Role playing vs. skill checks

[Saeviomagy]

Does anyone notice that half the DM's around (primarily those with a 'problem' with the social interaction rules) seem to think that a 'helpful' character (or even a charmed person) is a mind-controlled-zombie? Or that the average individual who falls for a bluff automatically does what the player wants - that "I'm actually a lamia polymorphed into a wizard, and we all know lamia's tell the truth, so I'm telling the truth when I say I'll give you the money back" and a successful bluff check results in the character handing over all their cash?

Realistically, even if you're GUARANTEED to get all your cash back, would you hand it all over to someone? I don't think anybody would. Maybe you'd make a small investment, but that's pretty much it.

Realistically, even if you're a villain shifted to 'helpful' status, that just means that when you obliterate the town, you might arrange to have the PC's be out of town. Hell, you may even lie to them to do it.

Add that to the fact that your average flunkey or villain will already have a 'helpful' status towards his boss, and you don't really have that much of a problem when it comes to intriguing plots.

Finally - shifting someone's attitude to 'helpful' is done AS WELL AS roleplaying. It's just that the attitude that the NPC takes while you roleplay is 'helpful'. You still ask the questions. You still try to wheedle your way into his confidence. You can still try to prove his boss doesn't care about him by using evidence and rumours you've collected. It's just that he doesn't start his side of the conversation with a broken bottle to your face.

Same with intimidate. Intimidate shifts the guy's attitude while you're around. It doesn't mean the guy breaks down and spills all - it just means that the info he gives you while you interrogate him is that bit more likely to be true. He'll still evade questions, he'll still have things he refuses to tell you. But when he does tell you things, he's not going to lie.

 

[papa_laz]

Realistically, even if you're GUARANTEED to get all your cash back, would you hand it all over to someone? I don't think anybody would. Maybe you'd make a small investment, but that's pretty much it.

What planet are you living on buddy? Loads of People in real life get ripped off by scam artists and cult leaders. There are a lot of idiots out there who will believe someone if they are convincing enough, and hand over everything in their bank account. It happens all the time.

I think its perfectly acceptable for a dull witted commoner to hand over all his money to a silver tongued bard who promises him a 300% return in only 5 days, if he gets a good enough roll of course.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

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.

The game I run uses mostly player interaction, with me keeping in mind the player's charisma score. Though, with my group it's pretty easy, we've got a bunch of tens and one 18. Needless to say, the guy with the 18 is the one who gets better reactions. Stuff like intimidate comes up when one of the players does something that's obviously a use of the skill. This far, I just use how well they roll their score as a modifier on how the NPC reacts to what they say. For the most part, everyone trusts me enough that this works. But if ever someone wanted to just "Use diplomacy to try to convince him" I'd give them a whirl at it. It's all about trying in my game.

Recently, one of my players, a NG cleric and member of the local peace keeping force tried to start up a conversation with a CN fellow who was suspected as a thief. It didn't go too well, but they had a great little dance around morals. Later the same thief was approached by the also CN sorcerer, and they saw much more eye to eye (though the free drink, and the ranks in Diplomacy helped out too). It just is sort of a mishmash of information that I try to make the best judgement out of when it comes up.

In the game I play, I'm rpetty sure the DM gives our arguements a -5 to +15 point spread on how well we influence the NPCs. From there, it's all rolling.

Anyway, if you're having trouble with being in the back, ask your DM for a hand. I'm sure he'd be glad to work with you on coming up and feeling a little more comfortable with the play style.

 

[Al]

What I tend to do is 'hidden' rolling.

For PCs, I let them RP it out, and then roll the relevant skill check behind the DM screen, adding appropriate modifiers. The NPCs in question react to the dice roll, not to the roleplaying of the character.

For NPCs, I roll the dice then roleplay it out.

I believe that the roll should dictate the outcome rather than the RP due to the nature of balance in the game. If one is a very strong roleplayer, and you could get by on that alone, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to take the social skills, and instead focus on spells, combat or utility. Conversely, if a shy player did take social skills then was overruled for being a 'poor roleplayer' he has effectively wasted those skill points. That's just not fair.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Yep. And someone with an 18 Str isn't immediately strong.

