"I don't expect players to swing an axe, so why should they do riddles?" [Archive]

SangoProduction

2019-02-01, 03:21 PM

Bronk

2019-02-01, 03:38 PM

I'm somewhere in the middle on that. You should be able to do some minimum of role playing - say for diplomacy - then, at some point, get back to the game part and actually roll the skill. Otherwise, why bother with the rules at all?

Riddles, on the other hand, I'm not at all fond of. They're often the type that seem super simple to the DM, but turn out to be entirely dependent on both their exact thought processes and their ability to explain what's going on, while being resistant to all other character options. They're a bit more appropriate for AD&D, when there wasn't an expectation that most obstacles could be destroyed or bypassed in some way.

Hackulator

2019-02-01, 03:46 PM

My number one rule when I'm DMing is for people to have fun. Therefore while I encourage roleplaying, I don't penalize players who are not great roleplayers. In the game I'm currently running, I have a player whose character is a high Charisma Skald with a fair number of face skills. The player himself, while a perfectly nice dude, is just kind of shy and not much of a talker. So while I encourage him to RP what his character is saying or doing, if he's stumbling over his words and just wants to roll his skills I let him and it works fine.

For your metaphor, it's less saying "I attack" without explaining what you are attacking or how and more saying "I swing my sword at the orc" without expecting my player to be able to describe the proper mechanics of the correct kind of sword stroke in a fight between a swordsman and a guy wielding an axe. If my player WANTS to go into detail about the specifics of his attack I'm all for it, but he or she doesn't need to.

SangoProduction

2019-02-01, 03:49 PM

I'm somewhere in the middle on that. You should be able to do some minimum of role playing - say for diplomacy - then, at some point, get back to the game part and actually roll the skill. Otherwise, why bother with the rules at all?
I agree. I feel skills should inform the magnitude of success or failure, rather than just a "Well, you rolled low, so I guess just roll again."

Riddles, on the other hand, I'm not at all fond of. They're often the type that seem super simple to the DM, but turn out to be entirely dependent on both their exact thought processes and their ability to explain what's going on, while being resistant to all other character options. They're a bit more appropriate for AD&D, when there wasn't an expectation that most obstacles could be destroyed or bypassed in some way.

Some riddles are actually good, and can actually be solved by looking around. And an appropriate check would get clues. But I'm not going to lie and say all or even most riddles inserted in to dungeons are particularly inspired or thought out.

Elkad

2019-02-01, 04:22 PM

Hunter Noventa

2019-02-01, 04:50 PM

Describe my Diplomacy interaction? Nope. I'm going to say "I try reason with the guard to let us into the Grand Duke's party without an invitation", roll a die and sit back. Because I can't do that IRL either, so I'm not getting into a roleplay session with the DM where I feel out if I can bribe him, or convince him I'm invited, or whatever.

Exactly this, most of the reason people play TTRPGs is to do things they can't in real life. For some it's cast magic spells, for others its kill orcs with a sword...and for some its being suave and charismatic. I agree you can't just say 'I roll diplomacy/bluff' and expect progress, you need to at least articulate the gist of what you're going for, whether it be haggling a better price or convincing a guard to look the other way, but you don't necessarily have to act out all the dialogue involved. Not only can it be difficult for some players, it can also bog down the session if you're spending ten minutes of conversation bluffing a guard while the rest of the party is unable to contribute.

Boci

2019-02-01, 05:46 PM

In addition to the obvious objections, riddles are hard to add to a game. Think about the kind of challenges a party can face: combat, traps, exploration or social stuff. You can probably name a dozen books where the characters face similar challenges. But riddles? There's the famous scene from the Hobbit, and at a stretch the legend of the sphinx, but other than that?

And let's look at those two. Whilst the Hobbit scene works for the book, it is a little contrived. Additionally, Bilbo kinda wins by BS. "What's in my pocket" is not actually a riddle, and he also invents another one on the spot, which is the players will typically not be allowed to do. Indeed, it wasn't one riddle, but a contest.

The sphinx one is closer to what could actually be implemented, but its still a bit anticlimatic.

I use riddles, but not as obstacles, you can refuse to answer them and still proceed, an NPC might just like you better, or it can contain hints about a monster you will soon face. For example, players might find on a wall:

"Despite my blood I crave the light,
A beast is seldom found contrite.
By hellish writ, I claim my pray,
With hunter's pride, enter the fray"

Its just on a wall. You don't have to solve it, the passageway continues, but you can maybe get some hints about a future encounter from it.

Hackulator

2019-02-01, 06:05 PM

Crake

2019-02-01, 06:14 PM

Solving Riddles? Fine.
Describing how I defeat the trap instead of just rolling Disable Device? Sure.

Describe my Diplomacy interaction? Nope. I'm going to say "I try reason with the guard to let us into the Grand Duke's party without an invitation", roll a die and sit back. Because I can't do that IRL either, so I'm not getting into a roleplay session with the DM where I feel out if I can bribe him, or convince him I'm invited, or whatever.

Which means if I'm at the kind of table where that is expected, I'm going to play a character with a Cha similar to mine (6-8 range) every single time.

In the same vein, I never play a character with a low int. Because then I feel guilty about beating the puzzle in 3 seconds, or devising a method to get by the trap without rolling Disable Device, or whatever.

I would say that coming up with an angle to reason with the guard is int, while actually doing the convincing is cha. If your int at least decent irl, it shouldn't be hard to say "I try to convince the guard that he's been working hard all day, and deserves a break with Jim the fighter at the local bar, and offer to pay for a round, then while he's out, we pick the lock and get into the party." It's not like you're actually being asked to roleplay each individual line said during the exchange, but at least coming up with an angle isn't unreasonable. If your RL int is decent at least, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, even if your low cha means you would have trouble executing it IRL.

Basically, I'm saying you can still decide HOW you go about things, without describing the fine details, otherwise consider this: If you just "reason with the guard" what is the DM supposed to do with that information? He needs something to be able to determine the guard's actions, some kind of justification to let you in, either you've convinced him there's some urgent matter (in which case he would likely escort you, rather than let you in freely), or you've distracted him by convincing him there's some kind of brawl going on elsewhere, long enough for you to sneak in, or you convinced him you were someone else on the list, in which case, later on, when that person DOES come, there will be trouble and suspicion.

Can you see my point? How you do things has consequences, so unless you want the DM to decide how your character does things for you (which I think is putting too much extra work on the DM's side, he already has to run the entire game world, now he also needs to run your characters?) then you need to at least come up with something beyond "I convince him to let us in without an invitation *roll*"

Bronk

2019-02-01, 07:15 PM

I would say that coming up with an angle to reason with the guard is int, while actually doing the convincing is cha. If your int at least decent irl, it shouldn't be hard to say "I try to convince the guard that he's been working hard all day, and deserves a break with Jim the fighter at the local bar, and offer to pay for a round, then while he's out, we pick the lock and get into the party." It's not like you're actually being asked to roleplay each individual line said during the exchange, but at least coming up with an angle isn't unreasonable. If your RL int is decent at least, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, even if your low cha means you would have trouble executing it IRL.

Basically, I'm saying you can still decide HOW you go about things, without describing the fine details, otherwise consider this: If you just "reason with the guard" what is the DM supposed to do with that information? He needs something to be able to determine the guard's actions, some kind of justification to let you in, either you've convinced him there's some urgent matter (in which case he would likely escort you, rather than let you in freely), or you've distracted him by convincing him there's some kind of brawl going on elsewhere, long enough for you to sneak in, or you convinced him you were someone else on the list, in which case, later on, when that person DOES come, there will be trouble and suspicion.

Can you see my point? How you do things has consequences, so unless you want the DM to decide how your character does things for you (which I think is putting too much extra work on the DM's side, he already has to run the entire game world, now he also needs to run your characters?) then you need to at least come up with something beyond "I convince him to let us in without an invitation *roll*"

In this case, I'd say that 'I try to X my way past this guard' would be the bare minimum, and anything beyond that would be good for a bonus to the check. They might try to reason with the guard, which would be diplomacy. Distracting the guard with a brawl would be bluff. Tricking the guard with false documents would be forgery. Maybe the player will try to role play, combining more than one skill, or setting up a justification, and that's great... that's going above and beyond, and deserves that extra bonus. But, sometimes people just draw a blank in real life, for whatever reason, and their character and the flow of the game shouldn't have to pay the price.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-01, 07:46 PM

But it still does seem a bit weird when people actually declare the exclusive use of skills to skip over gameplay, like riddles, puzzles, and roleplaying, to be the superior method.

Well, humans in general like to 'skip' stuff....but this really comes from the players that play a lot of video games, and in fact, think all games should be played the horrible video game way. Specifically: the Kidzs Way. If you have seen at least one kid play an RPG type video game you should have seen it: They don't even glance at any 'text' on the screen and just hit 'continue' or 'next' to skip past it as quickly as possible and get to combat. Of course, even the ''best'' video game still has the npcs ''just sit there" and say ''pre programmed things". So a typical players gets used to just almost skipping the npc stuff as it is just ''the gard guard says halt, do you A)talk your way past them or B) run away". Then the player just hits the ''A'' button and continues the game.

My game requires a huge amount of role playing. And as my game is a deadly game, the player that ''can't" role play for even thirty seconds will likely just get their character killed.

When it comes to role playing, or even just describing things I in no way require players to be ''boring real life experts'' on the topic and say what a ''boring real life expert'' would say. But I do require players to be role playing fakers.

For example I don't expect a player of a fighter character to really physically use an axe in my back yard to fight a monster. But I do expect a player of a fighter character to say and describe how they would do it fictionally. So, no, the player is not running around in the back yard; but they are sitting at the game table and saying ''Gorn swings his axe in a low arc to catch and cut the owlbear in the side of it's chest". It does not matter at all how ''real" it is...it can in fact be 100% imaginary and fake, as long as it sounds good.

Basically I refuse to let any player in my game do the dumb ''roll to win" thing where they just sit there and say ''I rolled high, my character just does things and stuff".

And this is true of any skill. I don't expect shy Dan to really be able to really sneak into a grand ball with a smile and a couple words, but I do expect player Dan to be able to describe at least a vague outline of how it's done. I don't expect Bob to really pick a lock, but I expect player Bob to be able to describe at least a vague outline of how it's done.

I do fully expect players to, for real, do things like solve mysteries, solve puzzles, problem solve, figure out riddles, figure out clues and such things. I never let a player just sit there and say "I'm too dumb...or lazy to do it, but I rolled a 20 so my character figures it out!".

It's true that some players have left my game as they ''can't" or "won't" solve a puzzle or riddle for real. But I have found most players can, in fact, figure them out...eventually. Sometimes. But the best thing is, after a couple riddles or puzzles...amazingly...they ''get the hang out it" and have much less trouble in the future.

tadkins

2019-02-01, 08:05 PM

Some of the responses in here just kind of make me sad. According to this logic, I shouldn't be playing an 18 INT Wizard if I'm simply not that smart in real life, and struggle with things like logic and puzzles? If I'm socially awkward and lack wit, I shouldn't be playing 18 CHA characters? If I'm naive and think differently from other people, 18 WIS characters are off the table? Not athletic and get winded easily? Well there goes anything with STR, DEX and CON. The only thing I should be trying to roleplay as in any game is a pathetic level 1 commoner?

SangoProduction

2019-02-01, 08:18 PM

Mechalich

2019-02-01, 08:37 PM

This is a tricky area. The entire purpose of having a rule for challenges is to preserve the character as the actor, not the player, both in terms of things that character might be good at while the player is bad at them and in terms of things the player might be good at while the character is bad at them (such as playing a character with a Thog-level intelligence score as if they had above-average intelligence). However, if taken too far this reduces the game to nothing but abstraction and reduces all interesting story and characterization aspects to a continuous stream of 'I role X, getting result Y.'

I feel that players really need to describe what their players are trying to do and how they are trying to do it. Further, players should want to do this because it improves their agency. If a player just says 'I roll diplomacy to convince this guard to let me pass' then the framing of the result is completely up to the GM and the collaborative value of the game collapses. If the players don't engage with scenarios, then all they're doing is playing RNG for the GM's story.

Crake

2019-02-01, 08:37 PM

OK. I think I tried to make this clear that that's not what I said. ...And even Darth Ultron, the guy who required roleplaying, didn't say that.
So taking the piss with such accusations is... doing what, exactly?

It's strawmanning, trying to make his side look good by making our side look bad.

Well, humans in general like to 'skip' stuff....but this really comes from the players that play a lot of video games, and in fact, think all games should be played the horrible video game way. Specifically: the Kidzs Way. If you have seen at least one kid play an RPG type video game you should have seen it: They don't even glance at any 'text' on the screen and just hit 'continue' or 'next' to skip past it as quickly as possible and get to combat. Of course, even the ''best'' video game still has the npcs ''just sit there" and say ''pre programmed things". So a typical players gets used to just almost skipping the npc stuff as it is just ''the gard guard says halt, do you A)talk your way past them or B) run away". Then the player just hits the ''A'' button and continues the game.

My game requires a huge amount of role playing. And as my game is a deadly game, the player that ''can't" role play for even thirty seconds will likely just get their character killed.

When it comes to role playing, or even just describing things I in no way require players to be ''boring real life experts'' on the topic and say what a ''boring real life expert'' would say. But I do require players to be role playing fakers.

For example I don't expect a player of a fighter character to really physically use an axe in my back yard to fight a monster. But I do expect a player of a fighter character to say and describe how they would do it fictionally. So, no, the player is not running around in the back yard; but they are sitting at the game table and saying ''Gorn swings his axe in a low arc to catch and cut the owlbear in the side of it's chest". It does not matter at all how ''real" it is...it can in fact be 100% imaginary and fake, as long as it sounds good.

Basically I refuse to let any player in my game do the dumb ''roll to win" thing where they just sit there and say ''I rolled high, my character just does things and stuff".

And this is true of any skill. I don't expect shy Dan to really be able to really sneak into a grand ball with a smile and a couple words, but I do expect player Dan to be able to describe at least a vague outline of how it's done. I don't expect Bob to really pick a lock, but I expect player Bob to be able to describe at least a vague outline of how it's done.

I do fully expect players to, for real, do things like solve mysteries, solve puzzles, problem solve, figure out riddles, figure out clues and such things. I never let a player just sit there and say "I'm too dumb...or lazy to do it, but I rolled a 20 so my character figures it out!".

It's true that some players have left my game as they ''can't" or "won't" solve a puzzle or riddle for real. But I have found most players can, in fact, figure them out...eventually. Sometimes. But the best thing is, after a couple riddles or puzzles...amazingly...they ''get the hang out it" and have much less trouble in the future.

I don't 100% agree here. I'll require players to come up with some kind of direction for things that actually affect the outcome. For example with diplomacy, how you convince the guard to let you in will have some sort of consequence later down the line, but how you swing an axe or pick a lock won't usually have consequences. I very much wholeheartedly agree with the idea that players can't just defer that thought process, because what they're essentially saying is "I can't think of something, you figure it out for me", putting unnecessary extra work on the DM's hands. If the DM has to figure out this stuff for you, then why does he even need players, he may as well just go off and write a book about the adventure.

tadkins

2019-02-01, 08:56 PM

OK. I think I tried to make this clear that that's not what I said. ...And even Darth Ultron, the guy who required roleplaying, didn't say that.
So taking the piss with such accusations is... doing what, exactly?

You're saying that, if I joined one of your games, even as someone who is already depressed, suicidal, and feeling inept at life in general, wouldn't even get the opportunity to pretend to be a smart, or charming, or witty guy despite there being an 18 INT or 18 CHA on the character sheet. That I'd be penalized for being unable to properly portray the character with my shortcomings despite the character itself being able to.

