Roleplaying something you mentally are not (Handling IC Debates, etc.)

[Maerok]

Let's say, for instance, with whatever game system I decide to use, that I wanted to be a debater or very persuasive speaker, but I have no such competencies in real life. This sort of issue is very pertinent to DMing, where the PCs confront the grand old sage, only to get some trite words of 'wisdom'. How could you get the point across?

This also comes up in morality comments between players, such as trying to convert someone over to the other side (a PC as an all-knowing angel telling the thief to "join us, because, umm, it's better and stuff" rather than a better one confronting all the points of evil's shortcomings and the damages suffered by others, etc. because they just are not as adept at that sort of discussion in real-life) A Socrates most of us are not (or perhaps more towards Aristotle and virtues in that case).

Such as:

• Saying what you would have said, but noting to them that it is very persuasive
• Quote actual speakers from the past, to more or less of an extent
• Summarizing what would have been said, and its effects within the PCs
• For a few: actual know what you're talking about, as someone with a PhD in the subject matter
• Wing it, and hope it sticks; throw out some fancy, inspiring words, that may or may not lack any true meaning but deliver the intended impact through their flair

[nerulean]

When it's against an NPC, a DM should let you roll an appropriate check to determine the level of content, sense and presentational force in any argument being given. It's usually opposed by the NPC's check, and the result determines whether or not they're convinced by what you had to say.

The exact same thing applies when you're talking to another PC, but that relies a good deal more on the player responding to the result of the rolls, and when that might mean that they have to play their character in a way they don't want to it's likely they'll just ignore the whole thing. More often than not, you will have to rely on your own intelligence, common sense and charisma to win over the player rather than using your character's stats to win over his.

[Matthew]

As I recall, such things only apply to NPCs according to some Skills.

I think that the DM has to take into account the sophistication of the Player in question. I usually grant Bonuses and Penalties based on perceived level of effort, rather than degree to which I am convinced. I usually consider 'taking 10' to be a baseline for the check in question and only require rolls for particular points of discussion.

[NullAshton]

I'd try the best I could.

NPCs would still handle you if you were a great speaker, even if you were not, as long as you're trying to be. And you get to improve on some skills you wouldn't normally practice, without the fear of failure.

[Maerok]

But let's say, as an example, you were to perform a monologue before a massive battle (think Aragorn with the "courage of men" speech) but you're not one to do that sort of stuff in RL. I don't so much care about the rolls, it could be a karma-based game, but your character must be this great orator while you struggled to even fill out that postcard to your grandma last weekend. While this isn't as dire as the philosophical problem I mentioned earlier (where your words should make even more sense and persuasive to sound like you know what you are doing), it still requires you to go beyond RL limits. And let's say for the dramatics of the situation, you also need to cater to your fellow PCs need for some good old battle-rallying words.

I guess most of this is sort of handled with rolls in d20, but I'm more concerned about karma-based games like Nobilis (such as RPing Ianthe or other highly philosophical and chatty figures). Here, we aren't talking "I rolled a 15 and with my +10 modifier, thou art converted! Muahaha"; I would actually take into consideration what they said first. And therefore, if you're playing ye old god of exposition and logic while you're struggling with Hop on Pop in RL, what's the best approach (other than complete avoidance)? And debating like with Ianthe is important to consider because you need to make points and counterpoints, which would require you to be able to in RL - but the best laid plans of mice and men...

[ArmorArmadillo]

The best way to RP high Int or Wis is to metagame: Your high Wis character
"Intuits" that the switch to bypass the trap is probably a fake, and that the real one would be harder to find.


As for Cha, you'll only make it worse trying to sound Epic: I think the best way is to speak in a straightforward, confident manner. Expect people to listen to you, let them handle the roleplaying of why they find what you say compelling.

[Damionte]

Not all games keep you from using these types of skills against othe rplayers. Many of the popular ones do though.

Generally though, if you can't put 2 words together in real life, don't try and make a character that is L.L. Cool J, in game. You're not going to be able to do it well, and you'll be frustrated at your own failure.

