social rolls <rant warning>

[scurv]

ARRRRGGGGGGG why is it the people who defend social rolls the most are the people who put the least effort into backing the roll with some RP.

Don't get me wrong A social roll occasionally as a decision maker by the DM is not a bad thing in my opinion. But But But I detest it when people want to use a single word and a bluff roll to attempt to basically mind-control other peoples PC's and npc's. I am sorry it just don't work like that.

And what Gets my cheese is these people get upset and can use some of the most elegant logic to defend the use of social rolls but they are to frikken lazy to spend even a tenth of that to energy to enhance the story of the game.
I mean Am i expecting to much for the people who are here and apparently capable of forming well thought out arguments to actually use that ability to in char?

As a DM (or player) I can not look at someone who was on the other-side of the roll and say "his roll trumps your well thought out position and life experience" I mean doomit is it to much to expect to give the other players and dm something to actually rp with?

[Grinner]

It is only natural to put forth only as much effort as is required.

Presuming that you're speaking of D&D and its ilk, I'd fault the system rather than the players. The social roll mechanic is fine in a distinctly non-political game, such as a dungeon crawl, but I agree that other games require a little more depth.

[AntiTrust]

It is only natural to put forth only as much effort as is required.

Presuming that you're speaking of D&D and its ilk

And its ilk? Nice job attacking your fellow rpg-ers.

To the OP I have it in my house rules that socials rolls are in addition to their RP not instead of. Sure if you want to just roll you can, but if you literally say nothing to me expect hefty penalties. On its flipside good RP can improve a bad roll allowing the fighter types with the limited social skill points to make that stirring call to arms without it falling flat.

[Grinner]

And its ilk? Nice job attacking your fellow rpg-ers.

Thank you. I do my best.

But seriously, the editions of D&D I've read are all built on the same tired paradigm. In the last 40 years, we've designed many, more interesting mechanics, but ultimately, we keep going back to the same damn thing.

I'm tired of fantasy heartbreakers.

[Zeful]

ARRRRGGGGGGG why is it the people who defend social rolls the most are the people who put the least effort into backing the roll with some RP.

Probably because being socially stymied, they tend not to have a freaking clue what to say when put on the spot. And coupled with some game attitudes (the 60 second turn being one of them) any kind of roleplay is being put on the spot.

Don't get me wrong A social roll occasionally as a decision maker by the DM is not a bad thing in my opinion. But But But I detest it when people want to use a single word and a bluff roll to attempt to basically mind-control other peoples PC's and npc's. I am sorry it just don't work like that.

No it doesn't. You as the DM are the final arbitrator of what is or is not an acceptable reason for rolling, and in fact can shut down a player trying this crap by saying "I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're rolling for, elaborate." Letting it happen as a DM is more often the problem than the players that try to get away with it.

And what Gets my cheese is these people get upset and can use some of the most elegant logic to defend the use of social rolls but they are to frikken lazy to spend even a tenth of that to energy to enhance the story of the game.

And with this you move from having a reasonable position to just being a jerk. You don't actually know that they're "[too][...] lazy to spend even a tenth of that energy [used defending social rolls] to enhance the story of the game," rather than just being in the moment, when taken out of the experience by the need for a roll, their train of thought just up and evaporates, or one of the several other possibilities that would result in them failing to roleplay like you want.

I mean Am i expecting to much for the people who are here and apparently capable of forming well thought out arguments to actually use that ability to in char?

This is an internet forum, we have literally as much time as we want to make arguments, and repeating these arguments in Real Life is just going vancian on the discussion. Comparing that to live roleplay? Yes, you are expecting "to[sic] much" from players.

[Talentless]

What's wrong with social rolls?

Absolutely nothing. While they can be abused, so can anything about most systems.

I understand that you want roleplay to happen, thats fine, i enjoy it when it does. But what happens when the player decides to play a face character, and for whatever reason (stutter, lack of any normal social skills, etc.) they actually can't function as well as their character should be able to in a Social Function?

While some DMs will say, then don't play a face if you can't hack it in roleplay, that is just as arbitrary a limitation on Roleplay as "Oh, you just want to roll for it? Fine, take a -20 penalty to your skill because you personally aren't making an effort."

What next? Should we say "I'm sorry, but because you have absolutely no real life martial arts or combat skill whatsover, all your martial characters have commoner attack bonus progression instead of Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian."

I like my players to at least try, but there does need to be a middle ground here.

As annoying is it seems like to you, I personally believe there is nothing wrong with Social Rolls.

