How do you convince someone of the truth

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

I don't know. I've never had such a player. But if I had to guess, I imagine I'd say something like "You need to tell me what you're going to say, [player name], then we'll take it from there."

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...

Sure it follows. There are different resolution systems, sure. No AoOs in social situations, for instance. But the same general principle certainly applies: Players roll dice to represent their characters' skills--whether they be martial or social. That way they A) don't get an unfair advantage from skills they have in abundance which their character has not at all, and B) can employ skills their characters have paid for, that they have not at all.

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.

Why do your players put ranks in social skills at all, then, when they know that a clever idea will succeed regardless?

 

[RigaMortus2]

We play that the story takes precedence over any die rolls, at least in social situations. For example, I don't care if you have a +100 Diplomacy roll, you're not going to persuade that merchant to give the magic sword to you for free. I don't care if you have a +100 Intimidate check, you're not going to "bully" the Paladin into going against his code. I don't care if you have a +100 Bluff check, you're not going to be able to trick the king into giving up his thrown to you.

Of course using magic to accomplish these things is another thing... But the story should trump the die roll in extreme instances such as the ones above... YMMV

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

I would tell the player to roll, I would make a secret Sense Motive roll, and if the PCs request is not too outragous I would tell him the outcome depending on the results. If the PC's results came out highly in his favor, I would tell him that the NPC seems to believe him (whether he does or not I, the DM, only knows for sure).

 

[Mallus]

But the same general principle certainly applies: Players roll dice to represent their characters' skills--whether they be martial or social.

In the case of combat, I let the roll decide the outcome.

In the case of social interactions, I consider both the roll and the actual player input. Sometimes the roll decides it, sometimes it influences it, and in rare cases, its irrelevant to the outcome.

You said yourself that you factor in both the roll and the roleplaying. So in general principle, we do the same thing. Its just a question of degree. You wouldn't let pure roleplaying supercede a die roll, I would.

Why do your players put ranks in social skills at all, then, when they know that a clever idea will succeed regardless?

My players put ranks in social skills because they don't always have clever ideas. Ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy are dependable. Just because a character with no ranks succeeds occasionally doesn't mean spending points on these skills is useless.

Plus, we don't play out every social interaction. Most of the time we leave things abstract and handle things purely through mechanics (shopping, rumor gathering, ect.)

Considered another way, social skills become another species of tactics. And the rules don't really address tactics (that's entirely player choice). In other words, sometimes its the bard comes up with the winning battle plan, not the veteran fighter. And sometimes its barbarian who somehow finds the most convincing words. I'm not going to disallow a player's strategy because I can't make it jive, exactly, with their character sheet.

Ultimately this game is played through thinking and talking. I do what I can to encourage that. Is it fair? I have no idea. No-ones complained so far.

 

[IcyCool]

I don't know. I've never had such a player. But if I had to guess, I imagine I'd say something like "You need to tell me what you're going to say, [player name], then we'll take it from there."Sure it follows.

Count yourself lucky then. My response used to be similar, but all I ever got was something similar to what I've read in this thread, "If I have to come up with what I'm going to say, why did I bother to take all these ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff?" In other words, they want to roll dice and use the mechanics, they don't want to roleplay.

Now, let me ask you a slightly different question, if your player were to say to you, "I use my +15 attack bonus to hit him with my longsword." What would you say to that player?

If it isn't, "Describe your combat maneuver to me, and we'll take it from there" then you should keep an eye peeled for hypocrisy.

I'm not trying to pick on you Lord Pendragon. It sort of sounds like that, but I'm just frustrated.

 

[billd91]

Count yourself lucky then. My response used to be similar, but all I ever got was something similar to what I've read in this thread, "If I have to come up with what I'm going to say, why did I bother to take all these ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff?" In other words, they want to roll dice and use the mechanics, they don't want to roleplay.

Now, let me ask you a slightly different question, if your player were to say to you, "I use my +15 attack bonus to hit him with my longsword." What would you say to that player?

If it isn't, "Describe your combat maneuver to me, and we'll take it from there" then you should keep an eye peeled for hypocrisy.

I'm not trying to pick on you Lord Pendragon. It sort of sounds like that, but I'm just frustrated.

