What are the common terms for these types of play

[Togath]

After talking to my dm and too two of the other players it sounds like they want to play a rules light version of the game(I'm not 100% sure if I'm using the correct term there, the details of what they're talking about are as follows; removing intimidate, bluff and diplomacy, or at least making them not do anything, making it so you have to talk out things with enemies, even charmed or dominated ones, and playing without any sort of map[in a sea based and dungeon crawl based game] and finally playing with a 20 point buy in an attempt to make the game "gritty"), the problem is this; I don't really like that type of game very much(and neither does one of the other players), while I'm fine with some talking I don't like having to stay 100% in character and I like having the option to just attack an orc or pirate charging us with a sword instead of having to talk to it, in addition, I also prefer campaigns where I can get much higher stats, and where the characters are truly super human compared to nameless commoner #1768, as opposed to one where every battle is a struggle.
So what would be the common gaming term for both a higher powered game and one where I can just give a description such as; "my character picks him up by his shirt and intimidates him" as an intimidate check instead of having to actually have a conversation with the npc.

In addition; how common is the style two of the other players and the dm are suggesting? Would I be able to easily find a different group of people who don't play using that style, or is it pretty common?, Also; how common is it to purposely build a balanced group of characters?, in this case me and one of the other players tried to do so, but the other two went with sort of random concepts without any plan for a role for them to fill.

[NOhara24]

What you're describing sounds like a Roleplay-heavy campaign. I'm thinking that you'll be talking and conducting yourself in character the majority of the time. This is evidenced by the removal of skills and the limitation of a 20 point buy.

You can't really build a character for this, you as the player, just have to be quick on your feet as well as a wonderful conversationalist.

[Togath]

ah, so if I end up leaving the group, should I just say that I'm looking for a non roleplay heavy/standard campaign when looking for another group?
This is only my second time as a player so I wasn't sure how to describe the sort of game I like vs. the kinds that I don't find as interesting.

[Shadowknight12]

What you want is called "High-Powered Hack And Slash." "High-Powered" refers to the higher point buy and the superhuman feel you want from a game. "Hack And Slash" refers to the playstyle where roleplay is low to nonexistant, the plot is very simple and straightforward, and the main reason everyone is at the table is to kill things (and take their stuff).

What the other two want is a "Low-Powered (or Gritty) Roleplay-Heavy Campaign." "Low-Powered" is a synonym of "Gritty" in most cases, and it stands for a type of game where characters are fragile, death is a very real possibility and being superhuman is very much not expected at all. A "Roleplay-Heavy Campaign" often does get rid of social skills to enforce roleplaying on the players (though a decent DM shouldn't resort to this to achieve that) and puts a greater emphasis in social interaction and, well, roleplaying, over anything else. Often, but not always, they are accompanied by a complex plot.

[Togath]

Ah. Also(I do realize I've added a lot of extra questions, but I've been wanting to ask them for a few days), is it normal to rule that you must have the trapfinding class feature to detect traps in ways other then being hit by them?, The dm seemed to find my ideas of "tie a club to a fishing pole(with strong twine, to allow to use it somewhat like a flail) and push it down the corridor in front of you" or "summon something and have it walk into the traps for you" somewhat odd.
In addition, is it possible to have a hack & slash game with stealth infiltration aspects?
edit: also, is a 28-32 point buy a high point buy?, It's about the range I was talking about(though possibly with a non standard race boosting one or more of the stats to a high amount)

[Shadowknight12]

Ah. Also(I do realize I've added a lot of extra questions, but I've been wanting to ask them for a few days), is it normal to rule that you must have the trapfinding class feature to detect traps in ways other then being hit by them?, The dm seemed to find my ideas of "tie a club to a fishing pole(with strong twine, to allow to use it somewhat like a flail) and push it down the corridor in front of you" or "summon something and have it walk into the traps for you" somewhat odd.
In addition, is it possible to have a hack & slash game with stealth infiltration aspects?

Detecting a trap is NOT the same thing as triggering a trap. Any being of any race or class is capable of triggering a trap. An object, properly utilised, is capable of triggering a trap. You are well within your rights to use an object or a summon (or yourself) to trigger a trap (safely, I presume).

