Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

Tara wants to play a wizard. She can't cast magic, but that's fine, it's just a game. Tom and Jerry are both playing front-line melee of different classes. Jerry used to be a Marine and he can really describe it, Tom ... not so much. But hey, we have mechanics for that and as long as Tom can manage decent tactics we're okay. It's funny, Tom is playing a ranger even though Jerry would be the one who could describe all of the woodscraft. Christine wants to play a half-elven paladin of Corellon; she's a laid back agnostic from a family of them that probably never was to a religious service except for weddings and funerals. Still no problem - it's a fantasy game.

And then we have Harry. He just finished watching Ladyhawke (again), and he wants to play a glib, silver-tongued character. But our Harry is anything but a smooth talker. He's earnest and loyal, but never been good with words.

So what do you do? No one else needs to demonstrate actual skills of their characters - that's what the mechanics are there for. But everyone at the table can convince in character and the closest Harry will get is "I interject a bunch of witty remarks so they like me."

Do you let the mechanics and dice carry him, just like Tara's Fly spell? Do you convince Harry that other people's character concepts can come true but not his, even though the rules allow it? Would you just expect Harry not to ask to play something that so far our of his personal wheelhouse?

This is a made-up example, but how do you, at your table, handle this if it comes up? And the flip side - that player who likes to talk and is good at it but for this character picked CHR as their dump stat and didn't take any social skills.

Blue said:

So what do you do? No one else needs to demonstrate actual skills of their characters - that's what the mechanics are there for. But everyone at the table can convince in character and the closest Harry will get is "I interject a bunch of witty remarks so they like me."

Click to expand...

This is a completely valid approach to playing a character. I run a lot of convention games. Sometimes the person who grabs the face pre-gen is just like Harry. That's fine. Ask them what they want to accomplish and how they go about it in general terms and go. And, yes, before this thread turns into yet another discussion about it, I totally let a player tell me what skill they would like to use to accomplish a task.

The easiest method is 3rd person role-play, by stating the action and goal, and the DM determining and narrating the result. While 1st person role-play is the ideal for most (myself included), not everyone games that way. Even as a DM and veteran player I sometimes freeze when I need to be witty, wise, or charismatic (because I'm seldom those things IRL).

The biggest issue with this is that players have to understand that they cannot (or at least should not) simply solve every social scene with a single check. If you want to weasel your way past the guards, you might need to make a check to make them sociable, then another to lie your way past them. I might even suggest a few lies, and allow the player to pick which one they like, because it might influence the result. This encourages the player to do more than just "I roll to deceive them."

Blue said:

Tara wants to play a wizard. She can't cast magic, but that's fine, it's just a game. Tom and Jerry are both playing front-line melee of different classes. Jerry used to be a Marine and he can really describe it, Tom ... not so much. But hey, we have mechanics for that and as long as Tom can manage decent tactics we're okay. It's funny, Tom is playing a ranger even though Jerry would be the one who could describe all of the woodscraft. Christine wants to play a half-elven paladin of Corellon; she's a laid back agnostic from a family of them that probably never was to a religious service except for weddings and funerals. Still no problem - it's a fantasy game.

And then we have Harry. He just finished watching Ladyhawke (again), and he wants to play a glib, silver-tongued character. But our Harry is anything but a smooth talker. He's earnest and loyal, but never been good with words.

So what do you do? No one else needs to demonstrate actual skills of their characters - that's what the mechanics are there for. But everyone at the table can convince in character and the closest Harry will get is "I interject a bunch of witty remarks so they like me."

Do you let the mechanics and dice carry him, just like Tara's Fly spell? Do you convince Harry that other people's character concepts can come true but not his, even though the rules allow it? Would you just expect Harry not to ask to play something that so far our of his personal wheelhouse?

This is a made-up example, but how do you, at your table, handle this if it comes up? And the flip side - that player who likes to talk and is good at it but for this character picked CHR as their dump stat and didn't take any social skills.

Click to expand...

The player describes the goal of their action and the approach they're taking. As DM, I decide if that approach to that goal is successful, fails, or uncertain. If uncertain, I call for an ability check.

Using this framework, the player can describe themselves being glib and silver-tongued, but doesn't have to act.

There are two types of roleplaying: Active and Descriptive. Both are used at most tables in my experience. Like any other fictional action a character takes, the player must describe a goal (what the player hopes the character achieves) and an approach (what the character does to work toward that goal).

In the active approach to roleplaying, the player speaks as the character, showing what the character thinks, does, and says. From there, the DM should be able to glean a goal and approach based on the interaction and ask for rolls when the approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. (When the goal and/or approach is not abundantly clear, the DM can inquire as to what the character hopes to accomplish and how in order to get clarification on this point.)

In the descriptive approach, the player describes the character's words and actions to the DM and other players. But the same method of adjudication apples: the player states a goal and an approach e.g. "I interject a bunch of witty remarks (approach) in order to get them to like me (goal)." Now the DM decides if that succeeds, fails, or if some kind of ability check is required.

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.

iserith said:

There are two types of roleplaying: Active and Descriptive. Both are used at most tables in my experience.

Click to expand...

I think this encapsulates it nicely.

The water gets murkier in this issue when you add in the issue of the low charisma unskilled character played by a silver tongued person. Should they roll or not. Personally I think they should as they are representing the character's abilities, not to mention that they can favour other stats.

Eubani said:

The water gets murkier in this issue when you add in the issue of the low charisma unskilled character played by a silver tongued person. Should they roll or not. Personally I think they should as they are representing the character's abilities, not to mention that they can favour other stats.

Click to expand...

I address that in my post upthread:

iserith said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'll often give a bonus (or much or rarely, an auto-success) for a particularly well-phrased bit of role-playing or persuasive monologue, mainly because I believe that players putting in that amount of effort and interest in the my game should be encouraged.

However, much more critical social interaction is the methods the characters employ. If they want a good reaction from orcs they should probably depict themselves as tough and deadly fighters. If they want a good reaction from the king's great aunt they should endeavor to be refined, courteous and un-smelly. For persuasion, success of their appeal will be greatly aided by selectively targeting a weakness or goal of the NPC. The same goes for deceit and intimidation. I'll drop clues to these "tells" into conversations, settings or rumors and foresighted players can intentionally seek them out.

Therefore, a player that says "I'll appeal to the duke's vanity" or "I'll leverage the witch's hatred of ogres" will get the lion's share of bonuses while I'll give the player that eloquently role-plays through it all will garner a small additional bonus. A well-spoken player that makes a misguided appeal, on the other hand, will gain no bonus and may even speak themselves into a catastrophic result.

Overall, though, I usually try to get a sense of a player's interest, goals and skill levels and tailor gameplay for that player. Some players like to roleplay and hear the sound of their own voice. Others like tactical special forces-level battle-planning. Others like puzzles. Some just want to hang out in the back and make jokes. I tend to alter my tack depending on the player and what motivates them. I'll push players in areas where it seems like (or they outright tell me) they want to be challenged and let things slid in areas they find boring or frustrating. That's obviously easier in home campaigns than in AL or convention play.

Well, I do need a little more than "I try to use Persuasion on him!", which players have tried on me from time to time. What are you trying to persuade this person of? But that's no different from how I run any other skill, it's just that the question seems to arise a lot more often with social skills. "I try to Sneak past the guard" might also be an unacceptably ambiguous declaration, under some circumstances. As long as I know what you're trying to accomplish to a reasonable degree of specificity, I don't need to know the exact words you're using to do it - though I prefer to, if the player does have the social skills for it.