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

[ThoughtBubble]

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.

True enough, and I do that occasionally too.
PC: I'll ask if she's seen the princess.
Me: Ok, go ahead.
PC: uh... Have you seen the princess?

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.

You know, I was just about to ask on that very subject. That's cool. It seems like a good way to get people a little more into the narrative.

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.

Allright, just for the sake of clarification, say I was playing a paladin in your game, and I'm well spoken and witty, and rping out the situation is something that comes naturally, and effortlessly. Does that equate to rolling poorly?

Either way, some interesting points.

 

[BryonD]

I voted 4.

Players will roleplay to the extent that they want to and the environment of the group fosters that desire.

But the talent or creativity of roleplaying goes to the FUN of the game. The skill checks go to the effectiveness of the character. These things go together, but they are distinct.

The idea that roleplaying vs. social skill checks are competing factors and increasing one comes at the cost of the other is short sighted, imo.

I certainly will provide bonus XP for particularly engaging play. But I also provide bonus XP for particularly heroic combat tactics.

IME, a player running a quick witted smooth talker will tend to roleplay them the same (within reason and circumstance), whether they are a L1 character with a +5 check or an epic character with a +67.

To me, giving a bonus modifier for roleplaying a "good lie" or whatever, is no different than giving a real world martial artist a +2 to hit for describing an effective combination.

Roleplay because it is fun to roleplay.
Rollplay because the character is not you, so you get to experience how someone ELSE might do in this situation.

The most fun in gaming comes when you let the two parts (roll and role) work together. They are not at odds.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Allright, just for the sake of clarification, say I was playing a paladin in your game, and I'm well spoken and witty, and rping out the situation is something that comes naturally, and effortlessly. Does that equate to rolling poorly?

Either way, some interesting points.

Hmm... Interesting question. And it brings up something that's so basic to my games, I didn't consider it when making my initial point--and I very much should have.

(Never let it be said I'm unwilling to admit when I might have made a mistake.)

See, with one or two exceptions, I've been playing with roughly the same group of people for ten years. Even when I moved to Austin, enough of my friends had also made the same move that I was able to keep a portion of the original group.

What that means is, my technique for dealing with social skills in 3.x sprang from a situation in which I already knew how to judge my players' efforts.

Looking back at what I said in my initial post, I actually agree with what others of you have said--it probably wouldn't work if I had a brand-new group, because (as ThoughtBubble pointed out), I wouldn't be as able to judge the effort they were putting into the scene.

So under those circumstances, I'd probably have to change my answer from "rarely use the rolls" to "use the rolls, but only with the roleplaying also." You still won't get me to run or play in a game that doesn't involve some RP of social situations, though.

(As to whether I roll them before or after the roleplaying, that would probably depend on the group. I can see advantages to both methods.)

 

[rpgHQ]

The last 5 or 6 or so posts remind just reinforce for me what I stated in my prior post in tis thread about me giving bonus xp instead of roll modifiers for non-combat encounters.

The GM can fudge rolls or stack an encounter the way he wants to push a goal, plot or whatnot but giving folks mods to die rolls based on their role-playing I think is very unbalanced. The game is based on dice and numbers at its heart. Your race,stats,class and all is what effects your modifiers, how good your rolls may or may not be. A player makes these choices based on the type of character they want, the type of character they want to role-play, so give them extra xp for good role-play, for making a real effort at it in hard circumstances, dont give them bonuses to die rolls based onthose things though. A player shouldnt get bonuses to the die roll because their a good role-player, be it in a combat encounter or in a 'social' encounter. Give them extra XP for it. The role-play should be an extension and/or reaction to the dice and rolls not the other way around.

I would drop from a campaign if I saw the GM handing out mods to dice rolls based on how I am role-playing or the amount of effort I am putting into the role-playing.

I think its a very unbalanced approach to give mods to rolls based on the players performance, that is good for free-form games where there is minimal rules based on the rolling of dice. But a game like D&D is based around numbers and dice and the role-play is the expression of the participants to explain/show what all those numbers and dice rolls are.

XP and treasure should be used as the reward/penalty for good or poor role-play, for good or bad choices they made, for being clever or not in handling a situation despite their characters pros and cons.

Modifying(fudging) rolls should be done on a case by case basis by the GM to further the games direction, be it goals, plots or whatnot. If one player is 'off-game' because of something outside the game or maybe another player has them riled up or something so they cant concentrate as fully on role-play, your giving an undue advantage to the other player(s).