However, any class can find a trap if the Search DC is equal to or less than 20. If a trap has a Search DC of 21 or more, only a creature with the trapfinding class feature can find it. Magical traps are never found without trapfinding, since their Search DCs begin at 25.

Finding a trap is not the same thing as triggering. A found trap is still active.

Triggering a trap with a summon or object renders the trap inactive (unless it can self-reset).

EDIT: There is not a consensus on what "high" or "low" pointbuy is. To me, that's a pitiful Point Buy. For others, it's extremely high. It depends on the kind of game the person you're asking usually runs. So when you have to talk about PB with others, don't say "high" or "low", just say the number you like the most. I usually say "40+" while others say "20" or "25" or "32".

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, first off, there are justifications for the roleplaying game where people don't play roles. I mean, a group of people who come together out of common interest may actively seek out other characters to fulfill specific roles (Face, Bruiser, Thief and Techie in Every Heist Movie Ever [the movie]), as you described as your intention, but again, they may not. Maybe they were thrown together out of necessity? Or they have conflicting personalities, and aren't willing to acquiesce to the requests of the other? Or maybe they just have "The World's a Hammer" syndrome, or something. I mean, I am running a 10-person group with 6 melee strikers, mostly because I specifically sat down with each player separately and asked them what they wanted to play, without involving party influence. The last person to join the campaign, however, is playing a healbot, because they were brought in by another player who specifically asked them to play a healer, as opposed to my method. Sometimes, both philosophies can occur spontaneously in a game.

If I were you, I would at least give it a try. I mean, some people just aren't suited for a collaborative improv type of game, being that they just don't think in-character from a problem/resolution standpoint, or aren't immersed in the simulationist aspect of the system. That might even be you. And that's OK; it's just a different philosophy. But personally, my highest preference is for a game where everyone stays in character, things are acted out if at all possible, and relatively few (if any) dice are thrown without at least describing the action that is happening (E.G. instead of "I make a Search check on the room" or "I make a Tumble check to get to this square and attack", you might say "I rifle through the drawers of the desk for incriminating documents" or "I dive out of the way of the Giant's clumsy swing and through his legs, leveraging my new position for a stab with my rapier!"). It just "feels" more real, like, well, a fantasy (not the genre). It sounds like you're looking for at least the last part of that; you may enjoy the rest as well more than you think.

EDIT: I'm not a huge fan of Point Buy at all (min-maxing is fine and all, but it usually pushes people into taking three or four 8s, which is prohibitive), but if I was, 28 or 32 would be sweet spot for me. Characters are exceptional without being literal paragons or Mary Sue/Gary Stu cutouts.

[Shadowknight12]

I would just like to add (besides my edit above) that you are under no obligation to give anything a try. It's a hobby, a pastime, not an obligation. Trust me, there's nothing worse than convincing yourself to give something a try and then realise you've wasted your time and fooled yourself into believing otherwise when you knew all along you weren't going to have fun.

If you aren't absolutely sure you'll have a good time, there are better ways to spend your time, like finding a better group.

EDIT @ below: Pathfinder does not use the same Point Buy as 3.5e, so insisting on qualifying given pointbuys as "high" or "low" is actually very disingenuous and misdirecting, if not outright prevarication.

[Rasman]

Ah. Also(I do realize I've added a lot of extra questions, but I've been wanting to ask them for a few days), is it normal to rule that you must have the trapfinding class feature to detect traps in ways other then being hit by them?, The dm seemed to find my ideas of "tie a club to a fishing pole(with strong twine, to allow to use it somewhat like a flail) and push it down the corridor in front of you" or "summon something and have it walk into the traps for you" somewhat odd.
In addition, is it possible to have a hack & slash game with stealth infiltration aspects?
edit: also, is a 28-32 point buy a high point buy?, It's about the range I was talking about(though possibly with a non standard race boosting one or more of the stats to a high amount)

In regards to traps, it's odd that your DM thinks your ideas are odd. While the "Fishing Pole Club" example MIGHT not work sometimes, the second Example is a very common one. It's usually referred to as a "Trap Monkey" because Monkey's are typically the best creature to summon for this, especially if something like a door needs to be manipulated.

