|
This sort of came up in another thread but got me thinking. How do people treat social skills. The extremes being, player say I do X and a dice is rolled and the other where the player spells out word by word how the social skill will work and then a dice is rolled (or perhaps the GM allows for auto-success or failure based on what was said?).
My personal approach is;
As GM I never let the social roll happen unless the player can describe what they are trying to achieve and how. Not the details, just the intent and the general idea of how they mean to go about it. For example the player might wish to make a soldier angry. That is the intent. They then would say how, insult his fighting skill? Imply his wife was also into a bit of extra martial sword play? The more background and story they inject into the scene the better. Then I'll usually assign a bonus or penalty. Generic insult against an NPC they know quite a lot about would be a minus to the roll, but using that knowledge to hit him where it hurts a bonus.
So at least in social skills I demand some Roleplaying before the Rollplaying is allowed. There are massive array of combat rules but bugger all social rules and I believe both are equally important in an RPG. Games like The Burning Wheel treat them pretty much equally - and I try to in PF. Combat is relatively boring and codified by Jason et al, players talking in character around the table with a few rolls and the infinite realm of imagination, now that is awesome. <note my personal opinion of GoodRightFun>
S.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't require it, but I encourage it.
Requiring it leads to nice stuff like "Take a -6 circumstance penalty because your rousing speech wasn't rousing enough".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM's don't require you to understand how to make many of the checks you make or specify how you're doing them. You're certainly not required to demonstrate climb or acrobatics.
They already paid for them. Give them their skills.
Social skills cut to the heart of an RPG (my opinion) and are very different from jumping and climbing. I wasn't implying I require the players to roleplay the entire scene just intent + general outline. Add depth to the social-skill, and as I'm not a computer program I'm all good with coming up with bonuses or penalties based I how I think such a plan would go down.
Now having said all that, if a player described a cunning as plan for jumping something I would giving them a bonus. I like to interact with my players and for them to feel that the rules are guidelines that we use, but that thinking (beyond throwing in skill points) is worth while at my table.
S.
|
|
I don't require it, but I encourage it.
Requiring it leads to nice stuff like "Take a -6 circumstance penalty because your rousing speech wasn't rousing enough".
Agreed, but imagine a player standing in front of the "Elves for Peace" group to convince them to fight/kill/miam and appealing to their animal side (ala Rage)? Appealing to their sense of greater good or the like might be more use. Again, my point is I have found it makes my players invest more time in getting to know the NPC's and monsters as there is a real mechanical reason too. Also makes playing the NPC's and monster more interesting as GM.
Still horses or courses.
A player should always be able to roll for social checks.
That being said- this is a Roleplaying game and I could definately see a +2 or such being given for a particularly inspired performance by the Player.
To be clear though- said "performance" couldn't negatively impact the role (due to the Player not able to meaningfully contribute to it).
Good RP can help a roll. Being unable to interact on the level of our PC's though shouldn't.
(I'm not as smart as my witch, not as charasmatic or wise as our cleric, etc..)
-S
We roll, then roleplay it. However, for example, no matter how high you roll some things are just impossible. I.E. Getting a demon to be kind, forcing a paladin to murder in cold blood, etc.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much discourage the generic "I use diplomacy on him!" approach. Instead, I allow the players to say what they want to say, and then I determine whether it falls into bluff, diplomacy or intimidate. It encourages people to talk to their characters strengths and gives a compelling reason why that goblin might want to give himself up instead of doing it because a dice told him to.
|
When I'm DMing, I allow a bit of both. If things are slowing to a crawl, sure I'll allow it to just go down to a dice roll. But my players know that I'll ask them to make the roll when it's time for one. For the most part, I prefer to have them talk out their character's talky bits. When the player lies to the NPC (and it actually matters) I ask for a bluff check. When they're being aggressive I ask for an intimidate. When they're trying to convince someone I ask for a diplomacy (alternatively I use diplomacy as an opportunity to make up for anything the player said that would make the NPC upset, to have less of an effect).
However, depending on what exactly they're doing I'll give them a a bonus, sometimes going to an automatic success. This will be if they've particularly planned out a lie to be very logical, convincing and incorporates a good amount of truth into the lie. Penalties also happen but only if the player did something really stupid. I.e. one player tried to sweeten diplomacy with a treant by offering him a smoke. That didn't work out so well.