My 2 copper.

[Deophaun]

ARRRRGGGGGGG why is it the people who defend social rolls the most are the people who put the least effort into backing the roll with some RP.

Why is it the people who attack social rolls the most are the people who live under bridges and think tin-foil is an alien conspiracy?

But But But I detest it when people want to use a single word and a bluff roll to attempt to basically mind-control other peoples PC's and npc's. I am sorry it just don't work like that.

Then read them the rules, explain the difference between a 1-round distraction and dominate monster, and move on. This has nothing to do with "I rolled a 15 bluff to convince him I'm not with them."

And what Gets my cheese is these people get upset and can use some of the most elegant logic to defend the use of social rolls but they are to frikken lazy to spend even a tenth of that to energy to enhance the story of the game.

In addition to seconding other criticisms of this part, it could be that these players do not consider that social interaction to be an enhancement. They might just want to get to the $%^&@#4 monkey.

[AntiTrust]

What's wrong with social rolls?

Absolutely nothing. While they can be abused, so can anything about most systems.

I understand that you want roleplay to happen, thats fine, i enjoy it when it does. But what happens when the player decides to play a face character, and for whatever reason (stutter, lack of any normal social skills, etc.) they actually can't function as well as their character should be able to in a Social Function?

While some DMs will say, then don't play a face if you can't hack it in roleplay, that is just as arbitrary a limitation on Roleplay as "Oh, you just want to roll for it? Fine, take a -20 penalty to your skill because you personally aren't making an effort."

What next? Should we say "I'm sorry, but because you have absolutely no real life martial arts or combat skill whatsover, all your martial characters have commoner attack bonus progression instead of Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian."

I like my players to at least try, but there does need to be a middle ground here.

As annoying is it seems like to you, I personally believe there is nothing wrong with Social Rolls.

My 2 copper.

-20 for stuttering, yes that sounds like a sane thing I'd do. What kind of monster do you take me for? Of course I'm not going to do that, but you've got to show me you're trying. I had terrible stage fright in middle school and yet I had to be graded on my performances on stage in theatre class. Did I fail? No, because the teacher saw I was at least trying to get past it. Was I bad? Oh hell yeah I was terrible. However if I had simply said "I'm not doing it I'm scared" and sat back down I'd of course fail, because I didn't even try.

You show me a stuttering player who tries to be the face and really tries to RP and I'll rain bonuses down on his character because I know how cold sweat terrifying that can be.

[Talentless]

-20 for stuttering, yes that sounds like a sane thing I'd do. What kind of monster do you take me for? Of course I'm not going to do that, but you've got to show me you're trying. I had terrible stage fright in middle school and yet I had to be graded on my performances on stage in theatre class. Did I fail? No, because the teacher saw I was at least trying to get past it. Was I bad? Oh hell yeah I was terrible. However if I had simply said "I'm not doing it I'm scared" and sat back down I'd of course fail, because I didn't even try.

You show me a stuttering player who tries to be the face and really tries to RP and I'll rain bonuses down on his character because I know how cold sweat terrifying that can be.

I don't know you, I don't know your DM style. For all I know, you could be like the DM I had that I based the penalty number off of.

For reference, it wasn't attacking your DM style, it was just an example for why I personally believe Social Rolls should exist

Most reasonable DMs would give a bonus for just making an attempt even if it wasn't good, but not every DM out there is reasonable, and not every player with an issue that would make them a Bad Party Face IRL wants to go and attempt it anyways.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that not everyone has decent enough social skills to pass over Social Rolls with Roleplay alone, and that not everyone will want to make an attempt in front of people, especially if it is at a game table like the ones I tend to run inside a Game Shop where outside of a core group of 3-4 players, the other 3-4 players drop in and out as time permits and don't know everyone all that well, so they do not know if they will get laughed at or made fun of for making an attempt and doing poorly. (They wouldn't at my Table, but how are they supposed to know that if they are brand new? And not every table will be like mine anyways)

Saying Social Rolls cannot speak for the player is alright, the player has to communicate what exactly they want to accomplish with the Roll in the first place. But I don't see anything wrong with letting the bluff/diplomacy/intimidate check number work in place of a Roleplay interaction when the intent with the roll has been clearly communicated.

[awa]

part of the problem is the mechanics of the social mechanics in a game like dnd.
If its balanced for a midlevel party the modifiers for roleplay are going to make ranks irelavent at low level annoying every one who actually spent points on cha and diplomacy. and at high level the modifiers don't matter becuase it's to easy to crank skills through the roof.

