GMing question: rolling for social skills

Recently in a campaign I am running locally some players and I had what I can only refer to as a lively debate over my policy when it comes to the use of intimidate in particular and all of the social/manipulative skills generally. I would appreciate getting some outside opinions on the matter if you have time. My group feels interacting with NPCs should be acted out in character without rolling, since it would be ridiculous for an NPC to be unaffected after a particularly threatening speech just because of a low roll and vice versa. Now, ignoring the fact that your character may be more or less skilled in the art of conversation than you are, it has always been my contention that when using social skills your roll doesn't determine how threatening or diplomatic you were but how the NPC responds. For example, a low roll after having your character say something truly threatening means only that the NPC didn't buy it, maybe because they realize you are trying to intimidate them or what you threatened them with has less sway than you'd hoped. Likewise, a high roll on saying something not so threatening could mean that the NPC was so unnerved at the way you casually imply that you will resort to some vague violence instead of making threats out of anger that they cave in immediately. As a result of this view I have players declare the skill they want to use and make a roll before they tell me what their character says. Am I wrong? Should I just let them RP it without rolling?

What game system are you playing? - Gauss

Well, the game systems I've run have many have elaborate rules for using social skill and talent. And yeah, I use those rules. Just as the physical attributes of a character allow the player to behave as someone they can't physically be, Why not the mental attributes as well? I've run into players who are quite articulate and witty but who are playing a pirate with the social graces of a block of laminated plastic. So, yeah, they have to pay dues for that. And yes, I've gamed with players that stutter and have trouble finding the right words not being very articulate and they are playing a brilliant diplomat or politician, so yes, they get a lot of rolls and benefits from that.

Gauss said: What game system are you playing? - Gauss D20 Modern, which I thought was pretty clear in its "roll for it" stance. The players are quite adamant in their desire to speak for/as their character and have the outcome judged by their social skills though. I want them to have fun, but I'm not sure how to handle this.

Im not familiar with D20 Modern but I am familiar with other D20 games. Generally, D20 games are based on die rolls which can then be modified with circumstantial bonuses depending upon what the player comes up with. Example: I make an eloquent speech so the GM assigns a bonus to my check, now I roll. Example 2: I screw up my speech so the GM assigns a penalty to my check, now I roll. Good thing my character is better at it than I am. :) Now, with that said, there are game systems that tell you to ignore the dice whenever convienient (assuming they use dice for skill checks). Some systems are based on the idea that roleplay should cover skill interactions while others (such as D20 type games) are based on the idea that skill checks represent what your character is capable of even if you are (or are not). It really depends on the system. Ultimately, it is your players you have to deal with on this. If they do not agree with the style they at minimum they will be unhappy or at worst they will leave the game. Perhaps come to a compromise or a house rule everyone can agree on. - Gauss

If they all agreed it would be easy to compromise with a house rule, but only two of the four players dislike the system's rules about rolling.So, counting my desire to stick to the rules it's 3:2 in favour of rolling. I will admit that since D20 Modern isn't my usual system I forgot that I could apply bonuses as a reward for clever player antics in the heat of having my call argued. I'll offer that as a base compromise and hope it's a good enough start.

I assign a (hidden) bonus to the roll based on both how well the act is RPed and how clever I think it is.

I'm with Bananas. Deliver your line, if I think it works (or fails), I apply an appropriate modifier. You know, not all players can deliver believable threats/bluffs or whatnot. But their characters may be able to .

You could just encourage them to declare their intent before going into their little Improv Acting thing. That way if their character fails the check they have a chance to act that out instead of going into some 5 minute long epic speech that somehow fails to do anything. EG A player wants to initidate a guy. If he suceeds he can say whatever badass thing he had planned, otherwise he can just say something lame like "I'll err, stab you, err, with my sword."

