Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 77im Oct 14, 2003 10:31:09	Many people have trouble roleplaying characters with high Charisma, or even roleplaying character interaction at all. I hope to point out some commonly encountered problems and propose some solutions. Problem 1: My character has a higher Charisma than I do! "In real life I don't have very good social skills. I don't know how to act in a more Charismatic fashion." This is one of the most common complaints, yet it is simply not true. We all know how to act in a more Charismatic fashion -- many of us simply don't, because it doesn't come naturally or we are worried that we will look ridiculous. Well, if you're going to roll dice while discussing orcs and beholders and pretending to be a guy with a greatsword, the time to worry about looking ridiculous has passed. Ham it up! Most high-Charisma characters are either diplomatic, commanding, or suave (although there are other ways to play a high-Cha character, too). We've all seen enough movies and read enough books to know what such a character acts like, even if it doesn't come naturally to us in real life. If you are trying to play a high-Charisma character, just give it your best shot, and everybody else at the gaming table will get the idea. With very little effort, you can convey the idea that your character has a high Cha. Example: One character asking another to pass the catsup. Boring character: "Please pass the catsup." (This does not sound like a high-Cha character to me.) Diplomatic character: "Kind sir, I would be extremely grateful if you would do me the honor of passing the catsup this way. Thank you very much!" (A very wordy but courteous character.) Commanding character: "It is time. We must do what we came here to do. There is catsup in need of passing." (A little dramatic for dinner conversation, but I'll bet he gives a good pre-battle speech.) Suave character: "Why hello there... do you come here often? Say, hand me the catsup? Thanks. Now, back to you, are you sure you're not part aasimar? ..." (Warning: Suave characters are the most likely to devolve into goofiness.) Two things to note: First, any of the "high-Cha" lines above can also apply to a "low-Cha" character -- someone who's trying to be charismatic, but isn't (much like our proverbial low-Cha player himself!), which can be an interesting roleplaying opportunity. However, the reverse is not true -- boring or deliberately "low-Cha" roleplaying does not sound right on a "high-Cha" character. Second, when I suggest you "ham it up," I do not mean that every time your character speaks you should portray a goofy, exaggerated caricature (unless that's what you're going for). If people laugh whenever your character talks, tone it down a bit, be a little more subtle. Your goal is to have the other players focus on your character's personality, not your acting ability. Problem 2: Roleplaying character interaction takes too long! "I don't want to stand here yapping with the townsfolk! There are monsters to kill and lairs to loot!" This is a valid concern, especially if one character really likes gabbing and is taking game play time away from the other players. Sometimes, it's just the DM's fault, by constantly bombarding the party with talkative NPCs that the party knows have valuable information hidden under layers of dialog. The obvious solution is, at some point, to stop roleplaying and just discuss the outcome of the conversation. However, this raises the question: How much roleplaying should you do? My belief is that you should roleplay just enough to convey your character's personality, no more, no less. This is true for players and the DM. Examples: Consider a player who says, "My character makes friends with the barkeep and asks about the ruins on the hill outside of town." We've got no sense of the character's personality -- the player is treating the character like a stat block, a marionette that does things in the world but isn't a person in the world. There's no danger that roleplaying is taking too long, because there is no roleplaying. Consider a slightly better player who roleplays the entire encounter -- his character makes small talk with the barkeep about local beers, then about town history, about the ruins on the hill, etc. It takes 10 minutes and the other players have all fallen asleep. It's too much. Consider the player who roleplays the first part of the encounter -- making small talk with the barkeep. He and the barkeep discuss local beers for a minute, then the player says, "OK, my character steers the conversation towards the ruins on the hill outside of town." The DM responds with a snippet of valuable information about the dungeon. The whole thing takes a minute and a half, and the players are glad because now they have some info. The high-Cha player -- the one doing the talking -- showed that his character knows how to make small talk and has an appreciation for beer (or is able to feign such appreciation), and is not just an automaton. You don't have to roleplay every detail of every encounter (although you can if you want, even deep-immersion groups get bored at some point) -- just do enough so that your characters have personalities. Problem 3: But I put all these skill points into Diplomacy! "Can't you just roll a dice and see how much info I wrangle out