The Nega Charisma roll. How does this sound?

[Scowling Dragon]

Often times (Or often how I see players play their characters) is that they issue their bluffs, or diplomatic ideas first. Then roll to see how well it wen't.

This often has the weird result where perfect arguments are dismissed because of 1s and ludacrist suggestions are accepted (Im not actually here. Your hallucinating) because of Natural 20s.

Maybe its supposed to be played in reverse? Where you roll a die and roleplay based off of what you get (Similar to attack rolls and Craft Checks)? That would make Charisma a much more important, and would force some Character Variety.

Point out the flaws in my thinking. I wanna know.

There is the issue of "Well what is worse and what is better?" but that can be done with HOW it was done.

A character with a charisma penalty would be forced to play up bluntly, annoyingly, clingy, disprespectully, nieve.

[Jay R]

Point out the flaws in my thinking. I wanna know.

How well they roleplay it should give a Circumstance Bonus to the CHA check, just as the use of a lever adds a circumstance bonus to STR checks, and a good plan gives a Circumstance Bonus to INT checks.

Consider the following possibilities:

PC1: I roll a Diplomacy check to convince the king to give me money.

PC2: I tell the king what I know about the fabled lost city of El Dorado, and show him the map. I explain my plan to get there and recover the treasure, and tell him about the Rod of Rulership that I don't need and he could use. Then I explain that I need money to buy a ship, to get there before anyone else. Finally, I offer to leave my son in his care as a hostage, to ensure my return. Can I convince him to fund the expedition?

PC2 has a much better chance than PC1, because PC1 isn't role-playing, and PC2 has added many convincing details.

[Scowling Dragon]

That wasn't my point. Thing is, roleplay isn't always "Care and be competent". Sometimes (And often times in the case of charisma) its about NOT being competent.

What if PC 2 is a character with 4 Charisma and is a smelly ugly, jerk blunt smug *******? He would be getting benefits based off of NOT roleplaying and exactly the opposite.

The result is that Charisma is a big ole dump stat despite it really being the most important one.

[KillianHawkeye]

In my games, I generally require roleplay prior to any social skills being rolled. You don't get away with just saying "I roll a Diplomacy check." You have to actually be trying to convince them of something first.

So the way I handle roleplay vs rollplay is that the player's roleplaying tells me what they're trying to say, while their skill check result tells me how well they actually say it.

For example, somebody playing a half-orc barbarian with a 5 in Charisma and no social skills outside of Intimidate can still roleplay a convincing argument explaining to the king that he needs to send troops to help the elves repel a goblinoid invasion so that the elves can ally with the humans in time to stop a mad lich intent on summoning demons. However, if he rolls a 3 on his Diplomacy check, what he actually says will be something like "Blaarg, humans help elves! Kill goblins! Elves stop demons lich guy, FOR GLORY! Glarrarrgh!"

This way, I don't let the roleplaying or the dice rolling to be more important than the other. They are both equal factors in determining the player's success.

[TheStranger]

Often times (Or often how I see players play their characters) is that they issue their bluffs, or diplomatic ideas first. Then roll to see how well it wen't.

This often has the weird result where perfect arguments are dismissed because of 1s and ludacrist suggestions are accepted (Im not actually here. Your hallucinating) because of Natural 20s.

Maybe its supposed to be played in reverse? Where you roll a die and roleplay based off of what you get (Similar to attack rolls and Craft Checks)? That would make Charisma a much more important, and would force some Character Variety.

Point out the flaws in my thinking. I wanna know.

There is the issue of "Well what is worse and what is better?" but that can be done with HOW it was done.

A character with a charisma penalty would be forced to play up bluntly, annoyingly, clingy, disprespectully, nieve.

I could see that working, if that's how you prefer to do it. I think it runs counter to how people usually approach social encounters in D&D, but there's no real reason you couldn't do it that way.

I do see a few issues, though:
- In combat, the players generally roll and the DM describes the outcome. You're talking about the players rolling and describing the outcome - so this only works if the players are committed to making it work.
- You know the result before you roleplay. Which means no matter how weak the roleplaying is, a successful roll is successful. This may mean that the DM just has to justify why the NPC responded in the desired way anyway, but at worst you could have players that don't put a lot of effort into it - the social equivalent of "I roll a 23 to hit. 7 damage. Who's up next?"
- It's kind of frustrating to roleplay failing at something that you wanted to succeed at. Especially if you were rehearsing a good argument before your turn and then you roll a 1.

