| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello all,
I've had some discussion with my players, and we're pondering whether a player should roleplay things they say/do before or after rolling the relevant skill check.
To me, there are two options:
- Say what you want your character to say/do, then roll to determine success, potentially with bonuses for good descriptions
"I give the dwarf an eloquent speech, describing how his ancestors would be angry with his actions and appealing to his history to join us"
*Rolls a 3 on Diplomacy*
"The dwarf looks furious with your ignorant words"
- Roll to determine success/failure beforehand, then roleplay the results.
I want to roll Diplomacy to convince the dwarf to join us
*Rolls a 3*
"Dwarf! Your ancestors are ugly and their beards are short and mangy!"
I find this discussion interesting. Roleplaying first will usually only determine the response, where rolling first would determine how good your words actually are, plus the potential response. This was brought up because we usually operated by roleplay first, but the potential for humorous roleplay was greater by rolling first and acting out the (potentially terrible) results.
This is less applicable to action skills, where one can easily say "I attempt the thing", then check for success, then roleplay.
My main consideration is that some players may expect that their successful speeches grant them bonuses to diplomacy or bluffing, and it's difficult to give these bonuses if they roll first.
A possible add-on question: Does a successful social skill check mean that your delivery is more successful, or their response is more favorable?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally like to role play what my d20 tells me. Going into some eloquent speech and expecting the GM to give you some kind of bonus only to roll a 1 is silly. To role play before rolling the dice implies the die result doesn't matter, which we all know it does.
If someone really likes to role play, as opposed to just going through the motions of saying something so the GM might throw them a bone, then it's equally as fun to role play a failure as a success and it's even more challenging to have to improv it because chance has different plans.
You roleplay the situation that results from the dice roll.
Other way around might only make sense if you take 20 or something. Not that you can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying before you roll always reminds me of this now. Thankfully our DM cut us a break.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
going to respond to this as a GM:
I usually like my players to roleplay first, then roll the die, as I am more apt to fudge the DC a tiny bit in their favor if they make a really good effort or a very convincing diplomatic point/threat/lie etc.
DISCLAIMER: The above is based on my following expectation as a GM:
I expect the player's roleplay to roughly match their character's social skill modifiers.
if you are making huge long-winded attempts at actual diplomacy in order to positively influence an NPC, bypass a combat encounter, etc. and are hoping to make the roll with a +2 modifier, then you are most likely wasting the time and attention of everyone else at the table regardless of what order the roll/roleplay occur
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RP first with no bonus because of your description. What you(the player) says is what you intend for your PC to say. How well it comes across in gameland depends on the dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the wraith.
I expect my (role)players in this roleplaying game to play their roles. Funny that. So if they want to try a social skill, they roleplay what they're going to say.
I recognize that Joe the Gamer might not be as slick as his character, Ronaldo the Renowned Romancer, which is why the CHARACTER has the skills and skill modifiers, not the player, but the initial roleplay sets the scene and lets me know what the player wants to happen.
Then the roll determines if it works or not. Maybe this time Ronaldo wasn't as convincing as he usually is, or the person he was trying to socialize was unusually alert and/or resistant to his charms.
None of which is affected by the initial roleplay - that just sets the scene. I don't even give bonuses on the roll, for the same reason that I don't give bonuses on a climb check when the player describes minute details of how he climbs, and I don't give bonuses on Spellcraft when the player describes explicit details on how he, uhhh, crafts spells...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a player makes a great speech and then botches the Diplomacy roll, I generally say that unfortunately, something about them reminds the NPC of an ex or a brother-in-law who's always borrowing money or the guy who beat them out for the promotion: no matter what they say or how reasonable their argument is, the NPC is just biased against them from the get-go through no fault of their own.
I hate the guy who tries to "roleplay" his character as eloquent and suave even though he has a negative charisma and no ranks in any social skill. Especially when he expects to "just win coz meh rp". He's just a munchkin at best. If you don't have mechanical backing to your flavor/rp, then your flavor/rp is a lie.
I have known people in real who try to be suave and fail at it. I just see it like that.
At my table it would not be a problem because when it mattered, and he had to roll he would likely fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have known people in real who try to be suave and fail at it. I just see it like that.
At my table it would not be a problem because when it mattered, and he had to roll he would likely fail.
That's fine, and I agree with you, but that's when "that guy" gets mad at not being allowed to "just win coz meh rp".
