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

[PeelSeel2]

If the player is a good role-player, I let role-playing dominate with him/her, with minimal roll ("Ok, You succeed on a roll of 2-6 on d6.")

If the player is not a good role-player, I ask about their strategy of getting things done, then make a DC based off that so they may make a roll.

 

[S'mon]

Otherwise it breaks our sense of verisimilitude when someone makes a brilliantly impassioned plea and then rolls a 1. Giving a tiny bonus for some good role playing doesn't really help out there, and suddenly we have to come up with some off the wall reason why it didn't work out at all.

It only works IMO if you set a task to achieve, set a pass/fail DC, and simply treat any check result under the DC as failing to achieve the desired result. Rolling a 1 and getting 12 under the result should not be much different from rolling 12 and getting 1 under the result, both simply fail to achieve the desired goal. Likewise with rolls over the result - it's a success, whether 1 over or 12 over.

Edit: 3e moved towards open-ended check results, and 4e continued this trend, especially for Athletics - eg 'you jump 1' per point of the check result'. I find this is a very poor fit with the d20 system, which was designed originally to give binary pass/fail results for combat attacks and saving throws. A 19' linear random variation in how far a person jumps is clearly excessive IMO, especially at lower level where a STR 10 untrained level 1 PC is randomly jumping 1' to 20'!

 

[Dragonhelm]

I voted role-roll, but really it's more of a role-roll-role.

For example, let's say the party is trying to gain entrance into a town and the guard is in the way. So I let the players role-play it out, then do a roll. The roll may be modified by how they role-play. I won't penalize someone for not being charismatic, but I will give a bonus if someone excels in their role-play.

The role-play is then modified based on the roll. So "May we pass?" could turn into "Hey, oaf, move aside." I try to get the players involved in it, and this is the way I work it as a player.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Roll, then roleplay - and I give the PCs XP if they are pretty close to what they rolled.

This is also what I do when playing - roleplaying an awful diplomacy check can be a lot of fun. 'My morning is good to you, and I see that you are still as vapid as you are strong willed and tasty. You are still worth the pigs that your father has asked for your hand!' (Orcish ambassador, speaking to a woman promised in a diplomatic marriage. What he meant to say was 'I wish you good morning. You are ethereal of movement, yet strong willed and sweet natured. A prize worthy of the peace that we have made between our people'. He got a 1. Fortunately the player thought to make a sense motive check before she made her response. This was in Eberron, while uncouth the orcs were not evil.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Pentius]

I make the players explain to me what they're saying and what they're trying to accomplish, and I often goad them into an in-character delivery, then we roll. I give higher DCs for bad ideas(but not bad delivery).

 

[Hussar]

I prefer roll then roleplay, after all, that's in keeping with every other skill in the game. You don't get to climb that wall until after you roll, no matter what you the player say. And, it cuts down on the ret-conning where the player makes this great speech then totally blows the check.

However, what usually happens in play is that there will be several checks during a social interaction, so, there will often be roleplay before and after any given check.

I think a more interesting question might be, "How often is a social interaction determined in a single die roll?" Because if people often use multiple rolls, then some roleplay will inevitably have to come before some rolls.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Something different, a combination etc?

I had to go with this. I actually use all of the other above options, depending on which player is playing.

Some players want to roleplay and then roll.

Other players aren't going to be able to figure out what to say if their lives depended on it and they just roll. And so on.

That's just the way it is. I'd love to say I've GMed groups where all players were created equal, but I haven't.