My Beef with Social Skills

[Deuce Traveler]

I hardly use skills when I run a game, unless in extreme cases such as using the jump skill for leaping over a pit while weighed down.

 

[Thotas]

Since the beginning of 3.x, the detractors that have annoyed me most are the ones who say that it's just a combat game for munchkins that has no role-playing rules -- and when shown these rules say that this proves their point since it replaces "role playing with roll playing", not noticing that they've basicly reversed their original complaint of "there are no roleplaying rules" to "there shouldn't be any roleplaying rules".

That's not what you're doing, but you're coming close. These rules aren't meant to replace the way that things were done in 1e. I will grant in a hot second that they are written in a way that makes it very easy to interpret them that way, especially if you're new to gaming. Which includes a lot of people, considering how many new players made 3.x a huge success when D&D was close to moribund.

The best way to use the skills is to make them supplementary to old-fashioned role-playing. Bluff is my fave example. Suppose the guards catch my rogue, and he tries to fast talk his way out of it. Many people think it's time for me to make a Bluff roll, and if I make it, that's all there is too it. Wrong. I have to tell the DM what my slick story is, or at least I should, because how good my story is modifies the Sense Motive check. Furthermore, if my story implies that I'm leaving immediately, the DM should know what my story is so that if I get caught again in an hour, he knows my excuse is no longer any good. Gather Information check? I should tell the DM where I go, what type of person I'm connecting with, what sort of questions I ask or bribes I offer. This might affect my chance of success -- if the DM has the situation defined enough, it may negate the need for a roll.

In fact, in the cases of all the skills mentioned, there are times like that. The DM has the situation delineated such that he knows exactly what sort of diplomatic overtures will work and which ones won't in one case, but in another, the players have gone off on a tangent and the DM didn't have the situation prepared. No roll in first situation, handy rules in the second.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Perhaps with rotating pie charts!

I'm prone to jokes so I like this guy already.

 

[Knight Otu]

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.

I'd actually say you're frightened (not necessarily in game terms).
Intimidate is to use threats to produce a result desirable for the guy doing the intimidating. If the guy who is the target thinks that he can get away only if he gives the big guy what he wants, he'll likely do. But if the victim thinks "He's going to kill/pummel/whatever me anyway, no matter what I do." or "That guy is too stupid to notice if I lie to him/lead him into a trap/etc" then the big guy has a bit of a problem.
Besides, a larger size category does give a bonus to intimidate checks.

 

[Shemeska]

The big caveat with most of the other skills should be "How you role-play the encounter determines the modifier to the check". You may have a high Diplomacy score, but acting like a clod while using Diplomacy is like swimming in armor or climbing a wall with oven mitts on. Good luck with your skill check.

I like that alot. Sometimes I might even go further then that and have the 'check' determined entirely by player/PC roleplay and then add a modifier to that based on the role. In any event I'll give higher accordance to the RP rather than the role.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

The way I look at it, if I have to succeed personally in a RP group doing things that are covered by social skills, and the success or failure of the encounter (RP or whatnot) is controlled soley by my interaction with the GM - then when I GM that guy next, I'll bring a boxing target mitt, and when he rolls to hit, I'll wave it around and if he misses it, he misses it in combat.

The point of having mechanics for that sort of thing is to allow the character to do something the player can't. You can't fight - you roll. You can't cast magic - you roll. You can't think fast on your feet, and come up with pithy statements in a battle of wits, you roll. Now I'm not advocating completely doing away with roleplaying - far from it (my games have much more RPing than combat) - but if a character is in a social situation where the player seems out of his depth, and suceeds on a roll, give him some extra information that the player can act on - the interaction equivalent of a bonus to hit with a sword.

As for the "puzzle" skill and "tactics" skill - I have both of those as professions, and players that make a successful roll get advice and tips on solving a puzzle or setting up an encounter.

 

[hafrogman]

I've always thought that social "skills" should be used more like scores instead of rolls. You have a +30 diplomacy? Great, the noble welcomes you with open arms while sneering at your 5 charisma dwarven companion.

Got a +20 bluff, then the guard will tend to find you trustworthy, even if you're spinning the flimsiest lie, but have a -2 and even the most well crafted lie will be given away by sweaty palms or something.

 

[Thanee]

Something I actually do a lot with social skills when I DM is not to roll them at all, but just to use them as a scale to see how convincing, charming, intimidating, etc a character is and thus respond appropriately.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I've always thought that social "skills" should be used more like scores instead of rolls. You have a +30 diplomacy? Great, the noble welcomes you with open arms while sneering at your 5 charisma dwarven companion.

