ZSutherland
First Post
I just plain don't like them and I'm going to explain why and then sit here and hope someone can point out where I'm wrong.
Mike Mearls, and many other designers and commentators aside, have complained frequently about what he describes as "Mother May I" abilities. The ranger's Favored Enemy ability makes the most obvious candidate. Numerically, it is quite the appreciable bonus, but the ability is only as useful (or useless) as the DM allows it to be by pitting you against encounters that include your favored enemies. Being Orc-Slayer numero uno is really useless if you never encounter orcs. The cleric's Turn Undead ability is similarly problematic (though much improved with some of the divine feats from supplemental material).
To me, the social skills describe the opposite affect. I think I'll call them "Baby Please!" abilities, which is cry of the hearts of DMs who've just watched their role-playing scene, encounter, or potentially their story go down the drain due to one stinking skill check.
Gather Information: This is a viable enough skill, I suppose, a bit of a time saver, but on the whole, it's sort of useless. It's really more a "Mother May I" ability than a "Baby Please!," Why do we need a skill check to see what the PCs can learn about the local lord, the next dungeon, or the bizarre string of murders plaguing the town? One of three things is bound to be the case. One, the information garnered is necessary for the story to proceed (e.g. rumors say a strange cloaked figure has been seen wandering the graveyard at night). If this is the case, the DM was going to give you that information regardless of the roll's result or even the attempt. Two, there's nothing to learn, either because there really isn't anything or you caught the DM flat-footed. Again, not necessary. Finally, there is something to learn but gaining that information in such a cheap (and I mean resource cheap including play-time and mental effort) manner will deprive you, the other players, and the DM the fun of finding it the old fashioned way. This puts the DM in the tough spot of having to fudge, or removing some of the fun and challenge.
Sense Motive/Bluff: I have the least problem with this pair of skills, since there is at least an opposition check to be made. I like the Feint action afforded by Bluff. It's clever and throws a bone to bards and charisma-oriented rogues who are otherwise a little weak in combat. My only real beef is the standard player reaction to Sense Motive checks. "The crafty old wizard tells you X." "We Sense Motive." *I roll or they roll, doesn't matter* "Hrm, we must have failed that roll. I don't believe him." Or they do believe him and never bother to make the roll. They're not going to let their characters' beliefs be dictated by a die roll in this manner any more than they would allow their alignment or spell selection to be so decided. They look at context clues and other available evidence and make a reasoned choice just like they do in the real world, which means that Bluff is wholly inviable for my NPCs to use while they remain completely vulnerable to its use by the PCs. Blech.
Intimidate: I'm not sure why it's a Charisma skill only. Certainly, I can think of a few charismatic people (Judi Dench springs to mind) that aren't particularly physically imposing that could set my knees knocking if they glared at me properly, but the most uncharismatic dolt on the planet, augmented with enough muscle power, could just as easily intimidate me under the right circumstances. He's larger than me, stronger than me, and looks as if he's about to take advantage of that fact and pummel me. I'm now intimidated. More importantly, it suffers the same problem as Sense Motive without the decency to be an opposed check. Players simply aren't going to let their actions be dictated that way.
DM:"You enter the throne-room of the Ogre Chieften. He is covered in ritual scarring and looks at you as if his only concern is the order in which he should devour you and what sort of seasoning he should use." *makes Intimidate check* "He's really quite frightening." Players: "Bah, he's just an ogre. Let's make with the fireballs."
Again, I have to subject my NPCs to PC Intimidate checks, but the reverse is not true.
Diplomacy: The mother-lode of stupid social skills. No opposed check, still doesn't work on the PCs because if I want the the PCs to like an NPC, I have to describe him in likeable terms (I don't just toss a die and say, "Okay, he rolled well. You all like this guy a lot."), and capable of being more powerful than charm person w/o the humanoid restriction, will save, or limited use per day. I've used this one myself (on one of those rare occasions that I got to play). In a Wheel of Time game I wound up with abysmal physical stats but a decent Int and a great Cha score. I played a scoundrel/gleeman (think rogue with bard as a prestige class), and by the end of the campaign, the poor guy playing our armsmen was about ready to tear his beard out that nearly every encounter that might have evolved into combat was thwarted by my ridiculous Diplomacy check.
In the end, rules exist to serve the game, most notably in places where player knowledge will not suffice. I know next to squat about sword-play or where to stick a dagger to inflict maximum punishment. Most people don't know that sort of thing, and it would be highly inconvinient, even if we did know, to simulate it in my living room. Hence, combat rules are sensible and serve the game well. Similarly, I can't do magic. I can't even summon an invisible servant to clean the house (more's the pity), let alone teleport from place to place or drop meteor swarms on people who irk me. Magic rules, then, make sense. The social skills don't fit that description.
I've heard the arguement that social skills are there to let players who are not the most socially graceful people on the planet emulate, systematically, someone who is. That doesn't hold any water with me. There isn't a Puzzle skill or Riddle skill to help players who find such things difficult. Groups of players just elect the player who's best at that sort of problem to handle them and either help or get out of the way. Part of the fun is figuring that stuff out on their own. Similarly, there's no Tactics skill that tells players what sort of action they should take from round to round. Again, the players just figure out who has the best tactical skills at the table and let that guy take over the role of squad leader. Again, that's part of the fun. Why is it, that when we get to social aspects, this isn't the case? Why not just have the players elect the best spokesmen among them to do that job?
