a question of tact, appropriateness and Cha based skills

[alsih2o]

(Mods-this seemed right here, if it is a rules thread i apologize )

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 can see an advantage to both, and don't want to bring my decision to the table without some input. Thanks.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

As a rule of thumb for my group I normaly don't force them to roll for Diplomacy unless the player can't role play it out with me.

 

[alsih2o]

As a rule of thumb for my group I normaly don't force them to roll for Diplomacy unless the player can't role play it out with me.

Ah, see, The players would frequently (including my wife!) roll a d20 and say "19 diplomacy, I ask What is thingamabobs whosiwhatsis and don't you think it should be pink?' to the ferryman"

In a couple of instances it was great. When I stepped out with another player (Ashley again) who rolled a d20 and said "I spend 4 hours at the bar asking questions about the best glue for glue fritters" it was tre' convenient. But i am wondering about its appropriateness during group encounters.

 

[eryndel]

For me, I generally do use Diplomacy rolls if a player can't act their Charisma score. This can happen if the player is sort of socially inept and is playing a high Charisma character but more often happens when I deal with people using Charisma as a dump stat. In this case, I have them say what they want and then punctuate it with a Cha/Dip check.

But that's just me. I'm sick of the Half-orc barbarian with 4 charisma trying to haggle for a cheaper greataxe.

Werner

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

When I DM, I now like to roll them at the beginning of an encounter. Use it to set the tone for the following 'in character' conversation.

They roll good, I'll play along and 'go easy' with them. Bad roll - I'll be far more difficult.

Seems to work for us... though I hate to admit it, this group is new to using skills for social situations. Used to all be about what the player said. But we found this heavily favoured the more charismatic players. Thought a change would do us some good.

Our new system still does to some extent, but nothings perfect!

 

[Cerubus Dark]

Ah, see, The players would frequently (including my wife!) roll a d20 and say "19 diplomacy, I ask What is thingamabobs whosiwhatsis and don't you think it should be pink?' to the ferryman"

In a couple of instances it was great. When I stepped out with another player (Ashley again) who rolled a d20 and said "I spend 4 hours at the bar asking questions about the best glue for glue fritters" it was tre' convenient. But i am wondering about its appropriateness during group encounters.

Take their dice from them and shoot them out the window, and say you failed your roll. Now lets talk.

 

[Henry]

We usually use "say, then roll", although if I could get my players on-board, "roll, then say" would probably be more appropriate. It would really bring home that "foot in the mouth" feel that real-world diplomats have to carefully struggle against.

For example, recently, I used a joke that included the phrase, "Your angry players might pull a Jimmy Hoffa on you." One poster didn't understand the Jimmy Hoffa reference, and the joke fell flat. If you were talking to a merchant, for instance, trying to charm him into getting you a better price, and you used a joke that fell flat, or, worse, insulted him in some way:

"Man, are those Togarians are some nasty-looking people, 'ey, what?"
HEY! MY MOTHER'S TOGARIAN!"

then you just blew it. But even if this is roleplayed, a player is likely to NEVER intentionally do this (use an insult to ingratiate someone, etc.) or the DM is likely to forget little things like this happen in real life all the time.

So, if the player REALLY flubs a roll, then he can put that racial epithet or that flat joke into the conversation, whereas, if he makes a good roll, he can just "flower it up" a bit, and let the DM take it from there.

 

[Mark]

I prefer to ask the player if they have any appropriate skills to bear on the situation (after I have assigned a difficulty level to the encounter), roll secretly as the DM adding in whatever modifier might be appropriate, and then play out the encounter based in part on the roll of the die with the appropriate modifier(s), in part on how they roleplay the situation, and keeping in mind on whatever difficulty level I have assigned the encounter.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I like "roll then talk" because it gives the opportunity to role-play the results of the die roll... thus maintaining a role-playing element to social skills. The alternative where someone says something charming and then flubs his roll is often the way it works out in our campaigns but is far less satisfying, and it can result in situations where the dice appear to "overrule" the character.

I loved playing my woods-wise but CHA 6 ranger in towns. On one occasion we went to gather some information and I strolled into the bar, sat down with an off-duty officer and in attempting to gather info (check result about 4) proceeded to tell him everything about us while getting no information from him whatsoever. It was great fun!

Cheers

 

[alsih2o]

Thanks, roll then say makes much more sense to me now.