Deophaun

2019-02-01, 09:01 PM

Some riddles are actually good, and can actually be solved by looking around.
Here is a good rule of thumb: Some riddles can be good. Yours, however, always suck. Plan accordingly.

Describe my Diplomacy interaction? Nope. I'm going to say "I try reason with the guard to let us into the Grand Duke's party without an invitation", roll a die and sit back. Because I can't do that IRL either, so I'm not getting into a roleplay session with the DM where I feel out if I can bribe him, or convince him I'm invited, or whatever.
Eh. I understand the sentiment, but this is also like saying that, since I'm no good at tactics, but my fighter is, I'll roll a D20 for him to thwart the entire orcish horde.

There is a vast, vast area to explore between being a world class Method actor and "I rolled a 19, does he do what I want?" How do you reason with the guard? Do you pretend to be offended that you aren't let in? Do you commiserate over what a terrible post he has? It doesn't require you to RP but, just like in combat where you are positioning yourself with flanking or trying to block the path to the wizard and you're figuring out how much to PA for while trying to maintain some cover from the enemy archers, you've got to do the equivalent of that in the social encounters. Just rolling a die and asking if he lets you in is the dead fish handshake of RPing.

Put at least some effort into it. Even if it doesn't make any bloody sense because you, personally, don't know where to begin, show that you care and do something. That way your table can remember the time your character got the party into the king's ball by proposing to the guard with a horseshoe he found in a ditch.

tadkins

2019-02-01, 09:03 PM

There is a vast, vast area to explore between being a world class Method actor and "I rolled a 19, does he do what I want?" How do you reason with the guard? Do you pretend to be offended that you aren't let in? Do you commiserate over what a terrible post he has? It doesn't require you to RP but, just like in combat where you are positioning yourself with flanking or trying to block the path to the wizard and you're figuring out how much to PA for while trying to maintain some cover from the enemy archers, you've got to do the equivalent of that in the social encounters. Just rolling a die and asking if he lets you in is the dead fish handshake of RPing.

Put at least some effort into it. Even if it doesn't make any bloody sense because you, personally, don't know where to begin, show that you care and do something. That way your table can remember the time your character got the party into the king's ball by proposing to the guard with a horseshoe he found in a ditch.

If someone tries though and they're just not all that creative, or handle it awkwardly because they themselves are socially awkward and shy, are you going to penalize them despite having a 19 charisma and maxxed bluff or diplomacy?

SimonMoon6

2019-02-01, 09:17 PM

I'm firmly in the "challenge the characters, not the players" camp.

Role-playing is choosing how you react to the situations you're in. When faced with a drow priestess, do you (a) attack with your weapon (b) try to seduce her or (c) solve the riddle that she has set for you?

And after the choice has been made, any of those choices SHOULD be resolved with a die roll. If the character is good in combat, then he should do well with the first option EVEN if the player sucks at combat. If the character is good at seduction, then he should do well with the second option EVEN if the player sucks at seduction. And if the character is a super-intelligent riddle-master wizard, then he should excel at the third option, EVEN if the player sucks at solving riddles.

There are still some options that have to be described.

* You attack? Who do you attack? (The drow priestess.) With what do you attack? (My long sword. Or maybe with this two-handed sword that I'm not proficient with, which will cause penalties to hit but bonuses to damage.) In what position do you stand as you attack? (I use my tumble skill to move into position to stab her in the back.)

* You try to seduce her? Okay, what is your goal? (I want to distract her long enough for my friends to sneak past and steal the idol's gemstone eyes... or I want to take her back to my place (or her place... I'm not picky)... or I want to get her to do it with me, right here, while everyone watches... which will probably cause penalties to the chances of success.)

* You try to solve the riddle? Okay how? (With my brain.) Yeah, there's really only one way to solve a riddle.

But in ANY of these cases, it should be a die roll based on the CHARACTER's skill, not the player's skill.

And riddles suck anyway, so the less we see of them, the better. A binary chance of success/failure is an inherently terrible thing to have in an adventure... at least, if it matters to the adventure. And if it doesn't matter, then what's the point of it?

Role-playing is NOT "I (the player) need to think of a really good pick-up line so my character can seduce the drow priestess." No. If the CHARACTER is good at it, then let the CHARACTER be good at it. Likewise, role-playing is NOT "Let me sit here for an hour or two while the adventure grinds to a halt so I can try to figure something out that my 38 INT wizard character should know, but which will probably be figured out by the 3 INT half-ogre PC because his player is smarter than I am." No. Role-playing is choosing what actions to take. Rolling dice... THAT is what we do to discover whether or not the character is successful in the actions they choose to take.

Ideally, every skill check would be more than just one die roll, in the same way that the results of combat are (typically) going to involve more than just one die roll. But D&D doesn't have a robust skill system that can match its combat system, so we have to use what we have.

Deophaun

2019-02-01, 09:21 PM

If someone tries though and they're just not all that creative, or handle it awkwardly because they themselves are socially awkward and shy, are you going to penalize them despite having a 19 charisma and maxxed bluff or diplomacy?
No. If you're trying, I don't have a problem. But if you just throw a number at me, I'm going to push to find out more because there are practical issues here. The NPC doesn't just go away once the party moved on. The NPC is going to act after the encounter. I need information on what the character did so that I can know what the NPC will do. A number, by itself, doesn't tell me that.

Furthermore, you should try because, the more you try, the better you'll get. The less shy, the less awkward, the more creative you will be and the more fun everyone will have. Exercising the brain is just like exercising a muscle.

tadkins

2019-02-01, 09:32 PM

For the record I totally agree with your post SimonMoon. Someone like me who has never had a relationship is going to have a tough time trying to seduce someone in a game with actual words.

Furthermore, you should try because, the more you try, the better you'll get. The less shy, the less awkward, the more creative you will be and the more fun everyone will have. Exercising the brain is just like exercising a muscle.

Eh, this is assuming I can even muster the strength and courage one day to actually find a group in the first place. Just too much of a wreck in every way to try right now. No confidence, depressed and scared all the time, etc.

Hackulator

2019-02-01, 09:33 PM

Role-playing is NOT "I (the player) need to think of a really good pick-up line so my character can seduce the drow priestess." No. If the CHARACTER is good at it, then let the CHARACTER be good at it. Likewise, role-playing is NOT "Let me sit here for an hour or two while the adventure grinds to a halt so I can try to figure something out that my 38 INT wizard character should know, but which will probably be figured out by the 3 INT half-ogre PC because his player is smarter than I am." No. Role-playing is choosing what actions to take. Rolling dice... THAT is what we do to discover whether or not the character is successful in the actions they choose to take.

I mean, while I don't have a problem with the way you want to run a game, you're pretty much definitionally wrong about what role-playing is. Just choosing a set of actions is not the extent of role-playing. It's literally in the word, you are playing the role of your character, and that encompasses a whole lot more than just choosing which action they take. That is certainly PART of role-playing, but it is not the whole of it by a long shot. Now, that doesn't mean a player can't be welcome in my game if they're not good at or comfortable with the full spectrum of role-playing, but a choose-your-own-adventure book is not the extent of what roleplaying is.

Crake

2019-02-01, 09:35 PM

tadkins

2019-02-01, 09:38 PM

I mean, while I don't have a problem with the way you want to run a game, you're pretty much definitionally wrong about what role-playing is. Just choosing a set of actions is not the extent of role-playing. It's literally in the word, you are playing the role of your character, and that encompasses a whole lot more than just choosing which action they take. That is certainly PART of role-playing, but it is not the whole of it by a long shot. Now, that doesn't mean a player can't be welcome in my game if they're not good at or comfortable with the full spectrum of role-playing, but a choose-your-own-adventure book is not the extent of what roleplaying is.

From the sounds of it though, you're basically saying you have to be Stephen Hawking in order to properly roleplay an 18 INT Wizard.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-02-01, 09:49 PM

Hackulator

2019-02-01, 10:11 PM

From the sounds of it though, you're basically saying you have to be Stephen Hawking in order to properly roleplay an 18 INT Wizard.

No, not at all. For example, there are plenty of characters in movies that are WAY WAY smarter than the actor playing them or any of the writers writing the movie. However, the person playing the character sells it. Even if the stuff they say is moronic if you analyze it from an academic/scientific point of view (read: almost any time someone discusses science in Star Trek) they can still act the part. It's not the accuracy of the content that matters, it's just you acting like it's accurate. Yes, it would be hard for a person who not very smart to do a PERFECT job RPing a wizard with an intelligence of 18, but they could still do a perfectly fine job. Perfection is not needed and almost never encountered in roleplaying or anywhere else. Nobody is expecting someone with a high int and maxed knowledge skills to actually have all the monster manuals memorized.

Also, as I said, if you're not much of a roleplayer, you're still welcome at my table, as long as you don't get mad when other people want to spend time RPing. I would hope after time you would become more comfortable and make an attempt at taking part, but I have players who are still pretty shy after years and I would never throw anyone out of a game for not roleplaying enough.

tadkins

2019-02-01, 10:15 PM

No, not at all. For example, there are plenty of characters in movies that are WAY WAY smarter than the actor playing them or any of the writers writing the movie. However, the person playing the character sells it. Even if the stuff they say is moronic if you analyze it from an academic/scientific point of view (read: almost any time someone discusses science in Star Trek) they can still act the part. It's not the accuracy of the content that matters, it's just you acting like it's accurate. Yes, it would be hard for a person who not very smart to do a PERFECT job RPing a wizard with an intelligence of 18, but they could still do a perfectly fine job. Perfection is not needed and almost never encountered in roleplaying or anywhere else. Nobody is expecting someone with a high int and maxed knowledge skills to actually have all the monster manuals memorized.

Also, as I said, if you're not much of a roleplayer, you're still welcome at my table, as long as you don't get mad when other people want to spend time RPing. I would hope after time you would become more comfortable and make an attempt at taking part, but I have players who are still pretty shy after years and I would never throw anyone out of a game for not roleplaying enough.

Actors get the luxury of having a script and practicing their lines before they act though. There's a big difference.

I speak this way about this kind of issue because i've genuinely lived it. My first character in a real D&D game was an 18 INT gnome illusionist wizard. In the first game we were chasing a gang of thugs down an alleyway and my gnome throw out an illusionary set of city guards. Then, to try and add realism to the illusion and frighten the rogues, my wizard threw her voice into the illusions but said something...kind of dumb. Nothing, in retrospect, that an 18 INT character would really say. My "friends" made fun of me for it for weeks to come. It was my first game and was nervous with my RP, but needless to say I was penalized for it.

Even though I like wizards, and magic, it's kind of made me reluctant to play a high-INT character again. Even though I want to I would just find it hard to relate to one. There are definitely DMs out there who match RP ability and a proper portrayal of a character with the game mechanics, and reward or penalize such things. Like in this story (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice) for instance. Reading stuff like that just continues to kill my confidence in playing anything. I will never be able to pull off a Peter Fairgrave.

Crake

2019-02-01, 10:15 PM

No, not at all. For example, there are plenty of characters in movies that are WAY WAY smarter than the actor playing them or any of the writers writing the movie. However, the person playing the character sells it. Even if the stuff they say is moronic if you analyze it from an academic/scientific point of view (read: almost any time someone discusses science in Star Trek) they can still act the part. It's not the accuracy of the content that matters, it's just you acting like it's accurate. Yes, it would be hard for a person who not very smart to do a PERFECT job RPing a wizard with an intelligence of 18, but they could still do a perfectly fine job. Perfection is not needed and almost never encountered in roleplaying or anywhere else. Nobody is expecting someone with a high int and maxed knowledge skills to actually have all the monster manuals memorized.

Also, as I said, if you're not much of a roleplayer, you're still welcome at my table, as long as you don't get mad when other people want to spend time RPing. I would hope after time you would become more comfortable and make an attempt at taking part, but I have players who are still pretty shy after years and I would never throw anyone out of a game for not roleplaying enough.

People also need to stop and realise that 18 int, or hell, even 30+ int doesn't mean you can stop time and analyze everything from every possible angle and scenario. High int doesn't mean you're infallible or anything.

Actors get the luxury of having a script and practicing their lines before they act though. There's a big difference.

I speak this way about this kind of issue because i've genuinely lived it. My first character in a real D&D game was an 18 INT gnome illusionist wizard. In the first game we were chasing a gang of thugs down an alleyway and my gnome throw out an illusionary set of city guards. Then, to try and add realism to the illusion and frighten the rogues, my wizard threw her voice into the illusions but said something...kind of dumb. Nothing, in retrospect, that an 18 INT character would really say. It was my first game and was nervous with my RP, but needless to say I was penalized for it.

Me, personally, as a DM would say "Are you sure that's what you want to say?" or at the very least, let them take it back if they immediately backpedaled, saying "Wait, no I wouldn't say that", but ultimately, as I said just above, having 18 int doesn't suddenly make you some kind of infallible god. An 18 int wizard in the heat of a chase who's not necessarily used to having adrenaline pumping through his veins is definitely quite prone to saying something stupid.

Hackulator

2019-02-01, 10:31 PM

Actors get the luxury of having a script and practicing their lines before they act though. There's a big difference.

I speak this way about this kind of issue because i've genuinely lived it. My first character in a real D&D game was an 18 INT gnome illusionist wizard. In the first game we were chasing a gang of thugs down an alleyway and my gnome throw out an illusionary set of city guards. Then, to try and add realism to the illusion and frighten the rogues, my wizard threw her voice into the illusions but said something...kind of dumb. Nothing, in retrospect, that an 18 INT character would really say. My "friends" made fun of me for it for weeks to come. It was my first game and was nervous with my RP, but needless to say I was penalized for it.

Even though I like wizards, and magic, it's kind of made me reluctant to play a high-INT character again. Even though I want to I would just find it hard to relate to one. There are definitely DMs out there who match RP ability and a proper portrayal of a character with the game mechanics, and reward or penalize such things. Like in this story (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice) for instance. Reading stuff like that just continues to kill my confidence in playing anything. I will never be able to pull off a Peter Fairgrave.

Sure, but it holds true, nobody is expecting you to be Robert Downey Jr. playing Tony Stark, and if they are that's their problem. As for your friends making fun of you, that's an issue of them being *****. Finally, intelligent character often say stupid things, Intelligence is not social competency. The aforementioned Tony Stark has an Int AND Cha in the 20s.

At the end of the day D&D should be about friends having fun together. Different people will enjoy different parts of the game and nobody should be made to feel ****ty because of what they enjoy or are good at....except for my friends who have been playing casters for three years and still can't remember how to calculate their save DCs, they need a beating. ;-)

PS: Also except for people whose fun always seem to come at the expense of other people's fun and who are never willing to compromise on it.

Erloas

2019-02-01, 10:59 PM

I speak this way about this kind of issue because i've genuinely lived it. My first character in a real D&D game was an 18 INT gnome illusionist wizard. In the first game we were chasing a gang of thugs down an alleyway and my gnome throw out an illusionary set of city guards. Then, to try and add realism to the illusion and frighten the rogues, my wizard threw her voice into the illusions but said something...kind of dumb. Nothing, in retrospect, that an 18 INT character would really say. My "friends" made fun of me for it for weeks to come. It was my first game and was nervous with my RP, but needless to say I was penalized for it.
That is because you had a bad DM/friends, not because that is how it has to work.

"I make the illusionary guards tell them to stop and threaten them if they don't" should be fine for most good DMs. "I can illusion and ventriloquism" is not.