Edit: Kovok said it better.
I encourage role play and give a small bonus to their skill check just to encourage the effort.
I hardly, if ever, give a penalty due to role play performance and would only do so if it would make the entire table laugh. Sometimes failure is funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We simply discard intimidate, diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc.
I as a GM am no great actor, and neither are my players, but we enjoy talking it out rather than simply talking and then rolling dice...or just rolling dice.
If a player with poor communication skills plays a high charisma, talkative character, I let them get away with stupider or less plausible things more often. Likewise, even if they give a great argument, but have a low charisma, the NPC acts suspiciously.
It adds more roleplaying and verisimilitude to the game, imho. Fighting requires a mechanic, but having a mechanic for discussion breaks the suspension of disbelief far too often.
I would always encourage players who want to try to roleplay the social rolls (or at least going to the trouble of working out the strategy and execution), and tend to be more forgiving when it doesn't turn out they way they planned. It's simply more fun that way compared to just dicing for it. Even the total failures can add a lot of entertainment to the session.
I remember once a player whose character roped himself to his horse and proceeded with a rousing pre-battle speech about how "not even death will prevent him from reaching the enemy line". It sure impressed the army (and the rest of the players) until with some unlucky rolls the opposing forces found the weak spot in his strategy and killed the horse and left him spending half the battle trying to cut himself free from the mount.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much discourage the generic "I use diplomacy on him!" approach. Instead, I allow the players to say what they want to say, and then I determine whether it falls into bluff, diplomacy or intimidate. It encourages people to talk to their characters strengths and gives a compelling reason why that goblin might want to give himself up instead of doing it because a dice told him to.
I use game mechanics for game mechanical situations, and role-playing for role-playing situations.
An example of the former: "I want to sell these swords we captured from the dwarven bandits. I should get a good price 'cause they're dwarf-make." // "He'll offer you half of book value, as per rulebook." // "Here, let me `lean' on him." // "Okay, roll your Intimidate.... you talk him up to 75% of book value."
An example of the latter: "Well, there must be some way to get past this stone giant and get to the treasure chest. Can I Bluff him into leaving?" // "What line are you taking?" /// "Um, that I'm really a Red Dragon wearing special shoes"? // <stone cold silence> // "Okay, how about `the treasure is cursed and standing too close to it will turn you into a newt''?
I very much discourage the generic "I use diplomacy on him!" approach. Instead, I allow the players to say what they want to say, and then I determine whether it falls into bluff, diplomacy or intimidate. It encourages people to talk to their characters strengths and gives a compelling reason why that goblin might want to give himself up instead of doing it because a dice told him to.
People often decide if they are being diplomatic or trying to intimidate someone so they should know which skill they are using. I am sure they would not talk to a king the way they would talk to a lowly servant. It also helps because a player might think he is being diplomatic, but the GM may see it as intimidate. That way the GM can ask him to reword his request.
The player provides the words, the roll provides the "intangibles" - demeanor, voice tone, posture and gestures, eye contact, what have you. I decide how effective the substance of what was said was, set a mark based on it ... Then let the dice roll modify that mark either direction, to represent the skill in delivery. A mediocre argument presented with the right means of delivery might convince someone. An excellent argument done poorly MIT be much less effective than it should be.
That is how I do it also. The player can give a speech, but I will never require it. I just need to know intent.
However, if a player with a Wis 10/Int 10/Cha 8 tries to convince someone with a crazy ploy, I stop the table and ask for an appropriate social skill check.
If it's a PLAYER with 10/10/8 and he's playing a Cha 18 bard, I think that's the appropriate path to take.
Similarly, if the player is extremely persuasive but he's playing a Cha 7 dwarf, I think it's appropriate to step in and force the roll.
But I try to not do the second of those very often, because role-playing is more valuable to me than game mechanics.
As much as I'd prefer that people play out the scene before rolling, I always keep it as an optional thing as a DM because it's the default assumption in the rules. If a scene is RP'd well enough, I might grant a circumstance bonus. Considering the nature of the dice, it still feels kinda dumb when a player fails a check despite pulling off the best RP he ever was able to just to get that one Diplomacy bonus he needed. Other problem is that some people just aren't cut out for eloquent RP, and you shouldn't really force people to act when they can't/aren't up for it.
