However the primary player character, a paladin, in this scenario later asked me, “If we’re just going to role-play these negotiations without dice rolls then why did I need to buy 10 ranks in Diplomacy? The ranks do nothing for me if I never roll the die.”
This really got me thinking. How do I balance the value of role-play with the value of skill ranks spent in a role-playable skill?
I started a thread on the What’s a DM to Do board which started a discussion about this issue >LINK<. This discussion led me to some ideas and insights into this situation which I would like to share.
Many issues and concerns were raised on this thread. here are the major ones:
THE LIST OF CONCERNS:
1-Role-playing should not be forced upon unwilling players.
2-Role-playing is not always appropriate (haggling over the price of ale, a die roll will suffice here) and may slow down the game.
3-Role-playing enriches the game experience so it should be rewarded.
4- The role-play must be appropriate for the CHARACTER's skill level, not the player's. (No eloquent Cha 5 half-orcs)
5-Other actions (combat, spell casting) don't get bonuses for role-playing so why should this?
6-Bonuses should be applied for in-game reasons not based on the conversational skills of the player (ie. circumstance bonuses).
7-Skill ranks must maintain their value.
8-Dice rolls must not decide the resolution of a conversation which has its own natural resolution.
9-Some degree of random chance should be included to account for factors beyond the DMs and the player’s planning.
I believe that I have come up with a system that addresses all of these concerns with only a slight tweak to the core rules. The system is based upon the ability to take 10 or take 20 on a skill check. The system is intended only for use in conversations with significant NPCs who’s attitudes, goals, and opinions the DM knows and can predict well enough to conduct a conversation on their behalf (by role-playing the NPC). The system can in some cases be used for bluff, diplomacy, or intimidation.
THE BASIC SYSTEM:
The DM determines the DC for the social encounter. For example, the DC to move an NPC from Indifferent to Helpful is 30. You then roll 2d6 to determine a +/- 5 modifier to the DC. A 1-3 on the d6 means subtract the second d6 roll, a 4-6 means add the second d6 roll. The second d6 roll is actually a d6-1 so that a roll of 1 on the second die leaves the DC unchanged and a roll of 6 changes the DC by +/- 5.
You then role-play the encounter with the PCs. They make no skill checks unless they wish to make a sense motive check etc. to gain further information (such as figuring out the NPC’s initial attitude). Based on the content of the conversation and the natural give and take which occurs in conversation you resolve the encounter. If the conversation resolves positively (with NPC agreement) you award the PCs a 20 on their check. If it resolves ambiguously (the NPC is uncertain or unswayed) you award a 10 on the check. If it resolves negatively (the NPC is angered or insulted by what was said) then you award a 1 on the check.
With this check result in mind you add in all relevant modifiers such as the PC’s diplomacy skill and any circumstance modifiers (such as the fact that the PCs just saved the NPC’s life). You then match this number to the previously determined DC for the encounter and alter the NPC’s attitude accordingly.
So if the PCs make some excellent points, have good reasons for what they’re asking for, or can offer some service to the NPC they are likely to receive a 20 on their check. As though they had taken the time to take 20 without going through all of the failures normally involved in doing so.
This system requires only a single die roll (the random modifier roll) and the rest of the outcome is based on the content of the actual conversation (which encourages role-play) and on the PCs stats (their charisma and diplomacy). It is based on the existing mechanic of taking 10 (which they can almost always do in this type of situation) and taking 20 (which does not normally work for diplomacy, but seems appropriate for my purposes.)
So how does this system address each of the 9 concerns mentioned previously?
1-Role-playing should not be forced upon unwilling players.
If they don’t wish to handle things this way simply let them make a skill check or take 10 on it. But keep in mind you’re not judging the quality of their performance, you are judging what they say. It is perfectly possible to have several very excellent points in your favor without having to act like a public speaker.
2-Role-playing is not always appropriate (haggling over the price of ale with a generic barkeep) and may slow down the game.
This system is only meant to be used for in-depth conversations or good opportunities for role-playing as determined by the DM. It should be applied when appropriate, not in all cases. Sometimes a normal skill check will be more appropriate. Such as when the conversation is taking place in a hurry, under fire, or is with a character the DM has not fleshed out and is not truly important (a city guard or shopkeeper).
3-Role-playing enriches the game experience so it should be rewarded.
Good role-play should be rewarded with an XP award, not a bonus to the skill check. This rewards role-playing only in that it encourages the PCs to think about what they are going to say. If they say something which will likely convince the NPC of their postion they have a much better chance of success than with a die roll. This helps prevent an eloquent PLAYER from being more successful than an eloquent CHARACTER (see the next point).
4- The role-play must be appropriate for the CHARACTER's skill level, not the player's. (No eloquent Cha 5 half-orcs)
The answer to this is tied into the answer for number 3. You are not actually rewarding role-playing, you are judging the content of the conversation. It is perfectly possible to award the PC a 1 for the content of the conversation, but give them an XP bonus for good role-playing (as in the case of the low cha half-orc).
5-Other actions (combat, spell casting) don't get bonuses for role-playing so why should this?
Strictly speaking the system doesn’t reward role-playing. That should be done by giving the PC an XP bonus. However the reason this system exists is that unlike combat and spell-casting we can actual negotiate/converse at the game table. All other actions in D&D require dice to resolve them because they can’t be done at the table, but all talking skills can be done at the table.
6-Bonuses should be applied for in-game reasons not based on the conversational skills of the player (ie. circumstance bonuses).
This is related to the answer to number 5. I don’t like the idea of giving a +5 bonus to a skill check for role-playing. Good role-playing means portraying your character well. Why would portraying your character well make you a better negotiator or liar? It makes no sense to say you’re a better speaker because you’ve succeeded in being yourself very well. So I would limit bonuses to the check to in game circumstance modifiers (the NPC owes the PCs a favor, they saved his life recently, he has a fondness for elves (elven PC), they accidentally burned down his home, etc.)