I think the bottom line is that it would make social interactions more mechanical. Players would tend to focus on the results of the roll rather than the interaction with the NPCs. Which may or may not be preferable to the Cha 5, Int 6 barbarian gaining a silver tongue at will.

[Jay R]

That wasn't my point. Thing is, roleplay isn't always "Care and be competent". Sometimes (And often times in the case of charisma) its about NOT being competent.

What if PC 2 is a character with 4 Charisma and is a smelly ugly, jerk blunt smug *******? He would be getting benefits based off of NOT roleplaying and exactly the opposite.

The result is that Charisma is a big ole dump stat despite it really being the most important one.

The negatives from the CHA can be somewhat offset by positives from the roleplay, just as with any other roll.

A weak fighter doesn't get benefits for a stupid battle plan. A low-DEX thief doesn't get benefits for trying to pick a pocket that's in plain sight. I assume that a low CHA character is saying his piece poorly, but a poorly stated good argument idea is more convincing that a poorly stated bad argument, just as a weak blow to an unarmored fighter is more effective than a weak blow to an enemy in plate.

[Scowling Dragon]

- It's kind of frustrating to roleplay failing at something that you wanted to succeed at. Especially if you were rehearsing a good argument before your turn and then you roll a 1.

Thats kinda what I wan't.

I think the bottom line is that it would make social interactions more mechanical. Players would tend to focus on the results of the roll rather than the interaction with the NPCs. Which may or may not be preferable to the Cha 5, Int 6 barbarian gaining a silver tongue at will.

Its a strange ruling I would say. Your both forced to roleplay outside of your comfort zone, but its also more mechanical.

[Scow2]

This is the way I like to handle rolls. After all - it's like any other roll. I don't say "I stab the goblin in the chest, and twist the blade out" before making an attack roll, and expecting a circumstance bonus to hit and damage. I say "I attack the goblin with my sword," maybe throw in a few details that get me to the goblin, and let the roll handle it and describe the outcome. In the same vein, I say "I try to convince the [target] to do X", and the roll determines how well I make my case and how much the king cares.

[icefractal]

How well they roleplay it should give a Circumstance Bonus to the CHA check, just as the use of a lever adds a circumstance bonus to STR checks, and a good plan gives a Circumstance Bonus to INT checks.

Bolding mine. That raises a relevant point - plans do not generally have an Int check. Or any check, aside from the various ones following it might involve.

For example, if you have the plan to wait for 3am, then enter the fortress by the side entrance, attempting to subdue the guards there and steal their uniforms to get further inside - it's not going to be a check that determines if that works. On a smaller scale, if you move to a particular position in combat, to avoid enemies surrounding you, it's going to be down to the area layout and enemies involved whether that works, not a tactics check.

So I would say that the skill check is only half the picture - the content (not exact delivery) of what was said is as important as deciding to sneak up on the dragon vs charging it. Of course, you still need to execute the choice once you decide it, but some courses of action will be much easier than others.

[Joe the Rat]

It is counter to how we (many gamers) like to do things. It also removes the carrot of "circumstance bonus" that is about the only thing that motivates some folks to roleplay.

(This isn't exclusive to social interactions, mind. There are systems where clever, creative, or flat out entertaining descriptions get bonuses for just about everything.)

This does, however, pretty much describe the GM's side of things. Roll the dice, and narrate what happens based on those results. I think it would be an interesting exercise. Also, if you happen to have a GM that is exceedingly by-the-book, damn-the-player-antics, you might as well save your A-game for playing the results of your actions.

Yeah, Describe-roll-GM edit is the usual practice.

[Scowling Dragon]

It is counter to how we (many gamers) like to do things. It also removes the carrot of "circumstance bonus" that is about the only thing that motivates some folks to roleplay.

Fortunatly it seems that the folks I play with like Roleplaying more then their numerical bonuses.

[Flame of Anor]

I'd just like to mention that it's spelled "ludicrous" and not "ludacrist". Okay, carry on.

[GnomeFighter]

I thoroughly dislike the idea of giving bonuses and penalties for people RP.

Good tactics are not the equivalent of good RP, and do not give a bonus. Good tactics or plans are the equivalent of finding out who to talk to (for example talking to the king rather than the servant, or talking to the kings advisor by working out that no-one addresses the king directly without being invited to). They are also group things. Rewarding and punishing RP is individual.

Giving bonuses for good PR is the equivalent of telling someone they must describe what they are doing in combat and giving bonuses for saying more than "I attack them".

Personally I have difficulty expressing myself at times and I find it extremely frustrating when you are forced to live up to your characters skills. You don't give someone who dose archery a bonus to combat or someone who goes to the gym a strength bonus.

