeed might roll badly, and thus her mechanics prevent her from playing her intended role, whereas the one who'd expect to fail doesn't even need to roll because she doesn't try, and so her mechanics fully support her role (by never being used).

Exactly.

[Totally Guy]

The phenomenon Triskavanski has picked up on is also evidenced in backstory.

Players often choose to canonise their awesomeness by writing it straight into the game world by backstory. I jokingly refer to it sometimes as playing before you play.

[Triskavanski]

The phenomenon Triskavanski has picked up on is also evidenced in backstory.

Players often choose to canonise their awesomeness by writing it straight into the game world by backstory. I jokingly refer to it sometimes as playing before you play.

Yeah. Its so much easier to say your character sucked in his backstory and then be awesome in game, than it is to say your character was awesome in his backstory and suck in game.

Its nice though when you both are awesome in your backstory and awesome in game, which doesn't happen very often for the more skill oriented types at lower levels regardless of how many point you've invested in skills.

[absolmorph]

The problem is that you said it's easier to RP a fail-er, but in reality it's no easier to RP a fail-er than a do-er or say-er. It's only easier to be a fail-er.

[WarKitty]

Had the same problem. I built a really good character, a sneak and a former assassin. Guess what? I never rolled anything higher than a 6 for the entire session. Now all of a sudden I'm playing a buffoon and a braggart, as far as the rest of the table is concerned.

[MarkusWolfe]

SNIP

Well, then it appears that the comments concerning player competence should be directed at the fighter. Although it's certainly possible that the entire party is just suffering from the low level blues. Wait.....if the fighter is scared of a mere boar, they're definitely suffering the low level blues.

[Sillycomic]

Although, I do think it's interesting that the fighter himself could be role playing a fighter that is scared to fight.

It would be a cool and interesting personality quirk.

[Xefas]

This phenomenon is completely absent in most/all of the games I listed. If "being good at X" is important to your character, and you sink some points into X, then it's 100% guaranteed that he's good at it. If, in Burning Wheel, you say "I'm the greatest lockpick in all the land and that is important to me and it's important to my character" then you can, if you want, never fail to pick a lock.

Which isn't to say that you can't fail a lockpicking test. If you roll abysmally, you still fail the test. But, because you're a master lockpick there's no way you'd fail on that lock so, instead, your failure is represented in other ways.

You roll all 1s, you fail the lockpicking test, so you pick the lock and there're guards on the other side that otherwise wouldn't have been there. Or you pick the lock, but it's all for naught because the villain moved up his plans and executed your niece ahead of schedule. Or you pick the lock, but two months down the road, when you're trying to infiltrate another place, they've heard of how amazing you are and stepped up security. I could go on and on.

Of course, you get the real drama when, for instance, the guy who cares about being a master swordsman loses a sword duel test and he can choose to spend his compromise on either "obviously show that I'm the better swordsman" or "lose but reveal the Duke's evil ways, giving me momentum to gather support to mount an insurrection" and they have to choose which is more important to them. They may have beliefs like "I'm the greatest swordsman in all the land", and "Duke Ferrington must be usurped at all costs"; which belief does he go with? That could be very character defining. Does he define himself by being a Swordsman? A Hero? a Rebel?

[Xiander]

Personally i believe that the way a "doer" acts when he fails says volumes about his character...
Anecdote time:

I played a level fifteen game with a couple of friends. One of the other players played a sorcerer, who was always very serious and pracmatic, to a degree where at times he seemed more like a machine than a person (he played it well, and it was a really interesting character). he was very much ar "doer" by the way you describe the type.
In the introduction phase of the game, this character and the party rouge had to teleport somewhere. Having saved his higher level known spells for other stuff the character cast teleport. The dice decided to deposit the two travelers in an ocean a far way away from their intended destination. The sorcerer casts teleport again and those ficle dice decide to end the two in a dessert.
The rouge was furious demanding an explanation for why he was firs dunked in water then in sand. The socerer did not even shrug. He cast the third teleport spell sending them to the intended destination. It was all buisiness and he couldn´t care less that it took three tries even though that made him look foolish in front of the rouge.
Out of character every one was laughing. Still the player managed to present his character as someone who did not get angry or frustrated by failing and who was to practical to stop and apologize, in stead focusing on reaching his goal.
Later it was revealed that the character was actually a sorcerors spirit locked in a sword, exerting mental control over the sword's wielder. When we found out, all the other players went "well that explains a lot!", and laughed.

