My Beef with Social Skills

[Ridley's Cohort]

If the 3e skills system gets criticized for both taking RPing out of the players' hands too much and not taking RPing out of the players' hands enough in the very same thread, then the mechanics must be doing something right.

My experience is the opposite of the OP. These skills all work well for us.

If the DM is too busy or too lazy to do the work required to make the Gather Information skill function properly in his game, then just let the players know not to spend points on that skill. It is not really a big deal.

IMNSHO there exist reasonable interpretations of the RAW for the social skills that will work in 99% of the campaigns out there. The group should simply choose to interpret the skills and emphasize their usage in a way that works for their campaign. This is not rocket science.

 

[Hussar]

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?

I disagreed with you then as well.

No, they shouldn't get any sort of bonus. Why? Because the search skill specifically states that it searches a 5 foot square area. If they want to search the room, they have to search each 5 foot square. Now, with obvious features like the fireplace, it's fair to assume they would take extra care examining it - ie. take 20 on their search check with any obvious feature and take 10 for everything else.

In a way, I suppose, they are getting a bonus that way, since they are taking 20, not actually rolling, but, the DC doesn't change, nor do they gain any extra bonuses to their check. "I specifically search the fireplace" = Take 20 to me. If the DM asked me to roll, that would be my automatic answer as well.

Now, Klaus' example of targetting the youngest looking guard has merit as well. Assuming he's less experienced, his sense motive skill would be lower. So, in a way, the DC is reduced, but, not because of anything the player said. The DC is lower because the target is easier, not because I said anything special or made any sort of better arguement.

Two players trying to bluff the same person should face the same difficulties, regardless of their personal abilities to role play.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The mentioned skills arent a bad thing.

The noted skills are not a bad thing. While they can cause what would be a role playing heavy encounter to be circumvented, they also allow the players some measure of control over what would otherwise be a DM call. The skills you list can often be used to try to circumvent a
DM who has decided to road block an action. (Railroading is forcing the players to do something, road blocking is declaring the players unable to do something).

Consider this situation. One of the player characters is trying to role play a ladies man, and uses the Diplomacy skill to try to get women to do what he wants when they are otherwise predisposed not to. Now, at some point during an adventure, lets say the player gets it into his head to try to seduce an NPC to get the NPC to do something for that player that would be inconvenient to the adventure.

Without these skills, no matter what the player says, the DM can just role play the NPC in such a way that they are totally unreceptive. But using a diplomacy roll, the player can make the DM reconsider the action by hitting a roll that should indicate some measure of success.

You should also consider that the uses for Diplomacy, Bluff, Forgery, Gather Information, and other social skills are more dependant on the ways the players choose to use them. As a player, the Changeling Rogue (Eberron campaign) that I am playing right now is able to put these social skills to some very intresting use. I cannot use them to have any real effect on NPC's who are important to the plot. But I can use those skills to do some very intresting things with minor NPC's.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Hussar]

Something I would point out with the skills as well. There is nothing stopping the other characters from "aiding another" when it comes to these skills. Now, you can involve the entire table instead of one player just talking to the DM.

Take Intimidate for a second. Assuming the four PC party is trying to intimidate that captive into doing something, wouldn't it make more sense for one guy to do the rolling while the other three aid another? Nothing like a +6 on your score to overcome that bit of recalcitrance. Got a familiar? Get him in on the act. I dunno about you, but a snake can be pretty darn scary. The druid's wolf can likely help out as well.

Like Zardoz said, the players can use the rules to get the results they want. And I think that that, more than anything, raises some DM's hackles.

 

[Harmon]

Social skills ante me.

However I try once in a while to play a social character and I suck at it, but sometimes I have to- Brottor Redstone comes to mind, Cleric of Barronor Truesilver, one in a thousand of BT because he's a male. His tone is calm, patient, considerate, and he is always taking 10 on his maxed out Diplomacy skill no matter whom he is speaking (bar maid, party member, etc). He has yet to attempt to sway a villian because so many of them that he has seen are just utterly evil and he wants them.... well, not around (though he dislikes killing).

