All Characters Should be Good at Talking to NPCs

[Grendel_Khan]

I'll take ya one further: every single RPG character should be able to contribute meaningfully to every aspect of the game. In the terms of D&D and the "three pillars," that means that every character should be able to provide something when talking with NPCs, when exploring in the dungeon or the wilderness, and within a combat encounter.

A broader perspective: all RPG characters should be able to participate in all scenes. The alternative creates bad gameplay and usually results in players "checking out" during certain gameplay elements because they feel useless or as though they will hinder the party.

I swear this isn't a trap, but, in general, how do you think the mechanics of that would work?

Some (I'd say very few) systems account for this in an explicit way--2d20 encourages you to contribute to someone else's skill rolls, either with a similar skill or something totally different but complimentary in the situation (like rolling Command to help coordinate). Other games have more rigid teamwork-based mechanics. But what about in something like 5e?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I swear this isn't a trap, but, in general, how do you think the mechanics of that would work?

Some (I'd say very few) systems account for this in an explicit way--2d20 encourages you to contribute to someone else's skill rolls, either with a similar skill or something totally different but complimentary in the situation (like rolling Command to help coordinate). Other games have more rigid teamwork-based mechanics. But what about in something like 5e?

It's pretty easy, actually. You build a resolution system that is fixed at a certain success point that isn't punishing, and then award investment with either small bonuses, to encourage use of that approach, and/or additional riders to success/mitigations to failure. This means that most characters have about the same chance to do a thing, but those that have focused on it see either more use from a success or less fallout from a failure, or both. Kind of like how combat in 5e works -- everyone's got a pretty decent chance (unless they've intentionally sunk their build to be terrible, and, even then, it's not bad) to contribute however, but class abilities and such make some actions have more impact even in the realm where everyone can contribute.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

It's pretty easy, actually. You build a resolution system that is fixed at a certain success point that isn't punishing, and then award investment with either small bonuses, to encourage use of that approach, and/or additional riders to success/mitigations to failure. This means that most characters have about the same chance to do a thing, but those that have focused on it see either more use from a success or less fallout from a failure, or both. Kind of like how combat in 5e works -- everyone's got a pretty decent chance (unless they've intentionally sunk their build to be terrible, and, even then, it's not bad) to contribute however, but class abilities and such make some actions have more impact even in the realm where everyone can contribute.

This sounds right on the money. But just to clarify, for something like 5e you're talking about fully grafting on some homebrew mechanics, right?

I'm mostly asking out of curiosity, since I'm not interested in playing or running 5e. But there are other systems that are similarly light on these kinds of mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

I swear this isn't a trap, but, in general, how do you think the mechanics of that would work?

We have a Help action. That goes a long way right there.

Build it like a skill challenge - the PCs have to get some number of successes, and PCs can cooperate on generating them using the Help action.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I swear this isn't a trap, but, in general, how do you think the mechanics of that would work?

Some (I'd say very few) systems account for this in an explicit way--2d20 encourages you to contribute to someone else's skill rolls, either with a similar skill or something totally different but complimentary in the situation (like rolling Command to help coordinate). Other games have more rigid teamwork-based mechanics. But what about in something like 5e?

I believe characters should be able to help each other in a similar vein to how you've described the Modiphus system. This need not require specific mechanics, but instead can simply be treated as an application of the existing Help mechanic. I likewise believe in expanding the social system slightly with additional mechanics. Not to the level of systems like Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, but something not entirely unlike 4e's skill challenge system: during important social scenes, I'll typically call for multiple skill checks, with the players needing X number of successes prior to X number of failures, and they can use a variety of skills and ability score combinations to achieve this.

In addition to this, I almost always use fail forward mechanics, where a PC might "fail" a skill check but still succeed with a cost, compromise, or complication. Ample use of the inspiration mechanic encourages roleplay and social contributions, and I often treat it like Fate does with Compels, rewarding players for playing their traits and flaws without needing any sort of roll whatsoever.

On top of this (boy, this is getting lengthy), I rarely use social rolls for anything outside of determining initial disposition. An example might be: I call for a Persuasion check to determine how amenable an NPC is to your demands, then, depending on the roll, the players negotiate with him to get what they want.

Finally, it's a matter of skillful DMing, not that I'm a master or anything like that. Knowing when to call for a roll and when to let the dice rest is part of the learning curve for DMing. Sometimes failure is on the line, and a Persuasion or Intimidation check is entirely sensible. The caveat is balancing this out with roleplaying and not invoking the mechanics. If you call for too many checks, the players whose skills/ability scores don't align with strong social contributions feel left out. If you call for too few checks, the players who have invested heavily in skills/ability scores for social contributions feel like they've wasted their resources.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is where we note that this thread is ot in the D&D forum. We are expected and invited to consider other things...

