Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Aug 13, 2003 7:33:48	There are several commonly held attitudes with respect to “role-playing” which I would like to examine. Firstly, that skills such as bluff and diplomacy are in some way detrimental to role-playing. Secondly, many advocates of role-playing take a perverse pleasure in the weakness of their character to the point that a powerful character is suspected of being 2 dimensional and poorly role-played. Why is this ? Thirdly, that rules-restrictions hamper role-playing – for example class restrictions or alignment. Skills are based off statistics. Each DND character has a set of statistics that represent their physical and mental attributes. If a character has 18 strength the rules say they are capable of lifting a 600lb boulder off the ground. There are no role-play issues associated with it, the DM does not expect a player to demonstrate their own ability to do so. Conversely a strength 3 character can only lift 20lb. The overwhelming majority of players are capable of lifting more. The DM accepts that there is no real life cross-over. There is no role-playing issue because strength is a physical stat and everyone accepts that the physical attributes of the player and character are distinct. Now what about a character with 18 charisma ? They are charming. They light up a room and become the centre of attention (should they wish to do so). People are attracted to them and trust them. Conversely a 3 charisma character is socially inept, they are gauche, tactless and probably irritating with optional halitosis. Simple. However the distinction between the mental attributes of the player and character is harder to make. For example how can a relatively shy, simply-spoken DND player attempt to role-play a florid, charismatic paladin ? Say we have a situation where the party are embroiled in a dispute with the city watch, tempers are being lost, weapons being drawn. The paladin’s player says “Andrus will raise his open hands and err speak slowly, umm, calmly, err turn on the charm and try to um calm the situation down”. If the DM now asks the player for the words the paladin speaks and the tongue-tied player mumbles “Err, um, come on guys, stop it” does the DM simply say that the attempt fails and a fight ensues ? If so he has restricted the character to the player’s abilities. (Can you lift a 600lb rock ?). An 18 charisma paladin who has made an effort to learn the art of public speaking (translation : maxxed diplomacy) should be able to calm the situation down or at least have a very good chance of doing so – unlike the tongue-tied player. This is simulated using the diplomacy skill check which would give a more realistic result chance of success. Without a skill such as diplomacy either the DM makes an ad-hoc decision OR the character is restricted to the social skills/persuasiveness of the player. In this case it becomes impossible to role-play a character with higher charisma and charisma based skills than the player. This is reinforced by looking at the issue from the other perspective. If the DM always “lets the player do the talking”, then a player with the gift of the gab can allocate a charisma of 5, no skill points to bluff or diplomacy and gain all the benefits of their real-life charm, which is definitely bad role-playing. The charisma skills are an effective simulation of the character’s abilities, an aid, not an impediment to role-playing. This brings me to the second issue, having concluded that without skills such as diplomacy it is impossible to role-play a charismatic character, this can be turned on its head. If you cannot play a charismatic character without recourse to such simulation, and as DND players are generally not superhuman I wonder if this is the basis of the "weak character = true role-player" stance ? By only role-playing characters who are not more capable than the player you can do “all the talking” for your character without being penalised or taking advantage and without recourse to a simulation of the interaction. It certainly provides a richer gaming/role-play experience and can be held in contrast to the sterile, game-mechanics manipulation of the out-and-out powergamer. However it is entirely arbitrary because every player allows the rules to simulate some of their character's interaction with the game world, it is just a question of where the line is drawn. I enjoy role-playing because it allows me to adopt different personas from my own and to play people who have the power to shape events (unlike me in real life, and I assume the vast majority of DND players) as they advance. To role-play someone very much like me is almost oxymoronic. In game not everything is possible, just as in real life. I will not become Prime Minister no matter how much I might want to. Accepting that is part of my existence. Similarly in game there are some things that are (perhaps arbitrarily) disallowed. A barbarian cannot become a monk without changing himself fundamentally (i.e. losing the ability to rage). You can choose to role-play a character who understands that and accepts the loss of raging (and becomes a monk); or one who understands but refuses to accept it (forever failing to become a "chaotic monk"); or you could role-play one who refuses to accept the innate limitation and takes the view that it is the monks who are at fault (and bears enmity to all monks forever after). How your character reacts to the restriction is role-playing. The restrictions might restrict the player’s idea of how their character’s capabilities develop, but they are in no way an impediment to role-playing the character, any more than the inability to lift a 600lb rock is an impediment to role-playing an 8 strength character. To claim that any game rules impede (or for that matter facilitate) role-playing is I believe to misunderstand the basic structure of the game. I am aware of no rule that defines a character’s behaviour in any given situation. The player determines the character’s decision making processes and responses to in game situations, not the rules. The rules are there to detemine the success or failure of the actions player decides their character will attempt.
