Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Mark CMG]

Having social skills in the game allows you to attract both types of players if you really think about it. A group with a lot of charismatic people at the table can choose to house rule social skills out and just go with role playing all those type encounters.

A group who has players with issues or who just don't want to mess with role playing have a rule that adjudicates how to handle it.

Some people have the natural ability to sell ice to Eskimos but most of us don't. A person with a high charisma represents that type of person I have only really seen one person at a gaming table who in real life represents that level of charisma.

I have a friend who is in a wheelchair from being born with spinal bifida in real life he could not swing a sword in combat or be an agile tumbling rogue yet the game allows him to play out his fantasy and no one ever has an issue with that but a shy person having the fantasy of being a fast talking bard or swashbuckler seems to cause some people to have issues.

A game that tries to be inclusive for different type of players and play styles is going to be more successful than one that excludes people.

You're very right that the designers of a game, any game, can choose to cater to more and more people by designing that game to include people who aren't as skilled at the type of game it is. It can do this in a number of manners. Most notably it can be designed to be the best game of its type and have optional rules that can be added to make it more receptive to additional players who might not be as skilled at that type of game or it can be designed to include all levels of players and allow skilled players to exclude parts of the design that are not necessary for a game of its type. The question becomes, which is its best design for a game of its type? Is the goal to be best designed as its type of game or to attract as many players as possible? Are the roleplaying aspects of a roleplaying game the fundamental concern of the game design to which the greater considerations are afforded, and optional rules included for those who aren't as skilled or interested in roleplaying included to attract a wider audience, or is the fundamental concern in attracting the wider audience with options on how to exclude aspects of the game for those who are skilled roleplayers? Is there a best way to design a roleplaying game regardless of who, or in what number, the roleplaying game will attract?

Remember, we're not talking about a game designed as a sword-swinging game or a tumbling game, it is being designed as a roleplaying game. Are the best designed rules of fencing designed so that someone who cannot fence well can fence with another skilled fencer? Are the best designed rules of gymnastics designed so that someone who cannot tumble can do well at gymnastics alongside a skilled gymnast? I think it's fair to say that each activity is designed to be the best of its type and if someone who cannot do it well wishes to take it up, then some additional modifications are made to accomodate the less skilled individual.

And lest this point get lost in the shuffle, a roleplaying game is best designed, IMO, when it includes aspects of both roleplaying and gaming, which is to say rolling dice and roleplaying playing a character. There are plenty of games where roleplaying is not a part of the game but we don't call them roleplaying games. This is also with the understanding that some mechanics are included in the roleplaying game for social skills. But to limit the roleplaying aspects, or make the roleplaying a non-factor in successfully playing the game, is simply taking the roleplaying out of the roleplaying game at a fundamental level.

By extension, I can include roleplaying aspects in many types of non-roleplaying games but if they are a non-factor in successfully playing those games then they are not roleplaying games. For instance, if I am playing a minatures wargame as acting commander of an army in pitched battle against another player's army and when I move the figure representing my general toward some portion of my troops to boost their morale factor I choose to shout, "Hold, soldiers! Do not falter!" it does not thereby become a roleplaying game because my roleplaying has no influence on the actual outcome of the game.

So, too, if I am playing chess and move my bishop to threaten the position of the opponent's queen and I opt to say, "Heed my bishop's warning and withdraw," in my most diplomatic tone, it has no meaningful bearing on the choice made by my opponent to withdraw, take my bishop with his queen, or move another piece and allow me the choice to take his queen, and therefore I have not turned chess into a roleplaying game by merely roleplaying in conjunction with my game turn.

If the roleplaying in a game has no bearing on the actual game then I would posit that the game I am playing is not a well designed roleplaying game but rather another type of game with roleplaying merely added on without the best roleplaying game design considerations in the fore.

 

[catsclaw227]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, since I only read the first 2 pages, but...

If an individual doesn't want to use social skills and wants the DM to rely on his in-game roleplaying, but other players do because they aren't comfortable with that level of RP or are shyer than normal, it creates a mechanical disparity as well.

