>When someone has a high charisma, persuasion based character but has no inkling themselves of how to speak like a normal human being
>When the fat guy plays a thin, athletic character
>when a mundane mortal plays a wizard
>when neckbeards don't role play as neckbeards
>>45545847
>when normies get mad at me for playing a grotesquely obese wizard who uses his powers for sex
>when a wizard player rolls for dark heresy
FUCKING SPAGHETTI
>When people roleplay
>>45545788
>When someone has a high charisma, persuasion based character but has no inkling themselves of how to speak like a normal human being
>>45545788
This is sort of a lasting problem in gaming - how do you play a character with a nonphysical attribute that you don't? How do you play a character that's smarter than you are, that's more charming than you are?
>>45545947
By using indirect speech.
Next thread
>>45545883
>neckbeards
>having powers
>having sex
>>45545822
When are you autistic retards going to learn? Social skills cannot be abstracted.
>>45545788
I tend to ignore most rules on social interaction games and replace them with something much more intuitive.
A character's social stats are a reflection of their poise, presence and control. Charisma+the appropriate skill determines the baseline reaction from NPC's when the character engages. Depending on how convincing or shitty the player is that line will increase or decrease.
So a character with high charisma and negotiation can make higher demands without turning off their mark. A guy with good intimidation can make do with a menacing stare. A guy with good bluff at least has a chance to explain himself when he gives a totally bullshit story.
>For Example
Nathan from Misfits (pic) would have an awesome Cha, however instead of using to convince people to see things his way he uses it as a buffer for his shit. If he wasn't so naturally confident and charming, if he was a dude with normal Cha, he would have the crap beaten out of him constantly for the steam of insults and stupidity that eternally pour from his mouth.
Meanwhile, poor Simon can be as polite and reasonable as humanly possible but he will always seem a panty-sniffer. Because of his poor Charisma he has to work double hard in social scenarios to make up for his naturally creepy demeanour.
>>45546056
This.
You can throw an awkward player softballs, but if someone is so awkward or unimaginative that they can't do this
>>45545964
they might be too awkward to play a "clever" character.
Also the whole idea of a "party face" is a retarded outgrowth of skill systems that reward overspecialization.
I think the more difficult issue is how to reward a very boisterous player for roleplaying and getting into the story without making him the "main character" and overshadowing the others.
>>45546657
I don't like the show as much after he left
>When the X plays the Y
I KNOW RIGHT, THE ACTUAL WORST.
I despise this recurring double standard. The mechanics exist for a reason and people shouldn't be punished for things they find difficult.
If someone who lacks social skills wants to try playing a social character, you should encourage and enable them. If they're not comfortable doing dialogue, then ask them to describe how they're going about it, the same way most players describe their actions rather than actually having to do it. Give them bonuses for something well thought out and help them learn and grow as a player and a person through their experiences in the game.
Is it more work as a GM? Yes. But it's entirely worth it, and if you're not willing to do that you shouldn't be running a game.
>when the high INT character's player can't solve the simple dungeon puzzle
>>45545822
>>45545788
Even a complete hamplanet knows what being strong or fast and doing strong or fast shit looks like, they've seen movies, they've watched tv, they've looked at things and said to themselves "if i was strong, I could lift that, but I'm not, so I can't."
Playing a character with a high STR stat is not difficult, anyone can do it well enough that it doesn't ruin the immersion for the rest of the players.
Pen and paper role-playing is a group activity, people should keep that in mind.
>>45547305
You're right.
Social mechanics are stupid.
The idea of the 'social character' is stupid.
Let roleplaying handle it, and call it a day.
>>45547373
Nope. Social mechanics have a real, tangible use and are beneficial to a lot of groups. They don't need to be used all the time, but having a system to fall back on is a lot better than people trying to browbeat their GM into letting them have their way or whatever bullshit you'd suggest.
>>45547305
It's absolutely not worth it and it's fucking painful to watch someone stutter their way through dialogue or be unable to act out the result of a roll in a way that's fun for everyone.
