Can we all just agree that social skill checks were a mistake?

>>52202765
No. The idea of resolving entire social encounters with a single roll is stupid, just like resolving entire combat encounters with a single roll would be.

Yes. All social, perception, and investigation based actions in a game should be solved through roleplaying and GM fiat.

Charisma as a stat remains as a source of willpower and charm to keep your hirelings in line, it does not give you a magic button to roll and tell the king to do something as though under mind control. You must choose your character's words and actions carefully.

>>52202765
No, they a perfectly fine system to represent the character's skill in social activities, removing player metagaming. The low charisma character who has not invested in any social skills should not be able to woo the high king's daughter with an eloquent speech as if performed by a great orator.

>>52203260
Doesn't this mean that a player who can speak persuasively IRL strictly has more effective social characters than someone who can't, regardless of their stats, unless they actively choose to restrain themselves? And that a socially inept player can never play even a moderately social character because absolutely all interactions must be performed by the player?

>>52203295
so why shouldn't the dm just say no when you try to do it, and when the high charisma bard player tries if he woos the dm a bit he can succeed?
why have rolls for it at all? just because everything needs to be rolled for? and if its not it means it should be an automatic success?

>>52203326
So there's just an arbitrary amount of charisma at which point the GM will let my character use my OOC persuasiveness? And there's no resource investment involved beyond the raw stat, so persuasive players simply get more out of playing cha-based classes? (As opposed to playing a cha based class but eschewing diplomatic character options in favor of others, if you want to play a high cha character but not feel pressured to be face)

>>52203324
Yes, it does. Which is why that stance is bugfuck retarded.

>>52203379
fuck ok lets bring back the attractiveness stat and keep charisma just for will power and hirelings.
rolling 1d20 for social interaction, or 6d20 like >>52202943 wants is just something i dislike.

>>52202765
>let's give more outgoing and outspoken people an even bigger advantage by removing charisma and the other mental stats
I am very much against this incredibly stupid idea. If any game had that kind of mentality, I would refuse to play or run it.

Because if this is the case, then people who aren't able to lift the fridge should not be allowed to play fighters or barbarians. And anyone who can't solve rubicks cube or crosswords in five minutes should not be allowed to play wizard.

File: 882.gif (151KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 600x448px

>"CLEARLY YOU MUST BE ABLE TO LIFT A 10 TON BOULDER IN REAL LIFE TO DO IT IN GAME HURR HURR HURRR"

you fucks realize tabletop RPGs are, by their nature, a SOCIAL EXPERIENCE right? They're a SOCIAL excercize for you to SOCIALIZE with others over a nice SOCIAL game.

If it were explicitly a PHYSICAL game like a sport then yes you better be fucking expected to kick a ball good. But for something explicitly a SOCIAL game then yes I think you should at least be able to hold a convorsation.

File: BeDB4XvCcAAsPci.jpg large.jpg (25KB, 509x377px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 509x377px

>>52203803

And no. If you're BAD at socializing you're probably not gonna have a good time at a tabletop game because hey guess what you're doing 95% the time when playing a tabletop game. Ya certainly aren't weightlifting or testing your reflexes. The other 5% is mostly just running math against others and even then there's usually arbitration based on what's narratively sound which is formed from the social contract.

>>52203803
>bunch of nerds gather around a table to play an RPG in a parents basement
>they are all expected to have social skills

I think you may be retarded

>>52202765
>Can we all just agree that social skill checks were a mistake?

Depends. Can you lift my fridge?

>>52202765
they exist so people who aren't socially adept or great at roleplaying can play a character who is suave and good with words. You know, the whole idea of roleplaying games? To do or be something you cant in real life.

>>52203849

Thank you for proving the tride and true meme:

/tg/ doesn't actually play games they just theorycraft all day.

>>52202943
But resolving entire combat encounters with a single roll is entirely a-okay, anon. Check out how Burning Wheel handles it.

>>52203860
I play D&D with a group of mostly socially adept people but one of them, naturally, is very introverted and has trouble finding their place in the group. Stop making yourself look stupid.

>>52203874

anon I think you're projecting a bit hard.

>>52203803
If it's a social experience, why are there no rules governing that experience?

RPGs are about building characters and rolling dice. Everything else is optional.

>>52203844
Man, you sound very strict. As a player I try to say what my character would say but sometimes I don't remember some words or how to say it in a way that is more persuasive.

So instead I say things like
>So after greeting the guard and making some small talk I try to steer the conversation toward his lieutenant wothout ever saying the name of the officer itself. Just nudging it to see if I can find out more without asking directly. Is that deception or...?

>>52203324
Unfortunately yes. Just like players that are impulsive and lack critical thinking generally suck at playing smart characters

>>52203880
>Get accused of not actually playing D&D based on absolutely nothing
>I'm projecting

Ok.

>>52203779
I know that you're making an exaggeration, but I'm somewhat agreeing with your examples. The fantasy of the games we play is grounded in the inescapable reality of the real world where we the players live, and should reflect it at least in some degree to maintain believability. A twig playing muscular character isn't believable because he doesn't know what having strength means from personal experience, as is shy person playing charismatic negotiator or someone without intelligence and analytical mind playing a wizard. It's just illusion breaking to me, as a player, when thr thespian of the theater of the mind does not remind me of their character in the slightest.

>>52203874
And I'm betting that introverted guy isn't gonna be playing a charismatic, extroverted bard whose role is party face any time soon?

>>52203934
If they did (they don't) the option is there for them. Also, what if your DM can hold a conversation but isn't adept enough at social interaction with strangers to know when you've said something convincing or not? There are a lot of different people who play these games so it's not something everyone can 'agree on' like the OP suggested.

>>52203324
>>52203887
It's ok. My players have to do the physical actions too if they want their characters to perform those feats. The start of the campaign was harsh but out of the 7 original players there is now 2 left. And with 5 years into this campaign it has shaped them into quite literal superhumans in both body and mind.

>>52203966
If your GM is that retarded that they can't tell the difference between an argument a part time guard would buy and an argument a 1000 year old vampire aristocrat would buy... I dunno, I feel real bad for you having a really shitty GM

>>52203324
If you are a 100 pound twig who goes to powerlifting competition, you are going to have bad time and not enjoy yourself

If you are shy social retard who goes to roleplaying campaign, you are going to have bad time and not enjoy yourself.

Choose your hobbies along your strengths, simple as that.

>>52204030
>shy social retard
But it doesnt even have to be that extreme.

There are people who are naturally good at public speaking and stuff like that.
They would have the advantage over the average players.

We're talking about players who can act normal and socialize normally, but still at a disadvantage and restricted compared to the guy who can create fucking poems and speeches instantly.

>>52204130
no the dm and players all help each other
do what some other anon said >>52203887
you don't need to deliver the performance of a lifetime.
you can say "for a str check pick up a fridge" but how is that any more dumb and abstract than just letting someone roll 1d20 and if they get a 20 "loool the king gives u his kingdom coz ur so persuasive"

>>52204130
I don't see a problem with that. A person with better roleplay skills should perform better at roleplaying games, duh.

The player is not the character, therefore the players "stats" should not govern the characters stats.

>>52204253
so a random number from 1 to 20 should govern social interaction?

>>52204266
No. A random number from 1 to 20 provides a randomized effect which is mitigated by high stats and investment in skill ranks to show mastery. Therefore a high level Diplomacy skill user with high charisma is capable of wooing most peasants they encounter even if the dice roll 1, whereas the low rank Diplomacy skill user will fail. There is no critical success or failure on skill use.

File: Low Speechcraft.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

If players are trying to run amok with diplomancy, just tell them that the DC is too high for the stupid shit they're trying to get people to do.

I mean, it's "possible" to convince someone that they need to eat that barrel of snakes over there to save the kingdom, but odds are you don't have enough bonuses to sway people as a stranger, or even as a well known hero. You'd have to essentially be the setting's Jesus, and even then, you'll run into people that simply don't believe you.

I feel like social rolls would be better if you got your players to focus on courses of action that appeal to the particular NPCs weaknesses, so to speak. I personally would like a system where DCs are pretty high, and focusing on obtaining bonuses against your target help greatly in achieving your objective.

If that makes any sense.

>>52204292
ok so a random number between like 8 and 27 determines social interaction for a bard and between 4 and 23 for a barbarian?

>>52202765
> Can we all just agree that social skill checks were a mistake?
Not really, no.
The social skill checks are awful because they use dice for conflict resolution.
There are much better ways to implement social interactions than fucking dice - trait keywords, reputation parameter, tactical verbal "fighting" etc.
The concept of a social skill check is solid, but the execution is utter shite.

>>52204385
No a random number between 28 and 47, for a 20th level Character with max Diplomacy ranks and an 18 Cha, and between 5 and 24 for a 20th character with 18 Cha and no Diplomacy ranks. Aka, one is trained and skilled, while the other coasts on self confidence alone.

Of course that's using PF rules. For other systems, the max rankings may be different. But the gist of it is that skills are what differentiate what a character is capable of not just their ability scores like so many idiotic dumbfucks on this baord beleive since they don't actually play any games.

>>52204432
ok but what about at say 3rd level, and not 20th level.

>>52202765

Here's how I know you're a cunt who wants to dump CHA without actually taking a drawback from it.....