Assuming you link social skills to die rolls, I like the approach of rolling the die, then acting accordingly. It seems silly to have someone say or do something really clever then just roll a 1. If the roll is high I act out what I had in mind and if it's low, I act according to that. And if your player isn't the best with this, you avoid them rolling a 20 and being tongue-tied by just letting them gloss over the details if need be.
It's something that very much depends on both the gm and the players.
Some do it good, some do it bad.
As a player I once had a situation that convinced me to never play a certain RPG with that GM wich resulted from a different world view in regards to the setting.
Now to the differences in world view:
I know the shadowrun version of seattle as a dirty dangerous place where the rain can be toxic enough to hurt you on some days. They even have chem-suits for the hard rain days after all.
The streets in some parts are filled with garbage because no sane garbageman is crazy enough to empty the bins there.
My GM on the other hand did seem to see the world as similar to our own in that regard.
So after all previous social skill applications had just been rolled this time the gm asked me how I want to interrogate the man. I hadn't anticipated that and followed a gut reaction and threatened to force feed him dirty, toxic rain water collected from the garbage filles street in the slums.
I did this because in my view of the world doing so had a good chance of making the guy very ill and possibly killing him. Painfully.
My gm started laughing about my, mocked me (me the player, not the pc) and still, sometimes tells someone the story how ridculous that idea was, back then. While I myself as myself how stupid he can be to laugh about his own wrong judgement and lack of knowledge about the gameworld.
So while this is a roleplaying game and as such should include roleplaying it is more than everything else a game and should be fun. And I'd rather sacrifice the roleplaying before I accept that it reduses the fun someone has.
Not to mention insulting the players over a difference of opinion about the game world.
I tend to like this strategy:
Decide you want to do something "I'm going to try and intimidate that guard"
Roll, add your mods, find out your total. DO NOT find out if you succeed or fail yet.
Roleplay the situation according to how your roll turned out.
- got a 9 on my check. "I walk up and try to pull out my sword, but it sticks in my scabbard, after a couple pulls it comes loose and i glare at the guard"
-got a 17 on my check. "In one swift fluid motion i unsheath my blade, flourish it, and let out a mighty roar towards the guard"
Then the GM can decide how you did, either way you might succeed or fail depending on where he has set the DC or any circumstance modifiers he chooses to add.
in short: roll dice, play it out, see how you did
It depends on the situation but generally, we tend to role play out the scenario's before rolling, then the GM applies modifiers depending on how it was role-played. We find it much more entertaining to have our rogue "actually" craft an elaborate lie, then to simply say "I bluff the guard". And as such, the GM will usually reward the player with what we call a "+2 roleplay bonus".
We most certainly never give out a negative for botched roleplaying unless it's just flat out terrible. Some people are just not as skilled as others.. And others simply are too shy to roleplay well, so they typically just ask for the straight rolls.
So, like I said.. It's situational but encouraged.
|
|
That is how I do it also. The player can give a speech, but I will never require it. I just need to know intent.
That is what I mean. I don't like when a players says "I'll bluff the monster." To which I would reply "How?" and they simply say "With my +23 Bluff skill" - that annoys me. I never ask for a novel length monologue, just intent and how they imagine it playing out. Then if they succeed we know what is going to happen (initial intent) and if they fail, well, they are mine... :) I rarely make social interactions a simple pass/fail, any social interaction that requires a dice roll must have something on the line. In combat it's pretty black & white, but sort of grey in the social area.
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically agree with Stefan.
For me I expect you to roleplay the content of what you are trying to say, and then the actual results of the roll determine eloquence and how well it is received. For "roleplay the content", I don't expect a long "Pray tell, good sir, can you direct me to the location of the Cave of Doom" unless the player wants to. A simple, "I ask him where the Cave of Doom is" will accomplish the same thing. The roll determines how eloquently they spoke, and how well received their message was received.
