| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Display using:
|
|
Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 03:51 PM |
I'm sorry if this is already said and done. I looked around for a while and didn't see a sticky. Also, if this is the wrong place for the thread: whoops!
I have a few questions about the Bluff, Persuade, and Intimidate skills. Well, only two really.
***
1. Are they enforced?
With certain skills, such as persuade, it seems like there's an element of player discretion. It's harder to dare a paladin to poke holes in a dead horse with a pole than a drunk dwarf whose mother was trampled by a horse. However, bluffing and intimidation seem more hard and fast - the targets are either influenced or not.
I've seen a lot of lying done without the roll to go with it. This isn't a complaint, just a question. What's the story?
***
2. Fear and intimidation?
According to the skill description in the player's handbook (*waves the nerd flag*) creatures that are nonintelligent or immune to fear cannot be intimidated. This would include paladins, for instance. While this doesn't mean that a paladin would not recognize a threat, it makes all the difference between a calculated surrender of the issue at hand and a groveling session. Does Vives play this way? |
True solace is finding none, which is to say, it is everywhere.
-Gretel Ehrlich |
|
  |
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 04:15 PM |
Not a legite answer, so sry:
I always thought this topic was interesting amongst OMs (Online Multi) and LARPs (Live Action Role Plays).
Basically the hard truth is... As much as you can roleplay your way with PCs, its all good (with descretion, like if your playing a retarded orc...your not gonna talk your way outa to much). However, with NPCs, ya need the numbers. DMs/STs can always tell you otherwise, but in the end it usually just makes its way to this rule.
Last time I checked though, it was stressed in the Vives nooby rules to roleplay your character with as much stats you had in something (ie: cha 8 = not a fast talker) |
Characters of Lore:
Melchiah Rhinehart : <DEAD>
Ichbin Rhinehart: <Missing>
Daniel Winborne: Currently Venturing |
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 04:28 PM |
I have made rolls before with other PCs for Persuade , when I thought the PC was on the fence as to whether to tell me the imformation or not. I usually give another reason why they should/could tell me and make a Persuade roll, similar to how it would be in one of the single playler module. [Persuade] - Come on you can tell me. I think its something we can role play most of the time but at the same time we should be making these skill checks more. And I do think people should make Bluff checks more too, some if not most people are bad liars, bluff should be a thief skill, my average charisma Druid is probably a bad liar. Its two skills in the game some use people and get away with even though having low charisma and never having taken a skill point in it. And when nobody ever makes checks, why would or should anyone ever spend a skill point in it, its like two skills you could totally erase from your character sheet
- Same with me, not a complaint just how I feel things could go a little differently, and its not as though its a huge problem, but something to keep in mind as it goes back to role playing your stats
|
~ Nay'Finn |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 05:02 PM |
I always liked the way that Nessa would throw down with the ability checks in RP situations. D&D started as a dice game (Gary Gygax once insisted that it was a dice game first, and that role-playing came second), and I don't see any problem with using the dice bag to introduce chance and structure competition between players. It makes you RP things you would not necessarily want to RP, in a good RP-stretching way rather than a bad force-RP way.
I think that some situations would not be RP-ed without a chance intervention.
Blanche once hit Salt with a roll to persuade him to never visit Maldovia alone. She rolled very high, so he accepted that piece of advice and to date hasn't ever gone against it.
Similarly, when Salt first met her she asked me to roll for a lore check, and then told me some details about an artifact she had just displayed because I rolled pretty high. That started Salt's whole interest in the Aristi.
Salt has a pretty high appraise score, and I'm presuming folks like Tomi do too. I've always wanted to hit someone up for an appraise roll when horse-trading, to get the better end of the bargain. They could decide in RP whether they just lost their lunch money, their savings, or their shirt... (here's a secret: you can take many of my characters for their shirts!)
In a way, this is players acting like DMs. But like PvP, we players can probably handle this, provided everyone involved is consenting and these rolls aren't used to force RP. Unlike with DMs, we can decline to cooperate with this kind of monkey business from other players, if we would rather RP it than haul out the dice bags. |
"What are you talking about?"
"I'm talking about dying."
"What's that supposed to mean?"
"It means lying in the ground with dirt on your face and holding your breath forever."
-Burt Reynolds, "The End" |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 05:26 PM |
Skill rolls can be done, but it is up to the other player to accept it. There is no 'fair' way to set out rules for PvP skill rolls as it will lead to unhappyness. And, really, who wants more rules. If a skill was added called "Sense Motive" then you can roll to beat the bluff, but it's not likely to be added as all the old character would have no points in that skill except for the WIS bonus.
