>So, I just roll the dice to see if my character can lift

Yep. it's a stupid double standard that continues to be perpetuated for no good reason.

>>51645661
>I don't know how to play games
>Dude just roll a dice and I'll tell you a story instead

>>51645716
>You have to be Einstein to play high int character

>>51645661
I know, right? Martials have it easy these days. Spoiled I tell you. Probably already forgot the times when they had to do fight enemies with sword and board while the wizard blasted whole armies with eldritch power.

Fucking jocks, all they're worth is being muscleservants for when the superior class doesn't want to waste spell slots.

>>51645716
>here's how the game works
>you tell me the first half of the story and we roll dice
>then I tell the second half with your ideas and base it on the dicerolls

>>51645695
>>51645661
The reason is that if both your physical and your mental/social actions are determined by your character sheet rather than you as a player, you don't need to be there anymore. You as a player are contributing nothing. You can just leave. If you'd actually like to be present at the table and roleplay, you need to at least pretend to think and speak for your character or I'm throwing you out and finding a better use for your empty seat.

>>51645716

>intricate rules nazis are preferable to people having fun and making up stories

Hmm.

>>51645716
>no, you can't roll dice, I'm telling no story, everybody go home

>>51646134
What if the standard of mental=player, physical=character were reversed?

>do 20 pushups to attack

If I was a charismatic seducer in real life I wouldn't be playing these fucking games.

File: get out.png (35KB, 353x234px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 353x234px

>>51645661
>the game is dice and nothing else

>>51646164
But the DM decides whom you attack and why? Eh, I guess it might be a weird incentive to work out. When you're done you find out who you were playing and whether he beat someone else's guy.

>>51646134
>We've tried everything

>>51646134

Who said anything about actions being determined by your character sheet?

The actions you take come from you as a player. The sheet merely governs success or failure.

>>51646179
Crossfit in exchange for people telling you stories. Huh.

>>51646191
OP's greentext was about a player asking the DM to determine his player's actions for him based on the high Intelligence score on his character sheet. At that point the sheet is doing everything and the player is doing nothing.

>>51646164
"Wow look at the muscles on that guy, I bet he has a level 20 D&D character!"

>i hit him with my sword
>roll the dice

>i trick him into letting us through
>no you cant do that you fucking autist REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

People can't read minds. Idea rolls exist for a reason.

>>51646221

Nope. The players action is 'solve the problem through intelligence'.

The players sheet has a high intelligence score, so they have a reasonable chance of the action being successful.

>>51645661
If we're talking "I roll to see if my wizard can figure out the complex formula in the alchemist's journal" then fine, that's perfectly within reason for a Int check. If we're talking "I roll to see if my wizard can figure out what the BBEG's master plan is from the clues we've gathered thus far" then go fuck yourself. Your character has his own stats and abilities but it's still you playing them and you gotta use your head. Otherwise why even play if you're just going to let the dice do everything?

>>51646259
I mean, where's the line, though? I might say "My character completes the quest using intelligence."

>>51646298

The line is 'is the result of the roll interesting/does it drive the story forward?'

The party sitting around with their thumbs in their asses while the GM waits for them to figure out their clever puzzle is boring and shitty. Give them a chance to figure it out, then allow some rolls to get past it with potential minor downsides to keep the game moving. Killing the pace so you can feel smug and self-satisfied at befuddling your players just makes you a shitter.

File: 1403466150478.jpg (31KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x360px

>He isn't a wizard in real life

>>51646134

It's bullshit, anon. Because at the table you DO use high INT or WIS: for example, to check out clues in a room where someone was mureded.
Or high CAR to persuade someone.

>>51646270
So do you apply the same standards to combat?

>>51646270
>Your character has his own stats and abilities
>but it's still you playing them
You don't use your own stats to determine what your character can or can't do. That's not how it works, you dumb grognard.

>>51646313
I agree with you for the most part, but I feel "solve the problem with intelligence" is crossing the line. Describe what your character is doing like "I think through all of the information once again in an attempt to have an epiphany." Then, instead of just telling them they got across, drop a hint on how they're supposed to do it.

>>51646407
This. Also if the players have been at it for a long time and are stuck the DM should throw them some bone in the interest of keeping the game moving/fun. "Guess what I'm thinking" is the worst way to GM

>>51646451
>"Guess what I'm thinking" is the worst way to GM

But then how will the players appreciate my intricate, completely original story?

>>51646259
If actions that vague are acceptable player input, then once again, you don't need a player there. You can just assume that all the characters are trying to solve whatever problem is at hand using their best stats.

>>51646451
A problem with only one possible solution is bad adventure design in the first place. Nobody wants a tabletop version of those old point-and-click or guess-the-verb adventure games.

>>51646451
>>51646407
I have, and know GMs who also have players roll relevant mental attributes for a hint to the situation if they are truly stuck, or historical rolls for tales of others who were in a similar position.
Simple, doesn't solve shit for players but reminds them they're characters know shit.

>>51646578
Sure, but if the players can't think of any solution that works, let them make an Idea roll. It may seem like a simple problem to the GM because he has all the information, but perhaps the players forgot the "Blanket of Woven Dildoes" they picked up last session also levitates. Or maybe they just forgot to just check for a bridge somewhere. But give them a clue one way or another instead of holding the game up.

>>51646526
And what happens when someone says "I roll my maxed ranks in Tactical Knowledge to win the battle"?

>>51646134
It's not "Hey GM solve it for me", you mong.

It's "Hey, GM, could you give me a clue how to defeat this big scary thing". There is still player input, just with limited cooperation with GM.

Has anyone considered striking a middle-ground where a DM just gives the high INT/WIS character hints and information the character should know to lead the player along? I don't know what game OP is playing, but page 178 of the D&E 5E PHB suggests a character be able to make a Wisdom check to "get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow."

File: Bard King.jpg (38KB, 216x250px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 216x250px

>>51645661
Ok, no more puzzles. The Wizard with +8 Int just rolls to solve all of them.

Also the Druid can roll Wis to see if he can predict where the plot is going, also know who the secret BBEG is, and who has plot armor.

>>51646694
"Win the battle" assumes a prolonged interaction with multiple rolls.

"Lift the gate" is a singular feat of strength.

The second is okay to roll. The first is okay to roll, but instead of insta-win it gives your character important clues or lets you aid allies or give them tactical advantage.

So basically TACTICAL GENIUS type of player would be able to nonmagically buff his teammates, giving them advantages/bonuses on rolls and penalties to enemy.

>>51646720
>no more puzzles
Good. Or rather, "no more puzzles you have to figure out out of character" is good. As for your ridiculous second statement, yeah, roll if you insist, but the DC is far beyond what you could ever hope to have.

>>51646705
This.

This is the best course of action.

But nobody will listen to you because shitposting, being contrarian and assuming extreme positions is more fun.

>>51646720
Well
In the end
whats the issue with this?