"I diplomacy the king" isn't enough.
"I use my diplomacy to convince the king to lend us aid in our quest by giving us X" potions, horses, magic weapons, a small group of knights, etc.
"I use my diplomacy to convince the king that our reward should be higher"
"I use my diplomacy to convince the king to pay us half the reward up front"

"I diplomacy the guard" isn't even trying.
You don't have to be high charisma or suave to add:
"by convincing him we are part of the staff" or
"by convincing him we received a summons from the mayor so need to get past" or
"by convincing him we are on a secret mission from the king" or
"by convincing him a few GP for drinks at the bar is worth letting us in" or
"by convincing him that his house is on fire and we were sent to get him, we'll watch the gate for him while he's gone."

You don't have to know all the words, what to say and how to say it, but you need to at least give a *how* or *what* you are doing it.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-01, 11:26 PM

but how you swing an axe or pick a lock won't usually have consequences.

Most games have a Circumstance Bonus or a Role Playing Bonus or a Drama Bonus for just such things. A player that can even say a single sentence about an action should get a bonus. And you can always give experience bonuses too.

You're saying that, if I joined one of your games, even as someone who is already depressed, suicidal, and feeling inept at life in general, wouldn't even get the opportunity to pretend to be a smart, or charming, or witty guy despite there being an 18 INT or 18 CHA on the character sheet. That I'd be penalized for being unable to properly portray the character with my shortcomings despite the character itself being able to.

Well, a depressed, suicidal and inept at life in general person would never make it into my game as a player. But, lets say that the person is also a master manipulator con artist and they sneak into my game. Then, yes, this person could not ''roll play pretend" in my game.

If someone tries though and they're just not all that creative, or handle it awkwardly because they themselves are socially awkward and shy, are you going to penalize them despite having a 19 charisma and maxxed bluff or diplomacy?

A player that is not all that creative at all, won't last long in my game. Really, the first time the player fails to even be a tiny bit creative: I'll just tell the player to leave.

A social awkward player would be required to at least to the vague outline social activity (but again, not ''do" it for real). Assuming they have the ability to speak, and be creative, they should be able to muddle through at least that much.

I'm firmly in the "challenge the characters, not the players" camp.

I'm firmly in the "make the game for the players and the characters".

Hackulator

2019-02-01, 11:28 PM

Most games have a Circumstance Bonus or a Role Playing Bonus or a Drama Bonus for just such things. A player that can even say a single sentence about an action should get a bonus. And you can always give experience bonuses too.

Well, a depressed, suicidal and inept at life in general person would never make it into my game as a player. But, lets say that the person is also a master manipulator con artist and they sneak into my game. Then, yes, this person could not ''roll play pretend" in my game.

I would say most games do not.

As for the second art I've quoted, you just sound like a terrible person.

Boci

2019-02-01, 11:35 PM

Dude, there are literally hundreds of collections of riddles out there.

I know. That's not what I said. I asked what other examples were there that involved a character in a story who had to overcome a riddle to proceed.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-01, 11:35 PM

I would say most games do not.

As for the second art I've quoted, you just sound like a terrible person.

Well, some games do. So you can add it to any game really.

Not sure why you think it's so terrible? I only want players in my game that want to have fun. If you come to the game for any other reason, like: to be a jerk, hit on people, waste time, or hide from your wife....you are simply not welcome in my game.

Crake

2019-02-01, 11:38 PM

Most games have a Circumstance Bonus or a Role Playing Bonus or a Drama Bonus for just such things. A player that can even say a single sentence about an action should get a bonus. And you can always give experience bonuses too.

I don't personally give bonuses for this sort of thing, mostly because doing such a thing bogs down combat as people constantly try to come up with different explanations as to what their characters are doing, and if you give them the circumstance bonus on practically every attack, what you're basically doing is making the bonus baseline and punishing people who don't describe their actions.

I would allow it at times, when the circumstances dictate, but simply describing how you swing your axe in a particular way to try and get under the opponent's guard? Not flying. There's no circumstance that's making your attack more effective in some way, and one would assume that your character is constantly fighting at maximum efficiency. If, on the other hand, your character runs up some scaffolding (possibly making balance checks along the way) and then leaps over the opponent, attacking them from overhead, sure, I'd give them some kind of bonus for doing that, it's not something they can necessarily do every round, but if it's just standing still and describing the literal swing of a regular attack, you haven't given yourself a beneficial circumstance, it's just a regular attack. No matter how much you describe, you're not getting a bonus at my table.

tadkins

2019-02-01, 11:43 PM

Not sure why you think it's so terrible? I only want players in my game that want to have fun. If you come to the game for any other reason, like: to be a jerk, hit on people, waste time, or hide from your wife....you are simply not welcome in my game.

How about finally mustering the courage to come out of their shell, finally ready to look for a social experience, only to be shot down by someone as harsh as you? People like you are the reason I find it hard to leave the house at all these days.

unseenmage

2019-02-01, 11:44 PM

Personally, I ask the players to give it a shot toward the roleplaying but also use what they say as the gist of what their character intends rather than a verbatim quote and have them roll for the result. For puzzles, including riddles, I'll let them take an OOC stab at it but also let them make knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom checks to find clues to the solution and accept it they find a way around the puzzle (like simply extorting the Sphinx or bashing the door down).
Precisely this.

It's been my experience that forced roleplaying is bad roleplaying.

In an attempt to engage my less engaged players I once asked that whenever they rolled a crit that they describe it a sentence or two. Told them to take some descriptive liberties even. Describe it cinematically.

They hated it.

Turns out that when put on the spot folk just freeze up. Surprise surprise. In hindsight it was a dumb mistake.
To this day even when rolling for who goes first in MtG we joke, "Describe your crit!", loudly and mockingly.

Lesson learned.

Elkad

2019-02-01, 11:52 PM

There is a vast, vast area to explore between being a world class Method actor and "I rolled a 19, does he do what I want?" How do you reason with the guard? Do you pretend to be offended that you aren't let in? Do you commiserate over what a terrible post he has? It doesn't require you to RP but, just like in combat where you are positioning yourself with flanking or trying to block the path to the wizard and you're figuring out how much to PA for while trying to maintain some cover from the enemy archers, you've got to do the equivalent of that in the social encounters. Just rolling a die and asking if he lets you in is the dead fish handshake of RPing.

I'm uncomfortable with even that much. This is supposed to be fun, and every social interaction where I have to judge the motives and desires of other people - even pretend people - is super stressful. So my solution is never play a face character, and if I get cornered in a face situation (because my character is off scouting solo or something), I'm just going to say "I strike up a conversation and fish for a motive that might get him to do what I want" and throw that die.

If that isn't enough for the DM, I guess I'll fail and go to guns.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-02, 12:07 AM

what you're basically doing is making the bonus baseline and punishing people who don't describe their actions.

This is my exact intent.

your character runs up some scaffolding (possibly making balance checks along the way) and then leaps over the opponent, attacking them from overhead, sure, I'd give them some kind of bonus for doing that, it's not something they can necessarily do every round

Well, this gets a lot more into game styles, but I encourage and reward players for doing this every round. Not only does it make for a great game, but it makes mundane characters much more powerful and fun to play. It's a big part of the balance of my game: the spellcasters just sit back and 'pew pew' a spell as they pat themselves on the back for being awesome....and mundane characters are using skills, feats, rules and such to jump, hop and move around and take all sorts of actions with bonuses.

How about finally mustering the courage to come out of their shell, finally ready to look for a social experience, only to be shot down by someone as harsh as you? People like you are the reason I find it hard to leave the house at all these days.

Well....except your changing the person. And then using my statement for the other person to apply to everyone.
A depressed, suicidal and inept at life in general person..... whofinally was mustering the courage to come out of their shell, and looking for a social experience too be a part of with others. Would be welcome at my table. I'd even be willing to have a Very Special Game Zero, just for the player.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 12:08 AM

I'm uncomfortable with even that much. This is supposed to be fun, and every social interaction where I have to judge the motives and desires of other people...
At my table, when it comes to background NPCs, you aren't judging their motives and desires. You are creating them.

After all, part of being charismatic is being able to read people. If the guy with 18 Charisma and max ranks in Diplomacy thinks the guard would be swayed by a discarded piece of hoofware and a declaration of undying love, there must be something to it. Even failing the check doesn't mean the character was wrong.

Although, in all honesty I am deeply confused by those who want to pretend to be charismatic, yet are terrified of pretending to be charismatic.

tadkins

2019-02-02, 12:15 AM

Although, in all honesty I am deeply confused by those who want to pretend to be charismatic, yet are terrified of pretending to be charismatic.

The charisma stat is open to interpretation. Even shy, introverted, awkward and ugly people can have a high CHA simply due to force of will.

I've thought of playing that sort of character before. A high CHA sorcerer with all those traits. Because I want to be a spellcaster, but I don't have the intelligence or logic to properly portray a wizard or archivist, and playing as a sorcerer or warlock still lets me be a part of the magical world. I can be a mage type character without having to pretend to be smart.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 12:19 AM

The charisma stat is open to interpretation.
I didn't say anything about the charisma stat.

tadkins

2019-02-02, 12:23 AM

I didn't say anything about the charisma stat.

Fair enough. I guess I wouldn't get why they'd want to play a party face either. My sorcerer would have a high CHA but wouldn't try to pretend to be this social animal. He'd be introverted, wretched, and grumpy. He'd just have the ability to will things into burning.

unseenmage

2019-02-02, 12:25 AM

...

... but it makes mundane characters much more powerful ...

...
How big a Circumstance Bonus are you giving them?

Knaight

2019-02-02, 12:34 AM

Dude, there are literally hundreds of collections of riddles out there.
There's also hundreds of collections of sudoku puzzles, crosswords, cyphers, etc. That doesn't mean them showing up in the fiction is anything but weird, let alone effectively pausing a D&D game to do one. That one door from LoTR has had a truly outsized influence, and if you take it out including a riddle is roughly comparable to saying that you come to a door blocked by a 9 by 9 grid nearby full of runes, then slapping a sudoku puzzle on the table.

The problem is some of the people here are trying to defer the actual choice of what to do. They aren't saying "I try to seduce the drow priestess" *roll dice*, they're saying "I roll diplomacy" *rolls dice*.
Exactly. As a DM it really helps to know what's going on in the fiction. "I fight them" isn't good enough for that in the combat side, where "I cast a fireball on that group of orcs" is enough to work with. Similarly "I roll diplomacy" isn't particularly useful, where "I try to convince the guards that I'm here on a surprise inspection" at least tells me what you're doing with that bluff roll.

Note that "I try to think up the solution to this riddle" is solid under this standard.

Metahuman1

2019-02-02, 12:42 AM

Ya know, I have an acquaintance, she's all of 4'11ft tall, and she's got some kind of medical problem the technical term for which is latin and as long as my forearm, but long story short her legs don't work quite right so she needs crunches or some other aid to get around.

She is the least imposing or intimidating human being on the planet, or a darn close runner up there too.

She likes to play characters with insane and indeed, whenever possible, super human, physical ability's. She wants to be either the quickest, sneakiest most nimble person to ever knock an arrow or flick out a blade or fence with a sword, or, she wants to be the biggest, strongest, toughest most muscle bound Fighter/Barbarian type to ever smash with a hammer or chop with an Anime Claymore that's bigger than any given person at the table.

Should I make her explain the intricacy's of techniques for disappearing seemingly into thin air or creeping silently in and out of a bandit camp? Or make her actually succeed at intimidating me for her 12ft tall Frost Giantess Barbarian who's got a washboard stomach, leg's like oak tree stumps and biceps bigger than the head of any given person at the table, to intimidate the local watch into not bullying the NPC she is interceding on behalf of because it's a quest hook?

The op suggests she should have too do those things IRL, and if she can't, she can't do them in game either.

Which is rather ridiculously restrictive of what people can play.

You can play up the character, sure, nothing is stopping you from playing up the character and there quirks and gimmicks and personality and antics and what not. But then when there are things your rolling for that you can't do in real life, like be as sneaky as your Elvish Swordsage or as physically imposing as your Frost Giantess Barbarian, well, the fact that you, personally, can't do those things, should NOT be held against you.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 12:43 AM

My sorcerer would have a high CHA but wouldn't try to pretend to be this social animal. He'd be introverted, wretched, and grumpy. He'd just have the ability to will things into burning.
I have a Dread Necromancer--heavy Charisma focus--whose backstory is surviving a near-100%-fatal plague, the treatment of which was referred to as simply "the burning," and was applied externally and internally. As a result, his vocal chords were shredded to the point where speaking created a sensation like broken glass digging into his throat.

Obviously, he didn't say much. Except when he needed something to die. Also, his face or pretty much any part of his body wasn't pleasant to look at.

Yeah, not the one to seduce the general or talk down the warring princesses. He also went along with whatever the party wanted because it was too painful to argue. It is very tough knowing that your character has the best skillset in the party for being the face, yet for RP reasons he is effectively mute.

Note that "I try to think up the solution to this riddle" is solid under this standard.
And that's basically the problem with riddles in a nutshell.

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 12:54 AM

I actually see this statement a fair bit. The "my character is super good at (face skill), so I roll, and don't talk." It does always seem like ... you're avoiding roleplaying when that's kinda the name of the game. Now, if that's how you do it at your table, fine, have at it. Don't let me tell you you're an idiot for not playing my make-believe game the way I like to. But, when you're sharing how you play online, you should expect to hear from those who don't play the same.

Do I say "Don't use face skills"? No. Just that if you can't reasonably expect to just roll for persuasion and then they just love you like a friend. Let alone if you literally do nothing to back up your roll. It'd be like me saying "I attack", then getting met by "...There's nothing even apparently hostile. What are you even attacking?", and being upset that I don't get to attack, despite having a clear opportunity to go in to detail about what I'm attacking. (Nevermind even describing the attack, or putting the least bit of effort to make the experience enjoyable, outside of a success-or-fail die roll.)

Now don't get me wrong. I did this in my first couple years of "roleplaying," where I just got a set of mechanics in a bundle, and threw them at the enemy...or sat around to be able to throw them at an enemy, while everyone else talked with the townsfolk, and figured out what the quests possibly were. I understand that there is some amount of enjoyment that can be gained from that. Mostly from being in a group that shares the same mindset and who will encourage you for your build any fancy mechanics. Although there's multiplayer in most games today, you don't get to have the same connection (and thus enjoyment) with people as when you're playing a TTRPG together.

But it still does seem a bit weird when people actually declare the exclusive use of skills to skip over gameplay, like riddles, puzzles, and roleplaying, to be the superior method.

It's because the skill system in 3e was an attempt to fix a historical problem of the table being dominated by Type-A personality players.

I know this might come as a surprise, but the vast majority of people who play table-top roleplaying games are not actually beefy warriors or outgoing socialites. They are pretending to be them by utilizing a series of game mechanics and improv acting. In older editions of D&D, the rules were very clear on how to swing a sword to kill a monster, even if the player were not capable of such a feat. Being descended from the old medieval miniatures war game "Chainmail", the rules were less clear on the non-combat aspects of the game. Nonweapon Proficiencies were largely awful; the roll-under mechanic was off-putting, they difficulties were too hard-coded to your base stats, there were very, very few ways to boost your check, and the "roll well but not too well" facet of contested checks was wonky. A character with a very high ability score and minimal training was far more likely to succeed than one with average ability and extensive training. As they were optional most tables did without them.

However, this meant that the role of "party face" at any given table tended to be supplied entirely by the player who volunteered themselves for the position, and was often divorced from their actual character. If a player was charming, charismatic, and knew what to say in a social situation, then their character was equally charming and charismatic even if their stats should clearly dictate otherwise.

In 3rd Edition, this system was split up into skills and feats. You buy ranks in the skill and add them to your ability score modifier to get a total bonus to your check. Success is determined by rolling a d20 against the difficulty of your given task. Contested rolls are simplified to whoever gets the higher result wins. Both you natural ability and your training are important in this system. Eventually your training will be more important that you natural ability, just like in real life. In order to successfully Perform (dance) Swan Lake, you need raw ability and practice to get it right.