Got a +20 bluff, then the guard will tend to find you trustworthy, even if you're spinning the flimsiest lie, but have a -2 and even the most well crafted lie will be given away by sweaty palms or something.

I like that - using the skill rolls to frame the interaction in a way that fits the skills of the character.

 

[ZSutherland]

Gather Information can give you information on top of the basic information needed, depending on how well you made the roll, the better and more useful information you will gain. This could help in planning ahead then.

I'll concede this point gladly. Yes, much like a superb Search check result can reveal information such as "The victims all appear to have been killed with deep wounds, such as from an axe and there appears to be no blood from the killers" gives more information than a poor but successful result that just says "All the victims were killed by some sort of slashing weapon," a high Gather Information check can result in additional information. However, so could additional, played-out questioning instead of relying on a check. The players tell me their characters enter town and carouse in local taverns looking for information. They hear that nearby farms are being raided by goblins. This can be played out or the result of a simple check that succeeded but not grandly. If they wish to get further information, they question guards who might have responded to the threat, seek out farmers so raided, etc. They learn that the goblins tend to conduct their attacks at night, don't attack anyone that stays clear of them but make a point of carrying off any livestock they can, and each attack is preceded by the loud sound of a horn. Again, this could be further questioning by the PCs or a subsequent Gather Info check or a higher result on the initial check. The skill isn't bad, it's just not fundamentally necessary.

Somewhat, yes.

Social skills are there to describe how good your character is in various social situations. They are a guide to roleplaying. They can be used this way, i.e. make the check first, then make a description based on the result, or describe first and gain a modifier on the check, then make the check to get a result.

It's not about choosing the player best suited for the job, the game isn't about winning, and that approach would go into that direction. Instead you choose the player with the character best suited for the job.

Player-solved riddles are just interludes, that have little to do with the characters involved usually. Kinda stupid, actually, from that point of view, but it's fun here and there.

Bye
Thanee

That simply isn't always true. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to break in new players by handing them a fighter. It saves them the hassle of having to keep up with a bunch of differing skills (ala rogue) or grasp the Vancian magic system from minute one. It's a relatively simple character type to play within the bounds of the codified rule-set. However, by your statement, if this is a standard-4 party (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), the other players with their greater game experience and grasp of the rules, should turn to this novice player to fill the role of squad leader because his character is best suited to that job despite the fact that the player is demonstrably ill-suited for it. This leads to one of three results, none positive. One, the character's foes mop the floor with them, much to the agony and shame of the other players who knew better, while the fighter's player becomes accustomed to and familiar with his character's role. Two, -I- have to dumb down the monsters and their tactics so as to not slap his noviate backside with things he's not ready to handle. Now I'm role-playing poorly, violating the rule you laid out, and the more experienced players are bored. Three, the other players either subtly subvert the squad leader role away by OOC advising (not a bad occurance by my lights, but it seems you would object) or overtly take it from him and we're back to my arguement squarely except with a small bruise to the new player's ego.

Your specific description of social skills leaves something to be desired as well. In option #1, as you presented, why role-play at all? We're simplying listening to a DM spin out a story while we occassionally roll dice, and he interprets those rolls and incorporates them into his story. At this point, why not go whole hog and have a Puzzle skill and a Tactics skill? We could simplify combat down to a single opposed roll between the Tactic skill check of each side with a large table of modifiers. If that sounds appealing to you, that's fine, but let me recommend Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novels instead. They're at least pseudo-professionally written instead of an amateur DM and no one else is there to steal the last slice of pizza. In the second option, if the players are going to describe to me what they do, why make the check at all? Why not let that speak for itself?

I can't teach players sword-combat, but I don't have to. The rules simulate it for me. In all honesty, I can't even teach them small-group tactics. All they learn are the small-group tactics that work at my table. If the wound up at PirateCat's table, they'd almost certainly be hopelessly outclassed and at higher levels would still regularly get their backsides handed to them, moist and freshly chewed, by unmodified kobolds and goblinoids simply because PC is a much more clever and experienced DM than I am. Those tactical skills almost certainly wouldn't do them much good in a real-life combat situation. So why should social interaction be any different? I may not be able to teach my younger brother to talk to girls (much to my chagrin) nor can my wife teach him that, but I can teach him how to role-play talking to girls in a way that will work at my table. I suppose a combat-esque social system with Will points or Morale points could suffice, but the fact that everyone knows at least something about social interactions would get in the way of suspended disbelief. Still, we don't have either, we have some sort of nebulous middle-ground that doesn't serve anyone well, imo.