Author Topic: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat  (Read 20791 times)

Offline Kajhera

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2011, 01:55:23 PM »
This is a pain in the rear end problem.  It's exactly like others have said, I'm playing this other person that DOES have these skills and aptitudes.

I don't have the skill personally.  My PC does.  Get over it.  Let me use his skills as the rules state. 

I actually like to RP but I'm not going to know the ins and outs in a way that would fairly represent my PCs skills. 

As far as the sides mentioned in the OP.  I figure that is best taken as extremes on either side with most games taking place somewhere in the spectrum between.

I am going to point out that saying what you intend to do and more or less how you intend to do it is fairly important. The Bluff skill doesn't actually write your lies for you; just dictates how well they are received.

You don't have to have the skills but do have to convey the substance. (Yeah, this is something I can have trouble with at times.)

Offline Bozwevial

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3052
  • Developing a relaxed attitude toward danger
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2011, 01:59:11 PM »
One way to deal with it is to reward approach. The specific words don't matter, but what ways they are using to exert social leverage on the NPC or angle they're attacking the puzzle does help or hinder the roll. You can do it the easy way(making use of some known aspect of the problem obtained via other skills) or the hard way(blunt force of presence).

Exalted's stunt system also helps, you get a small bonus depending on your description:
+1 for trying at all beyond the generic "I persuade him to X"
+2 for incorporating the situation into your angle of attack.
+3 for something awe inspiring that gets everyone at the table's attention.
This is probably the best way to go about it, so long as you apply this to every skill. If a player can come up with some decent technobabble on the spot, sure, I'll give him a bonus on his Mechanics check.
Homebrew Compendiums: D&D 3.5 4e/PF
IRC: #mmxgeneral on Rizon

Offline Hallack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • With Jetpacks
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2011, 02:05:59 PM »
This is a pain in the rear end problem.  It's exactly like others have said, I'm playing this other person that DOES have these skills and aptitudes.

I don't have the skill personally.  My PC does.  Get over it.  Let me use his skills as the rules state. 

I actually like to RP but I'm not going to know the ins and outs in a way that would fairly represent my PCs skills. 

As far as the sides mentioned in the OP.  I figure that is best taken as extremes on either side with most games taking place somewhere in the spectrum between.

I am going to point out that saying what you intend to do and more or less how you intend to do it is fairly important. The Bluff skill doesn't actually write your lies for you; just dictates how well they are received.

You don't have to have the skills but do have to convey the substance. (Yeah, this is something I can have trouble with at times.)

Agreed.  It should be more than a Bluff, Diplo, Intimidate, etc.. check followed by a "What do I get?" 

It is important to say what your seeking to accomplish or what sorts of information you are trying to attain, etc...

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2011, 04:26:04 PM »
Quote
i think you might have missed his point.
I didn't. I understood it completely.
Most Roleplayers don't like rollplaying, so they try to quickly get it done or just don't put any thought into it.
As for those few players that aren't ignorant enough to think of rolling or combat as not roleplaying, they probably can't easily do two things at the same time, like Kajhera explained.
That is what I meant, more or less.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2011, 05:44:30 PM »
Quote
i think you might have missed his point.
I didn't. I understood it completely.
Most Roleplayers don't like rollplaying, so they try to quickly get it done or just don't put any thought into it.
As for those few players that aren't ignorant enough to think of rolling or combat as not roleplaying, they probably can't easily do two things at the same time, like Kajhera explained.
That is what I meant, more or less.

i stand corrected, my apologies.

seems i missed a point instead. i have this habit of thinking of things in gestalt or holistically. maybe it has something to do with being able to play chess versus myself, and keeping the two lines of thought apart from each other. so, i've never really had trouble role-playing and roll-playing simultaneously. though, come to think of it, i do slow down the game somewhat when i do, as there is a lag as i process back and forth between both sides.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2011, 02:24:46 AM »
One way to deal with it is to reward approach. The specific words don't matter, but what ways they are using to exert social leverage on the NPC or angle they're attacking the puzzle does help or hinder the roll. You can do it the easy way(making use of some known aspect of the problem obtained via other skills) or the hard way(blunt force of presence).

