The Death of Diplomacy

[Ancient Mage]

Hello all,
In an effort to increase actual role-playing in my D&D games, and avoid senseless rolling of the dice, I have actually done away with several skills. Given below is a list and an explanation for each:

Bluff: This skill can be easily replaced by simply having the player tell the DM "I say to the guard, 'You'd better check with your superiors, the rules were changed yesterday, didn't you hear?'". This increases role-playing by forcing the characters to speak, and invent a lie, and is dependent upon the excellence of the player's fabrication, not on a die roll. Likewise, the DM now can have the intoxicated guard or the peasant fail constantly against the player's lies, whereas the 15th level elite drow duskblade with an intelligence of 26 (but who has 0 ranks in sense motive) will easily pierce through the lie, as he should.

Diplomacy: pretty much like bluff, I've gotten rid of this one, and for the same reasons. In addition, it makes for an interesting role-play, even better than bluffing, when the PC's actively try to speak and convince someone.

Gather Information: You're the DM. The players will find it out one way or another, why not just have them find out sooner, without having them roll over and over again to find a plot hook that they will get anyway?

Intimidate: Characters explaining, "I shove him up against the wall, grab his collar and bellow 'Shut up' into his face!," is much more interesting to hear and react to than, "I intimidate him and I got a 19 on my check."

Sense Motive: Again, this is the opposite of bluff, a 15th level elite drow warrior is not going to fall for a bluff unless it is incredibly worded. It just makes more sense that he would decide on his own, and if he has 0 ranks in sense motive, it ruins the illusion of reality when he says "Ok!" to whatever the player says.

So tell me what you think. Does getting rid of them ruin the game? Does it make role-playing better? Does anyone else get rid of these skills? If so, have you noticed improvements in your player's roleplaying?

Thanks,

-Ancient Mage

[Steward]

Basically, these fixes aren't problematic as long as the players are interested in and good at roleplaying. But if they aren't, they might find it frustrating that their 18 Cha bards are treated as socially-inept pariahs just because they (the players) aren't imaginative enough to think of clever bluffs or agile pieces of diplomacy. (It's a similar situation to riddles in games -- an 18 Int wizard should be able to easily solve most riddles, but they might fail because the player in control of them can't work out the answer).

Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and similar skills are essentially a crutch, to make it possible for someone to 'pretend' to be more charismatic or more intimidating than they are in real life, just as the combat mechanics make it possible for someone to 'pretend' to be a powerful warrior even though they've never even held a sword before in real life.

As long as the players are comfortable relying on their own personal charisma, perceptiveness, and creativity to that extent, I don't see a problem.

[Ravens_cry]

I think social skills are tools to both a) allow players to play something they are not and/or aren't good/comfortable at acting and b) adjudicating situations.
As such ,they are a valuable part of the game.
Personally, I use a floating system of bonuses.
Good role play, or at least a good effort, gets a bonus to the roll, while poor role play, and especially a lack of effort, gets a negative.
This way, the socially awkward, quiet newbie can play the suave, silver tongued trickster, while still having role play matter.

[jmelesky]

Intimidate: Characters explaining, "I shove him up against the wall, grab his collar and bellow 'Shut up' into his face!," is much more interesting to hear and react to than, "I intimidate him and I got a 19 on my check."


It's even more interesting if the character explains, and *then* rolls. Because characters that are bad at intimidation might think that will work, but it turns out they have a comical voice, or the shoving put them weirdly off-balance and spoiled the attempt, or whatever.

The inverse is true, too. If a bad guy tries to intimidate a PC, most players will scoff. However, if the intimidation roll succeeds against the PC's stats, then the big, scary boss monster did, legitimately, intimidate that character.

One of the big improvements of 3.x over 2ed was the fact that Charisma actually has useful crunch. Eliminating that crunch is punishing to Charisma-based characters (while simultaneously benefitting people who know how to play up to the GM well, regardless of their Cha bonus).

If you want to encourage more description and narration, give situational bonuses to those skills, or require description before you allow a roll. Don't get rid of the roll, though.

[Snowbluff]

I give bonuses to Cha-skills for good roleplaying.

[Bhaakon]

I don't mind the motivation behind your decision, but it can be tough to implement without the right group. If you've got a stumble-tongued player who wants to play a smooth-talking bard, then you might have a problem. You also run the risk of being accused of favoritism, since you're making a lot of subjective judgements.

There's also the question of the more mechanical aspects of those skills. Using bluff to feint or create a diversion, or using intimidate to demoralize, really should be rolled rather than role-played.

[NOhara24]

It's even more interesting if the character explains, and *then* rolls. Because characters that are bad at intimidation might think that will work, but it turns out they have a comical voice, or the shoving put them weirdly off-balance and spoiled the attempt, or whatever.

