>make a charisma-based character >have to negotiate myself

Ability checks are a fallback for when you don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of exactly what your character is doing. Even a weak character can wedge open a door with an iron spike, no ability check required.

>lacking the ability to explain to your gm what your character is doing
>having a gm so shit he cant to adapt to his players
>using stale bait all these years

>18 int/wis wizard in the party
>5 int orc solves all the riddles first

The dumb double standard is unfortunately persistent, but the actual solution and the nuance required passes a lot of people by.

>>50972600

That's just bad roleplaying. Unless they happen to have fantastic Wis, and the riddle was more metaphorical than logical.

>>50972600

Obvious solution: talk to the players. Would you like to be the player who solves the riddles? Then don't put that 5 in Intelligence.

Playing against type can be fun, but only if you're the kind of player who enjoys playing against type (and actually will).

>>50972590
What the fuck are you talking about?

This is because you are playing a ROLEplaying game. This is based on conversation, therefore, the content of the game is based on social interaction. It is little different than writing .It is very easy to write a very strong character. Just write "he lifted big things" throughout your book.

But to write a smart character? Or a charismatic character? You must have the wits to write or play such a character. I notice, OP, that you are not whining about how difficult it is to play an Intelligence 18 character, when I doubt that you have 18 Int yourself.

You know what? Get over it. Perhaps you just aren't cut out to play charismatic characters. I'm sure you'll scream about persecution and find a way to blame it on D&D or some weird shit, but the simple fact is, roleplaying games are the realm of the mind. Playing an 18 Int chararcter when you are 12 Int yourself, or playing a 15 Cha character when you are 8 Cha yourself, is just a disparity you'll have to get used to.

I am so sick of spergs who insist on playing bards and can't even pretend to be charming. Just pretend. Just fucking try. Even if it's cringeworthy or wouldn't work in real life, it's enough. But these cunts want to "I'm gonna roll persuasion to see if I can convince him to suck my dick.... OOH!!! NATURAL TWENTY!!! NATURAL TWENTY!!!" and put absolutely zero effort into the game.

>>50972638
>you dont have to be strong to play a fighter but you have to be charismatic to play a bard

>>50972638

Go fuck yourself.

Roleplaying is about playing characters who are different from you, and people should be free to play what they like.

There are plenty of ways to play a character smarter or more sociable as yourself. As a GM I don't demand good roleplaying- I might give a bonus for it, but if someone is struggling I'm fine as long as they give me a simple description of what they're doing. That is all they're obliged to do.

If someone playing an ostensibly low Cha character makes a grand speech, I'll ask them to roll because their actions exist through the lens of their character, and like as not their character would fuck up the delivery and make it worse.

Meanwhile, if an unsociable guy wants to play a Bard but isn't sure how to phrase something? It's fine. I ask what he's trying to accomplish, make a roll and then go from there.

It's not hard. It's fair, it's reasonable and above all it's fucking fun.

>>50972638
maybe you just play with retards
I roleplay out what my character says plenty while I'm playing and I still don't want to write an inaugural speech every time I want to barter a price on something or get a random gnome to stop crying.

>>50972691
>maybe you just play with retards
I'm pretty sure he is the retard.

In roleplaying games, for almost everything else you want a description. Fluffing how you're attacking or making something or casting a spell isn't the same as performing the action itself. It can be the same with social stuff.

If someone can roleplay it? Awesome. If not, as long as they describe what and how they're doing, I don't think it should be treated any differently.

>>50972636
Basically any player can say something like, "I open the chest to see what's inside," or, "I tap the bricks on the east wall."

But to save longwinded nonsense like:
"I look under the bed!"
"There's nothing there."
"Okay, I look behind the headboard."
"Nothing."
"All right, under the nightstand?"
"Nothing there either."
"Hmm, how about in the mattress?"
etc.

You can just do:
"I search the room."
"Okay, make a Search roll."

Or even:
"I try to convince the guard to let us pass."
"Okay, give me a Persuasion roll."

So it's a fallback for more abstract actions like "I search" or "I negotiate" or "I force open the door". Any character could spot the hidden key, flatter the king, or pry the hinges from a door, but that's different to a Search, Charisma, or Strength roll.

>>50972727
Being specific does not exclude the need for a roll, doing something that's not challenging does.

>>50972785

This. An inobservant character shouldn't notice the key, and an uncharismatic character shouldn't flatter the king, or at least not effortlessly. The numbers on your sheet aren't just things to fall back on, they're representations of your character and should be used to guide your roleplaying.

>>50972628
I usually just play it as we talk about it in character, then we just assume the intelligent PC figured it out in character.

Or if the mental dumpstat guy did it, he said something dumb that gave the smart guy an epiphany on what the answer.

>Wizard: Hmm, what walks on four legs in the morning, two in the evening, and three at night. Quite a brainteaser.
>Barbarian: Stupid beardy man think too much.
>Wizard: Oh hush you illitera-wait.....what did you just say?
>Barbarian: Uh..stupid beardy man thi-
>Wizard: Beardy man..man..MAN, OF COURSE. Grobnarak you're a genius!

File: fafasf.png (121KB, 257x231px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 257x231px

>>50972665
Yes, because roleplaying is a socially-based activity.

Don't like it? Go play football.

>>50972691
>I still don't want to write an inaugural speech every time I want to barter a price on something or get a random gnome to stop crying.

This is an impressive level of exaggeration.

All you need to do is say something like "Well, hmm, perhaps this weapon should be a bit cheaper than that, don't you think?"

Even that is enough. It doesn't have to be that fucking fantastic. Just put in a goddamn effort you little mongoloidal fuck, instead of just "I roll to try to barter a lower price." That isn't roleplaying, that's a goddamn board game.

>>50972711
I'm pretty sure you're a fucking moron with no counterargument to what I just said.

>>50972872
>Even that is enough. It doesn't have to be that fucking fantastic. Just put in a goddamn effort you little mongoloidal fuck, instead of just "I roll to try to barter a lower price." That isn't roleplaying, that's a goddamn board game.
This is one of the things DW got right.
Players should talk about what their character is doing and the DM should initiate the mechanics.
"I roll for ______ " is garbage play.

File: 1446125372287.jpg (208KB, 728x518px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 728x518px

>>50972872
>you can only roleplay yourself, otherwise you're not roleplaying
This guy.

>>50972910

You can tell he's full of shit by the way he ignores most of the actual points made against him.

>>50972683
>Roleplaying is about playing characters who are different from you, and people should be free to play what they like.

Sure. But if you don't even bother to ROLEPLAY your character, why are you allowed in the game?

Roleplaying has two main components: actual roleplaying of dialogue, and description of action. That's just part of the way people have been roleplaying for years. Your group is free to do it differently, but that is the standard. Sorry. Yes, that means a charismatic character needs to put in effort to actually ACT charismatic.

This does not mean you need to be clever.

This does not mean you need to be a good orator.

This does not mean you need to be charismatic in real life.

I am none of those things and I still pull off a bard or paladin or whatever just fine. Not spectacularly, but fine. And yes, a character who is good at roleplaying will roleplay a charismatic character well. Because social interaction is one of the things that is actually taking place in the game. Not the lifting, or fighting, or else HEMA addicts would be the best fighters like they are in a LARP. That's not the way tabletop RPGs work.

Don't like it? Go play football.

File: 1427086512346.png (183KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 500x377px

>>50972565
>Not rolling social skills first and roleplaying the attempt based on the result afterwards
I bet you plebeians do critical success/failure on skill checks too.

>>50972932

You really are an arrogant, condescending cunt of a gatekeeper. Do you even have anyone you actually play with or do you just spend all your time telling other people they're having fun wrong?

>>50972910
Are you autistic? You cannot escape who you are in terms of roleplaying. Your characters will always be affected by your own personality. You can certainly roleplay someone different from yourself, but you have to actually ROLEPLAY them. That involves expanding your roleplaying skills. Again, no one is asking for a moving speech just to negotiate. Only that you actually talk in character. You don't need a clever gimmick. You can do a shitty job at being "charming" but it at least keeps some semblance of immersion.

>>50972923
Exactly which points have I ignored you stupid fuck? Post them.

>>50972904
This.

>>50972785
Well if the GM says it calls for a roll then it calls for a roll (e.g. busting down a door), but myself as an 8 Strength person could still easily remove the hinges and make my way inside the next room. That's not challenging.

>>50972829
What if the unobservant character said, "I look under the pillow," and the key was there? Would you really make them pass a DC 15 skill check to notice a key under a pillow they just looked at?

Of course the numbers should fit your roleplaying, but they shouldn't break common sense. D&D 5E makes the point that it doesn't take a Dexterity check to walk across a room or a Charisma check to order a drink.

The gist is that player skill matters since it's a game. You can solve the riddle or know what will please the king or how to open that stuck door. But if you don't know these things and your character is particularly intelligent or charismatic or strong, you can fall back on ability/skill checks. You don't have to make it an ultra-specific acting exercise.

>>50972565
One of two things is true
A. You are actually just bitching about roleplaying and should probably just be honest with your DM and say "I just play for the rules, not to role playing" or "yeah I can't think of what to say" whichever is true
B. Your DM is a retard and you shouldn't bother playing charisma characters if your success is up to your actual charisma and your DM's whims
I am not sure which is true but deal with it appropriately.

>>50972984

Why is the unobservant character looking under the pillow?

Fuck i am glad I do not play with /trg/

>>50972958
> Do you even have anyone you actually play with

I do, and they actually put effort into their roleplaying. None of them are particularly charming or clever or brilliant. They are great people but my point is that they are not exceptionally talented roleplayers or actors or anything of that sort.

RPGs are not a hugbox or a safespace. It is not too much to ask that someone actually roleplays your character. If you don't want to actually roleplay, instead just "I roll for X to get a lower price on my sword" then you should go play Skyrim or Diablo and pick from prepackaged scripted responses because that is clearly the extent of your roleplaying talent and ability.

>>50972981
>you have to roleplay yourself or you're not roleplaying
I don't understand how someone could miss the point of roleplaying this much and also insist that it's the way everybody else does it. Please play a tabletop game before you talk about them.

File: absolutely_disgusting_otter.jpg (77KB, 348x505px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 348x505px

>>50973018
> I am glad I play with a group that replaces actual roleplaying with Diplomacy checks

I'm glad I don't play with you, either.

>>50972600
>>50972628

change INT to MAG or something, pointless problem solved

>>50973007
This.

>>50973038

Oh, don't get me wrong, the groups I'm in all roleplay our characters and such.

I just think you're a cunt for labelling anyone who doesn't as having badwrongfun.

I enjoy roleplaying, and I do think it adds to a game experience, but you just come off as being a cunt to people who might struggle or not otherwise be comfortable with it. And being a dick about it is just about the least effective way of actually helping people learn or encouraging them to step out of their comfort zone.

>>50973069
>Make post getting angry at your DM for having badwrongfun
>Other posters try to defend them and explain why often this style is preferred
>WOW AUTISTS WHY CAN'T I HAVE FUN MY WAY

Are you okay?

>Promised that the game is going to be full roleplaying with puzzles, intrigue and little to no combat
>Make a character accordantly
>Day of the game
>Rest of players make retard combat beasts
>Game shifts to full combat
>Ask for rerolling my char
>"Nope"
>Have to beg to use my skills
>Ask GM for help
>"If you don't know how nuclear science works irl then you can't roll even if your character is a genius at it" and similar
>Leave
>Get gmails from the GM asking why did I storm out

>>50973043
Holy fucking shit, you are retarded. You think if you repeat the same shit I literally just addressed over and over, and claim to have some lofty incomprehesible standard of what roleplaying is, you'll somehow win the argument?

Again, anyone can roleplay whatever they want. They can even do it well. You can be a total sperg and do a somewhat decent bard. You don't have to be a talented actor. Just say something that isn't total shit. It isn't that hard.

This has nothing to do with "roleplaying yourself", it has to do with whether or not you are roleplaying. Period. And, if you are not capable of roleplaying something, you should be roleplaying that thing. That does not mean "you are restricted to roleplaying yourself" at all, and the fact that you think I am saying that demonstrates how incredibly narrow-minded and dogmatic you are.

>>50973101

I'm fine, if a little worried about your degree of reading comprehension. Nursing a NYE hangover?

