I feel the same way about giving “hints” about what the PC “should say” during negotiations. If you’re running the world the players want, they’ll know what they should say, what’s offensive, etc. If they don’t, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate the game.

Probably a poor example — that’s how my group uses them, although it’s not in the RAW. Substitute “bennie systems” instead.

Ummm… that’s not how Action Points work, under the RAW, at least as far as I know.

This is the aspect of Walt’s question that kicks my brain in the nuts.

Gross generalization: Most RPGs don’t offer as many ways to play a kickass social character as they do a kickass combat character, so social characters need a bit of extra help. Social systems also tend to be fuzzier than combat mechanics, and thus encourage more latitude on the GM’s part.

I see this issue coming down to what people want out of their games. The GM might want her players to roleplay more, while some of her players might prefer to let the dice handle social scenes and other players prefer getting bonuses for roleplaying social stuff. How do you treat everyone fairly in a case like this?

This is why I like mechanics like Action Points so much: When a player does something awesome, they get a bennie. It doesn’t matter if the awesome thing was social, combat-related, funny to everyone else at the table — the system is flexible enough to apply to everything.

My gut, though, tells me that players who put forth the effort to get really into any aspect of the game should be rewarded with in-game benefits. And social skills, in my experience, are one of the areas where player involvement (or lack thereof) really stands out.

I’m not sure any of that rambling made sense, though.

So, during a planning session, the Monk points out a flaw in the enemy’s plans. The militia commander (who they were working for) looks up and says, “Who the hell let you in here? Get out.” And then they discussed the point he had raised without him.

Agreed (as others have said as well).

I find the question to be based on faulty reasoning that somehow social checks necessitate special mechanics. From a meta game design standpoint, the GM’s interest should be in all checks — and engaging the players fully — social or otherwise.

And yes, I provide bonuses — for combat, social, or otherwise — based on player input and involvement. If they take the time to go to another layer of depth and enhance the game then (I feel) that effort should be rewarded. The player helped enhance the experience for everyone.

This came up in play recently. One of the players is somewhat blunt and has a short fuse. I alternate DMing with another player, and in the game I don’t DM, this player plays an equally hot-tempered character, who frequently has to be shushed. But in my game, his character has a high Diplomacy skill, and is often the negotiator. He makes a real effort, but is sometimes overly blunt, and the other players try to shut him up. I had to make it really clear that the others should imagine the same thoughts being communicated much more politically, at least when the skill roll succeeds. Otherwise, the player would be forced to always play the stereotypical hothead in every game, while I enjoy seeing him stretch. (It’s also adds a layer of ironic humor, when his blunt statements are answered cordially by evil NPCs.)

Essentially, my current position is this: If you want a combat monster, build a combat monster. If you want a Casanova, build a Casanova.

On paper, your character is only as good as her numbers. To use d20 as an example, a character with a +10 Diplomacy should be better than one with a +4. Some people would argue that a player’s creative input (or “roleplaying” for lack of a better word) should be able to modify the skill check.

To break down the term, roleplaying means “to play a role.” One could argue that if you give IC flowery speeches while the sheet suggests that the character is socially inept, then you aren’t “roleplaying.” You’re essentially cheating by giving yourself extra points.

On the other hand, many gamers draw distinctions between social skills and combat. Sarlax is correct to point out that a player that wants a combat monster can achieve that goal very quantitatively (“you’ve got a WHAT for Armor Class?” or “How did you end up with a [insert obnoxiously high number here] to hit at Level 3?”). However, I have seen many Combat Monsters succumb to an early death due to their players’ “creative input” (in this case, bad tactical decisions). I rarely ever hear a GM say “You want your character to do what? You better make a Knowledge (tactics) check first.”

My biggest problem with awarding bonuses for good roleplaying is that it becomes a qualitative decision. If you water it down to “you get the bonus if you try,” then you’ve essentially granted everyone at the table a permanent bump in their skills.

In the end, you have to use what works best for your group. I currently keep the numbers as they are, applying bonuses or penalties only in very particular circumstances. My players and I enjoy roleplaying, and I usually hold off the skill rolling until there are real stakes involved.

Walt

P.S. This is tangential, but the digital product “Skill Focus: Talking” provides some great mechanics for combining roleplay and dicing with social skills.

F’n hilarious.

Somethings are best rolled. However, I personally think a system that lets you roll instead of roleplay is less fun than one that doesn’t.

Yes.

Of course, “good play” doesn’t necessarily mean being clever, or witty, or long-winded, or a good actor, or any of that.

It means they’re contributing to the game, and to the enjoyment of the people in the game.