Restrictions on character names? (And Skill Rolls)

[wangxiuming]

I don't agree with ignoring people's skills. The whole point of upping skills like bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate is to use them for RP purposes - if other characters ignore these rolls, then that basically defeats the whole purpose of having them. Regardless of whether the words are the most eloquent or whether you the player actually think the attempt is convincing, your character is governed by the rules of D&D and should therefore make an opposing roll. Or at least tell the opposing player that you're going to set a DC and explain it in tells.

For example, last night when Alyrian had been captured, Ember was continuously taunting and mocking him. She made a taunt roll (and a high one at that), but the taunt itself was rather crude (something to do with alyrian having small 'equipment' ::rollseyes:: ). I as a player would have never fallen for such a taunt, but my character failed his opposing roll ... and so he did and reacted rather violently.

What doesn't come into play when you're just reading the text on the screen is the whole mood of the scenario, body language, and all sorts of things that the engine's limitations prevent. To me as the player, the taunt might have sounded weak, but to Alyrian, the taunt was obviously effective.

[Rhifox]

The whole purpose of those skills is for relations with NPCs who you are unable to RP with, or, in the case of PnP, relating with other PCs on a 'I ask him this, I say that' basis, rather than actually RPing out the exact dialogue. Using them for RP when you have the ability to actually roleplay the situation is, in my opinion, cheating. Skills are only there to imitate specific functions that cannot be imitated by other means. If we were in a PnP setting where people did actions like "My character tries to taunt/intimidate/bluff/diplomacy soandso's character", then that kind of roll would be called for, because they aren't actually RPing, they are merely using a skill.

But when we are immersing ourselves in the world and RPing with exactly what our characters do and say, then conversation skills are not necessary and are merely used to bypass inadequacies a particular person has. Same thing goes for stealth, IMO, if the game engine provided better freedom for stealth (ability to actually climb on and hide behind things, etc), then I would say that stealth shouldn't be in-game either. It is an okay skill because we don't actually have the ability to realistically hide, so we have to roll the skill. But for conversation, we CAN do that, so therefore we do not need the skill.

Bypassing RP so you can play the numbers game is poor RP, IMO. The only reason I put points into bluff/diplom/etc is to simulate where I personally believe my character is at. I know that it is my own ability that should determine whether I can 'bluff' someone, not a dumb roll, and I will never roll those skills in RP.

As far as body language goes... you can RP body language and voice tone as well. That's what emoting is for. Sure the avatar may not actually be performing the action, but your text can describe exactly what they are doing, and any good RPer will be able to overlook the static avatar and recognize what the PC is actually doing.

NWN2's engine cannot limit a thing, conversation-wise. The only limitation in that regard is a player's own ability.


The only problem with not using skills is when you run into bad RPers who won't let bluffs/taunts/intimidations/whatever else affect them, who try and play hero. In that case, then yes, I can see the point for a roll, in order to force them to act realistically and backup their character with the numbers game (which is what it really should be. Numbers backing up the character, not the other way around. If you can't RP out a proper bluff, then you shouldn't have a high bluff skill. If you can, then you should. The numbers should always match what you can do, no more, no less.). But between two mature RPers, I don't see the point of it.

[wangxiuming]

... diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff are not things that can be completely replaced by rp-ing, because ultimately you're only reading the text that pops up. Sure, if the player is good enough, it can be awful close, but come on. Would you ever really be intimidated by something a fictional avatar says?

... obviously we're on different wavelengths here. I'm not talking about somebody who ignores RP and goes around rolling skills without ever speaking. I'm talking about using rolls to help simulate a more realistic interaction. Rolling bluff and intimidate etc helps to define success and failure for both parties, so there's no confusion about exactly what just happened when that half-orc screamed, "KNEEL, OR DIE!" - When he rolls his intimidate, you roll a will save or whatever you think is appropriate, and that helps to determine how your character should react.

Bottom line, if someone is going to invest the effort to putting points into skills, takes the time to RP and then justify their actions with skill rolls ... personally, I'd find it rude to not acknowledge their effort. These people aren't trying to bypass RP, they're trying to enhance it!

I don't know if this is your intention, or if it's just me, but it sounds like you think characters should only be allowed to be persuasive or intimidating if they are that way in real life. To me, that completely goes against the very essence of roleplaying - stepping into a different character's shoes and playing the role as best you can. Sure, sometimes it won't turn out as great as everyone might want, but the best part about roleplaying is being able to take on a second persona. And that's also where the skill rolls can help.

