PDA

View Full Version : The Balance between Role playing and rolling



TheElfLord
2007-12-20, 12:47 PM
This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit recently. In social situations, how much should what the player's say count, and how much should their die roll count?

Players have differeng levels of social skills, just like characters, so it is unfair to expect them to mimic their character's perfectly. Thats what the skill system is suposed to do. But on the other hand, we are talking about Role Playing games, where the interaction and talking is supposed to be a major part. Much of that is lost if the situation is resolved by, "I roll a _____ check to get him to do this".

My current situation is to offer a circumstance bonus or penalty to the social skill roll based on the achompanying role playing. So if my players insult and belittle the Kobold Matriarch they are trying to negotiate with, they will get a penalty to their diplomacy check.

Another thing I am considering is a check for each person who talks during a situation. Most situations normally consist of the main social character taking the lead, with side comments from the others. It is often the side comments that lead to trouble. Perhaps requiring a check from each person who talks will cut down on insults and the like.

At the same time, inventive or well phrased role playing can get a bonus on the roll. I think this is a good way to balance role playing and rolling, but it may not be the best. I'm courius about where you guys think the line is and how the two things should interact.

*BTW I am using the Giant's diplomacy variation, so no need for comments such as RAW diplomacy is broken, I'm well aware that it is.

nerulean
2007-12-20, 12:51 PM
Our DM decides the die roll based on roleplaying, and then adds modifiers afterwards. It means I can be having a bad day and my half-nymph bard can still talk rings around a tavern full of peasants, but if we're dealing with someone who actually has a wisdom score then I, the player, have to pull out some stops.

Artanis
2007-12-20, 12:54 PM
This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit recently. In social situations, how much should what the player's say count, and how much should their die roll count?

Players have differeng levels of social skills, just like characters, so it is unfair to expect them to mimic their character's perfectly. Thats what the skill system is suposed to do. But on the other hand, we are talking about Role Playing games, where the interaction and talking is supposed to be a major part. Much of that is lost if the situation is resolved by, "I roll a _____ check to get him to do this".

My current situation is to offer a circumstance bonus or penalty to the social skill roll based on the achompanying role playing. So if my players insult and belittle the Kobold Matriarch they are trying to negotiate with, they will get a penalty to their diplomacy check.

Another thing I am considering is a check for each person who talks during a situation. Most situations normally consist of the main social character taking the lead, with side comments from the others. It is often the side comments that lead to trouble. Perhaps requiring a check from each person who talks will cut down on insults and the like.

At the same time, inventive or well phrased role playing can get a bonus on the roll. I think this is a good way to balance role playing and rolling, but it may not be the best. I'm courius about where you guys think the line is and how the two things should interact.

*BTW I am using the Giant's diplomacy variation, so no need for comments such as RAW diplomacy is broken, I'm well aware that it is.
I think yours is a pretty good solution, giving a circumstance bonus (one way or the other) but not making it all about the player. I'd keep the side checks restricted to those who try to talk in an official capacity...whispering to a buddy shouldn't do too much damage unless it's a highly formal situation.


I think this because the problem with making it all about the player is that doing so makes it impossible for an uncharismatic player to have a charismatic character, and allows a player with a silver tongue to be a master diplomat despite 3 CHA. Thus, I think that this sort of thing should be resolved the way everything else is: by the dice. But there's little harm in giving a small bonus for good roleplaying, as long as effort is taken into account along with effect.

Tormsskull
2007-12-20, 01:02 PM
This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit recently. In social situations, how much should what the player's say count, and how much should their die roll count?

It all depends on what the players are interested in. When I DM I don't allow "I convince the king to give us money, I rolled a 35 Diplomacy check". I require that the players either say exactly what their characters say, or at least give me the jist of what they are saying, and then apply a modifier based on their response.

elliott20
2007-12-20, 01:19 PM
I personally believe this sort of thing should be dependant upon a player to player basis.

players who are naturally not so out going should not be penalized for their personality. And as such, I have no problem just letting those players get away with just rolling a diplomacy check and then have the player describe in shorthand what he does with that roll.

And on the flip side, if a natural actor kind of player who gives a very colorful and interesting approach to his roleplaying is going to get a bit of a bonus or some other kind of benefit from this, and when he's being lazy about it, he will get a penalty for it.

Jannex
2007-12-20, 02:50 PM
I think bonuses to Diplomacy rolls and the like should be contingent on how much effort the player puts into roleplaying the social situation, though not necessarily the amount of success the player has at being persuasive. As others have said, part of the point of having social Skills on the character sheet is to allow people to play characters who are more adept at social matters than they are themselves. So, if a player makes a good-faith attempt to roleplay his seduction or oration or persuasion, he should get a bonus, and if he just says, "I convince him to do what I want" and drops a d20, perhaps a penalty.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-20, 03:01 PM
I'm in favor of no rolling for social skills whatsoever. I prefer social skills to be completely roleplayed, with the result dependant both on how well it is roleplayed and how hard the player is trying. I'm willing to give inexperienced players some leeway, but I expect at least an attempt at roleplaying.

Winterwind
2007-12-20, 03:09 PM
Just like Tormsskull said, each group has to find their own preferred solution.

We solve it by roleplaying all the talk, and then, when the DM feels there is a chance the players' words might have swayed the NPCs to the effect the players desire he either lets them roll an appropriate check, with modifiers dependant on the subjective quality of the players' words, or - if what the players said was either sufficiently good or sufficently bad - we omit the check entirely.

In practice, we end up omitting these rolls way more often than not.

Beleriphon
2007-12-20, 05:08 PM
I think an important function here is that with D&D 3.X, particularly the Bluff skill, the player has to make at least a minimum of effort to describe what the character says. Without doing so you can't very well adjudicate whether or not the bluff attempt is believable or absurdly far fetched.

For example bluffing a guard to let you into an exclusive royal ball can be either entirely believable and very easy to succeed, or so outrageous only the most prodigious silver-tongued bard could get in, all depending on how the bluff is presented.