Roleplayable Skills

Some skills are known as Roleplayable skills, while others are not. Most skills with key abilities in the areas of one's strength, dexterity, or constitution - or their subabilities - are not roleplayable. Even many of those based on intelligence, wisdom, and charisma - or their subabilities - are frequently not roleplayable, but some clearly are. It is important to learn the difference.

Non-roleplayable skills are usually purely physical skills, and game dice are best used to determine success or failure.

For example, can your character open that stuck door, lift that boulder, jump the gorge, resist that poison, or maintain balance while walking across that rail?

No amount of acting or roleplaying should affect this. You are not your character, and your physical abilities probably don't come close to your character's physical abilities. Thus, in order to not leave everything up to GM whim - or player whim - we often find it fun to let random dice enter into the picture and bring in the realism of the unforeseen or unexpected - a certain amount of luck, good or bad, can go a long way.

Many skills based on intelligence, wisdom, or charisma - or their subabilities - often depend on your character's training, professional background, personal or world knowledge, or the like, and unless we insist a player know and learn all our characters know and have learned, we can't expect the player to actually perform these skills to the degree of competence their PC's can perform them.

For example, can he successfully make that potion, evaluate that gem's worth, calm that beast, discern which spell is being cast, make up and recite poetry on the spot, or know how to live off the land in that area?

Roleplayable skills, on the other hand, are frequently things we may wish to roleplay.

For example, can you bluff that guard, sense that character's motives, calm the heads of those involved in a heated argument, gather information from those NPCs, or something similar to this?

We soon discover if the players are not even obligated to try, the game quickly degrades to undesirable things, such as:

Player: "My character bluffs the guard." Dice are then rolled.

Player: "I'll calm their argument with my diplomacy skills." Dice are then rolled.

Player: "I'll figure out the riddle." Dice are then rolled.

Player: "The others will follow my lead due to my leadership skills." Dice are then rolled.

While we 'can' do this, doing so is what is known as a roll-playing game, and not a role-playing game. Ultimately, it will be up to the GM and players to decide how much roll-playing they will tolerate and how much role-playing they will insist upon, but for a role-playing game, one hopes, where possible, more choices are made with role-playing in mind.

A roleplayable skill, therefore, may have a dice roll associated with it, but the GM frequently would rather the player make an attempt to roleplay the situation. Once you have done that, the GM will use your character's skill level or ranks, and their ability modifier, to help determine success or failure. But your performance WILL affect your character's total modifier.

This roleplayable modifier will be something from a -5 penalty for an awful performance, to a +5 bonus indicating a superb performance.

NOTE: Though the GM may use higher bonuses or penalties if they wish, -5 to +5 is probably good enough.

Your character's ranks and abilities modifiers are then added, as normal, and the roll is made vs. the DC the GM has set for that given situation.

Therefore we will quickly see things like this:

Player: "I'll bluff the guard and distract him with my bluff skill."

GM: "OK, but I'll give your PC a -5 penalty since you haven't even tried to come up with a decent bluff."

Once players see which skills they are required to role-play - and the fact low performance means a penalty, while a good performance means a bonus - the game will take on a more dramatic flavor. The GM, via these penalties or bonuses, will eventually encourage a roll-playing game to move toward a role-playing game.

Again, though not required or necessary for all to follow these guidelines, I think doing so improves the game, the level of challenge and enjoyment of satisfaction of a job well done, and makes the game more interesting and thus longer lasting and memorable - but to each, his own.

After a time, following these guidelines, your games may look more like this:

Player: "Excuse me, sir, but did you see a tall, red-haired beauty pass down this hall? I'm looking for her and I think she came this way."

The GM would then award something between a -5 penalty to a +5 bonus, depending on how appropriate or effective they feel this bluff or distraction might be. Then the roll is made, including bluff ranks, charisma modifiers, racial modifiers - if the guard is a different race, he tends to be less trusting of you - or other situational modifiers - and perhaps the guard's defense skills, such as sense motive, might be taken into account, as normal. However, such a defensive skill for an NPC might already be taken into account as the GM decides how good or bad the roleplaying attempt was.

The point is, it is no longer purely a roll-playing game, and role-playing strongly factors into the equation and outcome.

Roleplayable Skills vs. Other Player Characters

Using roleplayable skills vs. other player characters is especially problematic.

Player One: "Your shoelaces are untied, my friend."

Dice are then rolled, indicating success.

Player Two: "I'm not going to look, no matter what he says."

Player One: "But the dice say you already did look, so I get a surprise attack on you. HAVE AT YOU!"

Player Two: "Bull $#&%!"

Or more commonly:

Player: "My plan is better than all of yours, so follow me!"

