AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Before I get to the meat of this post allow me to state and I hope I chose the right wording: I came up with this topic because something that happened in game but it is not a topic aimed at that event. That may sound confusing so let me elaborate:

This will be a hypothetical example to further differentiate my question from the actual event that brought me to ask this question. Again this is an example and did not happen:

My character accuses another character of something. OOC both I and the other characters player know.my character is telling the truth but the other character makes up some lies and denies the accusation. Since we both OOC know the other character is lying I ask for a bluff check to be rolled. The other player responds with roleplay not roll play.

My questionis this: My interpretation (could be wrong wouldn't be the first or last time) of an RP server is that you RP a character. Your character sheet is a numerical representation of your character and you should (opinion) RP your stats. Such as if you choose to have a negative charisma so you can have a high strength you shouldn't RP a gorgeous or social expert. My intent wasn't to reduce the RP to dice rolls at all. My request for a bluff check came because when they were RPing their lies they gave no IC hints that they were lying in the above example. As in: all they typed were what the character said nothing about bodylanguage or actions that you can perceive in real life to help you decide if a person seems trustworthy which is what a bluff check would represent. Alternatively had there been an inclusion of stammering or shifty eyes etc in the RP a bluff cwouldn't be necessary. Does make any sense?

Basically tl;dr version: is asking for a skill check in RP wrong? And secondly is it wrong to expect characters to be played as their stats make them? IE: a person who builds for power in combat but neglects social or RP useful skills should not RP being social gurus and glib speakers.

only DMs can enforce rolls and no players have to roll, unless ordered by a DM.

corypx wrote:

only DMs can enforce rolls and no players have to roll, unless ordered by a DM.

This. Grapple is the exception.

Indeed. I find rolling a bit tedious, but in regards to playing your stat sheet I am a definite YES.

You made the char with low WIS? Too bad, he should keep doing stupid things.
And so on, heh

TormakSaber wrote:

corypx wrote:

only DMs can enforce rolls and no players have to roll, unless ordered by a DM.

This. Grapple is the exception.

Ok. And an answer to the second question?

Quote:

is it wrong to expect characters to be played as their stats make them? IE: a person who builds for power in combat but neglects social or RP useful skills should not RP being social gurus and glib speakers.

yeah but if player puts a load of points in say....Persuade and as a IRL person could not Persuade a fat kid into a canady store why because he rolls higher would you be IC.

I find we offen go with... if you want to persuade someone do it IC with your words,bribe,lie.... what ever you are good at....rolls dont matter. rolls are not real RP in terms of interaction

if you tell me to go fight a fire dragon with a dagger and a wet towl and all you do is roll a Persuade check and "DOOOO IT" noone would listen.... you made no argument.

but if you said the wet towl would protect you from his firebreath so you could get in range and stab him with the dagger.... thats the real way to try and Persuade, not throwing rolls and claiming whos number is higher.

Last edited by tsukasa1991 on Mon, Oct 10 2011, 4:47 AM, edited 1 time in total.

firstly, "DOOO EEEET" is highly persuasive, if enough people say it.
secondly, on the few occasions roll play has been needed like as you described in my time here ive always thought they should be obeyed as a courtesy. i would very much prefer it be made a rule, but im sure that it could be abused too much. if someone asks me to roll something i happily do so and go with the results, if i ask of someone and they dont, well i try and get around that but always know that person plays that way. its up to you how to make the game fun for you (and others). if something bothers me as a player and i cant resolve it, i try and ignore it.
OH and a big edit:: you should never ever ever ever ever roll a number and demand it "happens" because of your stats. EVERYTHING must be RPed out or i wont even.

Rolls have their place, especially in interaction where a character is opposing another character in a manner besides combat. Though it’s up to both players discretion to maintain the creativity, and feasibility of what they’re doing, and not rely on phat rolls to carry them.

