|
|
|
davis114
|
 Posted: Mon, Jun 01 2009, 18:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
|
Again, not talking about forced rolling. Just talking about working something you've been trained to do into your rp. 'Tis all.
_________________  MoshingChris wrote: Dude makes like a drunk even when he's sober.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Phantom-D
|
Posted: Mon, Jun 01 2009, 18:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
|
|
If you think I am lying then you think I am lying. If you have no reason to believe I am lying and just want an OOC God Mode Lie Detector and demand bluff rolls for everything then I can't help you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Mon, Jun 01 2009, 18:53 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
I did read your entire post Frey, and I was reading it again as I was writing my post. I don't disagree with you because you're you, I'm just pointing out my differing opinion. I try my best not to make discussions personal. So let's stick to business: I agree with the roughly two thirds of your post, particularly about rolls and how they shouldn't govern RP. This is the point where I must object:
FA_Frey_XC wrote: Because =you= determine how sociable your character is? Not skills designed for NPCS? -- davis114 wrote: I guess, in the end, I'm not even talking about counter rolling to beat the rolls. I simply mean, if you realize someone has so much of a certain skill, wrap it into your rp. That.. isn't.. meant.. for... PC's....YOU... RP .. your ... characters... personality! davis114 wrote: Besides, i realize that everyone can lie, but only certain people should be able to tell a completely and utterly bold faced lie WELL. If you don't have any bluff at all, your character would more than likely, in some way, show this, unless he or she, perhaps, has discipline out the wazoo and can control their facial features and voice. NO. This is not true. Just because you haven't poured points into BLUFF doesn't mean your character cannot tell a lie. *sigh* Just drop the whole SOCIAL SKILLS from your RP vocabulary, as it was never meant to do that. Just get it out of your head, because your operating on a completely flawed principle. Regards, I do not believe social skills are a flawed concept, nor are they an OOC tool for NPC interaction. They, like all skills, represent your character's attributes. If you have no ranks in those skills, I do think you are a poorer liar than one who does. You role-play your character's personality, and I agree with that, but ideally you would also role-play your character's sheet and there would be no contradiction: a persuasive character would have ranks in persuade, even if he never rolled a skill check. I understand this isn't always the case in a game that's mostly based on combat. It is a game after all, not a writers' club. Your character sheet shouldn't determine your character personality, but it should reflect it. (Just like your character alignment shouldn't determine your character personality, but it should reflect it.  But I digress!)
I think social skills should be encouraged and respected more than they are, but I don't think rolls are good for anything. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Mon, Jun 01 2009, 22:47 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I agree with Iron.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 0:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
davis114 wrote: So you're arguement there is that this wasn't meant to be used this way when Bioware created it.
...
*looks at the modifications section of the forum*
Things evolve. Bioware didn't mean for a crapton of things to be the way they are, but we, as the players, have changed them, to fit our evolving world of roleplay. It's simply backwards to think something is wrong, just because it's never been done.
As for not being able to tell a lie without bluff, as I said, I agree that -anyone- can lie. But if someone spends the majority of their training learning how to, they would, in an rp sense, be able to do it better than others that have simply picked it up as they went along.
These skills are NOT the end all of rp. If your character is intimidating, you simply have to rp that he/she is. All I'm saying is that these skills are a factor in this rp, because they show WHY someone is so persuasive, or so intimidating. Because they've TRAINED to be decent at it.
It's just bad rp, imo, to ignore these social skills, on a -social- server, just because they weren't originally meant to be used on PC's.
Until you can find a way of mathematically quantifying situational factors, personality factors, previous experiences, current physiological factors, psychological factors, training, and the like into a vaguely balanced system of raw Positives and Negatives; Dicerolling will remain inadequate.
You should know that there are dozens of factors towards any social interaction or skill possessed by an individual that come into play.
Lying to an authority figure is harder than lying to a five year old. Intimidating someone a quarter your size is going to be easy much of the time. Persuading someone who is of a faith opposite of yours is going to be difficult. Lying to someone who, by nature, is influencable is going to be easier than lying to someone with social grace. Intimidating someone who's fought people stronger and larger than you is going to be very difficult. Persuading someone of a likeminded demeanour is going to be easy. Lying to a suspicious, skeptical person is going to be harder. Intimidating someone who has been desensitized towards fear is going to be bloody difficult. Persuading a stubborn, self-righteous person is going to be extremely difficult.
Lying even covers more mechanics. Is the liar afraid of being caught? Is he nervous about it? Is he going to show signs of non-existant uneasiness? Has he simply got a good memory for what he's said before?
Lying is impossible to give a mathematical, comparative, figure to. Period. You can't appropriatelly quantify the various factors involved in both a lie and its detection.
