My Beef with Social Skills

[barsoomcore]

I like to use social skills in pretty much the opposite way most people have been describing them. Rather than describe what my player is going to do, then getting a modifier on my skill check based on my action, I roll the check, and THEN describe what happens.

Especially with Diplomacy, I find this is a lot of fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I like to use social skills in pretty much the opposite way most people have been describing them. Rather than describe what my player is going to do, then getting a modifier on my skill check based on my action, I roll the check, and THEN describe what happens.

I would do that except for three reasons:

1) My group is adamantly against that.

2) They probably couldn't pull it off anyway.

3) I like the DM to be in charge of what does and what does not deserve to be a skill check.

It's a good system, though.

 

[Thotas]

Slightly differently, Third Wizard???

Reading both of our posts, I'd say we do things the same way. Other than the fact that in my post I didn't expressly say that the DM determines when skill roll is called for, though it was, I thought implied. (Well, okay, it's legit for a player to remind me that his Diplomacy skill is high and say he wants to roll it, but if he says something that I know is the ultimate insult to the intended, it negates the actual roll ...)

Oh, and just clarify one more thing for everyone: the Bluff example that 3W quoted isn't just the way I do it. It's the RAW; the modifier chart is on page 68.

 

[nameless]

Re: Intimidate

Even in the real world, you can't always assess someone's danger by ther size, but in D&D this is doubly so. You're a 10th level mage and some brute walks up to you trying to intimidate you based purely on his muscle? Please. If he's your average thug, you could take him on in hand to hand combat. If not, you have spells to back yourself up. Same goes for most adventurers or merceneries PCs usually deal with.

Intimidate isn't about making people think you can injure them in combat.

Intimidate is also not what you use when you've captured someone and are making demands.

Intimidate is your ability to coherse others, through, similar to Diplomacy. Think veiled threats at future dates, think hinting at consequences, or knowing just how to talk to someone to make them afraid of the possible consequences.

Old Man Reynolds doesn't want to help defend the town from the orc invaders, and you need all the help you can get. You mention what the orcs might do to his daughter should they break the line, and he rushes off to help. He'll probably curse you later for manipulating him like this, but that's what I think of when I think of Intimidate. Things like "Our friend the Baron won't be happy when he hears about this..." or "What a sad fate to put your chilren in.." I think mobster type deals.

Going up to someone and saying "If you don't do that, I'll break your skull open," isn't really using Intimidate in my book.

I was going to post something just like this. Intimidate shouldn't be strength-based. You don't have to roll intimidate when you are 10 feet tall and use an uprooted tree as a weapon - anybody with a lick of sense is going to understand that you are big and strong and could hurt them. Threatening them to get your way isn't intimidate any more than giving a merchant 15 gp for a longsword is diplomacy. It's just an (uneven) exchange of services.

Actually demoralizing an opponent so he doesn't fight to the best of his ability (the mechanical effect of intimidate) is something you need to do with force of personality, not big muscles. Ditto for appearing dangerous enough to convince someone to be helpful. A halfling with 16 strength isn't going to be more intimidating than one with 8 strength.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Reading both of our posts, I'd say we do things the same way. Other than the fact that in my post I didn't expressly say that the DM determines when skill roll is called for, though it was, I thought implied.

Sometimes I'm kinda slow and miss inferances.

 

[Voadam]

Maybe I'm lucky, but my players avoid metagame thinking from coloring their RPing. If I say "you think he is trustworthy" they will act accordinlgy, even though they're 100% sure they're been tricked.

My response as a PC would be "Is there a magical effect making me think that?" If so then I roleplay it. Otherwise what my character feels and thinks and decides to do are the things in the game completely up to me as the PC, not you as the DM or dictated by dice and the rules.

Its annoying when boxed text does it, its annoying when a DM does it. Outside of unnatural magical effects PCs should not be told what they think or feel.

With magical impositions there are even a few ways around it. Detect magic revealing an enchantment spell on your person might cause some paranoia about your friends and prompt you to use a targeted dispel on yourself. In character reasonable actions.

 

[iwatt]

Its annoying when boxed text does it, its annoying when a DM does it. Outside of unnatural magical effects PCs should not be told what they think or feel.