of this guy? I should have taken Tumble instead..." This is another good point: What's the use of roleplaying when my Charisma and Cha skills are going to determine the outcome of this interaction? Or conversely, what's the use of having a high Cha if the DM is going to make me roleplay everything and base the outcome on my meager acting skills? The solution is to do both. The DM should require the character to roleplay the interaction before they are entitled to the skill roll. If you want, you can also give out little bonuses or penalties to the roll based on roleplaying. I prefer to give bonuses and penalties based on effort -- a player who tries really hard to roleplay well might get a +2 on the roll, while the guy who just shrugs and says, "Hi, give me info about the dungeon," might get a -2 or a -4 (unless he was playing a low-Cha character, in which case his blunt approach is already factored into his low Charisma score). Similarly, you can give out little +2/-2 circumstance modifiers to players who do an exceptionally good (or bad) job interacting. Keep any such modifiers small enough so that the character's skill matters more than the player's skill, yet the player is still rewarded for making an efforts. Some people believe that roleplaying should be its own reward, or that player skill and character skill should be kept totally separate, and so no bonuses should be assigned to interaction checks. Others believe that Charisma-based checks inhibit roleplaying and should be eliminated, with all interaction relying solely on the player's ability to act. These are all perfectly valid alternatives, and DM should discuss with her group which of them would be the most fun. In my opinion, however, these all represent alternatives to the baseline D&D game, and may require other modifications to the game. Problem 4: Roleplaying is just no fun! "KILL! KILL! KILL!" Some people just happen to like other aspects of the game -- killing monsters, amassing treasure, reaching high levels of power -- better than character interaction. This is fine; the DM just needs to figure out how much character interaction her group wants. The problem arises when one player has a different view of roleplaying than the rest of the group. If there is one player who likes to gab with every NPC in site, while the rest of the party wants to loot corpses as often as possible, try limiting the time spent on character interation (see Problem 2, above), prioritizing the roleplaying encounters to only the most important interactions. Or, split the group up for roleplaying; let the long-winded bard discuss the mission with some NPCs for a half hour, while the rest of the players order food and discuss combat tactics. If a deep-immersion high-roleplaying lots-of-talking group contains one bored player who just wants to hack everything in sight to pieces, try to figure out why this is. Is he a newby player who hasn't put much thought into his character's personality? Has he inadvertently created a character with a boring personality, useless outside of combat? Is he just shy? Is he an escapist, who just wants to have a "cool" character? Once you've figured out the reason, see if there's a way to encourage the player to roleplay. Let them make up a new character with more personality, or engineer an adventure that the character cares enough about to talk to people. Allow the escapist character to be the "star" of an interaction-based adventure so that they learn that roleplaying can be fun, too. You could try XP awards for roleplaying, too. I have mixed feelings on these -- I like the idea, but it's very difficult to be fair and objective about it, and you don't want to upset your players by only rewarding the one guy that is a natural and accomplished roleplayer. Discuss these with your group before implementing them. The DM also needs to make sure that she is providing interesting characters to interact with. If every NPC is bland and business like, the players won't want to spend much time with them. But if the world is full of rich and colorful figures, players will roleplay just for the fun of meeting the NPCs. Try to give major NPCs interesting and memorable personalities. Minor NPCs are usually more 2-dimensional; in a pinch, try the table of "100 random NPC traits" found in the DMG. Finally, it's possible that the group decides they just don't like roleplaying that much and want to reduce its impact in the game. You could try eliminating all Charisma-based skills, or making them less expensive, or rolling them into a single skill called "Influence," for those times when character interaction makes the most sense. Go on adventures that focus on combat and puzzle solving rather than talking. Conclusion 1. Roleplaying a high-Charisma character is easy and anyone can do it, if they just try. 2. Roleplaying and Charisma don't have to monopolize game time to be effective. 3. Roleplaying and Charisma-based skill rolls can be used together to enhance each other. 4. Roleplyaing and using Charisma-based skills should be fun for everyone -- if not, try changing things until all players' needs are met. -- 77IM, a very long-winded character
#2 zombiegleemax Oct 16, 2003 18:00:05	I think this is the most intelligent post I've ever seen on this particular topic and I'm going to pass copies of this along to my RP group.
