ZSutherland said:
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.
I think that there are a few things to consider here, and it is worth dividing them up by skill, as you have. But the general consideration is this: the group must decide what is most fun for them. If you and your group think that roleplaying through encounters, searching through the city or village for rumors and clues, and "actions, not words" is more fun, that's what you should do. But I think that some groups really want to use dice to negotiate the results of some kinds of social interaction, and that that can be really worthwhile also.
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.
I think that Gather Information is actually a really good skill, but to use it the DM needs to put in extra work. I really like how it is used in many Dungeon adventures, where general rumors and specific information can be uncovered when the players meet certain DCs.
If the information is necessary for the story to proceed, then you can still use a Gather Information check; if players do a really good job of seeking out the right sources for the information, reward their characters' skill checks with hefty bonuses that make it so that they succeed. If they are lazy about it, then they can succeed or fail, depending on the skill of the character. I guess that the way I use this skill is to reward players for interaction with NPCs, not to take that aspect away.
If the information is uneccessary, then it is unecessary. But having a "laundry list" of rumors that can be uncovered with Gather Information makes it so that players who have invested in that skill with their characters can find new and interesting information. Rumors they uncover can be related to adventures you have planned for the future, or may lead to adventures you may not have thought of. Of course, the real issue for you, is , I think, this:
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.
If you really think it deprives you of fun, then it is not the way to go. Just get rid of the skill.
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.
Yeah, I have had this problem with my players too. The problem really is with the players, though (mostly). If they are not willing to go along with what you have told them, how is that a problem with the skill itself? If your players are going to decide whether they believe an NPC or not despite rolling, why include it at all? Of course, that just means that you as a group have decided to take the skill out of the game.
In my game I use Sense Motive, but I just incorporate it into my description. I roll Sense Motive checks for PCs, and that alters my description of his interaction with them. If the NPC has convinced everyone according to the dice rolls, then I describe her in as positive a manner as possible, and try to leave no indication that anything at all is wrong. I tell the players of characters who succeed, secretly, that the NPC is being deceptive; though how, and in what details, is left to their further questions and fact-finding.
There are other interesting uses for these skills, however; Bluff is good for feinting (though probably too hard to do), and for use against NPCs, but it can also be used to deliver messages secretly to other PCs (if they have good Sense Motive checks, that is). Sense motive can also be used for hunches (a gut feeling about the situation), or to discover whether someone is enchanted (not acting as himself). So even if you don't like the social interaction uses, there are still somewhat viable uses for these skills.
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.
True enough, except that Intimidate has one really good use against PCs, which is the "demoralize opponent" use. I think that if that were improved (such as a longer duration, or use at a distance) it would make Intimidate good for opponents. It is the only way I use it against PCs, and it neatly eliminates that problem. Yeah, to the players it may be just an Ogre, but their characters are just as scared (shaken) in game, and it affects the resulting combat in a tangible way.
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.
Diplomacy is a big problem. The uses for PCs against NPCs have DCs that are far too easy. And PCs can always do as they choose, so it is useless as an NPC skill.
One way that I use Diplomacy is for negotiation, though I get more specific about it. If you want to see a pretty good system for it, look at Giant in the Playground's website:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html
Basically, interactions with NPCs are always negotiations, and it takes away a PC's ability to simply use Diplomacy to eliminate threats; a Diplomatic PC must use his skill at negotiation and offer a good deal to resolve an encounter peacably.
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?
I don't agree with all of this. The social skills are not like the rules for magic, in that we all know about how to interact socially. But I think the argument you mention here is better than you give it credit for. Yes, there is no tactics skill, and you can have the best player lead the rest of the party in this aspect of the game. You could do the same thing with riddles and social interaction. And if that is what your group really likes to do, then go for it. I think that the social skills become far less valuable if you do, so it might be worth it to combine some of the skills into one, or simply eliminate certain skills, so that players who spend skill points for their characters on such skills aren't deprived.
But in my group, I have players who don't interact socally very well, or they can't think of the best thing to say to lie to the barrister, or negotiate with the corrupt mine owner. But these players still would like a way to have a PC that can do those things well. The skills for social interaction let these players do that without having to get the player who is best and most creative in social situations to do it for them. When PCs negotiate with NPCs, I use the skills, and I give bonuses to characters whose players make an effort to roleplay the situation. I don't assign additional penalties unless the player puts in no effort at all. This all works out fairly well, I think.
The biggest problem with riddles in games is that people can't ever play a character who is "good at solving riddles" without actually being good at solving riddles. I don't want a similar situation with social interaction.
It seems like you are looking for a reason to get rid of social skills that you think are redundant anyway, though, so don't worry about what the rules say - just drop the skills. You and your players can play the way you like, and not worry about the fact that the standard rules use dice to resolve social situations. If the rules are really getting in the way of your fun, just drop them. The aren't worth it.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
(Better yet if it is not in the characters native language, the possibilities for using just the wrong word are nigh irresistable.)
