Domestic abuse is a terrible thing. We had a situation in our game where a woman was being oppressed by her chauvanistic husband and one of the PCs is a woman. She knew she was stuck in the inn with this guy and didn't want to start a brawl, so the PC went into the kitchen to cook w/the wife.
I had a mindset in mind; that of a battered wife. Then I asked the player to describe her interactions. She chose a diplomatic approach. Her words were kind but a bit on the condescending side, so I had the PC make a roll. The PC came up well short.
So in the end the PC failed to convince the NPC woman to stand up for herself. The reason was simple: in a day's time the PC would leave; the poor wife would be stuck here w/no escape from the cruelty of her husband.
Its not that it was an IMPOSSIBLE success; I even gave the PC a +2 for at least trying and talking out in character what she was trying to say. Its just that motivating a person in that kind of situation to act against what they know would be extremely difficult. Ask any best friend/counselor/cop.
So in answer to the OP's question: I have the characters talk out most things and if its a tough one I have them roll, throwing in a +2 for a bit of good roleplaying.
Domestic abuse is a terrible thing. We had a situation in our game where a woman was being oppressed by her chauvanistic husband and one of the PCs is a woman. She knew she was stuck in the inn with this guy and didn't want to start a brawl, so the PC went into the kitchen to cook w/the wife.
I had a mindset in mind; that of a battered wife. Then I asked the player to describe her interactions. She chose a diplomatic approach. Her words were kind but a bit on the condescending side, so I had the PC make a roll. The PC came up well short.
So in the end the PC failed to convince the NPC woman to stand up for herself. The reason was simple: in a day's time the PC would leave; the poor wife would be stuck here w/no escape from the cruelty of her husband.
Its not that it was an IMPOSSIBLE success; I even gave the PC a +2 for at least trying and talking out in character what she was trying to say. Its just that motivating a person in that kind of situation to act against what they know would be extremely difficult. Ask any best friend/counselor/cop.
So in answer to the OP's question: I have the characters talk out most things and if its a tough one I have them roll, throwing in a +2 for a bit of good roleplaying.
The only problem with this is that you are giving a bonus to a character because the player can speak well, or is good in social situations. Do you give a similar bonus to the fighter because the player is strong? Or to the cleric because the player goes to church weekly? Does the bard get a bonus because the player can sing? Is if fair to penalize the player because he is shy or stutters or otherwise has bad social skills?
|
The only problem with this is that you are giving a bonus to a character because the player can speak well, or is good in social situations. Do you give a similar bonus to the fighter because the player is strong? Or to the cleric because the player goes to church weekly? Does the bard get a bonus because the player can sing? Is if fair to penalize the player because he is shy or stutters or otherwise has bad social skills?Domestic abuse is a terrible thing. We had a situation in our game where a woman was being oppressed by her chauvanistic husband and one of the PCs is a woman. She knew she was stuck in the inn with this guy and didn't want to start a brawl, so the PC went into the kitchen to cook w/the wife.
I had a mindset in mind; that of a battered wife. Then I asked the player to describe her interactions. She chose a diplomatic approach. Her words were kind but a bit on the condescending side, so I had the PC make a roll. The PC came up well short.
So in the end the PC failed to convince the NPC woman to stand up for herself. The reason was simple: in a day's time the PC would leave; the poor wife would be stuck here w/no escape from the cruelty of her husband.
Its not that it was an IMPOSSIBLE success; I even gave the PC a +2 for at least trying and talking out in character what she was trying to say. Its just that motivating a person in that kind of situation to act against what they know would be extremely difficult. Ask any best friend/counselor/cop.
So in answer to the OP's question: I have the characters talk out most things and if its a tough one I have them roll, throwing in a +2 for a bit of good roleplaying.
It encourages actual roleplaying. That said, I try and judge relative to what the person playing is capable of. Put forth an honest effort, you get a good bonus. Lazy attempt? Roll it straight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty relaxed about roll vs role for social skill use - some of my players have no problem talking in-character, others prefer to just say what they're trying to achieve. I'll often give circumstance bonuses for good ideas, whether those ideas are expressed through roleplay or as a conversational tack they're taking, and I'm really not wedded to the idea that I need to be given specific detail.