I really dislike the idea of Roll first, RP second. We are Role playing and not Roll playing.
Best way to go about it is to be persusave, bluff or whatever, throw down a roll and let the player choose to react. That way, you're not forcing him to RP your way because you rolled a twenty, but it's his choice to follow your RP. Hell, it it was roleplayed well enough and a 1 was rolled, I still might go along with it because it would be fun. |
Juylina Komthya | Portrait - Priestess of Naruth |
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 06:03 PM |
I agree, I dislike rolls as well. Before Vives I played in a (godawful) server where it was common - nay, it was conventional - to decide mostly everything thru rolls. And in Vives, I've never yet seen a single roll, nor any situation that really required the players to make a diplomacy-related roll to determine an outcome. I think rolling makes the game colder, more emotionless. I'd rather strain my brain to persuade another PC myself than take a shortcut and roll for it to see how good the numbers say I did. I'd rather consider the dicebag a tie-break at best.
Other than diplomacy business, ability- and skill-related rolls such as Listen or Tumble etc. are fine. But when it comes to diplomacy I'd rather play my own game than roll dice for it. IMO it's borderline forced RP.
I agree that rolls can be very helpful and can settle situations effectively and easily, but I'd rather RP it first, then roll, if you really feel you need to. Even better - RP it, roll for it, then describe in your own words how good you did. Let the other player decide how their character responds. I agree with Xerah on this - let the other player conclude how to react to your roll, it's just a lot more fun. |
AKA Adept
Ben Bright: portrait, description (02/17/07) |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 06:24 PM |
| I myself often don't use rolls, simply because I don't think about them half the time. If someone tosses a roll at me, I'll take it into consideration based on how I'll act, but I guess you should feel surprised if you see me toss a roll at you. Whether this is right or wrong, I dunno. That's what DMs are for :P |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 06:38 PM |
I really dislike the idea of Roll first, RP second. We are Role playing and not Roll playing.
I totally agree - I was pretty unhappy to hear the great bearded god Gygax say this in an interview. Kind of like I was unhappy to learn that William Gibson approved of the film adaptation of his story "Johnny Mnemonic".
Rolls are such a novelty here... I think there's a place for them, and more importantly there's a place for the social skills that Rosen mentioned in the first place. A social character shouldn't avoid plowing points into them.
P.S. His likeness is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GaryGygax2.jpg Observe his greatness chumps! |
"What are you talking about?"
"I'm talking about dying."
"What's that supposed to mean?"
"It means lying in the ground with dirt on your face and holding your breath forever."
-Burt Reynolds, "The End" |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 06:53 PM |
A social character shouldn't avoid plowing points into them.
*coughs!* Except for skill point starved fighter and clerics (although Juylina does have a persuade in the 20s IIRC) |
Juylina Komthya | Portrait - Priestess of Naruth |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 07:17 PM |
| I think all characters are skill point starved when you consider how many skill points they get per level compared to how many class skills they have :o |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 08:26 PM |
I think while everyone's touting the virtues of role-playing (since we're on a role-playing server, it's not that surprising), it's important to remember that rolls can (and should!) be a tool for more effective role-playing, rather than a barrier against it. Case in point: I play a character with a 16 wisdom. Personally, I don't feel that I have a 16 wisdom in real life... now, with physical stats, it's easy enough to emote "*picks up a boulder*," or "*gracefully juggles the dagger between her fingers*," or "downs 15 pints of ale and grins*." But if I'm engaged in a philosophical debate, I'm thinking that my character might actually come up with insights that me and my more normal wisdom might not... normally it's not a big deal, but if it ever actually matters (I'm trying to win an argument to save lives, or advance a storyline, etc.) then I feel like rolls are not only perfectly justified, but necessary. In the best of circumstances, it's a reminder that the other player picks up on and acts accordingly. If I'm RPing with someone and I let them know that I have an effective CHA of 24 and I roll an 18 persuade and they decide that I'm bad for trying to "force" them into something, I would tend to think they're not RPing very well, rather than fault the fact that I made a roll to inform them of the "reality" of the situation our characters were in. I personally don't know how to make magical bags, but my character does; I don't know how to cast spells, but my character does - there are game mechanics in place precisely because I am pretending to be someone else: I'm role-playing. I don't understand why social skills should be treated so much differently.