This is why a purely mathematical system (Dicerolling) Does not effectively work for Social Encounters.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
GreatPigeon
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 1:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 04 May 2009
Location: London, UK
|
WonWon wrote:
Until you can find a way of mathematically quantifying situational factors, personality factors, previous experiences, current physiological factors, psychological factors, training, and the like into a vaguely balanced system of raw Positives and Negatives; Dicerolling will remain inadequate.
You should know that there are dozens of factors towards any social interaction or skill possessed by an individual that come into play.
Lying to an authority figure is harder than lying to a five year old. Intimidating someone a quarter your size is going to be easy much of the time. Persuading someone who is of a faith opposite of yours is going to be difficult. Lying to someone who, by nature, is influencable is going to be easier than lying to someone with social grace. Intimidating someone who's fought people stronger and larger than you is going to be very difficult. Persuading someone of a likeminded demeanour is going to be easy. Lying to a suspicious, skeptical person is going to be harder. Intimidating someone who has been desensitized towards fear is going to be bloody difficult. Persuading a stubborn, self-righteous person is going to be extremely difficult.
Lying even covers more mechanics. Is the liar afraid of being caught? Is he nervous about it? Is he going to show signs of non-existant uneasiness? Has he simply got a good memory for what he's said before?
Lying is impossible to give a mathematical, comparative, figure to. Period. You can't appropriatelly quantify the various factors involved in both a lie and its detection.
This is why a purely mathematical system (Dicerolling) Does not effectively work for Social Encounters.
And when you figure this out, remember there are starving children everywhere. Lets focuson more important things? PP thing should be closed and DMs decide behind closed doors. Its not gonna be solved by others. DMs as the peopel in authority, no matter what they decide we will use and not complain about it to much. _________________ The Peacock wrote: [GreatPigeon] is better than me. Uncle-Opustus wrote: Just before I fall asleep, I like to pretend it's just a public feat so Pigeon can succeed in politics and save the world from poverty... with his unicorn and shining armour and Excalibur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
davis114
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 3:19 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
IronAngel wrote: I do not believe social skills are a flawed concept, nor are they an OOC tool for NPC interaction. They, like all skills, represent your character's attributes. If you have no ranks in those skills, I do think you are a poorer liar than one who does. You role-play your character's personality, and I agree with that, but ideally you would also role-play your character's sheet and there would be no contradiction: a persuasive character would have ranks in persuade, even if he never rolled a skill check. I understand this isn't always the case in a game that's mostly based on combat. It is a game after all, not a writers' club. Your character sheet shouldn't determine your character personality, but it should reflect it. (Just like your character alignment shouldn't determine your character personality, but it should reflect it. But I digress!) I think social skills should be encouraged and respected more than they are, but I don't think rolls are good for anything. That's it!! That's literally all I was trying to say! Nothing about dice rolling at all. Simply this. _________________ MoshingChris wrote: Dude makes like a drunk even when he's sober.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA_Frey_XC
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 5:58 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 18 May 2005
Location: XC HQ Alpha, Sol System, Sirius Sector.
|
davis114 wrote: So you're arguement there is that this wasn't meant to be used this way when Bioware created it.
...
*looks at the modifications section of the forum*
Things evolve. Bioware didn't mean for a crapton of things to be the way they are, but we, as the players, have changed them, to fit our evolving world of roleplay. It's simply backwards to think something is wrong, just because it's never been done.
As for not being able to tell a lie without bluff, as I said, I agree that -anyone- can lie. But if someone spends the majority of their training learning how to, they would, in an rp sense, be able to do it better than others that have simply picked it up as they went along.
These skills are NOT the end all of rp. If your character is intimidating, you simply have to rp that he/she is. All I'm saying is that these skills are a factor in this rp, because they show WHY someone is so persuasive, or so intimidating. Because they've TRAINED to be decent at it.
It's just bad rp, imo, to ignore these social skills, on a -social- server, just because they weren't originally meant to be used on PC's.
I think your missing the point. If your character has -0- points in intimidate, but your RP him / her "Oi, gimmie yer cash or else" and it comes across as intimidating, I will react appropriately.
If your character has 100 points in intimidate, and your don't RP the intimidate but merely says "oi!, gimmie your cash or else!" and then do skill check on Initimidate, I will laugh and continue walking. (perhaps, to that characters detriment, sure ).
I think if you think about that, it think it will make sense?
And in regards to the DM that edited my post, I knew the individual mentioned for over 6 years prior to his .. unfortunate decision that resulted in his leaving the server.
I wasn't talking about anyone "behind their back".
If you want to edit the post, that's fine, but don't assume the intent and then advertise it as that's slanderous.