#3 zombiegleemax Oct 17, 2003 8:42:37	Good article, I gave it 4 out of 5 stars. The points are well made, except that your suggesting role-play be forced onto players who might otherwise have issues with social anxiety. Everybody has social anxiety, or a stage fright, when it comes to doing something they normally wouldn't do socially. This includes things like making public speeches, acting, talking to members of the opposite sex or doing something in a manner that we normally wouldn't do. If it were 'easy' to overcome, we would have more actors and politicians in the world while, likewise, we would all be more comfortable in talking to each other about complex social issues (like telling people the truth and how we really feel about something they've done). I've taken public speaking classes and there really is no way to overcome stage fright. Good speakers (actors and politicians) channel their anxiety and view it as a good sign to feel anxious before acting or speaking in public. Even though we are role-playing with friends, doing something we normally wouldn't do can still be hard for some people who have real problems with social anxiety. In fact, demanding them to overcome this problem and give an eloquent act from their characters is really making the situation that much more difficult for them. It is putting them on the spot to do something they normally wouldn't do when they're probably with the gaming group because it is their social outlet. I can agree with giving positive modifiers for effort, but I disagree with negative modifiers for a half-hearted attempt. Again, social anxiety is a real issue and we cannot force people to overcome this issue by hindering them when they give their best attempt just because we didn't like they way they tried (which is very subjective). When someone isn't necessarily good at acting at the table, I notice they tend to have other moments when they shine - like overcoming puzzles, reading into problems during an adventure, offering strategies for defeating difficult foes, and listening (which is just as important as talking). Only rewarding the players who role-play (speak/act) well is, in a manner, ostracizing the players who have a difficult time overcoming anxiety. Even if someone only enjoys the number crunching of the game, we shouldn't try to turn them into role-playing fiends. The more important part of the game is playing imagination; well having fun is the most important part, but role-playing is merely playing pretend after all. For some people, the numbers equate just as readily into a vivid scene in their mind as using an accent and acting will for another person. This is a good article, but I just don't think role-playing well can be forced upon players. Considering that everyone is affected to some degree by social anxiety, forcing someone to try and cope with such an issue during an event where they come to escape some of their anxiety isn't wholly fair in my opinion.
#4 zombiegleemax Oct 28, 2003 15:24:59	great article, i agree as well. but i'd like to add something a little to richie's response. you're right. role playing shouldn't be enforced on players with social hangups. it just makes them nervous and less likely to enjoy themselves. but... it CAN be encouraged. i've been dm'ing for quite some time now, and i LOVE it. i attribute my fun in this to a couple different things. it's amazingly fun to create a story that your players talk about years after the conclusion, and it's very much enjoyable to create settings where even the most reclusive of characters come out of their shell and perfom feats of role playing worthy of an oscar. by setting, i mean a two things. the first is the most obvious: your campaign world. that topic is best left for a different thread, so we'll just skip to the second. whenever i start a new campaign, i have my group (whether new players or not) spend the entire session creating their characters. i make a big deal of it. we talk about backstory, goals, do role playing shorts with them, and basically just get used to getting into character with the new pc's. every now and then i get players that feel uncomfortable doing this. it's not because they don't want to, it's because they feel they'd be inadequate at doing it. it's this first session where this becomes apparant, and you can work this anxiety into the actual character making process. if you've got a real closed in player, it's a good idea to suggest to him to create a character that reflects that as well, just a bit more to the extreme. props help in this. give him a hoodie (or suggest that he bring one) and ask him to wear it during the session (hood up, of course). make sure he gets attention during the session, though, otherwise this fails. have npcs comment a lot, "my..your friend's rather forboding isn't he?" or "show your face in front of the " and have him pull the hood down. any sort of props will help. even if they're just makeshift costumes or just rolled up pieces of paper to simulate a scroll, props help to create a mood that makes role playing easy for anyone. also..staying seated isn't very conducive to memorable