PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying vs 'acting it out'



Kane0
2013-05-31, 04:00 AM
Hello everybody! My question this time is where do you draw the line between roleplaying and rollplaying?

For example: an attempt to intimidate

Extreme 1: The dice roll
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: gimme a roll
Player: 18
Dm: ok, he...

Extreme 2: roleplay/act it out
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: you're going to have to give me more than that
Player: i sneer as i reach for my weapon and advance on my target, taking care to show no intent on stopping until my blade is down his throat. I also-
Dm: ok that'll do. he...

My preference:
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: ok, run it by us
Player: im going to be brandishing my sword and advancing towards him, 18 on the roll
Dm: i wouldve given a bonus if you put in a little more detail, but ok, he...

And as a follow up question, in the case of things like diplomacy and bluff, would you rather
A: make the roll and get on with it
B: explain the gist/basis of your approach and make the roll
C: make your speech in character, word for word.
D: other. Please explain

And would you give/expect a bonus for elaborating over just doing the minimum?

Krazzman
2013-05-31, 04:11 AM
I try to roll first. Saying I try to intimidate him or using diplomacy or doing bluff an depending on it I use a different approach for this.

1 on Intimidate while having not that good bonus means he isn't that scary as such I don't explain an really intimidating thing. 20 being the most intimidating as he can get.
1 on bluff = hard to swallow lie, 20 basically being a half-truth.

and so on. Depends on char of course.
Example for diplomacy is my Warblade I currently play.

He has 1 Rank in diplomacy if I remember correctly. So he tried it and... well his words were able to be picked up 2 different ways, one pleasing one... really unwanted in this situation.

GnomeFighter
2013-05-31, 04:15 AM
B.

I would rather people did not do A or C. A lacks thought and C gets very boring for everyone else after the first 1-2 times. They are both fine in some circumstances (You are chatting to people in a market trying to get information do you want to spend the whole session with one person rambling on to every single person, equally you want a little more than 2-3 words for a major plot important event).

I wouldn't expect any bonus or penalty for it. Far to subjective and dependent on the player skill. You start doing that you effectively give anyone with acting or good talking skills more skill points and anyone with poor verbal skills or social problems a permanent negative modifier.

supermonkeyjoe
2013-05-31, 04:30 AM
Generally when DMing, whenever a player rolls bluff/diplomacy/intimidate I ask them to give some details on what they are saying, it doesn't need to be in great detail, just something like; "I remind him that his son is in the next room" or "I try to explain the situation as humbly as possible"

If the player wants to do it word for word and comes up with a good argument they may get a bonus so long as they don't ramble on and on.

TuggyNE
2013-05-31, 05:27 AM
B; no bonus in most cases. I expect my choice of tactics to be reflected by circumstance modifiers in a few cases, though.

Alternatively, a homebrewed system with the idea of expanding on B and making social tactics more involved and detailed would be nice.

Altair_the_Vexed
2013-05-31, 05:53 AM
I've blogged on this very topic! (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/playing-roles.html)

Short summary: I prefer to get players to tell me their social intent, with any key points they're planning to raise (which lets me apply modifiers if appropriate) - then roll the dice, then role-play the result of the check.

This method lets you role-play your good or bad skill check, and stops the dissonance between awesome role-playing and a bad dice roll (or vice versa).

I like this method because different players have different social skills - which are also probably different to those of their characters.

prufock
2013-05-31, 06:27 AM
What I prefer:
Player: <Looks intensely at the DM> Listen up you little puke, I've put 11 men in the ground this week, and I'm looking to make it an even dozen. So you tell me what I need to know, or you're going to learn what your own liver tastes like. <rolls die> I got a 19 to Intimidate.

What usually happens:
Player: I try to intimidate him <rolls die>.
DM: Go ahead.
Player: Listen up you little puke...

valadil
2013-05-31, 07:10 AM
And as a follow up question, in the case of things like diplomacy and bluff, would you rather
A: make the roll and get on with it
B: explain the gist/basis of your approach and make the roll
C: make your speech in character, word for word.
D: other. Please explain

And would you give/expect a bonus for elaborating over just doing the minimum?

B, then C, then D, then A.

Activating an ability without thinking about how it works is pointless. I have no interest in playing with people who do that. I'm okay with a very minimal explanation - "I convince the guard I have a meeting with the king" is better than "I diplomacy the guard."

For D, I've heard of another method. I've never seen it but some of my friends have. Make the roll, and then act out how you got that result.

NichG
2013-05-31, 07:21 AM
Generally I prefer a special case of C. Namely, conversation happens however it happens and reactions are however they are based solely on the conversation, with things like lies, negotiations, intimidation not actually covered by mechanical rules at all. However, when there are such skills in the system, they should provide OOC cues that help guide the conversation to (what the DM thinks) will be more successful.

Example:

Player: I roll Intimidate, result of a 28.
DM: This guy is from a warrior culture so a show of anger will get respect but not fear. But he's pretty much terrified of magic.
Player: Okay, so I go up to him and say 'the bones predict your death in seven days unless you side with us'...

If the player decides 'nope, I'm going to go up and beat my chest' after receiving the information, well, it works exactly as well as it would have if he said the same thing and had rolled a 4 on Intimidate (just like if someone used Augury to get a Weal/Woe about a certain plan of action and went ahead with the same plan despite a reading of Woe).

Waar
2013-05-31, 07:34 AM
Given that I am supposed to roleplay a character, and that my characters often are able to do thing i can't or am not good at (and the other way around) the potential ability to be able to use example one should not be underestimated, Similarly the ability to roleplay your character more activly should be encouraged, yet this should not remove the use of Dice exept when it is clear that success is guaranted.

for the follow up questions:
Explain what you want to do (stab the guard, sneak by the guard, bribe the guard, attack the guar, ride the guar, cast fireball at the guar, hide from the guar herder :smalltongue:) then roll as apropriate. how well you rolled determines how successfull your attempt was :smalltongue: ~B

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-05-31, 09:13 AM
I try to get it about partaway with the roleplaying, and more the "gist" of the approach. Mostly, I like to cut to the important details, leaving any peripheral details for after.

So I start with the "fiction" (a bit of helpful jargon I've picked up from the *World games)...and then apply the appropriate mechanic...and then come back to the fiction.

"The thug is standing there, impatiently tapping the club against his hand. You've got a couple seconds to deal with the situation."
"I'm gonna try and make him believe that the Boss sent me with a special message."
"That's a Grifting roll. Difficulty 5."
"Yeah, I flubbed that."
"I figure you get a bit overconfident, and make some claims that're a bit too far-fetched. The thug calls back inside..."

Another half of the technique: I state the difficulty up-front. A player tries to rush into a specific rule, I'm gonna slow them back down. It's very important that we've figured out why a particular skill is being rolled, the intent behind the action.

killem2
2013-05-31, 09:40 AM
I tried asking this question a few weeks ago, and got a whole lot of:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3235/2741856823_e04b898ae0.jpg

with that said, as a player, I am constantly thinking of how out loud I can explain what I'm doing, in descriptions, voices, and actions. Regardless of what I roll, since that's not really up to me, I just do what I do. :smallamused:

Jay R
2013-05-31, 10:12 AM
It's a role-playing game; you should role-play.

Ideally (and not everyone can do this), the player starts talking, and/or describing his actions, and the DM tells him to roll.

DM: The guardsman bars the door.
Player: "I don't have time for this. See this rip in my shirt? it was from a green dragon claw. The tear on my boot was from an Ogre - one of three. You won't even touch me." I put my hand on my sword hilt, but don't draw it. I just stand there waiting, looking slightly bored.
DM: OK, roll an Intimidate check, with a +3 Circumstance bonus: +2 for the fact that the tears are really there, and +1 for the bored look.

Scow2
2013-05-31, 10:31 AM
Hello everybody! My question this time is where do you draw the line between roleplaying and rollplaying?

For example: an attempt to intimidate

Extreme 1: The dice roll
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: gimme a roll
Player: 18
Dm: ok, he...