Read what I wrote again about sense motive. I tell them only what they perceive. The Sense Motive skill is as important as Spot or Listen perception-wise. I tell the players what they see and what they hear. The more skilled they are, the better they are at this. Their ability to perceive the motives of others is just another facet of this.

Now, I understand a lot of people get incensed with this kind of stuff. I don't tell them what their player "feels"*. I tell them what they sense. Now it requires trust from my players. Trust I'm not railroading.

When they fail against an Intimidate check.... the PCs do feel scared. They aquire the shaken state. If Biff the Mighty wants to swing against the Dreadlord anyways, he can of course do it. Part of been a hero is to fighte when you're scared.

Same thing with Diplomacy. If the guy is able to swing their opinion to friendly, they will be friends. Been friends isn't mind controling somebody. Anyhow I said I use a differnt system for diplomacy.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Lord Mhoram - I see your arguement, I really do, and the boxing mitt reference is a nice touch. However, as I pointed out in my response to Thanee, I'm not trying to teach them to be sociable anymore than I'm trying to teach them to fence. They just have to learn what works at my table. Just like combat. All the combat feats in the world aren't going to save the fighter if he's too dumb to avoid getting boxed in or make use of cover when it presents iself.

I can see that. I like to use the analogy to the boxing mitt, because it isn't combat, but it is the player doing something similar to what the character is doing - much like most Cha based skills.

And I can see your points, and understand them- Just not my style - but you are completely in your rights to play different than I do (and vice versa) . I don't believe in (as referenced by another thread) player skills. I want to see the players make choices, and have the characters do thier thing, thought feats, and player choice. Part of my house rules are that I generally ignore cover, most AoO, and flanking. I did that specifically to impact the concept of use of tactics... I want a charge ahead full speed swashbuckle kind of feel to my game. I've spent too many years doing superhero RPG to want something that feels like something out of a gritty military movie.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

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.

I definitely disagree here. One of my players have used Gather Information to spread rumors about something that they want everyone to think happened. This is very useful. Frequently, there are things in the campaign world that they would not know without Gather Information (like, who's the owner of this Tavern? Or, who does this person work for?). If they don't make the roll, they go on with a disadvantage (i.e., whoever instigated an attack on them keeps planning further attacks, and learns more of their weaknesses). This is a frequently useful skill in a city setting, and I definitely don't give PCs a freebie if they fail their Gather Information rolls!

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*

Hm... I don't think that's the way Sense Motive is to be played. I roll sense motive checks for the PC whenever an NPC is bluffing. If they succeed, they get a note from me telling me what they think is going on. When a player asks for a check, I roll it and they don't see the roll result. My players even use Bluff and Sense Motive against each other, and have had at least one incident in which one of the PCs got away with a major magic item without anyone else in the party (players or PCs!) even knowing that someone else had made off with it. Sense Motive is a MUST for high intrigue/political games, and if it's not working for you, find a way to make it work.

Again, I have to subject my NPCs to PC Intimidate checks, but the reverse is not true.

It's how you describe the situation. If the NPC has an imposing intimidate, everything looks scarier. That Ogre Chieftain has an air about him of someone with years of battle. He looks at you, and you're already feeling him seize up your weaknesses, and you somehow know that he thinks he can take you, yes all of you.

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?

That doesn't happen to work taht way for me. My players don't let anyone else run their PCs, even if one of the players is an awesome tactician. If someone at the table is incredibly charismatic but puts no points in their diplomacy, they absolutely don't get a free ride. They get asked to make diplomacy checks, and if they fail, it doesn't matter how eloquent the player is, the PC gets thrown out the door of the King's palace. That's how Diplomacy is meant to be used.

 

[SWAT]

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.

If they're not going to play their characters based on the result of the Sense Motive check, I'd say that's metagaming and call them on it. If you're going to choose to roll Sense Motive to see if your character thinks there's something suspicious about what the wizard is telling you, and I tell you your character finds him trustworthy, then that's it. What you as a player think no longer applies whatsoever. Your character finds him trustworthy, and should continue to until another reason to be suspicious is given. IMHO, anything else is just bad roleplaying. Some disagree, but I feel that a dice roll, even your own skill check, can indeed oblige you the player to make your character react a certain way. I've never actually seen it done any other way.