Exalted's stunt system also helps, you get a small bonus depending on your description:
+1 for trying at all beyond the generic "I persuade him to X"
+2 for incorporating the situation into your angle of attack.
+3 for something awe inspiring that gets everyone at the table's attention.
This is probably the best way to go about it, so long as you apply this to every skill. If a player can come up with some decent technobabble on the spot, sure, I'll give him a bonus on his Mechanics check.
Well, from experience the +3 is easiest for combat rolls, funny enough. Some things just don't take well to spectacular moves.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Bozwevial

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3052
  • Developing a relaxed attitude toward danger
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2011, 11:54:08 AM »
One way to deal with it is to reward approach. The specific words don't matter, but what ways they are using to exert social leverage on the NPC or angle they're attacking the puzzle does help or hinder the roll. You can do it the easy way(making use of some known aspect of the problem obtained via other skills) or the hard way(blunt force of presence).

Exalted's stunt system also helps, you get a small bonus depending on your description:
+1 for trying at all beyond the generic "I persuade him to X"
+2 for incorporating the situation into your angle of attack.
+3 for something awe inspiring that gets everyone at the table's attention.
This is probably the best way to go about it, so long as you apply this to every skill. If a player can come up with some decent technobabble on the spot, sure, I'll give him a bonus on his Mechanics check.
Well, from experience the +3 is easiest for combat rolls, funny enough. Some things just don't take well to spectacular moves.
True enough. I figure the +3 is supposed to be a pretty uncommon occurrence anyway. Still, if you try hard enough, you can make even jumping sound extremely awesome a la Assassin's Creed.
Homebrew Compendiums: D&D 3.5 4e/PF
IRC: #mmxgeneral on Rizon

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2011, 12:36:56 PM »
It's very easy to justify needing a roll -- good social skills are just as much (if not more) about the presentation than the actual words.  A bluff or diplomacy attempt can be the best-worded speech in the history of mankind, but if you sneeze at the wrong time or have a nervous tic, no one will believe it or trust you.  The roll takes into account random variables like that -- environment, the biases and mood of the listeners, etc.  So as a DM I give a bonus to a player who RP's a fantastic pitch or hits exactly the right points for their audience... but if they roll a 1, it still won't work because of something they couldn't plan for.

Giving bonuses is still crap, tbh - I'm not Neal Caffrey in real life, but if I want to play a smooth talking con man in game, I still need some measure of those real life skills to justify it?  But even though I'm not Conan in real life either, there's no connection between that and my combat ability.

Some reward for good role-play is justified.  I like to encourage anything that makes the game more entertaining for everyone at the table and I've seen people actually research and practice to improve their role-play skills when they see that it has some benefit.  I view rewarding a well-worded use of Diplomacy as something akin to catching an opponent flat-footed because you surprised him with your tactics.  The DMG supports the idea in the section about favorable and unfavorable conditions.  Speaking well should be a favorable condition.
There is an old rebuttal to this.  Forgive me for being the one to bring it up.

If you reward charismatic players using the CHA skills more than you do the less charismatic players for using the CHA, do you do the same for the dextrous vs less dextrous players?  Do you have an old Masterlock with no key lying around, to provide bonuses to the Rogue's player on his Open Lock check based on how quickly he opens it, if at all?  What about STR skills and the physically fit vs less physically fit gamers in your crew?  Is there a handy brick wall that you use to provide circumstance modifiers in using the Climb skill, based on how quickly a given player can scale it?

If you don't extend the rules you're espousing for CHA to the other ability scores and skills as well - and I'll bet money that you don't - why is CHA different?
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2011, 12:41:22 PM »
So... you're saying it's hypocritical (or at least a double standard) to want to reward good roleplay?

