>I'm gonna do a charisma check to ask the NPC for info
>I rolled a natural 20!
>Okay, what do you actually say?
>What? I just ask them for the info
>Lol, that's not charismatic at all, they don't tell you anything
>>48097317
>charisma check
I snicker. But seriously, invest on your bait a bit more, friend, that's lazy work.
>>48097317
Ben Affleck is such a motor-mouthed idiot.
>>48097358
Where's the bait? It's a legitimate topic
>>48097598
>Where's the bait?
In that made up strawman of a situation that you chose to start the thread with.
>>48097317
>I'm gonna do
The problem here is that the GM didn't ask for you to roll. You just decided to let random chance dictate whether you can shortcut through roleplaying. That's not how the game is meant to work; you may as well just roll to see if you win or not and keep rolling until you get a 20, and, when you do, you can pack up your things and go home, satisfied that you have accomplished much this day.
>>48098009
But the player knows that he has to extract information and he's rolling for an action to get that info? You're just strawmanning in the opposite direction
>>48098090
The player knows that he has to extract information but refuses to actually initiate the process? It's one thing to start talking, make a persuasive argument, and then roll Persuasion to see how convinced they are, but it's entirely another to just rock up, throw some icosahedron on the table and unilaterally declare that you've won.
It's called a 'team game' for a reason, y'know. You play with other players for a reason, y'know.
>>48098090
mate, just go back to the yellow brick road i've never seen more of a strawman than you
>Wizard: "so man, here let me try"
>Casts dominate person or any other charm spell
Wizard: "give me the info"
>>48097317
I miss the days of Old school roleplaying where people would buy 10 foot poles to check for traps and actually talked to npcs. Kids these days just roll their dice at things. I roll to check for traps! I roll to use charisma to force NPCS to talk! I roll to think of the solution to this riddle!
Fucking generation of i-phone faggots.
>>48098376
Hey, I'm just 8 int in real life, I can't do puzzles, fuck off, man.
You know, if the success of Charisma checks depends on the Player's charisma rather than the character's, why have Charisma as an ability score? Sounds like a pointless score, then.
>>48098419
WELL THEN ROLL A WARRIOR AND EMBRACE YOUR 3 INCH THICK SKULL!
>>48098376
Well, I suppose it's fitting to post this in the strawman thread.
Remember, your 2 minutes of hate need not be limited to things that actually exist!
>>48098472
I went to a doctor, they said it was five inches thick you 6 WIS bastard!
>''I walk down the tavern stairs from my room and join everyone at the table for breakfast''
>Okay gimmie an acrobatics check
Rolled 17 + 5 (1d20 + 5)
>>48098519
>>48098470
This. If you play in a system with stats, use them.
>>48098516
Hey, I knew it was 1d6 thick, I took the average.
>>48098516
>6 WIS
>WIS
Not >>48098472 , but damn nigga, you ARE 8 INT
>>48098519
> I roll dexterity to try and roll a 20 on my acrobatics check
>>48098519
I've been putting effort into getting players to roll fort saves whenever they drink alcohol to see how their characters react to the stuff.That's why I say I do it, I really do it so they won't question it when they need to roll fort versus poison in their drink.
>>48097317
Your DM sounds shit, but skill checks aren't subject to natural Crits the same way attack rolls are desu
>>48098376
Lol, fuck off grampa. You sound like you're reading a "how to" guide to playing a retroclone.
>>48098611
I think the point was that he rolled well but the GM demanded that he roleplay in order to accept the high roll
Would you ask your players to lift 2tons when ther characters try to do the same in game with a str check?
>>48098744
>he can't lift two tons
>this little bitch probably can't even lift one ton
>I bet he doesn't lift at all
>>48098744
Yes.
>>48098744
Don't know if bait of just completely retarded.
>>48098796
Why bait? after all people seem to ask players for bravehart level of speeches, James Bond levels of charm, Jonny Brove levels of suave, etc if their characters have charisma
>>48098796
I know, a moderate skill check is at least 3 tons. Does he only play low level or something?