>>52204470
At third level, it's between 10 and 30, or 5 and 20. The average DC to change an average indifferent peasant's attitude is roughly 17. The trained character will be changing attitudes of peasants far more often even at just third level compared to an untrained individual, much like that traveling salesman who went to marketing school versus the one who just thinks he's hot shit.

>>52204528
Supposed to be 24 not 20 there.

>>52204504
projecting

>>52204543
Not him, but you are using that term wrong.

>>52204628
how so

>>52203803
When I see a twig or a fat fuck who can't even walk without having to pause to take a breath of fresh air playing high CON or high STR characters it also break the social convention of the game by your own logic.

>>52202765
Can we all just agree that combat and roll checks were a mistake?

>>52202765
They're required, but I don't think they're required only as a crutch for people who can't hold a conversation. Rather, like most things in life, it's because of the rare dickhead that needs to be kept on a leash.

The GM, some GM, that GM, is going to tell you "no, the guard doesn't believe you", no matter how convincing you think your argument might be. Hell, you might be a world-class diplomancer, and your reasons for being allowed to enter through the town gate might be perfectly reasonable. But unless you as a player can point to the book and say "yes he does, because X rule says my Y number is bigger than his Z number," some GM who thinks he's the cleverest shit alive is going to rule that none of your attempts at diplomacy or guile or charming will ever work. Every guard will know when you're lying, every bandit will laugh at your attempts to intimidate them, every bar wench will slap you the moment you want to turn your swag on, because your social skills with never live up to the GM's self-diagnosed level of personal genius.

Sometimes rules aren't just to give players the easy way out or restrict them; some rules are meant to keep the GM in line too.

>>52202765
i only make my players roll that if the conversation would be a stretch or if they are too lazy/inarticulate to talk out what they want to say well IC

>>52202765
Taking out social rolls advantages naturally charming and persuasive players, and disadvantages players who aren't. Yes. That is true. But, do social roles really solve the non-charming-player-of-charming-character problem?

Have you ever actually played a game where a player who wasn't very skilled or interested in speaking in character was the party face? It sucks, even with social rolls. It's really not a satisfying experience for anybody.

>"Throw down your arms, humans! We have you surrounded."
>I, uh, convince the hobgoblins to let us go.
>What do you say to them?
>Look, I rolled a 44 on diplomacy; they're going to let us go.
>Yeah, I got it. Just say something in character.
>"Let us go."

Social skill checks are inadequate solution for an unsolvable problem.

>>52204921
While true, social stats and rolls are useful when the player has no way of actually roleplaying a situation without access to esoteric knowledge.

>>52203872
>But resolving entire combat encounters with a single roll is entirely a-okay, anon.
Well yeah, because in combat you can utilize a plethora of abilities to take out your opponent while in games like D&D, skill checks are usually bare-bones and come down to either you successfully do a thing or you don't.

If there was actually a mechanical difference between being a scarred bum wearing a potato sack and being a noble dressed in fine regalia with a properly groomed mane, or addressing someone in their native tongue/dialect vs. speaking enough to get a basic point across, or being a half-orc vs. an elf, then people would put more thought into how they formulate their arguments beyond "eh, I got a 21 on my persuasion so how much does he give me for that sword."

Of course, social checks that deal entirely with speaking should be handled by roleplay anyways.

Why not a combination of both? GM moves the diplomacy check up or down depending on how good the player's argument is.

>>52203324
Yeah, in much the same way as the dude who walks into every game itching to fight shit is going to be less capable of handling a political campaign than someone who takes their time and keeps notes on what a noble said or the dude who has the intellect of a dead marmot is going to have a more difficult time playing a high INT character than someone who is naturally intelligent.

>>52204766
>>52204805
No, because physical actions have well documented context within the game's world. A 100 lb. twig will always deal 1d10 if they swing with both hands with an axe in 5e in the same way that a dagger wielded by Bif Atlas will always deal 1d4 damage regardless of how strong the character is.

Social and Mental checks are more ephemeral by their nature and your effectiveness in those areas has as much to do with your strengths as a player as your numbers on a character sheet.

Like even a dude with 20 INT will only go so far if the player has an 8 INT IRL. Same with charisma.

>>52205437
At the same time though, how much esoteric knowledge do you need to say something to the effect of "You don't want to do this to us, we're dangerous individuals, please let us go."

Even then, knowing what's most appropriate to do based off of esoteric knowledge would be an INT thing, not a CHA thing.

>>52202765
Social skill checks are fine as long as you don't let your players just say "I use my X skill!" If you make them narrate or play out what they're doing then have them roll the appropriate skill, they're perfectly fine.

Yes, sometimes that means someone's brilliant argument will fail to convince the person they're making it to. We're on 4chan, we know better than anyone how realistic that is.

>>52205922
But then it would still give the advantage to the guys who are naturally charismatic and it would still be dependent on roleplay, so what's the point?

>>52202765
just integrate rolling and roleplaying
>person makes a good argument, give advantage/bonus die
>person makes a bad one, give disadvantage/penalty die
have a challenge be outright impossible if they behave too out of line
succeeding a skill check doesn't necessarily mean everything goes according to plan, it can just mean a hostile guy becomes less hostile

>>52206004
A good argument can be one narrated in third person.

>>52204528
So that's what Roleplaying is to you, a random die roll?
>shakes head

A combination of social skill checks and the player's roleplaying is my preferred way to deal with social situations, and I think it works very well that way. The key is knowing when a social stat is necessary and how a successful roll will affect the situation, including the grades of success. This kind of point >>52205922 is a step in the right direction - it is easier to convince someone to do something if what you are saying is what they want to hear in the first place.

Sometimes there are situations where it is too time consuming to roleplay whole conversations, especially when they're taking place over a lengthy period of time or with multiple npcs, so the presence of a social stat can be useful.

>>52206043
Third person dialogue is annoying to keep track of and it still wouldn't change the fundamental fact that the guy with good IRL CHA is going to win out over the dude who can't even speak higher than a whisper.

Also, this would put the shy guy in even more of a disadvantage since he probably won't be adept enough to address someone using 3rd person dialogue.

The only mistake was not keeping 4e's skill challenges in 5e, which was the only good part of 4e.

You're not as suave, smart or wise as you think you are, and most importantly not "Napoleon crossed with Einstein"

>>52206235
Not really. It takes basically no Charisma to say "my character explains how dangerous what we're up against is to this city, and how it's imperative to his continued survival that he helps us," or "my character tries to convince him that giving a discount to legendary heroes will encourage people to shop here instead of with his competitors."

>>52206333
Yet at the same time, you'll still find people who say shit like this >>52204921 even though a basic argument would take, as you said, no charisma.

>>52206352
There's no in-game cure for being bad at roleplaying.

>>52206449
So why even bother pretending that social rolls are required, let alone a good idea? If the player's a good roleplayer, they'll be a good roleplayer regardless of the game having persuasion skills or not.

>>52206333
why dont we just remove all social skills from the game, pure combat all the way

>>52206547
Because some people still have the notion that your options as far as what your character can do only goes as far as what's written on your character sheet.

So if you don't have "charismatic" with a list of arbitrary numbers following it, it means that your character is not charismatic, even if they present a logical argument that would otherwise convince the guard to look the other way or haggle a shopkeep's asking price down 3% or so.

>>52202765
Introducing skills at all, not just social ones, was a mistake

>>52202765
No, social skill checks are a good way of letting uncharismatic people play charismatic characters, but they don't replace roleplaying.
What the character says can give their roll a modifier, though. Someone who failed the roll by a point or two but posed an excellent argument IC might pass the check; someone who repeatedly swears at the king while trying to gain his favor might take a -6 or more to the roll - just because of how obvious it ought to be that swearing at the king is bad.

I run B/X and never had any problem with social rolls.

Combat:
>attack a monster
>roll attack + STR
>resolve what happened
>repeat

Social:
>Say something to monster
>roll monster reaction + CHA
>resolve what happened
>repeat

Every other roll in the system is a one-time-thing (per character per level).

>>52206828
Wouldn't those modifiers put an uncharismatic player at worse position than a charismatic one? It's unfair to punish a player wanting to play a smooth talker when he himself isn't good at coming up with what to say. Shouldn't you then penalize the barbarian player who cannot lift your fridge in combat too?

>>52202943
Depends on the game, dude. Do you want to spend an hour rolling to debate in a game about killing things in cold blood with an axe? Do you want to spend an hour rolling to attack one person in a game about an entire ww2 operation?

Unless your group is full of retards you'll never have an issue.

>>52203295
>player metagaming

You could abbreviate that to just "playing", because that's what it is.

>>52206885
No. Even an uncharismatic player can have good arguments.

>>52204921
The player in that situation doesn't want to roleplay, not can't roleplay. It's like low-level combat.

>"I roll to hit the guy with my weapon."
>You're, uh, wielding a bow.
>"Does an 18 hit?"
>Are you shooting them, or just swinging-
>"I'm using my bow at them."

>>52206922
Still, you're punishing tue player for his inability to come up with an argument that his character should be able to formulate. Either the character is defined by the numbers on the sheet alone, or you have to ask the barbarian player to lift weights.