In regards to your point buy question, in the Pathfinder system, the standard arrays are as such


Low Fantasy 10
Standard Fantasy 15
High Fantasy 20
Epic Fantasy 25


So the point buy you are wanting is actually QUITE high. It is much higher than the Epic Fantasy level.

[Togath]

I would just like to add (besides my edit above) that you are under no obligation to give anything a try. It's a hobby, a pastime, not an obligation. Trust me, there's nothing worse than convincing yourself to give something a try and then realise you've wasted your time and fooled yourself into believing otherwise when you knew all along you weren't going to have fun.

If you aren't absolutely sure you'll have a good time, there are better ways to spend your time, like finding a better group.

EDIT @ below: Pathfinder does not use the same Point Buy as 3.5e, so insisting on qualifying given pointbuys as "high" or "low" is actually very disingenuous and misdirecting, if not outright prevarication.

Good point about the no obligation thing, I hadn't actually thought of that aspect of it, I think I'll try to find another group then, I do know of two gaming groups within a reasonable distance of where I live.
Also the game was actually intended to be dnd 3.5, which is why I found the 20 point buy odd(though perhaps the dm was thinking of the pf point buy system).

[Shadowknight12]

Good point about the no obligation thing, I hadn't actually thought of that aspect of it, I think I'll try to find another group then, I do know of two gaming groups within a reasonable distance of where I live.
Also the game was actually intended to be dnd 3.5, which is why I found the 20 point buy odd(though perhaps the dm was thinking of the pf point buy system).

Indeed, PF starts your abilities from 10, rather than 8, and then prices things quite differently (I believe it's cheaper at low values, then gets steeper), so 10 points in PF are not as awful as 10 points under standard 3.5e.

As for the rest, I think you're making the right choice. Learn this while you're still young: Time is something you never get back. Don't waste it on "what ifs" and "perhaps." :smallsmile:

[JadePhoenix]

Good point about the no obligation thing, I hadn't actually thought of that aspect of it, I think I'll try to find another group then, I do know of two gaming groups within a reasonable distance of where I live.
Also the game was actually intended to be dnd 3.5, which is why I found the 20 point buy odd(though perhaps the dm was thinking of the pf point buy system).

Actually, 20 point buy is high in 3.5 as well.
The standard array is a 15 point buy.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I would just like to add (besides my edit above) that you are under no obligation to give anything a try.

Shadowknight is correct; you are not obligated, nor should you feel obligated. I've wasted a year of Fridays on a game I ended up hating; it does suck.

So, to qualify my original post: I recommend, but do not demand it. ("If I were you.")

[Amphetryon]

Actually, 20 point buy is high in 3.5 as well.
The standard array is a 15 point buy.

My 3.5 DMG says 25 is standard. Do you have a source for this contention?

[Morph Bark]

Detecting a trap is NOT the same thing as triggering a trap. Any being of any race or class is capable of triggering a trap. An object, properly utilised, is capable of triggering a trap. You are well within your rights to use an object or a summon (or yourself) to trigger a trap (safely, I presume).

To add to this: sometimes with an object or summon you might still not trigger a trap for various reasons. With magic traps they could have been specifically made to only react to certain kinds of creatures. Non-magic traps could have pressure plate triggers that require a certain amount of weight that an object or summon does not possess (they're not heavy enough).

[Yahzi]

how common is the style two of the other players and the dm are suggesting?
It's called "Old School," and it's the way we all used to play. For 20 years.

But these days, I guess it's not that common. I actually envy you having fellow players like that.

[JadePhoenix]

My 3.5 DMG says 25 is standard. Do you have a source for this contention?

Oops, sorry.

[Morph Bark]

It's called "Old School," and it's the way we all used to play. For 20 years.

But these days, I guess it's not that common. I actually envy you having fellow players like that.

Really? Because you are the first person I've heard that say. All the other 1e/2e players I've talked to played hack-and-slash and often through gygaxian dungeons filled with traps. Only a handful played campaigns where it was more balanced with political intrigue, but always with hack-and-slash moments.