The inverse is true, too. If a bad guy tries to intimidate a PC, most players will scoff. However, if the intimidation roll succeeds against the PC's stats, then the big, scary boss monster did, legitimately, intimidate that character.

One of the big improvements of 3.x over 2ed was the fact that Charisma actually has useful crunch. Eliminating that crunch is punishing to Charisma-based characters (while simultaneously benefitting people who know how to play up to the GM well, regardless of their Cha bonus).

If you want to encourage more description and narration, give situational bonuses to those skills, or require description before you allow a roll. Don't get rid of the roll, though.

This. DO NOT get rid of the ability to roll. If anything, let them roll, and if they explain what they're doing/saying particularly well, give them a bonus on the roll. That way roleplaying still has it's place, but those who aren't good roleplayers aren't penalized.

[Metahuman1]

My IRL group plays the bonus for good description rule. the players who aren't gifted with the Gab in real life love it cause they can make there smooth operator bards and beguilers and rouges work in game, and the rest of us love it cause we can make character who aren't build as bluff/Intimidate/diplomancers function in social situations. Thus my court Wizard who's been around the block a lot over century's of elivn life does, in fact, have the ability to talk his way through at least some things with out having to use enchantment spells.

[Venusaur]

This takes most of the reason to have any charisma at all on a non spontaneous bard/sorcerer type. Rogues only need charisma for UMD, Paladins for + to saves, and clerics for turns. It also removes any mechanics, and DM fiat controls everything. Finally, it punishes players who are not charismatic in real life.

[prufock]

I wouldn't say it ruins the game but it certainly seems unnecessary and, in my opinion, worse. Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive are now handled via DM fiat. This is a bad thing. You, as DM, make an arbitraty call as to whether the argument, lie, or threat is effective or not.

You say that a 15th level drow would simply not be affected. Why? Just because a character is powerful doesn't mean he is effective with all skills. Likewise, would a 15th level character automatically succeed at a bluff check? It creates a paradox.

Gather information I have less qualms about. That skill is more about saving time in-game. I don't see the need to remove it, but the use of this skill could actually be covered by Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate.

If you want roleplaying, just require that they describe their actions, or speak in character when appropriate, then make the check. Even give bonuses or penalties if their description is particularly convincing or unconvincing.

[Averis Vol]

There's also the question of the more mechanical aspects of those skills. Using bluff to feint or create a diversion, or using intimidate to demoralize, really should be rolled rather than role-played.

lol i'd love to see one of my Pc's try to Roleplay a feint, Backyard larping combat, watching a bunch of nerds hit each other with sticks while i sit back and throw "fireballs" (tin foil wads)....i think i'd feel like ceaser.

but on topic I always figured the roll was to reinforce the point, "let my by good sir, theres a few coins in it for you" would sound more convincing with the higher roll instead of just sounding like "this guys trying to get me fired".

[Belril Duskwalk]

Before reading the responses to this post, I would have been all for wiping Bluff, Diplomacy etc. completely out. Having started D&D in 2nd edition, where no such interaction-based skill rolls existed I always disliked the Cha skills you list. Playing newer editions it always felt like the rolls promoted people just saying 'okay I'll Intimidate him. "Where is your master" *roll* I got a 37, does he tell me what I want?' Which seems much less satisfactory than, 'I draw my dagger and trace the edge of the blade with my finger casually, "Now then, I need to know where your master is, and if you don't tell me, things may become... unpleasant." Given the choice, I'd go for the latter any day, but I also get that some players just aren't good at threats or telling convincing lies.

And so, I'd support boosting a player's roll if they make a decent effort at what they are intending or penalizing them for making no effort at all and just tossing the dice. It encourages use of descriptions, but still allows people that aren't very good at being convincing to try playing someone who is. Of course, if you're in a player group that is made of people who are all reasonably good at personal interaction then yes, the skills could probably be dispensed with. As for some NPCs being way too easy to lie your way through, boost the hell out of their Sense Motives. If you want them to be hard to convince, throw some skill points into making them precisely that.

[Torq]

That would be like making the player show you exactly how his character uses Sleight of Hand to conceal weapons, palm items and draw weapons. What if they're clumsy IRL? As has been said, removing checks to social skills penalizes the player for not having such great social skills IRL.

I'm all for giving bonuses for creative intimidate/bluff/diplomacy attempts though.

