Social skills in D&D

[JRRNeiklot]

Roleplay it, and the dm takes the characters charisma into consideration when making his call.

After all, if I walk up to a Wal-Mart employee and tell him the back room is on fire, he'll have someone check it out, regardless of how charismatic I am. Some other situations might differ, such as "bluffing the guard." We have a high charisma psion in the game that could probably use diplomacy to make a king abdicate the throne and make him the heir.

I know I'll hear the usual "what good is charisma" and "do you also make them act out fights" comments, but there it is.

 

[Tonguez]

I've recently started using Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules, and I've gotta say they're a big improvement. The changes make Diplomacy work more like Bluff. Here's the key thing in my mind:

yep its good system - not perfect - but a vast improvement on the core rules

 

[William Ronald]

I picked the "talk then roll" option, assigning modifiers from the roleplaying.

Though I would just roll if I felt that the roleplaying was not significant to the progress of the game or player enjoyment. Not real big of the "chatty shopkeep" paradigm.

I tend to favor this approach as well. Sometimes, you may intend to present yourself and a proposal in one way, and somene else can take it completely differently. (The classic example is the person who believes he is convincing, and the other person who does not buy it. See any number of situation comedies where someone believes that he or she has explained how something unpleasant happened -- such as breaking a vase or being out too late.) So, I think that while it is appropriate to add dice rolls for situational modifiers -- such as in the case sniffles mentioned.

Some people are more convincing than others in real life, or present themselves well. For example, I have known a few gamers who were actors in the local theater scene. So, these are the sort of gamers who can manage to be very charismatic.

In looking at Richard Burlew's take on Diplomacy, It does require a player to make some sort of proposal to an NPC as opposed to just rolling the dice. I find myself drawn to it as it does tend to make some NPCs harder to convince -- such as there are hard people to convince in real life. Also, an NPC should be somewhat consistent in character -- although there is such a thing as change and growth. So, trying to convince the evil warlord that he should spare you might mean that he decides to either have you work for him -- or if he is a REALLY EVIL warlord -- grant you a quick death. ("Well, I spared him a torturous death. Nice fellow --- and a good musician as well.")

 

[The Shaman]

Talk, then roll - if the player roleplays it well, then a bonus is in order.

I do the same thing with Search and Spot checks - tell me where your character looks, earn a bonus.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Talk for a while, roll it out once the situation's established. I'd be happy with rolling and describing the results, but my players in general like dialogue scenes more than I do.

 

[DragonLancer]

In my group we play out any interaction and then roll the skills, modified slightly for circumstance and RP.

 

[shilsen]

I let my Player as his PC talk it out with me as the NPC, then I have the Player roll the dice (and I roll dice, if applicable) to determine how well the character handled the situation. I use the "DM's best friend" (+2/-2 circumstance modifiers) depending on what the Player said.

Exactly what he said. From the poll, it seems like the majority of DMs use some variation thereof.

 

[Heathen72]

I voted the third option, but we use the first option a bit as well.

yep its good system (Rick Burlew's system)- not perfect - but a vast improvement on the core rules

I agree - the System is excellent, but the suggested modifiers to roll and DC's are way out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My preference is for roll-then-talk, using the roll to influence the portrayal.

If you have a +10 Diplomacy modifier, but roll a 1, then your natural/trained skills save you from a potentially embarrassing faux pas. If you have a -6 modifier, but roll a 19, then despite your natural ineptitude, you luck onto just the right things to say.

Figuring out how to portray a low-Cha, unsocialised, gruff dwarf barbarian who manages to get a Diplomacy roll of 15 is part of the fun! If you talk first (assuming an average roll, which gives him about a 5), then roll, you're left trying to explain how the speech you make yields a positive result...

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the poll's result shows quite clearly how the 3ed social skills are intended to be played

For those of you who used to, or still do, play earlier editions of this game, how did you handle social interaction in the game? How did you adjudicate/rule on PCs bluffing guards, intimidating bullies, diplomacizing merchants, etc.?

How did you handle Players with low charisma/social skills playing characters with high Charisma?

How did you handle Players with high charisma/social skills playing characters with low Charisma?

I have played a few games of earlier editions, and social skills were basically done at RP level, with the DM adjudicating everything on his own. When he was uncertain himself about what should be the result, I think he rolled some dice or flip a coin based on an ad-hoc chance.

We had problems because of the player/character differences. It seemed that the PC's charisma score was used by the DM as a general guideline, but I don't think there were rules, and the player's charisma largely dominated.

Actually we had much worse problems with Intelligence. A couple of smart players were criticized for playing their low-Int characters too smart, and were morally compelled to not always let their PC do the right thing (at least in out-of-combat situation). In the same game, a not-so-smart player was playing a genius-Int wizard and constantly made very bad mistakes, but of course it was impossible to request more "smartness" from such player...