Social skills in D&D

[kigmatzomat]

I saw someone get up from the table and quit the game because the DM would not except. "I roll at 22. He is bluffed."

Ahh, but you see, he did except it. ;P

I run into this occassionally where a player wants a given result for something b/c the PHB says it is a success. I point out they don't know all the modifiers. I almost never state the DCs for checks except to save time during combat.

Some modifiers are absolute and irregardless of die rolls.
One modifier is "they have no choice." You can make the paladin's heart go out to the soon to be orphans but if he's been tasked with bringing their guilty daddy in for trial, that's what he's going to do.

Another modifier is "they know something contradictory." If the children talk about how good Daddy is but the Paladin has not only detected evil from him but watched him kill a puppy for fun, he won't believe them.

And the last modifier is "You never know how good the other guy is." Bluff is often opposed roll and, to use your example, a 22 is nerfed by a 20 and 16 wisdom.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That might work for bluff, but what about diplomacy, which is not an opposed roll?

 

[No Name]

Not sure how to vote. Usually when player and character skills match up, no dice rolling is needed (witty player = witty bard).

I'm not going to tell someone that they can't play a highly charismatic bard because the person (player) is very shy and introverted. That's when the dice do the talking. If the player isn't a social butterfly, I'll let them roll their way through the situation.

It's really no different than when making a knowledge check to see if the character knows something that the player doesn't, or the opposite, having the character not know something that the player does.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That might work for bluff, but what about diplomacy, which is not an opposed roll?

The evil overlord might really like you, but that just means he won't destroy your soul like he's going to do to the rest of the party after killing you all.

 

[Campbell]

That might work for bluff, but what about diplomacy, which is not an opposed roll?

Negotiating with an NPC is an opposed roll. While Influencing NPC Attitudes involves static DCs, there are limits to what a Friendly NPC may do on behalf of another character. It most likely wouldn't be wise to allow a successful Diplomacy check to completely comprimise all goals a given NPC might have. Additionally, it may be helpful to keep the following passage in mind whenever it is appropriate:

Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions

Some situations may make a skill easier or harder to use, resulting in a bonus or penalty to the skill modifier for a skill check or a change to the DC of the skill check.

The chance of success can be altered in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances.

1. Give the skill user a +2 circumstance bonus to represent conditions that improve performance, such as having the perfect tool for the job, getting help from another character (see Combining Skill Attempts), or possessing unusually accurate information.

2. Give the skill user a -2 circumstance penalty to represent conditions that hamper performance, such as being forced to use improvised tools or having misleading information.

3. Reduce the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task easier, such as having a friendly audience or doing work that can be subpar.

4. Increase the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task harder, such as having an uncooperative audience or doing work that must be flawless.

Conditions that affect your character's ability to perform the skill change the skill modifier. Conditions that modify how well the character has to perform the skill to succeed change the DC. A bonus to the skill modifier and a reduction in the check's DC have the same result: They create a better chance of success. But they represent different circumstances, and sometimes that difference is important.

 

[Schmoe]

I don't strictly to adhere to any of the choices, but in general I let players talk through what they want to deliver, then have them roll the dice. If a player with a low charisma simply wanted to say "I'm going to try to use Diplomacy to make him more friendly," I'd be fine with that, too, and would not impose any sort of penalty.

If someone comes up with a very convincing argument or bluff, based on the game circumstances, I'll give a bonus. That has nothing to do with player charisma, though.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

Offering a bribe to the door guard? If he is Lawful, that's probably a -2 on the roll. If he is Chaotic, that's probably +2 on the roll.

Etc.

I then use the Diplomacy chart to judge the result. Made the indifferent guard friendly? He lets you past. Fail, and he rebuffs you.

This is where the DM's best friend would work well. For repeatedly mentioning a sore/sad subject, give the Player a -2 to -4 on his Diplomacy roll.

Quasqueton

Yep, that's pretty close to how I do it too. (With the occassional -10 'what do you think I am, stupid?' modifier, or the +10 'errr, I was going to do that anyway' modifier. You have to screw up a diplomacy roll pretty darned bad to get the lawful guard to stop guarding the door you are asking him to continue guarding...)

The Auld Grump

 

[Ourph]

\So im my opinion this means that there are two votes for situationgame and not for roleplay.

Pretty much. I'm more interested in the game aspect of RPG than I am the role aspect.

So if I had an bad day at work and at game I am still sulking quiet mood what is the reason for my CHARACTER to have a bad day?

It's the same reason that if you've got a pulled hamstring you're probably going to have a bad day playing soccer. Honestly, though, if it just looks like a player is having a bad day I'll probably cut them some slack. I'm not a complete ogre after all.

I would prefer no modifiers acording how or what said even if none said and see if my character have a bad day by rolling insted of the fact that I am.

Getting together with my friends to play D&D is supposed to be an enjoyable social experience. If all we did was get together and sit around a table, saying nothing and rolling dice, it wouldn't be very social (and our wives would think we were a lot wierder than they do already, which is saying something).

So in my mind if you have to "role"play character by telling what he says is more situationplay and not roleplay. Only role you are doing is that your character has better physical stats and your mental ones. Whats fun on that?

Sorry, you've lost me here. If you're depending entirely on your character to supply the personality and impetus behind your interaction with the game world with absolutely no input from the player you may very well be "playing" in some sense, but I doubt very much you would be considered to be "roleplaying" by any reasonable definition of the term.

I like to play but I do not need to play.

Me too. If I'm sleep deprived or in a bad mood from work, I usually call in sick. I play with nice, understanding people who also have lives that sometimes get in the way. They're cool about stuff like that.

Edit. By situationplay I mean that if you are soing all the talking all the thinking etc it is just like a question what would YOU do if you were in a situation like this. Only difference is that you are in no real danger like you could be in real situation like bribing a police officer.

You read my mind. I think this is exactly the playstyle Lewis Pulsipher was getting at in his article, The Vicarious Participator; an article that describes my preferred playstyle very accurately. "Situationplay" is exactly the way I approach the game. That's a good term. I'll have to remember it.