Personally though, it makes me want to puke when people roll for their own purposes. Say, for example their character is at a moral dilemma, and they just roll away to see a will save. Thanks for breaking my immersion, and flipping a coin to decide our fates.

^i agreed and i have to say that rolling has created some wonderful outs in pvp situations, such as well places tumbles and creativeness. most people prefer to see that than, say, a powerbuild beating someone silly for two seconds followed by broken immersion and bad rp.

Naivatkal wrote:

Indeed. I find rolling a bit tedious, but in regards to playing your stat sheet I am a definite YES.

You made the char with low WIS? Too bad, he should keep doing stupid things.
And so on, heh

Low wisdom does not mean incapable of learning.

Quote:

Personally though, it makes me want to puke when people roll for their own purposes. Say, for example their character is at a moral dilemma, and they just roll away to see a will save. Thanks for breaking my immersion, and flipping a coin to decide our fates.

And how is this any different than the previous roll that is "Tense RP"? You are applying your own bias to the situation and arbitrarily defining what is "good RP" and what isn't? I think it's a bit silly that you use "breaking immersion and fliipping a coin" in a game where you roll dice for...

Well...

Everything.

That logic seems to discourage RP building. One of the dynamic aspects of DnD has always been there isn't just one way to solve a problem. I find that not expecting people to RP their stats discounts people who try to. For example: If you allow someone who is OOC good at bluffing to bluff as though they took esf bluff without investing the skills and feats you make those feats useless. Part of dnd is playing something you are not. You can't cast fireball in real life but in game you can. So I am not saying the person should just say do it and because he rolls high it gets done. The roll is a supplement to the RP not a replacement for it. The logic of using an OOC talent to benefit a char IC who didn't invest in that talent shouldn't work for social skills if it doesn't work for combat skills.

Did I ever once say that players shouldn't RP their characters? Nope.

Look; if you want to roll and the other players are OK with that? You can do it. But you can't force it on people.

if you cheese your character by using skills they dont have, who are you -really- cheating... the game, or YOURSELF?!?!

this after school special brought to you by goblins.

TormakSaber wrote:

Did I ever once say that players shouldn't RP their characters? Nope.

Look; if you want to roll and the other players are OK with that? You can do it. But you can't force it on people.

Did I imply you said that? If so it wasn't intended. My response was to Corypx but I am on mobile and didn't want to quote such a huge post.

I think the server has diffrent values on Roleplay and Roll play.... as it should.

lets say we were doing a DC request to make potions.

player 1 and player 2
player 1 is a level 30 wizard, has truck load of int, brew potion feat and even rank 3 Alchemist
player 2 is a level 30 fighter, Int and Wisdom of a normal person, no Alchemist or brew potion feat.

Player 1, makes a the request with wanting to make potions to help resist fire damage, he does no real RP and indepth stuff and just uses his class,feats and job system as why he has made said potions..no explaination on how or why it works or what its even made out of.... he just claims MAGIC + ROLLS.

Player 2, makes a request for fire resist potions but instead does tons of testing, we are talking killing every single monster he can find that resists fire and from grinding Red wyrmling scales into a powder and drinking it or covering himself in it, to taking thier inside apart to find where its firegland is to then smearing that over himself to see if its coating would guard him from fire.

who do you belive should earn the potion.... the person who did Roleplay.... or Roll play.

First please stop making it sound like I am saying things I am not. Read my post: Rolls should be a supplement to RP not a replacement for it.

To answer your post neither player should get the request. Player 1 is attempting to use rolls to replace RP which should be a no no. Player 2 shouldn't be granted the potions either because while he "RP"d killing monsters he did not invest any part of his character in creating potions. Your post sounds like a cheap way to support power building.

Allow me to once again state your characters numbers should supplement your RP. In your example the only way I would approve that dc request (I am not a DM so my opinion is moot) would be if the person had invested some of their numbers into something involving potion making AND done the RP. It falls under the you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you powerbuild and min/max for combat effectiveness you should be willing to accept the consequences of being bad in other areas.