If the actual rules of the game you're playing agree with Lewis W., I think that's the best approach. (I don't play d20 Modern.) Skill checks are not necessarily a representation of the character's ability (that's what their skill bonus represents) but rather simply a means to resolve dramatic conflict. Here's how it might play out, broken down a bit: DM: The biker gang leader, McNugget, isn't going to make a move against York unless convinced it's in his best interests. (Conflict) PC: I intend to make a solid case, using the information we got off Dustwich. I talk to him directly, man-to-man, but I don't threaten him. (Goal/Intent) DM: Sounds like you're making a Diplomacy check? The DC is X. (Resolution Mechanics) PC [rolls]: Nailed it. "Listen, McNugget, we heard straight from Dustwich that York and Twohole are teaming up to take out your dealers on the North Side and claim the territory for themselves. You don't want that and neither do we. Let's take these guys down." (Narrative) DM: "If Dustwich said it's true, then it's true. He ain't a liar. But even if we joined forces, we'd still be outnumbered." (Conflict) PC2: I rip a phone book in half with my bare hands to demonstrate what a badass I am. (Goal/Intent) DM: Nice, sounds like you're making an Intimidate check? The DC is X. (Resolution Mechanics) PC2 [rolls]: Done - I rip a phone book in half. "These skeevie street thugs ain't sh*t to me, yo!" (Narrative) DM: McNugget is impressed and several of his burly henchmen hoot and holler. "Heh, I like your style, but I can't get on-board without a solid plan. What d'ya got?" (Conflict) (Continue in this way, Conflict - Goal/Intent - Resolution Mechanics - Narrative, until the challenge of getting McNugget to join forces with the PCs is achieved or failed.) Now this should bake your noodle: The bits where I noted "Goal/Intent" is the actual roleplaying because this is the player making a decision that his character would also make. Putting a skin of narrative or dialogue on it isn't the actual roleplaying part , just the dramatic acting or collaborative storytelling part. Unless the game states otherwise, you don't get bonuses for that! My issue with adding conditional modifiers that are not within the rules (as some have suggested) or granting auto-success to a good speech is that you're essentially making the GM the game instead of the actual game. If I know I can chisel bonuses off my GM for hamming it up, that's what I'm going to do because that's the game he's set up (himself!). That's not fair to those who don't have my dramatic acting ability, but who may be consistent at making decisions their characters would also make (i.e. roleplaying). After all, you're testing the characters' ability to resolve the conflict, not the players' ability to give flowery speeches or make convincing threats. That's just icing, not the cake. Finally, I'm not sure if d20 Modern has anything like skill challenges (from D&D 4e) but they are a great pacing mechanism for this sort of conflict resolution. The d20 srd includes a variant rule that is the precursor to skill challenges called Complex Skill Checks . If you use them or d20 Modern has something similar you might use, I would state explicitly they are in such a challenge, that it requires X number of successes before Y failures to achieve their goal, including what success and failure look like prior to engaging in the scene. This is another way to avoid making you, the GM, the game by making it a set number of successes to succeed (before X failures) instead of just whenever you feel like it.

Oh, and one more thing, because I see it a lot in other people's games and it drives me crazy: Not every lie that falls out of one's gob is a Bluff check, not every compliment is a Diplomacy check, and not every threat is an Intimidate check. Skill checks are meant to resolve dramatic conflict , not to simulate every action a character might take. That's a huge waste of time and is probably against the rules of the game you're playing. It also has the effect of making the badasses in your game look like total putzes by increasing their failure rate on trivial bullsh*t. "Oh you want to jump up on that table? Make a Jump check! Oh, look, you failed it, so you fall down go boom. You suck." Lame. Dramatic. Conflict. That's when the skill checks come into play, not during mundane situations where nothing related to the PCs overarching goals are at stake. There must be a goal to achieve and someone or something opposing that goal for the mechanics to come into play. Otherwise, they just succeed on the interaction. (This might be called a "transition scene" where you're just preparing for future conflict, gathering information, or whatever.) It's possible your players are objecting to your approach on these grounds but aren't able to articulate it clearly.

For better context/understanding of the system, the player was trying to threaten a doorman/bouncer so the party could gain entry to a private event in a hotel bar. Mechanically, the Intimidate skill uses an opposed check with success causing the target to act as though they were "friendly" temporarily. The rules are very clear on how to resolve that specific social situation. The two players arguing against the need to roll, who should have known how the system treats this coming in, argue that having "random luck" play a factor in conversation at all is dumb and that it should just be acted out and if they say something threatening the NPC should feel that way. 'Cause, you know, that's totally not subjective at all. The more I think of it the more I believe the problem here is more the player than my preferences and ability to GM.