[JadePhoenix]

Really? Because you are the first person I've heard that say. All the other 1e/2e players I've talked to played hack-and-slash and often through gygaxian dungeons filled with traps. Only a handful played campaigns where it was more balanced with political intrigue, but always with hack-and-slash moments.

Well, he is correct about old school games not having social skills. It took quite a while for D&D to get those.
He is also correct about old school games having less powerful characters. Standard ability generation used to be roll 3d6, in order, and don't bitch much about it.

[Prime32]

Well, he is correct about old school games not having social skills. It took quite a while for D&D to get those.
He is also correct about old school games having less powerful characters. Standard ability generation used to be roll 3d6, in order, and don't bitch much about it.That's not really "less powerful characters" so much as "unevenly powered characters, where you don't get to decide your class".

[Darrin]

It's called "Old School," and it's the way we all used to play. For 20 years.


That's one possibility. It could mean several things.

"Narrativist for the sake of Pretentiousness": A throwback to the heady days of 1992 when black lipstick and too much eyeliner counted as "cosplay". Thankfully, most of these players took up LARPing, where they can be safely ignored... but it also means they get to talk to girls, which makes us old-schoolers hate them even more. They may come slinking back to tabletop because the LARP fizzled or got overrun with "childish drama queen snobs" (i.e., the girls stopped talking to them).

"Failed Novelist Syndrome": Dominated by 20-page PC backstories and long prepared monologues on the moral and political implications of their character's wardrobe. Mostly it's an attempt for some players to foist their unfinished fantasy novel tetrology on the rest of the group, which is of course so much more fascinating and clever than the Eddings/Jordan/Martin/Salvatore material they are blatantly plagiarising (and doing a very bad job of hiding their fanboyish wankery).

"Improv Community Theatre Gone Horribly Wrong": The players resent the whole concept of "dice" and "rules" because what they really want is some kind of organic improv storytelling medium where an epic fantasy saga spontaneously unfolds from their imaginations... but they're horribly bad at it and have no idea why, so instead of "Lord of the Rings" they wind up with something like "Waiting for Guffman", only they grudgingly roll some dice every once in a while (which they feel are mocking them for being derivative and uncompelling).

"Toddler Tyrants in Tiaras": The players want "simple" and "gritty" rules because they are all secretly power-hungry ego-tripping munchkins, but somehow figured out they aren't clever enough to truly optimize with the best players, and have carved out an isolationist little city-state with a subset of the rules they think are overpowered. They are suspicious of any new rules that might topple the obvious superiority of their "Monk who Monkey-Grips an Orc Double-Axe", and may be resentful of outsiders with a better grasp of the rules. The insistence on lower-point-buy and simpler/restrictive rules isn't so much to keep things "gritty" as it allows the more established players to bully and push around the newer ones.

[JadePhoenix]

That's one possibility. It could mean several things.


By all things holy and sacred, you made me laugh so hard I splashed orange juice all over my keyboard. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's one possibility. It could mean several things.

"Good to know none of them are negative," the failed novelist DM with active involvement in community theater and obvious control issues narrated pretentiously.

[Water_Bear]

I hate it when people feel like they need to nerf their games or else it's just "Hack and Slash."

In D&D 3.5, a 20pt buy is pathetic*; the Elite Array for NPCs is a 25pt buy, so you will be weaker than most pre-generated NPCs right off the bat.

Removing Diplomacy and Intimidate just makes it harder to solve problems except by fighting, and penalizes Players for not being conversationally adept. Imagine if you had to actually mime your sword-swings correctly to attack someone, and then you see how silly that is.

I play a lot of high-powered games, but there has never been a shortage of good roleplaying and actual combat is fairly rare; usually a thematic fight at the climax of each session. I would argue that my best roleplayers are usually the "min-maxers" of the group; they care about their characters and understand what options they have in any situation, including negotiating and taking prisoners.

Feel free to leave your game, even if you genuinely like roleplaying. There is no reason you can't get into character and interact with a living game world with a powerful character.

*In Pathfinder a 20pt buy is more-or-less the same as a 32pt buy in D&D 3.5, so that is much more reasonable. D&D 3.5 starts from all 8s, and Pathfinder from all 10s.