7-Skill ranks must maintain their value.
This system maintains the value of the skill ranks because the DC must still be overcome and it doesn’t muddy that with bonuses to the check for role-playing. Success is still dependent on the stats of the player as well as the content of his message. Krusk with a –3 to his diplomacy can have the best reasons in the world for the NPC to listen to him, but he’s still only getting a 17 on his check.
8-Dice rolls must not decide the resolution of a conversation which has its own natural resolution.
Conversation as the only D&D activity that can be done at the table, should be done at the table. Conversations have their own mechanism for resolution. That’s what a conversation is, a method of resolving things. So have them converse, play the character/NPC and the conversation should resolve naturally. It will likely also generate some interesting gaming moments.
9-Some degree of random chance should be included to account for factors beyond the DMs and the player’s planning.
I feel that basing the resolution of a conversation on a d20 roll is leaving far too much to random chance. There’s a huge range of possibilities between getting a 1 on the die and a 20 on the die. If instead we randomly alter the DC by +/- 5 we include the random factor without letting it be the dominant factor in the resolution of the situation. This can account for the NPC having a bad day, disliking the look of the PCs, feeling ill, seeing a piece of food in the PC’s teeth, etc. without having that factor dictate the outcome of the encounter.
It seems to me that basing the outcome of a conversation on a d20 check invalidates the conversation. You’ve just asked your players to waste their time. Either you rolled first and they already know the outcome (or know that you do), in which case what they say is irrelevant. Or you rolled after the encounter and force the resolution to conform to what the dice have dictated, in which case again nothing they said actually mattered.
In either case you’ve wasted your player’s time and energy. With the system I propose this need never happen. If your PCs have anything worth saying they are guaranteed at least an average result on the check (which they can already achieve just by taking 10). If they have some very good points the chances of someone being swayed by what they say is very good. But it will still be important to have your best speaker and most charming PC at the negotiation table.
That was a good opportunity to express myself, thanks.
I think there are definitely ways to use the game mechanics AND include real role-play. I like your system for allowing both to work in the context of the game, within the context of the existing rules set.
I do worry that your system penalizes the shy players, the quiet talkers, and the stutterers -- players with poor speaking ability.
http://www.geocities.com/cayzle
Like me. I run the mile in 6:30, 2.5 miles in 19:45. So obviously I should get some type of bonus, compared to the other players for continuing to run.
In case you're not following, that was BS.
If you have a known stutterer, listen to what they say and compare that to how they normally talk. If you find yourself thinking, "Hey, that's better than normal", give them +2 to +5 depending how eloquent or generous you were that night. If you want to help a player in real life, reward them for doing things they usually do not do in real life.
In the game I run for my girls, I reward them for quick thinking and strategic thinking. Granted we're not talking plans or thoughts that would worry the Pentagon, but I found that now, after 2 years of playing, they look a situation over, weigh things quickly and with thoughtfulness and then make a decision in minutes rather than putting it off.
I guess I look at D&D as a tool to better myself and those around me.
I have ruled like this: If someone says something con-ish then they can't try a diplomacy check--it has to be bluff. For example, "Yeah, just put it on my tab hon, I'm {insert random name}."
Likewise with other skilled. "How 'bout you give it to me for X and I let you keep all your limbs?" Doesn't seem like the opening line of a diplomacy check, thus I don't normally allow it. This keeps with roleplaying more and the characters don't seem to mind.
Yet, one must not allow players to simply roll dice for important negotiations and conversations, or a major aspect of the game is ignored.
Some players are not accustomed to roleplaying actual dialogue with NPCs, and some DMs probably allows players to say "I convince the bartender to tell me about the secret cult" instead of roleplaying the conversation. Although people can play the way they like, I think this is a bad idea.
First of all, it makes interaction between NPCs and PCs seem like small pauses between combat after combat. Even today's CRPGs have more roleplaying than that, and actual conversation makes it easier for the players to visualize and suspend disbelief in the game. And that should almost always lead to a more fun game for everyone. Anything that helps one's imagination in a RPG is good.
Secondly, it's more fun for the other players to actually hear their players speak IC than to just look at dice rolls all night. Most games have some sort of commentary to make it more vivid. D&D without roleplaying is like just seeing the score of football games instead of actually watching the play.
Thirdly, you get a chance to train your own conversational skills. This is especially important for shy and quiet players. It might be demanding and a bit embarrassing at first, but the more you do it the better you become. I was shy myself in my first group, but now I'm even a DM. As long as no one make fun of others, it should be a positive experience.
Still, those ranks in diplomacy SHOULD matter. In my current game we do have a shy player that actually play's a 16 cha paladin. Since he's not as eloquent or outgoing than the rest of us, he is not that good at persuading others IC, yet because of his PC's charisma and skill NPCs and PC not only respect and interpret what he says in the most favourable light possible, we also look to him for guidance and advice. Even just after a few sessions he's able to speak better already.
So how should DMs handle the skill? Firstly, always demand that players speak IF it's an important negotiation. They don't have to hold an hour speech, even if their characters do, but they should say at least one or two sentences.
Then the player and possible NPCs need to make one or more diplomacy check. This result adjusts the reaction of NPCs to the words actually spoken.
No matter how good a roll, diplomacy checks can't make an argument alone. But with a good check even something outrageous may be perceived favorably, perhaps as a joke or as something very deep. And no matter how good a roll, a diplomacy check cannot be the equivalent of a charm, suggestion or dominate spell.
If a player waves his hand and says "you do not need to see my identification" to a couple of guards and rolls a very good check, the guards will at best laugh about it and chat with him, but still deny him access to the castle, and at worst allow him access to one of the castle's dungeon cells and let him stew for a while for his subordination.