The other thing this did was to effectively create a vehicle to players who were socially awkward to play the role of a character who wasn't, and be able to succeed at it with something besides their own inborn wits (or lack thereof). Now when the normally quiet player wants to do something outside his comfort zone he has some bumpers to help him out. And when the barbarian attempts to politely discuss politics at a social function because the player forgot himself, the DM has something to reflect the reality of the situation in game.

Crake

2019-02-02, 01:02 AM

This is my exact intent.

I'm not sure I entirely support that notion, simply because it can get quite tedious to do this every round. My friends and I once played exalted, which very much supports doing this exact thing, and it just really made combat feel like so much more of a chore than normal.

Well, this gets a lot more into game styles, but I encourage and reward players for doing this every round. Not only does it make for a great game, but it makes mundane characters much more powerful and fun to play. It's a big part of the balance of my game: the spellcasters just sit back and 'pew pew' a spell as they pat themselves on the back for being awesome....and mundane characters are using skills, feats, rules and such to jump, hop and move around and take all sorts of actions with bonuses.

If your characters are spending their actions every round to do a variety of actions to put themselves in favourable circumstances, kudos to them. As long as they're tumbling to avoid attacks of opportunity for moving about, and they're doing the appropriate checks to get where they want to be (tumble, climb, balance, jump etc), then more power to them, though they'd be doing that at the expense of their full attacks.

Can you give an example of what a player would say while standing still and just doing a regular attack, and what sort of bonus they could expect for such a thing?

tadkins

2019-02-02, 01:14 AM

I have a Dread Necromancer--heavy Charisma focus--whose backstory is surviving a near-100%-fatal plague, the treatment of which was referred to as simply "the burning," and was applied externally and internally. As a result, his vocal chords were shredded to the point where speaking created a sensation like broken glass digging into his throat.

Obviously, he didn't say much. Except when he needed something to die. Also, his face or pretty much any part of his body wasn't pleasant to look at.

Yeah, not the one to seduce the general or talk down the warring princesses. He also went along with whatever the party wanted because it was too painful to argue. It is very tough knowing that your character has the best skillset in the party for being the face, yet for RP reasons he is effectively mute.

Hehe, that sounds pretty cool. I was kind of aiming for something similar. A character that's been bullied all his life for being a pathetic little weakling. Was never strong, fast, smart, exceptional in any way. He was bitter and full of hatred at the world, at the strong people who abused the weaker, all the way from the schoolyard bully picking on the weaker children to the corrupt politicians who manipulated the masses for his own self serving ends. But most of all, he hated himself for not being strong enough to do anything about it.

Then, one day his sorcerer powers manifest, and he is not so helpless anymore. He is now free to act on all his terrible thoughts and impulses, with the actual power to back them up, gleefully giving those bastards who deserve it their rightful comepuppance.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-02, 01:31 AM

They are pretending to be them by utilizing a series of game mechanics and improv acting.

Hummm...Rules and acting. I agree.

The other thing this did was to effectively create a vehicle to players who were socially awkward to play the role of a character who wasn't, and be able to succeed at it with something besides their own inborn wits (or lack thereof). Now when the normally quiet player wants to do something outside his comfort zone he has some bumpers to help him out. And when the barbarian attempts to politely discuss politics at a social function because the player forgot himself, the DM has something to reflect the reality of the situation in game.

Except the game play rules don't do this. And it's crazy to think they do.

Lets take socially awkward Simon who crazily wants to play an out going, exciting, full of life Chr 18 bard. So the game gets to the point where the group need to convince a guard to look the other way....and the group turns to Simon. So he drops a d20 on the table...and maybe whispers ''I rolled a 20". The DM then nods and says ''your character wove and made a god argument and got the guards to look away and let the group past."

So then Simon will be all happy he ''played" a an out going, exciting, full of life Chr 18 bard? You know...except for the part where he did not do that. He roll a d20...that is it. He in no way, shape or form even came close to pretending to role play or do much of anything really.

tadkins

2019-02-02, 01:36 AM

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 01:58 AM

Except the game play rules don't do this. And it's crazy to think they do.

Lets take socially awkward Simon who crazily wants to play an out going, exciting, full of life Chr 18 bard. So the game gets to the point where the group need to convince a guard to look the other way....and the group turns to Simon. So he drops a d20 on the table...and maybe whispers ''I rolled a 20". The DM then nods and says ''your character wove and made a god argument and got the guards to look away and let the group past."

So then Simon will be all happy he ''played" a an out going, exciting, full of life Chr 18 bard? You know...except for the part where he did not do that. He roll a d20...that is it. He in no way, shape or form even came close to pretending to role play or do much of anything really.

He most certainly did. He succeeded in the appropriate check, and the DM wove an appropriate narrative to represent that success in the event that the player did not supply it themselves.

Player: "I want to distract the guard so we can sneak past."
DM: "All right, give me Bluff check."
Player: "Okay... I rolled a 12 so with my bonus that's a 25."
DM "Nicely done! You casually mention to the guard that you think the guest in the dark blue cloak is picking the pockets of other nobles. He moves off to confront the man, leaving his post open to the rest of the group."

The party is happy because the story is progressing. The player is happy because his character got to contribute. And the DM is happy because this was a teaching experience for the player. Now in the next encounter he'll have a better idea of the kinds of things a Bluff check is capable of, and will be better equipped to supply his own narrative to the game.

You are making exactly the nonsensical argument that the thread title is poking fun at. A player should be no more expected to continuously and repeatedly improvise extensive dialogue on the spot in to represent the results of an absurdly high skill check in order to do what their character is capable of doing than another player should be expected to slowly and laboriously describe in exquisite detail every single violent motion that their character goes through in order to confirm a critical hit with a greataxe.

These things are to 3E exactly as NWP's were to AD&D: an optional extra the players can utilize if it interests them, but the game can function just fine without if it doesn't.

Bohandas

2019-02-02, 02:07 AM

Crake

2019-02-02, 02:26 AM

Hummm...Rules and acting. I agree.

Except the game play rules don't do this. And it's crazy to think they do.

Lets take socially awkward Simon who crazily wants to play an out going, exciting, full of life Chr 18 bard. So the game gets to the point where the group need to convince a guard to look the other way....and the group turns to Simon. So he drops a d20 on the table...and maybe whispers ''I rolled a 20". The DM then nods and says ''your character wove and made a god argument and got the guards to look away and let the group past."

So then Simon will be all happy he ''played" a an out going, exciting, full of life Chr 18 bard? You know...except for the part where he did not do that. He roll a d20...that is it. He in no way, shape or form even came close to pretending to role play or do much of anything really.

He most certainly did. He succeeded in the appropriate check, and the DM wove an appropriate narrative to represent that success in the event that the player did not supply it themselves.

Player: "I want to distract the guard so we can sneak past."
DM: "All right, give me Bluff check."
Player: "Okay... I rolled a 12 so with my bonus that's a 25."
DM "Nicely done! You casually mention to the guard that you think the guest in the dark blue cloak is picking the pockets of other nobles. He moves off to confront the man, leaving his post open to the rest of the group."

The party is happy because the story is progressing. The player is happy because his character got to contribute. And the DM is happy because this was a teaching experience for the player. Now in the next encounter he'll have a better idea of the kinds of things a Bluff check is capable of, and will be better equipped to supply his own narrative to the game.

You are making exactly the nonsensical argument that the thread title is poking fun at. A player should be no more expected to continuously and repeatedly improvise extensive dialogue on the spot in to represent the results of an absurdly high skill check in order to do what their character is capable of doing than another player should be expected to slowly and laboriously describe in exquisite detail every single violent motion that their character goes through in order to confirm a critical hit with a greataxe.

These things are to 3E exactly as NWP's were to AD&D: an optional extra the players can utilize if it interests them, but the game can function just fine without if it doesn't.

The bolded parts are the key difference. Simon does nothing other than roll a dice, as opposed to your example doc, where the player actually says what they're planning on doing (though I'd personally ask "how?" to such a vague statement). As I said earlier, if you're going to put the onus of making decisions for your character on the DM, you're unnecessarily burdening him with extra duties ontop of actually running the game and all the NPCs. It baffles me that people will get up in arms when the DM forces the player's characters to do things, taking away their control, but nobody bats an eye when the players do the reverse, forcing the DM to decide what their characters do for them.

I'm fine with letting the dice determine the outcome of the action, so if a player is particularly awkward in their delivery, it wouldn't matter at all, because they rolled well and the guard is convinced by the character, but if the player says "I roll diplomacy to get past the guard" rolls the dice, and then looks at me to come up with some kind of explanation? Hell no, my immediate response to that will be "How do you go about doing that?" If they can't come up with an answer, I'm more than happy for the other players to help them out OOC with a solution, but I'm not going to play the characters for them.

Hackulator

2019-02-02, 02:30 AM

Well, some games do. So you can add it to any game really.

Not sure why you think it's so terrible? I only want players in my game that want to have fun. If you come to the game for any other reason, like: to be a jerk, hit on people, waste time, or hide from your wife....you are simply not welcome in my game.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it came off like you were saying you wouldn't let a depressed person into your game because they wouldn't be able to live up to the level of interaction you require. If I misunderstood, I apologize. If I did not misunderstand, that's ****ty.

As for the idea of "I roll diplomacy", I have been playing D&D for many years, I have been involved in hundreds if not thousands of hours of gaming, and I have never had someone say "I roll diplomacy" with absolutely no explanation of what they were trying to convince the person of. Perhaps I am just lucky, but that seems insane and I find it hard to imagine that that is a common occurrence.

Crake

2019-02-02, 03:06 AM

As for the idea of "I roll diplomacy", I have been playing D&D for many years, I have been involved in hundreds if not thousands of hours of gaming, and I have never had someone say "I roll diplomacy" with absolutely no explanation of what they were trying to convince the person of. Perhaps I am just lucky, but that seems insane and I find it hard to imagine that that is a common occurrence.

It definitely happens. My core group don't do it at all, but I've definitely seen some of the more socially awkward people I know who've played here and there do it. Of course, when they did it in my game, I just followed it up with a friendly "And how do you go about doing that in character?" hinting at them to give it some more thought. Sometimes it took them a minute or two, sometimes they got suggestions from the other party members, and eventually began learning to do it themselves without being prompted, while others never really got the hang of doing it, and eventually I gave up on those people (mostly because I got a sense from them that they weren't actually trying to learn, they just couldn't be bothered with it), and didn't invite them back. I'm happy to help, to hold your hand until you get it, but if you expect me and the rest of the table to just carry you through playing the game, we aren't really interested in that, thanks, but no thanks.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 03:10 AM

Crake

2019-02-02, 03:13 AM

I think the general consensus here is you do light roleplay and let the checks do all the hard work. Describe your action, roll check, and have the DM tell you how you did it.

"My wizard uses his brain to analyze the situation"
roll INT check
DM tells him what he analyzed depending on the check result.
The End.

I mean, that example isn't exactly a good one, it's basically tantamount to "I roll an int check". Admittedly, "the situation" is also vague and broad, but something like "I distract the guard with casual conversation while my friends sneak over the fence" is what I would describe as the bare minimum.

Knaight

2019-02-02, 04:41 AM

I think the general consensus here is you do light roleplay and let the checks do all the hard work. Describe your action, roll check, and have the DM tell you how you did it.

The more interesting roleplay tends to be found in what and why more than how, and even for how the idea is that this is a minimum. I'd also not consider riddles roleplaying as a rule.

Boci

2019-02-02, 05:00 AM

The more interesting roleplay tends to be found in what and why more than how, and even for how the idea is that this is a minimum. I'd also not consider riddles roleplaying as a rule.

Riddles can totally be roleplay. Just make it clear players are not bound to follow some implied path, that they are free to act how their character would, then have a hooded stranger in a dungeon pose them a riddle.

Do they try and answer it? Ask "who the hell are you?!" Punch them in the face?

See? Roleplay!

Crake

2019-02-02, 05:07 AM

Riddles can totally be roleplay. Just make it clear players are not bound to follow some implied path, that they are free to act how their character would, then have a hooded stranger in a dungeon pose them a riddle.

Do they try and answer it? Ask "who the hell are you?!" Punch them in the face?

See? Roleplay!

What if the riddle was written on a wall?

Ashtagon

2019-02-02, 05:07 AM

I use Diplomacy on the guard.

This would never work at my table.

Describe my Diplomacy interaction? Nope. I'm going to say "I try reason with the guard to let us into the Grand Duke's party without an invitation", roll a die and sit back. Because I can't do that IRL either, so I'm not getting into a roleplay session with the DM where I feel out if I can bribe him, or convince him I'm invited, or whatever.

However, at my game table, I'd definitely allow this. You're calling the skill† to be used, the method‡, and your intended result§.

† Diplomacy
‡ "Reasoning", which here I'd take to men "persuade him that you are important enough that you should have been invited anyway". Other methods using Diplomacy might have included seduction, bribery, or convincing him that you are the catering and/or entertainment staff. (Fun fact: I actually had to do this in a foreign language in real life once, for non-nefarious reasons).
§ Intended result is getting to the party (or at least, letting the guard allow you past him).

Boci

2019-02-02, 05:13 AM

What if the riddle was written on a wall?

Well, punching is likely out of the question unless the party is mid-to-high, but stone walls have a hardness of 8 and are notroiously bad at defending themselves, so even a first level martial with a greatsword can do some damage to it overtime. As for asking "Who the hell are you?"...there's alsways the animate object and awaken construct spells.

Crake

2019-02-02, 05:15 AM

This would never work at my table.

However, at my game table, I'd definitely allow this. You're calling the skill† to be used, the method‡, and your intended result§.

† Diplomacy
‡ "Reasoning", which here I'd take to men "persuade him that you are important enough that you should have been invited anyway". Other methods using Diplomacy might have included seduction, bribery, or convincing him that you are the catering and/or entertainment staff. (Fun fact: I actually had to do this in a foreign language in real life once, for non-nefarious reasons).
§ Intended result is getting to the party.

So essentially you're choosing to play their character for them? You're deciding on the player's course of action for them, because, as you noted, there are other ways that "reasoning" with the guard could be interpreted. I don't see why the player couldn't have said "I try to convince the guards that we have something urgent and important to say to the duke" or "I try to convince the guard that we're highly affluent people visiting town and that we heard of the duke's party, and he would be very happy to see us" etc etc. The fact is that these minorly different decisions all add up in the grand scheme of things, add up in how the guard reacts, whether they recieve escorts or not, and how the duke will react when presented with the new guests. If you always go with [insert generic decision here] then everything will lead to [insert generic reaction here], as opposed to something that feels organic and emergent, all it takes is the teensiest bit of effort on the player's behalf to produce a butterfly effect of liveliness to the game world.

Ashtagon

2019-02-02, 05:19 AM

I was using that by way of example. In actual play, I'd almost certainly have asked them to clarify "reason with the guard" a bit further, and suggested a couple of examples.

Even so, it's still infinitely better than "I use Diplomacy on the guard".

Crake

2019-02-02, 05:22 AM

I was using that by way of example. In actual play, I'd almost certainly have asked them to clarify "reason with the guard" a bit further, and suggested a couple of examples.

Fair enough, then yeah, I'd very much agree with you. It sounded like you were supporting Elkad's position:

Describe my Diplomacy interaction? Nope. I'm going to say "I try reason with the guard to let us into the Grand Duke's party without an invitation", roll a die and sit back.

The way that's worded seems to imply a very hard-set attitude that his statement was the limit of his willingness to contribute any further, and your agreement seemed to imply that you were satisfied with that level of interaction.

Even so, it's still infinitely better than "I use Diplomacy on the guard".