The RPer can simply dump charisma (unless it's a class requirement) and put no skill points to Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate and instead put them elsewhere. Doing this will mean that in addition to being able to be socially superior due to the player's ability, the character will also be superior because he trained other skills instead.

It's like getting free training in Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate, as well as skill points along the way.

The less socially apt players are going to be miffed by that proposition.

If you want to roleplay those skills out, you'd still have to put training or points to them to keep the game balance honest.

 

[S'mon]

If the person is stumbling and stuttering and says the wrong thing do just go okay it works which imo makes it meaningless since it was an auto success so why bother with the role playing at all.

Or do you penalize the person because he lacks the skill to really use diplomacy or bluff.

I just can't see stumbling & stuttering being a big issue. The kind of things that can lead to social failures IMCs:

Being a pompous jerk.
Completely failing to read the NPC and his/her motivations
Being inappropriately aggressive
Being caught in an obvious lie
Not understanding the situation, proceeding from false premises

& generally annoying the NPCs, eg a PC IMC had a big social failure vs the Sheriff of Yggsburgh when he demanded that the Sheriff's bailiffs arrest the respected and aged haberdasher Albert Rasch, despite lacking any firm evidence, then accusing the Sheriff of incompetence and/or complicity in the kidnappings.

A PC IMC had a success when she persuaded the Bane cultists the PCs were emissaries from the Bandit King of Llorkh; precise delivery of the Bluff was far less important than that she was neither too aggressive than too supplicatory, since the assumed role required a degree of arrogance.

Edit: I can see that having social skills as a crutch for shyer players to fall back on can be a good thing, if it encourages them to roleplay with less fear of failure.

 

[dagger]

You said:

And you said some times you do it well and some times you do it poorly.
And the title of this thread is not about "rolls" it is about "skills".

The only reasonable interpretation of what you said is that if you role play a bluff really well, the DM should let the bluff work. If you are playing a clever bluff based character then cool. If you are playing a dumb ox then you have just let the character get away with something.

Maybe what you SAID and what you actually DO are not the same. But I'm limited to responding to what you said.

If you do what you said then you let characters get away with things.
If you don't then you use social skills, whether you write them on the sheet or not.

What I said is correct.

"I would just rather the DM play off of how I actually do it in character than rely on my dice roll. "

A dice ROLL based off a SKILL.

Its still making a ruling based off of roleplaying and is irrelevant whether people play the characters or themselves. If a player is playing himself rather than the character then that's a separate issue.

Its funny how it works in games with no skills, and I am sure it will work in PF as well.

 

[BryonD]

What I said is correct.

"I would just rather the DM play off of how I actually do it in character than rely on my dice roll. "

A dice ROLL based off a SKILL.

Its still making a ruling based off of roleplaying and is irrelevant whether people play the characters or themselves. If a player is playing himself rather than the character then that's a separate issue.

Its funny how it works in games with no skills, and I am sure it will work in PF as well.

But that very different than what you said.

You said based on how well YOU roleplayed it. Now you are saying that it comes down to being the character. Being the character means that some character have skills and some characters don't and it is up to the player to reflect that.

Which comes back to you DO use skills, you just don't write them on the paper.

I'd be more than happy to throw the ROLLS out of the equation. Just look at the skill of each character and add a modifier based on quality of roleplaying. I buy that.

I *prefer* the rolls also because just as a skilled swordsman can still miss, a quick talker can be off his game. You seem to see it as REPLACING roleplay. I see you approach as forcing me to choose one when I can have both. But, I could still have a lot of fun with your limitations. I just find both even more fun.

But, in the end, it is clear you ARE looking at different characters as having different levels of skill. Thus you use "skills". You just said it poorly in the OP. I've got no argument with what you are actually doing. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Elf Witch]

I just can't see stumbling & stuttering being a big issue. The kind of things that can lead to social failures IMCs:

Being a pompous jerk.
Completely failing to read the NPC and his/her motivations
Being inappropriately aggressive
Being caught in an obvious lie
Not understanding the situation, proceeding from false premises

& generally annoying the NPCs, eg a PC IMC had a big social failure vs the Sheriff of Yggsburgh when he demanded that the Sheriff's bailiffs arrest the respected and aged haberdasher Albert Rasch, despite lacking any firm evidence, then accusing the Sheriff of incompetence and/or complicity in the kidnappings.