So how do one now the DC of a diplomacy check? Well, you could use the suggested RAW, but that is far too easy without several ad hoc penalties IMO. Basically, the more reasonable/well put sentence the players say, the easier should this check be. But remember that the PCs actually have the meaning of they say, and that the diplomacy check may only add/edit to what is already said. If a player say to the king "you stupid ho, get yo fat
out of my country, aight? and rolls a high diplomacy check he might actually say something like "Your majesty, you would indeed be a silly harlot would you remain in our sovereign nation any longer than you already have." And that might save the PC from being beheaded. Well that's my take on it at least, seems less complicated than the above method at least.
In combat, there is an acknowledgement that player intent and strategy may not mesh with the character (kudos to players that manage to sublimate this process in favour of playing their role, but in my campaign I won't hold people to that standard) - thus we have players whose characters have no training in strategy or tactics and no background that suggests they would be cool and calm in battle making strategically or tactically clever decisions. The reward for this is an easier time defeating foes in combat. On the other hand (to address my previous parenthetical statement) I might be tempted to make an XP award to a player whose character makes a tactically unsound move because it is brilliant role-playing (especially if accompanied by good in character dialogue and description).
As I see it, PC to NPC non-combat encounters shouldn't be all that different. If a players makes and eloquent case (the encounter's equivalent of a sound tactical move) I tend to apply a +2 situational bonus to the diplomacy (or bluff or intimidate etc.) roll. Similarly, if the player makes an awful case (say makes racist comments about the NPC he is trying to be diplomatic to) then I apply the -2 situational modifier. In my mind, this is similar to the +2 bonus a fighter gets for flanking and opponent or the penalty for shooting at an opponent for cover. Players who don't like to talk, just get the straight roll. In my mind, this is recognizing that different people have different strength - most of my gaming friends aren't terribly strong and have never swung a sword in a combat situation - since I don't penalize them for that, why would I penalize my friend who isn't quick with his witticism.
I guess I worry that being dissatisfied with the variability a d20 brings to social interactions (but satisfied with that variability in combat) implies social interaction is more predictable than combat - as a marriage and family therapist for over 8 years and having practiced full contact sparring for over twelve I have to say I don't think that's the case.
Thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts
If players are willing to abide by this system, you can use a similar method to guide interaction between PCs. But I wouldn't force a die roll on PC interaction unless the players actually wanted it.
One advantage of this is that it fully respects the character's skills and attributes, circumstances and spells, regardless of the actual skills of the player. If the player prefers not to role play the encounter, the DM can fill in a simple description of the character's actions, to add a little life to what might otherwise have been a dry exercise in die-rolling.
Another advantage for me is that as DM, I typically have to roleplay many NPC's, keep track of situations, etc. It is hard for me to do justice to every NPC. Should I play this NPC as trusting, hard-nosed, gullible, glib, stubborn, offended, charming, wily? Is she even willing to listen to the points the character is trying to make? By using the skill check to determine the outcome in advance, I can choose an appropriate role-playing approach to make the encounter seem as natural as possible.
The net result is that the outcome is decided mostly on the basis of the skill check. In close cases, the words of the player can make a difference - but the skills and abilities of the character come first.
I prefer to give my players boni or penalties depending on what they say. It is enough to say something like: "I mention the nasty elf hordes, and ask if we could possibly cooperate until the thread ends." Or something like that. Roleplaying entire conversations may grant RP experience, however.
I wrote this article over a year ago and then started a new campaign a few months later. The campaign is city based and involves a great deal of social interaction (lots of diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, gather information, and intimidate checks).
I found it much easier to use the PHB system than this system. This system wound up being clunkier than I thought and slowed things down too much. Gilean was right, the new mechanic made it more difficult rather than easier.
I still feel all the concerns I mentioned above are valid, but what things tend to come down to now is a diplomacy check to get someone to listen to you at all. Then their reaction is based on what the players have to say (note this is still not HOW the player says it so shy players are not penalized). I essentially assume that everyone is busy all the time. The PCs have to make a diplomacy check to get someone to take the time to listen to what they have to say.
NPC strangers can make a sense motive check (DC 20) to form an impression of the PCs, if he succeeds and he's opposed to them than he is considered unfriendly. If he's diametrically opposed (CE vs. LG, etc) than he's considered hostile. Otherwise a stranger is considered indifferent. This sets the DC for the NPC to initiate the conversation.
If the PCs succeed at their diplomacy check then the person will listen and talk to them (they have to raise the person to friendly for him to bother with them). If the NPC can't leave for some reason (maybe he's working etc) and the PCs corner him to force the conversation anyway then this colors the interaction (they're essentially annoying him and he becomes unfriendly).
Basically I now use Diplomacy as a means of establishing how the conversation begins and then base its outcome on what they have to say while taking into account how successful the roll was. (If the result makes the NPC helpful then they're more likely to give additional aid and info if what is said moves them).
This hasn't been an issue yet (PCs aren't high enough level) but I suspect doing it this way will also prevent the UBER-diplomat problem of a person who can turn a hostile orc into a helpful ally with a full round action because his diplomacy modifier is so high. All this uber person did in this case was get the orc to stop and listen for a minute. If he doesn't like what the PC has to say he's still going to try to cut his head off.
1) Players do not normally role-play enough to satisfy the DM's or other players ideal. This is something that must be forced upon them, and the preferred method of enforcing roleplaying is to provide experience rewards or skill bonus awards for roleplaying. (If you don't like "forced", then substitute "encouraged".
2) DMs and players are not allowed to tell other players, "Hey, the way you are describing your character's conversations with NPCs is kind of lame... how about trying to spice it up or be a little more serious... we will all enjoy the game more if you do".