I'd say it's a step above, yeah, I guess even 1 is still infinitely better than 0.

tadkins

2019-02-02, 06:15 AM

Hey all. I feel like I need to apologize for some earlier comments in this thread. I may have gone a little nuts with some of them.

See, I've been dealing with depression, confidence issues, self-loathing, and basically a broken spirit for the last couple of years now. It leaks into just about everything I do, whether it's real life, family interactions, social attempts, and gaming. Especially games like D&D and Pathfinder. Basically I feel pretty much inept at everything in life and it makes me wonder what sort of D&D character I can actually relate to if/when I can muster the courage to actually go and find a game one of these days.

STR: A fighter or barbarian can punch through the iron door of a dungeon. It takes me more than two trips to get all the groceries and I've gotten sore trying to bench 30.
DEX: A rogue can juggle a number of knives and deftly throw them at someone in a clever pattern, choosing to hit them or not because he's just that damn skilled. Me, I'm so clumsy I tripped over a cat toy the other day and dropped a beer.
CON: A high-CON dwarf can scarf down a rotten dragon egg and ask for seconds. I get buzzed off of one beer, get sick almost every month (despite being a clean freak), and legitimately threw up trying to handle certain garbage at a previous job.
INT: High-INT wizards are basically the Stephen Hawkings and NASA scientists of our modern day world. I'm 35 and have never solved a rubix cube in my life, despite trying repeatedly and looking up guides. I never even finished algebra in high school because it was legitimately too hard for me.
WIS: Don't really know how to explain this one but that's probably not in the cards either.
CHA: Yeah, I'd be nowhere near a party face. I'm so timid and scared of people these days I only really go outside on midnight Pokemon Go runs when no one is around.

Just don't really know what kind of character I'd be suited to play anymore. And then after thinking about it for so long, this thread pops up, with DMs admitting that they actually do take a persons RL ability into account when playing the game (and as mentioned before an actual firsthand experience with a game personally), it just kind of made me go off the deep end. After just now waking up after a good cry I felt compelled to write this apology. So again, sorry everyone.

Ashtagon

2019-02-02, 06:37 AM

Just don't really know what kind of character I'd be suited to play anymore. And then after thinking about it for so long, this thread pops up, with DMs admitting that they actually do take a persons RL ability into account when playing the game (and as mentioned before an actual firsthand experience with a game personally), it just kind of made me go off the deep end. After just now waking up after a good cry I felt compelled to write this apology. So again, sorry everyone.

Just to be clear, I don't expect a player to actually be able to do what their character is doing. However, I do expect them to be able to describe what their character is doing. This is the difference between:

PICARD's player: "A starship captain's life is filled with solemn duty. I have commanded men in battle. I have negotiated peace treaties between implacable enemies. I have represented the Federation in first contact with twenty-seven alien species. But none of this compares to my solemn duty as... Best man."

and:

PICARD's player: "I use Diplomacy to give a speech congratulating the happy couple."

tadkins

2019-02-02, 06:41 AM

PICARD's player: "A starship captain's life is filled with solemn duty. I have commanded men in battle. I have negotiated peace treaties between implacable enemies. I have represented the Federation in first contact with twenty-seven alien species. But none of this compares to my solemn duty as... Best man."

and:

PICARD's player: "I use Diplomacy to give a speech congratulating the happy couple."

Shouldn't the latter actually be enough though? I doubt I'd ever be able to come up with a speech like that.

Ashtagon

2019-02-02, 06:51 AM

Shouldn't the latter actually be enough though? I doubt I'd ever be able to come up with a speech like that.

That was my point: The latter is enough.

tadkins

2019-02-02, 06:52 AM

That was my point: The latter is enough.

Oh, gotcha.

Crake

2019-02-02, 09:24 AM

That was my point: The latter is enough.

That said, writing a speech is something you can actually pre-plan and do beforehand, and can make for very memorable moments, like when players in my game actually wrote out wedding vows for one another. Neither of the players was particularly high charisma IRL, but that doesn't stop you from taking some time to write something up and then read it out. Obviously this isn't possible for an impromptu speech, but for something you know is coming up, why not add the extra depth to the situation?

Bohandas

2019-02-02, 09:25 AM

Well, a depressed, suicidal and inept at life in general person would never make it into my game as a player.

Ok, not sure if this is serious.

Are we still talking about Dungeons and Dragons?

SangoProduction

2019-02-02, 09:50 AM

I'm uncomfortable with even that much. This is supposed to be fun, and every social interaction where I have to judge the motives and desires of other people - even pretend people - is super stressful. So my solution is never play a face character, and if I get cornered in a face situation (because my character is off scouting solo or something), I'm just going to say "I strike up a conversation and fish for a motive that might get him to do what I want" and throw that die.

If that isn't enough for the DM, I guess I'll fail and go to guns.

That's more than some people are advocating for. And I would actually be OK with that. How you use that motive you find would still be up to you, but still.

SangoProduction

2019-02-02, 09:55 AM

Y
The op suggests she should have too do those things IRL, and if she can't, she can't do them in game either.

....Makes me question if you read the op. Considering about half of it was devoted to preemptively denying such accusations. Hasn't stopped people from making them, but whatever.

SangoProduction

2019-02-02, 10:01 AM

I have a Dread Necromancer--heavy Charisma focus--whose backstory is surviving a near-100%-fatal plague, the treatment of which was referred to as simply "the burning," and was applied externally and internally. As a result, his vocal chords were shredded to the point where speaking created a sensation like broken glass digging into his throat.

Obviously, he didn't say much. Except when he needed something to die. Also, his face or pretty much any part of his body wasn't pleasant to look at.

Yeah, not the one to seduce the general or talk down the warring princesses. He also went along with whatever the party wanted because it was too painful to argue. It is very tough knowing that your character has the best skillset in the party for being the face, yet for RP reasons he is effectively mute.

And that's basically the problem with riddles in a nutshell.

I actually played a cat. Not a talking one. But a magical one. Yes a cat doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to say when it can't talk. Doesn't mean you can't Scooby Doo it up. Straightening up and pointing out your snout and paw to the direction of the big evil thing, for example.
And it really does demonstrate the separation of character and player. Just because your character is mute doesn't mean you can't talk to describe what your character is doing.
Just because you have a -2 Charisma doesn't mean you can't put at least some deal of effort in to describing what your character is doing, or how they go about doing it. No one's asking for the minutia here.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 11:28 AM

What if the riddle was written on a wall?
Depends if it's a gate to the rest of the game or not.

I had a riddle of sorts on a wall. It was a mural that I drew with my limited artistic ability that documented the recent history of a kobold tribe in regards to an artifact they possessed. The players weren't entirely sure at what everything was depicting, but the important thing made its way across: their patron who sent them to get the artifact said that the kobolds had stolen it, when the mural had a very different story. This made them suspicious of their patron's motives and got them planning for what to do when they got back.

But, if they hadn't even figured out that much and just threw the handout I gave them to the side, the campaign would have still gone on its merry way. There was more to that mural they could have figured out as well, if not right then certainly when more of the campaign's details had been filled in, but they never did. And that was fine. The reward for solving the riddle was peeking behind the curtain, not progression.

Ashtagon

2019-02-02, 11:29 AM

That said, writing a speech is something you can actually pre-plan and do beforehand, and can make for very memorable moments, like when players in my game actually wrote out wedding vows for one another. Neither of the players was particularly high charisma IRL, but that doesn't stop you from taking some time to write something up and then read it out. Obviously this isn't possible for an impromptu speech, but for something you know is coming up, why not add the extra depth to the situation?

For a lot of people, even basic speech writing is ridiculously hard. It's great if a player wants to do it, but I would never put a player at an in-game disadvantage if they can not or will not do it. I'd rather keep my games accessible.

Knaight

2019-02-02, 11:49 AM

That said, writing a speech is something you can actually pre-plan and do beforehand, and can make for very memorable moments, like when players in my game actually wrote out wedding vows for one another. Neither of the players was particularly high charisma IRL, but that doesn't stop you from taking some time to write something up and then read it out. Obviously this isn't possible for an impromptu speech, but for something you know is coming up, why not add the extra depth to the situation?

Speeches are also a particularly good example of the sort of stuff social skills are excellent at. A quick, tense negotiation scene still plays out in about five minutes of in character table time. Speeches though? Those can easily get ridiculously long and tedious. There's a reason that even media heavy on dialog tends to gloss them over in particular, and it's that basically nobody wants to spend half an hour plus reading/watching one character make a speech.

Hackulator

2019-02-02, 11:54 AM

I think the general consensus here is you do light roleplay and let the checks do all the hard work. Describe your action, roll check, and have the DM tell you how you did it.

"My wizard uses his brain to analyze the situation"
roll INT check
DM tells him what he analyzed depending on the check result.
The End.

I think the consensus is more "describe your actions, give the amount of detail you are comfortable with, interesting RP is encouraged but not required".

Though your example given there would get you pretty much nothing at most tables, though I'm guessing you were being a little tongue in cheek.

Bohandas

2019-02-02, 12:53 PM

What if you rolled and then said something that matched the roll?

I'm going to try diplomacy to convince the townspeople to help us with this
*rolls*
Natural 1
"Are any of you [censored] [redacted due to being dead giveaway of the next censored word] [censored] peasants gonna (burp) help us or what!?"

and conversely if you rolled high or a natural 20 the DM would fill in the correct thing to say to convince them

unseenmage

2019-02-02, 01:12 PM

... I'd rather keep my games accessible.
Which is kind of the point, right? Kicking folk from a game is the nuclear option for those of us gaming from remote, poorly internet connected areas. Round these parts accessibility is king.

By erecting barriers to entry based on subjective ideas of worthiness some are allowed to play while others are ostracised.

It bothers me a lot that so much of this discussion has been about what levels of ostracision folk are okay with.

'Can't public speak to save your life? Too bad, so sad so outta mah game.', is just awful.

And for those who will reply, 'Well that's not what I said/meant.', sure but it sure is implied and skirted around.

(Except Darth Ultron, as much as I loath their position I gotta respect their willingness to state it up front.)

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 01:35 PM

The bolded parts are the key difference. Simon does nothing other than roll a dice, as opposed to your example doc, where the player actually says what they're planning on doing (though I'd personally ask "how?" to such a vague statement). As I said earlier, if you're going to put the onus of making decisions for your character on the DM, you're unnecessarily burdening him with extra duties ontop of actually running the game and all the NPCs. It baffles me that people will get up in arms when the DM forces the player's characters to do things, taking away their control, but nobody bats an eye when the players do the reverse, forcing the DM to decide what their characters do for them.

I'm fine with letting the dice determine the outcome of the action, so if a player is particularly awkward in their delivery, it wouldn't matter at all, because they rolled well and the guard is convinced by the character, but if the player says "I roll diplomacy to get past the guard" rolls the dice, and then looks at me to come up with some kind of explanation? Hell no, my immediate response to that will be "How do you go about doing that?" If they can't come up with an answer, I'm more than happy for the other players to help them out OOC with a solution, but I'm not going to play the characters for them.

That right there is a serious flaw in game-running that serves to punish newer players and reward veterans. It's exactly the type of situation that used to occur constantly in older editions that the 3E rules were deliberately trying to correct.

The Game Master's Guide for 1st-edition 7th Sea explains this the best with the discussion of the three hats: the author hat, the referee hat, and the storyteller hat.

Before anything else in a game happens, you are wearing the author hat. You are (if necessary) helping your players create characters, establishing the world in which they inhabit, and the plots around those characters that the players will enjoy. Once the game begins, you put on the storyteller hat. You are taking those mechanical aspects that were just words a few hours ago and bringing them to life in the fashion that is most entertaining for everyone present. It is your job to bring the story to life by maintaining the pace of the narrative and improvising the details. While it is generally appropriate in a lot of cases for a player to do the improvising for you, it is your job to do it when and if they cannot.

The referee hat is used only when arbitrating chance and the rules of the game. It is also the one that far too many DM's get stuck on their head for too much of the time, when it should be used as sparingly as possible. You should be wearing it long enough to clarify the rules of a situation, quickly make a decision, and then move on back to the fun parts.

As long as you know the rules, the players need be concerned
only with their characters and how they react to what happens to
them in the game. Have players tell you what they want their characters
to do, and translate that into game terms for them. Teach
them how the rules work when they need to learn them, on a caseby-
case basis. For example, if the player of a wizard wants to cast a
spell or the player of a fighter wants to attack, the player tells you
what the character is attempting. Then you tell the player which
modifier or modifiers to add to the roll of a d20, and what happens
as a result. After a few times, the player will know what to do without
asking.

If a player tells you, "I want to distract the guard", you tell them that is a Bluff check, and you proceed to adjudicating the result. Improvising the details of a Bluff check on the spot is not something you should be reasonably expecting your players to do. That's your job. If they want to be involved in that process, that's a bonus (and likely means they are getting more invested in their characters and the game world), but punishing them for not doing so is not how the rules were meant to be used. You aren't 'playing their characters for them". They are in control of their character's actions. You are telling the story that results from those actions. While D&D 3E can be, and usually is, a collaborative storytelling experience, it was specifically and purposefully designed so that it didn't have to be. And there is no question that design choice went a long way in attracting large swaths of new players to the game.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-02, 01:40 PM

And if Simon said he wants to try to convince the guard, but is socially awkward enough to not really know the right words to say (but his character would), you should let it pass. He'd declare his intentions, then roll. That should be fine enough imo. Being a real life great speaker of our time shouldn't be a requirement to play a bard.

Again, the player need not do it 'for real', but they need to give at least a vague outline of how it would be done for real.

I'd also argue, going for bards specifically, you shouldn't have to be able to play a music instrument IRL or really know anything about music at all. That's personally why I find it hard to get into the bard class.

Again, I require a player to know about music and instruments, even imaginary ones, is a vague outline...but the player does not need to know how to play an instrument ''for real". If the bard character has a drum, the player must be able to say ''my character beats on the drum in a slow, steady beat", but does not have to break out a drum set and play a drum solo....and the player can never say ''well, me the player is to dumb to know how drums work...but my character is super duper smart and plays the drums good!"

He most certainly did. He succeeded in the appropriate check, and the DM wove an appropriate narrative to represent that success in the event that the player did not supply it themselves.

Ahem....remember the point was the socially awkward player wanted to play a ''cool social character''. Note: they did not do that. They just rolled a die. That's it.

Player: "I want to distract the guard so we can sneak past."
DM: "All right, give me Bluff check."
Player: "Okay... I rolled a 12 so with my bonus that's a 25."
DM "Nicely done! You casually mention to the guard that you think the guest in the dark blue cloak is picking the pockets of other nobles. He moves off to confront the man, leaving his post open to the rest of the group."

Notice how the DM is the one doing all the work and playing the game here? The player rolled a d20 and did some addition. The player did no more then what an RPG app could do.

The DM was creative and role played.

The party is happy because the story is progressing. The player is happy because his character got to contribute. And the DM is happy because this was a teaching experience for the player. Now in the next encounter he'll have a better idea of the kinds of things a Bluff check is capable of, and will be better equipped to supply his own narrative to the game.

But again, the player did not contribute...the just rolled a d20.

Lets take Jake. He is an awesome social player. He sweet talks the guard, makes up a story, tells it good, plants some evidence, does a distraction, sets up a fall guy and gets the guard to go over to the guy in the cloak (and used the skills Bluff, Slight of Hand, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Hide, plus a Dexterity check or two). This short five minutes of role playing/roll playing is perfect and awesome, and it's enjoyable to watch and everyone give a clap after it's done.

Then take poor Simon. He rolls a d20...and sits there. The DM then role plays and is creative. So...does Simon feel even a tiny bit like Jake? Or does he feel like a loser as he just rolled a d20 and did nothing else?

