Description: Roll First, Talk Later?

[Voadam]

It's the character's skill roll, not the player's.

Some skills intrude upon the domain of the player's (and DM's) roleplaying.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure, we're not all great orators; that's why there's a mechanic to represent those interactions where the players skills fall short of the characters. Rolling first just seems to lend itself to: "I bluff him, I get a 26. Okay, Sense Motive was 27, he doesn't believe you"...

That's not 'Roll First', that's 'Roll Instead'.

Under the Roll First model, you roll your 26... and then you give your best attempt at portraying a Bluff result of 26 with your oration. Now, it may be that as a player, your 'best attempt' comes out more like a 9. But that's okay - you're trying!

Conversely, as people have noted, if you're a sparkling, witty, fluid speaker as a player, but you roll a total of 6, then giving a sparkling, witty, fluid Bluff doesn't make you a good roleplayer - it means that you suck at portraying a 6! A Bluff roll of 6 should be a bit awkward, a bit lame, and not particularly believable... so when you deliver that bluff in character, that's what you're aiming for.

'Roll Instead' is boring. 'Roll First' is, in my opinion, more of a challenge than 'Talk then Roll', and more fun for it.

-Hyp.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Hypersmurf that was very well put. Way to take my feelings and articulate them intelligently and clearly.

 

[Crothian]

We talk then roll. I want my players to play the role pf the character as they see it and not try to play the role of a die roll.

 

[AIM-54]

That's not 'Roll First', that's 'Roll Instead'.

Under the Roll First model, you roll your 26... and then you give your best attempt at portraying a Bluff result of 26 with your oration. Now, it may be that as a player, your 'best attempt' comes out more like a 9. But that's okay - you're trying!

Conversely, as people have noted, if you're a sparkling, witty, fluid speaker as a player, but you roll a total of 6, then giving a sparkling, witty, fluid Bluff doesn't make you a good roleplayer - it means that you suck at portraying a 6! A Bluff roll of 6 should be a bit awkward, a bit lame, and not particularly believable... so when you deliver that bluff in character, that's what you're aiming for.

'Roll Instead' is boring. 'Roll First' is, in my opinion, more of a challenge than 'Talk then Roll', and more fun for it.

-Hyp.

That's fine, but I've seen a lot more 'Roll instead' than 'Roll Before'. As in, I don't think I've ever seen a well-done 'roll before'. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but IME the die roll tends to be a crutch, not a role-playing element. I'm with Crothian on this one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As in, I don't think I've ever seen a well-done 'roll before'.

Well, that would naturally colour one's response, of course

My vote, then, goes for a well-done Roll Before... not for a Roll Instead masquerading as a poorly-done Roll Before (and giving all Roll Befores a bad name in the process!)

As a DM, I'd run it something like this:

"I'd like to bluff the guard into letting me past."
"Roll."
"... a 22. Does it work?"
"Don't know yet. Show me what your 22 sounds like."

As the DM, my portrayal of the guard's responses (does he spot minor inconsistencies in the character's dialogue? does he ask the questions that will make the player really scramble to keep up his lie? etc...) will be influenced by my secret Sense Motive roll.

Now, since the die roll determines the result, there could be a tendency in some players to not get into the spirit of things. "Why should I bother trying to play out this scene? The number's the same either way." But these are the same players I would expect to participate in a combat to the tune of "I hit... AC 21 for... 7 points of damage. Can I Cleave? Okay, AC... 16 for... 8 points of damage." In other words... people I'm not that excited to play with.

I want a player who'll reach for that 22 and throw himself into the conversation, even though the number is already on the table... and I want a player who will groan, put on a brave face, and roleplay out the natural 1 in all its horrific glory.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

Wot Hypersmurf said.

I've always wondered why people are so against social skills. This is a pretty decent way to model an actual person, rather than the player behind the character. Why should a farmboy straight off the turnip truck be as eloquent as Bardy McBard, 15th level Minstrel Extraordinaire? Just because you the player are capable of making great speaches does not mean that your 9 Int, 9 Cha, 0 ranks in diplomacy character should be speaking in complete paragraphs, gramatically correct with lots of polysylabic words.

I've seen far more "role players" ignore their character sheets than I've seen "roll players" try to pull out the "roll instead" trick. I'm sorry, but, if your character has average scores and no skills in social interaction, guess what? He's about as interesting to talk to as a tree. If you want to play that eloquent character smooth talking his way through life, you character sheet had better reflect that in my game.

