Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Janx]

But, what if Diplomacy actually is is best ability?

I guess I just don't worry overmuch about this level of hair splitting. Granted, when we play, usually checks come out after some role play has been going on, so, it's not something I've ever seen that the player will start with "I diplomatize the queen".

But, I'm honestly not drawing a whole lot of distinction here. Whether his actions are couched in game language or not, it's pretty clear what the intent is, so, I roll with that.

I think none of us want to hear "I diplomatize the queen" or similar non-specific usage of skills. "I bluff the guard" is also lack-luster and non-specific.

I think the cue is, the statement is non-specific. "I Climb the Wall" uses the name of the skill, but it addresses the target of the skill and it's generally accepted what it means, including using handholds, the nearby trellis, etc. There is no nuance to it needed.

"I bluff the guard" or "I diplomatize the queen" tells me very little. I can guess that you intend to lie to the guard, but I have no idea of your approach or even objective. As a GM, what exactly am I supposed to tell you is the outcome, if I don't know what the intent was?

I think it is pretty fair that a player action regarding a skill needs to include the approach and goal/intent. "I bluff the guard to let me through by telling him I'm a messenger with an important letter from the Duke for the Duchess"

Whether your group requires speaking in character instead, they all should probably hold to that minimal standard. Or as GM, you should prompt for such info if hit with a "I bluff the guard" command.

 

[catsclaw227]

Or if he's apergery he can play an aspergery wizard.

I know you didn't mean anything offensive about this, but it did come across as a little callous, or someone who doesn't know Aspergers. It's an autism spectrum disorder, and if you have a child or family member with it, it can be a challenge. We are concerned my daughter has it...

How do you think an "aspergery wizard" should act?

 

[S'mon]

I know you didn't mean anything offensive about this, but it did come across as a little callous, or someone who doesn't know Aspergers. It's an autism spectrum disorder, and if you have a child or family member with it, it can be a challenge. We are concerned my daughter has it...

How do you think an "aspergery wizard" should act?

I better not say!

Edit: I've known a lot of smart techie and academic types who seem a bit (or more than a bit) aspergery, hence my associating it with the Wizard archetype. I don't think I have it, though I do seem to put my foot in my mouth pretty often!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think I have it, though I do seem to put my foot in my mouth pretty often!

So...what is your favorite flavor shoe insert?

 

[Rogue Agent]

I think the cue is, the statement is non-specific. "I Climb the Wall" uses the name of the skill, but it addresses the target of the skill and it's generally accepted what it means, including using handholds, the nearby trellis, etc. There is no nuance to it needed.

And even then, it only works because there's an accepted default method of "climbing bare-handed" and an assumed goal of "get to the top". If you want to do something other than that default (use a rope or pitons, for example), then you're going to have to go into more detail with the Climb skill, too.

Bluff, Diplomacy, and similar skills, OTOH, don't have defaults like that. As you say, you can almost guess what "bluff the guard" means, but not really.

How is "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the queen" significantly different from saying, "I use Diplomacy on the Queen"? After all, it means exactly the same thing, just stated from a slightly different perspective.

Actually, no. It doesn't mean the same thing. There are lots of ways in which you can diplomatically achieve a particular outcome; "being sweet", while still being fairly general, is still relatively specific about the approach being used.

Now, I do think there is a degree of personal preference in terms of how specific you have to be about your desired goal and the method you're using to achieve it. For some people, Tymophil's example may still be too non-specific. (And I'm assuming here that it's being accompanied by some specific goal.)

 

[Hussar]

Well, I would presume that any player using a skill in D&D to be familiar with what a skill actually does. Diplomacy, for example, only changes how someone views you - it changes the target's attitude, nothing more. So, to me, "I be sweet to someone" and "I use Diplomacy on someone" is pretty much synonymous. In both cases, you want someone to like you better.

I dunno. It's so situational as well. I'm not going to ask someone to tell me exactly how they climb a wall, nor do they have to detail the steps needed to craft a sword. So, why am I bothering, if it really doesn't affect the outcome, forcing the player to detail the steps in making someone like his PC better?

Then again, I think this is a huge, glaring deficiency in the D20 skill mechanic. I've been saying all the way along that I don't like the fact that Diplomacy and Climb use exactly the same mechanics, because, as you say Rogue Agent, they really are two different things.

 

[billd91]

Well, I would presume that any player using a skill in D&D to be familiar with what a skill actually does. Diplomacy, for example, only changes how someone views you - it changes the target's attitude, nothing more. So, to me, "I be sweet to someone" and "I use Diplomacy on someone" is pretty much synonymous. In both cases, you want someone to like you better.

Definitely not synonymous. Sometimes diplomacy would work better with a boisterous approach. Sometimes humble and polite. Sometimes charming and affable. Sometimes direct and stern. And sometimes, but not always, sweet.

I dunno. It's so situational as well. I'm not going to ask someone to tell me exactly how they climb a wall, nor do they have to detail the steps needed to craft a sword. So, why am I bothering, if it really doesn't affect the outcome, forcing the player to detail the steps in making someone like his PC better?

But it does affect the outcome. And, like I've said, it also affects the atmosphere at the table.

 

[Hussar]

I would point out that synonymous does not have to be 100% the same all of the time. Being diplomatic is synonymous with being sweet. That being diplomatic is also synonymous with other approaches doesn't change that.

Since we're being all pedantic and all.

As far as atmosphere at the table goes, meh. If the player is so disengaged that the sum total is, "I make nice with the lady", then I'm not seeing a huge difference here. The outcome is identical - roll the dice and find the end attitude. Move on.

Now, for those who want to go deeper, then why on earth would you want to use the D20 social mechanics? They're just so poor. Either do it right, or you might as well free form it. Otherwise, "I say nice things to the lady, Diplomacy 24" is good enough. It keeps the game moving, and we can get back to the stuff that obviously does interest the player, because this interaction obviously doesn't.

I've never, ever been a big fan of trying to "force" people to role play.

 

[Tymophil]

As far as atmosphere at the table goes, meh. If the player is so disengaged that the sum total is, "I make nice with the lady", then I'm not seeing a huge difference here. The outcome is identical - roll the dice and find the end attitude. Move on.

The roll doesn't have to be Diplomacy 100% of the time. It can be Bluff, if the PC hates the Queen. If the PC describes a more complex action, it can even be an Insight roll.

If the GM works from an action, he can link the used skill to roleplay, background, etc. If the player is so dry that he only states the skill used, all this aspect is killed.

The action is what that matters, and this can give a larger choice of skills.

 

[Voadam]

Why wouldn't you get the same thing from a formal system? You say exactly the right thing, DM gives you a whacking great bonus to your check, you win. That sort of thing is built into a good social mechanic.

Isn't this exactly what many people argue is a bad thing? Having a low charisma character with no character build resources spent on social abilities succeeding at social goals because the player says the right things? They want the no social build character to generally fail at social things and not succeed just because the player is persuasive. Isn't that the reason for rolling and having limited bonuses like a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus that can pale next to the level bonus of a high level social build character.