>>52206885
If you're gaming with friends, you probably know approximately what they're capable of - if Jeff couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag and Rick was captain of the debate team, the bar for Jeff getting a bonus is lower than Rick.
I kind of forgot that's not how a lot of people here play.

>>52206973
I don't mind having the barb player having to lift weights.

>>52206978
Again, that is player ability affecting character ability which shouldn't happen at all. The entire point of roleplaying games is to be able to play someone you're not, not just your approximation in a fantasy setting.

>>52204921
You could see it like a novel instead of a play. Bilbo's stay in Rivendell is brushed over in a few paragraphs rather than pages and pages of direct speech.

>"I try to convince the hobgoblins to let us go."
>"Okay, roll Diplomacy."
>"44."
>"Nice! After some careful negotiation, the hobgoblins agree to let you pass, on the condition that you never return."

After all, you don't act out every single inn stay or purchase of gear, do you?

>>52206885
No, because there are already in-game measurements for how much a character can damage/lift/throw/etc. based off of their STR score.

There is not, however, a measurement that dictates the quality of an argument beyond the GM's discretion.

>>52206947
>You smack the ogre with your bow dealing 1d4+strength mod damage.

File: hand truck.jpg (127KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x640px

>>52206973
>>52207020
see >>52207058
Also, if you really need the STR based character just to lift a fridge, see pic related.

>>52207025
>After all, you don't actually roleplay, do you?
FTFY

The best way to test a character is to see how they interact with the environment around them in and out of combat.

>>52207058
What I'm saying is that the GM should use his discretion and not have the quality of the argument affect the game in any way, but act solely as a neutral adjudicator of the rules. Even if the player didn't spoke beyond expressing his wish to interact with an NPC, his character's odds at success should not change because we're playing our characters not as ourselves.

>>52204147
Not to be pedantic, but the DC for that check would be absurdly high. And you can't crit skill checks.
Mind you, the best way to handle social skills is having a base DC in mind, raise or lower it by up to 5 in either direction (25% more likely is HUGE) depending on the persuasiveness of the player. It still means roleplaying, but the wallflower can play a diplomancer if he builds for it.

>>52203260
>Something something about how remove the Strength stat as well as all combat rolling and replace it with a rack of weights.

>Anytime in combat the martials want to attack they must perform a certain amount of reps. More weights = more damage.

>>52207167
>, but the wallflower can play a diplomancer if he builds for it.
No he can't if you tack those huge 25% penalties on his character just for not being very good with words in real life.

>>52206333
This is my favorite shop on The Citadel.

>>52203803
>>52203851
>>52203969
>>52204766
>>52206989
>>52207210

Can /tg/ just make this system already? Collaborate with /fit/ or something.

>>52207270
>implying gallons of milk fit on coaters

>>52207139
>What I'm saying is that the GM should use his discretion and not have the quality of the argument affect the game in any way, but act solely as a neutral adjudicator of the rules.
Again, barring GM's discretion, there isn't really an in-game measurement that objectively states what a good argument is from a bad one.

There's also the fact that interacting with NPCs is not only a CHA trait, but also an element of roleplay. If the player is unwilling to provide even a basic outline for their argument, how exactly are you supposed to give proper feedback beyond "you say you rolled X and the hobgoblins look at you with confusion" or something along those lines?

Nobody ITT is asking anyone else to pull off a Broadway performance here, we're just asking, if the player can't be arsed to give even a basic premise for his argument,why even have social rolls in the first place?

>>52207167
Not if you're stacking penalties for not giving an argument beyond "I rolled a 47, you HAVE to let us go now!"

>>52207270
>Implying anyone is going to be able to afford weights when most people can't even buy the books for most systems.
>Implying anyone in the tabletop community is going to waste an afternoon lifting weights anytime they attempt to stab an ogre.
>Implying this will affect mage characters who exclusively cast spells without even having to make a roll.
>Implying /fit/ isn't just as autistic and sad as /tg/ is.
Shit game, shit premise.

>>52206973
Yep. I also punish players for not being able to come up with tactics their characters should understand, or come up with solutions to dilemmas their characters should have no trouble finding.

It sounds like what you want is for a bunch of people to sit around rolling dice while I narrate the choices their characters make based on the results of the rolls.

>>52206910
This is entirely valid. Very much focuses on the type of game being run. Given D&D's dungeon-crawl heritage, a relative lack of social mechanics makes sense. A decent portion of that scene has moved onto more narrative games though, where a single Diplomacy skill just doesn't cut it (modern PF, for example, pretends to be narrative with its modules). Of course if you're running a strict action or comedy game, you don't need debate mechanics.

>>52205930
What if the player has social deficits, but actively wants to try role-playing and playing a face, to push themselves? Their character should just be shitty at it and the GM should say no?

>>52207308
>there isn't really an in-game measurement that objectively states what a good argument is from a bad one.
...which is why the GM shouldn't even try to do that, and instead treat every argument as equally good (because we're playing our characters not ourselves).

>>52207025
>After all, you don't act out every single inn stay or purchase of gear, do you?

Of course I do. If you don't, the character stops being a character and starts being nothing more than a collection of stats.

The single most interesting part of roleplaying is characterization, and how they deal with everyday situations is a great way to define your characters. Do they drink a lot while at the inn, causing problems for people around them? Do they get suckered by the local scam artist sitting in the corner? Are they respectful or rude to the staff? How do they react to a racist shopkeep treating them badly? If the shop is run by an old lady with a failing memory, are they going to exploit her?

Hell, you could make a whole subplot out of a competing manufacturer trying to sabotage the creation of the cleric's new armor in order to discredit the local blacksmith. Or perhaps a shop is considering to sponsor the heroes in return for a marketing deal that will be potentially embarrassing for the party. Perhaps the party are members of a monolithic organization with various levels of regulation, and getting new gear requires a comically arduous round of filling out requisition forms and running from desk to desk while trying to maneuver an increasingly insane Terry Gilliam-esque bureaucracy.

If I wanted to play something that was purely mechanical, I'd play a wargame. The point of a roleplaying game is to play a role.

>>52207375
No, I want an environment where *how* a player presents the actions he wants his character to take doesn't affect how well the character will perform those actions. Because character =/ player.

>>52203858
A stupid person cannot realistically play a genius. An autistic person cannot realistically play a social character.

A weak person can conceivably play a strong or dextrous character if they understand what that sort of person is like. If they don't, they won't.

For example, my little sister cannot play her orc warlord well because she doesn't understand that a strong character like that would be assertive and courageous. If she were to play it differently, that would be fine.

But you can't fake mental capacities you don't have.

>>52207471
From personal experience, a person in my group has a social deficit and tried playing a face in order to push themselves beyond what they're capable of.

He only played the character for two sessions and every single time he tried to speak, it was the most embarassing cringe moments in the entire game. He couldn't formulate any arguments, he couldn't haggle, he didn't know how to intimidate, and he actively cost us money and resources whenever we were discussing payment with our Mr. Johnson before a run.

Nobody enjoyed it, especially not the player who was playing that character, and eventually he just retired the character and went back to playing a large-and-in-charge melee character like he usually does.

In a group, you have to know your limits as well as your strengths, especially if those limits end up costing the group something as a whole.

>>52202765
Yes because it shouldn't be checks but full social mechanics.

>>52207496
If every argument is equally good, it means that the guys who are good at presenting logical arguments get nothing for their input and the guys who can't even be arsed can say any stupid thing that he fucking wants because he built for a diplomancer and can't roll anything lower than a 36 on his rolls.

Not to mention, I could literally get away with saying complete gibberish that makes no fucking sense but since I rolled a 44 on my persuasion, it's just as good as someone who tried to persuade them by stating that they should be let through on orders of the king, using a forged document with the king's signet on it.

>>52207471
It's a game, not a remedial exercise for retards. Unless you're running at a special school, in which case carry on.

>people actually bit bait that obvious
>they're still doing so

>>52207751
Regardless of bait, it's an I interesting topic to discuss given how frequently troublesome it is and how wildly systems vary on social mechanics.

>>52207751
If bait sparks an interesting and relevant discussion, is it still bait?

>>52207542
Well, you're arguing for an environment where whether a player presents the actions he wants his character to take doesn't affect how well the character will perform those actions, or which actions they ultimately take.

If all you say is "I persuade," then why not say "I fight" or "I solve"? It's the same principle. Obviously your character would know better than you what tactics they use in a fight, or what methods they use to overcome a challenge.

>>52207657
Well, yes, that's true. You don't really have to go into detail about exactly how you accomplish any other mental or physical task beyond what you're trying to accomplish.

>>52207877
You can actually do that. You just have to designate who you are fighting or what problem you are solving, similar to choosing who you are trying to persuade.

>>52207877
Isn't 'I attack the monster' how alot of fights end up going anyways?

>>52207885
>>52207952
>I attack the monster!
>alright, are you going to charge up and attack it with your sword or use your bow to attack it from range?
>God, why are you asking me that!? I said I was attacking it! Just let me roll!

>>52207952
Only if you're a faggot and not part of the Cool Kids Table, where all roleplay is fully enacted and combat uses extensive hit-location charts. The left elbow is obviously the target of choice.

>>52207982
I think I saw someone's girlfriend say that once. But seriously, that can be an apt comparison when there are social or mental weapons.