>>48097317
>NPC tells you their whole life story, including their fears, hopes, desires, fetishes, every rumor they heard over past couple years and story of all their ancestors three generations back
>it's gonna take couple days, so you can sit out the rest of the session
>>48098853
Just about the only thing you can simulate effectively at the tabletop is talking to people. Don't be stupid.
>>48098470
In the old days, it was a score used to define how many followers you could keep between other things
>>48098999
That's still pretty useless, considering how few games actually involve NPC followers.
>>48097840
I wouldn't call it a strawman. This shot has actually happened to me a lot. In dnd in particular, but sometimes in other systems, I tend to find players who think a natural 20 means they get everything they want perfectly and fantastically without any roleplay.
Sometimes it has happened with me to DMs. Once I got a nat20 on a stealth check and my dm ruled I had turned invisible, made no noise, emitted no smell, and was crawling on the ceiling for some reason.
>>48098376
>be an orc
>cant read
>can barely communicate
>break down the door of a temple, can't figure out the lock
>theres an ancient riddle on a tablet
>superhuman intellect kicks in, somehow decipher it and speak the exact solution
explain this
>>48099020
Not really. Having a church that you get revenue from makes it pretty easy to get good gear.
>roll nat20 on stealth check
>GM makes you stay absolutely quiet and whisper your actions so that no one else at the table can hear you
>>48098124
ctrl+f
'strawman'
5 matches
It's time to stop posting
>>48099020
It was a big deal in the past, the same for morale rolls during dungeon delving. I'm not saying it must be a thing nowadays, but it's interesting to see where it comes from
>>48098376
>Fucking generation of i-phone faggots.
>implying old people use anything other than apple
k.
I miss the days of being a metagaming faggot too, the way Gary intended.
>>48099079
>not making you use hand gestures to truly be silent
>>48099047
Don't be dumb. You couldn't play an orc in the old days. They were the bad guys.
>I roll Dex to dodge the arrow
>You can't dodge a fucking arrow
>Yes I can
>No you fucking can't. Here, dodge this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20e_1205588362
>>48099111
nice trips, but you get my point. A dumb character solving puzzles as if they were smart doesn't make sense.
>>48099128
>the one where he explains to the black cop that nubians have a racial bonus to see in the dark
man, I used to love that show
>>48099187
wut show
>>48098543
You stumble on the stairs on account of the famed Loose Nails, realizing that the tavern's name was not indeed innuendo and take only half damage of 2d6
>>48099213
Reno 911
>>48098119
Good luck getting an actual response to this post in a bait thread.
>>48097317
Hey look, both of the people in this supposed convo are being ridiculous at each other. Rabble rabble rabble.
>>48098853
Nigga, the point is the GM was asking for any, any level of role playing from his player.
Buy he's just there to roll die. Might as well just go buy the latest bio ware game.
You could give a shitty speech, but maybe the guard is touched by the heartfelt sincerity. Or it reminds him of his past, or something his father always used to say, or he's too busy staring at your tires and offers to let you in for a blow job regardless of what inane babble came out of your mouth.
But the player here doesn't even try.
You massive fucking faggot, you're clearly too stupid to give speeches irl so I suggest you learn to clean the chrome off a trailer hitch.
>>48097317
Pointless argument starter, but I'll bite.
Some level of capability with language is, unfortunately, a requirement for TTRPGs if you have any intention of weaving a narrative or having meaningful character interaction. I'm not asking for Shakespeare, but just giving me your character's intent and rolling isn't going to cut it. Give me something to work with. Anything. I'm not going to judge you that harshly for poor dialogue as long as you actually try and don't just cop out.
Them's the fucking breaks. If you don't like them, you should find another game.
>>48098519
>being ignorant of the danger of stairs
>>48099365
>>48099375
You are much more polite than me.
>So I use my str to lift the portculis
>How?
>...by lifting it?
