No Dice
-
I make rolls for myself more than anything else. I usually resort to it if I, as a player, am on top of the wall as to my character's capabilities under moments of pressure.
Like per say my character is under a lot of stress and someone is trying to intimidate him and has already shown IG means that he can actually hurt my character, I would roll a Will test and to measure my character's reaction depending on the roll. Same thing for the social skills.
Rolls are really, really complicated because they're so abstract. Let's say there's two character IG. One has 14, 14, 14 for mental stats and no ranks in Persuade, and the other has 10, 10, 14 and has 20 ranks in Persuade. If you're gonna roleplay your stats and ignore rolls, you'll most likely never find a situation where Character 1(Guy with no ranks) has more trouble convincing people than Character 2. But doesn't Character 2 have 20 ranks in Persuade? Well yes. So why is he having more trouble persuading people? Because persuasion is much more than which words come out of your mouth and you generally don't sway someone's opinion with a single frase. It's an entire process of gestures, mannerisms, understanding the target's reasoning and desires, and persuading someone through sheer technique, something that's extremely difficult to put into your character as you play.
So, in the end, I like rolls. I just don't like when people walk up to me and go: "Can I come along? Rolls Persuade" and that character has shown absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be trusted.
-
The problem is they need to be overseen, to set situation modifers.
Lilybeth Ravenlocks might have 20's in persuade and bluff modifiers, and is feeding a line of BS to someone on how she strongly supports the helmite church and wants to assist them in their project… and one might think the helmite she's talking to who rolls a 3 won't see through it...
but what I, as a player don't know... is that her description and a warning about her has been circulated around and the helmite has a +25.
-
No matter how preposterous your claim may be, if a person wants to roleplay that their character believes you, then by all means they're free to do so. If you're not rolling dice for yourself, you SHOULD consult with the target player before you trying to make them roll against you. Also, that's a Bluff roll, not a Persuade. ^_^
-
Dice rolls can be good or bad. I mean, a classic example is the arm wrestle. A half-orc 20 STR fighter would never lose against a straight match of arm wrestling against a halfling with 10 or less STR, yet, dice rolls can make the halfling smash the Half-orc's arm through the freaking table…on the other hand, whenever I'm completly BSing a story, or trying to pursuade someone and stuff, I always like to use dice rolls. Other times, I just base things off of the points I have into it. For example, if the ground shakes, I usually have my character fall over instead of rolling a tumble/reflex/whatever just because his dex isn't the highest. I guess it's really totally up to the DM/Players involved.
Edit: I usually always roll for social skills since, if you look at the D&D handbook, intimidating or bluffing is -extremly- hard to do. The DC for intimidating someone for example is your skill roll+-CHR if any vs the targets 1d20+character level/hit die+WIS+any fear save bonuses. Bluffing follows along the same system and both get bonuses usually. It's sort of like pickpocketing against a hostile creature.
-
@Cunning:
My opinion, Dice are for DMs. Roleplay your stats, don't rollplay them.
CS summed my feelings on this matter perfectly
-
I like them when you use them to see if a PC remembers may knows or something that the DM hasn't reveiled.
Most people just need to know when to use their Dice roles. i.e. Jiggley John a Red Wizard finds a portal he has no idea how to use it. The DM now steps in and has him role a Intelligence 1d20, Passing gives the Mage a Hint on what to do, Failure may mean he only remembers something about this portal and what it relates to. The DM may view the Failure as he remembers nothing, which allows him to move on to another player.
Or you may only use the dice roles against NPC's.
The Dice to serve a purpose, you often just miss a great time to use them.
they can also give a DM and PC a Little more control of the quest they are Role Playing.So, I'm for the Dice, I simple think the situation should require a dice role.
-
I ignore everyone who requests dice rolls from me, unless it's done by a DM-tell or DM-request.
I usually don't care what people roll in front of my eyes to prove a point either. If the character fails to be intimidating despite having 15+ Intimidate, that's not my problem.
-
so doing a perform check to see how well my character danced would be wrong?
-
Imo rolls that forces another player to play their character in a certain way are bad, unless enforced by a DM. Something like perform does not fall in that category.
-
@Foba:
Imo rolls that forces another player to play their character in a certain way are bad, unless enforced by a DM. Something like perform does not fall in that category.
The stress on forces may not help here. I understand that the DM's have stated clearly that Rolls required by a DM are enforced. All other rolls are at the players discression.
-
If a player approached me in an appropriate manner, I would be inclined to view a roll favourably. For example, a player might approach me in a tell like "I'm not very good at this persuasive lark but I have put a lot of skill points into my character. Would you mind if I rolled for persuade to reflect my character rather than me?" I'd likely agree and be "persuaded" by their skill points.
Also, if the character is trying to persuade me to do something that is inherently against my character's ethos, I'd expect to rack up the need for a high roll and high skill points. This guy has to be very persuasive.
-
Rolling of a skill is a great break from the everyday talking we all do.
BUT!
I get this even when I DM my PnP game.
PC:"I walk up and bargen with this merchant. I rolled a 20 on my appraisal"
Lame! I have encountered a few people in arabel that do the same thing. Say something really generic and then roll and get a good total. Expecting it to mean something.
I make my players talk everything out and if it sounds good enough, have them roll to see if such a great statement can make a difference.
Though the limited NWN make persuade/bluff checks difficult, with the lack of Sense motive.
I don't mind rolling for a conversation and then RP-ing it out as long as its not "Give me all your gold" persuade check roll: 25
shrugs
-
I'm certainly not in favor of "I talk him down, roll:18+5=23"
but frankly a lot of the people saying "I dont care what they might roll, I only care about how well they talk" are missing a key point - it is the CHARACTER that is sayng it, not the other player. And they may well have more skill than the player.if someone TRIES halfway, and theire decent at the skill, give them some credit.