Sometimes the content will override the roll. Telling a paranoid and somewhat clingy drunk girl that you are sleeping with her paladin boyfriend will likely get both her and her boyfriend a bit peeved, 30+ Diplomacy/Bluff roll not-withstanding (this happened once with my group). Sometimes the content can augment the roll, such as threatening an arachnophobic person with summoning a spider swarm on them during an interrogation giving a slight bonus to the intimidate check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As GM I never let the social roll happen unless the player can describe what they are trying to achieve and how. Not the details, just the intent and the general idea of how they mean to go about it. For example the player might wish to make a soldier angry. That is the intent. They then would say how, insult his fighting skill? Imply his wife was also into a bit of extra martial sword play?
Reliable remark to make a soldier angry: "Did your MOMMY make that armor for you?"
Seeing as how I have trouble with social interaction IRL (close friends I'm usuaally ok), if my characters couldn't roll a Bluff or Diplomacy skill to do their social stuff I'd be forced to play only Charisma 5 fighters. Maybe not that bad, but I think most of you should get my point.
As others have said, I can't fight as well as my fighter, I can't cast spells like my witch, if I want to play a highly social character that is great at bluffing people... why should that be any different than playing a witch that casts spells? I can't do either one IRL, allowing me to do one but not the other isn't very fair. Bluffing and such is just as impossible for me IRL as throwing a fireball.
Typically when I'm dealing with social skills I like to encourage role play. So I secretly give bonuses based of the character level +1 for level range 1-5, +2 6-10, etc. If they're bluffing and they just roll it they don't get the bonus. If they try and convince me the DM and it seems like a legit arguement or point they get the bonus. For disguise I go off of how much detail they go into describing it. I never count it against them though as the dice are hard enough to get on your side as is. I tend to think of it like this. "You character is as skilled as he is no matter what but everyone once in a while he's just having a really good day."
Yeah, that's cool. I mean yeah, you have to give some idea of what you are trying to accomplish, but you shouldn't have to come up with a full believable speech like you would in real life.
When the PCs engage NPCs in a social encounter we role play the conversation to understand intent and the GM rolls for the reaction and roleplays that.
Where it becomes harder is when NPCs engage the PCs in a social encounter. The players rely on the GM to describe the game world - they have no other frame of reference so have to trust the GM. At the same time the GM cannot tell the players how their characters should react. This neuters the NPCs Diplomacy skill, similarly bluff is difficult because the players will either believe or disbelieve the GM and act accordingly. The GM could proactively roll Sense Motive on behalf of the players at the start of the encounter and advise the players if their character doesn't believe what is being said - but that doesn't stop the player from disbelieving based on real life inuition or metagaming knowledge (I know he's got to be a major bad guy because this is an adventure and the character has a name and isn't providing material assistance so he's lying to me).
In our group we've got through it satisfactorily but it tends to come at the expense of wasted skill points
|
|
There are a few here that are similar to my style...diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff don't really come up that often in most games I run...the heavy political games just haven't proven to be that popular, and people rarely build characters that are very good at those skills. That said, when they specify, it's usually in conjunction with a little detail, and if not, I call for it...I've been known to give bonuses if they can give me anything good. If I have information that makes me feel it really is against the odds, I don't give penalties, but just raise the DC...which I don't tell the player.
Sometimes, I will have a player do something that is an obvious bluff (or diplomacy, or intimidate)...and I may or may not call for a roll. I'm of the general opinion that when the huge fighter that has the reputation of being able to rip people's heads off, and has recently slain an adult dragon, breathes down the shopkeeper's neck and growls that he'd best not be trying to cheat him, that shopkeeper is going to be somewhat intimidated. His response depends on too many factors, but it's unlikely to be, "Or you'll do what?" unless he has some wicked backup.
Make note that I don't really care if that fighter has intimidate, or not, when the reputation precedes him. It's the reputation that's doing the intimidate, not the fighter, directly.
Diplomacy and bluff are handled similarly...though diplomacy is something I'm most likely to call for a roll on.
Lastly, there's sense motive, something I consider to be a vital social skill that isn't mentioned so much...I suppose because it's more of a passive. I'll call for that one fairly often, all things depending...
|
|
Reliable remark to make a soldier angry: "Did your MOMMY make that armor for you?"
As GM I never let the social roll happen unless the player can describe what they are trying to achieve and how. Not the details, just the intent and the general idea of how they mean to go about it. For example the player might wish to make a soldier angry. That is the intent. They then would say how, insult his fighting skill? Imply his wife was also into a bit of extra martial sword play?
