This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.
Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.
When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?
A lot of times I wouldn't ask a Player to roll it at all... just assume folks are going to favor the guy with high CHA and want to please him and support him, take his side.
My current Pathfinder PC was made using straight random rolls and has fairly blah stats but a stellar Charisma. He's flamboyant and can muster men to his side (he's already won 1 fight that way)... his speech inspires people. His stupid plans just seem better somehow.
He's only had to roll when he's really pushing it. He's naturally charming but he can 'turn it to 11' if necessary... asking for something that's against the self-interest of an NPC or buttering up someone who's pre-disposed to dislike him... or when he's trying really hard to make a great first impression on an important functionary. In those situations the GM called for a roll right up front... and a second when he finally popped the question... such as asking the widow to sell him one of her daughters (which he planned to use as bait to catch a demon).
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.
Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.
When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?
Get them to roll at the begining of a social situation and then tailor your responses to the roll. So you still talk it through but you allow their roll to have an effect. IF they see things aren't going well allow them , if they think of it to "change tack" can try a second roll. You can continue down this track adding disadvantage to subsequent rolls if you wish.
This means you combine the stat/skills the PC may have with roleplaying at the table.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.
Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.
When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?
I use it in two manners.
First, I may roll CHA as a reaction roll, if I am not sure about the first impression a PC will make on an NPC. I don't do this with every new NPC, though.
When it comes to using social skills, I will roleplay the dialogue up until the moment a decision needs to be made. Then I will roll the dice and resolve the situation accordingly. If a PC it's the target of the skill, I will still let the player decide what he/she wants to do, but if he decides to go against the roll I will adjudicate some penalty.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.
Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.
When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?
I like some of the above suggestions. When I GMd I would do dialogue between the PCs/NPCs and roll for CHA. If the roll was a fail, then the PCs would have a hell of a time sweet talking the NPC. IF they succeeded then they could put their foot in their mouth and still get away with it. It kind of worked out of sight of the players.
Mind you, depending on the situation, the NPC, the roll, the behaviour of the PCs and so on, the roll
may be impacted and modified by their RP choices. A situational approach rather than one size fits all.
So yes, GM fiat dressed up as a random roll based on what was happening at the time! That does sound bad, doesn't it.
Same reason why there are INT rolls, when the player and the character have very different abilities.
I will let the players roleplay it first but if the rp is really very good or really bad and lazy and uninspired, I let them roll. With an appropriate modifier.
Some players like to do a CHA check and then act on what they got based on the roll and their character.
So a low CHA character gets a really good roll theyd have then perhaps be more polite or courteous than they usually are. Those moments of eloquence anyone can get at the oddest moments.
Normally I just let the players talk and do their thing then roll for NPCs and monsters to see if they buy all that or not. Basically the character might think they are a great orator, party guy or liar. But they arent.
I do the initial reaction roll first to set the baseline posture. That'd be the engagement, the introduction.
Then I let players interact, choosing how much roleplay they want, or feel they can handle. That'd be the negotiation, the banter.
Some admit their natural capacity is lower than their character and we just talk plain summaries of each party's sought goals. Others want to hash it out then and there and flow with the vicissitudes (which could leak more information that way — or they could trust the dice on an Insight equivalent).
Whatever it is, you don't garner more information than what you seek at the table (that's for special powers). And negotiations can be cut short by pushing for more onto the table than wanted (that's asking too much and being pushy). By clearly defining what the desires, limits, & stakes are it is easy to just transfer it into a roll. However, I do admit that a good roleplay has flexibility to tip more from my GM hand, as info freebies often are parcel of social niceties.
My best gauge is that conversational intensity, the electricity in the air. That's when roleplay banter got someone hooked. You'll notice a shift in one's seat, a focus to one's eyes, a shift longer into 1st person, etc. But you must be kind to your players, too. Some burn out from that faster, as that is not a strongly familiar state of play for them. When the room's energy wanes, shifting to 3rd person rapid negotiation summaries and rolling off allows them to recharge.
I often get players to roll, but they get considerable bonuses if they roleplay it out in an interesting way, or at least describe what their character is saying and how.
