Role playing vs. skill checks

[Emerald]

How does your game reconcile role playing vs. skill checks?

In that, the game I play in is very very VERY role play heavy, we role play every conversation with every NPC and as such we almost never roll skill checks for Bluff, Intemidate, or Diplomacy. Therefore, if we as players can not role play the exchange we do not get to have the information we might have found out. Because of this there are at least 2 members (me included) of the group that never lead conversations because we do not feel comfortable doing so, can not think that fast on our feet, etc even though our characters would because we do not get to explain what we are trying to get across and then role to see if we succeed we actually have to figure out the exact words out character would use.

 

[Merlion]

in the campaigns I have been in, we used a mix of both. We'd roleplay the conversation but often roll a skill check as well. especialy in situations whhere a character was trying to persaude an NPC in some way. The DM would decide based on I think a combination of the result of the skill check, and the roleplaying of the character, how the NPC reacted.
Personaly, I love the skill system for social skills. you can take them or leave them as works for you. I think it helps those players such as you describe...who arent good at coming up with persuasive speechs on the spot etc and especialy new players who arent yet comfortable enough with role playing to really realisticaly get into it.
If I was you I would roleplay such situations as best you or the other players can, make a skill check, and where I the DM base the NPC reaction mainly off the check result and wether I thought you were really trying to roleplay and staying in your characters nature. everyone roleplays differently and I think those skills allow players to play any sort of character without getting to penalized by their RP styles or limitations.

 

[Drakron]

Depends ... something sould not suffer a roll, after all if the players know exactly what to say why sould rolling be involved ?

Of course in some situations rolling must be involved, bluff is a good example that of a PC-NPC interaction involving since there always the chance that the NPC or PC will call the bluff.

 

[Crothian]

For me there are three types of situations each has a different answer to this.

1) For non importanting NPCs, or when the role playing isn't needed or wanted. I go by the roll of the skill and we move on.

2) Most of the encounters that involve role playing I'l;l also have skill checks and then have the NPC refelct the conversation as well as the die roll. This helps when a player might not be as charismatic as his character and needs the roll result to help out, or when the character is not charismatic at all yet the player is playing the character as if he was.

3) For those rare occasions when the role playing is the only important thing, I'll do it with no skill check. This is when I expect the players to rely on their own abilities and not the numbers on the sheet.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I play in the same game as Emerald and I think I can clarify her problem.

The game is VERY RP-heavy. We've gone through multiple sessions in a row with no combat. Each character has levels of secrets that are kept from the other characters. It is an evil-heavy party.

The NPCs are brutal. The DM is brilliant with his portrayals of them, but he can personally out-argue most of the players IRL.

We never roll diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate checks. It's all done in-character. Occasionally we roll Sense Motive ("Do I think he's telling the truth?").

Several poor arguers/shy people at the table are getting slowly fed up with their characters being generally disliked by all NPCs, despite their character's CHA score or ranks in diplomacy.

The DM doesn't like random die rolls changing the outlook of his NPCs any more than the PCs would like die rolls changing their attitude toward each other.

 

[Crothian]

The DM doesn't like random die rolls changing the outlook of his NPCs any more than the PCs would like die rolls changing their attitude toward each other.

There's the problem. The NPCs attutudes should be changed by the die rolls, that's why the character have these skills and the charisma attribute.

 

[Henry]

...The game is VERY RP-heavy. We've gone through multiple sessions in a row with no combat. Each character has levels of secrets that are kept from the other characters. It is an evil-heavy party.

...Several poor arguers/shy people at the table are getting slowly fed up with their characters being generally disliked by all NPCs, despite their character's CHA score or ranks in diplomacy.

The DM doesn't like random die rolls changing the outlook of his NPCs any more than the PCs would like die rolls changing their attitude toward each other.

I believe that there can be such a thing as gaming that is SO role-play heavy as to be "anti-roleplay."

By this, I mean exactly what your shy roleplayers are finding out. Part of the roleplay experience is being something and someone that you cannot possibly be in real life. Part of roleplay is the pleasure of telling the story, but the other part is "wish fulfillment," and experimenting with solutions that have no place in a non-heroic campaign.

Every group has a right to play the way it thinks best, but I also have to advise players not to stay with a group if they are unhappy and do not have fun playing. If they are TRULY unhappy, they need to either work something out with the DM and the other players, or find a palce where they are happy.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

How does your game reconcile role playing vs. skill checks?

In that, the game I play in is very very VERY role play heavy, we role play every conversation with every NPC and as such we almost never roll skill checks for Bluff, Intemidate, or Diplomacy. Therefore, if we as players can not role play the exchange we do not get to have the information we might have found out. Because of this there are at least 2 members (me included) of the group that never lead conversations because we do not feel comfortable doing so, can not think that fast on our feet, etc even though our characters would because we do not get to explain what we are trying to get across and then role to see if we succeed we actually have to figure out the exact words out character would use.

Big mistake, everyone might as well create pure combat monster characters and never both with any other skills or abilities besides Spot and Listen.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Crothian: Ah, but the NPCs are all cogs in a complex web of political intregue, the penetration of which is the primary plot of the campaign. If we could just roll bluff and diplomacy checks, the DM would have little choice but to fork over information that our characters were never supposed to have.

There are a lot of mystery elements in the game, too. He's had to nerf a few divinations that should have worked because they would have ruined a carefully-crafted plot.

 

[Merlion]

The DM doesn't like random die rolls changing the outlook of his NPCs any more than the PCs would like die rolls changing their attitude toward each other.

This to me is a situation where the DM has to use those roleplaying skills you mentioned, to roleplay the NPCs reactions based largely on the result of the check. Not neccsarily entirly...but as Crothian said some stock should be given then or it makes them and unless your a sorcerer or bard the Charisma atribute, pretty much useless. I would say if the DM has such issues with thease skills he should simply remove them from the campaign(although I dont see why anyone would)