Case in point: the party had arrived at the fortified monster lair (I think it might have been gnolls). There was a door blocking the cave entrance (there were other ways in, but the party didn't explore to find them).
Face: I walk up to the door and knock on it.
Me: you hear a mutter of surprise through the door - they obviously weren't expecting anyone to come calling.
Face (with a huge grin): Pizza delivery for <name of monster group's chief>!
Me (after the laughter has died down): so, you're trying to bluff your way in by saying you have something for the boss?
Face: Yep!
Me: Roll bluff.
Face: <roll> Sweet! Umm... 25.
Me (after groaning aloud): Well, we didn't know the boss was expecting "pizza", but we sure don't want to upset him, so... come on in.
(Door opens, mayhem ensues)
To this day, "Pizza delivery" is a stand-in phrase for a bluff of that type.
As long as I know what the player intends, I don't mind how it's expressed to me.
|
|
I'm pretty relaxed about roll vs role for social skill use - some of my players have no problem talking in-character, others prefer to just say what they're trying to achieve. I'll often give circumstance bonuses for good ideas, whether those ideas are expressed through roleplay or as a conversational tack they're taking, and I'm really not wedded to the idea that I need to be given specific detail.
Case in point: the party had arrived at the fortified monster lair (I think it might have been gnolls). There was a door blocking the cave entrance (there were other ways in, but the party didn't explore to find them).
Face: I walk up to the door and knock on it.
Me: you hear a mutter of surprise through the door - they obviously weren't expecting anyone to come calling.
Face (with a huge grin): Pizza delivery for <name of monster group's chief>!
Me (after the laughter has died down): so, you're trying to bluff your way in by saying you have something for the boss?
Face: Yep!
Me: Roll bluff.
Face: <roll> Sweet! Umm... 25.
Me (after groaning aloud): Well, we didn't know the boss was expecting "pizza", but we sure don't want to upset him, so... come on in.
(Door opens, mayhem ensues)
To this day, "Pizza delivery" is a stand-in phrase for a bluff of that type.
As long as I know what the player intends, I don't mind how it's expressed to me.
GREAT story. :)
Depending upon the player, I try to get them to at least generally describe how what they are trying to do.
There are very few players I will allow to just say, "I roll diplomacy to make him like us." However a really shy or new player will be allowed to do that.
If the player says something like, "I explain how this will help his public image." That would be a standard roll.
If the player says, "Valeric you can't become very famous as a bandit since you have to hide your identity at least when you come to town so you don't get arrested. If you help the Society though, you are on the side of angels. Some people and even governments follow the exploits of the Society. And since you are doing good there is nothing wrong with letting them know it was you." I would give that a +2 bonus to the roll.
Most of the players in my group sort of fit the stereotype of social misfits. When they are trying to describe the actions, approach, manner, etc... for bluff/diplomacy/intimidate/sense motive type situations, I give a lot of leeway. Sometimes the player has some really odd ideas about what will convince someone to be friendly or sounds believable. However, I can tell what he is trying to do and his oracle with the 23 charisma probably could figure out a better approach so I let it slide. I rarely give a penalty unless there is a particular outside reason.
I once had a module that specifically said the guard of a very male human centric city was secretly terrified of bugs. The female drow PC kept trying to make friends by showing him how nice the riding spider is. Even after I said he was clearly terrified of the giant spider. That one got a big penalty.
... The only problem with this is that you are giving a bonus to a character because the player can speak well, or is good in social situations. Do you give a similar bonus to the fighter because the player is strong? Or to the cleric because the player goes to church weekly? Does the bard get a bonus because the player can sing? Is if fair to penalize the player because he is shy or stutters or otherwise has bad social skills?
I wouldn't give a bonus to the fighter because the player is strong, the player of the cleric goes to church, or the player of the bard can sing. However:
If the player realizes that the fancy lacy court clothing is flamable, is trying to maneuver the dandy to get his back to the bonfire, to make him at least worried about catching on fire. I have been known to give him a +1 on his to hit rolls.
If the player of the cleric says he realizes that church politics can be a bigger problem for the clergy thanmost people realize. And uses that as the opening in a conversation with the other priest. I would give a bonus for that.
