belthazzar1113 wrote:
I personally have never had any of my players ask to make a bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate checks. If they seam like there doing that action in their role playing I make the check for them, and then use that as my guideline. I don't really give them a set DC, but I keep it in mind. For instance, even if the player rolled a 33 on their bluff check, they aren't going to be able to tell the guard that the squirrel that just ran up the tree is Asmodeus, at least not with some further role-playing explanation (They might be able to pull a "Asmodeus is taking the form of many earth creatures, and I sense his presence in that squirrel"). That is my method, and I'm sure other DMs have their own.
In the end it all depends on your DM, but if role playing is an aspect of your game then you shouldn't be able to shove it aside just to make a check, despite the fact that many DMs allow it.
I blame 1st Edition for this misconception (and yes, I have played 1E - for years). In 1E, a lot of your character was limited to what you knew and what you could personally do or roleplay. 2E introduced NWP's that gave you knowledge in areas of social grace and whatnot, but you still had to exclusively roleplay everything. These stances have carried over to 3E, even though the game has mostly divorced itself from use-what-you-know (Knowledge checks to identify monsters & their abilities are one of the best indicators of this change). There's no need for draconian measures in 3E, and forcing everyone to purely roleplay interactions is akin to ask everyone to get up from the table during combat and personally duel the DM to see if they win the combat. Its as if you didn't bring your katana to the game that night, too bad - your character couldn't use it either.
It's the Draxen fallacy that leads to Charisma being a dump stat for everyone except the Paladin or the Sorcerer, and often the reason that skills such as Diplomacy, Intimidate, Appraise and even Knowledge skills are underused or forgotten - all too-often based on the use-what-you-know concept.
You can still use rolls for help supplement or direct interactions, as shown below:
The Machiavellian politics of Vall Vega are quite convoluted. An individual arriving for court at Vall Vega faces several power blocs – first and foremost Emperor Romulus Bicard III and his entourage; Semotan, the Emperor’s sorcerer and his apprentices; the nobles of Vall Vega (whom oppose Semotan); the Silkna Kingdom ambassador and his entourage (whom oppose the Emperor); the General of the Knights of the South and his entourage (whom oppose the nobles); and the Southern Kingdom ambassador (whom everyone else opposes).
Our hapless young knight 3/noble 1, Theurose, who enters this political scene, has a Charisma of 15 (+2 modifier) and a Diplomacy total of +9.
With all the Vegan politics, the court DC is 17, DC 19 for non-nobles, and DC 21 for foreign visitors. This is definitely not the place for amateurs. Luckily, our vegan hero has noble blood. (Note: the "court DC" equates to the Diplomacy DC to change an indifferent audience into a Friendly audience).
Upon arriving at Vall Vega, our young knight is brought to the Emperor’s hall and announced. He makes his initial Diplomacy check, rolling an 11, making his grand total 18. Thuerose enters the court, and few heads turn to even notice his appearance. Obviously, the eyes of court are more tuned to watching for the knives behind everyone’s back.
Mingling with the crowd, Theurose finds a group of knights from the Knights of the South nearby discussing combat maneuvers. As Theurose approaches, he makes his Diplomacy check – rolling a 17, for a total of +26. This exceed the DC 17 by a total of 9 – enough to make a positive impression, but not enough to gain a favor from the knights. So, as Theurose approaches, he manages to interject some of his own combat knowledge into the conversation. A half hour later, he is regaling the Knights with tales of his combats against the skeletal forces of a necromancer he recently helped destroy.
Several of Semotan’s apprentices happen to be passing by when Theurose is finishing his tale about destroying the necromancer. He makes another Diplomacy check to gauge their reaction. Since he is discussing putting a spellcaster to the sword, the DM chooses to increase the DC by +2. Further, unknown to Theurose, the apprentices are evil, which further increases the DC by another +2, for a total of DC 21.
Amazingly, Theurose manages to roll a 18, giving him a grand total of +27. This exceeds the DC by 6, meaning that Theurose manages to, despite his tale, make a good impression with Semotan’s apprentices.
Back in the game, the apprentices listen to the tale of the knight. They quietly agree that the necromancer was a foolish Ice Mage, and keep Theurose’s name in mind – he might later be useful to Semotan in rooting out any wizardly opposition that crops up in the future.
Intrigued by the ruckus Theurose is making, the ambassador from Silkna Kingdom moves to greet Theurose.
Since Theurose hasn’t found particular favor with the Emperor, greeting the ambassador does not start with a penalty to his court check. However, the DM rules that since Theurose’s name sounds similar to the ancient lord Thuer, founder of the Silkna Kingdom, he lowers the DC of the check by –2. This puts the final Diplomacy DC at 15.
Making his Diplomacy check, Theurose’s player rolls a 8, with his modifier making it a +17. He succeed the check, but does not roll high enough to even make much of an impression.
The Silkna ambassador makes a quick inquiry about Theurose’s name, but upon learning that he is a simple noble-born knight of Vall Vega, quickly grows disinterested and moves on.
As Theurose finishes up his tale, one of his friends approaches, a young Vegan noble named Beuord, whom he has not seen in the last year or so. Along with him is a young lady attached to his arm – obviously, he is escorting her.
Theurose excuses himself from the Knights to greet Beuord and learn more about his lovely companion.
Luckily, though Theurose made a positive impression among Semotan’s apprentices, he is not favored by them, so he does not take a penalty to his Diplomacy check (since the nobles oppose Semotan). Since Theurose is actually a Vegan noble and knows Beuord, the DM decides to lower the DC by –4, giving a DC of 13. Theurose rolls a 17 (again!), managing a total of +26. This exceeds the roll by 13, granting Theurose a small favor. But now, future interactions with the Knights of the South will increase the Diplomacy DC by +10! (since they oppose the Vegan nobles)
Further, the young lady on Beuord’s arm is from the Southern Kingdom. Luckily, while everyone opposes the Southern Kingdom, those from the Southern Kingdom do not oppose any of the power factions at the party, so Theurose’s DC with the young lady is a mere DC 17. Unfortunately, he rolls a 7, giving him a total of 16.
Thus, as Theurose approaches Beuord, the two greet each other heartily. Beuord is so happy to see Theurose that he promises to hold a party in the knight’s honor after the affairs of court end. Unfortunately, Theurose becomes so caught up in talking with Beuord that he seems to fail to notice the young lady until she loudly clears her throat. Apologizing, Beuord introduces the young lady to Theurose as Marcessa, from the Southern Kingdom. However, before Theurose can ask any more, Marcessa demands that Beuord take her to eat, and that he may “catch up” with his old friend at a later time. Sheepishly, Beuord assents, and slightly disheartened, Theurose returns to the Knights, whom seem much less interested in Theurose’s tales than earlier. Having had his fill of the court for the night, Theurose decides it is time to leave, and perhaps later he can catch up with Beuord.
-------
If you got through that example, all of the above results WERE rolled randomly, and then the results written up, not the reverse. So, with a little bit of thought, you CAN roleplay the results of diplomacy rolls and such, and/or intersperse them with actual conversation on the PC's part (say, for example, if they wanted to actually tell one of the stories to the knights).
I'm tired of hearing this. Man, am I tired of this. Just like the Stormwind Fallacy (and it's predecessor the Oberoni Fallacy), I'm going to propose a new logical fallacy. Using Stormwind as my inspiration, I'll call it Draxen's Fallacy.
In effect you are re-iterating the Stormwind fallacy for a specific scenario.
In effect you are re-iterating the Stormwind fallacy for a specific scenario.