EDIT: Let me clarify.  I think your argument is somewhat specious because as long as you're not LARPing, you're playing a tabletop game where the only means of communicating what your character does is through your words.  If someone wanted to demonstrate what their character was doing with a physical activity I would probably give them even MORE of a reward, since that sort of thing is so much less often supplied.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 12:43:33 PM by sirpercival »
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2011, 01:45:55 PM »
i think that there is a bit of valid point to the whole bias toward rewarding roleplaying.

i also think that the other side has some valid points too.

on one hand, just saying something like, "i trick him" (roll dice); or, "i bluff my way past the guard" (roll dice) does lack something. if the player in question at least threw in a reference to something in the plot or an npc, or even references something like saying that he does what that one character in a movie or book did... that should be good enough to be going on with. i understand the desire for something more than, "i use my xyz skill" (roll dice).

on the other hand, sometimes my players are just at a loss. i try not to badger them for too many details, and in my own case, when i can't think of anything in character to say, i'll just be frank with the dm and say i can't think of anything, but here's the essence of what i'm trying to do. then the rest of the players or even the dm can offer ideas, or decide that my description is good enough, even if i wasn't able to roleplay it on the spot.  roleplaying on the spot is not easy without lots of practice, and at least some familiarity with the subject at hand, even if second or third degree of seperation and non-experienced, to boot.

and yeah. if someone actually got up and entertained the group with an actual perform(dance) example, that should get bonus xp. heck, we give out bonus xp for great one-liners or cracking up everyone at the table with something. and that is totally meta-xp that sometimes has nothing to do with the in-game action.

my players consists of a ranger ( i kid you not, the man's an old-school survivalist), a (mostly anti-rp) tactician, a story-teller, an anime/manga freak, a devious quirky rp type, the understudy of the tactician and devious pair - except he likes rp, and a newbie. so i have to be flexible enough to handle everything from "here's my three pages of background, front and back - oh i was trying to hold back on the story line a bit, are you sure this little bit is enough"... to, "i suck at this, my character is great at this, so i use this skill here my sheets say my characters's good at and don't give me any crap about trying to rp something that i, the player, suck at", (rolls die), "oh look, a natural 20".... ^^

i think flexibility, with a keen awareness of what you've rewarded and to whom, is necessary to make it work out.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 01:57:51 PM by nijineko »

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2011, 01:52:44 PM »
It's not like I penalize my players for not having good ideas... just for really, really bad ones. Like convincing the virginal princess to help you by showing her your cock; even if you have a great diplomacy, this may not blow over well...
unless it does... :eh
But you still get the -15 to your Diplomacy check. Only if you're really lucky will it work!

But if someone stood up and demonstarted just how they want to execute that critical hit with an imaginary sword and everything, heck yes they get RP XP! At that moment, your "role" is a guy killing another guy with a sword, and if you "play your role," so to say, you get "role-playing XP."
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2011, 02:44:26 PM »
Here's a different way to think about it, from my perspective:

It's like saying, you've got a wall of monsters in the way, a huge giant in heavy armor, a human commoner, and some other middle-range targets. Which one do you attack?

Describing what you're saying is like picking your target. Does it matter that the fighter has a +10 to hit, if he picks the giant, who has a 32 AC, over the commoner, with a 9 AC? Just rolling the bluff or diplomacy dice and leaving it at that is like saying your character attacks the biggest target, with no strategy, no analysis of the situation. It doesn't neccesary take actual player charisma to do, just some player intelligence in being strategic about your targets and goals.

How I handle social skills is that I have the player declare a goal, 'we want the druid to call off his treant minions', 'I want the guard to open the door, unlock these shackles, and let us into the treasury', etc. That itemization of the job the skill sets what the DC is. In the second example, if it was just the first two goals, it's a lot easier DC than trying to accomplish the third goal.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline solara

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • this hurts my physics
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2011, 04:40:39 PM »
I've gotta say, while I can understand everyone not wanting a boring game, taking someone (like me) who is playing a high-CHA character but who is extremely shy/fearful of talking in front of people, and forcing me to talk like my character, in order to use the skills I invested in . . . that's just cruel.

