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

[Berandor]

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

I'd think about how difficult it is to succeed. In your example, I'd consider who the guards would let pass, and why. Does it have to be a member of the royal family, or can every simple fellow walk through as long as he's got a reason? Do they expect visitors, or not? And so on.
That sets the difficulty. Also, I'd need to know whether the player wants to bluff, negotiate or intimidate his way into the cell, of course.

Berandor

 

[woodelf]

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.

[wearing my devil's advocate hat--or should that be a mask?]
So, are your players allowed to say "I attack the guard. Is an 18 high enough?", or must they say something like "I feint to the left, then, when he's off-balance, make a quick jab at his right, while blocking any attack he makes with my shield"? If someone comes up with a stunningly cool combat maneuver, do they succeed without a roll? How well do they succeed? Can they get crits without rolling, this way? In fact, in general, how do you rate degree of success when you don't roll?

If you don't demand RPing for all elements of the game, why is a different balance of RP vs. rules applied to some elements of the game than to others? Why not demand RPing of everything, in addition to or instead of rolling?

 

[tolliver]

I selected the last one, the one that says something about not forcing the players to roleplay.

I picked this one because while I as a DM prefer that my players roleplayed situations, they shouldn't be forced to. I understand that it's a ROLE PLAYING game, but simply put some people are more entertaining in-character and some would be better off looking up rules, moving the miniatures, coming up with strategies, or whatever nuance or intricacy drew them to the game in the first place.

If someone does a great job roleplaying then heck yes I give them a +2 or +4 bonus or whatever but as far as forcing players to roleplay... nah. If a rogue wants to Bluff his way past a gaurd in my game, there's a couple options. The player can either just say "I try to Bluff my way past the gaurd. I roll a 14." and I'll just roll the gaurd's Sense Motive (factoring in the modifiers listed under the Bluff skill) or he can come up with some kind of elaborate in-game ruse involving props, other characters and the like in which case he gets a hefty bonus.

It's up to the player, basically. If the player'd have more fun just rolling, fine. If he'd rather go for a roleplaying experience then that's fine too... whatever'd be more fun for the player. I'm not going to sit behind my DMs screen and force the PCs to roleplay every exchange even if the players aren't feeling it or are incapable or just plain too amped for the next encounter to screw around with the current one.

 

[Mistwell]

What I don't get is those DMs who base the check on the role playing ability and/or effort of the player, but don't make this VERY clear to the player's prior to their deciding on a character type and assigning skill points. Some classes are BUILT on the concept of having a high diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate score, and if the results are heavily dependant on their personal ability to role play, it may drastically change their character decisions.

Personally, I think it is highly cheezy to bias the result based on the acting and improvisational abilities of the player, rather than the character. Do you require your player to be able to cast a spell in real life to cast one in the game? Do they have to have excellent knowledge of anatomy, a strong arm, or a skilled eye, in real life to strike with their weapon in the game? In my opinion, FAR too often the DM biases against people with poor acting or improvisational skills in real life, but does not bias against physical attributes of that person. A fat clumsy guy with glasses will blow through his opponents with his sword and/or bow just as well as the guy who, in real life, is muscled and dexterous and has a degree in Anatomy and a black-belt in martial arts. But the guy who is the lead actor in plays at his university, or skilled at improv, will be given a significant advantage in your games when it comes to diplomacy or bluff, over the guy who doesn't require the use of such skills in his daily life. That is, in my opinion, wrong. The rules for hitting someone with a sword are essentially the same as the rules for changing an NPC's attitude - roll a d20, apply your modifier, and compare it to a DC or AC, or an opposed role. You may ask the guy with the sword to describe how he is swinging his sword, just as you may ask the guy how he is persuading the guard, but both are just colorful and fun, and not influential on the dice.

 

[Philip]

[wearing my devil's advocate hat--or should that be a mask?]
So, are your players allowed to say "I attack the guard. Is an 18 high enough?", or must they say something like "I feint to the left, then, when he's off-balance, make a quick jab at his right, while blocking any attack he makes with my shield"? If someone comes up with a stunningly cool combat maneuver, do they succeed without a roll? How well do they succeed? Can they get crits without rolling, this way? In fact, in general, how do you rate degree of success when you don't roll?