QuietRiot wrote:

First please stop making it sound like I am saying things I am not. Read my post: Rolls should be a supplement to RP not a replacement for it.

To answer your post neither player should get the request. Player 1 is attempting to use rolls to replace RP which should be a no no. Player 2 shouldn't be granted the potions either because while he "RP"d killing monsters he did not invest any part of his character in creating potions. Your post sounds like a cheap way to support power building.

Allow me to once again state your characters numbers should supplement your RP. In your example the only way I would approve that dc request (I am not a DM so my opinion is moot) would be if the person had invested some of their numbers into something involving potion making AND done the RP. It falls under the you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you powerbuild and min/max for combat effectiveness you should be willing to accept the consequences of being bad in other areas.

you cant supplement to something you have no idea how it works, player one might have no idea Chemistry,distillation....ect works, so does that mean he should not have picked brewpotion or Alchemist.

you logic is you cant RP something you dont have, well on the flip side you cant RP something they dont understand OOC and that would mean like 75% of people with job system jobs would not fit the ones they picked.

making potions is like cooking almost, you can try diffrent combos of food with eachother and cooking times or follow a step by step cookbook and not need to be a master chef to make something good.

what player 2 did was nothing crazy.... it would not take master skills to try simple things like grinding something into powder and drinking it, or smearing yourself with the insides of a dead wyrmling to see if it protects you from fire.
any idiot can do that stuff with no training, eating random parts from wyrmling..rolling around in guts of wyrmling.....so why would one need ranks in anything to do that, if it works it works.

yup. i agree with quiet here. you should have the proper skills on your character sheet AND rp it out with or without rolls imho. rolling is just saying out loud what your character can and cant do, isnt it... and its not like dms cant just look at your sheet to know your trying to earn something you shouldn't be able to get.
in cory's example, the second character would not even begin to know about how to go about making a potion of blah blah and would not even have basis in his history to just go research something he isnt trained in, hoping for any real result. its not even close to fair to assume that just because person b puts in the same amount of work as person b, that they can both have things, when person a has also devoted feats/skills aka space in their build which makes them less and less OP than B. in my opinion you either can do it and rp it out and make rolls etc, or you cant.

to quote cory, "rolling around in dragon guts" probably wouldn't yield the same desired results as the character is not knowledgeable in how to use the components of such a potion. its like when your riiiiight on the right track, but lack the ability to put the puzzle together. that right there is what the skills/feat devotion is for

just my take on it

Coryprx, your posts come off more and more like you are not reading what I said and aupporting powerbuilding. You keep repeating you shouldn't be able to do something you can't do OOC. Please describe to me how you cast fireball in real life. You can do it in game with no knowledge or ability to do it in real life so it kind of invalidates your logic.

Second a character of average intelligence and wisdom does not gain any knowledge of creature anatomy nor how potions work. Rolling around in guts and eating unknown parts is not only a good way to end up ill or dead but it doesn't explain how he learned how to make potions. DnD has always been about playing a role in a fantasy enviornment and doing things you can not in real life. Understand I am not a girl that just found this game and started playing it. I have been to dnd sessions and seen really intelligent but socially awkward people RP suave and silver tongued characters. In Amia if someone who isn't necessarily the best persuader in the world OOC gives an attempt IC to persuade me and then rolls a roll that shows he took the points and feats to make his char a "face" if you will I am ok with giving him a boost. That doesn't mean cause he rolled ridiculously high I will give him all my stuff. But I could definitely allow him to convince me maybe I don't want to kill the necromancer outright and want to give him a chance to repent.

Once more if you invest the points on your character sheet to match your RP you are doing it right. If you do one but not the other you are doing it wrong.

Applying the values of one's character sheet is as open to interpretation as asking someone what the best role-play build is. Everyone has their own spin on things based on the guidelines of the information given to them from the handbooks.

In principle, they are guidelines.