Regards, _________________ 
"Come under the flag of truce, and brook no treason... for mineself is Death, and care not whom knows mine touch."
- Frey Asaid'De Majere
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA_Frey_XC
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 6:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 18 May 2005
Location: XC HQ Alpha, Sol System, Sirius Sector.
|
IronAngel wrote: I did read your entire post Frey, and I was reading it again as I was writing my post. I don't disagree with you because you're you, I'm just pointing out my differing opinion. I try my best not to make discussions personal. So let's stick to business: I agree with the roughly two thirds of your post, particularly about rolls and how they shouldn't govern RP. This is the point where I must object:
Iron, I know this, and I have admitted on many occassion I enjoy pulling your hair every once in a while due to the sometimes heated discussions we've gotten into in the past in regards to certain topics.
But, I would never truly or seriously state that I think you'd take an adversarial position to my statements just because it's me. I know that's not the case, and to any that have taken my statements literally, please be politely corrected.
Just for the record.
Regards, _________________
"Come under the flag of truce, and brook no treason... for mineself is Death, and care not whom knows mine touch."
- Frey Asaid'De Majere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 7:28 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
I'm agreeing with Iron on this one. Certainly, none of my characters would be convinced by a poor lie followed up by a good roll. The RP is paramount.
However, it is nice to see people rping somewhat according to their sheets. This game is a lot about trade-offs after all, and it would be unimpressive play a half-orc barbarian wiht 6 int and 6 charisma with no social skills whatsoever as an eloquent diplomat/politician PC, IMO.
I like the dynamic of the savage and the savant partying up together to brave the unknown! I don't like super-hero PCs that tries to be a one-man party.
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 9:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
davis114 wrote: It's just bad rp, imo, to ignore these social skills, on a -social- server, just because they weren't originally meant to be used on PC's. I dispute the premise that the social skills were ever intended to be part of roleplay in the first place.
*Brings up classic PnP image of six people round a table covered in dice and papers*
It seems obvious to me that they are just another mechanical, dice-based tool to use against an obstacle in the form of an NPC, no different in practise to a physical barrier. The DM tells you there's a cliff, so the Monk rolls Climb and tosses the rest of the party a rope when he's at the top. The DM tells you there's a guard, so the Bard rolls Persuade and the guard lets them all past. Business as usual.
As I pointed out previously, they're just black boxes with numbers written on the side, which is not roleplay at all.
Equally unworkable is putting a clear box around some actual RP and assigning it a score because the thing you are comparing it to is inside a black box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 9:07 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
I don't follow you on this one, Ucy. RP is role playing, the role you are supposed to play is determined partially by a character sheet that has numbers to describe certain talents. A good RPer isn't just good at conveying a narrative, he does so with the role he's got.
A WM killing stuff is also overcoming obstacles, but by doing so you gain the 'right to RP' as an effective WM killermachine. I don't see a big difference with social skills.
I don't accept that the "RP" and the "Numbers" are worlds apart.
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 9:11 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
I see Combat and Social as two vastly different sets of mechanics.
Combat is relatively simple - Does your attempt to hurt someone, hurt someone? Do you hit (A simple Yes or No, or Zero and One, or Positive and Negative factor). Do you inflict damage. Does it kill them. Mathematically adaptable, and NWN/DnD even includes all of the extrenuating factors involved (the latter moreso, of course)
Social is much more complex, and claiming it isn't is pretty shortsighted. Can you associate social actions, reactions, effects and the like into numerical factors beyond Percentage repesentations of majorities and minorities?
You can't.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 9:24 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
Well, in reality, I imagine killing something with swords to be a far more complex affair than d20 rolls anyways. However, I don't dispute the fact that killing and social rolls are very different set of mechanics. However, I argue that this difference is irrelevant to the fact that you should, ideally, attempt to RP the numbers you have on your sheet.
You are right, this isn't a precise science, it never will be, but I feel I have more than enough to go with to think that a barbarian with 6 cha and no points invested in persuasion shouldn't be the most eloquent, persuasive person in the group. It's just cooler to be able to back up RP with skill points.
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 9:50 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
Quote: A WM killing stuff is also overcoming obstacles, but by doing so you gain the 'right to RP' as an effective WM killermachine. I don't see a big difference with social skills. In combat I'm happy enough to put the actual fighting moves inside a black box because you still have to supply the tactics to use in the fight.
I don't see social interaction has having this divide. Your tactics are your choice of words.
Social skills to me would be like having a Tactics skill and rolling that instead of fighting. I'm sure plenty of people would like that, but I wouldn't. Admittedly I'm biased as hell in that regard since I know lots and lots of PvP tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that you should have to roll a social skill each time your say something. I am just saying that RP is not freeform fiction, you have a role to play. This role is determined by many things, such as your race, your class, and, yes, your talents.
