I'm wondering how other groups handle situations with NPCs that can be influenced by either role playing or skill checks.
One side of this situation seems straightforward: while you lose an opportunity to role play, if a player states "I'm going to make a Diplomacy check to try and get the information I want" the game mechanic takes over and can direct the outcome.
What about the reverse? For example, rather than make a Diplomacy check, players continue to role play the interaction with the NPCs in order to try and influence the attitude of the NPC or gather information. Do you stop at some point and call for a Diplomacy check to determine the outcome of the interaction or do you let good role playing direct a favorable outcome (or bad role playing direct an unforvarable outcome)?
I usually apply good or bad roleplaying as a modifier on the Diplomacy check. usually going anywhere from +4 to -4 depending on how it was handled.
|
Well, this is one of those cases where it matters depending on just where the PCs are starting in their negotiation, but also factors in the players ease of interacting with the NPCs.
If say your running a Bard/Paladin/Sorcerer running at full tilt you might just let them take 10 (GM call) on simple requests. After all, they are Charisma kings in action. But hostle NPCs really should always be rolled out. Just keep in mind there ain't nothing wrong with a good situational bonus if the Players are doing a good job eh?
Usually, I wont call for a diplomacy check until about half way through some interaction. Then, depending on the result, the character starts to warm up and become friendlier or start to get annoyed at more minor things, depending on how they rolled. Have the roll influence how you respond to them, but still make them work, at least for semi-important interactions.
Count me as another who does the "if you roleplay the interaction well, you get a bonus, but it's still a Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate/Whatever check."
Just as your character is most likely better at combat than you are, they may or may not be as good as you at social interaction. That's why there's a skill check for it.
You may be a smooth-talking charmer, but unless your character has the ranks in Bluff or Diplomacy to back it up, they might not be.
That half-orc rogue with a 6 Charisma and no ranks in Bluff or Diplomacy probably won't be charming the pants off anyone, regardless of how glib his player is.
Complicated issue, in my opinion. You hate to step on good roleplaying by just telling someone to roll a die to determine success, but not using the die roll really negates the investment in skill points some characters have made.
I generally use a hybrid, applying situational modifiers for good or bad roleplaying, as Justin suggests. However, at times, if someone is enjoying the roleplaying and is playing in character rather than metagaming (e.g. the barbarian with the 8 intelligence and no points in Diplomacy isn't giving a doctoral thesis level persuasive argument), I'll dispense with the die roll completely and just go with the roleplaying, using my judgment as to how the NPCs will react.
On the other hand, I have some players who don't really want to roleplay these types of things at all and just tell me they want to make a die roll, and that's fine, too.
|
|
Do you stop at some point and call for a Diplomacy check to determine the outcome of the interaction or do you let good role playing direct a favorable outcome (or bad role playing direct an unforvarable outcome)?
Neither. If they don't specifically say they're doing a Diplomacy check, they don't change anyone's attitude or gather any information. (Note: Not claiming this is the correct way to do it. This is just how our group does it.)
This is where a DM earns his/her salt. :)
The way I usually handle an NPC in a social situation has five main variables.
1. The NPC's motivation and goals.
2. The NPC's Class, skills, and level.
3. The NPC's Alignment.
4. The Players role play of the encounter.
5. The players skill check result.
The DC is based upon the first three things in the list. And the last two things in the list modify the players skill check. So in MOST cases good or bad role playing will give a player a + or - of up to four on the final result. But if during the role playing the player can tie into or away from something in the top three that will adjust the DC up or down by a factor of 5/10/20.
I will almost never let the player NOT roll the dice... although sometimes anything other then a 1 or 20 will not change the result.
To clarify. The DC may be set at 20 for a start. If the player does well in his RP then I could give him up to a +4 to the skill. However, if the player tries to bribe a NE target with gold and also says the info will help hurt a rival at the same time the DC may be lowered to a 10. While the same result tried on a LG Priest may raise the DC to 25 or even 30... but if they RP's well they would still possibly get a +2 to their roll of the dice.
I have always been a fan of the "You are not your character" rule. If a character has 12 ranks in diplomacy and a 20 cha, he is a silver tongued devil and I am not going to penalize him for not being able to roleplay it out. On the other hand I am willing to reward good roleplay, but there must always be a check.
I generally do both. If a player says i want to roll a diplomacy check on the storekeep. He can roll, but he also has to roleplay it. And i will apply modifiers based on the roleplay the same way i would with bluff checks.
I will also ask for the check after a conversation if the player instead initiates the roleplay first as opposed to the rollplay. So basically I let the player take the lead as to which comes first, but i generally require both.