An interesting discussion, and one I am always unsure about myself, so thanks for bringing it up QuietRiot. Mostly I only ever see STR and DEX rolls, but I would personally be happy to go along with any well RP'd Roll play such as persuade or intimidate checks though I am never sure what DC to use (is 10 or more a success?) or whether any opposing rolls need to be made?

Playing a character who has an RP build for the most part (two SKill Focus feats in RP skills, for example) and is fairly skill heavy to begin with, I occasionally use a roll to emphasise (sp?) my character's ability with something in support of ongoing RP. I most often do this with Perform (as the limits of nwn and the medium as a whole often makes it difficult to convey how skilled a character would be in singing, for example), Bluff or Persuade. And while I agree that you cannot force any rolls on others (it is pvp in a sense, and we all know the rules for that), I consider it only good play to react appropriately to the result of those rolls, provided there is sufficient and appropriate RP to support it.

Afterall, a character built around slaughtering tons of critters or tearing trough physical pvp will have ample chances of shining, why shouldn't a character built around influencing others be able/allowed to do the same? If one were to consider the use of Persuade, Bluff and Intimidate as pvp in its own way, why wouldn't a character focused on it be able to "defeat" an enemy who isn't? And by defeat, I refer to affecting them as desired, within limits.

Similarily, if I'm not sure my character would accept a certain suggestion or reasoning, I occasionally ask for rolls to support the RP. Is it cheap-shotting to shut down such efforts of RP by demanding a simple roll from a character who may arguably not be the most persuasive to begin with, regardless of arguments employed? Not per se. Is it cheap shotting for said character to ambush my character in the wilds, swatting it into the ground with a few blows and dragging it off for whatever consequences await? Hardly. It's simply the strengths and weaknesses of our characters.

So, I think the general idea is that you shouldn't always want your character to "win" every situation, regardless of the nature of the conflict. "Perfect", undefeatable characters who always get their way are decidedly dull.

I personally, agree with QuietRiot, but I won't force it on someone, if they don't want to.
I use my character sheet often, I think it's a big part of how you build your character. But then, I play D&D, and not everyone does.

Ahh the social skills... the bane of many peoples existence, and either the death of, or protection of, proper RP.

Discounting RPing out your other abilities, stats, and the like, its really social skills I've seen come up the most, and it seems to come in two flavors

Persuade/Intimidate and Bluff/Sense Motive

Persuade/Intimidate is easy, if you ask me. No where ever, ever, ever is it allowed to effect the actions of a Player Character in the board game, and there are relatively few people who'd allow intimidate to have a grand effect on their character. Simply put, some barbarian threatening you with an axe (All that's done in the Roleplay aspect) isn't any scarier then most things your character has faced, so why be especially scared of this?

Persuasion is another one that comes up rarely, but you meet the occasional proponent of it, and it makes me shake my head. Persuade is your ability to make an idea sound appealing, but most players don't ACTUALLY make the idea sound appealing when used. They basically try to use it as mind control. Something, again, no sane person wants.

The problem with these two skills? They take control of the character out of your hands. You can no longer determine your actions because someone had a skill that said no. It's worse then say, someone using Dominate, since that fits the ingame logic of "Well he took over my mind." This is a case of "Well gee, he made a really good point, guess my paladin does have to kill kittens now." (An extreme example, but you get my general point.)

In short, the influence of these skills should be subtle, and best left up to a very experienced group. They don't lack a place, but their effect of ripping control away according to some interpretations makes them... problematic.

Bluff/Sense Motive is a whole other bag of tricks. I'll be honest, it's MUCH easier to lie in real life then in the game, because, according to game mechanics, the target is at full ability to sense every single lie. Honestly if a statement sounds reasonable, or one has no REASON to doubt it, one tends not to doubt. I've seen police officers "successfully bluffed" by people whom I KNOW aren't charismatic, simply because, well, the story they told makes sense.