>>51645695
The reason is that the player contributing more than rolling dice is the difference between a game worth remembering or not. Save the charisma rolls for of screen stuff or when something said could have good or bad consequences, but actually talking things though is what makes it a role playing game

>>51646079
>it is great when a potato plays the Einstein character
>it is great when someone who hasn't even seen a medical drama and just came out of a cave plays the group doctor
>it is great when the empty chair plays Face for our runners
>it is great when the CoD kid takes the leadership trait and thinks it makes him bullet proof
You picked the wrong slope of the bell-curve, friendo.

File: Monkey.jpg (15KB, 380x314px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 380x314px

This is a problem that I've been toying around, trying to find a solution to on my off hours.

The main core of the problem is that there's a clear divide between personal and physical stats, and how it affects the game between player and character. A player cannot directly manifest his physical strength or dexterity on the game world itself. He might be able to cheat outside of the game by threatening the GM, but other than that, his physical stats exist ONLY inside of the world of the game and determines how he physically interacts with it.

The problem with the personal stats is that they are in fact directly influenced by the mental facilities of the player in question. A jock could roll an 18 in Int, Wis, and Cha, but his character will wind up sounding like a "bro" douchebag dumbass who can't solve the simplest problem. Likewise, you could have some math nerd who plays too much stratego roll up a 3 in all personal stats, but he's still going to solve whatever riddle you throw at him. If his social engineering or acting is good enough, he might pretend that he doesn't know, but it's hard to convey this through the medium of a game played by basement dwelling neckbeards.

Solution:
Change Int, Wis, and Cha into Magic, Spirit, Magnetism.
Magic is how affluent you are with magical forces.
Spirit is how affluent you are with spiritual forces.
Magnetism affects how NPCs initially react to you, something that is beyond your real control. An NPC might look at you and decide you're a bad person if your magnetism is too low. Someone with high magnetism might be able to get a crowd to quiet down quickly to listen to what he says. Someone with low magnetism might say something, but his posture and outward appearance/look might change the perception of how the NPC takes it.

This opens up avenues for gameplay that are based on player actions as opposed to "roll it" while creating a very clear divide on which stat influences what in the space of the game world.

>>51646778
>the DC is far beyond what you could ever hope to have
I remember a post about characters with absurdly high WIS, in the 40s or 50s. Their intuition was beyond anything any mere mortal could ever hope to achieve, and, conceivably, they would be able to predict the course of events well into the future. The GM simulated this by allowing them to retroactively change their actions subject to a roll with an absurdly high DC ("I already knew he was going to pretend to die and even make a mock funeral complete with his apparently dead body and a mock coffin with an in-built teleport, so I have already located the coffinmaker he contracted and slipped in an antimagic field generator so he will suffocate for real).

>>51646117
>Completely misses the point

>>51646720
You present this like it's an inherently ridiculous idea, but what's wrong with this? If the high-INT Wizard is dealing with an in-game, in-universe logic puzzle, then he most certainly should be able to call on his logical prowess to overcome it if the Wizard's player can't.

And while you presented the second one as some ridiculous "slippery slope," there's actually nothing wrong the Druid rolling their WIS for insight into people's motives and goals, either. The Druid is wise as a fact of the game world, and should definitely be able to call upon this for acts of in-world wisdom. This should definitely include being able to identify hidden elements of the villain's plot if the roll is high enough. Sorry if that spoils your special twist, but the Druid is probably more clever and perceptive than you OR the player. So is your villain, for that matter, which is why the DC should probably be set accordingly.

Ultimately the only reason why you present these things as inherently ridiculous is because you've made fallacious assumptions about how a game is "supposed" to work. Ideally, a high INT character should bypass your puzzles and a high WIS character should see through your NPCs plots.

>>51646221
You're right, the player should have to go lift a heavy gate too

>>51646694
>assuming that tactical knowledge always wins

If being a GM teaches you anything, it's that someone can foil your best-laid plans entirely by accident, and they probably will. A roll like that would tell you what maneuvers are common for that situation, but it won't help you if your opponent happens to do the wrong thing or if you're simply outmatched.

>>51646164
>push-ups to attack
>not playing whack-a-mole for tohit
>not hitting one of those strength testers to determine damage

>>51646886
Wow who would have thought that people want to pretend to be what they aren't in real life. Guess that's why everyone plays fat autistic neckbeards right?

>>51646669
Reminding players of facts their characters would definitely know might be called for if you're forgiving of absentminded players. But never, ever call for rolling dice as the only way to get them out of a jam. If something MUST happen, for whatever reason (and this is a mark of bad adventure design, but it does happen,) do not leave it up to the dice! Just have it happen. If it's up to the dice, there should be a way forward no matter what the dice end up rolling. Even if it means a tpk, that's a way forward for the plot, in a sense. If there's a chance the players won't come up with a certain idea, let there be negative consequences that aren't just "they remain stuck in a dead end."

>>51646337
>CAR

This made me laugh more than it should have.

>>51647111

>You present this like it's an inherently ridiculous idea, but what's wrong with this? If the high-INT Wizard is dealing with an in-game, in-universe logic puzzle, then he most certainly should be able to call on his logical prowess to overcome it if the Wizard's player can't.

It's kinda funny that the most iconic puzzle I can think of in books is NOT one I could reasonably expect players to figure out themselves if left at it.

Speak Friend and Enter.

It's relying on players somehow knowing the Elven word for friend and thinking that it's the correct phrase to get into DWARVEN mines. While it makes sense retroactively, I don't know how many players would get it in a reasonable timeframe.

>>51645661
I just allow them to make appropriate mental/social checks and give them tidbits of advice or hints based on the result.

Often I will make these checks for them with concealed rolls.

>>51646907
This is stupid.

You are stupid.

>>51647348
Explain.

>>51647111
>And while you presented the second one as some ridiculous "slippery slope," there's actually nothing wrong the Druid rolling their WIS for insight into people's motives and goals, either. The Druid is wise as a fact of the game world, and should definitely be able to call upon this for acts of in-world wisdom. This should definitely include being able to identify hidden elements of the villain's plot if the roll is high enough. Sorry if that spoils your special twist, but the Druid is probably more clever and perceptive than you OR the player. So is your villain, for that matter, which is why the DC should probably be set accordingly.
One REALLY important thing when DMing is to remember that insight and intuition can also be wrong. I don't mean to suggest "fuck you you passed the check but here's a lie" because that's bullcrap. But if a player is trying to intuit something, they shouldn't know the roll and they shouldn't know if they passed or failed. And if they fail, they don't get "you fail to be intuitive", they should be getting "you're starting to think the barkeep is lying about where the invisible golem lies in ambush" instead of a more accurate "you're starting to think the barkeep is lying about there being an invisible golem". Or a real botch could lead to telling the player something even more wrong.

File: 12512512515.jpg (155KB, 400x505px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 400x505px

>>51645661
>>51646079
>>Well, I'm out of ideas. Hey GM, can I roll to see if my wizard can figure something out?

Intelligence =/= Creativity

>>51647400
Someone put this post in a fucking frame.

>>51645661
This is literally what the knowledge skill is for.
>Hey DM I'm confused. What do I know about chasms?
>DM: Roll Knowledge(Large Holes)
>25!
>DM: You are aware that large holes can be crossed by creating a bridge.
>Well we do have these large planks of wood around...