Those that commit the Stormwind Fallacy assume that mechanical optimization subverts role playing. Those that commit Draxen's Fallacy assume that social skills, or even Charisma itself, subverts role playing. This is just how I see it. Even if it is only an extension of the Stormwind Fallacy, I think that it needed to be said.
In effect you are re-iterating the Stormwind fallacy for a specific scenario.
Not *entirely* correct. This is a specialized corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy, not a restatement.
A corollary is a statement which follows directly from the previously-stated theorem. The Stormwind Fallacy states that roleplaying and optimization do not interfere with each other. The corollary was the statement that just because you're high on one doesn't mean you're low on the other (or high/high, or low/low, for that matter). A special case of this would be social skills -- just because you have a +30 Diplomacy doesn't mean you, the player, can speak eloquently.
This means that it DOES fall under the wing of the Stormwind Fallacy and would therefore be better known as Draxen's Corollary, but I'd rather not get technical on a thread like this one if I can help it.
I agree with this premise both from a theoretical standpoint and from personal experience. When I started, my first character was a hybrid MacGuyver/ James Bond style rogue (the MacGuyver part was essentially inspired by me, but the Bond definitely wasn't). However, I was an inexperienced roleplayer -- and my DM was a bastard. We had to roleplay every single waking minute of every day, for instance (apart from a few fast-forwards). I actually had my character arrested because I, the player, couldn't come up with a believable lie while on the hot-seat, while my character's *EXACTLY* the sort of person to have not only talked them out of arresting him but to join him for drinks afterward.
Every time I see that man nowadays and we speak of roleplaying, I ask "So, are you still letting normal people play wizards, and skinny weaklings play fighters? What have you got against shy people who want to play suave fellows?"
He didn't seem to get it that one of the reasons for games like this is that people roleplay to escape who they are. At the time, I wasn't eloquent at all. I desperately wanted to be, though, so my first character was, essentially, me but eloquent. Sort of like the 98-pound weakling who wants to be strong, or anyone who wants to wield magic. We can do these things in the game, and it's fun to do so.
So why the bias against those of us who don't want to imagine ourselves as strong or magical, but rather as simply popular, or charming? Was it too much for me to ask to play a role *other* than the socially-inept role I played every day in reality at the time?
Is it really because older editions of the game didn't bother recognizing this type of 'fantasy' (so to speak)?
(Rhetorical question; don't bother answering.)
I'd like to think I've changed since then, in that I'm comfortable with public speaking and have no problems relating to people now. That doesn't mean playing the smooth-talker doesn't appeal to me, though -- far from it. (Or, to put it another way, this would also work).
However, while I have changed, my DMs have not. I've rolled a total of ONE social skill check in any in-person game, under multiple DMs -- and that was a raw Charisma check that the DM asked me to roll after I was finished speaking to a crowd (and apparently delivered a rather rousing rallying speech, at that. I get the impression the DM didn't want us to use the "mob of commoners" approach in his game, though, so I'm willing to bet he made me roll in the hopes I'd fail, which I did despite rolling a 15).
I actually mentioned those as examples in the thread that spawned the Stormwind Fallacy, by the way.
The second statement is the correct one. The only way you can argue against it is if you're willing to really stretch the definition of the word roleplaying. Attack rolls exist so that the 98-pound weakling can be a fighter. When you are a 98-pound weakling playing a fighter, you are avoiding the need to actually swing a heavy sword or lift heavy things. Similarly, when you're a socially inept person playing a Diplomancer, you are avoiding the need to have to say anything diplomatic.
There is not an easy "solution" to this problem. It's theoretically unfair to apply a huge circumstance to someone who can roleplay diplomacy well, just as it would be unfair to apply a strength bonus to someone who stands up and shows you just how hard they can hit in real life. Likewise, it's unfair to put circumstance penalties on either for the opposite. So, in the end, you have to realize that the social skills are there exactly so that people who can't correctly roleplay a socialite can still "win" a social encounter.
Would the DM ask you to do a running long jump to see if you leap over the viper pit? No, because that is unfair and absurd. But many expect you to be some international diplomat or ladies’ man. By the rules it should be as simple as stating your intentions (I seduce the lady, I regale the Prince with my zombie annihilating exploits), roll the bones, and consult a chart. Anything above and beyond that could get you a modifier but you shouldn't get worked over because of out of game personality traits.
I think you all are switching sides back and forth in your posts. First, you're saying that making social skill rolls doesn't mean you're avoiding role playing. Then, you're saying that the social skills exist specifically BECAUSE some people can't role play what they want their character to say.
Not at all. I never said that social skills are there because some people can't role play what they want their character to say. I can role play a diplomatic character with or without the rules. I'm sure that my 9th level marshal is going to be far more persuasive than I could ever hope to be, but I do put an effort forth to at least appear diplomatic and persuasive. Even if you are socially inept, you should at least make an effort, just like someone who isn't smart should make an effort to sound intelligent if playing an intelligent character.
All I said was that the skills themselves do not get around role-playing, and assuming so is committing a fallacy (the Stormwind Fallacy to be exact).
On a side note: they didn't finish updating my request. The blue letters still say Draxen's Fallacy when they should say Draxen's Corollary. I'll be requesting a further update immediately. I have no intention to deny Tempest Stormwind of the credit he or she deserves.
Draxen's Corollary makes sense from a purely logic based standpoint. So yes, it's true that Rolling dice doesn't automatically mean a cessation of Roleplaying, however, it frequently happens. And from what I've seen, it happens enough that it can be considered common. I understand and agree with the logic, but the experience I've had shows that rarely does roleplaying continue during dice rolling. After? Maybe. Before? Of course. But during? No, usually players are too busy watching the dice roll and hoping for a favorable outcome.
Of course not all players are like that, which is what makes Draxen's Corollary a sound argument. However, I don't believe you will ever get a chance to use this corollary in a realistic environment.
So the statement, "Dice rolling means a cessation of roleplaying," is a faulty argument. Fine...but it can easily be adapted to, "Dice rolling means a cessation of roleplaying, for most players."
Or
"Dice rolling means a cessation of roleplaying, for my friend XXXXXX."
Or
"Dice rolling means a cessation of roleplaying, for my playgroup."
When speaking to people, I usually assume that their generalizations are regarding what they have encountered and not a simple generalization about everything in the world (unless you have some sort of mathematical or scientific proof and the generalization is about a mathematical or scientific property).
In short. Sure, Draxen, you have a sound corollary, but don't expect to get much use out of it.
"Dice rolling means a cessation of roleplaying, for my friend XXXXXX."
Or
"Dice rolling means a cessation of roleplaying, for my playgroup."
And are thus problems with your friend and playgroup, and not the rules themselves.
I wrote this as a solid rebut to the people that want to openly remove Diplomacy and Intimidate from the game, because they feel that rolling dice for a diplomacy check precludes the roleplaying aspect of it all. Look at the quote at the top of the page. belthazzar1113 felt that the presence of social skills removed roleplaying from the game.
If your DM is a bad DM, it doesn't mean that D&D is terrible: it just means that you have a bad DM. If one of your players builds overly-powerful characters with no backstory or role-playing aspects, it doesn't mean that optimization precludes role-playing, it means that you have a player that optimizes and doesn't role-play.
There is, by the way, a large school of thought that believes that skills like diplomacy and sense motive do, by their very existence and use, preclude roleplaying.
In short, Draxen's Corollary is instructing people to point the finger of blame at their players and playgroup, and not at the rules themselves.
+2 circumstance bonus for his competition.
0 modifier for his RPing.
Roll your diplomacy check.
Depending on where the player wants to go with this, multiple rolls may be required.
Now, if the same player had decided to actually go into details with the encounter and cracked a few Top 100 Bad Pickup Lines winners, -2 circumstance penalty applies.