I see another issue: Failure wasn't interesting. If failure can't be interesting and move the game forward, then what's the point of asking for a roll determine success or failure? Consider that skill checks aren't binary and that they just change the context of the interaction. Success might mean the bouncer backs down and lets the PCs in. Failure might mean he backs down and lets the PCs in, but the PCs have to slip him a C-note on the down-low. Here, their failure costs them something, but allows the situation to move forward. If he just tells the PCs to piss off, that's not very interesting and rather than moving forward to the real meat of the scene (the private event), you're forcing the PCs to back up and go another way. That's frustrating and eats up a lot of game time for no good reason.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I think if you are not going to go with the rolls for skills like diplomacy, then there is no reason for PCs to take these skills, if you are not going to be using them. So, let the players know before they waste skill points that you do not use these skills and that you go with their dialog instead. Hmm... maybe the whole game should go diceless... I mean a 12th level fighter should automatically hit something large, and a high level rogue shouldn't really need to make a stealth roll, should he? They can join the "face" character and just RP their actions. I am in favor of using the dice, especially because online they save time. You can type the basics of your point to the NPC, then roll, and if you make your point (the roll is high) you succeed, and if you don't make your point (the roll is too low) you fail. If your talking points are particularly good, or bad, a bonus or penalty can be applied by the GM. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of RPing, but if every time you try to convince an NPC in game to do something, you make a 20 minute speech in real time to do it, the game is going to really bog down. Slow games tend to be boring games. So save the impassioned speeches for when they really make sense in game and most of the time, make a brief set of points and then roll, that's my advise anyways.

So it's likely that your players had a valid objection, but they were just not voicing it properly. That's fair enough. One thing I'd recommend (and do myself) prior to any roll is to "frame the stakes." This is about laying it out so that the players have full knowledge of their decisions and their possible impact and then asking for their buy-in. GM: There are likely other ways into this private event, but the obvious one - the front door - is guarded by a burly bouncer who looks like he don't take no guff. Judging by the dent in his skull and one eye that wanders, he looks like he's no stranger to fisticuffs. PC: I go up there, chest puffed out, and muscle my way past with a look on my face that if he don't back down, he's going to get another dent in that melon of his when he gets off his shift. GM: Okay, so that sounds like an Intimidate check. He looks at you with cold, dead eyes as you approach. If you succeed on a roll against DC X, he decides you aren't worth the trouble and lets you past the velvet rope. If you fail to hit that DC, you can get past but you'll have to give him $100. Cool? PC: Yeah, cool. [rolls] Dammit. We lock eyes for a moment and everything is really tense like shit's about to go down. That's when I fork over a C-note and grunt at him. GM: He takes it and waves you inside. Make a note of that cost on your sheet. The private event is already underway and... Feel free to be open to negotiating with the players as to stakes to get their buy-in. If the player counters with, "Well, I really need to hang on to my cash. Maybe instead he lets us through but later on he and some of his buddies are outside in the parking lot waiting to throw us a beating?" Sure!

I'm of the opinion that the players should try to rp the rolls, they are NOT their characters but it's rather their objective to roleplay what the dice say their characters does. If you fail an intimidate roll then you act out the failure. I should also make note that I prefer it when npc have to roll too, if the players can't succeed with wit then the gm should not either.

In defense of conditional modifiers: I was a little vague in my specific post, but when I said, "if I think it works," I was referring to the meat of the character's attempt, rather than the player's acting ability. Sometimes the approach is just all wrong. For instance the target of your intimidate attempt may not care much for threats of physical violence directed at him, but if the characters already had a clue that target was obsessed with a young paramour and they mention that as part of the intimidation attempt, they're rewarded with a minor bonus. On the other hand, if they hadn't picked up the clue before or misread it altogether, they might try a course of action that might seem like a threat but wouldn't actually be to the target. Maybe threatening to burn down his place of business happens to coincide with his plans anyway. As a result, they take a minor penalty. So the conditionals I'm talking about aren't based upon any spectacular performance, but more based on whether or not their approach is especially favorable, poor, or just average for the task at hand. I like the idea of trying to act out the result of the roll, but I'm not much of an actor and it really wouldn't work at my table. That's one of those personal touches that really depends on the individual. I wouldn't want to require someone to consistently do something they're bad at and that might diminish their fun as a result, as I know would be the case with me. Sure I'd give it a shot, but it'd be disappointing to me and everyone else at the table, so really just a loss of energy and a source of frustration that would only grow on me over time. Even if I stuck with that GM and table, you can bet I'd avoid experimenting with more social/face characters as a result.