roleplaying with these kind of characters. make them stand up..walk around....interact with the characters. get up yourself. as a dm, i find that very few of the npcs i role play are sitting down, and standing up helps a LOT. stick a few of your characters in your bathroom with the lights off if they get put in a cell. turn off the lights and light a candle at the table if they are having an outside encounter during the night. plan out music for the session and have your cd remote by your side at all times. create a dynamic environment that inspires your players to become their characters. try some of this stuff, and i guarantee not only will you have a great time, you players will remember the experience forever. and even the most reclusive of people will find that it easier to take a bigger role than they normally would have. also..with this kind of approach to role playing, the reward becomes the experience, instead of experience becoming the award. hope this helps some of you out there, -anomaleic
#5 evangelion1010 Oct 30, 2003 16:24:05	over all, nice thread, but i personally disagree about the part with the diplomacy check. there should be no more bonuses given to how well its roleplayed, just like you shouldn't give a real life doctor bonuses to heal is he corectly gives the treatment to heal the wound or bonuses to a knowledge check if the charcters player is especially intelligent. even if you did do that, it does nothing for a physical skill (here, stand over there, lets see if you make the saving throw vs poison dart... oh, you can't lift 300 pounds over your head? i guess thats a -4 to break down that door) the best solution to this was posted on the boards a while ago. when you need a diplomacy check, roll the dice then role play. if you get a 2, you end up insulting the kings wife and daughter saying they are ugly, or you accidently spit in his face. if you get a 20, you state everything in the best manner a player can... nothing taken off for his acting abilites, thats unfair, unless you implement it for all the skills... which would be fun for some skills... here... see if you can count by powers of 2 to 4096 while we throw dice at you.... no come on, your rouge wants to tumble down the stairs, you do it too. ... no seriously, do it.
#6 zombiegleemax Dec 29, 2003 2:31:35	The best solution to this was posted on the boards a while ago. When you need a diplomacy check, roll the dice then role play. If you get a 2, you end up insulting the king’s wife and daughter saying they are ugly, or you accidentally spit in his face. If you get a 20, you state everything in the best manner a player can. Nothing taken off for his acting abilities, that’s unfair, unless you implement it for all the skills... which would be fun for some skills... I disagree with this method. It forces a character to act out a scene in a particular way rather than letting it flow naturally. Besides, the examples you listed are very exaggerated. People know not to "insult the king's wife", especially if they are trying to be diplomatic.
#7 zombiegleemax Jan 09, 2004 16:44:18	I disagree with this method. It forces a character to act out a scene in a particular way rather than letting it flow naturally. Besides, the examples you listed are very exaggerated. People know not to "insult the king's wife", especially if they are trying to be diplomatic. You have this backwards. Playing by the dice forces a player to act a scene a particular way even if they know the right way to do something. However, making a diplomacy check would indicate how the character should react. The point is that character knowledge and player knowledge are two separate things. As the original poster said, while a real life doctor is going to know quite a bit about healing - the doctor's character with 0 ranks in healing will know next to nothing about it. The king's wife example was exaggerated, but it could still hold true (not necessarily with the insulting and spitting in his face now). Let’s say the character is going to the king's court in search of financial aid for some quest or something weird. Using player knowledge, a player knows this particular king liked his wife addressed first because the player read a book about this location. The character has never been to this kingdom before and would not know this. Now, if the DM let's the player role-play first he could pretend to be a gentleman and address the queen first, then turn to the king, address him and state his business, even though the last kingdom they visited the player didn't address the queen first. The DM likes it and gives the player a bonus to their diplomacy check. However, if the player rolls for their character to determine how they should act, and rolls horribly, he could play his character as addressing the king only but if they roll good then they could role-play that the character tried to be a gentlemen, smitten with the beauty of the queen and addresses her first. Its really up to individual DM's - the point of rolling the dice to determine how to act is really just getting to the point that player's do not know what their characters know and vice versa.
