Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[Umbran]

One extra thing to consider is this:

When we talk about combat, the player *does* have skills that get used - skills *with the game rules*. While player skill does not impact a particular die roll, certainly player strategy and tactics impact the overall outcome of a combat. A combat conflict is a whole mess of die rolls, the impact of which is influenced by the player choices.

We don't typically handle social encounters in that way. Unless you are using something like a Skill Challenge, they are usually reduced to a *single* die roll. We don't give our players many tactical handholds in social challenges.

Roleplaying out the challenge is the most intuitive way to add some of that complexity - allowing the GM to understand the player approach and tactics in some detail, allowing us to judge any bonus or penalty on that roll. These things could be detailed out by the player without taking the RP route, but this game does not present a framework for doing that. We could consider creating one, even if it is just a list of simple questions about how the player wants to approach the discussion/negotiation/challenge.

Note that some other games do have full mechanics for these things- some FATE variants have Physical and Social (and some even Mental) health tracks - and the mechanics for "attacking" the challenge are exactly the same - they simply use different skills.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The problem, as I see it, is thus.

You have a player who wants to play a wizard. We have rules for magic; that the player is not a magician IRL thus poses no problem.

You have a player who wants to play a fighter. We have rules for combat; that the player is not that strong or a fighter IRL thus poses no problem.

You have a player who wants to play a crafty woodsman. We have (some) rules for handling woodcraft and exploration; that the player is not a woodsman IRL thus poses minimal problem. The dearth of exploration mechanics in general makes this tricky, but typically there's enough crunch there to make this workable.

You have a player who wants to play a charismatic leader or persuasive type. We now have a problem, because the rules for this have pretty much always been garbage, if they exist at all.

3e's skill system was abysmal for handling social interactions, because they were essentially binary: you either roll a high enough Diplomacy, or you don't. We can quibble all day about DMs using circumstantial modifiers and trying to take into account the character's Charisma versus that of the player, of focusing on content, providing bonuses for "roleplaying" and all that... but at the end of the day, the systems we've seen in D&D barely qualify as systems.

This is not an easy problem - that D&D has failed at it (and it has, mechanically) repeatedly and consistently over its editions is not meant as a dig at D&D, because it is a difficult problem and not easily resolvable. At the end of the day, there are only so many ways to sword at people, and only so many contexts in which that happens. How do you generalize a social interaction system that's supposed to be able to handle, in theory, everything from convincing a peasant to give you an apple, to convincing the king to go to war?

My own musing on this problem has led me to the conclusion that focusing on the results, on the specifics of a social exchange, is impossible. We can't mechanically represent individual goals that occur at the table, because they're going to almost literally be unique. It's not feasible to mechanize that. I think instead what might be possible to do is to build a "social combat" (though I detest that phrase) system that's built around some set of intentionally-vague virtues or ethics, split into groups, which would variously oppose or align with one another. A more complex, nuanced version of D&D alignment could yield such a setup, which you could then use as a foundation for a social interaction system that "feels" better than just winging it, or using binary skill checks.

Of course, at the same time, you also have a notable portion of the gaming population who feels that this sort of thing is heterodox, that mechanizing what is essentially RP is destructive of, or at least detrimental to, the whole concept of roleplaying. I have an intuition that they're wrong, but implementing a mechanical chassis for social interaction would certainly make such events at the table different compared to how they are done now. I have tried to put some thought into this, as well, and have some loose thoughts regarding some sort of "social currency:" arguments or facts that could be discovered and used in specific social conflicts to garner some kind of advantage (and not strictly the 5e sort of advantage). Of course, the precise implementation of that sort of thing, I feel, might bring us right back to where we started: these things would effectively be unique to any given social encounter, which may very well defeat the purpose of a more generalized social encounter framework.

 

[iserith]

The DMG has rules for resolving social interactions (pages 244 to 245). In a nutshell, it involves the PCs interacting with an NPC and trying to improve his or her starting attitude (friendly, indifferent, hostile), then getting to the point of the exchange and asking or demanding what they want of the NPC.