I kind of refuse to let a social interaction be handled solely with dice, and I want to let the players who invested into social skills get to have fun rolling dice too.
In some Basic Roleplaying derivatives, there's a stat called either Charisma (CHA) or Appearance (APP). Here are some ways to use that stat:
- to get someone's attention when it's too far away to talk ("I smile and see if she'll notice me", "Okay, make a Charisma roll")
- when someone's trying to convince/charm someone and language isn't an option ("They don't speak any language you know, and they look suspicious", "Hmmm... I try to smile and show them I don't mean any harm, using nonthreatening body language and a reassuring expression. "Okay, make a Charisma roll.").
- to intimidate someone without words or an obvious physical threat ("I give him a scowl and glare at him to keep him out of the way." "Okay, make a Charisma roll.")
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.
In combat there are tactics and there is the mechanics. You can do everything perfect tactics wise but blow all your rolls and win up losing. You can do the exact same tactics and with average dice rolls come out ahead and win the battle. Or you can use poor tactics and manage to win with exceptionally good dice roll.
Charisma works the same way with roleplaying. The roleplaying are the "tactics" portion of the encounter, and the dice rolls is to see how well you did.
Like combat mechanics a person tactics could be such that the results are obviously. For example slitting a dead guys throat with no other opponent attacking. It going to happen.
The same with roleplaying, a player acting as his character is so compelling or so far off the mark that there is no roll required. The results are obvious.
But for everything else a Charisma roll determines how well the player's roleplaying characters did. Just like a to hit roll determines how well a weapon strike did.
I use the following to judge the roleplaying of a player as character.
- The content of what he is saying. Is it relevant? Does push an NPCs hot button? Or caters to a NPC's like.
- How sincere is the effort?
While I appreciate good acting by a player these criteria allow a wider range of players to roleplay a high charisma character in my campaign.
Quote from: estar;787617In combat there are tactics and there is the mechanics. You can do everything perfect tactics wise but blow all your rolls and win up losing. You can do the exact same tactics and with average dice rolls come out ahead and win the battle. Or you can use poor tactics and manage to win with exceptionally good dice roll.
Charisma works the same way with roleplaying. The roleplaying are the "tactics" portion of the encounter, and the dice rolls is to see how well you did.
Like combat mechanics a person tactics could be such that the results are obviously. For example slitting a dead guys throat with no other opponent attacking. It going to happen.
The same with roleplaying, a player acting as his character is so compelling or so far off the mark that there is no roll required. The results are obvious.
But for everything else a Charisma roll determines how well the player's roleplaying characters did. Just like a to hit roll determines how well a weapon strike did.
I use the following to judge the roleplaying of a player as character.
- The content of what he is saying. Is it relevant? Does push an NPCs hot button? Or caters to a NPC's like.
- How sincere is the effort?
While I appreciate good acting by a player these criteria allow a wider range of players to roleplay a high charisma character in my campaign.
Well said. I also prefer mixed methods.
I like using the CHA ability score modifier for heroic banter. As a non-lethal, verbal attack/taunt so to say, which the opponent has to roll against.
The answer, for me, is the same as with all dice rolls: when you don't already know the answer.
If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a self-defeating fool not to agree with, and the PC hasn't offended the NPC to such an extent that they'd wreck a perfectly good deal just to spite the PC, then the NPC says "yes".
If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a guileless fool to agree to, and the PC doesn't already have so much influence over the NPC that they'd jump off a cliff if the PC told them to, then the NPC says "no".
If a particular response is strongly suggested by what I already know about that NPC, I go with that response.
If I really don't know what the NPC is going to do, that's when the dice help me.
Quote from: Warthur;787660The answer, for me, is the same as with all dice rolls: when you don't already know the answer.
If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a self-defeating fool not to agree with, and the PC hasn't offended the NPC to such an extent that they'd wreck a perfectly good deal just to spite the PC, then the NPC says "yes".
If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a guileless fool to agree to, and the PC doesn't already have so much influence over the NPC that they'd jump off a cliff if the PC told them to, then the NPC says "no".
