It's all in the way you run it.

[Uller]

But if the seductress uses diplomacy (plus many talents... i mean feats) to convince the paladin to do some (borderline) evil act... Dice are rolled, and come up a success, and paladin thinks it's a good idea. If this is your character, how much would you argue the outcome?

Diplomacy can't be used against a PC in this manner. It is to resolve negotiations, influence attitudes of NPCs towards PCs (not the reverse...says so in the DMG: "NPCs can never use a Charisma check to influence PC attitudes.") and resolve cases between advocates in a hearing.

I certainly don't think you can use it to convince a PC to do something against his nature.

 

[Uller]

Actually, I got into a small... "spat" with one of the 3E designers on the Wizards' boards over this very issue. Another poster (a new player) was asking how these skills were supposed to work. The designer (no, I'm not saying who) posted that the above is *exactly* the case (no two ways about it, just roll and be done with it).

Well...he's not incorrect really. By the book, if a player says his PC wants to go into town to find out information, you roll the GI check and give him the results.

But by the book if a player announces that his character kills the guard at the city gate, you roll the dice and tell him whether or not you hit. But as a DM, you're not going to do that, are you? Your going to describe the event and its immediate consequences. You're going to talk about the reactions of the townspeople as they watch in horror as the guard is cut down...murdered right before their eyes. You're going to describe the sounds of trumpets blowing and bells ringing to sound the alarm that the town is under attack by the PCs. Eventually your going to describe the sound of the gallows dropping open and the momentary feeling of weightlessness just before the rope goes tight...

None of that is "by the book". The rules don't spend much time covering the consequences of the PCs actions. That is what DMs are for...they take the rules and use them as tools to help the players tell their tale. Sometimes you just roll it (like when the same PC attacks a mook in a dungeon). Sometimes you go into role-playing mode.

 

[danzig138]

Clearly defined is good

Having abilities too clearly defined is a BAD thing IMHO.

In my experience (mine only, so no one thinks I'm trying to state fact), having clearly defined abilities is a good thing. When I ran 2E, the players didn't attempt a whole lot that wasn't detailed in the books. With 3E, they can look over skill sets and figure out how to do things, they can see the connections between skills and combat and roleplaying. As a GM, I'm more fond of detailed rules also; it allows me more time to work on the game rather than on the game rules. The less time I have to spend figuring out how X maneuver would work, the better. YMV obviously.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well...he's not incorrect really. By the book, if a player says his PC wants to go into town to find out information, you roll the GI check and give him the results.

But by the book if a player announces that his character kills the guard at the city gate, you roll the dice and tell him whether or not you hit. But as a DM, you're not going to do that, are you? Your going to describe the event and its immediate consequences. You're going to talk about the reactions of the townspeople as they watch in horror as the guard is cut down...murdered right before their eyes. You're going to describe the sounds of trumpets blowing and bells ringing to sound the alarm that the town is under attack by the PCs. Eventually your going to describe the sound of the gallows dropping open and the momentary feeling of weightlessness just before the rope goes tight...

None of that is "by the book". The rules don't spend much time covering the consequences of the PCs actions. That is what DMs are for...they take the rules and use them as tools to help the players tell their tale. Sometimes you just roll it (like when the same PC attacks a mook in a dungeon). Sometimes you go into role-playing mode.

Except it wasn't the "consequences" of actions that was being debated, but rather that role-playing (and then rolling) was just "slowing down the game" when the roll alone got through the encounter quickly and allowed the game to "progress". To put it in clearer terms, while some have indicated that these skills in the game permit people that can't (or simply don't) role-play to play the game, the attitude being projected is that those that role-play first and roll second were the exceptions and thus a non-factor to discussion.

It was actually shortly after that another WotC personality (Ed Stark) posted that the other ways of doing it (both what you describe as well as a few other methods some GMs had posted) are equally correct (also seeming to be of the role-then-roll croud).