Dickie said: In defense of conditional modifiers: I was a little vague in my specific post, but when I said, "if I think it works," I was referring to the meat of the character's attempt, rather than the player's acting ability. Sometimes the approach is just all wrong. For instance the target of your intimidate attempt may not care much for threats of physical violence directed at him, but if the characters already had a clue that target was obsessed with a young paramour and they mention that as part of the intimidation attempt, they're rewarded with a minor bonus. On the other hand, if they hadn't picked up the clue before or misread it altogether, they might try a course of action that might seem like a threat but wouldn't actually be to the target. Maybe threatening to burn down his place of business happens to coincide with his plans anyway. As a result, they take a minor penalty. So the conditionals I'm talking about aren't based upon any spectacular performance, but more based on whether or not their approach is especially favorable, poor, or just average for the task at hand. I like the idea of trying to act out the result of the roll, but I'm not much of an actor and it really wouldn't work at my table. That's one of those personal touches that really depends on the individual. I wouldn't want to require someone to consistently do something they're bad at and that might diminish their fun as a result, as I know would be the case with me. Sure I'd give it a shot, but it'd be disappointing to me and everyone else at the table, so really just a loss of energy and a source of frustration that would only grow on me over time. Even if I stuck with that GM and table, you can bet I'd avoid experimenting with more social/face characters as a result. In my view, that still gets into gaming the GM because rather than moving forward and stating a feasible* approach, the efficacy of which is tested by dice, you're instead left with playing to the GM's biases as to what solution he thinks is best. (Ever sit around and watch players debate a course of action to death? Sure you have, and that's in part why.) I don't think this is a good approach. All I'd need to do is figure out the things that GM favors and do those things. That might be appeals to logic or "realism," use of obscure in-game details, or whatever kink the GM has. Some might consider that playing in bad faith, but in fact, if the GM makes himself the game, a good player plays that game! Sometimes great plans fail and "stupid" ones succeed. That's a factor of the dice and mechanics and the less the GM puts his thumb on the scale of determining that, the better (in my view). It is better to play to find out what happens than influence it with bias. (Again, in my view.) Now, some of this comes down to scene-framing. If you want the legitimate in-game challenge to be about manipulating an NPC without using threats and intimidation, then you just say so when you describe the scene. "Threats of violence mean nothing to Twice, who values his own life very little since coming home from the War, caring only for those who he holds dear. What do you do to convince him to...?" I find that's a better approach than playing around with the DCs based on what I think should work. Another option as an alternative to GM-awarded conditional bonuses is to have a standing "asset" that the players can establish at-will (one time) rather than lobby the GM for one. "I talk to Twice and mention that he better help us or his paramour could be in trouble. I'm taking 'mention of the paramour' as an asset, so I get a +2." This also removes GM bias and allows the players to engage with elements that were created by the GM or themselves. I should note, of course, that I'm referring to conditional bonuses that aren't included in the game systems rules. If the game says you get a +2 bonus for Stealthing in dim light, that's the legit rules of the game, not GM bias. * Here we're talking about approaches that are within the possible realm of working (even if it's a stretch) and not something beyond the characters' established abilities or the context of the situation. I say this to head off the inevitable, "Well what if they do [this extreme example that no reasonable player acting in good faith would do]..." arguments. (We'll still probably get some. Watch.)

@Headhunter - You know, it really just sounds like you like to play a different kind of game than Dickie. He wants to reward players that pay attention to the details of what he's saying, and make smart decisions based on those. Personally, I find nothing wrong with that approach. I would hope it would serve to make the players more engaged in what the DM is saying. They spend a lot of time crafting those details. Dickie describes a reasonable strategy for rewarding players that pay attention to them. Additionally, your proposed scene-framing is a different style of storytelling than I've seen in most games that I've played. It's offering up, free of charge, out-of-character knowledge about the NPCs. In fact, I can't think of any games I've played where the GM has done that. I'm actually quite surprised at your "asset" suggestion, it seems in direct contradiction to your fairly adamant assertion that PC's cannot affect other PC's without the players' consent. Here, you are suggesting that the players can affect the NPC's (really, the GM's characters) without the GM's consent. Either that, or I'm grossly misunderstanding what you're suggesting. If I'm right, though, I think it's important to note that the GM is also playing the game, and having his characters subverted without his permission is just as much not fun as a player's PC being constantly pickpocketed by another character in the party. In the end, though, rulebooks provide a framework around which people can play whatever game they like. As long as everyone sitting around the table agrees on how they're going to play, and they all find it fun, I don't have any right to dictate how people play, nor to declare any particular style as right or wrong. Back to the original post from TFJ - it sounds like the conditional modifiers added as a bonus will likely be the route forward for his group. However, I'd still suggest letting the majority of the decision be based on the dice, rather than on the eloquence of the players. Often times, a player will have a particular skill as a dump skill in order to improve their performance in a different one. If I could ignore diplomacy, yet still get huge bonuses because _as a player, rather than as my PC_, I'm a fast talker and good at convincing people, that would give me an unbalanced advantage in the game. As a final note, TFJ - if you don't like the arguing over your rules calls, try GM'ing a game of Paranoia. Knowledge of the rules is classified material, beyond your clearance level. Arguing over them demonstrates that you have knowledge you are not authorized to have, and thus demonstrates you are a traitor. Traitors are executed on sight. Perhaps your next clone won't be quite so careless. (aka, the GM is always right. Even if the GM is wrong, they're right. If you don't like it, your character dies. Don't worry, you've got five more copies, but this one is dead.)

