How do you handle social skills in D&D?

[Gryph]

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.

In almost every case of 1. I do not allow skills rolls. That comes too close to 1 player taking control of another player's character, even if just briefly. One of the few exceptions I make is for Bluff used for a disguise but I then narrate the disguised PC's actions (with his input of what he was disguised as and what he was trying to pull off)

For 2. I use Passive Insight as a defense against an NPC who is trying to bluff a PC. Failure of the bluff roll alerts the PC that something seems off. I never roll Diplomacy or Intimidate against PCs. They are in charge of there own characters, reactions and actions.

Oh, and I will lie to the PCs with an NPC without rolling bluff. The PCs can ask for insight checks. Bluff is actually rarely used by me.

 

[S'mon]

In almost every case of 1. I do not allow skills rolls. That comes too close to 1 player taking control of another player's character, even if just briefly. One of the few exceptions I make is for Bluff used for a disguise but I then narrate the disguised PC's actions (with his input of what he was disguised as and what he was trying to pull off)

For 2. I use Passive Insight as a defense against an NPC who is trying to bluff a PC. Failure of the bluff roll alerts the PC that something seems off. I never roll Diplomacy or Intimidate against PCs. They are in charge of there own characters, reactions and actions.

Oh, and I will lie to the PCs with an NPC without rolling bluff. The PCs can ask for insight checks. Bluff is actually rarely used by me.

That looks like how I do it as GM. As a player though I have requested Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate checks *from other PCs* who are talking to me, to help me decide how I react.

 

[gamerprinter]

Yes, but that process ("since I, the player, saw a bad roll, I'll make an attempt myself") is a little meta-gamey for my tastes. The player shouldn't be looking at the individual die roll to tell him if he trusts his teammate's judgement.

I agree. I said, however, that our group generally handles social situations well, so the problem doesn't really come up.

If it did I might change my philosophy regarding open vs. hidden dice. It hasn't so I haven't.

 

[Jhaelen]

I allow players to roll social skills against other players, but they get to choose if they wish to act accordingly or ignore the result.

It depends on the situation if I make a roll for an npc before or after roleplaying the interaction (or if I make a roll at all). I'm more likely to make or demand skill rolls if the consequences of losing/winning are important. This can also grow into a skill challenge (assuming I didn't already prepare for one).

I generally expect players to play along and respect the outcome of opposed skill checks, but I don't enforce it.

E.g. the barbarian player might tell me that there's no way in hell, the npc will manage to intimidate him and roleplay his reaction in whatever way he likes.
The npc will then conclude, that intimidation is not an option against the pc, which will guide his course of action. This will quite likely result in an escalation right there or in some future encounter.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not a fan of nonmagical skills or checks that try and dictate behavior.
A PC always gets to decide how he/she reacts to something.

PC vs PC: As a GM I stay out of it. All roleplay.

NPC vs PC: How convincing an NPC is to a PC depends on several factors including the mental stats of the NPC, what knowledge the NPC is aware of, and the actual facts involved. Based on the interaction with the NPC I will give the player a sense of the general impression the NPC left, which will be influenced in part by the skill and cunning of the NPC.

The decision on how to react to this impression is always up to the player.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Oh- that's entirely different! In that case I roll the check and then do my best to roleplay it, with an occasional "Sounds reasonable to you" or the like based on the skills in question.

Social skills never dictate a pc's response, but often influence it. My pcs are good enough roleplayers that they are good with this method- they run with it and riff off of what I tell them without letting it dominate their play.

 

[Gryph]

That looks like how I do it as GM. As a player though I have requested Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate checks *from other PCs* who are talking to me, to help me decide how I react.

And that's all good, the player is still making the decisions for his character. I could actually see one of the guys I regularly DM for asking for the roll to help him make up his mind on how to react to a situation.

 

[Greg K]

I guess I thought it was clear. I was agreeing with Jester's methodology (speak, roll, interpret) and adding that, in my opinion, the rules should be the same regardless of who does the interacting.

This is how I handle it as well.

 

[Mallus]

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.

PC's social skills do not work on other PC's (I believe this is the official rule in 3e & 4e, but even if it wasn't, I'd still handle it that way).

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

Short of using high-powered magic, an NPC can never make a PC believe something.

I roll the NPC's social skill checks, then role-play them from there. If the NPC rolls really badly, or if the PC calls for a counter-skill check (Insight, etc.), we'll see who wins and, if necessary, I'll play out the various tells and tics, or just flat-out say the NPC sounds insincere/unconvincing.

 

[S'mon]

I roll the NPC's social skill checks, then role-play them from there. If the NPC rolls really badly, or if the PC calls for a counter-skill check (Insight, etc.), we'll see who wins and, if necessary, I'll play out the various tells and tics, or just flat-out say the NPC sounds insincere/unconvincing.

I roleplay NPCs with reference to their social skills, but I won't normally be making a check for them, unless for some reason I needed to make an opposed check. Eg if I'm playing +8 Bluff NPC, he's a fairly good Bluffer. If a player requests an Insight check to get a 'read' on the NPC, they'll make their check probably against DC 18 (NPC Bluff Skill +10).

The PHB skills are there for rolling by players, as PC resources, not generally for the GM to roll, IMO. YMMV.