If you don't demand RPing for all elements of the game, why is a different balance of RP vs. rules applied to some elements of the game than to others? Why not demand RPing of everything, in addition to or instead of rolling?

Woodelf, I think you are reversing the problem.

The rules (and the dice) in the game are IMO used for one thing only, resolution of conflict. Whenever a player wants their character achieve some result and I doubt their character's abilities to do so automatically, there is a conflict.

Sure, every player wants their character to leap that 20 foot chasm instead of falling to his/her death. Every player wants to crit the opponent instead of missing him. That's what rules and dice are for. But you don't 'role' play walking along the road any more than you 'roll' play it. There is no conflict in just walking along the road.

The same is true for a lot of 'social' encounters. They don't need to be resolved by die rolling simply because there is no conflict between the player's goals and what I think their characters can achieve. There are some cases of social interaction where conflict does arrive, and typically in cases described by the social skills: Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive etc. When my players say: wait! I don't want this to happen, I don't want to anger the guard, I just want to talk my way past the magistrate, then its time for a skill roll.

And yes, an good bit of role-playing (effort-based) might net the player's character a +2 bonus on a social skill roll. Similarly, if a player suggests/describes a cool combat move, I tend to give them a +2 bonus on the attack roll (or whatever) too. Nobody has ever had a problem with that. It happens less, because a lot of 'cool moves' are already written down in the rules.

Player: "I circle around the enemy, and just when my friend is about to attack I engage the enemy from the other direction."
DM: "Well, that gets you both a +2 flanking bonus."
Typical example of role-played combat.

What you are saying with your example: "feint to the left, then, when he's off-balance, make a quick jab at his right, while blocking" etc...
Is like someone in a social encounter saying: "I make an insult that leaves him flabbergasted and when he's brought off-balance I make a joke that will make his friends laugh." That's not role-playing, that's describing the results of actions! If a player says that to me, I say: "Well, do it then, role-play!" And then I might ask for a bluff/intimidate/diplomacy/whatever roll.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The rules for hitting someone with a sword are essentially the same as the rules for changing an NPC's attitude - roll a d20, apply your modifier, and compare it to a DC or AC, or an opposed role. You may ask the guy with the sword to describe how he is swinging his sword, just as you may ask the guy how he is persuading the guard, but both are just colorful and fun, and not influential on the dice.

While I agree in principal, the analogy can be taken a step further. There are strategies and tactics for combat with mechanical benefits. If the rogue delays until he can flank for a sneak attack, or the less damage dealing fighter type finishes off a wounded guy instead of plinking on someone whose next round actions won't be effected, of the bard/cleric gives everyone plusses to attack and damage instead of shooting for the little damage they can do, these are all partly roleplaying decisions and partly mechanical ones. In all of these cases, describing what you are doing in more detail than "I attack" does influence the die rolls and the final outcome.

In the same way, social skill rolls are modified by exactly what you are trying to do. Deciding to bluff the guards that you've seen interacting nicely with the prisoner rather than the nasty one, stating a more or less believable bluff rather than just saying "I bluff", choosing to use diplomacy on the elves and intimdate on the half orcs... all these are mechanical decisions as much as roleplaying ones, and when stated tacticly should be given some weight, just as flanking vs charging vs spring atacking matters on that D20 roll.

Kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Woodelf, I think you are reversing the problem.

Actually, what he said was completely appriopriate to the stated stated policy of the person he was responding to... which wasn't you. So it doesn't help much for you to respond as though his comments were a response (much less misinterpretation) of your policy. There's a lot of different policies in play here, and unless someone is directly responding to yours, comments like you make here are muddying the waters worse.

There have been people as far to the 'improv' side as to say that they don't allow a sense motive check during a roleplayed bluff unless the player specificly asks for one. (one could wonder if they allow reflex saves from players who haven't specificly said that they are staying alert for traps). There are those who roll the social skill checks first and expect the players to roleplay the results (much as a player might roll their attack first then describe the massive twack or amusing fumble).

