>do people actually roleplay in the roleplaying games?
Perhaps you'd know if you were ever invited to the table, shitposter.

>>93212257
My group has a mix of rollplayers like myself and roleplayers like my mate so we sorta just fell into a situation where you can act out social checks if you want to but autists like myself can just do the roll.

Everyone roleplays in my group. Some basic bridge and and bookkeeping interactions get summarized with in depth roleplay, though.

It depends on the check. Small stuff like haggling over prices we handwaved with a CHA check. Bigger stuff like 'I pressure the guard to let me in even though I don't have necessary documentation' I make the player at least give me give me a rough idea of how they're going to convince said guard. I would accept something as simple as saying 'i want to convince the guard my familiar ate my documents'. I do not ever force my players to act out a conversation if they don't want to.

>>93212257
I like to give a generic description of what I want to do, roll, and then roleplay what that roll got me within character.

>>93212257
no, we just roll a DC and our GM narrates what our character correctly or incorrectly said.

>>93212572
This is the way to do it.

>>93212257
Yes, consistently in every campaign I've played since I was a teenager.

>>93212257
Context: I usually play skill based games

To a degree. As long as the intention and approach are clear I let the players just roll their appropriate skill and act it out at their leizure, as long as it's clear what the character does, and why they're using what skill. Extra context can of course provide bonuses according to the rules.
Some time ago I had a lengthy discussion with a player because she wanted to charm a shopkeeper into giving her better prizes. This would be a usual negotiaton check, a skill her PC had far less optimal stats in. We both agreed that offering sexual favors was excessive (she didn't do so, she just couldn't think of other ways of utilizing the charm skill and was therefore adamant on not specifying what her PC does at all).
Luckily the adventure ended soon after and I did not invite her to my other games.
I never expect my players to give me quick-witted responses for every situation but they should at least be able to come up with something like:
>I approach the NPC at the bar flirtatiously and see if I can get her to stay for a few more drinks
>I put my hand on my sword hilt, look menacingly at the thief and tell them to return the goods.
>I put on blue overalls and tell the guard I'm here to do maintenance [lie]
>I haggle with the merchant.

I always try to. I think you should always try to. It's a ROLEplaying game. But if someone isn't comfortable with it then I won't make a big deal out of it. Also in a 1 on 1 game sometimes it's just awkward, especially if you're running multiple characters.

>>93212257
I'm in the camp of 'you have to sufficiently explain what you're trying to accomplish, along with your approach to doing so' for me to give you a roll. Even within a skill there's a world of difference between 'I threaten the shopkeeper's reputation' and 'I threaten the shopkeeper's life'. Similarly the specifics of a lie/bluff make a ton of difference, not only for the interaction's immediate consequences, but future consequences of whether the lied-to party discovers they've been cheated.

update: I was a moron and did not clarify that this was mostly based around seduction-type rolls that are not just "I'm going to bang the barmaid for funsies".

>>93212257
>To OP
I can't make heads or tails out of whatever the fuck you are trying to post, OP. I'm assume it's asking about the degrees that people "Act" during social encounters.

Yes. In person in the non-digital world. I've seen people run the whole scale of acting, and seen the whole scale of DM demands on social interactions.

Everything thing from:
Player: "I tell the guard a lie to get past him" *rolls an 18*
DM: "Ok you lie your way through"
to
DM: "There will be no rolling what so ever. Tell me the lie you tell the guard, and I will tell you if he believes it. There will be no dice rolling or stat comparisons for this scenario"
Player: "Excuse me sir, I am here from regiment 8 on a routine check up of the cells..." *Player produces his notebook to the DM on which he has sketched his best attempt at drawing some sort of badge." etc, etc

And everything in-between. Most interactions land in-between those two extremes.

>To everyone
I scares me the amount of time people on here post "X doesn't happen in real life." It really shows the lack of experience most RPG players have.
Play with more people than your immediate friends. Play with more groups. Player more than D&D (but don't shun D&D, that's stupid), and try try try to playn0mw8 in person, as well as online.

>>93212257
My players need to be told to roll in social situations, they usually just talk completely in character and I have to break off the IC conversation if rolls need to be made.