Extreme 2: roleplay/act it out
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: you're going to have to give me more than that
Player: i sneer as i reach for my weapon and advance on my target, taking care to show no intent on stopping until my blade is down his throat. I also-
Dm: ok that'll do. he...

My preference:
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: ok, run it by us
Player: im going to be brandishing my sword and advancing towards him, 18 on the roll
Dm: i wouldve given a bonus if you put in a little more detail, but ok, he...

And as a follow up question, in the case of things like diplomacy and bluff, would you rather
A: make the roll and get on with it
B: explain the gist/basis of your approach and make the roll
C: make your speech in character, word for word.
D: other. Please explain

And would you give/expect a bonus for elaborating over just doing the minimum?
I like "B" the best. You can roleplay your character without having to BE her, and I've seen horrific attempts at C. Even A is preferable to C, because it's straightforward. However, you still need to define what you're trying to do. "I intimidate the guard" works... but only for applying the Shaken condition. Otherwise, you need to tell me what you're doing.

Taking the "C" approach should require removal of the Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy skills from the game (But not their features), with the lost ranks replaced by the circumstance bonus.

Kol Korran
2013-05-31, 11:05 AM
In our group it is quite relaxed, it quite depends on the importance of the situation, the roleplay skill and preference of the player (One player is quite numbers oriented), and the general feel in the group. So we have a few variants:
- B as mentioned, explaining the gist and roll. this is for minor NPCs/ encounters, things that don't much matter, but has some sort of minor significance.

- At times there is a conversation in which we feel like having fun roleplaying, and the conversation, in which we don't even roll dice, just go with things. These kind of encounters are either set by the DM purposefully or, more likely, initiated by the PCs with minor NPCs the DM never quite imagined would draw interest, but he rolls with it. We don't roll if the consequences are minor.

- For major encounters, or scenes with major decisions/ consequences and the sort, we tend to use The Giant's diplomacy rules (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) or variants thereof which incorporate what you say into modifier in a more structured way than "hmmm, I think I'll give it this and that modifier". The Dm and the players usually build the situation and arguments so there might be different ways to react to most things said and so on, but it is a bit improvisational.

- A last variants that 2-3 of the players have been trying for a few sessions now is to start their say, roll the dice while in the midst of it, and alter their words/ attitude/ tone/ presentation to at least partly reflect the roll. This is great fun, and has some surprising results, but not always. Needs practice.

Our group is moving more and more towards a sort of collaborative improvisational roleplay though. We've started playing with the FATE core system that puts a lot of emphasis on that, so we might be more influenced by that. :smallsmile:

Water_Bear
2013-05-31, 11:16 AM
I like a mix of B and C in my games; some of my players have the chops to convince NPCs of things through roleplay, others are less skilled or confident and need a bit of mechanical assistance. When you have people on the autism spectrum and part time actors in the same group there has to be a little bit of a range to those things.

With the question of circumstance bonuses / penalties for RP though, it seems like the worst of both worlds. The person whose RP is good can still get nailed by bad luck with the dice after their excellent point while the person with less OOC social graces is still unable to play their character concept. I'm not sure it really adds anything to compensate for that.

Need_A_Life
2013-05-31, 11:38 AM
If possible, I prefer to have the conversation and rolls can help with the "do you sound convincing to this person" when I as a GM am in doubt.

I'd have it either go entirely through conversation or, at most:
Player: "Listen, punk. I've come up against demons and dragons and won. Do you really want to do this?"
Me: *Okay, this is a powerful wizard who has laid waste to armies, so he's unlikely to be impressed* "That might work. I dunno. Give me an Intimidate roll."
Player *rolls low*
Me: "You've got balls, kid. But you're out of your league here."
OR
Player *rolls high*
Me: "I suppose we can talk about this like civilized people," he says, but you see through his façade crack for a moment; he knows you're not just boasting and - maybe for the first time in a long time - he's scared.

But I would never go.
Player: I roll Intimidate on the Wizard. *high roll*
Me: "You've scared him."

That would be denying me the dramatic scenes I so enjoy and the player an opportunity to show himself in the spotlight.

Exediron
2013-05-31, 03:41 PM
It's a role-playing game; you should role-play

Agreed. My group (and since I've had a huge role in defining the style of my group, my own preferences are very similar) is a very hardcore roleplaying-first group. The roll has to exist, because otherwise a player has difficulty with a character above or below their own ability, but we use it either to modify how your actual dialogue is received or as a guideline for the player to act upon. An example with many different usages:

DM as DM: As Anlair and Ilinya approach the gate, the guards straighten and suddenly look alert. Roll a Sense Motive check, both of you:
Player as Anlair: 22
Player as Ilinya: 1...
DM as DM: Alright; Anlair is pretty sure the guards are just nervous around such obviously powerful and dangerous people. Ilinya, however, thinks these guards recognize her and are almost certainly hostile.
Player as Ilinya: Ilinya tries to make subtle eye contact with Anlair to let him know what's wrong while at the same time scanning for hidden foes. She's still feeling paranoid after the Zaghuu-men ambushed her earlier.
DM as DM: Since the Innuendo check doesn't exist anymore, just go for a Bluff.
Player as Ilinya: She doesn't have that.
DM as DM: Alright, well let's see if Anlair can pick up on it. This'll be another Sense Motive.
Player as Anlair: Nope. That's a 6.
DM as DM: He hasn't got any clue what Ilinya is up to. He just sees her give him a look, then start glancing around.
Player as Anlair: Anlair decides that she's trying to get him to take the lead, so he puts on his best confident grin and swaggers up to the guards, assuming that she'll be watching his back.
Player as Ilinya: Ilinya glares at him as he goes, assuming he just decided to ignore her.
DM as DM: The guards don't pick up on any of this. One of them steps forward and raises a hand to Anlair, clearly signalling him to halt.
Player as Anlair: He resists the psychotic urge to just keep walking and stops.
DM as Guard: "Welcome to Naichal, sir. Please state the nature of your business here?"
Player as Anlair: "We're mercenaries from the East. Hear you've got problems round 'bout these parts. We could help with that."
DM as Guard: He gives you a long look, then says: "Seems to me you're both elves."
Player as Anlair: "You got a point?" He hooks his thumbs in his belt and tries to look casual, but is ready to draw.
DM as Guard: The guard steps back and raises his hands in a conciliatory manner: "Didn't mean to imply nothin', but we are at war with the elves - and you two being elves it seems a touch odd you'd come here to fight against your own kin. Just sayin'."
Player as Ilinya: Out of character - didn't our briefing say they were at peace with the elves?
DM as DM: Yes.
Player as Anlair: Anlair decides to roll with it. He steps up his grin another notch and says: "You obviously don't know who you're dealing with, or you wouldn't ask that. But if you said the name Anlair Inaeth in the East, there's not a soul as wouldn't know that I hate my own kind more fiercely than any human e'er did. They call me the Bane of All Life, and it's true, but I killed elves before I killed anything else, and it's still elves I'll kill when I have half a chance." He casts open his coat and reveals the dozens of wicked knives strapped within: "You see these knives? Every knife here has drunk the blood of an elf a hundred times over. By God, I've killed more elves than you've lived days of your miserable life."
DM as DM: ... Okay. He's buying it, but roll an intimidate check to see how much you scared him. I'll give you a +5 for the knives and the psychotic grin.
Player as Anlair: 11, 16 with the bonus. That wasn't the best.
DM as Guard: Nope. He quailed a bit, but he glances behind and seems to draw strength from the great gates of the city and remembers he's an elite guard. He draws himself up and-
Player as Anlair: Aw hell, this isn't working. Anlair quick draws his gun like a cowboy and puts a bullet in the man's gut.
Player as Ilinya: What?!
DM as DM: That was sudden. You definitely get a surprise attack; roll it. Are you only firing one shot?
Player as Anlair: One's all I need. Does 58 hit?
DM as DM: Definitely.
Player as Anlair: All right - he needs to make his Death of Enemies save at DC 38.
DM as DM: (rolls a failure) The guard's eyes bug out as the bullet passes through him, and he has time only to desperately flail his arms before he hits the ground dead. The other guard hesitates only a second before running for the bell-pull beside the door.
Player as Anlair: Would I have time to shoot him before he makes it?
DM as DM: You've already got your gun out, so yes. But I'll need an opposed initiative check to see if you beat him to it.
Player as Anlair: 16.
DM as DM: With a great lunge and a cry of terror and triumph, he manages to get to the bell pull just as the bullet hits him in the back. As he slumps to the ground you hear the tolling of the alarm bell in the distance.
Player as Anlair: "Crap". Anlair is grinning, though.
Player as Ilinya: Ilinya rushes up to Anlair and tries to drag him away: "What the **** was that about, Anlair?" She looks very annoyed.
Player as Anlair: "I had to do it. He was a *****." Anlair lets her drag him away. As they leave, he starts laughing.
DM as DM: Alright, you both manage to get away before more guards arrive, but future attempts to infiltrate Naichal might be a bit harder.

