Role-roll, roll-role, just role, just roll, please read the poll.

[Mort]

Reading this thread got me thinking; in a social situation when dealing with an NPC do you have your players:

Roleplay the conversation then roll the diplomacy/bluff/intimidate etc.;

Roll the check then roleplay accordingly;

Just role-play the situation without rolling any dice;

Just roll the checks and leave the roleplaying at the door;

Something different, a combination etc?

 

[El Mahdi]

Roleplay first, then roll the check. I let the player describe what they are doing and how they are doing it, and even act it out a bit if they are up to it....then roll for the check. I don't penalize skill checks for bad roleplaying, but if someone does a bang-up job of roleplaying what they want to do, I'll add a situational bonus based on their effort.

 

[kitsune9]

I let my players role-play first and if they make a good argument, I'll give them a bonus to their Diplomacy check, etc. If not, they still just get a straight-up roll to see if they succeed.

 

[was]

roleplay then roll

 

[OnlineDM]

Social situations are role-playing situations at my table. If things get to the point that the players are trying something that might fail (persuading someone, lying to someone, trying to figure out if someone is lying to them, etc.) then I'll ask for a die roll after they describe what they're doing.

So, roleplay, then roll. And lots of social situations involve no rolling, of course. If it's just a friendly conversation with an ally or something like that, there's no need for dice.

 

[Mort]

As I expected, the first option is strongly dominating the results.

In my own game, I actually often have the player roll the check first. This allowes the roleplay heavy players (we have 1-2 (one depending on mood)) to really get into the conversation speach etc. and also to modulate their roleplaying through the character. The other players roll and then decide how much roleplaying they wish to put in - I will tell them that the result of the die can be changed by +2 or so for a convincing speach, reason etc.

I can see how this wouldn't work for a lot of groups (and honestly often the player launches into a speach then rolls, most of my players have been gaming a long time and are conditioned, - which I don't penalize in the least) but we seem to like it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have them role play it out if they wish then roll. I give circumstance bonuses for well played out speeches or bluffs.

It is not perfect because there are times that someone will do a great speech and then roll really crappy. But it seems the best comprise. It rewards good role playing while also allowing players who are really good at diplomacy or bluff to play a more charismatic character.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't know which option to pick.

I've been conflicted about social encounters for a while, and recently I tested a set of strategic social combat rules with my group. I thought it would generate tension and interest for my tactically-minded players, but they didn't like it.

So my new attitude is "Screw social checks for most situations, because they're lame and binary." Circumstances are usually enough to dictate a resolution. For example, the PCs usually won't need a check to intimidate a captured orc. He just saw the PCs hack half a dozen of his comrades to death; he's already intimidated!

Meanwhile, trying to intimidate the king in his castle won't work no matter how well you roleplay or how high your bonus is. If the PCs have enough leverage to intimidate the king, it's because I gave it to them and I want him to be intimidated. Role play may play a minor role, but no checks necessary.

PCs can roll for trivial situations, like charming barmaids and whatnot.

 

[The Shaman]

Most in-character interaction doesn't require a die roll, but when it does, the die roll comes at the crux of the argument, the point at which a decision is called for.

I think this poll would work better if it was multiple choice.

 

[Gilladian]

In general, I like social situations, like combat, to be influenced by more than one roll, and by more than 1 PC. What I like to do is have the PCs enter into a situation - for example, they decide that they need to convince the guard on the castle gate to let them in without the proper authorizations.

I have the main PC roll to see what sort of initial impression he makes. For example, he might roll a 17 (+5 for his skill) on diplomacy as he approaches. Thus, he notices the guard is smaller than average, has thick-soled boots on, and stands very tall as the barbarian PC approaches. Plainly, I say, he doesn't appreciate feeling short. Thus, the Barbarian slouches a little, and makes a point of speaking in a way that shows respect for the guard's authority. The PC either roleplays or tells me (whichever HE prefers) what he says, and I roll for the guard's response. He rolls very low on his spot roll, and high on his attitude roll, so he fails to observe any flaws in the barbarian's story, and laps up the "I'm a big guy" vibe he's getting. However, he does have a job to do, so he speaks to each of the PCs in turn, checking for their reliability. Each other PC then responds, with a bluff or diplomacy roll, whichever they prefer (either to hide their attitude, or to blend in inconspicuously).

Because of the high roll of the barbarian earlier, I give an easy roll (perhaps a DC 10) on this roll to the rest of the PCs. The guard is relaxed and inclined to let them in. Had the earlier roll been bad, and the barbarian made the guard uncomfortable and prone to take insult, the DC might be a 15 or even higher...

In situations like this, good roleplay is PLAYING out what the dice and the character's skills have already predicated. Sometimes it's more fun figuring out WHAT the stupid dwarf cleric managed to say that caused the guard to spit in his face and try to arrest him on the spot...Bad roleplay just means taking the dice at face value and not trying to "work out the scene". Nobody is penalized, they just don't have as much fun.