I'm not talking about stuff like convincing a paladin to sacrifice babies, but at least consider their skill and such into the decision you make regarding what you hear. -
Sure, if they try, that's fine. Lamancha sums it up quite nicely.
-
I'm certainly not in favor of "I talk him down, roll:18+5=23"
but frankly a lot of the people saying "I dont care what they might roll, I only care about how well they talk" are missing a key point - it is the CHARACTER that is sayng it, not the other player. And they may well have more skill than the player.if someone TRIES halfway, and theire decent at the skill, give them some credit.
I'm not talking about stuff like convincing a paladin to sacrifice babies, but at least consider their skill and such into the decision you make regarding what you hear.I've ignored this thread, simply because there are 50 more just like it where I have said my piece, but theres two parts of what suzicoa says here that I feel are important. First, if you are incapable of playing a charismatic high persuade/high bluff character, my suggestion would be to play something else. Second, if you give it an attempt, even if it isn't brilliant, I am inclined to play along more times then not.
As far as rolls go, they often throw me off my game. If someone tells me "I'm the king of arabel" and then rolls a 44 bluff check, I'm not sure how to react. On one hand, you rolled an impossibly high roll, on another you told me something there is no way I am likely to believe, no matter how high you roll. This is what is meant when it is said in other threads that random rolls are disruptive. As someone who likes charisma, bluff, and persuade a lot, I try to make sure that before I try to convince someone of something I can also convince them oocly of the fact. Some might say its the character, not the player, and ooc consideration should never be a part of things, but me personally, I have always thought that well done scams and such should be a surprise both oocly and icly, and the effects it will have are much more realistic that way. This is also why I hate when people talk about ic stuff that tends to be secretive on IRC as well.
-
Here is how this should work in my opinion:
person A make's a statement like "I'm the king of arabel" then OOC the two players take in account the situation: the wisdom of the one that is coned the way the one that is doing the cone looks like for example if that PC was wearing rags or if it it's wearing some kind of fancy robes and being fallowed by bodyguards that looked like knights. And taking all this in account they settle on a DC and only after the DC is set then the bluff can be rolled.
-
It's also surprisingly hard to bluff -unconvincingly-. If people have no reason to suspect that you are lying to them, then they usually believe what you say. Especially when there's no actual emote.
"That half-orc tried to mug me." Says the halfling.
"No, me not try mug!" Responded the half-orc.Which do you believe? I
Now, if the halfling also rolled "Bluff: 10+13=23", you'd know OOCly that he was lying - but also that he'd be pretty good at it. You wouldn't be forced to play along, but I know that I would more likely side with the halfling.
On the other hand, if the halfing rolled bluff "10+0=10", I'd be more inclined to suspect that he might not be telling the truth (since they have no skill whatsoever in their bluff).
-
Common sense, IC and OOC. And willingness to play along if a player makes an honest try to represent his characters high CHA/bluff/whatever.
I'm not a native english speaker, I do pump points into intimidate and try to RP (often with emotes) that my character is kind of scary, but my limited english stops me from finding the right words and get my point across the way I would like to. I know what my character is like, in my imagination and all, but often fail to present it IG with the detail that I would like to.
I have seen players ask for ability rolls before, but from what I have seen it doesn't happen often. I never roll ability or skill rolls myself, unless a DM asks me to of course.
-
In an ideal setting, rolls wouldn't be needed, because everyone could roleplay their character's thoughts and actions perfectly according to their abilities and background. This includes the "bluffer" and the "target".
My problem with this is it seemed like often, the "target" doesn't play how their character would react to something with a negative consequence, they use their judgment as a player. Meaning, the charisma of a bluffer or persuader is targeting someone who knows they are playing a game, not someone on the same level. CoA characters, in my experience, are way less likely to be swayed by an attractive persuasive person than someone in real life - and everyone isn't playing a streetwise high willpower character. I don't think I'm making a huge intuitive leap here, spend a second imagining in your head what the average CoA player would do if a pretty girl asked them to do something they didn't want to do. Now imagine what would happen if the average CoA character was asked by a pretty girl to do something they don't want to do. Only one in my mind has any likelyhood of violence as an outcome.
I don't think character's words and actions should be replaced by rolls, but I do think that everyone could improve their roleplay by trying to take into account the statistics of other characters. Nobody has a problem letting the huge character with full armor and high hps take the front line (stats, not roleplay), but people are more reluctant to be swayed by the gorgeous bard.
What I tried to do, when I knew the bluff/charisma/persuade of other characters, is try to take that into account with how my character reacts to the roleplay of the other player. This means that even an amazing star claiming "I'm the King of Arabel!" out of nowhere was just a very pretty crazy person, but I'd try to go out of my way to give a persuasive type the benefit of the doubt.
-
That's the sort of argument I can empathize with because when I know a character has the skills invested and the character makes a concerted effort, I lend that benefit of the doubt.
That said, I cannot stand when a character with no points invested in those skills, and likely none or negative ones in Charisma tries to achieve the same result. In fact, in several cases I've responded to tells requesting for a roll after a spontaneous roll and little actual effort with a much more polite version of "Fuck off."
Coming from somebody who builds his characters with roleplay in mind over optimization, I like to reward or give the benefit of the doubt to those that invest their ability and skill points similarly. Doing so, I've found the players are inclined to follow that protocol when it comes to dealing with known skills of my characters.
After all, like you mentioned Invalid, we're all too eager to let the tanks (high hp characters) man the frontlines and let the high CHA characters collect the rewards at the end of scripted quests. We should extend that same knowledge when it doesn't necessarily benefit us OOCly.
/Rationale.