Thats true too for handing out xp/treasure for role-play but that is easier to adjust or correct down the road than handing out roll bonuses. If you decide later you gave a player too much or undesrved xp/treasure you can compensate by either point-blank telling the player your taking it away or by handing them out less xp or having something happen to the treasure during later encounters in the same session or future game sessions.

A person might be a bad role-player but their character might be able to get through a encounter be it combat or otherwise based on how they planned their character, on the characters numeric values.

A person might be a great role-player or might be inspired or 'in the groove' during an encounter, but they might have planned their character poorly, stacked certain abilities/skills over others, or just decided to do something really stupid during the encounter. Giving them a bonus on their rolls in this case is unfair to the others who planned their characters out or who didnt act stupid.

As the GM you can always fudge the dice rolls depending on what your trying to accomplish with an encounter or something that happens later, but to hand out bonuses to rolls that have immediate results and is basically indescriminate of the GM's goals of the encounter/plot and disregards other players ability or planning of their characters is an unbalanced approach.

Theres Fudging the rolls and then theres fudging the rolls, and the GM should do it for the reason of maintaining whatever balance he is looking for in the encounter, or whatever short or long term reasons he has. Not because someone had some inspired role-playing. Give them some extra xp or some nice piece of treasure instead for it.

Since this post is starting to sound too much like a flame post I'll let it be my last one in this thread and topic.

 

[The Serge]

I usually roll, but ask the PC to act out their character's actions.

I think too many players and DMs forget that this is a role-playing game. Many seem to think that this is theatre and, for some players and few DMs, that's not a fair assumption to make. The fact is, especially for new players, forcing them to try to act makes them uncomfortable and often times does little more than make the experience sour them.

Also, consider the reverse. There are occasions in which a PC will not be especially charismatic or diplomatic, but the player will be very comfortable in acting. What happens in these cases? It is especially in these cases in which rolling is essential, because it's not the player who's involved in the interaction, but his/her character and that character's skills are what are important.

I also think this issue parallels other statistical information. We do not expect all players to know every single monster inside and out; that's why we have the various Knowledge skills. On the reverse, there are some players (like me) who tend to know most of the monsters. If I'm playing a character who has never studied monsters and has never encountered anything more bizarre than a cat, requiring me to roll for that information seems the best way to ensure a degree of control over my actions as a player.

I will say that I've been told that my games are very role-play heavy and I think this is because I've found a good balance between rolling and role-playing... But this is a game in which random modifiers play a pivotal and necessary role and I think some of us forget that sometimes.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

What that means is, my technique for dealing with social skills in 3.x sprang from a situation in which I already knew how to judge my players' efforts.

So, assume you knew how to judge your players' efforts, and there's that one guy who's amasing without even trying. And you know it's not any effort for him.

Looking back at what I said in my initial post, I actually agree with what others of you have said--it probably wouldn't work if I had a brand-new group, because (as ThoughtBubble pointed out), I wouldn't be as able to judge the effort they were putting into the scene.

So under those circumstances, I'd probably have to change my answer from "rarely use the rolls" to "use the rolls, but only with the roleplaying also." You still won't get me to run or play in a game that doesn't involve some RP of social situations, though.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I understand at least the basic idea of what you mean, I just wanted to check up on some of the sticker parts of the situation. I'd like to know how you'd handle disparities in RPing skill though. I mean, if you had one player who was more skilled, and you knew he was more skilled, would you hold it against him that he didn't have to try as hard to achieve good results? I'd guess not, as he's still trying to add to the dialog. But as a DM, I'd hold him to a higher standard of playing. So, if the particularly skilled guy said "I'd like to roll diplomacy" That'd get my attention as something being wrong.

I could be wrong, but I'd guess that you're mostly angling to get people to pull into the RP aspect of the game. And so you're willing to reward them for doing so, or for trying to.

I'm very interested in how you'd handle a situation with a large disparity in skill though, as that's something that I wound up messing up.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Actually, I'm pretty sure I understand at least the basic idea of what you mean, I just wanted to check up on some of the sticker parts of the situation. I'd like to know how you'd handle disparities in RPing skill though. I mean, if you had one player who was more skilled, and you knew he was more skilled, would you hold it against him that he didn't have to try as hard to achieve good results? I'd guess not, as he's still trying to add to the dialog. But as a DM, I'd hold him to a higher standard of playing. So, if the particularly skilled guy said "I'd like to roll diplomacy" That'd get my attention as something being wrong.