>>52207885
But then why even bother playing the game in the first place if the level of input required is about as taxing as pressing a button in a video game?

You're not helping the dude who sucks at roleplay by removing roleplay from the equation, you're just punishing the people who actually give a shit and want to see how their interactions with the game's world plays out over the course of the setting.

Not to mention, combat actually requires a lot of thought because there are actually variables to consider before committing to an attack, such as who you're attacking, how you're attacking, and whether or not they can resist that attack's damage. Even combat requires context to use.

>>52208023
You can consider all that stuff and be more effective, but it's usually not necessary. For the most part you just need your attack and damage rolls and you're set. This is putting aside the fact that combat is inherently much more complex than other checks in D&D.

>>52207982
You can meme all you want, but your personal experiences aren't law. That is literally how alot of groups I know go. Sure they do a little bit of roleplay in between but most of it is just I attack or I cast spell x.

File: DH_CH_rending_arm[1].jpg (170KB, 993x740px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 993x740px

>>52207987
>extensive hit-location charts

I actually love that, though

>>52208053
Not extensive enough. Those are only used when you're basically fucked anyway.

>>52208046
>You can consider all that stuff and be more effective, but it's usually not necessary.
The hell it isn't. Some creatures, like a troll, are much harder to put down if you don't use the correct damage type against it. Not to mention, there's a difference between shooting a bow from 60 ft. away vs. running up and hacking away at something in melee.
>This is putting aside the fact that combat is inherently much more complex than other checks in D&D.
To be fair, the skill system as a whole was pretty much an after thought, even today. Back then, you'd just roll using your stat's total points and if you successfully rolled under it, you did the thing. You didn't need X ranks in Y skill to be good at something, you just needed to put some thought in to say "hmm, lifting shit requires STR so I should use STR" or "identifying magic requires intelligence so I should use INT."

>>52203872
I thought burning wheel had multiple rolls.

>>52208069
>Those are only used when you're basically fucked anyway.

Yes, but the fun lies in knowing the exact degree of fuckedness, preferably in hilariously gory detail

>>52208128
>The hell it isn't. Some creatures, like a troll, are much harder to put down if you don't use the correct damage type against it.

Comparatively, there aren't that many enemies where just hitting them repeatedly with a weapon is not a very good solution.

Exalted third is still the only game I know of to get social mechanics so right.

>>52208251
>so right
lol

>>52208179
Maybe if you're talking about a low level campaign where most creatures die to a longsword.

The further up you go, the less you'll be able to get away with just going "I attack"

>>52207350
>>Implying this will affect mage characters who exclusively cast spells without even having to make a roll.
Mages have to do mathematical calculations. A first level spell is simple multiplication, sixth level spells involve triple integrals of partial differential equations, ninth level spells involve solving unsolved mathematical equations.
Your characters don't level up what you can do is based entirely on your capabilities.
>Hitting something involves striking a precise point on a target with a weapon
>Damage is based on lifting weights
>If you can only squat 80 lbs it will take like 500 attacks to kill a dragon, but if you can deadlift 500 lbs you can drop an ogre in one or two hits

Well this has thread has blown up.

I am not OP.

>>52208271
Not really, man. The vast majority of monsters have no special defense to getting hit with a stick.

>>52208278
Expecting most people to deadlift 500 lb. is just asking for an injury and I don't think that most people will want to join a game if it comes with a waver.

>>52202765
Quite the opposite actually, I think social encountera need to be like combat emcounters, with multiple checks and rolls on top of roleplaying out the results.

>>52208326
To be fair how many DnD characters can drop an Ogre in one or two hits. You would probably just squat like 200 lbs each time you attack and kill it over the course of a few rounds.

>>52208326
Deadlifts&Dragons

>>52208316
Some creatures can fly, some creatures are resistant to non-magical weapons, other creatures are outright immune to certain damage types, others can use spell-like abilities, etc. etc.

A friend of mine always had to charge in to attack the first enemy that we saw during any combat scenario, and it led to him getting hit by a chaos beast and spending the rest of combat as an amorphous blob.

I'm just saying man, you're not always going to get away with "I attack" once you start hitting the level where every creature in a given CR has ways to avoid, absorb, resist, or become outright immune to certain damage types.

>>52208367
All that's true, but the majority of monsters do not have those advantages, no matter the level. Eventually, you should start using magic weapons just because they're better, but that's about it really.

>>52208351
At the same time though, going from a sedantary lifestyle to trying to dead lift 200 lb. every week is going to lead to injuries in the long term. You'd do better if you lowered the bar if you actually want to attract people who'd want to play your game.

>>52208047
Fuck, I must choose a spell? Just let me cast, for fucks sake, I'm rolling now.

Social checks for major things need a sort of resolution mechanic all their own, like combat but not.

As of now, good roleplaying gives you some kind of bonus by DM Fiat. Since I play 5e that's giving Advantage to the role.

We don't really use inspiration mechanics so advantage is a bigger deal to my players.

>>52208398
Where are you pulling these figures from though? Like are you referring to most monsters as a whole? Monsters between CR 1/4 and 4? What is the cutoff here?

>>52208434
Pretty much all CR? The majority of monsters do not resist more than one type of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Later on, you usually only need to use a magic weapon to circumvent that resistance, but you ought to be using those anyway by that point.

Monsters are far more likely to resist or be immune to energy attacks than physical.

>>52208407
Like all systems this requires testing, plus you would start at level 1 where you are killing wolves and shit where you could reasonably drop them by just lifting the bar itself a few times.
The real issue is damage which would probably need to be a flat number based on level since fighting and casting spells is based on actual abilities as opposed to class.

>>52204177
>implying that you can win in a roleplaying game

>>52208686
>implying that you can't win at a roleplaying game

>>52208470
Flying enemies are immune to all melee attacks simply because they can safely ascend outside of the martial's reach.

There's also the fact that you're not taking into account that the environment can also be a huge pain in the ass, such as trying to fight an enemy with a spear while standing in a narrow corridor or some shit like that.

File: 1466215921256.png (55KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 217x190px

Skill checks in D&D:
>roll some dice
>figure the rest out yourself

People pay money for this.

>>52207828
Yes, for it does not matter whether the bait leads to a good or bad discussion, only that it leads to replies, to be counted as bait

>>52203260
>it does not give you a magic button to roll and tell the king to do something as though under mind control
Only a fucking retard player thinks it should work this way. Only a fucking retard GM allows it to work this way. You must have had some shit players/GMs bro.

>>52208874
But by that logic all OPs are bait. All of them.

>>52209042
At last I truly see

>>52202765
>Can we all just agree that
Let me stop you right there because the answer is already no. We can't even all agree on what day it is.

>>52208830
Not if it's swooping down to attack.

>>52209201
At higher CR's, it's not out of the range of possibilities that it has a ranged attack. Besides, if the creature can safely attack you from 10 ft. away and the martial doesn't have a reach weapon, they're not going to be hitting it anyways.

Every time this topic comes up, I fail to understand why people have such a huge problem with social rolls. Wankery involving minmaxing/broken "builds" can be nipped in the bud by TALKING TO YOUR PLAYERS (excuse the caps), supervising character creation, and/or requiring rolled/array stats instead of point buy. Introverted or autistic players having a hard time speaking up? Try showing them some patience and work with them as a bit of good will can go quite far; most will appreciate the gesture, and it may give you leverage if other problems crop up later.

>>52210031
People have an issue with social rolls because people try to use them as a fast-forward button towards roleplay.

People also have an issue with introverted or autistic players playing face characters because a) the face can be the most important character outside of combat if you're in a setting that's political or involved negotiations like ShadowRun and b) watching someone with social issues try to pretend to be socially outgoing is pure cringe and nobody ends up enjoying the character, especially the person playing it.

That's what it comes down to.

>>52203324
Yes it does, but conversely my constantly rules-wanking buddy who plays MtG, and devours rulebooks for breakfast is always ridiculously more relevant than I am in Combat, simply because he is a superior rollplayer. He can't RP his way out of a paper bag, though.
Them's the breaks.

>>52204030
But anon, you've just alienated 99% of the playerbase, including yourself!

>>52210264
Please, the type of people we're talking about are the type of players who can't even order a pizza unless it's online. Not even out of convenience, but because they have trouble talking to people on the phone.

>>52206059
>strawmanning this hard

>>52207539
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I do not agree with you.

I'm usually playing to do something different than what I could do in real life shopping, for example.

I want to be fighting enemies that stand against my path of conquest and take everything I can sense for myself. I want to roleplay important scenes: if the GM thinks that there is an important scene to be had while my character goes shopping, so be it for example he can meet an important princess who is getting things for her wedding; by using her influence, I can convince her father to let us march an army down the valley to destroy the pesky villagers who are against my rise to power. But I don't want to be stuck in a plot every time I go order a box of chicken nuggets in a random podunk town, okay? That gets tiring real fast.

>>52210141
>People have an issue with social rolls because people try to use them as a fast-forward button towards roleplay.
That's just not true.

>>52205992
Simple things like that don't need a check, but it's certainly helpful when you're trying to navigate court politics and all the etiquette that it implies.