That's fine, and I agree with you, but that's when "that guy" gets mad at not being allowed to "just win coz meh rp".I have known people in real who try to be suave and fail at it. I just see it like that.
At my table it would not be a problem because when it mattered, and he had to roll he would likely fail.
Ok, that is different.
Oh well hopefully he comes around. :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I run:
1. Brief summary of tack used ("I'll argue that he'll make a lot of money if we get into the king's treaury").
(equivalent to "I move into flanking" for attacks)
2. GM applies relevant modifiers (the target needs money to pay for his child's medicine - have a +2 to the roll; the target is surprisingly honest - have a -2 to the roll).
3. Roll to determine result
4. Player/GM role-plays result.
I agree with Dementrius. Basically it's a puzzle, a challenge, something the party can overcome.
The PCs want something. The NPC has a reason to not give it to them (and maybe some reason to give it to them, but the reason not to weighs more). The party needs to figure out through the encounter what that objection is and then figure out how they'll overcome it (and then you roll, extra modifiers if you really want, but really it's down to dc calculation).
Exploit a fear, support an incentive, etc. So the starting RP becomes the way the players learn what they're supposed to target, and then the roll is for when the players target it (tell me what I want to know or I call the guards; Look at us, we're strong, we can keep you safe; I'm sorry, we're new in town, we didn't know about the tithe & have no coin to spare... etc).
I never considered the second option but it seems really interesting !
The only issue is that the player need an "irl skill" as high as his character otherwise he cannot play the scene.
For example, with the method of roleplaying first I'm going to describe how I want to persuade X to do Y by using argument Z.
If I make a diplomacy check of ~15 I can describe the scene and do the dialog with the GM, same if I roll 2. But if I make a diplomacy check of 30 I don't really know how to play the scene.
In that case the GM are probably going to say that I've found the perfect argument and I have an honeyed tongue, or something like this.
I'm agree with some of you who say that roleplaying first and then rolling dice can be absurd if you have made a awesome speech and fail the check. But you can look at it like this :
The roleplaying scene you describe to the GM is what your character prepare in his head, what he want to do. ( I'm sure all of you have already prepared a speech to say in his head). The roll then describe how your character are going to execute this plan, and how close it his to his expectation (it can even surpass it). It's the same in real life, when you prepare a nice speech but then you babble or say another word, or the contrary and you find instant inspiration and come with awesome comeback.
Also in my table you can never say "I persuade this guy to do that" and just roll, you have to come with an idea or arguments. And you are encouraged to play the social interaction according to your character skills.
Thanks for the insight everyone, I find the different opinions to be quite interesting.
Lamontius: that's how I've mostly been running it. It seems effective.
DM_Blake, Wraithstrike: You both seem to prefer giving no bonuses for a "good" description. Would you give bonuses (or raise/lower the DC) based on specific points they want to make? Even if it's not particularly eloquent, explaining that they would like to appeal to the dwarf's ancestry and honor should grant them some advantage, yes?
Dementrius: I quite like your application. Seems like a nice combination of both. I may try it out.
I'm planning on experimenting with letting the players decide how they want to operate, the second option (rolling first) has been brought up and they are interested in trying it out. I expect it to be more humorous because it (somewhat) forces roleplaying grand failures, but it may detract from more important, serious situations.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our group sort of combines the approaches - we roleplay before the roll, then again after the roll if the roll comes off as unusual.
Example:
Barbarian making an Intimidate check: (at, say, +8)
"Surrender now and be spared! Fight on and there won't be enough left of you for your own mother to recognize!"
*rolls a 1 for a grand total of 9 on the check*
player: When I was saying that I accidentally swallowed a fly and the last half came out between coughing fits.
Similarly if the no ranks, 7 Cha guy is talking and rolls well anyway, we generally adjust it so his blatant insult or threat is exactly what the person wanted to hear.
|
Ideally the players would roleplay before making the skill check. Why? Because depending on their tactic it may make the diplomacy or intimidation check easier or harder.
Hopefully the player rolls, then tailors what they say to take into account the roll if the skill check was done first.
Realistically what happens more often is "I bluff the guard" (dice get rolled) "Does he believe me?"
DM_Blake, Wraithstrike: You both seem to prefer giving no bonuses for a "good" description. Would you give bonuses (or raise/lower the DC) based on specific points they want to make? Even if it's not particularly eloquent, explaining that they would like to appeal to the dwarf's ancestry and honor should grant them some advantage, yes?