David A. said: @Headhunter - You know, it really just sounds like you like to play a different kind of game than Dickie. He plays in a fashion that I don't prefer. That's fine. I can't make any judgment as to why he shouldn't prefer what he prefers. He buys into that paradigm and I hope his players do, too. I can only state why I don't prefer it and have. He wants to reward players that pay attention to the details of what he's saying, and make smart decisions based on those. Personally, I find nothing wrong with that approach. I would hope it would serve to make the players more engaged in what the DM is saying. They spend a lot of time crafting those details. Dickie describes a reasonable strategy for rewarding players that pay attention to them. Paying attention is a responsibility of the player who has chosen to play the game in my view. It doesn't need to be incentivized, especially if the game is interesting. Not all DMs spend a lot of time on "details" either, nor do they need to. If you engage the players in an approach like mine, they can also use the Author and Director stance to create whatever details they need as well. It's a lot easier for people to remember details they themselves have created. It's part of building buy-in - they're a stakeholder in those details now and want to see where they go. Additionally, your proposed scene-framing is a different style of storytelling than I've seen in most games that I've played. It's offering up, free of charge, out-of-character knowledge about the NPCs. In fact, I can't think of any games I've played where the GM has done that. What should I "charge" them for information that is not in contest? If there's no dramatic conflict, there's no roll. So if the NPC isn't purposefully hiding the fact that he doesn't care about his own physical well-being but does care about others, then there's nothing opposing them getting that information and thus no roll. I can simply give them the information and then they can use that context to tackle the actual dramatic conflict, whatever it may be. More context means players can make decisions to move the game forward; less context means a round of "DM May I?" and "20 Questions" just to get that context, plus (in my experience) a lot of meaningless rolls. The most I would "charge" a player for declaring a detail about the world or an NPC is a question such as "How do you know that?" or the like. When he answers that question, now we have even more context from which to build. This is how you create a richly detailed world and characters as you play sometimes with no prep whatsoever! I'm actually quite surprised at your "asset" suggestion, it seems in direct contradiction to your fairly adamant assertion that PC's cannot affect other PC's without the players' consent. Here, you are suggesting that the players can affect the NPC's (really, the GM's characters) without the GM's consent. Either that, or I'm grossly misunderstanding what you're suggesting. If I'm right, though, I think it's important to note that the GM is also playing the game, and having his characters subverted without his permission is just as much not fun as a player's PC being constantly pickpocketed by another character in the party. NPCs and PCs aren't the same and don't perform the same role in the context of the game. They are not equivalents as you suggest unless the game states otherwise. As well, my players have my consent to establish assets or details about NPCs. This is part of the Director stance. Under the rules of improvisation, the only thing they can't do is establish assets or details that contradict established fiction. In the end, though, rulebooks provide a framework around which people can play whatever game they like. As long as everyone sitting around the table agrees on how they're going to play, and they all find it fun, I don't have any right to dictate how people play, nor to declare any particular style as right or wrong. Nor do I, and I haven't. Where I have offered a preference, I have stated as much. Preferences cannot be right or wrong.