#8 zombiegleemax Jan 10, 2004 4:27:07	Please note 77IM's words: If you want, you can also give out little bonuses or penalties to the roll based on roleplaying. I prefer to give bonuses and penalties based on effort As I understand it, 77IM doesn't suggest giving bonuses to charisma-based checks on account of the player's acting skill. His suggestion applies only to players who actually make a worthwhile attempt at trying to roleplay their character. The effort is the thing that counts, not the actual acting ability. I fully agree with this method, as it greatly encourages players to roleplay their characters. As for uncharismatic players playing charismatic PC's: there are a few other options for defining personality, that might make life easier for them; maybe a silent, tall, dark hero who's outlandish look and confident create an aura of mystery around him that is both intimidating and yet awe-inspiring. Or maybe the exceptionally beautiful character, who even though may be a bit goofy, enchants everyone with her wonderful smile and amazingly deep, blue eyes. It could be the weird bard that fails to communicate very well with his fellows, and yet when he's on the stage he can sing you to tears and display his spectacular acting ability. Those are just a few alternatives, but on the general level I agree with 77IM's method of DM'ing.
#9 77im Jan 12, 2004 14:42:50	Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. This thread's been sitting pretty for a while so I thought I'd address some of the responses. Forcing People to Role-Play: I certainly hope I didn't give the impression that anyone should force players to role-play. In general, I've found that trying to force the players to do anything is a really, really bad idea. Instead, discuss with your players how much character interaction is desired, and then find ways to encourage them to engage in that level of play. On the other hand, though, if someone is too shy to role-play character interactions, or just doesn't want to (they'd rather solve puzzles, fight monsters, get treasure, etc.), that's perfectly fine, as long as they are not playing a high-Charisma character (or, they can play their high-Cha sorcerer as "quiet, but with a strong presence"). It would be like someone playing a wizard, but not bothering to learn what their spells do. I've found that when a person doesn't put in the effort to role-play -- trying to rely on skill rolls instead -- it breaks immersion, which reduces the fun for everyone. This doesn't mean that every wallflower in your gaming group suddenly becomes an extrovert; just that they should put in an earnest effort in role-playing situations. After all, if the game takes no effort, that's not much fun either. A potential problem is a player who really has a social anxiety disorder, but wants to pretend to be someone charismatic, outgoing, and confident. I honestly don't have a solution to this. Bonuses/Penalties to Interaction Rolls: I'm not sure I explained this part well. There are two reasons to give out bonuses and penalties on interaction rolls; let's discuss them separately. Rewarding Effort: Gamers are a pavlovian bunch -- they do things that are rewarded. If you want people to make an effort to role-play, give a little bonus (+2) on the check for a good effort, no bonus for a mediocre effort, a penalty (-2 or -4) for a half-hearted effort, and disallow the check if the person flat-out refuses to role-play. Players will quickly learn that if they want to do well on their Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate checks, they have to actually play a role. Under this system, a player who is a naturally good actor would get less of a bonus than someone who is very awkward but struggling valiantly to portray their character. This system mixes well with the above idea that people who don't want to role-play should just get a low Charisma and not bother. The only drawback to this system is that the gauge of effort is so subjective; but so much of the game already relies on DM judgment, so as long as the DM and the players are able to discuss these judgments, it should be fine. Some people propose XP awards rather than bonuses for this sort of thing. I think that's risky, since it's more permanent and also less immediate, it could end up rewarding the wrong sort of behavior. Rewarding Correct Decisions: If someone does an exceptional job role-playing character interaction, it's usually not the result of their natural acting ability. Usually, it's because they thought about the situation, have paid attention to the campaign, and are keeping in mind the personalities of the various characters. The example given above -- addressing a king in a particular way -- is great. The player who paid attention and remembers this king's personality quirk might get a +2 bonus on the roll for doing the right thing; the player who treats the king like any would not (or may even get a penalty, depending on the king's personality). The idea behind this system is that at some point, the player's actual brain has to be involved in what the character does, so the player should be able to make decisions which affect the outcome of