[Chronos]

A skilled role-player can also play to the dice. Yeah, if you succeed on a roll to influence someone, you might spout off something Shakespearean or the like, but it's almost as much fun to role-play a spectacular failure. The dice say you got a natural 1 on your Intimidate check? OK, then you say that you tried to draw your dagger to emphasize your point, but somehow ended up with the blade in your hand instead of the handle, gave yourself a nasty scratch, and dropped it with a loud profanity. If it weren't for the dice saying that the check was a failure, nobody would ever describe their actions this way, but when they do, it can be hilarious for the folks around the table.

[Physics_Rook]

So tell me what you think.
As many of the others have already pointed out, GM's using this system could run into a problem where a player who isn't confident in their own personal charisma now has a more difficult time trying to act charismatic for their character. Again, this might be a problem for players who aren't comfortable or confident with their own personal charismatic abilities.

Steward's "super-intelligent wizard vs a riddle" example is an excellent showcase of this kind of problem.

Venusaur and prufock's call of attention to possible GM fiat is also important. Without dice, the final call of all conflict resolution is now clearly entirely in the GM's hands, meaning whether a player's roleplaying succeeds or fails is entirely subject to the GM's desire and whether they think the player deserves to succeed.

When I say "now clearly entirely in the GM's hands", I'm talking about the fact that the GM can assign any DC check and any sense motive/bluff modifier to anything he wants, so conflict resolution has always (in a roundabout way) been in the GM's hands. The diceless aspect highlights the issue by shining a spotlight on it though, and openly demonstrating that every success or failure of the players is now up to the GM.


Does getting rid of them ruin the game?
Unknown. Depending on your players, it could benefit some while punishing others, and it also brings their attention to your ability to adjudicate social matters (for good or for ill).


Does it make role-playing better?
Unknown. Depending on your players, some could be natural roleplayers waiting to learn how to "swim" by being pushed into the deep-end, others might flail and "drown", eventually leaving the game.


Does anyone else get rid of these skills?
Yes. Many people here (myself included) have played diceless games, or games where social resolution is diceless, and many of them have written very good points about it's pros and cons.


If so, have you noticed improvements in your player's roleplaying?
Unknown. The people I've played with tended to roleplay their actions for the most part and the inclusion or lack of the social skills didn't really seem to have any noticeable effect (at least from my vantage point as a GM and later as a player).

Conclusion:
I'd recommend keeping the skills in place.
I'd also recommend giving bonuses to people who roleplay their character interactions well.
EX: Intimidating someone by being a brutish thug.
I'd recommend assigning penalties for people who roleplay well, but have done or said all the wrong things.
EX: Bluffing someone into thinking you're the guard captain without realizing you're talking to the guard captain. :smallcool: (Bonus points if they actually pull it off)
I would recommend against assigning penalties to players that don't feel comfortable roleplaying though.
EX: Player just wants to intimidate or bluff someone, go ahead and ask them how, but don't pressure them into roleplaying something they're not comfortable with.

Roleplaying dicelessly can be a lot of fun, and I've personally never had a problem with it as either a GM or a player. I think you would likely be just fine in scrapping the social skills, but in deference to players who aren't comfortable roleplaying, I advise keeping them all the same.

I hope this helps. :smallsmile:

[Hunter Killer]

I'm with the camp that says removing those skills is an awful idea, for many of the same reasons they've already stated. Since that has already been covered, how about we think of better ways to encourage roleplay?

Here's what I do a my table, and it's worked for me for nearly a decade:

1. Tell the players that you require them to describe or act out their actions when they say "I use Diplomacy" or "I'm going to Intimidate". Since it's your game, you can say a roll doesn't count if they don't do this.

2. Assign bonuses and penalties to rolls on these skills based on roleplay. Favor bonuses moreso than penalties, and be vocal about the fact that you're assigning them. I'd mostly stick to +2 or -2, but a rare +4/+6/+8 etc is fine.

3. Give XP bonuses for good roleplay. These, like the roll bonuses and penalties, don't have to be huge either. Again, being vocal about the fact that you're doing this is key. Show that there are rewards for effort.

4a. Set aside 20 minutes at the end of each session where you ask three key questions of the players: "What did you learn as a player?" "What did your character learn?" and "Who, other then yourself, had the best roleplay this session?". This will force players to think about their playstyle, their character, and the playstyles of the better roleplayers in the group.

4b. If you do the above, give small XP bonuses for good answers to the first two questions, and small XP bonuses for getting a vote for best roleplay. Perhaps double the XP bonus for getting more than one vote.

5. Periodically go round-robin around your table in non-combat situations and have each player describe what he or she is doing even if they aren't part of the current scene or the current focal point. This keeps people engaged.

6. Give your worst roleplayer(s) something to work off of. If they have a hard time getting into it, throw in a memorable NPC that happens to take a special liking to that player (or players) and makes it a point to communicate with them instead of the other players.