The point is that this character started out by failing spectacularly, twice, yet still managed to be a doer and command respect later in the game.

In short, everybody rolls bad at times, but thats as much a ground for roleplaying as succeding is, even for a "doer".

[Sillycomic]

I bravely sacrificed my character to get between the bard and the boars. (She was at 1 hp)

I do find it interesting that you have a story about a boar and you only feel sad because your character didn't kill a boar and died instead....

And then further explaining the story you said that he bravely stepped in the way to save a bard who would have died had she been hit by the boar.

How is this a failure of role playing? You role played your character perfectly. You looked at what was going on around you and decided that you needed to save someone. You were a selfless hero and protector of someone who must certainly needed it at that moment. To anyone else it would be a crowning achievement of their character... but to you it just goes to show that you couldn't role play your character because there were boars in the way.

So wait, you did this for your fellow bard, and yet you play a character who is specifically intended to kill people for money. This character must have some compassion for friends if he indeed will sacrifice himself simply so others do not suffer and die?

This was good role playing. I just wish you could see it as that.

[Triskavanski]

It totally should have been a crowning moment. Yet it was passed over by the rest of the party as an unhealthy obsession with bacon. By that time, my character is dead thus impossible to roleplay further.

Also it wasn't the fighter (rather ranger) who was a coward, it was the player. His tanks think they are squishy, and his squishies think they are tanks. Just ended up happening he was playing a tank, and forced the squishes to tank.

If I had been truly capable of RPing the character, I would have left the party to fight the boars while they did something else. Who knows, maybe I would have managed to succeed, because the DM would have only put on boar instead of 6-8 after the player playing the bard asked if the three boars was all there was.

But I was at a point where I couldn't trust my dice or the DM's dice to carry me through the encounter. Approx once out of every battle, the DM criticals against me.

So like Warkitty was saying, same thing with my guy.

course it doesn't help that two of our players are combat oriented players who kinda need a battle every other encounter and have no real finesse about it, but thats due mostly to medical issues.

Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have had to fight nearly as much, and might have been able to do other things.

[KillianHawkeye]

Characters who always succeed and never fail are boring characters. Be happy that you are being challenged in the game.

[WarKitty]

Characters who always succeed and never fail are boring characters. Be happy that you are being challenged in the game.

Always failing is also pretty boring. :smallyuk:

[Sillycomic]

I think you have a legitimate reason to complain about your group, but I don't think it comes down to the fact that you can only role play a character if you actively try to fail at things.

[Triskavanski]

I never said you can only roleplay, I simply said It was far easier.

In otherwords, running a marathon is hard. sitting on your butt is easy.

Running the marathon and finishing is great. Running the marthon and getting ran over, thus not finishing is terrible. And if some how every time you try to run a marathon you get ran over, well sitting on your butt starts to look very tempting.

Like warkitty said, Always failing is as boring as always succeeding. Especially when its a character that should be able to succeed usually, but the hand of fate always makes him fail instead, rather than the script.

For example The Goonies. Data is a do-er. Lets say the first part of the story was his back story and you find out that Data is a failure at doing things. His gadgets never work. But now they go on an adventure and his gadgets do work through it.

Imagine how different it would have been had he not been able to use his gadgets because they still continued to fail (even though he was rolling and not just auto-failing) He would have been dead in the pit.

His slick shoes.. well there is a balance check and some other check there probably. Had he failed that he would have been in trouble there as well.

Now if the first part of the movie isn't just his backstory and his story was about how awesome his inventions were, and he went through the first part of the movie were his gadgets failed him, as a player I would start to become frustrated myself. But writing that he fails with them into his backstory, I'd be less frustrated and then really happy when they save me from death and help against other things.