The mechanics are important, absolutely, the players limitations is not the characters limitations. But that doesn't change the fact that the wrong person playing the wrong role can really, really bring down the session.
Some people should stick to strong silent types, they're not entitled to make things dull for the whole group.
It's like being in a band. Don't play the instrument if you sound like shit, stick to something you can actually contribute with.
>>45547305
This. I'd even say playing with someone who has a disorder like social anxiety, autism, or a speech impediment is a good way to improve your GMing.
>I try to kick down the door.
>Roll Strength.
>I try to c-c-c-convince the guard.
>That's not how it works, you have to tell me exactly what you say!
Adapt to different players and their styles. In the rare instance someone feels cheated, give them a mechanical bonus for their rousing speeches.
>>45547450
Nah, you're just a selfish cunt. Have fun telling other people the right way to roleplay, dick.
>>45547455
Exactly.
>>45547334
Which is why knowledge mechanics are also great in RPGs. Then again, I've never really seen the point of GMs providing players logic puzzles and refusing to allow their characters to roll. Why should the player of the Int 8 Barbarian be able to use his IRL skills to breeze past it, invalidating the role of the Wizard who isn't as comfortable with such things? It's a roleplaying game, half the fun is exploring different characters and experiencing fantastic worlds through them.
>>45547534
>I've never really seen the point of GMs providing players logic puzzles and refusing to allow their characters to roll. Why should the player of the Int 8 Barbarian be able to use his IRL skills to breeze past it, invalidating the role of the Wizard who isn't as comfortable with such things? It's a roleplaying game, half the fun is exploring different characters and experiencing fantastic worlds through them.
I follow this:
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4238/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings
Because, as a player playing a game, it can be fun to solve things. You figure out the trap or the solution to the puzzle, it clicks, it feels satisfying and fun. Come up with a role-playing reason if you need to, like Klog the Barbarian is the only one who thinks outside the box and smashes open the electrified door with his club.
But I agree it's not the only way. The only thing worse than "roll to proceed with the game" is "figure this out to proceed with the game", since at least rolling always has a chance.
>>45545788
That happens to me.
I solve it by asking the DM / other players "I want this character to do {x}, what do I say to make the character do {x}?" and have them solve the problem for me.
The other problem is that I have no idea what the fuck the Good vs. Evil axis is meant to represent so I end up bouncing from one side to the other and back like a fucking yoyo.
>>45547765
>I solve it by asking the DM / other players "I want this character to do {x}, what do I say to make the character do {x}?"
>what do I say to make the character do {x}?
Why do you need this part, out of interest?
Can you give an example?
>>45547450
I think you might have missed the point a bit. When a dude kicks down the door, the GM doesn't get them to stand up and pretend to do it while judging their technique (you didn't generate force from your lats). Why would we expect this to be the case for a mental skill. We've all seen Sherlock Holmes movies and we know the schtick even if we don't know about rare snakes and secret societies, so it shouldn't be more a stretch to imagine a rousing speech than lifting a boulder.
>>45547475
>Selfish cunt for saying that one player shouldn't bring down the entire session by playing a character he can't play in a way that's fun for the rest of the group.
So it's pretty clear that you're one of those people who should never play characters that use logic and reason to resolve conflict.
>>45547797
This is why morale checks need to make a comeback. They're a wargaming classic and they're optional in the newest D&D, more people should use them. They set a good precedent that, yes, you as the GM can simply say, "He's a scaredy-cat so he runs away," but also sometimes there's a level of abstraction to it. Two guards bolster themselves while the third flees. They didn't have to act it out, it just happened.
>>45547765
So you're essentially letting the rest of the group play your character for you because you don't know how he'd actually do the things he does?
That sounds terrible. You're basically an NPC.
>>45547795
Trying to convince NPCs to do the right thing (or what my character views as the right thing) usually leads to them just getting pissy at my character.
>>45547883
If NPCs constantly had agency and the ability to follow their own goals, then yes.
>>45547856
I notice a lot of selfish people hiding behind "fun for the rest of the group" as an excuse for being selfish.