[Slipperychicken]

If I were in your group, I would find myself justifying my poor role-playing by dumping Charisma as far down as it'll go, and doing everything possible to avoid social interaction (kind of like real life :smalltongue:).

DM: "A guard stands in the way, a wide stance, with arms folded over his chest. You know he has orders to only let certain people past"

Me: "F*** it, I stab him" [roll]

DM: "You... just stab him?"

Me: "I have never succeeded at lying, bribing, or convincing anyone in this whole campaign. Is he still standing, or not?"

DM: :smallannoyed:

[SpaceBadger]

This. DO NOT get rid of the ability to roll. If anything, let them roll, and if they explain what they're doing/saying particularly well, give them a bonus on the roll. That way roleplaying still has it's place, but those who aren't good roleplayers aren't penalized.

Yes. Someone playing a high Cha character, or skilled character who put lots of ranks into Bluff to be a genius at deception, should not be penalized because the player isn't up to that level.

I agree they should be roleplaying the use of interaction skills rather than just rolling dice, but what they say they are doing should be a bonus (or penalty, if bad in DM's judgment) on the die roll, rather than a complete substitute for it.

[navar100]

By doing so you punish the players who in real life aren't well spoken. Only the charismatic players will get their way and shy Bob just sits meekly on the couch going along with what everyone else says because they say it so much better than he can.

Do you really want your wizard player to fling bat poo in your house and switch on a blow torch? How about your rogue player take a knife out of your kitchen and stab you for a sneak attack? Do you really want your druid player to bring his pet great dane dog into your house to have it roleplay being his wolf companion? I admit I would be awed if the cleric player brought Roma Downey to your house to be the angel he summoned with Greater Planar Ally. Removing the social skills from the game is the same thing.

[FMArthur]

Yeah, I don't really like requiring IRL charisma to be charismatic in fantasy. The real problem is that the Diplomacy rules are vague and involve stupid factors like ranks that ultimately are not actually responsible for the character's personality. Using regular Diplomacy or discarding it altogether are extremes of pointless abstraction and pointless fantasy-simulation incongruity.

I just take character level completely out of the Diplomacy mechanic and leave the others alone, since that's the problematic one that involves nonsensical persuasion and impacts the game more than being scary or getting people to believe that you believe something ridiculous like Intimidate and Bluff. The possibility for dialogue between a commoner and an adventurer to involve both parties' wishes should not be smashed to pieces for no particular reason after the adventurer comes back from a quest.

I start with Rich's Diplomacy rules:
Diplomacy checks are called for when you are trying to convince someone to do something, and can be called by most things that could be conceived as requiring persuasion.

You have a relationship modifier with the target from -10 to +10 depending on your existing relationship, with -10 being the most loved and +10 being the most despised (there's a list of possibilities provided). Then you have a similar 'risk vs reward' modifier, which can involve real and abstract things as necessary (again there's a list showing which numbers correspond to influences that are involved).

Both of these modify the DC of the Diplomacy check, which is 15 + the highest level in the group you're persuading + the highest wisdom in the group you're persuading.
Next I take 'level' out of that equation and reduce the fixed "15" value to "10". Then I remove Diplomacy from the skills list. It's not eligable to be increased by an increasing number of ranks anymore. It's just Charisma.

But then every person capable of Diplomacy has a Cooperativeness stat that they are assigned from -5 to +5. This modifies every Diplomacy check made by and made against that person. An unusually ornery 1hd commoner actually has something distinguishing herself in the Diplomacy check now instead of being universally pliable like all commoners. But as a corollary she also has a bit of a hard time bartering in town. So a player character can specialize in being persuasive, but is more likely to be persuaded himself in return as well. Or a player who 'exploits' this and takes the lowest value to not be persuadable also reduces his ability to influence others (an exploit that makes the game easier to DM... what a disaster).

Cooperativeness can be changed at a rate of 1 point per month, or 2 points per level increase (adventuring for personal growth and all that).

Diplomacy works fine in my games now and doesn't feel arbitrary anymore. The number actually relates to more than how many levels a person has and doesn't just clumsily toss senseless abstraction into roleplaying as if it were supposed to be the thing bringing reason to discourse. As a DM there is an extra task of deciding an NPC's cooperativeness and distributing it in a way that is fair to the PCs, but it's not complicated and can be randomized with a d10 for unstatted people.

[Anxe]

I do a mix of just rolling the skill check and explaining your action. I require an explanation when the character uses a social skill. So if they do a bluff they need to come up with something believable. If the lie they come up with is really good, then I give them a bonus on the check. Same for diplomacy and so on. The players don't have to actually lie to me convincingly. Oftentimes they can't keep a straight face when they're doing bluff checks.

