That has been indicated and witnessed by some individuals as happening, yes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what you mean by Item 2. all the '' is throwing me off. Are we saying that people are using their own natural charisma to sway the dm into giving them a bonus?
Yeah, part of the argument is the intrusion of real-life skills into character skills via roleplaying. Upstream are examples of characters with low charisma getting things like diplomacy bonuses because the player impresses the GM with their RL talking skills "in character".
So, even though the character doesn't have a CH bonus, the GM gives them an extra +2, or +5, or whatever to their roll, because the player is good at that skill.
Much of the argument is about this conflated "bonus" and whether it handicaps players who aren't very skilled with social verbiage and can't produce impressive dialogue instantaneously.
The question seems to be do you have to do the actual script and act it out, or can you just say something like "my character tries flattery and flirting with the king".
Eh probably wouldn't work on me but then I've never met any body that charismatic to sway me when I'm in DM mode. Still doesn't seem like that big a deal. Charismatic people are better at social interaction by definition so its not really surprisingly that in a social situation they would find a way to excel. Just like smart people are going to use their smarts for strategy and puzzles etc.
Also I don't see a problem with your Item one isn't it natural for players to try and find way to gain bonuses?
I really don't see what the problem is.
This one has got kind of ridiculous. can someone find me the rule I've seen in it in 3.5 and I'm assuming it got moved over with pathfinder that says to give a circumstance bonus when the situation would be call for it.I don't think it actually got ported over.
Wow did it not? that is a D#$% shame. Guess I have to call that a house rule from now on.
I'm not sure what you mean by Item 2. all the '' is throwing me off. Are we saying that people are using their own natural charisma to sway the dm into giving them a bonus?Yeah, part of the argument is the intrusion of real-life skills into character skills via roleplaying. Upstream are examples of characters with low charisma getting things like diplomacy bonuses because the player impresses the GM with their RL talking skills "in character".
So, even though the character doesn't have a CH bonus, the GM gives them an extra +2, or +5, or whatever to their roll, because the player is good at that skill.
Much of the argument is about this conflated "bonus" and whether it handicaps players who aren't very skilled with social verbiage and can't produce impressive dialogue instantaneously.
The question seems to be do you have to do the actual script and act it out, or can you just say something like "my character tries flattery and flirting with the king".
I mean you are obviously putting more effort into it one way so Reward the effort makes sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you are obviously putting more effort into it one way so Reward the effort makes sense.
Well, that leaves people who are good at that sort of improv theater with more bonuses than people who don't have that RL skill.
And, I'd argue that the person who is not verbally adept is putting *more* effort into the description than the person who is good at improve is putting into the acting.
If it's very easy for you do do something (chat up the king) IRL, should you get bonus points because you have that RL skill? Especially if your character doesn't?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not always a question of "effort" as I mentioned in my earlier post. Some people are anxious/uncomfortable about being in the spotlight and can't RP that out comfortably.
It's essentially telling them that they'll never be as good as someone who is naturally socially inclined because they can't be comfortable with acting out a diplomacy roll instead of just outlining their talking points and what their objective is.
Hey RPG's are a learning experience if it teaches a player to have better social skills then I am all for it. Why baby them? let them learn maybe it will help them get over the anxiety and un-comfort. Its not telling them anything they get to interpret the stimuli themselfs they can just give up and say I'll never be that socially adept or they can watch others and learn from it. Being socially adept helps in real life it should be encouraged.
Heck I'm pretty sure My social skills improved drastically by all these years playing. I remember being incredibly shy in middle school. D&D taught me to open up. Had to learn to communicate better (not to mention the problem solving skills I learned.)
The whole idea of punishing the charismatic player for using his own skills seems wrong. IT would be like telling the smart player to stop thinking of ideas. Do we take the athlete and force them not to exercise so they won't make the out of shape feel bad?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you are obviously putting more effort into it one way so Reward the effort makes sense.
So the charismatic player effectively gets more skill points than the non charismatic? They get to instead put points into other skills because you'd allow them the same results as someone CHARACTER that 'put in the effort'?
Hey RPG's are a learning experience if it teaches a player to have better social skills then I am all for it. Why baby them?
So punished them for not speaking well? That'll make them speak better! Does a gymnast get bonuses at acrobatics or a painter at craft?