[Rhifox]

... diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff are not things that can be completely replaced by rp-ing, because ultimately you're only reading the text that pops up. Sure, if the player is good enough, it can be awful close, but come on. Would you ever really be intimidated by something a fictional avatar says?

I would do my utmost to imitate the emotions on a real life level, yes. I try and get as much into the character's head as possible in order to simulate the same feelings, causing adrenaline to flow in tense situations, anger and frustration in others, crying in some, even arousal in situations where my character would be aroused, and so on. Just as an actor must do to properly play their role in a movie.

... obviously we're on different wavelengths here. I'm not talking about somebody who ignores RP and goes around rolling skills without ever speaking. I'm talking about using rolls to help simulate a more realistic interaction. Rolling bluff and intimidate etc helps to define success and failure for both parties, so there's no confusion about exactly what just happened when that half-orc screamed, "KNEEL, OR DIE!" - When he rolls his intimidate, you roll a will save or whatever you think is appropriate, and that helps to determine how your character should react.

People should not need rolls to help determine how their character will act. Again, I get into the mindset of the character. If an orc screamed that and it was a dangerous situation, I don't care how high my character's statistical willsave is (which is much higher than it should be, but nothing I can do about that, given wizard's save-advancement), I wouldn't roll the save because I wouldn't need a dice roll to determine if I fail or not.

Rolls are not needed to simulate a realistic situation if people are acting realistically. The less rolls in RP the better, the DM/Storyteller handbooks for PnP games also state this, encouraging doing away with rolls when they aren't necessary. Again, I feel that if someone is RPing realistically and as they should, then rolls are never necessary, that RPer should know how to react as their character would react. And if the person making a bluff check isn't cutting it, then I don't care how high their skill is, my character isn't going to react to an obviously blundered bluff. Also the opposite... if they roll a bad number, but the bluff was actually good, then I don't care if they botched the roll, I was convinced if they RPed it convincingly.

Bottom line, if someone is going to invest the effort to putting points into skills, takes the time to RP and then justify their actions with skill rolls ... personally, I'd find it rude to not acknowledge their effort. These people aren't trying to bypass RP, they're trying to enhance it!

If those skill rolls actually justify the action, then go ahead. But again, the skill should be justifying the action, NOT the other way around. If the action is bad, then there's no reason a high roll should allow the person to succeed, and if the action is good, it shouldn't be discounted just because the person got a bad roll. Roleplaying is about acting in the mindset of a character, it isn't a numbers game and never should be. Combat is a numbers game because we can't actually be there in the character's shoes hitting stuff, but in conversation there is no such limitation.

I don't know if this is your intention, or if it's just me, but it sounds like you think characters should only be allowed to be persuasive or intimidating if they are that way in real life. To me, that completely goes against the very essence of roleplaying - stepping into a different character's shoes and playing the role as best you can. Sure, sometimes it won't turn out as great as everyone might want, but the best part about roleplaying is being able to take on a second persona. And that's also where the skill rolls can help.

I do feel that way, yes. You don't necessarily have to be that way IRL, you have to possess the ability to properly mimic it. My character can be very flirty, for instance, even though in person I'm actually fairly shy. This is a rudimentary character development skill required for creative fields such as acting, writing, and so on. RPers are no different, and should be able to know how to play the roles of people they may not actually be IRL. Conversation skill rolls enforce sloppiness, saying that no matter if you can't get the role right, as long as you get the roll right, your character is a-ok. I don't buy that. Roleplaying, not Rollplaying.

[wangxiuming]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand your worry that the numbers might overwhelm the actual roleplaying, but to say people shouldn't be able to play characters a certain way, just because they might not be as articulate or experienced as the character should - frankly that sounds very elitist to me. This is first and foremost a game - it's not a profession, and people are here to have fun.

If this was a stage production of Sundren, the Epic Tale, then I would agree players should be held to a higher standard ... but for a persistent world of a computer game?

[Rhifox]

But that depends on people's definitions of fun. For me, the immersion and realism is the most important aspect towards having fun. Elitism? I suppose so, and I won't deny being an elitist in this regard, and I prefer to hold both others and myself to high standards at all times. I try not to police people in-game, though I will voice my opinion in debates such as this. *shrugs*

[GodBeastX]

The reason I like CHA in people's Bio is because out of all the people who take CHA as a dump stat (And I mean there's a ton), I have seen only about 4 Non-Orcs RP it out. One person I handed 1000 exp to when I saw them RP'ing out their low charisma score.

After ages of seeing people doing this it gets to me. I actually more want it for people who have 8, 6, and dare I see it, 4. Not so much the people above that.