--------

That was how that encounter might have played out, had our group actually had it. I rolled all the dice as I wrote it, so I didn't actually plan for the intimidate check to fail :smalltongue: Both characters featured here are mine, and I was DMing too, so it was sort of like a 1-person game.

[Edit: For those curious, the bleeps were mine - I didn't necessarily have any particular swear words in mind]

Waxillium Lande
2013-06-01, 11:36 AM
The problem with 'acting it out' is that some people in my group are very good at IRL social stuff, and some aren't- but not everyone plays characters with social skills identical to their own, which results in stuff like this:
[Gray Guard (high CHA and intimidate)]: "Listen, if you don't tell us what we need to know, I'll hurt you... a lot!" (rolls a 26)

Later
[Wizard (no ranks in any social skills)]: "There is something you should know. I am insane. I have surrendered my sanity for power. I have committed acts so vile, so terrible, that your mind would break just trying to contemplate them. And if you think that I would hesitate one minute, even one second, before ripping out your impudent little throat, well... you are going to get a surprise. (rolls a 3)

-----
See, I didn't want to penalize the first player- he just isn't that great at this sort of stuff. Similarly, the wizard is playing a character with no ranks in intimidate, and just happens to be good at this. So should I have had the level two guard run from the wizard? Of course not- if all you needed to succeed was good roleplaying, there would be no point in leveling social skills, and that would be unfair to the people who put ranks in bluff and intimidate. On the other hand, the paladin's attempt was obviously a failure, roleplaying wise, but he had put 14 ranks into intimidate- should those not count?

Scow2
2013-06-01, 12:41 PM
The problem with 'acting it out' is that some people in my group are very good at IRL social stuff, and some aren't- but not everyone plays characters with social skills identical to their own, which results in stuff like this:
[Gray Guard (high CHA and intimidate)]: "Listen, if you don't tell us what we need to know, I'll hurt you... a lot!" (rolls a 26)

Later
[Wizard (no ranks in any social skills)]: "There is something you should know. I am insane. I have surrendered my sanity for power. I have committed acts so vile, so terrible, that your mind would break just trying to contemplate them. And if you think that I would hesitate one minute, even one second, before ripping out your impudent little throat, well... you are going to get a surprise. (rolls a 3)

-----
See, I didn't want to penalize the first player- he just isn't that great at this sort of stuff. Similarly, the wizard is playing a character with no ranks in intimidate, and just happens to be good at this. So should I have had the level two guard run from the wizard? Of course not- if all you needed to succeed was good roleplaying, there would be no point in leveling social skills, and that would be unfair to the people who put ranks in bluff and intimidate. On the other hand, the paladin's attempt was obviously a failure, roleplaying wise, but he had put 14 ranks into intimidate- should those not count?I don't see the Grey Guard's as ineffective, or wizard's as particularly effective. Must have been in the tone. The Grey Guard's intimidate is short, to the point, and leaves the method to the imagination. The wizard makes him sound pretentious and haughty and threat likely goes over the target's head.

Waxillium Lande
2013-06-01, 01:22 PM
I don't see the Grey Guard's as ineffective, or wizard's as particularly effective. Must have been in the tone. The Grey Guard's intimidate is short, to the point, and leaves the method to the imagination. The wizard makes him sound pretentious and haughty and threat likely goes over the target's head.

You had to be there. The wizard's was really quite terrifying. The player acts as a hobby, so...

Jay R
2013-06-01, 03:42 PM
The problem with 'acting it out' is that some people in my group are very good at IRL social stuff, and some aren't...

Of course. And some people are good at tactics in a melee and some aren't. And some people are very good at solving mysteries and some aren't. And some people are good at figuring out the potential results of magic spells and some aren't.

If the guy making the Persuasion check doesn't have to decide what to say, then the fighter shouldn't have to decide what weapon to use or where to move, and the wizard's player shouldn't have to decide what spell to memorize. I reject the absurd notion that in CHA-based actions, alone, the player's decisions don't matter.


The problem with 'acting it out' is that some people in my group are very good at IRL social stuff, and some aren't- but not everyone plays characters with social skills identical to their own, which results in stuff like this:
[Gray Guard (high CHA and intimidate)]: "Listen, if you don't tell us what we need to know, I'll hurt you... a lot!" (rolls a 26)

Later
[Wizard (no ranks in any social skills)]: "There is something you should know. I am insane. I have surrendered my sanity for power. I have committed acts so vile, so terrible, that your mind would break just trying to contemplate them. And if you think that I would hesitate one minute, even one second, before ripping out your impudent little throat, well... you are going to get a surprise. (rolls a 3)

-----
See, I didn't want to penalize the first player- he just isn't that great at this sort of stuff. Similarly, the wizard is playing a character with no ranks in intimidate, and just happens to be good at this. So should I have had the level two guard run from the wizard? Of course not- if all you needed to succeed was good roleplaying, there would be no point in leveling social skills, and that would be unfair to the people who put ranks in bluff and intimidate. On the other hand, the paladin's attempt was obviously a failure, roleplaying wise, but he had put 14 ranks into intimidate- should those not count?

Of course they should count. Please strop acting like any single person in this discussion has said that the rolls shouldn't matter. But playing the game matters too. The Wizard got Circumstance bonuses, and then rolled the dice. The paladin didn't, but probably made the roll without them.

But if you will give the paladin the chance to make the roll without saying anything beyond "I make an Intimidate check", because the character knows what to say better than the player, then you should also have the paladin fight with the best weapon even if that wasn't the player's choice, and assume the wizard memorized a better set of spells than the player could work out, and...

137beth
2013-06-01, 03:47 PM
B or C. I want to reward good roleplaying, but the roll helps represents abilities that characters have which players don't. Generally, I'd allow either B or a mix of B and C.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-01, 03:47 PM
My opinion on the matter is, if a player who's character is good at something is not good at it himself, the more skilled players can help. Even the GM can give pointers.

But usually, it's just better to not have players play characters they can't act as. They don't even need to be super-convincing, mind you, but they need to have certain touch so they can give the appearance of being something they are not. In my experience, playing too far off characters isn't even particularly enjoyable to most people. It robs them of a framework to make decisions in.

Deophaun
2013-06-01, 03:55 PM
Of course they should count. Please strop acting like any single person in this discussion has said that the rolls shouldn't matter. But playing the game matters too. The Wizard got Circumstance bonuses, and then rolled the dice. The paladin didn't, but probably made the roll without them.
Do you give circumstance bonuses to Swim checks if the player can show how to do an impressive backstroke, or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls if the player demonstrates his masterful kendo training with a boken?

Waitingnomad
2013-06-01, 04:01 PM
A is horrible. B is probably my preferred option, with the roll being made first and a suitably tailored follow-up once you know the result. To use the intimidate example, I would play it as follows:

Me: (OOC) I want to interrogate the mook- I roll to intimidate. 17. *Hem*
(IC) "Right. Listen here you pathetic cretin, if you dont tell to me right now where Baron Von Evil is hiding I swear that I will strangle you with your own damned intestines"
DM: Heh. Alright, +1 for the threat- you pass.

Or..
Me: I roll... 5. Well, here goes nothing, "Oi, you. Tell me where Baron Von Evil is or I will... erm.. I will twist your nipple. Really hard. I'll do it, don't think I won't do it."
DM: *laughs* Nice effort. You fail of course.