Consider that as I further explain that I speak as calmly and patiently as I can, so that I can make certain that the Players understand that I am not speaking as my other character- Grayson (whom is as anti socially skilled as you can get).

Brottor it seems annoyed a Player, I think because I was misunderstood. I lack the social graces that the 17 Cha Dwarf has, so I had to explain that there was a misunderstanding and that Brottor had said X when they understood Y was implied.

How does all this help those Players like myself that can't smile at someone without getting a nasty comeback as though I had cussed out someone's mother?

Oh, and just so this is not misunderstood, I am truly curious and not being condesending or cruel or anything like that.

 

[Steverooo]

Most spells are written in a manner so explicit as to border on over-kill so that we will know exactly how they work, and by and large they are carefully considered to make sure they are appropriately powerful for their level. Going from 3.0 to 3.5, I would guess that more spells changed schools than received a serious overhaul because they were over or underpowered. On the other hand, the social skills were not much changed at all. Innuendo got shunted into Bluff, the NPC reaction table was placed in the PHB with Diplomacy so players could make more informed decisions about the skill, and that's about it. We didn't get anything about how to better set up Gather Information tables, like someone very generously displayed above, no revision to Diplomacy's many faults, and not so much as a sidebar about how to handle the gap between social skill check results and player meta-gaming, which I got for the asking here and in abundance.

Yes, part of the problem is the different "styles" of roleplaying. I agree with the poster, above, who stated that how he handled the skills varied by how the PLAYER wanted to play. EXCELLENT! A friend of mine, who goes by NYRickGrant, on these boards, wrote an article on "Threads", which is archived in the "Better Gaming Through Chemistry" thread, in the Archives forum, in which his point is: "Let the players have the adventure that they want." So, if your PLAYER wants to be a silver-tongued devil, and has no real-world skill at it, just let him roll Bluff/Diplomacy, and have it cover thinking up what to say, as well. If another PLAYER prefers to roleplay without rolling, go for it! You can do BOTH, as long as the PLAYERS understand why the PCs are being treated differently (and are OK with it)!

Since the Information Gathering table was positively received, perhaps a few "skill Hints" might be, also. (I'll post some, and we'll see).

First, a couple of people have said that the Diplomacy DCs are too low... I DISAGREE! It is not a class skill for everyone, and the poor, unskilled PCs need to be accounted for! (My poor Ranger doesn't have a Rank of Diplomacy, but he is always in there, trying to wring answers from the stingy Universe!)

The point, here, is to consider the DCs of your tasks when creating the adventure... You wouldn't put a Huge, Ancient Red Dragon into a first-level adventure (at least not as a combat opponent!), as its AC & Hit Points are too high. The PCs couldn't hit it!

Likewise, skills are limited to 1D20 + Level + 3, as a maximum... and THAT'S assuming that the PCs have that skill as a class skill, and it is maxed out! This will not always be the case! Hence, as someone else already said, consider your PCs' skills (ans skill levels!) when you are DESIGNING the adventure! Too high a DC on tasks means certain defeat, just as much as Huge, Ancient Red Dragons at first level!

Now with that out of the way, if the PCs are trying to sneak into the castle, and attempting to fast-talk the guards, let's do some design & development on this-here adventure...

To convince the guard that you're the King: Bluff + CHA. Impossible++. GM: The guards aren't stupid, and they have all SEEN the King, at one point or another throughout their careers. They know the PCs aren't him, unless magically disguised!

This is what I call a "Task Statement". The first part is what is to be accomplished, the second part lists the "Assets" that are added to the task, the third part lists the DC required to accomplish it, and the last part lists notes for the GM. In some tasks, there is also a "Type", such as "Hasty", or "Teamwork".

