a question of tact, appropriateness and Cha based skills

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Yup. That pretty much sums my preferences up as well.

-Hyp.

 

[DMScott]

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?

I still give modifiers, I just base them on the player's plan - a player says something like "I want to convince the captain of the guard to help us - I'll tell him about the vampire that's after the king", and I say "OK, make the roll and give me an idea what you say." If there really is a vampire after the king and the PC knows something that could prove it, they get a bonus. I just don't assess the bonus according to how good a speaker the player is, but rather how much they know.

As for honing speech, I consider that a fun part of playing the game rather than something for which I'm willing to penalize someone. If someone doesn't think it's fun, I won't force them to do so - same way I think describing combat makes it more fun, but I don't penalize the guy who just says "I swing my axe".

 

[Umbran]

I don't think order matters in the general case. If one rolls first, and uses a good roll as an exucse to abandon role-play, that's not good. But, if one rolls first, one can make the role-play fit the roll. If you speak first, you can't slack off, but you may wind up with a wonderful speech followed up with a lousy roll (or vice-versa) and end up with incongreuous results.

So there's good and bad to be found in both methods.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think order matters in the general case. If one rolls first, and uses a good roll as an exucse to abandon role-play, that's not good.

A good roll isn't an excuse... it's a challenge.

You as a player might not be able to pull off a speech that will fit the 27 your Diplomacy roll just came up... but you can damned well aspire to it!

(That's a generic "you", not a personal "you" )

-Hyp.

 

[Umbra]

Some players (i only have known a few thank god) would abuse the roll-say. They make a bad roll and they will ask something innocuous and then try again. I prefer state intention - roll - say (roleplay the result).

 

[Anthraxus]

I prefer 'talk, then roll'- Modifying DC (or adjusting the roll) depending on what's been said.

On a side note, I have seen this a lot at Cons:
"I roll to assist his Diplomacy check"- without the player(or character) saying anything, expecting the roll to work by itself. They didn't even interact with the NPC.

-A

 

[Nik_the_Pig]

I prefer 'talk, then roll'- Modifying DC (or adjusting the roll) depending on what's been said.

Well if I recall right in the DMG regarding NPC reactions, Cha and Dip checks are far more likely to improve a NPC's reaction but what the player says can make it worse. From that I get that you should make the check first and then roleplay the rest out.

On a side note, I have seen this a lot at Cons:
"I roll to assist his Diplomacy check"- without the player(or character) saying anything, expecting the roll to work by itself. They didn't even interact with the NPC.
-A

I don't know about assisted roles with Diplomacy. You're spliting the attention away from your prime negotiator which often does more harm than good. Stepping in and taking over when someone is botching it I get but chriping over their shoulder with "helpful" comments often detracts from the overall message.

With this in mind, in the role first method, if someone makes a bad dip/cha roll I'd allow the other players to make a sense motive check to observe the NPC's poor reaction to what the character is doing/saying and if successful allow them to step in to attempt to save the situation.

 

[FireLance]

I prefer talk, then roll, and what the player says and how persuasive he is in real life is less important than the personality displayed by his character.

(NOTE: I posed the following in another thread, but it also seems relevant for this one).

I would allow role-playing to affect the outcome of a skill check, but ideally, I would not allow player knowledge or player ability to substitute for character knowledge or character ability.

Let me explain.

At its most basic, D&D can be played like a tactical wargame. Make a Spot check, roll initiative, roll to hit, roll for damage, cast magic missile, make a Reflex save, make a Tumble check, make a Bluff check, make a Heal check, etc. Player ability and player knowledge are completely divorced from character ability and character knowledge. Even if I'm a black belt in karate, my 2nd-level sorcerer doesn't have any special unarmed combat ability unless I give him the relevant feats or monk levels. Even if I'm a doctor or a certified first-aider, I can't describe to the DM the actions that my character is taking and expect to stabilize a dying comrade without having to make a Heal check using my character's Heal ranks (if any) and appropriate modifiers. I shouldn't even be given a circumstance bonus!

What elevates D&D from a tactical game to a role-playing game is that my character is not just a collection of ability scores, skills, feats, class abilities and equipment. He's got a personality, which is something that cannot be defined by game statistics.

So, how would I allow role-playing to affect the outcome of a social skill check? Well, if the PC displays characteristics that the NPC admires, I would give a small bonus to the skill check to represent the fact that the NPC might be more favorably disposed. For example, a PC who shows that he is willing to brave great dangers to rescue a comrade would get a bonus to Diplomacy checks with NPCs who admire courage, determination, or loyalty. But he still has to make that check, and if he has a low Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy, he still isn't going to get much help.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't know about assisted roles with Diplomacy. You're spliting the attention away from your prime negotiator which often does more harm than good. Stepping in and taking over when someone is botching it I get but chriping over their shoulder with "helpful" comments often detracts from the overall message.

"Stepping in and taking over when someone is botching it" is actually how I interpret assisted Diplomacy. A distraction when something upsets the target, a voice to fill an uncomfortable silence, etc. As such, I think the standard rules for assisted skill checks wrt diplomacy have always worked for me, though of course YMMV.

 

[Parlan]

"Stepping in and taking over when someone is botching it" is actually how I interpret assisted Diplomacy. A distraction when something upsets the target, a voice to fill an uncomfortable silence, etc. As such, I think the standard rules for assisted skill checks wrt diplomacy have always worked for me, though of course YMMV.

sorry to hijack this a little bit, but what does YMMV mean?