Though depending on the mood of the setting and whether or not I was DMing I might even let that last threat slide due to sheer entertainment value and give him a +10 due to the mook having a deep psychologically scarring terror of nipple cripples gained from a childhood of shameless bullying. I prefer to let good quality RP and/or thoughtful playing and lateral thinking influence mechanics as much as possible, wherever relevant, even to the extent that it can override the mechanics if its sufficiently good/entertaining. What can I say, I play a lot of Paranoia.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-01, 04:02 PM
I know I would somehow count that in their favor. Players knowing what they are doing deserve a treat. It's such a rare occurrence. :smalltongue:

Water_Bear
2013-06-01, 04:03 PM
Of course. And some people are good at tactics in a melee and some aren't. And some people are very good at solving mysteries and some aren't. And some people are good at figuring out the potential results of magic spells and some aren't.

If the guy making the Persuasion check doesn't have to decide what to say, then the fighter shouldn't have to decide what weapon to use or where to move, and the wizard's player shouldn't have to decide what spell to memorize. I reject the absurd notion that in CHA-based actions, alone, the player's decisions don't matter.

Except that the difference here, a rather crucial one, is that there are highly detailed mechanics of combat and magic which allow people without much knowledge of those fields to still figure out workable strategies. By contrast, social interactions typically come down to a single die roll.

If I had to actually figure out how to hit an opponent with a given stance, or whether a given weapon could reasonably be expected to penetrate an enemy's armor, to hit in combat I would never land a hit except by dumb luck. By the same token, figuring out which emotional buttons to push to manipulate NPCs with certain attitudes, or whether a given rhetorical technique is going to have the desired effect, are skills many people genuinely lack.

It's ironic that those of us with normal socialization often have the least empathy for people who have trouble empathizing.

Waitingnomad
2013-06-01, 04:10 PM
Do you give circumstance bonuses to Swim checks if the player can show how to do an impressive backstroke, or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls if the player demonstrates his masterful kendo training with a boken?


No, but if a player is able to describe a certain method of attacking that takes advantage of an opponent in a clever way, I might grant them circumstance bonused to their attack.

And as for the wizard/paladin example, I may very well have allowed the wizard to succeed due to the circumstance modifiers attached to his relatively poor roll, due to a very good threat. The paladin's attempt to intimidate with threats of 'hitting...hard', on the other hand, can be judged as sufficiently terrifying as to elicit a success, because from a man with 14 ranks in intimidate a threat like that is legitimately scary.

Raineh Daze
2013-06-01, 04:31 PM
I honestly dislike C. If I have to act things out, the only social checks I'm going to succeed at are going to be Intimidate. When the only eloquence you can muster tends to be mid-rant or when conjuring macabre threats out of the air*, but you're trying to play a good character... yeah, I'd rather not be arbitrarily penalised for being better at saying some things than others. :smallyuk:

I have skill ranks, another character doesn't, they shouldn't get the better modifier because the person playing the character is good at oration. If you want something like that, don't bother using the skill system at all; it's obviously not what you want. Arbitrary DM fiat bonuses and penalties based on OOC capabilities removes any sort of fairness from it. :smallsigh:

If you're going to do that, may as well penalise players with poor eyesight by decreasing their range with everything. Or anyone colourblind by not telling them what type of dragon they're facing. >_>

*Or drunk. That works as well. Maybe if I was playing a Drunken Master? XD

TuggyNE
2013-06-01, 05:08 PM
Of course. And some people are good at tactics in a melee and some aren't. And some people are very good at solving mysteries and some aren't. And some people are good at figuring out the potential results of magic spells and some aren't.

If the guy making the Persuasion check doesn't have to decide what to say, then the fighter shouldn't have to decide what weapon to use or where to move, and the wizard's player shouldn't have to decide what spell to memorize. I reject the absurd notion that in CHA-based actions, alone, the player's decisions don't matter.

As noted, this would work considerably better without the conflation of player tactics and plan with character execution and skill (or whatever you want to call the two sides): generally, combat and other aspects operate at a middling level of abstraction, where the player makes tactical plans and the character carries them out with varying success depending on specifics of battle in the moment. You don't make a player roll to see if they understand flanking, and you don't penalize the character's attack if the player is unable to describe the intended blow as if from a fechtbuch.

The fact that D&D tends to make this conflation easier is unfortunate, but not really an excuse.

Barsoom
2013-06-01, 05:10 PM
Hello everybody! My question this time is where do you draw the line between roleplaying and rollplaying?

For example: an attempt to intimidate

Extreme 1: The dice roll
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: gimme a roll
Player: 18
Dm: ok, he...

Extreme 2: roleplay/act it out
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: you're going to have to give me more than that
Player: i sneer as i reach for my weapon and advance on my target, taking care to show no intent on stopping until my blade is down his throat. I also-
Dm: ok that'll do. he...

My preference:
Player: i want to intimidate him
Dm: ok, run it by us
Player: im going to be brandishing my sword and advancing towards him, 18 on the roll
Dm: i wouldve given a bonus if you put in a little more detail, but ok, he...

I noticed that in all three examples you gave, the player started by stating the mechanics, and didn't go into roleplay mode unless prodded by the DM. Out of curiosity, is this the norm for the people you play with?

BWR
2013-06-01, 05:37 PM
Depends on how important the scene is. If they poor PCs have to get throguh several layers of people to get to the important bits, I'll let them roll their way through.

In important scenes I'll usually let them talk a bit first and unless they say something that really appeals or pisses off their interlocutor, I let them roll and assign some modifiers based on situation, what they've said and how they've acted.

NichG
2013-06-01, 06:38 PM
As I've said before, any game has a set of skills it tests, and there is no single 'correct' answer to what a game should or should not test. Its just as reasonable to have a game that tests your OOC ability to do tactics as it is to have one that tests your ability to act, to come up with clever plans, to figure out engineering tricks to MacGyver traps, to do social stuff, etc. If not for it being impractical in most cases, you could just as well have a game that tests your ability to swing a sword or shoot a bow (e.g. SCA foam or rattan play-fighting)

Kane0
2013-06-01, 07:26 PM
I noticed that in all three examples you gave, the player started by stating the mechanics, and didn't go into roleplay mode unless prodded by the DM. Out of curiosity, is this the norm for the people you play with?

For the most part yes, our group (bar one) starts with the mechanic they intend to use and then RP it. In the second example the idea was that they forego the roll unless asked, using their own interaction in place of the number result. In that example i didnt intend for the implication that the dm was asking for more, rather that the player was waiting for the dms ok to go on with the attempt.
If that clarifies anything.

Jay R
2013-06-01, 07:55 PM
Do you give circumstance bonuses to Swim checks if the player can show how to do an impressive backstroke, or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls if the player demonstrates his masterful kendo training with a boken?

I give Circumstance Bonuses to the guy who says, "My character tries to persuade the king to help out expedition. The arguments he uses are that the ogres are burning fields, and his might be next. Also, I tell him that the ogres have recently captured a gem merchant, so there are a lot of gems in their treasure right now."

Similarly, I give a Circumstance Bonus to the swimmer who tells me his character stays on the left side of the stream, when I've previously documented that the rapids are on the right.

Similarly, the fighter aiming at the unarmored enemy has a greater chance of hitting than the one aiming at the enemy in plate.

Yes, OF COURSE I give circumstance bonuses for considering the situation and coming up with ways to optimize the action.

If you let the fighter attacking an unarmored opponent have a better chance to hit, and don't give a better chance to the persuader who comes up with strong arguments, then you are treating them very differently.

I don't insist on a verbatim speech, or a backstroke demonstration, or a demonstration of a kendo move. But you can't just say "I attempt to <persuade/swim/fight>," separate from giving me the goal and the tools.


You don't make a player roll to see if they understand flanking, ...

No, he doesn't roll; he has to show me he understands it. If he doesn't move his mini to the enemy's flank, he cannot get a flanking bonus.