A PC IMC had a success when she persuaded the Bane cultists the PCs were emissaries from the Bandit King of Llorkh; precise delivery of the Bluff was far less important than that she was neither too aggressive than too supplicatory, since the assumed role required a degree of arrogance.

Edit: I can see that having social skills as a crutch for shyer players to fall back on can be a good thing, if it encourages them to roleplay with less fear of failure.

Have you ever played with someone who really has issues with this? It is not just taking forever to say something they often end up getting rattled and saying the wrong thing guaranteed to piss of the NPC or gets lost and wanders off topic. And some players can't pull off what you described as a mix of arrogance and respect that takes major social skills.

For example I can't do it. There have been some major communications snafu at the table because I don't phrase things in the way most people expect. One time our group found the mythical Sword of Kings in our Kalamar game. I knew that only a paladin or a follower of the Knight of the Valiant could actually hold it and not take damage. When the wizard went to grab it I said "touch that sword and you will die" I was calling out a warning but the DM and the rest of the players except my roommate who was playing took it as a threat.

I tried to play a diplomatic type in an old 2E game and it was a disaster I was continually saying the wrong thing and then trying to explain what I meant and the DM accused me off just saying that because things had gone wrong. I quit the game after awhile because I was not having fun and there were times I was close to tears over it.

Skill checks for social encounters is one of the biggest improvements they made in the game as far as I am concerned.

 

[Elf Witch]

Its funny how it works in games with no skills, and I am sure it will work in PF as well.

I guess for you it works in games with no skills my experience has been way different. I have found that without the skills people like me may try to play a smooth talking character, but we won't succeed so we stop trying and just stick to playing the same type character over and over, or quit and go to a system that has mechanical support for it.

 

[Mark CMG]

For example I can't do it. There have been some major communications snafu at the table because I don't phrase things in the way most people expect. One time our group found the mythical Sword of Kings in our Kalamar game. I knew that only a paladin or a follower of the Knight of the Valiant could actually hold it and not take damage. When the wizard went to grab it I said "touch that sword and you will die" I was calling out a warning but the DM and the rest of the players except my roommate who was playing took it as a threat.

I guess for you it works in games with no skills my experience has been way different. I have found that without the skills people like me may try to play a smooth talking character, but we won't succeed so we stop trying and just stick to playing the same type character over and over, or quit and go to a system that has mechanical support for it.

Hmmm. This is seeming like one of the basic misconceptions about roleplaying, and I think Howandwhy99 sometimes falls prey to this when he looks back on the genesis of the term and how it has evolved. Roleplaying is about first person narrative OR dialogue but need not require dialogue or directly speaking in character. Someone could be in the same situation as you describe and explain merely that, "I make sure to warn the rest of the players that the sword is dangerous to touch and will kill them."

In a similar situation as described earlier in this thread (or another) where someone was asked to roleplay during a Diplomacy or Charisma check at a royal court, they don't have to speak in character and give the exact words their character uses, they just have to explain what the character is saying and, if in doing so, they happen to key on a few possible triggers like making sure to mention, for instance, "And I be sure to ask about the King's daughter's health, to show concern, before asking for additional patronage funds for my next voyage" it is as good as having said in character, "And, Sire, I hope your daughter has recovered from her illness? Yes? Good. Now that the important matters are handled, allow me to ask for some additional funds for my next voyage in your illustrious name to your greater glory!" If the daughter's health concern were a trigger toward gaining a bonus on the check for more funds, doing it either way is the same. It's just sometimes more fun for one type of player to do it in character and for another, who might be skittish about tripping over exact wording, to roleplay as first person narrative.

Those are two roleplaying playstyles that are both commonly used, one every bit as good as the other. What isn't a roleplaying style of play is to say, "We're at court? I make a Diplomacy Check. (rolls) Fifteen. Do I get any more funding or anything?" That's not roleplaying. Nor is it roleplaying to say, "I go to town and Gather Information. (rolls) Eighteen. What to I find out?" That's avoiding roleplaying, substituting die rolling for roleplaying. While that is a playstyle, it is not a roleplaying playstyle.

