No-hot-air Interpretation

>>54218753

I generally go by this. Narration or description is viewed through the lens of the characters capabilities and their rolls.

It also has the side benefit of being a good way of encouraging less capable players to experiment. Even if they're not certain about things like dialogue or making plans IC, a good roll obliges the GM to view their attempt in the best possible light, giving them positive feedback on the parts that worked and letting them feel good about their achievements in the game.

I'm going to make charisma my dump stat because none of my spells are affected by it.
What, my speech failed to convince him? Pshh, it sucks that we are playing a ROLLplaying game and not a real roleplaying system like 3.5e.

>>54218753
If everyone is on the same page concerning what type of game the group is going to be playing, getting around your example can be made easier, by instead, rolling the dice first and then making your speech or argument.

If you rolled poorly, you're able to come up with something, that doesn't have a lot of gravity to it, or you're able to leave out a lot of arguments that you could use to make your side a lot more convincing.

This also can help in the reverse of your example, when you have a player who isn't a very charismatic type, who simply says "come on guys, just do it." but because he rolled super high, the NPCs for some reason just go "welp, you've convinced me!". In this case, if a high number is rolled, other players, or the GM could give the person tips or points to help construct their argument.

>>54218753
>hello Mr king give me all the gold in your treasury please
>NAT 20 LOL do it
>Servants bring this peasant all my gold at once

>>54219737
>nat 20 on skill rolls meme

>>54219737
>I roll to become the DM
>NAT 20 LOL do it
>now I am the DM

>>54218753
this entire post is the reason /tg uses DMs and not soulless computers

>>54223601

How so? It seemed like pretty logical GMing advice to me.

>>54223807
the DM exists in the game because it is impossible to simulate every possible response to any scenario and thus allows for leeway in execution of the rules. The rules, after all, are an arbitrary compilation (like in literally any game) to accommodate having fun in a "fair" and "balanced" way. OP claiming that roleplay is entirely separated from rollplay implies /tg are no different than videogames.

>>54224049

I have literally no idea what you're talking about, or how it in any way relates to what the OP said. You're speaking gibberish.

>>54218753

I agree that players shouldn't describe the result of their actions when the result is something being contested. However, I do think players should give details on how they're trying to persuade or intimidate someone, and that this can be roleplayed. As a GM, how else am I supposed to scale the difficulty of the skill check? A character's line of argument that they use to persuade someone can make a major difference. If all the player is saying is "I roll Diplomacy" then I have to do that in a vacuum. If, for example, a face character knows a queen is particularly vain and says they're going to flatter the queen as part of their attempt to convince her to lend them military aid, should I ignore that when setting the skill check difficulty? There will be people who say I should ignore it and just make it a straight roll against an arbitrary number based on whether I abstractly think the queen is overall easy, average or hard to convince about anything in general. However I don't find that in any way rewarding or interesting either narratively or in terms of problem solving. It's fine for something trivial like haggling where you'd just be shouting prices at each other, but not for something more major and nuanced.

>>54224150

I feel like your view is compatible with the OP's, though. What you're talking about is describing the attempt, while what the OP is arguing against is describing the result and trying to use it to influence the roll.

Of course a player should describe how they're approaching something, and that's something the GM can take into account when interpreting the dice. But at the same time, how the dice fall is also significant, as otherwise you end up with people dumping Cha or social skills and then trying to talk their way out of situations with OOC skill, effectively bypassing their IC limitations. It's a shitty thing to do, and bad roleplaying, but people still do it, and I think it's that sort of thing OP is trying to stop.

>>54224150
Here is an alternative interpretation:

Sometimes a method of social persuasion isn't a matter of how difficult it is, sometimes it's a matter of it working or not.

For example, if you are trying to intimidate a drow by threatening them with pain, that isn't a question of how difficult it is, you are simply picking the wrong angle. I'm not going to say "well, drow in this setting don't fear pain at all, so let's make this a difficult DC." For me that messes up the narrative. My interpretation is that choosing to intimidate with pain is an example of a failed roll, where a successful roll would be represented by choosing a better option. This interpretation treats social skills as ways to pick apart a person's psyche and use their weak points and less like some sort of mind-control magic.

Of course, if this is taken too far, the natural conclusion is the DM taking away a lot of player agency and flavor by putting words in their mouths. On the other hand, not doing this at all results in social skills acting as if they are jedi force mind tricks.

Going back to the queen, if she isn't vain at all, and the party face tries to appeal to her vanity, I'm going to 0% let that be how I describe a success, even if the party face has beaten the expected DC by 200 points. However, if the party face does succeed the roll, I will help them by giving them some insight about the queen that their character would have noticed, and then give them a little control over what happens next. If the player then knows what the good angles are, he doesn't have to roll again. That would be like making a fighter roll to open a jar.

>>54222894
>I roll to stop being the DM
>7
>ok

>>54224150

This is a great example of how the dual-abstraction principle works in a lot of games. The difficulty is the sum total of how hard the person is to convince, the roll is the sum total of how well you convinced them. Both "I made a dodgy argument but I sold it" and "I'm an extremely un-inspiring person but my argument is rock-solid" both abstract to the same value so there's nothing gained or lost by describing it either way, so you can narrate it any way you'd like.

>>54219737
Well, if you're going to be a complete dickhole about things then you can just not play.

>>54224851
>>54224851
Ironically for a system derided for not having any roleplay in it 4E skill challenges exactly model this.

If you say the wrong thing to the Duke within the skill challenge it counts as an automatic failure and you have to reconsider your approach within the conversation going forwards to succeed. You can't just roll your way out of it with a high bonus.

>>54218753
Okay? So...?