... and you don't penalize the character's attack if the player is unable to describe the intended blow as if from a fechtbuch.

No, but I certainly penalize it if he tries to use a dagger from six feet away, for instance, or uses a spear against a skeleton.

Raineh Daze
2013-06-01, 08:10 PM
So you expect people to know the rules, but penalise them for using the rules to, for instance, say 'I persuade the king to help'? The fancy explanation seems unnecessarily demanding--that's the entire point of having the diplomacy roll, to simulate that. :smallconfused:

Scow2
2013-06-01, 08:24 PM
I give Circumstance Bonuses to the guy who says, "My character tries to persuade the king to help out expedition. The arguments he uses are that the ogres are burning fields, and his might be next. Also, I tell him that the ogres have recently captured a gem merchant, so there are a lot of gems in their treasure right now."

Similarly, I give a Circumstance Bonus to the swimmer who tells me his character stays on the left side of the stream, when I've previously documented that the rapids are on the right.

Similarly, the fighter aiming at the unarmored enemy has a greater chance of hitting than the one aiming at the enemy in plate

Yes, OF COURSE I give circumstance bonuses for considering the situation and coming up with ways to optimize the action.

If you let the fighter attacking an unarmored opponent have a better chance to hit, and don't give a better chance to the persuader who comes up with strong arguments, then you are treating them very differently.

I don't insist on a verbatim speech, or a backstroke demonstration, or a demonstration of a kendo move. But you can't just say "I attempt to <persuade/swim/fight>," separate from giving me the goal and the tools.

No, he doesn't roll; he has to show me he understands it. If he doesn't move his mini to the enemy's flank, he cannot get a flanking bonus.

No, but I certainly penalize it if he tries to use a dagger from six feet away, for instance, or uses a spear against a skeleton.
Are you saying you give your players bonuses/penalties on top of those already handled and covered by the rules? :smallconfused:

But, also - your stance is a variant on B. However, some people think you need to be able to do C, which DOES require verbatim speeches, with penalties and bonuses worked in based on the presention of the arguments. And seeing how much hate Option A is getting (Especially compared to how little C is getting).

Comparing those two, option C is the combat equivalent of requiring a fighter to describe his stance, action, and type of maneuver they're pulling off in real-world terms to describe how they make their attack against a single opponent - and, if they don't know enough about sword fighting themselves, having them get hit with a penalty for each inaccuracy or misconception they include in their statement, or a bonus for every bit of ARMA-style knowledge they possess. Saying "I want to intimidate/bluff/persuade the guy into doing X" is working on the assumption that although the player lacks the social skill, finesse, and knowledge, his character does not. Much like someone opting to say "I attack the guy with my longsword" because they're not knowledgeable of actual martial arts techniques, but still want to play a fighter.

Or should my mages get bonuses to the Save DC of their spell when I go into detail about how they cast the spell?

Need_A_Life
2013-06-01, 08:41 PM
So you expect people to know the rules, but penalise them for using the rules to, for instance, say 'I persuade the king to help'? The fancy explanation seems unnecessarily demanding--that's the entire point of having the diplomacy roll, to simulate that. :smallconfused:

I expect more than "I Diplomacy the King," yes.
I don't expect eloquence, but I expect that the person is able to string together a whole sentence. It doesn't have to be well-spoken, but if the player has been coherent enough to join the gaming group, I expect they can say "hey, King-dude, here's your daughter back. Now, how's about getting us paid?" just fine.

Raineh Daze
2013-06-01, 08:47 PM
I expect more than "I Diplomacy the King," yes.
I don't expect eloquence, but I expect that the person is able to string together a whole sentence. It doesn't have to be well-spoken, but if the player has been coherent enough to join the gaming group, I expect they can say "hey, King-dude, here's your daughter back. Now, how's about getting us paid?" just fine.

But I'm not saying that it should be 'I diplomacy the king', because that's too minimal to actually convey what you're trying to achieve. The minimum required is basically stating what, who, and how (persuade to pay, king, diplomacy--though the last one's likely to be implicit). Anything else is a nice bonus... but you shouldn't really reward for it, because making up for dumping charisma and social skills by OOC eloquence gives you what's basically a bunch of virtual* stats. :smallsigh:

*in the same sense as virtual particles--they don't actually exist as detectable objects, but they're present in the maths and interactions. Blah. Why am I using a quantum mechanics analogy at three in the morning?

Deophaun
2013-06-01, 08:52 PM
As I've said before, any game has a set of skills it tests, and there is no single 'correct' answer to what a game should or should not test.
If a game says investing resources in X determines how good you are at X, it is then incorrect to penalize the character because the player himself is bad at X. You can houserule it otherwise, but that must be done upfront: "Don't bother putting ranks into diplomacy, as we'll determine success or failure through roleplay" is perfectly valid, as long as you say it before anyone wastes resources on it.

Its just as reasonable to have a game that tests your OOC ability to do tactics as it is to have one that tests your ability to act, to come up with clever plans, to figure out engineering tricks to MacGyver traps, to do social stuff, etc.
There is an ocean of difference between giving a modifier for saying "I intimidate him by appealing to his fear of magic," or a to-hit bonus for "I tumble past into flanking position," and using a delivery that is worthy of Shakespeare or demonstrating the exact grip and pressure points you're using to help determine success or failure. One set of these options takes advantage of in-game knowledge, character skill, and the mechanics of the system, and the other set tosses them out the window. If you have fun doing the latter, great, but you shouldn't penalize people that can't or do not have fun doing so unless they have explicitly agreed to it in the first place.

LtPowers
2013-06-01, 08:53 PM
If the guy making the Persuasion check doesn't have to decide what to say, then the fighter shouldn't have to decide what weapon to use or where to move, and the wizard's player shouldn't have to decide what spell to memorize. I reject the absurd notion that in CHA-based actions, alone, the player's decisions don't matter.

Bad analogy.

There is a distinction between deciding what action to take, and executing the action. The former is the realm of the player; the latter the realm of the character. You have conflated the two here.

In the case of a Persuasion (/Intimidate/Con/Charm/Diplomacy) check, the player is responsible for deciding that the character will make the check, and (in certain circumstances) indicating at least some idea of what will be said. The character is responsible for carrying that out, via die roll. The die roll may get a modifier based on how good or bad the player's plan is, but the execution of the plan is ultimately up to the character's skill, not the player's.

In a battle, the fighter's player is responsible for deciding who the fighter will attack, and with what weapon, and from what direction... but it's up to the character to execute the attack -- to grip the weapon correctly, to swing it in such a way as to avoid the enemy's shield, to avoid getting knocked off balance by her own swing. All that is represented by the die roll, which may get a modifier if the player's tactics are particularly strong or weak, but ultimately it comes down to the character's skill, not the player's.

So unless you penalize a player who cannot accurately describe exactly how her fighter is wielding her sword, it seems unfair to penalize a player who cannot accurately describe exactly which notes his bard is singing... or exactly which words will have the best effect on the king's advisor.


Powers &8^]

NichG
2013-06-01, 09:42 PM
If a game says investing resources in X determines how good you are at X, it is then incorrect to penalize the character because the player himself is bad at X. You can houserule it otherwise, but that must be done upfront: "Don't bother putting ranks into diplomacy, as we'll determine success or failure through roleplay" is perfectly valid, as long as you say it before anyone wastes resources on it.


My previous post listed a particular house rule that I think works well to both preserve skill investment utility and to enable a test of social interaction.

Jay R
2013-06-01, 10:01 PM
Bad analogy.
...
So unless you penalize a player who cannot accurately describe exactly how her fighter is wielding her sword, it seems unfair to penalize a player who cannot accurately describe exactly which notes his bard is singing... or exactly which words will have the best effect on the king's advisor.

I never said that I would penalize a player who cannot accurately describe exactly which notes his bard is singing... or exactly which words will have the best effect on the king's advisor.

I specifically gave the example of somebody telling me what facts he would use to further his cause without giving exact words. And I never mentioned the notes a bard is playing.

I withdraw from this conversation.