If a particular response is strongly suggested by what I already know about that NPC, I go with that response.
If I really don't know what the NPC is going to do, that's when the dice help me.
This misses a trick though I think. There are people who can sell sand to arabs and convince their girlfriends that Stacey is one of the guys at the office sending texts just for a laugh.
What seems to a regular senible person to be insanity can seem supremely rationale if it comes from the right person who knows the buttons to press.
There are numerous real world examples from Sobraj (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3867791.stm) to Frank Abagnale and Helg Sgarbi, not to mention from the fantasy genre Locke Lamora, Silk and Gandalf (everyone beleives everything he says just cos he has a beard...)
Quote from: jibbajibba;787747This misses a trick though I think. There are people who can sell sand to arabs and convince their girlfriends that Stacey is one of the guys at the office sending texts just for a laugh.
What seems to a regular senible person to be insanity can seem supremely rationale if it comes from the right person who knows the buttons to press.
True, but it's down to the player to identify the buttons and then we use the roll to see how well the character presses them.
I've always had a tough time wrapping my head around how come in games where we don't ask the player to lift up heavy weights to mirror his PC's ST, where we don't base DX-based actions off of the player being able to tap dance, where the character's hit points bear no relation to the player's general health, and where we roll vs the PC's IQ to see if she knows a scientific fact, not poll the player herself, so many campaigns habitually base the PC's magnetism solely on the player's eloquence.
Using CHA in such a manner is not one single bit more difficult than checking against any other stat in any other system. On a good roll, the mook is intimidated. On a bad roll, the snitch just won't give you the time of day. Okay, great speech on the player's part? Give a modifier, the same way you'd indirectly reward a great battle tactic.
But honestly? I don't care if you whipped Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler in the school debates, if you're a racial enemy of mine, if I'm sworn to your foe's cause, if your buddy over there just shot an arrow at me, I'm not going to roll over just because you're making snappy repartee.
Because tabletop RPGs are, at their core, conversation-based games? I don't think it is unreasonable for people who are good at improvised conversation to be advantaged in RPGs any more than it is unfair for people who are good at judging distances and probabilities to be advantaged in minis wargames - if you have a skill set which engages with the format you are going to do better than someone who doesn't, simple as.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.
Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.
When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?
What is the effect of such influence? It is to tip the scale a little one way or the other. The substance of the matter and how it is presented are the main factors. Really bad, and finesse may win you a quick death rather than a slow one; good enough, and there's no gilding of the lily for a smooth operator to accomplish.
As for
when precisely, I would say initially, to assess how good a foot is put forth - how *receptive* a disposition the other character has - so that can inform the dialog. It would be odd for someone suddenly to turn on a dime because a toss of the dice gives a result out of keeping with the tenor of the conversation. There should be clues to the attitude along the way.
I tend to use reaction rolls a lot and charisma influences that.
Also don't forget resisted rolls. If you and your enemy are both trying to convince the Baron of Lichtenstein to support your cause, I would call for a Charisma check.
There are reaction rolls- made when first encountering someone .
There are morale rolls- made whenever henchmen or hirelings face a fight or flight situation.
Charisma is important in both cases. The higher your charisma, the more likely strangers will react favorably toward you and your henchmen will generally have a higher loyalty to you.
Beyond that. Not very much CHA rolling at all.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;787785There are reaction rolls- made when first encountering someone .
There are morale rolls- made whenever henchmen or hirelings face a fight or flight situation.
Charisma is important in both cases. The higher your charisma, the more likely strangers will react favorably toward you and your henchmen will generally have a higher loyalty to you.
Beyond that. Not very much CHA rolling at all.
This is about all I think it's useful for when it comes to PCs. I find it useful for portraying NPCs, or for NPC-NPC interactions, but otherwise just talk.
Quote from: Ravenswing;787772I've always had a tough time wrapping my head around how come in games where we don't ask the player to lift up heavy weights to mirror his PC's ST, where we don't base DX-based actions off of the player being able to tap dance, where the character's hit points bear no relation to the player's general health,
Because there is no way to use physical characteristics in the real world to directly impact physical actions in the game world. I can't actually arm wrestle an orc.
