It depends on whether or not the players can roleplay them, and whether or not it is more or less fun to do so. For instance when someone is doing a bluff/intimidate/diplomacy roll you can kind of respond as the NPC to what the pc is doing in accordance with how they roll. You can even sometimes use it for describing the effects of them doing a more physical skill or feat. Some players like the cinematic effect of that. I like it when the players can join in with their own cinematic descriptions--like they might say "what I want to do is run to coincide with my horse fleeing the battle and vault into the saddle to escape my pursuers" and then the roll takes place--so I might if it is a total flop say "you go to vault into the saddle but the horse swerves at the last moment and you slam into his flank...."
|
There are some skills that can be RP'd in place of (or to suppliment) dice roles. Communication skills, for example, are the most appropriate. A player can can come up with his own convincing lie should get a circumstance bonus to their character's bluff check (ah, the much-beloved and bemoaned +2 or -2).
Other, more physical skills like jump, should not be attempted at the gaming table. :)
I feel that some skills should be roleplayed i cant stand the thought of i would like to bluff the guard as an example ok roll.
I have always run games were players or myself as a dm had to roleplay what they are doing. It actually makes a lot of sense to me what your thoughts please on this subject.
I try to encourage players to tell me what their characters are going to say, but the die roll is what counts in the end. As in, what are you going to say to bluff/intimidate the guard? Maybe a +2 circumstance bonus if they come up with something really good.
It makes sense to try and roleplay the situation, but it's not reasonable to expect a player to be as glib or silver-tongued as their character. I've played with some charismatic people, but I've never met a player who can bluff or intimidate as well as a character with those skills maxed out.
~RD
|
Boggle,
The use of a mere mechanic to decide the results of "diplomacy" and "bluff" checks is an interesting dilemma, one where your choice of what to do has serious ramifications for game balance (at least potentially).
As a DM, I like to encourage "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing." This bias was most reinforced in me as I played Superhero RPGs with abstract mechanics (DC Heroes and Marvel) where the story elements and the action elements were pretty well divided. But it was also DC Heroes that got me thinking about how to use social skills, as a mechanic, in the games I ran.
Earlier, I wrote that the use of Skill rolls is a balance issue, and it really is. Those characters that are good at these skills should be good at them regardless of the ability of the player to roleplay effectively. Those that are poor at these skills should perform poorly regardless of the player's ability to roleplay. This is because those classes who excel in these skills naturally often lack certain other abilities, Bards for example, and it becomes necessary for their effectiveness in the social areas to be important for the players of these characters to feel a proper amount of achievement contribution. Just trust me on this. A good example might be a much needed piece of information that the Gather Information skill should reveal, if they ask the right questions. These balance considerations become vitally important in city based mystery campaigns like my own CSI: Sharn game.
So how to you DM "Skill Roles" and not "Skill Rolls?" Which is what I recommend. There are essentially three ways that I see as viable.
First, you can have the players roleplay out the the Diplomacy or Gather Information encounter and give a +2 or -2 to any checks based on the questions asked or the quality of roleplay. This makes the proper roleplaying of a scene important, but it also encourages players who have low Charisma character (but who have forceful personalities in real life) to attempt to question the informant as emphatically as the skilled individual.
Second, and I really like this one and use it in my game, have the players roll their checks before the encounter begins. Have them use the results of their roll affect the way they roleplay the scene. If they rolled low, but have a high Cha, maybe they are moderately forgetful or say something that is taken the wrong way. This can be fun.
Third, and I also use this in addition to #2, is to remind players to roleplay as if they had "taken 10" on any check. You can always take 10, unless in a high stress situation, and it makes for a good default. Make sure to set the difficulties of things you want to be challenging based upon this assumption when you use this method as a person with an 18 Charisma and 4 ranks in a skill will have a base 15, but if you also assume that the listener to a bluff is taking 10 on Sense Motive you don't have much to worry about. You can also modify any "take 10" with the +2/-2 based on performance that I mentioned before.