>>51647194
>Letting them RP as their IRL weakness is the same as denying them any agency

Nice reductio ad absurdum. Roll to see how hard you cry.

>>51647400
/thread

>>51646130
Well yeah, the players come up with an idea of how to do something, the GM tells them how it goes. The GM can't tell them what they do and how they do it. Then you're just reading a really weird choose your own adventure book.

>>51647272
Well you would listen to someone with a nice car wouldn't you?

File: comic_lotr15.jpg (226KB, 600x1527px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 600x1527px

>>51647322
Posting for relevance

>>51646340
I meant you're still the agent of their actions. You can play a hyper-atractive, smooth talking, bluff master of a bard but I'm still gonna need the PLAYER to tell me what he bluffs with.

It doesn't have to be some Fletch-tier shit, just give me something decent and then roll to see how well it works. It's more fun than "I bluff him into thinking I'm captain of the guard......22". ROLEplay it a bit and I'll cut you plenty of slack for not actually being very good at bluffing.

Also, Grognard? First time I've ever been called that

>>51647519
>"I bluff him into thinking I'm captain of the guard"
>the player then rolls and sees if it works
This is good enough. You can add more detail if you want, but you don't have to.

One of the big problems here is the action itself. Combat is integrated into the rules itself, as is checks related to it.

Meanwhile, social and mental problems often have little to no mechanical interaction, and are based almost entirely around player interaction.

i don't know if there's a social solution to this, but as far as puzzles and mental tests are involved, the solution is to make the puzzle exist as an actual encounter, with rules and interaction. That way, a character can exert their stats on a problem without reducing it to a single die roll, and if the system is robust enough, leave room for clever strategies and choices.

>>51647363
INT, WIS, and CHA determine more on your character sheet than what you've boiled them down to. Depending on edition you now have things like Magic determining skills, Spiritual affluence granting AC, and Sorcerers throwing fireballs because they give off a good first impression.

The stats are meant to be vague approximations of mental acuities because they determine a lot of different effects.

>>51647446
I just figured people would want to escape from reality in a fantasy game, silly me

>>51647566
Escaping from reality isn't pretending your greatest weakness is now your greatest strength, as a matter of fact you would want to avoid your greatest weakness at all costs so as not to spoil your immersion. You aren't silly, just inexperienced with actual groups and intellectually dishonest in your rhetoric.

It's ok.

If you say you're against metagaming and then force your players to use their own skills to solve ingame problems, you're a hypocrite.

>>51647544
That's only a modern interpretation of them though, and one that could more easily be circumnavigated through any dozen of other options that other systems used that aren't married to the idea of an "Intelligence" stat.

You're right that this won't work in certain editions if you literally just transform and stick it in as I've written it, however, the core function of the system, as it is, is flawed. Building off of a flawed system in and of itself will draw in more flaws.

I personally believe that skill systems in and of themselves are flawed as well, but if you wanted to, say, use this system in 5e and wanted to keep the skill system in place, then you could instead tie it mechanically to the background and personality system (traits, flaws, ideals, and personality) mechanically. You can move the personality skills into straight up proficiency like a tool kit. You can also ad-hoc in a semi-skill system by giving all players a number of points to pump into a skill every so often and divorce stats from them (but 5e players are afraid of anything that sounds too much like 3rd, so that will probably not fly).

Honestly, these solutions probably won't work perfectly, but this is my bias against skill systems in general, as I honestly play games without them. But I think that there could be a solution if you really wanted to force it.

My main point is though that using INT, WIS, and CHA by themselves as-is is quite flawed to begin with.

If you're a DM and you make some sort of arbitrary gate that no one can get past unless they use one single convoluted result and just say "nope nope nope" every time the players try something that's not the one and only solution then you might just be a shitty DM that plays too many console games.

>>51646134
This is a fantastic way to clearly express the reasoning that vaguely forms each time this question comes up.

>>51647681
So you're not actually looking to propose a viable alternative you're just trying to make it into a different game.

Got it, opinion discarded.

>>51648011
>Implying research into different systems cannot help out with developing current systems better.

You're right. I'm not looking into making a viable alternative for YOUR game, I'm looking for a viable alternative to MY game, but if you want to stick your fingers into your ears and ignore the problems with your sinking ship, by all means.

>>51647681
So you start with a germane suggestion (have mental stats purely represent things that no player can do at the table, like magic, leaving mundane intelligence and social skills to be roleplayed by the player with no numbers behind them) and then go on to suggest a large number of clunky changes completely unrelated to your original point. You defend all this by vaguely accusing skill systems of being "flawed" without going into detail, with all the smugness of someone who wants to tell you how he doesn't own a TV.

Stop now before you dig yourself any deeper.

>>51647536
I can ask him how he explains *something unusual for guard captain*

>>51648157
>and then go on to suggest a large number of clunky changes completely unrelated to your original point.
You're right, but that was because I was defending myself from another anon calling me stupid because he couldn't shoehorn it into a system that marries stats and skill systems together that makes it difficult to divorce without chunkiness. One that I freely admit that I have little interest in developing for.

The original point was that the original stat system is flawed because it uses two sets of stats that interact with the game in completely separate ways and influence player decisions in the real world.

>You defend all this by vaguely accusing skill systems of being "flawed" without going into detail
Because going into why the skill system is flawed is not pertinent information to the thread, and is a frequent occurring discussion amongst the RPG community. Had I expounded on the position, you would have accused me of rambling, or even worse, not read the essay I would have typed up into the browser going over things that many of us know.

If you want details, sure, I'll explain them, but I'm not going to volunteer pointless information to it without warrant.

>with all the smugness
If you think anything I've said so far is smug, you either have too much emotional investment in what you're playing, or you're stupid.

>Stop now before you dig yourself any deeper.
How about think for once in your life?

>>51647536
Dude, just give me a sentence or two.

"Don't you know who I am? I'm Captain Danson you fool!"

It's not asking much.

>>51647618
But then basically any high strength character is out the window 90%of the time since this hobby is mostly made up of flabby weebs

>>51647175
Severely underrated post.

>>51646886
>It's bad when an urban kid that's never had an opportunity to leave the city roleplays a nature-loving druid.
>It's bad when a skinny kid with health issues roleplays as a half-orc barbarian.
>It's bad when a chubby, clumsy lad that's overfed by his parents roleplays as an elven rogue.

Just accept that people are going to be interested in exploring things that they are not and taking the opportunity to try and be something other than themselves and with skills that they don't lack while they're delving in fantasy.
If you're that offended when someone's not able to properly imitate charisma when roleplaying as the party face or doesn't correctly describe their fighting technique when roleplaying as a fighter, then either cool down your autism and suspend your disbelief a little or find a hobby that you won't have to share with people that you find to be offensive.

>>51648296
Your beef with the idea of skill systems is already pointless information. It's not relevant to what we're talking about. That other anon is simply wrong; you don't need to weaken your original argument and bring up lots of irrelevant information to try to gainsay him. It makes it look like you're looking for an excuse to bring up your pet grievances with D&D as though they made you an original thinker somehow.