I think it's nice to see people displaying some effort in their RP to make the RP fit their character sheet. Sure, it is not precise or even remotely accurate at times, a duergar would probably not have -4 charisma towards other duergar for instance, but still; I do believe that your abilities and skills should be reflected in your RP somehow.
The reason I think you are misunderstanding me is because I regularly see your practise what I preach with your characters. Va's character sheet makes perfect sense for his RP, if I remember it correctly.
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
Last edited by Kjetta on Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:03 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I use the rolls to tip me when I'm on the fence. That's it.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA_Frey_XC
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 18 May 2005
Location: XC HQ Alpha, Sol System, Sirius Sector.
|
Kj, that barbarian shouldn't... but the point isn't whether a barb with 6 CHA should come off as an eloquent speaker. You are absolutely right that, if the player is playing their character sheet, then by all means he shouldn't.
That's not the point.
The point is in their inception, the =-entire-= reason they are included, is for PC to NPC interaction. These skills were never designed for PC to PC interactions, because there's no "anti-intimidate" skill, etc. You will find a players handbook talking about the skill as it applies to NPC interaction, but I haven't found one talking about PC interaction.
It needs to stop there. No farther. Don't hypothesize "what if"... because you could do that to everything.
And if your going to bring up the "RP'ing your character sheet" I'd start bringing up more valid concepts that should be enforced, such as Alignment, Attributes, and the like, but then I'd be told those are RP restrictions.
Regards, _________________
"Come under the flag of truce, and brook no treason... for mineself is Death, and care not whom knows mine touch."
- Frey Asaid'De Majere
Last edited by FA_Frey_XC on Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:09 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:03 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
You're right that in both PnP and NWN the social skills system was designed to only work against NPCs.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:20 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
FA_Frey_XC wrote: Kj, that barbarian shouldn't... but the point isn't whether a barb with 6 CHA should come off as an eloquent speaker. You are absolutely right that, if the player is playing their character sheet, then by all means he shouldn't.
That's not the point.
If your read the OP, you will see that this is very much the point. The OP adresses the situation where characters with no skillpoints invested in bluff is bluffing other PCs.
I am saying that although bluff isn't designed to work against PCs, it's cool to see players restrict their RL ability to bluff because they are playing a character that is inept at social trickery. Otherwise, you'll have a character that is super-good at talking to PCs but mistrusted by NPCs?
Mind you, I am not advocating any set rules where you roll bluff and then counter-bluff with another roll and then determine whether your PC falls for the bluff or not. I am advocating that sell-inflicted flaws should be the result of an apparent lack of social skills, and thus partially affect how bluffing works between PCs. _________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:26 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
Maybe if Skill Points represented ordinary talent and skills, your argument would hold a bit more foundation, but skills don't represent that. They are your heroic, bordering-on-the-divine abilities and talents that your character possesses.
Just because someone has 0 Climb doesn't mean they couldn't climb a fence, scale the side of a shoddy building, or make their way up a cliff face.
A lack of points in Knowledge (local) doesn't mean you'd easily get lost in your local environment.
Possessing Zero Survival and Knowledge (nature) doesn't mean you're oblivious to the fact that Poison Ivy is something to be avoided.
A simple non-existance of skill points in Bluff doesn't mean you can't spill a lie when you need to.
Zero Discipline doesn't mean you can be knocked over by a gust of wind.
etc, etc, etc.
Skill Points are Heroic Talent. You don't need Heroic Talent to put some words together and keep a straight face in a world where almost -anything- is plausible.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:38 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
That is on the side of my arguement entirely. I am not saying anything about the difficulty of bluffing or how much bluff you should have to be able tell whatever bluff.
I am just saying that your talents are part of your role, and that I like to see people RPing their role. It would be up to yourself to decide whether your lie would recquire a heroic potential of bluffing or not.
I don't see how that is problematic.
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 10:47 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
Kjetta wrote: The reason I think you are misunderstanding me is because I regularly see your practise what I preach with your characters. Va's character sheet makes perfect sense for his RP, if I remember it correctly. Like Frey, I agree with you as far ability points go, and regularly find myself discarding half-typed sentence during RP because I've decided what's there is too smart/canny/charming for my character's stats. Frank, for example, has 9CHA because I didn't want to roleplay him as being as socially inept as 6 would require. I could very easily pop half a dozen points into Bluff and Persuade and RP him as perfectly smooth on 6CHA(a tiny investment, especially on a human 14INT Rogue17) but that would be arse.