Poorly used, bluff can be another form of "mind control" like persuasion, with people making ridiculous claims, then rolling the dice. And according to how sense motive is generally applied, everyone is doubting and critical of every statement every person they know tells them. It's a bit broken, the only fix being that people simply restrain themselves, calling for checks when they have a reason to.

Discretion is really the by word for the entire thing, persuade should only be used in combination with an actual argument, and the person being persuaded shouldn't treat the roll as more then a little extra weight to the words, worthy of more consideration and a favorable outlook, not as gospel. Intimidate may make you view that barbarian as a threat, but it doesn't make you wet yourself simply because of stats or rolls, and it doesn't make him successfully bully you, regardless of the outcome. Bluff and Sense are fine, if the opposed test between the two only occurs in situations where it's sensible for there to be some doubt.

QuietRiot wrote:

Coryprx, your posts come off more and more like you are not reading what I said and aupporting powerbuilding. You keep repeating you shouldn't be able to do something you can't do OOC. Please describe to me how you cast fireball in real life. You can do it in game with no knowledge or ability to do it in real life so it kind of invalidates your logic.

if you dont have the OOC knowledge of how something works in the setting you dont have the knowledge IC (because clearly if you dont know something , you cant know it

)
magic that comes in the form of spell components be it Verbal,Somatic,Material...ect if I IC gag you, you cant cast fireball because it has a Verbal component, so one should know that.

its safe to assume more people IC would know about alchemy, they use potions near everyday and would have learned about it in school or in passing...ect

you seem to view average intelligence and wisdom as real low , I know some of the tools such as Mortar and Pestle,Alembic,Retort,Calcinator....ect from Alchemy, I under stand some of the processes they use on thier reagents....and I dont even live in the setting or use the stuff, so why would a person around it all most of thier lives not understand it, not saying they can use the tools well and produce the same things like one trained in it...but they would be far from oblivious to it.

I view alchemy just like cooking....I can make food and its edible with no training.... but a master (so a person with ranks,classes,skills and feats) would make it with less imperfections, so for potions that means less chance of it failing to brew, it would be stronger from less imperfections from it being brewed correct...ect

Dice rolls should be used to back up existing roleplay in my opinion, but shouldn't be the end all of roleplay. Limiting the need to roll dice at all should be the goal, only resorting to rolling die when its absolutely needed.

Gradea wrote:

Simply put, some barbarian threatening you with an axe (All that's done in the Roleplay aspect) isn't any scarier then most things your character has faced, so why be especially scared of this?

Yes and no. Most things PC's face in combat aren't actively trying to scare or intimidate your PC's into submission, and due to ongoing adrenaline they will be more resistant to such to begin with. Plus, they will be in the "physical combat mindset". A barbarian will have to try a lot harder to intimidate a PC than a random NPC farmer, that much is true, but if done right it's quite possible. But it has to be done right.

For one, I know quite a few notable PC's that could easily intimidate mine by virtue of sheer reputation for how dangerous they are or how much they could damage my character's position (regardless of whether they are or aren't). Persuade and Bluff can work the same way: if your character is generally known to have good ideas and insights, even PC's will likely be inclined to believe your character for the simple reason that he's known to have good ideas and insights. So while PC's could take the "blunt approach" with many NPC's (not all, mind you), I think reputation is all the more important when trying to Persuade/Bluff/Intimidate other PCs.

Last edited by QuietRiot on Mon, Oct 10 2011, 8:42 AM, edited 1 time in total.

To expound on Gradea's post:

I do not support persuade or intimidate no matter how high the roll acting like mind control. In the groups I was in the rule was if it came down to pc vs pc social combat if the proposed persuasion or Town was something that both A made sense and B was not something that would violate the integrity of the character it was ok to use rolls to enhance the rp. An example is your hot headed barbarian party mate hates magic users and wants to smash the wizard who showed up to travel with you on your quest persuading him that the wizard may prove useful enough to not smash right now isn't a bad thing. However persuading a Paladin to kill an innocent or defile a shrine to his God is out of the question.