>>52211837
The people who cry the loudest about social rolls being removed are usually the ones who care the least about roleplay. If you're already a strong roleplayer, the inclusion or exclusion of social skills leaves no lasting effect on the quality of your roleplay as a whole.

>>52212012
>Simple things like that don't need a check
Then it's not very esoteric.
> it's certainly helpful when you're trying to navigate court politics and all the etiquette that it implies.
but you just said that it was simple.

Which is it?

>>52212358
What? I just want to play a master manipulator.

>>52212375
I meant that intimidating a guy doesn't require much in the way of social stats and checks as a player can easily do that himself. Knowing how to conduct yourself in a court situation is far less likely and requires more mechanical support.

>>52212415
Playing a master manipulator is like playing a mastermind, everyone wants to be one and everyone gets mad once they find out that they're nowhere near competent enough to pull one off.

Besides, most games nowadays don't have anywhere near the level of complexity for social rolls as they do for combat, so it'd just be an exercise in futility trying to play one without either treating it like low-key mind control.

>>52212416
>I meant that intimidating a guy doesn't require much in the way of social stats and checks as a player can easily do that himself.
Which means that it can easily be resolved through roleplay rather than through social rolls.
>Knowing how to conduct yourself in a court situation is far less likely and requires more mechanical support.
Not necessarily, it'd mostly just require a GM who is willing to put in the time, effort, and depth to construct an engaging political narrative and players who are willing to engage in said narrative by asking the GM the right questions.

The problem though is that most GM's aren't that thorough and most players don't give a shit, so it mostly comes down to either the players gaining political favor through a string of lucky rolls or the GM fiats any and all success so the big players don't get taken out of play before they can perform their key in the narrative, such as assassination, kidnapping, or marriage.

>>52212358
I find them pretty useful as a GM, even if they're just binary background stats.

>>52212500
There's this thing on the character sheet that says "Persuasion" that you can put points into, but your ability to convince people should still depend on your own skills? Is that what you're saying?

>>52212587
I'd be hard pressed to find a group of players who'd be willing to learn the in's and outs of 15th century politic etiquette before playing a game. At some point you need to abstract things.

>>52212592
Yes, except that I believe that social skills as a whole are superfluous in regards to the overall game, unless the game puts just as much thought into social rolls as they do into combat rolls.

>>52212624
You'd be hard pressed to find players who'd be willing to sit through a political intrigue game anyways, for the reasons that I explained in my post.

Like people always want to play in a political campaign until they realize that most of the campaign will be roleplay with combat occurring once in a blue moon.

>>52212703
Even so, it's helpful to differentiate between what characters are good at outside of the capabilities of the players.

>>52212673
>unless the game puts just as much thought into social rolls as they do into combat rolls.
I suppose that's fair. D&D does an absolute shit job of making anything of its skill system, and with how arbitrary it all already is, it's not a bad idea to ignore it entirely for better game flow. I do believe that the few games out there that do have actual mechanics behind social interactions shouldn't have those mechanics be ignored, though.

>>52202765
>Can we all just agree that X
NO!

>>52208842
>RPGS
>Roll some dice
>Figure out the rest yourself
Wow.

>>52204504
People who play well enough to be charismatic are also good enough roleplayers to restrict themselves when "dumping CHA". It's bad players who can't play social or asocial characters, for they play badly even as characters with "dumped CHA" (they can't even play well as people like themselves).

>>52207375
THANK YOU

>>52212740
If the game has in-depth social mechanics and the mechanics themselves don't step on the toes of roleplay then I wouldn't necessarily see any reason to ignore it.

It's just that most games don't have social mechanics that wouldn't be easier to manage if we resolved it through roleplay.

If you have suggestions though, I'd love to hear it.

>>52203934
The socially inept one in my group wont stop playing bard, just like the derpy one wants to play an intelligent master mind and the one who can't be stealthy to save their life plays rogue. Its almost like this is a fantasy game and people play things that they fantasize about being.

>>52208412
this has been reality for me from time to time

>>52212822
I'm a big fan of the way Exalted 3e handles its social stuff.

>>52212798
It's useful if you have players of middling ability, so you can grease the wheels, so to speak.

>>52202765
No

>>52212731
The character is not autonomous anon. Their overall effectiveness will always be determined by how the player chooses to utilize the mechanics behind their abilities during play.

>>52212824
Your campaign sounds like the three stooges.

>>52212903
Sure, but what information they have available will be determined by their social skills, just like any other skill.

>>52212931
The problem with that is that social skills, as defined by games like D&D, lack the amount of social depth required to make such a skill engaging. Either you succeed and the person believes whatever you want them to or you fail and they don't believe whatever you're saying.

Even then, the meat and potatoes of your game will be how the player interacts with this individual, even if it's just them saying the general idea of what they want to say. The problem with social skills is that they work as a way to sidestep this level of interaction entirely by giving the player yet another aspect of their character to game, which also means that they also have a means to avoid roleplaying as a whole.

Not to mention, because it's so ephemeral, how well it does depends on the player's IRL CHA, so if you have a wallflower who can't debate around a dead tuna, the player's lack of CHA will inevitably overtake any bonuses the character would have just for having an impressive CHA.

>>52212415
I want to play a femme fatale, but it simply doesn't work. I'm a big guy with tobacco broken voice, people would not find it believable. Some people simply cannot play certain characters. Some characters are simply easier for everyone, others are hard for some and easy for others and a third category are hard for almost everyone.

>>52213072
Yeah D&D is bad at it, but there's no way to avoid social skills, as they're baked into the very idea of a character, even if you don't quantify them with a number. Also a social check is just replacing a GM arbitration with a randomized result and has as much impact as the GM decides it does.

>>52213147
>Also a social check is just replacing a GM arbitration with a randomized result and has as much impact as the GM decides it does.
I hope you realize that that's still GM arbitration.

>>52213139
When I actually want to roleplay, I play via text.

>>52213196
Literally everyone can be charismatic via text, unless they're competely unskilled at writing or have difficulties with the languages (both are kinds of people you shouldn't play with via text).

>>52213184
Of course, the GM is just giving more of his decision to chance is all. Same with any dice roll he makes.

>>52213263
But it'd still be arbitration.

>>52213292
That's my point. There's no difference if the GM rolls or not, so you can end up with the exact same situation even if you exclude skill checks.

>>52213326
What?

>>52213436
Skill checks and stats are tools, just because a GM can use them badly doesn't make them worthless.

>>52213480
That's not what we're talking about though.

Either social rolls can be made at the expense or roleplay or social rolls are worthless because they do nothing to alleviate the stress of playing a charismatic character as a wallflower with no ability to formulate even an outline of an argument.

>>52213517
No roll is capable of that, social stats can be used as a source of player information though, to help with roleplaying.

>>52206059
Stop abusing the greentext function, faggot.

>>52213537
>No roll is capable of that
Social is, but it's mainly because a lot of games narrow it down to a binary pass/fail and is the most abusable if the GM doesn't step in to mention that it's not low-key mind control.
>social stats can be used as a source of player information though, to help with roleplaying.
If it's information that you seek, an INT roll would be more appropriate than a social roll.

>>52212921
yeah, it was a bit frustrating at first. We started out in curse of strahd, and the dynamic just grinded everyone's gears. they tpk'd and we all agreed a new setting would be best The new setting is much lighter tone though, and everyone is pretty happy with how its turning out

>>52207375
I'm sorry I can't dig through a metric shit ton of books of tactics, strategy and logistics just so I can a accurately RP a warlord for a game.

>>52213619
A roll is just variance, you can do the same things with or without it. A general Int roll won't help as much as the specialized info you'd get from a social roll.

>>52213681
Social would help you if you were rolling to persuade the guard to turn the other cheek while knowledge(local) would help in discovering that these guards take their jobs very seriously but there have been rumors that one guard during the night shift accepts bribes.
>A roll is just variance, you can do the same things with or without it.
Except that most other skill checks don't directly compete against roleplay.

>>52213743
A social check doesn't have to compete against roleplay unless the GM lets it.

There are so many posts that are essentially "reducing to absurdity" or whstever on this thread that i dont know why any of you bother arguing at all.

>>52213770
From the perspective of someone who doesn't give a shit about roleplay, why should they pretend to be someone that they're not when they can just roll with their inflated diplomacy score and reach the same conclusion?

But then if the GM doesn't let them get away with it, then they'll ask "then why did I bother boosting it in the first place?"

>>52213833
The easiest way to see if an argument is flawed is to take it to an extreme and see if it still holds up logically.

>>52213975
Because high diplomacy should increase the amount of player information available, in order to facilitate decisions. It's not a encounter skip, the same way high combat skills don't let you skip combat, just make it easier to succeed.

>>52214018
M8...
That is exactly how you are not meant to debate.
Might as well post a smug anime girl because the result is the same, you are not actually engaging the argument being said.

>>52205969
you don't understand attribute bonuses do you?

>>52214018
You mean the easiest way to make an argument stupid is to change and decontextualize it until it's stupid enough for you.

