My Beef with Social Skills

[kigmatzomat]

I use the mechanics slightly differently depending on the player.

Some people suck at social encounters but want a social character. So in those cases I have them explain the salient points they wish to make in an encounter and then roll their dice. The result of their roll indicates how their character executed on the intent. I then speak as the character, so they can hear what it sounds like. Many of them gradually evolve into the dramatic AC!-tor type.

For the more dramatic AC!-tor types, I have them roll the dice first and trust them to RP the result. They get their drama-kick but are still working within the bounds of the character. The ones that argue I just look at and say "it's okay if you don't think you can role-play to a specific level." They take it as a challenge and RP the 5s, 10s, 15s, and 25s quite well.

Lastly, I recognize the difference between presentation and content. Diplomacy is the way you say something, content is what you say. Good content can sometimes trump a crappy diplomacy check. "Yes, he was a boorish little git, but it doesn't change the fact that he was right." By the same token, crappy content can't always be saved by good diplomacy. "While your words were flowery, the message was still a load of manure."

 

[Hussar]

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.

QFT

 

[LostSoul]

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?

How about this: If the player describes his Jump in a cool way, give him a +2 or whatever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

So, for example, we shouldn't give a bonus if the player says he's taking a running jump rather than a standing broad jump? Nor, I assume, we should apply a penalty if the player says he is jumping while carrying a heavy load?

What you say, for social skills, is the analogue to the physical conditions that a phsyical skill check is made in. Nothing more; nothing less.

RC

 

[Quickleaf]

It's just agonizing to me to watch you guys re-create the wheel. There are two sides I'm hearing, neither with very juicy solutions:

(1) Ditch the social rules and role-play it!
(2) The rules are fine just as they are - use a modifier for a good role-play.

The problem with (1) is that it handicaps players who aren't as charming or quick-witted. While RPGs are essentially talking games, it seems to trample on the imagination of the shy young boy who really wants to play a commander of armies or a dashing bard.

The problem with (2) is that the typical modifier is so small that the real result is determined by the roll of the die. In other words, it breaks immersion to rely on chance, trampling on the abilities of charming and quick-witted players.

Steven Peterson's .pdf "Skill Focus" is ingenuis. He creates neat tricks for the interaction skills that empower the player to portray that sort of character.
Thus, the dull/over-worked/prosaic player gains tricks he can use to convincingly portray his PC's high-ranked interaction skills, while the charming quick-witted player can rely on his talents but won't get the extra help unless he's also invested ranks in interaction skills.

Also, the pdf includes guidelines for "using" NPC interaction skills with PCs. I really think this overlooked .pdf has great potential for resolving this argument (and inspiring some other areas where the same logic can be applied) - they should positively become core rules for any campaign using social skills!

Now, I'll agree that Sense Motive should not be able to detect lie. Instead it should do just what the name says - sense motivation (e.g. "He says he's just interested in helping the princess, but it's clear to you that greed is in his eyes").

 

[Oscaron]

Roll the intimidate check first, and if its good, describe the encounter in an intimidating manner. Mention he seems stronger than the party, his eyes flash with arcane might, etc. This way the players will react more the way they should.

One of our in-house for Intimidate was to use Highest of Str or Cha and give a bonus if the lower was fairly high too for the combo punch. (Able to crack knuckles AND leer effectively). In other words a (finger quotes) stat synergy (end finger quotes).

For PC Intimidation, GM would assign a negative to combat or skills while intimidated depending on how badly the PC failed a score. He might even feed the PC's false info based upon their 'fear'.

The Ogre Chieftain spins away from his dinner table and towers above you. He cruches what looks to be the bloody remains of a human hand between his teeth and gulps it down noisily"....*blah blah*....(combat ensues, and the char misses twice)..."You just cannot seem to hit him. Your blows fly true only to be deflected at the last second. The Chieftains armor MUST be carrying some sort of enchantment".​

In this case, the Chieftain's intimidation causes the PC to doubt their chances and causes real concern on the part of the player. Fighter can miss shots, Wiz and Priests can fizzle spells, etc.

We have seen encounters with NPCs with very good intimidation descend in a chaotic rout.

A successful Bluff/Intimidate by the NPC had most of our party convinced they were seeing may snipers on a ridge above us when there was 1. Our DM got so into the description that the only player who made the checks was being told by the rest of the party that he must be missing his Spot checks

Osc

 

[Klaus]

So, for example, we shouldn't give a bonus if the player says he's taking a running jump rather than a standing broad jump? Nor, I assume, we should apply a penalty if the player says he is jumping while carrying a heavy load?