I refer to this first part of the interaction as "The Chat." During the chat, the NPC is presenting the PCs with specific objections that must be overcome in order to influence the NPC's attitude temporarily. While doing so, the characters can attempt to suss out the NPC's agenda, personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw, the use of which grants advantage on a subsequent Charisma check to overcome an objection (if there is a check at all). This allows for PCs who aren't terribly charismatic to participate by observing body language and mannerisms to figure out angles that might work on the NPC (which might call for a Wisdom check). Recalling useful lore about the NPC may also have the same effect (which might call for an Intelligence check).

I generally have the NPC present three objections during the chat, basically reasons why they are indifferent or hostile to the PCs and don't want to do what the PCs intend to ask. If the PCs overcome all three, they can move the NPC from hostile to temporarily friendly (for example). If they overcome two, the NPC is made temporarily indifferent. If they overcome only 1 or none, the NPC remains hostile. The difficulty of a social interaction challenge can be modified by increasing or decreasing the number of objections and/or the required successes to modify the attitude. This also makes the interaction longer or shorter.

Once the PCs have had a chance to modify the NPC's attitude, they can get to the point and make whatever request they want. This part of the interaction I call "The Ask." The DMG has tables for what DC gives you what result, based on the creature's attitude. These range from "The creature opposes the adventurers' actions and might take risks to do so" to "The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

And that's it, a pretty simple way to resolve social interaction challenges based on what is already provided in the rules. If you haven't read these rules or tried them out, I suggest you give it a go.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm not running a game with social skills, or skills, but even with 5e I wanted my player to describe what he was going to say and how he was going to say it, then I'd take his CHA into account and decide if a skill check was needed. We didn't do acting for the most part, the game is played more 3rd person I guess.

I'd try to do the same to a degree with other kills, like searching. If you tell me you are searching a chest of drawers I'd assume you are stand there eyeballing it. But if you are saying you are going to move it away from the wall, take out all the drawers and turn them over, etc, a search check would not be needed to find the key in the one drawer under the Orc underpants. I try to get the player to get into the mind of the PC just a little bit with stuff like that.

 

[5ekyu]

I know this is probably an unpopular way of handling it but I completely disregard the delivery and focus on content.

My subjective estimation of their argument or propsal helps me assign the DC of difficulty. Context assigns advantage or disadvantage. I let the die do the other part. To me, the dice in a social scene are like tea leaves. I look at the result and figure out why my NPC was or wasn’t impressed.

I’ve never had any trouble getting players to RP in conversation though. I have had more than one PC with personality traits we might regard as “bad” who had high charisma checks. My approach avoids any dissonance on that front. I treat it like collaborative word-building

A question i would have on this approach is "why isn't content" also a matter of character skill?

isn't part of persuasion not about "suave" but also about figuring out what would appeal to the target, what wouldn't and offering up and swerving towards the right things as you size-up and work into the conversation?

 

[5ekyu]

One extra thing to consider is this:

When we talk about combat, the player *does* have skills that get used - skills *with the game rules*. While player skill does not impact a particular die roll, certainly player strategy and tactics impact the overall outcome of a combat. A combat conflict is a whole mess of die rolls, the impact of which is influenced by the player choices.

We don't typically handle social encounters in that way. Unless you are using something like a Skill Challenge, they are usually reduced to a *single* die roll. We don't give our players many tactical handholds in social challenges.

Roleplaying out the challenge is the most intuitive way to add some of that complexity - allowing the GM to understand the player approach and tactics in some detail, allowing us to judge any bonus or penalty on that roll. These things could be detailed out by the player without taking the RP route, but this game does not present a framework for doing that. We could consider creating one, even if it is just a list of simple questions about how the player wants to approach the discussion/negotiation/challenge.

Note that some other games do have full mechanics for these things- some FATE variants have Physical and Social (and some even Mental) health tracks - and the mechanics for "attacking" the challenge are exactly the same - they simply use different skills.

Without defining it as a "skill challenge" to avoid driving towards a house rule discussion - i think the bolded part is KEY.

a Gm can establish within RAW ways for the "working together" or other specific types of efforts to provoke advantage and disadvantage for these social encounters. it needs to be *shown* from the outset but there is no reason within the rules a Gm cannot have plenty of "social maneuvers" so-to-speak that serve the role of "knowledge of game mechanics in combat" as far as social-fu goes.

One of the most obvious is a research or investigation task to "find out about the target and what they are like, what they liek, what they dislike." this is common fodder for movies, series, books etc and can be a perfect example for "you gain advantage on the social check later" if successful.

