Restrictions on character names? (And Skill Rolls)

[GodBeastX]

I don't agree with your example Rhifox. You're making a generalization on incomparable circumstances. Lore checks with an arbitrary DC is not the same as someone rolling Intimidate checks. One allows YOU to react to the knowledge, the other is the roller reacting. Let me show you a better example. Your character says "I'm from Saint Ives." and the player you're talking to rolls lore and asks in a tell "Is that enough to know about Saint Ives?" That's more comparable.

I roll Intimidate and ask "Are you intimidated?" I don't expect a certain reaction. On one server I rolled intimidate on a guy to try to get him and his goons to back down. Oh, the guy I intimidated did back down, right after saying "Kill him!" and hiding behind his goons. If you roll them and expect a certain reaction, then you're being dumb. If you roll them to help guide the other person on who your character is, then you just enhanced RP. It's up to you how you react. I love when people roll diplomacy to try to get my characters to try to stop doing things and they go "You're totally right, but I'm a hypocrit so I'm going to do it anyway." In a few more words.

And... I'm too lazy to write more. Sundren will be using all social skills in quests and NPC dialog.

[Rhifox]

My original statement about ignoring rolls was a bit too extreme and over the top, aye, it was more to demonstrate the overall point that I was trying to get across. I wouldn't really ignore a roll, but I won't take those rolls as a definitive success if the person's way of saying/doing their persuade/intimidate/whatever attempt was in a way that simply wouldn't resonate well enough to actually be a successful attempt. I don't encourage ignoring people on an OOC basis, but that if their IC attempt doesn't cut it, then no matter how high their skill is, it can't be used to succeed in an otherwise botched attempt... though it may soften the impact.

[Satoshi]

What does any of this have to do with 'restriction on character names'? Do we need a repeat of the 'Forces of Evil' thread?

[GodBeastX]

Unless the person you're bluffing is Ember, you can't bluff people into thinking the sky is Brown. Nothing is an automatic success with skills, and some things just will never be bluffable/intimidateable or otherwise diplomaticable (Loves making up words), and what a success is may not be what you want it to be.

[GodBeastX]

What does any of this have to do with 'restriction on character names'? Do we need a repeat of the 'Forces of Evil' thread?

Here', I'll take care of it.

[Rhifox]

And... I'm too lazy to write more. Sundren will be using all social skills in quests and NPC dialog.

Which I have absolutely no problem with. Again, I completely agree that someone's skill should match their character ability. Completely not taking skills while attempting to RP that skill is bad RP, in my opinion. And as it is an NPC relation, where there is no direct interaction, those skills then do become necessary, unlike in PC interaction where the skill rolls are not necessary (the rolls are not necessary, in my opinion. The skills themselves still are, to reflect that character's ability).

[rustediron]

I still think that you place too much stock on the eloquence of a person's language... some people aren't even english, and others (such as me) are just not that great at writing persuasively... what I'm trying to say is that, if a person gives their best shot at trying to do something, then rolls a dice roll wholly unproportional to what they just did/said, I still think its reasonable to react to the dice roll, not the text.

[Blue_Wyrm]

Agreed rusted, but most of the time it's easy to tell when someone made an effort in the talk that accompanied the skill roll.

That's the RPer's duty to acknowledge the RP of others, whether they could "do better" themselves or not should be irrelevant. I neither think that roleplay should be only for professionnal english writers using a fancy vocabulary, being french myself.

[sparkeh]

I still think its reasonable to react to the dice roll, not the text.

Yep with you there. I think you have to remember that your character is reacting to their character *not* you reacting to the player.

Taking intimidate as an example, its not just what someone says that is intimidating is their presence, body language etc. In fact you can intimidate someone without even saying a word. I wouldn't mind if someone just stood in front of me a rolled an intimidate check. If I failed it then my char is intimidated.

I don't really care if the spoken threat isn't that best in the world, if my char fails the check then it worked.

[Blue_Wyrm]

Taking intimidate as an example, its not just what someone says that is intimidating is their presence, body language etc. In fact you can intimidate someone without even saying a word.

I completely agree with you there. But since this debate is so interesting, I'd like to express my opinion that while, indeed, the sheer presence of a mountain of muscles in front of you can be very scary, some players, myself included, will feel less inclined to move aside if they don't do the small effort to *stares down at me with a mean look on his face*, if you see what I mean.

[ThePaganKing]

I think you have to take your characters RP into count also. Take for example my halfling rogue, Salagar. He is fearless by nature (halfling attribute) and I play him basically with no fear and finds everything interesting. Therefore, if a big muscle guy came up and tried to intimidate him, because of a halfling trait and his normal RP, he would less likely be intimidated, but would be interested why this guy was eyeing him down.

Now, I am not saying that he can't be intimidated, its just much less likely and if intimidated, it could be in a different form that most people would expect.

So, I agree the rolls are paramount, but you have to look at the class and the RP of the character also.

[Blue_Wyrm]

Now, I am not saying that he can't be intimidated, its just much less likely and if intimidated, it could be in a different form that most people would expect.

I see what you mean. If someone around read some of the many Dragonlance books with Tasslehoff the Kender they must remember that this member of an otherwise fearless race still reacted to some forms of well-worded intimidation. For exemple when Kitiara told him she'd use her knife to remove his ears if he tried to touch her pouch. Tass loves his ears because they hold his hair and ponytail, and didn't feel like losing them, so he took note of her intimidation and, in that sense, it still worked.

[Drancor]

ok back on subject , can i make a Half-orc barbarien named Bubba? hahah sorry just kidding

[undeadsteak]

This thread really seems done. We've went over whats acceptable and whats not. I'd suggest making a thread about rolls if you want to discuss it more ^^



Okay nvm, title has been changed lol.

[Rhifox]

I still think that you place too much stock on the eloquence of a person's language... some people aren't even english, and others (such as me) are just not that great at writing persuasively... what I'm trying to say is that, if a person gives their best shot at trying to do something, then rolls a dice roll wholly unproportional to what they just did/said, I still think its reasonable to react to the dice roll, not the text.

It's not the technical aspects, it's the depth and detail. I've met some wonderful RPers who regularly make typos, use bad grammar and sentence structure, shortenings of words in RP, and so on. Their English may not have been perfect, but they still knew how to really convey their character. It's what you say and do, not how you say and do it.

Yep with you there. I think you have to remember that your character is reacting to their character *not* you reacting to the player.

As someone who feels that RPing is more akin to acting than to actually writing, I disagree with this. I believe that when RPing you the player should become the character, not treat it as a foreign body with completely separated feelings. The feelings and reactions across both should be mutual, in my opinion, as it helps to properly realize a realistic response. You don't necessarily have to be like the character IRL, but when the time comes to RP the character, it's all about getting into their head and imitating the persona so that it becomes you, until you step out of the shell again.

In fact you can intimidate someone without even saying a word. I wouldn't mind if someone just stood in front of me a rolled an intimidate check. If I failed it then my char is intimidated.

I don't feel you need to make an intimidation roll in this. It's all about reacting in a realistic manner. One does not need to say a word, and one does not need to make a roll, in order to be imitating. My problem with rolls is that I feel they are unnecessary at best and that, at any location where a roll could be applied, simply reacting in a realistic manner appropriate to your character would always be more appropriate, and does not need the dice roll to tell you. If someone just stood in front of me then I would probably be intimidated in the situation whether they rolled or not.


And I'm sorry for continuing this discussion, I just have a fancy with debating. It's clear that I won't be changing any minds in this regard, I'm just expanding on what I believe in response to people so they can understand my PoV.