Quoteand where we roll vs the PC's IQ to see if she knows a scientific fact, not poll the player herself, so many campaigns habitually base the PC's magnetism solely on the player's eloquence.
I don't like this either. The thing I dislike about Int/Wis/Cha and similar stats is that the player can use their mental characteristics to directly impact their character's actions and interactions with other players and the GMs characters. I'm increasingly of the opinion that unless the player can't directly influence the outcome (physical and supernatural stats the prime ones) you shouldn't have stats for them.
Quote from: apparition13;787808Because there is no way to use physical characteristics in the real world to directly impact physical actions in the game world. I can't actually arm wrestle an orc.
No you can't arm wrestle the orc, but you could shoot foam darts at the orc's miniature to simulate hitting him with an arrow. But despite H.G. Wells and Little Wars, nobody I know does that when playing RPGs. Even though they could.
Quote from: pspahn;787783I tend to use reaction rolls a lot and charisma influences that.
Yes, that's a good example - if the PCs have already convinced an NPC that they are friends they won't need to roll CHA much unless their requests are outrageous, but the trick is getting the NPC to warm to them in the first place.
QuoteAlso don't forget resisted rolls. If you and your enemy are both trying to convince the Baron of Lichtenstein to support your cause, I would call for a Charisma check.
Another good example of a situation I'd use rolls for, provided that both sides were making reasonable-sounding offers.
When to roll for Charisma? Whenever the conversation reaches a point where the NPC would react to what the PC has said, or when something changes.
PC: Good morning.
NPC: (roll reaction check with CHA modifer... what mood is he in?) * rolls 2 * Bugger off, I'm busy.
PC: Too bad, I wanted to buy a sword and spend at least 5000GP.
NPC: (roll again with CHA mod and bonus for money) * rolls 6, plus bonuses for 10* Well, sir, come in, sit down, make yourself comfortable! etc etc
I find social folks useful for getting people to do things they wouldn't want to do or otherwise giving something mechanical legs.
'I want to sell this to you for normal price.'
"Ok."
No roll needed.
'This small dull rock is exactually a magic charm you should totally buy from me!'
"Holy poot! Have my money!"
Roll.
But only to a point.
'This small rock signifies that I am the reincarnation of the Jade Emperor. Give me all your stuff.'
"Fuck off."
No roll.
Spreading rumors, creating a reputation, etiquette, contacts, good times to roll.
I also prefer to treat high Charisma as a 'passive' value for general cases to determine how people are seen. I don't like the 'roll for everything' model that often results in competent people suddenly farting or falling off horses or whatnot, unless something really stressful is going on.
I also use CHA rolls for NPCs when the players meet them. If they get a good roll the NPC will be really charming if they fuck up they will come across as obnoxious in some way. Course this means you as GM need to have the range to handle the different effects (you can't say this guy is really amusing or he hits you with a sweet opening line etc ..)
Best Social system in any game is of course Seduction rules in James Bond 007 years ahead that game years ahead.
You could use the roll for scenarios where you don't have a default option planned out for the NPC.
But doesn't that just mean you should think through the NPC more and what they WOULD say? Even when you'd roll dice for that, you could flesh out the character in your mind instead and then not need the dice anymore.
Same for when the PCs are trying to get the NPC to warm up to them. Instead of rolling that, they could just play that out.
I play a lot of games where social aspects are important. Therefor I have developed following method to make sure that everyone can somehow add something to game: It is simply goal --> overall strategy --> first impression --> playing the thing.
First, players are given some time for preparing to it. The end end result of this is that player states what is her "goal" for evening. For example having fun, meeting queen and asking for a favour, etc.
Second question I put forwards is the general "strategy". This means how to dress, with whom you go out and what if any aces you have in your sleeve. For example one woman dressed very daringly make everyone notice her with intention of using this attention to take lead in evening and show everyone she is in charge of this social circle. This was added to fact that she knew secret of hostess and could use it to make herself even more prominent. Another walked dutifully with her parents to show she is part of her family and not making any waves. This means that players who are good in plotting have definite edge.
