Some questions about social situations in a game.

[milotha]

No, one should encourage players to have fun. There are plenty of people who don't enjoy trying to act, and you thinking it is fun is not justification for forcing them to do so.

Role playing isn't "acting". Role playing is thinking like your character, and then doing actions that are internally consistent with their view of the world.

Examples:
If I'm a dumb, unwise, and uncharismatic fighter, then I just might (and have):
1) Ring the doorbell to the BBEG's house before we attempt a breaking and entering.
2) Recommend that we do a full frontal attack against an overpowering opponent.
3) Get rip roaring drunk/stoned in the middle of a dungeon.
4) Pick up and use a potentially deadly item to the dismay/amusement of the rest of the party.
5) etc.

None of these are acting. All of these were extremely funny and within character in the campaign that they happened in.

 

[Liolel]

There are at least five ways to handle it.

(1) Base the outcome solely on roleplaying. This isn't a good solution, IMO, because it screws over those players who spent points on social skills.

(2) Base the outcome solely on the roll of the dice. This is only slightly better; although "fair," it takes the RP out of RPG.

(3) Roll the dice to get an outcome, then work toward that outcome through roleplaying.

(4) Roleplay toward an outcome, then roll the dice, possibly granting bonuses or penalties based on the roleplaying.

(5) Divide the interaction into at least two parts. Roleplay a segment, then roll the dice and allow the dice to modify, but not determine, the outcome of the next segment.

Well stated, those cover the standerd methods as far as I can tell. (Although I'm sure that theres at least a few groups that use some oddball method, as there always are.)

I myself fall into the number 4 method. It works well for groups that are not masters at convincing people of there views in real life, as they can't just say I'm the king and use bluff to convince people (Unless there character has an absurd bluff modifer.) but they can still play characters skilled at diplomancy or other social skills.

edit: reduced quote length and I've hit 300 posts.

 

[ichabod]

Role playing isn't "acting". Role playing is thinking like your character, and then doing actions that are internally consistent with their view of the world.

Examples:
If I'm a dumb, unwise, and uncharismatic fighter, then I just might (and have):
1) Ring the doorbell to the BBEG's house before we attempt a breaking and entering.
2) Recommend that we do a full frontal attack against an overpowering opponent.
3) Get rip roaring drunk/stoned in the middle of a dungeon.
4) Pick up and use a potentially deadly item to the dismay/amusement of the rest of the party.
5) etc.

None of these are acting. All of these were extremely funny and within character in the campaign that they happened in.

I don't see how that fits with what you were saying earlier. You complained about rollplaying vs. roleplaying in social situations. Given your above definition and examples, someone playing a habitual liar would be roleplaying if they said "I go up and bluff the guard" and rolled a d20 + bluff vs. the guard's d20 + sense motive. That fits your definition of roleplaying, which makes me wonder what this "rollplaying" you are complaining about is.

And I would say all of your examples are acting: improvisational acting.

 

[milotha]

I don't see how that fits with what you were saying earlier. You complained about rollplaying vs. roleplaying in social situations. Given your above definition and examples, someone playing a habitual liar would be roleplaying if they said "I go up and bluff the guard" and rolled a d20 + bluff vs. the guard's d20 + sense motive. That fits your definition of roleplaying, which makes me wonder what this "rollplaying" you are complaining about is.

And I would say all of your examples are acting: improvisational acting.

Nope, that's roll playing. Just saying I go up and bluff someone and rolling a die isn't role playing. In my opinion that's just boring play. Now, going up and explaining how you are going to bluff the guard is role playing. This is where the fun is.

As for improvisational acting. Nope, didn't have to make a face, express emotion, or even move to do it. I just said what my character did. Saying and acting are two different things.

 

[Kilmore]

If nothing else, have the player explain not only the effect he is looking for: "I am trying to get the crowd on my side of the argument" "I am trying to get the guard to let us in", but explain what sort of means he is using to achieve his goals, whether by direct explaination to the DM: "I bring up my opponent's lousy judge granduncle who was hated by all the people of the neighborhood most of this crowd comes from" or by acting it out: "Soldier! What is that that you have slopped all over that uniform? No matter! Go change that this instant before you disgrace our lord any further!" Both require roleplay in terms of a player deciding which role his character is going to pursue.

From that point judge the results of a good or a poor die roll.

 

[ichabod]

Nope, that's roll playing. Just saying I go up and bluff someone and rolling a die isn't role playing. In my opinion that's just boring play. Now, going up and explaining how you are going to bluff the guard is role playing. This is where the fun is.

Not only does that contradict what you said earlier, it's entirely subjective. What you find fun in RPGs is not necessarily what others do, so is not necessarily what should be encouraged. Which was my point.

As for improvisational acting. Nope, didn't have to make a face, express emotion, or even move to do it. I just said what my character did. Saying and acting are two different things.

So you never once, in any of those examples, spoke in your character's voice (no I don't mean accent)? Because that's the main aspect of roleplaying that some people find uncomfortable, and "encouraging" them to do so ruins fun rather than creating it.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Here's how ours go.
Guard: "HALT! Who goes there!"
Player: "Ah. Good sir, can you show me to Baron Stronhiem's? The ball is tonight, and I'm afraid your city is easy to lose oneself in."
DM calls for bluff roll.

Usually there are a couple iterations of this, as the 'smoothness' of the arguements add a bonus (and the level of believability and stance of the NPC set the difficulty). Typically, for any one major event, there will be several rolls, until the situation has irrevocably gone in one direction or the people doing the talking get impatient.

 

[Azizar]

Social skills

But what about 'removing social skills' and add 'social feats' as i wrote earlier (see above). What are your thoughts about that ?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

how do you avoid that the outcome of social situations in a game (like convincing a local lord to help or trying to get a villian to release you) is a result of a dice roll and not of roleplaying.

I don't need a die roll to tell me (or contradict) the fact that a PC's request is absolutely unrealistic. If a lord is not inclined to give help, he's not going to give it. If it isn't the villain's nature to release prisoners (particular a PC that has made himself a foe), then it ain't going to happen.

The rules are there to assist in determining the outcome of situations, not to create completely unrealistic, silly, cheesy, or flat-out stupid results.