>>50973069
>the groups I'm in all roleplay our characters and such.
> I just think you're a cunt for labelling anyone who doesn't as having badwrongfun.

I don't think they are having badwrongfun (well, I do, actually, I think that's fucking retarded), but if you are not roleplaying in a roleplaying game, you aren't playing a roleplaying game, you're just playing a game.

And I came here to play a roleplaying game. So if you're not willing to roleplay, get the fuck out of my house.

Simple as that.

>>50973069
>but you just come off as being a cunt to people who might struggle or not otherwise be comfortable with it.

That's because it is not my responsibility to be your hugbox, or safespace, little snowflake. That's not my job. I am not a fucking babysitter. I will certainly do my best to help new roleplayers but if they won't even put in the fucking effort, or just whine about their "social anxiety", then they can find another way to spend their Saturday evenings. Sorry.

Let me tell you something. Like many RPG players I did once have some trouble with social anxiety. Not "all" or even "most", by the way, just "many." A lot of people have these issues. But do you know what I did? I grew the fuck up and got over it. Leave your comfort zone. There is no excuse for staying in it.

>>50973007
>>50973067
Because the player decided that's their character's course of action. Call it intuition or luck or something if you don't like the idea that the player is controlling their player character.

Again, talk to the players and ask what they want. Chances are it'll be the guy who loves puzzles who wants to solve puzzles.

>>50973118
If you're gimping charisma-based characters because of the inability of their player to make convincing arguments when persuading someone as the character, you should also gimp strength-based characters if the player is unable to fight well. Otherwise this is a strange exception to an already arbitrary definition of roleplaying that nobody actually agrees with outside of your circle of friends, and makes several character archetypes much weaker than they should be.

You ever get penalized in character for your real life deficiencies? I got points taken off for stuttering

>>50973196
>you should also gimp strength-based characters if the player is unable to fight well.
They're certainly gimped if they can't figure out how to fight people in the system (i.e. go up to people and hit them).
If they employ stupid strategies, they get stupid results.

Oh look, it's the same with diplomacy. Fancy that.

File: 1441438319959.jpg (31KB, 442x304px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 442x304px

>>50973285
>go up to people and hit them
>Oh look, it's the same with diplomacy.
>go up to people and convince them
>NOOO THIS IS NOT THE SAME THIS IS NOT CORRECT ROLEPLAYING REE
Okay friend.

>>50973323
>I run through fifteen threatened areas to hit the iron golem with my wooden club
>Roll to see how hard he makes you suck his iron prong
vs
>I buddy up with the rogue to absorb the monster's attacks on my armour while he and I cut the beast's tendons
>You rule, here's a fountain of XP and 1d4 elven concubines
Looks like doing it right works out better than doing it wrong, cockslap.

>>50973196
>gimping charisma-based characters
Except that anon wasn't talking about that. Unless I've misunderstood, it looks like he was addressing his frustration towards players who don't try to roleplay charisma and instead believe that rolling high numbers on the die will justify any and all "charismatic" actions

>>50973891
Yeah, he seems to have a reasoanble point, just one that's rather poorly communicated.

>>50973891
I'm not sure how you got that from his insane ramblings. He has literally said that you shouldn't roleplay things you yourself can't do, unless it's about being a good warrior, in which case it's fine because he says so.

>>50974142
More like: if you're boring as shit describing things, gtfo the hobby.

>>50974142
He didn't say that anywhere you mong

>>50972981
>Again, no one is asking for a moving speech just to negotiate.
If for just a moment you ceased your autistic screeching about some weirdly niche and specific scenario that isn't even that big of a deal even if it does occur, you'd realize that this thread is about GMs who actually do ask for that kind of thing.

>>50974402
Which is, of course, dumb as all hell. "If your descriptions are boring, here are some ideas about how to get better" would be the reasonable response to someone being shit at descriptions.

File: beardrollseyes.jpg (87KB, 283x360px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 283x360px

>>50974626
Where do you think we are?

>>50974619
> you'd realize that this thread is about GMs who actually do ask for that kind of thing.

Except those GMs don't actually exist, except as a strawman for the benefit of lazy players who don't bother to roleplay.

>>50973273
Your DM should kill himself.

>>50973196
>If you're gimping charisma-based characters because of the inability of their player to make convincing arguments when persuading someone as the character, you should also gimp strength-based characters if the player is unable to fight well.

Nope. Because roleplaying games are about talking, not lifting weights. It's inherent in their nature. It's unfortunate, sure, but as I described above, it's not that hard to play a high-charisma character decently. And yes, if you are negotiating as your character, you have to have actual arguments. That's why OP's whining is bullshit. You can't just roll a 47 Charisma check and convince the king to suck his own dick.

If you don't make your fighters act out every attack they perform, then you shouldn't need anything more than a stated goal from the bard's player when he tries to negotiate. Most GMs, however, are dumb enough to demand that the bard's player says word for word what his character is saying, and then determine if what the player said is convincing enough to warrant a check or penalties on that check. This is extremely common and makes mechanically charismatic characters useless.

And that's the fucking problem, not whatever >>50972638 is sperging out about.

>>50972565
I'm sorry the game isn't casual enough for you.

File: 1463408684176.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>>50974742
>And yes, if you are negotiating as your character, you have to have actual arguments.

ALRIGHT FAGGOT DM STORY TIME I SAY IN MY BACKSTORY TEN FUCKING TIMES THAT MY CHARACTER IS AN EXPERT TACTICIAN AND I HAVE THE SKILL RANKS TO PROVE IT BUT THE DM DOESNT LET ME HAVE DO OVERS WHEN I MAKE A TACTICAL MIUSTAKE TJUHIS MISNT FAIR AST ALL WHY THE FUCKING HEKLL DOES THE FUCIKNIBG PEODPTIHLE BARD GET TO ROLL HIS FANCY TUNGOLFUSDA WHILER IA HAVE TO DO LRA TACTICS IM NOLT OLKMN E OIN REAL LIFE WWWAAHHHHHHH!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!

>>50972565
This is a give and take scenario with no strict line to draw.

On the one hand, as a DM, if a player just says 'I persuade such and such to do so and so' and throws some charisma rolls, I'm gonna be righteously pissed. As a player, if the DM expects me to make a rousing speech to persuade such and such to do so and so, and then fails me when I don't, I'm gonna be righteously pissed.

The solution is pretty obvious, you just have to be reasonable about these things.

>>50974142
>He has literally said that you shouldn't roleplay things you yourself can't do, unless it's about being a good warrior, in which case it's fine because he says so.

I didn't "literally" say any of that you stupid fucking moron. Quit putting words in my mouth to justify your bullshit.

> He has literally said that you shouldn't roleplay things you yourself can't do

No, but I am sick of this argument that just because you have meme disorders like social anxiety, that that excuses you from at least trying to act somewhat charming when playing a character who is supposed to be charming. You don't have to be a genius, just make an effort. Pretty much anybody can pull off a charisma character just fine if they actually have the slightest semblance of personality and actually speak in character.

Your argument is that you shouldn't roleplay in a roleplaying game unless you are a blackbelt in martial arts to justify you being able to shoot, completely ignoring RPGs' inherently narrative and social nature.

Is it fair? Not particularly. But it's the doctrine of RPGs and you can either like it or leave it.

>>50974748
>If you don't make your fighters act out every attack they perform, then you shouldn't need anything more than a stated goal from the bard's player when he tries to negotiate.

False equivalency you retarded faggot. Roleplaying games are a conversation. You speak in character, do you not? Yes, I expect you to say word-for-word what your character is saying. If you are not capable of giving at the very least a shitty excuse for acting persuasive (hell, be corny and straightforward about it, it would never work in real life but that doesn't matter because it works for your chaacter), then you literally deserve to die. In real life. Full stop. People who are that incapable of basic social interaction, should be taken out in the street by the police and shot. There is no excuse for this shit, especially when you signed up for a roleplaying game, which is a SOCIAL activity.

>>50973196
Just admit you're a casual that wants a power fantasy rather than a game. Maybe freeform roleplay on a #safespace tranny forum is more your speed.

If you want to play the strongest methods, then I will hold you to higher standards and spread rumors that you're a creepy pedophile at the table if you cross me.

You're a 3e baby aren't you? Prior to that, the game outright said "You better start talking if you want to convince the king to suck your dick" but you started crying crocodile tears, just like a toddler, because you didn't get your way with your character who is from your favorite shonen jump anime.

Death camp for you all.

>>50974882
False flag, pls ignore.

>>50974786
> Oh look you rolled a nat 20 on persuasion, you can make this guy do this even though there is absolutely no reason he would, because your persuaded him with persuasive persuasiveyness! Good for you! Now the story makes zero fucking sense

You can't negotiate with nothing, dumbfuck. Your persuasion determines whether they agree to what you want but there better still be a potential reason for them to do it.

>>50974800
This. Also nice dubs.

>>50972683

>>I'm fine as long as they give me a simple description of what they're doing. That is all they're obliged to do.

You're not obligated to actually be super charismatic and charming IRL to play a bard, but I think you're obligated to at least make some effort at roleplaying, and the DM is obligated to not penalize you for not being great at it (but possibly to give you bonuses for doing a good job, which is to encourage good roleplaying).

The purpose of CHA checks is to help shy players role-play without putting a lot of pressure on them not to fuck it up.

>>50974897
Well, perhaps my opinion is a little extreme at the end there, but the rest of my point is valid. These stupid cucks will never see it, though, because they think they are entitled to play whatever kind of character they want, even if it produces a shitty roleplaying experience for everyone else because they cannot roleplay for fuck.

One last point for you thick fucks who can't seem to comphrehend this inherent aspect of roleplaying games:

How do books describe a sword swing? By saying what happens.

How do books describe dialogue? By writing the fucking dialogue.

It's the same in RPGs.

You can have some dialogue off-screen, sure. But what 's the point of even playing if you don't roleplay the important interactions, if you can't even do that, why the fuck are you playing a charisma based character? It's not for you. Play a fighter.

Or better yet, go play football.

>>50974850
>Is it fair? Not particularly.
wew

File: stop.png (30KB, 99x170px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 99x170px

>>50974929
>he purpose of CHA checks is to help shy players role-play

Except these "shy" players need to get the fuck out of the hobby. Their "social anxiety" is not real. It's called being a pussy. Get over it. Stop being shy. There's no reason or excuse for it. Roleplay online over text if you can't handle actual social interaction. But do not come to a game, play a charming bard, and not even try to act like one and be silent and fuck up everyone's suspension of disbelief. If you do that, you are an asshole. Period. Full stop. The game is not about you, you are there to help contribute to other peoples' enjoyment, as they are to contribute to yours. But when you don't hold up your end, you don't deserve shit. End of story.

>>50974955
"wew" does not change the inherent nature of roleplaying games. You don't like them? Play skyrim. You can play a high Charisma character in that without opening your fucking mouth once.

File: 1481693736086.png (109KB, 500x516px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x516px

>"ok i want to diplomacy roll this!"
>ok, what are you going to counter his offer with?
>"what? I dont know, thats why im rolling for it"
>So you have nothing feasable to pursued him and just want to jedi mind trick him?
>"My character would know!"

Thats not how that shit fucking works. You dont have to say it all out, but you need to fucking give me an idea of what your going to try and roll for. The charisma checks are just convincing someone of somthing, not just forcing them to say yes.

File: 1463170377754.jpg (45KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 620x670px

>>50974983
Never stop posting. Your sperging out is really great.

>>50973112
Did you send this greentext to him?

If not, do so and post results.

>>50974929
I punish players for being clerics and not knowing shit about their god. One guy ragequit because he was put on "probation" for referring to his patron archdevil as a "demon".

File: IMG_1132.png (52KB, 640x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x450px

>>50972565
>Make a dexterity-based character
>Have to shoot the DM myself to get a chance to shoot an enemy

>>50974929
>MUH SHELL
There is no such thing as "shy", I'm fucking autistic and I don't have a problem roleplaying, so you need to just lock yourself in a closet like the faggot you are and STAY there.

>>50975011
You have no fucking argument.

>>50975028
Not everyone can shoot a gun, everyone can communicate.

Unless they're someone who should be put in a looney bin.

>>50974983
>Except these "shy" players need to get the fuck out of the hobby

Wow, you're so dedicated to being a gatekeeping dickweasel that you didn't even read my sentence to the end.