I'm gonna have to use that. :D
Our group uses diplomacy to come to an agreement. We use bluff anytime you are trying obfuscate your intentions for any reasons, and sense motive to discern someone else's. Conversations are generally role-played. If someone wants to compel someone to do something, if they roleplay it out and do a good job, I let them bypass the role and just succeed. If they don't care to, I make them roll. Does this favor roleplayers over rollplayers? Yes, but we're a roleplay heavy group.
My NPC's generally will give information relatively freely without a roll unless it's something they shouldn't tell just anybody or their concealing something for plot reasons. I read somewhere else on here that someone's GM makes them roll diplomacy for everything - even just speaking in generalities to someone about something mundane. That seems really stupid.
|
|
Yeah, that's cool. I mean yeah, you have to give some idea of what you are trying to accomplish, but you shouldn't have to come up with a full believable speech like you would in real life.
I'm pretty sure no one is saying that they would expect that in game. I would become HUGELY uncomfortable having to roleplay a seduction interaction for example. But I would be ok clinically saying my intent and adding in bits of information I think would help my cause. Social interactions are very different beasts to combat interactions, combat boils down to a board game, social skills have much more scope and are the rolelplaying bit of a roleplaying game. Each person will have their own limits on how much they want to inject into the roleplaying part of the game and that is completely fine.
|
|
There's a pretty big Catch-22 in tying the player's intelligence and social skills to the characters.
While the character might be a fantastic diplomancer with epic bonuses to the skill the player might not, and sometimes people just have off days. It's always hard penalizing the character because the player is having trouble stringing three words together in a cohesive sentence.
I know my group and my players. So I know I can trust them to break out some epic BS and try and sell me on the social skill roll, which can allow me to fudge the DCs or award a bonus. But I also know when they're having an off day or just not feeling the RP scene and can just skip ahead with some quick dice.
|
|
There's a pretty big Catch-22 in tying the player's intelligence and social skills to the characters.
While the character might be a fantastic diplomancer with epic bonuses to the skill the player might not, and sometimes people just have off days. It's always hard penalizing the character because the player is having trouble stringing three words together in a cohesive sentence.
Only if the DM requires the player to say exactly what their character is saying, and that would be tricky at best. Intent + additional information could be presented as bullet points if wanted. You aren't roleplaying your stat you are roleplaying and then using your characters stats/skills to accomplish your intent.
For example (and using a Knowledge roll);
You come across a Guard named Malcolm in a village you used to live in. You ask the GM if you know anything about this guy that would help you distract him so your other party members can enter the town unseen, Knowledge (local) is rolled. You succeed in finding out the guy has a phobia of spiders (as decided then and there by the GM as a scene hook). So now you tell the GM you want to distract him using your Bluff skill by mentioning there is a big freak'n spider on this back. GM thinks ok +2 bonus to the roll.
That for me is much better than the player saying "I roll my Bluff skill to distract him" and the GM saying "Ok, he is distracted".
The older I get the more I remember such things in my roleplaying sessions. I think when I was younger big damage numbers (esp. Fireball) use to cool me out however.
S.
|
Only if the DM requires the player to say exactly what their character is saying, and that would be tricky at best. Intent + additional information could be presented as bullet points if wanted. You aren't roleplaying your stat you are roleplaying and then using your characters stats/skills to accomplish your intent.
For example (and using a Knowledge roll);
You come across a Guard named Malcolm in a village you used to live in. You ask the GM if you know anything about this guy that would help you distract him so your other party members can enter the town unseen, Knowledge (local) is rolled. You succeed in finding out the guy has a phobia of spiders (as decided then and there by the GM as a scene hook). So now you tell the GM you want to distract him using your Bluff skill by mentioning there is a big freak'n spider on this back. GM thinks ok +2 bonus to the roll.
That for me is much better than the player saying "I roll my Bluff skill to distract him" and the GM saying "Ok, he is distracted".
That sounds very similar to a frustrating situation I encountered a few years back.
I'm playing a spy. The party is sneaking around in an enemy base trying to rescue an ally. A random worker comes up and says "why are you here, this section is closed off?"
I say "I want to convince the worker that we have a good reason to be here and that he should pay us no mind." I can't personally think of why we would have a specific good reason to be here, because I'm not good with coming up with plausible excuses off the top of my head.