The whole idea of punishing the charismatic player for using his own skills seems wrong.
It's punishing the CHARISMATIC player by making him follow the same rules as everyone else? As opposed to giving the PC bonuses for out of character skills that you don't for other characters? Bodybuilders don't get a bonus on strength so are we 'punishing' them?
Oh here we go gray again come to pick on me... :D :P D: (is joke)
Who said anything about skill points Its a circumstance bonus for being good at role playing Which I thought was the point of the game?
Whose punishing them I'm just not rewarding them for not speaking well. Heaven forbid we don't cuddle kids to the point they can't learn to take care themselves.
Everyone has the same rules if ANY person makes a good argument or what have you they get the bonus its available to anyone not just that player. So how exactly do I coddle the dumb player who can't cast the right spells or use the right tactics? Why am I only rewarding intelligence? Its ok to give a flanking bonus cause the player thought to flank but not ok to encourage the player who thought of the perfect lie or w/e.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why baby them? let them learn maybe it will help them get over the anxiety and un-comfort. Its not telling them anything they get to interpret the stimuli themselfs they can just give up and say I'll never be that socially adept or they can watch others and learn from it. Being socially adept helps in real life it should be encouraged.
I think Redalia had a perfect response to this kind of thinking on the previous page.
Being shy can also be perfectly valid, normal, and healthy. It is not something that needs to be 'fixed,' 'worked on,' or 'grown out of.' It is also a part of who some people are, and is to be respected.
The whole idea of punishing the charismatic player for using his own skills seems wrong.
And I'm not sure how we're punishing them? We're just not rewarding them any more than a player who isn't charismatic IRL.
Why baby them? let them learn maybe it will help them get over the anxiety and un-comfort. Its not telling them anything they get to interpret the stimuli themselfs they can just give up and say I'll never be that socially adept or they can watch others and learn from it. Being socially adept helps in real life it should be encouraged.I think Redalia had a perfect response to this kind of thinking on the previous page.
Being shy can also be perfectly valid, normal, and healthy. It is not something that needs to be 'fixed,' 'worked on,' or 'grown out of.' It is also a part of who some people are, and is to be respected.
No screw that. I was shy it wasn't some great part of my personality it was anxiety and a lack of self-confidence. It was not healthy. its common but that doesn't make it normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vid,
You've essentially summarized the back and forth of the past four or so pages in your last couple of posts.
Because that 'meta' shouldn't be a factor in a 'perfect' gaming environment, but it *is*.
And it cuts into the community, instead of bringing it together.
Why baby them? let them learn maybe it will help them get over the anxiety and un-comfort. Its not telling them anything they get to interpret the stimuli themselfs they can just give up and say I'll never be that socially adept or they can watch others and learn from it. Being socially adept helps in real life it should be encouraged."
I quoted part of the first one here, to note the 'Why baby them?' is not a good way to build understanding of the sort of social pressures and factors at work.
A good chunk of people lack the capability to 'get over the anxiety and un-comfort'. To force them to do so makes what should be a fun and enjoyable experience a torturous one, and drives away future talent and perspective.
As far as the second post:
The whole idea of punishing the charismatic player for using his own skills seems wrong. IT would be like telling the smart player to stop thinking of ideas. Do we take the athlete and force them not to exercise so they won't make the out of shape feel bad?
The problem is that they aren't *playing* a character that is charismatic and the smart person isn't playing a genius character.
So they aren't really roleplaying well if they're relying on RL techniques or knowledge instead of what their character would be like.
As far as the Athlete analogy, it doesn't quite work because the Athlete is not being forced to not workout... they are playing (for the sake of this example) a character that's a couch potato.
If they roleplayed that, then they wouldn't be "Oh, gotta hit the gym for some reps" in-character, would they?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but that's a terrible view to have and I completely disagree. It's perfectly fine for not everyone to be extroverts. Being shy or introverted is not unhealthy unless taken to extremes.
And you seem to conflate shyness/intoversion with lack of confidence. Those are not the same things.
So being good at role-playing shouldn't matter in a role-playing game?
Too worried about the game part and not enough about the role-playing part.
Shy does not mean introverted.
