Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Most of the time, it's talk, roll, then maybe some more talking. For particularly inventive or convincing role-playing, I will give bonuses (or penalties in the case of particularly bad RP).
Description: Roll First, Talk Later?
- Thread starter Queen_Dopplepopolis
- Start date
JimAde
First Post
To me the dice help show how convincing/persuasive the character is, but the actual words (or at least the idea) have to come from the player. So if a player isn't terribly eloquent, he can't just say "I use diplomacy to make nice." But he can say, "I'll tell the queen that we want to help her out because she's so wise and powerful and stuff." That way I know what basic tack they are taking, but the player doesn't have to be able to speak like a courtier.
frankthedm
First Post
I operate on the principle that people [PCs included} go through thier lives taking 10 on diplomacy, intimidate, sence motive and bluff checks except in the most important circumstances. Roleplay grants curcumstance bonuses or penalties.
The only thing I really diverge from the rules from is the player must say the lie he wishes to bluff someone with. if they can't keep a straight face, niether can thier PC. It is only fair since If I don't keep a straight face while telling an NPC's lie, the players will never believe it either.
The only thing I really diverge from the rules from is the player must say the lie he wishes to bluff someone with. if they can't keep a straight face, niether can thier PC. It is only fair since If I don't keep a straight face while telling an NPC's lie, the players will never believe it either.
Last edited:
sniffles
First Post
I like the "roll first, describe after" method. It sucks if I've thought up something great to say and then rolled a 1. I find it a lot easier to look at my result and then formulate an in-character explanation for why I rolled so badly. I'll usually say something like "I got nervous" or "I lost my train of thought".
Voadam
Legend
Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
Two separate questions here.
1. a)Combat, b) conflict resolution where you want the 1-20 variation in results.
The current d20 diplomacy and bluff skill mechanics are poor social interaction mechanics IMO and lead to unnatural results that are not as much fun as just roleplaying or adjudicating the situation without the dice.
2. a) Match character concept, b) if the DM takes into account charisma and skill modifier without rolling dice or using the result charts from those skills.
Skills are not that mechanically important in D&D IMO, they are overshadowed by class abilities, feats, magic, abilities, and equipment.
Queen_Dopplepopolis
First Post
Voadam - your response has prompted me to start a new thread. It can be found here... http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2573365#post2573365
It's stuff like this that makes me LOVE EN World!! So many different points of view!
It's stuff like this that makes me LOVE EN World!! So many different points of view!
wedgeski
Adventurer
Roleplay first, rolling second. If I got me a player who has managed to wax eloquent during the former, then he'll get a circumstance bonus to the latter, else it's a straight roll. The roleplaying directs the flow of the interaction and is occasionally worthy enough not to bother with a roll at all. Most times, a roll of some kind is required. I never allow a half-hearted 'I attempt Diplomacy on him. What's the DC?'
I want smooth-talkers and bullies and bluffers in my party. Few things give me a warmer feeling than to watch one of my players max out an interaction skill.
I want smooth-talkers and bullies and bluffers in my party. Few things give me a warmer feeling than to watch one of my players max out an interaction skill.
The Grackle
First Post
Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
You know, I was all for Bluff and Diplomacy Skills for the longest time until I played in a game of Blue Rose- the Green Ronin Game w/a lot of focus on social interactions and dramatic RPing.
It super sucked!
All our interactions became dice-offs. It made everything really unnatural, and the players became lazy about actually trying to tell lies or pay attention to NPCs motives.
Now I understand the opposite view point of the old timers who hate social skills, and just Role-Play the RPing parts of the game.
I think the next game I DM, I won't have players roll at all. I'll just keep in mind their bonuses as I RP the NPCs.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Well, for bluff, you need to know the general content of the bluff, in order to set the dc. But I'm looking for a description of the conversational tactic, not always the exact words. (those are ok, but I wouldn't give any bonuses for elequence, just the conversational equivilent of flanking...) So general description, roll then roleplay as needed.
I posted first on Queen's second thread regarding skill importance before I found this one. To cut in paste here regarding the DM's picture of talk first, roll second:
"That aggrivates me no end, and yet I've encountered it often. If I spend the game mechanic's points away from combat and invest them in social bonuses, I should reap the benefit, and not be crippled for a lack of method-acting prowess. I never see a DM say, "So you want to tumble over the ogre and cleave it from behind? Okay, pick up that broom handle and physically demonstrate the maneuvers you would use and I'll decide if it works..." However I've been with several DMs that say "Okay you want to try and convince this guard with your bluff skill that you're really the delivery guy? Role-play it out so I can portray the guard's reaction and that'll determine your success..." If I was that good a bluffer in real life, I wouldn't invest the points in making my character skillful in it. I want him to be exceptionally more quick of thought and tongue than me personally, that's how I devised him.