Fiery Diamond
2013-06-01, 11:20 PM
Some posts on here I agree with, and others I disagree with. And that doesn't tell you how I feel at all! :smallbiggrin:

I use a mix of B and C. B is allowed for minor things, C is allowed for minor things and required for major things. I also make a point of emphasizing my house rules about the social skills before gameplay begins: The game is about pretending to be characters, not describing the lives of the characters. Mechanics for social rolls exist as a crutch for those without the real-life skills and as a way of supporting things that are beyond the realm of realistic (Bluffing to convince someone that you managed to intentionally tie yourself up (not tangled) in a position where you are so tightly bound that you can't even move, for example).

Oh, and for the record, I expect B level of detail for COMBAT, A level is insufficient. C level of description is permitted (though not a lot... that would slow down combat too much), and here's where I disagree with many of the anti-C people: who says that these things have to reflect reality? You can describe in detail how your fighter is wielding his weapon, how he steps, and how he swings, and have them all be TERRIBLE inaccuracies for how to fight in real life - and have them work perfectly well in the game/story. Just look at the battle moves of characters in video games. How many of those would work in real life? And yet I think many of them are awesome.

Similarly, just because someone's argument has glaring flaws/is in-eloquent or their intimidate is cheesy and childish to the point where you would be hard-pressed to find someone convinced by such things in real life doesn't mean that they have to be so poorly received in the game/story. After all, I would greatly prefer:


Player: I say, "Hey, Guard! I heard you like shinies, so here's some gold! Let us through, cool?"
DM: How much gold are you bribing him with?
Player: 50 gold enough?

to

Player: I bribe the guard to let us pass. *rolls diplomacy*
DM: How much gold are you bribing him with? That will affect the modifier.
Player: 50 gold.

Even in a serious campaign with the character supposedly being really good at diplomacy.

I DO treat combat and social things as different. The game is a social game, after all. What matters for the social aspects is how how you try, NOT how good you are at it. In fact, in some ways acting it out is more forgiving to the players than just using mechanics.

Barsoom
2013-06-02, 12:35 AM
option C is the combat equivalent of requiring a fighter to describe his stance, action, and type of maneuver they're pulling off in real-world terms to describe how they make their attack against a single opponent - and, if they don't know enough about sword fighting themselves, having them get hit with a penalty for each inaccuracy or misconception they include in their statement, or a bonus for every bit of ARMA-style knowledge they possess.


Do you give circumstance bonuses to Swim checks if the player can show how to do an impressive backstroke, or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls if the player demonstrates his masterful kendo training with a boken?I'd say those are false analogies. After all, D&D is not a fighting game. It contains a system for fighting simulation. On the other hand, D&D is a roleplaying game. Not a roleplay simulator. Actually a roleplaying game.

TuggyNE
2013-06-02, 12:51 AM
I never said that I would penalize a player who cannot accurately describe exactly which notes his bard is singing... or exactly which words will have the best effect on the king's advisor.

I specifically gave the example of somebody telling me what facts he would use to further his cause without giving exact words. And I never mentioned the notes a bard is playing.

The funny thing is, I think I agree with your position, now that you explain it this way, but starting off by disagreeing with someone who objected to option C basically put you in option C camp.

Clarity, people!


I'd say those are false analogies. After all, D&D is not a fighting game. It contains a system for fighting simulation. On the other hand, D&D is a roleplaying game. Not a roleplay simulator. Actually a roleplaying game.

That sounds good, but it isn't really going to fit everybody very well, because there are quite a few people who like to play D&D, who like to roleplay, but who are pretty lousy at managing it convincingly, even if they can figure out what they should aim at. Saying "no, that doesn't count, you have to be an amateur actor to get anything done" seems needlessly exclusive; the game still functions well enough if you don't demand Oscar performances from everyone.

Put another way, D&D is a roleplaying game, not a theater game; its focus is more on getting intentions and ideas right than on the nitty-gritty of precise phrasing. If you can actually pull that off, good for you; same for someone who actually does know real historical swordsmanship (to whatever extent that's possible), or whatever else.

So no, those are genuine analogies for the level of abstraction D&D runs at. I would prefer it to be more clearly delineated, more detailed, more structured, but I'll take what I can get.

Barsoom
2013-06-02, 12:54 AM
That sounds good, but it isn't really going to fit everybody very well, because there are quite a few people who like to play D&D, who like to roleplay, but who are pretty lousy at managing it convincingly, even if they can figure out what they should aim at. Yes, but that's not an excuse for not even trying. Also, I wasn't aiming to fit everybody, if you get my drift.



Saying "no, that doesn't count, you have to be an amateur actor to get anything done" seems needlessly exclusive; the game still functions well enough if you don't demand Oscar performances from everyone.Was that an unneeded hyperbole, or can you please point to a place in my post that made you think I'm actually saying that?

the OOD
2013-06-02, 01:17 AM
for me, diplomacy is two parts, what you say(insight/approach), and how well you say it (skill check).


Examples:

PC: I roll diplomacy on the guard.
DM: what are you saying?
PC: I rolled an 18.
DM: (assuming PC passed his/her sense motive) as you stand there silently smiling you notice the corners of the guard's mouth twitch upwards when he looks you over. he thinks you look like a great guy.:smallsmile:

PC: I try to convince the Klingon to toss me the key before the kraken gets lose.
PC: oh F***, I rolled a 4
DM: the bold Klingon turns to you and snarls "You would have me turn from the field of battle like a coward. fearful gnat.":smallmad:


abbreviated examples:

bad say + roll
"self-serving scum!":smallfurious:

god say + roll
"we ride united against the orks, for both our sakes":smallbiggrin:

icefractal
2013-06-02, 03:18 AM
I think it depends on what level of detail you see a social skill check acting on. In general terms, I can think of three. In terms of non-social activities, they could be viewed as:

1) A single attack. You succeed or fail purely on your roll.

2) A whole battle. Your rolls matter, but your choices matter also. Move into a chokepoint where the zombies can't surround you? You might beat a large force of them by yourself. Run through a crowd provoking attacks to reach what turns out to be an illusion? You could lose to weaker foes.

3) An entire mission / plan. For example, you decide to hide in the cart of supplies being delivered to the prisoners, wait until midnight, and then rush for the duke's bedroom, going for speed over stealth. Whether this works depends more on the choices made than the rolls, because different plans could put you up against anywhere from barely any to overwhelming opposition.

How much the roll determines things vs what the player said determining things depends on what you pick.


However, here's the key point - there really isn't one right way to do it. It's about what the players involved find fun. Typical D&D games do have the actual players decide combat tactics - because that's fun, but not actually swing a sword - because we're playing inside at a table. On the other hand, boffer-LARPs do have players actually swing a sword, and some RPGs don't even feature combat tactics.

What's more realistic is a red-herring here. The most accurate simulation would be for the players to only state their goals in extremely high-level terms and determine precise actions based on the characters' planning ability. That's not going to happen, because it removes fun from the players - who unlike the characters, are real and actually matter. On the other hand, if most of the group is getting stressed by having to RP things out - then just roll, it's not like you're paid to be actors.

The problem situation is where some people in a group want to RP things out, and others just want to roll. This is the same situation as other conflicts like wanting to play different systems, and dealt with the same way.


Now personally, I go with the second level of detail above, which primarily maps to option B, with C as an optional extra. But that's just my preference.

Deophaun
2013-06-02, 03:58 AM
I'd say those are false analogies. After all, D&D is not a fighting game. It contains a system for fighting simulation. On the other hand, D&D is a roleplaying game. Not a roleplay simulator. Actually a roleplaying game.
Ah, in that case, please point to the rules in the SRD to determine success on a diplomacy check due to player delivery. I'll wait.

It's the fact that it is a roleplaying game that your OOC and IC skills are divorced. You may indeed be a silver-tounged devil in real life, but your character isn't. Roleplay that.

TuggyNE
2013-06-02, 06:02 AM
Yes, but that's not an excuse for not even trying. Also, I wasn't aiming to fit everybody, if you get my drift.

No, it isn't! That's why I replied earlier to indicate I prefer B, and don't think A is suitable. But C isn't either; my ideal would have a more involved mechanical expression, more like regular combat, which would have a better framework to hang snippets of acting on, and then build up from there.