the roll. Otherwise, the "game" aspect of the role-playing game becomes diminished. My gaming group last night joked about implementing the "Dungeoneering" skill; instead of an adventure, we'd just all make Dungeoneering skill checks to determine how much treasures and XP we get for the session (fail by 5 or more and you die, get raised, and lose a level). Any "stand-alone" skill checks -- like a single Diplomacy check, a Disable Device check, or an important Knowledge check -- run the risk of becoming boring if there's nothing the player can do to affect the outcome. This is why I support the idea that the player can earn some amount of bonuses and penalties in character interaction roles. Rolling Skill Checks First: I've never played this way; it's an interesting idea and I'd be willing to try it. However, my impression is that it wouldn't be as much fun. I think the point of interaction skill checks is to drive the behavior of NPCs, not PCs. A player knows their character's personality very well (or should), and is playing that role, and should be allowed to make their own decisions on what to do most of the time (metagaming aside). But to ask the DM to manage the personalities of everyone in the world with no guidelines is asking too much -- so the rules help the DM to decide how these characters will react to the PCs. There are many systems out there to dictate PC behavior (enforcing interaction results; enforcing alignment; "personality mechanics" from games like World of Darkness; "character flaws" from various games, etc.). Almost all of them result in PCs that seem mechanical, cookie-cutter, and strangely devoid of personality. I also think people will "get into the role" much better if they are given total freedom of how to play that role. -- 77IM
#10 pjackson Jan 13, 2004 11:57:27	Whilst it may be true that we all know how a high charisma character should act, it is not true that we can all do it. It is certainly not easy for everyone. I guess that catsup is the American for ketchup, but each of the various ways of asking for it could be reasonably said by a low skilled, low charisma character, or a high skilled, high charisma character, except perhaps for the "commanding" version which just seems stupid, though from a high charisma character it might be taken as a joke. It is not what you say that matters, but how you say it - the tone of voice and body language. A low charisma character might say, "Please pass the catsup" when not looking at anyone and scowling. A high charisma character might smile and look in the eyes of the person he is asking. These sort of things are a lot harder to get right than the actual words. I do not think that it is a good idea to persuade "closed in" players to play characters like that. Like other players they should be encourage to play any character they want that fits the setting and the group. It can be a lot of fun to play a character very different from yourself. A final point. I disagree with the implication that good acting is the same as good role playing. They are not. You can be a bad actor but a good roleplayer, and vice versa. Similarly one can role play in combat or when your character is alone, just as much as when handling social interactions. Of course, good acting can entertain other players, and it is possible to be good at both. But it is possible to really get into the mind of your character without being able to express it well
#11 thindelock Jan 13, 2004 13:21:13	Good stuff here. I like the original article, and the thought put into most replies. My solution to the "roll-play-versus-role-play" debate I see here is a fairly simple one: the player rolls first, and is expected to act accordingly. If the player rolls low, s/he RPs the character stuttering, slipping up, whatever. I don't say, "You insult the King's wife" unless the player doesn't have any ideas and ASKS me for an RP suggestion; unless they ask for help, I let them figure out the exact nature of the mess-up. That way, they still have character freedom, but they don't succeed in the social interaction any more than they hit when they roll low in combat. This works for my group because I have pretty responsible players that also happen to enjoy talking in-character as much as they enjoy thumping the nearest ogre. In a less cooperative group, I can imagine players rolling low and still playing their PC as suave and in-control. This, my fellow DMs, is what XP is for. Experience points are a player reward as much as they are a character reward. If a player defies the die-roll on a social check, give them a *small* XP penalty. You'd do the same if they shirked their job in combat and ran off, leaving their allies to fend for themselves, right? Players shouldn't be rewarded for what they fail to do; that includes RP and combat. And of course, if the player still refuses to RP a low social roll properly, you could always play the NPC as more cold/aloof/uncooperative. At the end of the day, it should be the roll that decides the success or failure. Otherwise, a barbarian in the hands of a smooth-talking player could render the party's bard useless, ranks in diplomacy being rendered worthless.
