>GM wants to run a "political intrigue game" (or whatever the GM thinks "political intrigue" is vaguely like)
>inspired by "muh gritty, realistic, and super-mature Game of Thrones"
>GM is completely loathe to have PCs start in or close to a position of power, like being part of a noble family, a high-ranking inquisitor or infiltrator, a foreign ambassador, etc.
>PCs are instead the goofballs who dick around the intrigues of the actually important people
>GM also has a deeply distorted view of how politics even work, so bad that they would never fly even in a young adult novel
>GM retroactively makes the NPCs the party trusts into backstabbers, and the NPCs the party mistrusts into people who would have been genuine benefactors
Why is this what every damn GM tries to run a "political intrigue" game actually winds up running?
I think it's because the vast majority of players just want to unwind and have a good time. For the average Table Top Tom it's hard to keep track of all the all the piloting and planning need for a Political Intrigue game to work. Pulling it off right would require the right people with the right mindset and a lot of talent on the DM's part to make everything come together right. Your OP pic's kawaii as hell BTW.
>>47269180
Some players want to put in effort though.
>>47268978
Because most people don't understand how politics actually work from an unbiased view.
Frequently not even people actually involved in politics.
>>47268978
>Political intrigue
>Gm doesn't allow PCs to be part of the social class that would be DOING the politinal intrigue
>"Political intrigue"
This late in the game, I jus t tell any gm that wants to run GoT shit that I am skipping that campaign.
>host a session with political intrigue
>players are rolling terrible for their social skills, keep getting the wrong information or pissing off the people they're going to intrigue
>they end up just killing everything
>start murderobo campaign
>players hire mercenaries to take over a village
>players start wrangling with local city states
>rest of the campaign is heavy intrigue
I think intrigue campaigns work best as a late game development in another type of game desu.
>>47273238
I agree, but in the case of OP, I think it's a tale of "GM said one thing, but ment another". GM said "political intrigue" but in reality it ment "your gonna be a bunch of hired goons for the nobles"
>>47273089
>players are rolling terrible for their social skills
This why I cut out rolling on social checks all together. Charisma and social skills contribute to a Social/Reaction modifier. It's compared with the current situation to determine how much the player can get away with or how much of a return they can get from their efforts.
It's still up to the player to RP the dialogue, their character's skills just act as a buffer for when they would otherwise get fucked up or as extra reward for being really clever.
>A character can be a Jack Sparrow or Nathan type, they can talk shit and won't get smacked up right away
>A brute intimidator can be all brutish and intimidating and folks are convinced enough that they won't call the cops right away.
>A compulsive liar can come up with ridiculous bullshit. It may not be believed but his mark will at least listen to the rest of awful speel
>A political type might get away with being extra bold at a ball. Instead of looking like an ass he seems to have authority and a certain roguish charm that keeps the dialoge open. He best not push his luck though.
>A charming leader might not just convince his mark to let him by, but earn some much needed trust as well. Perhaps getting an unexpected favour in the future
>A trained investigator might really seem to know he's doing, people might not mean to but they give him a little extra dirt when he's on a roll. Or they bring new information afterwards, even without being asked.
>>47268978
>GM wants to run a "political intrigue game" (or whatever the GM thinks "political intrigue" is vaguely like)
>inspired by "muh gritty, realistic, and super-mature Game of Thrones"
>GM is completely loathe to have PCs start in or close to a position of power, like being part of a noble family, a high-ranking inquisitor or infiltrator, a foreign ambassador, etc.
>PCs are instead the goofballs who dick around the intrigues of the actually important people
>GM also has a deeply distorted view of how politics even work, so bad that they would never fly even in a young adult novel
Vale.
>>47268978
Still sounds better than some faggy game where permavirgin retards try to cybersex each other with profiles of generic sameface animu daggerchins.
>>47274300
...What fucking game are you playing?
>>47274336
Weebs on /tg/ don't actually play legitimate traditional games or RPGs. They just have gay sex with each other pretending to be anime characters.
ERPing isn't /tg/. It's just /soc/ faggotry.
>>47274284
Who?
>>47268978
Political intrigue isn't a good fit for tabletop gaming. There're so many moving parts and you can never reasonably get the whole story because a group plays only so many characters. It wouldn't just take execution to run one, you'd have to come up with some very clever ways to deliver the story.
>>47274565
What about troupe play?
>>47268978
>GM is completely loathe to have PCs start in or close to a position of power, like being part of a noble family, a high-ranking inquisitor or infiltrator, a foreign ambassador, etc.
This is probably the right approach desu. The game can take place among an air of political intrigue, but the players have their job and their orders and there aren't too many moving parts for the GM to manage and it's ok when plot twists happen that are entirely out of the player's hands, they don;t need to understand how all that shit arose out of their actions because it didn't, the NPCs motivations and actions can be narrated post facto.
>>47274565
What about Vampire the Masquerade? Aren't those games built upon political intrigue?
>>47274627
Troupe play is an even worse fit for political intrigue because all the facts about the setting need to be common knowledge or else the campaign consists of half a dozen concurrent plots that never interact at all.
>>47274643
they're based on vampires with superpowers.
>>47274364
Not that I disagree with you, but why bother bringing it up in this of all threads?
>>47274565
The best fit I think for intrigue gaming is larps.
I played in a vampire larp wit about 50 people and it was plots within plots within plots.
>>47274759
Because mods left this place to die, and so it's your job to expunge the cancerous weebfags pouncing to feast on /tg/'s carcass.
>>47274779
The reason why is because LARPers understand that as players they have a sense of agency to propel the story forward. They set things in motion through partially re-actively and partly through their own initiative.
Most RPG players on the other hand usually just do what they think their DM has told them to.
>>47274835
To be successful at LARP, you need to make your own fun but do it collaboratively and in a way that it won't severely detract from anyone else. This is also true of RPGs, but people are too stupid to figure this out.
>>47268978
That's because most games don't properly support the mechanics for a political intrigue game.
It's all done and thought of as 'combat' or 'fights' with opposing die rolls - political intrigue would come down to a combination of detective-work and an understanding of psychology.
It's also very demanding to do correctly for the GM, because he has to keep track of what each individual player is doing, how they bounce off themselves and the key changes the PCs do, and so on.
In point of fact it would probably be better to make *each* PC a major player with different goals, position them across this nation, and then see how they go about them and wrestle with each other.
>>47274835
>>47274871
This is sort of the same thing. In a LARP, each person is only playing one - and ONLY one - person, and there's usually at least 3 GMs, and a number of people playing one-time NPCs that have knowledge the players don't.
Also, because of the setup, you CAN tell individual people things and then comfortably expect them not to meta - because it's not one individual controlling a bunch of NPCs, and the players are limited.
>>47268978
>players nag about introducing "real" politics into the game
>let players acquire a position of power
>"lol what's a duke nvm i kill him xd "
>>47274887
LARPing is arguably much more immersive, but it isn't drastically different than how an RPG is supposed to operate.