>>51647536

That's the kind of people who I don't think should even consider roleplaying.

File: 1486081150926.gif (3MB, 480x204px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x204px

>>51648639
>being this triggered
>all that phone-posting word salad

>>51648890
Cool buzzwords.

>>51648816
>Your beef with the idea of skill systems is already pointless information. It's not relevant to what we're talking about.
Incorrect on it's basis. The original call out was because the system I propose did not specifically work with skill systems written as is. I must freely admit that I do not develop for such systems, and the reason for why is immediately relevant to this. And yes, I must acknowledge this fact because there are more systems than 3e, 4e, and 5e out there, many of which do not USE any skill system whatsoever.

>It makes it look like you're looking for an excuse to bring up your pet grievances with D&D as though they made you an original thinker somehow.
Obviously by the concession that many RPG communities openly discuss skill systems and their problems inherent means that I do not think this whatsoever.

Regardless, you're right that I do not have to gainsay him, but why would I sit on something I believe solves a problem that many people are having with a core system that is easily solved, and then not try to convince people of the benefits to divorcing all stats from player skill? That's what the thread is about, isn't it?

And as I said before, I do believe that a solution CAN be found in skill-based systems such as post-WotC D&D, but I admit I am not really qualified to do so because, again, I do not develop for them.

In summary: I presented a solution for a core system which works for a multitude of reasons. It is important to recognize there are problems with it working as-is in skill-based systems, but I am not qualified, nor interested, in making those systems work, which is a caveat emptor for people who are interested in the system.

>>51648890
>no earmarks of phone posting at all
Shitposting just makes you look like a retard.
>>51648639
This, basically. Hell, one of my players is fairly big, but plays exclusively skinny dudes for the exact reason of he wants to play something he won't be, and he knows that is why.

>>51648900
>"urban kid"
You are one to talk about buzzwords...

>>51648973
Would you rather use "city boy"?

>>51648965
>is so engulfed by the smartphone culture he can't tell phone posting anymore
Your player isn't fairly big, he is a fatass. Also, you are siding with a strawman formed of abductio ad absurdum, so don't go pointing the retard finger, retard.

>>51648990
>buzzwords
We know what you meant, but your guilt wont let you say it.

>>51646720
Intelligent wizard should be able to solve the puzzles. Wise druid should be able to predict future. What's the matter with that? I'll say more: on my games, you roll in social situations first, and then you roleplay out the results, not the other way around.

>>51649013
>Your player isn't fairly big, he is a fatass
Actually, no, he's 250 and 6'5".
He's technically obese, but he isn't fat, but thanks for playing.
>We know what you meant
In the real world, anon, there are more than poor blacks and hispanics in major city sprawls that have never seen a mountain or rural area.
You are projecting like a motherfucker.

>>51648973
I'm saying that as someone that grew up in a city. One guy that I roleplayed with had never seen any animal larger than a dog. The most trees he had ever seen was in a park.

It's something I've got personal experience with.

>dude rollplaying haha just throw the bones man we dont need to think haha NAT 20 EPIC REDDIT KARMA INCOMING!

Just tie the noose OP, rollplayers are nothing more than glorified videogaming screen staring troglodytes without any insight into what has made this hobby enjoyable since it's inception. God forbid the GM put some fucking thought into the challenges he expects you to overcome. Why even bother having a GM at all? Might as well just pull your GM's pants down, and fuck him raw since you're already buttfucking everything he's worked on. Just take him to the side and bludgeon him to death and start throwing d20s across the room while pulling the story straight from your ass about how some wacky random thing just happened because you couldn't rub your braincells together to come up with a way across the chasm.

>boohoo hoo i cant figure out the puzzle GM can i roll the dice and expect metaknowledge to rain from the sky to save my dumb ass?

>gets stuck
oh man this sucks, maybe our dm will have mercy and help push this along slightly

>dm gives a slight hint, nudge, etc
wow I'm sure glad we can continue playing

problem solved

If your dm wants to be a hard-ass, that's a different issue entirely.

>>51649049
>akshully
Whatever you say fatass.

>In the real world, [continues to explain that he knows exactly what he meant]
Yeah yeah, we already know what you were talking about when you said it the first time. Save us the tired euphemisms and back-pedalling.

>>51649095
Whoa whoa, calm down Adolf. Nobody called you racist, yet. Your signalling is quite bien-pensant, so to speak.

>>51649150
I'm sorry, what are you even trying to say?

>>51649166
he's busy googling latin terms for logical fallacies give him a second

>>51649166
He's trying to explain how many cocks he can suck in a minute, anon.

>51649098
Hey, pal, nobody will listen to you when you're stabbing everyone with your caustic words.

File: pope.jpg (29KB, 429x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 429x500px

>>51649150
>"Everybody but me is racist and people aren't allowed to play characters that have different traits than them!"
Y tho

>>51649166
Sorry, thought you spoke word-salad judging by the earlier posts of yours.

>>51649185
Nah, there is a great infographic of them around here somewhere. The most basic of them are easily memorized though. Really helps when wading through the intellectually dishonest bullshit rhetoric used by folks like you though.

>>51649186
I'm not OP.

>>51649199
I never said I wasn't racist. Nice strawman though.

>>51649253
You smoke cocks with >51649098, faggot.

>>51649185
>>51649253
Yeah, I guess he didn't need to look up latin terms since "strawman" is in English. Lmfao

>>51647400
The fuck are you on about, of course intelligence is creativity, it's other things as well but creativity is definitely a part of it.

>>51649302
>>51647400
There's a difference between looking at a situation with no clear solution, and being stuck

and

Looking at a puzzle with a single solution, and being unable to figure it out

One of these is far worse than the other assuming the puzzle isn't designed by a drooling idiot

File: newfag.jpg (17KB, 394x283px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 394x283px

>>51649286
>tfw he has to google the latin

>>51645661
Can you describe the situation your group is stuck on? Maybe we can help.

File: 9aeefbc4-b9a7-4776-8036-5efed75a3b8f.gif (2MB, 500x245px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x245px

>>51645661
>Tfw you will never have a nice enough home gym and a /fitg/ group to force your players to lift heavy things and run on treadmills instead of rolling dice.

File: bard spells.png (49KB, 682x467px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 682x467px

>>51645661
This comes down to player preferences, and it's one of those things you should discuss, as a group, before it comes up in game.

Personally I prefer a game where, e.g. the wizard gets to roll an int roll if the group is stuck on a puzzle, but the reward for a success will be a hint, not a complete solution.

Similarly, divination spells should be rewarded with actual, useful information: as opposed to vague passive-agressive bullshit. And players with poor social skills playing characters with good social skills should be cut some slack when they describe how they bluff, persuade or seduce. I don't give fighters a huge attack penalty for describing their attacks poorly either, in my mind that would amount to the same thing.

RPGs are interactive storytelling, and part improv theater, but they are also games with rules and dice (at least some systems) so use the damn rules when they apply.

>>51649810
>but the reward for a success will be a hint, not a complete solution.
That's generally what I do to.
But to be honest, it's not usually a big problem. All the people I've played with are pretty smart, and usually figure out puzzles, or find alternate solutions I didn't think of.

