Social skills in D&D: checks or role-playing?

[Mouseferatu]

Confession time.

I rarely roll, or have my players roll, social skills (such as Bluff or Diplomacy) during play. I dislike the notion of letting the dice decide how a character acts, be that character a PC or an NPC. To my mind, that defeats the whole point of roleplaying.

"But Ari," you ask, "what if someone's playing a character who's more or less Charismatic, or a better or worse liar, than the player is in real life?"

Glad you asked.

I feel that, as the DM, part of my job is to interpret the effort the player puts into his roleplaying, rather than the success. In other words, if one of my players is very clearly doing his best to come up with a believable story, and his character has an 18 Charisma, I'll probably go ahead and let it work, based on the personality of the NPC to whom he's lying.

Now don't get me wrong, I do roll social skills sometimes, but only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. And I still require the player make a real effort at roleplaying the scene. Nobody is allowed to say "I go to the guard and try to trick him into letting me pass. Is an 18 high enough?" They're darn well going to play out the scene, and then roll--unless I feel they did a bang-up job, in which case I may allow them to succeed with no roll.

I realize not everyone agrees with this approach. But I truly feel that rolling social skills--or at least rolling them without first fully playing out the scene as though no roll was involved--removes an enormous amount of the "RP" from RPGs.

Hence, the poll. And please, if you would, why did you select the answer you did?

 

[Bulak]

Hence, the poll. And please, if you would, why did you select the answer you did?

I selected Rarely. I use the social skills the same way you do.
Why? Because it's a Role Playing game.

 

[Etan Moonstar]

Actually, none of your choices fit my own take on the situation (I voted for the option closest to my own approach). I find it's more of a roleplaying challenge (and makes for a more balanced game) to roll the social skill check first, and then fully roleplay out the result (be it good or bad). I'm having much more fun in my current game where the party needs to quickly work around the consistently lousy social rolls of my 6 Charisma halfling pirate than I did in another game that didn't use social skills rolls, where my 8 Charisma ex-Whitecloak wolfbrother (Wheel of Time rpg) routinely suceeded in bluffing his way through every situation that came up just because I, as a player, can come up with good, plausible stories on the fly. If the football player in our group has to roll first and then determine whether or not his fighter hits or misses (and the game is then roleplayed out accordingly), I just don't think the game is fair unless more glib players like myself also have to roll first and then determine whether or not our rogues come up with something believable (and then roleplay out the situation accordingly). Granted, I do approach D&D from a gamist perspective (although every single one of my games is very rp-intensive)--if you approach D&D from another perspective, YMMV.

 

[Wormwood]

Why? Because it's a Role Playing game.

...and as a Game, I like to keep the playing field as level as possible.

If someone roleplays well, they may get a bonus on their skill check---but there will *always* be a skill check.

*shrug* If a genius plays a character with a 6 INT, the character is still stupid. If a bodybuilder plays a character with a 6 STR, the character is still weak. If a professional actor plays a character with a 6 CHA, the character is still repellent.

Should a PC recieve 'virtual' ranks in social skills because a player happens to be glib or entertaining?

edit: Corinth says it better than I did. Check it out below:

 

[Corinth]

It's a game first, last and foremost. Hence those social skills get used early, often and repeatedly. The dice do the determination; the players portray the results.

 

[d4]

i use the results of social skills to determine the results, much as Etan describes.

it's a game, not improvisational theatre.

i don't give the really strong player bonuses on his character's Strength checks, so i don't see why i should give the really charismatic player bonuses on his character's social skills.

 

[Mouseferatu]

i don't give the really strong player bonuses on his character's Strength checks, so i don't see why i should give the really charismatic player bonuses on his character's social skills.

I agree. That's why I said I give bonuses based on effort, not on success. If the player tries to roleplay, that's good enough for me, so long as he tries.

The idea of rolling first and playing out the result is interesting. I'm not sure it's for my group, but it's a cool idea.

What I still don't get, though, are those who roll without any roleplaying at all. I'm not trying to put down the way they play; I just don't understand the point of a roleplaying game without roleplaying.

 

[Umbran]

I chose the "I roll skill checks, but I want to role play through the scene and grant bonuses and penalties" option.

When a player comes up with good combat tactics, they wind up doing better on the battlefield. But the stats and die rolls still have effects. Good tactics are not everything. Same with social situations. Role-playing a good strategem helps, but the stats and die are still important.

Exactly how you gauge your modifiers - based upon absolute performance or upon relative effort is up to you. But basing it solely upon the player's performance isn't really fair, IMHO.

Also, consider this - you can do without the die roll and still take the stats and player performance into account. Imagine that all social skill checks are done "taking 10". Now add the stat, skill, and player performance bonuses. Voila - social scenes that take everything but random chance into account.

 

[Wombat]

Rolls are important. So are roles.

In the end, I don't penalize someone for a poor performance, unless they are grossly insulting. OTOH, I give a bonus for a good performance. This is known and makes the group rather competative. Of course, the whole group are hams, so it works well.

Rolls are important, in that I don't demand people act out combat, but just as I give bonuses for being clever in combat, so too I give bonuses for being clever in social situations.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...I truly feel that rolling social skills--or at least rolling them without first fully playing out the scene as though no roll was involved--removes an enormous amount of the "RP" from RPGs...

I pretty much agree with you and took option 3, but the fact of the matter is, I am blessed with decent roleplayers.

I would be hard pressed in a sitauation where I didn't have such good RP'ers to make them RP everything. I mean it would be painful for me, painful for them...just a no-win situation.

If someone really wanted to just roll, and forgoe the possibility of getting a +2 circumstance mod that I might award fro good RP, I would let them. D&D has meticulous mechanics for simulating physical actions, but not social ones (i.e. there are "hit points" that an enemy can whittle away with battle, but no "Conviction Points" that they can deplete with argument, for example).

Anyway, I won't penalize a guy who is not personally persuasive in real life (but wants to play a charming, dilplomatic character) and more than I would penalize a guy who wa a total feeb in real life (but wanted to play an ass-kicker)