Nope, not unless the NPC is affected by such things, but that would be decided before the RP even began.
As an example Mcgruff the Grumpy dwarf hates being reminded that his sister married an elf, and any mention of it makes him angry. Any mentioning of this results in a -5 penalty to any diplomacy checks.Giving McGruff 200 gp or more as a bribe gives you a +5 bonus to diplomacy checks.
These are not so much based on RP ability, as parts of the dwarf's personality, and they are things anyone can do.
Someone being charismatic or non-charismatic in real life has no affect on their rolls in my games. That is fair to me.
To give someone a bonus or penalty because they don't speak well is like giving someone a bonus to attacks because they are strong in real life or because they can give very animated descriptions of fighting due to experience as a trained combatant or larping.
PS: I only did all of the writing to try to make my point clear. I was not ranting. :)
PS2: As someone just mentioned I might have to add in a bluff check also or make it into an intimidate check depending on how they want to word things. <----Another reason to have them speak first.
Dude!!! I was just thinking about this exact thing the other day. The new series from escapistmagazine.com Natural 20 has an episode almost entirely devoted to just this very thing. You have to watch it in order to understand, because it would take way too long for me to explain. Let me just say this: after someone roleplays their social skill check first, and then rolls the dice, you get moments like this.
Which is why I firmly believe that, sometimes, especially in social roleplay situations, the dice are a suggestion, and can, definitely, mean much less, or nothing at all, when compared to the qualities of a player's dialogue/monologue. Not everyone plays that way though, and each way is equally valid. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to handle social encounters in the same way as wraithstrike and dm_blake. Sometimes I might supplement that with an ooc question about their intent. Then I may roll the dice or use gm-fiat to determine the response to what was intended to be said. The player's speech may have avoided or included points or taken an angle that would adjust what even an extreme dice roll would mean.
Rolling first negates all that social interaction
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake, Wraithstrike: You both seem to prefer giving no bonuses for a "good" description. Would you give bonuses (or raise/lower the DC) based on specific points they want to make? Even if it's not particularly eloquent, explaining that they would like to appeal to the dwarf's ancestry and honor should grant them some advantage, yes?
Nope, not unless the NPC is affected by such things, but that would be decided before the RP even began.
As an example Mcgruff the Grumpy dwarf hates being reminded that his sister married an elf, and any mention of it makes him angry. Any mentioning of this results in a -5 penalty to any diplomacy checks.Giving McGruff 200 gp or more as a bribe gives you a +5 bonus to diplomacy checks.
[CUT]
Wraithstrike: You actually answered affirmatively to my question with your example. I was asking whether there should be a bonus for specific topics/actions, not charisma and eloquency. Thanks for your input!
MendedWall: Interesting, I'll give that a look.
I've found giving slight bonuses or penalties to social skills based on the topics that the PCs bring up encourages role-playing.
When bonuses/penalties were in play, I had much more engaged players. When I attempted not using them, and I informed the players as such, I got far more "I use diplomacy" type situations.
I think the "correct" way would be roleplaying what you rolled (bonus included), but I prefer it when players do it before the roll, since I often give bonuses for good roleplay.
Our groups roleplay and the GM occasionally ask for checks to determine how the NPCs react.
You can't use social skills on fellow players, that is left to roleplaying.
I hate the guy who tries to "roleplay" his character as eloquent and suave even though he has a negative charisma and no ranks in any social skill. Especially when he expects to "just win coz meh rp". He's just a munchkin at best. If you don't have mechanical backing to your flavor/rp, then your flavor/rp is a lie.
almost as much as I hate the guy who mutters a description of what he does under his breath, rolls the dice, and demands the social situation goes a he says because "hurr durr I rollz like a bozz".
I'd do roleplay first because (to go with your add-on question) I've always seen the roll being to check their response. That's why Diplomacy doesn't work on PCs - they get to decide their own response.
Social skills don't work on PCs because of the natural metagame due to the players being attached to their characters (which may make them want a specific outcome rather than what is actually rolled).
NPCs too get to choose their words and action, the only difference is that the GM isn't (usually and ideally) attached to them and thus accepts the outcome of rolls without adding behind-the-scenes plans to act as if the outcome was different.Beyond that, what's the point of rolling first? To make exactly as in OP's example, that if you roll low, you HAVE to say something bad? That's stupid, are all characters affected by Tourette's syndrome, that they can't keep their tongue from saying something inadequate?
