Role playing and social skills

[Zappo]

Pazu's idea is a good one too. Instead of saying "I use Intimidate", I say "I draw my sword, point it at his throat, and threathen him of killing him unless he lets me pass now".

What I'd do instead is
"I use Intimidate"
"Ok, roll"
"Uhm... 2. I glare at him, suddenly and menacingly point a finger at him, and then find out that I've got nothing witty to say""He grins and attacks..."

 

[Ravellion]

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.)

With this style, I know DM's who also wouldn't take tehe climbing example as it is there. They want to know HOW you climb that wall... does your friend give you a boost, do you secure yourself, do you take yout time (easier, but might suffer from muscle fatigue)... I don't however...

Rav

 

[Pazu]

Pazu's idea is a good one too. Instead of saying "I use Intimidate", I say "I draw my sword, point it at his throat, and threathen him of killing him unless he lets me pass now".

What I'd do instead is
"I use Intimidate"
"Ok, roll"
"Uhm... 2. I glare at him, suddenly and menacingly point a finger at him, and then find out that I've got nothing witty to say""He grins and attacks..."

I think that's a great way to handle it!

The interesting thing is, depending on which way you work the skill check, the in-game results are slightly different. In your example (expanded below for elaboration purposes):

Player: "I use Intimidate."
DM: "Ok, roll."
Player: "Uhm... 2. I assume that fails, right?"
DM: "You bet."
Player: "I glare at him, suddenly and menacingly point a finger at him, and then find out that I've got nothing witty to say."

Here, the player creates an in-game explanation for why his attempt at intimidation failed, based upon knowing what the result of his skill check is. He just failed to behave in an intimidating fashion.

In contrast, consider an alternative:

Player: "I whip out my sword, point it at his throat, and threaten to kill him if he doesn't let me pass."
DM: "Ok, make an Intimidate check."
Player: "Uhm... 10."

In this case, the player has described an action that, on the face of it, ought to be reasonably intimidating to most folks. Integrating the result of the Intimidate check into the flow of the game now falls to the DM, rather than the player, based on what the DM has established the DC to be.

DM: (Having decided that the DC is 15). "He laughs and bats your blade aside with his gauntlet, saying 'I eat tougher things than you for breakfast.'"

So, in the second case, it falls to the DM to decide why an apparently-credible threat fails to be intimidating, whereas, in the first example, it's up to the player to come up with an action that represents a failed intimidation attempt.

I imagine that most groups probably run a combination of the two situations above.

-- Pazu

 

[Pazu]

With this style, I know DM's who also wouldn't take tehe climbing example as it is there. They want to know HOW you climb that wall... does your friend give you a boost, do you secure yourself, do you take yout time (easier, but might suffer from muscle fatigue)... I don't however...

Rav

Oh, absolutely...I'd figure that a few of those details ought to be good for a few points' worth of lower DC...

But, I figure, whereas the level of detail possible in describing the use of technical skills depends upon the knowledge and experience of the player and/or DM in the area in question, the use of social skills doesn't require too much more than...well, basic social skills on the part of the player or DM.

I mean, if I were playing in a game run by a DM who was an avid rock-climber, I probably couldn't describe my ascent of the wall in nearly as capable a fashion as she could. On the other hand, if I were to use the Heal skill, I could introduce a lot of detail that she wouldn't be able to incorporate into the game meaningfully.

We all have to set our limits somewhere, I suppose.

--Pazu

 

[Victim]

Yes, basic social skills ocver everything. Except that basic social skills are, game mechanically, probably in the -1 to +2 range. Some people will have more because they focus on social matters more. However, how does a person with those average social skills roleplay a master diplomat or negociator, with over +10 to skill checks?

 

[Pazu]

Yes, basic social skills ocver everything. Except that basic social skills are, game mechanically, probably in the -1 to +2 range. Some people will have more because they focus on social matters more. However, how does a person with those average social skills roleplay a master diplomat or negociator, with over +10 to skill checks?

Well, with a lot of assistance, I suppose.

Seriously, it really depends on your group dynamic, I think. If I were DMing, I'd probably let a lot slide past if I thought the player was really trying, even if he had to go out of character to do it: "My character tries to ask how the guard's day has been, in order to put him at ease." Maybe I'm wrong, but I figure that most people know simple social rules like "catching more flies with honey than with vinegar", even if they're not good at putting them into practice themselves.

On the other hand, if the player of the "dashing, suave bard" with the +10 Diplomacy checks continuously abuses and threatens the locals under the guise of "Diplomacy" over the long term, I might have to take that player aside later and suggest that they might want to try a different character type, since they really don't seem to want to make the effort to play the one they've got.

In the end, as I myself am neither particularly eloquent nor gifted in extemporaneous speech, I'd be inclined to make a lot of allowances for folks who are giving it their best shot (even if their best shot isn't all that impressive). And heck, if they manage to pull off a good one once in a while, they can have a +2 circumstance bonus!

-- Pazu

 

[Agnostic Paladin]

Pretty much straight rolls. The mechanics are there, I'm going to use them. I might be willing to give a good bit of roleplaying a +2 modifier to encourage roleplaying (but never a penalty - not everyone's really all that good at - or interested in - roleplaying) More than that blurs the lines between the player and the character, which defeats the purpose of roleplaying in the first place - pretending to be someone else, often someone completely different. Socially adept players shouldn't be able to charm the pants off the locals with a 6 charisma character, and introverts shouldn't be unable to make use of their character's +10 Diplomacy.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For me, I figure that everyone is in their little bubble and think that they are fairly competent at everday conversation and socialization. And when not asking others to do something or trying to find out something secret, that's fine.

When needing to do something that requires game mechanics though, the dice gotta roll. If not, there is aboslutely no point in having any charisma related skills like intimidate, bluff or gather information or even the charisma stat as it's going to be based all on the player.

Players should be able to come up with some good ideas and think about what they want to say in order to prove a point or get some information but if the dice are meaningless, then so are the skills attached to 'em.

Most of my players did the stat dump into charisma and so now, one of the players has decided that he's mister smooth but with low scores in all charisma based checks, is finding many of the doors he thought his awesome 10 charisma would get him into, are closed. The best part though is watching the fumbles. It's like the guy is cursed. Talk to a baron? Yup, roll that 1. Talk to a barbarian chief with promises of gold and loot for plunder? Yup, insult his daughter as you roll that 1 again. Good stuff.

 

[hong]

Cha 18: you resurrect a dead thread and everybody goes "wow, cool! Lots of hidden gems of wisdom here! Thanks heaps, thread resurrecter!"

Cha 3: you resurrect a dead thread and everybody goes "for freck's sake, stop with the digging up of zombies already, freckin' thread necromancer!"

 

[nopantsyet]

I voted "I use the social skills and give a bonus for good role-playing," since I don't want to devalue roleplaying or the skills.