3) It is the DMs job to determine how people roleplay, and the DM has the following tools at his disposal: (1) Provide skill bonus rewards, (2) Provide experience rewards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets try an alternate method of looking at this:
There are two elements to the game of D&D.
One element is the hardcore rules: Statistics, rolling dice, quantified ranks and abilities, systems for determining outcomes of physical and social interaction such as bribery, combat, hiding, observing.
The other element is the social interaction between players. Talking, debating, joking... possibly eating, drinking, reminiscing...
It is my opinion that the two game elements are discreet. If someone brings pizza to share, their character should not receive a free magic item or a combat bonus. If a character rolls a long sequence of 1 during skill checks to sneak up on an opponent, the player should be reprimanded or punched in the face. If a player cracks a joke at the table, the character should not be penalized on his chance to sway the pope's favor.
Putting these elements into play:
1) The game is made with skill "rankings" that can be used in conjunction with random dice to determine the outcome of some social interaction.
2) Some encounters do not require random determination... Asking an innkeeper to allow you to stay the night in exchange for cash ("yes")... Asking directions from a helpful town guard ("yes")... Interrupting a reclusive wizard and asking him to shine your shoes ("no").
3) Your players are mature, and they want their characters to succeed.
4) Your players have a preferred style of playing, and that is the default method they will use... Some players will be formal "Please, kind sir, Hast thou heard of a scoundrel bugbear that lives in yonder wood? Dost thou know where the villain lives?" and some players will take a casual approach: "Hey NPC dude, you know where the bugbear boss is?"
5) The DM's job is to provide entertainment for everyone. If it is obvious to the DM that a random roll is not required to determine the outcome... he shouldn't roll (or he should roll in secret and tell the results). If a random roll is required, the characters have skill ranks in appropriate social skills that can be used to roll for a random result of the interaction. The character is NOT the player. The roll is made from the character's sheet... it is assumed that the player was doing the best they could to succeed in the encounter.
6) If a player's style is too casual for your tastes, or the player does not seem "serious enough" for your game, then you should talk about it in real life with the players in your group. Ask the person to play better, and give them examples of what you want to hear as a guide.
DMs and PLAYERS should be able to come to an understanding about what the player's responsibility is for adding flavor text to the social interaction of his character... The player should be able to roleplay such interaction to the satisfaction of the DM and the other players. If the player cannot, this is something that should be handled in real life. There is no need to use in-game mechanics to punish the character for the actions of the player.
Or, another way of looking at it: The game is about roleplaying. Roleplaying is expected. Failure to roleplay should be dealt with by the players and DM in real-life.
Now, for my final near-troll statement:
I see a lot of posts where DMs are quick to hand out experience penalties when a PLAYER fails to roleplay. (This is the same as handing out an experience reward when a PLAYER roleplays successfully). Why do people do this? I think that a good DM is probably an alpha-type personality... probably very charismatic in real life, and probably a natural leader in real life. Good DMs are respected by the players... Telling a player in real life what your expectations are should be more effective and less arbitrary than handing out experience bonuses or penalties.
If the DMs praise or censure is not the MOST POWERFUL, MOST EFFECTIVE tool at your disposal, then you have more serious problems than "someone doesn't roleplaying correctly."
Take this same argument and apply it to:
Metagaming, showing up late, failure to be serious, failure to have a sense of humor, min/maxing too much, rules/lawyering, "chaotic stupid", failure of one character to get along with other characters, begging for monty-haul items, etc.
The d6 mechanic is new, and new mechanics should be discouraged. d20 system it is called that for a reason.
I prefer to give my players boni or penalties depending on what they say. It is enough to say something like: "I mention the nasty elf hordes, and ask if we could possibly cooperate until the thread ends." Or something like that. Roleplaying entire conversations may grant RP experience, however.
This would be more the way I would handle it. Of course, diplomacy or other social rolls should reflect the situation. E.G. Throg the Half-Orc approaches an Elven city and seeks entrance. Throg's player says (IC) "I come in peace. I wish Admitted to see your Leaders." Throg's player than promptly rolls a 1 on d20. Throg actually said: "I won't hurt ya, ya pointed eared curs! Open da gate so's I's can get t' yer bosses!"
Needless to say, Throg is probably in for a VERY BAD day! 
Remember, No matter how good a conversationalist a player is, The Skills and rolls determine how good the character is!How about, simply:
When a skill check that can be roleplayed out (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc) is made, the player has three options:
1) Roll the die.
2) Make their case briefly and then roll a d10. The range that the d10 represents on the d20 roll is based on how well they made their case:
Well: 11-20
Average: 6-15
Poorly: 1-10
3) Roleplaye the situation out entirely, and then get an "effective die roll" based on how well hey did:
Excellent: 20
Well: 15
Average: 10
Poorly: 5
Terribly: 1
The player doesn't actually have to convince the DM to do well, just make their case reasonably well, give a serious effort, and use information in a smart way. Since the bonus is added on after this, it's assumed that the players, in real life, have a diplomacy or bluff bonus of +0. Shy players can take the roll instead of playing things out entirely, or take a combination of luck and roleplaying with option 2, if they feel like it. Extremely charismatic players playing non-charismatic characters should possibly get a penalty on this. Of course, if they're that charismatic they can probably convince the DM not to give them any penalty.
Another thing that goes with this system is the "Stupid Check". How it works is that by not actually noticing everything their character would notice, players can sometimes do stupid things their characters should be able to avoid. When this would happen, the DM secretly makes a check, rolling 1d20 and adding either the character's intelligence (forgetting basic stuff, making bad plans), wisdom (not noticing something obvious, forgetting where you put that magic trap and stepping into it), or charisma (making a social blunder, saying something that will turn people against them). The DC of this varies from 5 (blatantly obvious), to 20+ (subtly stupid). If the check succeeds, the DM gives the player a hint, for instance "as you're stepping towards the door, you get an ominous feeling that it seems a little too poorly hidden for being a master rogue's treasure room, maybe something's not what it seems", which the player can act on or not.