Third is the roll of initial impression (with bonuses based on previous two questions) which shows were you queen of the night or mere dressed in most vulgar manner. Alternatively you might have caught eye or just been another wall flower. Preparation pays as this gives you extra edge in following rolls.
Based on initial impression you learn how your strategy is going on. Now player can abort and play safe or continue. Playing safe means minimizing the damage and continuing means going forwards. (I am thinking of making more choices but so far these two approaches work fairly well.)
Then character interaction is role played and I roll what the other side thought of it. I add bonuses as necessary. I is important NOT to play out (discuss between players and GM) actual dialogues as they are very time consuming unless the die roll is very favourable and/or disastrous. In those cases hamming it up to Nth degree is fun and everyone has great time. Choice quotes: "But surely you are so brave you face the evil enemy at the vanguard!" or "I would rather die than attend your mother's ball. Her reputation is nothing short of shameful."
Next step is aftermath. Player doing well might join the grandee for extra information (GM drops hints and secrets) or even take lead (possible if character styles match) or cause anything between duels to mecha demonstrations. This can be nothing at all or even a mini-adventure.
In my view the social aspects of role playing need to take into account that great deal many players are shy and have real problems coming out with truly witty banter. however, every player can and should be able to decide what are her goals, how she strives to achieve it in general manner and should have freedom to abort or push forwards at her own initiative.
Reaction rolls, and modifying NPC followers/hireling's morale.
As for when to do a reaction check? When a REACTION is needed for an NPC (hence the name). It should be modified by the charisma bonus of the PC, and, potentially moreso, by the particular tact the PC is taking.
So if you have a guy who has almost no interest in gold, and the PC offers him a bribe, it doesn't matter if he has 18 Cha, he should still have almost no chance of getting a good reaction there.
Quote from: RPGPundit;788325Reaction rolls, and modifying NPC followers/hireling's morale.
As for when to do a reaction check? When a REACTION is needed for an NPC (hence the name). It should be modified by the charisma bonus of the PC, and, potentially moreso, by the particular tact the PC is taking.
So if you have a guy who has almost no interest in gold, and the PC offers him a bribe, it doesn't matter if he has 18 Cha, he should still have almost no chance of getting a good reaction there.
But you are not allow for the fact that someone with great social skills will pick up tha the NPC has no interest in gold whereas the socially retarded player may not.
the trouble with the standard position. Roll on encounter roll for morale roll in reaction to an ask that targets the NPCs area of interest ios that it misses the most important feature of actually socially skilled people the ability to recognises the interests and concerns of the subject and adapt to them.
Rather than you offer gold, they are not interested end . It should be you hint that some sort of payment might be possible, if you get no inclination as to the desire for such a spayment you shift tack and offer other insentives.
this is the skill that lets a "fortune teller" pick up on verbal and non-verbal cues from their mark and home in on the area of interest, it's the skill that lets a guy pick up a girl in bar, it's the skill that lets a really good saleman sell you a C-Class mercedes when you came into the shop to ask for directions....
Rather than think about when the roll Charisma we should be looking at the literature on how social skills actually play out in the real world and putting systems in place that are gamable, allow roleplay but actually place value on the skills.
Again the James Bond 007 Seductuon ruels are actually based on psychological interaction
The Look
First Line
Witty Conversation
Begining intimacies
Where and when
this tracks back to psychology and works in 007 as its part of the genre and people don't mind rolling it cos they don't want to really deal with the details of seduction. However, the same basic steps work in any social situation
Initial Reaction
Introduction
Conversation
Bring up the actual Topic you are here to discuss
Closing the Deal
this is just as relevant to RPGs as
Initiative
Stance
Choose attack
Strike
Damage
Quote from: RPGPundit;788325So if you have a guy who has almost no interest in gold, and the PC offers him a bribe, it doesn't matter if he has 18 Cha, he should still have almost no chance of getting a good reaction there.
Yeah. This is something that perpetually bugs me about some game systems: the stipulation that certain CHA-based skills or abilities are superpowers, and making your roll comes with the expectation that the NPCs are just going to roll over for you no matter what.