>>47274871
>In point of fact it would probably be better to make *each* PC a major player with different goals, position them across this nation, and then see how they go about them and wrestle with each other.
Great idea in theory, but realistically all this would do is destroy any form of group cohesion among the players and bring an endless amount of salt and drama to the table. Unless you have a tight-knit group made of reasonable people able to differentiate make-believe from real life that is.
>>47274949
>can't differentiate real life from a game
MAKE NEW FRIENDS
>>47274834
Nah.
>>47274949
i dunno, I was in 3 year long vampire game where all we did was try to ruin each other. shit was a blast. the GM loved it after we had all secured major positions because he basically just ran our NPC subordinates while we all butted heads with each other.
>>47275317
Sounds like you have a solid group, good for you then.
>>47274703
Yeah, vampires with superpowers who also have political intrigue.
Not our fault you had (were?) a shit GM.
>>47273695
So do you force the PCs to lift the fridge before they're allowed to lift something heavy in the game?
>>47274871
A resource mechanic would be important.
Let's see, maybe arrange it into Economic, Nationalism (Loyalty to the state, and perhaps also the desire to spread THE FAITH), Military, and Science resources? Then you can start figuring out how to compete and best explore or use them.
>>47274300
But if they're making it similar to GoT, it's bound to have lots of cybersex, isn't it?
>>47275929
No but I do allow them to strategies and sole problems to the best of their ability. The is a game element to ttrpgs and that element often relies on the player's ability at making good decisions.
We need need roles for physical and perceptive tasks because those kinds of spacial arrangements are really hard to accurately eye-ball with a group. They need to be abstracted and interpreted through rules.
However rules and mechanics are not very good at replicating the important and satisfying aspects social interaction. Right now the only things capable of that are people.
I'm not saying to disregard social mechanics altogether but to put them in a place where they don't obstruct game flow.
It gives player's freedom in how they interact, probably more freedom than they would get in most combat systems and certainly more speed.
Besides if I'm playing a game that's reliant on human interaction I might as well take that opportunity and use it to it's fullest. If I want to interact with mechanics all day I'd play videogames.
>>47268978
Well, being good at politics typically requires a lot of planning and strategic thinking, which most people are not any good at. It also often requires a lot of charisma, or at least a skill at manipulating others, which, again, most people aren't good at.
And to do it well, you need to have a lot of knowledge about the issues they are dealing with, the people involved, the history and grudges and favors of all the relevant parties, the political rules and atmosphere. That's a level of knowledge that is very difficult to emulate or achieve in a made up fantasy world.
And of course, to really be good at anything, you sort of have to want to be good at it. Politics is not interesting to a lot of people, even a lot of people who watch Game of Thrones or Babylon 5 or something, and think, "that would be a fun game", and try to run it or agree to play in it, don't really have the interest and motivation for that kind of game playing.
Political games are pretty hard to pull off. I've run or been in a few, and they were all varying degrees of failure.
>>47274643
They're supposed to be, kind of. The ones that actually try to be "political" usually resemble high school social drama way more than any kind of actual politics or power brokering.
>>47269180
>I think it's because the vast majority of players just want to unwind and have a good time
This is why it doesn't work. Insincere faggots like this guy just want to roll big numbers in D&D, and they make up the majority of people playing RPGs.
>>47274949
>Unless you have a tight-knit group made of reasonable people able to differentiate make-believe from real life that is.
Haha, good luck.
>>47274871
This is patently false: D&D's original endgame pretty much assumed the PCs would become lords to a kingdom. This has been true since 1st Edition.
Well, admittedly, that aspect of the game probably wasn't playtested as much as most campaigns tended to end with "and they lived happily ever after".
next time your GM wants to run a political intrigue game, convince him to play diplomacy instead
then break his knees when he betrays you
>>47274834
I know right, fuck Japan, fuck everything anime related, we must purge it like the Emperor purges xenos
>>47277087
So you fuck over people for not being as glib in real life as their character would be.
Eat a fucking dick, faggot. You are a large chunk of what's wrong with RPGs.
>It's not a videgame hurdur
No, because they're actually better at letting people play the charismatic PC then you are, dipshit.
>>47278366
>D&D
>tables, the tabling
>having to keep track of even more units and NPCs, not only time consuming for the GM but annoying as fuck
>game-breaking spells and largely about combat mechanics
>doesn't properly abstract resources, requiring you to concentrate on tracking everything
>""""FALSE""""
try again
>Players have power over a city
>Completely fuck it up
>Screw over the common folk and nobles "Because we can"
>Are surprised when a revolution starts to usurp them
>>47279727
It's like you don't even enjoy running spreadsheets!
>>47278316
What's wrong with rolling dice and having a good time anon?
Not every game is designed to be 2deep4you garbage that makes every decision into the worst one possible, sometimes people just want to hang out with their friends and have fun doing whatever.
If I wanted to play a game where the majority of NPCs are backstabbing cunts and the PCs are expected to rise up in the ranks, I'd just play in a vampire game from nWoD.
>>47280603
>What's wrong with rolling dice and having a good time anon?
Keep your "beer and pretzels" casual shit to yourself, swine. I'm not going to stop you from having small-minded "fun" but I certainly won't tolerate that kind of lax-brained, insincere behavior in my games.
>>47279687
I'd rather play a game where a good roleplayer can move the plot forward through glib and subterfuge than a game that plays out like a shitty video game where RNG is the sole element that determines whether or not you succeed or fail.
If you know that you can't roleplay a charismatic person then it raises the question of why you'd even play the face to begin with?
I say this as someone who has seen someone try to play a face and ended up dropping the character because his lack of charisma fucked up our negotiations and nearly gotten us killed.
>>47274834
>muh board culture
Literally the biggest cancer on this site and the main reason why places like /a/ and /co/ are shit.
I'd rather go to a shitty board that knows that it's shit than go to a shitty board that's frequented by retards who think that it's their responsibility to police every single thread and shit themselves when something they perceive as badwrongfun gets put on.
>>47280626
You're standing there, frothing at the mouth and pissing your pants and I'm the one whose insecure?
RPGs are about hanging out with your mates and having fun, a majority of players will agree with me because at its core, it's a game that's meant to be enjoyed.
Especially D&D, which is the original beer and pretzels game.
>want to run sandbox intrigue campaign
>players get frustrated they don't have an obviously evil bad guy to slay
I hate my players
>>47280722
>RPGs are about hanging out with your mates and having fun
No, that's just how you and your dim-witted brethren abuse them. RPGs are about roleplaying, they're not about fun. People who enjoy roleplaying will enjoy RPGs, but RPGs are not meant to be enjoyed by people who don't enjoy roleplaying, same as Monopoly isn't meant to be enjoyed by people who don't enjoy board games.
>Especially D&D, which is the original beer and pretzels game.
Leave it to the D&Dfags to demonstrate their inherent wickedness and idiocy yet again.
