Role playing and social skills

[Rel]

I give a circumstance bonus to the check if the player gives sound, in game reasons for the NPC to agree with him. When alloting the bonus, I make no distinction between the player I have who is good at giving pasionate speeches and the player I have who will methodically state the facts.

But I won't give any bonus (or penalty) to the character who simply says, "I will try to convince the King to help us." and rolls the dice.

 

[the Jester]

I have to say, I'm amazed at how uniform the responses were to this...

I totally agree that relying only on role-playing makes taking skill ranks in the social skills useless, and relying only on the dice discourages role-playing. I like to have a little balance in there (but then, I also give xp for roleplaying.)

 

[Altalazar]

Precisely. You have to make the points spent be worth it, but giving bonuses can encourage good roleplay. I think also you should NOT give penalties for poor roleplaying, because again, you shouldn't handicap the character like that - I'm not that strong, but that shouldn't penalize me on strength checks for my character, for instance.

But clever role-playing in the form of a clever plan can maximize the strength I DO Have, just like you can do with social skills.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Roleplaying, end of sentence. I don't really believe in using those skills, unless I am pressed for time, or using it for inter-NPC relations. It's a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I respectfully disagree with that statement. D&D is a roll-playing game. Sure, it's a role-playing game as well, but there is certainly a large chunk of time devoted to tossing that d20. Heck, the game system itself is named after it.

I love to role-play, and that's the main reason that I play this game of ours, but rolling that d20 is fun too, my friend.

 

[Chris Coulter]

Not letting the dice have their due influence can tip the scales toward the more glib players who can get away with using their social skills in place of their characters, often leading to neglect in spending on the character's social skills, and punish a more shy type of player who is willing to forgo some other area of his character's development to be able to be the suave James Bond type for 6 hours a weak.

 

[Zappo]

I know I'm rowing against the current, but... I only use the skill check, always.

I have discussed long and wide about this, and if someone wishes to discuss again, I'll be glad to. My opinion is that roleplaying has nothing to do with being persuasive, or using words well. Roleplaying is how well you can interpretate your character. Your character has got a 6 charisma, 0 ranks in Diplomacy, and you make him talk like a top-shelf politician? Very, very bad roleplayer in my book. I reward roleplaying with XP, and such a player would get a hefty penalty.

The skill check is a test for the character, not for the player. The player's skills have no influence at all on the check. My players still roleplay their checks; their incentive is first of all the fun they get, and secondly the XP bonus.

I'd like to point out how the games that are usually considered most roleplaying oriented (any WoD, for example) are the ones with the heaviest social and psychological ruleset. Not that I agree with that view, but this is to show that the general public, in fact, considers detailed rules on those topics a sign of a 'good roleplaying' system.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I only roll if, given my knowledge of an NPC and the conversation, I really don't know what he'd do. Negotiating and persuasion in game is fun, and just rolling to see the results regardless of how the player does just removes one more element of skill from the game, which is not a good thing.

The biggest problem I have with rolling for social interaction is what about the PCs? If the players can roll to make NPCs do what they want, it's only fair to let the DM make rolls to make PCs do what he wants. And that's not going to work. So either you have inconsistent rules or player rebellion.

 

[Zappo]

I only roll if, given my knowledge of an NPC and the conversation, I really don't know what he'd do. Negotiating and persuasion in game is fun, and just rolling to see the results regardless of how the player does just removes one more element of skill from the game, which is not a good thing.

Yes, I understand what you mean. However, the way I see it, the skill is not in being as persuasive as you can... it's in being as persuasive as the roll shows. Which means, as persuasive as the character is. Which means, being able to say what the character would say - roleplaying. Do you see where I'm going? There is an element of skill, and it's just as prevalent if not more.

I've found that it often takes a bit of lateral thinking to understand my POV. The roleplayer's skill is figuring out in as much detail as possible what the character would do. The rules help doing this, by giving you comparable values. Any other skill that the player can have - being persuasive, knowledgeable, etc. - is a support to that, but it's not supposed to be the skill which makes a good player.

 

[Pazu]

Interesting question and POVs!

I think that in some ways, the use of social skills is somewhat different than that of other skills, in that they tend to occur "situationally" rather than "actively". This, of course, is highly dependent on playing style, but consider the following "styles":

Style 1.
DM: "You find your way blocked by a high stone wall."
Player: "I use my Climb skill, with a total modifier of +7."

DM: "You find your way blocked by a hulking brute of a thug."
Player: "I use my Intimidate skill, with a total modifier of +7."

In this style of play, game actions are described mechanistically, and although I don't think there's anything technically "wrong" with this approach, I'd bet that there are few DMs who'd be willing to let the second scenario pass without the player at least attempting a description of just how they plan to intimidate the thug. On the other hand, the first action isn't particularly unusual.

Style 2.
DM: "You find your way blocked by a high stone wall."
Player: "Can I climb it?"
DM: (Has noted that the DC for the climb is 20). "Go ahead, make a Climb check."

DM: "You find your way blocked by a hulking brute of a thug."
Player: "I muscle up to him and draw my sword, saying 'Stand down if you don't want to get hurt, little boy.'"
DM: "Not bad. Go ahead and make an Intimidate check." (Secretly sets a DC for the player to beat.)

In this situation, while the first action doesn't functionally differ between the two styles, the second allows greater DM latitude in deciding what happens after the player's action ("situational" application of the appropriate skill). Had the player had their character snivel and beg, the DM would be fully justified in not even bothering to allow an Intimidation check (although some other skill might be appropriate).

I guess that the upshot of this rambling message was to note that, if I were currently GMing, I would have the die rolls dictate the effects of the application of social skills, but I would require that role-playing dictate when and which skills are being used in a given situation (if any).

Off soapbox now.

--Pazu