If its not balanced or worse the modifiers are arbitrary you have basically punished the player who put a lot of points into social skills.

In my most recent game i attempted to solve this by getting rid of the diplomacy skill and having players argument be in place of the roll and cha determined how well they presented said argument.

[scurv]

The player demonstrates his ability to do that type of role-play with his arguments every week for why he should be able to exploit one rule or another He has the ability. I am seeing ample ability. So that is not the issue.


That is my problem. He has the ability he just wants to use the roll rather then open himself up by actually role-playing. I am sorry but I detest with the passion of a thousand blackholes hearing a player say "I am going to convince you not to do your character growth plot critical thing here is my roll".

And no, I do not let that crap fly, If someone just wants the hack and slash i am all good with that (and trust me a 20 some str minotaur warrior has his own...bonuses to social situations. aka let the wookie win )

But in a purely rp situation the rules are quite simple. Make it fun for me, Make it fun for everyone else. And do some fregging RP so i get fodder for later sessions


...but considering some of the consensus here, I think i am going to invite that player to not show up again. As much as i hate to kick any player. It is time for a group vote....Although Deophaun i give your ad hominum a 4/10 Little more effort next time.


<<edit>> BTW a 6 cha is not always a bad thing in social situations. I kinda view that as workable for intimidate rolls as a positive bonus. AKA does he have a STD or some other such thing

[Malak'ai]

Personally I can't think of speeches off the top of my head.
I can think of story twists, character/NPC actions and reactions and numerous other things in the blink of an eye, but ask me sit there and talk, in character, to Mr Paladin and try and convince him my Rogue isn't the same red haired Half Elf that just slit the throat of his best friend the night before and all that comes out of my mouth is "Umm... Ahhh... Ermmm.... It wasn't me?".

This is why when I'm put in that situation, I give the DM a detailed outline of what my character is trying to convey and then roll.
I do RP "in character" in situations where I don't have to "think on my feet" in a pressure situation, so planning things, banter in battle, talking to merchants and the likes, but when it comes to Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff, I let the dice talk.

[Deophaun]

Although Deophaun i give your ad hominum a 4/10 Little more effort next time.

Ad hominum[sic]? Ah, I see. I'll aim lower next time. Hate to have these things sail over heads.

[Talentless]

The player demonstrates his ability to do that type of role-play with his arguments every week for why he should be able to exploit one rule or another He has the ability. I am seeing ample ability. So that is not the issue.


That is my problem. He has the ability he just wants to use the roll rather then open himself up by actually role-playing. I am sorry but I detest with the passion of a thousand blackholes hearing a player say "I am going to convince you not to do your character growth plot critical thing here is my roll".

And no, I do not let that crap fly, If someone just wants the hack and slash i am all good with that (and trust me a 20 some str minotaur warrior has his own...bonuses to social situations. aka let the wookie win )

But in a purely rp situation the rules are quite simple. Make it fun for me, Make it fun for everyone else. And do some fregging RP so i get fodder for later sessions


...but considering some of the consensus here, I think i am going to invite that player to not show up again. As much as i hate to kick any player. It is time for a group vote....Although Deophaun i give your ad hominum a 4/10 Little more effort next time.

Oh, this is about a specific PLAYER from your table? Not about how someone could just use Rolls instead of Roleplay?

That is a bit different, especially if they are rules lawyering you and clearly have social capability. On the other hand, maybe the player doesn't want to have a character growth moment that he may perceive is being shoved down his throat.

Note, I do not know your campaign, or what you are trying to accomplish with this growth moment, it could even be all for the best and a very good one, but many players see that kind of intervention as stealing their character from them by forcing them to behave a certain way, so he is just acting in a way to try and prevent it.

Have you actually spoken with this player about this issue you are having with him? Because I'd personally recommend you attempt to work this out out of game before you simply kick him from the group.

If you have spoken to him about it, then there isn't much more you can do other than consider if his actions are harming the fun of your group. (While it may not be fun for you, maybe the rest of the group doesn't want to roleplay either and is personally happy this guy is taking the stand and saying "No, I will not roleplay this out, here is my skill roll attempting to accomplish this act, by the rules do I succeed or not?")

On the other hand, they might want to roleplay and this player's insistence on going by the Rolls is ruining it for them.

Without more information on your group, we can't really tell. Good Luck with whatever you decide to do.