Social skills, in my Humbledore, are a replacement for RP, which is fine if you're just treating minor NPCs as obstacles; stuff like the Khem cart drivers or getting Hamar and the Underdark smurf to open his shop. For pretty much any other application, including major plot NPCs, I wish they weren't even in NWN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estara
|
Posted: Tue, Jun 02 2009, 11:05 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
|
|
I like rolls sometimes. They can add flavor and give you things unexpected, as long as both parties are willing to go along with them and you can find fun ways of explaining them. Though, I also agree they shouldn't regulate RP.
Example for why it can be fun:
Darby is stuffed in a chest, tied up, and Samantha wants to knock her out.
Samantha rolls a Str. check when she attempts to bash Darby's head in with the hilt of her sword.
Darby retcons with a Const. check.
Of course Samantha really could've just bashed her in using PVP, KO-ing her, and would've won easily, because Darby technically had no weapons.
However, when Darby's Const. check beat Sam's Str. roll it could be fun to have Samantha jump on top of her and bash bash bash her to make sure the dumb idiot really got knocked out. Wouldn't happen if we decided not to take a random chance with the "black box numbers" helping decide some of our RP.
I say do what you want with them, but don't try to enforce them on others. Don't demand or ask for them, but if they happen to come along, in a social situation, why not use those fluffy social skills for some fluffy fun?
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA_Frey_XC
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 9:42 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 18 May 2005
Location: XC HQ Alpha, Sol System, Sirius Sector.
|
Kjetta wrote: If your read the OP, you will see that this is very much the point. The OP adresses the situation where characters with no skillpoints invested in bluff is bluffing other PCs. No, this is completely different - abilities scores and skill scores are not the same. Kjetta wrote: I am saying that although bluff isn't designed to work against PCs, it's cool to see players restrict their RL ability to bluff because they are playing a character that is inept at social trickery. Otherwise, you'll have a character that is super-good at talking to PCs but mistrusted by NPCs? Good point, but if the PC is playing his ability scores this won't happen, checks and balances my brother. Kjetta wrote: Mind you, I am not advocating any set rules where you roll bluff and then counter-bluff with another roll and then determine whether your PC falls for the bluff or not. I am advocating that sell-inflicted flaws should be the result of an apparent lack of social skills, and thus partially affect how bluffing works between PCs.
This was how it was when I first got onto Amia. I won't name names at the risk of someone thinking I'm taking about someone, but -everyone- did it - people would get in trouble from DMs for ignoring INTIMIDATE rolls, GRAPPLE rolls, in the middle of Cordor FFS.
It was retarded, and I, for one, wish the skills were outlawed against PC to PC interaction.
Regards, _________________
"Come under the flag of truce, and brook no treason... for mineself is Death, and care not whom knows mine touch."
- Frey Asaid'De Majere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 9:58 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
FA_Frey_XC wrote: Kjetta wrote: If your read the OP, you will see that this is very much the point. The OP adresses the situation where characters with no social skillpoints invested in bluff is bluffing other PCs. No, this is completely different - abilities scores and skill scores are not the same. I have a hard time accepting this. I know they are not the same; but as I understand you, you advocate playing your stats but not your skills? Ability points are directly connected to skills, mechanically even. Do you think a barbarian with 6 cha and 100 points in persuade should be played the same way as a barbarian with 6 cha and no skillpoints towards PCs?
Anyways, I mentioned a barbarian with 6 cha and no skillpoints invested in social skills, btw. I can acknowledge that we disagree on how much skillpoints should affect your RP, but I maintain I was fully adressing the point of the discussion with my arguments.
Again, I am not saying that you should invent a bogus system for how to use these skillpoints against PCs. I am just saying that your skills, feats etc. should affect your RP. It's just my taste.
And I really don't care how it was made to be in DnD, I care about NwN.
Regards! _________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
Last edited by Kjetta on Wed, Jun 03 2009, 10:09 AM, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 10:04 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
|
For ages I used to support the practise of taking a failed counter-Intimidate check to mean your character is absolutely convinced that he or she will be attacked unless the scary person is yielded to.
However, that works on the same honour system whereby well played cowardly character would fold anyway. The god-emoters(and indeed many characters with viable reason to stand firm) wil just claim they're happy to fight, so it devolves to being an OOC flag. There's already one of them in the form of the Hostile setting, which you are meant to be using before fistcuffs anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 10:13 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
And then there's the whole...
"What?! You blew him up?!"
"He was trying to convince me he was going to kill me.
It worked."
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 10:21 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
Hehe. We could adopt that to fear auras as well. Might I propose a houserule:
Flight or Fight! When failing a save vs. fear, there's a 50% chance a character will become frightened and flee (as per normal) or attack the perceived theat with adrenaline-bolstered strenght (+4 str, +4 con).