#2 zombiegleemax Aug 17, 2003 6:46:05	Use of Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive in the midst of intense roleplaying scenes has always been problematic. In my group we usually use the dice roles to guide our roleplaying and vice-versa in that crazy, each based on each other way of a really good differential equation that makes non-math majors tear their hair out and run screaming naked down dorm hallway at 2 am. For example, if you're trying to hold diplomatic small-talk with some noble, we will usually say at least some of the things our characters would say and describe the general gist, but leave the rest up to a Diplomacy check, as even our obsessive group of roleplayers occasionally wants to get back to the point. But if you role Badly on a diplomacy check... well, that implies you just said something wrong, which we would then determine (what you said, not what exactly it was that was wrong with what you said, unless you have detect thughts or the high sense motive modifier that can sometimes act in a similar capacity) and often some quick roleplaying (and maybe another check, higher DC) is the only thing that can extract you from the situation. For a shy player... let them role diplomacy! I'm betting few of the players can Great Cleave hordes of Kobolds into Sorcerer Kibble, but you let the Characters do so because they have the stats for it. Encourage them to roleplay it, but don't force it. That's no fun for anyone.
#3 stembolt Aug 19, 2003 23:42:23	This article is unreadable and incoherent. My number one suggestion is to use the paragraph.
#4 zombiegleemax Aug 20, 2003 18:42:29	The attitude we've developed to this, after several months of annoyance from the characters who had the skills and never got to express them, was that you always roll the dice at the beginning of the combat. Did I say combat? I mean negotation. It's the same thing, really. And the important thing is that you must all roll your diplomacy scores, unless you're not present. After all, the bard is doing the talking but the barbarian's natural one indicates that he is interrupting or ruining the play or something like that. Barbarian: 'Did he just say we slew the dragon? Is slew another word for ran away from?' Cleric: 'Shut up, Trog, you're ruining everything!' Bard: AHEM! Anyway, yes, after slaying away from the dragon we eventually found a way to sneak right under its... deadish... nose and make away with this great haul of treasure. So that's why we have it. Not because we robbed the museum at all. Slow Witted Guardsman: 'Did you just say slaying away from? Anyway, move along if you don't want me to throw your great hairy arses in jail.' Barbarian: Melody doesn't have a hairy arse at all. Why would he say that? Poor little halfwit must have his helmet on too tight. See? The Barbarian rolled a natural 1 on diplomacy, the Cleric rolled an 11, the Bard rolled a 23 on his Bluff check and beat the Guardsman's lucky 19 on Sense Motive. So both the Cleric and the Barbarian must be transparent (the Barbarian actually offensive) to the Guardsman but the Bard is convincing. We have occasionally tried variant rules for everyone modifying everyone else (eg the Barbarian in this case would have subtracted 10 from the Bard's roll and the Cleric would have left it unmodified), but we've found that this penalizes bards and thieves unnecessarily for trying to negotiate at all. Our rationale for this, in the face of the common sense opinion that the Barbarian actually WOULD have ruined everything, is that the Bard doesn't get to modify the Fighter's attack rolls downward through his ineptitude so it's unnecessarily crippling to let the reverse occur. Oh, and when things go wrong (as they so often do), that's when the clever roleplay comes out. Convincingly work the conversation around to where you want it and you can try your Diplomacy or Bluff again. But after you've accidentally given away the fact that you killed the hostage instead of the villain, don't expect to just reroll the dice. The Fighter doesn't get to do that when he misses, nor should the Bard be able to do it when he commits a faux pas. The important thing to remember is that average conversation is AVERAGE. Not incredibly stupid. I know we all get used to a skill roll of 10 or 11 being pretty much an automatic failure on anything but waking up in the morning, but in conversation it's usually okay. Not making friends, not losing them. Just okay. Don't feel the need to punish yourself by alienating NPCs just because you didn't roll a natural 20 on your diplomacy check.