@Headhunter - running even further off topic, I posit that it's even _easier_ to game a GM that uses a director/actor approach as you've stated. If the PC's are allowed to define characteristics of the NPCs, they can simply define weaknesses that don't contradict the established narrative. GM - "You walk into the room to find the Death Knight Thomas, lounging on his chair." PC - "As a historian, I know that Thomas' family has a history of peanut allergies, even though the peanut is not common to this area. I offer him a peanut butter sandwich as a delicacy." GM - "Huh. Okay, Thomas accepts your gift as evidence of your subservience. After his taste-tester determines there's no poison in the sandwich, he eats it and dies from anaphylaxis. Um, we're going to have to stop here for the night, because he was supposed to be your major opposition for today."

I would tend to think of the social rolls the same way as attack rolls. You don't check to see if you hit before you swing your sword. You swing your sword and the dice decided how that action is resolved. Let's say that one player is a bard/charmer and always makes big flowery speeches, whether they're affective or not doesn't affect what the character says, only how the target reacts. Real people live lives that affect how they react to certain, and the dice are a way to represent that NPC's life without have to think about how every NPC's day is going. Most systems allow for modifiers and my tip in social encounters is that they should be there for a reason. This is where NPC complexities comes into play. If you've got a tip from another NPC, it makes sense to have a bonus. If that NPC was lying, than it makes sense to have a penalty. With the right, or wrong, information, it's even possible that the roll would be unnecessary. For example, I'll use the bouncer. Let's say he is a big family man loves his kids, but he hasn't been having a good week and he wants to quit his job. If the players get the chance to do some detective work they might learn about his family, and if they use that to intimidate him, instant success. But if they threaten to speak to his superiors about this, instant failure since he doesn't care about losing his job. Even throw in another NPC with a tip that the Bouncer has been having an affair, and if it's true or not players get a bonus or a penalty, respectively. But, I doubt you'd need to put that much effort into every NPC. In the end, with social encounters swing first then roll the dice. Some times an overly aggressive intimidate check might just lead to an interesting street brawl.

Headhunter Jones said: * Here we're talking about approaches that are within the possible realm of working (even if it's a stretch) and not something beyond the characters' established abilities or the context of the situation. I say this to head off the inevitable, "Well what if they do [this extreme example that no reasonable player acting in good faith would do]..." arguments. (We'll still probably get some. Watch.) David A. said: @Headhunter - running even further off topic, I posit that it's even _easier_ to game a GM that uses a director/actor approach as you've stated. If the PC's are allowed to define characteristics of the NPCs, they can simply define weaknesses that don't contradict the established narrative. GM - "You walk into the room to find the Death Knight Thomas, lounging on his chair." PC - "As a historian, I know that Thomas' family has a history of peanut allergies, even though the peanut is not common to this area. I offer him a peanut butter sandwich as a delicacy." GM - "Huh. Okay, Thomas accepts your gift as evidence of your subservience. After his taste-tester determines there's no poison in the sandwich, he eats it and dies from anaphylaxis. Um, we're going to have to stop here for the night, because he was supposed to be your major opposition for today." Did I call it or what? LOL Oh, internet. So predictable. :)

Oh, for sure HJ and I wouldn't really be at the same table for anything but a one-shot, which I'd welcome, but I have a lot of respect for his point of view and knowledge. Anytime I can be exposed to a new idea is a good thing; you never know which ones will stick and turn out to work well for me in the future. We'd like to think that we can be fair and impartial when judging an action/reaction from an NPC's point of view, but it is a little impossible to avoid our own biases. Definitely something to think more about.

@David A - Additionally, your proposed scene-framing is a different style of storytelling than I've seen in most games that I've played. It's offering up, free of charge, out-of-character knowledge about the NPCs. In fact, I can't think of any games I've played where the GM has done that. It's commonly used in "story games". Horrible things. I don't recommend them. Dice are much more fun for conflict resolution.

HoneyBadger said: It's commonly used in "story games". Horrible things. I don't recommend them. Dice are much more fun for conflict resolution. Author and Director stance are more common to story games than others games; however, conflict resolution in either is still up to the rules and dice, not up to establishing fiction to overcome a legitimate in-game challenge. Or to the GM's bias. And this ties in to the OP's post: Your players are saying they'd rather resolve "talking scenes" with talking and no dice. That's likely against the rules of the game you've chosen to play. If you present a legitimate dramatic conflict , the rules of that game will tell you how to resolve it and that will likely involve dice. If you've presented a legitimate dramatic conflict and you eschew the dice, then you're breaking those rules. Whether or not the group is okay with that will vary.

