Role playing vs. skill checks

[Stalker0]

One good way of mixing rp and stat rolls is to roleplay the result of the dice. If you roll well on diplomacy, you try to sound cool, if you roll like crap, your a stuttering idiot.

That said, roleplaying is the fun part of the social game, but the dice are what move it along. If a guy can't play very diplomatically even with great skill in it, you can't penalize him. Out of character, people can see how good everyone is at rping certain things, but in character it should be based on skill and dice.

 

[gambler1650]

This is somewhat related to the subject. I'm all for players RPing their conversations out, but a die roll should still be done for bluff, diplomacy, charisma checks. Maybe the argument is brilliant but the NPC has a nerve touched by the comparison the PC made, or feels the PC is being condescending or something. The DM should take 'wrong' results (brilliant argument, poor die roll) and modify the NPC to fit the result, as a side effect it'll make the NPC more real.

It comes down to me, the whole issue of player versus character. The character should be the primary part of the game, not the player. Another example of something I hate are the ImageQuest pictures in the Kingdoms of Kalamar "Lands of Mystery" module (along with hating the whole module for shoddy work). There are at least a handful with monsters or other hazards hidden in the picture. The DM is told to allow the characters to see the hidden things if their players do. Um... Anyone else see the multiple problems in allowing the players to do a "hunt for what doesn't belong here" rather than the characters having to make a spot check?

Robert Gamble

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

So on top of everything else your DM is a plot nazi.

 

[Umbran]

If Morzane the Wizard fails his sense motive check but Tom knows something isn't right, Tom can't ignore the check result.

Yes, he can. Tom and Morzane both have free will.

Let us remember that the Sense Motive skill is about information, not about how the character feels. If he makes the check, he gains information upon which he may base actions. If he fails the check, he gains no information. When you don't know anything, you have to guess. What Morzane guesses is entirely up to Tom.

 

[Arnwyn]

So on top of everything else your DM is a plot nazi.

Woo-hoo! The nazi reference! It's now official - this thread has outlived its usefulness.However, since the dead horse is there, I shall give it a good kick (because it's fun).

This is definitely a problem with social skill checks in a *roleplaying* game - you have both the player and character, and there can be differing expectations of results. The shy player will shout out "yes! I want to roll these checks!", while the charismatic player will groan "but I want to RP this out! This *is* an RP game after all - why should this dice determine what I want to say?".

Indeed, there are a lot of good posts above solving this problem. I particularly like the one that essentially said (paraphrased): the player makes the RP attempt, and then the dice dictate how well it was done to the NPC's perspective.

Our group forces the RP part, and then a roll is made. If the PC made a valiant RP attempt, we toss on a circumstance bonus (usually a small one). If the RP attempt was half-hearted or counter-productive, a circumstance penalty is applied. If no RP attempt is made, there is NO roll.

That way, we've combined both RPing aspects along with making the social skills (and social-related abilities like Wis and Cha) useful to the game.

 

[Petrosian]

When do i roleplay as opposed to die-roll-synopsis a dialog between player characters and NPCs?

I run a four person group and a seven person group. In both cases the short answer is i do whichever is the best thing to do for the game and enjoyment of the players.

The examples vary somewhat.

If its a one-on-one, where only 1 or maybe 2 PCs are involved, I am likely to run to synopsis mode. This is easpecially true if its going to be a long discussion. i just don't find it good to have the majority of the troupe waiting for longer than even 15 minutes at a time. (We use email and our own BBS a lot so we can ofyen resolve more personal and long roleplaying items there.) The seven person game is structured and plotted to arrange for more "team" events and slightly less personal issue events anyway.

Now, when we do sysnopsis or even roleplay, i actually use die rolls rarely, usually only if a player asks for one. i just compare the relevent stats... bluff +7 and diplomacy+4 against a guy with diplomacy+2 and sense motive +1 means a good advantage in the conversation for one side.

I let the stats/die-rolls set the stage and the roleplaying modify it as we go along.

So, yes indeed, a good roleplayer/conversationalist will get more than his stats indicate... at least a circumstantial modifier for good roleplaying, in much the same way that the good tactician often gets benefits from moving his figure there to flank or coming up with a good strategy.

Just because there is no "flanking" bonus for linguistic maneuvers expressed in the rules does not to me indicate that its wrong to recognize someone making solid or even ingenius decisions in their narrative as often as you see these reflected in good combat decisions made during play.

"I use the reductio argument style so as to flank his simile between my argument and Freyr's cunning juxtaposition so we each get +2 to our next round's diplomacy check."

"and don't forget the sneaky-pun bonus witicism, thats +3d6 at my level!"

 

[Arnwyn]

Just because there is no "flanking" bonus for linguistic maneuvers expressed in the rules does not to me indicate that its wrong to recognize someone making solid or even ingenius decisions in their narrative as often as you see these reflected in good combat decisions made during play.

Well said! Those are my thoughts put into words... fantastic.

Just as some players are good combat strategists and get circumstantial modifiers during combat, other players are good conversationalists, and can/should get circumstance modifiers during social intercourse due to their good roleplaying.

However, neither takes away the fact that there is a roll needed for success.

Again, well said, Petrosian.

 

[D'karr]

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.

The easy fix to this "mechanicswise" is to assign a high enough DC to specific pieces of information that NPCs have.

When the PC asks a question of the NPC and he has a convincing argument have the DM roll the dice. If the roll is good enough to get that information then he should give it out.

Mysteries and political intrigue campaigns can work well even when player's have high scores in the CHA based skills.

If a piece of information is so vital that the NPC will not divulge it except when under penalty of death assign it a high enough DC so that no matter what the roll the PCs won't get it unless they threaten to kill the NPC.

No player should be penalized because they are shy or not as articulate as another. Especially if their character is supposed to be much more articulate or personable than the player.

3e has a bunch of simple mechanics that work well to simulate combat as well as battles of wits or dimwits. Use them, they work. And in case of doubt the DM always has the opportunity to adjust rolls using situational modifiers.

 

[Psion]

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.

I disagree. I think you are slotting in the results of skill checks in the wrong place in your game if this is what you are doing.

AFAIAC, skills checks account for the differences between the knowledge and perceptions of the players and the characters. If I allow a sense motive check, that means I am allowing the character a chance to have me describe something about the situation that I would not allow otherwise. That does not prohibit the players from acting on the information that they DO have.

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.

The half of my post you didn't quote states why I do not agree that this is a problem. You CAN reach a happy middle ground between impact of roleplay and impact of character.