Is the encounter more abstract? Yes. Then again, most 1st level characters walk out there and generically swing their sword at the kobold. The DM can fill in the details based on how well you roll.
Not at all. I never said that social skills are there because some people can't role play what they want their character to say. I can role play a diplomatic character with or without the rules. I'm sure that my 9th level marshal is going to be far more persuasive than I could ever hope to be, but I do put an effort forth to at least appear diplomatic and persuasive. Even if you are socially inept, you should at least make an effort, just like someone who isn't smart should make an effort to sound intelligent if playing an intelligent character.
Sure, you "should" put in an effort, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. The point is that the social skill rules exist in the first place so that even if your "effort" at roleplaying is poor, you will still win. Just like the abstract hit point and attack bonus system exists so that you don't have to intricately describe exactly where and how you are stabbing someone, how you're holding your sword, the amount of force you include in a riposte, etc. The attack rules are there so that someone who knows nothing about actual fighting can say "I punch him!" and do just as well as some guy who insists on reciting the seven thousand secrets of the ancient kung fu masters at the table.
All I said was that the skills themselves do not get around role-playing, and assuming so is committing a fallacy (the Stormwind Fallacy to be exact).
Well, the SW Fallacy has its place, but I don't feel this is one of them. I agree with you and the SW Fallacy in the broad sense that "Just because I do X, doesn't mean I'm a bad roleplayer." You could use the SW fallacy to claim that just because you play D&D standing on your head wearing a blindfold in a cage full of hungry lions, doesn't mean that you're going to be a bad roleplayer. But most people would agree that jumping into the cage of lions is going to inhibit your roleplaying, and that the roleplaying might be smoother if instead you sat in a comfortable chair.
And are thus problems with your friend and playgroup, and not the rules themselves.
I wrote this as a solid rebut to the people that want to openly remove Diplomacy and Intimidate from the game, because they feel that rolling dice for a diplomacy check precludes the roleplaying aspect of it all. Look at the quote at the top of the page. belthazzar1113 felt that the presence of social skills removed roleplaying from the game.
If your DM is a bad DM, it doesn't mean that D&D is terrible: it just means that you have a bad DM. If one of your players builds overly-powerful characters with no backstory or role-playing aspects, it doesn't mean that optimization precludes role-playing, it means that you have a player that optimizes and doesn't role-play.
There is, by the way, a large school of thought that believes that skills like diplomacy and sense motive do, by their very existence and use, preclude roleplaying.
In short, Draxen's Corollary is instructing people to point the finger of blame at their players and playgroup, and not at the rules themselves.
And this, if we want to get all fallacy-crazy, could be called a variation of the Oberoni fallacy. Just because you can roleplay with even the most awful of rules doesn't mean the rules are good and that there's something wrong with someone if they declare the rules hurt roleplaying. The SW fallacy could imply that just because the game system you're playing requires you to roll seven billion dice and then solve a complex calculus equation while singing the star-spangled banner every time you try to open a door, doesn't mean that you're unable to roleplay. But the Oberoni fallacy would say that just because you can get around a rule and do what you really would rather be doing doesn't mean that every rule is automatically ok.
Sure, you "should" put in an effort, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. The point is that the social skill rules exist in the first place so that even if your "effort" at roleplaying is poor, you will still win. Just like the abstract hit point and attack bonus system exists so that you don't have to intricately describe exactly where and how you are stabbing someone, how you're holding your sword, the amount of force you include in a riposte, etc. The attack rules are there so that someone who knows nothing about actual fighting can say "I punch him!" and do just as well as some guy who insists on reciting the seven thousand secrets of the ancient kung fu masters at the table.
I completely agree with this.
Well, the SW Fallacy has its place, but I don't feel this is one of them. I agree with you and the SW Fallacy in the broad sense that "Just because I do X, doesn't mean I'm a bad roleplayer." You could use the SW fallacy to claim that just because you play D&D standing on your head wearing a blindfold in a cage full of hungry lions, doesn't mean that you're going to be a bad roleplayer. But most people would agree that jumping into the cage of lions is going to inhibit your roleplaying, and that the roleplaying might be smoother if instead you sat in a comfortable chair.
Well, you could call this Draxen's Grim Fandango dance if you like: it's not the proper title or wording that this is here to serve. It is here to illustrate to people that the mere presence of social skills does not defeat roleplaying.
And this, if we want to get all fallacy-crazy, could be called a variation of the Oberoni fallacy. Just because you can roleplay with even the most awful of rules doesn't mean the rules are good and that there's something wrong with someone if they declare the rules hurt roleplaying. The SW fallacy could imply that just because the game system you're playing requires you to roll seven billion dice and then solve a complex calculus equation while singing the star-spangled banner every time you try to open a door, doesn't mean that you're unable to roleplay. But the Oberoni fallacy would say that just because you can get around a rule and do what you really would rather be doing doesn't mean that every rule is automatically ok.
If you would like to debate how poor the rules are for social skills, then sure, go ahead and make a thread for that. This mentions nothing about the grandness or poorness of the rules themselves. If your social-rules system involves riding a pink flamingo into a barn wall, no matter how bad the system is, it does not, in of itself, actually impede or prevent roleplaying. I personally feel that social skills actually enhance the roleplaying experience, but if you disagree, then I respect your opinion, and I'm sure there is another thread out there for this.
"I am 'charming' enough to seduce you into my bedchamber"
"I am 'brawny' enough to open the rusted door"
or a really over the top example
"Why, how dare you interrupt me while I'm speaking, I am so 'charismatic' that no one would listen to you, and 'intimidating' enough so you wont ever do it again."
The idea was that you used a game mechanism, but did so through in-game speech. Speaking as your character would. So rather than
"I roll a 15 to my diplomacy check," you'd say, "I am so very 'diplomatic' that I think I can charm these ladies into confessing," or, "I think I can 'bluff' my way past."
While your character isn't -actually- saying this, it’s a quasi-in game statement that keeps using the game mechanics from breaking the flow of dialog.
Well, you could call this Draxen's Grim Fandango dance if you like: it's not the proper title or wording that this is here to serve. It is here to illustrate to people that the mere presence of social skills does not defeat roleplaying.
Well, first let me say that I do in fact use the social skills when I play, and I agree that they can be useful and fun sometimes. However, I would not say that "The social skills mess with roleplaying" is a fallacy. At least, their validity as roleplaying tools is a matter of opinion, and at most, they actually are a hindrance to pure roleplaying. The main problem is that by the strict rules, this is how the game is supposed to work: The "good" roleplayer with low social skill points can say whatever he wants, come up with an amazing plan to unite all the tribes of the world in harmony, etc., etc., portray his character as incredibly charismatic and say the most incredible things at the table, but for some reason, all the NPCs ignore him. But the "bad" roleplayer just constantly says "Uh... I like... tell the ogre that he should uh... like, let us go, because that would be cool. I rolled a 50 on my Diplomacy check," and the ogre does what he says.
Most DMs will try to skirt around this, and try to punish the bad roleplayer by imposing huge circumstance penalties on him, and reward the good roleplayer by granting him huge circumstance bonuses. But this is sort of unfair and against the whole point of the social skills.
I agree with thecosmicgoose, that the skills work best if the players inherently agree that they will only say anything diplomatic if they actually have a high Diplomacy score, and will only say cunning lies if they actually have a high Bluff score, but A) that's not really required by the rules, and B) socially awkward players won't be able to speak as well as their characters should, which means often their characters are acting dumber and less charismatic than the PC's with Charismas of 6, even when the players of those characters are trying to act socially inept.