Personally I can understand the rules regarding persuade and intimidate because you can not depend on a large group of people with different experiences to consider the same things reasonable

However I feel that perhaps we could make Bluff like grapple checks and able to be asked for by pc's. The reason I ask is because unlike persuasion or intimidating bluff isn't an attempt to influence someone's actions directly. It also has no bearing on whether someone can tell a lie. Bluff represents what text can not. How well the liar covers his tells and uses bodylanguage. Some people are good at lying. Some can not lie to save their life.

Edit: town should be intimidate. Silly smart phone. Also.. Corypx:

Your logic is again flawed. You can not describe to me in real life how to cast fireball because you can not cast fireball in real life. Oh sure you can talk about the verbal and somantic and material components but when it comes down to it you can not cast fireball in real life but you can in game thus invalidating your logic.

Second there is a huge difference from everyone using potions and knowing how to make them. Lots of people drive cars but not all of them understand how it works. Basic intelligence and wisdom has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge you possess. It represents your aptitude to learn and how easy things are for you to learn. Your basic knowledge of alchemy OOC which may have come from Elder Scrolls since all you've named are items from that game would be gained by taking either rank 1 alchemy or brew potion feat. This is what is meant by playing your stats. Your stats are a numerical representation of what your character knows. If you do not have basic alchemy or brew potion your character doesn't know how to do it.

the biggest problem with translating rolls in nwn is that there is no DM *usually* to decide if the bluff is actually a viable one and im not sure I like other players playing mini dm... here is an example... im in a party *pnp* and we come across the classic bridge with a troll.. i attempt to bluff pass the troll and say "we are the kings guard... let us pass!" and my roll was amazingly good... even though i passed the bluff check... it didn't work... the problem was there were no kingdoms anywhere near where we were... a good bluff... an excellent roll but when it came down to it the DM took into consideration other factors and yeah the bluff failed.

Even in PNP a great roll doesn't ensure success if the bluff/persuade... even if its a damn good one... doesnt fit the context of the surroundings. I would be much more impressed of a good attempt to bluff me and no roll *since there is usually no dm to see the context of the bluff* then a half assed bluff and an amazing roll.

Again perhaps my english is not written well. Dieu what you just described was an impossible bluff. Bluff check doesn't have anything to do with whether an impossible lie will be believed or not. A bluff check only shows whether your body or natural reactions give away your lie. The person you are bluffing still gets to decide if they believe you or not. It just allows the people who go hmm that lie sounds believeable... his bodylanguage looked normal to me ok I will believe it or he has shifty eyes that sounded believable but clearly he is lying.

I roll with the punches for the most part involving this. Sometimes I will outright auto-fail a bluff if I occly believe icly that is what should be done with the background knowledge my character has in certain fields, also the same for autopassing certain checks.

Examples 1: If player A named Bob states their name is Jon. Unless said player is well known by appearance, voice, or other ways to recognize I would auto fail that bluff check because there is no incling to why I would not believe his name was not Jon.

Example 2: I'm sorry I wasn't robbing that man, I was actually just trying to give him a hug. Would autopass simply because either A not a valid believable excuse, B would not care either way if he was telling the truth or not.

Quote:

Basically tl;dr version: is asking for a skill check in RP wrong?

I normally personally have no issue with this unless its over something like above mentioned, which I would just inform occly something like, "sorry no way would I believe anything you have to say because I'm standing in your aura of despair and already inclined to not trust you

."

Quote:

Is it wrong to expect characters to be played as their stats make them? IE: a person who builds for power in combat but neglects social or RP useful skills should not RP being social gurus and glib speakers.

Nope main reason I personally have a hard time playing a toon with 10+ Wis since I am naturally terrible with names, directions, recalling certain things. Though sometimes its hard to play everything to a T, example a being with a natural 30INT no way is it possible to play one properly being a human its not in our nature to be that smart. Though sometimes I feel bad due to the fact a person focuses on Bluff or Persude and put into a factor their method of rp with this score. Only thing I have a huge issue with is a person using listen wishing to over hear a whisper, not that i have an issue to that, but due to I don't wanna pause retype everything (drawing away from icness and to occness due to the longer delay, explaining occly, ect).