Introverted people can seem shy. I'm an introvert I Hate being around large groups of people for to long. I prefer quiet with a good book. I can however still talk to people and communicate effectivly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the question is whether player skills should give bonuses to their characters.
Because I'm a Water Safety Instructor, does that mean all my characters get bonuses on their Swim skill checks?
Because I'm a good public speaker, does that mean all my characters get bonuses on their Diplomacy skill checks?
Your ability to role play well is already augmented by your real life skills.
The issue is whether that meta-knowledge and skill should give you an advantage when the dice are being rolled.
I think the question is whether player skills should give bonuses to their characters.
Because I'm a Water Safety Instructor, does that mean all my characters get bonuses on their Swim skill checks?
Because I'm a good public speaker, does that mean all my characters get bonuses on their Diplomacy skill checks?
Your ability to role play well is already augmented by your real life skills.
The issue is whether that meta-knowledge and skill should give you an advantage when the dice are being rolled.
But it is going to no matter what. You can't separate the character form the player its impossible. Their is always going to be some meta. people are not capable of it. Its going to be even harder when it comes to social roles.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And let me chime in, strongly, against the idea that making people *more uncomfortable* because they can't role play extroverted behaviors is not a good way to make them get over being uncomfortable.
Kinda like me suggesting that throwing non-swimmers into the deep end will make them better and more confident swimmers.
Alright, I'm gonna actually leave like I said I was a page ago. I'm not enjoying this back and forth over whether it's healthy to force people into unwanted social interaction and in-depth roleplaying.
Your not forcing them their coming to a ROLE-PLAYING game. unless you tied them up and drug them they came by their own free will.
And let me chime in, strongly, against the idea that making people *more uncomfortable* because they can't role play extroverted behaviors is not a good way to make them get over being uncomfortable.
Kinda like me suggesting that throwing non-swimmers into the deep end will make them better and more confident swimmers.
Now your manipulating what i said to lend to your argument.
So you shouldn't ever encourage players to role-play in the role-playing game? just let them sit and the back and roll the dice when their turn comes up? Do you guys not ever play with friends? I had one friend who used to do that and we gradually got him to start communicating and now he is at least able to order food at a restaurant without having an anxiety attack. How is giving the talkative player a +2 circumstance bonus the same as dropping someone who can't swim into a pool? EXAGGERATION much?
I think the question is whether player skills should give bonuses to their characters.
Because I'm a Water Safety Instructor, does that mean all my characters get bonuses on their Swim skill checks?
Because I'm a good public speaker, does that mean all my characters get bonuses on their Diplomacy skill checks?
Your ability to role play well is already augmented by your real life skills.
The issue is whether that meta-knowledge and skill should give you an advantage when the dice are being rolled.
I dunno. Are you the person describing just how you should move your body in the water in order to get to the boat/shore/stay floating?
I'd give you maybe a bonus. Of course, I wouldn't Tell you I gave you a bonus. And it wouldn't be every time you do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to do that (manipulate what you say).
I'm trying to say that people with social anxiety and people who are uncomfortable being glib deserve bonuses for describing how they would talk to the king (flirt, flattery) just like people who are comfortable writing scripts and performing them as improv at the table.
Each person is putting in effort to describe how they would roleplay the scene. But each person isn't getting the same bonus for the same kind of thinking.
Being able to 'flirt with the king' as an actor isn't better than saying "my character flirts with the king".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vid:
You've mentioned that you worked someone gradually into it in a group of friends. That's sort of like working someone terrified of water into being at ease in water, and then learning how to have fun and swim.
Not everyone has had the experience of being able to sit at a table with friends and people they know.
In fact, PFS is kind of based on the principle that the people you play with this week may be from four different parts of the country.
So now, tie in your own introversion to sitting at a table of complete strangers that you're roleplaying with, and the discomfort is building and now... now the GM insists that you give a fully epic speech instead of "I sway the bartender with some small talk".
That's the deep end of the figurative pool.
lets say you have 2 players big party maybe both playing wizards. One of them is experienced and the other not. Do you nerf the experienced player so that the new player won't feel useless?
Their both just using what their player knows. The players learned skill still come into play.
