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

[Flyspeck23]

"To the best of their abilities". That about sums it up. Let them roleplay, grant a bonus (or penalty), and let them roll.

While some people don't understand the "I'll just let them roll" (the one extreme) approach, I personaly don't like the "I won't let them roll" (the other extreme) method. It's like giving a player with a monk character a bonus to attack just because the player has got a black belt in karate.

Diceless roleplaying may suit you just fine, but why not go the whole way (no dice in combat either)? IMHO that would be a different game.

 

[Berandor]

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.

As one who voted (4), let me try to explain.

ETA: I agree with KahunaBurger (yes, that happens ), especially with

But when it comes time for conflict resolution - when I want something to happen which the DM is not going to make happen automatically, there needs to be a skill check involved.

I am very grateful for the expansion of skills in 3e. I tend to tell very role-playing oriented stories, and stories where skills are mostly more important than combat abilities, so a greater focus on these skills is appreciated.

Now, I think skills like diplomacy, bluff, sense motive etc. are very useful and simulate an important part of interaction. So I want these skills to be significant. If I include a lot of role-playing and interviewing NPCs, but don't use these skills, nobody would take them.
The skills also tell the player how good his character is in a certain area. A professional free-climber whose character can't climb won't volunteer to ascend the castle walls. The overweight couch-potato playing the rogue might.
So, if a player is oratorally gifted but plays a barbarian with Charisma 6 and Int 7, he better take cross-class ranks in social skills or shut up when talking to the king (unless he wants to embarass himself).

Playing out how and what a character says is a huge part of our game - in fact, we tend to play too much sometimes. Still, I base the reactions of NPCs on the skill checks of my players. And I expect the same in return. A character of mine once held a cool but very unusual monologue, speaking before an army of farmers and beggars before a fight. His pep talk consisted of "trust your hate, even if you must gut your friends". I spent about an hour and a half writing this speech beforehand, and it was very cool. But if I had rolled badly on my diplomacy roll, I would have accepted these people throwing eggs at me. Sometimes you just don't succeed, no matter how good you are. (Luckily, I rolled a 19 for a total of 35 and even got a small troop of dwarves embracing my philosophy )

Sometimes, I even roll beforehand and play out the result. Or, simply rolling might be a good way to cut to the chase when I notice the other players getting bored. But these examples are exceptions.

Just like a good or bad description of a combat action doesn't give a bonus or penalty to attack and damage rolls, a good idea or good role-playing doesn't change your roll. "It's all in the dice, baby." Otherwise, good players don't need skills - they get their bonuses by virtue of being good role-players.

That said, I also include "hooks" in my characterizations of important that the players can use to circumvent some skill checks. It's much like a puzzle or riddle that the players have to solve. If they're attentive, they might notice that the NPC is greedy, or frightful, or perhaps a little naîve and self-absorbed, and use it to their advantage.

So I chose option (4), because when choosing between these options, it comes the closest to my belief.

Again, we play a very role-playing oriented game. But role-playing, to us, is not a means to get skill bonuses, but the means to having fun at the table. It's why we come together every few weeks to play out fictionary scenarios, and adapt to the developments the dice dictate us. And when situations arise where cool role-playing and bad rolls conflict, we curse the dice and not the DM. Because we still experienced the cool role-playing, after all.

Perhaps this helps you understand where I come from, Mouseferatu.

Or not, because I rolled a 2 on my "internet diplomacy" check

Berandor

 

[Psion]

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.

Well, that's not the choice I choose (I'm a "roll with modifiers for roleplaying" kind of guy) but one time I do that is when I am not really interesting in resolving the situation "on screen." If I have minimal concern for the parley with a shopkeep or extended trade negotiations, and what I have in mind for the adventure has nothing to do with it, I am more than happy to get by with the roll of a dice and get on with the game.

 

[Aaron L]

I chose letter 3, but I don't "insist" that they roleplay it out, I let them if they want to, and sometimes may waive a roll if they roleplay it well enough.

 

[Nifft]

If they don't "roleplay" the scene, how can I know what the DC of the social check is?

Without RP:
PC: I try to convince the guard that I just need to see my friend for a minute.
DM: Okay, are you telling a convincing lie or a real whopper?
PC: Oh, a convincing lie!
DM: Okay, low DC. Go ahead and roll a Bluff check.


With RP:
PC: Ho, friend guard! I must beg of you a favor: my associate, whose trial is on the morrow, is recovering from the dreaded Black Plague. I understand it would be asking too much of you to risk your own life by administering it to him. I beg you let me treat him, so that his cough does not return -- as you know, any who are coughed on are endangered! Since I have the utmost respect for the King's lawmen, I beg you let me treat him and spare you hard-working guards from risking the horror of the Black Death!
DM: Nice, and you used the word "morrow".


-- N

 

[rpgHQ]

O didnt vote as I felt none of the options was close enough to what we do in my playgroups.

We use rolls and roleplay but the players dont do the rolling, always a secret roll by the GM. We roll for npc reaction, the npc gets rolls and opposing rolls. I base the conversation or actions of the NPC on those rolls, and during the conversation if its more than a sentance or two will make ongoing rolls for both the players and npc's. If the player happens to really be making a real effort, catches on to something the NPC is doing(I tend to describe amount/detail of body langauge, facial expression, where the NPC is looking, the manner of their speech and such based on the players rolls for innuendo, spot and such with bonuses for various knowledge skills and ranks if lanaguge skill), or maybe the player is just inspired that day, they dont get any bonuses to the rolls they get some bonus xp for the session. And of course rolls get fudged by me as needed to move the plot along, but its not the players bad or good role-play that effects the outcome, its a role-playing game, their suppose to be role-playing anyhow, they get extra xp for their effort or inspired role-playing, for role-playing their character, just because the player figures out something doesnt mean their character would, I love the players who have chars with low INT and/or WIS and you SEE they have caught on to something or know what to do but they have decided that their character wouldnt have caught on to something or known something and so they role-play accordingly, going with the flow, enjoying the role-play and letting the dice do their thing.

