Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[zepherusbane]

I must admit that I liked the social skill additions as it gave people who were not naturally persuasive to play a character that is.

The reality is that it all comes down to your DM and your fellow players more than whether you are allowing roles for social skills or not. --You can have an excellent game using each persons "actual" skills at role playing, or you can supplement with rolling some dice. Either way, the person running the character still needs to come up with an action they want to do even if they aren't eloquent in stating it.

I have played in games where someone used all their skill points in things that always require roles and then depended on their own personality to still be very persuasive with NPC's. Do you let the player get the advantage of the skills without spending the skill points? That doesn't really seem very fair either.

Honestly though, as long as the rest of the group are all on the same page either method can work just fine. I just prefer to use the skills to make the decision of whether my (hopefully well thought out and persuasive!) role playing actually worked.

 

[Balesir]

I noticed Monte Cook recently talking about the importance of having social skills in 5e so that socially inept players can play socially ept PCs. Why in-game combat can challenge the players' tactical skill, but social encounters must never challenge the players' social skill, is an attitude I just can't understand.

I'm not sure that's an appropriate comparison; requiring the player to actually make "the speech" is more like requiring that they actually make "the sword thrust" or other combat move. The appropriate comparison to combat tactical skill would be more like requiring details of the social "tactics" and levers being used, and I'm by no means convinced that would not be a good thing in D&D.

Megatraveller and some of its derivatives have some interesting/neat stuff from this respect. Things like a range of tactics to be used in the core "social functions" of "improve relations", "ask for information", "ask for help/action" and "command help/action". Approaches include establishing a "Superior" or "Inferior" social position; some tactics only work from one or another position - begging, for example, only works from an inferior position. Things like the use of Intimidation in combat could be viewed this way - the fact of an opponent being bloodied while you are not might open up an opportunity to gain a "Superior" position; this could then be leveraged with a skill to make a command to surrender/flee/etc.

Basically, I see two "layers" in all of combat, social and explorational encounters. I would quite like to see a game that gives players tactical and intent control of their characters in all of these, but not "executive responsibility" in the sense of having to actually perform the in-game act. The only use I really see for the latter is in games with an overriding emphasis on immersion, and I think D&D is a very poor fit for that (I would choose RQ, CoC, HârnMaster or Traveller for that).

 

[amerigoV]

This might be the wrong way to put it, but I hate trying to make the playing field 'level' for everyone.

That's fine so long as you do the same thing for combat

 

[dagger]

The DM's roll in the open and we roll for stats.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

I've recently given up on the idea of skills (as consistent and level-dependent character-specific bits) entirely in class-based games. While that's a topic for another time, I believe it's doubly so for social skills.

There was an analogy that Monte used in the transcripts about social skills that sounds kinda like common-sense at first, but I think falls apart upon closer scrutiny. It was something along the lines of "we don't expect players to come to the table knowing how to use a sword, so why do expect that of social skills?"

I think this kind of analogy is possible because we conflate charisma with roleplaying generally, and with talking in character among other things.

Take my friend Casey. IRL he's a smart guy, but he's introverted. He also hates talking in character. Let's take a typical fast talk scenario. He's playing a character who needs to bluff his way past some guards. Now IRL, Casey couldn't probably do this very easily.

Rather, a more jocular person like my buddy Brandon could: he's quick on his feet, he's good with proxemics, body language, eye contact, identifying his target audience and adjusting his lexical register to maximize their comfort. He doesn't do this purposefully; it just comes naturally. He's the kind of guy who makes you feel at ease and open. No plan--just natural charisma.

So, Casey doesn't want to talk in character. It makes him uncomfortable. instead of talking in character, he tells the DM he wants to bluff his way past the guards. He tells him, "I'll do all that stuff that chatty people do, and as I chat them up, I'll weave in a story about how [whatever the outline of the bluff is]."

Casey doesn't have to be charismatic to play the bluffer any more than he needs to know how to wield a sword. He just has to have a plan. A straight reaction roll and/or a good outline of the plan should suffice.

The problem with social skills as level-dependent character-specific bits is that they keep going up, right? So what your first level bluffer was capable of doing is insignificant compared to what your 15th level bluffer is capable of. It quickly can get beyond reason: "I, uh, tell the entire constabulary that this is not the Duke's head I'm holding, but is instead a movie prop. Uh, 'I am not the droid you're looking for'." At some point, given what he's accomplished in the past, he *has* to be able to do it because his numbers are higher.

This might be a bit hyperbolic, but it's indicative of a system of constant improvement.

We had a PC in a game who through synergizing various skills wound up with a ludicrous Diplomacy score. It got so laughable that we began quoting a line from Kung Pow when he used it: "I implore you to reconsider." "Okay!"

 

[Hezrou]

Honestly if someone is that socially inept they can't even roleplay a simple conversation with a guard or whomever then they really should find a new hobby. RPGS are face to face social experiences to being with.

Hell you don't have to give the worlds most perfect lie to bluff the guard, just TRY. Effort is rewarded. If you show up for a game with no intention of ever roleplaying then you should have stayed home on the computer.

 

[BryonD]

I guess I am mean.

Do you expect people you are mean to to game with you?

And beyond that, bring "mean" to people who don't excel at social isn't as big an issue as letting talkers do things their character has no business pulling off. Now maybe you take that into account. But if you do then you may as well use the skills.

And, IMO, the joy of RPGs comes from being someone who *isn't* you. If every character I ever played always had my wit, no more no less, I'd be bored.

 

[KiloGex]

So if you don't want to use them, why not just talk to you GM about not having them, and instead play it how you've described? Nothing says that you have to use them just because they're on the sheet.

 

[Wiseblood]

Talk to your players. The outcome of social skills might be the problem. Another problem is investment, when a player uses allotted resources to shape future encounters, they should be able to shape future encounters. You could just give the players a charm person or suggestion spell once a day or something then they would look pretty darn suave. Plus then they wouldn't be bogging the game down with infinite rolls. They just uncork their fairly reliable Intimidate Ray and settle it. The cost for a skill like that could be 1 skill point per level just to stay sharp. (IE a Relevant DC) I don't know I'm just spitballing.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Just in case I need to clarify my previous statement, I want to make sure I'm not coming across as ignoring social skill rolls or mechanics in games that have them. Far from it. The rules constitute a contract between the PCs and the DM; if the PC makes a character by the rules and invests in that character's social stuff at the expense of other stuff, the DM (barring previous explanations of pertinent house rules) ought to honor that.

My point is that I'm not sure class-based games like D&D need social skill systems, especially when there's a charisma score and something along the lines of a reaction roll chart.

One of the interesting things about say, Classic D&D is that there are only two charts for social/Charisma rolls: the monster reaction chart and the hireling chart. Both use the same basic mechanic: 2d6 modded by Cha. Snake eyes is really bad, the next three up is sorta bad, the middle three are uncertain (leading to a reroll possibly modded by what was said or what happened), the next three up are good, and boxcars are great.

Though not explicit, it implies a system where the mechanic is the same, but the outcomes vary depending on what you want to accomplish: in one instance, its about getting the monster to chill, in another, about getting someone to come along with you on an insanely dangerous vacation. What I like about it is that your chances remain relatively stable over the course of your adventuring career. That said, there's enough flexibility for a bonus given for those who like to reward in-character talking or a good plan. The smaller range (2d6 rather than 1d20 modded by skill score) makes such a bonus more meaningful than in a skill-driven game.

Again, YMMV, but for my preferences this works out better than assuming the skill rolls will let it all come out in the wash.