Again, I can't and won't stop you from getting your twisted thrills, but you and your kind are never welcome in a real game.
>>47280764
>having fun is a twisted thrill
Would you feel better if I played the game like MtG and crashed the campaign, with no survivors?
Because if I'm not there to have fun then I'm obviously there to win, and political games are just a convoluted web of intrigue that, when plucked too hard, falls apart under its own weight.
>>47280764
> RPGs are about roleplaying, they're not about fun.
Well, you had a good run anon, but you just outed yourself. Here's your consolatory (You) for the effort.
This guy just wants to hear his old trip mentioned, doesn't he?
>>47280822
>Because if I'm not there to have fun then I'm obviously there to win
This is the brain of a D&Dfag, completely rotten to the core. They cannot conceive of an alternative to generic game-y notions of "fun" and "winning".
You people are everything wrong with this hobby.
>>47280865
Then why am I there, to sit around the table and listen to you stroking your own ego at how "in-depth" and "fleshed out" your political intrigue is?
Because honestly, I'd rather just crash the campaign and take over as GM rather than sit through months of campaign just to find out that nothing I did fucking mattered in the end because you already decided that we'd fail long before we reached this point in the game.
At least we'd actually be able to enjoy ourselves.
>>47280635
If you can't lift up the fridge, why would you want to roleplay a strong person?
You stupid, stupid shit.
>>47280915
>Then why am I there, to sit around the table and listen to you stroking your own ego at how "in-depth" and "fleshed out" your political intrigue is?
This antagonism is completely unwarranted, I've made absolutely no comments to suggest that.
My issue was with this (>>47280603) dreadful comment:
>What's wrong with rolling dice and having a good time anon?
Only a braindead D&D junkie would even consider such a question valid, and it's you sorry apes that are responsible for sentiments like this one becoming so widespread.
Rolling dice is a means to resolve the outcome of something within the gameworld. People like you are interested only in increasing the number that comes after they roll their dice, they have no interest in anything outside of the incredibly narrow range of activity that occurs in combat encounters. That is not acceptable behavior, it doesn't matter how much "fun" you claim to be having, I will never permit someone like you to sit at my table and participate in a real roleplaying game.
>>47280971
Vert, just go kill yourself.
>>47280959
I can lift up a fridge though, thanks to a magical device called the modern "hand truck."
>>47280983
Doesn't fucking count. If you want to play a strong character, you, yourself, has to heft that shit.
Because you are apparently your character, you stupid motherfucker.
Oh, and before you can cast magic in the game, let's see that fireball in real life. Come on, hop to.
Social stats are just another part of the CHARACTER, and the CHARACTER can be good at it while you are not.
>>47280971
>This antagonism is completely unwarranted, I've made absolutely no comments to suggest that.
Except by acting like an obnoxious faggot who thinks that their fun is more "rightfun" than others.
>>47280980
>everyone I don't like is Virt
I'm not that fucking faggot, stop being such a paranoid reject.
Either address my points or don't, I don't care, but what you're doing now is seriously pathetic.
And besides, wasn't he viciously gamist autist anyways?
>>47281006
I'm a new person stepping in to call you a stupid nigger, Virt. Go kill yourself.
>>47280983
But that's wrong you huge price of shit.
>>47281003
My fun /is/ objectively superior to yours, though. Pigs satisfied can rationalize not reaching for the grapes all they like, but they are in fact lesser creatures for doing so.
Similarly, if you enjoy having some wacky fun rolling BIG NUMBERS with all your best buds every weekend, that's your prerogative, but you are not playing in and do not belong in a roleplaying game.
>>47281033
Come on, Virt, hurry up. Load the chamber, shove that shit in your mouth, and pull the trigger.
>>47280998
It's not like the hand-truck makes the fridge any lighter, it just helps in transporting it across long distances. I still have to pull that weight the entire way, especially over small gaps and mild obstructions.
Also, I could make a fireball easily, all it'd require is some powdered coffee creamer and a lit match.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcOkdAJ-ENQ
I mean, when you look at the material components of most spells, it all comes down to basic chemistry, that's wizard spells are INT based.
>>47280635
>If you know that you can't roleplay a charismatic person then it raises the question of why you'd even play the face to begin with?
if you can't breathe underwater why play a merfolk
>>47281050
Nope, all you get is a pinch of batshit.
Cast the fireball, faggot. Use fucking magic, not chemistry. USE. FUCKING. MAGIC. FAGGOT.
>>47281033
People tend to remember those "wacky fun BIG NUMBERS" than the shitty political shit that GoTfags like shoving into tabletop.
Well, that's a lie, most people remember how shitty it was because most of the NPCs were backstabbing cunts and it usually ends with the PCs resorting to murder anyways.
>>47281059
The thing is that you can handwave and abstract what "being strong" or "being a fishperson" is like in play, but with conversation it is especially important to know specifically what is said.
>>47281021
Nope, I'm lifting a heavy object using a device to bolster my strength.
No different than someone using a belt of giant's strength really.
>>47281067
You see, that's why fist wizards are the most historical accurate wizard.
>>47281077
Nope, nope, nope.
You want to do any of that, you don't get to fucking handwave it.
YOU started this idiocy, faggot, you don't get to back out halfway just because it's not convenient to you.
Either the character isn't you, and can do shit you can't, or the character IS you, so get to breathing underwater, fuckface.
>>47281085
Sorry, nope.
Lift it barehanded. Cast that fly spell. Heal that person with a touch.
Can't do it? Can't do it in the game.
>>47281077
you can still abstract what's being said, to a certain extent. 'my character uses an appeal to emotion', or 'my character attempts to impugn the opponent's reputation', or 'my character tries to suggest an idea, while making them think they came up with it themselves'
and then if they want to go into greater detail and form a truly compelling argument, just have the DM give them a bonus on the roll
>>47281067
>>47281092
Bat Guano and Sulfer reacts together in a way that produces a giant explosion when ignited or enough friction is applied.
It's also why lightning bolt's material components was wool and a piece of metal that you rubbed together.
>>47281075
>People tend to remember those "wacky fun BIG NUMBERS"
When you say people, what you actually mean is your friends and the others who game in your psych ward. Neither normal people nor actual roleplayers care about getting big numbers. What they remember is the consequence of success and failure, defined not by BIG NUMBERS but by the gameworld that has been built through cooperative storytelling between the GM and players.
>than the shitty political shit that GoTfags like shoving into tabletop.
Again, I've never advocated doing edgy politics, that's just your knee-jerk reaction to the discomfort caused by you being wrong.
>>47268978
Fucking stop with this political intrigue shitposting, it's been years upon years with this horrid whining. You all suck dick, and its time to let go of the keyboard and accept it
>>47281059
You can easily breathe underwater nowadays using a snorkel.
You can buy them at most dollar stores and there's also scuba equipment if you have the money to do so.
>>47281118
Virt. Load pistol, pull trigger. Do it.