Now in this example, trying to convince the castle guards that you're the King (without magical help) is just plain stupid, isn't it? (Sure seems that way to me, Gilligan!) So, rather than set a DC, I just (as someone called it) "Roadblock" this lie. Lie as silvery-tongued as you can, no NPC is going to disbelieve his senses, and bow to you...

To convince the youngest guardsman that you have been summoned to the palace: Bluff + CHA. DC:15. GM: This task will be Impossible, unless the PCs can speak with him, alone (as the other guards will straighten him out). If caught alone, PCs may attempt this task.

Here, you can adjust the DC to the appropriate level for the PCs. If they are all unskilled in Bluff, with average +2 CHA, and first level, DC:15 may be tough. If they are 10th, it may be too easy, especially for the Bard.

For Eredave to convince the guards that he is going to see the palace Herbalist about new healing plants, just discovered: (Restricted). Bluff + CHA. DC:15. GM: Eredave, being known to the guards as a Master Herbalist, is the only PC who can attempt this task. Allow a +2 ircumstance Modifier for a Healer's Kit, and an additional +2 for some plant unknown to the guards (who have no Knowledge (Nature) skill, anyway).

In this case, the task is restricted, as only a PC known to be a Master Herbalist will be believable to the guards to have found new healing plants worthy of the palace Herbalist's time.

To sneak into the palace using Alter Self to appear as the King: Disguise + CHA. DC:25. GM: A +10 bonus is granted by the spell, but the guards are also intimately familiar with the King's voice, so unless the PCs have the ability to disguise their voice, this task is unlikely to succeed without further subterfuge.

Here's another sample sneak task. In this one, the PCs use magic to fool the guards.

The GM can generate all manner of taks, based upon the tactics that he thinks the PCs will use (based upon his knowledge of the players' past actions). The GM can set the DCs, as needed.

Also, let's talk a bit about lieing... I can tell you that the sky is not blue, but if you can see it, despite how silver=tongued I am, are you going to believe me, even for a short time? No, obviously not! And note, here, that Bluff is the "fast-talk" skill of D&D. It lasts for about a minute, at most, in most cases. When you have a spare minute to stop and think, you CAN realize that that dirty, wrotten used-chariot saleman just sold you a lemon!

Also, just because you tell me a great lie, it doesn't mean that you can convince me to do something suicidal. Not even Suggestion can do that! Even Dominate Person gets TWO saves, for that! And they're MAGIC!

So, just because you fast-talk the Princess, really well, doesn't mean that you can charm her right out of her chastity-belt, when she's a devout Catholic or Christian, or What-not, and the peace of the Kingdom depends upon her producing a royal hear (as opposed to your PCs' heir)! The DC for that task may be Impossible, or merely 34. In either case, your Bluff or Diplomacy may not be enough.

My point, here, is that the DCs to fast-talk or convince an NPC, via Bluff or Diplomacy, may vary depending upon the person, and the argument used... In this case, the PCs can't convince the Princess to go against her training, morals, and the interests of the Kingdom, and lie with (one of) them. In a similar case, the evil villian can't convince the PCs that the orphans have to be sacrificed. The DC is just Impossible!

Other things, you might be able to convince someone to do... Most NPCs will not be convinced to suicide, no matter how well the PCs roll. One poor, depressed individual, though, might be, at DC:25+.

You want to convince the King to abdicate? HA! Good luck with that! You have done him a favor? And have good reason? Okay, DC:50+. Your skill's too low? Oh well! Wait, now you have something to blackmail him with? Okay, DC:35, but if you fail, he CAN have you assassinated!

So, let's say that we have an adventure, wherein a long-lost Relic needs recovery, and the PCs need information. They believe that a Half-Orc named Lakotas has a clue, and want to get it out of him... They could try to gather information, but since he's the only source, that's pretty useless, and they learn nothing. Now they can try to fast-talk the info out of him, or convinc him to give it up.

