Question for veteran GMs

So when someone use a social skill, like persuade someone, do you just roll the skill or you ask him "how he will persuade" and then roll the skill?

Have the player roll play their persuade, then come up with a result they must pass (modifiers included) based on how well you thought they persuaded and the context of the situation.
Note I haven't roll played in years and even then it was just casual.

Make them play it out, then roll of necessary.

*if

First tell me what they want to do and how they will say it. It can be vague, like "I explain the king we're not responsible and that the losses were inevitable" or they can enact the whole thing, with accents and gestures and shit. I make appropiate modifiers and checks for the both after the player intervention, but I usually reward a little bit more the second kind of interpretation.

Also good taste OP, ramram is best girl

Don't fall for the "play it out" meme. Just ask the player what they're trying to say.
"I threaten the guard" is a lot less cringey than some fa/tg/uy social autist trying to sound tough.

Make them play it out but don't bace the out come off the RP as much as the role. The character they want to play might be far more persasive then the player IRL and you need to take that into account.

You don't make the player dead lift 300 pounds when they make a lift check. Why invole their real life charisma.

Im not saying don't roleplay at all tho.

There is a difference between using the player's words verbatim and roleplaying.

/thread.

You are right but many DM do not like the idea of persuasion checks and force player to play out the encouter. The player should play it out an state what he says but the final out come should be the rolls.

I played with some major socially ackward kids that couldn't order take out with out having a panic attack. Its not fair to player like those.

I run social skills in a way similar to knowledge skills; you don't roleplay it and then roll diplomacy to see if it works, you roll diplomacy to know what it is you need to say/do to get them to what you want. Like, on a successful check, you know that the enemy warlord doesn't think his warband can fight off your forces but doesn't want to risk appearing weak. To convince him to surrender, you'll have to offer him an out in a way that allows him to save face.

This. Sometimes the less socially capable want to play the fantasy of actual being able to talk to people easily. I don't tie athletics checks to how many push-ups my players can do, can't see why I would do differently for social encounters.

If your system doesn't cover this type of shit, then just do it however you want. Just make sure your players know your houserules beforehand.

nail on the head, except in the case of lower skill checks checks, i'll reward good roleplay/thoughtful answers with a free pass

>When I play roleplaying game with friends, I am very judgemental of what they are doing and consider their attempts cringy.

Just play vidya man.

I account for both what he says, how well he rolled, and how well his character is built for social scenarios. There's no hard and fast way of doing this, it's all fiat, but that's not a bad thing. It just means that as a GM, you don't have a safety net.

I let them roleplay it beforehand, and then adjust the DC accordingly. If they found the hints that I'll leave around they can create a good argument to sway the character in whatever way they want. If it's convincing enough, then sometimes I'll have them forego the roll entirely because there is no way for them to fail.

This encourages my roleplayers to roleplay well and it allows the socially awkward bard to succeed without having to get weird

>ramram is best girl
kick kick.... kick kick... swipe.... kick kick

1 hour later...

kick kick.... kick kick... swipe.... kick kick

It's dumb to make someone play out a persuasion check either way. You don't make the fighter actually wrestle someone for a grapple check do you?
Also there are some things that you should most definitely judge. Like when the guy you've never played with before begins describing his female PC in uncomfortable detail and claims that everything he does is "like something from an anime"

>You don't make the fighter actually wrestle someone for a grapple check do you?
I ask him what he wants to do. The fighter doesn't say "I want to kill that guy", he says "I want to grab onto that guy, so I'll move my character closer and then grab him". Then I tell him to make the roll, and give him the results and he can then describe the effects like he grabbed onto the orc, crushing him in his meaty grip or whatever.

For a persuasion check I ask the bard what he wants to do, and he doesn't say "I want to persuade that guy" he says "I want to make that guy believe we have the right to go inside" or "I want to bribe that guy to let us through". Then, I tell them what roll to make as appropriate.

The specifics of an action are important, as are the targets and how they do it. If I need more or less granularity to decide what rules are needed, I'll ask them for more detail.

this is the best way to do it

with all rolls, it's "Describe what you wanna do" and ask for roll if there's a risk factor

I like you and your dubs

That's it, there is nothing more to it. If you want to get fancy maybe give out a small bonus for good roleplaying, mind that I am not encouraging you to give disadvantages just positive bonuses.

I make them roleplay it and ask for a roll as well. Sometimes I will do a secret roll.

The roll doesn't matter except to serve as a mental tiebreaker. The roleplaying is the important part and all the players will have their expectations as to what should be the result. If it's mixed and the story could go either way, the dice can tip the balance one way or another but it's seriously not wise to spend the time to contemplate all the bonuses and penalties and come up with a strict mechanical response.

Depends on the player and/or group, of course. This is the only answer you need.

I let people just do what comes naturally at the moment.

They have to roleplay what they are doing and then I as the GM will judge if a roll is required or not, what that roll is (it might not be persuade) and how difficult it will be.

This is actually how the entire game works. The player doesn't pick his skill from the list and press the button to do it, he says his action and the GM decides if a roll is appropriate and what bonus from an ability or skill would be appropriate.

The clincher is are you giving bonuses/maluses based on what the player describes as their method or argument, or based on their personal charisma?
I've gotten over on gms many times because I can craft a very persuasive argument on top of being a strong speaker.