>>47281125
No, nigger. You don't GET THAT.
You march your happyass down to the lake, and just start breathing the water, if you want to play a merfolk. No equipment. No nothing.
Can't do it? Can't play it.
>>47281100
First, I'm not the person you think you're responding to, I only made the comment you're replying to.
Second, it's easy to handwave all of that because the specific motions and breathing patterns or whatever goes into it are not important. The end results, that you lift the big fucking rock, or that you successfully swim into the underground cave, are what matters.
With conversations, oftentimes the same might be said, that the specifics don't matter. I think the majority of GMs do effectively allow players to handwave their way through these sorts of situations with a skill check.
But there are also many occasions where a skill check and the end result don't give us enough information to proceed. You might go into a meeting with the monarch and do well on your negotiation skill roll and have the end result be favorable, that the monarch agrees to your plans. But the why is actually important. And not just the vague picture of why, the very specific word-by-word details of why.
>>47281171
YOU are the one defending this faggoirty.
So no, faggot. You don't get to back out.
Like anything else, it comes down to CHARACTER SKILL, not PLAYER SKILL.
So yes, all that is important. Either you can do it, and thus get to do it in the game, the retarded option you defend, or your character isn't actually you, and thus, can do shit you can't do.
>>47281118
>When you say people, what you actually mean is your friends and the others who game in your psych ward
No, I mean people.
People who've likely never played tabletops, people whose fondest memories were running modules, or people who only know about tabletops through video games like baldur's gate or Vampire: the Masquerade.
Relatively few people are great roleplayers, in fact, most people need to goaded into it before they actually really get into their characters. It's not an issue because at the end of the day, they're there to enjoy themselves and once they're pulled out of their shells, they usually find themselves enjoying themselves and getting more into character.
>Again, I've never advocated doing edgy politics, that's just your knee-jerk reaction to the discomfort caused by you being wrong.
You are being a tremendous faggot who is arguing about the right way to enjoy an RPG.
I'm not inherently dumber just because I play a RPG like a game and don't take it so seriously that I get an aneurism when I hear people actually enjoying themselves.
>>47281185
>Like anything else, it comes down to CHARACTER SKILL, not PLAYER SKILL.
How about you actually read what I wrote instead of just angrily shitpost?
Character skill alone doesn't tell us all the information we need, and the social skills are where that crops up most frequently because choosing specific words in conversation actually matters.
>>47281107
>Lift it barehanded
Okay, I'll call up a buddy.
>Cast that fly spell
Okay, I'll buy a plane ticket
>Heal that person with a touch
I'd need medical training, a first-aid kit, and something to knock them out but I could do it.
>>47281201
Sorry, no.
Either the character is not you, or the character is you.
You don't get to half and half it, faggot. Yes, there needs to be RP in there, but in the end? It comes down to the dice, same as every other skill in the fucking book.
>>47281195
>Relatively few people are great roleplayers, in fact, most people need to goaded into it before they actually really get into their characters.
And your way of play encourages them to never do that, to only worry about what their next "level up" will get them, how many monsters they need to kill to get there, and ponder what the "build" for the next murderhobo they make will be.
You and your ilk have ruined a whole generation, and even now continue to spread your poison with glee. If you had any sense or heart, you'd stop it, you'd realize that you're ruining something precious, but instead you just embrace that animalistic impulse to achieve /satisfaction/ at the expense of others.
It's really sickening.
>>47281231
Nope, nope, nope.
None of those count, faggot. Guess you can't play a mage.
Lift it. Unaided. Fly. Right fucking now, no plane. Heal with a LITERAL TOUCH.
>>47281163
Okay, all I'd need is some heavy fabric to produce an air bubble and I'd have a degree of air.
Or I could do this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBxDDsWoTPg
>>47281195
>>47281235
>Yes, there needs to be RP in there, but in the end? It comes down to the dice, same as every other skill in the fucking book.
This is what a brain on D&D looks like. You are responsible for this. Look at the fucking damage you've done, and continue to do in the pursuit of your shallow, generic, instant gratification.
>>47281238
>>47281251
Nope. I say again, you unbelievably stupid pile of shit.
You. Don't. Get. Anything.
Go in the water, not a shred of equipment. Either breathe the water, 100% naturally, or you don't get to play the fucking character.
Or, you know, the character isn't you, and can have skills you don't.
>>47281244
It's not like I could do any of that bullshit without the aid of magic anyways so really, what's the difference between achieving an effect through equipment and achiving the same effect through magic.
In the end they're all tools used to achieve a desired effect. In fact, with the right equipment, some ingenuity, and a degree of chemistry, you can replicate most magical effects quite easily.
>>47281263
I've listed many mundane solutions that would allow me to breathe underwater, you're just being too bullheaded to accept that there exists ways for the average person to achieve a supernatural effect.
Just because you're too stupid to come up with these solutions yourself, in an age where the bulk of all information exists at your fingertips, doesn't mean that my solutions are less sound or less applicable to the situation.
>>47281291
That's the whole fucking point you stupid pile of shit.
If you can't do it, like the character could.
You don't get to do it.
Or, you know, you stop being a shithead and let characters not be a 1 to 1 abstraction, meaning social skills are actually as they are in the book, like everything else rather then this whole shitshow about how the Cha 6 PC is really the best talker in the group because his player is, but I guess that would be too fucking easy for you.
>>47281256
As if shitting yourself in rage is any better.
In truth, I'd boot you and >>47281235 from my games for being faggots who must have their enjoyment at the cost of everyone else's.
From a different angle...
Why do D&D players favor short, tactical combat to long, strategic military campaigns?
1. The systems that are being used are not optimal for strategic military campaigns. Consider Axis & Allies, Risk, etc. These are designed to accomplish that sort of story, D&D and kin aren't.
2. The players are going to draw on what's familiar to them. The GM sets the scenario, "You are a band of commanders in the King's army, staving off the barbarian raiders." The players first reaction will be to wreck some barbarian shit, not to organize and rally their troops. This is how the game was played previously, so it will be an uphill battle to play it differently.
Bringing it back to political games.Well, D&D has mechanisms for social gameplay... But... They are maladapted to the long-form social intrigue required in political simulations. Your players are not used to the idea of applying them in this way.
Use a different system that is built for it. Diplomacy, Mafia, etc. Don't use a hammer to drive a screw. $0.02
>>47280764
>RPGs are not about fun
>Monopoly is played by people who like board games
>beer and pretzels RPG is twisted thrills
(You).
B8/10.
>>47281316
I can do it though, I could easily perform all of the things that you asked me to do.
You're just pissing yourself in rage and saying "NUH UH" to every solution I've made, as if that somehow means that they'd no longer work or something.
By your logic, nobody can ever have a world where alternate races, persons of the opposite sex, or magic exists since most GMs, obviously, are neither non-human, non-male, or non-mundane themselves.
>>47281380
I think you're missing the point brah.
>>47281380
No, faggot, this is by YOUR LOGIC.