As the saying goes, Optimists are always met with disappointment and Pessimists are met with surprise.

[KillianHawkeye]

Like warkitty said, Always failing is as boring as always succeeding. Especially when its a character that should be able to succeed usually, but the hand of fate always makes him fail instead, rather than the script.

Look, okay, I get it. Everybody rolls badly sometimes.

But that doesn't mean you can't roleplay. Maybe it is your character who should be the one getting frustrated. Maybe the hand of Fate really is out to get you. Maybe you've been cursed by the gods. Maybe you're just having a really bad day. Maybe your character needs to go through these trials and difficulties to learn and grow and reach a new realization which changes the way he lives his life.

Maybe you should just stop complaining. :smallannoyed:

[SiuiS]

Its not so much my builds, but the roll of the dice.
this is only true until about level 2. Unless you are trying to do something that you actually can't do (tumble through a wall of force; stab someone and tell the witnesses you didn't do it) then 5 ranks plus ability mod plus circumstance bonus should net you success almost all the time. You cannot botch a skill check. If you roll a 1, have 5 ranks, a circumstance item, and an ability mod of two, you still beat DC 10.


No, remember there are three archtypes. The do-er, the say-er and the fail-er this is your hypothesis; it has not been proven. You cannot use it as it's own proof- that is, if someone has a counter argument for your archetypes, you cannot quote your archetypes as proof that their counter argument is wrong.


The fail-er automatically fails. Thus all actions of the failure is done on their own terms at all times when they want to fail. For example I fail to make a spot check for I'm too busy reading a book. So the book reader can almost nearly describe the entirety of his failure.
I see what you mean, but you are confusing cause and effect.
The failer failing is not role-play. How everyone handles the failure is role-play. Similarly, to use your vampire hunter example, succeeding is not role-play. How you handle the success is role-play.

For example; "I fail my spot check because I'm reading" is an action, but not RP. Everyone freaking out, and you saying "what? What did I miss? It better be worth interrupting my Anne McCaffrey!" is RP.
Slaying a vampire is an action, but not RP. Saying "I look around, breathing hard from the fight. I'm going to shake off the blood and try to calm down any witnesses. 'ahem. Good morning, miss. Don't worry, I'll hire a maid'." is RP.


The problem is that you said it's easier to RP a fail-er, but in reality it's no easier to RP a fail-er than a do-er or say-er. It's only easier to be a fail-er.
exactly right. in either scenario (success or failure) you aren't role-playing. You're succeeding and/or failing. How you bounce back from it is role-playing.

You're not having trouble role-playing, you're having trouble at both RPing and succeeding at the same time, so you're rationalizing taking a hit in one area so you don't have to divide resources or have a conflicting system.

[Samurai Jill]

Yeah. Its so much easier to say your character sucked in his backstory and then be awesome in game, than it is to say your character was awesome in his backstory and suck in game.

Its nice though when you both are awesome in your backstory and awesome in game, which doesn't happen very often for the more skill oriented types at lower levels regardless of how many point you've invested in skills.
Again, I'd have to agree with Glug that it's not really so much a question of mechanical competence as much as motivation: The character who tries and fails on their own initiative is a better role-player than the consistently competent character who has no really independent ambitions.

Really though, I don't see why a well-built character would have particular difficulty with having reasonable competence in multiple areas. If you feel there's a problem with expected competence deviating too far from actual performance, that may be because your game's task-resolution system sucks. e.g, is rolling a d20 too large a random factor? You may find multi-dice systems give a tighter distribution curve, so that spectacular failures and unearned successes tend to be much rarer.

[Greenish]

that may be because your game's task-resolution system sucks. e.g, is rolling a d20 too large a random factor? You may find multi-dice systems give a tighter distribution curve, so that spectacular failures and unearned successes tend to be much rarer.And even if your heart is set on 3.5, there's an option (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm). You could suggest the bell curve rolls for your DM, at least for skills.