Depending on how bad/good the rolls are the conversation/situation being played out with the NPC might make it obvious they are succeeding or failing, or might not. They might think they bluffed, fast-talked, bribed themselves past a guard only to find themselves setup in an ambush a little bit later or hear an alarm going off a few seconds later. Maybe they think they have whiddled, bullied, cajoaled, or listened in unseen and gotten some bit of information needed from a smuggler or low-life type, only later to find out it was false information, or that they got reported, be it city watch, mob enforcers or whatnot.

The rolls are there because its a game, and the roleplay is there because thats what you do in this kind of game, but the rolls determine the tone and direction of role-play on my part as the GM acting as the NPCs. Bonus xp is what I reward the players for good role-play not mods to their rolls. I fudge rolls for or against the players as I need for the moving of the plot/storyline. Every GM fudges the rolls when needed to keep a players character alive if it is going to mess things up, we do it for various reasons all the time, fudging rolls.

By mmaking rolls all the time for 'social' skill checks and keeping them hidden from the players keeps them on their toes, and its up to me to role-play in a manner to reflect those rolls on the NPC side, allowing the players to role-play in their own manner. Fudging the die rolls would be along the lines of I want the players to think they have 'succeeded' in a situation though they havent, maybe they do succeed, but I want them to feel like they might have blown it. Or maybe its as simple as the players made some crappy rolls but I need them to 'survive' the situation. I might still use the rolls to determine the tone of the role-play for the encounter though.

My two cents worth, rambled as usual

 

[Heathen72]

Because it isn't always about the effort

It's funny that this should be posted as I have been having discussions with my G.M about how he moderates my character's abilities. I chose the third option, and here are a few reasons why it's important to me that a roll is made in my encounters...

I am playing a telepathist character - a sort of Psionic enchanter - and although he is only third level, he is kinda sick. I have managed, through careful choice of skills and feats (you know, min-maxing ) to boost his social skills to relatively ridiculous levels. His effective bluff and diplomacy scores are 12 and 16 respectively.) However, in doing so I have paid the price - I am very combat weak, so it is very important to me that my investment in social skills is recognized, because I am not nearly as magnetically charismatic as my character is.

Now, of course I am going to roleplay my guts out - that's the fun of playing such a character - and sure, it would be nice if my roleplaying earnt me a little bonus to my roll - but I don't expect it any more than I would if I was roleplaying well in a combat situation. If the GM grants me a bonus, great. If not, fair enough. (That said, if you are giving characters mods to their rolls in social situations - based on roleplaying - you better make sure you are doing so the same thing in battle. Otherwise it is unfair for combat based characters. Yes?)

For me a skill roll reflects the vagaries of social interaction in the same way an attack roll reflects the uncertainties of combat. Interaction isn't always about "effort." Sometimes it isn't even about what you say. Sometimes it just comes down to whether someone likes you or not, or even simply how lucky you are - sometimes you are telling a joke to a person whose cat has just died. Unseen elements like these are represented in the roll.

Socially, my character leads a charmed life - As a player, I can really put my foot in it, yet my character can still manage to come up smelling like roses. People are just drawn to him - they just like him. (that's what's having an 18 charisma and a 16 diplomacy is all about! ) But it doesn't always go to plan. Let's say I am having a tense discussion with the Chief of Police (maybe I'm am trying to get my friends out of gaol.) I'm role playing my guts out (loads of effort - no doubt about it) but I inadvertantly insult him (how was I to know the ugly woman in in the waiting room was his wife?). The G.M smiles, and asks for a skill roll. Here's how a die-roll could add to the drama of the game...

MY SKILL ROLL
Natural 1 - The Chief turns beetroot red and throws me in gaol with my friends.
Low to mid-range roll - I've clearly stepped in it - The Chief has me thrown me out of his office onto the (probably very muddy) street. The street is very muddy.
High roll - The Chief stops for a moment, then shakes his head, - "You cheeky devil." He pauses a moment, then sighs. "Alright, I'll release them into your custody, but if anything happens, I'll hold you responsible"
Natural 20! - goes something like this...
"Who is that fat noisy old bag!"
"That's my wife!"
"Oh, I'm sorry..."
"You're sorry! How do you think I feel?" etc...

If you want to do it a different way, why not make the skill roll for the character before the conversation (or argument or seduction etc) This can determine whether or not the P.C is likely to succeed. Then just roleplay the encounter accordingly. If you roll high, be won over by the P.C.'s Earnest Warmth. If you roll low, play hard ball (or play it nice until the point where you decide he's 'put his foot in it'! ) If you roll close to the DC you have chosen, see if the P.C's roleplaying gets him over the edge...

 

[Ferret]

I role then role play. Sometimes it's done the other way round, but not very often because it's mean to judge the character not the player. But what also happens is I don't prompt the players for a Sense motive, they have to figure that one, and if they fail they might get the wrong idea. This opens up a whole new kettle of worms.

 

[KidCthulhu]

I'm for a modified "3". I want to encourage my players to act out the interaction, because it's more fun. That simple. Even if the player isn't a good liar, it's more fun than "I roll a bluff check. I make it."

 

[Aaron L]

Everytime I read "Cthulhu Toboggan!" I giggle for a good half hour, thank you