Charisma checks exist so that people who are new to role-playing or bad at it can still play charismatic characters as long as they make an *effort* to role-play. That is so that they can *play* a *game*.

>play a charisma based character
>hope to just roll and force my DM to come up with an argument and an intended outcome for me
>probably will still bitch about it

>>50975048
Unless you've got no fingers then you can, in fact, shoot a gun. And at my table no goblin's dead and no experince is gained until you kill somebody. We really roleplay out here, we're not fucking pussies.

>>50975035

Buddy I think you need to calm down. You're having a discussion on 4chan about tabletop games it's not that big of a deal.

>>50975048
Them's fightin' words, boy!

Oh hey, the asshole gatekeepers have stopped even pretending to not be petty dickwads trying to keep the hobby closed off and niche by being assholes to anyone who actually struggles getting into it.

>>50974983
>Their "social anxiety" is not real. It's called being a pussy.
Yeah, the scans I had at the hospital that show my brain lighting up like a forest fire when I get stressed aren't real.
Guess these are placebo pills I get from the doctors, and it's coincidental that I was a fucking basketcase before they started giving me them. My testable neurochemistry is all fake too, right?

Please use the term overdiagnosed.

>>50973038
>RPGs are not a hugbox or a safespace.
That's the buzzwordiest thing I've ever read.

>>50975114
When freaks weren't chased off we got tranny shit and furry races in our games.

>>50973178
Your stats represent a lack of intuition. A high Investigate stat indicates that your character would think to look under pillows and the like; a low Investigate would indicate the opposite, that's the point of stats.

"I train my rifle on the bad guy and fire when the cross hairs andre over centre mass" is an abstraction of having a high shooting while "I pull the trigger repeatedly in panic" is an abstraction of having a low skill much in the same way.

>>50975161

So yeah, you're literally just an asshole. Good to know you're safe to ignore and disregard. Fuck off and stop making our hobby a less pleasant place to be.

>>50975119
Its real, its a problem, you have to deal with it.

Deal with it.

>>50975219
>X isn't real
>I have X
>X is real and is your problem to deal with

>>50975010
>The charisma checks are just convincing someone of somthing, not just forcing them to say yes.
This is a reasonable and, I believe, correct stance.

>I diplomacy at the guard
Is about as useful as:
>I perception at the room

A check follows a chosen course of action. Even attacking you're still choosing to either full-attack with the weapon you have in hand, or maybe to trip, or grapple, etc. Shit, at least specify that you want to convince the guard to let you pass or something.

>>50975161
I'm pretty sure that's been around since the beginning, friend.

>>50975252
>Shit, at least specify that you want to convince the guard to let you pass or something.
Why do people keep assuming that this is somehow the issue at hand? The problem is that for a lot of GMs "I persuade the guard to let me pass" isn't good enough. They want you to get into the nitty gritty of what exactly you say to have him let you pass. Of course nobody just does "I [skill name] at [object]" out of the fucking blue for no reason.

File: Ignoring plot hooks.jpg (69KB, 410x520px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 410x520px

>>50975048
>everyone can communicate.
Been working on helpdesk for a bit, and I would say this is objectively wrong. Whole lot of people have problem expressing what they want or what their problem is.
As the other side of the conversation, you can take two approaches when that happens
a) follow verbatim on what they said regardless of possible (miss)interpretations - this works if you're just feeling lazy and want to get it over with or want to be a smug asshole
b) guide them to express themselves better by asking the right questions - this works if you want to be actually helpful

I can do the latter just fine when necessary, but it's not something I would particularly enjoy doing on my free time. One of the reasons I stopped GMing.

OK, we have some separate things going on here:
>You must specify the argument you wish to convince your target of, not just the outcome you want
>You must speak in-character, first person style, to use the skill
>You must literally convince the DM of your position/argument
I'd be interested to see a quick straw poll of who believes what.

>>50973038
>RPGs are not a hugbox or a safespace.
What ARE roleplaying games in your opinion?

>>50974800
I agree its give and take for both parties, and has got to be a good balance of actual checks and acting. But it's why as a GM you hide the dice and fudge the results if you think the players are good enough. RPGs should be a bit dynamic, and not purely about numbers.

And its mildly fucking annoying when some of my players are unwilling to put in the effort to say anything after I myself and the other players have put in a heap of effort acting out NPC's and their characters. I get it, some people struggle with it or are shy, and it is absolutely asinine to in depth describe every little thing, but please try for some. Forget good role-play, its really boring hearing someone say "i role a such and such check, do I succeed?" For an entire session.

Stunt bonuses are a good way I've found to get people to think and act out what they are doing. Sure, you could succeed on just your roll and skill check, but i might not be on the same page as you (and shockingly, might not have thought of the exact thing your character is trying to do.

Ya know, I just love thespians that always tend to ignore the whole GAME part of Roleplaying Game. It really shows that they just want to sit around and talk and talk and talk and be annoying little shits who abuse their metagame knowledge to attempt to get around the fact that they dumped their Charisma into barely being there.

No mister walking lump of super autism, you don't get to persuade the king of anything despite your great speech, since your character speaking it came out like a village retard singing to his pet pig.

The diplomacy rules are there for a reason you mong. Its to provide a fair and impartial system of adjudicating what your character would actually accomplish instead of you buttering up the GM with your own speaking ability.

>>50975119
Sounds like you're actually enjoying your condition and the presumed entitlement it gives you. As with most things psychological, you can't get better if you don't really want to get better... think about it.

>>50975315

The first one is all that's necessary. The second is better and might get a bonus if it's well done, the third is bullshit metagaming.

>>50975337
Indeed. Both parts are important

Role playing and game both matter.

>>50975362
Not him, but that doesn't sound like entitlement. That sounds like someone annoyed at hearing some uneducated fuck spout their "knowledge" about mental health issues.

>>50975362
>psychological
Neurological. Physical cause, controlled by medication. I'd love to be better. Also, get fucked with a rake.

>>50975362

You are such a maliciously ignorant cunt

>>50975516

Yes, because common human decency is a tumblrism now. Go fuck yourself.

File: housedespairs.jpg (55KB, 452x604px)

55KB, 452x604px

>>50975516
>Mental illness isn't real
>>>/tumblr/

File: niggacmon.jpg (9KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 126x126px

>D&D (or D&D-ish) system uses charisma-stat for "social challenges"
>not for hirelings and morale checks

No wonder it doesn't work.

>>50975516
>someone has medical issue
>someone else believes it doesn't exist
>it exists
>lol back to tumblr for you

>>50974786
Well yeah, having the DM decide your argument is not a good thing, because you took a roleplaying oppurtunity (How does your guy attempt to overcome this challenge) and threw it away, it's fun to think of ways your flamboyant bard intimidates the local bruiser, it's not fun to let the DM describe how your flamboyant bard does something he wouldn't do.

>>50973323
>i stab myself in the eye
>what the fuck that's not fighting
>COME THE FUCK ON I ROLLED A HIGH STRENGTH CHARACTER
Basic arguments isn't some massive leap you fucking autist, and if you're nota total faggot you'd see the oppurtunity to ROLEPLAY by descrbing the exact words and actions of your character.

Really, this doesn't seem like it should be so hard: It's all about intent. What are you trying to do? You can't just say "I roll diplomacy" because diplomacy is a lot more complicated than that.
It's really something as simple as "I argue that these two tribes shouldn't fight because the costs outweigh the benefits." Really, you need to articulate what your character is trying to accomplish with the skill.
You can say "Yeah, but combat isn't like that!" but you're wrong. Contrary to what you think, combat isn't just "I roll to hit". Not really.
What are you hitting with? Are you shooting with a bow? Swinging a poleaxe with reach? Stabbing with a knife in close?
Where are you standing? Are you taking a charge and running right up in front? Are you moving to the side for flanking? Are you sticking behind cover?
The point is, you need to signify your intent and how your character is going about this. It's the same fucking shit, it really is.

File: 1442098804748.jpg (23KB, 254x334px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 254x334px

>>50975647
>i stab myself in the eye
>what the fuck that's not fighting
>COME THE FUCK ON I ROLLED A HIGH STRENGTH CHARACTER
What are you even trying to say with this?

>>50975664

>>50975308

>>50975362
>CRAAAAAAWLING IN MY SKEEEEEN!
So sick, so chill,so Dozer.

>>50975013
That situation happened 3 years ago, I don't even have the numbers of those guys anymore.

>>50975672
I think it's analagous to
>terrible, low effort argument
>what the fuck that's not convincing
>COME THE FUCK ON I ROLLED A HIGH charisma CHARACTER

>>50973273
Kill yourself, fucking subhuman

>>50974626
>If your descriptions are boring, here are some ideas about how to get better
why?
Who seriously gives a fuck if people are put off the hobby besides giant douchenozzling cock-inhalers?

>>50975709
There's absolutely no subjectivity to "i stab myself in the eye," but "terrible, low effort argument" has a big chance of being a subjective opinion.

>>50975755

Reasonable people who realize a social hobby like ours is better if more people play it? That being open, friendly and helpful to new people who are interested creates a larger, healthier population of people to play with, even if not all of them might share your specific tastes?

It's enlightened self interest.

>>50975061
>gatekeeping
>using SJW lingo
:^)

>>50975778

>Using the term SJW

Man, the last few years have been great. Terms like 'SJW' and 'Cuck' are a simple way for people to voluntarily declare that they're an idiot whose opinions aren't worth listening to. Just like 'MRA', although that's for idiots on the other extreme.

>>50975119
Do the scans at the hospital also show you the rope you should hang yourself with or do you have to get that yourself by prescription?

>>50975824
Don't cut yourself with that edge

File: These_darned_gatekeepers.png (51KB, 370x370px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 370x370px

>>50975777
>enlightened

>>50975756
Hey, I'm just trying to decode his post, anon.
>>50975824
I'm on hold for a canister of helium and a CPAP mask at the pharmacy.

>>50975756
Describe what you want to do to achieve your goal, and then roll, saying i roll intimidate or i roll persuasion isn't interesting, it doesn't build to your character, but the way characters attempt to circumvent social obstacles pretty much defines them, take bilbo in the first couple of pages in the hobbit, you can tell that he's driven to adventure but is mostly ashamed of it, how he's a pretty solitary guy, and pretty unsure of himself with the smoe ring scene, none of these things are particularly difficult to understand, but they play an incredibly important part in how characters are defined, and in losing that, we loes out on a lot of the magic in storytelling.

File: tm_zpsfwabiih6.gif (23KB, 205x185px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 205x185px

Man, the /b/ tier edgelords and newfags are really out and about right now.

>>50975880
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Look we get it, ya gotta troll but when it makes you look like a moron maybe you should take a second and think about not posting.

>>50975446
At least buy me a coffee first.

>>50975471
>>50975699
I'm a diagnosed crazy myself, I have all the right to mock other crazies. The difference is I got the pills and willpower to hold it together well enough to pass for a functional human being (4chan habit notwithstanding).

>>50975777
>larger, healthier population of people to play with
>faggots who think their make-believe disorders are real and an excuse
yeah, nah, stop trying to degrade standards you cunt

>>50975914
Look we get it, ya gotta whine but when it makes you look like a little faggot maybe you should take a second and think about actually killing yourself.

>>50975690
Yep, that's basically what I said, thanks.
>I ask the guard "Are you sure you can't make an exception?" and slip him a handful of gold pieces. (Persuasion)
>I stare him dead in the eye and say "Listen, right now you are impeding a government operation, move aside now or answer to the Duke." (Bluff)
>"Look, surely we can reach some sort of agreement here. I scratch your back, you scratch mine?" (Diplomacy)
I'm not charismatic and these are shit arguments, but it's perfectly clear what I'm trying to do and how I'm trying to do it, which is important because a GM needs to decide consequences.
"I bluff the guard to let me pass" doesn't work because the consequences of "What the fuck? I just came out the South gate, the quaratine's lifted, retard." is a hell of a lot different than impersonating a police officer.

>>50975940

>degrade standards

Well, I'm sure we can't do much worse than you.

So should you not allow knowledge checks if the player doesn't know the knowledge themselves?

Holy shit when did /tg/ get so shitty

>>50976007
No, but i wouldn't allow a knowledge check if the method od appraisel isn't specified, "i try to eye the creature and rack my brain to see if i remember about the X" or "I think back to my studies to see if i've studied the object" work fine, in the same way i expect strength checks to work as "I do X to solve the Y", as i do with all checks.