Dice are rolled, indicating success.

Others: "His lame ass plan is not better and he's a fool. We aren't following him to our deaths no matter what those dice say or how charismatic the character's ability score says he is."

Or perhaps even. . .

Player: "My character is the most charismatic, so I'm the party leader and you have to do what I say."

Others: "No way! You never know what you're doing, and your plans stink on ice. We're not following you!"

As you can see, dice rolls forcing players to act differently than they wish are simply not going to happen, and any skill roll suggesting one can force actions upon other PCs just isn't going to fly.

Forcing actions on the characters of other players must rise at least to the level of extraneous influence, such as drugs, magic, or other similar influences. And, by the way, woe unto the PC that treats his friends that way, for they will almost surely know about it after the fact when the drugs wear off or the magical influence fades, and either seek retribution, insist the offending character leave the party, or failing that, would realistically wish to depart that group themselves, leaving the company of those who think that action was fine, or acceptable, far behind them. After all, forcibly influencing one's comrades might realistically bestir feelings similar to those of being raped or brutally assaulted, or worse, and such things are not to be taken lightly between 'friends' or even coworkers or comrades.

NOTE: While it is often true abused characters stay, or abusive characters are tolerated - since to do otherwise puts a player, usually a friend, out of the game - this is an unrealistic development, and a poor excuse to either perpetrate such an action - since you know you can probably get away with it - or tolerate such an action - since if you don't, the game might come up short for players. Please bear this in mind BEFORE abusing other player characters. Such actions might ruin the whole game.

Also, the GM is encouraged to level other penalties, at least on good or neutral characters, since such actions are often considered evil due to the betrayal often involved. And while such actions vs. strangers - of unknown disposition - for a good cause might not be considered wholly evil, they are hardly good actions. Thus, good characters, though they might stoop so low, would usually not. However, strangers of a known and foul, evil, or enemy disposition are properly considered enemies and can probably be so treated without endangering one's alignment. Once an 'enemy' is identified and you're resigned to combat or using lethal force, mentally controlling them might, in fact, be more humane if you let them go afterwards. This reflects a philosophy of good found in the following quote:

"Learn the ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check - check rather than hurt - hurt rather than maim - maim rather than kill - for all life is precious." But I digress.

Of course, the GM will give such rolls deference as far as his NPCs are concerned, but even there, if they feel your bluff, or leadership, or whatever roleplaying you did to be sub par or unreasonable, they'd likely give your roll a serious penalty, the target a serious bonus, and also make the DC inordinately high.

However, the GM probably doesn't mind as much, and most of his or her NPCs are there to be manipulated to a certain degree, anyway. Thus, the GM's ego or pride isn't on the line as much as a player's. The player usually only has one PC, but the GM has a nearly infinite number of NPCs and can afford to be less controlling of each of his or her NPCs. After all, your character's skills along those lines have to be good somewhere or for something. It is just one should NOT expect them to hold that kind of influence over the characters of other players.

Some roleplayable skills, at least to a certain degree, would include the following:

Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Innuendo, Intimidate, Perform, Sense Motive, and perhaps many others not explicitly listed on table 4-2 on page 59 of the PHB.

Also, one should note, normally non-roleplayable skills might benefit from a bit of roleplaying. The GM might look favorably upon anyone adding color and flare to a simple dice roll.

For example:

Player One: "I roll to hit the orc with my longsword." Dice are then rolled.

Compare this to:

Player Two: "I step into the fray and thrust my longsword upwards while advancing rapidly toward the orc, trying to slip in past his guard and attempting to hit him in his unprotected, soft, underbelly below his breastplate."

Technically, success or failure for this roll to hit depends mostly on well-defined game parameters, such as AC, STR, DEX, magic bonuses, and other skills or feats. The success for player one should be the same as the success for player two, and I am not advocating otherwise. However, I would advocate awarding a few more experience points to player two.

Even something simple that adds to the game's flavor is appreciated.

Player One: "I lift the boulder and move it out of the way." Dice are then rolled.

Player Two: "Uuuuuuuuuggggggghhh! Man! This boulder is heavy," (pants heavily), "It feels like my fingers are about to give!" Dice are then rolled.

Again, success is mostly about the die roll, but the game is about roleplaying when and where we can, and such effort - whether or not it will affect outcome - should be rewarded.

Therefore, in conclusion, the GM - through careful use of penalties for skill rolls, and the prudent awarding of XP, may more gently coax their game into role-playing waters, and thus, hopefully, help the players develop their role-playing skills. Theoretically, the better they can roleplay, the more they will enjoy the game, and the longer this hobby may hold interest for them and their friends.

Happy Gaming ;-)