You having 3 other pricks that are all pricks in the exact same way that you are, does not make you any less of a prick.
It is extremely common that a group of 3-4 people force their way of doing things on the other 1-2, and expect to have their way 100% of the time, but it's not being selfish because being unfair to those 1-2 players is justified so long as 2-3 other people enjoy it.
That is bullshit. Thinking "These 1 or 2 people should conform to the majority" when you are part of the majority is being a selfish prick.
>>45547797
No, you missed the point. The point is that most people can describe kicking down the door in a convincing manner that makes the rest of the group picture it.
The same is not true for making a good argument, being a smooth fast talking rogue or improvising a line about how they figured out the mystery or whatever.
"I say something smart, you lot can imagine what it sounds like, next" is not exactly riveting role-playing.
Honestly, why are you even playing that kind of character if all you're going to do is roll the dice and let the other players imagination do your job?
People act like it's a huge double standard to expect players to act out social stuff when they don't have to kick down any doors for real because they do it in game, but it's a retarded argument. It's not about being able to do thing X for real, it's about describing or acting out thing X in a way that feels convincing and fun. Throwing things far or hitting things hard is just not as difficult to describe as being smart or charming.
The same goes for playing a crude brawler vs playing some kind of fencing genius. One is way easier to role-play convincingly in combat than the other. Same with a wizard who shoots fireballs vs one who uses some more subtle kind of magic.
It's like reading a book. You can tell when someone has no clue about what they're writing about, and it's jarring and brings you out of the mood. Encouraging that is only going to lower the quality of your sessions.
>>45548093
>"I say something smart, you lot can imagine what it sounds like, next" is not exactly riveting role-playing.
No, but it's good enough, and it doesn't end up penalising the character for the player's lack of IRL stats.
>Honestly, why are you even playing that kind of character if all you're going to do is roll the dice and let the other players imagination do your job?
You can say that of STR and DEX based characters as well, you know. Why do you bother fighting imaginary kobolds and orcs?
> It's not about being able to do thing X for real, it's about describing or acting out thing X in a way that feels convincing and fun.
And where does this leave the players who lack the (IRL) skill in descriptive, convincing acting? Are those subhuman plebs to fuck off so that they don't spoil your superior elite patrician experience?
>You can tell when someone has no clue about what they're writing about
Yeah, it's when the URL of what they're writing starts with http://
Kappa
>>45548060
Putting the wishes of the group above the individuals is the definition of unselfish. Thinking that you're entitled to do whatever you want even though you're in the minority and bringing down the average enjoyment is the definition of selfish. Honestly do you ever think about what you're saying or do you just puke it up on the keyboard and press Post?
>>45548216
Tyranny of the majority, motherfucker.
>>45548193
>YOU'RE MEANIES FOR NOT SUPPORTING MY MEDIOCRITY! ANYONE WHO SAYS I'M BAD IS AN ELITIST JERK!
>MY MOM SAID YOU HAVE TO LET ME BE IN THE BAND AND THAT I CAN PLAY THE DRUMS IF I WANT TO!
>>45548216
>unless you submit to the will of me and my mates you are selfish
Yep, you are the selfish ones all right.
You can't cater to the 1 guy like 20% of the time? It has to be his way 0% of the time? You are taking more than your fair share. And that is bullshit.
And yes, the minority IS entitled to bring down the average enjoyment of everyone else, because as you've just said, the majority IS entitled to bring down the enjoyment of the minority. Having different rules for different people is complete crap.
Find something you BOTH enjoy, or tolerate that you won't get your way 100% of the time.
Or just keep being a selfish prick.
>>45548252
Well, at least you're admitting you don't have an argument.
>>45548242
No, that's a persecution complex you sad fuck.
>I don't have to adapt! Everything is about me!
Find some like-minded people instead of stinking things up for your betters.
>>45548252
>I AM SILLY
>>45545788
In those situations, I interpret what they say in the best possible light. Partly, it's because their character knew better than the player what approach to take. And partly, it's how they say it that works its magic.