Was that an unneeded hyperbole, or can you please point to a place in my post that made you think I'm actually saying that?

Honestly, from the way you were pushing back against those quotes, it seemed like you were agreeing with what they objected to. But that's always a tricky thing, since I think I fell into the same trap myself just now. Sorry about that.

Need_A_Life
2013-06-02, 11:20 AM
But I'm not saying that it should be 'I diplomacy the king', because that's too minimal to actually convey what you're trying to achieve.
Which is why I don't let players go: "I roll Persuade. Got a 14. What does he tell me" but rather have a conversation, supplementing with rolls now and again.

Raineh Daze
2013-06-02, 12:00 PM
Which is why I don't let players go: "I roll Persuade. Got a 14. What does he tell me" but rather have a conversation, supplementing with rolls now and again.

I think your minimum is asking too much--'I persuade the king to help with the goblins. Rolled 28' is more than enough to work on, without requiring OOC eloquence to function.

Barsoom
2013-06-02, 12:06 PM
Ah, in that case, please point to the rules in the SRD to determine success on a diplomacy check due to player delivery. I'll wait.
With pleasure. It's an oft-missed little thing....

Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase
In other words, unless you give the DM a 1-minute worth of honest attempt at negotiation, you don't get to even make a Diplomacy roll, let alone succeed at one. In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.

Dem are the rules.

Raineh Daze
2013-06-02, 12:10 PM
In other words, unless you give the DM a 1-minute worth of honest attempt at negotiation, you don't get to even make a Diplomacy roll, let alone succeed at one. In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.

Dem are the rules.

Um, no, the rules do not mention player delivery at all. They simply specify that an attempt at diplomacy takes a minute, minimum. It is not up to the player to provide a minute's worth of speech.

Water_Bear
2013-06-02, 12:34 PM
In other words, unless you give the DM a 1-minute worth of honest attempt at negotiation, you don't get to even make a Diplomacy roll, let alone succeed at one. In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.

Dem are the rules.

Not quite; by that logic Gather Information takes 1d4+1 hours of roleplaying per roll, while a Bluff or a rushed Diplomacy check can be roleplayed in under six seconds. Those numbers refer to in game time, so that you can't persuade people as a free action while rolling down the stairs in a barrel, rather than representing minimum RP times.

GnomeFighter
2013-06-02, 12:51 PM
With pleasure. It's an oft-missed little thing....

In other words, unless you give the DM a 1-minute worth of honest attempt at negotiation, you don't get to even make a Diplomacy roll, let alone succeed at one. In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.

Dem are the rules.

Um, ye, as above. That tells you how long it takes in game time, not what the player has to do. I don't think there is anything in any edition that tells you how long actions should take in player time (well, there is guidlines for planing in the DMG, but as every GM knows they fail to take account of players).

Kaerou
2013-06-02, 12:55 PM
I roll, check the result and then act it out. if I pass I make it something good, if I fail I mess up. For example in another system I rolled a critical failur eon my leadership roll (a 1 on a percentage) and instead of inspiring my ships crew to fight these pirates, I messed up and made them worse.. so i was like

"All right crew, they may outnumber us, be better armed, more experineced and they may take our lives but we'll still have our..! Err.."

It was actually funny at the time.

LokiRagnarok
2013-06-02, 01:00 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0421.html

Need_A_Life
2013-06-02, 01:09 PM
I think your minimum is asking too much--'I persuade the king to help with the goblins. Rolled 28' is more than enough to work on, without requiring OOC eloquence to function.
Unless you resolve combat with a single roll too, I don't think boiling it down to single rolls is fair either.

Hell, it might go like this:
"Hey, could you help us with the goblins?"
"What goblins?"
"The Softskull tribe, I think they were called?"
"Aren't I already paying you to take care of them?"
"Well, yeah, but they're like really, really tough. Can't we borrow a couple of your guards a few days?"
OOC: Well give me a Diplomacy roll.

Seriously, if you think that's requiring too high standards of eloquence, then I don't think I would enjoy playing with your group. I'm expecting characters to be more than pure numbers and dice-rolls.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-02, 02:16 PM
For the record, I don't allow a roll if my players have no idea what they are doing.

The answer to "I roll diplomacy" is "What for?" A more concrete example from an actual game:

Player: "I roll for Search."
Me: "What are you searching?"
Player: "Um, something interesting."
Me: "What is interesting?"

Stating an action without clarifying any intent or target is not roleplaying. It essentially forces me, the game master, to roleplay for my players' characters. Which kinda defeats the purpose of having players.

No-one gets right answers if they don't have enough sense to ask the right questions. Or, well, to ask any question.

But then again, the game system I use emphasises use of player wit. Numbers on the character sheet are only there to help out, they don't win the game for you.

Ytaker
2013-06-02, 02:47 PM
A long time ago I was involved in a roleplay. You did more damage based on how pretty your post was and how impressed the dm was.

I think that system can work for diplomacy but you'd have to explicitly establish that as the system. It's not something you should force on someone without their consent.

Need_A_Life
2013-06-02, 03:30 PM
Player: "I roll for Search."
Me: "What are you searching?"
Player: "Um, something interesting."
Me: "What is interesting?"
Exactly.

In general, players should describe their character's actions and wait for the GM to ask for rolls. The GM prepares a story - plot, event, whatever term you find least objectionable - that the players engage with and, every once in a while, rolling 10 successes on that "Intelligence + Occult" roll should probably indicate that you know enough to short-circuit the story. If a great roll - or a really bad one - would ruin the story, I simply don't ask for it.

And, even if the NPC is willing to give information "Okay, I make him tell me what I want to know" doesn't give me, as a GM, enough knowledge about what the player wants to ask anyway. So, if the player is going to have to tell me what it is he wants to know anyway, why not just ask those questions to begin with?

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-02, 04:09 PM
In general, players should describe their character's actions and wait for the GM to ask for rolls. The GM prepares a story - plot, event, whatever term you find least objectionable - that the players engage with...

Personally, I think "scenario" is the most accurate term.

And any game scenario can be likened to laying out a chessboard. When playing chess, it isn't enough to say "I move my piece". You need to specify which piece, and where. If you instead say "I dunno, whatever is best", then you are actually asking for someone else to play for you. You are giving up your agency.

And honestly, no matter how expansive a skill system of an RPG is, no matter how much "better" your character supposedly is than you, relying on that system and the GM to make your decisions kinda misses the point of roleplaying.

Knaight
2013-06-02, 05:35 PM
This is one of those things that depends on importance to me. If it is a relatively minor event, just rolling is probably plenty - though there needs to be enough there that what is being rolled for is unambiguous. If the context is one of serious character conflict, then the description comes out - however, I generally have the description come out after the roll, to prevent issues where the description is made and then the roll fails to live up to it.

Fiery Diamond
2013-06-02, 07:57 PM
Unless you resolve combat with a single roll too, I don't think boiling it down to single rolls is fair either.

Hell, it might go like this:
"Hey, could you help us with the goblins?"
"What goblins?"
"The Softskull tribe, I think they were called?"
"Aren't I already paying you to take care of them?"
"Well, yeah, but they're like really, really tough. Can't we borrow a couple of your guards a few days?"
OOC: Well give me a Diplomacy roll.

Seriously, if you think that's requiring too high standards of eloquence, then I don't think I would enjoy playing with your group. I'm expecting characters to be more than pure numbers and dice-rolls.

I agree with you. I would despise playing with any group that found this to be too high a standard.

Lynnalynna
2013-06-02, 08:17 PM
a combination of B and C is my preference, though this had been the cause of a friend of mine having his hair pulled and a pen being held like a stiletto pressed against his neck due to the fact that I was threatening the guard with the "Crazy" speech demonstrating that I was willing to off my own allies (bluffing...of course...yeh...of course). My friend did not appreciate this, though still laughs about it today.

Need_A_Life
2013-06-03, 01:17 AM
Okay, putting a "knife" to the player's throat would be something I'd be hesitant to do. I might mime it in thin air as I explain it, though.