>>52214072
>Because high diplomacy should increase the amount of player information available, in order to facilitate decisions.
diplomacy wouldn't give you any information though, at best it would mean the GM jumps through a few extra hoops to say "oh, you said gibbly gob? Well it just so happens that he also understands complete fucking gibberish, so he lets you pass."
>It's not a encounter skip
It can be if the GM allows it to be.
>the same way high combat skills don't let you skip combat, just make it easier to succeed.
The difference is that combat will usually have several variables in place that would keep the results from being binary. Like you could hit a vampire spawn in 5e with a normal blade but because it has resistance vs. nonmagical blades, you actually did practically no damage.

Social rolls in most games aren't nearly as in depth, so it comes down to a binary pass/fail even though there is arguably just as many variables to consider before you commit to an argument.

>>52214161
A GM can let you skip encounters in a game without social mechanics as well. Diplomacy can give you information just fine, I use to help give my players info beforehand rather than after. As for the amount of variance, just because D&D doesn't present it very well doesn't make it completely useless.

>>52214100
>>52214157
If you present an argument to your opponent and your opponent is able to take an element to an extreme that shows how absurd it is, it only proves how flawed your argument is as a whole.

You just get them to present an argument, point out a flaw by taking it to an extreme, to which they point out that that's not the case, which directly contradicts with an earlier point they made that hinged upon this element in order to tie it all together.

You see this tactic used against many poorly constructed arguments, it's just that people who are used to debating are able to do it much more subtly than most people realize.

>>52213975
>But then if the GM doesn't let them get away with it, then they'll ask "then why did I bother boosting it in the first place?"

You can't persuade people with roleplaying skills unless you boosted Persuade. How is this not obvious? If you're being persuasive while your character isn't, you're a bad player. That's why you don't dump social stats.

>>52214141
I understand attribute bonuses plenty, I also understand how circumstantial bonuses can fuck you over if you present a shitty argument that the GM docks you points over, especially if you're not even trying.

>>52214252
You're just defending using a children-tier comeback and trying to sound smart by doing so. Maybe you're a master puppeteer who is normally able to do that succesfully, but it's not working today.

Reduction to absurd (bot using it and falling for it) is a red flag for simple minded individuals. Don't use it.

>>52214252
>your opponent is able to take an element to an extreme that shows how absurd it is, it only proves how flawed your argument is as a whole.
No it doesn't, it shows how much of a fucking retard your opponent is.
>I think we should ban marijuana for x, y, and z reasons
>SO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BAN PENICILLIN BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH MEDICINAL DRUGS

>>52214216
>A GM can let you skip encounters in a game without social mechanics as well.
The GM could but since combat also carries with it rewards for winning, he'd remove a lot of the draw for participating in combat.

It's why you get EXP for fighting practically everything but you don't get EXP for using diplomacy outside of combat unless the GM allows you to.

Which also comes down to what I said about social lacking the depth of combat in most systems.

>>52214253
>You can't persuade people with roleplaying skills unless you boosted Persuade.
But the GM stopped him from just persuading everyone in the room just because he didn't present an argument, which means that you can't just make a roll and persuade people without any issues.

>>52214516
Dropping social mechanics doesn't automatically add depth back in though.

>>52214536
You don't understand. I'm not talking about rolls on that sentence you quote.

You literally can't use those great arguments and natural eloquence you (the player) have in my table if you dumped social stats. You'll need to sabotage yourself in order to adapt to your character. That's called roleplaying.

>>52212375
you failed a reading comprehension check.

>>52214303
>>52214357
It's clear that neither of you know what reduction to absurd actually is.

The actual way that you perform it is by taking advantage of a weakness in an opponent's argument in order to point out how ridiculous it is. It doesn't mean to just focus on one detail and then introduce random bullshit that makes no sense like
>I think we should ban marijuana for x, y, and z reasons
>SO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BAN PENICILLIN BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH MEDICINAL DRUGS
did.

If someone instead used the argument
>I think we should ban marijuana because it's addictive and dangerous
then you would point out
>Yeah, we should ban all addictive substances like tobacco, alcohol, pain killers, etc. for being addictive and dangerous as well.
Now he's forced to either a) claim that that's true, just for you to pull up statistics showing marijuana as being much safer than the legal substances, weakening his argument or b) pull back his claim, weakening his argument.

Hope this helps.

>>52214553
No, but if there's no depth proportionate to the amount of power it can have over the narrative, and it can already be resolved through roleplay, why bother using it?

>>52214727
Because it can be helpful to differentiate between characters.

>>52214610
>You literally can't use those great arguments and natural eloquence you (the player) have in my table if you dumped social stats. You'll need to sabotage yourself in order to adapt to your character. That's called roleplaying.
That's not roleplaying, it's narrative knee-capping in order to satiate the GM's paranoia, in much the same way as someone pretending that trolls aren't weak to fire is done to avoid accusations of meta-gaming.

>>52214752
The abilities granted to the characters already perform that job admirably well though.

>>52214789
What abilities are these if we're not using any sort of social denominator?

File: 1479292621680.jpg (135KB, 800x566px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 800x566px

>>52202765
>raise my character's persuasion and deception really high
>don't touch intimidation at all

>fail every persuasion and deception roll I make, the entire game
>succeed every intimidation roll I make
this isn't the character I wanted to portray or play at all
i sure do love rolling a d20 for social interaction

>>52214763
>make a stupid and ugly half orc
>act like a smart and handsome bard

"Roleplaying"
More like self-inserting.
Might as well just name the pc the same name as yourself.

>>52214875
Have you tried not playing dnd?

>>52214900
it's what my friends play
I'm running a GURPS game for them on a different day if that helps

>>52214915
It does help
Fight the good fight
Make more people play gurps

>>52214876
So you're implying that having someone play a stupid and ugly half orc that buffed his social and mental rolls high enough to convince god himself to give him a free rules-free wish is less of a mary sue as someone who roleplayed someone who manages to give solid arguments in spite of his heritage?

>>52214821
If we're talking generally, a classless system where one character chose fire abilities and STR boosting abilities while another character chose wind abilities as well as proficiency in longbows would already differentiate them from one another based off of what they're good at.

If we're talking social specifically, it could be the difference between someone who chose spells that allowed him to read minds so he always knows what to say or someone who just takes mind-control powers that allows him to dominate whoever he wants at no cost.

>>52214995
What about a noble and a barbarian, should they be exactly equal when talking to people at court?

>>52214270
i was refuting the physical example,
100 lb twig deals 1d10-(1 or 2)
bif atlas deals 1d4+(3,4, or 5)

the original poster was leaving out that important part of the mechanics analysis, and being disingenuous.

i do not feel that player actions should create mechanical effects, within the context of standard play. Defined easily by the rules as written ("I attack"). However non-standard play actions can and/or should, defined by the section on adjudicating creative or non standard actions ("I cut this rope to drop the chandelier").
That said, most social interactions are standard actions.

>>52215041
In that context, why exactly would the Barbarian even be in the court in the first place? A big smelly wildman probably wouldn't get past the doormen (without causing a ruckus of couse) unless the noble claimed that he was his body guard.

>>52215080
My point is that the nobleman is going to know how to act in those situations and the barb isn't. Otherwise the barb should have no problem getting in if the player has any knowledge on how to act in those situations.

>>52214963
>that buffed his social and mental rolls high
>mary sue
>rules free wish

Wow you didnt even bother to pretend you were engaging my argument at all

>>52202765
>playing a game with social skills in the first place.

Step it the fuck up Anon, there are tons of great RPGs that dont rely on rolling for social interactions.

>>52215145
Yup
Dnd for example
Smugelf.jpg

>>52215108
Even if the Barbarian player knows what to do, it's not going to help if he tries to walk up to a royal court, unwashed with only a loincloth to hide his shame.

>>52215199
And what if they disguise him? You could end up in a situation where the barb is better at navigating court than the noble is.

>>52215122
Don't pretend that I'm not engaging your argument just because I uncovered a huge flaw in it.

I've seen more than enough players try to argue that should run roughshod over a campaign based off of the arbitrary numbers on their sheets a helluva lot more than I've seen someone try to do everything based off of how they roleplay.

If anything, giving numbers to how effectively one can give an argument just validates the mary sue character.

>>52215223
But then wouldn't that defeat your own argument if the Barbarian and the noble are actually equally capable?

>>52215304
But it's a situation where the noble should have more access to information about how to act than the barb does, the barbarian's player is just a Shakespearean actor and the noble's player is ted from the butcher's.

>>52215288
Absurd examples do not make an argument. Neither does anedoctal evidence.

And mary sue has nothing to do with this. Self insert does not equal mary sue.
Also please decide of we are arguing dnd specifically or social rolls in general.

Use logic or post smug.jpg

>>52215331
If the noble is supposed to have inherently more pull within the royal courts then the noble should be getting some circumstantial bonuses based off his royal origins while the Barbarian should be getting penalties depending on how dirty and unkempt he is, while still getting penalties for not being a noble himself.

Hell, the GM should just tell you that kind of pertinant information by default anyways since your background would certainly justify you knowing what to do in that particular situation.

Failing that, the supposed actor could also give Ted some pointers on what to say to reflect his character's proficiency.

>>52215355
>And mary sue has nothing to do with this.
Then why did you bring it up?
>Self insert does not equal mary sue.
How does attaching numbers to a character's proficiencies stop them from being a self-insert?

>>52215411
Which is my point all along. These are all social stats even if you don't represent them as a single number.