If the player that can sing mentions that people will pay attention to a performance longer when the pitch, tone, or volume drastically change; then he might also get a bonus.
I have no problem with players trying to find ways to apply their real world knowledge (as long as it is not ridiculously out of character).
|
|
One things I realized too late is that time at the table moves at a very different rate than the time in the game world. There's no reason to role-play 1:1.
Specifically when playing characters that are smarter or better liars than yourself.
I'm a smart dude, but saying I have an Intelligence higher than 11 is pushing it. Being really super smart and rockinh an Int of 14+ doesn't mean you think better at thinking, just faster and more efficient. It's fair to ask for a moment. Giving the player an extra minute to think when the character only seconds is fair.
Or even collaborate. There's nothing an entire table of gamers can't think of in 30 seconds that a Int 14 mid-level rogue with maxed Bluff can't think of in half the time.
I agree w/ those that don't like their players saying "I use diplomacy/etc on him!" I encourage my players to be descriptive in what they are doing, in general, but also w/ social skills.
If someone says "I threaten him!" and rolls a d20, they get what they get.
If the same person says, "I stare him down while popping my knuckles and flexing my arm muscles to show off that 21 strength", well, I'm going to give him an appropriate bonus b/c that wimpy clerk ought to be fearing for his safety.
If the same person says, "I do a funny dance and fall over" they would get an appropriate negative (note: players don't do this, typically), b/c that's not threatening in the least.
Some people enjoy the pure mechanics of the game. My group enjoys the roll playing aspect of it and allow the mechanics to be altered a bit to encourage that.
Nothing really wrong w/ either, as long as the group is having fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you don't have Int 28 shouldn't limit you as a player.
I have smart players, I have less-than-smart players. I have outgoing players, I have introverted players. Sometimes the smart players play stupid characters. Sometimes the introverted players play social characters. I refuse to force a player to only play character that are like him/her.
So.
If I have an introverted player who can't actually imagine HOW the character "schmoozes the guards somehow", that's what Diplomacy is for. Roll.
Same goes for sub-average players and wizards (for instance). Can't solve the puzzle yourself? Fine, your character can make an Int check or something similar.
I don't make my scrawny players literally lift weights before their barbarian can climb a wall. No, the barb gets a Climb check. Why should social skills be any different?
I say it again. Why should social skills be any different?
I get it there's a panacea, a hypothetical perfect role-play game where everyone IS their character and is always in-character and never metagames or applies real-world sensibilities or experience their character wouldn't have. I get it. But that doesn't necessarily make for FUN.
I encourage and I reward players who role-play and try to flesh out encounters, but only to a degree. I don't generally reward the goal... I reward via XP or story rewards.
Note: I also don't encourage my bright players to play their tree-stump-dumb characters smart. Sorry. "Really, Bob, you think Ungorthungor The Mighty would come up with that complicated plan? Really? With Int 7? Really? Fine. Roll an Int check and we'll see." Fair is fair.
Restatement of opening statement:
You play the character on the sheet, not yourself, even when you can't.
|
I encourage and I reward players who role-play and try to flesh out encounters, but only to a degree. I don't generally reward the goal... I reward via XP or story rewards.
I'm not going to hand out extra XP for player-specific capabilities. But I will try and tailor rewards; if one of my players has a strong back story for his character, and uses that back-story at the table, then I'll make sure that instead of a +1 shield, say, he finds a shield bearing the badge of some noted figure from the region in his back story. Mechanically it's still just a +1 shield, but it helps the player grow the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you don't have Int 28 shouldn't limit you as a player.
I have smart players, I have less-than-smart players. I have outgoing players, I have introverted players. Sometimes the smart players play stupid characters. Sometimes the introverted players play social characters. I refuse to force a player to only play character that are like him/her.
So.
If I have an introverted player who can't actually imagine HOW the character "schmoozes the guards somehow", that's what Diplomacy is for. Roll.
Same goes for sub-average players and wizards (for instance). Can't solve the puzzle yourself? Fine, your character can make an Int check or something similar.
I don't make my scrawny players literally lift weights before their barbarian can climb a wall. No, the barb gets a Climb check. Why should social skills be any different?
I say it again. Why should social skills be any different?