After that, the conversation turned towards whethor or not the Skills were overpowered for the PCs since they could grant them impressive degrees of influence yet had absolutely no real effect on them when used by NPCs (indeed, by making them ineffective against PCs, from the side of "efficiency", no NPC would bother putting ranks in those skills unless they're the sort to Bluff in combat since the only result is wasted Skill Points). It's probably why I'm so insistant on the "role then roll" method (i.e., want the "extra" power, earn it).

 

[Uller]

Except it wasn't the "consequences" of actions that was being debated, but rather that role-playing (and then rolling) was just "slowing down the game" when the roll alone got through the encounter quickly and allowed the game to "progress".

I know what you mean. My point was that the level of detail of any situation is up to how much detail the DM is willing to provide and how much the players are willing to participate. If my player says "I want to find the going rate for a basket weaver in this burg." and that has nothing to do with the adventure at hand, I'm going to roll a GI check and move on. If the same player says "I'm going to go talk to the street peddler we saw muttering to himself" and that NPC is (or could be) important to the adventure, then we're going to role-play out the encounter.

From my POV, if a player isn't interested in RPing something in detail, I'm not going to make him...but I'll allow a bit of RP to overcome a bad roll in a lot of situations (except obvious things like combat or disabling a trap).

 

[Uller]

After that, the conversation turned towards whethor or not the Skills were overpowered for the PCs since they could grant them impressive degrees of influence yet had absolutely no real effect on them when used by NPCs

This is a good point. But what can you do? No player is going to stand for the DM tellng him that the NPC just "convinced" him of something he knows isn't true just because he beat him in a bluff check...Still...I have my NPCs take those skills if they are appropriate. I tend to make my NPCs as if they are going to be my PC (the important ones anyway). So if I'm making a fast talking Rogue, he'll have ranks in bluff even if I can't really use it on the PCs.

 

[Shallown]

Sometimes the use of NPC social skills are best applied against the PC in a indirect method. NPC X has a high diplomacy and he wants the PC's to do something. If the PC was in the same situation he would just Roleplay or Roll play and have a solution. Since PC's have immunity NPC X diplomacizes the PC's friends or local officials. Maybe setting up a DC to be countered by the PC. NPC X gets a 34 Diplomacy check on NPC ED, can the PC beat that to change another NPC ED's mind. It just has to be applied obliquely (Sp?)

Later

 

[Bendris Noulg]

From my POV, if a player isn't interested in RPing something in detail, I'm not going to make him...but I'll allow a bit of RP to overcome a bad roll in a lot of situations (except obvious things like combat or disabling a trap).

Ah, allow me to clarify...

Player as PC: I understand my being here is unusual, but I thought I smelled smoke and started looking for a fire.

...would be considered equal to...

Player: I smelled smoke.

...but isn't considered equal to...

Player: I bluff the guard.

The difference being that the first two use Bluff as a mechanic for resolving the act, while the later uses Bluff as the act itself. Y'dig?

 

[Qualir]

Personally, as a DM and player, I love the social skills.
As a player, sometimes the wrong thing just happens to come out of my mouth when my brain is not watching. A skill check allows me to rationalize why that would not have been said. Skill checks allow some leverage with a DM who just doesn't want to give.
As a DM I know that others have my faults and skills make up for brain farts. Skill checks allow some validation when you have to deny a player.
I do believe that some amount of role play is always necessary when using social skills. The skills just present a nonbiased resolution system to compensate for friendships and hurt feelings.

 

[Uller]

The difference being that the first two use Bluff as a mechanic for resolving the act, while the later uses Bluff as the act itself. Y'dig?

Oh yeah. I get it. If the player says "I kill the goblin" I'm going to say "How?" If he says "I bluff the guard" I'm going to ask "What do you say?" and base the DC in part on how feasible the bluff is. I don't expect my players to play act their characters in first person..."I tell him I smelled smoke and came to see what was burning" is suitable (assuming that is a reasonable lie.