Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frum" data-source="post: 3016131" data-attributes="member: 6256">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.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:If you really think it deprives you of fun, then it is not the way to go. Just get rid of the skill.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.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 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: <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html" target="_blank">http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html</a>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.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.</blockquote>

Verification