[Clawhound]

What is seems to me is that the DM just likes a certain type and feel of game. He is not forcing you to be there, so make your choice about whether you stay or go. There's no shame in saying, "I'm a hack n slasher at heart and this doesn't work for me."

Don't knock that kind of game before you try it. Most NPCs in those games are level 1. Only villain NPCs will be any sort of challenge. Magic items won't be tailor picked for you. Getting what you want will require difficulties. Those games also rely on ingenuity. If you are clever about situations, your cleverness will pay off.

Also, every gamer has played in games that he didn't like because that's what was available at the time. Sometimes you just suck up your displeasure and play the game anyway.

[Rallicus]

Removing Diplomacy and Intimidate just makes it harder to solve problems except by fighting, and penalizes Players for not being conversationally adept.

I guess it really depends on the type of campaign.

Some DMs prefer when a player actually thinks out their argument or what they're trying to convince the NPC. They don't necessarily need to be "conversationally adept," they just need to think out what they're going to say rather than just roll the dice.

"I try to convince the guard to let us through. I tell him how every minute we waste is a minute that might end in the princess' death, and that by holding us here, he may inadvertently cause her demise" is a whole lot better than "I roll a 20 diplomacy check. A NATURAL 20! WOOHOOO!"

I combine the two in my campaigns, personally. If a player does the latter he doesn't get his bonus and adds a negative modifier. If he adds a convincing argument or roleplays it decently, he gets his usual bonus.

Not sure if this is even relevant to the thread but I figure I'd post it.

[Venger]

Actually, 20 point buy is high in 3.5 as well.
The standard array is a 15 point buy.

whaaaaat?

okay. here's a calculator for point buy in 3.5. you say that 20 is high? in a commoner only campaign, mabye.

http://emrilgame.netau.net/Dmstuff/pointbuy.html

I'm not seeing it.

what iron chef uses is 32, and that's pretty decent. enough for an 18 in your casting stat if you don't care about anything, enough for a few 16s if you're more MAD.


"I roll a 20 diplomacy check. A NATURAL 20! WOOHOOO!"

lol, implying a nat20 on a skill check does anything

[Roguenewb]

Darrin has a lot of correctness behind him. There are whole schools of bad play that can happen when players try to ignore 3.5's rules. The Rules for 3.5 are broken in a lot of ways, but things like monsters and traps are all based off of them. If you wanna have a more story-telling cinematic game, this is the wrong system for you. Go find Exalted or nWoD (or oWoD for that matter), something that wants to roleplay and has a cinematic dice system.

[Amphetryon]

I guess it really depends on the type of campaign.

Some DMs prefer when a player actually thinks out their argument or what they're trying to convince the NPC. They don't necessarily need to be "conversationally adept," they just need to think out what they're going to say rather than just roll the dice.

"I try to convince the guard to let us through. I tell him how every minute we waste is a minute that might end in the princess' death, and that by holding us here, he may inadvertently cause her demise" is a whole lot better than "I roll a 20 diplomacy check. A NATURAL 20! WOOHOOO!"

I combine the two in my campaigns, personally. If a player does the latter he doesn't get his bonus and adds a negative modifier. If he adds a convincing argument or roleplays it decently, he gets his usual bonus.

Not sure if this is even relevant to the thread but I figure I'd post it.
Do you give similar bonuses and penalties to the players who have enough knowledge of medieval fencing techniques to accurately name and describe their attack and defense routines, and those lacking that knowledge? Otherwise, you're reinforcing Water_Bear's subsequent point (which you didn't quote).

[Rallicus]

Do you give similar bonuses and penalties to the players who have enough knowledge of medieval fencing techniques to accurately name and describe their attack and defense routines, and those lacking that knowledge? Otherwise, you're reinforcing Water_Bear's subsequent point (which you didn't quote).

No. Combat is refined enough that I don't have to. We're talking about skill checks here, not combat.

A better example would be asking if I would do the same thing with someone who says "I jump." Okay, jump on what? Where? How high to you intend to jump? How far? If they just say, "I jump, that's it" then yeah, I would probably would add a negative mod. They'd probably jump like... a foot, or something.

