D&D General GMing and "Player Skill"

[Charlaquin]

this is what bothers me so much when people try to eliminate using social skills/checks in the game and just determine success/failure through the RP'ing character conversations at the table level.

Fundamentally, I think that it should be possible to succeed and fail in social challenges without a roll, just as it’s possible to do so in exploration challenges. But, there is a very real issue of DMs setting the bar for eliminating the chances of success and/or failure extremely low in social challenges (and conversely, an issue of setting it extremely high in exploration challenges!)

How I tackle this problem myself, is to run NPCs in exactly the opposite way to how PCs work. That is to say, whereas players decide and characters act, NPCs’ “decisions” are made by the game mechanics, and the DM “acts” on the NPC’s behalf by narrating their behaviors in accordance with the results of those mechanical processes. So, I tend to lean on ability checks in social challenges to determine the NPCs’ reactions, and then use my creativity and roleplaying skills to create the story of why the NPC had those reactions, if that makes sense.

 

[payn]

Fundamentally, I think that it should be possible to succeed and fail in social challenges without a roll, just as it’s possible to do so in exploration challenges. But, there is a very real issue of DMs setting the bar for eliminating the chances of success and/or failure extremely low in social challenges (and conversely, an issue of setting it extremely high in exploration challenges!)

How I tackle this problem myself, is to run NPCs in exactly the opposite way to how PCs work. That is to say, whereas players decide and characters act, NPCs’ “decisions” are made by the game mechanics, and the DM “acts” on the NPC’s behalf by narrating their behaviors in accordance with the results of those mechanical processes. So, I tend to lean on ability checks in social challenges to determine the NPCs’ reactions, and then use my creativity and roleplaying skills to create the story of why the NPC had those reactions, if that makes sense.

Im an "NPCs should work like PCs" weirdo, but I get what you are saying. My issue is folks thinking they can stack the deck and just push NPCs around. So, its usually change NPC disposition for me, but not free info action acquirement, but my method is very similar to yours.

I'm a big fan of PF1 Ultimate Intrigue and War for the Crown AP so social mechanics and all that come with them is up my alley. For me, a social roll is always involved, but its less about success and failure declaration and more about the approach and how likely it is to work in favor or not of the NPCs attitude. You get so many chances to drive them one way or the other when it comes to overall success or failure.

 

[Reynard]

Im an "NPCs should work like PCs" weirdo, but I get what you are saying. My issue is folks thinking they can stack the deck and just push NPCs around. So, its usually change NPC disposition for me, but not free info action acquirement, but my method is very similar to yours.

I'm a big fan of PF1 Ultimate Intrigue and War for the Crown AP so social mechanics and all that come with them is up my alley. For me, a social roll is always involved, but its less about success and failure declaration and more about the approach and how likely it is to work in favor or not of the NPCs attitude. You get so many chances to drive them on way or the other when it comes to overall success or failure.

I think the most important thing for a GM to do with regards to NPCs -- no matter whether they prefer the roleplay approach or the mechanics/social combat approach -- is to give NPCs real motivations. I mother who wants her child back above all else can only be manipulated so far by PCs regardless of the result of the persuasion check. Every NPC should have motivations that inform the GM how far the PCs can go with them.

 

[Reynard]

We haven't really talked about puzzles and traps yet, and maybe we should when talking about "player skill."

I used to try and do the "old school" thing where the players has to tell you where and how they were looking, and then when they found the trap, how they were trying to disarm it. This, to me, is the most frustrating and boring form of play in D&D. I have since come to the side of "Traps should be fun to interact with and should exist to build tension or create opportunities for cool stuff to happen."

And these days I very rarely bother with puzzles at all. I have never had much success in making them fun or engaging.

 

[billd91]

I’m only on the periphery of the OSR, so I’ll take your word for it that this is a sentiment that exists in that space, but it does come across as rather extreme to me. What are the character statistics for if they don’t play any role in determining success or failure? To my knowledge, there has never been an edition of D&D where character statistics haven’t had at least a small impact on success and failure, though in past editions class has often played a bigger role than ability scores. So, loath though I am to do so, I might suggest that for people who hold this opinion, D&D might not be the right system for facilitating the play patterns they are interested in.

It seems weird these days, but it sure does conform to some of the 1e abilities that were out there like elves and halflings surprising on 4 in 6, no matter what their Dexterity scores are. Or the ranger surprising 3 in 6, again, regardless of Dex. It's easy to forget how many of these things were out there in older editions of D&D.

