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

[Mouseferatu]

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.

But what happens when success or failure doesn't change the way you play the scene?

Someone with a 16 Cha and 7 ranks in Bluff is pretty much never going to come out and say "Uh... You should let me in 'cuz... umm... your mother sent me with a care basket." The success or failure of a social roll of this sort is based on the difference between the player's Bluff check and the NPC's Sense Motive check. In such a case, the player doesn't need to know what he rolled, because even if he rolls a 1 he's going to tell at least a decent story. It's purely a question of whether the guard rolls well on his Sense Motive, wether the Bluff will work or not. The scene's going to run the same right up until the guard decides if he believes or not.

Also, when it comes to describing moves in combat--if the player wants to get into detail, as opposed to just "I hit him"--I have him describe what he's trying to do. The final moment of success or failure comes after the roll, however, so no, he doesn't need to go back and change the description based on the roll, because it's understood that he's describing his intention.

Don't get me wrong, rolling in advance is a valid method; I might even try it at some point, just to see how it works with my group. But rolling afterward is certainly as viable an option.

 

[Nifft]

-Hyp.

-Hyp.

I've seen double-posts, but never before a double-sign-off.

-- N

PS: I say that the PC states INTENT and ACTION, and the DM PC & DM roll dice to determine EFFECT and OUTCOME. So, the PC gets to do the "role" part before the "roll", but saying "I behead the orc!" (or even, "I waste him with my crossbow!") is wrong because it presumes an outcome and thus is overstepping the bounds of the PC's descriptive authority.

CORRECT:
Intimidate: "I appeal to his instinct for self-preservation."
Bluff: "I insinuate that I'm a Noble."
Diplomacy: "I use economic logic to convince both parties that they're better off trading peacefully."
Attack Roll: "I swing downward, a powerful overhand blow! (Power Attack +2)"

WRONG:
Intimidate: "I scare the hell out of him!"
Bluff: "I convince her she's my father!"
Diplomacy: "I make it my friend!"
Attack Roll: "I kill the orc!"

 

[Hypersmurf]

But what happens when success or failure doesn't change the way you play the scene?

That's fine. You roll the die, ignore it, and say what you were going to say.

But especially at the low end, where bonuses are completely overwhelmed by the variance in the die roll, the delivery should be heavily influenced by the roll.

Take Perform as an example. A 10 is "Routine performance - essentially begging", if you're trying to earn money. A 20 is "Great performance". A 2 isn't on the chart... but I'm sure you can all think of what a Perform roll of 2 on a violin, a recorder, or singing sounds like. You've been there.

And an untrained character giving an Acting: Comedy performance could produce a result that could be that 2, or it could be the "Great Performance" of a 20. Without knowing what the roll is, the player has no idea how he should enact that performance.

Similarly, the untrained Bluff can range from your mother's care basket, to a fairly smooth and believable lie, in that 1 to 20 range.

The difference in the role-playing between a Bluff roll of 31 and a Bluff roll of 50, by Joe Average Player, might be completely unnoticeable. But the difference between a Bluff roll of 1 and 20 should be very, very obvious. And unless he knows what number he's playing up to, the scene he plays out will not represent the outcome.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've seen double-posts, but never before a double-sign-off.

It tends to happen occasionally if I sign off, remember something I meant to say, type another paragraph... and the signature I already typed has scrolled beneath the bottom of the message window, so I forget it's there and type another one.

PS: I say that the PC states INTENT and ACTION, and the DM PC & DM roll dice to determine EFFECT and OUTCOME. So, the PC gets to do the "role" part before the "roll", but saying "I behead the orc!" (or even, "I waste him with my crossbow!") is wrong because it presumes an outcome and thus is overstepping the bounds of the PC's descriptive authority.

Yup. And in my opinion, delivering a witty, smooth, believeable bluff is overstepping that same authority when the die roll might show a 1.

Just as you can describe hurling a flask of alchemist's fire, but can accurately describe neither its trajectory nor its effect on the opponent until dice are rolled... I'd say you can declare your intention to bluff the target, but can describe neither the delivery of that bluff nor his reaction until dice are rolled.

CORRECT:
Diplomacy: "I use economic logic to convince both parties that they're better off trading peacefully."

Well, strictly, "to attempt to convince..."

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Well, strictly, "to attempt to convince..."

Exactly! And a good illustration of how easy it is to slip, and why the DM and players need to have good will towards the spirit of each other's narration.

