How do you convince someone of the truth

[Crothian]

Removing the dice from a social situation cheats the socially-oriented character, as surely as if the dice were removed from combat and the DM just told the barbarian if he hit, "taking into account" his +30 attack bonus. I'm not sure why so many DMs believe that dice are incompatible with roleplay, but I patently disagree.

Many times stopping the role playing to roll dice takes people out of the role playing as we add in this meta game aspect. Some people just don't like that to happen. But I've done it your way as well and have them role play and roll dice. It all works.

 

[glass]

This looks good, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the Sense Motive check. This is a check rolled by the listener, who in this situation would be an NPC, correct? If that's the case, then what's the point of rolling it? It serves no purpose. The only reason I can see to roll it would be if you roll out in the open, and you didn't want your players to know you weren't rolling a die. In which case it's still not necessary that you actually make a Sense Motive check, but rather that you just roll a d20 while they're rolling their Diplomacy/Bluff.

Well, the listener could be a PC or an NPC. The rules should be the same either way.

If it's an NPC, it doesn't matter so much, but if an NPC is speaking and a PC is listening then the SM roll is reuired (if the PC wants one), or else the PC will know that any time they get to make a roll, the NPC is automatically lying.


glass.

 

[IcyCool]

The way I do it is simple. No die rolls are asked for at first. We roleplay the situation, and when we get to a point where the PC's intent is abundantly clear, I call for a roll, then modify it with a circumstance bonus depending on how the conversation went. While RPing the player never knows if I'm going to call for Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, or something else. He just has a conversation, tries to accomplish his goal, and at some point knows I'm going to ask for a roll.

What do you do when the player says, "I want to convince him I'm genuine with my +30 diplomacy."?

 

[glass]

Well the simple answer is "Because we can act out trying to bullsh*t each other at the gaming table. Trying to act out lethal violence would get us hurt and/or arrested."

True, but I am equally skilled in bluffing, diplomacy etc (not very, as it happens) regardless of weather I am playing a first level half-orc barbarian or a 20th level half-elf bard.

The best solution is to use your best judgment and consider both rolls and roleplay. Know when to allow a players really brilliant deception trump the die roll, or when to let a fumbling mishmash of words (and a natural 20) save the group from the King's Hangman.

That is how I do things also. Caters to both the 'roleplaying' and 'game' aspects of roleplaying games.


glass.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Not true. First off though if you are telling the truth that is not bluffing.

Yes, but the PC doesn't KNOW that, which is why the Bluff/Sense Motive check is required. If the PC rolls high or low it doesn't matter, because you'll get the same result, that the NPC doesn't appear to be lying.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What do you do when the player says, "I want to convince him I'm genuine with my +30 diplomacy."?

As I said upthread, I don't let my players determine what roll needs to be made. They say what they want to say and, once I've got the gist of their idea/conversation and have decided what angle their words are taking, I call for a roll. I'll sometimes let the RP go on if we're on a roll (I don't call for a roll quickly if it'll break the flow of RP, as Crothian mentions.) In such cases I'll wait until things reach a lull, then call for the roll.

Well, the listener could be a PC or an NPC. The rules should be the same either way.

If it's an NPC, it doesn't matter so much, but if an NPC is speaking and a PC is listening then the SM roll is reuired (if the PC wants one), or else the PC will know that any time they get to make a roll, the NPC is automatically lying.

Ah, that makes sense.

The more complex answer is: "You're right, players want to manifest a whole host of talents they don't (and can't) posess IRL. But social situations are tricky. These can be performed by the player. But if you reduce all social interaction to a die roll, then you cheat the players out of the enjoyment of being clever. Consider if combat tactics were abstracted to the point a player made a single "tactics roll" and the DM automatically performed the optimal action for the character. Not much fun, eh?

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I boil down all RP to single die rolls, but that's not the case. Of course social situations are a mixture of rolling social skills and RP. But ignoring the rolling is detrimental IMO, though obviously other DMs' mileage will vary.

The best solution is to use your best judgment and consider both rolls and roleplay. Know when to allow a players really brilliant deception trump the die roll, or when to let a fumbling mishmash of words (and a natural 20) save the group from the King's Hangman.

I don't allow RP to trump die rolls. If that were permissible, then I should be able to trump a natural 1 on my weapon roll with a brilliant description of a combat maneuver.

 

[Mallus]

True, but I am equally skilled in bluffing, diplomacy etc (not very, as it happens) regardless of weather I am playing a first level half-orc barbarian or a 20th level half-elf bard.

Well, umm, yes. That's exactly right. I'd rather encourage people to be clever, even if that means temporarily ignoring the mechanics. I don't want players to hold back from playing until they have enough of the right skill ranks on their character sheets.

Look at it this way. One function of the levelling mechanics is to give the players a progressive series of tangible rewards. Players like that. Appeals to the game-player in all of us.

However, players also like it when the DM just says: "Now that was really brilliant. It works." Its just as much a part of the system as the other reward mechanics, even though it isn't neatly codified.

Sometimes these systems are at odds. And in those cases, I just go with what brings my players the most enjoyment.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

What do you really intend?

Question... why do you want to convince them of the truth? In order to get them to act on something. Perhaps using the very well done dimplomancy rules at http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html ...or pick up Penumbra's Demagogues rules for debate.

My book is at home, and not all gamers will want to spend the money. Demagogues offers a mechanic for handling debates. It is rather extended and has classes and feats towards this end. The basic premise is to frame the debate as combat, with a pool of 'hit points' and various attack forms that may deal political damage to your opponent. Instead of just being one simple roll, there can be a series of policatal manuevers leading to the eventual 'win'. The losing side then adopts the winning sides concepts/idea as the right way to do things.

Regardless, in game social skills are not supposed to be applied in a PC vs PC scenario. This is mainly to protect against a high CHR character charming and ordering around another PC, ruining the entertainment of a player as the character turns into a virtual slave.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the debate system, I can post more later when I have the book handy.

 

[Mallus]

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I boil down all RP to single die rolls, but that's not the case.

I didn't get that impression. I was just overstating your point

I don't allow RP to trump die rolls.

Okay.

If that were permissible, then I should be able to trump a natural 1 on my weapon roll with a brilliant description of a combat maneuver.

That just doesn't follow. I treat the combat resolution system differently from the social resolution system. The rules that govern the one don't apply to the other. Use the right tool for the right job...

 

[IcyCool]

As I said upthread, I don't let my players determine what roll needs to be made. They say what they want to say and, once I've got the gist of their idea/conversation and have decided what angle their words are taking, I call for a roll. I'll sometimes let the RP go on if we're on a roll (I don't call for a roll quickly if it'll break the flow of RP, as Crothian mentions.) In such cases I'll wait until things reach a lull, then call for the roll.

My question wasn't very clear then. Let me rephrase. What would you say or do if your player said, "I want to convince him I'm genuine with my +30 diplomacy."? In other words, your player just wants to resolve the mechanic without role-playing.