People have no problem explaining skills like jump, but when it comes to diplomacy and intimidation they can be way more vague. "I use diplomacy on the NPC." Okay... how? Do you just smile at him and flash some pearly white teeth? Do you sweet talk him? Etc etc.

[Amphetryon]

No. Combat is refined enough that I don't have to. We're talking about skill checks here, not combat.

A better example would be asking if I would do the same thing with someone who says "I jump." Okay, jump on what? Where? How high to you intend to jump? How far? If they just say, "I jump, that's it" then yeah, I would probably would add a negative mod. They'd probably jump like... a foot, or something.

People have no problem explaining skills like jump, but when it comes to diplomacy and intimidation they can be way more vague. "I use diplomacy on the NPC." Okay... how? Do you just smile at him and flash some pearly white teeth? Do you sweet talk him? Etc etc.

Skill checks are also well defined, they just don't have quite as many ancillary rules governing them in the book. So, in your "Jump check" example, the player that says "I jump onto the balcony" is penalized because he didn't specify that the balcony is 12.5 feet high (which, of course, you would have already told him), that, given his character's height, weight, DEX score and STR score, he would have needed a running start of 14.25', with 3' of clearance to get to the balcony given the 27 degree incline of the slope before the jump, and taking care to land with his left foot forward (because he's right handed and that will provide a minor benefit, both to balance and in the off-chance there's a hostile on the balcony to meet him)? Really?

Now, imagine in your group you have one player who went out for Track & Field in High School, competing (at whatever level of "competing") in the Long Jump and the Javelin. In your group you also have someone who has always worn an ankle brace, and never competed in Track & Field, or even Gym class. You'll give a bonus to the guy with the Track & Field background for doing physical tasks, because he's more likely to accurately and completely describe his actions, and penalize the guy without that background for having his character take those actions because his vocabulary in that area is not as personally knowledgeable, practiced or sophisticated? That puts a serious crimp in the plans of folks who play RPGs to portray characters who are good at things that they themselves are not, wouldn't you say?

[Gallowglass]

Social skills, specifically Bluff, diplomacy and Intimidate, are a fundamentally different animal that the other skills. The game mechanic was built to treat them the same, and you could certainly play the game with them treated exactly like the other skills, but I would argue that you lose something.

I would never expect someone to say something more than "I climb that wall". But I might get a player who likes being more descriptive "I spring across the room, look for any cracks or knots in the stone I can use for hand holds and begin clawing my way up." Either way is fine, I'm not going to give a bonus or negative, I'm just going to let them roll their skill.

With the social skills, i guess I feel its okay to expect more than "I try to bluff my way past the orc guard". I don't expect every player to want to roleplay every line of dialog of this interaction (Its fine if we do, but I don't expect it) But I don't think its asking too much for "I try to bluff my way past the orc guard." "Ok, the Orc stops you and asks what you think you're doing, no one gets in to the armory without the commander's seal!" "Ok, i'll, uh, tell the Orc that I was sent by the commander to get some daggers... uh... because the captains have all gotten really drunk and are playing dagger darts and they've already broken a dozen".... or anything like that... just a little description so I can make a judgement call "That's a good story, more likely to work" than not.

[Water_Bear]

But I don't think its asking too much for "I try to bluff my way past the orc guard." "Ok, the Orc stops you and asks what you think you're doing, no one gets in to the armory without the commander's seal!" "Ok, i'll, uh, tell the Orc that I was sent by the commander to get some daggers... uh... because the captains have all gotten really drunk and are playing dagger darts and they've already broken a dozen".... or anything like that... just a little description so I can make a judgement call "That's a good story, more likely to work" than not.

But again, this comes back to the core problem. How good of a liar are you?

I've had players who, no joke, were seriously socially inept. One of my old players habitually freaked people out because they have a very inappropriate sense of humor and liked to play with his pocket knife. Another one spoke like an internet troll because he had trouble anticipating people's reactions to what he said. They were (literally) prodigies at what they did and actually very nice when you got to know them, but their mouths had foot in them 95% of the time.

One of these guys played a mischievous sorcerer with maxed out Bluff, while the other was a highly politically savvy goblin leader and trained diplomat. They could routinely roll 30s on Gather Information but started sweating IRL whenever my girlfriend came over.