Old Lakotas is an Orky sort, CE, hates Paladins & Elves, and doesn't much like anybody else. Typical! The PCs try Gather Info, to no avail. He takes their drinks, but tells them diddly-squat. Then Eredave, the Elf, tries to use Diplomacy on him... The GM doesn't even ask for a roll, because he already knows that Lakotas doesn't like Elves or Paladins. Eredave rolls well, and Lakotas shifts from Hostile to Neutral, but still, there's no way he'd tell a stinking ELF where the Spear of Darkness is hidden (even if this one seems okay).

Next, Ernie the Paladin tries, and shifts him over to friendly with a natural 20+, but Lakotas still isn't going to tell a Paladin anything, either! Groggor the Dwarf chases the two "problems" out, and starts fast-talking the Half-Orc. The GM sees that Lakotas has no especial feelings about Dwarves, but the DC for getting the info is set at 29. Since they're already friendly, and both Barbarians, the GM awards a +2 Circumstance Modifier on the roll... as long as Groggor has at least a +7 on his Diplomacy roll (from skill or magic), he at least has a chance to convince the Half-Orc to tell him what he needs to know!

That's just an example of how the GM can handle "Social Situations". With the consent of the players, you can even come up with similar "Tasks" for the NPCs to attempt vs. the PCs. No, Lakotas can't convince Ernie & Eredave to burn the orphanage, because their PLAYERS see that as being outside their alignments... but CN Groggor might be convinced that it would be FUN, based upon Lakotas' Bluff or Diplomacy! The Player & GM agree upon a DC, the GM rolls for Lakotas, and, if he succeeds, Groggor has been (Fast?) talked into it, despite what the other PCs will think!

Remembering that different PCs have different Convictions, Needs, Wants, and Preferences, and setting the DCs as appropriate to the arguements presented, can pretty much take all the "problems" out of "Social Skills". If anything needs throwing out, it isn't the skills, but the DCs listed under Bluff! Ask yourself if any sane individual could believe the arguement(s) being made, and if the answer is "Yes!", set a DC (erring on the high side, when in doubt), and let'em roll!

 

[Quickleaf]

I've had some similiar concerns before about some of these myself...here is how I dealt with them:

Thanatos, some really great ideas! I'm definitely going to start making Diplomacy and Sense Motive optional as you described, with the results of any check binding to the player.

Also, your point about Diplomacy not being a scott-free walk is well received. Too many people assume that there's only one shade of "indifferent" or "helpful".

It's all in how you apply their usage.

Exactly.

How does all this help those Players like myself that can't smile at someone without getting a nasty comeback as though I had cussed out someone's mother?

Hey Harmon, did you check out any of the links that I provided in this thread, which are specifically designed to help poor players like you?

 

[Banshee16]

I tend to disagree with the OP. I think that the skills serve as a good way of simulating a character's abilities, and separating them from the *player's* abilities. Most players don't have 18 INT scores, and master diplomacy skills. But a character might. Just as most players are not lethal warriors, but their characters may be.

For every statement about a carefully planned encounter being ruined by a lucky diplomacy roll, I'm sure a DM could provide another example where a well-planned encounter or NPC was ruined by a lethal fighter in the party, who butchered an NPC at the wrong time, or killed him despite the fact that you've spent several sessions setting him up to be a recurring villain, or whatever.

And with respect to party warriors being upset because the bard used diplomacy to neutralize possible combat encounters, well...where's the love for the bard? Here's a character who is built *as* a diplomat....you could wonder how the bard's player feels about the party tank who keeps slaughtering every NPC the bard was built to be able to deal with diplomatically in the game.

I think a well-built game should have the option for characters to resolve actions and encounters through social skills, combat skills, or magic. As such, it wouldn't be fair if there were rules to resolve actions of 2 of the 3 types, but not the third. There must be rules for all 3.

Now, if someone wanted to say that the diplomacy rules aren't well-balanced against combat rules, or combat vs. magic, well, then, I think that's a better argument.

Banshee