Rather, you first say what you wanted to say, and then, through roll result, you determine how well your character said it and how convincing she was, using her own communication abilities.
Bluff gives also a perfect example of why you should talk first and roll later: the roll gets certain modifiers if a lie is particularly believable or not; if you roll first and decide the lie based on that, how are you going to know what modifiers you should have applied? Or are you going to pointlessly apply them retroactively?
I hate the guy who tries to "roleplay" his character as eloquent and suave even though he has a negative charisma and no ranks in any social skill. Especially when he expects to "just win coz meh rp". He's just a munchkin at best. If you don't have mechanical backing to your flavor/rp, then your flavor/rp is a lie.almost as much as I hate the guy who mutters a description of what he does under his breath, rolls the dice, and demands the social situation goes a he says because "hurr durr I rollz like a bozz".
I mostly just hate that guy because he didn't say what he was doing, making his roll as meaningless as when I roll the random dice I have around my desk in the middle of the afternoon. Was his roll for an attack, climbing, doing a backflip, knowledge? No one knows. If he said "I roll diplomacy to improve [npc name]'s attitude towards me" his roll would've at least been valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem I have with speaking 2nd:
Some are assuming that a failed diplomacy roll equals a bad speech. Depending on the situation you can roll above a 30(very good speech) and still fail.
Maybe the person you are talking to has other reasons to not want to cooporate with you that are not so obvious, such as him secretly working with someone that you are working against.
He might even actually like you, but due to money or maybe even fear the roll of 30 might not be good enough.
We roleplay them out first. Our GM has granted us bonuses in the past but are always exceedingly rare. The kind of roleplay moments that are memorable enough to be talked about years later.
I think there's space for both rolling before and after. For "after" is when the roll is going to expedite a scene that you've already played a number of times or has no real significance that adds fun, i.e. gathering information in a broad sense, relationships with multiple vendors. In these examples it will almost replace the roleplay for the most part.
For "before" it can give cues as you roleplay instead of directly influencing the outcome. If you can't think of a social cue, it could boil down to a feeling that the subject shouldn't be broached or that you should change your tack. It does lack the immediate satisfaction of a good roll, but it depends on what you want social rolls to mean in your game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that the speech from the NPC can be almost flawless and still not be good enough, but the assumption from those wanting to tailor the speech is that the speech is not good, and that is why it failed.
Basically speaking 2nd to tailor the speech only works if your fail because of a low roll. That idea does not work when you are rolling a high number, and it still does not work.
I am a roleplay-first type of GM. I take the player's roleplay and then interpret it through the dice. This allows me to deal with a mismatch between player skill and character skill.
I also adjust based on the choices they make. Insulting a proud noble is usually a bad idea. Other people may be swayed by flattery or other tactics.
Of course, sense motive can help you figure out which way to go.
If they can, I usually prefer the act out first then a check, with modifiers given for good ideas and whatnot.
But sometimes you just can't think of what to say, and the d20 roll is good enough. It happens, especially with new players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff gives also a perfect example of why you should talk first and roll later: the roll gets certain modifiers if a lie is particularly believable or not; if you roll first and decide the lie based on that, how are you going to know what modifiers you should have applied? Or are you going to pointlessly apply them retroactively?This is a great point. The language from the bluff skill actually says
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
This absolutely demands that the player state their character's lie before the roll is made.
In addition the Make Request action of the Diplomacy skill is going to require that the player openly state the request before the roll as well, because:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
So clearly there are sections of the rules for social skills that assume the player is offering up something before the roll is made.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff gives also a perfect example of why you should talk first and roll later: the roll gets certain modifiers if a lie is particularly believable or not; if you roll first and decide the lie based on that, how are you going to know what modifiers you should have applied? Or are you going to pointlessly apply them retroactively?
I don't think there's as much disagreement as you think.
Most posters are saying they do want at least an outline, of what angle the PC is going to come at the problem.What leverage will they be trying to exert? What names will they drop, to impress? What rewards will they use to entice?
Those are all things that would affect the dice modifiers, and need to be stated up front.
What isn't essential, is the full roleplay, which can be modified and played out retrospectively, based on the result of the roll.
GM and player should cooperate, to build a realistic conversation, based on the likely ways certain tactics could have been mishandled or misinterpreted (bad roll), or been surprisingly effective (good roll).