-- N

 

[woodelf]

CORRECT:
Intimidate: "I appeal to his instinct for self-preservation."
Bluff: "I insinuate that I'm a Noble."
Diplomacy: "I use economic logic to convince both parties that they're better off trading peacefully."
Attack Roll: "I swing downward, a powerful overhand blow! (Power Attack +2)"

Just wanted to jump in here and point something out:
I'm not sure that's "roleplaying", in the sense of actually taking on a role. That's description. Let me use an analogy: we were playing Cranium at a party, and one of the bits involves someone getting up and acting the part of a character. They can talk, but no names or places (or other identifying nouns). IOW, character impressions. Well, one guy gets up there and says "I'm the wife of the president, who was shot." Now, "Jackie Kennedy" was out in about 0.2sec. But here's the thing--he didn't do an impression, he described someone. It's not the same thing.

This is not to say that what you're describing is "bad" or "undesirable" in an RPG--but i bristle at referring to it as "roleplaying" or "role assumption". It's pure description, however flavorful or descriptive it might be. It's analogous to the writer's craft, not the actor's.

To turn those into RPing, i think you'd need something like:
Intimidate: "Hey, you don't wanna get hurt, do you? Now, i'm gonna have to hurt someone, to save my rep, if i don't get some answers--i can't walk out of here with nobody hurt *and* no info."
Bluff: "Well, that's fine, if you don't want to upgrade this establishment's reputation. I'd thought you wanted a better clientelle, but if this is the way we'll be treated, i think it's best if you stick to your usual plebian customers."
Diplomacy: "My character will launch into a sermon on some sort of impressive-sounding economic reason to do this (which i have no clue about), ending with an appeal to their self-interest, something along the lines of 'It makes no sense to be fighting over the scraps when you could be dining at the table'."
Attack roll: I charge into combat, bearing my teeth and growling at the orc: 'Taste the sting of my ax, unclean beast!'"

While all my examples use it, i'm not sure you need first person to get into a role, and i'm sure you don't need to actually know what your character isdoing (such as being knowledgable about combat or economics), but i don't think vague descriptives qualify either--the threshhold is somewhere between your examples and mine.

[oh, your point about intent vs. result, i fully agree with. The lack of blanket control over results is, IMHO, what makes it an RPG, rather than collaborative improv storytelling. Just keep in mind that in some RPGs, the form of that controll limiter is in when you get control (at which point it is perhaps absolute) rather than how much control you get.]

 

[Creamsteak]

A ton of people find this weird, but this is what I do:

For bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and sense motive (what I group as social skills) I assume you take 10 in the skill at all times. So if you have a +15 bonus to diplomacy, I assume you score a 25 against whatever the DC happens to be.

The DC is based on the standing (friendly through hostile on the DMG charts) of the target and is modifed in increments of +2 or -2 by the role-playing.

Convincing a peasant to give you lodging and food because your poor might be a DC 15 check normally (indifferent, he's having a good year and if your willing to help him put up his fense he's sure to let you), but if the highest bonus in the group was a 4, they would need to get him to lower the DC somehow. This could be bribing if they don't want to role-play, or it could be convincing him that your good people that are just having a hard time finding an inn that's open to the ugly half-orc in the background.

 

[MerricB]

Does anyone remember that survey Gary Gygax had in Dragon almost three years ago?

He had two elements of RPGs that are appropriate for this discussion: Role Assumption and Role Playing.

The former is where you make your decisions based on the personality of the character.

The latter is where you act out what the character is doing. (Thus, a more involved form of Role Assumption).

Cheers!

 

[Shadowdancer]

You don't have a category that fits my answer. We roll skill checks, and give a bonus, if applicable, based on role-playing.

 

[Voadam]

I started out in Basic and 1e D&D where there were no skills, just a useless charisma score. We roleplayed out everything or the DM would adjudicate on the fly sometimes saying, "you've got a high charisma so they talk to you."

I'm pretty much stuck in that mode and happy with it.

Stats and skills are for things that can't be done by the player.

I don't allow intelligence rolls to solve puzzles or riddles, and I generally don't allow skill rolls to take over talking to people. Skills are for disarming traps, sneaking, physical in game stuff. Bluff lets you feint, sense motive counters that and detects charms.

I will modify NPCs reactions based on the charisma and skills of a player, so that high diplomacy/gather info characters have an easier time drawing out information through RP, but anyone can do it.

I also use social skill rolls when I want something to not be "on screen" such as downtime activity, seducing a barmaid, etc.

I like to keep interaction as interaction and rolls for things that can't be handled by thinking and interacting.

Skills seem overwhelmed by other class abilities in importance to the game so I also do not have a problem throwing in a bunch of social skills into my characters who I see as socially oriented such as my current eldritch knight who has developed a bit of bluff and diplomacy in addition to a fairly high sense motive as he works through politics and intricate plots.

Will this direction short change socially awkward players who want to play face characters but not actually roleplay? Sure, but that's fine for the style of roleplaying games we play with our balance of RP to dice and their role in our games. If a player wanted to force reactions out of NPCs as he talked to them despite being a social flub I would recommend playing an enchanter.