4E's DMG gives an example for skill challenges that uses this approach. Not saying what you did is wrong. Whatever your group enjoys is best for you. Things you should consider are:
Skill rank requirements for prestige classes.
Factoring in the character's ability to bluff (or etc.) over the player's.
Feinting in combat (currently uses bluff).
Intimidating in combat.
Using sense motive to gauge an opponent's strength.

[Zeta Kai]

In my games, I've gotten rid of all combat rules, to facilitate better role-playing. When an encounter occurs, my players simply attack the DM, hitting him with whatever they have available (in character, of course). It definitely speeds up the fights, & keeps the players engaged, even when it's not their turn.

[Hunter Killer]

If I were in your group, I would find myself justifying my poor role-playing by dumping Charisma as far down as it'll go, and doing everything possible to avoid social interaction (kind of like real life :smalltongue:).
I don't think I'd let that fly. There's a difference between that and truly roleplaying a low charisma or introverted character.

Low charisma characters generally have traits that define their low charisma. They're rude. They're ugly. They're loudmouthed. They're an genuine a-holes.

Introverted characters don't have to speak often or at all. They can describe body language and inner thoughts to the DM, or come up with mannerisms.

I understand D&D is a game, but if you're not going to put some effort into it and try to engage yourself (or actively participate when the DM is trying to engage you), what is the point?

I don't advocate diceless systems, although I've tried them a time or two... But it's a damn Roleplaying Game.

[ericgrau]

To reconcile the replacement of charisma skills with roleplaying, drop charisma too. Sorcerers may use int. Bards... maybe int too but then you should probably reduce their skill points. Charisma checks can usually use wisdom checks. Perform can use dex, etc. Have everyone roll 5 stats. Not like you'll be missing much.

[Krazzman]

Does getting rid of them ruin the game?

Yes, it does. At least for me it irritates me when one guy with Cha 7 and 0 ranks in Diplomacy tries to convince everyone without rolling. Because of that I could have stayed away whole evenings without missing something.

It is better to talk a bit, roll then talk more depending on roll.

[kardar233]

Do you really want your wizard player to fling bat poo in your house and switch on a blow torch? How about your rogue player take a knife out of your kitchen and stab you for a sneak attack? Do you really want your druid player to bring his pet great dane dog into your house to have it roleplay being his wolf companion? I admit I would be awed if the cleric player brought Roma Downey to your house to be the angel he summoned with Greater Planar Ally. Removing the social skills from the game is the same thing.

This comparison doesn't hold water for me, though it seems that it's highly group-dependent. The kind of people in my area who are attracted to D&D are usually theatrically inclined, hoping to take on a new personality and interact with other people of similar interests. In this group, the social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc.) have been made entirely invalid due to people taking the time to assume their character. A paranoid character (or a worldly one, for that matter) will suspect others of trying to deceive him (sometimes rightly) filling the role of Sense Motive, for example.

I'm not trying to say that my way is right, I'm saying that blanket-stating that my way is wrong is incorrect itself.

And to be honest, as a swordsman, if someone thought up a really cool move to try I'd try and give it room in the combat rules. If someone is content with using Combat Expertise Bonetti's Defense, more power to them.

[Mystify]

I'm in this exact situation as a player right now. I made a level 2 diplomat with a 22 diplomacy, got to the table, and had the DM inform he he wasn't using using the diplomacy skill.I am not the most charismatic person, but I want to roleplay a diplomat. I'm all for roleplaying the interaction and making the right arguements, but when my character has a 22 diplomacy and I personally have a 0, then there is a huge break. I gave up considerable power in other areas to be a sauve diplomat able to make friends with anyone.

The solution I wanted was to keep the dice rolls, but apply the player's speech as a large modifier. So, if I just go up to a an enemy and say "Like me!", I get a huge penalty and it will flop. If I give a decent speech, I get to ride by on my characters ability to really pull it off.

The solution we agreed on in the end was that I have to role play it, and my diplomacy dictates how suave and influential what I say will be interpreted as, so as long as I am making the right type of arguments, it will be successful.

Still, it is mainly there as a player crutch, and other players who don't have an amazing diplomacy score but are genuinely convincing fair just as well, without having to put any of their character build in it.

[Crasical]

A skilled role-player can also play to the dice. Yeah, if you succeed on a roll to influence someone, you might spout off something Shakespearean or the like, but it's almost as much fun to role-play a spectacular failure. The dice say you got a natural 1 on your Intimidate check? OK, then you say that you tried to draw your dagger to emphasize your point, but somehow ended up with the blade in your hand instead of the handle, gave yourself a nasty scratch, and dropped it with a loud profanity. If it weren't for the dice saying that the check was a failure, nobody would ever describe their actions this way, but when they do, it can be hilarious for the folks around the table.