It's pretty great to listen to them discuss the plot above board and steal their ideas, because they're legitimately better then the plot I had originally thought up.

>>51649810
>Personally I prefer a game where, e.g. the wizard gets to roll an int roll if the group is stuck on a puzzle, but the reward for a success will be a hint, not a complete solution.

This, I think, is the best solution. Saying "Well those statues over there look kind of interesting..." and then adding some exposition about them being different colors, on tracks in the ground, etc. is much better than saying "Your wizard deduces that he has to move the statues in a certain pattern to unlock the door."

>>51647491

Apocalypse World has a type of character that can do exactly that

>>51650085
>This, I think, is the best solution.
It's almost as if striking a balance between player inquiry/decision making and dice rolling is a good way to run a game.

File: 1190034713299.jpg (10KB, 170x227px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 170x227px

>>51645661
>came to /tg/ with this story expecting sympathy

File: thewindow_art.png (50KB, 432x567px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 432x567px

ITT; Game players arguing over whether game are allowed to be games and if they should be improvised dramas instead.

This kind of weird self-shaming where pretentious folk want to deny that their hobby is a board game is the reason why tabletop games are failing to stay relevant.

>>51650241
Everybody agrees with him save for a few screeching autists.

>>51650262
>a bunch of retarded newfags agree with the retarded newfag
wow

>>51647618
>you would want to avoid your greatest weakness at all costs so as not to spoil your immersion
>spoil your immersion
>immersion

end your existance post-haste

>>51650260
>that picture
Cringey as fuck.
I feel like I'm reading that shit whenever someone pushes a narrativist system.
There's only so far I can get from simulationist before I feel like I'm playing cops and robbers.

>>51650260
I honestly want to set whoever wrote that on fire.

>>51647194
>fat autistic neckbeards
I know what I'm rolling up for my next character.

File: spot checks.png (19KB, 652x228px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 652x228px

>>51649978
>It's pretty great to listen to them discuss the plot above board and steal their ideas, because they're legitimately better then the plot I had originally thought up.

This is a top notch GMing tip.

>>51650193
Snark aside, this thread is proof that a lot of players need it spelled out. Unless they're all trolling.

>>51650404
Agreed. Murder-mystery dinner stuff can be fun, but pretending it's high art on par with "real literature" is dumb.

>>51650434
>This is a top notch GMing tip.
It's pretty great.

One of my favorite parts of GMing. On par with players going out of their way to avoid meta-gaming, or "cleverly avoiding" traps/dungeons/plots I hadn't gotten around to building content for.

>>51647194
>everyone plays fat autistic neckbeards
I now imagine a group of trust fund chads roleplaying a party of neckbeard basement dwellers. The encounters can be trying to win a videogame tournament or something.

File: trapmaster.jpg (153KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 760x596px

>>51650532
Trying games like Houses of the Blooded made me a lot more open to these kinds of tricks. Sure, in a normal game the players expect the GM to have a story to tell (or maybe a sandbox), but there's nothing wrong with letting you're players fill in the details, either overtly or subtly.

>>51650762
You fool, this can only lead to pain.

>>51646720
>see if my wizard can figure something out
>The Wizard with +8 Int just rolls to solve all of them

These are two identical statements.

If you need a hint, it's the difference between "something" and "everything".

>>51648445
Seconded

>>51650866
Naw. If it's bad they can always retreat to real life and fuck thier model girlfriends.

>>51645661
Would it be a problem if the player character is an idiot, but the player is smart? If the player regularly comes up with a smart solution to a problem, would that be considered poor roleplaying because his character never would be able to come up with it?

>>51651311
Why would you discourage creativity and good roleplay?

>>51651352
It's not good roleplay to come up with clever solutions if your role is to be a fool.

>crack down on metagaming when players use it for their benefit
>leave metagaming as the only solution in scenarios where relying on their skills as real people would be a detriment to the players
People like these are control freaks and nothing more. Just don't play with them and you will be alright.

so I think I pissed my DM off

>playing sorcerer (high dex/cha)
>encounter corrupt merchant enslaving local town
>has two extremely powerful body guards
>demonstrated by the fact that they are both kill an adult black dragon
>forced into a meeting with them
>merchant wants us to do evil errands, in exchange for good pay
>otherwise, get lost
>twin polymorph on beavis and butthead, turning them both into crabs
>grab them both
>creation an adamantine cube 1 ft by 1ft with both crabs inside it
>end concentration
>hear a sudden and loud glorp
>adamantine cube breaks
>blob of meat and metal are all that remains
>resolve corrupt merchant storyline

>>51651449
I doubt that would completely resolve it, he probably has enough contacts to make your characters lives miserable. Unless your DM is a dummy and didn't think about something like that happening.

>>51651449
I thought when something like this happened they just take force damage and are shunted to the next space?

>>51651372
This. If you're a smart guy trying to play a fool, you ought not come up with the answers, even if you know them.

Try and lead the other players to the right answer, in character.

>>51651422
Doesn't sound like a control freak, just a bad GM.

>>51646338

Depending on your system, similar standards might well apply to combat. For example, in GURPS you might need to figure out what targets need to be dealt with, position your character to put enemies at the right range and not expose your weak points, decide which manoeuvre you want to take, which weapon or whatever you are using, which hit location you are aiming for, whether you are making a deceptive or telegraphic attack, switch to different grips for different situations, try to strike at gaps in armour, use extra effort... it's a fuck-load more than just 'roll to see if you win'.

Although I would absolutely also allow a character with decent Tactics skill or advantages like Common Sense and Combat Reflexes to have a few hints as to what the best tactics might be or give them a meta-game bonus like extra time to think, re-rolls and so on.

Many games (including GURPS) also have pretty explicit rules for solving puzzles and mysteries with in-game traits. In GURPS you can even have traits which allow you to know the right answer to moral questions.

However, old-school D&D generally doesn't seem to be written with that kind of play as standard.

>>51651449
>party at high enough level to have a caster with polymorph
>doing milk runs for mundane mob boss

Sounds like a pretty shit game all round. 8th level 3.PF characters are supposed to be first percentile bad asses.

>>51651527
Same. That's how teleporting into material works too. I think that was just a blunder.

>>51651541
>For example, in GURPS you might need to figure out what targets need to be dealt with, position your character to put enemies at the right range and not expose your weak points, decide which manoeuvre you want to take, which weapon or whatever you are using, which hit location you are aiming for, whether you are making a deceptive or telegraphic attack, switch to different grips for different situations, try to strike at gaps in armour, use extra effort...
None of these are even remotely similar to GMs forcing you to diplomance. You don't have to be good at any of those actions in real life to have your character succeed in doing them.

>>51651597
You're right about that. Fortunately you don't have to have a lot of intelligence to find potential solutions to story problems either.

>>51645661

You can't use your real physical strength to lift an imaginary object, because that's impossible. You can however use your real mind to solve an imaginary problem.