>>93213388
>seduction-type rolls
Always to be roleplayed, perferably with hosting co-GM that better represents the character in question. I've used my (older) sister. First time I've seen woman make somebody cry with words alone.

>>93212257
Yes, if you don't act out your social check you automatically fail.

>>93212257
Players don't decide when to roll for anything. It's not
>You see the guard approach, about the enter the building your friends are in.
>I try to deceive the guard into going into the wrong building.
>What do you say?
>"I saw them go in there!"
>Okay, roll deception.
it's
>You see the guard approach, about the enter the building your friends are in.
>I tell the guard "I saw them go in there!" and point to the wrong building.
>Okay, roll deception.

Players just try to do things and I call for a roll when the thing they're doing is not a guaranteed success.

>>93212257
If you don't at least make an attempt you fail.
>you might as well be pla-
I just ripped up your sheet, leave the table, you don't exist anymore.

>>93214224
How emotional.

>>93212257
Yeah everyone in my group roleplays. It would be so boring to just be rolling checks with no narration. Sometimes there aren't even checks, just clever social maneuvering.

>>93213133
>she just couldn't think of other ways of utilizing the charm skill [besides sexual favors]
let me get this straight, this woman was genuinely racking her brain and the only thing she could think of was having her character rawdog him in the dumpster out back for a discount on potions? And you didn't want to help her out by suggesting anything? If true, I think your player might have been genuinely autistic and you probably should have helped her out.

>>93213388
Again, that can be boiled down to 'approach and goal'. Sometimes people appreciate humor, sometimes people appreciate personal looks and that certain physicality, sometimes people appreciate a certain subtle charm. Seduction at least informs goal, and necessarily reduces reasonable approaches to this goal. 'I seduce her with an emphasis on my good looks', 'I seduce her with an emphasis on my wit and charm', 'I seduce with an emphasis on my power and prestige', all of these are valid approaches that give a context to what the character is trying to and set the scene without necessarily getting into the details that spook some players.

>>93213388
For seduction rolls, you should ask the player to seduce you, the GM, in real life.

>>93212257
Well, at least in my homebrew, there is no roll to persuade. Social roll is for clues on what to speak.

>>93212257
>I get wanting to curb "I make up a lie to trick the guard into the wrong house" "What do you tell him?" "Uhhh I dunno you decide"
far as I can tell, stuffing this kind of shit is what people mean when they say "act out your social checks", but I could just be projecting from what my experience has been which consists of tables where you have to specify what your lie actually is before you get to roll your lying skill.

>>93214405
Part of my stance was that getting a discount was such a standard check that we should have played it by the book with negotiation, if there are no special circumstances. I tried to work out some more appropriate examples for how charm should be used, what I can recall was:
>Play on the damsel in distress trope (with a big maybe, because this might rather fall into deception)
>Give the merchant a compliment on some of the features I described him with.
>Have a conversation and try to garner sympathy by spending extra time on this.
I can't remember all examples I came up with and I'm afraid they were all a bit forced in the situation, but like I said I wouldn't have used charm in the first place.
Unfortunately she was already in a kind of defensive mode and I cut the situation short before grinding the session to a halt. Even had a talk with her post session.

>>93212257
Yes. Look, it takes time for your group to get comfortable with one another. Once you do, roleplaying and getting into the story becomes a really fun part of it. But it's hard to get to that headspace. We're a buncha adults sitting around playing make believe. It's easy to deride it as pathetic and you've all got to get genuinely comfortable with yourselves and each other, to feel safe in it. Admit that, talk about it, and work towards it. You'll like the roleplaying part, once you do.

>>93214224
NO! NOT BLACK LEAF!

>>93215878
shoulda rawdogged her for a bonus on her deception check

>>93212257
I usually make people at my table do it. It's fun. It's a TTRPG not xcom.

>>93217421
>It's a TTRPG not xcom.
Are you telling me I've been brining that high explosive to every damn session for nothing?

>>93214224
*grabs you by the throat*
>BACK THE FUCK OFF??!!?!

>>93217520
Man now that's a blast from the past.

>>93212257
Everybody does it. It's why social skills are so consistently worthless.