#12 incenjucar Jan 14, 2004 17:02:05	A quick suggestion for people having trouble with this: Write down what you say before you say it. Read it off of a card, paper, whatever. Your fellows will understand, hopefully. Most of us, unless we've been in gaming (or drama) for years, will have a hard time acting out Charisma 18 with a straight face, especially off the top of our heads. However, it's usually easier to read it off of a card, especially if you're not looking at anyone's reaction. It's also easier to use the proper words via text than via speech. For instance, a bard trying to coerce an NPC of the opposite sex (or otherwise expected to be attracted to the PC): What you may expect from someone doing it out loud, without a card: "Hello, milady.. um... you're looking very nice today. That, uh, dress of yours fits you extra--f-elegantly.. " *cough, clear throat* I take her hand and kiss it, and, uh.. look in to her eyes. "Tell me, milady, will ...you, eh, will you help us?" While, if you write it down, you'll have an easier time doing this: I bow to the lady, and stride closer to her, offering to take her hand. "Fair eve, milady, and how doth thou fair? If thy day has been as thy beauty, t’would be marvelous and grand, I would think." I raise her hand, looking to her eyes as I kiss it, barely touching my lips to her skin. I stand up, and slip closer to her, holding her hand gently as I breathe my words, "But alas, fair maiden.. dark times are ahead... we need your help to bring light to it... will you help us, for all that is lovely and borne of beauty, even if it is but pale to thine own?" Try pulling that out of your arse in the middle of a game without a pencil and without falling down laughing mid-way.
#13 finarin_panjoro Jan 16, 2004 9:59:16	There are a couple of things I have a different take on but for the most part I agree with 77IM. The main thing I have a problem with is letting the dice decide the outcome of the conversation. Several people have suggested that you roll the dice, determine the outcome, and then have the player role-play it. This is not an acceptable method to me for two reasons. First, it is a waste of the player's and my time to role-play a conversation the outcome of which we already know. We already know how its going to end so why are we bothering to do all this talking? It encourages the player and DM to give half-hearted performances because the performances have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the conversation. To me this is exactly the same as saying "roll your diplomacy check. You win," it just adds a bunch of unnecessary dialogue on top of it. The second reason is that conversations do not resolve randomly (by dice roll). They resolve based on the personalities, circumstances, goals, and presentations of the parties involved. All of these things are available to us at the game table (their ranks in diplomacy can be considered as representative of their presentation). The player knows all of these things about his character and the DM should know them about any significant PC or can them up on the spot. So why should we force the outcome to conform to a mostly random outcome? Conversation/negotiation is the one thing we can actually do at the table (as opposed to swinging swords, casting spells, or picking locks) so having a die roll force the outcome is inappropriate and sometimes frustrating. I posted an article to Regdar's on a very similar topic here >LINK< . The article discusses these things in depth and presents a system for role-playing charisma based checks which takes these things into account.
#14 zombiegleemax Jan 28, 2004 11:01:40	First, it is a waste of the player's and my time to role-play a conversation the outcome of which we already know. We already know how its going to end so why are we bothering to do all this talking? It encourages the player and DM to give half-hearted performances because the performances have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the conversation. To me this is exactly the same as saying "roll your diplomacy check. You win," it just adds a bunch of unnecessary dialogue on top of it. Your making a biased statement here that seems to stem from an inexperienced opinion; that is, it sounds like you’ve never played by using dice rolls to determine how to role-play a situation. It isn't as easy as 'roll your dice, you win/lose'. There are stat slots for role-playing based skills. If you are only going to role-play and ignore the mechanical skills, then just drop them. Herein lays the problem with this method. Player A is a very good role-player and, aside from this, they are an eloquent speaker as well. They know they can get the DM to agree to almost anything their character may say while negotiating with NPCs so they don’t waste any skill points in charisma based skills. Instead, they make a combative character, putting their worst stat roll into charisma, followed by intelligence and wisdom. They role-play that they are so ugly because they had an unfortunate accident as a child involving acid and their face perhaps. This is all believable and can be role-played well. Player B is very shy and has a real-life speech impediment. However, they see their character as being very charismatic, making this their highest stat. They imagine their character will talk their way out of almost any situation they can; they put all their skill points into charisma based skills. They work up a detailed character background to support just how good they are when it comes to charisma based