D&D is about doing things you could never do. Wizards cast spells, Fighters kill huge monsters with Spiked Chains, and Bards enthrall crowds with their stories. I would never expect a Bard's player to sing, a Fighter's player to tumble, or a Wizard's player to intone verbal components.

Don't penalize people because they can't match their own characters; at best it's rude, and at worst you're picking on someone less charismatic or knowledgeable than you.

[JadePhoenix]

With the social skills, i guess I feel its okay to expect more than "I try to bluff my way past the orc guard". I don't expect every player to want to roleplay every line of dialog of this interaction (Its fine if we do, but I don't expect it) But I don't think its asking too much for "I try to bluff my way past the orc guard." "Ok, the Orc stops you and asks what you think you're doing, no one gets in to the armory without the commander's seal!" "Ok, i'll, uh, tell the Orc that I was sent by the commander to get some daggers... uh... because the captains have all gotten really drunk and are playing dagger darts and they've already broken a dozen".... or anything like that... just a little description so I can make a judgement call "That's a good story, more likely to work" than not.

Well, that's pretty much Bluff as written (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) though. You get a modifier depending on how believeable your Bluff is, the risk of believing it and how much the target wants to believe it.

[Shadowknight12]

Don't penalize people because they can't match their own characters; at best it's rude, and at worst you're picking on someone less charismatic or knowledgeable than you.

And this is the reason I support social skills even when I run RP-heavy campaign and have extremely good roleplayers at the table. Because everything, and I do mean everything, should have a rule or mechanic equivalent. To me, the most dangerous thing is leaving something entirely at the whim of the DM, rather than having something impartial and fair (like a dice roll) determining the outcome. If the DM wants to add a bonus or penalty to a roll based on roleplaying, that's reasonable, provided the players want that as well, but I cannot stress enough the importance of having a thick, solid buffer of rules between the players/DM and what happens with the characters and the story.

[Rallicus]

Don't penalize people because they can't match their own characters; at best it's rude, and at worst you're picking on someone less charismatic or knowledgeable than you.

You're making it seem like those of us arguing for social skills being more specific are somehow working against the players. Social ineptness or whatever isn't an excuse not to be specific. If you want to run a "roll play" game then fine, you don't have to be specific, but in my campaigns a "I bluff the guy" isn't going to suffice. At the very least "I attempt to lie about the artifact's current whereabouts" will work.

Specifics. Doesn't have anything to do with charisma, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with knowledge.

I mean, in a campaign I'm currently in there's an autistic guy (and yes, his diagnosis is legit, he's about the only autistic person I've met that fits the bill and who I don't think could be written off as a misdiagnosed socially inept person). He's perfectly capable of being specific with his in-game social skills. He doesn't just say "I gather information," he actually asks for the information he's gathering for.

I mean come on guys, the whole "knowing the minute details about jumping" argument isn't what I was trying for when I used jumping as an example. I don't care if a guy knows every single detail about jumping and distances and such. What I do care is that he tells me where he's jumping and how, which everyone pretty much does automatically.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The rules for Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate (but mostly Diplomacy) are also horribly written compared to the other skills. Point of fact. I have a character sheet for a level 5 Dragon Shaman Diplomancer for an E6 game if I ever get the opportunity, with +23 or something on his Diplomacy check due to high CHA, the Draconic Presence invocation, the Presence aura, the synergy bonus from Bluff, and skill ranks (class skill thanks to Martial Study [Leading the Attack]). He also has a +21 on Bluff (as Diplomacy, without the synergy bonuses) and a +28 on Intimidate (as Diplomacy, but with Fearsome armor and a racial bonus from either Dragonborn or Draconic Creature, can't recall). Between all of this and Imperious Command/Never Outnumbered, I can say "I cast Diplomacy on the shopkeep and he offers to help me", "I cast Bluff and the guard believes me", and "I cast Intimidate and the room full of axe-swinging Orcs falls to the ground in fear", and mechanically, those three sentences will work word-for-word, even if I don't have anything meaningful to say in any case (Bluff is the only rule set that penalizes the character for not saying something believable, but it's opposed by Sense Motive, an oft-neglected skill by many DMs because most encounters against statted-up characters are people meant mainly for a single combat, and thus only have skills relevant to that combat, just like all statblocks produced by Wizards, ever).