I bet even the players would be surprised who took CHA as a dump stat.

And I'd love someone to tell me how to RP the difference between charisma 16 and charisma 28.



RP for more info to me (And other DMs) is like someone saying "I think you're metagaming by reading my description" or "I didn't think you were going to RP for more info so now I'm telling you." It's kind of like saying "Roll Strength to grapple with my character" in the description. Of course everyone is going to RP for more info! What were they going to do? "Damn, this guy didn't have more info in his description. I guess I'm just going to have to quit the server, since I'm DEFINITELY not going to RP for that info." Dur, it's an RP server.

As for the tattoos, that was more of an optional thought anyway. I see people go "BLARGH! WHY DID YOU PUT TATTOOS IN YOUR DESCRIPTION?!?! I CAN'T SEE THEM ANYWAY!" Well, why did you put athletic build in yours when you're in fullplate all day? Why did you put bald in yours when you wear a helmet all day? Maybe because that person though their clothing might be missing some time in the future? It's kind of like, people don't want to have to think sometimes. "I don't want to have to think about when this description would apply and when it wouldn't."

[GodBeastX]

And ignoring skill rolls is a quick way to get on my bad side. If you're saying "I just ignore skill rolls because it's eliteist and people should be able to RP it." Fine, then anyone who has 0 points in bluff, diplomacy or intimidate better not try to do any of the three because your character cannot do it. Hmmm, but I see people without points in any of those skills doing all three all the time to other players and expecting them to react, so then I wonder if this suddenly becomes to me as a double standard?

We say the RP is what matters and not the stats, yet we feel we should be able to be as effective at intimidating someone as a guy who used the skill points to make his intimidate 20? That seems unfair to me. That guy could have easily put them in tumble and got another point of AC but chose to be more about the RP. I think the least we could do is acknowledge that he knows how to throw his weight around to get what he wants, whether the guy playing him comes up with an uber poetic threat or not.

Sure I don't think dice rolls should replace RP, but I don't think RP should replace dice rolls either. They certainly don't when you guys are in my DM events and decide you're going to attack an NPC. "Bob swings at the NPC, bob misses. Bob didn't even roll an attack roll!"

Edit:

I'm not saying people always have to roll a counter either. If I roll Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy personally, I don't expect when I'm on PC client for people to always roll will saves against them. I usually put the rolls out there for people to pick how they react. I'd rather people choose their own reactions most of the time. But if a level three walks up to me and I toss out some bad mamma jamma on my level 12 who has just rolled a 50 intimidate, and that guy still has gonads, it's more frustrating than fruitful.

[Rhifox]

I never said that the RP is completely the only thing that matters and that people should ignore the skills altogether. If you don't put any skills in bluff/diplo/intimidate etc then that character should not be running around acting like they can, I agree. If a guy puts 20 points into intimidate, then I believe he should be doing that because he feels his character is good at intimidating and can properly RP it.

The points should match the RP potential, not the other way around. You shouldn't try to RP an intimidating character if you aren't able to properly play such a character just because you put 20 into intimidate. At the same time, you shouldn't play an intimidating character and put 0 points into intimidate just because you think you can get away with just RP ability.

The points should match the ability. The skills need to match what you are reasonably able to accomplish, no more, no less. I don't agree with using conversation rolls on a common basis, but you should be able to back it up when it becomes time to prove it in a roll. What I believe is that the conversation skills (as well as Cha, Wisdom, Intelligence, Alignment, Lore, etc) should be an indicator of general ability, not a tool to cheat a success in a situation where one's RP abilities are lacking.

As far as ignoring rolls, I only believe in ignoring them if the person is clearly trying, as said, to cheat a success when they are not actually RPing something that would result in a successful attempt. I might take the roll into account when deciding on my reaction (a bad lie being regarded as a non-serious joke rather than a flat-out lie, for instance), but if a clearly botched RP attempt tries to use a perfect dice roll as a way to magically mind control a person into doing what they want, then I really do not agree with that.

[Machiavelli]

And ignoring skill rolls is a quick way to get on my bad side. If you're saying "I just ignore skill rolls because it's eliteist and people should be able to RP it." Fine, then anyone who has 0 points in bluff, diplomacy or intimidate better not try to do any of the three because your character cannot do it. Hmmm, but I see people without points in any of those skills doing all three all the time to other players and expecting them to react, so then I wonder if this suddenly becomes to me as a double standard?