I guess its not a rule in pf anymore and I've been talking like it was but say you do give circumstance bonuses what would warrant one then? or would you say just never give them for anything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but that's a terrible view to have and I completely disagree. It's perfectly fine for not everyone to be extroverts. Being shy or introverted is not unhealthy unless taken to extremes.
I wonder if there's a misunderstanding in this thread about what introversion/extroversion are? Since they honestly have nothing to do with shyness, or social skills, or anxiety. All being an extrovert means is "you are energized from interacting with people, but drained from being alone" and all being an introvert means is "you are drained by interacting with people, but energized from being alone." None of this has anything to do with what you are good at or what you like doing- after all distance running is exhausting to everybody but some people enjoy it nonetheless. I feel similarly about being around people- it's fun, but I want to sleep for 48 hours afterwards. For me having structure like "I am a GM/player in a roleplaying game" or "I am giving a lecture to 300 people who are there on purpose" makes this more manageable, but I'm probably never going to go wander around a convention voluntarily.
I feel like, whether this is a plus or a minus in the energy column, everybody could stand to improve at things like listening to, empathizing with, talking to, or understanding people. Sure it's harder for some people than others, but so is pretty much everything else worth knowing (and also juggling.)
I mean, if you're up front about it- "in this game, you're going to have to do improv" I don't see what the problem is.
I don't play PFS I have no experience with it so I can't comment on that. This Thread is not under the PFS thread so I'm assuming its general stuff not Just PFS exclusive maybe things work different in PFS I have no idea.
But in what way did I say I was requiring a character give a speech. I just said If a player does an excellent job at it I might give him a +2 circumstance bonus. My players can still say I just want to make a diplomacy check./ That is fine go ahead. But if the player wants to improve everyone enjoyment of the game my giving a well thought out speech then a +2 does not seem like i'm going overboard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay.
Let's try this again.
Charisma 7 Barbarian played by the Debate Team Captain, with amazing people skills.
Charisma 18 Bard played by the 1st Board Chess Club person, who has horrible people skills.
Player of the Barbarian gives a rousing speech. GM likes it, gives circumstance bonuses (even though it's unlikely that the Barbarian would have enough skill to hit a given DC) and lets NPCs be swayed by it.
Player of the Bard tells the GM what the speech is about. GM hates it, doesn't give any bonuses (and maybe even gives a penalty for 'not roleplaying enough' but the Bard has more than enough mechanical skill to hit the given DC) and then DOESN'T let NPCS be swayed by it.
Seems a bit unfair, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lets say you have 2 players big party maybe both playing wizards. One of them is experienced and the other not. Do you nerf the experienced player so that the new player won't feel useless?
Their both just using what their player knows. The players learned skill still come into play.
We're not talking about game knowledge. And, yes, if the same players were coming to the table, I might ask the experienced wizard to do some teamwork with the less experienced player. Whether that's "nerfing" is a different can of worms.
I guess its not a rule in pf anymore and I've been talking like it was but say you do give circumstance bonuses what would warrant one then? or would you say just never give them for anything?
Of course I give circumstantial bonuses. But it's not for using your natural social skills to overcome a low charisma score that you chose for your character.
Introverted pretty well means your focused inwards instead of outwards.
I don't talk to people not because I'm shy but because Id rather invest that energy elsewhere.
Okay.Let's try this again.
Charisma 7 Barbarian played by the Debate Team Captain, with amazing people skills.
Charisma 18 Bard played by the 1st Board Chess Club person, who has horrible people skills.
Player of the Barbarian gives a rousing speech. GM likes it, gives circumstance bonuses (even though it's unlikely that the Barbarian would have enough skill to hit a given DC) and lets NPCs be swayed by it.
Player of the Bard tells the GM what the speech is about. GM hates it, doesn't give any bonuses (and maybe even gives a penalty for 'not roleplaying enough' but the Bard has more than enough mechanical skill to hit the given DC) and then DOESN'T let NPCS be swayed by it.
Seems a bit unfair, right?
Except the Bard still gets all the bonuses and that barbarian is getting a penalty. The attribute and skills are getting added in. If that barb somehow beats the bard at a diplomacy check their is more at play then a simple +2 most likely the barb also rolled phenomenally. A +2 is not going to make up for THAT kind of difference. heck the +2 just barely makes up for his charisma penalty.
kind of a minor thing.