If you would like to debate how poor the rules are for social skills, then sure, go ahead and make a thread for that. This mentions nothing about the grandness or poorness of the rules themselves. If your social-rules system involves riding a pink flamingo into a barn wall, no matter how bad the system is, it does not, in of itself, actually impede or prevent roleplaying. I personally feel that social skills actually enhance the roleplaying experience, but if you disagree, then I respect your opinion, and I'm sure there is another thread out there for this.
Well, it's not just the D&D social rules in particular; this is a problem with all roleplaying games that include rules for social skills. I don't have a solution for it, but it is a problem, and that's why I don't think you can just claim that "social skill rules hurt roleplaying" is a fallacy. As long as there exists an "alternative" to roleplaying, and a set of rules that attempts to force the NPCs of the world to react not to what the character is saying, but to some implied form of what he's saying based on a dice roll, then roleplaying is going to be affected.
at most, they actually are a hindrance to pure roleplaying.
Well, any degree of mechanics is a hindrance to pure roleplaying: if you want just roleplaying, you should do it without the rules. This way, your character simply is who he is and does what he does. Mechanics step in the way and offer a sense of structure, which is needed for most people to play.
No matter how well you role-play, you have to have a level in Barbarian before you can Rage. Thus, the class system steps in the way of pure roleplaying.
Besides, I often play charismatic, diplomatic characters. Without the social rules, I would have no mechanic to support my concept. In this sense, charisma skills actually enhance the effect of my concept, and my roleplaying.
Most DMs will try to skirt around this, and try to punish the bad roleplayer by imposing huge circumstance penalties on him, and reward the good roleplayer by granting him huge circumstance bonuses. But this is sort of unfair and against the whole point of the social skills.
Why would you want to punish someone who doesn't know how to roleplay? Why not teach them? D&D is a great outlet for the shy: it can teach them to come out and be more social.
I agree with thecosmicgoose, that the skills work best if the players inherently agree that they will only say anything diplomatic if they actually have a high Diplomacy score, and will only say cunning lies if they actually have a high Bluff score, but A) that's not really required by the rules, and B) socially awkward players won't be able to speak as well as their characters should, which means often their characters are acting dumber and less charismatic than the PC's with Charismas of 6, even when the players of those characters are trying to act socially inept.
No amount of role-playing is required of the rules. As Tempest Stormwind says in his famous fallacy, "because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules."
Well, it's not just the D&D social rules in particular; this is a problem with all roleplaying games that include rules for social skills. I don't have a solution for it, but it is a problem, and that's why I don't think you can just claim that "social skill rules hurt roleplaying" is a fallacy. As long as there exists an "alternative" to roleplaying, and a set of rules that attempts to force the NPCs of the world to react not to what the character is saying, but to some implied form of what he's saying based on a dice roll, then roleplaying is going to be affected.
And I would say for the better. Suddenly, even if you don't know how to be a charming guy, you can be, and thus you are empowered with the ability to play a role that you would otherwise be unable to do.
Social skills go to a degree to prevent personal relationships from impacting the game too heavily. Without the social skill rules, the most charismatic person in the group would always be the Dungeon Master's best friend.
IMHO, the reason why the Oberoni fallacy took hold on the boards is that it is more of a concession than a fallacy - it is mislabelled as a fallacy. What is it saying is ,"We all agree that a rule can be Rule Zeroed out of existance and that it is quite commonly used in practice with great effect - however, message boards are not that great of a place to use it as an argument since it is a conversation killer." Its existance is meant to help promote discussion since it is hard to argue against, "Playing halflings is easy if your DM Rule Zeroes away the strength and movement penalties."
And, IMHO, that is the problem with other fallacies and correlaries - mainly:
1) They really aren't meant as a concession but meant to prop up a strong opinion on a non-universally accepted subject as a universal truth and,
2) I'm not sure they are meant to promote discussion.
Your mileage may vary.
The Stormwind fallacy I don't like as much. While it's true that "A person that does X doesn't have to do Y", there is no logic to say that X doesn't influence Y heavily. I could make a Stormwind fallacy that says "Just because I drive drunk doesn't mean I'm going to hit someone", and that's true, but that says nothing about whether driving drunk encourages hitting people. Stormwind's opinion that character optimization and roleplaying can coexist perfectly is just that, opinion. It's not a logical tautology. It's an opinion that most D&D fans will defend, which is why it's so popular on these boards, but you will find many people who dislike D&D that will state that it's emphasis on rules and character optimization does detract from role playing.
Your example is, as WotC_Cat says, more of an attempt to mask your opinion, that the social rules are cool, in logical fluff to make it seem universally true. I'm not trying to say that the social rules are or aren't cool, just that it's a matter of opinion. Your "proof" is almost entirely opinions. The first paragraph of the proof is true, but doesn't prove that the social skills don't affect role playing.
I think your arguments could be considered more logical if it was an actual "fact" that Stormwind's opinion was universally true, but it's not, and so anything based on it is going to have holes. The only thing universally true about Stormwind's fallacy is that "Just because someone optimizes, doesn't mean they'll be a bad roleplayer." Too many people try to stretch this to mean "Optimization has no effect at all on roleplaying."
I think you all are switching sides back and forth in your posts. First, you're saying that making social skill rolls doesn't mean you're avoiding role playing. Then, you're saying that the social skills exist specifically BECAUSE some people can't role play what they want their character to say.
False dilemma. Both are true.
On the one hand, if you want to roleplay well, you need to use the social skill roll to tell you exactly how to roleplay the lie or negotiations or whatever. You aren't your character, after all, and the roll you get tells you exactly how well it did. If the players are kinda the actors of the movie and the DM is kinda the writer, then the game is the director and the dice rolls the directions s/he gives. You wouldn't be much of an actor if you just totally disregarded the director's directions; in fact, you'd probably be fired.
On the other hand, if you are super shy and your character is super not, or you are a terrible liar and your character could sell the Greyhawk Bridge to anyone on the street, the rules cover you and let you play that character even though you're nothing like him/her. You wouldn't make a player prove he can bench-press 500 lbs before you let him play a character that could, would you?
So it works both ways.
Think about my Orc barbarian, cha 6, swift talking is way out of situation the next time you force that walfour to 'role-play' his bard with a cha 18.
By my experience, my players often find the dice rolls as guideposts and queues for roleplaying (especially when the rolls go bad), using the results to "script" what they choose to do and say as characters.
But then again, I am blessed with some very roleplaying savvy people.
Ok, I don't normally chime in on these fallacies, but I just want to highlight the reason why I think the Oberoni fallacy resonates more than other "fallacies and corollaries."
IMHO, the reason why the Oberoni fallacy took hold on the boards is that it is more of a concession than a fallacy - it is mislabeled as a fallacy. What is it saying is,"We all agree that a rule can be Rule Zeroed out of existence and that it is quite commonly used in practice with great effect - however, message boards are not that great of a place to use it as an argument since it is a conversation killer." Its existence is meant to help promote discussion since it is hard to argue against, "Playing halflings is easy if your DM Rule Zeroes away the strength and movement penalties."
And, IMHO, that is the problem with other fallacies and corollaries - mainly:
1) They really aren't meant as a concession but meant to prop up a strong opinion on a non-universally accepted subject as a universal truth and,
2) I'm not sure they are meant to promote discussion.
Your mileage may vary.
Ok, I’m weird, I know it but . ..
Wizo Cat, I wuv you!
What do you want for Xmas?
and is there something I could do to put up a point on helping you get a raise some how because:
A) You the only WizO (besides the ones sitting in the chat rooms not really doing anything) who speaks their mind and TALKS to people
B) You seem to be VERY logical and have a way to make a point without an argument
C) Your name is just cool ... I’m sorry but a cat being a wizard is awesome
Ok, I don't normally chime in on these fallacies, but I just want to highlight the reason why I think the Oberoni fallacy resonates more than other "fallacies and corollaries."