File: Sam points at the troll .jpg (155KB, 466x379px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 466x379px

>>50975940

>>50976011
Well, we just had new year roll in and it's set in stone that 4chan must get progressively worse with each passing year. We're doing our best to keep up with the quota.

>>50975808

Careful, someone will start posting that picture of a guy with tattoos in the mask as a single image reply to that idea.

>>50975924
>I'm a diagnosed crazy myself
Mental illness isn't real tho.
>I have all the right to mock other crazies
Congrats on having rights.
>The difference is I got the pills and willpower to hold it together
Ah, so my brother with mild Aspergers gets by socially because of sheer willpower, unlike my friend with severe Aspergers.
It's almost like these made-up mental illnesses aren't all exactly alike and one size does not truly fit all.
Nah, fuck it, that's tumblr thinking. Clearly, you're just as likely to go shoot up as a full-on sociopath so honestly, I'm disgusted that you're even allowed to post here.
People like you need to be locked up.

>>50976011

Depending on who you ask, it's either the invasion of /pol/ or the invasion of tumblr.

I think it's neither or both. Just another symptom of people getting increasingly polarised and being unable to keep their agenda driven pissing contests to themselves. And this applies equally to both 'sides', you're all cunts.

>>50973196
It's not "gimping" charisma based characters. No sane human is asking for some well thought out and reasoned speech every time you make a charisma check, because no one fucking does that in real life. All anyone asks is for the charisma character to put some fucking time into playing their character. Instead of "I use persuasion on the guard to let me pass." say "I pretend to be an important official and ask for admittance to whatever."

Give the DM something to work with, so that, if you fail, they have something more to say than "he doesn't believe you." And, oh my god, you can fucking respond, and retort and roleplay a fucking charismatic person.

>>50976089

Nah, it's the secret /pol/-tumblr alliance to annoy everyone to death.

>>50976048
So in the event of a player attempting diplomacy, would you allow, for example, "I try to convince the bandits to lay down their arms by appealing to their humanity"?

File: chuck-norris-thumbs-up.jpg (20KB, 379x247px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 379x247px

>>50976089

>>50972565
Go play a kick-on-the-door style game.
I mean why the fuck do you want to be the party face if you dont wanna roleplay?.

to say shit like?:
I roll to seduce the barmaid.
I trick the guard into giving me his sword and letting me pass the gate.
I roll to convice the king of giving me the kingdoms.

Charisma character arent mind controllers m8 you cant roll without a fucking context, they arent "mental attacks". But idk why would you want to make a character who talks if you only want to roll.

>>50975997
>waah waah, you big meanie head expect effort to be put forward

You know I think I'm trying to understand your point of view. This ridiculous desire to "expand" the population of the hobby when it is completely fine. Normal people literally have no problems of finding players or GMs, as improved communications brought with them not only an influx of new people through spread of information but also improved networking within the community. Unless you literally live up some Alligator's asshole in rural Australia or a third world country you have hundreds of people to game with, and the aforementioned problems are definitely not solved by being more inclusive.

So what is your fucking goal? Why do you want to suffocate anyone who is hostile to low-effort retards? Why do you care?

Are you unable to find a game because you're shit people?
Do you have hopes of roleplaying becoming socially acceptable so you don't have to leave your comfort zone to socialize and/or meet women? Are you special snowflake tumblrtards yourself and just can't deal with not being hugged and welcomed?

I'm genuinely curious.

>>50976163
>Charisma character arent mind controllers
Yeah, that's why we roll to see if it works or not.

>>50976140
Yes, but i'd use the dc rules given in the 5e dmg for trying to talk down hostile enemies, as in, it's gonna be really fucking hard to stop a guy trying to murder you in his tracks, diplomacy's diplomacy, not mind control.

>>50972565

I once made a character, in Only War, that was supposed to be the strongest in his regiment (which had been pretty much decimated at this point) and agile.

As time went on, I made him dumber and dumber as to make the Inquisitor the squad was with (who was really a plug for the GM) to say shit like
>"Maybe the Emperor saw fit to not...bless you intellectually?"
on the occasion my character would grumble something unintelligible.

It went to even greater heights when we did speech checks when we went against Chaos Lords and my character would roll high, but instead of saying something that would benefit the group it would result in the Lord or Spess Mehreen stammering for a moment in an effort to understand what the fuck I just said

>>50976175
Even if you roll fifty thousand you don't get to godmod NPCs

>>50976173

If I have a thing I enjoy doing, why wouldn't I want more people to do it? There's literally no disadvantage that I can see.

It's not about me, I've got plenty of games to keep going with, but I'm always happy to meet new people to play with, bringing their own experiences and playstyles to the table to add more variety to games.

Beyond that, it seems obvious to me. It's a thing I enjoy doing, so why wouldn't I want more people doing it? The idea of more people finding joy in something I do is a good thing, sharing happiness and letting people express their creativity is wonderful.

More people playing roleplaying games also means there's more money in the industry, a larger audience meaning more games being designed and more money being available for designers to create new experiences, along with the greater variety of people involved potentially creating new kinds of game.

Fundamentally I guess I just like the idea of other people having fun, because I'm not a sociopath?

>>50976270
If your character is so godly with his words that he can get fifty thousand then yes you can. Don't just ignore the rules when it doesn't align with your rails.

>>50976300
>If I break the system then credibility and the fun of others can take a hike!
Isn't there an exhaust pipe you could be sucking on?

>>50975924
Oh, of course! Everyone could get over their mental illness if they just had some pills and enough willpower! Damnit why did no doctor ever think of that!

>>50976270

That's interesting, let's do a speech check to see if an NPC believes that

>>50976300
No you can't. If you want to godmod, go start up a freeform roleplay and make yourself a mod.

>>50976276
>Fundamentally I guess I just like the idea of other people having fun, because I'm not a sociopath?

Thinking that bringing your hobby to people is equal to making them have fun is either very deluded or very insane.

>>50976300

Nonsense. Only characters with access to 1st level spells get to godmod NPCs, not people who are good at the skill!

>>50976300
Seeing as D&D has no degree of success mechanic, all you did was succeed.

>>50976163
Please tell me what these sections of the rules are for:

Diplomacy, Sense motive, and Intimidate skills from D&D
Social rules from Wulin
Social rules from Gurps
Social rules from pretty much every fucking RPG in our hobby.

Please do tell me what these are for if not adjudicating in an impartial manner what your character achieves when speaking to another character that doesn't include your own social skills. Because what you've been advocating this entire time is literally ignoring the rules of the game in favor of your own skills so as to metagame.

>>50976326
>ignoring the capabilities of player characters is okay because I say so

>>50976363
Just set the bar high enough and then succeed at that.

>>50976200
Yeah, that's fair.

I think people are arguing about different things here. To use my previous example,

>Player A: "I try to convince the bandits to lay down their arms by appealing to their humanity."

>Player B: "I want to roll persuasion to pacify the bandits."

>Player C: (in character) "Y-you guys should stop it. We all have families and stuff. W-wouldn't you feel bad about making all those people sad?"

Some people are angry about people like Player B, because he's just asking for a roll and not really describing his action.

Others are angry about people like Player C, because he's roleplaying shittily.

I'm not sure if anyone's angry about people like Player A, since he's at least describing his action and not going out of his way to roleplay poorly.

>>50976175
>Yeah, that's why we roll to see if it works or not.
Can you note the context before quoting?

What i mean is that the player cant say simply i bribe i seduce i intimidate.

When you make an attack you are not saying i attack.
You are using a weapon, attacking a target in a determinated position.
You need to say "i attack this orc with my sword after moving 20 feet", and then you can say "i attack again" cos you are doing the fucking same action and the previus factors are implied.

You cannot say i roll seduce, because there is no outcome in your phrase.
And you cant say i roll sedice to have sex with the barmaid cos that is controlling the action of an npc.
I this is why you have to rollplay before doing a fucking roll.
Becaouse you can seduce the barmaid in diferent ways and she can respond diferently depending on the context or what you say.

Its much smother and fun to say.
"what do you after work" to the bardmaid than: "i roll to seduce the barmaid into having sex after work".

I dont ask for a shakespearean dialog everytime you roll. Just say fucking something dammit

>>50976300
Yeah sure you can convice a king into giving his kingdom to you with only a fucking roll.

>>50976504
What's funny is how people think diplomacy can get NPCs to do things they wouldn't normally do. Its why I like PF, it just comes and out and says there are somethings that NPCs just wouldn't do even if your roll was in the thousands.

Make Request

If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

>Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

No you can't convince the king to give you the throne and his title no matter our diplomacy score.

>>50976366

Man, LotW's social rules are so fucking good. They also completely obviate this kind of bullshit.

This kind of shit is why I never play social characters. Too much is left to the whim of the GM. They usually just let you convince people with your own ability if it really comes down to it, so why the fuck waste your points on buffing your charisma? It's so pointless.

>>50976473
C is roleplaying shittily but he is triying. And we know what fiber is he triying to touch, if he roll well if would say that the bandints admit they are doing it for their families too and let they pass after taking a few things for the players, instead of being striped down.


Player A breaks inmersion because we have no means of knowing how he appeals to their humanity.

>>50976611
i know people only want desired outcomes without realizing that thet part is how do yo do it.

ITT: Fucking casuals who wouldn't last a minute in a game that isn't an autistic power fantasy

>>50976635
They're overrated. They don't handle "So I'd like to make a simple, but hard, request" particularly well.

Carrots and sticks are hard to adjudicate for something that's supposed to be short term.

>>50976771

Nothing in the system stops you using Inspire against a DC in the same old school RPG Diplomacy fashion. Chi Conditions just let you do stuff in more interesting ways with a bit of prep work.

>>50972600
>Know the answer to a riddle but playing a stupid character
>Trying to give your group hints without breaking character but none of them get it
THIS IS HELL.

>>50976836
Give them hints in OOC talk, then?

>>50976825
>Inspire against a DC in the same old school RPG Diplomacy fashion
And this is the part that isn't any better than most RPGs.

File: 1384779181505.jpg (48KB, 426x312px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 426x312px

>>50972872
>Yes, because roleplaying is a socially-based activity.
>Don't like it? Go play football.

>>50976857
>metagame
kys cuck

>>50976879
It would only be metagaming if you gave them hints based on information that their character doesn't have, right? If their character has all the pieces of the puzzle I'd think it's okay to help them put the pieces together, so to speak.

>>50976921

The principle in >>50975808 can usefully be applied here, anon.

File: 1432570461679.jpg (102KB, 547x750px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 547x750px

>Player is good at strategizing and communicating, gives a long winded speech or executes an efficient plan to get NPC to do X
>Alright, give me an X roll. Your character might not be able to deliver it as eloquently as you.

>Player has problems communicating, gives a general goal and method of attack, such as "I try to use the threat of outing his secret to convince him to give us what we need" or "I play up their soft side and appeal to them with compliments"
>Alright, roll it. Looks like your character's silver tongue and skilled acting carried the plan through.

>Player has brought a high cha/diplomatic skilled character, doesn't like t talk
>I persuade him to help us.
>...how?
>I dunno, I persuade him.
>You've got to give me an idea of what you're doing so I can tell you what skill check to make.
>Can't I just use my persuasion skill and persuasion him to do whatever because I said so?

See, the first two can be dealt with, but the last one just sucks and leaves everything vague. I don't want to tell you a bedtime story where once in a while you roll a die to see where the tracks go, I want you to interact with the world via your character. Granted, you've got to tip the scales sometimes so the players know important things that their characters do and they do not (You see a creature than appears ______. Give me a nature check? Alright, you know its a rust monster and here's what you've heard about it.) or >>50972841 , but the players have to put *something* into it.

>>50975808
"Roastie" is another solid "Well, this person has nothing to say" word.

>>50977132

Oddly enough, not one I've heard before. What's it mean?

>>50977188
Its /r9k/speak for woman. Something something about the vagina.

>>50977263

Huh, interesting. Weird but interesting.

I can't honestly see the link that caused it but I suppose they are not all as clear as cuckold -> cuck.

>>50977344
"Hurhurh, a roast beef sandwitch looks like a cunt! I KNOW! LETS CALL ALL WOMEN ROASTIES!"

Its their idea of a joke. Robots are a sad, pathetic lot.