I guess you can say that Simon can just sit there and roll dice like a Dice Bot for a while...and maybe, some day he might figure out how to role play his character.

You are making exactly the nonsensical argument that the thread title is poking fun at. A player should be no more expected to continuously and repeatedly improvise extensive dialogue on the spot in to represent the results of an absurdly high skill check in order to do what their character is capable of doing than another player should be expected to slowly and laboriously describe in exquisite detail every single violent motion that their character goes through in order to confirm a critical hit with a greataxe.

I say vague outline, not exquisite detail.

It baffles me that people will get up in arms when the DM forces the player's characters to do things, taking away their control, but nobody bats an eye when the players do the reverse, forcing the DM to decide what their characters do for them.

Agreed. How is it the DM has to do all the heavy lifting by being creative and role playing? Why can't the player do it?

I'm fine with letting the dice determine the outcome of the action, so if a player is particularly awkward in their delivery, it wouldn't matter at all, because they rolled well and the guard is convinced by the character, but if the player says "I roll diplomacy to get past the guard" rolls the dice, and then looks at me to come up with some kind of explanation? Hell no, my immediate response to that will be "How do you go about doing that?" If they can't come up with an answer, I'm more than happy for the other players to help them out OOC with a solution, but I'm not going to play the characters for them.

Agreed.

It definitely happens.

It definitely happens...a lot.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 01:40 PM

I think the consensus is more "describe your actions, give the amount of detail you are comfortable with, interesting RP is encouraged but not required".

Though your example given there would get you pretty much nothing at most tables, though I'm guessing you were being a little tongue in cheek.

I was thinking about a player who didn't know how to play an intelligent character and was incapable of solving puzzles in real life. How is he gonna play a chessmaster?

So I thought by asking for intelligence checks throughout the game the DM can fill him in about things he wouldn't pick up on in real life like whether this NPC has an exploitable thing and whatnot.

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 01:46 PM

Again, the player need not do it 'for real', but they need to give at least a vague outline of how it would be done for real.
Ahem....remember the point was the socially awkward player wanted to play a ''cool social character''. Note: they did not do that. They just rolled a die. That's it.

Everything else I already addressed in my response to Crake, but I wanted to single out these in particular:

"the point was the infirm and physically feeble player wanted to play a "strong martial warrior". Note: they did not do that. They just rolled a die. That's it."

Like Crake, you are conflating the storytelling aspect of detail improvisation with "good roleplaying". Everyone who sits down at a table to play an RPG is "roleplaying". Again, sometimes-- perhaps most of the time-- D&D 3E is a collaborative storytelling process, but the rules were structured in such a way that it doesn't have to be. And people who don't run their games like that aren't doing it wrong. Yours and Crake's approach isn't strictly wrong either, but it undeniably creates entry barriers into the game for newer players that are not at all necessary.

Hackulator

2019-02-02, 01:49 PM

I was thinking about a player who didn't know how to play an intelligent character and was incapable of solving puzzles in real life. How is he gonna play a chessmaster?

So I thought by asking for intelligence checks throughout the game the DM can fill him in about things he wouldn't pick up on in real life like whether this NPC has an exploitable thing and whatnot.

Sure I just mean that "I use my intelligence to analyze the situation" is a bit too vague. Also, there is a line as to where a DM can or should make up for a characters intelligence (in my opinion). For example, I won't make up plans for a character, they need to do that themselves. Sometimes, if I see a glaring flaw in a plan they have, I will ask them for an intelligence check and if they succeed I will point out the flaw.

Like Crake, you are conflating the storytelling aspect of detail improvisation with "good roleplaying". Everyone who sits down at a table to play an RPG is "roleplaying". Again, sometimes-- perhaps most of the time-- D&D 3E is a collaborative storytelling process, but the rules were structured in such a way that it doesn't have to be. And people who don't run their games like that aren't doing it wrong. Yours and Crake's approach isn't strictly wrong either, but it undeniably creates entry barriers into the game for newer players that are not at all necessary.

I would say that there is definitely a line between roleplaying and good roleplaying, I just don't require someone be a good roleplayer to sit down at my table.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 01:51 PM

If a player tells you, "I want to distract the guard", you tell them that is a Bluff check, and you proceed to adjudicating the result. Improvising the details of a Bluff check on the spot is not something you should be reasonably expecting your players to do. That's your job.
How in the holy blue #$%^ did you get that from what you quoted?

Talakeal

2019-02-02, 01:55 PM

I agree that puzzles are lame, but some people like them.

As for diplomacy, all I require is that you tell me what you want from them, what you are willing to give in return, and a vague statement of your approach (e.g. bribery, flattery, threats, playing on sympathy, etc.) I never require that you actually act out what you say or tell me exact words or approaches, although you are free to do so if you like.

Even this is too much for my players, who instead want me to tell set up the entire situation for them, for example saying "There is a guard blocking your path. Roll a DC 20 diplomacy check to pass."

Honestly it isn't comparable to expecting the player to swing an axe in real life; its like expecting them to actually move their model on the battle mat, select targets, determine weapons and combat maneuverers, etc.

So actually, I think a better question would be:

Why are people who insist we resolve social challenges with a single dice roll and no description OK with playing out combats instead of just rolling attack bonus to see who wins? After all, its not like the players are tactical geniuses in real life, so why do we expect them to be able to play their characters appropriately in combat?

Hackulator

2019-02-02, 02:10 PM

As for diplomacy, all I require is that you tell me what you want from them, what you are willing to give in return, and a vague statement of your approach (e.g. bribery, flattery, threats, playing on sympathy, etc.) I never require that you actually act out what you say or tell me exact words or approaches, although you are free to do so if you like.

Even this is too much for my players, who instead want me to tell set up the entire situation for them, for example saying "There is a guard blocking your path. Roll a DC 20 diplomacy check to pass."

Given this and another thread I saw of yours in the main RPG forum, it sounds like you just have the absolute ****tiest players I have ever heard of and I don't know how you got stuck with them or why you would want to DM for them.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-02, 02:13 PM

"the point was the infirm and physically feeble player wanted to play a "strong martial warrior". Note: they did not do that. They just rolled a die. That's it."

Like Crake, you are conflating the storytelling aspect of detail improvisation with "good roleplaying". Everyone who sits down at a table to play an RPG is "roleplaying". Again, sometimes-- perhaps most of the time-- D&D 3E is a collaborative storytelling process, but the rules were structured in such a way that it doesn't have to be. And people who don't run their games like that aren't doing it wrong. Yours and Crake's approach isn't strictly wrong either, but it undeniably creates entry barriers into the game for newer players that are not at all necessary.

Right, ok, so how does your infirm and physically feeble player play a "strong martial warrior"?

Do they just sit at the game table and stare off into space and ignore everything until the DM mentions combat? Do then then just roll a d20, do some math and go right back to starring off into space and ignore everything?

Is that what you would call playing a "strong martial warrior"?

If you just occasionally roll some dice you are playing the game...barley...but you are not role playing.

Why are people who insist we resolve social challenges with a single dice roll and no description OK with playing out combats instead of just rolling attack bonus to see who wins? After all, its not like the players are tactical geniuses in real life, so why do we expect them to be able to play their characters appropriately in combat?

I have asked this before too. What if ''cool combat'' was just like all other boring mechanical game actions:

DM: The bad guys attack! They rolled a 11.
Group of Players: We rolled a 13!
DM:Your group wins the combat, good job everyone!

Erloas

2019-02-02, 02:21 PM

While the character skill and player skill aren't the same, you can't really just take the player out of it either.

Would anyone playing a "tactical genius" fighter/cavalier/ranger go into combat and say "well my character would know the best place to move, but me as a player does not, so I'm going to roll knowledge (soldier) and let the DM move me to the most tactically optimal spot and use my most tactically optimal ability" does anyone do that?
Would any players or the DM be ok with the wizard player saying "my wizard would know the best spells to prepare today so just assume I've got all the best spells prepared in the correct amounts" and not actually have the player pick out the spells? Sure a new player that is unfamiliar with the rules or spells could very well ask for help in deciding which spells to prepare, and the GM and other players could help them make some good choices, but even then it isn't going to just be an Int check and the GM picks all the best options for the day.
So I'm not sure why people would assume social encounters would be solved that way, since it is essentially doing the same thing.

Guiding new players, or players that aren't great at something, is a lot different than a player that doesn't put any effort into what they're trying to do. You don't need to know exactly how something is going to be done, but the general idea of what you want to do is.

Crake

2019-02-02, 02:31 PM

Speeches are also a particularly good example of the sort of stuff social skills are excellent at. A quick, tense negotiation scene still plays out in about five minutes of in character table time. Speeches though? Those can easily get ridiculously long and tedious. There's a reason that even media heavy on dialog tends to gloss them over in particular, and it's that basically nobody wants to spend half an hour plus reading/watching one character make a speech.

For a lot of people, even basic speech writing is ridiculously hard. It's great if a player wants to do it, but I would never put a player at an in-game disadvantage if they can not or will not do it. I'd rather keep my games accessible.

I do wanna stress that the speech writing thing was entirely an example of a player going above and beyond, definitely not what I'd consider baseline, but I would encourage players to try something like that if they get the opportunity.

That right there is a serious flaw in game-running that serves to punish newer players and reward veterans. It's exactly the type of situation that used to occur constantly in older editions that the 3E rules were deliberately trying to correct.

The Game Master's Guide for 1st-edition 7th Sea explains this the best with the discussion of the three hats: the author hat, the referee hat, and the storyteller hat.

Before anything else in a game happens, you are wearing the author hat. You are (if necessary) helping your players create characters, establishing the world in which they inhabit, and the plots around those characters that the players will enjoy. Once the game begins, you put on the storyteller hat. You are taking those mechanical aspects that were just words a few hours ago and bringing them to life in the fashion that is most entertaining for everyone present. It is your job to bring the story to life by maintaining the pace of the narrative and improvising the details. While it is generally appropriate in a lot of cases for a player to do the improvising for you, it is your job to do it when and if they cannot.

The referee hat is used only when arbitrating chance and the rules of the game. It is also the one that far too many DM's get stuck on their head for too much of the time, when it should be used as sparingly as possible. You should be wearing it long enough to clarify the rules of a situation, quickly make a decision, and then move on back to the fun parts.

If a player tells you, "I want to distract the guard", you tell them that is a Bluff check, and you proceed to adjudicating the result. Improvising the details of a Bluff check on the spot is not something you should be reasonably expecting your players to do. That's your job. If they want to be involved in that process, that's a bonus (and likely means they are getting more invested in their characters and the game world), but punishing them for not doing so is not how the rules were meant to be used. You aren't 'playing their characters for them". They are in control of their character's actions. You are telling the story that results from those actions. While D&D 3E can be, and usually is, a collaborative storytelling experience, it was specifically and purposefully designed so that it didn't have to be. And there is no question that design choice went a long way in attracting large swaths of new players to the game.

The issue I have is that "I want to diplomacy the guard" doesn't tell me what they want to do. "I want to distract the guard" does, but "I want to bluff the guard" doesn't. See the difference?

Talakeal

2019-02-02, 02:56 PM

Precisely this.

It's been my experience that forced roleplaying is bad roleplaying.

In an attempt to engage my less engaged players I once asked that whenever they rolled a crit that they describe it a sentence or two. Told them to take some descriptive liberties even. Describe it cinematically.

They hated it.

Turns out that when put on the spot folk just freeze up. Surprise surprise. In hindsight it was a dumb mistake.
To this day even when rolling for who goes first in MtG we joke, "Describe your crit!", loudly and mockingly.

Lesson learned.

Maybe these people should spend some time behind the screen.

Because that's seriously like half of everything that a DM does.

Knaight

2019-02-02, 02:57 PM

Which is kind of the point, right? Kicking folk from a game is the nuclear option for those of us gaming from remote, poorly internet connected areas. Round these parts accessibility is king.

By erecting barriers to entry based on subjective ideas of worthiness some are allowed to play while others are ostracised.

It bothers me a lot that so much of this discussion has been about what levels of ostracision folk are okay with.

Ostracism is a really loaded term here - doing collaborative hobbies with people with similar interests is hardly ostracism, especially in the context of internet strangers. Even with actual friends people don't necessarily do everything together. If I was hosting a boardgame night where we were busting out all the crunchy math heavy games I'm not going to invite my friend who despises math and doesn't learn rules well, because I know she won't have fun. Similarly if I'm busting out word games she's getting invited, but the people who hate and struggle with them (a somewhat larger group) aren't.

The same concept applies both far more broadly. When going out somewhere who else gets invited is influenced by where; if I'm going on a 10 mile hike at 12,000 ft I'm not going to invite the people who I know dislike hiking or can't do it, and they're not going to take it as some sort of ostracism aimed at them because they fully understand. The same thing can apply when setting up RPGs; if I'm doing logistics I generally don't invite people without broadly similar tastes because I know we'll both have less fun.

This is with people I actually know, where socializing with the particular people is more the point than playing the RPG. With internet randos, where the primary point is the RPG? Yeah, I'm all about weeding people out, and while kicking is a particularly harsh option talking to people to suggest that maybe you should play different games in different styles absolutely isn't.

Frankly a lot of nerds need to get over past exclusion. "Subjective ideas of worthiness" are pretty much how the formation of social groups works. Really broadly, when in chosen groups we spend time with people we enjoy spending time with. These aren't coworkers, these aren't family; you're not stuck with these people. You get to make a choice, and that's where "subjective ideas of worthiness" are you put it come in. As does "ostracism", as you put it. A less hyperbolic way to put it is just people spending time with people they like to spend time with, and not spending time with people they don't like to spend time with.

This is without getting into how some "subjective ideas of worthiness" are worth moving a bit more towards actual ostracism. Incompatible play styles are a non issue, but if it turns out an internet rando seems to generally be a terrible person? They're gone.

Talakeal

2019-02-02, 03:11 PM

Hackulator

2019-02-02, 03:13 PM

Extremely lucky. I have had players do that constantly.

Heck, when I was talking to one of my players about dialogue in the game (see my thread on the main page "Only the GM enjoys dialogue in combat," for the context) one of my players told me that they hate dialogue so much that they wish that all social interactions were resolved with no more input from the players than "I roll diplomacy," his exact words.

Yeah I saw that thread and as I said above you seem to have some of the worst players I've ever heard of, who seem to have no interest at all in the game being fun for you as the DM, and I wonder why you run for them at all.

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 03:14 PM

How in the holy blue #$%^ did you get that from what you quoted?
By reading it and understanding what words mean.

Right, ok, so how does your infirm and physically feeble player play a "strong martial warrior"?

Do they just sit at the game table and stare off into space and ignore everything until the DM mentions combat? Do then then just roll a d20, do some math and go right back to starring off into space and ignore everything?

Is that what you would call playing a "strong martial warrior"?

If you just occasionally roll some dice you are playing the game...barley...but you are not role playing.

The issue I have is that "I want to diplomacy the guard" doesn't tell me what they want to do. "I want to distract the guard" does, but "I want to bluff the guard" doesn't. See the difference?

DM: "Okay it's your initiative. What do you want to do?"
New Player: "Oh! um... I want to attack that guy right there. *points*"
DM: "How are you doing that?"
NP: "With my sword?"
DM: "You need to draw it first since it is still sheathed."
NP: "Ah right!"
DM: "But that's okay. It can be done as part of your move action to reach that guy. So how are you attacking?"
NP: "I... want to swing my sword at him."
DM: "Right, but in what way?"
NP: "Huh?"
DM: "How are you swinging your sword? 'I attack him', doesn't really tell me what you want to do. You have to give me some idea of how you are doing it."
NP: "uh... with my sword?"

If that scenario sounds ridiculous, it should.