This is how I roll social skills in my game, just so I don't blow a good line on a fumbled roll, and because occasionally it's funny to roleplay fumbling a social situation. I remember listening to a podcasted game where one of the players wanted to try and get some information out of an NPC and rolled Diplomacy. "I walk up and ask him.. *rattle dice, muffled curse* ... 'So where are ye from? Dost thou come here often?'"

[Socratov]

I'm one of those munchkins who cranks up diplomacy just because it's so freakishly good. Even with the Rich Burlew diplomacy system I can still go about and sweet talk everyone into helping me. No sweat. ( And I like doing this, even if I get punished for it...). But guess what? it costs me resources... i need +cha tiems, feats that help me (like skillfocus: diplo and negociator), i need skillpoints i could spend at other sources, etc. I allocate my stats into Charisma and Intelligence to back this tactic up. i spend points at bluff and sense motive to boost it even further...

to turn it up to eleven I select spells which help me on my diplomacyroll. At lvl 6 (without even some forms of diplomacy optimising) I have a bonus of 35 to my diplomacy. (And I could go even further with the use of skillboosting items andmore class tweaking). Now I have a diplomacycheck somewhere between 36 and 55. the sad thing? I can't really do anything in combat by myself. this character is twice the sweet talker any con man, obama or any other diplomat is.

enter the DM. he tells me my diplomacy roll is wrecking the game. i see he's right and he froces me to make the check worth it by roleplaying it out. I'm no con man, I can only dream of beïng obama (though i can speak a few fair words I'm not that good), I can nowhere near justify the chek with roleplaying. Now my character is worhtless because the 1 thing it is good at is now obsolete since now you can only win at diplomacy checks by being a great diplomat yourself. My Bard can't do anything anymore and I'm degraded to deadweight.

So I object to this and talk it out with the DM. I propose to reshape some bits of my character, switching some of the spells, feats and crazy modifiers to my diplomacycheck. the DM in turn promises to add a roleplay modifier to the diplomacy check and modifiy the DC's. if I make a gerat story about why the NPC should listen to me and help me I get a slight bonus. if I don't i get a penalty. Besides he changes the system such that the NPC (if hostile) could never be helpful (unless a plothook) if he wasn't at least neutral to me in the first place. Hostile NPC's can only be persuaded to be temporarily meutral for the purpose of getting attacked.

Now the diplomacy is more 'fair'. people unproficient are still worthless to diplomacy (thus still enabeling my character to be useful), but doesn't make me autowin on diplomacy cheks. My character needs to earn his sccess and I need to work for those successes.

On the subject of sense motive against bluff... don't forget the Bluff modifiers for lies (hard to believe etc.), and give your NPC's some ranks in sense motive. It's there to be taken against bluff and actually somewhat balanced. the error most DM's (and players alike) make is to think that sensemotive doesn't matter and start complaining when they have been tricked by a particular great bluffcheck. Everybode start crying foul while it is their own fault really. it's almost as stupid as allowing for druid and Planar shepard and infinite wishloops. if you allow it to happen, don't come crying.

[Civil War Man]

I will echo a lot of other people in this thread with something one of my DMs told a new player once.

It is trivial to roleplay a character who is physically stronger than you are.
It is difficult, but possible, to roleplay a character who is more intelligent than you are.
It is almost impossible to roleplay a character who is more eloquent than you are.

I am of the belief that you give bonuses for someone who roleplays bluffing or diplomacy. Maybe even give a (smaller) bonus for someone who doesn't roleplay it well, but manages to at least communicate the idea of what their character is trying to do. Possibly even give them a penalty if they make no attempt to roleplay, and show no interest in even attempting to. But allow the roll, because otherwise you are shutting shy or nervous speakers out of ever playing a major character archetype.

And if they never play a face character, there's little chance of them ever becoming more confident in their ability to speak and roleplay, which prevents them from growing into a player who can roleplay for those large bonuses.

[Need_A_Life]

First, I wouldn't be eloquent in character if I didn't have at least a few ranks in a skill. So there's that.

Second, I use a similar system to the OP. First, I let people talk and roleplay it out. If people find themselves stumped for words or either of us can't figure if the other is lying (IC, that is), then we might roll once or twice or go into full "social combat" for a given system, including D&D (which, admittedly is usually just 1-4 rolls).

[Averis Vol]

And to be honest, as a swordsman, if someone thought up a really cool move to try I'd try and give it room in the combat rules. If someone is content with using Combat Expertise Bonetti's Defense, more power to them.

I second this motion, even if i have to teach the pc how to hold a blade.

:smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

@Averis Vol:
If you click 'Edit' and scroll up, there is a delete function. No need for impotent emote rage.

