Some questions about social situations in a game.

[Azizar]

I have a question about gaming. As a DM I was pondering on this question: 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 have problems with skills as diplomacy and bluff, because they seem to take away the need of roleplaying the situation. How do you handle this ?

 

[Talmun]

I have a question about gaming. As a DM I was pondering on this question: 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 have problems with skills as diplomacy and bluff, because they seem to take away the need of roleplaying the situation. How do you handle this ?

I use them both...I require the PCs to play out such situations (not just roll dice) and will give a PC a circumstance bonus to his roll if he role-plays the situation well.

I never allow the dice to override good role-playing; at least not as far as these types of situations go.

 

[BlackMoria]

I tell my players to make their characters to eloquently put forth their case or to state the bluff. Then, if it is reasonable (they don't have to be Henry Kissinger here), the roll for Diplomacy or Bluff is made. If it is particularly convincing, they get a positive modifer to the attempt.

If it is particulary lame or totally uninspiring/unconvincing, then they get a negative modifer to the roll.

The point is they make a good attempt at roleplaying it to get an unmodified roll. If they don't, the roll is penalized.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

The next three are all pretty good. I've used all three at various times, and they all work.

(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.

Depending upon the pace of the game, I tend to use either (3) or (5). If I'm trying to keep the game moving, and the interaction isn't terribly important (e.g., the PC is haggling over the cost of a suit of chain mail), I'll use (2).

 

[Aezoc]

I use #3, roll the dice and then roleplay the situation. If a character has a high Diplomacy skill and a good roll, then the player won't have to do much to get the NPC to react the way he wants. On the other hand, if your character has 0 ranks in a skill and a Charisma penalty of -3, you'd better give me an Oscar-worthy performance if you want your character to succeed.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'd have to say I disagree with your take.

I think the Charisma of the player and the charisma of the character ought to be kept somewhat separate. Social skills are the way to do this.

As a GM, I tend to have them roll their skill before they start talking to an NPC. Depending on the result - that's how 'easy' I'm going to make the discussion we then have - how much slack they get cut... This also gets scaled towards the social skills of the player in question. I tend to give the more 'gobby' players a harder time by default.

So:

Really bad ideas can make a great roll useless.
A really good idea can get you somewhere... even with a bad roll.
A really good roll can compensate for a poor idea.

Which suits us pretty well...

At the moment it's a new policy and still doesn't apply all the time and I slip back into favouring the smart/charismatic players, even if their characters Cha/Int scores are single digit!

 

[jerichothebard]

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.

The next three are all pretty good. I've used all three at various times, and they all work.

(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.

Depending upon the pace of the game, I tend to use either (3) or (5). If I'm trying to keep the game moving, and the interaction isn't terribly important (e.g., the PC is haggling over the cost of a suit of chain mail), I'll use (2).

Great analysis!

I usually use #4 - let them say or try anything, then roll to see if it works. The DC is usually influenced strongly by the role-playing - the more outrageous the thing they are attempting, the higher the DC.

#2 is, like you said, is good for non-critical situations.

#1 also screws over the player who has no Real Life social skills.


jtb

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Generally, my DM has us roll the bluff, diplomacy, or sense motive and then we shape our words around the dice roll... situational modifiers also apply, given by the DM.

(think the episode of Futurama with Gary Gygax... I'm *rolls the dice* pleased to meet you!)

As a player, I really like the way that it works out. I've got a lot of ranks in bluff and diplomacy and, as such, I usually end up with convincing stories... but, the less charismatic characters end up saying what, in fact, they probably would say... and, in the end, sticking their individual feet in their mouths... and THAT is always entertaining... the results of a bad bluff check are always funny--even if they lead to sticky situations in the game world.

 

[Shallown]

I usually apply skills and Char to the social situation by Roleplaying the Npc knowing that this player has a 8 char and no relavent skills. That Npc treats that character different from the Bard with a 16 char and diplomacy at +10 or other relevant scores. I sort of assume the character takes 10 on their roll and play it from there. So they get to roleplay and maybe improve their chances by good roleplaying but it doesn'thave that much of an impact. but the players still get to roleplay. My players with the 7 char know going in to a situation that they are gonna have a tough time. Mostly they don't socialize with new people becuase they know that I remember their stats, which reinforces the low stat.

Now this doesn't mean I make it impossible to sweet talk becuase you have a 7-8 char but it is much harder. I tend to play it as the person taking what you say wrong.

Some people may think this is unfair but to me it is just as "fair" as if its hot out the Npc sweats. They are reacting to the environment and the PC's 7-8 char is the environemnt they are interacting with as well. (if that made any sense).

This works to the advantage of the less skilled roleplayers who have invested in the skills and stats for thier character since I cut them a lot more slack than the excellent roleplayer with the 7-8 char in the same social situation.

Later

 

[milotha]

I'd have to say I disagree with your take.

I think the Charisma of the player and the charisma of the character ought to be kept somewhat separate. Social skills are the way to do this.

edit

At the moment it's a new policy and still doesn't apply all the time and I slip back into favouring the smart/charismatic players, even if their characters Cha/Int scores are single digit!

I agree that the cha int and wisdom scores of a player are separate, but the problem is that one should encourage the player's to role play out their stats and not roll play out the stats.

What we have here is a collision of the rules of the game with the role playing of the game. Reducing the game to die rolls for social situations is no fun. Allowing the players without points in any of the social skills to just role play out a situation is also frustrating.

The same problem has existed throughout the history of D&D for the charisma, int, and wis scores. How many times have I seen a dumb, unwise, uncharismatic fighter not role played out that way? Except, now with the social skills it's gotten even worse.

I've played under so many GMs recently who have reacted back to this by reducing everything to a die roll. This is so incredibly boring and frustrating that I just want to scream. You only get a few character points at each level, there are so many skills, many of these are cross class skills, and the DCs keep getting set at 15 or above to do even the most basic of things. Not only that, but some skills are so necessary to the character, that you have to put points in them at every level. For some classes, this sometimes leaves you with 1-2 points to actually spend at every level. As a result, if everything is a die roll, you can't do anything socially even if you are trying to build a social character. (This is above and beyond the GMs who then on top of that don't allow the PCs to effect the situation.)

Ask yourself as a GM- Am I doing this? Am I getting fun social interactions? Is the dice rolling really necessary for everything? Am I setting the DCs to high?

Another potential Solution:
I think that if players are correctly role playing their characters, then this should be less of an issue. Perhaps reward them for properly role playing out their stats and skills. Also, using a sliding scale for the DCs helps out.
For example: A skill check might have varying levels of success. A DC 5 to determine a lesser bit of info, a DC 10 to get slightly more, a DC 20 is a critical success and give the players a big hint.