Is this one of the stumbling blocks you and I have been having in our conversation? Because I feel like we might be talking past one another over this fundamental issue while discussing best roleplaying design practices and priorities.

 

[Elf Witch]

Hmmm. This is seeming like one of the basic misconceptions about roleplaying, and I think Howandwhy99 sometimes falls prey to this when he looks back on the genesis of the term and how it has evolved. Roleplaying is about first person narrative OR dialogue but need not require dialogue or directly speaking in character. Someone could be in the same situation as you describe and explain merely that, "I make sure to warn the rest of the players that the sword is dangerous to touch and will kill them."

In a similar situation as described earlier in this thread (or another) where someone was asked to roleplay during a Diplomacy or Charisma check at a royal court, they don't have to speak in character and give the exact words their character uses, they just have to explain what the character is saying and, if in doing so, they happen to key on a few possible triggers like making sure to mention, for instance, "And I be sure to ask about the King's daughter's health, to show concern, before asking for additional patronage funds for my next voyage" it is as good as having said in character, "And, Sire, I hope your daughter has recovered from her illness? Yes? Good. Now that the important matters are handled, allow me to ask for some additional funds for my next voyage in your illustrious name to your greater glory!" If the daughter's health concern were a trigger toward gaining a bonus on the check for more funds, doing it either way is the same. It's just sometimes more fun for one type of player to do it in character and for another, who might be skittish about tripping over exact wording, to roleplay as first person narrative.

Those are two roleplaying playstyles that are both commonly used, one every bit as good as the other. What isn't a roleplaying style of play is to say, "We're at court? I make a Diplomacy Check. (rolls) Fifteen. Do I get any more funding or anything?" That's not roleplaying. Nor is it roleplaying to say, "I go to town and Gather Information. (rolls) Eighteen. What to I find out?" That's avoiding roleplaying, substituting die rolling for roleplaying. While that is a playstyle, it is not a roleplaying playstyle.

Is this one of the stumbling blocks you and I have been having in our conversation? Because I feel like we might be talking past one another over this fundamental issue while discussing best roleplaying design practices and priorities.

We are talking past each other.

I don't consider it role playing to just say we are in the kings court and I roll my diplomacy either. As a matter of fact in the games I run if someone says that I go okay tell me what you are going to say what points are you going to bring up.

I often wonder when people are bugged by this if what they are complaining about is the example of I am in the court I roll to see if the king gives me more funding. If that is it I can understand it. But I don't believe that social skills is what causes this it is DMs allowing it to be enough.

In the 2E game I described the DM was not satisfied with me saying I tell the king this and I bring up this point. I had to actually role play it out and at this point in time I was only out of rehab a few years and still trying to get back to anywhere near my pre brain injury communication skills. It was a disaster and a very unfun unhappy game for me. I didn't try and play a character who ever spoke up again for another seven years.

I don't think the DM was being a jerk I think he felt he could not fairly adjudicate how I did if I didn't play it out.

 

[Mark CMG]

We are talking past each other.

I don't consider it role playing to just say we are in the kings court and I roll my diplomacy either. As a matter of fact in the games I run if someone says that I go okay tell me what you are going to say what points are you going to bring up.

I often wonder when people are bugged by this if what they are complaining about is the example of I am in the court I roll to see if the king gives me more funding. If that is it I can understand it. But I don't believe that social skills is what causes this it is DMs allowing it to be enough.

In the 2E game I described the DM was not satisfied with me saying I tell the king this and I bring up this point. I had to actually role play it out and at this point in time I was only out of rehab a few years and still trying to get back to anywhere near my pre brain injury communication skills. It was a disaster and a very unfun unhappy game for me. I didn't try and play a character who ever spoke up again for another seven years.

I don't think the DM was being a jerk I think he felt he could not fairly adjudicate how I did if I didn't play it out.

I see. I had thought in the past we were fairly likeminded in our opinions on this subject and I see that we actually are on virtually the same page. I'm glad we kept at this to be sure. Thanks. Since you brought it up, mind if I ask if RPGing assisted in your recovery? (And I'm not just asking after your health for the bonus on my posting check!)