[erikun]

I do find it interesting that, perhaps ten years ago, I would expect to see this exact same conversation about tactical combat choices vs. high combat bonuses. Anybody remember those conversations? The whole "A player at my table has made himself so good at combat, they can beat anything they come across, they are destroying the roleplay in encounters by just fighting everything they come across!"

This isn't a complaint. Rather, it is an interesting remark at how a character being capable of ignoring tactical/roleplay combat is just a given now. Interesting.


As for the GM: if social rolls are such a bother and always interrupting the roleplaying, have you considered removing them entirely? I mean, asking the player to explain what they are trying to accomplish and how should be a requirement for social (or, really, any) rolls - I have a player who likes to "Diplomatize" NPCs, and I generally refuse any roll unless she tells me what she wants them to do and what she is offering for it.

On the other hand, if you dislike the rolling entirely and prefer social to be only handled with roleplay, then why keep the rules around? Contrary to what D&D3 tells you, the rules are not set in stone and inflexible. As long as everyone at the table agrees to the changes, there should be no problem with booting social skills from the table (and making minor appropriate adjustments) and just running things from there.

[GolemsVoice]

The player demonstrates his ability to do that type of role-play with his arguments every week for why he should be able to exploit one rule or another He has the ability. I am seeing ample ability. So that is not the issue.

That player sounds like a jerk, without further information on him. Deal with HIM, but don't generalize his faults.

Of course there are players who prefer to roll rather than roleplay. And there are players who are verbose enough to driven even a V:TM storyteller to tears of rage, especially when they're not very GOOD at actually talking.

As a DM, it's your job to reign those players in and make sure their behaviour does not infringe on everyone's fun, including yours. If they're reasonable, you can talk to them and they may try to better themselves. If they're unreasonable, it might just be tme to kick him out, or find a new group if the entire group is like that.

[GoddessSune]

And what Gets my cheese is these people get upset and can use some of the most elegant logic to defend the use of social rolls but they are to frikken lazy to spend even a tenth of that to energy to enhance the story of the game.
I mean Am i expecting to much for the people who are here and apparently capable of forming well thought out arguments to actually use that ability to in char?

I agree with you. Though I take another route: I force people to role play. And it works out great. Most players just need a good, swift shock to role play.

A good trick: make social role play more fun. For example: Far too many DMs do old timey role play, like from the 15th century. Or like Shakespeare. Well guess what? That is boring to a lot of people.

[Matticussama]

Don't get me wrong A social roll occasionally as a decision maker by the DM is not a bad thing in my opinion. But But But I detest it when people want to use a single word and a bluff roll to attempt to basically mind-control other peoples PC's and npc's. I am sorry it just don't work like that.

Here is where the problem is, IMO. I never let PCs use Diplomacy to force another PC to look favorably upon a situation. If the PC wants to convince another PC of something, then the player needs to convince the other player. If they really want to be a jerk, maybe let them make a Bluff check to try and convince the player about something new that would make the character want to take the action.

To use a hypothetical example: If the Paladin doesn't want to dig up a grave of a noble that a Rogue wants to loot, make a bluff check telling the Paladin that you heard that the person had been seen seen elsewhere; thus you need to dig up the grave to see if the body was still there (so you know it isn't a vampire) or something like that. Give circumstance bonuses or penalties depending upon how outlandish the claim is.

Even still, the Bluff should only be used to convince the character that the action is worth taking. It should never be used to convince a character to do something completely out of character; you won't convince the Paladin to murder a little girl, even if you bluff and say she is possessed. If they use it too often, give the opposing character increasing circumstance bonuses to sense motive; they're aware that the character is a liar and are now wary of "fool me twice, shame on me."

[Asheram]

I've always seen great benefit in doing things the other way around.
Convey OOC what you want to accomplish or say -> Roleplay for circumstantial bonuses -> Roll diplomacy

It encourages people to attempt to roleplay instead of punishing them for doing the opposite.

[Komodo]

I've heard a good bit of advice on this topic from the Angry DM.

In one of his more recent articles, which I will link to here, (the link goes to page 2 because that's where his argument is relevant to this thread) he gives the following rule: Players Can Only Declare Actions or Ask Questions. Basically, according to him, a player should say "I attempt to climb the wall of the keep," or "do I know anything about the King Googoo G'joob?," and a player should never say "I make a Climb Check" or "I make a Knowledge (Nobility) roll," or any such statement that directly mentions a particular skill. A rule like this would prevent or hinder situations like what our friend Scurv is complaining of. I highly encourage you to read his whole argument, but let me quote an example he gives, related to that social roll you were talking about...

