Social skills in D&D

[Quasqueton]

What this poll is showing is that with all the moaning and complaining about how with the D&D3 social skills players have stopped role playing social encounters and now just roll the dice, only 4% actually do that.

By the way, in AD&D1, I did social interaction the same way as now, only they had to roll a d20 equal to or under their Charisma score.

Quasqueton

 

[Thanee]

I like the roll dice and then act accordingly then maybe get a circumstance modifier and hear the result.

But admittedly, in the P&P games, it's more often like talk first, roll dice later with appropriate modifiers, then wonder why it doesn't fit.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Arnwyn]

I chose "Other". We mostly just talk it out, but if the result is particularly important, then we'll do the "talk it out and then roll the dice". This works well for Bluff/Sense Motive, but we don't really follow the RAW when it comes to Diplomacy.

In previous editions, we did the "Cha check" rolls (roll under your Cha).

What this poll is showing is that with all the moaning and complaining about how with the D&D3 social skills players have stopped role playing social encounters and now just roll the dice, only 4% actually do that.

As anyone with any knowledge of proper statistical sampling will tell you, this poll is showing nothing of the sort.

 

[Ourph]

For those of you who used to, or still do, play earlier editions of this game, how did you handle social interaction in the game? How did you adjudicate/rule on PCs bluffing guards, intimidating bullies, diplomacizing merchants, etc.?

Usually the same way I used to handle it in 3e - i.e. a mixture of just talking it out and talking it out and then rolling something. Usually the rolling was either on the Reaction tables or a Morale check. For example, by the RAW NPC henchmen need to make a Morale check after the end of every adventure to see if they remain loyal. The check is modified by the PC employer's Cha score as well as circumstancial modifiers. It's easy enough to use that same process for determining how well disposed any other NPC interacting in an extended fashion with the PC will feel toward them (if the DM decides it's necessary to determine such a thing randomly).

How did you handle Players with low charisma/social skills playing characters with high Charisma?

I pay attention to what they say, not how they say it. If what they say it stupid or inappropriate, then the PC and player suffer the consequences. As far as I'm concerned, the delivery can be determined by the character, but the thinking behind the delivery is always the responsibility of the player. After all, player skill has to figure into the game somewhere if it's really a game and not a cooperative, interactive novel-writing session (if that's what a group wants out of the experience that's fine and I can see, in that instance, why you'd perhaps do things that eliminated player characteristics from the equation).

How did you handle Players with high charisma/social skills playing characters with low Charisma?

Where are these mythical high charisma gamers of which you speak? Isn't that kind of like asking what you'd do if the Sasquatch sat down at your table and wanted to play a Half-Kender/Half-Dragon Paladin?

Seriously though, I'd handle it in the same way as above, paying attention to what the player says, not how he says it. Any advantage a player might gain in the "what" department through having good social skills is, IMO, deserved and not a problem AFAIAC.

:edit:

Thanee brings up a good point. My real problem with social skills isn't really that they discourage RP or anything. It's that a player can do a good job of RPing - have a decent Cha, Diplomacy score, etc. and still roll really bad and get screwed when (by any reasonable standard) his scores and performance should have led to a better result. As a DM, I just simply don't let this kind of thing happen by fiat (i.e. - "good enough, you don't need to roll") but I've gotten screwed by it as a player a few times with DMs who are (IMO) too BtB and it's really frustrating.

 

[Hodgie]

I find that I leave it up to the player and react accordingly. There are some players that like to talk it out and others that are uncomfortable doing so. I don't want to make an umbrella rule that applies to everyone when everyone is different.

The result, then, is that the player with a high Diplomacy who uses it to get what he wants gets it and little more. The player with the high Diplomacy who talks it through gets what he wants and is highly thought of by the NPC, perhaps compensated even more, and so forth.

Basically I try to leave the rules alone and reward RP with more RP.

 

[ElvishBard]

I never have my players roll to use diplomacy, it takes the fun out of it for me. I enjoy having them figure out how to convince people to do what they want. None of my players have ever asked about being able to use diplomacy instead of roleplaying it out, so it seems to be working well.

 

[Storyteller01]

PLayer chooses what they are comfortable with, although a die roll may be used if the convo gives 50/50 odds.

 

[Henry]

I prefer the second choice, but usually end up doing the first choice because the players are often uncomfortable with the in-game portrayal of it. I also suck at extemporaneous dialogue.

 

[zeo_evil]

"Talk it out", then roll the dice to see how the PC delivers it and the NPC takes it (if it is needed).

That is how I do it as a DM but when I play I prefer to do it the other way around. I roll then talk it out that way I have a little bit of space to work with in case I get a bad roll. Sometimes I can overcome a bad roll or at least get a retry with a little work on my part.

 

[Psion]

I picked the "talk then roll" option, assigning modifiers from the roleplaying.

Though I would just roll if I felt that the roleplaying was not significant to the progress of the game or player enjoyment. Not real big of the "chatty shopkeep" paradigm.