There are people who can say and do things that would get anyone else killed in polite company. I had a friend who called it The Quagmire Effect-- for the lovable sex offender, the guy who says and does stuff that if you stopped for a moment and thought about it would horrify you but which all his friends and loved ones just chuckle and shrug off. Some people can simply get away with a lot of improbable shit.
Examples: In the news right now, Donald Trump is of course a great example. Jon Stewart during his heyday. Prince (the rock star) can get away with wearing clothes that look weird and costume-y on anyone else but somehow he makes it work. The Doctor in Doctor Who is like that.
Meanwhile (and this is something I run into far more often w/ my group) the socially adept player who takes a low score in CHA. I interpret the things THOSE players say in the worst possible light. People are less likely to take their threats seriously (or threats turn them into lasting enemies if they work). People won't believe their claims, won't accept their deals, and have trouble making friends and gathering information. It's not that they autofail, but I'm careful not to let them RP their way into bypassing a character weakness.
>>45548282
And yet, showing a complete lack of self-awareness, you outright STATE that the rest of the group doesn't have to adapt to that individual. It's the individual who has to adapt.
That is placing more demands on another person than you give to them in return.
That is the definition of selfish.
>>45548093
>"I say something smart, you lot can imagine what it sounds like, next" is not exactly riveting role-playing.
I'm going to disagree there.
"I deliver a scathing quip" can be just as good as: "Orc, if you had half as much brains as you have brawn, you'd know it wise to let us pass!"
It might put coming up with something in the GM's court, which is fine for certain play styles, maybe other players can offer suggestions, in which case this really works.
If you're not comfortable with this, what's wrong with rolling? "I deliver a scathing quip," "Okay, roll Charisma," then resolve it. You don't make players act things out every time they buy gear or spend a long time between adventures.
>>45548265
You are actually retarded. It's the same rule for everyone, the majority decides.
You've literally gone from "I should be able to play things I'm bad at playing" to "People who want to decide things are evil!" just go back to playing your int 20 character that solves everything by rolling or whatever. We're never going to agree on this.
>>45548320
Judging by this thread, 50% of roleplayers think they are some kind of elitist gods that demand Muh Immersion and Muh Riveting Acting, and they would demand acting things out every time you buy gear or spend a long time between adventures.
>>45548313
No, because again, majority. The most enjoyment for the most people, if you don't agree with it you're free to leave, because you're there by you're own free will. You're not entitled to hold the rest of the group hostage to your minority opinion.
>>45548355
The most enjoyment for the most people directly includes ensuring that the minority are still enjoying themselves, you enormous cockgobbler.
>>45548320
I'm sorry but being unable to act out something that's a defining trait of your character is just bad.
"remember that time rob said "I deliver a scathing quip? oh man, that was some epic stuff" said no one ever.
>>45548384
Look at this guy! Carrying goalposts like that, he must have a great IRL Strength score.
>>45548377
Not if it makes things less enjoyable for the majority, since that's a net loss, you hare-brained mouth-breather.
>>45548326
>It's the same rule for everyone, the majority decides.
And if the minority are selfish pricks that don't give a shit about how the rule affects others, then ...
>People who want to decide things are evil!
Depends how you decide. If you only give a shit about how your decisions affect the people that agree with you, and people who disagree with you can go fuck themselves, then yes. That is evil.
I'm not saying "you shouldn't make evil decisions". They have their place.
But I AM saying that you're hiding behind "Other people are selfish! Not me!" while being selfish.
>just go back to playing your int 20 character that solves everything by rolling or whatever.
I have 17 int IRL ^^
I tend to roll for the fellowship checks tho.
>>45548216
>>45547475
>>45547450
I can safely say you're a piece of shit. Would not game with.
>>45548403
So if two people decided they wanted to rape you, you'd bend over and let it happen? After all, they're the majority, and they want to enjoy themselves!
>>45548403
You're gonna rage yourself into a fit when one day you find yourself NOT in the majority, you know.