TormakSaber wrote:

corypx wrote:

only DMs can enforce rolls and no players have to roll, unless ordered by a DM.

This. Grapple is the exception.

I'm glad this was brought up again, I know of one or two people who should take notice to this, as they believe different, as in they think rolls (with the exception of Grapple) are enforced between players.

I think that the confusion may come from playing other servers that do enforce rolls vs other players, but who knows?

Rolls are kinda like words, they add flavor when you use them right. I especially enjoy using them in situations where I, as the player, might have a bias for what I want my character to do-- so I roll so that it's not a biased decision that occurs next. It happened a lot when Sam was a wererat.

Grapple's required now? Or was always? I didn't know that. Good to know.

I personally like dice PvP when you're in a non-PvP area but /every/ roll really needs to be supplemented with RP. However rolling is treated much like using PnP spells, less grapple as noted, and you really have to have everyone agree that they'll go along with it. I'd say if you're going to be a roll player then find out who doesn't mind it and only do it with them. No sense trying to trying to bend people who are inflexible. It's never wrong to ask but is bad to get mad if they say no

As a side note to OP I note that you're new here and I've got to say that you chose a sore topic as your second ever post. A suggestion going forward is to search for similar topics in older posts. This is a old one and tends to turn into nothing more then a argument and flame war

I find it interesting that so far this topic has remained constructive and positive for such a sore subject. Perhaps it is not such a sore subject as you claim. The search function returns podts years old and things change over time. Isn't the purpose of a forum to offer a place for discussion? Either way thank you to the people who have chimed in for both clarifying the rules and supporting whatever side of the equation you happen to be on. I am glad there are others who feel as I do including possibly a dm or two that stats make are a supplement to your rp and that you should rp your character.

Not so much a sore subject as a tired one.

Although rolls are usually more fun than the biased fate-determination of players, the most important thing to remember about grapple is to - in the exact right circumstances - use this quote:

"To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee!"

Just, so right!

Also: ... Shit! I've forgotten the name of the god I dedicated a church/cult to! It would fit into this context somehow, though.

Well it works both ways really. Being asked to roll a skill check when you would rather not break the immersion with a random result or, someone rolling a skill check without being asked and destroying whatever immersion they had built up with their roleplaying.

The numbers on a character's sheet give you an idea of what they can do, but they certainly don't determine what they will do at every point in time, and they cannot even begin to account for all the possible things a character will learn besides how to be useful in a fight.

If it has been established that your character has learned a thing or two about architecture, then they can use that knowledge without having cross-class ranks in structural engineering. They might need to jump through some hoops first to gain that knowledge, it's not like there is an internet filled with free information in the setting.

I guess what it comes down to is, do you trust the other player to take your roleplaying seriously without a dice roll? In other words, do they take your word for it that your character knows how to do that BS they just said?

Selmak wrote:

I guess what it comes down to is, do you trust the other player to take your roleplaying seriously without a dice roll? In other words, do they take your word for it that your character knows how to do that BS they just said?

QFT. Though this would be an easier sentiment to get behind if it were constant across the board. There are some players whom I find it very easy to believe have several areas of expertise from which they can speak authoritatively IC. I'd cite Tuomas and Ulrik on magic stuff, for example. There are other players whose play style just doesn't suggest that they're taking things as seriously as other players do, though, and I have trouble investing a lot of confidence in their assertions. (I'm not necessarily saying this second sort of player is a worse player, rather that it's just a different style choice. Some people invest a lot of intellectual effort into their characters, and other people just want to log in and have fun. I don't mean to condemn either style.)