Similarly, maybe the "working together" is stirring up trouble between the mark and a rival, making them more willing to bring on new allies - especially ones hostile to their rival.

i think that it may be the case that *if* the GM only shows the social challenges as a "single check" resolution and not show any obvious cases where "doing a tends to help" (maybe because the Gm is relying on the player skill at task "what they player says and does) then that is a sort of self-enforcing process that undercuts the options to "use the game" to resolve social "game tasks".

I try in my games to establish early that circumstances and knowledge and such are as vital to non-combat tasks as they are to combat tasks. this tends to make multi-stage research and setup efforts for social challenge as normal/routine (or close to) as "move to within 5; so the rogue gets sneak" is in combat.

 

[iserith]

I'm not running a game with social skills, or skills, but even with 5e I wanted my player to describe what he was going to say and how he was going to say it, then I'd take his CHA into account and decide if a skill check was needed. We didn't do acting for the most part, the game is played more 3rd person I guess.

That is pretty much how D&D 5e rules lay it out.

I'd try to do the same to a degree with other kills, like searching. If you tell me you are searching a chest of drawers I'd assume you are stand there eyeballing it. But if you are saying you are going to move it away from the wall, take out all the drawers and turn them over, etc, a search check would not be needed to find the key in the one drawer under the Orc underpants. I try to get the player to get into the mind of the PC just a little bit with stuff like that.

There is also a standard of reasonable specificity in action declarations in D&D 5e and that's discussed in particular in the rules for finding hidden objects (Basic Rules, page 61).

 

[Arial Black]

Both the player using an active approach or a descriptive approach to stating the goal and approach should be treated the same way in my view when it comes to determining uncertainty as to the outcome, whether there's a meaningful consequence of failure (what failure looks like), and what the DC is. In other words, a flowery speech from Player A and a simple, clear statement from Player B are the same thing as long as the goal and approach are substantially the same.

I agree with all that.

We role-play because we enjoy it. There are many different aspects of the game to enjoy, and each of us might enjoy some parts more than others. Some of us might enjoy the 'acting in character' part more than others.

It is more obvious when using social skills; talking in first person or third. But it is also the case in other areas, even combat. "I use Wave Slicing technique and my katana slices through the water and *rolls* the dire crocodile beneath the water suffers *rolls* 13 points of 'croc to handbag' damage!" is no better or worse mechanically than "I attack the crocodile with my sword", but some people enjoy that kind of thing.

Remember the DM who thinks it's enjoyable to force the player of the bard to come up with a song and sing it right there at the table in order to use his class abilities and if the player didn't then the abilities auto-failed? Yeah, when I'm playing the rogue I'll gladly demonstrate my backstabbing skills!

 

[Staccat0]

A question i would have on this approach is "why isn't content" also a matter of character skill?

isn't part of persuasion not about "suave" but also about figuring out what would appeal to the target, what wouldn't and offering up and swerving towards the right things as you size-up and work into the conversation?

Ideally yeah. I don't honestly care about differentiating player skill or character skill or whatever. The mechanics of 5e just seem to work smoothly that way for me and it covers a wide swath of players.

Like, in my ideal game we wouldn't have insight checks but when I play 5e I use those too.

Thinking about it more, 5e DOES give me a tool to reward a really really good delivery and I just kinda forgot about it. Inspiration Points work really well for that. But again, I mostly play with actors and comedians and writers and stuff so I've never had an urge to make them do anything other than shut up.

D&D is a weird game where you sit in a person's head and drive them around like a mech when you think about it. The disconnect feels strongest in social stuff and RP and the many directions it pulls us. The solution, I think would require making it a different game.

As it is, the social rules in 5e feel like a cludge but I can work with them.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

This is one of the things where your behavior as DM determines how your players play like.

If you reward good roleplaying and clever ideas, your players will try their best to come up with something.
Advantage is that it creates more interesting gameplay. Disadvantage is that players that aren't good at this might feel punished.

If you make everything into a dice roll as long as your players describe what they want to accomplish, then players will eventually stop thinking of ideas themselves and just say "I come up with a great idea".
Advantage is that even players who can't do what their PC is supposed to be good at are not disadvantaged. Disadvantage is that the roleplaying gets pretty boring, unless you as the DM, then come up with good ideas for your players (and that turns into you basically dictating what the PCs do which is another disadvantage on top).