a question of tact, appropriateness and Cha based skills

[S'mon]

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.

If a player makes a wonderful speech IMC that might be equivalent to a -10 on the DC, so it would transform a lousy roll into an average sort of roll. Likewise a truly appalling speech could set the DC up to about 10 higher, transforming a great roll into a mediocre roll. Not that I normally do it that mechanically, and I'd rather give a bonus for good RP than penalise bad RP, so I'm more likely to reduce the DC than to raise it, unless the PC actually said something truly offensive to the NPCs.

 

[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.

I'd like to clarify this, a bit, because I see a lot of information given in some of the various methods here that I also incorporate that my brief answer doesn't implicitedly cover. So, here are some permutations to help better get inside my head for those who wish to take that perilous trip...

While I usually can remember, or have written down on my side of the screen, the various skill levels of the PCs for things I like to keep clandestine, I do like to ask which skill the player plans to bring to bear because it helps to verify their general demeanor and intentions in their approach to a roleplaying situation. Obviously, during a negotiation, a Diplomacy ploy is going to play out quite differently from using Intimidation approach.

Further, a player might choose to Sense Motive while negotiating figuring that even if the conversation never reveals exact information, they can potentially read between the lines and gain much more than from a direct question and answer approach. This is sometimes the best way to get information from someone who it has already been determined to be an unwilling information source.

Therefore, I ask what skill is being used, and get the modifier, then make the roll. I do this secretly because there is really no way to know with absolutely certainty using a skill if someone has given the absolute truth, and even when they do it may only be the truth as they know it, or as they see it.

One of the other reasons I do it in this order is because I then make determinations during the roleplaying as to what circumstance bonus or penalties I might want to apply, based partly on what they say, and partly on how they say it. Now, if a player clearly has a character with a skill that far outweighs their own ability to roleplay the skill, I either do not give penalties or I ask (out-of-character) if what they are saying is actually what they really want their character to say...basically giving them a chance to re-play a, perhaps, hastily turned phrase.

It's quite possible for a player to have failed in their attempt as the die roll stands at the beginning but wind up either asking the right questions or endearing themself in some way to the NPC during the roleplay that gives them a circumstance bonus that puts the die roll over the DC, thus negotiating the encounter successfully despite the initial result. When I say "endearing" I mean maybe giving some useful information in exchange that sweetens the pot for the NPC to be cooperative, or mentioning something that strikes a chord with the NPC (perhaps they are both women who have children and thus some sympathy is gained), or mentioning that they have a common enemy (this can be a big motivator with even the least helpful of NPCs.) there are many, many ways to gain multiple circumstance boni that I might not even conceive until roleplaying the encounter has transpired.

I find this method works the best for me for a number of reasons. Firstly, while it does allow for some immediate dumb-luck with the initial die roll, it also allows for good roleplay to win the day despite the odds. Secondly, it gives multiple chances to succeed (I'm not a fan of do or die situations hinged on a single die roll). Lastly, it encourages the players to roleplay, to remember facts in the game that might help them, and to put forth a general level of effort that helps everyone playing to immerse themselves more deeply in the whole experience.

In previous incarnations/editions of the game I would do this with Intelligence checks, or with Reaction checks, and now it's all done with skills checks (sometimes opposed skill checks), but it's all pretty much the same system.

I'd encourage everyone to give this a try and see if it doesn't increase their enjoyment of the game. If not, what have you really lost?


BTW, YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary & BTW = By The Way

 

[danzig138]

While I might like it if my players rolled then talked, basing what they said on the roll, I have a couple who aren't good speakers (and I'm not great either), so I tend to have them say what they are going to say, then roll. That way, I know what they are trying to say, but I can pretty or ugly the language up in my head based on the roll, determining the reponse. That way, with a poor roll, even if the player doesn't, his character might make that joke that just falls flat.

 

[Berandor]

If a player makes a wonderful speech IMC that might be equivalent to a -10 on the DC, so it would transform a lousy roll into an average sort of roll. Likewise a truly appalling speech could set the DC up to about 10 higher, transforming a great roll into a mediocre roll. Not that I normally do it that mechanically, and I'd rather give a bonus for good RP than penalise bad RP, so I'm more likely to reduce the DC than to raise it, unless the PC actually said something truly offensive to the NPCs.