[Phaederkiel]

A skilled role-player can also play to the dice. Yeah, if you succeed on a roll to influence someone, you might spout off something Shakespearean or the like, but it's almost as much fun to role-play a spectacular failure. The dice say you got a natural 1 on your Intimidate check? OK, then you say that you tried to draw your dagger to emphasize your point, but somehow ended up with the blade in your hand instead of the handle, gave yourself a nasty scratch, and dropped it with a loud profanity. If it weren't for the dice saying that the check was a failure, nobody would ever describe their actions this way, but when they do, it can be hilarious for the folks around the table.

this is very much true, and a great fun for everybody.

but the most important thing is, that it allows you to use diplomatics against your pcs. Its a fast rule, and you can tell a player: you believe her.

[Calimehter]

Well, the whole of 2nd ed. happened far fewer social rolls, and a lot of folks had fun playing it, so it stands to reason that you can eliminate the social rolls and still have a fun game. :smallcool:

Our group does not eliminate the rolls, but we can be fairly liberal when it comes to modifiers for utterly implausable bluffs and the like.

----------------------------

On the subject of 'penalizing' low-CHA players by adding lots of modifiers based off of player's skill:

Are there not already loads of modifiers (flank bonus, etc.) in combat that can also 'penalize' a character that is much more of a combat veteran or tactical genius than the character's player is? A fighter played by a newbie (or someone who just isn't that good at tactics) will be at a big disadvantage when compared to a fighter with the exact same stats/gear/etc. played by a more competent player.

Players can learn to be better at tactics, but can't they also learn to be better at playing high-CHA characters and learning how to get good (instead of negative) bonuses to social skill checks? Why would we expect one type of improvement of a player, but frown on "forcing" another type of improvement?

I'm not trying flame the folks who have already frowned upon making CHA-skills dependent on player skill. I'm just genuinely curious. Player skill affecting character skill independent of character stats is already part of the game IMO, so why the (seemingly?) big hangup about it?

[navar100]

Well, the whole of 2nd ed. happened far fewer social rolls, and a lot of folks had fun playing it, so it stands to reason that you can eliminate the social rolls and still have a fun game. :smallcool:

Our group does not eliminate the rolls, but we can be fairly liberal when it comes to modifiers for utterly implausable bluffs and the like.



But that led to the problem of DM's whim. If you didn't say the magic words the DM is looking for, you fail no matter you say.

It's fine to require the player say something. He has to say more than just "I rolled a 14, my Diplomacy is +12 for a total of 26. I convince the guard." In combat a player uses tactics, even if he doesn't realize it. He might just say "I rolled an 18. I hit", but he had to move his character, keep watch where the bad guys are, where party members are, and even decide to attack instead of something else. For social skills you need a little something more, but don't require an oscar-worthy performance. If the player stumbles his words, his character with +10 Diplomacy did not.

[Tr011]

I will echo a lot of other people in this thread with something one of my DMs told a new player once.

It is trivial to roleplay a character who is physically stronger than you are.
It is difficult, but possible, to roleplay a character who is more intelligent than you are.
It is almost impossible to roleplay a character who is more eloquent than you are.

I am of the belief that you give bonuses for someone who roleplays bluffing or diplomacy. Maybe even give a (smaller) bonus for someone who doesn't roleplay it well, but manages to at least communicate the idea of what their character is trying to do. Possibly even give them a penalty if they make no attempt to roleplay, and show no interest in even attempting to. But allow the roll, because otherwise you are shutting shy or nervous speakers out of ever playing a major character archetype.

And if they never play a face character, there's little chance of them ever becoming more confident in their ability to speak and roleplay, which prevents them from growing into a player who can roleplay for those large bonuses.

+1 for that.
You should go for massive circumstance bonsu/penalty. That drow guard would have a) more ranks in sense motive since it's a guard and b) get a huge bonus to bluff since he wouldn't believe that anyguy.

[stainboy]

@OP: I like the idea of removing Diplomacy/Gather Info. Even if I do want a roll I'd rather use a straight Charisma check. If I'm not willing to have diplomacy do the things it does by RAW, and I don't want to write new things for it to do, I shouldn't charge points for it.

I would leave in Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive just for their mechanical effects. If someone wants Intimidate for a fear-stacking build I say let em have it. (I can't remember off the top of my head how that build works. Drow something? Something Presence?)