For the record, I think most folks on the server, being the good RPers they are, take rolls as cues and act accordingly - like Salt Sower, above. I'm just saying here that I don't think there should be a stigma associated with rolling for social/mental skills between players.
-VK |
"You know, a gong. Large, flat object that you hit when you want things. Sort of like a waiter, but less portable."
-Radra |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 09:27 PM |
Hmm, well who is to say what works or not.
Example:
Juylina, attack Illyana next time you see her *persuade* <rolls 20 + 20>
So, who decides what to do with that?
That's why the best thing to do is either set a DC by the DM (the only one who doesn't care which way things go) or have the player react if (s)he feels it is necessary.
Now, if I didn't repond to it, the other player might be unhappy. If you go into expecting it not to be reacted to, then everyone gets out happy as unhappyness can result in arguments between players. Nothing it ruder than getting a tell saying: "You need to go <do it my way>, I rolled a 20." |
Juylina Komthya | Portrait - Priestess of Naruth |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 09:30 PM |
| Has player discretion been working for everyone so far? (I know when I've had dice be thrown from me and at me, everyone seemed OK with it) |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 10:06 PM |
The caliber of RP I've seen here makes me think that player discretion is fine. Could be wrong (I'm new) but I doubt it. I don't want dice to rule the game and fervently believe that good RP is required before any theoretical social roll in the first place.
Bluffing: "I'm actually not saying anything right now."
Persuading: "Give me everything you own please. I would like to sell it and get rich."
Intimidating: "Your ten million, level 50 soldiers are no match for me. Bow down."
These are absurd situations. No amount of numbers can justify a roll there (I hope you'll all agree.) Hopefully it won't ever come into the picture. Again, I could be wrong, but I doubt it ever will.
I just want to know if I should stop sinking my 3 skill points a level into persuade, y'know? I picture my character as something of a diplomat when the situation requires it, but hey, it would be nice to customize my armor too. |
True solace is finding none, which is to say, it is everywhere.
-Gretel Ehrlich |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 13 May 2006 11:09 PM |
Hmm, well who is to say what works or not.
Example:
Juylina, attack Illyana next time you see her *persuade* <rolls 20 + 20>
So, who decides what to do with that?
Umm.. common sense? In the NWN handbook it describes the persuade skill as the following: "A successful persuade check prompts NPCs to give additional information or give bonus treasure in conversation." It doesn't say "a successful persuade check allows you to control another character's mind." Even the spell charm person wouldn't let you command a creature to kill itself or do something wildly out of character, so why would a mundane skill be more powerful than magic?
Social skills deal with subtlety and influence, not overt control, which is why it's fun to roleplay. Me rolling a check and revealing it to another player is a guideline, something to inform them of exactly how persuasive or wise or intimidating my character is being. It's not me (or a DM, for that matter) saying "if I roll over a 15 on this check, you have to sell me that item at a 10% discount." Of course, it's up to the character who didn't roll to decide how their character acts, but if I'm a bard and I roll amazingly on a perform check, I generally expect folks to be impressed - if I get absolutely no reaction from anyone, it feels like folks aren't hitting the ball back to me. That's what this whole experience is to me - an exchange between characters, hitting a tennis ball back and forth and seeing what twists and turns the other people are going to send you, taking a strand of the story and giving your twist to it, and seeing how others pick it up and carry it on, offering their own wrinkles.
I'm not saying you have to use rolls, I'm saying if you feel you need to use rolls to express a reality of your character that you can't express through pure roleplay, you should feel free to do so, and not feel like you're a bad roleplayer. I'm also saying that if you're interacting with someone who chooses to use a roll to reflect a social or mental skill, you should respect that roll and react accordingly. The dice are a tool to enable roleplay, not inhibit it.
-VK |
"You know, a gong. Large, flat object that you hit when you want things. Sort of like a waiter, but less portable."
-Radra |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 14 May 2006 08:26 AM |
"A successful persuade check prompts NPCs to give additional information or give bonus treasure in conversation." It doesn't say "a successful persuade check allows you to control another character's mind." Even the spell charm person wouldn't let you command a creature to kill itself or do something wildly out of character, so why would a mundane skill be more powerful than magic?
I was using an extreme example, so indead going with the additional information, what if someone was to ask Juylina what the Naruthans are planning and roll the same number? Is she required to give up the information? I don't care how high the roll was, she wouldn't tell anyone that. One think I really dislike is people showing off their high skill rolls. There was this one person that would walk up to someone and roll a public spellcraft check whenever the person had buffs casts. What's the point of that? Only thing I could figure was to show off.