#5 zombiegleemax Aug 20, 2003 21:08:46	Mole, your argument had many good points but it was difficult to follow/read. I am interested in your rationale concerning disadvantaging players because of their personal player social skills not matching their characters stats. I am one of those annoying roleplaying fundamentalists you refer to who will roleplay out any situation in preference to simple rolling a skill check. I believe that for developing players that the presense of Charisma-based skills allows an easy way to avoid every roleplaying. There is simply not need to develop your real life roleplaying ability if you have an excuse to never try. Most of us here are lucky enough to have seen the game develop and therefore had the opportunities in the past to refine our roleplaying skills of a long time. Experienced DMs/player groups modify the rules to the way they enjoy to play. For new players this in not the case. They use the rules to the letter and I believe those skills such as Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff are detremental to a budding players roleplaying development. Without experienced roleplayers to use as models, I feel new players will end up playing the game like a computer game with little to no acting what-so-ever. Your argument about hindering players who have difficulties articulating themselves has some validity. players should be encouraged by their DM to roleplay and not punished. Perhaps the check should be modified up according to the players effort to reward good roleplay. Especially in the early stages of a players growth within the game, a player would try to roleplay interactions with NPCs and not go straight for the dice. players would then see the benefits to roleplay in the statistical sense as well as an enjoyment sense. What if we used your argument with DMs? Should we punish DMs when playing particularly intelligent, charismatic, wise NPCs. By your reasoning DMs should just role the dice and not bother attemping to roleplay a NPC because afterall how could their social-skills, knowledge etc match the remarkable NPCs. Now I love to roleplay but I will sometimes see the need to 'fast-forward' some interactions with NPCs just to keep the pace up within a game. Not every social interaction needs to be roleplayed but I believe the majority should be attempted. D&D is afterall a roleplaying game not a rollplaying game.;)
#6 archtyrant_terevoth Aug 23, 2003 16:56:04	I strongly disagree, social skills tend to be bad, and the reason is that they're rather poorly defined. Also we know they're broken because they don't work the same way against PCs as they do on NPCs. Until they work the same on all characters, I will always beleive they are screwed up. Roleplaying skills should be a factor, yes, but in the end it should always come down to the decision of the player or NPC. Social skills should help you make a case, they shouldn't be the case. Now, the problem is that social skilsl work equally against anyone, regardless of personality, and regardless of anything except their skill level. To resist someone using diplomacy on you, you have to be a diplomat yourself? Umm.... what? To resist bluffs you need to have sense motive? Yeah, ok.. that makes some sense, but what if you're just a natural skeptic by nature? Some people are a lot more or less trusting than others and it has nothing to do with being able to read people. Same deal with intimidate. Some people are naturally cowardly by nature and others are brash and fearless, this has nothing to do with hit dice necissarily. A 1st level warrior could feel ready to take on the world, and a 20th level mage may decide to be more cautious. And this is my problem with social skills, they never take the target NPC's personality into account, only his skill levels, and that produces something that just isn't realistic. The problem is that social skills are treated too much like magical spells. They aren't an effect that is going to hit everyone equally, and are just resisted by one factor. They need to be carefully done, and need to calculate a bunch of factors. Even then, there have to be certain things that just can't be accomplished via social skills. Diplomacy, no matter how high, shouldnt' be able to convince the evil high cleric to abandon his faith without reason, or make him a fanatical ally of a paladin. Bluff shouldnt' be able to turn skeptical NPCs into buying a lie that a 5 year old would laugh at just because of a high bluff roll. These things kill consistency and take the roleplaying out of the game. If a high level diplomat could really do all this, then why aren't the kingdoms united already, since with a high enough diplomacy roll you could just get a king to concede the throne to you without any reason or basis. That's garbage and we all know it's garbage. Skills should be a guiding force, not a determining one. When we picture the PCs character saying certain things, the diplomacy check of 30 should represent that he said it really well, but what he said should still be a very guiding factor. Is