interactions. Ignoring the stats and basing the results on how well the players role-play will give Player A the decided advantage. In fact, in a fair amount of games I’ve been in, the best role-player, regardless of character concept, is usually the player relied upon to get what the party wants out of the NPCs. In the example, Player B is shy and quiet, so every time a chance comes for their character to shine, using diplomacy, bluff and other charisma based skills, they never get the chance because the DM is basing these interactions off of role-play skill and not the skills they spent points on by the rules of the game. I do agree, encouraging attempts at role-play is beneficial to any role-playing game. My group is role-play intensive, but we will role our stats too sometimes. Just as well, at times when players are indecisive as to how their character might react, separating player knowledge from character knowledge might be a fine line for some of us, we willingly roll against various stats to determine how we should play our characters (to separate it from how we would act in the situation). Role-playing seems to work well for your group, but many groups merely gather to play a game. Some players have a very hard time at acting things out in-character, some players can only manage discussing the game from a third person perspective. Kudos to your group fir enjoying the role-play, but it is not something that should be forced on players. If the group is all of an equivalent skill level at role-playing, then yes, bonus and rewards should be given for certain situations based on how well they role-play in that situation. However, if the group is not all on the same skill level, this is only rewarding the players who already role-play well while it discourages the players who are not good at role-playing. Again, as I said before, using role-playing based rewards is really best decided on an individual group basis, depending on how well it works for that group and how comfortable the players are with role-playing in-character.
#15 tzor Jan 28, 2004 20:28:48	I think there is a middle ground between role play and roll play in the use of charismatic skills, just as there is with combat. Anyone who looks at combat would clearly see that the use of the dice does in no way absolve the player from requiring good combat tactics or a well thought out battle plan. Likewise, it can be equally argued that anyone who rolls a 3 on a combat roll has not per se fumbled his weapon or made a military faux pas, but has instead through a number of factors, his skill, his opponent's skill, his movement, his opponent's movement, and even just the hand of fate itself, which is often fickle, has failed to hit. This is the same with charisma based skills. The dice doesn't dictate the role-play and the role-play doesn't dictate the dice. Let's use an example in history. Two speakers addressed an audience assembled for consecrating a newly built war cemetery, in the middle of a war. One spoke elegantly and at great length, according to the style of the times. The other spoke a very short speech, in generally plain language. Which one did the world remember and made famous? The latter. At least I think it was the latter ... if anyone can cite, without using Goggle, the name of the speaker who spoke before Abraham Lincoln’s Address in Gettysburg, and then a quote from memory from same speech, I will consider changing my opinion. The former had high charisma, and spoke elegantly, but his final roll was lower than the average charisma Lincoln. Why? Who can say, charisma is, just like combat, a fickle thing, sometimes the magic works and sometimes the magic does not. Sometimes the sword hits the mark and other times the sword hits the shield. That and that alone is the purpose of the dice. Because, in the end, the only question that the dice answers is not how great the performance was, but whether or not the performance produced the desired result.
#16 zombiegleemax Feb 08, 2004 4:42:51	I think there are plenty ways out there to increase your role-playing ability and confidence with Drama classes, etc. I am currently attending a extra-curricular club at school on debating and public speaking. It's doing wonders for my role-playing. Advise players with role-playing problems to do something like this.
#17 zombiegleemax Feb 12, 2004 8:17:29	Originally posted by rogue_lettuce I think there are plenty ways out there to increase your role-playing ability and confidence with Drama classes, etc. I am currently attending a extra-curricular club at school on debating and public speaking. It's doing wonders for my role-playing. Advise players with role-playing problems to do something like this. This isn't a bad idea, except that a lot of players are out of school; finding venues that help people with drama, public speaking and debating costs money. It still does not help them overcome what anxiety they may have when role-playing; even when they do involve themselves with such activities. I've taken drama and public speaking classes, at both high school and college levels. Within these classes it is still evident that it doesn't drastically help people with role-playing. I'm in agreement with Tzor on this; however, I strongly believe the role-play should not be forced onto a player who is not comfortable with acting in-character. I wouldn't advice these players to do anything, I might suggest it but it could be taken offensively if a DM recommends someone take public speaking classes to play in their game (elitist even).