I tend to agree that the more emphasis you allow to be put on "roleplaying" (as fast talk on the player's part) the less relevant a socially based character becomes. When the guy with 8 cha and no ranks in diplomacy is charming the socks off everyone, and the DM lets him get away with it, there's a problem.

(On the other end, when someone is playing their character as insulting, annoying or obstructionist, then rolls a d20 and says "but my Cha and diplomacy means you like me!" I see just as much of a problem there. but that may be another thread. )

 

[shadow]

When I DM I rarely make player's role-play out their attempt (I can't say the same with other DM's that I've played with). Although I understand their reasons, I hate when DMs make me role-play everything out. I've even had a DM go as far as to declare that EVERYTHING that you said, your character said unless you first raised your hand and asked permission to speak out of character.

The problem I have with making players role-play everything out is that it rewards the naturally fast-talking charismatic players, and punishes the shy, or socially awkward players. I'm naturally shy, and hate feeling punished when I can't come up with something convincing to say quickly enough when engaged in a conversation with an NPC. I've had players who've had problems with stuttering and other speech impediments. They're really good players, and I wouldn't feel right in discriminating agains them when they want to play rogues, or other charismatic characters. I see D&D as a FANTASY game, where players can live out their fantasies. I don't restrict barbarians and fighters to players who can bench press 350lb in real life, likewise I don't restrict rogues and smooth talking characters to people who are naturally charismatic in real life.

It all come down to how people interpret "role-playing game". Some people emphasize the role-playing aspect and play it as an improv theater. Hence, to such groups role-playing is very important. I emphasize the "game" aspect, and see enjoy the strategies and tactics inherent in the game. Hence, realistic role-playing is far less important than good thinking and strategy in my game.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you don't demand RPing for all elements of the game, why is a different balance of RP vs. rules applied to some elements of the game than to others? Why not demand RPing of everything, in addition to or instead of rolling?

Because everyone I've played with is capable of speaking in character for the 90 seconds necessary to tell me what they're actually saying/asking, as opposed to just rolling dice.

And as for your example, no I don't require that sort of description for an attack--but I'd give bonuses for it if they offered it.

I want to reiterate, again, that I do not judge success, or grant bonuses, based on how good a liar/fast-talker the player is, but simply by the effort he put into playing the character. They are most assuredly not the same thing.

And okay, I certainly didn't mean to imply that I would force a player to roleplay a scene if he really, really didn't want to. And I can see the occasional use of a roll without the roleplay to resolve an unimportant or offscreen conflict.

But to me--and this is me, not "right" or "wrong"--doing so regularly just lessens the RP-aspect of the game. Obviously some of you disagree, and that's fine; but I just don't see it. Character motivation is a major part of roleplaying, but so is conversing with others and interacting with the DM-created environment while at least vaguely in-character. Or again, that's how I see it.

(For the record, anyone who felt I was impuning their way of playing, that wasn't my intent. I'm explaining how I personally view the game; didn't mean to imply your way was "wrong," just not my way.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

This might help people understand where I'm coming from...

I don't see the game as improv theater. But I also don't see it as a tactical game, and in fact I've come up with several house rules to make it easier to completely remove miniatures, or the need to know exact positioning, from my game. I prefer my RPGs to be a mix of interesting story, interesting characters, and combat. If the game focuses too much on any of them, it lessens my enjoyment of it. I don't "punish" lesser roleplayers, but the fact is, if I wanted to play a game that was just about the combat and tactics, I'd play a wargame.

There's nothing wrong with playing D&D purely as a tactical game, of course. But you probably wouldn't enjoy my campaigns, and I probably wouldn't enjoy yours. The same is true of people who play RPGs as "theater," with no dice whatsoever; I wouldn't be terribly happy with that, either. It works for an occasional game--I've run D&D games with no combat, and no dice-rolling--but that's because the story happened to go that way, not because I decided "From now on we're acting, not playing a game!"