We say the RP is what matters and not the stats, yet we feel we should be able to be as effective at intimidating someone as a guy who used the skill points to make his intimidate 20? That seems unfair to me. That guy could have easily put them in tumble and got another point of AC but chose to be more about the RP. I think the least we could do is acknowledge that he knows how to throw his weight around to get what he wants, whether the guy playing him comes up with an uber poetic threat or not.

Sure I don't think dice rolls should replace RP, but I don't think RP should replace dice rolls either. They certainly don't when you guys are in my DM events and decide you're going to attack an NPC. "Bob swings at the NPC, bob misses. Bob didn't even roll an attack roll!"

Edit:

I'm not saying people always have to roll a counter either. If I roll Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy personally, I don't expect when I'm on PC client for people to always roll will saves against them. I usually put the rolls out there for people to pick how they react. I'd rather people choose their own reactions most of the time. But if a level three walks up to me and I toss out some bad mamma jamma on my level 12 who has just rolled a 50 intimidate, and that guy still has gonads, it's more frustrating than fruitful.

Gotta say I'm with GBX on this one... what's to prevent people merrily RPing away skills and levels of charisma they do not have if dice rolls are entirely omitted, ans some people invest alot of points in these things to fit their characters. On the other hand, I've seen these skills overused as well (though rarely on Sundren).With a bit of common sense and restraint, these sort of rolls add to the RP potential of a situation by, as Wangxiuming said, giving some idea as to things that aren't represented in a computer game like body language and tone of voice (can they lie with an even tone and straight face, do they have the right combination of expression and tone of voice to seem scary... etc). Nobody's saying you automatically have to cower before an intimidate roll, or cease a conflict because someone rolls diplomacy, but these things should definately provide a lens through which to consider your reaction.

For instance... it would be silly if people were going to roll bluff checks every time they told a lie (or we'd all drown in dice roll spam), but say you're lying to someone who's just effectively intimidated you, or that you're scared of in any case, fibbing convincingly might become more difficult... or if the lie is rather big and obvious, your ability to make it believable could also be represented by a bluff check.

[Blue_Wyrm]

I also agree on this, I must say that personnally I really enjoy those who do use their three social skills as a spice on top of good RP to indicate how convincing they are, but the persuaders should also give their targets a bit of breather, as character traits also should enter into consideration. For exemple my gnome still is gullible somewhat and prone to be scared of those tall, threatening humans, but my down-to-earth pirate is not gonna eat every word of a stranger, and he'll simply keep his distance from bullies even if they have insane Intimidate, not scream and run for his mommy.

Also, I hate to interrupt this discussion, because I also find it really interesting, but I was wondering earlier if it was possible to modify our character's description after the character has been made.

[wangxiuming]

Rhifox, I feel like you think that unless someone's RP is up to your standard, you should have discretion to ignore other players' attempts to persuade or intimidate you. This has such a massive potential for abuse - what's to stop people from saying "oh, well I don't think you rp'd that correctly so too bad for you!"

That said, if the DMs are fine with it, then there's nothing more I can say except to consider this: this is a game, not a profession, and the majority of people will probably not live up to your standards of roleplaying. Does that mean that you should look down on them, and to completely their ignore their attempts? As I said before, I find that rude and insulting.

You fear that roleplaying is losing out to rollplaying, but the solution to this problem can't be to simply ignore rolls when they happen. On the other hand, if your character reacts in game to a roll and does it well, not only does it provide an example for the player rolling the skill, it creates more RP potential, and the other player now has a chance to build upon it with his character as well. By ignoring the roll completely, you'd basically miss out on tons of opportunities for RP, not to mention teach another player what good RP is.

From your posts, it sounds like you are an excellent roleplayer - I wouldn't know because our characters have never interacted. Skill rolls are another way to open up a dialogue and make a lasting impression - if you simply choose to ignore them because you think I'm not up to par, *poof!* Less RP.

[JuneyGnomey]

I'm playing a character that is heavy on the "diplomacy" skills and very social, so I ended up ditching a bunch of points onto CHA that would have better been spent on the attributes that matter more to her classes.
I'm very much hoping this will pay off one day, and I'll actually get to use them, but from previous experience with NWN PWs, this is probably quite unlikely to happen.

I just take the CHA score and ranks in diplomacy skills to be a reflection of who she is as a character. I also have them to make myself feel better; it'd feel wrong to be playing her as outgoing as she is if she had a CHA of 8. I wanted her to be socially comfortable, reasonably witty and keen to be the centre of attention, so I bumped up her CHA to reflect this.

