a question of tact, appropriateness and Cha based skills

[Psion]

I'm a "talk then roll" kind of guy.

As far as I am concerned, the dice and skill mechanics are an interface between the player's intentions and the world.

So, the player announces his intentions to me, then the dice determine what really happens.

Tell me that you have never formulated what to say in your mind, and the impact it had was totally different than what you intended? Or that someone, despite their words, came off as arrogant and condascending to you? These are the details that I consider the dice and the skill ranks to add.

Occasionally, I use skill rolls as an excuse to give the players hints. For example, if the player says something really stupid that no trained diplomat would do, I might let them try an int-based diplomacy check to NOT blurt it out and tell the player that he knows that is not such a good idea... would you like to reconsider.

 

[S'mon]

I normally do talk-then-roll, which causes a lot of tension during the speech - a good speech will set a lower DC on the roll. The opposite approach is kind to nervous players but can make the talking seem pointless if the roll is very good or bad.
Some bits of the PHB on the Diplomacy skill can make it seem like a nonmagical Charm Person effect at high levels. I don't like that - my campaign has a lot of politics & roleplay but the die results, though influential, are not too dominant. If a player gives a great speech but rolls a '1' and has low Diplomacy skill, the audience won't beat the PC with sticks unless they were already predisposed to do so. Likewise a high-Dip bard who rolls well can be very persuasive but while the nobles might be impressed by him they won't be giving him half their lands.

 

[Felix]

talk then roll.

The character is going to say whatever the player wants him to say.

The roll just describes how he says it, and how the NPCs take it. For instance:
Klugar the Halforc says: "Me want mighty cheap axe!"

If the Diplomacy or Intimidate roll is high, the shopkeeper gets him what he wants. If the roll is low, that sentence belies Klugar's ignorance of what a cheap axe really is, or perhaps that he doesn't know what a quality axe is. When this happens, Klugar is worse off than had he not said anything. Either way, a poor roll will change what an identical sentence says to NPCs.

 

[Zappo]

Talk, roll, talk again, whatever. Some of the people I game with prefer it one way, some prefer another. Some like to just roll, some like to do the entire conversation. I try to juggle things so that every player gets from Diplomacy what he paid for, important conversations are roleplayed, charismatic players don't hog the spotlight, and everyone has fun. The constant is that you will have to roll. No way that a good speaker IRL will get away with getting essentially free CHA and Diplomacy ranks. It largely works.

 

[DMScott]

In my new group I noticed a few players (I am looking at you Ashley) who role their diplomacy or other Cha based skill checks and then announce what they say.

In my groups we have always said whatever our character said and then rolled if the DM asked for it.

Does one of these feel more right to you folks?

I generally prefer roll, then talk. From a roleplaying point of view I like it because players who aren't great at public speaking can see how things are going to turn out without worrying about their presentation. And for those who are good speakers, it gives them an idea as to how things are going to proceed - on a low roll, a good roleplayer can slip in a screwup or insult to explain the low roll, rather give a brilliant presentation worthy of Churchill and then roll a mighty 1.

I'm not a big fan of adjusting the rolls based on the player's presentation, since that's basically telling poor speakers that they can't play the role of a charmer in game. That seems no more fair to me than telling a couch potato they can't play a fighter because they're not in good enough shape to fight in 20 pounds of armour.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

the audience won't beat the PC with sticks unless they were already predisposed to do so.

By the way, where is Hong in this conversation.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a big fan of adjusting the rolls based on the player's presentation, since that's basically telling poor speakers that they can't play the role of a charmer in game.

It's a roleplaying game to me - more accurately, I enjoy the roleplaying as much as I enjoy the rollplaying. I realised recently that my enjoyment had been suffering due to too-little actual in-character roleplay, which I think is at least partly the fault of 3e and itinteraction skills.

Frankly, I would prefer it that poor speakers not attempt to play the role of charmer in game. If they're truly bad at it, it's painful to watch and it lessens the fun for everyone else, me in particular. That said, a player who's a poor speaker and takes 6 ranks in Diplomacy will get a tangible benefit from that investment, just as the good speaker who takes no ranks will suffer. But I let players plan their fights & intrigues with little regard to their PC's Intelligence scores, and likewise they can say what they want without regard to their PCs' Cha scores. If the battle plan or the speech is good, they benefit. If not, they suffer - maybe they win the fight anyway due to high BABs & ACs, maybe they win the persuasion attempt due to many ranks in Diplomacy, but the difficulty of either is affected by the player's own actions.

I don't see this as unfair.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm not a big fan of adjusting the rolls based on the player's presentation, since that's basically telling poor speakers that they can't play the role of a charmer in game. That seems no more fair to me than telling a couch potato they can't play a fighter because they're not in good enough shape to fight in 20 pounds of armour.

Well, I don't mind adjusting the Diplomacy skill check, using the +/-2 circumstance modifier. I prefer that they encourage making in-character dialogue and interaction with NPCs. I mean what better place to hone your speech skill?

 

[Silveras]

Actually, this kind of thing is why I like the "Complex Skill Checks" variant in Unearthed Arcana.

The idea would be that you need to make multiple successful rolls before you make some consecutive failure rolls. Using a roll-talk-roll-talk-roll-talk system, you could fairly well play out a series of alternately good and bad rolls until you wind up with a final success or failure.

I dislike the idea of a single roll meaning success or failure in social interactions, so I like the UA variant for that reason.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I go with talk-then roll. Basically all encounters are roll-played out, then based on that conversation I assign the appropriate skill (Intimidate if he was threatening, Diplomacy if he was appealing, Gather Info if he was wheedling, etc.) and the player rolls.

Social skills should be rolled just like combat skills. And I don't really see a need to provide "incentive" to role-play, since for those who like it, role-playing is its own incentive, and for those who are more dice-oriented, I don't feel the need to try and bribe them to do something they don't enjoy.


edit: spelling