>>50977368
>joke
Its an insult, not a joke. Used to specifically be aimed at the bitter women who hate the fact that anybody was happy/put people down just because. It, like all the rest of those style of words, has degenerated in meaning.

>>50977344
roast beef, like a vagina with large labia

>>50976611
Yeah, and meanwhile, if you have magic you can do it just fine because "it's magic".

Fuck off and die.

>>50972565
>Be forever GM, but lucky me: shadowrun.
>Inarticulate player wants to play face.
>Fine.
>All the right stats, all the right connections, won't die to a slight breeze, skills outside of talking, backstory is a little rough but not edgy or sue-ish.
>Approved.
>Game session rolls.
>Johnson asked party to pick up laptop from point A, and take it across town to point B, cash on delivery.
>Point A happens to be a heavily defended townhouse in gang territory surrounded by Ork and Troll gangers calling themselves the 49th street Jaws.
>Party Elf Physadept does Recon. Gangers are lightly armed on the outside, but the building is hardened like a fucking vault, nobody gets in without the outside's say-so. A little intergang violence set the building into lockdown.
>Decker checks records.
>Turns out some politician had lived in the townhouse in the middle of the ghetto to show just how safe it was.
>Of course, before doing that, she had hardened the place to the 12's.
>So, party comes together and makes a plan: the Street Sammy is an Ork, so he'll apply for new membership, Do whatever initiation (or fake it with aid of the party) and get inside, where he'll open the door for the rest of the group to get the laptop.
>Party rolls up in the Rigger's van, stops a few blocks away.
>Ork gets out, makes sure nobody is watching him, and goes to apply.
>He rolls up and acts tough.
>The Gangers see right through him and tell him he's full of shit.
>Ask if he's some kinda cop.
>Weapons are coming out.
>Oh shit, some of these boys are wired too.
>And then: the party face wakes up.
"Hey, I'm there too, right?"
>Wtf?
>Hasn't said anything about going.
>But Whatever, he hasn't done anything else all game.
>"Er, you were in the van..."
"The van that we're watching from, right? So, like, I KNOW he's about to get fucked up?"
>"Yeah, okay, i'll allow it."
"Cool, so, I RUN up to the stoop and, Uh, i'm gonna, uh... roll. Social. Thing."

>>50977814
>>Weapons are coming out
>I RUN up to the stoop
There must be more

>>50977640
Dominate is a high level spell and would work, but you would get pretty much the entire court to suspect foul play pretty quickly, not to mention the issues of you full on casting in view of everyone since it's close range and requires LoS and LoE with Verbal and Somatic componenets.

Charm is literally just a shortcut to Helpful on the attitude score and isn't mind control. It's just a very temporary replacement for long term diplomacy checks. It suffers from all the problems of actual diplomacy checks.

>>50977883

Actually, Charm Person goes beyond that.

>The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

You can actually get people to do things they'd normally oppose.

>>50975010
>"okay i want to attack this!"
>ok, what are you going to counter his stance with?
>"what? I don't know, that's why im rolling for it
>So you have nothing feasible to pursue him and just want to force-choke him?
>"My character would know!"

That's not how this shit fucking works.

>>50977928
Yeah, and then when the spell wears off you've got a very pissed off king and his entire retinue and court after your ass for attempting that coup. And that's if the king even lets such an effect happen in the first place by neglecting to have his court wizard have ways of shutting that down before it happens.

Basically, PCs should never be able to get away with this shit by any self respecting GM.

>>50977814
>In shadowrun tradition, he rolls enough d6's to make a gambler twitch.
>Incredible result.
>"Okay, so, what do you say?"
"Uh, what?"
>"I just want to know what you're saying to these guys to keep them from shooting your friend."
"I, Uh. C'mon?"
>"C'mon what?"
"Just, Guys, C'mon."
>"You gotta give me more than that."
"Well, Like..."
>"yes?"
"... C'mon?"
>"C'mon and what? C'mon people now?"
>A fire lights behind his eyes.
"YES! COME ON AND SLAM!"
>Other players snerk.
"AND WELCOME TO THE JAM!"
>Entire table breaks down laughing.
>Social is dancing along to the lyrics of Space Jam.
>I headdesk.
>"Alright! Alright! STOP!"
"I want to challenge these guys to a game of BASKETBALL."
>"The JAWS take your challenge! they are serious about two things: Their family, and BASKETBALL."
>What follows involves a Street Sammy Ork, a physical adept Elf, and our party's Face playing 3v3 pickup basketball in the lot across for the townhouse, against two Ork enhanced gangers, and a troll on point.
>Physadept and Street sammy could hold their own against the enhanced Ork gangers easily, but the face is clearly the weak link.
>He compensates by showboating mercilessly.
"Where's the ball? Where's the ball? You watching the ball? You watching? You wat-"
>He mimes passing it to the Phys Adept, but actually dribbles it through the Troll's legs to the Sammy behind him.
"You weren't watching!"
>Sammy takes an easy layup for points.
>PCs are just, narrowly winning, but the Gangers have home court advantage.
>Entire outside crew of Orks & trolls are watching the game.
>Whoever was on the inside even opened the door to watch, slack jawed at the harlem globetrotter shit going on.
>Dwarf rigger sends in a microdrone.
>Microdrone retrieves laptop
>Can slide laptop through bars on upstairs window after it's been opened from the inside.
>Laptop is now, effectively, retrieved.

I never doubted the power of inarticulation again.

>>50972683
>>50972665
>>50974748
>Roleplaying is about playing characters who are different from you, and people should be free to play what they like.
And you're absolutely right, however, if you want to play a specific role then you should have at least a basic understanding of how that particular role works.

If you can't play a charismatic bard because you yourself are a low-confidence bell-end who nobody would admit to liking, it stands to reason that playing a role would be inherently harder since you yourself have problems connecting to people, let alone convincing them to do what you want.

It doesn't take much to get into the mindset of the dumb muscle archtype but in order to play more ephemeral roles such as the smart guy or the charismatic guy, you need to be able to get into the mindset of what a character with that much INT or CHA would act like.

And if you can't then you gotta perform research to get into the role.

>>50975777
>a social hobby like ours is better if more people play it

Depends on the people. There are certainly people we don't want in the hobby, like the guy you've been arguing with.

>>50978060
I don't believe this story, but it is funny. You better have given them extra street cred for this.

>>50972565

Ignoring the faggots arguing in this thread, I feel for you OP. I am not a smart, wise, or charismatic person, but I like to roleplay those kinds of characters. It should be enough to say, "I want to try to convince him to change his mind via diplomacy", etc. I've had DMs just stare at me and ask "Ok but what exactly are you saying to him?" and it's bullshit. I've learned to just play smashy fighters with those DMs.

>>50973043
At some level, who you are as a person does end up influencing how you play a particular role more often than not, which is why popular actors get hired to play similar roles, like how Seth Rogan is usually the dumb stoner character or how Robin Williams used to play characters who were high energy and great at wordplay.

Now this isn't to say that they were typecast or anything but people will think of them as their characters in, say, Pineapple Express or Patch Adams respectively more often than not because those were the movies that people were probably exposed to the most.

>>50977979
I know you're strawmanning but if your character is a swordsman it's not a hard assumption that "attack" means hitting them with your sword. Whether the way you hit someone with your sword is successful at countering his stance depends on the roll.

>>50978152
Jesus christ, how self unaware can a person be?

>>50974142
Actually he voiced his frustration at dealing with idiots who would rather roll numbers w/o context than attempt to describe what their character is doing to convince the shopkeep to give them a lower price.

Hell, he said it didn't even need to be much, just something like "I'll ask him to lower it by 2gp because we helped save the town earlier" or some shit like that was enough, just as long as it seems like you're trying.

>>50978022

Well, maybe. He'd have to realise what happened.

Pathfinder says you instantly know if you pass the save but doesn't say if you know if you fail.

However, the Pathfinder novel Pirate's Honor has several instances of covert charm with the person affected not knowing even afterwards.

>>50978086
They got in good with the Jaws, and Johnson didn't double-cross them for delivering the laptop. I think that's reward enough for shadowrun.

>>50978152
>Whether the way you hit someone with your sword is successful at countering his stance depends on the roll.

Similarly, whether the manner in which your character negotiated is successful also depends on the roll.

>>50978321
Not him but this is ultimately how I see it.

Physical skills are the nature of the mechanics, because most players cannot do super impressive feats like leap over a 10 foot chasm or lift a 200lb boulder over their heads and throw it. They require rolls because there is no other way to simulate them within the context of the game.

Mental/Social skills on the other hand are the nature of roleplay. You can simulate how a character interacts with the world around them based on either how you describe their actions or how you portray them speaking with another character.

I can roll to see how much damage I deal to an opponent who is trying to kill me because the game covers the method to resolving who wins in a contest between my offense and my opponent's defense. However, even when charisma skills have a similar method of resolution, the ultimate means of resolving a clash of your argument vs. their judgment comes down to how your character plays out that interaction.

>>50978230
Yeah, I don't trust the novel writers with that type of thing since they often get this shit wrong. Considering it's a magical mental compulsion and their attitude reverts back to its normal disposition upon the end of the spell, and they still remember what happened during the spell, it stands to rights that they would be utterly pissed off about the coup. Not to mention the other people in the court who may try preventing this attempted coup by advising the king about not doing that particular action.

>>50978751

Well, it still runs heavily into 'Up to the GM' at that point. As we have nothing beyond 'They know if they pass the save' and the implication therefore (But not stated) that they don't know if they fail the save.

Still, staggering powerful for a 1st level spell.

>>50975061
>Charisma checks exist so that people who are new to role-playing or bad at it can still play charismatic characters as long as they make an *effort* to role-play.

Yes, that's fine. Like I said, it doesn't have to be excellent.

Also

> gatekeeping

You are not entitled to be part of a roleplaying group. You are not entitled to anything. Go fuck yourself. If you have nothing to offer, you don't get shit.

>>50975119
>Yeah, the scans I had at the hospital that show my brain lighting up like a forest fire when I get stressed aren't real.

Yeah, you're scared of social interaction. No one's denying that.

My point is, get over it. Work through your fear. Otherwise you're a pussy.

Also, if you have social anxiety, why the fuck are you engaging in a social activity?

>>50975114
> gatekeepers

Go start your own game then. We are under no obligation to help you. You are not entitled to us helping you be part of an RPG and handholding you just because you're scared to talk to other people, a fear that most of us had grown out of by age 8.

>I hit the Orcs
>Bullshit, we don't do any rollplaying in this house. Here's your sword and shield. We're about to ROLEplay this combat.

>>50975337
I bet you're one of those fuckwits that thinks Charisma 8 means you can never persuade anyone of anything.

Just like Intelligence 8 means you're dumb as a rock and are literally retarded.

Sure.

>>50975362
Goddamn, this is so true man. Thanks for posting it. So sick of these little pricks thinking "muh disorders" is an excuse for us to play 20 questions with them about what they want. Guess what dickwit? You just got uninvited from the next session. If you want to not talk much and be the quiet guy at the RPG table, that's totally fine. But don't start bitching about it on top of it all. We're not your boyfriend. We aren't entitled to do shit about it.

>>50975471
Except, he's right. Social anxiety is one of those made-up things created by manchildren to avoid acting like adults.

>>50975777
What a waste of trips.

> a larger, healthier population of people to play with

Those two quantities are inversely proportional, if the last ten years of RPGs have taught us anything.

>>50978930

>I bet you're one of those fuckwits that thinks Charisma 8 means you can never persuade anyone of anything.

No, I think his issue was implying that the player talking can replace the rolling. No matter how good your speech, the rolling still needs to happen.

>>50978830
Yeah, I like clear rules, and sometimes the devs seriously fuck up and leave very annoying ambiguities. Also yeah, charm should be at least 3rd level or be nerfed somewhat.

>>50978875
>Also, if you have social anxiety, why the fuck are you engaging in a social activity?
Because humans are social animals and it's literally fucking hardwired instinct to seek others to do social activities with. Seriously, social anxiety is a fuckign nightmare for those who live with it. And lol at your suggestions of just working through the fear. When your brain seizes up in a pure gut reaction of fight or flight, you don't get any of the luxuries of fighting through that fear.