I suggest a simple alternative:
Roll the dice, then talk. Base your conversation off of the result of the roll.
If you roll poorly and fail, give an argument that would fail. ("Well, we thought that if we stole into the castle in guard's uniforms, we could see the king... I guess we thought wrong, huh? You can't trust your guards, highness!")
If you beat the DC, give a stronger argument ("We have discovered that some of your guards are working for the enemy, your Highness, and thought the best way to protect you would be to infiltrate them. Please forgive us, but we had no time to waste!")
The final note I will add is this: Social skills are only useful if you make them useful. Everyone should know what kind of game is being played, and what expectations they all have. A heavy intrigue game will of course use more social type skills than a barbarian horde game. In the same way that having a +15 swim check is less useful in a desert game, having a +15 diplomacy in a game focused on dungeoneering will probably be less useful. If you feel you don't get to exercise that skill, talk with the DM about it. Some skills you can use at will (Tumble, Bluff, Intimidate) and some are more passive, reaction skills (Listen, Knowledge: Religion, Sense Motive). Other skills are 'niche' skills that may only come up once in a while (Appraise, Swim, Climb). If you've specialized in a little used area, ask your DM if they can include more opportunities for you to make use of it.
In an intrigue heavy game, I had a character who had a smattering of social skills but oddly enough had a very high Climb skill as well. I let him clamber all over buildings in town, with a full range of DC depending on repair. Sure, there were some buildings with a DC 25 climb check, which is probably less realistic, but the player felt happy that he got to use his skill a bit more. Similarly, I had a sorcerer who was an expert on magical theory and practice but was a compulsive liar to boot. I let him make some knowledge checks to spatter magical jargon into his bluffs to make them more impressive sounding.
For my groups, we tend to combine role-playing with actual skill checks. The idea is to reward both the good roleplayers and those players who invested in the various social skills. Typically, a small bonus or penalty may be awarded based on what was actually said. Frankly, it is rare for a penalty to be imposed, but more common for a bonus to be applied. The amount of the bonus has always been up to the DM. Our group enjoys roleplaying very much and we do not wish to simply cut it off since it does not matter. However, a 3 Cha Orc with no ranks in any social skill is still going to have a very difficult time persuading anybody. Essentially, good roleplaying might be enough to put a player who is close on his or her skill check over the top, or in other instances to even re-roll a bad roll (note this would not apply to somebody who rolled fairly high as is, but makes up for the occasional 1 or 2, etc.)
At the same time, a player who has a high Diplomacy skill cannot gain access to the King's chambers simply by saying "I'm here to install his cable." In the end, a character needs to have ranks in the social skills if he or she wants to reliably use those skills (otherwise, why would anyone waste their precious skill points on those skills if they are skilled enough speakers in their own right)? However, clever dialogue can be enough to push a character over the top if its an otherwise close call.
Unfortunately, this does not make for an easy system to pass on to others as it is ultimately a judgment call by the DM, but hopefully it is something that other groups can play off of. Finally, its important to remember that every group is different and that many groups may not wish to even have dialogue in these skills. If that is the case, and your players just want to get to the next chapter in the story, then a simple "I try to bluff my way into the arena." will suffice.
Very interesting points. I will expand this post later to include:
1) Handling Diplomacy and combining it with roleplaying.
2) Diplomacy and Bluff TOWARDS the PCs. (Considerations to take)
3) An example of immense Diplomacy and how we roleplayed with the group
4) What the rules say, how I bend their interpretation to make the solutions I suggest complying with the rules.
Anyway, now I have to go to work, so this post will be edited today or tomorrow.
On that topic I would like to address your bullet #5. Especially creative and/or effective spellcasting or combat tactics should also probably warrant XP rewards as well, and for the same reasons. I know that the idea of individual character XP is something that has been completely yanked and/or nerfed from 3.x, but it was accepted and even encouraged behavior for the rest of the 20 years I've been playing this game.
One group of players ago, I was giving out XP and Skill Ranks as rewards (this was the advent of 3.0, and everyone was fairly new to the system). I weaned the players from this little gimmick eventually, and wouldn't you know they got cranky about it. They were whining "Where's my reward?", and such nonsense; thus forcing me to explain that roleplaying is its own reward. They didn't buy it. I must advise against this system of rewards and penalties on the basis that it causes more problems than it solves. The first problem is that players will roleplay only because they know they will be rewarded. Pavlov's dogs only salivated in response to a chime because they learned that they would be fed afterward. I hate to compare players to slobbering dogs, but the situation is essentially the same. The second is that players will tend to try and milk this system for what it is-a machine that provides opportunities to advance characters at little or no risk to the players (barring extreme exceptions). Penalties are a bad idea too. If the face character of a party of PCs is penalized in XP for poor roleplaying, the player will likely feel like they're being singled out. I liken that to the player with a penchant for melee combat-they tend to get their characters killed more than the timid ones. The same type of sentiment is usually developed: you're picking on me and I don't like it. This causes players to become hostile towards the DM, the game, and sometimes even the other players.
Developing a new mechanic is a little better, but has a serious drawback: it seriously complicates the game. As a DM with a lifetime subscription to KISS (that's "Keep It Simple Stupid", for those of you who aren't familiar with the acronym), I think adding a supplemental mechanic is a bad idea. Players have a hard enough time with the rules as it is. Additionally, all mechanical systems that have been presented here don't change the status quo enough to be worth implementing. For the purposes of DC modifiers, that is too subjective for a DM to make a random mechanic based on it. I am in favor of the DM tailoring the DC silently to the situation.