>Explain me how
Then
>I use my [instert spell] to do [insert action]
>Ok
>>48098376
You stated your opinion like an ass, but I agree with the playstyle.
>>48099375
>>48099365
Me, I find players giving big speeches and then rolling the dice to be massively putting the cart before the horse. Especially the idiots who think they're JFK who give some massive oration about their character's views and hopes and the better world we can build together and then they roll a 1. It would be like describing your flawless and beautiful sword swing that then misses. Declare your intent, roll the dice, and then roleplay the result you get. How hard is it to understand?
>>48099576
>JFK delivers a thoughful speech to a bouncer
>gets thrown out of the club anyway because that's the bouncer's job
It's not hard to consider the roll as how effective the attempt was at convince the audience of it, not how well the attempt was delivered.
>>48098470
In most games - not all, but most games - even if you have a Charisma score it's usually not as easy to make it stronger. For Strength for example, you can buy a better weapon and upgrade it and/or you can wear heavier armor etc. Even if they don't give you a +1 to strength, they are indirectly benefiting it in a substantive manner. Charisma, at best, will usually have some magic circle of charisma down the road.
That is to say, that the roleplaying you do to make your strength score better is rescuing the princess to get the king's heirloom blade or exploring the dungeon for the lost sword of a knightly order or so on. For Charisma, the roleplaying you do is the process of coming up with points for reasonable negotiation that makes people want to deal with you regardless of your argument (if you're a nobleman a person will generally listen more, likewise if you have the lost knowledge that will end the famine) and the argument itself (how well you present it). Those are your +3 swords for Diplomacy.
You should be considering those as carefully as your dungeon exploration plans that get your +3 sword of monster slaying. And just like a legendary weapon could compensate for you having a terrible strength score on your swordsman, having a good argument can compensate for you having less of a Charisma score. Similarly, having a legendary sword on a swordsman will kill a legendary dragon a lot better than having a novice wield it and having a charismatic diplomat, rather than a guy who uses charisma as a dump stat and just argues well, enables those arguments to be wielded better.
You can say all you want about "some people can't talk well" but then some people can't do dungeon planning or properly strategize about how to fight the orcs either. At a certain point you have to accept that some things like wielding flaming swords must be abstracted and some skills like dungeon exploration or roleplaying are just part of playing the game in the first place.
>>48097840
>>48097358
Don't. Don't do to "bait" what is done to so many words 4chan makes a meme out of, which is stripping them of all meaning by using them in situations where they don't belong. This thread is not bait. It is not a purposefully controversial statement posted to get a rise out of people. The goal of the thread and the post that started it is to start a "things DMs/players do/did that annoy/ed you". It's incredibly common, and in no way belies an intention to bait.
Don't ever use terms you don't know the meaning of again.
>>48098470
>why have Charisma as an ability score? Sounds like a pointless score, then.
Pendragon doesn't have mental ability scores at all, and it works just fine.
>>48099608
I use it as both. Generally, when telling a player the outcome of a roll, I look at whether it failed because of a low modifier or a low roll. Same with success, whether it's due to a high modifier or a high roll. Then I tell the player roughly what kind of outcome they should roleplay. Or, rather, what kind of outcome we should roleplay together.
For example, I might rule that a drooling simpleton without the charm that god gave turnips managed to appeal to a town guard by reminding him of an old friend, or the short tempered and coal-tongued wizard's frenzied arm movements accidentally revealed his brass cuff-links marking him as a member of some specific academic fraternity, and thus a sacred brother to the shopkeep. Likewise, I could see a paladin hearing an appeal from a silver-tongued bard bristling and turning up his nose because the bard ended a sentence in a preposition.
>>48097317
>>Lol, that's not charismatic at all, they don't tell you anything
Gather Information is a Diplomacy (Cha) check. I'm pretty sure that's the same in both Pathfinder and 5e. In 3.5 it was a separate skill, based on Cha.
>>48098600
Nice. Our group also rules alcohol as a mild poison so that dwarves and other bonuses still apply.