They roleplay if it seems like something that will be fun or the player wants to but but then roll to see how effective they are. If I need to speed things up and/or it's something minor they roll and I narrate briefly what they came up with. Especially with bluff rolls. All my players come up with the worst lies so it's in their best interest to let the dice decide.
|
I work similar to Kilokotroni's way: let the players take the lead in whatever fashion they feel comfortable and at some point work in a roll or two. Generally, I like to have them "role-play" the "roll."
Example:
Player A: I want to defuse the situation, make the city guard realize we didn't destroy this shop and are investigating the break-in. Player isn't comfortable making long, eloquent speeches.
DM: Sounds good, try a Diplomacy check.
Player A: Rolls a 5.
DM: (sees that Player A succeeds despite a terrible roll). Looks like you said something crude to them. What'd you say?
(no matter what the roll, DM asks what'd you say and spins it to success, failure, or no change in attitudes).
Player A: Ummm, lay down your weapons and we'll talk?
DM: One of the guards, a gnarled old salt with long knife scars on his face, slowly lowers his mace. "Yer right, lad. We come barging in here and see you and assumed the worst. My wife says don't leap at shadows, don't jump to conclusions. Let's talk."
On the other hand, a very eloquent player with a terrible charisma character shouldn't be able to talk their way through everything:
(same setup, but Player B has been talking for the last few minutes about the merits of why the party isn't responsible for what the guards see, that they were on the trail of the gang that broke into this shop...it's a good argument, but he's playing Grog the fighter with a 7 charisma...)
Player B: Rolls a 15.
DM: (despite a good roll, player fails due to low Diplomacy score). Ok, they've listened to what you've said and one of the guards, a gnarled old salt, frowns in anger. "Lad, you're starting to piss me off with yer running mouth. You're dead to rights on this one and not jabbin' yer way out of it like some dockside barrister. Round 'em up."
I don't like the idea of "role play" bonuses on check since such "role playing" often isn't.
The player that is so glib and witty playing a half orc with a Cha 5, Int of 8 and Wis of 14 with all the right answers isn't going to get a role play bonus because, quite frankly, the player probably isn't role playing the character well.
Also just because the player is... lets say less gifted than his character doesn't mean he should be penalized (by not getting the role play bonus) for not being able to entertain me as a GM with a good diplomacy session. With such players I'll try (try!) to let them go on how they want, and ask exactly what they are trying to get out of the situation, and what they have to exchange for it (if anything, as it's not always needed) then I require the roll regardless.
Now if they have good bargianing chips, and what not I'll give them a bonus for that (equipment bonus as it were) but I generally don't like the thought of "role play" bonuses if the role play doesn't match the character -- or the player simply isn't capable of it.
Having such bonuses generally ends up being unfair to someone (either the player that built up his character to do something but can't actually role play it, or everyone that put points in Cha when the Half orc dumped it and is the "best" role player in the group).
Skills and I have a few small issues in general, but for purposes of this discussion I'll simply say that the diplomacy skill in particular works somewhat different in my games. Anyone can attempt to be tactful, persuasive or whatever - it's a big part of the "action," actually - while the diplomacy skill comes into play as leverage when "selling" someone on something - it adds a firm handshake, a friendly smile, "sincere" face, etc. It's not the entire solution, just as in "real life," it can be a huge part of the solution.
I don't like the idea of "role play" bonuses on check since such "role playing" often isn't.
[...]
Having such bonuses generally ends up being unfair to someone (either the player that built up his character to do something but can't actually role play it, or everyone that put points in Cha when the Half orc dumped it and is the "best" role player in the group).
Well see, at our perhaps more assertive group of friends, me and the other GM (we change turns) give bonus based on how hard they try (of course you need to know your players well and establish soem trust).
The player who routinally makes a good IRL RP performance will not necessarily earn more bonuses than the 'shier' player, because for the former the expectations are already higher.
I guess this only shows that there are many wyas of handling this and still feel 'right' and 'fun' for your group.
I don't like the idea of "role play" bonuses on check since such "role playing" often isn't.
[...]
Having such bonuses generally ends up being unfair to someone (either the player that built up his character to do something but can't actually role play it, or everyone that put points in Cha when the Half orc dumped it and is the "best" role player in the group).
Well see, at our perhaps more assertive group of friends, me and the other GM (we change turns) give bonus based on how hard they try (of course you need to know your players well and establish soem trust).
The player who routinally makes a good IRL RP performance will not necessarily earn more bonuses than the 'shier' player, because for the former the expectations are already higher.
I guess this only shows that there are many wyas of handling this and still feel 'right' and 'fun' for your group.
Agreed. Another reason I generally don't like role play bonuses is because I don't give them in other areas.