But yes. Let's assume your tactic is "I'm gonna play it MY way, and find a group that plays it MY way, and we're gonna tell everyone else to fuck off"
That is a valid tactic. Just watch out for when the group decides they'd like to play it different
>>45548093
> my imagination is limited to Michael Bay movies
>>45548384
Why doesn't it matter if you can't act it out? The point is, your character fucking wrecked that orc. Sure, it won't make for /tg/ storytime, but you rolled high, the orc was flabbergasted, you move on.
And if you want specific dialogue, again, decide as a group. Maybe the GM says, "Okay, you look at the orc's clothes and tell him you haven't seen such hideous fashion since you were in prison," or perhaps another player offers a suggestion. Nothing wrong with that. Especially if it's riding off a roll.
If I came across a stuck door in real life, I'd have no idea what to do. Ram into it with my shoulder? Boot it open? GM, Strength roll please!
>>45548437
I was going to retort with one being voluntary and the other being forced, but it really doesn't matter, does it?
He's selfish for expecting that majority to change their game to suit him.
>>45548534
But
>>45548384
>>45547883
Letting the group roleplay your character is BADWRONGFUN and you're basically playing an NPC. You, as a player, should do 100% of the roleplaying for your character - and having the other players help you is like LETTING THEM PLAY YOUR CHARACTER FOR YOU, man! Why are you even THERE if you want the other players to help you?
>>45548537
Surely you enlighten us, oh selfless one, in how you compassionately and kindly ignore the feelings of anyone who disagrees with you. Truly, it is the height of showing care for others, to completely disregard them if they are not aligned with your way of thinking. Truly, you are a beacon of good in this dark world.
>>45548573
I always need help from other players, even when I'm a GM.
>"I cut the rope with my rapier."
>"Actually, rapiers don't have a cutting edge."
>"That's true, but they do have a thin edge that could cut through rope. They just weren't designed as cutting weapons."
This came up in a game I ran recently. I don't know shit about rapiers.
>>45548608
There is a very large difference between caring about someone's opinions 50% of the time (and telling them to get stuffed the other 50%) and caring about their opinions 0% of the time.
The way I see it, if 1 person is at odds with 4, then that 1 person should be expected to care about the 4's opinions 80% of the time, and the 4 should be expected to care about the 1's 20% of the time.
The majority get their way most of the time, which is exactly what you'd expect. But not ALL the time.
>>45548384
>show me how you throw the axe
>bad technique, the attack fails
Tell me again how you can't imagine a joke, but your descriptions of door kicking are riveting and flavourful.
>>45548636
Oh yeah but the GM is totally different.
The GM is expected to bend to his players' wishes or else he's railroading and forcing a story with no regard to the player's input.
Except the GM is the lord of the game and what he says goes, and any players that expect the game changed for them are little bitches that don't know how much effort the GM puts in for their enjoyment.
Or you could meet them halfway (20% of the way? 80% of the way?) but that's obviously just I AM SILLY strawman ad hominem buzzwords and badwrongfun That Guy™ munchkin roleplayer-tier selfish memeing bullshit.
>>45548716
>Or you could meet them halfway (20% of the way? 80% of the way?) but that's obviously just I AM SILLY strawman ad hominem buzzwords and badwrongfun That Guy™ munchkin roleplayer-tier selfish memeing bullshit.
Welcome to the internet. You are 100% right, everyone else is 100% wrong, grey areas lol more like GAY areas because compromise is for faggots. #PeopleWhoAgreeWithMeLivesMatter
>>45548716
Those were all player comments. If it was some obvious bullshit like, "I cut down the tree with my dagger!" then no. But in this case, the players gave an explanation for how a character could cut a rope with a rapier. It made sense, I allowed it, we moved on.
It is something the character would know, the table discussion occurs out-of-character. Whether it's knocking down a door, using a rapier to cut a rope, or delivering a scathing quip to an orc.
>>45548816
YOU ARE BEING TOO REASONABLE.
STOP THAT IMMEDIATELY.
>>45548839
Fuck off with your 8 CHA capslock posting, you can't tell me what to do!