[big teej]

Hello all,
In an effort to increase actual role-playing in my D&D games, and avoid senseless rolling of the dice, I have actually done away with several skills. Given below is a list and an explanation for each:

Bluff: This skill can be easily replaced by simply having the player tell the DM "I say to the guard, 'You'd better check with your superiors, the rules were changed yesterday, didn't you hear?'". This increases role-playing by forcing the characters to speak, and invent a lie, and is dependent upon the excellence of the player's fabrication, not on a die roll. Likewise, the DM now can have the intoxicated guard or the peasant fail constantly against the player's lies, whereas the 15th level elite drow duskblade with an intelligence of 26 (but who has 0 ranks in sense motive) will easily pierce through the lie, as he should.

Diplomacy: pretty much like bluff, I've gotten rid of this one, and for the same reasons. In addition, it makes for an interesting role-play, even better than bluffing, when the PC's actively try to speak and convince someone.

Gather Information: You're the DM. The players will find it out one way or another, why not just have them find out sooner, without having them roll over and over again to find a plot hook that they will get anyway?

Intimidate: Characters explaining, "I shove him up against the wall, grab his collar and bellow 'Shut up' into his face!," is much more interesting to hear and react to than, "I intimidate him and I got a 19 on my check."

Sense Motive: Again, this is the opposite of bluff, a 15th level elite drow warrior is not going to fall for a bluff unless it is incredibly worded. It just makes more sense that he would decide on his own, and if he has 0 ranks in sense motive, it ruins the illusion of reality when he says "Ok!" to whatever the player says.

So tell me what you think. Does getting rid of them ruin the game? Does it make role-playing better? Does anyone else get rid of these skills? If so, have you noticed improvements in your player's roleplaying?

Thanks,

-Ancient Mage

personally, I think I might fault your logic on a few points, but that's likely just down to word choice, so I won't.

instead I would simply ask if you're making provisions for players who want to be good at stuff, but simply..... arn't.

for example. a friend of mine is so straight laced, he has trouble coming up with a lie even in game. (let alone players who struggle with this for moral implications, however misplaced they may be)

so you've placed one of your players outside what they feel okay doing, and risk undermining their enjoyment.


as a further example, I have a player in my group who...... 'doesn't quite get it'

to the degree of
DM: the guard stops you and demands to know your buisness.
player: I bluff him! -rolls a d20-
DM: ...uhm.... okay, what's your bluff?
player: -blank uncomprehending look- "I bluff him!" -rolls a d20-
DM: what did you get?
player: 7!
DM: you..... fail.


(worse are the moments he rolls high and still fails due to the fact he didn't say anything.)

but I digress

[Chylde]

Well, the whole of 2nd ed. happened far fewer social rolls, and a lot of folks had fun playing it, so it stands to reason that you can eliminate the social rolls and still have a fun game. :smallcool:

Our group does not eliminate the rolls, but we can be fairly liberal when it comes to modifiers for utterly implausable bluffs and the like.

----------------------------

On the subject of 'penalizing' low-CHA players by adding lots of modifiers based off of player's skill:

Are there not already loads of modifiers (flank bonus, etc.) in combat that can also 'penalize' a character that is much more of a combat veteran or tactical genius than the character's player is? A fighter played by a newbie (or someone who just isn't that good at tactics) will be at a big disadvantage when compared to a fighter with the exact same stats/gear/etc. played by a more competent player.

Players can learn to be better at tactics, but can't they also learn to be better at playing high-CHA characters and learning how to get good (instead of negative) bonuses to social skill checks? Why would we expect one type of improvement of a player, but frown on "forcing" another type of improvement?

I'm not trying flame the folks who have already frowned upon making CHA-skills dependent on player skill. I'm just genuinely curious. Player skill affecting character skill independent of character stats is already part of the game IMO, so why the (seemingly?) big hangup about it?

The last group of players I played with thought "Tactics" was a brand of breath mint... I study Martial Arts and play Tabletop RTSs on a regular basis, so I tried to make OOC suggestions for the more Tactically minded Characters (This did get me accused of trying to play other peoples' characters more than once, but occasionally they stopped being dense and followed my ideas... these were the sessions no one died)

I would suggest letting the more socially adept players be allowed to make suggestions for how a less suave player's more suave character would handle social interactions...

[Averis Vol]

@Averis Vol:
If you click 'Edit' and scroll up, there is a delete function. No need for impotent emote rage.

thank you friend.

[Mystify]

The last group of players I played with thought "Tactics" was a brand of breath mint... I study Martial Arts and play Tabletop RTSs on a regular basis, so I tried to make OOC suggestions for the more Tactically minded Characters (This did get me accused of trying to play other peoples' characters more than once, but occasionally they stopped being dense and followed my ideas... these were the sessions no one died)

I would suggest letting the more socially adept players be allowed to make suggestions for how a less suave player's more suave character would handle social interactions...

That was the original way my DM was trying to rule it. My diplomacy check allowed other people to chime in with what I should say. I didn't make a diplomat so other players could role play him.