>>50978930
>I bet you're one of those fuckwits that thinks Charisma 8 means you can never persuade anyone of anything.
If they haven't invested in any skill ranks of Diplomacy to offset their slightly under average Charisma, then they are more than likely not going to be persuading anyone. And to be retarded needs 6 Int. And besides, they can still invest in knowledge skills to offset their slow brain. Your argument is fuckign retarded.

File: pug.jpg (68KB, 600x596px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x596px

>There are autists unironically posting paragraphs upon paragraphs arguing that someone playing a game should have to have the same skill as the character they are roleplaying.

Jesus fucking christ that's pathetic.

>>50978321
Guy you were replying to, I agree that things like wording could be dependent on the roll, but you should at least state your aim and general method (in the sense of flatter/bluff/persuade/etc.). The difference between a diplomat and a swordsman is the swordsman only really has one "method" of doing his job, hitting things with his sword, while a diplomat has many ways of attempting what he wants and they all have different impacts on what follows.

A fighter could stab someone or slash at someone, but the end result is they're dead. You could make more specific actions like called shots to have different results than "nigga's dead," but that's already more involvement than "I roll diplomacy."

Fighting would be like diplomacy if the fighter carried around and regularly used four or more different weapons. If the fighter said "I attack" I would have to ask "with what?" since it there are multiple ones he could use.

>>50979021

It really just needs to lose the whole 'Opposed Cha to do stuff they oppose'. As otherwise all it does is 'Short lasting diplomacy'. Quicker/easier than diplomacy but less potent and with the risk of fuckup.

As a GM, I get how this sucks. At the same time, I don't enjoy playing with players who say "I persuade him to help" and roll dice.

I personally spend a fair amount of time on my NPCs, and I like to engage in a conversation with a player. I'm completely fine with a rogue stumbling through an explanation, using frequent "ums" and "ahs" along the way, as long as he actually tries to participate in the discussion. If he happens to get a 20 on the resulting skillcheck, then he said essentially what the player said, but in a confident, extremely persuasive manner. If he critfails, then maybe it was closer to reality.

For me, just rolling a dice without the player even trying to say anything sucks all the fun out of it. My NPCs tend to talk to players, have their own little quirks, whatever. If it always just came down to dice, I'd just say "The cleric tells you he can't let you in the temple" and be done with it.

Some people like games like that. I don't.

You also often run into the fact that some players like to roll and then base the talk off that. It makes the results a bit more organic feeling imo as you don't end up with a disconnect between 'great fluff' and 'bad roll' as the player knows how well to fluff it going.

>>50979180
If I can just convince fuckers myself, warn me in advance so that I can dump charisma for something I will actually use.

>>50979240
Nah, if you fuck up on your roll you'll still come off as a fucking idiot.

The roll is for delivery, not content.

>>50979282
Warn me in advance anyway so I know not to bother with your arbitrary bullshit on the social side of things.

>>50978995
Rolling should only happen if the GM feels that the roll needs to happen. If you can get by based on roleplay and the numbers on your sheet reflects that level of competency, then I don't really see a problem with letting it succeed w/o rolling.

>>50979308

Well, if you'd pass on a 1 sure. Some things are easy enough that you have no need to even roll (Asking a king who owes you one to give you passes through a checkpoint or something).

But rolling is kinda important, it's part of the game part of a roleplaying game.

>>50979306
It's only arbitrary if you had no intentions of roleplaying in the first place. There are plenty of video games out there that give you dialogue wheels and prepackaged dialogue options if you just want to focus on the crunch but none of the fluff.

>>50979306
You'd obviously dislike playing with me, which is totally fine!

I typically play with people who are more into playing a character, so the problem doesn't come up.

>>50979432
>can't argue against the fact that it's all arbitrary
>"g-go back to v-video games!"

>>50979341
Rolling is only as important as the GM/players feel they are, and I say this as someone who has been in, and run, games where we spent most of the session roleplaying w/o ever having touched our dice once.

It's not to say that rolling doesn't have its place as a means of resolving outcomes in a clear and succinct matter but if you can get away with roleplay then I don't really see why you'd still need to roll dice just to achieve the same outcome.

>>50979470
Well yeah, if you just want to roll dice and diplomance your way to victory, I believe that video games are more your speed.

In cases of tabletop where interactions with the game goes beyond the RAW, a good CHA score is ideal but it's still not as important as how your character interacts with the person they're talking to.

Even if it's an all around poor attempt, as long as you at least try to voice your intended argument, I, as the GM, can fill in the blanks to turn it into an argument that'd better reflect the numbers on your sheet and/or the result of the roll.

Of course, that's not even going into the fact that CHA already has mechanical benefits built in if you're playing a class like a Sorcerer or a Bard whose spellcasting is tied to how high their CHA is, so already your argument is kinda flawed in believing that it's arbitrary when CHA already has mechanical benefits by the RAW.

>>50979074
Nope. Only that they should at least TRY to act charming. Not actually be charming. That's it.

You are just strawmanning.

>>50979668
>you should at least TRY to swing a sword

>>50979685
Mechanics already exist for resolving combat between two parties that wish to commit harm against one another.

A Nat 20 means that you hit and dealt double damage to the enemy, which means that they have less HP, which means that they are closer towards death.

Charisma based checks are more ephemeral because they are a decidedly roleplay focused activity that cannot (and shouldn't) be resolved by rolling high on an arbitrary check.

A Nat 20 means that you delivered the argument spectacularly but the GM still requires you to state what the argument actually is, even if it's just a basic outline, so that the person you're talking to can respond appropriately.

I don't know why you keep attacking strawmen but it doesn't actually refute anything that the other anon said.

>>50979776
>Charisma based checks are more ephemeral because they are a decidedly roleplay focused activity that cannot (and shouldn't) be resolved by rolling high on an arbitrary check.
They can and they should. What do you think the entire point of the charisma stat is? It's to determine how well a character fares during charisma checks.

>>50979122
>the swordsman only really has one "method" of doing his job, hitting things with his sword

Maybe if you're playing the latest stab-em-up all you see is a guy mechanically waving his weapon and shield like he's an traffic controller having a seizure, but fighting is a lot more complicated and involved than that. You don't just press "A" and wait for your punch animation to resolve, there's all kinds of planning, maneuvering, sizing people up, loads of stuff that makes your approach just as crucial to the outcome as if you were sitting across from the other person in a boardroom.

>>50979906
>What do you think the entire point of the charisma stat is?
To serve as the casting stat for CHA based casters such as Sorcerers and Bards.
>It's to determine how well a character fares during charisma checks.
Not necessarily, because rolling high on a CHA check means nothing unless the GM is provided with intent and context. Rolling X on charisma means that your argument was delivered to a proficiency that's reflected in the roll but it doesn't actually mean anything unless you provide the GM with a basic outline for what your argument actually is.

It's the difference between "I argue that we should get a better deal because we helped save the town" vs. "I rolled X so he MUST give us a better deal." I'm not going to take away your impressive roll but I still need something for the NPC to respond to for the sake of the narrative.

Y'get where I'm coming from yet?

>>50979976
>To serve as the casting stat for CHA based casters such as Sorcerers and Bards.
So what was it for before CHA-based casting existed?

>>50980012
>So what was it for before CHA-based casting existed?
A measurement of your character's ability to lead, which was quantified by its role in determining how many followers you achieved after a certain level and how likely they were to stay once shit started to hit the fan.

At least, according to what I read from 2e.

>>50973323
Frankly I would be disappointed at anyone so mundane as to just say "I hit the enemy", but even then that's obviously more clear. Saying that you want to "convince someone": what does that even mean? What are you trying to convince them of? What is your opinion and, furthermore, why should they agree? When you're smacking someone upside the head with a club their opinion doesn't matter, but let's face it communication with another human being is less of a clear cut action than pretty much anything else. Got a high int roll? Great, you know something. Ripped as shit? Sure you can pull the party's wagon instead of buying a mule. Yet no matter how aggressively you speak at someone their mind isn't just going to change. Force of personality and a silver tongue will get you a long way, all you have to do is just make a reasonable argument, and the number of people that can't even figure out their own opinion and say it is astounding.

I play with people like this every session and it triggers me, it really does. Help me anon.

>>50980113
>its role in determining how many followers you achieved after a certain level
It didn't do that. It controlled how many henchmen (not regular hirelings, henchmen are more like knightly squires) you could have, your reaction modifier (on the reaction table), and modified the base loyalty of henchmen, hired goons, etc.

>>50980155
>Saying that you want to "convince someone": what does that even mean? What are you trying to convince them of? What is your opinion and, furthermore, why should they agree?
What is up with everyone pushing this stupid strawman? Of course it will be apparent in the context of the fucking game. Stop acting like people sitting in empty rooms and suddenly saying "I convince someone" is a thing that ever happens. This is not what's being discussed, stop going back to this inane shit over and over.

>>50980012
>So what was it for before CHA-based casting existed?
There was a Reaction Chart you rolled on when resolving Random Encounters and when talking to NPCs, with a high enough Charisma you could avoid hostilities from various wildlife (including stuff like bandits), get discounts and various other benefits "on DM discretion" (which to my knowledge nobody really used).
I think 8 or 9 was still "neutral" adjustment and you need like 17 for a significant good one, so most people comfortably fit into the wide area where the score didn't make any difference.

With CHA boosted above 20 via gear and magic, you could RAW too some silly stuff like selling stuff for more than you bought it with.

>>50980187
Even still, it served a purpose beyond just allowing you to supplement roleplay with a generic roll w/o context or intent.
>>50980209
>Of course it will be apparent in the context of the fucking game.
Not really. An argument could go in any number of possible directions depending on how you choose to convince someone of something, which is why proper context is needed because anything you say could affect the conversation in any number of ways.

Again, if you want to avoid roleplay just to get back to the action, there are plenty of other forms of media that allow you to get your fix, such as video games, board games, war games, and card games.

>>50980273
The martial analogy to "I convince someone" would be "I hit someone," and of course that wouldn't be good enough because you don't even specify who you fucking hit. "I convince him to let us pass" is more of what you're trying to argue as being the invalid example because it's something that might actually happen in a game, which is actually perfectly fine because just like you don't expect your fighters to lift boulders, you shouldn't expect your socialites to come up with arguments that would work on NPCs unless they really want to, because the fucking character that knows how to convince people well obviously knows how to get it done better than the player. Literally what is the point of a stat dedicated to convincing people of your viewpoint if you don't actually let players use it to convince people of their viewpoint?

Do you know why so many players end up turning to murderhoboing as their primary solution to problems? It's because people like you arbitrarily limit their non-combat abilities to whatever suits the rails you have them on, removing their possibilities to meaningfully interact with the world as characters on all levels except martial.

File: medieval-bascinet-helmet-hounskull-sca-bargrill-the-kings-guard-4.jpg (122KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x800px

>>50979685
The player should at least have to describe how they mean to use the sword beyond "I saunter up to the enemy and press mouse1", no?

>>50980415
>The martial analogy to "I convince someone" would be "I hit someone," and of course that wouldn't be good enough because you don't even specify who you fucking hit.
It's assumed that the Fighter is going to hit someone who is a) within striking distance, b) attacking him and/or an ally, and c) preventing them from moving forward with their mission.
>Literally what is the point of a stat dedicated to convincing people of your viewpoint if you don't actually let players use it to convince people of their viewpoint?
We've already given you examples of what CHA represents that don't include players using it as a "get outta roleplay" card.
> It's because people like you arbitrarily limit their non-combat abilities to whatever suits the rails you have them on, removing their possibilities to meaningfully interact with the world as characters on all levels except martial.
I'm asking for a basic outline for what you're arguing, I've already explained this.

Stop strawmanning.

>>50980527
>It's assumed that the Fighter is going to hit someone who is a) within striking distance, b) attacking him and/or an ally, and c) preventing them from moving forward with their mission.
Why would similar things not be assumed for the social character?

Holy shit, you're a fucking idiot.

>>50972638
I'm sure this guy's long gone but I'm wondering if he insists that anyone playing a wizard makes hand gestures and mumbles gibberish OOC every time their character casts a spell because that's what you're equating this to.

>>50980582
>Why would similar things not be assumed for the social character?
Because a) in order to attack someone they have to be in range, b) what reason would he have to not attack creatures that are trying to kill him and/or his allies unless he's somehow planning on betraying the party, and c) if the enemy could be circumvented then there wouldn't be combat in the first place.