Just remember that all players want their characters to matter in an adventure. They want to be important in the resolution. Sometimes players who aren't very social want to play very social players, don't punish them for not being their character any more than you would punish your average gamer for not having a +15 Base attack bonus.
One of my most agonizing experiences with Diplomacy etc. was a player who played a rude, angry, threatening, Cleric who would insult/threaten/ berate people and then use his +16 in Diplomacy to try to find out information. I kept having to tell the player that a +16 in Diplomacy probably meant that the character didn't say but two words of what the character was roleplaying. Remind the characters to roleplay, as much as they can, the skills they have chosen.
Christian Johnson
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I work on a similar principle to Realms DM
If a player wants to bluff the stupid ogre, I'll ask what he says. If the player says, "Um, something scary." Then I'll evaluate the situation with a -2 circumstance penalty on top of the other penalties.
If the player tries, "Well since I am wearing a chain shirt under my cloak, I'm going to tell them I'm a servant of their master, show my Shieldor amulat, and walk arrogently past them." I'll give them a +2 testicular circumstance bonus.
Same thing goes for disable device. If I describe how the trap is set, and the player describes how he's bypassing it, bonuses can apply.
Reward the player's energy, not so much his acting talents.
|
|
As a DM, I get a little irked with players who simply play their stats. Bluff and Diplomacy are especially annoying when one of my players simply announces, "I Bluff the guard" and when I ask him what he says, he responds, "It doesn't matter, I rolled an 18 and I have a +12."
There is something called the Spirit of the Game, and this IMHO, is not it.
At the same time, there are some skills that are a little difficult to roleplay. For instance, I don't force my players to actually sing their Perform checks (or juggle or dance or whatever), though I do ask them to describe their actions clearly.
I don't allow them to use such skills unless they at least try to come up wiht something to say. I don't let them get away with saying "I bluff the guard." I make them come up with something for their character to say.
This is also one of my favorite parts of a roleplaying session: coming up with at least marginally convincing lies to get myself out of sticky situations.
I don't allow them to use such skills unless they at least try to come up wiht something to say. I don't let them get away with saying "I bluff the guard." I make them come up with something for their character to say.
This is also one of my favorite parts of a roleplaying session: coming up with at least marginally convincing lies to get myself out of sticky situations.
same here u must tell me what your saying or doing to use said skills
I tend to fall into the "tell me what you're saying" and then possibly give a +2/-2 adjustment to the DC when they do roll.
However, it can be big fun to turn the tables. I have one of my players who is very knowledgeable in the game and a very immersive roleplayer. This time around he's playing a low Charisma, off-putting individual who can't bluff his way out of a paper bag. The party was heading back to their patron knowing full well that they were going to lie to her, and had even gone so far as to come up with a cover story for the face of the group.
As soon as they get into the audience with their patron, what does my friend do? He starts telling the patron the pack of lies they had come up with instead of letting the guy who's good at this stuff say his piece. My response - I locked eyes with the chatty player (who has a -2 Bluff modifier) and I said "Bluff Check!"
There was a blink and a stammering, "but I..."
"But nothing - you saying it, you're Bluffing. Bluff check."
Needless to say, my PCs have been a bit more cautious about roleplaying against their skill set.
Skills are as much a defining aspect of the game as ability scores. They should be a springboard for character development, not a straight jacket limiting creativity. That being said, if you really feel the skill system limits creativity, by all means bypass it. It's your game after all. I have found, though, that the skill system is a fair way to reflect the type of character one wants to create.
|
|
i simply dont like this if you roleplay very well you get a circumstance bonus you more than likely get nothing out of it the dice are cruel creatures.
I prefere to roleplay it out and make a fair judgement based on effort about what happens. As a dm not everybody is silver tounged however everybody can talk.