While in principle I wouldn't be hard against rolling INT checks in a few cases, the fact of the matter is that if you give players an inch they'll take a mile. Go down this road and you'll soon have a bunch of lazy, wheezing retards slumped in their chairs, making mental attribute checks for anything that doesn't have an immediate obvious solution.


As for you yourself, OP:
>feels guy
>unrealistic examples heavily weighted to make the rollplayer look like the reasonable one
>shit that never happened
>b8

KYS.

>>51651644
Except when you do, because not all story problems are simple or easy. Meanwhile, all combat problems can be solved by character merit alone.

>>51646338

In most systems combat is actually highly detailed.

What makes me laugh is that rollplayers are the ones with double-standards here. If That Rollplayer has a Half-Orc Barbarian with mental dump stats, he's still going to be playing as tactically as he can in the combat sections: moving to precise spots to get flank bonuses and provide them to allies, avoiding AoO, identifying and attacking the most dangerous enemy, etc. If the DM breaks in with a "Hold on Napoleon, you're character isn't nearly smart enough for that shit. Make a WIS check, and if you fail you're charging the nearest guy headlong" we both know that That Rollplayer is going to be full blast "but muh agency".

Just like rules lawyers, rollplayers only want everything their own way. It's not about any kind of principles, it's about "WAAAA, I WANNA WIN DND!!!".

You can decide that your character sketches out a plan for attacking a fort using his Tactics skill, but you don't literally have to come up with a detailed plan yourself.

You can say your character tricks someone into believing a specific lie, but you don't have to describe HOW you lie specifically, you use your Deceive skill.

You can say your character solves a tense diplomatic situation by proposing a different approach, but you don't have to literally spell out word for word what he just said, you'll roll your Diplomacy skill.

Just like you can say your character will grab his opponent and do a Judo throw, with his Fight skill, without actually knowing anything about martial arts yourself.

You describe your INTENT, what exactly you want to achieve with your skills, and sure, you CAN if you want, FLUFF it out by narrating as many specifics as you want, but you're not at all required to.

Plenty of times the GM or the Players should zoom-out a bit and narrate loosely actions that they're not comfortable or confident enough to describe in detail in-character.

>>51651843
>You can say your character tricks someone into believing a specific lie, but you don't have to describe HOW you lie specifically, you use your Deceive skill.
>You can say your character solves a tense diplomatic situation by proposing a different approach, but you don't have to literally spell out word for word what he just said, you'll roll your Diplomacy skill.
This triggers the autists.

>>51651597

Well, there's a whole genre of roleplaying games where actual fighting skill gives a huge advantage in combat; boffer LARPS.

But even in the tabletop, there's a lot of tactical thinking needed to get the best out of your character's abilities. It might not equate to how good you can actually fight, but you need to have some degree of meta-game skill to be really effective.

Also, I've never played a tabletop game where social challenges and mysteries were entirely dependent on player abilities. Bluffing past someone almost always requires a minimal level of roleplaying followed by a stat roll possibly with a modifier for how well you roleplayed. Mysteries almost always have clues which are obtained by relevant skill rolls. Actual logic puzzles, riddles and the like are an exception, but they are pretty rare in modern games (and those which do feature them often have rules for bypassing them with in-character traits) and generally pretty simple.

>>51651857

I don't give a shit who it triggers, it lets my less-creative or socially unsavvy players play Social and Intellectual types without feeling like they're not using their character to its full potential.

Just like I ask them what they want to achieve with the Hacking test instead of asking specifically what lines of codes they're typing out, I ask them what they're trying to achieve during social combat instead of asking them to narrate every single sentence.

>>51651843
I agree with this. But a lot of people are opposed to resolving it like that.

>>51651449
>>demonstrated by the fact that they are both kill an adult black dragon
If they're that powerful, the merchant will just pay out of pocket for a rez spell and take it out of their paychecks.

That's assuming the retardedness that is DnD

>>51651907
I agree to a point. I need to know the angle they're going to try for most social checks, usually at least a line of dialogue. And sometimes that can totally stump players.

>>51651449
>>grab them both
not
>Player eviscerated by Crab/High level barbarian

Shit DM.

Our GM is like that.

>"what do you say to him?"
>"your argument is not very convincing, take a penalty to your roll"

Well, what the fuck, isn't the sole point of the skill to make arguments that aren't unconvincing?

Needless to say, I don't play anything that's not a fighting-type in his games.

>>51652000

Sure, I agree with that too.

Just like you don't say "I make a hole appear on his face". You say "I shoot him in the face with my gun."

So you don't just say "I make the guard allow us to pass.", you gotta go for something like "I convince him we're very important guest and he shouldn't delay us any longer.".


Anything more specific than that I leave to the player's choice. If he's comfortable and confident enough it can lead to some very entertaining dialogue, but sometimes the player just isn't feeling like it and it can actually harm the overall tone of the game, like a player rolling very high but narrating some really shitty lines that has everyone going "Damn, who the fuck would fall for that?".

>>51652043

Yeah, that shit. You're basically negating the character's skill by doing that. If you just zoom-out and narrate what your character is doing in the third person, without actually spelling out what he's saying, there's less of a chance of it coming out awkward.

Just like I wouldn't ask a player who has obviously no combat training at all to demonstrate the moves his character's pulling off in person.

>>51652043
>isn't the sole point of the skill to make arguments that aren't unconvincing?
The point of the skill is to make arguments.
If your logic is unconvincing you take penalties, just as you would if you were in some disadvantageous situation in combat.

Putting effort into social aspects of the game to get bonuses is no different then putting effort into tactical parts of the game to get bonuses. Taking a second to plan out a better argument is no different than taking a second to look at the map and decide which side is better for a flanking action.

If the player is "dumb" then it'll affect the character both inside and out of combat and a GM should adjust accordingly.

>>51652137

That's not how it works. Situational modifiers should modify your social roll, not your acting skills.

You don't make a player swing a sword to judge how well he should roll on his attack action.

File: 1449022782737.gif (1012KB, 900x927px) Image search: [Google]

1012KB, 900x927px

>>51645661
If you have no imagination you don't deserve to play TTRPGs

>>51652137
"If your logic is unconvincing"
Except, not everyone sees the same things as logical, so I would be risking a penalty if I don't know exactly how the GM thinks and how he's applying it.

As for the tactical parts, those tend to have explicit rules for what gives bonuses to them and what doesn't. If my character is a rogue, he probably knows IC how to get good sneak attacks, and I as a player will probably know how to get off sneak attacks if I did any prep work for my character. Lying ( Or other conversation related skills ) however is heavily dependent on the personalities of the one lying and the one being lied to. If I as a player am bad at lying, but wanted to try playing a Bluff-using Rogue, the GM may decide to just slap penalties onto my bluff.

"If the player is dumb then it'll affect the character"
Chances are pretty much zero that any human is going to much a DnD Wizard's 18+ INT or Druid's 18+ WIS. You can't fully replicate what they might be thinking, so the GM has to give leeway somewhere.

I am against players just saying "I roll diplomacy". I have also played a few games (12 total, only 6 of them finished, others fell apart due to scheduling problems) and the groups I played with, no one has ever done that. Most of the time, they gave a brief description of what they wanted to do [ I.E. In a DW game, on a planet with a Genestealer cult. A councilman was acting fishy around us, so one of the players says "I brandish my weapon and approach him threateningly. Warning him if that he is hiding anything from us that there will be consequences" ] and the GM had him roll.

