It's all in the way you run it.

[Thornir Alekeg]

Missing from the entire roll- vs. role playing arguments I've seen so far is how does the roll-playing social situations against the characters work?

In combat, the rules are very well defined. Orc (DM) rolls dice, dice says orc hits, and does damage. No argument.

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?

As stated by Uller, these skills cannot make you do things that are out of character. Personally I don't like the idea of a PC being forced to do something their character would not because of a die roll. I let the players make their own decisions. The players should have an understanding of how their character is played, but if they play their character in a way that does not fit - a character with a 5 Wisdom is never bluffed out of paying extra for an item, for instance, then that player will be warned. If the player persists, there might be penalties including having to resolve such issues with die rolls.

The way I see these rules is that they provide a method for the DM to resolve how an NPC reacts. Face it, the DM holds all the cards in these kinds of encounters. The DM has all the knowledge and if it is only based upon how the player tells it or describes it, it becomes arbitrary on the part of the DM as to whether the NPC is influenced, or sees through the players bluff. Players who are not great orators or great at spinning yarns might be at a disadvantage. This gives a mechanism to allow players to feel that these kinds of encounters are handled in a fair way.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Yep; Second person is also valid to a degree, although I feel some encounters should be directed more towards first person (i.e., bluffing the guard can be simplified, negotiating with the Duke can be simple but somewhat more detailed).

One thing to consider is something I regard as "Player-to-PC Translation", meaning that what comes out of your mouth isn't necessarily what comes out of the PCs mouth. When determining that, we have several factors: In addition to the related Skills, Intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom all play a factor. Sure, your character might not be great at saying the right thing (average to low Charisma, few Ranks in Diplomacy), but he might be adept at not saying the wrong thing (decent to high Wisdom). By the same token, a high Intelligence character with low Wisdom might have trouble communicating because he uses "big words" too often and looses the comprehension of his listeners. I've found that, by explaining this aspect to new members at our table (and especially to new players), the instances of "1st Person Short-Form" increases while 2nd Person deminishes (with 3rd Person almost entirely absent).

 

[Hypersmurf]

As stated by Uller, these skills cannot make you do things that are out of character. Personally I don't like the idea of a PC being forced to do something their character would not because of a die roll. I let the players make their own decisions. The players should have an understanding of how their character is played, but if they play their character in a way that does not fit - a character with a 5 Wisdom is never bluffed out of paying extra for an item, for instance, then that player will be warned. If the player persists, there might be penalties including having to resolve such issues with die rolls.

I've found that my favourite players to DM are the ones who can accept a nudge from the DM. Not overriding control, but influence.

The best example I can remember was when the party rogue slipped the unconscious cleric a drug. It increased her Con, brought her conscious, and allowed her to Cure the other unconscious PCs... but it also had some minor side effects, namely paranoia and mild hallucinations.

It was a PbEM, so it was easy to send a lot of private messages to the player. The first one said, basically, "By the way - Delyn's feeling a little bit paranoid. Play with it."

Then she started receiving apparent telepathic communications from someone who had died several years earlier. And a second private message - "Delyn doesn't see any reason to consider this unusual."

And the player - who wasn't aware that the cleric had been drugged, and so had no clue why these things were happening - ran with it. The cleric started acting suspicious, and talking to the voices in her head, and was surprised (and, of course, even more suspicious) when the other PCs found her behaviour abnormal.

I like it when a player can accept a directive like "This freaky occurence seems normal to you" without feeling that the DM is impinging on their freedom.

I like being able to roll an Intimidate check for an NPC and pass a player a note that says "You have the distinct feeling this guy could take you all with one hand tied behind his back." I'm not going to say "... and you're so terrified that you fall to your knees and hand him the evil artifact", but I do expect the player to take into account the fact that this is a scary guy. Even if he's really a high-Cha Expert with Skill Focus: Intimidate who happened to roll high, and he looks like a fop in a pansy silk shirt, there's something about him that frightens the PC a little bit. The PC might respond to that fear with bluster, or with nervousness, or with rigid discipline hiding the shiver in his spine, or with abject terror - that's up to the player, based on the personality of the PC. As a player, he might suspect the guy's just a mook... but the PC has that nagging doubt.

A high Diplomacy check on the part of an NPC might receive an addendum of "... and the way he puts it makes it sound pretty reasonable."

A high Bluff check might gain a "... and, you know, it's not as unlikely as it sounds."

A cue like that might make the player even more suspicious... but I'd expect him to dial his PC's paranoia down a notch in response. If he feels that, even taking that into account, the PC still doesn't believe it, that's fine. If he feels that it's reasonable that the Bluff would cause the PC to take the line at face value, that's fine as well.

But just as a low-Cha player should be able to gain some benefit in social situations from playing a high-Cha Bard or Rogue, so should a low-Cha DM be able to expect his players to give him a little considered response to a high-Cha NPC.

-Hyp.

 

[Liolel]

In both the game I run, and the game I play in diplomancy skills are handled the same way. The player states the angle and intent that the skill is tried to be used in, and then the dm applys an modifier for how effective the approch would be. So whole conversations are not always played out, but this works for our group as not everyone is a character acter, and we only have three hours a week. It always helps the diplomatic paladin, and bard players play character far more diplomatic then themselves.

I've never though about how npc's can use the skill. The only thought I have is that bluff can be used against the party in a certain situation, the npc says a lie and a player calls for a sense motive check, then the npc's bluff skill comes into play.

 

[FireLance]

I would allow role-playing to affect the outcome of a skill check, but ideally, I would not allow player knowledge or player ability to substitute for character knowledge or character ability.

Let me explain.

At its most basic, D&D can be played like a tactical wargame. Make a Spot check, roll initiative, roll to hit, roll for damage, cast magic missile, make a Reflex save, make a Tumble check, make a Bluff check, make a Heal check, etc. Player ability and player knowledge are completely divorced from character ability and character knowledge. Even if I'm a black belt in karate, my 2nd-level sorcerer doesn't have any special unarmed combat ability unless I give him the relevant feats or monk levels. Even if I'm a doctor or a certified first-aider, I can't describe to the DM the actions that my character is taking and expect to stabilize a dying comrade without having to make a Heal check using my character's Heal ranks (if any) and appropriate modifiers. I shouldn't even be given a circumstance bonus!

What elevates D&D from a tactical game to a role-playing game is that my character is not just a collection of ability scores, skills, feats, class abilities and equipment. He's got a personality, which is something that cannot be defined by game statistics.

So, how would I allow role-playing to affect the outcome of a social skill check? Well, if the PC displays characteristics that the NPC admires, I would give a small bonus to the skill check to represent the fact that the NPC might be more favorably disposed. For example, a PC who shows that he is willing to brave great dangers to rescue a comrade would get a bonus to Diplomacy checks with NPCs who admire courage, determination, or loyalty. But he still has to make that check, and if he has a low Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy, he still isn't going to get much help.