Literally holy fucking shit, you are unable to fucking read.
Maybe fucking scroll back up to how this conversation started, dumbass.
>>47268978
Because usually, neither the players nor the GM have the chops to run a game like that.
Im sure the GM has spent many a sleepless night carefully crafting his setting, filling it with strange and familiar lore and populating it with all manner of outlandish characters.
As a player, I care enough about this world to survive in it. I know which end of the sword is the grabby one and which is the stabby one. I will learn enough about the political landscape of the GM's fapfantasy to not kill the first noble I see but that's it.
If I want proper intrigue, I'll read a book. What I won't do is spend several sessions snooping and sending false reports to the King's half-cousin (and step sister) in order to trick her into divulging information I can then use to blackmail another king (currently on his deathbed), and the king's teenaged son (and only heir) who I just found out has ovarian cancer.
>>47281404
>>47281419
>If you can't do it, like the character could.
>You don't get to do it.
So if the GM can't cast magic, become a member of the opposite sex, or become a non-human, he cannot use them as NPCs.
Or does it no longer count because I'm using your own flawed logic against you?
>>47281446
>Or does it no longer count because I'm using your own flawed logic against you?
That was his point actually.
I've a feeling you got lost somewhere in the debate.
>>47281446
HOLY. GODDAMN. SHIT FUCKING CHRIST.
Scroll up to where this conversation started, you massive faggot. READ NIGGA. READ.
>>47281446
Fuck me this is some fine quality trolling, bravo, I do mean that.
>>47281479
He's trolling rollplayers. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
>>47281469
>>47281470
Man, it must hurt knowing that you played yourself this hard.
I sure hope you don't actually run games.
Actually, maybe that's why you like rolling charisma checks so much, because you can't argue.
>>47281532
Nigger, how did you 'play' anything? That's been my point this whole fucking time. Like, holy shit, are you retarded.
Let me say it again, because you really seem to be this stupid.
THAT.
WAS.
MY.
FUCKING.
POINT.
>>47281552
Sure it was, that's generally what all losers say once they realize that their arguments were thrown against them.
Here, maybe you should roll some dice and give me a charisma check, maybe that'll help you salvage your argument.
>>47281574
No, no, faggot. Go to the start of where I started.
This has literally, from my first post, been my fucking point. Either go full retard on it, and the person HAS TO BE THE CHARACTER WITH ALL THE SKILLS, or don't, and actually have a fucking sane game. But none of this half and half horseshit.
>>47281594
Keep digging idiot.
At this point, just roll 1d20 and add your charisma modifier, at least then you won't make your argument any shittier through poor roleplay.
>>47268978
I don't play tabletop games [here to read /wbg/] so forgive me if this is utterly stupid: Why wouldn't you do something like a nazi or soviet style one-party state for a "political intrigue game"? surely it'd be both less generic, and equally fascinating (and maybe invoke the iron law of institutions: while you're all backstabbing one another for who gets to replace Hitler, Berlin is swarming with Russians...)
>>47281614
Uh-huh. Sure thing, buddy.
Unless you actually have a post that isn't 'lolitrollu', don't expect another reply.
Go ahead and claim victory, though, I know you want to.
>>47281594
>none of this half and half horseshit.
Wait, are you literally incapable of understanding why a game which has social interactions as one of its basic premises would reward people who are good at social interactions? Or why it would differentiate between social and non-social interactons?
Go back to playing Skyrim if you want your abstract "Speechcraft" skill.
>>47281594
>>47281614
third party with nothing better to do. i feel like the argument was derailed at the hand-truck analogy. the question of "why would you want to play a character with abilities other than your own?" wasn't answered, but instead deflected.
a couple clarifying questions to the person that dislikes rolling: what is something in D&D that you aren't able to emulate in the real world? is that something you'd ever like to do in-game?
>>47281635
And just like that, you missed my point.
Good numbers won't help you one bit if the argument that you're presenting is flawed or your premise isn't even the least bit believable.
Social rolls are not the be-all, end-all to an argument in a tabletop game, it requires roleplay, being able to say the right things in the right way and being able to interact with others in a way that isn't just "I rolled high, so I convince them to do X."
As was mentioned earlier, people can lift fridges with the aid of a hand truck, breath underwater with a snorkel, generate fireballs with coffee creamer, and even generate electricity by rubbing iron and wool together. It's ultimately up to the player to know about those things but the difference is that things like strength and spells are mechanical notions that are already clearly quantified within the rules while social mechanics like convincing or lying are not, simply because so many nuances depend on the player knowing how to interact with people.
I wouldn't necessarily play an engineer that builds things if I myself don't know anything about engineering or constructing machinery so I don't see why it's an issue for someone who cannot roleplay to avoid a role that's dependent upon roleplaying well.
>>47281699
>I wouldn't necessarily play an engineer that builds things if I myself don't know anything about engineering or constructing machinery
And that's your personal fucking failure, and why I'd never want to play with you, or in a game run by you.
I'm not Tony Stark, and yet I play a hero that built their own set of flying power armor.
Do I know how it works? Hell no. Does the character? YES.
Why the flipping flying fuck should social be any different?
I've said this every fucking time, I'm sorry you're so goddamn thick it still hasn't gotten through to you yet.
But you. ARE NOT. THE CHARACTER. The character can and will be better at you then things.
The fact that you can't seem to understand this premise is mind-boggling.
Social is the same as any other skill on the fucking paper.
Nigger, if I tell a massive, unbelievable lie, but I roll over that massive DC of 40 for it?
It doesn't matter how unconvincing it was, to you as a person.
My character is the most smoothtalking fucker ever, and he just pulled off a whopper flawlessly.
I got your point, faggot.
I just think it's utterly, totally, 100% dogshit.
>>47281663
>why would you want to play a character with abilities other than your own?
Sometimes people want to branch outside their comfort zone, other times they want to fulfill an area that's required but nobody else decided to take (like a healer or a guy who can disarm traps).
This actually happened during a Shadowrun game, where a guy who wasn't much of a talker and kept getting distracted by things ended up playing as the face and screwing us out of more pay because he didn't know how to do things like haggle or negotiate.
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with playing outside your niche but if you're playing something that you're obviously weak in, you should at least take the time and effort to learn how to play that role effectively before you try experimenting during game, especially an important role where poor play can result in death or loss of pay.
>>47281737
>I still don't understand why there should be a difference between social and non-social interaction in a game based on social interaction.
Are you retarded?
>>47281737
>Why the flipping flying fuck should social be any different?
Because it's an area that's already covered by roleplay, which is usually something that isn't covered by the rules.
>It doesn't matter how unconvincing it was, to you as a person.
It does when trying to determine how exactly the NPC reacts to what you just said.
I don't give a fuck how high you rolled on your cheese build, if your argument basically amounts to "OBEY ME!" then the NPC is going to tell you to GTFO, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
A good charisma score doesn't allow you to warp reality or mind-control people into doing what you say, it's just a number on your sheet and what a successful roll or a failing roll dictates ultimately comes down to GM.
