How do you handle social skills in D&D?

[Imaro]

So I was looking at the thread on Insight in the 4e forums and thought that this would be an intersting topic to discuss outside of a specific edition. One of the things I've often struggled with as a GM is finding a satisfactory way of dealing with social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidation, Sense Motive, etc.) in certain situations.

So I am curious to hear the thoughts from some fellow enworlders, as I honestly don't feel like I have a satisfactory way of dealing with social skills in these situations and am looking for some ideas.

That said...howdo you tend to deal with social skills in these two situations and why?

1. Player vs. player... One PC is trying to actively use a social skill on another PC.

2. NPC vs. Player... A NPC is actively using a skill such as Bluff, Intimidate, etc. on a PC.

I would also be interested in hearing players thoughts on this as well... along the lines of what they do or don't like to take place in these situations... and why.

 

[pemerton]

In D&D, I treat player vs player as a matter of free roleplaying for influence checks, but do use Bluff vs Insight for concealing lies.

Likewise for NPCs vs PCs.

Generally, the player will know that the Bluff attempt was made by the other player (and sometimes even by the NPC, depending on how I handle it at the table). There is an expectation, though, that the player will play his/her PC in accordance with character knowledge, at least in a formal sense. (No one would complain if knowledge of the lie were drawn on at the metagame level to push things in a particular direction, provided an alternative in-character rationale was put forward by the player.)

 

[the Jester]

I do it a lot like this:

Player: "I am going to try to talk the guard into letting me in to see the prisoners. I say, 'Hi there, o handsome and loyal soldier! I come with this sack of potatoes and onions for the unfortunates in the cells.
Surely a little old lady like myself is no danger to your security. Perhaps you can make an excepttion to the rules so that I might take them this food? Surely you know that I wouldn't be able to cause any trouble for him! Why, compare our arms- yours are like oaken logs while mine are like twigs of frail grass! Not to mention that I'm unarmed and you have a large mace.' I'm trying to pass my staff off as just an old woman's walking stick."

DM: "Okay, make a Bluff check."

Player: "Ah, crap, I get a.. er... 4."

DM: "Okay, you approach the guard. 'Hi there, handsome!' you screech with a smile, failing to note the guard's disgusted regard. 'I have the best food in town for the murderers, they gotta eat too, right? Even though it's against the law and you'll get executed, you don't mind if I bring them some oak logs and trouble for you, do you?' With a leer, you add, 'My, what a big... stick... you have!'"

DM: "The guard replies, 'Away, hag! There are prettier prospects than you in the cells themselves!'"

It's the difference between how you think you'll sound and how you actually sound.

 

[Imaro]

In D&D, I treat player vs player as a matter of free roleplaying for influence checks, but do use Bluff vs Insight for concealing lies.

Likewise for NPCs vs PCs.

Generally, the player will know that the Bluff attempt was made by the other player (and sometimes even by the NPC, depending on how I handle it at the table). There is an expectation, though, that the player will play his/her PC in accordance with character knowledge, at least in a formal sense. (No one would complain if knowledge of the lie were drawn on at the metagame level to push things in a particular direction, provided an alternative in-character rationale was put forward by the player.)

Is this a formal agreement you set up with players beforehand? I'm only curious because I have been in groups where the understanding (though not explictly stated or agreed to) is that one will not act on meta-game knowledge... but then you watch as a player tries and finds any reason (even with the flimisiest of justification) within the game to act on this very knowledge once a situation like the lying arises.

 

[Imaro]

I do it a lot like this:

Player: "I am going to try to talk the guard into letting me in to see the prisoners. I say, 'Hi there, o handsome and loyal soldier! I come with this sack of potatoes and onions for the unfortunates in the cells.
Surely a little old lady like myself is no danger to your security. Perhaps you can make an excepttion to the rules so that I might take them this food? Surely you know that I wouldn't be able to cause any trouble for him! Why, compare our arms- yours are like oaken logs while mine are like twigs of frail grass! Not to mention that I'm unarmed and you have a large mace.' I'm trying to pass my staff off as just an old woman's walking stick."

DM: "Okay, make a Bluff check."

Player: "Ah, crap, I get a.. er... 4."

DM: "Okay, you approach the guard. 'Hi there, handsome!' you screech with a smile, failing to note the guard's disgusted regard. 'I have the best food in town for the murderers, they gotta eat too, right? Even though it's against the law and you'll get executed, you don't mind if I bring them some oak logs and trouble for you, do you?' With a leer, you add, 'My, what a big... stick... you have!'"

DM: "The guard replies, 'Away, hag! There are prettier prospects than you in the cells themselves!'"

It's the difference between how you think you'll sound and how you actually sound.

Well I was more interested in seeing how you would handle an NPC who has decided to Bluff a character and makes a successful roll... even though the player (not character) may still not believe him. And/Or the situation where a PC is trying to Bluff, Intimidate, etc. another PC and is succesful.

 

[Mark CMG]

A secret Wisdom check rolled by the GM when it seems appropriate (like when the NPC is an atrocious liar). Otherwise, it is up to the player to either accept what and NPC is saying or suspect that the NPC is lying. Or better yet, get some low-level divining magic going, though even that can leave uncertainty without poignant questions being used during the augury. The system mechanics whereby a player can just roll a die at any time and ask, "I rolled a XX, is he lying?" has never set well with me as a dramatic or fun way to adjudicate those types of roleplaying situations. So, too, there's no reason an NPC should get a Wisdom check versus something a PC proffers unless it is under suspicious circumstances. Wisdom checks are simple and effective. A system can be made more complex but, from what I have seen over the years, that just brings up more problems.

 

[WHW4]

Someone throw some xp towards the Jester for me? Must spread.

That's exactly how we do it too. We describe what/how we are doing it, then cast our die and interpret the results.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

1. My group doesn't usually do player v player social rolls. If a player wants to convince another player then they can try. Although, probably an opposed skill roll would be good. Bluff v Insight or Streetwise.

2. I play very player forward so I don't usually do this either. I give away false information all the time. Again, an opposed skill roll would work or treat it as an attack. Bluff vs Will Defense.

 

[WHW4]

Well I was more interested in seeing how you would handle an NPC who has decided to Bluff a character and makes a successful roll... even though the player (not character) may still not believe him. And/Or the situation where a PC is trying to Bluff, Intimidate, etc. another PC and is succesful.

If an NPC successfully Bluffs a PC, I expect that character to play along with it, regardless if the player believes it or not; lest next time they try to Bluff someone and it succeeds I just have the guard say, "Mehhhh, I don't know about that...." and have him do whatever he was going to anyway.

You can't roll the dice and abide by it's results ONLY when they are favorable towards you.

Same goes for PC to PC interactions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[Umbran]

I play it that social skills are generally for use on NPCs, not on PCs. Unless there is magic involved, I don't usually allow a skill check to push a belief on a PC.

In some games, where it is genre appropriate, I will allow NPCs to Bluff PCs, because it is a short-term thing - a verbal feint, if you will. The PC will come to his senses a moment later, and be able to act knowing his was bamboozled for a moment.