What you say, for social skills, is the analogue to the physical conditions that a phsyical skill check is made in. Nothing more; nothing less.

RC

Not an accurate comparison at all.

Saying "I make a running jump" or "I make a standing jump" is akin to saying "I bluff the guard" or "I bluff the guardpost sergeant". You're stating your action.

I've seen far too many "roleplayers" (notice the quotation marks) that describe their combat maneuvers, trying to eke out an attack roll modifier based on that. That to me is powergaming, just a different sort.

The basic reward for roleplaying you character is the bonus XP for roleplaying, not roll modifiers.

As for NPCs using social skills of PCs, the DM should state what the NPC conveys, and the players are free to act as they will (but gain bonus XP for roleplaying according to what the DM conveys). For instance:

Bluff - He appears to be telling the truth; or He believes what he's telling you.

Diplomacy - He makes his point in a quite convincing manner; or He seems to ease the tension a bit.

Sense Motive - There's no indication that he's saying anything other then the truth.

Y'know, stuff...

 

[Hussar]

So, for example, we shouldn't give a bonus if the player says he's taking a running jump rather than a standing broad jump? Nor, I assume, we should apply a penalty if the player says he is jumping while carrying a heavy load?

What you say, for social skills, is the analogue to the physical conditions that a phsyical skill check is made in. Nothing more; nothing less.

RC

Mostly what Klaus said with a few additions.

A standing or running jump has a quantifiable difference though hardwired into the rules. They are actually two separate actions, although lumped in under the same skill. A standing jump or a running jump would be analogous to using a longsword or using a bow. Both are attacks, but use slightly different rules for determining success or failure.

Now, if the player said he was going to attempt a two and a half twist over the pit, that might be a bit different.

The same is true for carrying a heavy load. The player doesn't actually say that. Either he is or he isn't. His opinion of the situation is irrelavent. Its based on his strength score and how much he is actually carrying.

I can claim that my character is this erudite speaker with the voice of an angel, but, if I have a 6 cha and no ranks in diplomacy, it doesn't matter. I've seen far too many people ignore their character sheets in order to "role play". Sorry, if your character has an 8 int, and a 10 cha, you are not speaking in gramatically correct sentences with polysyllabic words. That's not role play.

Like I said upthread and in my sig, the dice provide the direction, you provide the script.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can claim that my character is this erudite speaker with the voice of an angel, but, if I have a 6 cha and no ranks in diplomacy, it doesn't matter. I've seen far too many people ignore their character sheets in order to "role play". Sorry, if your character has an 8 int, and a 10 cha, you are not speaking in gramatically correct sentences with polysyllabic words. That's not role play.

When things are physically quantifiable, it is far easy to determine static bonuses which should be applied to an action. For example, it is easy to see the phsycial effects of a running head start on a jump, and it is easy to quantify in game terms (although most game worlds seem to have a much lower gravity than ours -- especially when falling damage is also taken into account!). So, it is easy to see that weilding an axe or a sword might be different. It is not, of course, always as easy to agree as to how they should be different. There are arguments on these topics that were in full force when I started on the Holmes blue box. There will be arguments on this topic when I am dead and gone.

This social skill argument is very simular, IMHO, to the Search argument that I particpated in a while back. Do the PCs tell you where they search, or do they just make the check? If they specifically state that they are looking under the cushion where the wand is hidden, shouldn't that give them enough bonus to make the check automatically? If you know something is hidden in the fireplace, and they specifically look there, shouldn't there be some form of bonus?

Others will claim that saying "I bluff the guard" is akin to saying "I search the room" or "I search the fireplace". You're stating your action. All well and good, but the DC for the hidden object is based upon your searching an area, not the fireplace specifically. There ought to be a bonus.

Again, let us say that you want to bluff the guard. What are you doing out at night after curfew? Surely, if you can think of a plausible excuse ("I was summoned to the bedside of my dying mother!") your chances of success are higher. You might even get a potentially unwanted escort. Another character, quite skilled in bluffing, might get away with hemming and hawwing yet convince the guards that she's harmless, will return to her inn room, and won't do it again without saying as much.

Surely it is obvious that any attempt at bribery is modified based upon the bribe, and the perceived means of the briber to deliver. Equally obviously, any attempt at threatening someone is based upon the threat and the perceived means to deliver.

