Role playing vs. skill checks

[Pagan priest]

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.

Aha! The DM needs an attitude adjustment. I recommend a 7/8 inch cresent wrench, applied frequently to the top of his head until the idea is properly imbedded.

What your DM is doing is only appropriate for a very few, very important NPC's. Most NPC's actually should have some degree of randomness, just to avoid having everybody in the world always reacting in the same way. Please note that PC actions (or words) should still have an effect. Even if the character has +20 diplomacy, telling the Baron to stuff it isn't going to get very far.

 

[Praeco]

Yaren't actually trying to hit each other with swords, are you? Why the double standard? It would seem to me the better approach is to allow the shy or less well-spoken individuals to get ranks in diplomacy, and have a high charisma and reap the benefits just as a thief with 18 DEX or a fighter with high Strength and Constitution reap the benefits of their numerical superiority in these attributes.

Sure, you can still roleplay the encounters, but expecting the less well spoken players to accurately demonstrate their character's charisma bonus is the same as expecting the thief to actually pick a lock IRL when they are presented with the challenge in game.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Re: Re: Role playing vs. skill checks

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

A combat-monster character would be virtually useless in this campaign. It just doesn't come up that often.

 

[Merlion]

He's saying that your campaign is the roleplay version of a super min/max combat monster game. Because seemingly in your campaign anyone who isnt quite as comfortable or talented a roleplayer as the DM is getting shafted.

 

[Quasqueton]

Imagine this:

Player A has a 9th-level paladin with 18 charisma and +18 on diplomacy.

Player B has a 9th-level druid with 12 charisma and +10 on diplomacy.

Party gets into a delicate and dangerous situation with suspicious and stern town guards (just one step above hostile) and angry and distrusting town leaders.

PC A tries repeatedly to calm the nerves and feelings of the town guard. He gets nothing but more antagonism. He tries to show respect to the town leaders. He gets nothing but strained politeness and house arrest. He gets fed up and stops talking.

PC B takes up the diplomacy with the town leaders. She gets great results. Town leaders like her.

No rolls were made. It all ran off the players' "role playing".

Player A is not a smooth-tongue devil in real life by any stretch of the imagination. But the DM specifically asked him to play a charismatic leader paladin for the party.

Player B is the DM's girlfriend.

Roll social skill checks, and role play out the results. It's only fair.

Quasqueton <- Player A

 

[Crothian]

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.

Well, here's how I do mystery games. First I have to figure out who kinows what. THen I have to figure out what they want to tell the players, and what the players can get out of them using good role playing. However, depending on the info it's doubtful they would ever spill the beans with everything they know except under torture or serious threat.

It sounds to me the DM thinks that somehow allowing the character to actually use their skills will destroy his game. So, he has straight jacketed you by role playing the NPCs to the best of his ability hoping he can out role play the players. Seems likes it almost PCs verse DM, or more to the point the players verse the guy on the other side of the screen.

 

[Zappo]

I dislike randomness dictating what my character does, but I can't ignore the "charismatic player vs. uncharismatic character" problem. So what we do is this: we roll, and roleplay the result out.

"I try to persuade the guard. Uhm... I rolled a 4. Ahem... So, uhm, you should let us pass, because we have, uhm, we are the advance troops of the previous town's garrison sent to your help, and... uhm, the name of the previous town? Eeerr..."

 

[Saeviomagy]

My suggestion would be to tell the DM that, unless he's going to make the social aspects of your characters mean something, then you're going to make the other aspects of your characters mean something.

Then proceed to just kill everyone you meet. Try to make sure the rest of the party is present, and involved to ensure a TPK.

Watch as the DM's girlfriend escapes unscathed.

Find a new game.

 

[Gothmog]

It does sound like the DM is being a little unfair, but I have to disagree when the assertion is made that just because a character has an 18 Charisma, that people like him/are positively disposed towards him immediately. Other people's reactions will depend heavily on how that character conducts himself. I have seen plenty of characters played that have 18 Cha, but the player is a jerk, and is a jerk to the NPCs. Little wonder that the NPCs don't react favorably to him.

My advice is to blend the RP aspects with the die roll. Role-play the conversation up to a critical point, then make a skill check. The DM can add modifiers for good or bad RPing, and let the roll determine the extent to which the NPC cooperates. Of course, important NPCs with very solid motives should be immune to this since they are integral to the story, but those NPCs shouldn't be all that common. Simply relying only on the roll for NPC interaction punishes those players who are good role-players as much as ignoring the roll completely punishes those who are poor role-players.

 

[Mercule]

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.

Sounds like your DM is covering up his weaknesses by slipping into "god mode". That's _not_ a sign of a good DM.

If the NPCs know something that the DM doesn't want you to know yet, then he should set up the NPC's abilities in such a way that the NPC isn't going to crack. Either that or have the NPC (legitimately) avoid being questioned. Maybe the roll shouldn't be PC A's diplomacy against NPC B's diplomacy, but PC A's diplomacy against BBEG C's intimidate.

Regardless, playing every goober you run into as a master of debate and evading questions is flat out _bad_ role-playing. Good RP involves acting _appropriately_ to the character in question.

If the character with the highest diplomacy, intimidate, gather info, or whatever skill may be in question does not perform consistantly better over the long haul (there will always be exceptions where the dwarf hates elves or whatever), then there is a flaw in what's going on.

As for how I handle it: I encourage the players to RP what their characters are saying. If the player controls the major points made. The skills control how well those points were made and how well they were received. Dice may not be rolled every time, but the numbers are always kept in mind. Basically, success and failure are determined by the character sheet. The best an exceptional roleplayer can hope for out of the deal is some extra XP.

Here's an example of why the numbers are important: My character is the son of a wealthy merchant. He's picked up some of the tricks of the trade, but is an inheritor, so hasn't paid too much attention. The bard in the group has a really high charisma and has maxed his diplomacy. I (the player) have had years of speak and debate training, easily more than everyone in my group combined. The fellow playing the bard is rather shy and unassuming. If the DM went by player skill, I would _always_ be the choice over the bard to talk with NPCs. That would rather destroy the concept of the bard and that would be rather unfair on the part of the DM.