Rolled 5, 3, 4, 6 = 18 (4d6)
>>45548876
But it is actually (4d6 drop lowest) charisma posting! If this number is 16 or more, I can in fact tell you what to do!
>>45548901
>>45548876
Aw dang. I didn't meet the DC by 1. I can't tell you what to do.
Wait I know, I'll insist that your opinion doesn't matter because you didn't provide a riveting narrative! LOL PWND
For a board dedicated to imagining things, most of you have a hard time dealing with abstractions
>>45548955
Pic related: it's an abstraction
(But yeah, you should be able to imagine a guy saying something witty, just as you imagine a guy swinging a sword or casting a fireball)
>>45548926
All that matters is that I was making an argument on a Korean picture sharing bulletin board system.
Sorry, I mean go over my post in-depth and slow the game down. Use your real life stats. How are you attacking with your daggers, by the way? Reminder that you get a -2 to slashing as opposed to thrusting!
>>45549005
Ah, good lad. I see you'll fit in with this group just fine.
Remember to fill in at least 2 fetishes on your character sheet though. That way you can derail the campaign to suit your fetish and justify it IC.
Also I'm attacking with my daggers like this
>>45545788
>>45545822
>>45545846
>>45545847
>>45545883
>>45545884
>>45545903
>>45545904
>>45545925
>>45545947
>>45545964
>>45546026
>>45546056
>>45546657
>>45546672
>>45546898
>>45547210
>>45547305
>>45547334
>>45547368
>>45547373
>>45547411
>>45547450
>>45547455
>>45547475
>>45547534
>>45547718
>>45547765
>>45547795
>>45547797
>>45547856
>>45547881
>>45547883
>>45547944
>>45548060
>>45548060
>>45548093
>>45548193
>>45548216
All excellent examples of why you shouldn't let people who have shitty communications skills describe the way their character talks.
>>45549108
This, let the dice and stats speak for them
>>45549139
>>45549108
>>45549067
>>45549005
>>45549001
>>45548955
>>45548926
>>45548901
>>45548876
>>45548839
We've pretty much I AM SILLY'd ourselves, haven't we?
>>45546672
>Also the whole idea of a "party face" is a retarded outgrowth of skill systems that reward overspecialization.
On this we disagree. There are plenty of good characters in fiction defined by their social skills, and a group having a single representative skilled at representing them is also pretty normal.
Having people with no social skills play a charismatic character sure is annoying, as is people who can't put obvious clues together play an intelligent character.
But ultimately, an RPG is an abstraction and it's the stats that matter.
Otherwise, i wonder how people would play epic levels where a sorcerers/wizards can have 30 charisma/intelligence.
You have to make those inhuman stats work somehow and you can't expect the players to roleplay something equivalent.
>>45549108
I think you must have made a mistake and tagged me. I understand that you had a lot of tagging to do, but I am CHA 16 IRL. You wouldn't want a counter-example to get mixed in with your examples.
this entire thread is about jock fighters and barbarians trying to bully the nerdy wizards and bards.
>>45545788
The only issue I have with this is when they treat Charisma like mind control because they're really ignorant of social maneuvering. I just remind them and give them a list of potential uses of their skill based on a roll. Not limited to the options on the list but just some stuff to give them ideas.
My mindset for this kind of thing is that you bring out the dice for stuff that you can't reasonably expect to do without formal training or stuff prohibited by reality.
You roll for sword swinging, fireball casting, lockpicking and trap spotting because there's no other reasonable alternative. HEMA and Kenjutsu are expensive hobbies, and most occultist societies are glorified weed sharing groups. EOD specialists have trained eyes for these kinds of things. Most of us struggle to find our keys in the morning.
Social skills are something everyone has, likely utilise daily and can work on. And this is coming from a sperglord. Maybe let the dice decide on edge cases where you're not JFK level speechcraft but also not Warren G Harding level speechcraft, but no diplomacy check's going to save you when you call the ambassador's mother a crackwhore.