I could be wrong, but I'd guess that you're mostly angling to get people to pull into the RP aspect of the game. And so you're willing to reward them for doing so, or for trying to.

I'm very interested in how you'd handle a situation with a large disparity in skill though, as that's something that I wound up messing up.

Well, it's never actually come up, since none of my players are markedly more skilled at RP than the others, but some do put more effort into it than others.

Speaking hypothetically, however...

If, when playing with a new group, I discovered that one person really did just RP far better and more easily than the others, then yes, he'd have to put in more effort than the others--but not too much, since I wouldn't want him to intimidate the others. Enough that I knew he was making a real effort, though.

Again, that's hypothetical. With a new group--defined as one I hadn't known for quite so long--I'd go with roleplaying plus rolling skills on a much more frequent basis, and the bonus would basically be a question of "Did he roleplay or didn't he?"

 

[Hypersmurf]

A player makes these choices based on the type of character they want, the type of character they want to role-play, so give them extra xp for good role-play, for making a real effort at it in hard circumstances, dont give them bonuses to die rolls based onthose things though. A player shouldnt get bonuses to the die roll because their a good role-player, be it in a combat encounter or in a 'social' encounter. Give them extra XP for it. The role-play should be an extension and/or reaction to the dice and rolls not the other way around.

It should also be noted that "good role-play" does not necessarily equate to "wiity, smooth, polished talker".

If the President's speechwriter, with his real-life 16 ranks in Diplomacy, 17 Charisma, synergy bonuses, and Skill Focus feats, for a total of a +24 Diplomacy modifier, playing a 2nd level Cleric with a 12 Cha trying his best to convert the goblin tribes to a peaceful, pacifist lifestyle, rolls a 7 on his Diplomacy check for a total roll of 11 with modifiers, and gives a sermon that leaves the DM and other players seriously considering about resigning their jobs in the morning and joining Buddhist monasteries...

... the player is doing a bad job of role-playing! That speech does not reflect a Diplomacy roll of 11; it's more like the 38 the player got with a decent roll. It's entertaining, it's memorable, it's a fantastic display of public speaking... and it's not at all representative of the role he is supposed to be playing.

He should be doing his very best to represent an earnest priest doing a very, very average job of trying to convince someone of something. No XP bonus for him, no matter how cool the speech was.

In similar fashion, if Bob, who solves cryptic crosswords while playing three games of mental chess in his spare time, is playing Mungo the 7-Int Druid, sees the solution to the locked-room murder mystery, I'd prefer Mungo didn't reveal the answer in a flash of uncharacteristic genius. But, since Fred, who breaks stuff with a sledgehammer to listen to the noise in his spare time, is playing Tembo the Magnificent, Arcane Trickster Extraordinaire, Mysteries a Speciality!, doesn't have the first clue where to start... I'd prefer Bob to tell Fred his thoughts, to help Fred accurately portray Tembo's 22 Intelligence. Tembo solves the mystery, even though it was Mungo's player who came up with the answer. And Bob gets bonus XP, firstly for solving the mystery, and secondly for staying in character and not having Mungo be brilliant.

-Hyp.

-Hyp.

 

[nopantsyet]

[wearing my devil's advocate hat--or should that be a mask?]
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?

I like this because it's exactly why I DM the way I do. Roleplaying bonuses and appropriate die-rolls apply in all[/] cases. Players who really put some effort into roleplaying should[/] be rewarded. But not at the expense of weakening the character rules. If a players puts lots of skill points and feats into a particular aspect of their character, they should be better than the guy who put none and has an ability score penalty.

So I always have a roll, including all appropriate bonuses and penalties. But the roll takes place after the role; and that will swing the hand of fate a step better or worse.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So I always have a roll, including all appropriate bonuses and penalties. But the roll takes place after the role; and that will swing the hand of fate a step better or worse.

In my opinion, it must be the other way around - the "roll" comes after the "roll".

Example -
"Describe your character's actions in this combat round, then roll the dice for them."
"Uh, okay. I swing my sword in a powerful overhand arc; the keen blade rips through the links of the orc's mail shirt and into his ribs. I pull the sword free and grin at him over the bloodied steel... and I roll... oh. A 1. I guess I'd better change all that."

In exactly the same way - how can you know what standard your Bluff should meet, when your +2 modifier could yield a total anywhere between 3 and 22?

Roll, then make your portrayal reflect that roll.

-Hyp.