The half-orc barbarian is going to have a significant DC increase to face simply because he is talking to elves and he is mean, ugly and intimidating looking. Barkeeps should have lower DCs because they always like to hear something fresh about far away places and current events (if the Player wants his character to get straight to business without engaging in small talk to soften up the subject, ignore this or go the other way and increase the DC instead).
As for randomness, the d20 system is more or less flawless. It reflects the tendency for somebody to not word themselves correctly and also to speak divinely on the other end. The skill system only adds to the effectiveness of the system by influencing the result based on the proclivity of a particular type of character to be either more or less adept at social engagement. I agree that what a player says must be taken with a grain of salt: and that is an embodiment of the problem that we as DMs face-players just don't roleplay well. And the reason is that they are generally impatient. This results in them conversing with NPCs in one of two ways: too well or not well enough. Impatience is the paramount characteristic of a player that just doesn't care enough, or doesn't know to care more.
My proposal is this: encourage the players to develop their characters when they make them. A history, general likes and dislikes, hobbies, aspirations (if any), and motivations. These last two should be tied in with history. The DM spends hours on end preparing for each session, it is a small favor to ask for players to put a little effort and time into developing their characters better, especially if you point it out to them. This, in my experience, has helped in a couple of ways. It makes players have an interest in acting like their characters because they took the time to make them well, thus sowing the seeds for effective roleplaying by knowing the ins and outs of their characters. It helps with tying characters into the campaign (no more meeting in bars and deciding to go kill stuff). And it improves players' creative skills.
There are many views regarding Diplomacy:
1- The “we don’t need rules for socializing” view. I won’t repeat most of the arguments pro or against this opinion (most are in the post that started this thread). This extreme opinion is quite outside of the d20 world, but is quite often used in LARP settings, even in many non-d20 tabletop games (We all know, in general, which games have the attitude which can be summarized in the following phrase: “we have no decent rules, roleplay”).
In fact, if you use this opinion, you actually determine all NPC and PC reactions regarding whether they convinced you. If someone is shy, then he should never play a bard. If someone wants to do something ridiculously difficult with persuasion, there is no chance he’ll make it. If someone wants to sit down and roll dice, then he leaves the game. As simple as that. Whether you want such a game or not, it’s up to you. It certainly works decently with LARP, though.
2- The “diplomacy is like any other statistic” view. It doesn’t matter whether you are absolutely great at persuading as a player with in-game diplomacy, as it doesn’t matter whether you have climbed to Everest with climb. This opinion is quite close to the d20 view of the world – or at least, it is almost the “default” mode, unless the group wants otherwise.
Be careful: this opinion also makes socializing between characters a matter of dice rolls. “I rolled 40, I persuade John’s character to follow me”. If you are more into a wargame way of thinking and want everyone to be able to participate, this is the choice for you.
3- The d20 official view on the diplomacy:
DMG p.15 – Handling PC Actions (never force a player to follow a particular course of action)
DMG p.30 – The DM’s Best Friend (a favorable circumstance gives a character a +2 to +20 bonus on a skill check or the equivalent lowering of a DC, while an unfavorable works the opposite way)
DMG p.40 – Roleplaying awards, Story Awards and Standard Awards (good roleplaying can award story awards. Convincing NPCs can award story or standard awards. Rarely use xp penalties.)
PHB, Complete Adventurer, Epic Level Handbook (In fact Diplomacy and Bluff, like any other statistic, have their epic uses. Their epic uses are as unrealistic as firing an arrow to 10 targets at 30 ft is (an epic feat), ie, yes they are EPIC. Real people cannot make a fanatic follower from an opponent in mere seconds. Real people cannot kill 10 armored soldiers in 6 seconds with a bow.)
All these leave us some options while sticking to the rules: if you are very near to the second way of thinking, then you roll normally, roleplay only if you like it, never force roleplaying and use standard awards (rarely story) for experience. The only big difference is the interaction between PCs and towards PCs. This leads to a strange phenomenon: an NPC with diplomacy +60 (or worst, a god who automatically scores 130) could persuade a whole city to surrender to an invading army, even when in reality there aren’t many reasons to do so. All NPCs are persuaded... except from the PCs, who, of course, 90% of the times won’t be convinced by the DM with such weak arguments. And suddenly, they feel carrying a huge neon sign writing “WE ARE PCs.” This could even lead a DM to avoid using high social skills for NPCs (they won’t directly affect the PCs after all, while a huge attack bonus will always help). Remember: d20 faces NPCs and PCs almost in the same way (if NPCs have PC classes, at least) in almost all rules. Some NPCs are Heroes and Villains of their own – some even more important and famous than the PCs (think about deities as NPCs for example). There’s no reason why they should be convinced by an ultra-high charismatic NPC, while the players would not. Or is there?
Of course there is one: being force to do something in base of dice rolls 20% of the time isn’t much fun for most people. After all, they are heroes and they are here to make choices, not to see the DM play by himself. Where is the balance? What can you do?
Let’s assume you want to stick to the rules. But you just interpret in another way the guideline in DMG p. 15. No, you won’t force anyone following a course of action. But you’ll provide him with more story awards if he is interacting in a consistent and realistic way to immense doses of Diplomacy (where realistic could be also interpreted as “unrealistic”. I mean it in a way “if someone scores 100 while speaking to you, then yes, he WILL impress you in some way”). If you have a campaign where about 1/5 of the xp of each session are based strictly into how well you roleplayed your character (while the rest involve overcoming obstacles in whatever way, including socializing), then in fact the character who doesn’t roleplay well such situations will be at some hundreds of xp less than the rest of the characters of the game (not much, and, after all, he enjoyed being the only one completely unaffected of the NPCs tons of diplomacy), ceteris paribus, and the character who roleplays these situations in a way which recognizes the value of huge scores will have more xp, without having to sacrifice much of his freedom (Being impressed doesn’t necessarily mean to follow a particular course of action. You can even be helpful to someone in many different ways.), and in fact feels his character being more in tune with the world around him.