All I think of when hearing 'scathing quip' is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAG9Xn5bJwQ
You're basically replacing dialogue with TvTropes entry titles. Imagine going up to the climactic final confrontation with the GM when suddenly
>GM:"BBEG Monologue"
>Bard:"Witty Retort"
>GM:"BBEG remarks on how little left you have to laugh, metaphor for party's insignificance"
>Fighter:"Maternal Insult!"
this is like saying if you are rping with a cripple he has to make a character you pull around in a trolley.
>>45549572
>but no diplomacy check's going to save you when you call the ambassador's mother a crackwhore.
>socially retarded player playing a high CHA character: "I call the ambassador's mother a whore"
>player Rolls dice, gets a 20
>GM: "the ambassador sighs in contemplation, and admits that deep down you are right, as it was the only explanation for the foul company his mother often was with"
>>45548716
GMs are faggots.
A good GM *has* to know how to power bottom.
Anyway, if you've got low CHA IRL and are playing a High CHA character, well, I've heard that that can help raise your IRL CHA--through practice. After all, Roleplaying is a social activity, so even pretending to be someone else is social interaction, and that only gets better through practice.
However, you've got to be open to criticism. I mean, if you say something that was supposed to be cool but came out cringe-worthy, that's something you need to work out. Make alterations. Be damn sure you know what was wrong with it and why it's not said in public or polite company. Practice is only good if you're actually receptive to learning from your mistakes. This means you can't get too attached to your awesome character.
If you're a group and you've got an awkward player, help him be not awkward. Tell him when he messes up, not to be mean, but because you're his bro. Sometimes this means you gotta go in-depth and analytical into the exact cadence of voice, or something like that. But try and give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, sure, that's only gonna go so far. You do this, and the awkward guy should eventually conform to the group in a good way. Hopefully.
After all, you're gaming together. Why game together if you can't treat each other like friends? Sometimes it means tough love and sometimes it means soft love, but you shouldn't game with each other if you can't love each other.
>>45549572
>Wizard: "Rules lawyering about Tensor's Disc"
>>45549838
Strangely good advice is strangely good.
Why are you here in the shitpost thread?
>>45549799
Nah, a nat 20 would mean that the insult found purchase and he was as ass-blasted as possible. Liked, blanched face and aghast, and then the blood rushes back and then some as he's furiously sputtering. All composure gone, he doesn't even realize to call for you to be taken away for more than enough time to get well out of the room.
>>45549799
When I GM there's a minimum. You can't critically fail a diplomacy check like that.
You can fail but you can't tell me something like.
>"I want to convince him to let us stay."
>Roll: 1
>"You call his mother a whore."
In that case it plays out more like this.
>"I want to convince him to let us stay."
>Roll: 1
>"You failed to notice the dusty unused small chair and forlorn look on his wife's face and foolishly mention their recently deceased child in attempt to establish rapport. You're attempt fails."
Having high Diplomacy doesn't just mean you're convincing. It means you know what to say and when. That requires an acute sense of the mindset and emotions of your targets. A 1 to me usually means that you just missed something major and pushed the wrong buttons because you did.
>>45545788
Zathras from the Darken webcomic was the first thing that came to my mind.
>>45551016
Which of these three character(s) is female?
I can tell the Artist is a woman because the natural female reaction to mind control is "This is my fetish", and the characters demonstrate this clearly.
>>45551172
The demon, maybe?
>be Forever GM
>setting up low-fantasy, realistic, gritty campaign
>skinny as fuck dude wants to play a fucking muscle mountain barbarian
>ask him how much he can deadlift
>he doesn't even lift
>tell him to do a squat
>he has the worst form ever
>mfw I say he has to bench press what his character is lifting
>mfw he crushes his throat with the bar
>>45551172
None of them? Maybe the demon but unlikely?
The female characters are a cleric with all the coordination of a bag of hammers and the assassin/noblewoman, who is easily the smartest member of the entire group.
> neckbeards having a fit over being human shaped piles of refuse: the thread
I get that you autists go into panic at the very thought of having to roleplay through social interaction, but don't be babies about it.