Not really. But still! _________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
GreatPigeon
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 10:24 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 04 May 2009
Location: London, UK
|
|
Fear should make you hasted! You normally just stand still (fetal position *sucks thumb and cries mommy*) How about HASTE HASTE HASTE
*coughs* HASTE
Seriously though, when ya see thee monster and you are scared you dont walk off, you'd throw down ur sack of heavy things and scream holy SH%$^%%$^ then run home.
_________________ The Peacock wrote: [GreatPigeon] is better than me. Uncle-Opustus wrote: Just before I fall asleep, I like to pretend it's just a public feat so Pigeon can succeed in politics and save the world from poverty... with his unicorn and shining armour and Excalibur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 10:49 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
Kjetta wrote: Do you think a barbarian with 6 cha and 100 points in persuade should be played the same way as a barbarian with 6 cha and no skillpoints towards PCs? I can't speak for Frey, but my unsolicited answer is: there shouldn't be any social skills to take ranks in. They're not appropriate in a setting where RP is not blackboxed.
You didn't mention the INT of the orc, which complicates things since there's two methods of persuasion: logical and emotional. A high INT, low CHA character could bamboozle the other chap with rules and laws and precedents, whilst being annoying and/or rude. Of course, if the hypothetical halforc has high INT and low CHA, it can just go ahead and be an annoying lawyer type without further ado.
Taking Persuade or Bluff ranks on a low INT, low CHA character just shifts the cheesiness from roleplay to the levelup screen. I could justify putting ranks in if my character had seriously been trying to fit in(with comedic epic failure on every attempt), but I couldn't justify keeping the base stats low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaviera
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 11:13 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Location: Temple of Love
|
In large measure we are attempting to play characters who differ from ourselves. As bright as gamers tend to be only a very small minority will actually have 18 INT and none will have higher (I'll grant Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein 19's).
The die rolls are used to simulate the effects of the numbers on the character sheet. Since most of us dont have 18 INT or 52 Perform or 93 Bluff we just, in effect, say "I perform really really good!" and roll a die.
Because D&D is an RPG, and Amia is an RP server, we like to see those die rolls backed up by some RP. I think any PnP DM who let the characters waltz through town and re-equip for free without any supporting RP just because they all had epic Persuade skills wouldn't be a very fun DM to play with. May as well just roll d100 for final level and go home.
So, the numbers are there to do what we can't do in reality. Ideally, any social interaction in which a player had to use a skill that s/he did not have in reality would be a series of die rolls accompanied by supporting RP. Even if you don't actually have 52 Persuade, you can still say "I explain to Doofus the advantages of my proposal while glossing over the disadvantages, making sure to appeal to his greed and patriotism and at the same time flattering him mercilessly" or some such.
Because you can't RP with unpossessed NPCs outside the limits of their conversations (which is even more limiting that PnP D&D), we use numbers to resolve the few decisions required. In PC-to-PC interaction, we like to see RP. If everyone was an excellent RPer and fair-playing type, there would likely be no problem with RP + die rolls. But we whine (myself included) about pickpockets, griefers, epic loot and RP builds, so there will always be OOC disagreement about the validity of a roll, particularly without stellar supporting RP. In the (ridiculous) extreme, against a god-modding player, it boils down to 'log in, roll a d100 to see who wins, log out'.
The bottom line: the roll should be an accessory to RP. Make your roll and I may allow it to guide my RP, but I wont allow it to dictate it. _________________  ~Sharess on AmiaWiki~Priestess, politician, prostitute "[They] were moving in on me like Sharessans on a new broad in the bath house" - Tracer BoltAmiaWiki mod (mostly inactive)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 11:44 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
|
Says you, Xavi.
I've 127 ranks in awesome.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 12:01 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
Quote: Make your roll and I may allow it to guide my RP, but I wont allow it to dictate it. I don't quite see the difference between the diebag and a coin beside your keyboard. That's a perfectly good and respectable way of playing; it's not like we're UN guys in charge famine relief aid or something.
It's the person's RP that got you to the stage where you couldn't decide what your character should do, right? Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man, but the idea of someone loading up on ranks so that wavering people will always waver ther way tips me into Awkward Bastard mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 12:48 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Uberuce wrote: Quote: Make your roll and I may allow it to guide my RP, but I wont allow it to dictate it. I don't quite see the difference between the diebag and a coin beside your keyboard. That's a perfectly good and respectable way of playing; it's not like we're UN guys in charge famine relief aid or something. No - we actually get something done.
Jokes about the incapabilities of this international organisation, I usually keep a d20 die next to my computer and toss it to be fair to the opposition.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
ainjyll
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 15:11 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Location: wilmington, nc
|
|
I personally don't use social rolls much. If I'm on one of my characters with BG levels, I will remind someone I'm trying to intimidate if they're standing in my aura, but that's usually about it.