And if you are nearer view #1, then what d20 has to offer to you? Well, the DM’s best friend and the story awards are your answer then. You can always combine skill checks with roleplaying. You can interpret a ridiculous argument as an unfavorable circumstance, providing a penalty to the check. In that way you actually prevent a character played by a player who is a bad roleplayer from succeeding at a task easily, giving him less standard awards in the long run.
[You could also provide a +20 DC to change the attitude of a maddened demon who doesn’t understand your language and is attacking you (even then, a character with about +50 diplomacy could reasonably persuade him, by changing his attitude to indifferent, to stop down for a moment and listen to him, allowing him to roll a second roll to make him even friendly – DMs should always be careful with multiple rolls for Diplomacy, though). But that’s another matter anyway.]
Even if you penalize in this way a player who says stupid things, then what will you do with a player who says nothing at all? In my sessions, actually, if the roll is important or the situation entertaining, I won’t let him to make it if he doesn’t say at least something. In other groups this may not work. Penalizing someone for not wanting to participate in something that is not obligatory by the rules seems a bit strange, but also, making have better chances by not saying anything at all than from saying something stupid also doesn’t make much sense. Many groups solve it by never penalizing a roll, but rather only add bonuses in cases of very good arguments (and that’s the usual official d20 way of solving the problem).
There’s another way, though, to encourage roleplaying: roleplaying awards are a great way to reward players who accompany their rolls with nice roleplaying. This works well with encouraging, but creates some strange in-game events (where a character will say stupid things and succeed, and his player isn’t disappointed by the fewer experience points, until level 20 where he will be at about 2 levels down!).
Whatever choice you make, if you are nearer point 1, then you should communicate with your players your expectations and even make some compromises (sometimes it’s a matter of demand and offer – how many players do you have at your disposal :evil
. You should discuss with them, encourage players who get better, offer advice and examples based on real examples of the game. It’s quite difficult (and it took me a course of Human Resources and one of Management in the University, as well as 3 years of experience as a DM to reach a decent level – and I always try to get better).Now let’s get to a real use case (this post becomes more and more like a course – please, don’t take it that seriously :-) ):
An example of play (the Quillathe phenomenon)
Let’s look at an example of handling social interaction in a quite “difficult to handle” situation. In this example, I used a narrow interpretation of the “handling PC Actions” DMG rule, an interpretation that won’t work with all kind of gaming groups.
Introduction:
DM is me
Quillathe is a very important NPC of the campaign, which the PCs would meet for the first time (the PLAYERS, though, had heard of her). Quillathe is an epic character, with divine rank 0, with considerable emphasis in Charisma-based skills, easily achieving +85 modifier in Diplomacy and much higher in Bluff. She’s the absolute example of an epic social climber.
Isolina is a PC, a lg female cleric with great talking abilities.
Gabriella Sanchez is a PC, a proud cn whip-fighter with a hot-heated attitude.
Denis Zidane de Doré is a PC, a young cn dande, prone to romantic endeavors.
The three PCs enter Sovelka, a very dark small city (actually located in Plane of Shadow). They have information about Quillathe’s power of words, and they are sent by a madman to blow her up (they have many many explosives on them). They enter the city, seeing at its center a great gathering of almost frenzied people, praising Quillathe, the only source of light. She has completely white skin, is dressed only with a crawling ivy and is very very beautiful. One person is rather... pleasantly occupied with her, and she tells him to stop it, for she has to speak with the PCs. He seems very occupied with his work, so she murders him on the spot.
The PCs are shocked, well, except from Denis who wants Quillathe and wants her now. I tell them “You feel somewhat of a rush towards her, even if you are females. In this case, you can control it” (Denis wants her anyway!).
She starts speaking, being very kind and telling them to leave the (hidden!) explosives aside, but still quite cold and without a hint of compassion. I tell them “she rolled Diplomacy 90” and then we roleplayed the situation for more than 20 minutes, without much reference to the rules, emphasizing to the way she is sexy without losing her self-control, in fact playing with the players expectations, distant yet opening (a part of) her heart, sad and with a tragic story. The PCs, even initially against her (she murdered an innocent before their eyes!), turned to make a pact with her (and Denis DID have a romantic endeavour with her – the best of his life until this moment in the campaign). Even Isolina’s Player (a lovely girl) told me at the end: “Why she didn’t kiss me?” She, as a PLAYER was convinced that her character would do almost anything for Quillathe.
The point: by having communicated the need for nice roleplaying and logic reaction to immense NPC social rolls, it was natural for the players to react quite favourably – still in the context of everyone’s alignment and character (even the lg cleric made a pact that seemed quite good intentioned, and, taking into account the fact that she was an undercover inquisitor for her church, she was used to discussing with evil beings) and still enjoying it. I didn’t have to directly force them into a course of action (they also knew they would lose much if they acted stupidly, but this didn’t seem to bother them much).
Of course, this worked with a kind of team with one mature and experienced player and two players whose first lengthy campaign was with me as a DM – in that way, they have been almost “trained” in a way of thinking (in reality Isolina’s player wasn’t really in need of any training. Lovely roleplaying came to her naturally from the first moment!) and have been brought together because they wanted similar things from a campaign. If I was suddenly forced to play with a group of munchkin looters, this tactic probably wouldn’t work (in that case, I also had a sleeve on my pocket – but it wouldn’t be so entertaining – Quillathe was Mask’s bride. The first one to make something stupid would be probably dead before long. Of course, a group of munchkins had a chance to kill Quillathe, even at -20 levels – she’s especially fragile).