Now for me personally, if someone were to spend an hour trying to get information out of Juylina and never rolled a persuade check, I'd be much more inclinded to give that information. I'd assume that the other player would have a high persuade since we're supposed to be playing to our abilities. I don't mean to offend, but it just seems weak to use a roll to get out roleplay.
revealing it to another player is a guideline
I'm not sure if you ment this, but if you're going to use them against another player then it's best to make a public roll. That way if you roll 5 20s in a row, the other person doesn't get mad.
but if I'm a bard and I roll amazingly on a perform check, I generally expect folks to be impressed - if I get absolutely no reaction from anyone, it feels like folks aren't hitting the ball back to me.
Heh, if you take the time to do a performance, I think it's rude for other players not to repond. This is one case where a skill roll is great at the end of the performance. Your roll certainlly isn't going to offend people (and believe me, I've seen people get offended by skill rolls).
I'm also saying that if you're interacting with someone who chooses to use a roll to reflect a social or mental skill, you should respect that roll and react accordingly.
By the player's hand book that you quoted above, it's only supposed to be used on NPCs so if someone doesn't respond to your skill roll, it's not disrespectful. It would be disrespectful to force someone to react. And I'm not even speaking for myself here, I'm trying to get across the fairest way that a skill designed for use against NPCs can be used.
The dice are a tool to enable roleplay, not inhibit it.
Meh, I think that statement is wrong. I feel enabled by my ranks in my skills, my feats and my stat points. I think those are a better repesentation of a person's skill than a random 1 to 20 roll.
In the end, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. |
Juylina Komthya | Portrait - Priestess of Naruth |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 14 May 2006 09:10 AM |
I didn't mean rolls are a taboo. I think rolls can be very helpful as an RP guideline, a helper, a tie breaker. Not a substitute tho. RPing a persuasive attempt and rolling afterwards to show just how well you've done is a great fine-tuner, and it also helps to then desrcibe in your own words how good you did, considering the roll result. But rolls should be just that - a guideline, a suggestion, not a rule. Let the other player consider this and decide how their character chooses to react, but leave it to their discretion.
Also, difficult situations are often more than a single attempt - for example, a difficult, risky Persuade will take more time and effort than others, and might require several rolls to succeed, not a single one. A person might need several inducements until they finally decide to act your way, that a single attempt just doesn't cut it. Or maybe, several long, intricate persuasion attempts followed by a single roll to sum it all up.
For example, Persuade is more than just saying a few well-chosen words. It's also body language, eye contact, confidence, tact, tone of voice, seduction, leadership, charm, timing. A Persuade attempt could (and probably would) be composed of most or all of these. A high roll result could mean that you hit the jackpot and said just what the other person wanted to hear, that you looked or sounded convincing, that you were charming and confident enough to make your argument appealing... while a low result could mean that maybe you said all the right things, but you blinked a few too many times, stuttered, faltered, hesitated, maybe did everything you needed to but fell just too short, or maybe just didn't make sense at all. Maybe you're trying to convince the person to do something completely contrasting to their character - in which case it's very likely all the Persuade in the world can't help you.
That's why I'd rather describe it all rather than say "my roll of 18 means I convince you". Maybe my character is able to say things in a manner that I myself can't, but if you roll high, at least describe how well you did by emoting it, to provide more narration as to what your character is doing. But this should not be unequivocal - again, if the other person decides this just isn't good enough, it apparently just isn't good enough, and you should try harder. Good RPers will take the roll into consideration of course, and again, rolls can be a great help, but I don't feel like it should be conclusive to the point where it just automatically means success versus failure. It's just not fun. |
AKA Adept
Ben Bright: portrait, description (02/17/07) |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 14 May 2006 09:53 AM |
| I think it just comes down to player discretion. If you think a roll is necessary, I think we can all agree that you should use it and people will generally respect it. We are, after all, a community of fairly friendly, enjoyable, mature people. If someone tosses the dice at me, I'll act in a manner I see fit, and I expect if I toss dice at you, you'll act in a manner you'll see fit, and I think everyone will generally be happy. (Hopefully :x) |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 14 May 2006 11:31 AM |
Personally I would never use a roll to pressure another PC into doing something.
However, if my character tells a lie, or tries to lift a heavy body, I make rolls (Local) just to see if they have anywhere near a chance of accomplishing it.