>>47281785
No, I'm just not your autistic ass.
Let's take my friend Bob, for example.
EVERYONE loves Bob. He can snap off Holocast jokes to jews, or have some o' the brothers just roaring in laughter from nigga jokes.
Now, if I were to try this, I'd end up murdered in an alley after being sued to death.
However, my superglib character can also pull off such things flawlessly, even though I, myself, can not.
Unless I'm playing with your spergyass, a fate I wouldn't wish on Hitler, who's decided that all that matters is personal skills, not what the character is capable of. Why even fucking have the stats on the paper, fuckface, if they don't actually matter? It's just the most literal of dumpstats at that point.
>>47281847
All the points in the world won't help you come off as an interesting person, which probably why you depend so heavily on it.
Rolls are there for situations where the end result could be contested by someone else. You roll to attack because you might miss or the other guy might defend or whatever.
The only time you should roll charisma checks is if the argument you present is well articulated but the NPC might have a reason not to listen to you anyways.
Maybe they're racists who don't like humans/elves/dwarves/etc. or maybe you're of a lower caste and they're too stubborn to take the word of a plebian over their own opinion.
The point is, sometimes the most charismatic person cannot puncture through a wall of someone else's ego, which is why charisma rolls are there to say "usually he wouldn't listen but maybe a good roll will allow them to realize that you have a point."
It's not there to say "hurr, I rolled over the DC in the book so he believes that I'm really a king even though I haven't bathed in three weeks and I'm eating a live rabbit in front of him."
>>47281847
You know, if you want to play a character that retardedly Mary-Sue, I would kick you out of the group on the spot.
Also stats are for when there is a doubt that the action you are attempting fails or succeeds. Most of the time a logical argument, or one that appeals to the basic basic characteristics of the individual succeeds automatically just as the ripped as fuck Barbarian would automatically lift most fridges. So yeah, if the player isn't convincing, but not embarrassing himself at the same time, I make him roll Charisma or whatever.
>>47268978
I've run a couple of politics based campaigns now, the first one was fucking terrible but the latest was reasonably decent;
>WoD Mage
>Party start off as having awakened in the last month, all have to go through initiation into their various societies
>Two mysterium, a free council and a guardian
>The adamantine arrow is down to two members who by default gets a position on the local council, one is a depressed vietnam war vet the other is a young reservist
>Mysterium are nearly half the concillium by themselves, the heirophant is a master who is considering trying for archmastery, the mysterium has a second councillor, a relatively new mage who was quite obviously promoted to do as she was told
>Guardians only have three members, one member has a shape changing legacy they use to pretend that their order has more members than it actually does
>Free council are reasonably marginalised by the traditional orders, but have a reasonable number of people and are somewhat disinterested in the general politicing, due to this marginalisation there is no councillor from the free council
>Silver ladder are closed offish and insular, they form a voting block with the mysterium
Anyway, the first part of the campaign involved the guardians manipulating the younger arrow into getting sent to iraq (using the guardian player to do this), when the arrow gets killed they the older arrow offs himself leading to a power struggle over the free seat on the council (given that mysterium and silver ladder are unwilling to let a free councillor take the seat)
The party who have climbed to relatively minor positions by this point end up manipulating their various factions into letting the guardians take the second seat, and by doing so split the mysterium down the middle with the (ex)puppet councillor taking her own faction.
>>47281917
Test the character, not the player. You're dumb.
>>47281942
>I want to find out who killed the Duke
>Roll Int!
>23
>It was the butler
What a good and engaging game that was!
>promise a game about questing for wealth and artifacts to build up the riches and influence of the party's hometown and families
>players instantly interpret this as a political intrigue game and get excited as such
>terrified of being that DM because I have no idea what I'm doing
>>47281942
How am I supposed to know what the character is saying if the player doesn't say anything?
Am I to assume the bulk of your argument is "I rolled a NAT 20" and nothing else?
Because most people will look at you like you grew a second head if you spout aloud the results of a die roll and use that as the basis of your argument, especially when that is something that only matters outside of game.That and you can't crit on skill checks.
>>47281917
And this is why I've been calling you a retard the whole fucking time, jackass.
You are literally, observably, 100% wrong.
That's EXACTLY WHAT THE STATS ON THE SHEET MEAN, you utter fucking faggot. That's what it says in the BOOK, too.
You've just cooked up this whole bunch of insanity to justify it to yourself for...why, really?
The whole fucking point of the stat is because YOUR CHARACTER. ISN'T. FUCKING. YOU.
You have strength, because in real life, your doughy ass ain't Hercules.
You have dex, because Mr. Can't touch his fucking toes wants to play Legolas.
Con, so Glass Joe won't explode if you look at him hard.
Int, because your stupidass wants to play a genius.
Wis, because I really should know better then to argue with a faggot like you.
And lastly, of course, Cha, because I want to play the daring bard, the insanely convincing con-artist, the one that turns brass to gold with every word.
Only, if I was playing with your faggotass, I can't DO that, because you have your head so far up your ass you can see daylight.
Characters can be so much more convincing then their players. That's what the STATS ARE FOR. The guy that can with a few words, turn someone who hates you and everything you stand for, and have him hanging off your words.
You know, like all the stories and legends and shit. Like the books we read.
>>47281985
>because I really should know better then to argue with a faggot like you.
>After four hours of arguing
I guess you dumped WIS too.
>>47268978
What shitty gms you must have. I have never had that happen to me.
>>47281927
>If you wanted to play someone based on a guy you literally know, I'd kick you
Is it hard to breathe?
>>47282001
That's the joke, yes.
>>47282024
>I was only pretending to be retarded
>>47282015
No, not particularly.
Would you like to address my argument now, or should we just conclude you are only capable of shouting the equivalent of "I want an instant-win button in my games!"?
>>47282015
>Why won't you let me play as a charismatic rogue who everyone loves for being delightfully cheeky.
I'd boot your ass too.
>>47281933
Continued
Throughout this we have a bunch of seer stuff that gives an excuse for a more obvious and straightforward opponent (one of the players wanted a soul stone for some shenangians and concluded that robbing the seers was the obvious way to do it, another player wanted a seer legacy and that takes some doing)
Anyway, the state of general fractionalisation hangs around for a while until word spreads that some divination spells have found a cache of atlantean artefacts in the city, some of the players get called in by their orders who proceed to attempt to secure the artefacts first (with the free council eventually winning). As a result of this the free council gets robbed by a bunch of mysterium members disguised as guardians which (some of) the players attempt to investigate.
Meanwhile one of the mysterium players helps their faction trade the artefacts to re-establish a voting block with the guardians and the ladder, blocking the other mysterium faction out. The free council finds out and is told to go fuck itself by the rest of the orders.
