If "I hit him with my sword" is a valid way of stablishing an attack because we accept that the people at the table don't necessarily need to know how swords work, it stands to reason that "I give a counterargument" should be acceptable during social interactions if the player isn't really good at it, which is quite common in the RPG scene.
Now, I don't say all dialogues should happen on a "I do this" kind of basis, as you can actually talk in real time as opposed to, say, hack a computer, but the truth stays that there's a point where the character's Persuasion skill is far better than what any real person could actually do.
In certain games it's entirely possible to convince a person of suicide simply by talking to them (no magic/powers involved), such is the charisma of certain characters. How am I suposed to roleplay that at all? Nothing I could come up with will ever be as good as what my character actually said and the way he said it, proof being I still haven't convinced anyone of suicide.
Now, another point entirely would be: if social interactions should be done verbally, why is a roll required then? If the DM needs to hear my arguments and how I put them to evaluate if the roll should be even made, why not make it instantly work if I was actually convincing enough? Why should social skills have two barriers of success instead of one like the rest of the game? Wouldn't at that point make more sense to simply disregard ingame mechanics for social encounters and just let players do their best at it?
Please remember to take your autism medication, OP.
Carter Garcia
Here is a delicious double whammy (You) for that shit.
Jonathan Cooper
you dont need to say roll or no roll. there is a way to influence the out come >dealing with a merchant and trying to sell something at fair market value. merchant is trying to get rid of items for profet and fair market value wont likely do that no modifier >selling something to a merchant at a 5% discount. merchant stands to gain small prophet automatic sale / 50% increase in chance to sell >player doing sale has been in sewage and artifact smells bad / looks like it is unpolished / potentially damaged / item of questionable interest uncertain of the condition of the item and its actual value the player will have a -1 penalty >player sells spice to a spice merchant who trades it for a slight prophet further down the line. the items intrinsic value and what the merchant wanted to buy to begin with grants the player a +1
Matthew Baker
My GM has a good solution to this. We start by roleplaying a situation. Then at GM discretion we make a roll or two.
The secret here, is that it doesn't matter what we say. We roleplay, and regardless of how bad it is, that is what allows the roll.
This encourages roleplay, while still making dice and numbers important. Additionally, it takes the edge off of actually trying to persuade/haggle/etc in real life.
Aiden Long
>>merchant stands to gain small prophet The nigger ain't getting near my pocket-sized Muhammad.
Brayden Jackson
...
Nathaniel Bell
This false equivalency again.
You say persuasion has two barriers to success where combat has one. It doesn't. Combat has a whole big system to it.
For social, you tell a lie. Then you roll, and you succeed and they believe said lie (or at least are persuaded in some beneficial manner). The true equivalent here would be if the player said "I roll to kill him". They roll, they succeed and the NPC dies. No HP, no defense or other systems. Just "Okay, user, tell me how you subdue him." then a single roll to determine if he enacts an entire fight the PC self-choreographs.
Rules light systems actually do something like this. Some systems flip it around and give more mechanical weight to social interaction. Protip: It can be more restrictive to do it this way as opposed to more enabling.
Joshua Thomas
Part of the joy of RPGs, perhaps the largest part of the joy of RPGs is the social interaction with other people. The whole basis of games is real world social interactions.
Lots of people aren't great at talking but at least, unlike the clear and present danger of giving them a sword to swing around or the pointlessness of them rolling a pinch of sulphur and bat guano between their fingers or grinding 1000 GP diamonds into dust, they can try to talk and inject some life into their character.
Dylan Hughes
If everything is reduced to dice rolling then you proceed down the slippery slope that begins with,
>My thief character is an expert trap finder, but I'm not an expert thief, so it's unfair to expect me to remember to roll for find traps when an expert thief would remember. I'll just roll on the "Remember to search for traps table" at the start of the dungeon and that roll will determine if and when the DM will tell me to roll for "find traps".
And ultimately leads to,
>Natural 20. I crit the dungeon, rescue the princess, slay the kobolds, and get 2x treasure!
Wyatt Baker
The way I figured it is let the person talk. Then based on the NPC I've made, I try to see if my NPC would find this persuasive from an RP perspective. If he would? No roll needed. If he wouldn't? Then I'd call for a roll to see if it worked. I don't see the point in making them always roll. Each NPC has a personality and beliefs. He may not take much persuasion beyond just normal roleplay shit. DMs who play every NPC as an immediate adversary who can't be persuaded except by dice is just being a faggot.
Jackson Wright
To give an example. Let's say one of my players has buddied up to a local shopkeeper a lot and became friends. He always pays the guy well, gives him info, etc. Maybe that player can get discounts for stuff and his team. When he asks to get some new stuff or repairs he says he'll pay the shopkeep later. Rather than roll for persusasion, I figure this friendly shopkeeper is well off enough and friendly enough to do so and he will. No rolls necessary.