 

[payn]

I think the most important thing for a GM to do with regards to NPCs -- no matter whether they prefer the roleplay approach or the mechanics/social combat approach -- is to give NPCs real motivations. I mother who wants her child back above all else can only be manipulated so far by PCs regardless of the result of the persuasion check. Every NPC should have motivations that inform the GM how far the PCs can go with them.

Oh, absolutely. The social checks are in fact to get that mother to be helpful despite her main concerns. Thats usually by combining the problems and convincing her helping the PC is helping herself. Before she can get there though, she needs to be open to working with the PCs, having faith in what they say, etc..

 

[CreamCloud0]

Fundamentally, I think that it should be possible to succeed and fail in social challenges without a roll, just as it’s possible to do so in exploration challenges. But, there is a very real issue of DMs setting the bar for eliminating the chances of success and/or failure extremely low in social challenges (and conversely, an issue of setting it extremely high in exploration challenges!)

i think i'm less inclined to agree with that, at least on the success side, mostly because social challenges are dealing with a (theoretically in principle) independent entity with their own wants, desires and moods, rather than the typically 'static' components of the challenges usually encountered in exploration, when you're dealing with a social interaction there isn't likely to be an 'objectively correct' method of handling it which guarantees to result in success.

 

[Reynard]

i think i'm less inclined to agree with that, at least on the success side, mostly because social challenges are dealing with a (theoretically in principle) independent entity with their own wants, desires and moods, rather than the typically 'static' components of the challenges usually encountered in exploration, when you're dealing with a social interaction there isn't likely to be an 'objectively correct' method of handling it which guarantees to result in success.

I think it is important to remember that dice also hold in them the unknown elements of any given situation. Say the player makes a persuasive argument, but then rolls really badly. You don't have to (and probably should not) frame that as the PC screwing up. It is better to frame it as something that the PC did not know. Maybe something they said triggered some heretofore undiscovered trauma in the NPC. Or maybe the NPC is secretly being coerced. One of the great joys of GMing is taking unexpected die rolls and weaving compelling narrative elements from them.

 

[payn]

We haven't really talked about puzzles and traps yet, and maybe we should when talking about "player skill."

I used to try and do the "old school" thing where the players has to tell you where and how they were looking, and then when they found the trap, how they were trying to disarm it. This, to me, is the most frustrating and boring form of play in D&D. I have since come to the side of "Traps should be fun to interact with and should exist to build tension or create opportunities for cool stuff to happen."

And these days I very rarely bother with puzzles at all. I have never had much success in making them fun or engaging.

It almost needs to be a focus of the adventure/campaign. I know it was always odd in my PF1 days running into random traps. It was always detect/disarm or get whacked rolls. There wasnt much interesting about them. Eat some resources, rinse and repeat. So, yeah if its like the above, I can definitely skip traps.

Now, in the Mummy Mask AP, the first chapter is basically the PCs being allowed to raid a formerly closed off necropolis. It made sense for it to be full of traps. Some of them, even had some beautiful interaction for the entire party to engage. I know it might seem counter intuitive to expect traps, but it seemed to be more fun that way.

Another PF1 goodie was haunts (which were pretty divisive). A haunt was usually some psychotic energy left over from a terrible event. For example, a house may have burned down ages ago with a family inside. If the PCs spidey sense dont go off they fall victim of a choking trap that manifest from the haunt. The PC must survive and then disable the haunt. You can permanently put the a hunt to rest by giving a peacful end to the conditions which are custom to the haunt. In this example taking some left over bones from the family members and running them through a nearby stream and then burying them. You find this out by using a spirit planchette (oujia board). A lot of players didnt want this level of interaction at all. They wanted a perception roll to spot, a will save to not get hit by it, and then a disable roll to end it. Thus making haunts just like traps had become...

Anyways, long story short, I think making traps part of the adventure with interesting interaction is key. A lot of old school skill play was built around this as it was all about encountering dungeon monsters and traps. Thus, its expected all the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems weird these days, but it sure does conform to some of the 1e abilities that were out there like elves and halflings surprising on 4 in 6, no matter what their Dexterity scores are. Or the ranger surprising 3 in 6, again, regardless of Dex. It's easy to forget how many of these things were out there in older editions of D&D.

Yeah, TSR D&D did have a lot of bespoke resolution mechanics for very specific tasks, in which ability scores played no role. I mean, heck, saving throws and the class-specific stuff like thieves’ chance to pick locks, pick pockets, hide in shadows, move silently, etc. usually didn’t take ability scores into account either. But, I would argue that these things are taking the characters’ game statistics into account; just not the subset of game statistics called ability scores. Instead, they are based on the game statistics of race, class, and level.