Bonuses for social skills should be given for asking the right questions or talking to the right people, not for good RP.

[Waar]

This often has the weird result where perfect arguments are dismissed because of 1s and ludacrist suggestions are accepted (Im not actually here. Your hallucinating) because of Natural 20s.

If the argument was so perfect that it being dismissed on a 1 is weird why the need to roll the Dice (since you generally don't need to roll dices for say Walking and eating ) same goes for ridiculous arguments, some thing are just not possible (for instance your example or jumping out of Earth orbit with a natural 20 jump check)
On the other hand you considering a argument perfect or ridicoulus might be due to how the player presented it (my PC comes up with a better way to express my arguments)

Maybe its supposed to be played in reverse? Where you roll a die and roleplay based off of what you get (Similar to attack rolls and Craft Checks)? That would make Charisma a much more important, and would force some Character Variety.

Point out the flaws in my thinking. I wanna know.

There is the issue of "Well what is worse and what is better?" but that can be done with HOW it was done.

A character with a charisma penalty would be forced to play up bluntly, annoyingly, clingy, disprespectully, nieve.

In my Group we generally go with: roughly explain what you want your PC to do, let the GM think a bit (if necessary), then you roll the Dice and hope for the best the result is then generally described by the GM

[Kish]

Bolding mine. That raises a relevant point - plans do not generally have an Int check. Or any check, aside from the various ones following it might involve.

I find the lever example somewhat problematic as well. Presumably it doesn't mean, "I give the character a bonus to a Strength check if the player brings in a lever and shows it to me." Well...why can someone with a real-life Strength in one digit play a massively strong barbarian, but someone who is socially inept had better demonstrate actual persuasion skills before his/her character can attempt to persuade someone? Why can't someone say, "My character comes up with a compelling argument why they should help us"?

For that matter, it's not just Charisma; it's all the non-physical ability scores. "You want me to answer a riddle? Well, I'm terrible at riddles...but my character has an Intelligence of 20, and answers the riddle easily." And yet, in most groups I've seen, the only version of "My character easily does the thing I can't do" that doesn't get accusations of "not roleplaying" is when it's purely physical.

[Jay R]

I find the lever example somewhat problematic as well. Presumably it doesn't mean, "I give the character a bonus to a Strength check if the player brings in a lever and shows it to me."

No, it doesn't, so why bring up a red herring? He does tell me what long pole he's using as a lever, and the would-be persuader has to tell me what facts she's using to do it with.

Well...why can someone with a real-life Strength in one digit play a massively strong barbarian, but someone who is socially inept had better demonstrate actual persuasion skills before his/her character can attempt to persuade someone?

He doesn't have to. He has to come up with reasons that might be convincing. If you mention that the princess has been captured by the ogres, the king is more likely to help you against the ogres.

Your CHA determines how well your character says whatever it is she says, but you have to tell me what she says, just like she can't attack somebody with a sword without telling me who she's hitting and convincing me that she's in reach.

Why can't someone say, "My character comes up with a compelling argument why they should help us"?

For the same reason you can't just tell me your character comes up with a clever melee plan. You have to announce your actual actions. Tell me who you're hitting with a sword, and your STR will determine how well you do it. Tell me what argument you are using to persuade, and your CHA will determine how well you do it.

For that matter, it's not just Charisma; it's all the non-physical ability scores. "You want me to answer a riddle? Well, I'm terrible at riddles...but my character has an Intelligence of 20, and answers the riddle easily."

First of all, many people with high intelligence aren't good with riddles.

Secondly, and more importantly, that's the first step down a path that leads to "Our characters know more than we do about how to go on a quest. They formulate a plan to seek out the castle, sneak in, attack the BBEG, and open his treasury. How many experience points do we get?"

Yes, that's a ridiculous example, but it's the same principle. You are playing a game. You can't simply say, "My character solves the problem," any time the game gets hard.

And yet, in most groups I've seen, the only version of "My character easily does the thing I can't do" that doesn't get accusations of "not roleplaying" is when it's purely physical.

This is simply untrue, unless you can cast Fireballs, Cure Light Wounds, sing and play the harp, speak in Hobgoblin, lead an army into battle, etc. You need to drop this false idea. Your character does lots of non-physical actions that you can't do.

Secondly, you have to tell me what you do. "I attempt to intimidate" is as meaningless as "I fight." Who are you fighting or intimidating, what weapon or fact are you hitting them with, what aspect of the situation around you are you taking advantage of?

Then, and only then, is there any basis for an attack roll or an Intimidate check.