Here's the fun thing about "RP builds".... when you get into a DM event and the DM calls for that character with zero bluff to roll when he's trying to lie to a NPC and he fails, you get to step up with your 33 ranks in bluff and lie through your teeth to the NPC and save the day.

On a personal note, when I'm playerside I don't mind seeing social skills rolled. I don't call for them, but I do allow it to have some sway over my character should the situation deem itself worthy. For example, Joe the Thief is trying to convince Trinity to hand over 500k worth of gold for a "Magical Item of Great Power" that's really nothing more than a rock. Joe is quite convincing in his selling of the item and we spend a good amount of time RP'ing about the sale, but something still smells fishy and Trinity is on the fence about what to do. Then the character breaks out his dice and rolls a Persuasion check. He has 22 ranks in Persuasion and rolls an 18. That's pretty damn persuasive... if the RP itself is good enough to have Trinity thinking about buying that stupid rock, then that roll may just push her over the edge.

On the flip side of the coin, Sam the Thief is trying to sell Trinity the same rock. He makes a piss poor attempt at RP'ing the sale and almost immediately breaks out a Persuade roll (33 ranks of Persuade and rolls a 19, making for 52 total)... it's not going to budge Trinity in the least. There was no real effort put into the RP and the player is relying on sheer mechanics to get him over on another player.

Do bear in mind that the preceding example is purely my own opinion as a player and shouldn't be taken as anything resembling a DM ruling that you player's rolls have mandatory influence on other PC's.

TormakSaber wrote:

Naivatkal wrote:

Indeed. I find rolling a bit tedious, but in regards to playing your stat sheet I am a definite YES.

You made the char with low WIS? Too bad, he should keep doing stupid things.
And so on, heh

Low wisdom does not mean incapable of learning.

Is it WIS or INT? I tend to confuse the two :/
But yeah, certainly not incapable but there's a bigger learning curve there.

Also, I wanted to briefly amend my original statement.

Rolls + RP is perfectly acceptable in my book. If you are not the best at persuading but your character is supposed to excel in it, then I see no reason to hate on someone for making a roll BUT also actively trying to persuade someone. It'd be helpful to maybe make a quick OOC comment to explain (a tell if it's one on one, or // in local is in a group) that your char is better at persuading than you are haha. There's no reason to punish a char and RP just because the writer suffers from an inability to convey the character's intentions properly.

If that makes any sense, haha.

Naivatkal wrote:

Is it WIS or INT? I tend to confuse the two :/

Think of someone with high INT and low WIS as a person who can put together an amazing battle plan or trap, but has no idea how to improvise once something bad happens outside of their calculations.

High WIS and low INT is the 'idiot' type. He/she will intuitively be able to chuck a goblin at a mountain in the exact point where it'll cause it to collapse and bury a red dragon, but won't have an inkling of the actual math behind it.

Aka the Nike shoes catch phrase.

Arcadence wrote:

High WIS and low INT is the 'idiot' type. He/she will intuitively be able to chuck a goblin at a mountain in the exact point where it'll cause it to collapse and bury a red dragon, but won't have an inkling of the actual math behind it.

Aka the Nike shoes catch phrase.

Now if only they could come up with an ad with that sort of idea.

Kjetta wrote:

Although rolls are usually more fun than the biased fate-determination of players, the most important thing to remember about grapple is to - in the exact right circumstances - use this quote:

"To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee!"

Just, so right!

Also: ... Shit! I've forgotten the name of the god I dedicated a church/cult to! It would fit into this context somehow, though.

Hoar, god of vengeance and retribution, you nerd in denial!

IT'S IN YOUR SIG, KJETTA! Damn!

I prefer a smattering of each!

I always remember one time when I was pestering a malarite. He turned and rped out a long bit that ended in a roar of rage.

This was added to the 123 roll of Intimidate.

My character pissed his pants and fell backward into a stream.

Give the people sense motive and I'll start rolling bluff checks.

Also locking as Uce has covered this, and countless others have.

Roleplay vs Roll play

Who is online