Makes perfect sense though. If you say very unconvincing words in a very convincing way there should be a massive penalty.
Convincing words said convncingly> Unconvincing words said convcincingly >= Convincing words said unconvincingly > Unconvincing words said unconvincingly.
OP is roughly on the order of a beautiful and persuasive speech explaining why the NPC wants to give him the information, only to be met with a natural 1 as the NPC pulls the wax out of his ears and says "Whatwazaaat?." The DM treated it fairly.
>>48099675
>>48097598
This thread is bait because it's asking a question that always leads to arguments and flame wars whenever they are brought up.
I know, without even reading the rest of the thread, that someone said "you have to lift the refrigerator before you can play a Barbarian hurr durr" because that's the low-hanging fruit that gets shat out in threads like this.
>>48099133
>be a wizard with 18 INT
>knows four languages
>Has access to level 3 spells
>Uses [knock] on the door because fuck locks
>there's a riddle on a tablet
>Flubs the roll so he just stands there with a thumb up his butt.
>Fighter with 9 INT gets it because his player rolled a NAT 20.
explain this
>>48097317
>hurr rehashed troll topic with zero indication that I've ever encountered the situation myself as I provide not a single detail
>memetext arrows
Report and hide, people.
>>48105518
Isn't this basically what happens in Lord of the Rings when the idiot hobbit figures out how to get into Moria?
>>48098744
>>48106226
In Hackson's movie, yes.
>>48106235
That thing is most definitely not built for anything approaching two tons. 200 kg, maybe.
>>48105518
Maybe riddles were never really the Wizard's area of expertise, whereas the fighter heard a riddle just like this from a tale his Granddad used to tell him as a cub.
>>48106364
Then I'll bring a forklift.
>>48106384
A guy with 18 INT is someone who would be roughly as smart as Stephan Hawking.
Also, pretty sure that Magic man would be used to riddles considering most spells are written in esoteric and confusing riddles anyways.
>>48106411
Do you have a license for those?
>>48106356
The films have always been better dnd-analogues than the books anyway.
>>48106438
No argument there.
>>48106437
Hey, I'm not questioning where you got 2 tons of bullshit from.
>>48097317
>>48098119
>>48098376
>>48098470
ROLL FIRST. THEN ACT OUT THE RESULT.
That's it.
Oh, and if you're completely incapable of acting out the result in a way that's entertaining or immersive for the other players, you're playing the wrong character. Or game.
The rules are there to give you something other than just a negotiation with the DM to decide what happens. They're not there to let you skip the entire fucking point of role-playing (role-playing, for those that are curious.)
That said, OP your example is shit because you can't just roll and say that 20 gives you whatever you want, the DM needs to establish what the realistic levels of success are.
20 doesn't have to mean "I totally get them to say eeeverything or give me a bag of gold and a trophy" some times 20 means "I actually make them hesitate long enough for me to make a dash for it instead of being arrested on the spot".
Stop being shit.
>>48105518
>The wizard got tangled up in his own train of thought because he assumed it was much more complicated than it was.
>The barbarian knows absolutely nothing about elvish riddle games or late-trimechian traditional riddle puzzles and just thought it looked kind of the same as a riddle old Jeb down at the docks used to tell, or that it was completely obvious if you just take it exactly as it's written instead of thinking there's a lot of implications and hints.
>>48106432
Maybe he was just drawing a blank. The guy stuffs so much eldritch crap in his head, he's liable to have an off day.
Sometimes even the greats choke.
>>48097317
I study the form of the soldier as he engages my comrade in a brawl. Noticing that he favors his left side when throwing a punch I wait for an opening. I strike!
I rolled a 5!
Okay, you missed.
What do you mean? I waited for him to leave an opening, that should give me advantage or an auto succeed!
Get the fuck out faggot. I'm here to roll dice not to watch you jerk off to your combat fetish.
>>48106541
You roll first, then you act out the result, you fucking idiot.