[Kol Korran]

Some of our players in my group started with the "roll first, describe your argument based on the roll". It's been a bit strange at first, but great fun, Butthen again we do like improvisation, and some of us delight in being taken out of our comfort zones and being thrown curved balls, and don't mind looking silly.

However, we CAN alter the result by the type of argument we give to a degree, so the dice result can be somewhat altered. This is usually important only in border cases, or when there are really strong argument points to be made, for better or worse. in D&D we usually use the Giant's diaplomacy rules which give good structure of how to incorporate arguments into modifiers. They are REALY good.

[Barsoom]

The only problem I see is that if you roll-first-roleplay-later, the result is a foregone conclusion (whether good or bad), and some players would have no motivation to RP at all. But that falls into 'know your audience' category.

[Slipperychicken]

The only problem I see is that if you roll-first-roleplay-later, the result is a foregone conclusion (whether good or bad), and some players would have no motivation to RP at all. But that falls into 'know your audience' category.

You could always tell them that if it's obvious they're not even trying to roleplay, the roll will be considered a failure.

Maybe the order would be:

Describe/Declare Intent -> Decide how to resolve it -> Determine success/failure -> Roleplay.

[NNescio]

Often times (Or often how I see players play their characters) is that they issue their bluffs, or diplomatic ideas first. Then roll to see how well it wen't.

This often has the weird result where perfect arguments are dismissed because of 1s and ludacrist suggestions are accepted (Im not actually here. Your hallucinating) because of Natural 20s.

Maybe its supposed to be played in reverse? Where you roll a die and roleplay based off of what you get (Similar to attack rolls and Craft Checks)? That would make Charisma a much more important, and would force some Character Variety.

Point out the flaws in my thinking. I wanna know.

There is the issue of "Well what is worse and what is better?" but that can be done with HOW it was done.

A character with a charisma penalty would be forced to play up bluntly, annoyingly, clingy, disprespectully, nieve.

Skill and attribute checks DO NOT automatically succeed or fail on nat 20s and 1s. A nat 20 is just a 20. A nat 1 is just a 1. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, ludicrous bluffs grant a sizable circumstance bonus to the Sense Motive check of your opponent. Bluff is not a suggestion spell/.

On a related note...

[Deaxsa]

Skill and attribute checks DO NOT automatically succeed or fail on nat 20s and 1s. A nat 20 is just a 20. A nat 1 is just a 1. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, ludicrous bluffs grant a sizable circumstance bonus to the Sense Motive check of your opponent. Bluff is not a suggestion spell/.

On a related note...

yes but a natural 20 is still a +10 to your check (if we make the ludicrous assumption that the expected roll is 10)

[Raineh Daze]

Secondly, you have to tell me what you do. "I attempt to intimidate" is as meaningless as "I fight." Who are you fighting or intimidating, what weapon or fact are you hitting them with, what aspect of the situation around you are you taking advantage of?

Then, and only then, is there any basis for an attack roll or an Intimidate check.

Intimidate is a bad example. So long as you specify who you're intimidating, it's kind of obvious you're making them scared of you, that's the entire point of the skill. If you want them to do something, that can come after.

[Vitruviansquid]

The only flaw I see in rolling before acting it out is that you essentially have to explain what you're doing to the GM twice. If you come out the gate saying "I want to roll diplomacy on him," the GM generally has to ask what you're trying to convince the NPC of, and how. So you'll do that, but then you'll roll, and you'll have to do exactly what you just did, but this time in-character and playing out how much you rolled. Admittedly, this is a pretty small flaw unless your players are grossly over-verbose.

[Zeful]

No, it doesn't, so why bring up a red herring? He does tell me what long pole he's using as a lever, and the would-be persuader has to tell me what facts she's using to do it with.

Except threads like this one bring out the people who say that social roles for any reason are terrible play, and that you should make all arguments in-character or they auto-fail. And for those people, it's not a red herring.

He doesn't have to. He has to come up with reasons that might be convincing. If you mention that the princess has been captured by the ogres, the king is more likely to help you against the ogres.

This is how I ran it. Give me the gist of the argument, and the roll determines how well your character has presented that argument. It's not going to save players that bring the wrong arguments to the table, or assume that rolling diplomacy is going to automatically make things better, even if they have a +50 modifier to make hostile enemies fanatical.

Your CHA determines how well your character says whatever it is she says, but you have to tell me what she says, just like she can't attack somebody with a sword without telling me who she's hitting and convincing me that she's in reach.

No, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff: those things determine what you say, Charisma is presence. It's how little training you need to get others to believe it.