GM refuses to let me roll a bluff because I haven't told him the excuse I want to use - I told him "Bluff to distract" rather than "Bluff there's a spider."
PC with no Bluff skill but a quicker player comes up with a plausible excuse, worker accepts it. Mission continues, except I feel like I'm not actually playing a spy because even through my character sheet says Bluff +17, my character's ability to lie has been sharply limited by my ability to lie. I felt like there was no point in trying to play a character more socially adept than I was.
Note that I've never been shy of RP, and had recently played two characters who did a lot of talking but hadn't invested in social skills, such that felt totally comfortable with their skill being limited by mine in that way. But high-Cha characters are a bit of a gamble for me for this reason.
|
|
Only if the DM requires the player to say exactly what their character is saying, and that would be tricky at best. Intent + additional information could be presented as bullet points if wanted. You aren't roleplaying your stat you are roleplaying and then using your characters stats/skills to accomplish your intent.
For example (and using a Knowledge roll);
You come across a Guard named Malcolm in a village you used to live in. You ask the GM if you know anything about this guy that would help you distract him so your other party members can enter the town unseen, Knowledge (local) is rolled. You succeed in finding out the guy has a phobia of spiders (as decided then and there by the GM as a scene hook). So now you tell the GM you want to distract him using your Bluff skill by mentioning there is a big freak'n spider on this back. GM thinks ok +2 bonus to the roll.
That for me is much better than the player saying "I roll my Bluff skill to distract him" and the GM saying "Ok, he is distracted".
That sounds very similar to a frustrating situation I encountered a few years back.
I'm playing a spy. The party is sneaking around in an enemy base trying to rescue an ally. A random worker comes up and says "why are you here, this section is closed off?"
I say "I want to convince the worker that we have a good reason to be here and that he should pay us no mind." I can't personally think of why we would have a specific good reason to be here, because I'm not good with coming up with plausible excuses off the top of my head.
GM refuses to let me roll a bluff because I haven't told him the excuse I want to use - I told him "Bluff to distract" rather than "Bluff there's a spider."
PC with no Bluff skill but a quicker player comes up with a plausible excuse, worker accepts it. Mission continues, except I feel like I'm not actually playing a spy because even through my character sheet says Bluff +17, my character's ability to lie has been sharply limited by my...
I prefer to have an idea of what you're saying in that situation...but that said, your character has a +17 bluff...if you tell me it's just for a distraction, that's plenty for me. After the roll is done, I might well fill in the blanks for you.
I'd hate to have to know a spell by heart every time my character cast it.
"Cthulu Fthagn, Fthagn. Ie, Yog Sothoth of...er...ummm...I forget the rest"
DM: The spell fails, and your body feels cold as the blood in your veins starts turning icy.
Damn.
I have mixed feelings about this...
On the one hand I love to get into character and actually come up with the plans and the speeches and what not. It's what seperates a tabletop game from a video game.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
I HATE when a CHARACTER is held back by MY weaknesses. I very well may NOT be able to come up with a rousing speech at the drop of a hat.. I CERTAINLY am not able to woo a women senseless with a few well placed words.
That's what seperates ME from my CHARACTER... Sir Thaddeus as a +15 Diplomacy and a 20 Charisma.... "I" do not.
Fighters are allowed to show their strengths without their players being athletic... wizards are able to cast spells without their players knowing magic...
Why would my 'face-man' be dependant on MY lame seduction ability?
Stats are there for a reason... I personally like the 'roleplay it out for fun... MAYBE get a bonus or penalty (not MUCH of a bonus or penalty...) and then let the character's stats do the heavy lifting.
Remember what they say... most of debate is 'non-verbal'... it how you look, how you stand, what kind of confidence you have... only a small part is the actual WORDS you use... Let the character be the swashbuckler he's meant to be ;)
|
|
I have mixed feelings about this...
On the one hand I love to get into character and actually come up with the plans and the speeches and what not. It's what seperates a tabletop game from a video game.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
I HATE when a CHARACTER is held back by MY weaknesses. I very well may NOT be able to come up with a rousing speech at the drop of a hat.. I CERTAINLY am not able to woo a women senseless with a few well placed words.
That's what seperates ME from my CHARACTER... Sir Thaddeus as a +15 Diplomacy and a 20 Charisma.... "I" do not.