On a good roll, a GM can throw a lifeline to a shy player, or low-skill PC, suggesting ways they could build on the conversation so far, to get to the unusual success they achieved. ("Oh, you work for the Duke? Well, you may know my niece, the maid? How is she doing? Is she finding it to her liking? Tell me more...I have a message to give her, let me look back here, I'd be ever so grateful....")
A poor roll from a high skill-bonus PC, accustomed to success, could mean his mentioning of his connections to the Duke was taken as boastful name-dropping, and result in contemptuous jeers.
All of the above is dependent on GM and players leaving their out-of-game personas and egos at the door, and being willing to embrace the possibility of their PC's failure, rather than trying to 'win' the exchange, regardless of what was rolled, or taking any of it personally, if an NPC gets sniffy with them.
|
|
The roll does not affect what you say. It relates how well your character express those thoughts, and determines how well your target reacts to those words. But it does not have an affect on the raw content. As an orator, My diplomacy is often roleplayed well (it comes naturally for me), but my OOG elequence does not determine my character's. That is determined by the Roll. And as such, you should first list the content of your diplomacy/bluff/intimidation check (roleplay) then determine how the enemy reacts to it (the Roll).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have people role play first too because I like to modify their result based on what they said, how they said it, and whether they had a particularly good approach. And in this case, for players who are shy or not good at acting, third person descriptions also count. I'm looking mostly for effort and thoughtfulness, not thespianism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly when i play , the player must give his intention atleast first , so one can know what he wants and so on. There is no need to roleplay before the roll , but there are no issues with doing it either.
What is really important is the idea , not really the exact words.
If the player says: "I talk to the king about swords" or actually roleplays talking to the king about swords , the result will be the same modifier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of the above is dependent on GM and players leaving their out-of-game personas and egos at the door, and being willing to embrace the possibility of their PC's failure, rather than trying to 'win' the exchange, regardless of what was rolled, or taking any of it personally, if an NPC gets sniffy with them.
Very good point. I've seen a similar mindset when it comes to describing attacks. If a player rolls a 1 to hit, and the GM describes it as a total whiff or the PC stumbled momentarily, most players are ok with that.
Occasionally though, a player will complain saying that their PC is an expert fighter and could not possibly whiff or stumble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We generally roleplay first, then roll. Usually the players in our group are pretty good about not making up some eloquent speech when the character has a lousy social skill, and a couple of the players aren't generally able to do justice when they play a character with a really high social skill.
This has resulted in a few hilarious exchanges, like the time a fairly capable rogue named Lambert was trying to bluff his way through a city watch at a gate after curfew. He came up with a really good story, and then rolled the dreaded one. This prompted him to add, "so what do you think guys? Can I pass by now already? I'm really going to be late and miss my chance to break into Pasketti's Jewelry Emporium if you don't help me out."
The entire table busted out laughing and the poor unlucky rogue is still lamented to this day whenever a 1 comes up in a social roll as everyone calls it "Pulling a Lambert".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that, while a 1 on an attack roll is always a miss, a 1 on a skill check can still succeed if the bonus is high enough to meet the DC. There aren't auto-fails or -successes in skills.
It's worth noting that, while a 1 on an attack roll is always a miss, a 1 on a skill check can still succeed if the bonus is high enough to meet the DC. There aren't auto-fails or -successes in skills.
Issue being a 20 isnt an auto success either. Which means the fighter who made a briliant speech isnt going to move the dragons heart any time soon with his diplomacy bonus of 0.
they should not even be trying in the first place
best case scenario is the dragon is indifferent in attitude and has a fairly low CHA for a dragon. Only then would 0diplo fighter person have a small chance of success.
any other scenario and 0diplo fighter person has a 0% chance of success.
if your character has no mechanical basis for making brilliant speeches then you are not able to get a mechanical benefit for making brilliant speeches
they should not even be trying in the first place
best case scenario is the dragon is indifferent in attitude and has a fairly low CHA for a dragon. Only then would 0diplo fighter person have a small chance of success.
any other scenario and 0diplo fighter person has a 0% chance of success.
if your character has no mechanical basis for making brilliant speeches then you are not able to get a mechanical benefit for making brilliant speeches
True, but they could have a story based mechanical benefit that isn't reflected in the character's skill bonuses. For example, the 0 diplo fighter in question may have learned that the dragon is searching for something and having information on that might give him a mechanical bonus based on circumstances rather than raw ability.
This is a good justification for the role-play, then roll scenario, if the character role-plays hinting at having the info they get the bonus, if they forget to mention it, they do not get the bonus.