Now let's say this shopkeeper was less well off, he may not be so keen. Or if the players were making a scene in the town or always forgot his name and all that. He would be far less willing to agree to front the players stuff in return for payment later. I find that this makes the worlds feel more alive. Each NPC is different and some will be adversarial and some won't be. Certain circumstances will also change whether or not regular RP will convince him of things, and like any sane person he has a threshold of just how far he will go before needing some persuasion. Front armor under the right circumstances? No big deal. Give up my business and jump off a cliff and leave my family? You better roll a 21 on that d20 or don't bother. Help us escape from town after we somehow became villified? Roll and see if ya managed to make him take the risk and help ya out or play it safe for his livelihood.
Jack Taylor
Honestly thats a good way of dealing with "I'll just roll the problem away!", but I hate rolling for socials all the same.
In our group there is 3 people who have no bonuses to social interactions whatsoever and a newish guy who specced his character towards it. Problem one: The difference between us and him is so ridiculous that any time we try to have any interaction it often near impossible for us and ends up detrimental to the party progress. Problem two: His chance of suceeding on even hard checks is very high and GM is obviously getting tired of his shit, making his character not be able to participate in any important event. ("the golem bars your way into the wizards tower"; now the lone party barbarian is forced to negiotiate rewards for the quest youve spent 3 last sesions on) Problem three: The new guy complains (rightfully so, ill admit , from his perspective) that our characters have no depth, because any time we would like to present our point in a conversation, we would be forced to make our shitty rolls while robbing the new guy of the opportunity to do what he made his character to do.
Its getting frankly really stupid and I have no clue how the situation can be unfucked.
Lincoln White
What about a system wherein the GM takes into account the player's roleplaying and modifies the difficulty of the roll required to suit?
i.e The player makes a good argument/ is actually convincing IRL? Low/No DC Requirement
Not so great attempt/ "Roll to persuade"? Higher difficulty
I like this system purely because it rewards convincing roleplay whilst also allowing an autist to 'mechanically' play a person they are not, albeit it is slightly harder. Roleplaying should be encouraged most of the time unless you're at a table of munchkins who teleport between combat encounters.
Jeremiah Parker
Thing is, you're rather disconnected from all the things that happen in the game: you're not actually swinging the sword around, and you're likewise not really trying to convince the duke not to execute your friend. You're in a more comfortable situation and not pressed so much for time.
You can probably come up with a few convincing words, and depending on your character's charisma and any other special skills, we see how well it works out in the game - just like the sword-swinging is decided by the character's swordsmanship, while you the player just decide who he attacks and how.
Christopher Watson
I should have read the thread some more, this nigga beat me to it
Jonathan Gomez
Actually, I didn't soy combat doesn't, I said the rest of the game. You wouldn't ask a player something like "well, yeah, but HOW do you hack that computer exactly?" and then wait until he gives an explanation to decide if you roll or if his explanation wasn't good enough and thus it fails.
Alexander Gomez
It's fair to say a player won't be as compelling as a character. There is an argument here, even if this inflammatory idea contradicts roleplay concepts. "I hit him with my sword" should be discouraged, anyway. If we're describing our actions, then at least give them flavor--as I'd imagine we'd want the speech actions to be described, if they are to be described instead of acted. I don't believe roleplay should be removed as it is something to be improved... like system mastery.
That would be rather nice if the system itself is always encouraging characterization, instead of the ones where 96% of the game is miniature combat mechanics. I foresee, unfortunately, a lot of bitching and debate over whether or not the debate itself was powerful enough to lower the DC.
Luis Moore
Kinda shitty to specifically bar a character from doing the things that character's player designed it to do.
Xavier Williams
Real life conversation is almost always lopsided and dominated by one party. It makes some sense to compare char rolls to see who has the initiative in selecting topics, deflecting questions etc.
Lucas Diaz
That is a hellacious slippery-slope fallacy.
Hudson Hill
I see nothing wrong with automating tedious behavior well within player scope. It's just got to be something the party can either do easily or has an obvious stat advantage in. The disadvantage is that they have little control over the outcome and wounds etc they might have experienced
Joshua Wilson
I think this more or less forgets that there are very few "one size fits all" maxims when it comes to roleplaying games.
You're more right than you're wrong, if we're talking my personal opinion BUT
Your group is not my group. Our groups likely have fun from different mechanical, performative, and themative elements. Our groups likely have a different social contract at work-- a different understanding of what and how we'd prefer to play the game together.
So in that regard when you say something "should" be acceptable, I disagree that it should be acceptable to all groups at all times. I disagree just as stridently with the notion that something "shouldn't" be acceptable for all tables at all times.
If someone at my table has someone uncomfortable with acting out or unable to match the kind of social proficiency his character has-- I probably will advocate letting them roll checks on more abstract description. And by the same token, I'll let the guy who enjoys it perform with nuance his rhetorical arguments.
What I won't do is apply either methodology as a straightjacket.
Tyler White
There's nothing wrong with your methodology. "The bard persuades them with his silver tongue" is a perfectly fine declaration of a diplomacy check. Who would shoot that down?