I'm sorry, but if someone has 100 points in bluff and is trying to tell me that it wasn't them that I saw lop the head off my friend just now, I don't care what they roll or what their modifier is, my character is not going to believe them. It's all about the RP, if you want to persuade one of my characters to do something, you have to appeal to their own drives and desires. If someone gives a lame reason and then a number pops up over their head, I'm just gonna laugh and continue to tell them no.
_________________  "I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesquille
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 16:14 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Location: Melbourne
|
|
My character, Spooks, is an extremely powerful mage, so he's usually not intimidated by other characters, even if he's pretty easily spooked.
There's only two PCs I can think of who he's genuinely scared of, those being Darthion Illys and Earylduil Somethingorotherichangemysurnameeveryweeken'd. I've never seen either of these players roll a bluff check, but they can scare Spooks just by virtue of them being good at roleplaying an intimidating character.
I usually ignore rolls unless the PC can back it up with RP. It's more fun to just ignore the mechanics when dramatically appropriate.
_________________
Born to a [wealth level] family, you spent your early years doing [early activity] in [town type]. Your father was [father status], while your mother was [mother status]. You left your homeland at the age of [chosen age], seeking [reason for leaving].
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 17:07 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
In my opinion, thinking of Bluff as the means to formulate rationally convincing lies isn't the best approach. Instead, I would look at it as a denoter of how convincing your mannerism is. You might not believe the person you saw chopping your friend's head off didn't do it, but if he had 100 Bluff he could put on the kind of anguished, bewildered and regretful face that you'd be willing to consider maybe he didn't do it intentionally, maybe he just went nuts for a while. When he tells you about the flying ship he has, you probably won't believe him but you'd be sure he believes what he's telling is true. And so on.
I pretty much consider Bluff and Persuade almost identical, complementary to eachother. I'd leave the rational arguments up to RP entirely, and let the skills mostly represent the non-verbal part of communication. "Come with me to the bar" doesn't contain much rational argumentation, but you'd percieve it entirely different based on who the one persuading you is and what his Persuade rank is. "Help, a woman is being mugged behind that building!" is also very fishy, but a master Bluffer will surely inspire pity and convince the listener of his sincerity, even if they'd know to be wary regardless.
I agree with Kjetta. Everything on your character sheet, abilities, skills, feats, race and class should be reflected in your role-play, and your character sheet should reflect as much your role-play as possible. But then, the game is primarily about action, and that's why I'll usually choose a mechanically useful skill like Spellcraft over a social skill, if both are appropriate to the character. That's not the ideal situation, but I'm just human!
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grymia
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 18:27 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Location: Kohlingen, and a Basement in Canada
|
|
Here's the problem Iron:
What should be holding more sway, Roleplay or Rollplay?
I agree, one should try reasonably to play to their statistics. But, in the end, what should hold more weight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 19:11 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
|
RPing your sheet goes both ways.
I've seen people try to go 'Boo!' and pass off a high intimidate roll to back it up as reason for other people to run off screaming. Then issue complaints about that person not RPing properly if they don't.
To me, that ain't right... if you're gonna pull out a d20 + 80 roll of intimidate you need to at least -try- to be scary. Just because a PC is capable of being very scary doesn't mean if you don't roleplay it as so that it is so. Gotta both RP your weaknesses and strengths of characters imo.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phantom-D
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 03 2009, 22:21 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
|
|
I think the general rule is that you shouldn't throw around skill rolls for reasons other than supplementing some RP or to try to show off how apt you are at something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheUltimateSin
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 1:02 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Location: Georgie
|
|
I'm with Kjetta and Iron on this. They do add a wonderful bit of flavor. My BG almost convinced someone to trade him a nice bit of glimmer for a rat's ear because he bluffed her into thinking it was some powerful artifact of ancient magic. It would have worked too had it not been for those meddling kids and their stupid dog.
edit: and I'm gonna keep taking points in those social skills even if the entire server chose to ignore them just because I feel that char being a follower of a certain Prince of Lies should be well versed in those particular skills.
_________________
"Solomon Grundy stronger than all, Superfriends." -Solomon Grundy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 2:21 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Phantom-D wrote: I think the general rule is that you shouldn't throw around skill rolls for reasons other than supplementing some RP or to try to show off how apt you are at something.