Oh I didn't notice that, I usually visualize threads with the "what's new button" and didn't pay attention to the path or section.

I suppose in some games also combat might be resolved with a single roll or few anyway, and perhaps someone may experience the same issue as the OP.

Nevertheless the thread is about social interactions and the point seems to be that all PCs should be able to contribute. My idea is that solving social interactions too rigidly with rolls might be one reason that discourage players to participate.

When the OP says "characters should be good at talking" I get the feeling that someone is eventually blaming the rules for not giving enough "points" to everyone... but I think that if some players choose to invest zero in one area of the game, and the DM relies heavily on mechanics to adjudicate that area, it's not the rules fault.

 

[Voadam]

This sounds right on the money. But just to clarify, for something like 5e you're talking about fully grafting on some homebrew mechanics, right?

I'm mostly asking out of curiosity, since I'm not interested in playing or running 5e. But there are other systems that are similarly light on these kinds of mechanics.

5e is pretty good in this respect in actual gameplay.

You can generally aid another when another PC is trying to do a skill. This will give them advantage on the check so they get to roll their d20 twice and take the better result. This mechanically means it is better for a team to do something than for someone to go solo, whether this is investigating a scene, talking to intimidate or persuade, gathering information or whatever. Some things you can't contribute, and I as a DM require specifying how they enhance the check to encourage some actual participation from the player rather than just their character's presence.

It is a simple way to get players not mechanically designed to socially interact to have an incentive to help out and participate in social situations instead of going in and having their low stats mean a likely failure on a roll. It means there is a big incentive for two players to be involved in any activity where they can contribute over solo experts just handling it for entirely solo spotlight time. A good incentive structure for a social group game IMO.

 

[Voadam]

When the OP says "characters should be good at talking" I get the feeling that someone is eventually blaming the rules for not giving enough "points" to everyone... but I think that if some players choose to invest zero in one area of the game, and the DM relies heavily on mechanics to adjudicate that area, it's not the rules fault.

It is easy to set up a system of RPG rules where your character point buy is used for so much fungibly that you have choices where to be really good in one area (say combat) means not putting in points most everywhere else. In these types of systems unless you are building around being a face character the efficiencies are stacked to being better bang for your buck to not invest in your nonspecialties at all. In a system like GURPS for instance to invest in social advantages is very costly and comes directly out of the same pool of points as your combat effectiveness and magic and stats. If you want to be a haggling merchant for instance it is a lot of points from your total character build, not a background choice that takes nothing away from your combat effectiveness the way it would in 5e.

 

[MGibster]

When the OP says "characters should be good at talking" I get the feeling that someone is eventually blaming the rules for not giving enough "points" to everyone... but I think that if some players choose to invest zero in one area of the game, and the DM relies heavily on mechanics to adjudicate that area, it's not the rules fault.

At times the game can contribute to the problem but it isn't strictly a mechanical problem. I've seen players just sit back hesitating to speak to NPCs because they're not the "face" of the group.

 

[GrahamWills]

I swear this isn't a trap, but, in general, how do you think the mechanics of [all RPG characters should be able to participate in all scenes] would work?

For modern systems, I'd argue that most modern systems handle this intrinsically. If you play a few of them (FATE and DramaSystem / Hillfolk would be a great start), you'll see it in action.

For older systems, there are two main ways of making it happen. The "Aid Another" aka "Create an Advantage" action is a technique that can be applied on-the-fly and works well. It basically gives a bonus to the lead actors based on how well you do at a different task. So if asked to persuade the king that you need to borrow his army, a non-social character might shows his physical strength (Athletics check) to give a +2 bonus to the main diplomat. The biggest problem with this in D&D style games is that the bonus is not great -- the two points on the roll are dwarfed by the difference in skill levels, with is not the case in Fate, so my recommendation is simply to double that number for social encounters.

A better way, but one requiring prep, was popularized in D&D 4E -- the "Skill Challenge". This requires the GM to prep ahead of time (or be good at doing it on the fly!) a list of core skills that can be used to gain a success, and a list of potential other skills. A fun variant is that the skill lists are not known upfront, and so you must use a third set of skills to work out which skills will work.

A full version of this might look like (for the persuade the king example):

DC 20 Diplomacy, Intimidate (He's heard diplomats every day for his whole life and knows their ways)
DC 15 Any Lore/Knowledge/Profession skill: His kingdom needs cash!
DC 10 Lore - Games: He believes that the measure of person shows when she plays a tactical game

DC 15 Perception: His library has a lot fo game books; he must love tactical games
DC 15 Perception, Empathy: Talking to him about ways to make cash (using Lore skills) will appeal to him
DC 10 Perception, Empathy: He is resistant to usual social blandishments