Quote from: jibbajibba;788334But you are not allow for the fact that someone with great social skills will pick up tha the NPC has no interest in gold whereas the socially retarded player may not.
I don't think that necessarily follows, when translated into game mechanics. Do you view -- or does your preferred game system view -- CHA as how good you are in social situations, or is it how well you
project yourself in social situations? It may well not mean, by definition, that you're good at picking up signals.
And being good in social situations doesn't turn you into a mind reader. I'm pretty deft myself, but put me in the PC's situation. The guy's just turned down my bribe, and let's say somewhat stonily. Okay -- I know he's not feeling warm and fuzzy towards me, so stipulated.
But I don't know
why. Is it that bribes offend him, and he's just self-contained enough not to radiate anger? Is it that the bribe I offered was pathetically small, in his opinion? Is it that he doesn't like me personally, or doesn't care for my ethnic group, skin color, accent, age or the way I dress? Is it that he's himself not a people person and doesn't want
anyone bugging him? Is it that he doesn't know me, and doesn't trust those he doesn't know? Is he worried that I'm setting him up?
Could be any one of them. Could be a number of them. It's likely that I won't be able to find out in a 20 second casual conversation, and more likely that if I
do find out, it'll be the second-to-last thing he says to me at the tag end of an increasingly heated exchange, the last thing being "Take a hike."
Quote from: Ravenswing;788484Yeah. This is something that perpetually bugs me about some game systems: the stipulation that certain CHA-based skills or abilities are superpowers, and making your roll comes with the expectation that the NPCs are just going to roll over for you no matter what.
I don't think that necessarily follows, when translated into game mechanics. Do you view -- or does your preferred game system view -- CHA as how good you are in social situations, or is it how well you project yourself in social situations? It may well not mean, by definition, that you're good at picking up signals.
And being good in social situations doesn't turn you into a mind reader. I'm pretty deft myself, but put me in the PC's situation. The guy's just turned down my bribe, and let's say somewhat stonily. Okay -- I know he's not feeling warm and fuzzy towards me, so stipulated.
But I don't know why. Is it that bribes offend him, and he's just self-contained enough not to radiate anger? Is it that the bribe I offered was pathetically small, in his opinion? Is it that he doesn't like me personally, or doesn't care for my ethnic group, skin color, accent, age or the way I dress? Is it that he's himself not a people person and doesn't want anyone bugging him? Is it that he doesn't know me, and doesn't trust those he doesn't know? Is he worried that I'm setting him up?
Could be any one of them. Could be a number of them. It's likely that I won't be able to find out in a 20 second casual conversation, and more likely that if I do find out, it'll be the second-to-last thing he says to me at the tag end of an increasingly heated exchange, the last thing being "Take a hike."
But that is why most systems have skills as well as a raw stat.
The bribery skills isn't a skill that makes you super good at slipping a guy a 50 it's a skill that allows you to access from his job, trade, boots, demeanour, watch, jewellery, if this guy is a guy that can be bribed and if so the approximate level a bribe would need to be.
The same is true of most social skills. These are skills that in the real world can be learned and are taught. Go into a book shop and check out how many books offer to teach you social skills from sales to seduction compared to how many thee are to teach you how to hit someone in the face :D
The key social skill is probably "empathy". I don't mean actually feleing the others emotions but being able to imagine yourself in their situation and extrapolate from that how they must be feeling and then leverage that into getting whatever you want.
One of the ironies of RPGs is that they are social games where we actively put ourselves in positions to explore other poeples' opinions, which is why roleplaying is used in everything from victim counselling to sales training, and yet roleplayers are definitely on the lower curve of social competancy probably because they are too bothered about rolling dice killing things and taking their stuff....
Quote from: jibbajibba;788334But you are not allow for the fact that someone with great social skills will pick up tha the NPC has no interest in gold whereas the socially retarded player may not.
Nope, that's absolutely intentional. That's a question of player skill, and its what prevents social interaction from becoming a question of SUPER KEWL POWERZ of social manipulation.