>>52215430
It doesnt.
However a guy that doesnt change his rping based on his character "might as well be" playing a self insert.

This argument is a reply to the post that said that a good rper should not have to change his rping when picking a low cha pc.

>>52215457
Yet you can easily get around having numbers by having a GM who is willing to employ common sense and/or players who are willing to support one another when it's obvious that one is having trouble fulfilling their role.

Barring that, adding social skills isn't going to actually help anything because unless the GM is willing to fill in the gaps and essentially roleplay with himself, Ted is going to portray a shitty noble regardless of how high he rolls.

>>52215545
>It doesnt.
Then your argument was flawed from the get-go.

>>52215554
And there's nothing wrong with having numbers either. I also don't see a problem with a GM helping to fill in gaps as long as the player is trying to improve.

>How many fa/tg/guys does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
>263: 262 to argue about the bulb shape, wattage, brightness, and color, and 1 OP to stop sucking dick long enough to actually do it.

>>52202765
We can probably agree that 1-roll mind control social checks are a mistake.

Beyond that, no we can't agree.

>>52215589
>And there's nothing wrong with having numbers either.
There is when the numbers can allow a player to ignore roleplay in favor of rolling big numbers that the GM is obligated to allow, even when there's a lack of context.

>>52215632
That's a problem with the system and the GM, rather than a numerical representation of your characters skill level.

>>52215568
That wasnt my point anyway
Point is
A roleplayer should change his act when playing different chars, specially their flaws.

>>52215606
Even then, if you can get your skill high enough you should be able to supernaturally effect people. If the rogue can crawl through a hole smaller than his head, you should be able to convince someone to literally go fuck themselves.

>>52215683
The problem is that a lot of systems do this shit though.

>>52215757
Even D&D isn't that bad about it, and it usually comes about by pushing skills far beyond what they should be.

>>52215757
And by a lot you mean all the dnd 3e based stuff
Thats not a problem for even dnd 5e

>>52215755
That's bad game design. Unless, at the higher ranks it *counts* as mind control magic and can be countered as such.

>>52215796
It wouldn't be mind control magic as such, more that your voice has a quality that makes it very hard to resist even if you normally wouldn't even consider it. I mean at that point you'd be far more than a regular mortal anyway.

>certain players abuse flawed skill systems to make overpowered diplomancer character who might as well have mind control powers

>therefore, we should remove social skills completely

What sort of logic is this?

Since you guys love reduction ad absurdum so much, why not go all the way?
>certain players abuse flawed combat rules to make overpowered combat characters
>therefore we should remove all combat rules

>certain players abuse magic rules to make overpowered characters
>therefore we should remove magic

>certain players abuse X in an RPG
>therefore we should remove all RPGs

>>52215796
>>52215836
epic level skills in D&D are pretty much counted as supernatural anyway

>>52215751
Even if that was the case, the GM should honestly be taking those kinds of flaws into account without the player's input.

If you're a Barbarian trying to enter a royal court, you're going to be turned away because you're a dirty wildman with a loincloth and vermin in your hair and if you don't, you could cause problems for yourself and the rest of your party.

If you're an ugly and stupid half-orc, people are going to be wary of your presence and if you can't prove that they have no reason to fear, then people are going to spread rumors about you and your reputation will precede you whenever you attempt to talk to anyone in the given area.

Both of these scenarios are problems that arose because of the character's being and now, it's up to the player to find a way past these obstacles. These obstacles wouldn't be there if they dressed and looked the part but now, we get to see how they overcome these issues while being out of their depth.

>>52215882
>Uncounterable mind control skill power isn't magical it's just awesome.
>Well guys, I guess we have to max it out of every character forever. Why do anything else when you can mind control armies into doing your bidding and it's undetectable and not technically magic!

>>52215926
>Having a chance to do something is the same as always having that ability. It's also fine to be able to kill an army singlehandly but not mind control it, that would be too strong.

>>52215904
If your character has a flaw, you should roleplay it out.
That applies both for social flaws (as in, being ugly) and mental flaws (being stupid or literally retarded, yes being mentally handicapped is a flaw worth points in many systems that aren't D&D).

>>52215926
I'm not saying it's a good thing
Just saying that epic level rules go all out
remember the classic skill check to enter a drows vagina

>>52215960
You can get to mind controlled diplomacy long before epic levels.

>>52215942
If it's okay for the PCs to do, then it's okay to use on the PCs.

If you object to the PCs being brainwashed by NPCs via a single skill check, then you should object to single skill check brainwashing in general.

>>52215960
>If your character has a flaw, you should roleplay it out.
If your character has a flaw, the GM should FORCE you to play out that flaw, you don't get a choice in the matter.

Your Barbarian isn't going to just walk into a royal court on his own but if he says "me guard for frilly man, he give gold to guard body," then one of the guards could say "y'know, I did hear a rumor of one of the nobles coming in with a large bear of a man wearing a filthy loin cloth" and then one of the guards could send for confirmation before letting the Barbarian in.

No rolls required and no self-insertion made, the player was forced into a situation based on his appearance and he managed to overcome the obstacle thanks to his ingenuity, even if he wasn't that articulate in his argument.

We don't choose the flaws we gain as a result of living, nor do we choose when those flaws come back to bite us in the ass. It's up to us to deal with those issues should they arrive and if you can't...

>>52216094
>If your character has a flaw, the GM should FORCE you to play out that flaw, you don't get a choice in the matter.
Not all flaws work the same.
In the case of being an ugly barbarian, sure it's more about how others react to you, but in your example, the player IS roleplaying his flaws "me guard frilly man" is not the same as eloquently trying to convince the guard as if you were a high cha bard due to your own personal ability to speak good.

>We don't choose the flaws we gain as a result of living, nor do we choose when those flaws come back to bite us in the ass. It's up to us to deal with those issues should they arrive and if you can't...
lets step away from the social skills for a second.

Let's say the character has the "fucking retarded" flaw (or like 3-6 int in D&D)
should the player be allowed to come up with ingenious plans?
If yes, then he is not roleplaying his character.

Is it up to the GM to say "No you're too dumb to come up with this plan"?

>>52216027
If the PC's decide to piss off something that far beyond them, then yes they'll dicked over by it. Little different to if they decided to pick on something physically far beyond them.

>>52216192
You can mind control level appropriate enemies at a fairly low level, in several games. It's often not even an opposed check, simply roll vs target number.

>>52216182
>In the case of being an ugly barbarian, sure it's more about how others react to you, but in your example, the player IS roleplaying his flaws "me guard frilly man" is not the same as eloquently trying to convince the guard as if you were a high cha bard due to your own personal ability to speak good.
At the same time though, he still presented a good argument in spite of his CHA stating that he should have no ability to.
>should the player be allowed to come up with ingenious plans?
Are we talking about a convoluted plan involving multiple steps taking place over a long period of time or are we talking about something as simple as convincing the wizard to burn a rope, causing a chandelier to drop on someone's head during that moment of combat?

Because even animals can come up with basic strategies so as long as it's not too complex, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

>>52216274
Then yeah I'd take issue with that, same as if they could kill a PC with a single easy check at the same level.

>>52216300
>Are we talking about a convoluted plan involving multiple steps taking place over a long period of time

yeah, that one.
Some dude playing as a dumbass orc commoner coming up with a genius multi-step plan because he's a spergy genius in real life.
In this hypothetical, we assume that A) the plan would work, and B) the character is entirely too stupid to ever have possibly come up with it

should the player be allowed to enact that plan?

File: 1444449767742.jpg (13KB, 246x250px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 246x250px

>>52203324
Since speaking skill is more of an OOC trait than necessarily something IC, allow the other members of the party to help the guy who wants to do the charisma checks decide what to say. Once an agreement is made, the player can say what he's supposed to say and make his charisma roll.

This literally solves all the fucking problems. The shy guy can get to have the final say in things, and slowly learn to be confident around the game table. The party isn't alienated by a guy who wants to be a face that stutters and pauses through dialogue, the guy who is actually social doesn't have to restrict himself completely, and the party can actually make sure what the face is saying at least partially aligns with the desires of the group. It also encourages a little camaraderie - they can all laugh over a funny joke, or feel glad that they've all worked something out together, rather than just sticking to their individual roles, and makes sure that everyone is paying attention when conversation is happening.

Literally the only reason this would not work is if your party is a bunch of screaming autists who will hold their opinions over each other's and can't come to an agreement on anything without yelling at each other for fifteen minutes.

>>52216382
>a bunch of screaming autists
/tg/ in a nutshell

>>52216335
>yeah, that one.
Okay, well the argument is moot because most people IRL can't even manage to pull off a complicated plan spanning the course of several years anyways.

Even then, are we talking about a plan that they're written out and planned right down to the last detail or are we talking about a plan that's written by the seat of their pants and can blow up in their face at any moment because they have no contingencies if the plan goes south?

Also, just because the plan is convoluted and appears genius doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually going to work as planned. Many idiots come up with ideas that they think is going to work, only to realize that they missed an important step that would later unravel their plans before they can correct it.

The 6 INT character could come up with something that seems logically sound, only for them to realize too late that the risk they took was calculated, but man were they bad at math.

>>52216456
we are talking about a perfect plan that the DM, not being a genious himself cannot detect any flaws.