GoddessSune
2013-06-03, 08:36 AM
Example:Player: I roll Intimidate, result of a 28.
DM: This guy is from a warrior culture so a show of anger will get respect but not fear. But he's pretty much terrified of magic.
Player: Okay, so I go up to him and say 'the bones predict your death in seven days unless you side with us'...


Wow, I would never give away information for something like an Intimidate check. That is what role playing is for.

I do give bonuses to skill checks when players put a little effort into it. The players would be told a dozen times that ''the warriors of Reth fear magic'', so it's up to them to use that information. The player need not act it all out, they just need to state it.


Do you give circumstance bonuses to Swim checks if the player can show how to do an impressive backstroke, or circumstance bonuses to attack rolls if the player demonstrates his masterful kendo training with a boken?

Yes. But not for real life stuff, just more if the player can describe what they are doing using common sense. Though this will not work for everyone...as lots of DMs are weird. You most often see it with the homebody type DMs that will tell you things like ''you can't swim across a fast moving rocky river''...like the one by my house that we swim across every summer....

Asmodai
2013-06-03, 11:16 AM
I tend to go for allowing people to act it out. If it's good i let it be, if it's lacklustre or just not enough i let them roll with a modifier based on what they pulled.

NichG
2013-06-03, 11:33 AM
Wow, I would never give away information for something like an Intimidate check. That is what role playing is for.

I do give bonuses to skill checks when players put a little effort into it. The players would be told a dozen times that ''the warriors of Reth fear magic'', so it's up to them to use that information. The player need not act it all out, they just need to state it.


I don't think I understand your point here. What do you mean by the connection between roleplaying and obtaining information? Are you saying you want to test the players' ability to pay attention and remember things, or rather that you don't like information coming out of thin air, or what exactly?

Scow2
2013-06-03, 03:25 PM
I don't think I understand your point here. What do you mean by the connection between roleplaying and obtaining information? Are you saying you want to test the players' ability to pay attention and remember things, or rather that you don't like information coming out of thin air, or what exactly?

Probably the latter.

GoddessSune
2013-06-03, 07:43 PM
I don't think I understand your point here. What do you mean by the connection between roleplaying and obtaining information? Are you saying you want to test the players' ability to pay attention and remember things, or rather that you don't like information coming out of thin air, or what exactly?

The example was the Dm simply telling the player what to do. I don't like that. It makes it feel pointless. If the Dm will just say 'Do x', then why even bother to say it, why not just have the player 'do x' and skip the whole game play.

I do it a bit more like the characters will get told, at least once during the game that ''the Blue Warriors don't like and fear magic''. Then it is up to the player...yes, the player, not the dice to use that information. The player needs to put two and two together and figure out ''fear magic'' equals ''good thing to intimidate with''.

It's not to 'test and have them remember', it's to have them play the game. I don't like lazy players who just sort of sit there and ask ''can we fight yet?'' every couple of minutes. Even if it was a near pure combat game with like 95% combat, it still has information to pay attention too.

It is hard for some players, at first, to get it. But most catch on quick enough...

Forrestfire
2013-06-03, 07:47 PM
I'm pretty lenient with roleplaying, because I understand that many players just don't enjoy doing it extensively. On the other hand, it makes the game much more fun when people do, so I encourage it.

While I prefer people to act out, or at least describe what they say, I play that there are three ways:

Let's say that the scenario is that there's an allied, but serious guard watching a hallway, with a base DC of somewhere near 12 or so on a diplomacy check.


They can choose to just roll and have that decide the outcome, so it'd play out like this:
Player: "Roll for diplomacy. I got a 15."
DM: "Ok, the guard waves you through after you say where you're going, and goes back to watching the hallway."

They can describe what they do, and it'll allow them to get a more specific outcome:
Player: "I ask the guard to point us in the right direction of the ballroom we're looking for. I got a 15 on the roll."
DM: "He lets you through and says to take the second left, then the first right. He goes back to guarding as you leave."

They can play it out in-character, in which case it'd be a circumstance bonus (or penalty if they botch it horribly by mispeaking or accidentally insulting, etc), and possibly different interactions based on how they acted.
Player: "I walk up the guard and say "How are you today, my fine fellow? I'm looking for the ballroom, and got turned around a bit and lost. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks." Also, I got a 15 on the roll."
DM: (would either converse as the guard, or say afterwards, depending on the delivery of the line) "The guard exchanges greetings with you, then points you in the right direction. You get a +2 bonus for the roleplaying, and he's obviously in a better mood as you leave, since your friendliness raised his spirits."


In the third case, they might get some use out of the guard being friendlier later, or just have made a friend for future notice.

NichG
2013-06-04, 06:08 AM
The example was the Dm simply telling the player what to do. I don't like that. It makes it feel pointless. If the Dm will just say 'Do x', then why even bother to say it, why not just have the player 'do x' and skip the whole game play.


Its a compromise solution that allows the skills to still have mechanical value. The design idea is character abilities are powers above and beyond what you as a player have; I don't want the outcome of an RP encounter to be decided by single rolls and raw numbers, and I don't want weird stuff like the rolls making impossible or dumb stuff work (like 'I drop trou and moon the king, 78 on Diplomacy, give me your kingdom!'). So instead, how can I give people with lots of Diplomacy an advantage without allowing Diplomacy to short-circuit the actual RP.

I guess the way I was thinking it wasn't just the DM saying 'do X', its the DM saying 'if you include X in what you do then it will work better'. It doesn't stop someone from figuring out X on their own or from trying Y instead for whatever reason or even finding a Z that works out better than X would have.

Part of the plus side of this compromise solution is that its a way to counter the effect that the players have limited information feed (they can only know what the DM tells them or what they ask about, basically), but their characters have grown up in the world and have likely observed, learned, etc a dozen bits and pieces that have never come up in the campaign yet.

Anyhow, without a compromise solution like that, I agree with above posters who said that the skills should just be removed from the game entirely at character generation.



I do it a bit more like the characters will get told, at least once during the game that ''the Blue Warriors don't like and fear magic''. Then it is up to the player...yes, the player, not the dice to use that information. The player needs to put two and two together and figure out ''fear magic'' equals ''good thing to intimidate with''.

It's not to 'test and have them remember', it's to have them play the game. I don't like lazy players who just sort of sit there and ask ''can we fight yet?'' every couple of minutes. Even if it was a near pure combat game with like 95% combat, it still has information to pay attention too.

It is hard for some players, at first, to get it. But most catch on quick enough...

This is actually what I mean by 'the game tests their ability to remember and pay attention', so I think you've indirectly answered my question. In this case, I'd just remove the social skills from the game.

As I said in a previous post, any game 'tests' some particular ability of its players. Chess tests reading/predicting moves and strategic and tactical reasoning. D&D as a mechanical system generally tests the ability to research and apply character creation options, as well as tactics to a lesser extent (but not really strategy since there aren't really rules for large-scale impacts of character actions). Old school D&D tested player caution and threat evaluation.

The individual DM can then easily extend the game to test things like social interaction, strategy, and the like.

What I mean by 'test' here isn't like 'this material will be on the test', its that players will do better or worse based on their own ability in that particular aspect of the game, as opposed to doing better or worse based on their character's numbers.

GeekGirl
2013-06-04, 08:23 AM
A: make the roll and get on with it
B: explain the gist/basis of your approach and make the roll
C: make your speech in character, word for word.
D: other. Please explain

I will generally go with B, though there are exceptions. A isn't much fun but ok, and C is assuming you are as good at this as your character but that is probably not the case. For example I'm playing Shadowrun now with my group, the DM will make our group's face talk like he is his character and scale the hit threshold based on what he says. The problem is, that player is really bad in social situation, a terrible liar and can't think on his feet like that. So now we are failing at thing we shouldn't be failing at because the player isn't as good as his character.

I will however add a bonus is they player gives a really good example of what he want sot do and say. Like this (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice), I would have just given him no roll needed.

Jay R
2013-06-04, 08:34 AM
The clear result of this thread is that lots of people play differently, and what works at my table with my friends may not work at your table with your friends.