IMHO, the reason why the Oberoni fallacy took hold on the boards is that it is more of a concession than a fallacy - it is mislabeled as a fallacy. What is it saying is ,"We all agree that a rule can be Rule Zeroed out of existence and that it is quite commonly used in practice with great effect - however, message boards are not that great of a place to use it as an argument since it is a conversation killer." Its existence is meant to help promote discussion since it is hard to argue against, "Playing halflings is easy if your DM Rule Zeroes away the strength and movement penalties."
And, IMHO, that is the problem with other fallacies and corollaries - mainly:
1) They really aren't meant as a concession but meant to prop up a strong opinion on a non-universally accepted subject as a universal truth and,
2) I'm not sure they are meant to promote discussion.
Your mileage may vary.
My problem with most of the fallacies is they seem to be used as an 'instawin.' They invoke their favorite 'fallacy' and try to avoid any further discussion, essentially declaring themselves winners because they invoked 'the 'X' fallacy"
It depends on your DM. Some DMs will let you just make the roll for your skill check and be done with it. Others will ignore the system completely and do pure "roleplaying".
Or, you can simply modify the check as per their roleplaying skill... if a player, say... makes a convincing case to a guard that he/she is supposed to be there 'polishing' those gems, then they should be given a cookie for doing so, or at least not penalized nearly so much for their audacity.
No matter how well you role-play, you have to have a level in Barbarian before you can Rage. Thus, the class system steps in the way of pure roleplaying.
That happens far too often. If you want an intimidating, brutish hulk wielding a blood-covered greataxe, well, of course you can. But the gnome cleric who took the charm domain and his happy smile with him is far more intimidating because that's how odd the system works.
So indeed, you do not cease to roleplay after (or before) the social skill is rolled. But when all the logic about skills just hangs together like, your size decreases to tiny and suddenly you can't climb a rope anymore because of the STR decrease, then I'm wondering why to bother with rolling for the social skill at all?
- The rule is poor.
- Rule Zero can fix a poor rule.
- Therefore, the rule is not poor.
Note that the conclusion contradicts one of the premises. This is the fallacy: drawing an invalid conclusion from perfectly sound premises.
Well, first let me say that I do in fact use the social skills when I play, and I agree that they can be useful and fun sometimes. However, I would not say that "The social skills mess with roleplaying" is a fallacy. At least, their validity as roleplaying tools is a matter of opinion, and at most, they actually are a hindrance to pure roleplaying.
That depends very much on what you mean by "pure" roleplaying.
The main problem is that by the strict rules, this is how the game is supposed to work: The "good" roleplayer with low social skill points can say whatever he wants, come up with an amazing plan to unite all the tribes of the world in harmony, etc., etc., portray his character as incredibly charismatic and say the most incredible things at the table, but for some reason, all the NPCs ignore him. But the "bad" roleplayer just constantly says "Uh... I like... tell the ogre that he should uh... like, let us go, because that would be cool. I rolled a 50 on my Diplomacy check," and the ogre does what he says.
Ah, but that's rather the point. Neither the "good" nor the "bad" roleplayer in your example are roleplaying their character effectively. The so-called "good" is playing his character as if he was suave and diplomatic when that character is neither of those things. That's far worse roleplaying than "I ... uh ... tell the ogre to let us go."
Most DMs will try to skirt around this, and try to punish the bad roleplayer by imposing huge circumstance penalties on him, and reward the good roleplayer by granting him huge circumstance bonuses. But this is sort of unfair and against the whole point of the social skills.
I agree with thecosmicgoose, that the skills work best if the players inherently agree that they will only say anything diplomatic if they actually have a high Diplomacy score, and will only say cunning lies if they actually have a high Bluff score, but A) that's not really required by the rules, and B) socially awkward players won't be able to speak as well as their characters should, which means often their characters are acting dumber and less charismatic than the PC's with Charismas of 6, even when the players of those characters are trying to act socially inept.
I frequently wonder about this. I don't think I've ever met anybody in real life who had a Bluff or Diplomacy skill greater than - say - four. I'm pretty sure I don't know anybody with a Charisma of 20 either. Nobody is actually capable of "properly roleplaying" a maxed out social character. A high Bluff skill means that your character can tell completely obvious lies and get away with it. There's no "roleplaying" requirement needed there.
Well, it's not just the D&D social rules in particular; this is a problem with all roleplaying games that include rules for social skills. I don't have a solution for it, but it is a problem, and that's why I don't think you can just claim that "social skill rules hurt roleplaying" is a fallacy. As long as there exists an "alternative" to roleplaying, and a set of rules that attempts to force the NPCs of the world to react not to what the character is saying, but to some implied form of what he's saying based on a dice roll, then roleplaying is going to be affected.
But that's exactly the point. It's a fallacy that using social skills are an "alternative" to roleplaying. They are an alternative to "trying to persuade the GM, through primarily out of character means, that you should get your way." Neither of those things have anything to do with roleplaying.
I agree. No one balks when the 98-lb.-weaking plays a Conan-the-Barbarian Strength fighter. Why should the wallflower be excluded from playing a boisterous-yet-charming minstrel who can woo the ladies with a word?
Just thought that I would throw this out there, since it is a practice that I myself have instated for quite some time:
If it is appropriate to grant a bonus/penalty to a social roll for good/poor roleplaying, isn't it also appropriate to grant a bonus to combat rolls for evocative and interesting descriptions of actions?
And then, we add "character modifiers". What is your character wearing? What has he done in front of the people you're interacting with? If you just saved them from a group of orcs, you get bonus. If you are dressed in ragged clothes and with a blood spilled axe you get penalties. A character wearing heavy armor and melee weapons will get bonus for passing as a mercenary or soldier. And so on.
This may seem unfair, but let's remember battle. Even if you have +30 to hit, if you don't move carefully and attack the right way all that bonus is for naught. In the other hand you may have penalties at everything, but if you use your character well the advantage will be yours. Why should it be different with people interactions?
I frequently wonder about this. I don't think I've ever met anybody in real life who had a Bluff or Diplomacy skill greater than - say - four.
The reason being is that you would never know if they had one that high in real life because you probably believed what they told you :D.
Just thought that I would throw this out there, since it is a practice that I myself have instated for quite some time:
If it is appropriate to grant a bonus/penalty to a social roll for good/poor roleplaying, isn't it also appropriate to grant a bonus to combat rolls for evocative and interesting descriptions of actions?
I would like to think so. Maybe a risk/reward type thing. The player describe a crazy maneuver, and it could help or hurt. I would allow it to help more often, but there should be a penalty associated so that it doesn't get abused. Maybe secretly roll a percentile die. 1-20 gets a penalty. 21-70 gets nothing. 71-100 gets a bonus.
Some tinkering and it could be a good system.
Just thought that I would throw this out there, since it is a practice that I myself have instated for quite some time:
If it is appropriate to grant a bonus/penalty to a social roll for good/poor roleplaying, isn't it also appropriate to grant a bonus to combat rolls for evocative and interesting descriptions of actions?
Absolutely, I know I run things that way. If the players describe an interesting ploy to disarm a trap or gain a few extra feet on a jump I will give them a bonus.
Just thought that I would throw this out there, since it is a practice that I myself have instated for quite some time:
If it is appropriate to grant a bonus/penalty to a social roll for good/poor roleplaying, isn't it also appropriate to grant a bonus to combat rolls for evocative and interesting descriptions of actions?