On the other side of that coin, I had a Wizard with a CHA penalty and no ranks or bonuses in any social skill, sitting at a table, discussing finances with a very wealthy man who owed us a favor for saving him (who was meant to be our financier if we played things right). When the issue of money (and his debt to us) came up, the Cleric (who had high CHA and maxed Diplomacy, plus a sword that lets him reroll Diplomacy checks) and the Bardbarian (who had high CHA and at least *some* ranks in Diplomacy) fell completely silent. Neither of them came up with anything. After a long, pregnant pause, they turned to the party leader, a kind and well-meaning man who not only has no social skills to speak of, but becomes incredibly stressed in high-pressure situations, which causes him to literally fumble for words and to kind of shut down when he gets stressed out (I don't know if this is medical or psychological, but I suspect it might be). As things started to turn south for him, I spoke up.

I said, as eloquently and calmly as I could, something to the effect of "Mr. [Charname], we believe the people who were responsible for your kidnapping were financed by some very rich, very powerful, and very dangerous men of [name of criminal organization/secret society, I can't remember which; we were currently fighting one of each], who we have been tasked with bringing to justice. We have financial records that trace their chain of command here, to [Cityname], but we suspect that the trail heads to [Continentname]. We have commandeered an airship (the game world had no seas, but was instead a set of island continents floating in mist that were in orbit around a giant tornado), but it is in disrepair and cannot fly. We would like for you to fund the repairs of the ship, and give seed money for an expedition to [Continentname] to investigate these affairs." Everything I said was the truth, at least as we (the characters) knew it (and as I knew it at the time that I quit that game months later).

The entire table stared wordlessly at me, some satisfied/impressed, some visibly angry. The DM rubbed his brow, (his equivalent of a facepalm) for a moment, and said "OK, [myname], roll a Diplomacy check." Crap. I roll. A natural 20. With a -1 modifier, it was a result of 19, which is one shy of the Diplomacy DC necessary to turn someone from Friendly to Helpful. By RAW, it was a check that I could never succeed (meaning I could never make someone helpful to me), and the DM and I both knew it. The whole table is looking at him, expectantly. The DM looks around, visibly annoyed, buries his face in his hands for several moments (rubbing not only his brow, but the rest of his face), comes up for air, and then says (breaking character for the first time in the conversation), "[Charname] agrees to fund your expedition. He... Thinks you have presented a strong argument, and agrees to make repairs on the airship, before leaving the table to adjourn to his room." The DM clearly gave me some ad-hoc circumstance bonuses (that there are no rules for) in order to allow me to pass an unpassable check. The Cleric protests. Loudly. So does the Bardbarian. I should have let them handle the situation; they have the higher Diplomacy modifiers, so they could have done it better than me. The Druid (and nobody else at the table) comes to my aid. The issue quickly devolves into a session-ending argument.

Removing roleplay from social skills heavily penalizes someone such as my Wizard, whose articulation and eloquence will never earn him an INT bonus to Diplomacy, and who can (by RAW) never successfully ask for a favor from a friend unless the DM differentiates. This would be fine for most skills (like Jump, Balance, Spot, Knowledge) if the rules were balanced, but they're not; a well-made Diplomancer (or even a poorly made one, as above) just Diplomacies everything into submission, can end a fight with a smile (or a scowl, depending on how dead they want the thing), and sort of auto-passes social interactions of all types, which can lead to some pretty ridiculous things (like, for example, use of the even more poorly written epic rules for Diplomacy, which I could achieve against Helpful people at level 6 with another rank and Skill Focus/a skill-boosting magic item against Helpful people [which is also easy] enough to at least try against everything). Without some revision to the rules or ad-hoc modifiers, Diplomacy becomes something that is wildly imbalanced on both sides if roll-played, and it becomes easier to do these things if Diplomacy is role-played (and it's a requirement for Bluff, since RAW, modifiers exist for the believability of a lie).