That.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selvec Darkon
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 12:59 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Location: On a Disk, carried by four elephants, which stand on a gigantic turtle.
|
|
Social skills are the kind of thing's I'd say should be disclosed on a case by case basis. If someone is simply lying to cover up something personally about them, something there character wouldn't reveal as it's against the very grain of that character, then no roll should be needed. However, if it's about something that's a little more obvious and specfic, such as asking if the person has had contact a banite, and they have actually engaged in such activites within' the game world, then a bluff roll should be made if they choose to lie. As the person asking as reason to suspect otherwise.
By reason to suspect someone of lying, I do not mean suspecting them to be evil because they where black and red. That's stupid. But suspecting someone based on physical evidence or things done literally within' the world recently. Something crediable.
It all comes down to the merit of both user's involved. Which is why I believe social skill's are offically an optional rolls. Though personally I'd get rather pissed off if you are lying about something that could lead to some great rp if you where discovered, but refused to roll bluff.
All and all, don't be an ass when using social rolls. With holding or asking for the roll.
Edit: That was confusing. But I can't think of another way to put it at the moment.
_________________
I keels u with my axe!
"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 15:29 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Grymia wrote: Here's the problem Iron:
What should be holding more sway, Roleplay or Rollplay?
I agree, one should try reasonably to play to their statistics. But, in the end, what should hold more weight?
I cannot and don't want to answer that. I don't think it's a problem, actually. That uncertainty is, in a way, the entire point of a synthesis or a "middle way". It is a good uncertainty. You should not rely on absolutes, you shouldn't stick to either extreme. You don't have a Book of Rules and Guidelines to refer to when in doubt, you need to make the call yourself. It's unlikely, but there's the hypothetical situation that the dialogue/emotes and the skill check conflict and are both equally persuasive. You don't need to know which holds more weight, though. You just do what feels right at that moment. Tomorrow, you might do the opposite.
That's taking responsibility for your actions, in this case, your role-play. And I think responsibility should always be promoted in favour of shallow one-size-fits-all solutions. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I find it's enough to have a general outlook on things, without need for comprehensive rules and definitions. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
GreatPigeon
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 18:38 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 04 May 2009
Location: London, UK
|
Selvec Darkon wrote: Social skills are the kind of thing's I'd say should be disclosed on a case by case basis. If someone is simply lying to cover up something personally about them, something there character wouldn't reveal as it's against the very grain of that character, then no roll should be needed. However, if it's about something that's a little more obvious and specfic, such as asking if the person has had contact a banite, and they have actually engaged in such activites within' the game world, then a bluff roll should be made if they choose to lie. As the person asking as reason to suspect otherwise.
By reason to suspect someone of lying, I do not mean suspecting them to be evil because they where black and red. That's stupid. But suspecting someone based on physical evidence or things done literally within' the world recently. Something crediable.
It all comes down to the merit of both user's involved. Which is why I believe social skill's are offically an optional rolls. Though personally I'd get rather pissed off if you are lying about something that could lead to some great rp if you where discovered, but refused to roll bluff.
All and all, don't be an ass when using social rolls. With holding or asking for the roll.
Edit: That was confusing. But I can't think of another way to put it at the moment.
He's got my vote for Pope... er well if I was a Cardinal _________________ The Peacock wrote: [GreatPigeon] is better than me. Uncle-Opustus wrote: Just before I fall asleep, I like to pretend it's just a public feat so Pigeon can succeed in politics and save the world from poverty... with his unicorn and shining armour and Excalibur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 20:42 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
Quote: Though personally I'd get rather pissed off if you are lying about something that could lead to some great rp if you where discovered, but refused to roll bluff.
Or you can refuse to roll bluff, and then allow excellent RP to occur when the other person has to work very hard to investigate whether you told the truth or whether you lied...
...and then when they find out you did lie, there's the other "great rp". And if they didn't find out, then at least they had the good rp trying to find out in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estara
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 22:14 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
|
You can tell Yossarin wants people to figure out if Yossarin's lying a lot more often?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 22:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
|
As a bard with a natural 18 Int and more skill points than I know what to do with, I can assure you I didn't put any into Bluff because I never tell a lie, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 04 2009, 22:45 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Yossarin wrote: Quote: Though personally I'd get rather pissed off if you are lying about something that could lead to some great rp if you where discovered, but refused to roll bluff. Or you can refuse to roll bluff, and then allow excellent RP to occur when the other person has to work very hard to investigate whether you told the truth or whether you lied... ...and then when they find out you did lie, there's the other "great rp". And if they didn't find out, then at least they had the good rp trying to find out in the first place. In that case, when I suspect you of lying ...
*Looks to see if pupils dilate, if nostrils flare, which way eyes point when turning, what he's doing with his hands, general posture, tonal quality of voice ... *
But I think it's best to avoid lying - all my characters tell nothing but the truth. Phrased perfectly to imply a lie, but the truth nonetheless.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login