>>45551349
You might have a legitimate point if playing an RPG in some way depended on a player's athleticism. But athleticism doesn't come into play at all. You do, however, have to play out what your character does and says, so your interpersonal skills are quite important.
>>45551469
Seriously, the amount of butthurt in this thread is palpable.
>>45551349
I would love sending players to snap city because they want to play over 14 STR barbarians
>>45545788
literally me. :-[
charisma is, in my experience, the best, most ineffably esoteric magic.
>inb4 autism
it's much too late for that.
I have no problems allowing someone who isn't the best speaker to allow the dice to do the heavy lifting.
I do want to know, however, HOW the character is trying to portray themselves, and what tactic they are trying to use, wheedling, bragging, boasting, sniveling, shit like that.
It's fucking roleplaying. If I was playing softball I wouldn't want the guy who sucks at throwing to be the pitcher. Someone who wants to just have the dice do all the talking without at least setting up the situation well just isn't as fun in my experience, which is really the biggest thing a player can do wrong aside from smelling like shit or not using coasters.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that is isn't fair to the player to say you shouldn't play a type of character because you aren't great at talking to people, but I still think being unfair is better than the alternative
>>45548060
I mean I'm selfish in the sense that if I had a shitty time I'd do something else, but someone who wants to take the fun out of what I want for their own sake isn't exactly a martyr either
all this talk over what you can and can't do while roleplaying as a dungeon sundering booty plundering diplomatic blundering stumbling bumbling larger than life adventurer
>>45546672
'I roll an intelligence check to see if my character is smart enough to solve the riddle.'
Why is this not acceptable?
>>45554766
It's perfectly acceptable, that is the way that tabletop RPGs are meant to be played.
>>45545788
>When someone plays an orcish barbarian but is not an orc and does not scream for blood at the drop of a hat
SHAMEFUR DISPRAY
>>45554849
Heck, it's kinda needed in some cases.
I mean, let's go to one of the most iconic fantasy riddles.
Speak Friend and Enter.
That is basically unsolvable without knowing a purely in-universe thing (The Elven word for friend)
I think that forcing new players to do somethig they are not comfortable doing is kinda against the point of playing the game.
>>45554849
Then what's wrong with applying the same line of thought to charisma? Why does someone need to 'roleplay it out' and try to use their real charisma to seem convincing in the eyes of the GM?
In the end, the intentions of the player and what they roll should come first. Even if their attempts at being convincing are full of stuttering and mumbling and they seem as charismatic as a severed head, what they rolled using the dice should be respected, as should their intention when rolling the dice.
>>45545788
>When someone has a high strength, power lifting based character but has no upper body tehemselves or can't even lift 100lbs
>>45546898
WOW, WHAT A PROFOUND OPINION. HAVEN'T HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE.you should have stuck around, the probation worker in the last two seasons made it all worth it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=draOmLkDcnw
>>45555508
Nothing, good GMing is encouraging your player to roleplay the conversation and then rolling dice to see if the NPC bought his argument.
You wouldn't let your players get away with giving you a detailed description of how to set up a billet and not make a climb check to see if they fucked it up.
>>45554766
Because then you're not being clever as the player, which is what riddles are meant for. If you want to roll INT or whatever skill to see if I give you a hint then sure, but what's the point of an obstacle when you can just roll you way past it?
>>45556109
So is acceptable for a half-orc barbarian with extremely low intelligence to know the answer to a riddle, simply due to the intelligence of the one playing it?
Obstacles are not for the player to overcome, they're for the characters played by the player to overcome. If a player can solve a riddle, I'd allow it provided the character is smart enough to solve it itself. If the players are unable to, a character's statistical intelligence should be an acceptable alternative.
>>45556672
see http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4238/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings
Obviously it's fine if the player figures out the puzzle so their character tells everyone and it makes sense, but if he's playing the stupid orc and blurts his mouth, "The answer is Time!" then that's bad role-playing. Keeping his mouth shut is good role-playing.
Flip it over to the physical side, the real-life footballer shouldn't be attempting to break down the door ("I could easily do it in real life!") when he's playing the 8 Str wizard.