According to the Eberron Campaign Setting and the rules for action points... Yes! Note that action points can also be used on Diplomacy.
If you follow the suggestion there, if a player does something particularly impressive you can award them a free action point.
This may seem unfair, but let's remember battle. Even if you have +30 to hit, if you don't move carefully and attack the right way all that bonus is for naught.
No, the attack bonus is what represents your sheer ability to hit, through a combination of tactical training, positioning, weapon quality, aim and a little luck.
Your Diplomacy roll, on the other hand, is a combination of your natural charm, your understanding of how people think, the situation, your relative position regarding the other person, and again, a little bit of luck.
Mechanically speaking, these are identical. So then why can people, according to you, claim a bonus on social skill checks by being socially adept in real life, but at the same time, people who couldn't lift a sword if they tried (again, in real life) are as good as people who fight for a living in DnD combat? Why can't I claim that doing kendo or somesuch for 10 years should give me a +2 (or 5, or 10) bonus on attack rolls with a sword, by that logic?
This is an example of player-character connectedness. It has to be very clearly understood that your character is not you, never will be you, and should have no connection to you other than being your creation.
Back to the point, well done theotherdraxen. There is much to agree with here, and you have managed to change my perceptions of these skills quite a bit. I salute you!
No, the attack bonus is what represents your sheer ability to hit, through a combination of tactical training, positioning, weapon quality, aim and a little luck.
Your Diplomacy roll, on the other hand, is a combination of your natural charm, your understanding of how people think, the situation, your relative position regarding the other person, and again, a little bit of luck.
Mechanically speaking, these are identical. So then why can people, according to you, claim a bonus on social skill checks by being socially adept in real life, but at the same time, people who couldn't lift a sword if they tried (again, in real life) are as good as people who fight for a living in DnD combat? Why can't I claim that doing kendo or somesuch for 10 years should give me a +2 (or 5, or 10) bonus on attack rolls with a sword, by that logic?
This is an example of player-character connectedness. It has to be very clearly understood that your character is not you, never will be you, and should have no connection to you other than being your creation.
Back to the point, well done theotherdraxen. There is much to agree with here, and you have managed to change my perceptions of these skills quite a bit. I salute you!
Let's put it this way:
A player who has more experience in strategy wargames will most of the times make his character fight better than a player who has no experience whatsoever in any kind of strategy game.
So, a player who is good at making speeches and lies, also deserves a bonus if he's able to do it in game, specially since it is a roleplaying game. If you're a warrior, you're supposed to act like one. Take the better terrain, outmaneuver the enemy, attack in the right moment, don't expose yourself. If you don't, you ay for it. And if you're a diplomat, act like one. Why would you be a diplomat if you didn't want to roleplay one anyway?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no much sense that the speech your character gave to the city mayor who likes sophisticated wine and music is going to work the same wonder on the orc chieftain that spent all his life killing and pillaging, even if they both have identical sense motive modifiers.
However, if you bother to roleplay different appropriate speeches for each case, you get a bonus, just as your character gets bonus for fighting smartly. We're not even asking you to make something astounding, just something minimally credible.
Killing the noble, leaving your weapon behind, and when interrogated just saying "It wasn't me" will give you as much penalty as falling a situation where you get an attack of opportunity. You may still get away with it, but you would be safer playing with a little more effort.
A player who has more experience in strategy wargames will most of the times make his character fight better than a player who has no experience whatsoever in any kind of strategy game.
A problem I have encountered myself. However, in this respect, it is extremely difficult to enforce player-character separation, and the system makes no proviso for it whatsoever, nor attempts such.
This is because it is very difficult to adjudicate what the 'character' would know in terms of strategy. Like many things, it is a combination of factors, such as training, natural skill, the ability to observe and react appropriately and so on. Even the idea of the 6-second round actually allows people to act much less realistically than a reality-inspired combat system should. We don't have 6-second increments for combat in real life, nor do we get well over 6 seconds to think about those 6 seconds.
As a result of this, it is extremely difficult to define player-character separation here, as the system itself works against you.
So, a player who is good at making speeches and lies, also deserves a bonus if he's able to do it in game, specially since it is a roleplaying game. If you're a warrior, you're supposed to act like one. Take the better terrain, outmaneuver the enemy, attack in the right moment, don't expose yourself. If you don't, you ay for it. And if you're a diplomat, act like one. Why would you be a diplomat if you didn't want to roleplay one anyway?
Yes, but that's the problem. The game allows no 'strategy checks'. Such a concept simply does not, or cannot, exist. Furthermore, the whole system of social interactions operates on an entirely different level to combat mechanics.
Just because you're 'supposed' to act like a warrior doesn't necessarily mean you will, because the system generates no 'compensation proviso' for those who are not strategically inclined. However, it does include a proviso for those who are socially challenged or cannot talk as quickly as your characters. As you claim, DnD is primarily a roleplay game. Roleplay, as such, requires you to step outside yourself and become someone else. However, this is difficult for some, and impossible for others, hence this proviso of 'social skill checks' to mitigate this problem and allow players to partake in the key focus of the game, allowing them to learn how to do it better and become better roleplayers, thus being actually able to roleplay socially-skill endowed characters.
However, combat has no such factor. What you do is simply what you do: checks are not involved in the same way. There is no check for making a sensible strategic decision. Thus, accordingly, this system has no mitigating factor to accommodate the less-skilled.
'Wanting to do something' and 'being able to do something well' are not one and the same. As someone previously mentioned, DnD is escapist. It allows the shy and quiet to come out of their shells a little bit and perhaps become a bit more outgoing generally. It allows them to live out their fantasies and become people that they want to be, rather than what they are. This idea that 'you're only as skilled as your character', which you apply to both combat and social skills, effectively kills this idea dead. This 'link to reality' is effectively 'excessive player-character inter-association', which is not good for this escapist side.
If only tactically skilled people can play fighting types, and only socially adept people can play socially adept characters, this limits people severely based on things that they need to escape from, and they came to the game to escape from, which in my mind is not good.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no much sense that the speech your character gave to the city mayor who likes sophisticated wine and music is going to work the same wonder on the orc chieftain that spent all his life killing and pillaging, even if they both have identical sense motive modifiers.
However, if you bother to roleplay different appropriate speeches for each case, you get a bonus, just as your character gets bonus for fighting smartly. We're not even asking you to make something astounding, just something minimally credible.
This is a case of basic common sense. Of course the same thing won't work the same way. However, this is an example of a player being unimaginative, not bad at social skills. You're confusing two different problems.
Unimaginative statements should carry a DM warning saying 'Sorry, but that simply won't hold. Try something better for this situation.' This would be completely out-of-game, but it should be said, because this isn't bad roleplaying, its stupidity, pure and simple.
Killing the noble, leaving your weapon behind, and when interrogated just saying "It wasn't me" will give you as much penalty as falling a situation where you get an attack of opportunity. You may still get away with it, but you would be safer playing with a little more effort.
Again, pure stupidity, not bad RP. This, in one of my games, would carry a stupidity warning like the one suggested above.
Basically, it would be nice if combat had the same kind of mitigating factor that social skill rolls provide. However, the system makes no provision for such. In essence, we're looking at two different approaches which express concepts within game terms, which are mutually incompatible. Therefore, a comparison cannot be drawn between their execution.
Let's put it this way:
A player who has more experience in strategy wargames will most of the times make his character fight better than a player who has no experience whatsoever in any kind of strategy game.
No Leo, you're wrong in terms of theory. Twinking out a character via Char-op is not an indicator that you, personally, are better at swinging swords than the guy who can't optimize.