A socially retarded player with a guy that has +3 charisma may still be able to get away with more things than a socially retarded player with -1 Charisma.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;788848Nope, that's absolutely intentional. That's a question of player skill, and its what prevents social interaction from becoming a question of SUPER KEWL POWERZ of social manipulation.
A socially retarded player with a guy that has +3 charisma may still be able to get away with more things than a socially retarded player with -1 Charisma.
RPGPundit
And a player whose character has a high Empathy score, or Psychology skill, or is of the Mountebank class, or whatever, likewise gets more clues - just as one does not have to be a nuclear-power engineer in real life to play one in Traveller, or should get free rein to employ expertise a character does
not possess.
Roleplaying is not a nuclear-engineering skill; it is, however a social skill.
If you try to make a system replace the need for the social aspect of roleplaying, you essentially get rid of roleplaying.
When you try to influence someone.
Yes, sometimes due to your character's skills (like in all cases) you will just skip a certain piece after a conversation. Sometimes, due to good RP and well used arguments, you will get a bonus to the roll. But just how I don't care that you are a chemist if your character has no Chemistry, nor do I care that you spent last 10 years practising swordfighting, to allow you to skip a to - hit roll, or that the foe will drop a shield from your attack because you totally targeted their arm and how they can hold it then (when we are playing D&D of course), nor will I allow you to just skip ahead all diplomacy rolls because "they should listen to my arguments."
Quote from: RPGPundit;789520Roleplaying is not a nuclear-engineering skill; it is, however a social skill.
If you try to make a system replace the need for the social aspect of roleplaying, you essentially get rid of roleplaying.
I'm not trying to do that, just trying to reflect the nature of the role in question in the same way all other aspects of it are. If your character is blind, you don't get color information; if your character has sonar, you are not hindered by darkness as are those dependent on light.
What you do with the information is where volition comes in, just as in real life.
In my view the basis of all role-playing games is that player has free will to act.
In my view there is role for Charisma, Wisdom and Knowledge rolls whenever character(s) see new person, new situation or new place. My current home-brew RPG uses this roll as a stand-in to sixth sense and alarm clock for there being something more in scene.
For example Charisma and Wisdom roll is made by GM when characters meet two policemen. Charisma fails but Wisdom succeeds. They learn that one policeman has too long hair and that they both carry Colt Pythons rather than .38's. This should make it obvious to characters that those two patrolmen are actually impostors.
In my system successful charisma roll would have also given hint that their cop talk was somewhat off, too off...
I do not like the idea that player says they are searching something and then rolling Charisma or Perception for it as it soon becomes one of constantly questioning and going ever more detail to learn something. Instead I use this to show what characters learn immediately and then simply assign time for something that takes longer time.
I see the origin in Loyalty and Reaction rolls as reflecting the fact that a referee does not have a computer's capacity for keeping track of states and vectors. There are "imponderables" in NPCs. Dice rolls provide a simple answer to the question of a figure's disposition.
In short, it's less about the acting PC than about the reacting NPC.
It's essentially a similar kind of thing to encounter rolls, which likewise answer questions that are not determinate because the predicate data don't exist.
When such data do exist - "From noon to 4, Rumblegrist is here in a foul mood (mainly because he's hungry), quick to vent on any elf but curious about halflings and eager to talk Dwarf-throwing with any fellow fan of the sport." - there's less need to generate things randomly.
Quote from: Phillip;790370I see the origin in Loyalty and Reaction rolls as reflecting the fact that a referee does not have a computer's capacity for keeping track of states and vectors. There are "imponderables" in NPCs. Dice rolls provide a simple answer to the question of a figure's disposition.
In short, it's less about the acting PC than about the reacting NPC.
It's essentially a similar kind of thing to encounter rolls, which likewise answer questions that are not determinate because the predicate data don't exist.
When such data do exist - "From noon to 4, Rumblegrist is here in a foul mood (mainly because he's hungry), quick to vent on any elf but curious about halflings and eager to talk Dwarf-throwing with any fellow fan of the sport." - there's less need to generate things randomly.
Agreed.