Also why in the world would those players choose to play those characters? I have never seen an anti-social player go Hey I wanna play the most social class ever!
lets say you have 2 players big party maybe both playing wizards. One of them is experienced and the other not. Do you nerf the experienced player so that the new player won't feel useless?
Their both just using what their player knows. The players learned skill still come into play.We're not talking about game knowledge. And, yes, if the same players were coming to the table, I might ask the experienced wizard to do some teamwork with the less experienced player. Whether that's "nerfing" is a different can of worms.
I guess its not a rule in pf anymore and I've been talking like it was but say you do give circumstance bonuses what would warrant one then? or would you say just never give them for anything?Of course I give circumstantial bonuses. But it's not for using your natural social skills to overcome a low charisma score that you chose for your character.
I need a example. Specifically.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have been pretty clear that there's a difference between having social anxiety and being introverted.
People who are introverted are do not necessarily have social anxiety. But people who have social anxiety get very uncomfortable when they're put in the spotlight, unlike people who *like* being in the spotlight.
I need a example. Specifically.
Charisma 7 Barbarian played by the Debate Team Captain, with amazing people skills.
Charisma 18 Bard played by the 1st Board Chess Club person, who has horrible people skills.
Player of the Barbarian gives a rousing speech. GM likes it, gives circumstance bonuses
Player of the Bard tells the GM what the speech is about. GM hates it, doesn't give any bonuses (and maybe even gives a penalty for 'not roleplaying enough )
Is that a good example? Should the CH 7 barbarian get a bonus because the *player* is a good debater?
No its not but You need to re-read what I was asking was an example of you giving a circumstance bonus.
Except the Bard still gets all the bonuses and that barbarian is getting a penalty. The attribute and skills are getting added in. If that barb somehow beats the bard at a diplomacy check their is more at play then a simple +2 most likely the barb also rolled phenomenally. A +2 is not going to make up for THAT kind of difference. heck the +2 just barely makes up for his charisma penalty.kind of a minor thing.
Also why in the world would those players choose to play those characters? I have never seen an anti-social player go Hey I wanna play the most social class ever!
Except in the case of the first paragraph,the GM was swayed by the player with RL Charisma 18, not IC Charisma 7.
In the second part?
I've seen folks who 'want to help' play Bard characters (for example) but really aren't keen on the social parts. They've been effective, one just has to realize that these individuals aren't strong conversationalists/epic storytellers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, ok I missed your earlier post.
The example is the party trying to convince the king to give them resources (money, soldiers, whatever).
Player A says, "I flirt with the king and flatter him, smiling and winking as we talk"
Player B says, "Oh, Your Most Royal Majesty! How could a kind and generous monarch such as yourself fail to provide your humble servants with the means to destroy BigBad" Player B also uses appropriate facial expressions and body language.
Player A has social anxiety, Player B is gregarious with both strangers and friends. Would you give bonuses to either player?
If the skills were switched and Player B had social anxiety and Player A was normally quite gregarious, would that change your answer?
The player playing the character MATTERS. You can't disconnect the two. So the barbarian says really convincing thing the players mind allowed them to think of it. so the player gets a +2 for thinking of it. Then the barbarians terrible charisma gives the character a -2 and since he has no diplomacy he has a +0 to the roll depending on DC hes probably still going to fail the roll. bard getting +4 for charisma +4 for diplomacy has +8 doing nothing else. He will probably succeed long as the DC is reasonable. I see No problem what so ever with this.
I can't say for sure if your second example reading players b part seems to empty to me. but I see no reason to let player A get any special bonus when really all he is saying is i make a diplomacy check. No matter which player useing player A's answer their not getting the bonus.
(also you still haven't actually gave me an example of you awarding a circumstance bonus. )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No its not but You need to re-read what I was asking was an example of you giving a circumstance bonus.
Myself, I give bonuses/penalties to cha skills for bring up things that are relevant/important to the NPC: roleplaying skill is irrelevant. So if you mention the guards affair you might get a bonus on intimidate or you make make a point of trying to be witty and the person likes wordplay for diplomacy or you know they hate dwarves and you blame those dirty dwarves in a bluff.