So, a player who is good at making speeches and lies, also deserves a bonus if he's able to do it in game, specially since it is a roleplaying game. If you're a warrior, you're supposed to act like one. Take the better terrain, outmaneuver the enemy, attack in the right moment, don't expose yourself. If you don't, you ay for it. And if you're a diplomat, act like one. Why would you be a diplomat if you didn't want to roleplay one anyway?
Again, no. Those bonuses for being better at lying and such are covered in game mechanics. There isn't a "roleplaying" bonus for taking better terrain, outmaneuvering, ect. That's called usage of the game mechanics. It requires no "skill" other than a knowledge of the game mechanics.
Similarly, a player making a diplomacy check has all of the game knowledge at his/her hand. Thusly, there shouldn't be a roleplaying bonus. If you didn't stat out your character properly for your diplomacy check, or you rolled poorly, then that just is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no much sense that the speech your character gave to the city mayor who likes sophisticated wine and music is going to work the same wonder on the orc chieftain that spent all his life killing and pillaging, even if they both have identical sense motive modifiers.
However, if you bother to roleplay different appropriate speeches for each case, you get a bonus, just as your character gets bonus for fighting smartly. We're not even asking you to make something astounding, just something minimally credible.
You are correct, there is a difference between the "wine sipping mayor" and "killing/pillaging orc". However that is represented in what are called "circumstantial modifiers" rather than through roleplaying. This stuff is in the PHB under skills. Look at the Bluff and Diplomacy skills and their circumstantial modifiers for some examples.
The diplomacy DC for the Orc to parlay and trade with the townsfolk is going to be a lot higher than the Mayor's. While the intimidate DC for the Orc to scare the townsfolk into submission will be much lower than the Mayors.
Circumstantial Modifiers, not Roleplaying bonuses.
Killing the noble, leaving your weapon behind, and when interrogated just saying "It wasn't me" will give you as much penalty as falling a situation where you get an attack of opportunity. You may still get away with it, but you would be safer playing with a little more effort.
Again, this falls under circumstantial modifiers. Having evidence that someone did something gives you a bonus to your sense motive against their bluff on this subject. You can claim that roleplaying choices lead to circumstantial modifiers, but you should never give a player bonuses to rolls based on good roleplaying (as in staying in character). If you want to reward good Roleplaying, assign some Roleplaying XP at the end of game.
So, a player who is good at making speeches and lies, also deserves a bonus if he's able to do it in game, specially since it is a roleplaying game. If you're a warrior, you're supposed to act like one. Take the better terrain, outmaneuver the enemy, attack in the right moment, don't expose yourself. If you don't, you ay for it. And if you're a diplomat, act like one. Why would you be a diplomat if you didn't want to roleplay one anyway?
If you DM, I hope you don't let anyone play wizards, sorcerers, rangers, clerics, druids, bards, and especially not paladins (not even touching non-core classes), because the people playing them are going to be so abysmal at spellcasting that their character shouldn't either.
D&D characters aren't supposed to emulate the players, they're supposed to be the heroes from high fantasy, or whatever setting you use, with all the trappings that go with it.
It doesn't matter how good your fighter is, he will be better in combat if you play him with good tactics. Yes, at the end of the day you roll the dice and see if your character hit - you don't need to know how to use a sword or have big muscles yourself - but whether you're flanking, using terrain, using a full attack, attacking the optimal target, using the right weapon and so forth will make a huge difference. And that's all down to how good the player is at roleplaying his fighter in combat. Good tactics, you'll do better; no tactics you'll do so so. Bad tactics, better hope you roll really well.
And it's just the same in the social situation. Yes, the character has skills to deal with the mechanics - it's his charisma not yours - but the "tactics" are still the province of the player. You suggest good lines, plausible excuses, roleplay well and the DM should make dice success easier. Just rely on the rollplay, you'll do so-so. And say something stupid... again better hope you roll really well!
tbh, I don't really see a distinction. Character skills and player skills work together in both. And just as you'd never resolve a major fight with "okay, roll one die", the same goes for important social encounters.
Player roleplaying skills are to character social skills as player tactical skills are to character combat abilities.
It doesn't matter how good your fighter is, he will be better in combat if you play him with good tactics. Yes, at the end of the day you roll the dice and see if your character hit - you don't need to know how to use a sword or have big muscles yourself - but whether you're flanking, using terrain, using a full attack, attacking the optimal target, using the right weapon and so forth will make a huge difference. And that's all down to how good the player is at roleplaying his fighter in combat. Good tactics, you'll do better; no tactics you'll do so-so. Bad tactics, better hope you roll really well.
And it's just the same in the social situation. Yes, the character has skills to deal with the mechanics - it's his charisma not yours - but the "tactics" are still the province of the player. You suggest good lines, plausible excuses, roleplay well and the DM should make dice success easier. Just rely on the rollplay, you'll do so-so. And say something stupid... again better hope you roll really well!
tbh, I don't really see a distinction. Character skills and player skills work together in both. And just as you'd never resolve a major fight with "okay, roll one die", the same goes for important social encounters.
So long as you mean "Uses proper conditional modifiers found in the books" when you say "uses good tactics" and "Roleplays well"
Then we're in agreement.
Unsatisfactory
Player: "I'm haggling. *roll*"
Satisfactory
Player: "I stare him down and wait for him to respond to my threat, while unfurling my wings, forcing a sanity save since the average man hasn't ever seen a half-celestial. *roll*"
Me: *roll* And he failed. *roll* And he took enough sanity damage to merit a temporary derangement. *roll* He's become very, very afraid of you. In light of his fear of the winged stranger, he suffers a massive penalty against your intimidation. *roll* And he nods feebly, his face blanching white and his legs shaking.
For a faster game, I think it's sometimes ok to just roll the check, but it still requires the player to summarize his actions for the roll.
So if it is to be used, then it is to deflect attacks against Charisma wholesale (as I have seen before), and not to be used to try to convince everyone that they must accept charisma or find a different game. In other words, use it to protect your own game, not to change others.
If it is appropriate to grant a bonus/penalty to a social roll for good/poor roleplaying, isn't it also appropriate to grant a bonus to combat rolls for evocative and interesting descriptions of actions?
Well, most DMs hand out Roleplaying Experience, so whenever you roleplay, you gain a mechanical benefit regardless of where it's being described. That said, I agree with Leo that the benefits you receive come from your placement on the battlefield. I have granted a player ad-hoc extra damage for using Up the Walls to scale a tree and then leap from a high distance down onto an opponent (she dealt him falling damage, of course).
Artfully describing the attack can (in some circumstances) offer bonuses, but not to the attack rolls themselves. Having your familiar pull the helmet down in front of a guards eyes will temporarily blind him, although I'm not aware of any official mechanics that cover this.
I think the reason we never see direct circumstance bonuses to attack rolls is because combat is the focus of the game. If the rules for diplomacy were made as complicated as combat, and diplomatic encounters were put on the same level of importance as fighting encounters, then I think that an evocative speech would not, in itself grant, any bonus to your rolls. It might change other variables, but it would not actually improve your diplomacy modifier.
A big thing is to base the roll off the RP, or vice versa. Either have the player come up with a really bad bluff (if the rolled low) or the best one they are personally capable of (in the event of a good one). Again the point is just to have some kind of an effort there. Or you can base the roll off of their roleplaying with especially good roleplaying giving a +2. The same way that if someone were to give an especially good description while attempting an action, I would give them a +2 to their roll.
I'm getting the idea for this from the DMG, page 90. Under the heading "The DM's Best Friend." (I'm using 3.0 still just to let everyone know. The page number may or may not be the same.)