If you're trying to play a character, then you should be able to roll social skills and have them mean something. If you're playing yourself + magic or martial prowess, then don't worry about it.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm in the middle ground on this one. I've seen 'high charisma' players make tanks and still have the whole party defering to them and it bugs the hell out of me. I've also seen characters roleplayed as antagonistic, annoying and undependable, then whip out their cha stat and diplomacy bonus and claim everyone still has to like them.

My take is that Cha represents the strength of your personality. You can have a low cha Really Nice Guy(tm) who isn't noticed much but once people get to know him they will respond pretty positively, or a high cha Big Jerk(tm) who people always notice and often hate. But they hate her A LOT because she has a big forceful jerky personality. If the Really Nice Guy and Big Jerk are both roleplaying with the same npc, the npc will likely take away an impression based mostly on the one with more Cha. What that reaction is depends on the content of the roleplaying.

As for dimplomacy ranks, you have to at least say "I'm trying to be diplomatic" to use them. If you antagonize and provoke the king, you can't ward off his wrath by saying "but I have high diplomacy skill" anymore than you can try to break down a door then avoid the trap by saying "but I have disable device". At most, the DM should give (a limited number of) oppertunities to roll on the skill and say "you know thats not such a good idea, but if thats the way you want to do it..."

So I guess I come down on the "player determines tactics, character determines success" end of things.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Yep. And someone with an 18 Str isn't immediately strong.

If someone with an 18 str decides to knock down a bunch of masonry into a fight, will you have it only hit the people he wants because his stat is high enough to 'succeed'?

Yeah, a high cha is is like a high str - you can apply a lot of force. But the results are going to depend on how you apply the force. A high Cha character will always get noticed, remembered and reacted to... that doesn't mean the reactions will be possitive. (remember that intimidate is based on Cha.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[s/LaSH]

I'd say anything I could think of to say has been said, so I'll try to sum up:

The skills are there for a reason. Unless you've got serious house rules to tweak that area of a character down in usefulness, those skills (and CHA) will dictate how good your character can be at social interaction. On the flip side, they have to actively try to employ the skills, not just refer their skills and roll a d20. Finally, the skills aren't magic bullets, the DM can still keep a secret if s/he wants.

In my campaign, I enforced characters rolling even if they had great speechwriters and awesome messages. It adds character. I'd like to see a 5'6" teenage girl try to roleplay the voice of a grizzled mercenary gnoll warrior in a combat situation, I might add (something the Bluff skill did IMC, although the player male, I should add).

My opinion on DM fiat: The DM should take reasonable care in building up a scenario, such that players can't screw it over with one unanticipated action, or if they don't, they shouldn't be surprised when a PC jams a sword into the works and the whole plot comes to a shuddering halt. (Hey, I just realised something similar happened IMC, but it actually saved the player's lives. The sword broke, though.) That said, DM fiat should be used like chilli. Very few people like it in buckets (I'm one for chilli, but not DM fiat).

You can quote me on that.

 

[Yeoman]

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.

That's how any and all groups I've ever been in have played it. Penalizing players because they are not eloquent speakers or passionate debaters is just uncool IMO. But hey some people like that kind of game, but speaking as a shy person, I know I wouldn't put up with it. YMMV of course.

 

[Zander]

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.

You make a valid point and I agree with you to an extent, but if the player and the character are completely separate the player doesn't feel attached to the character. After all, if the character would react the same way regardless of the player, the player doesn't matter as much. If, for example, Morzane the Wizard would react in a certain way irrespective of whether Tom, Bill or Sarah is playing him, then it doesn't feel like Tom's character to Tom. If Morzane the Wizard fails his sense motive check but Tom knows something isn't right, Tom can't ignore the check result. Tom has to make Morzane do things Tom doesn't want Morzane to do. Is that fun for Tom? Is that good for the game?

When players don't feel attached to their characters, they lose interest and the campaign dies IME. This is a serious flaw of 3E and other RPG's that use skills to resolve situations and one I voiced on these boards before 3E was released.