what he's saying influential to the NPC? Is his argument something the NPC cares about? Well if it is, then how he says it might matter. If it's not, then the NPC could probably care less how well he says it, because what he's offering just isn't worth anything to him. An insulting bribe of 10 gold is sitll an insulting bribe no matter how eloquently it is offered. If you play social skills as written, they completely suck. A 1st level character has a problem convincing anyone of anything with diplomacy, and a 20th level bard can get make everyone his fanatical follower. That's wrong. Now of course there's also that big argument that social skills allow players who normally are not charismatic to play a charismatic character. That's a poor argument as well. To roleplay a character you have to know how he thinks and how he acts. You don't necissarily need to be able to do the things he can, but you should know what it is that he does. You might not be lie fluidly and convincingly as a person, but you should at least need to know what lie you are going to tell. If you can't even think of your lie, then you honestly shouldn't be playing that character, because you can't roleplay him successfully. It's much the same thing as a wizard PC who has no idea what spell to cast and is asking for a knowledge(arcana) check every round to tell him what spell he should use in this situation. He just can't roleplay that type of character. There is a requirement for players playing a character. You don't need the physical characteristics of your character, or his aptitudes with skills or magic, but you do need to know what your character would do and what he'd think. And believe me, the very smart PC playing an int 5 barbarian who always comes up with super tactics and strategies is just as guilty as the guy playing the bard who has no idea how a bard would act. Contrary to what some would believe, you DO need certain traits as a player to play a certain character. If die rolls constantly take over character decisions and completely replace the need for a player to get into character, then where is the roleplaying? It's dried up and gone, sucked up by rollplaying and all that remains is a dead husk of what could have been an enjoyable roleplaying encounter.
#7 zombiegleemax Sep 12, 2003 8:37:31	In the case of skills: Use good roleplaying to give a good boost in direct proportion to the roleplaying. If the bluff was "I want to get in there, because i have som giant arships driven by drakes in costumes to deliver to your boss." i´d give a hell lot of penalties! If the bluff on the other hand was a good one, for example "We´re the new guards. What, you weren´t told? God damn it! I hate sloppy organisation! Tell you what, we stay guard here while you check with your superiors. How´s that?", then i´d give a much better bonus than in the first so-called bluff. And yes, numbers should also be guide to role-playing. In the case of the above stated skills, see the above stated proposition. In the case of other skills and numbers, it is important to remember that the PC and the Player are seperate beings. Thus, numbers should always be a guide. For example, an 18 Charisma individual can be very evil, blunt, rough and boisterous (the bullies at school come to mind), but still be very charismatic as to make people follow him. He can still be very ugly too. Just because Charisma improves appearance in most cases, it does not allways have to do so.
#8 zombiegleemax Sep 12, 2003 17:21:58	A bigger problem - Wisdom. Fortunately for me, both my character and I are brainy but foolhardy people. If a character has high Dexterity or Strength, that's no problem. No need to life the 800 pound weight, as it was said. High Charisma or Intelligence, again it's no problem. The DM can always fill in stuff (Intelligence checks are related to existing facts. You can't expect the player to know who the last king of your campaign area was, only the dice know that) for those stats. Wisdom, on the other hand, is a measure of how many people call you stupid. I manage to leave my sword in it's saddle-sheath when I dismounted and charged... people call me stupid. I flatter the Kobold Queen with my intellect and charisma... people call me stupid. The only thing that comes close to solving it in my mind is a rewind option. Hapless player: "Oh no! I didn't pack any potions." Fudge: ::happens:: DM: "Yes you did!" Hapless player: "Oh! I forgot. How hapless." For the wise player, that's good roleplaying. I know I could never play a barbarian, my tongue flows when I'm in character. Maybe in a few years, or if I ever play while inebriated.
#9 alterwind_dup Sep 23, 2003 16:42:34	So why cant a Barbarian be Intelligent?!? I have played Barbarians who have been smarter than Bards and they also had better social skills. Why do people always say that Barbarians cant have positive social interactions. All that does is attach a negitive stereotype to them of stupidity that is unfare. And if all you can role-play are stereotypes then that isn't good role-playing either.