>>51652137
You're supposed to get a bonus for making a compelling argument, not a penalty for failing to make one. You're supposed to take circumstantial penalties, such as disguising yourself as the guard captain when you're in the same room as the guard captain.

>>51650307
>he can't get immersed in his games
Get a better group.

>>51651311
Apples and oranges. A smart person can easily pretend to be dumb. An idiot cannot easily pretend to be smart.

>>51652378

I don't really see how anyone who isn't a complete fucking neckbeard could argue against doing it that way, man.

That's literally how I've always played my games too.

>>51652419
Which one do I shoot?!

>>51652438

*fuck


And the answer is both.

>>51651907
>I don't give a shit who it triggers, it lets my less-creative or socially unsavvy players play Social and Intellectual types without feeling like they're not using their character to its full potential.
>without feeling like they're not using their character to its full potential.
>feeling
Yeah, but you, me and everyone else knows they will NEVER be able to use their character to it's full potential. I don't even need to berate you, just knowing your group is full of losers is the best schadenfreude.

File: 1439842711588.png (39KB, 620x456px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x456px

>>51652543
try better, not harder

>>51652543

oh no someone disaproves the fun I'm having with my friends

>>51652163
Your character is surrounded by orcs, Jeff. What do you do?
>My character holds his sword in both hands and spins around on the spot with his sword held out horizontally!
... Wait, what are you trying to do?
>I'm trying to attack all of the orcs around me, duh!
But that's a ridiculous fucking technique that shouldn't work. You know what, fine. Go ahead and roll an attack on each, minus your base attack modifier for acting like a moron.
>What the fuck, GM?! That's unfair! What's the point in rolling dice at all if you're just going to judge me on what I say?!

You're surrounded by guardsmen with their crossbows leveled at you, Jeff. What are you going to say to their commanding officer to get out of this one?
>"Don't be such an asshole! I'm stealing this bread because I know a guy that needs it way more than that baker!" Hah, I rolled a 19.
Wait, that's seriously what your character says.
>Yeah. But with my modifiers, that's a 28. There's no way I fail that roll.
You're seriously going to call him an asshole, at crossbow-point? I'm going to have to give your roll a negative modifier for that.
>What the fuck, GM?! That's unfair! What's the point in rolling dice at all if you're just going to judge me on what I say?!

File: inaudible.jpg (48KB, 231x231px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 231x231px

>>51652563
Up your reading comprehension skill.

I am not disapproving of your fun. I am not even disapproving of your friends. Go, have fun with them. Some people like driving the short bus. You do you, man.

>>51647175
>not just beating your DM whenever there's combat
>"I'm just immersed in roleplaying, dude. You should take the NPC roles seriously, too. Now stop crying like a bitch and get in the ring. There's an orc I want to kill."

>>51652631
>What's the point in rolling dice at all if you're just going to judge me on what I say?!
Jeff is right, you know.

>>51652631

You're literally arguing against your own case there.

What if he made a really good case, but rolled poorly? You'd just give him enough positive modifiers to have him pass the test?

Why even have dice and skills at all? Why even have a social character at all, if the Barbarian player can just make a great argument and get a fuck ton on bonuses, or the fucking Duke who got where he is in life by being a social magician, can fail a roll because his player couldn't think of anything witty to say?

It's an objectively worse way of handling it in any way you look at it.

>>51652664
I hope whoever plays with you has their characters say and do the most inane shit and get away with it due to their rolls then.

>>51652650

You implied that because I don't enforce strict roleplaying bonuses on the acting of my players, they're never going to make the best of their character, and that because of that, me and my players are a bunch of losers, and that somehow knowing this gives you a form of gratification.

You wanted me to spell it out like that? Because it makes you come out as even more of a pathetic neckbeard than before.

>>51652749
>brushing your teeth with the bait

>>51652708

I think his point is literally that he doesn't MAKE them do that, as to avoid the shitty situations you described.

>>51652708
>I can only regulate behavior through in-game rewards and punishments

Maybe talk with players about the sort of game you and them want to play and then play with generally like-minded people. It's a fucking social engagement among friends not a prison sentence.

>>51652163
>I make an obvious social fax pas
should be the same sort of penalty
as
>I make an obvious tactical error

>>51652631
Your character is surrounded by orcs, Jeff. What do you do?
>My character holds his sword in both hands and spins around on the spot with his sword held out horizontally!
... OK, your going to have to do an all-out attack though. One attack roll, and every margin of success is another Orc hit, like the rules for automatic fire from our other game. Also, roll location for each hit.
>Alright! *rolls dice excitedly*
Ok, first Orc gets necked and starts making horrible sounds as he crumples to the floor, Orc number two loses his right arm and dropped his weapon, Orc three is going to be named stumpy if he survives until next round and the last 3 dodged.
>Holy shit, alright!
Since you went all-out you have no defense on their attack turn, two of the Orcs hit and the last one misses. They both hit center mass, your armor is strong enough to stop one blow, but the other decided to thrust and was able to pierce, you take *rolls dice* 3 damage.

>>51652838

It shouldn't. Social faux pas should result from failed rolls, just like failed attacks.

You don't say "I SWING WILDLY AND INEFFECTIVELY AT HIM" before rolling. Same reason why you shouldn't narrate exactly what you're saying before rolling.

>>51652378
>"I brandish my weapon and approach him threateningly. Warning him if that he is hiding anything from us that there will be consequences"
See that's a reasonable approach to diplomacy.
Stuff like
>I swing my sword in his face and yell "BITCH I'LL CUT YOU!"

Should have a fair chance of getting a different reaction than what the player intended.

>>51652699
>What if he made a really good case, but rolled poorly? You'd just give him enough positive modifiers to have him pass the test?
If the good case fitted the character and it was only a minor difference and I personally felt impressed by how the other player immersed themselves in their character, yes, I'd reward that with a success.
>if the Barbarian player can just make a great argument and get a fuck ton on bonuses
That's going against the barbarian's character and I'd make a point of mentioning that if he suddenly spoke as eloquently as a Founding Father when arguing.
>the fucking Duke who got where he is in life by being a social magician, can fail a roll because his player couldn't think of anything witty to say?
If he's able to come up with something simple that wouldn't be a massive social faux pas, I'd let him roll. Even if he admits that he can't really think of anything to say at that moment, I'd let him roll. If he sarcastically says that his character bends over and farts in their general direction when asked what he says or does something equally stupid, then yes, he'd get penalized for it.

If you're able to roleplay the character you're playing well, you should get rewarded for it. If you can't even outline what your character says without being an idiot, you'll get punished.

It's a general rule of thumb. Engaging in stupid shit and not putting effort into roleplaying your character in any situation should be punished. It's really not asking much, just a basic description of what you want to say to get your point across. And if you can do more than that and impress the GM with your roleplaying, expect rewards.