This bit of underhandedness sees our mysterium player make her way to #3 in her order, so when the heirophant leaves she's now in charge of the smaller of the factions. The seers attack the guardians, loot their soulstones and kill off the head of their order and the other mysterium faction leader strikes a non aggression pact with the seers.
While the other players are busy trying to rally their orders for a revenge attack on the seers the mysterium player ends up challenging the leader to a duel over this issue.
The mysterium player is a medical student running a thyrsus and is spamming some bullshit insta-win-if-they-land life spells which is being negated by her opponent spamming if-I-lose-redo-the-last-round triggered time and fate spells, unfortunately the player runs out of mana first and surrenders to the now mana-less leader.
>>47282040
>For each stat, lists a person lacking that stat, and why they might want it
>List myself for wisdom
No, faggot, that was literally the fucking joke.
>>47282055
>The players face when the other mysterium members murder the weakened heirophant on the spot
>That player is made heirophant
> The player's character nopes the fuck out and leaves the country the very next session
I like to include elements of politicking into my games. But that just comes natural with my style of gming. Place players in a scenario, and have the world react to their actions, leading to future antics.
Whether or not they bite is entirely up to them, and they generally don't realize 90% of it ever occurred. And that's fine. And hey, if they do find something out, it tends to come as a nice little insight into my planning and what's been going on behind the scenes.
>>47282062
Sure man, ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>>47268978
Because some DMs have the idea that they should write out the plot to the campaign beforehand
>>47268978
Intrigue fails because you have to be clever to be a part of one. The gm has the advantage of the cogs all rolling as he like, his pawns can be as clever as they need to be with 0 effort unless they're acting directly with the pcs.
Players need to have their characters act in clever ways 100% of the time. Miss one innocuous detail, not think of one weakness in your plan, and bam. You've already lost.
The only way to counter this is to have the rest of the participants in the intrigue be retarded. Which tends to make for a bad intrigue.
>>47280635
This reminds me of a long running warhammer campaign we had running. We had to convince a dwarven high lord to give us a certain item in his possession. Our dwarf character volunteered to do the talking. We all have a meeting where we brainstorm things say, like poupointing out good deeds we had done for his mountain. Now, we know the player is'nt much of a roleplayer, but we figured this would be his chance to change. He didn't. The exchange was one of the most awkward, weak and drawn out roleplays I have seen.
>>47282062
Hey, I'm another person in the thread and I think you're right about everything. You should feel validated and do something other than this. Good job man, you did it.
>>47280959
True. Weak people belong in the gym, improving their shitty bodies, not at the gaming table.
>>47281979
To be fair, it is your fault for making a situation one roll can fix, instead of a series of things that might not give the right answer and test the character'spersonality.
>>47281979
That's just your GM being an idiot
>>47280998
And if you want to play a charismatic character, you don't have to be charismatic. But you do need to tell me what your character is trying to say.
You might say, uh I lie to the guards, about like a change in the schedule. Or yeah I have clearance, totally have that.
But your high charisma character is going to say that idea in a charismatic and believable way.
And I need to fucking know what that idea is. Because what that idea is could drastically alter the scenario, and I'm not fucking psychic I don't know what you're trying to do if you simply say "I persuade them".
And before I hit it from you, yes. I want you to explain how you hit them with the sword. Because there are things called maneuvers. Which are mechanically relevant and explicit different ways to swing shit. And just like when talking, I kind of need to know how you hit them with the sword, because I'm not going to assume I know.
The fucks arguing that the shy introvert player should NEVER get to play a charismatic character ARE FUCKING CANCER
>>47280764
>>47282248
You've obviously never been in a game where the shy guy tried to play the face.
Believe me, it's the most awkward shit you could ever see and it just makes the whole table feel bad for them because we know that they're trying but goddamn, you can't help but cringe noticeably anytime they open their mouth.
>>47282222
If you challenge the character's personality, you challenge the player, since the character's personality isn't on the sheet and is inherently seen through the player.
>>47282229
That's literally what >>47281942
suggested. I mean, you can make it more rolls, but if you only challenge the character, it won't be more engaging.
>>47282303
If you can not assume the identity of some one, know what they want and act it out with the system you might want to try something else.
I am not from the generation of equal chances for all. You either play the game, which requires this of you or move the fuck on.
>>47282288
Stop fucking saying "the face" it makes you sound even more like a neckbeard that thinks the loud ADHD faggot in the group is "charismatic" I'LL.
You are playing a table top rpg, the nerds in your group are all saying cringe.
You are not your character. The idea of an rpg is using your fucking imagination to pretend you are something you are not. You aren't strong like your character, you aren't a fucking wizard like your character. You aren't charismatic like your character. The shy guy can explain what his character is going for. What angle he takes etc. Then you let him roll.
>>47282338
Look man, why don't you read the thread eh? You'd find that I actually agree with you. Please learn to identify sarcasm, which >>47281979 is. It was made to illustrate how retarded the point in >>47281942 actually is.
>>47280764
>>47282281
>>47282320
I'm not fucking psychic and I have no way of knowing how the character will necessarily behave unless the player gives me something to work with.
I mean, if it comes down to it then I'll just assume that the character is as pig-headed as you are and make you auto-fail charisma rolls since you're so hung up on rolling for everything in lieu of actual roleplay.
>>47282374
>The shy guy can explain what his character is going for. What angle he takes etc. Then you let him roll.
And that's fine because he's actually roleplaying how his character convinces someone else to believe what he's saying.
He's not calling out arbitrary numbers and saying "I beat the DC."
>>47282411
See
>>47282381
It fully applies to your autistic ass as well.
>>47280764
I actually agree with this in a less spergy way. A compelling game that is depressing as shit is just as good as a fun game that is enjoyable as shit.
There are different camps, it is a mistake to try and forcefully mix them. If your players want fun, you probably shouldn't run a depressing game. BUT if you want to run a depressing game and your players should not join if they want a fun game.
>>47282426
Nope, because unlike you, I don't need to roll dice to play a charismatic character.
It one of those threads where the all inclusive ass hats fight the you must be as witty/charismatic as your character threads?
Has someone used the moronic defence involving skill rolls yet ? Anyone been called cuck?
>>47282489
Someone tried to "lift this refrigerator" argument and the thread went downhill once some other guy mentioned using a hand truck.
>>47282459
U wot m8? I'm one of the anons that were arguing AGAINST rolling, aka. "challenging the character" in social situations.
Learn to read, nigga.
>>47282459
Yeah you do. If other people have to spend those points to be good at something so do you. Because I'm going to translate all that well thought out and eloquent shit you just said into the confidence lacking mumbles your character spews out while staring at their hands.
>>47282502
This place has gone to the dogs.
>>47282514
If my character's charisma is shit then I wouldn't even try to give out a well-thought out argument in the first place.
I'd roleplay a guy who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about or whose every argument is so shitty that nobody with half a brain would listen to him.
>>47282489
I don't understand why people don't just organize it so there are two parts to social combat.
Rolling to see how much information you receive on the persons stance, giving you insight into what arguments will work better.