It's the ideas and gathering of info that get a bonus from me, not improv skills or RL acting skills: The bonuses are rewarding character skill and not player skill. Memorizing the bestiary as a player doesn't give a bonus to know checks from the character...
No its not but You need to re-read what I was asking was an example of you giving a circumstance bonus.Myself, I give bonuses/penalties to cha skills for bring up things that are relevant/important to the NPC: roleplaying skill is irrelevant. So if you mention the guards affair you might get a bonus on intimidate or you make make a point of trying to be witty and the person likes wordplay for diplomacy or you know they hate dwarves and you blame those dirty dwarves in a bluff.
It's the ideas and gathering of info that get a bonus from me, not improv skills or RL acting skills: The bonuses are rewarding character skill and not player skill. Memorizing the bestiary as a player doesn't give a bonus to know checks from the character...
So for you its more of a research bonus. The character went digging for some information to use against the guards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say for sure if your second example reading players b part seems to empty to me.
Yes, both the script and description were meant to be equivalent in terms of information.
I wouldn't give circumstance bonuses for either of those methods, because, as graystone says, it doesn't show any mindfulness on the part of the character of what might convince the king to give them information/money/soldiers.
But some people seem to be arguing that the player who mimes and acts out using script language rather than descriptive language should get a bonus.
I was getting the impression that you felt that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if the party as a collective entity is trying to convince someone, and the Barbarian's player makes a better argument than the Bard's player does, even though the Bard has a much higher charisma and diplomacy score, you can just interpret that as a successful "Aid Another" by the Barb on the Bard's diplomacy role. My "allow myself to be swayed by a charismatic player" would probably only be "skip the Aid Another roll".
Why are you having them roll separately if they're all in the same place after the same thing? Whether the barbarian can convince people of things when they are all alone isn't really that concerning to the rest of the party (since they likely hope their friend doesn't get into trouble left to their own devices).
I mean, I get this a lot- the party is trying to convince someone of something, there is a back and forth in which everybody gets involved in some part of the discussion (e.g. if the king tries to say that the villagers might have just been "torn apart by wolves" the barbarian, who knows about both wolves and *precisely* how hard it is to tear someone's arms off, might interject with a salient point.) I just figure everybody except the person with the highest modifier was aiding another, then have that person roll with appropriate modifiers. Phenomenon of "only the party spokesperson is allowed to speak" just strikes me as bizarre, and "everybody gets to say a thing then roll individually" strikes me as unrealistic.
My feelings is if the person presents their dialogue/argument well then they deserve the bonus I'm not giving it to the character let me make that distinction I'm awarding it to the player. He has improved the game though his role-play. The character still gets all his penalties and maybe has it end up sounding like gobility g~++ after he rolls a 5 and adds nothing to it. But the player put some effort into it even if he has some natural talent it still took more so then I roll diplomacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for you its more of a research bonus. The character went digging for some information to use against the guards?No its not but You need to re-read what I was asking was an example of you giving a circumstance bonus.Myself, I give bonuses/penalties to cha skills for bring up things that are relevant/important to the NPC: roleplaying skill is irrelevant. So if you mention the guards affair you might get a bonus on intimidate or you make make a point of trying to be witty and the person likes wordplay for diplomacy or you know they hate dwarves and you blame those dirty dwarves in a bluff.
It's the ideas and gathering of info that get a bonus from me, not improv skills or RL acting skills: The bonuses are rewarding character skill and not player skill. Memorizing the bestiary as a player doesn't give a bonus to know checks from the character...
Yep, that's what's outside the normal rolls IMO: the general roll is the generic 'role play' that goes on with every check. [either saying 'I try to improve their attitude' or roleplaying 'I try to improve their attitude'] And of course, the players can trip over a topic by accident through dumb luck.
There can also be 'tone' modifiers: Some NPC might react differently if you are polite, arrogant, playful, subservient, ect. So even without 'research', it's possible to alter the rolls [for good or ill].
That isn't to say I don't enjoy someone acting out interections if they wish, I just don't codify that enjoyment as a bonus: good roleplay should, IMO, make my and the players game better, not make the characters adventure better. The reward for good roleplay is good roleplay... ;)
Eh I've had players try harder at role playing to get that bonus. It made the game more fun (funner?) because of it. I assume we are all here to have fun and not just play the game for the games sake.