>>51652708
>I drop my pants and scream "Suck my cock! To the king"
>I got a 20 on my diplomacy roll.

>>51652887
>Social faux pas should result from failed rolls, just like failed attacks.
I disagree.
The actions you take should affect your chances positively or negatively. If you roll well with penalties you pull it off despite the penalties, ie you manage to charm the person despite the faux pas. If you roll poorly with bonuses, then you fail despite your bonuses, ie failing to hit the goblin despite having a bonus for high ground and attacking from behind.

>>51646298
This is analogous to "My character defeats the monster using strength".

File: Cab_Driver.png (85KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 250x250px

>>51646337
>high CAR to persuade someone

File: race car.jpg (48KB, 655x437px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 655x437px

>>51653069
>>51646337

>>51646778
>Far beyond what you could ever hope to have
I've had a player make something that could do DC 200~ INT checks. When I said at the beginning of the game that true names of Gods were DC 120 they took it as a challenge

>>51646720
Good point anon. Wizards and Druids shouldn't be able to do this with mental stats.

I guess this also means the Barbarian can't lift a gate unless the player can lift an equally-weighing object, and the Rogue can't pick a lock unless the player can pick an equivalent one at the table.

It's too bad there's no middle ground to occupy the space between these two mutually exclusive extremes, otherwise we might still be able to have RPGs.

>>51645695
>Yep. it's a stupid double standard

No it's not. It's a roleplaying game. You sit there and talk. You can at least try to talk for your character. Doesn't have to be good, just has to be an attempt. Also if you can't figure out puzzles, don't blame it on your character, blame it on you being intelluectually inferior.

>>51653391
>No it's not. It's a roleplaying game. You sit there and fight monsters. You can at least try to swing a sword for your character. Doesn't have to be good, just has to be an attempt. Also if you can't figure out how to pick locks, don't blame it on your character, blame it on you for being physically inferior.

>>51653391
>implying literally any aspect of puzzle solving is remotely representable in an RPG

If your DM doesn't hand you something physical to solve it's just a game of trying to figure out what nonsense he came up with that doesn't even make sense until you already have the answer.

>>51646177
>>51646134
>>51646526

It reminds me of a few weeks ago while Co-DMing a campaign.

>Party gets barred entry into a town
>That Guy: "I'm doing a Persuasion roll."
>DM: "Okay... what are you going to do?"
>That Guy: "I'm going to persuade him."
>DM: "...How? What are you going to say or offer? Or will your entire argument be 'Come on!'?"
>That Guy just grumbles and slouches back

>>51653610
Did YOU give HIM anything to play off of? Did he know any fucking thing about the NPC's motives or desires?

Because if you want the players to do shit you have to actually give them something to start with.

And if you did and he ignored it, then he can fuck right off.

>>51651781
>>51651781
How many professional boxers have doctrates? Fighting clever isn't really based off an intelligence score and their character almost certainly has enough combat experience to make good decisions in a fight

>>51653651
Are you kidding? He probably provided the player with the NPC's full profile in advance over a meticulous 5 year long campaign for this greentext scenario that never actually happened.

>>51653610
I typically allow stat/skill rolls for things like persuasion, riddles, puzzles etc. But my one rule is,

>You can roll for this, but you have to tell me what your character is doing without using the name of any skills or attributes

>>51653651

Yeah, it's a Curse of Strahd campaign. The party got barred entry because he told them they needed to come in there and find a weapon that will help them defeat Strahd. The guards replied they weren't going to let them do that because if the party lost Strahd would come punish the town for the insurrection.

>>51653678
>You can roll for this, but you have to tell me what your character is doing without using the name of any skills or attributes

>"I am going to open and close my mouth and move my tongue while expelling air over my vocal cords in a manner that produces sounds that aim toward having the effect of triggering a favorable response regarding my entering the town from the guard."

>>51653820
>"I attempt to convince him to let us into the town."
It's not that hard, at least make it clear what you're attempting to accomplish with your rolls.

>>51653745
Then good on you, and shame on him.

Really though, who the FUCK says "we're here opposing your evil vampire overlord"?

>>51653820
Pedantry aside, this is literally all I require. The important part is at the end;

>a favorable response regarding my entering the town from the guard

That's the part I need. Tell me that. Do not simply tell me "I rolled a 26 on Diplomacy" and then stare blankly.

>>51653916
That never actually happens. Fuck off already.

>>51653973
I've had it happen.

In fairness, the player who did it knew exactly what I was asking when I asked him to elaborate, and did so more than adequately.

>>51646164
The GM would either be swole as fuck or dead from doing the pushups necessary to roleplay every single attack made by an NPC, enemy, creature, etc. during game.

If the character says something that's just going to get the other party to tell them to fuck off, that's what's gonna happen.
If they say something that would actually convince the NPC to go along with it (or do something they were going to do anyway), that's what is gonna happen.
It's when the outcome of what they said is in doubt that we go to the dice.

Same thing with stabbing people.
Guy is tied up, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy? Go ahead and gut him, no roll needed.
Guy is immune to swords, you don't have a sword to swing, you' re restrained or you are too far away? We're not rolling dice for that.
Now, you are trying to swing a sword at a guy who is able to resist you stabbing him? That's when the dice come out.

>>51645661
I tend to run metal challenges on the middle ground. Take for example one of the few times I actually used riddles, my player asked if having local knowledge would work. With a high enough roll I decided that he would've heard that one in passing but didn't know the exact answer (in this particular case the answer was "band", so he seemed to remember it having to do with a ring".) Knowledge skills tend to work best if they give knowledge so the players can feel like they're making a difference and not just watching what their character does. Obviously if your intelligence character doesnt have an intelligent player you should make it a little easier, but if you can test players just right it works a bit better.

>>51646173
Sucks for you Anon, some people can do both.

>>51646234
Bad GM's make my insides writhe with deeply angrered frustration.

>>51653121
Theres a point of fun for the game and fun for the players.

Part of D&D is combat, part is brain play. Theres no other way of handling physical events in a way that is reasonable and fun, but when you're presented with mental challenges its not meant for your character to solve its for the player. And even then: Knowledge checks allow hints already, but no they shouldn't solve it or be able to read the plot.

A barbarian rolls to lift a gate, the player found out he needed to lift that gate. The wizard rolls the knowledge check, the player suspects that skill is relevant and will give a hint.

>>51646164
>implying 20 pushups is a lot to do every round, which is like 10 minute intervals

Literally crit everything unless you're a weak ass nerd

My DM follows the MacGyver rule for problem-solving, if you have a suitably high mental stat and you roll well the player is allowed to make up plausible bullshit and get away with it.

>I don't know how to cross this bridge
>I'll roll for it
>"Aha, I just realised that if I heat up this health potion and coat this length of rope with it the dissipating magic effect will cause the rope to straighten out and stiffen into a long bar we can then swing over the bridge and climb/walk across".

File: where.png (936KB, 644x644px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 644x644px

>>51660380
>weak ass nerd
Where do you think we are?

>>51660796
If your group can't figure out how to cross a fucking bridge, you have bigger issues.
Is your DM being paid for providing manchildcare services? Are you or other players legally braindead?