Based on both of your examples thus far there is no fundamental difference between running a combat like that and running a skill check like that. It's the result of you, as a DM, wanting your players to describe their character's actions in exquisite cinematic detail. This is something that is not required by the rules, nor necessary to effectively run a game. What you are doing is delegating one of your responsibilities as a DM to your players. There is nothing wrong with doing that if that's how you want to run your game. But it is very disingenuous to claim that you are doing so because otherwise you would be "running the player's character for them" or "the other way isn't really roleplaying."

Talakeal

2019-02-02, 03:16 PM

I have asked this before too. What if ''cool combat'' was just like all other boring mechanical game actions:

DM: The bad guys attack! They rolled a 11.
Group of Players: We rolled a 13!
DM:Your group wins the combat, good job everyone!

Chronicles of Darkness actually has the "quick and dirty combat" optional rule which is basically exactly that.

Crake

2019-02-02, 03:20 PM

By reading it and understanding what words mean.

DM: "Okay it's your initiative. What do you want to do?"
New Player: "Oh! um... I want to attack that guy right there. *points*"
DM: "How are you doing that?"
NP: "With my sword?"
DM: "You need to draw it first since it is still sheathed."
NP: "Ah right!"
DM: "But that's okay. It can be done as part of your move action to reach that guy. So how are you attacking?"
NP: "I... want to swing my sword at him."
DM: "Right, but in what way?"
NP: "Huh?"
DM: "How are you swinging your sword? 'I attack him', doesn't really tell me what you want to do. You have to give me some idea of how you are doing it."
NP: "uh... with my sword?"

If that scenario sounds ridiculous, it should.

Based on both of your examples thus far there is no fundamental difference between running a combat like that and running a skill check like that. It's the result of you, as a DM, wanting your players to describe their character's actions in exquisite cinematic detail. This is something that is not required by the rules, nor necessary to effectively run a game. What you are doing is delegating one of your responsibilities as a DM to your players. There is nothing wrong with doing that if that's how you want to run your game. But it is very disingenuous to claim that you are doing so because otherwise you would be "running the player's character for them" or "the other way isn't really roleplaying."

It's the difference between "I want to attack that guy" and "I want to attack that guy with my sword". The first one is vague and can be done in many ways, the second one is concise and leaves only flavour to the imagination. If it was the first one, maybe he wanted to shoot an arrow at the guy, maybe he wanted to toss a dagger, or maybe he wanted to run into melee and attack. The second one leaves no room for interpretation or questioning, he's moving in, drawing his sword and attacking. Again, the difference between "I bluff the guard" and "I try to distract the guard". The first is vague and can be done in many ways (are you bluffing the guard that you're a member of the staff, are you bluffing the guard that someone is looking for him to draw him away, or are you bluffing the guard to distract him while your friends do X?), the second one is simple, you're distracting the guard while your friends do X.

Your example was going one step further, and is tantamount to me asking "How are you going to distract the guard", but... I mean, I feel like you already knew that you were misrepresenting my argument. So we have 3 levels of complexity. What I'm arguing against "I want to bluff the guard", what I'm advocating for "I want to distract the guard", and what you're pretending I'm advocating for "I want to distract the guard by singing a song, here's one I prepared earlier *sings*"

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 03:35 PM

It's the difference between "I want to attack that guy" and "I want to attack that guy with my sword". The first one is vague and can be done in many ways, the second one is concise and leaves only flavour to the imagination. If it was the first one, maybe he wanted to shoot an arrow at the guy, maybe he wanted to toss a dagger, or maybe he wanted to run into melee and attack. The second one leaves no room for interpretation or questioning, he's moving in, drawing his sword and attacking. Again, the difference between "I bluff the guard" and "I try to distract the guard". The first is vague and can be done in many ways (are you bluffing the guard that you're a member of the staff, are you bluffing the guard that someone is looking for him to draw him away, or are you bluffing the guard to distract him while your friends do X?), the second one is simple, you're distracting the guard while your friends do X.

Your example was going one step further, and is tantamount to me asking "How are you going to distract the guard", but... I mean, I feel like you already knew that you were misrepresenting my argument. So we have 3 levels of complexity. What I'm arguing against "I want to bluff the guard", what I'm advocating for "I want to distract the guard", and what you're pretending I'm advocating for "I want to distract the guard by singing a song, here's one I prepared earlier *sings*"

The only difference between, "I want to bluff the guard", and, "I want to distract the guard", is that Bluff is the name of a skill in 3rd Edition D&D. Outside the context of this discussion, those two sentences are exactly the same, and thus should be treated accordingly within the scope of a game.

What I have been saying is that at your table a player who asks you, "Can I distract the guard?" is fine, while a player who asks you, "Can I roll bluff to distract the guard?" is doing it wrong, when the reality is that both of those players are doing the same thing. If you agree, then we have just been talking past each other.

Darth Ultron

2019-02-02, 03:36 PM

Erloas

2019-02-02, 03:40 PM

Based on both of your examples thus far there is no fundamental difference between running a combat like that and running a skill check like that. It's the result of you, as a DM, wanting your players to describe their character's actions in exquisite cinematic detail. This is something that is not required by the rules, nor necessary to effectively run a game. What you are doing is delegating one of your responsibilities as a DM to your players. There is nothing wrong with doing that if that's how you want to run your game. But it is very disingenuous to claim that you are doing so because otherwise you would be "running the player's character for them" or "the other way isn't really roleplaying."
But attacking with your sword is all that is needed to resolve that action. "Distract" isn't all that is needed to resolve the other situation. There is no difference between attacking high, attacking low, or from the right or left, and there is no "I swing in a way that avoids his shield". Now if you wanted to attack with the sword one-handed versus two, or stab rather than slash (need piercing rather than slashing damage) that is also something that would need to be specified. Or if you had multiple weapons, specifying which one you draw and attack with.

But "distract" is different. You could distract by talking to them, by throwing a stone, by pushing over table, or opening up livestock pen. All of those would have different end results and different potential reactions from the guard. Some the guard may not see you, which might be important if you're known or could be identified later, and depending on the guard some might react differently than others. How "distract" is done could have very big differences in how effective it is or what happens later.

"I diplomacy the guard" doesn't tell us if you're convincing her to let you and your friends in, or if you're just talking to her while your friends sneak past, if you're trying to bribe her, or anything else about what it is you're actually doing. Trying to bribe a devoted guard to a highly respected leader is going to be a lot different than bribing a guard to a dictator that the population doesn't like. Now you might not know much about the leader as a player, and that would be the time, before going further, that you ask the DM what you know about said leader, potentially with a knowledge check as appropriate. You're character might know a lot more than the player, but the character might not know any more than the player either. It isn't like you've got 3 seconds to come up with a response if the guard says something to you, you've got plenty of OOC time to get more information from the DM before going forward.

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 04:07 PM

Looks and sounds like a typical bad player that has been casually playing the game for years.

And right now you sound like a typical grognard who thinks that the only acceptable behavior at a table is what matches their expectations of how a typical AD&D game would be run.

The kind that I have seen drive many good people away from RPGs in my 25+ years of gaming.

All I have been doing is illustrating how the rules allow for players of varying levels of experience to play in the same game, and how the dual natures of mechanics and narrative structure mesh together to create the overall experience. You are accusing people of engaging in wrong-bad-fun.

But attacking with your sword is all that is needed to resolve that action. "Distract" isn't all that is needed to resolve the other situation. There is no difference between attacking high, attacking low, or from the right or left, and there is no "I swing in a way that avoids his shield". Now if you wanted to attack with the sword one-handed versus two, or stab rather than slash (need piercing rather than slashing damage) that is also something that would need to be specified. Or if you had multiple weapons, specifying which one you draw and attack with.

But "distract" is different. You could distract by talking to them, by throwing a stone, by pushing over table, or opening up livestock pen. All of those would have different end results and different potential reactions from the guard. Some the guard may not see you, which might be important if you're known or could be identified later, and depending on the guard some might react differently than others. How "distract" is done could have very big differences in how effective it is or what happens later.

"I diplomacy the guard" doesn't tell us if you're convincing her to let you and your friends in, or if you're just talking to her while your friends sneak past, if you're trying to bribe her, or anything else about what it is you're actually doing. Trying to bribe a devoted guard to a highly respected leader is going to be a lot different than bribing a guard to a dictator that the population doesn't like. Now you might not know much about the leader as a player, and that would be the time, before going further, that you ask the DM what you know about said leader, potentially with a knowledge check as appropriate. You're character might know a lot more than the player, but the character might not know any more than the player either. It isn't like you've got 3 seconds to come up with a response if the guard says something to you, you've got plenty of OOC time to get more information from the DM before going forward.

You are suggesting that the level of abstraction which applies to combat is incapable of being applied to skill checks. This isn't the case at all. Yes, "I diplomacy the guard" is vague, but functionally it is all that is required to resolve an encounter. This is exactly the case for combat. Describing the results of your attack rolls in florid prose is not at all necessary to resolve the encounter.

If you, the DM, are unhappy with a player's vague approach to a social encounter and want to inject something more flavorful into the narrative that would suit the context of the specific situation, that's fine. That's part of your job as a storyteller. It's also fine if a DM doesn't want to do that and instead would rather stick to the mechanics of the situation.

It's also fine to try and encourage your player to come up with something a little more descriptive on their own. What's not okay is running a game with the expectation that players will be doing part of your job for you, and effectively punishing them if they don't. If that's how you want to run your games, then they need to come with a warning label.

Crake

2019-02-02, 04:14 PM

The only difference between, "I want to bluff the guard", and, "I want to distract the guard", is that Bluff is the name of a skill in 3rd Edition D&D. Outside the context of this discussion, those two sentences are exactly the same, and thus should be treated accordingly within the scope of a game.

What I have been saying is that at your table a player who asks you, "Can I distract the guard?" is fine, while a player who asks you, "Can I roll bluff to distract the guard?" is doing it wrong, when the reality is that both of those players are doing the same thing. If you agree, then we have just been talking past each other.

I don't know if you're doing this intentionally, but you see that part that I bolded? Yeah, that part was never in my example. You're right that functionally "Can I distract the guard?" and "Can I roll bluff to distract the guard" are the same sentance, but your initial statement that "I want to bluff the guard" and "I want to distract the guard" are functionally equivilent is just straight up wrong. "I want to bluff the guard" could quite well mean they want to convince the guard that they are part of the staff and need to be let in. So:

"I want to use bluff to distract the guard" - Fine
"I want to distract the guard" - Also fine
"I want to bluff the guard." - Not fine, can be interpreted many ways. Please clarify.

You are suggesting that the level of abstraction which applies to combat is incapable of being applied to skill checks. This isn't the case at all. Yes, "I diplomacy the guard" is vague, but functionally it is all that is required to resolve an encounter. This is exactly the case for combat. Describing the results of your attack rolls in florid prose is not at all necessary to resolve the encounter.

If you, the DM, are unhappy with a player's vague approach to a social encounter and want to inject something more flavorful into the narrative that would suit the context of the specific situation, that's fine. That's part of your job as a storyteller. It's also fine if a DM doesn't want to do that and instead would rather stick to the mechanics of the situation.

It's also fine to try and encourage your player to come up with something a little more descriptive on their own. What's not okay is running a game with the expectation that players will be doing part of your job for you, and effectively punishing them if they don't. If that's how you want to run your games, then they need to come with a warning label.

You're implying those levels of abstration are equivilent. "I diplomacy the guard" is functionally the same as saying "I attack the enemies" at the start of combat, and expecting the fight to resolve itself without adding anything further.

Stryyke

2019-02-02, 04:26 PM

I remember once I was trying to sneak some huge demon statues into a walled city. I walked up to the guard and tried to find out about what kind of security I would be facing. Not being terribly quick on my feet, when the guard asked suspiciously why I was inquiring, I decided to stick as close to the truth as possible: I told him I would be bringing in some statues that looked like demons (the statues actually were demons).

The DM asked the fateful question "Are you SURE you want to do that?" I said yes. So at the critical moment in the conversation, he had me roll my diplomacy. I rolled a 28. So the DM decided that, even though it was incredibly stupid, my ploy worked. The guard got me some papers to get my totally "innocuous" statues through the gate.

I'm a fan of that. The player is themselves, the roll just decides whether it works. No one is expecting players to be the most suave talkers, but how can a DM decide what happens if the player doesn't tell them what he/she does?

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 04:40 PM

"I want to bluff the guard." - Not fine, can be interpreted many ways. Please clarify.

Wrong.
It can be interpreted exactly one way within the context of the rules. The character will roll a Bluff check to dupe the guard into believing something that is contrary to the truth. What that something is can be supplied either by the player or the DM.

You're implying those levels of abstration are equivilent. "I diplomacy the guard" is functionally the same as saying "I attack the enemies" at the start of combat, and expecting the fight to resolve itself without adding anything further.

Those are situations are functionally the same if the combat encounter is capable of being resolved with a single melee attack like a social encounter can be resolved in a single skill check.

I'm a fan of that. The player is themselves, the roll just decides whether it works. No one is expecting players to be the most suave talkers, but how can a DM decide what happens if the player doesn't tell them what he/she does?

You are also conflating "what happens" with "how it happens". The former is supplied by the player. The latter is supplied either by the player or the DM at the discretion of either. What happened was you rolled a Bluff check to make a guard think something was other than what it appeared to be. How that happened was you convinced him that the petrified demons were just statues instead of being real demons.

That should have been a Bluff check, by the by, not Diplomacy, since you were being deliberately deceptive.

Erloas

2019-02-02, 04:42 PM

You are suggesting that the level of abstraction which applies to combat is incapable of being applied to skill checks. This isn't the case at all. Yes, "I diplomacy the guard" is vague, but functionally it is all that is required to resolve an encounter. This is exactly the case for combat. Describing the results of your attack rolls in florid prose is not at all necessary to resolve the encounter.
It isn't the same though, because you can use diplomacy in many different ways and they'll have different chances of success and different potential outcomes. "I attack high" and "I attack low" are identical because high and low don't make a difference in the outcome. "I stab with my halberd" and "I slash with my halberd" might not make a difference at all in some encounters, but if you're fighting a zombie with DR/slashing then it does make a difference.

But how you use your diplomacy does make a difference. Depending on what you're asking could have a big impact on how the guard responds, just like hitting the zombie with a pierce versus slash has a big difference on how effective it is. And if they don't specify a skill, such as "distract" then that can happen in many ways. Distracting by talking to them, distracting them by causing a commotion close by, distracting them by throwing a rock, or casting an illusion, etc. Those all have a big impact on what could happen and how it happens. If you distract them by talking to them while your friends sneak in that might mean you don't get in. If you distract them by getting them to run away (noise, lie) everyone gets in. If you get them to let you in as a worker or as a guest they might escort you or send a runner to the person in charge instead. If you're delivering something they might give you directions on where it needs to be dropped off, or where the main office is.
It isn't as much about roleplaying, giving exactly what you say and how you say it, but about what it is you're actually trying to do. You don't have to come up with a really good lie, but you at least need to tell the DM that you're going to make up a lie to get past and the nature of the lie; we're workers, we're foreign nobles, we've got a message, robbery just around the corner, we're his relief, captain has another task for him. If you're going to bribe the guard you might not need to specify an exact amount, but the DM needs to know you're offering a bribe and they should give some guidance on what seems like a reasonable amount give what you know of the situation.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 04:50 PM

By reading it and understanding what words mean.
Ah, the error is that you think you know what words mean.

We can be certain you don't know what a "game term" is, but there's a hint in what you quoted:

tell the player which modifier or modifiers to add to the roll of a d20
This is crunch stuff: hit points, armor class, DCs, these are all game terms. A description of the rain cascading off the roof of a tavern, however, would not be a game term, nor would a drunken argument between two patrons, because the game doesn't define these things.