And then picking those arguments and declaring the "tone" you're going to use.
So if you roll well and have investigated or have a background in what you're discussing, you know just what to say and how to say it.
If you roll crap, you have to guess. And if you don't know much about what you're talking about then you both have to guess the tone to use and roll again for blather.
>>47282666
Truth is, there are so many groups and house rules on top of game rules that one individual's experience could be an alien concept to another's.
>>47282666
Savage worlds kind of does that with a criminally underused subsystem.
By default you have to make 3 points. If you make good points you get bonuses, if you're talking out of your ass you get penalties. Depending on the situation these might be opposed rolls, or they might just be standard ones.
If a point would require a particular specialized talent like a specific knowledge, you roll the lower of that skill or your social stat (A lawyer that doesn't know law isn't going to do well in court being the book's example).
The amount of successes you make over these points determines how much you sway people. Generally a successful social conflict will end in the better safe than sorry, or conditional support category.
So you could still technically succeed with only a single roll, but in a token manner.
>>47282941
Why does this need to be three rolls?
>>47283051
it doesn't that's just the default example. could be 2, could be 5. probably shouldn't be 5 though.
>>47283120
Oh, ok.
>>47283197
Yeah, you can use the number as a difficulty slider independent of tn basically. Based on time available, number of ideas, etc.
>>47281310
Access the ethereal plane
>>47281985
Isn't the central tenet of RPGs that you control the physical body of the character? As in, you make all of the decisions in that characters place, including what he would say?
Because if not, you kind of hit a point where you can roll a character with absurd Intelligence/Wisdom, and just eternally say "my character picks whatever the optimal move is, because of X stat". In which case, you are no longer playing a game. You are listening to the DM narrate.
>>47283620
Yeah, but those stats should play a role, especially when those stats begin to breach what is naturally possible by humans.
Because I physically cannot think as hard as my character can and they might know things I as a player do not. This stats can hint me as a player in a better direction and inform me of those things. They can and should help me play them.
The reverse of the fridge argument in a way I suppose. I can make a character as strong, as I want them to be. But no matter how smart they are, they can only be as smart as I am. And all things considered that kind of makes intelligence above average a stat tax on abilities which require fake smart characters.
>>47283782
I suppose you could always argue that rolling a Knowledge check is kind of like rifling through your chraracter's memories for the information you need. Or that casting a spell or attacking is accessing their muscle memory and such.
But then the same could be said about accessing their social skills, so null point.
I guess it's more personal preference toward player involvement? Then again, all I ask of my players is that they have an idea of what they want their character to do before they roll a social skill.
>>47272985
How does it work then?
>>47284028
Is that a legitimate question?
How do all politics, ever, work?
You could fill entire libraries with that nonsense. Just go with whatever is fun/intriguing based on your group's personal knowledge.
>>47282234
Not the guy you're arguing but I see his point (and yours too)
In my table it goes like this
>I want to convince the sheriff to let my buddy go
DC 25, this is what the other guy is probably talking about, straight up skill check to reach a stated objective using character skill, no player skill needed
>I want to convince the sheriff to let my buddy go, "he has an evil twin and he's the one who should be in prison instead"
DC 30
>I want to convince the sheriff to let my buddy go, "didn't the witness say the thief had a scar on his cheek? if the guy strikes again you'll look bad for the constable..."
DC 20
>I want to talk to the sheriff.
DC ?? without the player stating the objective, a skill check can't be made
>>47283951
I can agree with that. Though I tend to give information more freely to people who invest in knowledge/lore skills. Unless its a stressful situation. Shit shit shit was that what's his name's law or fuck get to cover.
>>47284092
Bingo bango. Different approaches have different effects. Like if we go back to the original purpose of this thread. Simply name dropping someone in a game about politicking can make a huge difference in a similar situation.
Also this has got me thinking. Is it just me or are players really hesitant to grease palms? Could be my group. A bribe is probably a bad example, because that's pretty universally something you need to tell a gm about since you're spending money.
>>47280764
I'm so glad there are others with sense. I literally only participate in RPGs because I want to roleplay. I despise 'fun'.
>>47268978
Pretty much what this guy said >>47269180 but I do think the GM's often at more fault than the players, and you mentioned why:
>GM is completely loathe to have PCs start in or close to a position of power, like being part of a noble family, a high-ranking inquisitor or infiltrator, a foreign ambassador, etc.
Your GM is not good enough to trust the world they built (probably not a trustworthy world anyway, weakly conceived NPC characters etc), so they're afraid to give the party any power. Problem is, politics is about power, of course. So no power, no political intrigue. It becomes a backdrop to the stories of an average D&D group, which for the GM seems like it's ok because they're not interested in having the players have fun, they're interested in having the intrigue of the NPCs unravel. So it oftens stops being a game and becomes this "Here we are sitting in a table and the GM is telling about this bunch of characters none of us is playing".
But yeah, RPing political intrigue requires decent acting skills in all parts of the game's table, at the very least.
>>47284400
Politic game where players have no where near the same power as the movers and shakers.
>Be in entourage of your bff the baron of cool.
>Baron is killed.
>Discover why slowly over time by making connections to rejoin and access power structure.
>Learn to use and abuse power while gaining it
>Hell maybe just ignore getting the power the legitimate way and try to work outside the system
>Avenge your lord and better the realm.
Starting with power is tricky. Because power is easy to lose. Especially in a political campaign where keeping your power while using it is kind of the challenge. Just throwing all that at people and expecting them to be able to hit the ground running can kill games.
>>47276183
That is the final intention of GoT: fuck women, kill people and scare the grandmas.
>>47284546
Totally agree with this gent.
If your players start with power, they often have no idea how to use it or where it's appropriate to do so.
50/50 odds of going Ned Stark or just plotting for plotting's sake.
>>47274300
Projecting too hard, eh, anon?
>>47280658
Bye, then.
To successfully run political intrigue you have to do what I'm doing right now (unless you want to use troupe system) which is run one campaign about political intrigue, finish it, leave some small manner of things VERY vague, run next campaign taking place at the EXACT SAME time as the other campaign and have the players in the second campaign be shadowy manipulators to the events of the first campaign. Players love that shit
>>47283616
Take drugs like LSD, shrooms, or any other hallucinogenic drug, just like the old shamans used to do.
>>47285001
Still here.
>>47268978
>GM is completely loathe to have PCs start in or close to a position of power
I feel that in a political intrigue game it is only okay to let them start with that if they are playing a system that you can buy that in. Like VTM or L5R.
If I wanted to play something GoT related then I would play the board game.
Keep that shit out of my D&D please.
>>47268978
I've seen this work really well once and only once. It was because the PCs were pawns in an enormous great game. It also didn't hurt that the setting was balls out mental, or that the DM appeared to be making it up as he went along.
>>47268978
People know GoT is popular but they don't understand why, and thing all the gore and murder in the show is "political"
>poppo posting
that goat can go to hell