I love playing the face in parties. I'm actively trying to get less fearful of talking to people. But that does NOT mean I want to be confronted with that fear every time I try to relax and play DnD. That does NOT mean I need to change character types, either. It means that, sometimes I'll be able to think of exactly what/how I want my PC to say things. Other times, I'm going to freeze up at even having to speak. And penalizing me for it is just not cool. In combat, after all, I can point to what creature I'm attacking. Depending on how badly I freeze up, I can express the gist of what I want to say, or some idea.

Then there's the issue of having what I say - like, "I want to convince the guard to let us in because [X]" - and then failing the check because I didn't INTUIT the correct reason without the DM giving me anything back. If you want people to act out what their characters say, and hold them to it, then you have to pin the NPCs down too.

So, instead of saying, "Nope, he doesn't care about [X]" have the guard respond in a way that indicates that ("Well, ma'am, I'm sure sorry it's raining out, but orders is orders"). That gives the player a chance to realize they need to change tactics. No, it shouldn't always work - if the PCs don't have a better reason for getting past the guard than that it's raining, they may just have to stay outside. On the other hand, if they happen to have something else that would allow them to get past the guard, and the guard is still interested in hearing them, they should be able to convince him to let them in.

Yes, my way's more difficult. But it's also more fair, and promotes role-play. If you put your players on the spot like that - well, they get to put YOU on the spot, too.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2011, 04:52:21 PM »
I've gotta say, while I can understand everyone not wanting a boring game, taking someone (like me) who is playing a high-CHA character but who is extremely shy/fearful of talking in front of people, and forcing me to talk like my character, in order to use the skills I invested in . . . that's just cruel.

I love playing the face in parties. I'm actively trying to get less fearful of talking to people. But that does NOT mean I want to be confronted with that fear every time I try to relax and play DnD. That does NOT mean I need to change character types, either. It means that, sometimes I'll be able to think of exactly what/how I want my PC to say things. Other times, I'm going to freeze up at even having to speak. And penalizing me for it is just not cool. In combat, after all, I can point to what creature I'm attacking. Depending on how badly I freeze up, I can express the gist of what I want to say, or some idea.

Then there's the issue of having what I say - like, "I want to convince the guard to let us in because [X]" - and then failing the check because I didn't INTUIT the correct reason without the DM giving me anything back. If you want people to act out what their characters say, and hold them to it, then you have to pin the NPCs down too.

So, instead of saying, "Nope, he doesn't care about [X]" have the guard respond in a way that indicates that ("Well, ma'am, I'm sure sorry it's raining out, but orders is orders"). That gives the player a chance to realize they need to change tactics. No, it shouldn't always work - if the PCs don't have a better reason for getting past the guard than that it's raining, they may just have to stay outside. On the other hand, if they happen to have something else that would allow them to get past the guard, and the guard is still interested in hearing them, they should be able to convince him to let them in.

Yes, my way's more difficult. But it's also more fair, and promotes role-play. If you put your players on the spot like that - well, they get to put YOU on the spot, too.

Maybe I'm just ignorant and sheltered... but do DMs actually do that?
What total asshattery!

So you're saying that some games actually go:
Player: "I want the guard to let us in" rolls diplomacy
DM: "The guard won't let you in."
?????

Holy crap! That's terrible!

Every game I've ever played has had the players at least give a cursory list of points they want to hit in their Diplomacy attempt, if they don't straight-up act it out.
Additoinally, every DM I've ever played with  (or as) has at least given some sort of hook so you can try again a different way, playing off of that hook!

I am BAFFLED that people actually play the game as a series of straight dice rolls and minimalist sentences! Maybe that's where the 4E social skill challenges, where you need X successes to succeed, stemmed from. I always did think that was retarded... Turns out it's just a logical extension of how some people actually play...