The guy who describes what happens before the roll has determined what happens is a moron, but so are you for playing role-playing games just to roll dice.
Grab a board game like a sane person instead of shitting things up.
>>48106610
Yes, that was his point.
My group always played conversations out. The charisma statlines were only rolled for if you were shy, not a good talker or trying a really hard sell.
I think its a much better method than always rolling, I don't think a player should be a blithering retard in conversation just because they specced into strength. It also means shy players can still play social butterflies. The average person is capable of making perfectly reasonable points so if a player makes a reasonable sounding argument I'm not gonna roll for their average joe character to do the same.
That said it works the other way too, you can't make players do something because some NPC rolled 20 when talking to them. Most players appreciate that though.
>>48097317
>I'm gonna do a charisma check to ask the NPC for info
Lol no. Tell me what you're trying to do. I'll determine whether or not a roll is needed, and if so what that roll will be.
>>48106489
Act -> roll -> act is superior.
GM can apply modifiers based on the initial act and the secondary act is much more organic coming off the initial act and roll.
>this is the closest /tg/ gets to the sort of discussion of GNS theory they had on the Forge...
>>48106432
Hawking and the other scientists is what Nietzsche called "an inverse cripple", I could totally see that blockhead fail to understand anything outside of his little bubble of expertise.
>>48106794
>GNS theory
>in 2016
I'm pretty sure we had those when they were relevant, about a decade ago.
>>48106489
>20 doesn't have to mean "I totally get them to say eeeverything or give me a bag of gold and a trophy" some times 20 means "I actually make them hesitate long enough for me to make a dash for it instead of being arrested on the spot"
Idiot, the actual number doesn't matter, the point is that the roll/number is high enough to warrant success in the game being played.
>>48098376
I like this.
>>48098419
sorry if thats the case dont play social game if you are too stupid for social interactions.
>>48098376
I feel ya Bro.
I started about 2 years ago, but fortunately my group never "rolls for diplomacy" everything is IC talk! Like it should be.
But then our games are very narrative driven and not about dungeons and such...
>>48099675
wow i cringed at your autistic post
Oh hey it's another one of these threads.
If my player doesn't specify how exactly he's doing a thing,
I just make a guess at the most obvious or likely way to do a thing,
and base the DC on that.
Player won't RP? Perfectly OK, I just insert generic RP on their behalf.
Works well. People who wanna roleplay can do so, whether for the stories or for the +numbers
People who don't wanna roleplay can just say "I bullshit my way out of it" or whatever and I fill in the blanks for them.
Try it sometimes
If your players just wanna roll dice and not RP
then do generic RP on their behalf
ez pz
>>48109454
But how will I show my players how superior I am to them this way?
>>48106541
That actually works in some games. Try Legends of the Wulin.
>player rolls high on Bluff to try and trick an NPC into thinking the PCs are telling the truth about something
>"They believe that you *think* you're telling the truth."
>another player rolls high on Intimidate to try and convince an NPC to back down
>"Roll initiative."
I don't know why we even bother with social skills in this game.
>>48106729
>Tell me what you're trying to do
He's trying to ask the NPC for info, dumbass.
>>48109675
So say that.
THEN I say roll gather information or streetwise or charisma or whatever is appropriate for the edition.
The player doesn't pick, I do.
>>48105480
>starting arguments is baiting now
>not the baseline of a good thread
Kids these days. Go back to your safe space on www.tumblr.org.
I just ask for a diplomacy roll. Sometimes I'll give bonuses if the player specifically says something like "I want to appeal to his vanity" if its an egotistical NPC, or if the player recently did something the NPC likes such as help their community or shit talk their rival or something.
>>48099675
I think we passed the point where that was done to bait about 2 years ago.
>>48106432
Riddles are as often based on colloquialisms and language as they are on logic. Take the 'what has a face but no eyes?' riddle. Anyone who grew up in an English speaking country knows the answer is a clock, but what about someone who only ever learned English from a book? There fighter in this case could be as dumb as a post, but he's the native speaker the the wizard's book learning.