Fighters are allowed to show their strengths without their players being athletic... wizards are able to cast spells without their players knowing magic...
Why would my 'face-man' be dependant on MY lame seduction ability?
Stats are there for a reason... I personally like the 'roleplay it out for fun... MAYBE get a bonus or penalty (not MUCH of a bonus or penalty...) and then let the character's stats do the heavy lifting.
Remember what they say... most of debate is 'non-verbal'... it how you look, how you stand, what kind of confidence you have... only a small part is the actual WORDS you use... Let the character be the swashbuckler he's meant to be ;)
Absolutely. See my response to Weirdo for how I do these things.
|
|
I absolutely prefer to be able to say exactly what I want my character to say. In fact, my group does act out almost all social interactions - we routinely give short speeches in character. Usually I enjoy this. I also think it's a fine idea to for example award circumstance bonuses to the guy who works his target's fear of spiders into a bluff.
But once in a while I come up empty on a minor bit of subterfuge or persuasion, and on those occasions I appreciate being able to just roll the thing and move on. I gave my character max ranks in Bluff, 16 Cha, and the Deceitful feat for a reason.
|
I have mixed feelings about this...
On the one hand I love to get into character and actually come up with the plans and the speeches and what not. It's what seperates a tabletop game from a video game.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
I HATE when a CHARACTER is held back by MY weaknesses. I very well may NOT be able to come up with a rousing speech at the drop of a hat.. I CERTAINLY am not able to woo a women senseless with a few well placed words.
That's what seperates ME from my CHARACTER... Sir Thaddeus as a +15 Diplomacy and a 20 Charisma.... "I" do not.
Fighters are allowed to show their strengths without their players being athletic... wizards are able to cast spells without their players knowing magic...
Why would my 'face-man' be dependant on MY lame seduction ability?
Stats are there for a reason... I personally like the 'roleplay it out for fun... MAYBE get a bonus or penalty (not MUCH of a bonus or penalty...) and then let the character's stats do the heavy lifting.
Remember what they say... most of debate is 'non-verbal'... it how you look, how you stand, what kind of confidence you have... only a small part is the actual WORDS you use... Let the character be the swashbuckler he's meant to be ;)
I completely agree with this sentiment, however....
if you are trying to convince a city guard you are not suspicious looking and instead just a commoner heading to the pub, sure a roll will do. If the success or failure of the entire plotline depends on you getting past the guard successfully, then you need to roleplay it out first. Just like if you had to leap up and grab a soul gem to save the world from an evil lich, your GM might have you describe how you were doing it... because it is just that important.
Outside of critical events, I encourage my players to roleplay out social encounters, primarily because this is where the most spontaneously funny moments and great stories come from. The incentive they get is if they can come up with a good tact, hit the right prejudice or sympathetic nerve, there is no roll, they auto-succeed. Also, if they take the time to roleplay out the interchange, even a little bit, then I usually mitigate bad results. A failure to intimidate a merchant that would normally result in calling for the city guard, instead nets a "get out of my shop!"
|
|
I would always encourage players who want to try to roleplay the social rolls (or at least going to the trouble of working out the strategy and execution), and tend to be more forgiving when it doesn't turn out they way they planned. It's simply more fun that way compared to just dicing for it. Even the total failures can add a lot of entertainment to the session.
I remember once a player whose character roped himself to his horse and proceeded with a rousing pre-battle speech about how "not even death will prevent him from reaching the enemy line". It sure impressed the army (and the rest of the players) until with some unlucky rolls the opposing forces found the weak spot in his strategy and killed the horse and left him spending half the battle trying to cut himself free from the mount.
I was hoping you'd say he dragged the mount to the enemy lines.
|
Reliable remark to make a soldier angry: "Did your MOMMY make that armor for you?"
As GM I never let the social roll happen unless the player can describe what they are trying to achieve and how. Not the details, just the intent and the general idea of how they mean to go about it. For example the player might wish to make a soldier angry. That is the intent. They then would say how, insult his fighting skill? Imply his wife was also into a bit of extra martial sword play?
How about "What's the matter, someone steal your sweet roll?"
Can we get the developers to take a look at this one? I'd love to see mechanics that support role-playing without the all or nothing problems detailed above...