You also don't know what a "result" is. This is the outcome of an action. It is not the action itself. The world is governed by something called "cause and effect," where a cause precedes, resulting in an effect. The cause is not a result of itself.

So if a PC had intentionally maneuvered to jostle one of the patrons, that would be a cause. It is the DMs responsibility to take that and turn that into game terminology. Let's say that's a DC 15 Sleight of Hand. Once rolled, and assuming it's successful, it is up to the DM to describe the result of that action. Since we know what the PC wants to do--in this case that would be making the patron spill his beer onto the other--the DM can describe the success and the ensuing confrontation between the two NPCs.

So, now that we know what some of those words you were incorrectly confident of mean, and these are the two things the DM is responsible for in the passage you quoted, I will ask you again:

Where in the holy blue #$%^ did you get that it is the DM's job to come up with and roleplay the PC's action?

If that scenario sounds ridiculous, it should.
Why?
Why his sword? Why not his bow? Is he charging? Is he tumbling? Is he flanking?

You do realize that the PHB has an entire chapter devoted to combat and two sections devoted to movement. And it's literally called the PLAYER's Handbook. Surprisingly, it consists of a lot more than "Tell your DM you are attacking."

Based on both of your examples thus far there is no fundamental difference between running a combat like that and running a skill check like that. It's the result of you, as a DM, wanting your players to describe their character's actions in exquisite cinematic detail.
We can add "exquisite" and "cinematic" to the list of words you do not understand. Right before "Straw Man."

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 04:54 PM

Some people like more RP. Some people don't. It's all preference and you can use the rules to do either one. Claiming one is superior than the other, or one is "right" and the other is "wrong" is incorrect and you guys are all arguing about whose preference is superior.

You can say "bluff the guard" and roll.
You can say "I point behind him with a face of absolute horror" and roll

Both are valid. Arguing which is the right way to play d&d is wrong. Less social people will prefer the former, fluff-heavy DMs will prefer the latter. That's all there is to it.

Even combat. A guy can say "I hit him with my sword" and roll, and another guy can say "My sword spins around the bandit's sword and dodges his parry and goes for his throat" and roll. One of these is NOT an incorrect way to play d&d.

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 05:26 PM

You can say "bluff the guard" and roll.
No, you cannot.

See the accompanying table for examples of different kinds of bluffs and the modifier to the target’s Sense Motive check for each one.
You have specify what the bluff is for the DM to apply the appropriate modifier.

I mean, I guess the DM can just default to the +20 "Way Out There" modifier.

Melcar

2019-02-02, 05:29 PM

As a DM I encourage my players to describe in as much detail as possible, how they intend to use a certain skill. Be that using diplomacy to get an audience with the King, or using climb to scale a wall. I want more from the players I know can do more roleplaying and less from new players or people who are uncomfortable with it... When I’m the player, I try to apply the same logic... This goes for all things D&D really!

Stryyke

2019-02-02, 05:39 PM

"You are also conflating "what happens" with "how it happens". The former is supplied by the player. The latter is supplied either by the player or the DM at the discretion of either."

In some cases, like in combat, yes "I hit him with a sword" is enough. But when dealing with diplomacy and bluff, the DM can't even decide the repercussions of an action if said action isn't stated. The two are completely separate. If I say "I bluff the guard" there are too many unanswered questions. Bluff him how? Physical diversion? Tell him to go somewhere? Convince him to join your cause? Or any number of other possibilities. If you leave that to the DM, then the DM may as well just play the whole game. How you approach different situations is the most important part of D&D.

In combat, there are specific rules for the various things you can do. Disarm, Bull Rush, Sunder, etc. Everything in combat has rules associated with it. You want to do a 360 spin before striking? Roll a balance. You want to jump up on a table for effect? Roll a jump. You want to feint? Roll a bluff. But you still have to identify what it is you want to do. You can't go into combat and just say "I roll 2 bluffs, 3 jumps, 6 attacks, and an swim;" then let your DM fill in the blanks, right?

Maybe when bluffing a guard you don't have to RP the whole conversation, but you do have to determine how you will approach the situation. If all you do is say "I roll diplomacy," the DM has no idea what you are trying to do. What's the DC? Is it Diplomacy or Bluff? What's the result? Is the guard physically leaving the location? Are they just letting you through but staying put? Are they giving you papers? With a die roll, none of that can be answered. The DM is not responsible for making your decisions for you.

Doctor Awkward

2019-02-02, 05:57 PM

It isn't the same though, because you can use diplomacy in many different ways and they'll have different chances of success and different potential outcomes.

No, you can't.
This is the disconnect.
Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) has two functions; changing the attitude of an NPC through discussion, and resolving extended negotiations between two groups, either between them or in front of a third party.

And if they don't specify a skill, such as "distract" then that can happen in many ways. Distracting by talking to them, distracting them by causing a commotion close by, distracting them by throwing a rock, or casting an illusion, etc. Those all have a big impact on what could happen and how it happens. If you distract them by talking to them while your friends sneak in that might mean you don't get in. If you distract them by getting them to run away (noise, lie) everyone gets in. If you get them to let you in as a worker or as a guest they might escort you or send a runner to the person in charge instead. If you're delivering something they might give you directions on where it needs to be dropped off, or where the main office is.

All of those examples are Bluff checks, not Diplomacy. "A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe."

The rules are quite clear on these matters. "I want to distract the guard with diplomacy for a moment", is not a valid action. Capturing his attention with a few seconds of small talk is a Bluff check. This is a failure of the referee hat, not the storyteller hat.

Ah, the error is that you think you know what words mean.

*grabs popcorn*

We can be certain you don't know what a "game term" is, but there's a hint in what you quoted:

This is crunch stuff: hit points, armor class, DCs, these are all game terms. A description of the rain cascading off the roof of a tavern, however, would not be a game term, nor would a drunken argument between two patrons, because the game doesn't define these things.

You also don't know what a "result" is. This is the outcome of an action. It is not the action itself. The world is governed by something called "cause and effect," where a cause precedes, resulting in an effect. The cause is not a result of itself.

So if a PC had intentionally maneuvered to jostle one of the patrons, that would be a cause. It is the DMs responsibility to take that and turn that into game terminology. Let's say that's a DC 15 Sleight of Hand. Once rolled, and assuming it's successful, it is up to the DM to describe the result of that action. Since we know what the PC wants to do--in this case that would be making the patron spill his beer onto the other--the DM can describe the success and the ensuing confrontation between the two NPCs.

So, now that we know what some of those words you were incorrectly confident of mean, and these are the two things the DM is responsible for in the passage you quoted, I will ask you again:

Where in the holy blue #$%^ did you get that it is the DM's job to come up with and roleplay the PC's action?

Why?
Why his sword? Why not his bow? Is he charging? Is he tumbling? Is he flanking?

You do realize that the PHB has an entire chapter devoted to combat and two sections devoted to movement. And it's literally called the PLAYER's Handbook. Surprisingly, it consists of a lot more than "Tell your DM you are attacking."

We can add "exquisite" and "cinematic" to the list of words you do not understand. Right before "Straw Man."

Alright, your homework for today will be to research the differences between "narrative" and "setting", and in your subsequent essay define the word "roleplay" and it's various component parts as they apply to the context of a table-top game, and the differences between the description of an action and the mechanical effect of an action. Also include notes on the differences between the description of an action vs. the success or failure of said action according to the formal system of rules by which the game is played.

5 pages, single-spaced, 10-point font, 1-inch margins, on my desk no later than the end of day tomorrow.

And speaking of reading comprehension:

You have specify what the bluff is for the DM to apply the appropriate modifier.

Or, not, since circumstance modifiers are under the purview of the DM and entirely optional. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#circumstanceModifier):

DMG, pg. 30, Skill and Ability Checks, The DM's Best Friend:

Going beyond the Rule: It’s certainly acceptable to modify
this rule. For extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances,
you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than –2. For
example, you can decide that a task is practically impossible and
modify the roll or the DC by 20. Feel free to modify these numbers
as you see fit, using modifiers from 2 to 20.
If the player doesn't specify anything then it's straight Bluff vs. Sense Motive.

Erloas

2019-02-02, 07:19 PM

No, you can't.
This is the disconnect.
Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) has two functions; changing the attitude of an NPC through discussion, and resolving extended negotiations between two groups, either between them or in front of a third party.

But just using the RAW as stated in that link you still haven't even given enough information to the DM to know what the target DC is. Is the target DC a "neutral" action, is it a "friendly" action, or is it a "helpful" action? If you're simply trying to distract them by talking to them, you might be completely fine going from hostile to unfriendly there. The difference between an unfriendly guard talking to you and an unfriendly guard simply letting you walk through the door their guarding is DC5 vs DC40, yet you claim that saying "I do diplomacy on the guard" is all that is needed?

All of those examples are Bluff checks, not Diplomacy. "A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe."Did you not notice or not care that I specified no actual skill was referenced? They said "distract" and you can distract someone many different ways. Those are still social interactions, because not all social interactions are diplomacy. But that is clearly as social situation that needs a lot more than "I distract them" or even "I use bluff on them."

Deophaun

2019-02-02, 07:32 PM

Knaight

2019-02-02, 07:46 PM

Metahuman1

2019-02-02, 11:34 PM

....Makes me question if you read the op. Considering about half of it was devoted to preemptively denying such accusations. Hasn't stopped people from making them, but whatever.

If half the people are making the point too you, perhaps you should consider if maybe you choose your words poorly in attempting to deny the accusation? Just a though. Cause you most certainly didn't get the point that you didn't want to do precisely what my first post points out across.

Quertus

2019-02-02, 11:37 PM

”Huh, this thread might be interesting. Maybe I'll check it out tomorrow." Wow, this thread grew fast.

So, I'm only on page 1...

I'm firmly in the "challenge the characters, not the players" camp.

Role-playing is choosing how you react to the situations you're in. When faced with a drow priestess, do you (a) attack with your weapon (b) try to seduce her or (c) solve the riddle that she has set for you?

And after the choice has been made, any of those choices SHOULD be resolved with a die roll. If the character is good in combat, then he should do well with the first option EVEN if the player sucks at combat. If the character is good at seduction, then he should do well with the second option EVEN if the player sucks at seduction. And if the character is a super-intelligent riddle-master wizard, then he should excel at the third option, EVEN if the player sucks at solving riddles.

There are still some options that have to be described.

* You attack? Who do you attack? (The drow priestess.) With what do you attack? (My long sword. Or maybe with this two-handed sword that I'm not proficient with, which will cause penalties to hit but bonuses to damage.) In what position do you stand as you attack? (I use my tumble skill to move into position to stab her in the back.)

* You try to seduce her? Okay, what is your goal? (I want to distract her long enough for my friends to sneak past and steal the idol's gemstone eyes... or I want to take her back to my place (or her place... I'm not picky)... or I want to get her to do it with me, right here, while everyone watches... which will probably cause penalties to the chances of success.)

* You try to solve the riddle? Okay how? (With my brain.) Yeah, there's really only one way to solve a riddle.

But in ANY of these cases, it should be a die roll based on the CHARACTER's skill, not the player's skill.

And riddles suck anyway, so the less we see of them, the better. A binary chance of success/failure is an inherently terrible thing to have in an adventure... at least, if it matters to the adventure. And if it doesn't matter, then what's the point of it?

Role-playing is NOT "I (the player) need to think of a really good pick-up line so my character can seduce the drow priestess." No. If the CHARACTER is good at it, then let the CHARACTER be good at it. Likewise, role-playing is NOT "Let me sit here for an hour or two while the adventure grinds to a halt so I can try to figure something out that my 38 INT wizard character should know, but which will probably be figured out by the 3 INT half-ogre PC because his player is smarter than I am." No. Role-playing is choosing what actions to take. Rolling dice... THAT is what we do to discover whether or not the character is successful in the actions they choose to take.

Ideally, every skill check would be more than just one die roll, in the same way that the results of combat are (typically) going to involve more than just one die roll. But D&D doesn't have a robust skill system that can match its combat system, so we have to use what we have.

I think I describe myself as pretty firmly in the "player skills" camp, yet I agree with you on most points. The biggest point of disagreement is that, based on my studies of Drow mating habits (for purely academic reasons, I assure you) wanting to do it right here, in front of everyone, would give a large bonus to the roll to seduce the average Drow priestess. :smallwink:

The second largest is,

The problem is some of the people here are trying to defer the actual choice of what to do. They aren't saying "I try to seduce the drow priestess" *roll dice*, they're saying "I roll diplomacy" *rolls dice*.

It's player skills to choose "seduce", "take me now". Challenging the character is the less interesting (to me) rolling dice after that. But some players are only interested in the "challenge the character" part, and want to just "roll social vs Drow priestess", with no concept of what that means / translates to.

The third is, I'm all about using player skills to solve riddles, puzzles, etc. And player skills to know what to ask. But character ships to determine what info you get from those questions. "A dozen statues? Is there anything written on the statues? How much wear & tear do they have / how old do they look? Human(oid)? Which way are they facing?"

You're saying that, if I joined one of your games, even as someone who is already depressed, suicidal, and feeling inept at life in general, wouldn't even get the opportunity to pretend to be a smart, or charming, or witty guy despite there being an 18 INT or 18 CHA on the character sheet. That I'd be penalized for being unable to properly portray the character with my shortcomings despite the character itself being able to.

Can you differentiate between "I roll diplomacy at the Drow priestess" and "I seduce the Drow priestess"? If asked, can you differentiate / explain your motive, like "I'm trying distract her" vs "my character thinks she's hot"? Can you understand that, if you offered the vegetarian a steak, it doesn't matter how yummy the steak is, she's not going to be interested?

If so, then you meet the bar for my tables. (exceeded it for some)

I speak this way about this kind of issue because i've genuinely lived it. My first character in a real D&D game was an 18 INT gnome illusionist wizard. In the first game we were chasing a gang of thugs down an alleyway and my gnome throw out an illusionary set of city guards. Then, to try and add realism to the illusion and frighten the rogues, my wizard threw her voice into the illusions but said something...kind of dumb. Nothing, in retrospect, that an 18 INT character would really say. My "friends" made fun of me for it for weeks to come. It was my first game and was nervous with my RP, but needless to say I was penalized for it.

Even though I like wizards, and magic, it's kind of made me reluctant to play a high-INT character again. Even though I want to I would just find it hard to relate to one. There are definitely DMs out there who match RP ability and a proper portrayal of a character with the game mechanics, and reward or penalize such things. Like in this story (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice) for instance. Reading stuff like that just continues to kill my confidence in playing anything. I will never be able to pull off a Peter Fairgrave.

And this is why I often go for role-playing, not acting.

Also, as others have said, even geniuses make mistakes. Some make more than others. "Genius" and "perfect" are not synonyms.

nobody should be made to feel ****ty because of what they enjoy or are good at....except for my friends who have been playing casters for three years and still can't remember how to calculate their save DCs, they need a beating. ;-)

PS: Also except for people whose fun always seem to come at the expense of other people's fun and who are never willing to compromise on it.

Agreed, and agreed. The former (or, rather, my bafflement at its existence) is not entirely unlike the impetus for the creation of Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named.

"I make the illusionary guards tell them to stop and threaten them if they don't" should be fine for most good DMs. "I can illusion and ventriloquism" is not.

"I diplomacy the king" isn't enough.
"I use my diplomacy to convince the king to lend us aid in our quest by giving us X" potions, horses, magic weapons, a small group of knights, etc.
"I use my diplomacy to convince the king that our reward should be higher"
"I use my diplomacy to convince the king to pay us half the reward up front"

You don't have to know all the words, what to say and how to say it, but you need to at least give a *how* or *what* you are doing it.

Usually, I would try to feel the king out for a better deal, but otherwise this.