Wrt diplomacy skills; at present, nobody is really bothered about how much of what she says is true, so she can be economical with the truth left, right and centre, without having to worry about anyone challenging her - as it stands, I haven't made a single diplomacy skill roll to date. But I have those ranks nonetheless, just in case, one day, she actually has to use them.

Uh, not that she shouldn't be trusted.

[Rhifox]

Rhifox, I feel like you think that unless someone's RP is up to your standard, you should have discretion to ignore other players' attempts to persuade or intimidate you. This has such a massive potential for abuse - what's to stop people from saying "oh, well I don't think you rp'd that correctly so too bad for you!"

That said, if the DMs are fine with it, then there's nothing more I can say except to consider this: this is a game, not a profession, and the majority of people will probably not live up to your standards of roleplaying. Does that mean that you should look down on them, and to completely their ignore their attempts? As I said before, I find that rude and insulting.

You fear that roleplaying is losing out to rollplaying, but the solution to this problem can't be to simply ignore rolls when they happen. On the other hand, if your character reacts in game to a roll and does it well, not only does it provide an example for the player rolling the skill, it creates more RP potential, and the other player now has a chance to build upon it with his character as well. By ignoring the roll completely, you'd basically miss out on tons of opportunities for RP, not to mention teach another player what good RP is.

From your posts, it sounds like you are an excellent roleplayer - I wouldn't know because our characters have never interacted. Skill rolls are another way to open up a dialogue and make a lasting impression - if you simply choose to ignore them because you think I'm not up to par, *poof!* Less RP.

I've been a roleplayer going on nearly 10 years now, and 99% of it has been completely without conversation skills like what DnD has. I am both used to and prefer relying on a person's ability to only RP out the character they want to play, rather than roll it, and to respond in a realistic fashion based on their action and based on my character's personality. It is simply my preference that people attempt to RP their skills, not roll them. If you put 20 points into bluff, then that should be because you want to RP that bluff, not because you want to roll it, in my opinion. The discretion I make is not an OOC one. If I feel someone RPs badly, I will not ignore that RP just because I think it was bad. But I will react according to their RP. I will ignore a persuade attempt not out of OOC dislike for the character's RP, but because ICly my character would have no reason whatsoever to believe the attempt in the attempted manner. Unless their attempt was something my character would ICly believe.

I do not ignore attempts to persuade or intimidate my character... far from it, in fact, as my character is more often the one to be persuaded and intimidated, even in situations where the opposing party may not even be attempting to be intimidating. What I do not do, however, is ignore what someone RPs just because their roll says something differently. Say I ask someone if they know of a certain place. They want their character to be smart. So they roll a lore check, and succeed, so they say, 'yeah, I know this place'. Now, say I ask them to describe everything they know of the place. Suddenly, the character's supposed knowledge is lost. They as a player know nothing of the location, despite their lore roll. Which should I accept? The roll, or the RP? Now, I could go and describe the place to the person in tells, so they could reiterate it back to my character. But why should I? Why should I make up for a player who decided to be lazy and not do his work and research, yet wanted to play an intelligent and experienced character?

That is how I feel. That if you want to play a character concept, then it is your job as the player to fully realize that concept with your own personal ability. Not rely on your rolls to do it for you. Yes, you should still have high skills to reflect what your character does know/can do, but those skills should be only that--a reflection. A car company could say on a graph or chart 'our car is capable of these qualities', but if that car cannot actually perform what the sheet says in person, then the sheet is meaningless. People will not buy the car just because the sheet says it does/has something, despite the fact the car actually doesn't do/have those things.

As for reacting to rolls: Again, I say this... my reaction should be a reaction to the RP, not the roll. If the person says and does something, and then makes a roll, that roll should be a reflection of what the person said and did. Therefore, the reaction to the roll would be clear. The issue is when the RP and the roll are completely contradictory to one another. When that happens, I would rather react to the RP, and not the roll. I can take the roll into account, maybe, and it might influence my reaction, but it can't be used to completely negate the person's RP.

[wangxiuming]

I don't think I have a problem with the way you play your character. My only fear is that by encouraging people to ignore rolls, you set a dangerous precedent. I'd much rather have a world where people are rolling and counter-rolling rather than one where characters go about simply ignoring other RP attempts.

Of course players shouldn't blatantly abuse their rolls and claim they have knowledge that they don't ... but I don't think someone's attempt to persuade or intimidate should be dismissed so readily either. It sounds like you don't do that ... but others might, especially if you tell them that they have blanket discretion to ignore whatever they want simply on the basis of "oh, I don't think the other person rp'd that correctly."

That was the impression I got from your original posts - if I've misinterpreted something, I apologize.