I get it there's a panacea, a hypothetical perfect role-play game where everyone IS their character and is always in-character and never metagames or applies real-world sensibilities or experience their character wouldn't have. I get it. But that doesn't necessarily make for FUN.
I encourage and I reward players who role-play and try to flesh out encounters, but only to a degree. I don't generally reward the goal... I reward via XP or story rewards.
Note: I also don't encourage my bright players to play their tree-stump-dumb characters smart. Sorry. "Really, Bob, you think Ungorthungor The Mighty would come up with that complicated plan? Really? With Int 7? Really? Fine. Roll an Int check and we'll see." Fair is fair.
Restatement of opening statement:
You play the character on the sheet, not yourself, even when you can't.
This, pretty much. I look at my players' character sheet like an order sheet. They're my patrons, I'm the restaurateur. They have given me their orders (their character sheets). So basically, they're all giving me an indication of what they want to be able to do.
People with ranks in climb, balance, and acrobatics want to be able to do cool movement-based maneuvers. Characters with Power Attack, Weapon Focus, and Improved Critical want to whoop up on baddies with their favorite weapon. Sorcerers with out of the blue spells like knock Analyze Dweomer clearly want to use them. Characters with social skills are the same. They want to be able to use those skills.
The skill of the player should have no bearing on their ability to perform their character's actions. When I run the game and someone is using a social skill, I usually say "OK, what do you say?" One of my players goes into a mini-speech. Another player usually just says "I want to make him/convince him/lie to him to do XYZ". I'm fine with it either way.
I mean, I get that people want to RP. What about the people that don't? Maybe they're there for the combat, or the magic, or just because all their friends are playing too (I have all of these in my group). I certainly don't want to force my play style onto anyone. I have no right. And neither does anyone else, for that matter.
No one penalizes a fighter for not going into detail into how he swings his sword. No one penalizes the mage for not saying some gibberish while he casts the spell. No one penalizes the rouge for not describing how he keeps himself quiet while he sneaks.
So why does anyone penalize the face for not going into detail into how he bluffs the guard?
Just as a final side note, I love playing the Paladin. It is, without doubt, my favorite class. One of the reasons is the third level ability "Aura of Courage". I consider myself kind of a coward in real life - being able to be immune to fear on friday nights is pretty damn cool. But do I lose that because of how I am, rather than how my character is?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one penalizes a fighter for not going into detail into how he swings his sword.
The rules do for you. The number of feats and rules that exist for ONLY combat exceed the rules on Social Combat by orders of magnitude. At my tables the fighting types tend to say using Feat X, Y, and Z I do a Full Attack etc during combat. What are my options with Bluff? Well it's saying I'm trying to use Bluff really isn't it...
Just scanned the Feats in the Core book and didn't find one feat to help me be 'the face' - perhaps someone will kindly point out any I missed.
|
|
Forgive me, but isn't skill focus core? While never the most powerful feat, if you're going a skill focused build a +6 is nothing to sneeze at.The rules do for you. The number of feats and rules that exist for ONLY combat exceed the rules on Social Combat by orders of magnitude. At my tables the fighting types tend to say using Feat X, Y, and Z I do a Full Attack etc during combat. What are my options with Bluff? Well it's saying I'm trying to use Bluff really isn't it...
Just scanned the Feats in the Core book and didn't find one feat to help me be 'the face' - perhaps someone will kindly point out any I missed.
There's also things that give dual bonuses...yup...they're there.
|
|
Forgive me, but isn't skill focus core? While never the most powerful feat, if you're going a skill focused build a +6 is nothing to sneeze at.The rules do for you. The number of feats and rules that exist for ONLY combat exceed the rules on Social Combat by orders of magnitude. At my tables the fighting types tend to say using Feat X, Y, and Z I do a Full Attack etc during combat. What are my options with Bluff? Well it's saying I'm trying to use Bluff really isn't it...
Just scanned the Feats in the Core book and didn't find one feat to help me be 'the face' - perhaps someone will kindly point out any I missed.
So a generic feat that could be equally applied to knitting is the 'face man' feat trump card?!
+6 to your main skill ISN'T a significant advantage to you?
You don't need Feats to be the face. You need skills. Or spells.