I wrote a huge reply, but actually, I think I'll just say this.
First, you don't need to speak the words like this is drama class, you just need to tell me WHAT you say, WHAT sword attack you use (if you have more than one), WHAT your counterargument is, WHAT part of someone's self-esteem you attack until they're a suicidal wreck. It will affect the DC of the roll, if there is one, and the world around you. Persuasion is about what you do, how you do it, how good you are at picking words and how powerful your presence is. CHA only affects the last two. If you don't know something your character should know, ask your DM.
Second, social interactions do not have two barriers of success. They have one. Picking your argument (WHAT, as mentioned above) is the same thing as picking your sword attack or the way you sneak past the guard or whatever. Here, let me use that as an example: >I sneak past the guard Do you crawl along the ground? Wait until the guard is distracted and make a run for it? Throw a rock in the opposite directions? These will all be stealth rolls, but every option will have different consequences and it may affect the DC. >I convince the king to lend his armies to our cause Do you appeal to his sense of duty? His greed? The nation's glory? These will all be diplomacy roll, and again, the consequences will be different. And the DC will change depending on the king's personality. Which means if you've taken the time to know who the king is deep down, you'll be able to make an informed choice and get better odds.
In every case, a smart approach, conscious of the circumstances, will work better than a shot in the dark.
Alexander Taylor
Most no-rollfest loving faggots.
Chase Perez
>you wouldn't ask a player how do you hack the computer specifically
someone's never played shadowrun.
Jack Brown
I'm out of the loop, what does he meme by this?
Tyler Lewis
I would. I'm this faggot and I need to know how. Compliments, flattery? Yeah sure. Joking with them and getting all buddy-buddy until they're your friends? Alright. Beg, make them pity you? Okay. You'll have to roll either way.
Depending on the bard's methods, whoever he's talking to will get a different opinion of him, and some options work better on some people. >Flattery Failed roll: "The bard is trying to suck up to me. What a pathetic manipulative dick." Successful roll: "Right now I like to feel my ego swell enough to give the bard what he wants. I may come back to him latter for more compliments." Crit success: "Later, I think I will commission the bard for a song to my glory." This will work great on the dumb orc warchief and vain noblewoman, less so on Peasant Joe or the local vicar.
>Friendliness Failed roll: "The bard is lame and I don't want to be seen with him. He's a tryhard and/or a loser." Successful roll: "The best has a great sense of humor and I'll tell my buddies about him. I'll pay his next mug of ale. Crit success: "I think I might even seek the bard's company, so we can be actual friends." Now THAT will work great on Peasant Joe, and maybe the noblewoman or orc warchief. But it's not likely to get you the vicar's affection.
>Pity Failed roll: "I've lost whatever respect I had for the bard, since he's desperate enough to beg like this." Successful roll: "Okay, okay, fine, whatever, you're desperate, I believe you. You're making me feel bad. Do what you want and then leave." Crit success: "I'm convinced you're desperate for help, and I'm willing to give you what you need and then some." Slight chance of working on Peasant Joe or the orc warchief. Might do it with the noblewoman. Very good chances with the vicar.
See how this changes everything?
Kayden Mitchell
RPG's tend to assume that humans are already pretty good at how social interactions work, considering the thousands of years of social evolution we have , without needing a complex mathematical system to underpin it. Hence they keep such mechanics light and leave the rest to roleplay. It's also more fun this way.
Combat is conversely a lot more difficult to simulate, hence we use an indepth system that rewards the use of thought , planning , strategy and tactics as a battle would in real life. This is ultimately more satisfying.
Most RPG's fail to factor in the autism of their players.
Jeremiah Price
>Nothing I could come up with will ever be as good as what my character actually said and the way he said it, proof being I still haven't convinced anyone of suicide. This would be proof if you have spent a lot of time trying to convince people of suicide. And, from the way you said this, it sounds like you have. I feel this is the more important topic at hand. Why are you so determined to convince people of suicide irl?
Zachary Young
I absolutely would ask them how they hack the computer. Are they doing social engineering, looking for back doors, using some kind of program to subvert it, or what?
Asher Hughes
But that's not what this thread is about. THis is about DM's REEEEEing because you didn't give the grand speech yourself and/or it wasn't convincing enough, therefore you aren't allowed a roll in the first place
and what happens when you have a player who has no idea about any of that and doesn't even know those terms?
James Wilson
The player better put in like 12 minutes of research to learn basic concepts then.
Mason Ortiz
>But that's not what this thread is about. Is it?
OP says he should not roleplay his character if he does not know what his character would do. OP also say "I give a counterargument" is acceptable. I disagree with both: you can ask your GM for advice, and you must provide a counterargument if you want your GM to adjudicate the interaction properly.
If OP just has a gripe with GM who think they're running drama class, he should have been more precise about it.
Ryan Collins
The only correct answer is that you can roll for charisma skills without roleplaying it, but actually talking for it increases your chance of success.