Am I wrong in all of this?
Mike Mearls, and many other designers and commentators aside, have complained frequently about what he describes as "Mother May I" abilities. The ranger's Favored Enemy ability makes the most obvious candidate. Numerically, it is quite the appreciable bonus, but the ability is only as useful (or useless) as the DM allows it to be by pitting you against encounters that include your favored enemies. Being Orc-Slayer numero uno is really useless if you never encounter orcs. The cleric's Turn Undead ability is similarly problematic (though much improved with some of the divine feats from supplemental material).
To me, the social skills describe the opposite affect. I think I'll call them "Baby Please!" abilities, which is cry of the hearts of DMs who've just watched their role-playing scene, encounter, or potentially their story go down the drain due to one stinking skill check.
Gather Information: This is a viable enough skill, I suppose, a bit of a time saver, but on the whole, it's sort of useless. It's really more a "Mother May I" ability than a "Baby Please!," Why do we need a skill check to see what the PCs can learn about the local lord, the next dungeon, or the bizarre string of murders plaguing the town? One of three things is bound to be the case. One, the information garnered is necessary for the story to proceed (e.g. rumors say a strange cloaked figure has been seen wandering the graveyard at night). If this is the case, the DM was going to give you that information regardless of the roll's result or even the attempt. Two, there's nothing to learn, either because there really isn't anything or you caught the DM flat-footed. Again, not necessary. Finally, there is something to learn but gaining that information in such a cheap (and I mean resource cheap including play-time and mental effort) manner will deprive you, the other players, and the DM the fun of finding it the old fashioned way. This puts the DM in the tough spot of having to fudge, or removing some of the fun and challenge.
Sense Motive/Bluff: I have the least problem with this pair of skills, since there is at least an opposition check to be made. I like the Feint action afforded by Bluff. It's clever and throws a bone to bards and charisma-oriented rogues who are otherwise a little weak in combat. My only real beef is the standard player reaction to Sense Motive checks. "The crafty old wizard tells you X." "We Sense Motive." *I roll or they roll, doesn't matter* "Hrm, we must have failed that roll. I don't believe him." Or they do believe him and never bother to make the roll. They're not going to let their characters' beliefs be dictated by a die roll in this manner any more than they would allow their alignment or spell selection to be so decided. They look at context clues and other available evidence and make a reasoned choice just like they do in the real world, which means that Bluff is wholly inviable for my NPCs to use while they remain completely vulnerable to its use by the PCs. Blech.
Intimidate: I'm not sure why it's a Charisma skill only. Certainly, I can think of a few charismatic people (Judi Dench springs to mind) that aren't particularly physically imposing that could set my knees knocking if they glared at me properly, but the most uncharismatic dolt on the planet, augmented with enough muscle power, could just as easily intimidate me under the right circumstances. He's larger than me, stronger than me, and looks as if he's about to take advantage of that fact and pummel me. I'm now intimidated. More importantly, it suffers the same problem as Sense Motive without the decency to be an opposed check. Players simply aren't going to let their actions be dictated that way.
DM:"You enter the throne-room of the Ogre Chieften. He is covered in ritual scarring and looks at you as if his only concern is the order in which he should devour you and what sort of seasoning he should use." *makes Intimidate check* "He's really quite frightening." Players: "Bah, he's just an ogre. Let's make with the fireballs."
Again, I have to subject my NPCs to PC Intimidate checks, but the reverse is not true.
Diplomacy: The mother-lode of stupid social skills. No opposed check, still doesn't work on the PCs because if I want the the PCs to like an NPC, I have to describe him in likeable terms (I don't just toss a die and say, "Okay, he rolled well. You all like this guy a lot."), and capable of being more powerful than charm person w/o the humanoid restriction, will save, or limited use per day. I've used this one myself (on one of those rare occasions that I got to play). In a Wheel of Time game I wound up with abysmal physical stats but a decent Int and a great Cha score. I played a scoundrel/gleeman (think rogue with bard as a prestige class), and by the end of the campaign, the poor guy playing our armsmen was about ready to tear his beard out that nearly every encounter that might have evolved into combat was thwarted by my ridiculous Diplomacy check.
In the end, rules exist to serve the game, most notably in places where player knowledge will not suffice. I know next to squat about sword-play or where to stick a dagger to inflict maximum punishment. Most people don't know that sort of thing, and it would be highly inconvinient, even if we did know, to simulate it in my living room. Hence, combat rules are sensible and serve the game well. Similarly, I can't do magic. I can't even summon an invisible servant to clean the house (more's the pity), let alone teleport from place to place or drop meteor swarms on people who irk me. Magic rules, then, make sense. The social skills don't fit that description.
I've heard the arguement that social skills are there to let players who are not the most socially graceful people on the planet emulate, systematically, someone who is. That doesn't hold any water with me. There isn't a Puzzle skill or Riddle skill to help players who find such things difficult. Groups of players just elect the player who's best at that sort of problem to handle them and either help or get out of the way. Part of the fun is figuring that stuff out on their own. Similarly, there's no Tactics skill that tells players what sort of action they should take from round to round. Again, the players just figure out who has the best tactical skills at the table and let that guy take over the role of squad leader. Again, that's part of the fun. Why is it, that when we get to social aspects, this isn't the case? Why not just have the players elect the best spokesmen among them to do that job?
Am I wrong in all of this?
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