So, if one of your players describes a wonderfully detailed sword stab aimed at the enemy's guts, would you give the enemy a -10 to his AC?

Just asking.

 

[S'mon]

So, if one of your players describes a wonderfully detailed sword stab aimed at the enemy's guts, would you give the enemy a -10 to his AC?

Just asking.

This used to come up in my PBEMing days a lot - the answer was yes, if the PC uses smart tactics that may well give them a to-hit bonus or similar. You don't get a bonus for a _well described_ attack, though, or for a flowery speech, you get a bonus for a _persuasive_ speech or an _effective_ attack. Outside PBEMs it comes up less because there's less time for players to consider their actions. In 3e I would typically handle it by a Bluff roll, if they were trying to misdirect the NPC, or by a to-hit bonus - or a penalty, if their action was foolish. If a player says "I try to knock aside his shield with my first blow, then strike with the second", that might be a successful attack causes an AC penalty to the opponent, with failure meaning a lost attack.

 

[S'mon]

So, if one of your players describes a wonderfully detailed sword stab aimed at the enemy's guts, would you give the enemy a -10 to his AC?

Just asking.

Your specific example would actually usually incur a big to-hit penalty, with increased damage if successful; probably -4 to-hit & +2 damage on a hit. A swing aimed at opponent's head might be -10 to-hit & +5 damage.

edit: also, in 3e terms most special maneuvers such as these called shots would be standard actions rather than just attacks, so would see less use at higher levels, perhaps unfortunately.

 

[Mark]

So, if one of your players describes a wonderfully detailed sword stab aimed at the enemy's guts, would you give the enemy a -10 to his AC?

Just asking.

A circumstance bonus (or penalty) is applied to skill checks. I've never seen it suggested in the rules that it should be applied to combat. There are a number of combat situations where one could add a modifier, but a ten point modifier seems extreme (which, if you were to do it, would apply to the roll as +n or -n, not to the AC of the enemy). I think the only place such a large circumstance bonus is suggested in the rules is due to a Grease spell an as applied to an Escape Artist skill check though some concealment boni are fairly high for Hide checks. Most circumstance boni are +2 or +4, individually, but could be stacked.

Are you being serious or just razzing S'mon for some reason?

 

[Mark]

This used to come up in my PBEMing days a lot - the answer was yes, if the PC uses smart tactics that may well give them a to-hit bonus or similar. You don't get a bonus for a _well described_ attack, though, or for a flowery speech, you get a bonus for a _persuasive_ speech or an _effective_ attack. Outside PBEMs it comes up less because there's less time for players to consider their actions. In 3e I would typically handle it by a Bluff roll, if they were trying to misdirect the NPC, or by a to-hit bonus - or a penalty, if their action was foolish. If a player says "I try to knock aside his shield with my first blow, then strike with the second", that might be a successful attack causes an AC penalty to the opponent, with failure meaning a lost attack.

Interesting. Is that your own house variation on the Feinting rules?

 

[WampusCat43]

Interesting thread

I've enjoyed this one, and have been converted to the "role, then roll" side. Most of my players are roll-players, and I want to drag the other half (gently) out of them. I've got one veteran player who roleplays quite a bit, and I want to encourage that. I've seen the other guys roll first, realize (or at least think) they were screwed, and make very little effort from there. No mas

 

[S'mon]

(Oh, I'm sure Berandor wasn't razzing me, it was a reasonable question).

Interesting. Is that your own house variation on the Feinting rules?

Well, my "rule" predated my adoption of 3e as the system I use, so I start more from twisting 3e to fit my world & playstyle rather than seeing the rules as a thing-in-themselves. I use the rules to help simulate my gameworld's reality rather than as being definitional of that reality, ie if there' a conflict I change the rules, not the reality. BTW I'll be running the Conan RPG tomorrow, this reminds me I should tell the players they can get combat bonuses for good tactics etc, it's particularly appropriate there I think.

Specifically re Feinting, I'm a bit unhappy that you can't really Feint in combat without the Improved Feint feat. I think some feints (combat uses of Bluff) should be move-equivalent or even free actions; they may not render the opponent flat-footed & open to sneak attacks but they might give you +2 to-hit them or such.