Real diplomacy requires a give-and-take. You are making a situation ease because it becomes mutually beneficial. Party A provides Party B with X, in exchange for which Party B provides Party A with Y. Could be the goblins need help with the kobolds in exchange for safe passage. Could be a lot of things. In the case of a successful roll, the DM should provide an IF/THEN: "After talking to the goblins for a few minutes, you realize that they are having problems with kobolds. IF you help them, THEN they will give you free passage."

Is it harder the quantify social interaction than it is to quantify physics? Obviously so. Does that mean that no attempt should be made? Not in any game that I am playing. If you have a Charisma of 6 and no ranks in diplomacy, you might want to speak like an angel, but you're very likely to garble the attempt. Likewise, a socially inept player who tries to actually come up with something to sway the other party in a Diplomacy check is going to get a bonus to that roll. If the PC has a good Diplomacy score, he's more likely to succeed, sure, just as characters with a good Jump score are.

In other words, what the player says goes through the character filter. It won't take long for the socially clever player to realize that his ideas work better if presented by a socially clever character. But neither will it take long for the player of the socially clever character to realize that best results come with some effort -- in fact, this is explicit in my house rules.

I've seen far too many "roleplayers" (notice the quotation marks) that describe their combat maneuvers, trying to eke out an attack roll modifier based on that. That to me is powergaming, just a different sort.

Sure is, but that's not what we're talking about here. In fact, D&D 3.X contains a whole slew of feats to describe your combat maneuvers. There are systems that do the same for social interactions. In those systems, when you've lost, you've lost.

In the "roll & go" school of thought, why don't the NPCs get to "roll & go" against the PCs? "Sorry, you can't attack the BBEG. Turns out, you're quite friendly to him. Helpful even. He explains quite clearly why those orphans have to die, and why you have to do it, and you believe him." Sure.

So, on one hand, we want to treat social interaction like combat -- you just roll. OTOH, we don't want to treat social interaction like combat -- no threshold over which you "die"; i.e., you lose the argument, you are convinced, and the character does what he is convinced of despite what the player may think. I mean, really, do you let your PCs decide whether or not they die at -10 hit points on a case-by-case basis?

What we are really talking about is gaining the benefit of just rolling, without having to put in any effort, without having the same apply to you, and without having the consequences of failing -- unless you force PCs to go along with failed Sense Motive checks no matter how suspicious the players.

So, while I say that "what you say" is the closest analogue to the conditions of a physical skill check, I will agree that it is not a perfect analogue. Certainly, physical skill checks don't have the same inherent hypocracy.

RC

 

[BeauNiddle]

#Quote about about rangers choosing favoured enemy#

Sidenote: If a player has the power to fight orcs then he has voted for there to be orcs in the game. A decent GM will chuck in orcs. Likewise a GM can tell players "This is going to be an orc-fighting game, make the preperations you need". Doesn't always have to be so cloak and dagger.

#Quote about the use of social skills#

This can only happen if the player suddenly levels up or brings in a new character to gain a skill where it wasn't there before. Look at the character sheets before the game and go "So who's got what skills here?". Design the adventure for those skills to come in handy.

This needs repeating.

Many many times.

If I take the effort to spend skill points in an ability I'd like to actually use that ability. Nobody is asking for the DM to throw the adventure away and just declare 'You win' just because I roll a dice but I am asking the DM to put me in the limelight (for a while at least).

I've DMed modules and they invariably come with loads of background information. Lots of dungeons have thematic choices in them (monster X lives next to monster Y because ...) Allow us to see this information. Whenever I DMed there was always so much more information the players could have picked up on - the social skills IMO allow easier access to this. Maybe you're a better DM or your players are more through and they never leave information unfound but for me having extra avenues to give players BACKGROUND information was a godsend.

However I'm biased after a WFRP game where my (randomly rolled) character's only skill was diplomacy and yet the DM seemed to treat conversations like those early computer adventure games where you had to get the EXACT verb noun structure to unlock the next conversation piece.


N.B. I allowed my players to use intimidate in a 'threaten' maneauvre. The threaten the target with physical force, use their STR not CHA modifier, and then they see if the target complies. The downside to this method was that the target invariably went looking for the biggest toughest guard the instant the PCs turned their backs. It was useful for getting people to back off and leave them alone but did mean they had to leave a few places pretty sharpish