For example I don't expect a role play bonus during combat just because I personally am rather proficient in combat. I can use two weapons, I can aim accurately, and I can dodge or block incoming attacks -- but just because I'm good at these things doesn't mean my character gets a bonus for it.
Same with acrobatics or knowledge checks -- just because I as a player can do cartwheels or remember precise details of various things doesn't mean my character gets a bonus for it.
So why should my character get a bonus just because I can talk pretty?
****
That being said: I do understand the idea of rewarding the player for trying hard -- and that is an idea I agree with. I simply go about doing it in other areas (as giving the equipment bonus instead of the role play bonus) since those are things the characters have more control over and the player's abilities don't matter as much (an important feature to me since not everyone is equally capable).
This is very helpful. The bottom line seems to be that while there are different approaches on the front side of a diplomacy check, ultimately the roll determines the NPC response.
In terms of those approaches on the front side of the roll, I think the analogy to having equipment is simple and balanced if you want to incent/reward players for role playing. Good or bad role playing, within the context of the abilities of the character, act like having good or poor equipment, i.e. +/-2.
Beyond simple, modifying the DC due to alignment, motivation, etc. moves into a more complex approach but I can see how this translates social aspects into a game mechanic. For example, a LE NPC is engaged in discussion by a LG player and starts to hear the ethical overtones of the player and decides the PC just rubs him the wrong way = DC goes up. These elements are more instrinsic to the characters. Ultimately this might be a more balanced approach because the modifiers are not dependant on role playing skill. This is definitely more complex. For now I think I'll stick to the +/-2; our group has a fairly balanced capability in role play terms.
I'm wondering how other groups handle situations with NPCs that can be influenced by either role playing or skill checks.
One side of this situation seems straightforward: while you lose an opportunity to role play, if a player states "I'm going to make a Diplomacy check to try and get the information I want" the game mechanic takes over and can direct the outcome.
What about the reverse? For example, rather than make a Diplomacy check, players continue to role play the interaction with the NPCs in order to try and influence the attitude of the NPC or gather information. Do you stop at some point and call for a Diplomacy check to determine the outcome of the interaction or do you let good role playing direct a favorable outcome (or bad role playing direct an unforvarable outcome)?
I use both. Some people dont like RP'ing, and others that do are bad at it so I let the players choose if they want to do any acting at all.
Wraithstrike wrote:
I use both. Some people dont like RP'ing, and others that do are bad at it so I let the players choose if they want to do any acting at all.
Spot on. Some people just have an innate ability for talking and always have a reply - roleplaying just comes easy to them. Others are having a harder time, and in my oppinion they shouldnt be punished at the table for that. But Im also under the oppinion that this IS a roleplaying game, and some social encounters should be played out. To some degree, and 90% of the time, I let the PC's decide for themselves.
This is supposed to be a role playing game, but you must remember that the roll you play is not you. One of the best things about RPGs is that we can play something, and someone, that we are not.
Having gone through several “interpretations” of the role vs roll play way of handling social interactions/skill checks what I have currently ended up with is a system that favours context/arguments but still has an actual roll.
For diplomacy I will generally use the “standard” DC values (or different values I set depending on the situation/personality). Towards this I let the player roll (or preferably take 10) with HEAVY modification based on context, situation, arguments, flattery and so on (values from -10 to +10 is quite common).
I also do not feel the need to always include the roll, especially in minor interactions: If the player starts presenting arguments/flatter/etc and does not volunteer a roll I will simply use “take 10” approach with no interuptions, if after this 10 + modifiers approach the PC seems to still not be getting his way I might suggest he takes a roll.
I subscribe to the idea of players not being the character, and i do not feel the need to penalize the players who might not be able or motivated towards dramatic speeches, thus the articulacy of the player does not really come into the equation. I do, however, I want the players to feel encouraged to provide “arguments” and at least try somewhat to simulate an actual conversation and the current trend of less focus on actual d20 roll and more on arguments/context favours this. A 18 charisma character who has no arguments/incentive to convince his audience will have to roll higher then the 12 charisma character who produced great arguments and made sure the context favoured him.
In general i find that less focus on just rolling that d20 and mechanical rules and more focus on immersion and role playing makes a more interesting experience.
I am somewhat lucky though as I play with a small group of players whom I know well – and whom all are more than capable of producing arguments and having good social interactions. We also tend to frown upon characters with CHA (or INT) dump stats.
if all the characters involved are interacting with the NPC and the NPC is not a major player in the storyline i would not call for a roll even if the role-playing isn't all that good.
i make players roll only when dealing with major players in my story if its just a random NPC i see no reason to force a roll especially if they characters aren't rushing the dialog. now i do make the players roll if they are being aggressive or hostel towards the NPC but as long as the characters are attempting to be courteous and all around nice then i don't make them roll.
|
|
For a long time I've used This Rule.
