Role playing vs. skill checks

[Wormwood]

Here's how I handle it:

1. All social situations are handled with Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. This handles *everything*, from buying magic items to interrogating captives.

2. I adhere *rigidly* to the NPC reaction table.

3. If a player wants to 'roleplay', they may get up to a +2 modifier on their roll. That's it.

There are no dump stats.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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..."

Ditto.

 

[Spatula]

Re: Re: Re: Role playing vs. skill checks

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

DocM's point is that you might as well make a character that has no social skills whatsoever and focus on something else, since it's the player's ability that matters, not the character's. Why put ranks in Diplomacy or Bluff, or a good score in Charisma, if you never roll checks?

I wouldn't go so far as to say your DM is a bad one, he's probably just used to games (like older versions of D&D, for example) where there were no social skills. The thing is, these skills aren't magic. You can seriously scare someone with Intimidate but you can't make the person tell you what you want to know all the time with it. You can't get a shadowy conspirator to spill his guts with a few good Diplomacy rolls. These skills simply modify how an NPC perceives the character - how the NPC plays out his or her attitude is up to the DM.

One potential problem is that a straight d20 roll can produce results which aren't very predictable, which may not fit with how the DM wants his NPCs to work. Try using the social skill checks with a 2d10 roll instead. This makes extreme results (2 or 20) much more rare; most rolls will be in the 8-13 range.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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.

How so. If the Dm doesn't want NPC X to crack from a simple diplomacy role give the NPC a good enough reason why he wouldn't. If NPC X is terrified of leader Y, he aint going to crack unless under torutre pretty much no matter what the role. DM says hmm +20 circumstance mod to the DC cause he's so scared of the leader.

Hmm +10 circumstance mod to DC because he's not a tard and wont incriminate himself that easily etc.

Or ehck heaven forbid your DM actually give the NPCs enough skill points where he can out talk you or resists your talking gambits. Wow you got a 35 on your diplomacy check, not bad still not good enough but not bad.

All he has to do is apply the right penalty to the roll or make the NPC bad ass enough in talking to appropriately reflect how difficult of a challenge he wants it to be.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking us to do for you. Since you're not the DM, any advice we give you on how to do this is a moot point. But, since you asked...

Personally, I wouldn't play in such a game. I really like mysteries, complex plots of intrigue and deception, etc. but I don't want to roleplay all of that. Not only do you have the problem well described here in which shy or non-eloquent players by default must play shy or non-eloquent characters (which is patently BS, in my book) but oddly enough, good arguers, schmoozers, and generally charismatic players are also shafted to a certain extent. One of the main reasons to have die rolls in the first place is because it adds tension and a sense of uncertainty to the game, which is vital to the game being fun. If you're DM is shortcutting around this, IMO, everyone gets screwed.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

What the DM is doing is a legitimate way of running a game. What I am wondering is why this DM bothers with mechanics or character sheets at all.

D&D (all editions) is the wrong game system for this campaign.


I agree with Henry's comment that immersive roleplaying can reach a point of "anti-roleplaying" if you are dealing with players who are not trained & talented actors.


MerakSpielman: 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.

Huh? I hardly see how a Bluff or Diplomacy should force out information from foes of appropriate level to challenge the PCs. If they are masters of intrigue, they have their own Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive skills to counter with.

 

[Psion]

How I reconcile:

The player is not the character, and I don't consider it fair that the player who ploughed points into diplomacy and bluff should be outshone in the social department by a character with 8 cha and no social skills. If the latter character is taking the social spotlight, then the player is guilty of bad roleplaying.

However, I do think that NPC reactions should logically correspond to PC actions. How to handle such situations is not difficult: use the skill checks, but apply DCs or modifiers according to the player's roleplaying effots. Sure, the player of the uncharismatic character may spew some nice sounding lines, but just imagine that as delivered by the character, the lines sound stilted or exaggarated or arrogant.

 

[MerricB]

I recently wrote an article that touched on this topic:
Player Knowledge vs. Character Knowledge

I personally feel that D&D is a game where a player's choices are important (particularly in combat), but their character's skills provide the modifier of how successful they are.

Your character's skills can be overriden by a really poor choice, (such as choosing to charge an ettin whilst your companions flee), likewise with roleplaying and puzzle-solving.

However, to insist that the player roleplay with no reference to their character's talents is something I don't support.

Cheers!

 

[Celebrim]

Role-play is what gets you the right to make a social skill check. You can't just say 'I make a intimidate check.', you have to at least say 'Give us the girl and no one gets hurt', and you preferably have to do it with emotion.

Then you can make a skill check. If you were exceptionally creative or uncreative, I'll apply a situational modifier.

And of course Rule 0 always applies. The DM _always_ has a choice in the matter. (If the PC's argue otherwise I'm going to start rolling intimidate and diplomacy checks on THEM and telling them they have no choice in the matter.) If something just seems too far fetched, it just doesn't happen.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yeah, but what the DM is forgetting is that this is no different than if it were a combat scenario - where you can just roll to-hit and damage rolls, and the DM has little choice but have his NPCs keel over and die and the characters would have treasure they were never supposed to have.

As others have said - the social skill issue is just like use of other skills and abilities. In combat, the player devises tactics, and the die rolls help determine how effective they are. In social scenes, the player chooses tactics, and the die roll helps determine how effective they are.

In either scenario, the DM is within his rights to give a bonus for clever ploys, quick thinking, and outright style.