More to the point, I can't predict what your character is going to say and how they're going to say it. "I convince him to let us pass" can mean anything from seduction to bribery to threats and unless you give me something to work with, I cannot continue the conversation that's taking place IC w/o essentially roleplaying your character for you.

And if it comes to that then I'd have to question why you bothered showing up in the first place.

>>50976836
and it always happens, because without exception the guy with the highest INT and WIS scores are the guy who is kind of thick but doesn't realize it, so he thinks he's some brilliant genius and wants to live in an escapist world that recognizes it.

>>50980701
>Because a) in order to attack someone they have to be in range, b) what reason would he have to not attack creatures that are trying to kill him and/or his allies unless he's somehow planning on betraying the party, and c) if the enemy could be circumvented then there wouldn't be combat in the first place.
This doesn't actually explain it, please try again. Why are you assuming that the socialite is a bumbling retard trying to talk gibberish to walls while the fighter gets a neat little scenario going for him?

>>50979432
Being able to convince people in character doesn't remove your ability to roleplay, just like how being able to shoot a bow accurately or lift something heavy doesn't remove your ability to roleplay. Being convincing is just a tool a character has at their disposal, just like strength would be in the hands of a fighter. A character's charisma or ranks in diplomacy and the player's ability to roleplay have nothing in common whatsoever. This is a line of thinking very reminiscent of the Stormwind fallacy.

>>50980754
>Why are you assuming that the socialite is a bumbling retard trying to talk gibberish to walls while the fighter gets a neat little scenario going for him?
Two things

One, there are only so many viable targets for the Fighter to take a swing and since he's not swinging at the party, I'm left to assume that he's going to swing at someone who is actively trying to kill them.

Two, all I'm asking for is a sentence, 7-10 words max, that I can use to continue the conversation with.

If you're bribing someone, then the conversation shifts towards how much you're giving vs. how much they're asking.

If you're seducing, then the conversation shifts towards how you're enticing your mark and how effectively he's enamored by your charms.

If you're threatening, then the conversation shifts towards how the individual reacts to a fight and whether they can take you.

And depending on the argument, it changes the dynamic of the conversation and how they view you.

Do you understand?

>>50980862
>Being able to convince people in character doesn't remove your ability to roleplay
Being able to convince people in character is an aspect of roleplay.

Also, charisma has uses besides diplomacy and the like, as was previously stated ITT.

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>50980907
>Being able to convince people in character is an aspect of roleplay.
>You have to convince people in character, but you have to use out of character means to do so, otherwise you're not roleplaying

>>50980956
How exactly is roleplaying your character an OoC means of resolving diplomacy?

ITT: Rollplayers displaying their 8 charisma in real-time.

>>50974983
Shy players should play shy characters that's all. Or they can even try and be cool and play a strong and silent.

I get that you want the fantasy of being this smooth talker but hey this guy is right about them fucking up the game if every time they try to persuade someone it's 'I-I-I.. Think I should get a d-discount..'

>>50981298
Honestly, while players should make an effort to play characters they can play convincingly, for the enjoyment of everyone present, the GM must also indulge the players to a certain extent.

To give an example, usually, I will have the player phrase any given interaction, and roll persuasion passively (homebrew), with the way their approach interacts with the context (situation, NPC's motivations and position, PC's standing) modifying the DC, all the way down to autosuccess if applicable.

They can either investigate beforehand or roll to try and perceive said circumstances, allowing them to objectively exploit them if they figure it out.

Likewise, missing the point can lead to penalties, but if the player has trouble figuring out what to say (or if the result is a foregone conclusion, and the situation trivial), they can always ask for a roll to abstract the interaction over.

Good roleplaying should be rewarded, but consistency demands the character's skillset not be disregarded in the process.

Likewise, it should always be possible to fall back to abstraction based on your character's presented skills.

That means I am prone to prodding the players to try and play their actions out before defaulting to abstraction - but the option is always there.

>>50980209
That wasn't a strawman actually, it's literally what he said. Not to mention I play with a guy who constantly asks if he can "roll persuasion" at people. Like legit why do you pick a rogue if you're going to do shit like that? I'm honestly not even picking a fight I just can't comprehend how you can be that bland and unimaginative yet still insist that you're enjoying yourself and keep coming back. It baffles me.

>>50979685
But the thing is, I fucking would if that was practical. If I could get foam models of a dragon and a replica sword, hell yeah I would pretend to have martial arts skills. In fact, that sounds fucking awesome in every way.

Again, the player does not need to actually deliver a smooth line. They just need to deliver a line, any line.

>>50972565
>play a roleplaying game
>have to roleplay

>>50972600
>wizard's native tongue is elven, and he is fluent in draconic, dwarven, and decent at common.
>draconic, elven and dwarven are analytic languages.
>common is an agglutinative language.
>orcish is agglutinative as fuck, and the 5-int orc is fluent at that and common
>all riddles are in common, for reasons.

Linguistically salvaged.

>>50972683
It takes an advanced sperglord to be unable to RP higher charisma, though. Like literally, you need to put 20 levels into sperglord IRL and qualify as a wizard. How much effort does it take to watch like three negotiation scenes from movies and imitate. I mean seriously, the people unable to RP are sperglords to the degree that they have never even seen a charismatic person, and they are also incapable of watching movies due to fear of people existing in them judging them for their terrible lifestyles.

>>50973196
>Maximum level powerfantasy weeb.
>Got idea for RPGs from video games.
>Literally cancer killing /tg/

And yes, you should ask your fighters how they engage in combat. Luckily, there is pages and pages of rules for that in every system. It literally takes less effort to figure out how to convince people than it takes to learn the combat system of D&D.

>>50974626
Tbh, there are like 80+ players for each DM. I'm not going to educate some newbie on how to RPG if they are not willing to put in basic effort and demonstrate basic social skills.

>>50974896
No, he's worse. He's the /v/ spilloff to traditional games, who thinks traditional games should be more like video games, which are a solitary activity with no social interaction.

>>50981668
I think freeform is more up your alley.

>>50981746
>Giving the GM a sentence to explain what you're going to say to someone is freeform.
For the record, that's literally as much dialogue as a dialogue option in Fallout: New Vegas.

You are literally so inept at playing a charismatic person that you cannot come up with the equivalent to a dialogue option in a Fallout game.

I think you might actually be low-functioning autistic.

>>50975114
>Asshole gatekeepers
>These are actually the DMs
>Who are doing the job no one else wants to do, and often have literally 30+ people on waiting lists interested for future campaigns, if they live in a major city with any kind of RP scene.

So, take it from the other point of view. Why should I choose to DM for people that I personally do not like, that have preferences that conflict with mine, and who fail to act like reasonable human beings according to my standards, when I can easily pick a group of players who satisfies these conditions?

>>50975119
It isn't even overdiagnosed. Literally half the people with social fears meet the diagnosis criteria. If anything, according to the criteria, it is severely undiagnosed, with nearly 25% of all people magically qualifying for it. Which is exactly what makes it so bullshit.

Especially since the "treatment methods" are so terrible. I used to "suffer from this" until when I was 18. The whole stammering and trembling thing, too. Then I got a part-time job as a waiter, and it took whole lot of 2 months for it to go away.

If a "disorder" is cured by basic human interaction in 2 months, it isn't much of a disorder, really. People these days are just sheltered, and do not need to rely on social interaction to get paid and to pay rent/eat.

It is an adaptation, most likely to growing up in an environment where out-of-line social activity was severely punished and where fear of failure was enforced by societal rules. You just need to get rid of the toxic environment and out into the real world, where social activity is rewarded and, unlike your parents, strangers usually do not hit and insult you in order to enforce their authority.

You also only get given pills if you indicate you are unwilling to participate in therapy.

>>50981746
If you don't know even academically how your character does what they do, in an age where such information can be obtained in a few minutes' Googling, you have failed to get into character, plain and simple.

I think Skyrim is more up your valley.

File: 1458581906214.jpg (99KB, 308x765px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 308x765px

>you have to be as skilled as your character
Holy fuck, like half the posts in this thread are arguing for this. I'm scared.

>>50981875
Rather, I think the emphasis is on players who do not -try- to depict the character, rather than dissociation between the character's purpoted abilities and the player's.

And yes, to be frank, if someone is literally unable to so much as make the attempt in the first place, however genuine the cause, you can't really blame the GM and other players for not feeling like putting up with them.

It is, after all, a hobby for them, not their work. If a player's inability severely hampers your enjoyment of the game, and you are in a position to play without them, it happens.

>>50972984
>but myself as an 8 Strength person could still easily remove the hinges and make my way inside the next room. That's not challenging.

Couple of things wrong with this.
>You are not your character. Don't use "myself" in discussing the actions taken in game.
>Whether your character was clever enough to think to undo the hinges, then do it correctly, it tied into your other ability scores and skills.

>>50981875
If you're too inept to come up with the equivalent of a dialogue option in Fallout: NV to explain what your character is trying to say, you have no business playing a charismatic character.

Same as someone who can't even understand the rules enough to attack someone shouldn't be playing a Fighter and someone who can't understand how vancian magic works shouldn't be playing a wizard.

Simple as that.

>>50981875
If this were the case, I would only be suitable to play as a bard, I couldn't use any spells, and I'd be lucky to not take penalties on half of the simple weapons list.

I mean, if it were a non-fantasy game in a modern setting, I'd survive, but then why the hell would I bother emphasizing myself as a musician in that case?

>>50975337
>No mister walking lump of super autism, you don't get to persuade the king of anything despite your great speech, since your character speaking it came out like a village retard singing to his pet pig.

Another option is to have them succeed, but then also have other negative consequences. Like, your character is now contract-bound to serve as a jester for the king for the next 80 years. But sure, he'll send some guards to check on Brimfield.

>>50975777
>Reasonable people who realize a social hobby like ours is better if more people play it?

Debatable. There is a significant disparity between players and GMs to start with. Then consider D&D, which has the widest fanbase, but also some of the shittiest moneygrabbing business methods and arguably worst products.

And frankly: If I don't want to play with these people, I won't. I don't care if that makes me a gatekeeper that stops these people from having fun in the future with some other GM that would be compatible. If they want to play that way, find that GM who is willing to run a game like that. I am not here to make the RPing community a magical safe harbour of fun for everyone, I am here to have fun myself. Which seems to be something people do not expect of their GMs, which is why half of them quit after less than 10 sessions.

>>50981922
Why do you keep assuming that the player doesn't roleplay at all just because he might not know what would be the best way to convince an NPC in a given situation? There is a lot more roleplay to be had than just the single sentences for diplomacy checks that you keep screeching about.

>>50976089
It's the invasion of /v/. Modern-day RPG videogames are so bad that they do not satisfy even their basic needs for roleplaying that they got from Arcanum/Fallout1&2/BG1&2/Torment, so they flock to /tg/. Then they get all bent when they find out that traditional games are a social hobby with human-human interaction involved.

>>50979470
Rule 0, asshat. The whole concept of RPGs is to decide as a group to have enjoyable time, and to trust each other to act on that premise. The GM could just decide that "suddenly you are all pink rabbits, and here's my alice in wonderland-expy NPC" in the middle of whatever campaign. They don't do this because they are bound by a set of social rules.

Not being able to understand how social rules differ from completely arbitrary action makes you an assburger on a whole another level. You have just missed the basic fundamental rule that holds society together.

>>50979685
Depends on the encounter, but seriously, yes. They should describe their basic idea. It can be running at an opponent and stabbing them with a sword, which will work okay for goblins. If you are fighting a colossal dragon and you want to deal any significant amount of damage with a dagger? Better get some ideas on how to do it. If you want to actually subdue those goblins rather than just slaughter them? Yeah, better say that. If your priority is protecting your friends rather than dealing MAXIMUM DAMAGE, you could probably do that by stating it.

>>50981980
You mean there is a wider variety of tactical actions available to me than "I stab the enemy"? Preposterous.

>>50981954
>Why do you keep assuming that the player doesn't roleplay at all
If you could roleplay then we wouldn't be having this discussion, you'd be able to give me something to work with and we'd be able to move on with the rest of the session.
>just because he might not know what would be the best way to convince an NPC in a given situation?
Unless you were a divination wizard with some sort of spell that allows you to read minds, you shouldn't know the "best way" to convince anyone of anything. You can give me an argument sure but the conversation will still progress based on what you're using for your argument.
> There is a lot more roleplay to be had than just the single sentences for diplomacy checks that you keep screeching about.
You're misunderstanding or being willfully obtuse. A sentence is the bare minimum you can give me, the least amount of effort required, yet this is still too much to ask for in a role-playing game.