I understand that for many the concept of role playing is playing something outside of your self, but for the vast majority of players that just isn't possible. Many think they can do it. They think they can take on a completely different persona, but time after time they usually find out that they're not that good of an actor. Hell even the best actors usually have to find a bit of themselves in a character in order to bring it too life.

The same is true in RPG's. There has to be enough YOU in your character for you to emphasize with it, in order to play it in a remotely accurate fashion. When you do end up playing something completely unlike you, your own personality starts peekign through that character. His/her actions start to veer from the original idea, till eventually you're just replaying one of your old characters with a different name, or you give up ion the character because it's confusing or just boring for you.

Lots of players "think" they're pulling off the character, but they're not. They're just making the rest of the people at the table roll thier eye's.

[dr.cello]

Wing it, and hope it sticks; throw out some fancy, inspiring words, that may or may not lack any true meaning but deliver the intended impact through their flair

I have learned to get by primarily on my ability to pretend I know what I'm talking about. There's a talent to it, but you can learn to sound like an expert on just about anything to the average person, and sound at the very least intelligent to the experts. Skate along on charm, that's my style.

[Burgo McSock]

I have found bits of myself slipping into characters of mine from time to time. For example in the last session my Lawfully Evil Hexblade spared someone from death purely because that is what I and not my character would have done. I try to avoid going out of character but it obviously happens from time to time.

[Green Bean]

The way it works in my games (mainly for interaction skills) is that you roll normally, then RP it. If the DM thinks you did a particularly good job, he'll give you a +1-2 circumstance bonus on the check. I find that it has the best of both worlds; players aren't being forced to do something they aren't good at, but they're encouraged to at least try.

[DeathQuaker]

Pretty much as OP. As a player,

1. I try to roleplay it as best I can, pausing to remind the GM/Players that the character is more eloquent than I am.
2. If that doesn't work or I can't come up with the words, I just describe what I am trying to convey.
3. If THAT doesn't work, I will ask the GM if I can make a skill check (if he hasn't asked for one by that point).

I played a very, very highly social character in an Exalted game and this worked very well for me. I've done so in other systems as well (including D&D).

The main issue is making sure you have a fair GM who keeps in mind your PC's abilities rather than your own. Likewise players.

As a GM, if I see a player struggling and I know their PC should do a good job, I ask for a skill check. The player's roleplaying and descriptions of their actions, content wise, will modify the skill check; i.e., if I know what the player was trying to say would be persuasive if said in the right way, I lower their DC by 2 to 4, etc. (I also will use this for non descriptive skill checks).

Also, as a GM, I will resort to forcing PC skill checks on each other. I know that's not in RAW, but players sometimes have a habit of assuming that they are the perfect liars or the perfect diplomats and/or the perfect motive-sensors, etc, and that the other PCs should automatically fall for their line/etc. and/or ignore another PC's attempts at eloquence/bluffing etc. because they're simply being stubborn. When called for at the right times, a skill check can avoid a lot of player argument.

Player 1: He's lying! I bet he's lying! I don't believe him!
Player 2: But my character has Bluff out the butt. How would you know?
Player 1: But I know you... and I'm pretty Wise!
Player 2: No, you aren't.
(Rounds of "No you aren't, yes you are")
DQ: Player 1, make a sense motive check. Player 2 make a bluff check.
Player 2: Bluff check is 22.
Player 1: Sense Motive 25.
DQ: Player 2 is lying. Take it from there.

(That's based on a real event. The players weren't being so childish (the above is hyperbole) but were still arguing in circles. After the skill check, the roleplaying and IC discussion went very well.)

[Quietus]

The way it works in my games (mainly for interaction skills) is that you roll normally, then RP it. If the DM thinks you did a particularly good job, he'll give you a +1-2 circumstance bonus on the check. I find that it has the best of both worlds; players aren't being forced to do something they aren't good at, but they're encouraged to at least try.

This is pretty much how my friends and I handle these situations. No, you don't have to be super-eloquent to justify your +20 diplomacy. You DO, however, need to actually say SOMETHING. If you mention something that speaks to the NPC, awesome, it's that much easier. If you decide to be a giant knob, well, thankfully you have +20 diplomacy. Of course, the dice always know anyway, so it's all good.