The principle I use is that the characters cannot call a skill check; so they cannot say; "I'm going to Move Silently past the guard, then Bluff the gatekeeper".
They have to say; "I'm going to try and creep past the guard, then when i get to the gatehouse I'll tell the gatekeeper that Lord Yash sent me down to relieve him."
They can elaborate upon this as much as they like but a good bit of acting at the game table won't get them an edge (it will just be fun); however good ideas will (ie. knowing that Lord Yash is obsessed with his dogs, and a bit of a bully the tall tale told to the gatekeeper includes a reference to the dogs and Yash being in a foul mood, paying attention to the layout and telling me where and why you're going to sneak (on that soft loam, under the shadow of that big porch...)).
This way the actors in my group can show-off, but the more reserved folk can still play out their heroic characers' lives.
I give circumstance bonuses, but more importantly I adjust the DC (moving silently along soft, damp ground is much easier than on cobbles). I also choose the skill check (you're being pretty agressive here, i'm calling that an intimidate check, not a diplomacy; that's a pretty small window to leap through, i'm calling that an escape artist check, not a tumble). However I always use a dice roll - why?
Because the drama, tension and excitement provoked by messing up can be great fun. "You cleverly pick path through the soft undergrowth, slipping past the oblivious guard... until, suddenly, you stub your toe on a tree branch hidden in the inky dark and cry out in pain before you can help yourself!"
This leads to a midnight chase through the city, which might well be more fun than swiping the statue of Samesh-Ta, and the players will still get a sense of victory (well, relief) when they shake off their pursuers.
Basically; I'm not dissimilar to you, but I still use the dice because they add chance, which means risk => drama => excitement. I also think there's more realism in making it risky - smooth-talkers do sometimes misjudge their audience, guards are sometimes unusually alert, long-jumpers do mis-time their run-up and foul their attempt...
I grant up to a +2 circumstance bonus for effective roleplaying, but don't penalize them if they do it poorly. At least they made an effort.
The best way to see the behavior you want is to create circumstances where that behavior is rewarded.
I too grant a bonus if roleplayed, but I do penalize obvious blunders with a negative bonus; also, I dont tell what this bonus is; players only learn pass or fail; as well, I do not usually tell DC's for skills though some are obvious when they are simple and lots of unpressured time is available.
I give a circumstance bonus and make them say generally what their character is to say. If they are really convincing or completely blunder it can be an automatic pass or fail.
I also like them to say generally what their character is going to discuss because players often will let information slip that they shouldn't have. Think before you speak.
But I don't penalize if they are too shy to roleplay it out. I just penalize dumb.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I am in the position of being gifted with a couple of players who are quite eloquent and descriptive roleplayers. I have another couple of players who are.... not.
However, my eloquent roleplayers don't want to be stuck playing bards, rogues, and sorcerers all the time and my "not-so-eloquent" players enjoy some of those classes. Therefore, in the interest of letting people play what they want, roleplay is entirely optional when dealing with social skills such as Diplomacy and Bluff. If someone does come up with something that is very cunning, then I consult the PHB guidelines for the Bluff skill (i.e. if the lie is easily believable, they can get a +5 bonus, etc.). For Diplomacy, it's a little more off-the-cuff. Generally, I just play by the rules there.
... I just penalize dumb.
=)
I'm gonna guess that's a common denominator here.
Although I want mine to talk as much as possible because they're students learning English as well as being there for fun, so there really is a lot of "What, more or less, will you say?"
A great phrase when someone says "I use my Bluff" (or the equivalent) is to say absolutely neutrally "What do you say?"
Skill roleplaying can fall into different categories. These break down to Interactive (most social skills), Revelatory (PC relating knowledge from the DM), Accomplishment (making things; tough to roleplay much about forging a sword except perhaps a bit of flavor) and Reactive skills (like "I made a Listen check"). The first two are the easiest to RP, although it's always interesting when the table hears Information Point #17, and the PC modifies it.