Why play if you hate roleplaying so much?

File: 1471067303084.jpg (59KB, 919x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 919x720px

>>50982004
You literally can't wrap your head around it, can you? Holy shit, there's a lot of roleplay to be had before and after a social check. Fluff out the social check if you want, or don't, because it's really not as vital to the whole experience as you're making it out to be. But whichever method you insist on, let the fucking character use the stats written on his sheet when it actually makes a difference, don't force the player to match their character's stats just because you feel like it.

You keep droning on and on about how someone isn't a true roleplayer just because they don't negotiate for their fucking characters, and you keep assuming that just because they don't act out a specific part word for word, they never roleplay, ever. That's an insane conclusion to jump to. Just because a fighter doesn't describe how exactly he swings his sword every attack he makes doesn't mean that he never roleplays.

The autism is fucking palpable in here.

>>50982004
>A sentence is the bare minimum you can give me, the least amount of effort required, yet this is still too much to ask for in a role-playing game.
I am playing a religious character as a non-religious person. I have fair charisma, and am trying to convince an NPC to assist me because of religious reasons.
I'm not well able to try and tell you WHAT i'm saying, because fuck if i know WHY people are willing to do charitable work for religion, because i don't. My character should 100% know though, so WHY should i be forced to tell you HOW i want to do something, rather than WHAT i'm trying to do?

>>50972565
>I ROLL TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE! XD

>W-what do you mean I can't do that? MY CHARACTER HAS A HIGH INT!

>>50982224
If it's a puzzle that being intelligent should help with, like, say, straight math, then i should get SOME benefit from having an INT score. If you don't want to let a roll decide the outcome entirely, another option would be to simplify the problem for the int character, to stand in for them understanding it better.

>>50982179
I don't want to play pretend in my game of pretend!

>>50982271
Convince me, right now, of your argument, as you haven't yet. You should be able to, its a social hobby.

>>50982274
I, was, using, hyperbole, to, mock, anon, for, thinking, he, could, just, use, dice, rolls, instead, of, actual, creativity.

>>50982250
But by the same coin, how do you simplify a social interaction for an autist playing a high CHA character? Assuming D&D or one of its ilk, the game is broken down into 3 pillars of play: social interaction, exploration and combat. Allowing a player to simply bypass the roleplaying portion with a roll of a die because he wanted to play the party face kind of kills the fun for everyone else. This is why social skill checks were a mistake. If the DM wants to make the NPCs open up a little more to the character with a high charisma, he can just roleplay that benefit. There's no need to bring dice into it at all.

>>50982307
I'm finding a disconnect in your argument, it seems you think that
>rolling for social interaction is bad
yet
>rolling for combat is ok
despite being supposedly equal in being 1/3 of play pillars. Roleplaying out exploration is even more confusing, unlike with combat/damage, and social DCs, a fair bit of exploration involves simply being in a specific place and doing something.

Or are you of the opinion that its a scale, role to roll, in which social -> exploration -> combat is the optimal way to handle things?

If so, i can understand, if not entirely agree, with it.

>>50982353
Rolling for combat is only the same as rolling for social interaction if a player literally tries to roll a single D20 to win an encounter then adds his strength bonus or something. The rules are just completely different. If you're playing a game that has very in depth rules regarding social interaction, then its fine to bring in dice, but the rules for it in D&D are so laughable that bringing social skills into the mix literally means rolling to replace roleplaying.

>>50982385
THIS

>>50982385
>The rules are just completely different.
The rules, quite literally, are NOT different, whether or not you choose to use them.

File: Jedi Mind Trick.jpg (186KB, 1560x781px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1560x781px

>>50972565
>I want NPC interaction to work exactly like a Jedi Mind trick.
t. Crustaceous autist

Roleplaying games are not for you.

>>50982179
>fuck if i know WHY people are willing to do charitable work for religion
You're being disingenuous. You know full well why people are willing to do charitable work for religion; you just don't buy into it. If you're not willing to get at least somewhat into the mindset of a religious character to the point of being able to shit out a basic argument—not even the exact wording of one; just an outline—for why your character's deity or deities of choice would be in favor of what your character is doing, why are you even playing a religious character?

>>50982353
Rolling INSTEAD OF social interaction is bad.

In combay situations, you only get to roll to hit when you specify what and how your character attacks.
In social situations, you only get to roll for a favorable interaction if you specify what your character does and says.

>>50982443
Its a rare DM that insists on a HOW your character attacks beyond with what weapon, which would be the same as saying "by talking".

>>50982430
>You know full well why people are willing to do charitable work for religion
If i had to guess, it would be personal self-satisfaction under the guise of "doing good", but i have exactly no clue how i could possibly convince someone to do so if they weren't already thus inclined.

If i can say
>I want to try and use my religious background to convince X of Y because my deity is related to it.
Then I personally am fine with that, but going by some posts in this thread, thats not enough because i don't have a real argument, just a methodology.

>>50982464
"By talking" is a particularly weak specification. I wouldn't compare it to specifying the weapon and, if applicable, combat mode of any given attack.

>>50982478
Can we not go down this edgy road?

We've all been 16. Calm your tits.

>>50982508
I mean, its different than writing a letter, interpretive dance, or pelvic thrusting.

If you want to get down to it, specifying weapon, which includes a damage type/die rolls applicable, is the same level of information as specifying language, and which social skill you want to use.

If you want me to just say
>i stab it with my sword
and that's fine then
>i try and calm them down in common
is already as, or more, informative and should be fine.
If you want
>i parry one of his blows with my buckler, quickly get inside his guard, and make my strike
i also should expect to need more from social skills.

>>50982530
I was responding to someone saying i should know why people do something i don't do, i was only trying to point out that my understanding is vague at best.

>>50974027

So you're saying that he failed his Diplomacy roll?

>>50982544
It's very sparse on information. Unless your character is in foreign territory and different languages have already become a specific issue, I would assume your character is using a shared language.

Besides, combat tends to involve more than declaring you attack something and rolling. You tend to roll for some sort of turn sequence. Drawing or readying a weapon generally takes up some part of your action economy. Some weapons need to be reloaded, which also dips into your available actions. Some games have specific stances and modes of combat, which is all fine.

Why, then, should social interactions just involve a declaraction of what you want out of an NPC and a single die roll?

RPGs aren't fight club. I should hope we agree that we shouldn't turn game night into a knife fight.

But talking to each other and emoting are the one thing we can actually put into practice. Giving that up just turns the DM into a glorified referencing machine.

If you don't want to talk to your DM or players, don't. Stay at home. Roll dice and reference your tables and books. Yay, you win the thing.

>>50982544
>i parry one of his blows with my buckler, quickly get inside his guard, and make my strike
You've kind of missed the point, there. It's more descriptive, but actually conveys less information than >i stab him with my sword, because not only have you still left out where your "strike" is meant to offend, you've also left out the "stab" part. The point is so that the DM can adjudicate the viability and the effects of an attempt at something.

Back to the religious character thing: you could ask probing questions (or just ask the DM for behavioral cues) to gauge the NPC's religious outlook, and specify, for example, that you want to guilt them by putting them mentally under the eyes of the deity, or put social pressure on them through emphasizing your religious office, or simply get them swept up in religious fervor, etc.

Plenty of tools in your toolbox.

>>50982646
Sure, combat requires set up, but so does most meaningful attempts at social skills.
Sure, you can try and convince a hobo, but you can also typically just shoot a bird if you want to.
If you want to convince a king of something, its going to be an involved process, rolls or not. You had to get there, physically, you have to be in a position to try and speak with someone at that level, you need to get through guards, into a castle, all of which either need rolls or roles.
You don't any more say
>i diplomacy the king
while in the middle of a field than say
>i stab the king
while in the same field, it just doesn't work that way. The final decider being based on your characters skills, and thus rolling, is what makes charisma skills relevant at all, just as the final decider in combat are combat "skills" and stats.

>>50982673
And yet in 5e, the system i'm playing in and thus best reference, called strikes don't exist, and every weapon does one type of damage. Saying where you aim, and how you swing, are entirely irrelevant mechanically, just as, by pure mechanics, my specific argument to achieve a conversational goal is irrelevant.

The thing is, i actually ENJOY getting into character, and do a rough 50/50 of descriptive and personal speech RPing, but my games are never hindered when a fellow player can't manage to do it

>>50982696
Have you tried not playing D&D?

>>50982761
>Have you tried not playing D&D?
I have no need, as i enjoy it, and take no issue with the supposed problems posed by the thread.

>>50972565
>make a martial character
>have to decide exactly what I'm attacking and with what weapon for a chance at a roll

>make a caster character
>have to decide which spell to use and when for a chance to affect them

>>50982787
>make a martial character
>need HEMA training

>make a caster character
>need to know setting specific spell theory

>>50972565
Charisma was only a stat to prevent people from bringing 500 hirelings into the dungeon.

>>50982966
You can still take 500 hirelings into the dungeon. Charisma only sets a cap on the number of henchmen. That said, a low Charisma will negatively affect their loyalty rating, making them more likely to run away at the first batch of skellymen.

>>50982836
But you don't. All you need to know is what and how.

Same with using diplomacy. You don't need to come up with an impassioned speech to rile the masses, you only need to give the basic bullet-points of the speech. Or negotiating a purchase of some kind, where all you need to do is imply that the item you're buying isn't worth as much as the seller says it is.

It is not a binary choice between
>Writing a long, impassioned speech and acting it out
Vs.
>"Uh.... I'm gonna roll diplomacy"

It's a sliding scale, and ideally it's somewhere in the middle.

>"Uh... I'm going to try and make a speech about the evil king and how he's making life worse for the plebs. I'll focus on trying to convince them that if they rise up, they can make a happy new civilization."

>>50982999
>All you need to know is what and how.
But you DON'T know how, unless you have training.

>>50983028
Which the character has by having purchased/rolled for/leveled for the particular skills or feats or whatever.

>>50983034
Oh good, then your character also knows the best ways to make an argument to achieve a goal if trained for it, good talk.

>>50983034
He's talking about the player needing to have undergone training to explain how their character does something.

>>50983028
Which is untrue. You don't need to take a public speaking course to know enough to describe rallying a crowd, just like how you don't need to physically practice HEMA to know enough to describe half-swording against an armored foe or how you don't need to enlist and go through basic and AIT to know enough to describe pieing a corner.

>>50983040
Yeah... That's kind of my point.

But you still need to know what goal you're going for. You can't just 'roll diplomacy' any more than you can 'roll attack'. You still need to decide if you're using your crossbow, your sword, if you're making a called shot... etc. Diplomacy is the same way, except instead of deciding between weapons you're deciding between arguments.

For example, you have decided to rebel against the king, and steal his kingdom away from him.

But how do you do that?

>declare that you (Or a party member) is a brilliant leader with genius-level intellect and a Grand Plan to save the kingdom from a threat (that doesn't actually exist) that the King mistakenly and stupidly doesn't think is real.
>bring up the basic simple problems that any kind of country gets and use that as 'proof' that the king is evil, and that he's hurting his country for personal gain.
>outright falsify a claim to the throne, that the king's ancestors weren't the true heir- instead YOUR grandfather was the rightful heir.

That's three completely separate ways of doing things. But this isn't a situation where you can just have 'DIPLOMACY SKILL: YES' decide for you.

Take, for example, the simple combat choice between using a crossbow and sword. One deals more damage, and is thus more effective- the sword- but puts you at personal risk by putting you in melee range. You can't just 'roll attack' and have the GM decide that your attack skill is enough to factor everything in and decide that the sword is a better option.

Diplomacy is kind of like that. Except in this situation, declaring yourself the true heir to the throne might endear you more to the nobility. While promising to have a Grand Plan might not work out in the long run, as you fail to actually. Finally, while the 'king being evil' plan would endear you more to the plebs, but less to the nobility or 'lawful' type characters. They're subtle differences, but they're there, and none is the 'best'.

>>50974945
What did the jocks ever do to you?

>>50983153
>while promising to have a grand plan might be a lot easier, it might not work out in the long run after you fail to actually do what you promised.

Corrections. Stupid character-limits.