Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)

[Libramarian]

That's the traditional approach in most games when trying to "encourage RP." You sell your RP to the DM, if he buys it, you get a bonus to the roll.

Aside from the 'gaming the DM aspect,' which is inevitable regardless of system, the thing I dislike about it is that it leads to big story/RP disconnects.

Player 1 RPs a diplomacy check. His character is supposed to be pretty good at diplomacy, and he makes a very compelling case, eloquently and appropriately in-character. Then rolls, with his '+2 for good RP,' and the die comes up 1.

Player 2 comes up, having not really been paying much attention and says something vaguely inappropriate to try to convince the same NPC. DM chucks the book at him with a -5 penalty. Natural 20.


If the RP is so immersive that the character's ability shouldn't matter, why even have the die roll? If we're trying to RP the character's abilities, why not wait until after the the die roll to see how well you do, then RP the results - at least you'll never get a huge disconnect like that.

AD&D 1e's encounter reaction rolls take an interesting approach: the DM rolls for the basic disposition of NPCs upon encountering the PCs, and then works that into the roleplayed conversation. High Cha PCs walk around the gameworld finding most NPCs to be friendly and helpful -- whatever advantage they get out of that is largely determined by roleplay alone (the DM might roll reaction again if the conversation has boiled down to a particular binary breakpoint, where the result isn't obvious in context).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I use Diplomacy to try to get him to help us."
Me: "So... what are you saying?"

Yeah. This is where the divide between player and character can really sneak up and bite you.

Sometimes, for whatever reason the "shy kid" or the "goofball" ends up with the high-Diplomacy character. Especially when you're random-rolling stats in order. When that happens "just roll Diplomacy" becomes your best friend.

Even when it's not that 'worst case,' though, it can be a little silly to base the result too heavily on what the player says. The player may not be that eloquent, or he may just have an off day (or even off moment), while the /character/ may be very, very good at this stuff. You wouldn't give a character a penalty to hit because his player's sword-arm was sprained that afternoon. Why give it a penalty because the player had a rough day at work?


What I would want to know from the "I use Diplomacy..." player is what he's after and what he's willing to put up to get it. Diplomacy is (in 4e game jargon, at least) the art of honest negotiation for mutual benefit. Just like I want to know which goblin you're shooting at, I'd need to know what kind of 'help' your trying to get.

More than that, if the player wants to, sure. But I'd actually encourage the RP after the roll. I wouldn't want someone to pull out the acting stops just to roll a 1.

 

[pemerton]

I think that you shouldn't get a modifier to the roll depending on the quality of your RP. Instead, your RP should determine the stakes--the result of success versus failure. If you make an eloquent and compelling case, then success means you get full cooperation and failure means you still get limited assistance. If you say something inappropriate, success means the NPC is amused and gives you a minor assist for making her laugh, while failure means you get chucked in a dungeon or start a fight.

Yes. This is the sort of thing that WotC needs (i) to try and explain in their rulebooks (eg I don't think skill challenges can be run except in this sort of way, and yet the 4e books don't talk about this at all), and (ii) to think harder about how guidelines for encounter design, adjudication etc can be set up to make this easier.

 

[Guyanthalas]

Part of my struggle with the skill concepts in general are that they are situationally beneficial to players.

A lot of the previous comments talk about making charisma related actions regarding diplomacy (even intimidation), and the roleplay aspects work great for that.

Does that mean my rogue needs to "suavely disable a lock" in order to get a bonus for my roleplay skills? As far as I can tell, most of this just changes what occurs in diplomatic encounters.

That being the case, isn't it logical to think that some portion of D&D players are not very charismatic? (Certainly not myself of course, ) And that maybe they wish to play the charismatic character because they lack that trait in real life?

We ask our players to describe what they say to someone to resolve a diplomatic encounter... but if they try to pick a lock do we demand that they tell us the principles behind lockpicking?

I just see the "Tell me what you are doing..." system punishes a group of players who currently do not have a way to gain an advantage in the other (more mechanical) aspects of gameplay.

 

[pemerton]

Does that mean my rogue needs to "suavely disable a lock" in order to get a bonus for my roleplay skills? As far as I can tell, most of this just changes what occurs in diplomatic encounters.

That being the case, isn't it logical to think that some portion of D&D players are not very charismatic? (Certainly not myself of course, ) And that maybe they wish to play the charismatic character because they lack that trait in real life?

We ask our players to describe what they say to someone to resolve a diplomatic encounter... but if they try to pick a lock do we demand that they tell us the principles behind lockpicking?

This is part of why I'm not the biggest fan of "bonuses for RP" in social skill checks, and prefer Dausuul's approach above.

I just see the "Tell me what you are doing..." system punishes a group of players who currently do not have a way to gain an advantage in the other (more mechanical) aspects of gameplay.

I think description rather than performacne has to be a permissible option - ie if a player says "I greet the mayor courteously, but using a slightly archaic turn of phrase so as to show off my wizardliness" that should be enough. We know what the PC has done (each participant can fill out the details of the scene in his/her imagination as appropriate). Now roll the dice!

 

[KidSnide]

I just see the "Tell me what you are doing..." system punishes a group of players who currently do not have a way to gain an advantage in the other (more mechanical) aspects of gameplay.

This is part of why I'm not the biggest fan of "bonuses for RP" in social skill checks, and prefer Dausuul's approach above.

I think description rather than performacne has to be a permissible option - ie if a player says "I greet the mayor courteously, but using a slightly archaic turn of phrase so as to show off my wizardliness" that should be enough. We know what the PC has done (each participant can fill out the details of the scene in his/her imagination as appropriate). Now roll the dice!

This is one of those things where the rules need to support a range of play styles. At least at my table, it's important to be able to fall back on character skill when you're just not up to role-playing that night. But, at the same time, when a player says the perfect thing or writes the perfect letter, I think its important to reward that player with success. It sucks too much to have everyone clapping and laughing at an amazing moment and then have the die come up "2".

When it comes to player skill vs. character skill, there's no one right answer that covers every gaming group. And, I strongly suspect, for most gaming groups, the right answer depends on the player and the situation.

-KS

 

[pemerton]

when a player says the perfect thing or writes the perfect letter, I think its important to reward that player with success. It sucks too much to have everyone clapping and laughing at an amazing moment and then have the die come up "2".

There are other ways of handling this, though - and D&D probably needs to get more creative in looking at them.

For example, in BW a player who has everyone clapping and laughing earns Action/Fate-type points. To generalise - there is another dimension of mechanical reward besides having your PC succeed at the task.

And in BW, also, if a player fails a die roll than the GM is encouraged to adjudicate this by reference to the player's intention rather than the PC's task. So if the idea of the letter was to win over an ally, a failed check doesn't mean that the letter actually sucked. It means (for example) that the NPC loved the letter, but already pledged alliance with an enemy of the PC. So now the game goes on - the player has to think up a way for his PC to break the alliance between the NPCs, which will then bring the letter-receiving NPC over to the PC's side.

I also want to point out: see how the BW approach to resolving failure breaks down the notion that "failure is not an option". As I've already said a couple of times in this thread, while D&D sticks to a "if you fail, you lose" paradigm, then the new approach to skill checks won't do what it is supposed to, because players still won't want to take risks. You have to open up a space where risks are safe and the PC failing doesn't mean that the player lost. Then look at funky new skill mechanics that try and put fictional positioning first.