A big thing is to base the roll off the RP, or vice versa. Either have the player come up with a really bad bluff (if the rolled low) or the best one they are personally capable of (in the event of a good one). Again the point is just to have some kind of an effort there. Or you can base the roll off of their roleplaying with especially good roleplaying giving a +2. The same way that if someone were to give an especially good description while attempting an action, I would give them a +2 to their roll.
Would you allow a similar +2 bonus to attack and/or damage rolls if I gave exquisite detail of how I made my attack and where my blade strikes...exactly when I twist my sword to release the blood seal and when I rip it out? If you would allow such bonuses, then we're in agreement here.
Absolutely, I know I run things that way. If the players describe an interesting ploy to disarm a trap or gain a few extra feet on a jump I will give them a bonus.
I have a DM who sometimes goes overboard on skills.
me: playing a rogue. I search for traps,
DM: ok what do you do?
me: umm I search the door for traps.
DM: ok , you find none, (didn’t roll dice)
ME: ok I open the door.
DM: as you open the door the pit trap your standing on opens and you fall.
me : WHAT!?!? I searched for traps.
DM: you searched the door, not the floor..
me but the door triggered the floor?!?
DM so you didnt search the floor.
me: So I am supposed to know how to find traps myself, and to apply the +27 skill of my character. But I cant tell everyone what every monster in the monster manuals is immune to, what its good saves are, and how to best kill it with my plus +12 knowledge.
I and other players have had the same thing happen with diplomacy, intimidate, jump, disable device, survival, spellcraft, and just about every other skill.
In a game I played a while ago I was an orc druid. I based my character rather heavily off of the character Gregory House. He was a terrifically intelligent curmudgeon who insulted everyone around him in interesting and amusing ways, but in the end ended up doing the right thing anyways. I frequently made the whole group laugh their collective heads off; he was a great character to play….
But he was a druid, which meant he had no social skills, and he had charisma eight and my DM rolled for every single social interaction (“Can I get a room for the night?” *DM Rolls Dice* “No.”). He also gave no bonuses for role-playing at all.
My character couldn’t scare anyone, he couldn’t intimidate anyone, and he certainly couldn’t get anyone to do anything. He wasn’t disliked in social situations… he was just ignored. Having a low charisma apparently doesn’t mean you’re ugly or unpleasant, it just means you’re not anything. People have no response to you at all.
One could easily argue that if I wanted to play a character like that I should have created a character with the statistics to back that kind of role-playing up (take a high charisma and ranks in the social skills), but I hadn’t played much D&D before and I didn’t know that the social rules worked the way that they do.
My DM’s choice to use the social rules blindly ruined my experience of playing that character. After the fifteenth (I do not exaggerate here, this actually happened fifteen times) time I tried to intimidate someone and instead got violently attacked (nearly killing me I might add) I created a new character out of frustration.
So, yes, I agree that using social skills doesn’t necessarily alter your roleplaying experience… but it can, and in my experience, it has.
If the Stormwind Fallacy and the Draxen Corollary exist there has to be a counterpoint.
“Just because rolling social skills does not necessarily impede role-playing, it should not be assumed that their use cannot have a negative effect.”
AND
“Just because various systems don’t NECESSARILY affect role-playing, doesn’t mean that they can’t, or that they do not do so frequently. Nor does it mean that they are not inefficient, inconvenient, or irrelevant.”
This isn’t to say I support removing social rules from the game; I simply support using them with common sense.
I also support telling your new players that their concept will not work with their statistics, but that’s another discussion entirely.
Coming from Exalted as I do, the idea of giving bonuses to dice rolls due to excellent description/role-playing is second nature. I was stunned that D20 doesn’t have a built in mechanism for this.
[INDENT]"...one of the reasons for games like this is that people roleplay to escape who they are.... Sort of like the 98-pound weakling who wants to be strong, or anyone who wants to wield magic. We can do these things in the game, and it's fun to do so."[/INDENT]
Stormonu's (#3) explanation re: how rolls and roleplaying work for Charisma checks should be IN the DM's guide as an example. Not to mention a decisive, real-example refutation of the fallacy. Brilliant.
Now, do many groups stop roleplaying after dice rolls. Possibly so. But... I'm not sure that any "blame" at all should attach to a group that DID use the mechanical rules in order to avoid situational role-playing. Players like different things. In fact, I'll go so far as to add Katzman's postulate, and stake out a much more controversial position:
[INDENT]"If the mechanics allows a character to do what that character is built for and avoid roleplaying, they have not subverted their purpose. They have fulfilled it, by letting players choose how they want to play, while still moving the game along for everyone based on who the PCs are (NOT who the players are)."[/INDENT]
Let me be more specific here.
* There are people for whom role-playing/acting is the biggest thing they get out of gaming. They can use rolls per Stormonu's explanation, or roleplay the reverberations from the knight's rolls (if the knight's player is not one of these pople) in future games. Stormonu's system has given them either a stage, or a set of hooks, because of how the rolls are used to make both PC skills and roleplaying meaningful. They're happy.
* Others are problem solvers, and get their kicks by moving towards a goal. If high Bluff, Charisma, Diplomacy et. al. can do that for them, and provide variety so everything isn't collapsed to one dimension of combat, they're happy. Stormonu's approach works for them, too - the knight's rolls, in the hands of a problem solver, could actually end up defining the rest of the campaign as he sees the reactions and starts making choices.
* Then, you have the combatives. If they're not using their awesome powers in pretty direct ways, they're bored. Stormonu's approach may be a bit involved for them - a DM would use it only if other players with different styles needed it as feeder. For the direct swords or sorcery types, high skills + roles give them awesome powers of another sort. If they treat their +20 Bluff ability as the equivalent of a spell, and the DM figures out the roll result, then describes it to the players... great. If their Bluff is only +3, and rolling it gets that bit out of the way so they can either go into combat mode or get closer to the part of the adventure when they can... great. Great because they're happy.
Now, many of us have gone from this last type of gamer to more of a role-playing or problem solving orientation. The bad news is, too many folks feel ashamed of what they once were, and so they focus on "getting others past" this mode. But you know what? We were having a lot of fun! Enough fun to keep us playing. As Tempest Stormwind's story illustrates, the methods used to achieve that change - i.e. forced roleplaying and ignoring skill rules - are frequently counterproductive.
Let me tell you what switched me. It was module A1, Slave Pits of the Undercity. The DM tried to talk to us about roleplaying, explaining that there could be much more to the game. We blew him off. He shrugged, and played the adventure... with Phantsern the 5th level illusionist as an NPC. Using the NPC's abilities and a bit of roleplaying, our DM had the entire party more or less working for this guy as the King's direct emissary, and under the impression that he was the most powerful guy in the party. A lecture wouldn't have helped. Forcing roleplay wouldn't have helped. But THAT... well, the mental gears started churning after he explained what he had done.
If you want your players to roleplay, don't penalize them. SHOW THEM ROLEPLAYING in a way they can understand. Then reward them for their efforts, via DM's discretion bonuses to their rolls if the PLAYER has done a good job in a situation. I stress again, do NOT penalize them, even if you think the attempt is lame. That will make them stop trying. Just reward them when it's good, and keep showing them the possibilities through NPCs.
Or not, of course, Some DMs are combative styles, too. And if using the rules to get role-playing out of the way makes them and their group happy, then Heironeous bless them all.
Because mutual enjoyment is what this thing is supposed to be all about.
No one balks when the 98-lb.-weakling plays a Conan-the-Barbarian Strength fighter. Why should the wallflower be excluded from playing a boisterous-yet-charming minstrel who can woo the ladies with a word?
A difficulty with the comparison is that the combat system is the most richly featured system of the game. Social skills take up a few columns in the PHB and a handful of pages in the DMG.
The Complete Weasel, anyone?
-VK