 

[DonTadow]

Disagree heavily. Otherwise, why spend the skill points in the first place?

Depends on if youre playing a roleplaying game or a board game. Charisma type spells should always get enhancements from good roleplaying in a role playing game. Else games go like this
"I bluff the guard" I rolled a 18 I succeed he thinks I am telling the truth.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

Depends on if youre playing a roleplaying game or a board game. Charisma type spells should always get enhancements from good roleplaying in a role playing game.

Why?

Quite often, players will describe what they're doing in combat rather than just "I attack", but despite how skilled in martial arts the player is, I don't give the character bonuses and certainly don't have their success be based on the player's knowledge of physical combat. Regardless of how good a Boy Scout a player might have been, I don't base his success at Survival or Use Rope on whether the player knows what root to eat or knot to tie.

Why then should a character's success in interaction-based skills be determined by the player's relative abilities in that area?

If you want to play that way, I would suggest removing Charisma-based skills entirely from your game, and just be honest with the players that it's mostly based on their own actions and abilities, with perhaps minor modifiers based on the character's stats.

That's certainly a valid way to modify D&D, but don't pretend you're playing the game the way it was designed.

-- Brian.

 

[Silveras]

I'm not going to pick a "roll first/talk first" option because I think both are misguided, at least in the examples given.

Most of the social skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information) are not one-round actions. Unlike combat, each die roll does not represent a single "unit" of interaction. These skills represent somewhat longer-term interactions, and their general tone.

Now, Bluff pretty much IS a "do they believe this one" type of thing, but its success is predicated on what you say first. The opponent gets a bonus on their roll based on how far out your lie is. Obviously, you HAVE to define that first.

So here's how I play them out:

Bluff
Ogre to 1st level PC: "Give money or we smash !"
1st level PC to Ogre: "No, I don't so. We can take you."
DM: Ok.. roll that one, while I roll his Sense Motive (At +5.. that's a pretty bold statement)

Diplomacy
The Encounter sets the NPC's initial reaction. If it is not specified, I set it based on what makes sense: Shopkeepers are initially Indifferent to Friendly, minor Officials are initially Indifferent, etc.
PC: Ok, well, we tell him our story.
DM: Tell him, then
PC: "Sir, we came to town seeking ... and that's why we need to borrow the key to the city."
DM (as Indifferent Official): "Sorry, but I can't help you, we have rules about how the key is used."

-- compared to --
PC: We make small talk for a while, try to get on his good side, maybe talk about the city's history.
DM: That might take a while
PC: Ok, we spend ...10 minutes schmoozing
DM: Ok, he does seem to warm up when you get to chatting about history
PC: I drop in some of the tidbits we learned in the last adventure about the founding of the city.
DM: Ok, make a Diplomacy check
PC: I got a 12 + 4 = 16
DM notes that a 16 is enough to raise the NPC's attitude to Friendly
DM: Ok, he seems to really warm up when you add those bits.
PC: Ok, now we get around to our business, and tell him our story
DM: Tell him
PC: "Sir, we came to town seeking ... and that's why we need to borrow the key to the city."
DM (as Friendly Official): "Sorry, but we have rules about how the key is used. They mayor is pretty keen to get that problem cleaned up, though, so if you ask him about it, he'll probably let you. He's over in the gardens this time of day."

Gather Information
PC: We want to Gather Information
DM: Ok, what do you do ?
PC: We split up; half of us go to one bar, in the poor part of town. Uh, the stronger combat half. The other half goes to a tavern in the better part of town.
DM: Hmmm...Ok, and ?
PC: We spend time there chatting people up and buying rounds.
DM: What do you talk about ?
PC: We talk about the disappearing shepherds in the fields.
DM: Ok, how much do you spend ?
PC: 10 gold in the poor part of town, 50 in the good part of town.
DM: Ok, make a Gather Information roll for each group; best score in each group.
PC: Uh.. that's a total of 5 in the poor part of town, and a total of 22 in the good part of town.
DM: Ok... in the poor part of town, the people all seem very skittish of you. You hear a lot of "strangers askin' questions" as they turn sullen.
DM: In the good part of town, you hear the head of the Merchant's Guild talking about how the wool merchants in the next town are making a fortune picking up trade that would have come here, normally.