Or maybe he just likes riddles.
We do conversation, then roll, then resume the conversation with the NPC's response. If the speech is good enough the GM often just skips the roll and continues the conversation as though you auto-succeeded.
>>48098470
When I GM I follow rules kinda like this. Players are free to make checks and be done with them but if they want to role play it and they do a good job then I give them a bonus to the check or just handwave it and say they succeed.
>>48099576
Quality of argument impacts dc unless you hate fun.
>>48098470
Nail on the head here. The "it's role playing not roll playing"/"no, actually figure it out" bunch are just min-maxing jackasses that want to put every point they have in physical and their spellcasting stat, dump the two they don't need as low as possible and then "roleplay" to cover up for it.
>>48112350
I'm one of those people. If I know the solution to a puzzle but my character would be too dumb.... Looks like no advancement.
>>48097317
OP you are me, I cant roleplay for shit. I feel bad doing it, like self-cringe.
>>48114722
This. If you're just not charismatic, what's wrong with "I ask for the info *roll nat20*"?
Are you just not allowed to play then?
>>48106489
>>48106735
Intent->Roll->Act
is superior.
GM can apply modifiers on how they were planning on doing it, then the roll shows how successful they were in doing that, and the player can act out success or failure themselves, or the GM can do that too.
>>48098009
By that reasoning, when you attack you shouldn't just roll d20, you should actually act out the exact motion of the sword swing to the DM. If the DM isn't convinced that your technique was sufficient, you don't get to do any damage.
The whole point of having a Charisma check is that you're rolling for things that you can't do in real life. The DM's job is to add the flavor to that roll to translate that into an experience in the game. And it's not random; characters with high Charisma get the bonus, so it's easier for them to meet the difficulty check number.
>>48117986
That's already largely done in-game when people make called shots. That sets the DC
>>48117986
>treating physical skills and social skills equally
>"if you can't squat four plate your barbarian can't lift the portcullis"
Let me tell you, anonymous, I am not charismatic. That doesn't prevent me from, in-character, telling the GM what I intend to do, make a go of it, and roll a die to determine how successful I was at convincing the dame to raise her skirt. Rolling dice should not compensate for having no plan.
>I roll to Gather Information
>instead of "I listen in to the conversation at another table. Do I hear the names of anyone I know of?"
>>48117986
>>48118096
The main issue with what you're talking about, is that the only reason, ever, to compensate so heavily on a lack of personal charisma with a Charisma score, is because the player is unwilling to actually use their head and think about what they want to accomplish. It doesn't matter how beautiful or well-spoken someone is. The reason they're successful is because they go into conversations with a purpose. Failing to having a purpose and just rolling charisma to compensate is bad playing, and a GM who allows it is even worse.
>>48097317
As a DM - the information you provide before you make any roll determines the DC I set. You can both help and hurt yourself when doing so. Choose carefully.
>>48098519
I played in a short campaign like this, where the GM demanded dex checks to do simple things like run from one room to another, and after you failed and fell to the ground, you had to roll again to stand up again. When you failed that, thinly veiled roman elves speared you in the asswith actual spears, no penises were involved
>>48115084
I'm tempted to agree with you on that.
If what you're doing would conceivably work, it should be rolled, and the roll determines the outcome.
Of course, if you've got a very good and convincing argument on hand, maybe you should be rewarded for it and allowed a bonus or perhaps even hand-waving the roll entirely. It really depends on the circumstance at that point.
Though, if you've got a good enough argument or line of reasoning saved up, I would ask to speak first, then see what the outcome would be after applying whatever modifiers the GM thinks are justified, or simply bypassing the roll altogether. Again, it depends on the circumstance and sometimes intent and speech is more appropriate than rolling and acting out the result.
The problem seems to lie in the grey area between character knowledge and player knowledge. Can a player reasonably have their character act something out if the character might not have thought of it at that moment, or is allowing speech first appropriate for good roleplay rather than hamstringing them socially?