>>52216484
The thing is that unless you're playing with someone who has an IRL INT of 18, you're not going to find a plan that doesn't have at least one flaw that could prove disastrous in the long-term.

Basically, a complex plan is like a wish spell, if the GM can't come up with a reasonable means to fuck you over, it's an affordable way to do practically anything. The thing is, there's always something in the wish that could be exploited.

>>52216408
Oh right. Well, I'll still keep sharing the perfect solution in case someone ever needs it.

>>52216626
>you're not going to find a plan that doesn't have at least one flaw that could prove disastrous in the long-term.

yeah, but the DM himself might just be more stupid than the player and not be able to find a flaw himself.
Either way, the point being is that the player is not roleplaying the lack of intelligence of his character.

From what you are saying, you seem to be indicating that the player should be allowed to come up with the plan but the DM should punish him by coming up with some way to make the plan fail and then say "your character was too stupid to notice this flaw". Is that correct?

If that is the case, if a dumb player is playing a smart character, should the DM allow his dumb plan to succeed (or warn him of flaws ahead of time) because his character, logically, should be able to make up a smart plan?

>>52216711
>yeah, but the DM himself might just be more stupid than the player and not be able to find a flaw himself.
Then that's the GM's problem, not an inherent flaw with the system as a whole.
>From what you are saying, you seem to be indicating that the player should be allowed to come up with the plan but the DM should punish him by coming up with some way to make the plan fail and then say "your character was too stupid to notice this flaw". Is that correct?
>If that is the case, if a dumb player is playing a smart character, should the DM allow his dumb plan to succeed (or warn him of flaws ahead of time) because his character, logically, should be able to make up a smart plan?
A good way to think about this is that the smart character will be given more hints than the dumb character would because the smart character would be smart enough to go through and edit his plan before setting it into motion while the dumb character wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

>>52216772
so, and correct me if I'm wrong, your stance is, "the player should just roleplay however he wants and all the character flaws that are based on rules are up to the GM to enforce"?

>>52216804
>so, and correct me if I'm wrong, your stance is, "the player should just roleplay however he wants and all the character flaws that are based on rules are up to the GM to enforce"?
If the 6 INT moron wants to give me a convoluted plan, I will gladly accept it and play out the consequences of any flaws that they run into as a result of poor planning. Should this occur, the plan will either fail, or the player comes up with something to salvage the plan as a whole before it unravels completely.

I love it when players give me flaws because a) it gives me ideas for how to test their characters and b) it gives the player opportunities to work around these obstacles as well.

If the player decides to take a flaw, but GM doesn't force them into situations that about as a consequences of taking on that flaw, you can't blame the player when the character comes off as a Mary Sue because they haven't been properly challenged during play.

>>52203803
Who decided on that? If I decide that a player who's shy can just make a persuasion role and give a general idea of what they want to say, then I will. And your repeated capitalization of "social" won't change that.

>>52216983
While I partially agree in that DMs should indeed make a characters flaws actually come up in play, I believe a player should also roleplay the flaws of his character.

>>52217053
A player isn't entitled to put themselves in an unfavorable position at any point during a campaign, no more than the player is supposed to set up a combat encounter or design the NPCs that they'll interact with.

The GM sets the challenges, the Player attempts to overcome said challenges.

If the GM is too lazy to account for a player's strengths and weaknesses, the campaign will most likely fall through long before any perceived self-insertion comes into play.

With that being said, it's not really a proper challenge if the GM has already decided on the outcome before the player's input was ever made.

Or at least, that's how I see it.

>>52217183
>entitled
you mean obligated

and I disagree. If there's a flaw on your sheet, you are obligated to roleplay it. That's what roleplaying is. You play the role of the character to the best of your abilities.

It's excusable to be unable to properly roleplay a smart, or charismatic character due to not being one yourself, but if you put it in your sheet "hates elves" you damn well better behave like a hateful bigot or if you put "mentally retarded" you should roleplay one.

DM - player is not an antagonistic relationship. You are both trying to have a fun game. Going "oh if the DM forget that my character is supposed to be dumb that's his fault lol" is not a good way to have a fun game.

>>52217278
I never said that you had to fist fuck the player, I just said that the GM has to set the challenges that the player (character) would have to overcome during play.

It's not done out of malice, it's done because I, as a GM, want to see how the players deal with the situations that I put in front of them while also seeing how they overcome these situations in spite of their flaws.

I don't expect the player to play to his flaws all the time because they'd obviously be working in their own self-interest most of the time, which is why it's the GM's flaws to confront those flaws no matter what, even if it puts them in a poor situation.

If a player writes "hates elves" on their sheet, they may find themselves needing the help of an elf to overcome an issue within the story. If they put down "mentally retarded," they may get themselves into some dangerous situations without the usual "are you SURE you want to do that?"

Overcoming adversity is a cornerstone of any good story.

>>52217458
>which is why it's the GM's job to FORCE the player to confront those flaws no matter what, even if it puts them in a poor situation, ESPECIALLY if it puts them in a poor situation.
I don't know what happened to the original editing but this is what I meant.

>>52217458
>which is why it's the GM's job to FORCE the player to confront those flaws no matter what, even if it puts them in a poor situation, ESPECIALLY if it puts them in a poor situation.

That is true, but it's also true that a good roleplayer would roleplay their flaws.
i don't mean the player should fuck himself over but he should at least remember that his character is supposed to hate elves and act (act in the theather sense, not in taking action sense) accordingly.

>>52217521
>That is true, but it's also true that a good roleplayer would roleplay their flaws.
A good roleplayer would find a way to overcome the obstacle in their path in spite of their flaws holding them back.

File: 1489345158123.jpg (49KB, 479x435px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 479x435px

>>52216382
Real good idea

>>52217558
Yes?
What you say doesn't conflict with I said

>>52217620
It does conflict, because rather than setting the challenge for them to overcome with the handicap, you're allowing the player to determine how difficult the campaign will be for that character based on their flaws.

It's the difference between someone saying "man, I sure do hate them knife-ears, amirite gentlemen?" and someone having to depend on an elf's help in getting through a particularly hazardous part of the forest and being forced to either piss off the one person who can safely navigate the party through the forest or keep a lid on his prejudiced nature even when the elf performs actions that the character would otherwise despise.

When you give people the reigns, they'll always steer towards the pillow factory, rather than the valley of jagged glass. It doesn't make them poor roleplayers, it just makes them human, which is why you force the carriage to go towards the valley anyways while waiting to see if they can pull off a victory while under pressure

>>52217695
to address a bit of confusion from here >>52217695 when I say
>you force the carriage to go towards the valley anyways while waiting to see if they can pull off a victory while under pressure
I don't mean taking the reigns from the player once it becomes clear that they're aiming for the pillow factory, I meant that you don't give them the choice of taking the reigns at all while seeing how they deal with an uncontrollable carriage heading towards the valley of jagged glass.

>>52217695
>It's the difference between someone saying "man, I sure do hate them knife-ears, amirite gentlemen?" and someone having to depend on an elf's help in getting through a particularly hazardous part of the forest and being forced to either piss off the one person who can safely navigate the party through the forest or keep a lid on his prejudiced nature even when the elf performs actions that the character would otherwise despise.

I'm saying both of these should happen.

The player should remember his flaw and say "fuck those pansy ass tree-huggers" from time to time and the DM should also remember his flaw and have a situation where his hatred of elves comes up in a potentially detrimental way.

The ignorant barbarian player should remember his flaw and not try be too social, and the DM should come up with a situation where his hick ways get in the way.

>>52217736
Again, the player will always steer the carriage towards the pillow factory whenever he's given the reigns and his only other option is the valley of jagged glass.

Even then, how exactly are you supposed to play out racism against elves without having it come off as forced? If the Barbarian player isn't social, why wouldn't he attempt to enter the royal guard anyways based off the fact that he just doesn't know that walking into a royal court in a loincloth is a major social faux pas?

And if the GM doesn't acknowledge a character's flaws during play, why should the player acknowledge those flaws either? It's obvious that the GM doesn't give a shit about challenging the player in that way, so the flaw might as well not even exist within the context of the campaign anyway.

>>52217887
You keep arguing as if I'm disagreeing with you
I'm not saying "no"

I'm saying "yes, AND"

dm engages the players flaws
player roleplays his flaws
both should happen, and they are not incompatible.

>>52217969
I never said that they weren't incompatible, I'm just saying that players won't always play out those flaws unless the GM forces them to acknowledge those flaws.

It's not that I don't believe that players won't play to their flaws, I just don't think that they'll play their flaws when it actually matters.

In retrospect, I might've come off as a bit harsh, and for that I apologize.

>>52218039
I understand what you mean now.
desu senpai I think we just spent the last hour aggressively agreeing with each other without realizing.

>>52218080
It happens. The thread's gonna 404 in an hour or so anyways so we might as well end the conversation here.

>>52214875
>rolls 20
LOL THE ORC SHITS HIMSELF COZ HES SO INTIMIDATED

>>52206518
Because people like >>52203887 exist.

>>52208151

Its has three varieties of combat conflict resolution, the simplest being a single opposed roll as if it were just a bog standard test like many other things. This is usually recommended for simple combat that do not further the story or relate to your beliefs.