As a GM, in most D20 games, I set the DC. I am not required to tell my players what that DC is directly, but will do so with flavor and fluff. If a character makes an impassioned speech, or social gesture that requires a roll, then that roll must beat the DC I've created. That being said, a well thought out plan of action, or successive attempts at an action might raise or lower that DC. For instance, if a player does a good job roleplaying an intimidate check, but rolls poorly, I might allow the player to roll a sense motive to help determine the reason why the NPC is acting as they are. I might also forgo the rolls and simply act out an appropriate response. I might also add or remind the player of details that could be influencing the DC. Such as her wearing that cute Chocobo costume. There are nearly limitless tools in the roleplaying toolbox that could be applied to a situation like this. The important points to consider are: Are we all following an agreed upon ruleset? Is the game moving at a pace that the GM and players enjoy? If not, can we reduce the number of dice rolls to help improve the pace? Are the DC's that have been prepared acceptable to allow the PC's to achieve their objectives in a reasonable way? If there is a dispute in the game mechanics or overall play style? How can we fix the problems and move on? It is up to the GM to clearly explain to the players, what he/she expects from a game. The level of roleplaying and reliance on the ruleset chosen needs to be a part of these expectations. The players and GM both have a hand in the success of the campaign. Playing in a cooperative and productive way means quickly resolving these issues. It doesn't really matter what method you choose, expreiment, keep an open mind and be amazed :)

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. Gary Gygax Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gary_gygax.html#eVpfmjPRSQWlRAsR.99" rel="nofollow">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gary_gygax.html#eVpfmjPRSQWlRAsR.99</a> One of the most important things I keep in mind while DM'ing. The rolls add anticipation and excitement to social scenes and they can roll their hearts out certainly. If I like the presentation and its clever, its most likely a win. If its a player thats not very articulate and they stumble through his or her thought but have a clear intent, its most likely a win. Or at least a way for redemption within reach for both instances. If it makes things more fun and does not totally suck, we can have a great time with failing rolls too. I try to stear clear of that one roll that can make or break the evening.

Kristin C. said: Indeed. This scenario sounds exactly like how a FATE Accelerated conflict would go down, but the PC utilizing the Peanut Allergy would be an aspect that someone had won earlier in a dice roll or something he/she would have to spend mechanic currency to utilize. Right, good example! There's a case to be made, of course, that if your players really do want to gin up some fiction to negate a challenge, then perhaps your challenges aren't interesting anyway. You're probably better off not forcing the issue and ask your players what sorts of things they would enjoy being legitimately challenged by and do that instead. If they think the Death Knight is boring enough to want to get rid of him with a peanut allergy, you got bigger problems than players negating your prep with creativity.

ThreeFingerJohnny said: My group feels interacting with NPCs should be acted out in character without rolling. There is no right or wrong way to do this. If you think that what they say is effective, then let it be effective. The dice are there (and even more 'hack and slash' games, including D&D will say this) to adjudicate when the GM can't, or when it should be random. However, if you can't quite make up your mind, then roll. If it would be silly to have a particularly effective speech fail, or a particularly stupid speech succeed, then don't roll, just go with what makes sense. However, this the really important thing is picked out in the quote. You're the GM, but that doesn't make the game yours. There should be a shared expectation of what style of game will be run, so you and your players should both be on the same page, whatever that page is. If you can give your players what they want as far as style goes, you'll find that the game is a lot more fun for everyone.

Lewis W. said: You could just encourage them to declare their intent before going into their little Improv Acting thing. That way if their character fails the check they have a chance to act that out instead of going into some 5 minute long epic speech that somehow fails to do anything. EG A player wants to initidate a guy. If he suceeds he can say whatever badass thing he had planned, otherwise he can just say something lame like "I'll err, stab you, err, with my sword." This . Social skills are the only one where players split on if the player skill should trump the character skill with a fourth wall bonus to boot. nobody tries to claim their personal experience with a bow/crossbow/sniper rifle/etc should trump the fact that their character is a quadupalegic wizard with tremors or something because of the bonuses it gave to spellcasting. the system you use factors heavily into how you can handle social stuff, but in almost all of them it's prefectly reasonable to require stated intent. about the only other thing I've seen like this is sometimes chemistry related stuff, but there are dopzens of ways to express why the barbarian raised by wolves has no idea what gunpowder is/how to make it and why the wizard who can cast explosive spells by wiggling his fingers would have no idea how to make c4just because the player has a clue based on a tv show. nobody will ever say "wait can we just go outside and let you shoot at me to see how damaged my character is instead?"