I don't think the two situations can be exactly compared. Asking someone how they want to approach the use of the social skill (what are you going to say, how are you going to say it, etc) isn't much different from outlining the basics of the combat encounter and asking the PC how they are going to go in fighting. In the latter case, they'd be able to look at the tactical situation, decide how they are going to move (charge, flank, tumble, etc), and other tactical issues before they make that roll to hit.
The way I see it, asking a player to lay out their approach to using diplomacy before it is rolled works the same way. And if the player comes up with a particularly good (or bad) approach, they'll be faced with situational modifiers.
In a game I'm running (for CoC), one PC with a lot of Diplomacy tried to get a meeting with a particular NPC who is prickly about an issue (it's a published module being played on the boards here so I'm not giving out spoilers). I asked the player what approach she was taking with her diplomacy and, I'll be darned if she didn't fall right into that issue. Missed her roll by 1 because of the situational modifier. But, I also decided that her attempt was close enough that she didn't burn her bridges, just didn't win the prize... yet.

 

[nimisgod]

We play that the story takes precedence over any die rolls, at least in social situations. For example, I don't care if you have a +100 Diplomacy roll, you're not going to persuade that merchant to give the magic sword to you for free. I don't care if you have a +100 Intimidate check, you're not going to "bully" the Paladin into going against his code. I don't care if you have a +100 Bluff check, you're not going to be able to trick the king into giving up his thrown to you.

Of course using magic to accomplish these things is another thing... But the story should trump the die roll in extreme instances such as the ones above... YMMV

Would not a +100 skill modifier be practically magic? I mean, it's super-heroic already... if an epic fighter can take down a wyrm dragon with a four foot long sharpened piece of steel and an epic rogue is able to play "spiderman" without a stitch of climbing equipment, why can't the epic bard convince a merchant to hand him everything he owns.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Count yourself lucky then. My response used to be similar, but all I ever got was something similar to what I've read in this thread, "If I have to come up with what I'm going to say, why did I bother to take all these ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff?" In other words, they want to roll dice and use the mechanics, they don't want to roleplay.

I feel for you, man. I can imagine possibly changing my DMing style, if I ever came across this phenomenon. But as it stands, I haven't. RPing comes naturally to my players. The rolls make certain that their enthusiasm doesn't translate into everyone always succeeding, regardless of their characters' skills. They go with what they want to say, then the rolls determine how well or poorly received their delivery is.

Now, let me ask you a slightly different question, if your player were to say to you, "I use my +15 attack bonus to hit him with my longsword." What would you say to that player?

If it isn't, "Describe your combat maneuver to me, and we'll take it from there" then you should keep an eye peeled for hypocrisy.

I fear no hypocrisy here. As Mallus has taken pains to point out, the two resolution mechanics are not identical. While I have and do argue that the intent and purpose of both mechanics are identical, there are differences in how social and combat encounters are resolved.

In the situation you outline, my players would likely say something like, "I step up 10' and throw my axe at her." At which point I'd respond "Roll it," if the player hadn't already done so and given me the AC he hit.

Basically, as billd91 pointed out so well, there are two phases in each scenario. One is describing the "approach" and the other is the roll. In a social situation, the "approach" is done through conversational interaction, the player talking with the NPC. Then I call for the roll. In combat, the "approach" is the selection of movement path (to avoid AoOs, perhaps), what special maneuvers to use, etc. Culminating, again, in the roll.

I should note that I try to encourage RP in combat as well as social situations, though the wargaming aspect of D&D combat means I'm not always successful.

I'm not trying to pick on you Lord Pendragon. It sort of sounds like that, but I'm just frustrated.

No worries, I'm not feeling picked on. This kinds of discussions are great. And if it turns out that I need to defend my position strongly, all the better. If I can't defend my position, then maybe I need to reconsider that position!

Would not a +100 skill modifier be practically magic? I mean, it's super-heroic already... if an epic fighter can take down a wyrm dragon with a four foot long sharpened piece of steel and an epic rogue is able to play "spiderman" without a stitch of climbing equipment, why can't the epic bard convince a merchant to hand him everything he owns.

Well-said. If I had somehow allowed a PC to gain a +100 bonus to any skill, I'd certainly allow him to use it.

 

[IcyCool]

I should note that I try to encourage RP in combat as well as social situations, though the wargaming aspect of D&D combat means I'm not always successful.

Indeed. Well, as always, I shall endeavor to improve my game and my players.

 

[kanithardm]

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.

That site has great diplomacy ideas. I think that if you are telling the truth you use a diplomacy check to convince them that you are telling the truth. Also check out the comic at that site.