This rule needs to be enforced and reinforced constantly. I like to use shame and sarcasm:

DM: “… and the guard refuses you entry to the Citadel.”
Player: “Can I roll a Diplomacy check?”
DM: “Sure, knock yourself out.”
Player: “27.”
DM: “Wow, that’s a really good roll. Anyway, that was fun, but what do you want to do about the guard?”
Player: “I meant I wanted to roll that check at the guard.”
DM: “Well, he’s impressed by your roll too, but he didn’t bring is twenty-sided die. Besides, he’s on duty and can’t play dice games with you right now.”

[Craft (Cheese)]

A good trick: make social role play more fun. For example: Far too many DMs do old timey role play, like from the 15th century. Or like Shakespeare. Well guess what? That is boring to a lot of people.

"Thou thrusteth thine blade true and hath slaineth ye mighty orc. Thou hast gained five-hundreds-and-fourty-seven points of experience!"

You know, I've seen this parodied a lot but I've yet to encounter a single group that actually does this. Has anyone?

[GolemsVoice]

@Komodo: while the rule itself isn't neccessarily bad (though I reckon in most cases it WOULD indeed end with a skill check) the example given is a bit mean-spirited and has the same value like the "Can I go to the toilet?" - "I don't know, can you?" line of jokes. The DM is just deliberately being mean here. Why not ask the player if he wants to make the diplomacy check in regards to the guard, instead of making the player look like an idiot?

[Flickerdart]

When I roll a Jump check, I am not expected to get out of my seat, I merely declare where I wish to jump. When I roll a Forgery check, I am not expected to break out a quill, I merely declare what I want to forge. When I roll a Diplomacy check, why am I suddenly required to craft a speech?

[JoshuaZ]

What I generally do with my group is they need to say first what they are trying to convey or what their major talking points are. They can spend time on that. The dice then determine how well and how effectively they've conveyed that. If a player is well-spoken in that, it can help a little, but it generally can't hurt. This seems like a decent compromise.

[Komodo]

@GolemsVoice: Yes, I'll grant you that the example I gave is a bit mean-spirited. Even so, I think he makes a valid point: when the players ask to make a skill check themselves, they act less organically and just go for whatever skill check a) they have the highest score in and b) they think applies, which isn't always the case. The point of the article was for the characters to act and speak like, well, like the characters they're playing, and let the DM tell them when to make a skill check. That way, you actually have people coming up to the guard and talking to him, rather than just walking up and saying "I roll diplomacy to make him let me in."

(Also, what you said and what I said here is just what the article I linked to was saying. I suspect you skipped over it (forgive me if I suspect wrong) and just read the joke example I posted, which I thought was funny but admittedly was out of context. I recommend reading the article, I don't agree with everything in it, but I think it's worthwhile and thought-provoking, although I forgive you if you don't become enraptured by the author's personality)

[GolemsVoice]

What I generally do with my group is they need to say first what they are trying to convey or what their major talking points are. They can spend time on that. The dice then determine how well and how effectively they've conveyed that. If a player is well-spoken in that, it can help a little, but it generally can't hurt. This seems like a decent compromise.

That's how I run it. You won't succeed if you don't have at least some arguments, but you don't need to craft entire speeches.

(Also, what you said and what I said here is just what the article I linked to was saying. I suspect you skipped over it (forgive me if I suspect wrong) and just read the joke example I posted, which I thought was funny but admittedly was out of context. I recommend reading the article, I don't agree with everything in it, but I think it's worthwhile and thought-provoking, although I forgive you if you don't become enraptured by the author's personality)

You suspected right, I didn't have time to read the article. I will

[LordBlades]

When I roll a Jump check, I am not expected to get out of my seat, I merely declare where I wish to jump. When I roll a Forgery check, I am not expected to break out a quill, I merely declare what I want to forge. When I roll a Diplomacy check, why am I suddenly required to craft a speech?

+1. From my experience many gaming groups have a double standard on such matters. It's ok to play a master armsman even if you have no clue about the differences between a spear and a halberd and if somebody handed you a sword in RL you'd have no idea which end goes into the enemy, but it's totally not ok to play a party face if you, as a person are not socially adept.

From my point of view as a player I play RPGs to pretend I'm somebody different and preted I can do things I can't do in RL. As such, it's not uncommon for my characters to have skills that I don't or viceversa. Skill points and rolls are there to support that kind of idea.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review of rather obvious Flaming/Trolling.