What's ironic even more is that it usually comes from DMs that say they want less combat in their games so they can focus on role-playing plot. Well if you reward points spent in combat more than points spent on social abilities, how do you think that will result in less combat, pray tell? That comes across to me that you just like hearing yourself role-play NPCs and disdain those who can't equally descend into character."
I think yes I should have to give a basic description of my approach, ala JimAde's theory, but to make me have to be as eloquent as my character just to feed your need for RPing in character devalues those that try and make smooth-talking characters over munchkin warriors. Take this example:
Player A is a good RPer and can descend into character well in table discussion He makes a rogue character designed to tumble, sneak and find traps. All his skill points are devoted to those ends. The time comes to smooth talk an NPC. He only has one or two ranks in bluff, if any, but because the talk-first, roll later DM likes how he delves into character and charms with the words he says in real life, they give them circumstance bonuses that let them succeed.
Player B is not a power gamer, but isn't personally talented at talkin in character either. He develops a manipulative, Rasputin type of enchanting mage. He takes all of his skill points away from the typical concentration spellcraft of a typical wizard and dumps them in bluff, diplomacy, and social skills. That is the central focus of his character, being capable at social manipulation with or without magic. Now the time comes to fool an NPC. The player themself can only devise the phrase "I try and fool him by convincing them I'm a noble from House Bannistaid" If you're of the talk first school, you might not feel impressed by that RP showing and not give him the circumstance bonuses you give Player A. You have now just defeated that players enjoyment of the game and given negative incentive to create social as opposed to combat characters. That player COULD have spent points in combat skills and effects, but instead used the mechanics to make a bluffer. If those mechanics are thrown by the wayside just so you can feel there is more table talk, what incentive is there? that's how I feel. Am I alone?
"That aggrivates me no end, and yet I've encountered it often. If I spend the game mechanic's points away from combat and invest them in social bonuses, I should reap the benefit, and not be crippled for a lack of method-acting prowess. I never see a DM say, "So you want to tumble over the ogre and cleave it from behind? Okay, pick up that broom handle and physically demonstrate the maneuvers you would use and I'll decide if it works..." However I've been with several DMs that say "Okay you want to try and convince this guard with your bluff skill that you're really the delivery guy? Role-play it out so I can portray the guard's reaction and that'll determine your success..." If I was that good a bluffer in real life, I wouldn't invest the points in making my character skillful in it. I want him to be exceptionally more quick of thought and tongue than me personally, that's how I devised him.
What's ironic even more is that it usually comes from DMs that say they want less combat in their games so they can focus on role-playing plot. Well if you reward points spent in combat more than points spent on social abilities, how do you think that will result in less combat, pray tell? That comes across to me that you just like hearing yourself role-play NPCs and disdain those who can't equally descend into character."
I think yes I should have to give a basic description of my approach, ala JimAde's theory, but to make me have to be as eloquent as my character just to feed your need for RPing in character devalues those that try and make smooth-talking characters over munchkin warriors. Take this example:
Player A is a good RPer and can descend into character well in table discussion He makes a rogue character designed to tumble, sneak and find traps. All his skill points are devoted to those ends. The time comes to smooth talk an NPC. He only has one or two ranks in bluff, if any, but because the talk-first, roll later DM likes how he delves into character and charms with the words he says in real life, they give them circumstance bonuses that let them succeed.
Player B is not a power gamer, but isn't personally talented at talkin in character either. He develops a manipulative, Rasputin type of enchanting mage. He takes all of his skill points away from the typical concentration spellcraft of a typical wizard and dumps them in bluff, diplomacy, and social skills. That is the central focus of his character, being capable at social manipulation with or without magic. Now the time comes to fool an NPC. The player themself can only devise the phrase "I try and fool him by convincing them I'm a noble from House Bannistaid" If you're of the talk first school, you might not feel impressed by that RP showing and not give him the circumstance bonuses you give Player A. You have now just defeated that players enjoyment of the game and given negative incentive to create social as opposed to combat characters. That player COULD have spent points in combat skills and effects, but instead used the mechanics to make a bluffer. If those mechanics are thrown by the wayside just so you can feel there is more table talk, what incentive is there? that's how I feel. Am I alone?
Similar Threads