Essentially if the player makes the attempt to Role Play in character then give them a score from 10-20 (essentially the upper range of the roll) and add their appropriate modifier.
If the player doesn't feel confident roleplaying then they just describe what they do (flatter, seduce, noble rhetoric etc) then make them roll.
|
|
Well I suppose it comes down to personal taste and DMing style. I like having the skills Bluff and Diplomacy and sence motive because it gives me another tool to work with.
That being said, I let roll playing trump a diplomacy roll, or rather the need for a diplomacy roll. I save the rolls for, those moments when a PC has inadvertently put his foot in his mouth, or for those players who lack any skill at diplomacy in real life.
One think I do not like is for a pc to, on his own, roll his dice and tell me, I got a 25 diplomacy on the die what happens? Or for that matter I dislike when e begins rolling dice for when everyone begins rolling dice for perception checks.
I prefer to ask for the roll, and let them know when they need to make the roll.
Anyways again it comes down to preference.
This is sort of on topic...
What do you folks think of Rich "Order of the Stick" Burlew's alternate Diplomacy rules?
I actually like to give the role-playing bonuses because I feel they should be awarded for those times someone can actually role-play being persuasive (as long as their character's stats agree with it). Also, it can help bring out the shy characters where they will role-play and be more active.
One thing that drives me nuts is the:
Player: Ok, I am going to try and use Diplomacy on the noble to convince him to hand over the ring.
DM: Ok, and you are going to say…?
Player: Ok, I tell him….
DM: *With an encouraging smile* Come on, let’s role-play this out.
Player: Uh…ok…Hmm…
Where I do think the skill system was a great addition in 3.0, one of the drawbacks that has happened is I have found with our group that we role-play less. It’s “I say this …” or “I act angry…” Come on, show me. Let’s do what the game is called, an “RP”G.
|
|
I actually like to give the role-playing bonuses because I feel they should be awarded for those times someone can actually role-play being persuasive (as long as their character's stats agree with it). Also, it can help bring out the shy characters where they will role-play and be more active.
One thing that drives me nuts is the:
Player: Ok, I am going to try and use Diplomacy on the noble to convince him to hand over the ring.
DM: Ok, and you are going to say…?
Player: Ok, I tell him….
DM: *With an encouraging smile* Come on, let’s role-play this out.
Player: Uh…ok…Hmm…
Where I do think the skill system was a great addition in 3.0, one of the drawbacks that has happened is I have found with our group that we role-play less. It’s “I say this …” or “I act angry…” Come on, show me. Let’s do what the game is called, an “RP”G.
I don't know. I know many players who aren't very confident with rhetoric and performance, yet they w
My problem with it is when someone is Roleplaying far outside of their "Skill/Stat Block". Not that I'd want to penalize someone for actually role-playing instead of roll-playing if you have a 8 Cha Wizard trying to sweet talk or be civil thru the use of diplomacy and come up with the most pleasing or convincing statement I'd give them a bump to their roll. But if someone akin to a Bard/Noble tries to do something to the same affect I'd be more willing to just let it pass and take the fate of the fickle fickle dice gods out of it. It's all a question of if it feels right for the tone or the character.
I am used to roleplaying such things (both as GM and player).
While GMing I expect player to try to act the interaction with NPC but I always take PC's traits into the equation to prevent silver tongued players with character's social traits of wild hog from charming everyone and less talented players with decent character's social skills from alienating NPCs too much. I try to avoid rolling and player saying that he will influence the NPC with Diplomacy roll without any attempt of roleplaying usually irks me, except for unimportant scenes and NPCs.
|
I, for one, would be one of the ones adversely effected by getting penalties and bonuses for their role playing if that was implemented in a game I played in. If someone is shy or not confident, then they will not do well when their character, as a concept, would be far better then the player is. It is like having a door lock on a stand and having the player pick it in real life and get a bonus or penalty if they could do it.
This is sort of on topic...
What do you folks think of Rich "Order of the Stick" Burlew's alternate Diplomacy rules?
A thought-provoking read. As a DC modifier approach I see this method supporting my own conclusion that DC-based modifiers are more complex than a +/- for the PC to the roll. The author does, however, state his preference for structure, which IMO leads to more complexity. I think I'll stick with +/-2 to the roll for good role playing (within the context of the ability of the character, of course).
He makes a good point about resisting, but I think rather than using WIS the NPC could make their own diplomacy check to counter, if the DM saw fit to do so.
I see diplomacy as influencing the perception and attitude of others rather than proposing and selling a deal. A diplomat is akin to a good modern-day tele-fundraiser: you're smart and you know you're being sold something but in the end you end up supporting their cause, and then thinking "oh well" after the call.