Roleplaying vs 'acting it out'

[Kane0]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I've blogged on this very topic!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ) then roll as apropriate. how well you rolled determines how successfull your attempt was ~B

[CarpeGuitarrem]

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]

I tried asking this question a few weeks ago, and got a whole lot of:

Spoiler

Show

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.

[Jay R]

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]

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]

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 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.

[Water_Bear]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Water_Bear]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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