Where is the fun in that?  :???
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 04:54:18 PM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2011, 05:00:34 PM »
I've gotta say, while I can understand everyone not wanting a boring game, taking someone (like me) who is playing a high-CHA character but who is extremely shy/fearful of talking in front of people, and forcing me to talk like my character, in order to use the skills I invested in . . . that's just cruel.

I love playing the face in parties. I'm actively trying to get less fearful of talking to people. But that does NOT mean I want to be confronted with that fear every time I try to relax and play DnD. That does NOT mean I need to change character types, either. It means that, sometimes I'll be able to think of exactly what/how I want my PC to say things. Other times, I'm going to freeze up at even having to speak. And penalizing me for it is just not cool. In combat, after all, I can point to what creature I'm attacking. Depending on how badly I freeze up, I can express the gist of what I want to say, or some idea.

Then there's the issue of having what I say - like, "I want to convince the guard to let us in because [X]" - and then failing the check because I didn't INTUIT the correct reason without the DM giving me anything back. If you want people to act out what their characters say, and hold them to it, then you have to pin the NPCs down too.

So, instead of saying, "Nope, he doesn't care about [X]" have the guard respond in a way that indicates that ("Well, ma'am, I'm sure sorry it's raining out, but orders is orders"). That gives the player a chance to realize they need to change tactics. No, it shouldn't always work - if the PCs don't have a better reason for getting past the guard than that it's raining, they may just have to stay outside. On the other hand, if they happen to have something else that would allow them to get past the guard, and the guard is still interested in hearing them, they should be able to convince him to let them in.

Yes, my way's more difficult. But it's also more fair, and promotes role-play. If you put your players on the spot like that - well, they get to put YOU on the spot, too.

Maybe I'm just ignorant and sheltered... but do DMs actually do that?
What total asshattery!

So you're saying that some games actually go:
Player: "I want the guard to let us in" rolls diplomacy
DM: "The guard won't let you in."
?????

Holy crap! That's terrible!

Every game I've ever played has had the players at least give a cursory list of points they want to hit in their Diplomacy attempt, if they don't straight-up act it out.
Additoinally, every DM I've ever played with  (or as) has at least given some sort of hook so you can try again a different way, playing off of that hook!

I am BAFFLED that people actually play the game as a series of straight dice rolls and minimalist sentences! Maybe that's where the 4E social skill challenges, where you need X successes to succeed stemmed from. I always did think that was retarded... Turns out it's just a logical extension of how some people actually play...

Where is the fun in that?  :???

Because sometimes you don't want to have to come up with an actual story on the spot, that's why.  The party gets ambushed by a patrol while sneaking into the castle, and the face's player suddenly has a mind blank.  Do you:
1. have everyone take a smoke break, while the player tries to think of something
2. tell the player that the character auto-fails and start up the combat (yes, I've seen DM's do this, many times), or
3. assume the fast talking character would be able to do what the player cannot, roll and move on.

Again, yes, roleplaying it out is preferable.  But fucking a character over because the player doesn't have the same mental skill set as the character is total douchebaggery. 

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2011, 05:10:05 PM »
Figuring out what avenue of social approach to use against a guard is not a matter of the player's social skills, it's a matter of tactics.  Describing the wording you use and being generally persuasive would be the former.  But if the player can't think of how to approach a guard to be able to effectively convince him, then either (a) the character doesn't either, so it's harder, or (b) the character is smarter than the player and gets a bonus on a Knowledge: Local check to remember some piece of info about the guard, or  a Spot check to pick up clues Sherlock Holmes-style, or whatever.  The mechanisms are there to let the DM guide the player even when the PC is smarter or more observant or whatever.

I really like the Fate system's approach to this: diplomacy, bluff, etc. aren't just skill rolls, they're contests just like combat would be.  Just like you need to know to use a silvered weapon against a werewolf, you need to know that the guard's grandmother is from Waterdeep so you can hit him in a social weak spot.