There has to be a balance, and you definitely should roleplay out important conversations. You should reward circumstantial things a PC does. Example: my character got a bad reaction (First edition diplomacy) roll on a woman, so I came back next time with a more subservient attitude and a rose.
He gave me a +15% on my percentile roll.
Roleplaying should never be penalized unless it completely breaks character.
I also love roleplaying, because anybody can learn the rules and just build a character, but giving life to it is another matter. I encourage roleplaying on my games, and when i'm the player I usually start long, fun roleplaying scenes that could last a long while if somebody doesn't say : hey! we forgot the dragon! (just like in real life!).
What I do on my games, is to use the diplomacy skill as a guideline and a restrictive factor on roleplaying. If you don't want to roleplay, fine, throw the dice for diplomacy, bluff or whatever.
Now, if you want to roleplay, then the skill rank has to be taken into account, if your character has Diplomacy 0, CHA 9, then your roleplaying has to reflect that (maybe being rude, or annoying), if you Diplomacy is 19 rank and you have CHA 17, then just by the way you handle yourself in front of the NPC you should make a good impression. When roleplaying occurs, I listen to the player. If he's acting according to character limitations, I allow the player to keep talking. When he stops, then I ask for a dice roll. With the two factors I decide the reaction, this simply represents what the character says and how he says it. A good roleplay but poor roll would told me that his character appeared distracted or rude (and etc.) After I started doing this, a lot of my player's characters decide for CHA as a second or third favored choice. :P
I do agree that a player's roleplaying shouldn't exceed his characters stats - he/she doesn't have to reach them (actually in most cases this is impossible), but exceeding them is bad roleplaying. I once had a quite smart player who thought he would gain by having Intelligence 9 (a min maxer) - the problem was that I had told him many times "no, you can't tell this - this is too smart for your character".
Another way to reward investment in the skill is to highlight the simple ways in which it can be used. The SRD says of Diplomacy:
You can change the attitudes of others (non-player characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.
That last part makes a couple roles/situations leap to mind:
Lawyer: The diplomat can argue cases in front of a judge. A few ranks in Knowledge (law) could grant a synergy bonus, or a generous DM might rule that ranks in Diplomacy alone represent knowledge of parliamentary procedure.
Broker: The diplomat can barter, negotiate prices, and handle auctions. Ranks in Appraise might provide a synergy bonus. In this situation the Diplomacy skill works as a sort of Intimidation/Bluff, if you will, showing the speaker's resolve to stick to their price. (The third party is, of course, market pressure ;).)
Much like Profession checks, most of these uses will be run-of-the-mill actions that can be handled "off-screen." With the playing group's agreement, it can be assumed that a PC who's actually invested 12 ranks in Diplomacy has enough acumen to breeze through the campaign setting's equivalent of small claims court and the local fish market. Important events would still require more in-depth interaction, but offering the player more diverse opportunities to use Diplomacy can get them thinking about it as more than a trick.
1-Role-playing should not be forced upon unwilling players.
You're playing a roleplaying game.
If the people showed up to the game and wanted to play, then you can assume they are willing to roleplay. Asking not to be forced to roleplay in an RPG is about equivalent to setting up a basketball game and not wanting to play basketball. If people don't want to be "forced" to roleplay, they shouldn't show up to a session of a roleplaying game.
I myself, while fairly clear in writing, am not particularly eloquent in speaking--- I'm kind of a boor, actually. I have a very direct, often blunt, and sometimes crude way of communicating. I favor honesty and clarity over honeyed words. It's not that I can't be diplomatic or tactful; I simply choose not to be most of the time, because I think it can hinder communication as much as it helps.
Yet I find myself playing characters who would never DREAM of saying some of the things I say. What can I say, Errol Flynn has had a big impact on me. I love witty banter and smooth talking characters, but I generally can't pull off the kind of considered responses my characters would deliver. Should I be disallowed from playing the swashbuckling types I so love? In essence, I would generally "roll" poorly if MY social skills were used as an indication of MY CHARACTER'S social skills.
A good way to ease into things if your players are having a rough time of things (or you're having "actor's block" with an NPC) is to play up a few traits at a time. I always try to come up with two or three catchphrases for characters, and also a physical mannerism or two. Sprinkle them in occasionally in your descriptions. It'll work wonders-- after a while, you'll "get the feel" of the character and be on a roll.
As for the actual RP, that's very situational. I find I'm most comfortable with a mix of description ("I tell him in a nice way that I'm a friend of Norg's and I want a room for the night.") and actual in character interaction ("Norg? Oh yeah, we go way back. Fought in the war together, we did. Why, you know him, too? Say, isn't that strange...").
Try this: ask your players what they want to convey, and in what manner. In other words, what's your intent? What are you saying, and how?
Does the RP matter? Certainly, in as much as you're all having a good time. Many groups play out every conversation and that works for them. Me? I like to gloss over a few things ("You get a room. They're 5 gp a week.") and play out more impacting scenes.
It may help to think about things like a movie. What scenes would be cut, and what scenes would stay? If it wouldn't make the film, you're probably safe in just glossing over things. Toss in some brief description and move on if there's nothing else the players want to do. Players will develop a sense of what encounters are important and go more in depth for them. If someone's really getting into a good RP session, it's a good indicator that there may be something to it. I know that point is kind of obvious, but I think it needs to be said. Fundamentally, the game's all about having fun.
We don't have game mechanics to "model" the game world. Mechanics are just a way to assist us in real-time story generation. When you get down to it, a DND session is a bunch of people saying "lets play pretend!" Game mechanics exist as a way to establish the credibility of someone's contribution to the collectively imagined story.
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Diplomacy