My Beef with Social Skills

[Hussar]

I did not roll the check, I told the DM to tell me how the NPC reacted and to roleplay the encounter. For me, they break immersion in the game. I am in character, conversing with an NPC, then out of the blue I am told to roll the die? Bah, do away with the damned things.

If I was the DM, I would have forced the roll. Sorry, your character is NOT you. I don't care if you are Robert De Niro or if you are Pee Wee Herman, just because you say that you say something doesn't mean squat. With high diplomacy and a decent Cha, the result is probably foregone anyway, but, you still have to roll. Just because you happen to be charming, persuasive and damn good looking, doesn't mean that your character is.

The dice provide the direction, you provide the script.

 

[Psion]

I think that the problem with a lot of the "social" skills is that they've become the end rather than the means. It's almost automatic for players to toss a d20 and announce their skill check result before their PC even says a word. I think the game design is partly to blame for this.

IMO, social skill checks should be made after a PC has made the attempt. If a player doesn't make any RP effort, then the check automatically fails. I see the check as representing all the stuff that a player doesn't know/understand whereas the initial conversation is where the player gets across the message/point they are trying to make.

Unfortunately, D&D really is becoming just a die rolling exercise. It's a shame. :\

I think if, as alluded to in your second paragraph, it's up to the DM to make the call when a roll is invoked, it's not just a rolling excercise.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

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.

I disagree in general, but I really disagree with this point.

Bluff determining feinting is a terrible mechanic. I understand this is a game, not a simulation of reality, but this one fails the laugh test. There is no reason whatsoever why a character's skill in BSing would be the same as his skill in feinting in combat. Feinting in combat is a trademark of a skilled fighter -- in fact, much more of a test of skill than hitting one's foe. By the same token, keeping oneself from being feinted is also a function of weapon training.

Something like this should be tied to BAB (combat skill), not a pair of social skills.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think if, as alluded to in your second paragraph, it's up to the DM to make the call when a roll is invoked, it's not just a rolling excercise.

I guess you missed my point then.

Not enough DMs are foregoing the die rolls but are simply allowing the die rolls to replace RP. That's why, IMO, D&D is becoming an exercise in rolling.

If more DMs would say to their players, "Yeah, nice roll. But first you have to earn the ability to make a roll in the first place," I believe D&D would be in a much better state.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I talked for a bit, then the DM looked at me and asked me to roll a diplomacy skill check. I looked at him baffled. I did not roll the check, I told the DM to tell me how the NPC reacted and to roleplay the encounter.

You told the DM you weren't going to roll a check?

Do you tell the DM you don't have to roll attack rolls or jump checks because it breaks immersion? I can tell you that I, as well as quite possibly most DMs, wouldn't take that line well.

Not enough DMs are foregoing the die rolls but are simply allowing the die rolls to replace RP. That's why, IMO, D&D is becoming an exercise in rolling.

If they don't want to roleplay, then they don't want to roleplay. If they want to, then they will.

 

[Janx]

hmmm,

In 2e, for a PC having a high cha meant you might play him as more outgoing, personable. A Low CHA meant he'd be played more gruff, less diplomatic. As a DM, it'd work the same way. There'd be no die rolls, the score would just indicate how to make the character act.

That also meant, that detecting a lie, convincing somebody, was still a player to GM interaction, subject to GM abjudication.


Now one advantage of having social skills and rolls is that it indicates that the character actually has communcation ability (as opposed to advanced knowledge of history, etc). It also meant that the DM could resolve NPC to NPC interactions, and PC to NPC interactions withoug arbitrarily deciding. Some players would appreciate this, if no matter how well they roleplayed, their DM always made them fail to convince or bluff somebody.

The big problem I have is when players with no social skills play PCs with social skills and they always say the wrong thing, yet expect their skill #'s to represent their PC. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they kep their mouth shut during the encounter, but when they say things clearly at odds with their objective and their skill #'s, that's annoying.

 

[Barak]

This is the same old problem. Because RPGs social game, many people take offense at the idea that they need to roll to see if their characters succeed at social skills. They won't bat an eye at having to make a jump check, and would be offended if asked to jump over a certain distance for their character to jump over the chasm, yet take the differen view point when it comes to diplomacy.

When you get to the bottom of it, even giving a bonus/penalty depending on what the player says is technically unfair. Would you give a bonus/penalty depending on how far the player can jump? Why the disconnect? The role-playing part involves what the character decides to attempt diplomatically. He gets to decide if he wants to sway the king in order to kill the thief or forgive him, not how well he succeeds in either.

The best way, I believe, is to roll first and then have the player RP in a way consistant with his result.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

The big problem I have is when players with no social skills play PCs with social skills and they always say the wrong thing, yet expect their skill #'s to represent their PC. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they kep their mouth shut during the encounter, but when they say things clearly at odds with their objective and their skill #'s, that's annoying.

Funny, that's what I like about social skills. Give a bonus or penalty for roleplaying, but otherwise, your character knows more than you do. My wizard knows more than I do about casting a spell, but I don't have to tell how I'm casting the frigging spell. To pick a better real world example (there being no magic in our world), my paladin knows how to hit someone with an axe, while I know nothing about fighting other than, "Hit him hard, and keep him from hitting you."

That said, I can see the value of having the player stating his intention for a social act clearly before rolling the dice. I'm someone who often need be told to do this after a minute of talking in a funny voice to an NPC anyhow.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

A good example of Intimidate in my mind is Joe Pesci from Goodfellas. Here you have this funny, smiling little guy. When he got angry, though, you could tell he was absolutely psycho...even his friends were afraid of him when he got that crazy glint in his eye.

 

[RFisher]

When I'm running a game with interpersonal skills, this is how I handle it:

The player roleplays. I roll (or call for a roll) when what a PC is doing falls under the auspices of a skill. If a player says something like, "I bluff," & pick ups his d20, I'm going to ask, "How?" No skill check counts if I didn't ask for it. Players (IMHO) shouldn't be thinking in terms of game mechanics.

I don't want to be a judge of "good" or "bad" roleplaying. There will be no modifier to the roll based on roleplaying. I determine the outcome based on the roll, not that I think you did a spectacular acting job. Now, the premise might matter. Convincing the palace guard that you're the king is going to be harder than convincing them you're...I dunno...a visiting noble. Your actual words & delivery, however, aren't important. Everybody just does their best & what works for them.

(Although, when I say "roll" above, sometimes I prefer to just use the character's skill level as a guide rather than actually rolling such skills.)

That being said, the current classic D&D campaign is going fine without much in the way of interpersonal mechanics. Although I don't have a problem with such things, I think I tend towards not having them.