So, if the DM is doing things right, you shouldn't have to intuit things.  If you picked up on stuff from clues elsewhere in-game, then all well and good, but if not you can roll skill checks to help yourself out.  If you really don't know how to approach it, then just like in other tactical situations, you'll be at a disadvantage.

EDIT, Re: Mooncrow (who posted while I was writing): And fast-talking with no info is HARD for anyone, even people who are good at it.

But I think the real thing is that it should never be just one way or the other.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline Mnemnosyne

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2011, 11:05:03 PM »
Indeed.  If I'm playing a face character and I can't actually think of any approach to use, I think that would be one of my first thoughts - attempt to use one of my other skills (or ask party members to use theirs) to gain the information I need in order to formulate an approach.  Ideally I'd roll a couple checks to see if I can discern what sort of approach might be likely to work.  That is to say, I use my other skills to get the DM to give me a hint, and then I put it to use.  But I'd never say "I trick him into letting us past" without presenting how that should be accomplished.  This is no different to me than being presented with a group of monsters my character doesn't recognize, and rolling knowledge checks, for instance, to try to determine what they are and what the best approach to fighting them is.
-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2011, 07:31:18 AM »
Indeed.  If I'm playing a face character and I can't actually think of any approach to use, I think that would be one of my first thoughts - attempt to use one of my other skills (or ask party members to use theirs) to gain the information I need in order to formulate an approach.  Ideally I'd roll a couple checks to see if I can discern what sort of approach might be likely to work.  That is to say, I use my other skills to get the DM to give me a hint, and then I put it to use.  But I'd never say "I trick him into letting us past" without presenting how that should be accomplished.  This is no different to me than being presented with a group of monsters my character doesn't recognize, and rolling knowledge checks, for instance, to try to determine what they are and what the best approach to fighting them is.
The use of "knowledge skills" in your illustration is telling, indicating there's still a disconnect between roleplaying a character's physical attributes - which can apparently be left to the dice - and mental attributes - which apparently need the player to approximate the character's skill set.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2011, 08:10:24 AM »
It shouldn't matter how GOOD you play a role, but HOW you play it. If I'm a shy person (and I am) and I'm playing a charismatic character who's a great talker, I shouldn't have to talk for a few minutes and it shouldn't matter if I was stuttering or that I couldn't find the right words. My character has social skills maxed and high Charisma. Obviously he can do it almost perfectly. What should be important when I'm roleplaying him is WHAT I'm trying to say (or do), because no matter what honeyed words you use, they won't work if you say the wrong ones.
Basically a player decides what his character does, but not how good he does it. for that there are stats.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2011, 08:50:31 AM »
Indeed.  If I'm playing a face character and I can't actually think of any approach to use, I think that would be one of my first thoughts - attempt to use one of my other skills (or ask party members to use theirs) to gain the information I need in order to formulate an approach.  Ideally I'd roll a couple checks to see if I can discern what sort of approach might be likely to work.  That is to say, I use my other skills to get the DM to give me a hint, and then I put it to use.  But I'd never say "I trick him into letting us past" without presenting how that should be accomplished.  This is no different to me than being presented with a group of monsters my character doesn't recognize, and rolling knowledge checks, for instance, to try to determine what they are and what the best approach to fighting them is.
The use of "knowledge skills" in your illustration is telling, indicating there's still a disconnect between roleplaying a character's physical attributes - which can apparently be left to the dice - and mental attributes - which apparently need the player to approximate the character's skill set.

Of course.  You don't hand your character sheet to the DM, roll a handful of dice, and say, "My character is very smart.  He figures out the best way to approach this problem and then does that." 

But you CAN say, "My character is very smart.  I'm going to roll some checks to see what kinds of things he's noticed or figured out, and then design a strategy to utilize that information."  And then if that's a bad idea, it's on the DM to suggest that your character might think of something else more effective, if they do that sort of thing (I do, some don't).  But part of learning how to play a particular character is to understand their ability and skill set and how to apply it effectively to different situations.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.