And I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here.
That you SHOULD have to describe your Bluff in exactitude? That you SHOULDN'T?
Are you saying that "I Power Attack with my Greatsword" is describing your action to a significant extent, or that it's not enough?
Clarify your stance, man, you've come in in the middle of a conversation and for all I can tell have dropped a non sequitur on everyone's heads and expect them to completely understand what you're trying to drive at.
|
|
So a generic feat that could be equally applied to knitting is the 'face man' feat trump card?!I don't get you. An effective +12 to the determining attribute isn't a good enough addition? It lets you do it with any skill yes. Whats wrong with it also being able to be applied to tumble alongside your diplomacy?
The point is Social 'skills' are one die affairs, Combat 'skills' are multitude. Claymade above said it far better.
|
|
Are you suggesting that there should be multiple die rolls for social encounters? Are you afraid of accidentally failing because its only 1 roll? Cause I gotta tell you its pretty easy to make it dang near impossible to fail on most skill checks if you're actually devoting yourself to them, and you don't autofail on 1's.
In short I guess yes. As claymade mentioned a social combat can be as exciting as any other combat yet we are restricted greatly in what we can do. A few feats or even feat chains that specifically allow more interesting things to occur in social settings would be great. I am not saying +6, or any plus isn't really helpful, it is just very boring. Read Power Attack and the like and fighters can do something no one else without that feat can do.
It's not fear of rolling a '1' its just rolling a single skill check for something that might be the social equivalent of a Boss Fight seems, dull.
As claymade pointed out, would we be so excited about combat if sword battles were a single skill test, roll d20+mod. compare with enemy and the highest number kills or maims the other?
My point, if I was to have one, is that Bards and the like would be much more fun and characters not so focused on DPR if there was another type of combat. As much as I don't actually need to know how to fight with a chain to make a Trip-Fighter I won't need to know how win a debating contest to make a Bluff-Ranger (silly examples I know). Have a list of Social Combat options, for example from The Burning Wheel RPG (Avoid, Dismiss, Feint, Incite, Obfuscate, Point, and Rebuttal), means players wouldn't need to actually be able to be good verbal warfare.
Sure the single die roll works as a mechanic of course, but is it fun?
|
|
It depends on what you are trying to do. Each of the social skills does a very specific things. Because they are skills, not abilities. They are things you have practiced.
"Bluff: You know how to tell a lie."
Pretty straight forward. If you are lying, roll a bluff check.
"Diplomacy: You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
It seems like a lot of people make this a catch all. We don't, because it isn't described as a catch all. It isn't "Personality" it's diplomacy. The scale isn't "Hate" to "Love" it is "Hostile" to "Helpful". We think of diplomacy between players in the same way as we think of diplomacy between nations. North Korea and Iran are Hostile toward the US, the UK and France are Helpful. Yet at the same time we don't "Love" France or "Hate" Iran.
"Intimidate: You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."
Pretty straightforward.
So looked at from that point of view, the context of what you are saying matters more than the skill rolls, as the skill rolls only come into play in the very specific circumstances where they apply. This isn't to say you have to roll play out everything, but if you want the setting to make sense, as a GM you should be asking "What would the NPC do given the circumstances, who they are, how they think" far more than rolling dice and saying "The barmaid wants to 'do' you."
If you just wanted a dice based system, we wouldn't need to be at a table top with a GM. Computers do the math faster and better.
Since both diplo and bluff DCs are set based on what you say and how people find you, I pretty much demand that people talk, then roll.
I houserule the same for intimidate, even if the skill does not take such things into consideration. If the threat simply is not plausible, there is a penalty. If the threat is VERY plausible, there is a bonus.
No one penalizes a fighter for not going into detail into how he swings his sword.The rules do for you. The number of feats and rules that exist for ONLY combat exceed the rules on Social Combat by orders of magnitude. At my tables the fighting types tend to say using Feat X, Y, and Z I do a Full Attack etc during combat. What are my options with Bluff? Well it's saying I'm trying to use Bluff really isn't it...
Just scanned the Feats in the Core book and didn't find one feat to help me be 'the face' - perhaps someone will kindly point out any I missed.
Alertness to a lesser extent.