Just because my char makes a good 'Bluff' roll doesn't mean the other char has to go with it. It merely ascertains whether or not they make a decent attempt at it |
Nos laetus epulor is quisnam mos onero nos: Dana's family motto, if she had one
(Translation) We gladly feast on he who will oppress us |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 14 May 2006 11:55 AM |
*sees the horse ain't dead by morning*
I had a couple more thoughts on this inspired by what's above...
1. You should always earn a roll with RP. No RP means no dice shall roll. This goes towards Xerah's point, which is spot on. There is no substitute for the RP effort, not on this server.
2. Its one thing to RP your own stats. What about RPing someone else's stats? That's what Vince says to me above. It would help me to RP getting bluffed or conned if you told me your relevant stat, with or without a roll. If you have plowed your precious skill points into other survival-related areas... well, what can I say?
3. I haven't used the dicebag in so long I have no idea how it works. Public rolls? Skill checks? I'll be spending a little time in the OOC room practicing after this thread. We'll see if anything comes of it!
Edit: My second point above is actually quite flawed... because folks on this server might have a reasonable expectation that social skills have gone the way of armor or weapon crafting skills, or the Craft Potion ability. Some of the epic-level characters on the server might be premised in this assumption. These different assumptions on what social skills are really worth make this a sort of tough call. |
"What are you talking about?"
"I'm talking about dying."
"What's that supposed to mean?"
"It means lying in the ground with dirt on your face and holding your breath forever."
-Burt Reynolds, "The End" |
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 19 May 2006 04:10 PM |
I have made rolls before with other PCs for Persuade , when I thought the PC was on the fence as to whether to tell me the imformation or not. I usually give another reason why they should/could tell me and make a Persuade roll, similar to how it would be in one of the single playler module. [Persuade] - Come on you can tell me. I think its something we can role play most of the time but at the same time we should be making these skill checks more. And I do think people should make Bluff checks more too, some if not most people are bad liars, bluff should be a thief skill, my average charisma Druid is probably a bad liar. Its two skills in the game some use people and get away with even though having low charisma and never having taken a skill point in it. And when nobody ever makes checks, why would or should anyone ever spend a skill point in it, its like two skills you could totally erase from your character sheet
- Same with me, not a complaint just how I feel things could go a little differently, and its not as though its a huge problem, but something to keep in mind as it goes back to role playing your stats
I quoted Nathan's post here because I largely agree with everything he said, and just wanted to add my own two gold pieces (compliments of Sir Percival Sanner).
I think a lot of us (points finger back at himself, being probably as guilty or more than most) try to roleplay the six statistics that stare us in the face when we examine our characters, and usually forget about the skills that show up when we move to the next drop-down menu. In the single player game, I would never consider dropping skill points into persuade, bluff, intimidate, or taunt, largely because I either don't understand what they do, or because they have little observable game effect.
When I run into another character, the only thing I can tell about his/her stats is charisma, so I can't really rp that the character has a higher 'persuade' score than me, or is intimidating, or is good at bluffing. I'm not a big user of rolls, and really the only person I've seen use them logically in the game is Vulpina (please don't throw fiery hell at me if you're a roll user, I'm only saying what I've seen).
What I can definitely role-play, however, is my own stats on the skill page, which mean that Lucius is a helluva good negotiator when it comes to money (appraise), and a terrible liar who's completely unable to keep a secret (bluff). I won't go on and bore everyone with a long explanation of how I rp each and every skill, but I think that, whether you do rolls or not, it's worth thinking about these skills, which are really a secondary set of statistics.
So, the high-charisma paladin who popped 11 points into persuade should have people lining up behind her to march off to battle, should be winning arguments, and should be converting the rest of us to her faith. Darn the rest of us for clustering around some half-orc who who can barely string together a coherent sentence.
*picks up his copy of the Amaranthine Code and reads it over again*
;) |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Social Skillz
Posted: 20 May 2006 05:51 PM |
| I'm a big fan of the dice rolls. I think they help equalize a game that is, otherwise, left entirely up to subjective judgement. While it is necessary to carry a good deal of trust for your fellow players, you don't know everything about their characters and of what they are capable. The rolls help paint a more complete and genuine picture of a character, and helps to guide the roll play. It doesn't necessarily have to *dictate* it, in my opinion, because there are always circumstances of RP to consider for which the dice will not adjust. It's always best to use player discretion and judgement, but using the dice rolls as an impartial point of negotiation is perfectly legitimate. |
"I've got a sword and it's a good one, but all the bleedin' thing can do is keep someone alive, listen. A song can keep someone immortal!" - Cohen the Barbarian |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|