All Characters Should be Good at Talking to NPCs

[MGibster]

You may have read the title and muttered under your breath with indignation, "What about niche protection? What if I want to role play a gruff abrasive type with the personality of a turnip? Who the #%#% are you to tell me what characters should or shouldn't be good at in my games?" First, do you kiss your mother with that potty mouth? Second, before you compose a righteous evisceration of my position, please allow me to explain myself.

In any given story, the protagonist must is usually able to communicate at least at the minimum level necessary in order to provide exposition, characterization, or to move the plot along. And while it's okay to have an RPG light on dialogue -really, what can be a more clear message than an axe to the head- typically someone in the party has to talk to an NPC to get the quest, to talk to others in order to progress, and sometimes players have their character speak with an NPC just for the fun of it.

But you made some good points in the first paragraph. We don't expect every character to be good at swinging a sword or shooting a bow, why should we expect all of them to be good at talking to NPCs? While I do like niche protection as it allows each PC some time to shine, I have found that taking it to the extreme often limits a player's ability to participate in the game. Very often I run into situations where characters who have not invested much into social skills are hesitant to participate in dialogues with NPCs. This can result in a session heavy on socializing and light on combat where many PCs don't really do much of anything.

When I say characters should be good at talking to NPCs I don't mean they should all be equal. By all means, the player who invests heavily into their character's social skills should have a more persuasive character than the player who invests heavily elsewhere. But they should all be able to move the plot along. So what are some ways you encourage players to fully participate in the game even if they're not social butterflies?

 

[dragoner]

So what are some ways you encourage players to fully participate in the game even if they're not social butterflies?

I give everyone a turn at the spotlight, and if they turn it down, such as looking to see what another character is going to say, I respect that and do not try to force them out of their comfort zone. However, I still try to figure out a way to engage each player with the game, sometimes it just takes a while for them to work the social clutch.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I think it is a balance issue each GM/DM/whatever needs to handle at their own table.

I think people who are not comfortable roleplaying should be given every opportunity to advance the story as the next person, but you have to be careful that you're not creating a seperate standard where 'Well, I go a little easier on what it takes to pass social situations with Joe because he's not comfortable roleplaying'. If you create a situation where either extreme - minimum roleplaying and then a dice roll, or in-depth roleplay and NO skill roll - works, then you will find players taking either of those approachs and running with it.

 

[GrahamWills]

My overall concern is that everyone should have a chance in the spotlight, and should be able to contribute to a scene. But in my experience, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be able to competently talk to NPCs.

As an example. I have a high level Pathfinder Investigator who is phenomenal at discovering details about someone -- feats to read biographical details, legendary perception -- the works. But he is terrible at talking to people. If he tries, another party member will step in, apologize, and take over. But he contributes to scenes by feeding info to others, by searching out for info and the like.

Similarly in the FATE games I run, there are many opportunities for those without "talky" skills to find out aspects, create advantages and the like, even in heavily social scenes.

So just as I try to make sure that everyone has something they can do in a melee fight (D&D), shoot-out (Deadlands), starship battle (most sci-fi), I make sure at creation time that people can do something in a social situation -- but it doesn't have to be "talk"

 

[Blue]

I'd love to see flipping the concept of combat and roleplay in a completely new game. D&D makes sure everyone is good at combat, and has their own niche in it that comes up most if not all combats. That's great for a tactical game. For a roleplaying game I'd love to see everyone is good at interacting, each with their own niche that still comes up most combats - for example, not that someone is intimidating, because that's an action and may not come up, but they have presence, which is foundational in a wide array of approaches that would work out to apply to most roleplaying situations - even if in this one having someone who is earnest or vulnerable might work out better, just like different niches in combat are better or worse based on the scene.

And for combat, it's fine if we just have a few that are good at combat, make it not a very long process mechanically. Much like Leverage started with a single Hitter.

 

[MGibster]

I think people who are not comfortable roleplaying should be given every opportunity to advance the story as the next person, but you have to be careful that you're not creating a seperate standard where 'Well, I go a little easier on what it takes to pass social situations with Joe because he's not comfortable roleplaying'.

I find it best to ask a player what they're trying to accomplish and go from there. If Bob isn't as smooth a talker as Susan I don't want to reward the latter and penalize the former. I'm just happy Bob is participating.

 

[Blue Orange]

I'd love to see flipping the concept of combat and roleplay in a completely new game. D&D makes sure everyone is good at combat, and has their own niche in it that comes up most if not all combats. That's great for a tactical game. For a roleplaying game I'd love to see everyone is good at interacting, each with their own niche that still comes up most combats - for example, not that someone is intimidating, because that's an action and may not come up, but they have presence, which is foundational in a wide array of approaches that would work out to apply to most roleplaying situations - even if in this one having someone who is earnest or vulnerable might work out better, just like different niches in combat are better or worse based on the scene.

And for combat, it's fine if we just have a few that are good at combat, make it not a very long process mechanically. Much like Leverage started with a single Hitter.

I think the thing is it's hard to make a social interaction system that has the tactical complexity of combat in most RPG's--a lot of people get into the min-maxing aspect of figuring out how best to deploy feats and spells and the like. There have been movements toward this in most systems, but I think there's another problem.

If you did have a complex social tactical system (Pelgrane's Dying Earth kind of tries to do this with all the resisted social rolls) it wouldn't be believable and would feel artificial, because the best way to simulate social interaction is to roleplay. That's not the case with combat--if a real fight breaks out at your table, you've gone horribly wrong.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think the thing is it's hard to make a social interaction system that has the tactical complexity of combat in most RPG's--a lot of people get into the min-maxing aspect of figuring out how best to deploy feats and spells and the like. There have been movements toward this in most systems, but I think there's another problem.

If you did have a complex social tactical system (Pelgrane's Dying Earth kind of tries to do this with all the resisted social rolls) it wouldn't be believable and would feel artificial, because the best way to simulate social interaction is to roleplay. That's not the case with combat--if a real fight breaks out at your table, you've gone horribly wrong.

I wonder if one solution could be to add powers similar to what you find in Background abilities. For example, the soldier background gives you:

Feature: Military Rank
You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized

I love this because it doesn't require any Charisma rolls... It just happens!

It would be neat if different classes gave more social powers like that...

"As a Wizard, your reputation as a master of the arcane precedes you into town. When you use a cantrip as part of a social interaction, common people will always react with fear or wonderment and grant your character's request, though doing so can easily raise superstition..."

 

[Yora]

Persuasion rolls and diplomacy checks or anything of that kind are for selling NPCs on terrible proposals or lies. If a player makes reasonable arguments that would be in an NPCs best interest to follow up on, then I will use my role as GM to make that NPC agree with the player. No kind of roll is necessary.
It's only when an NPC does not want to do what the players want, or their arguments seem highly doubtful, that players may make a roll on the relevant ability to maybe be able to convince the NPC otherwise.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Would it be okay for a PC that completely lacks combat skills to be good at combat?