Social Skills: Are they necessary.

[Water Bob]

I'm just wondering if people think it is necessary or not for a good tabletop rpg to feature social stats and skills i.e. Charisma, Diplomacy, Intimidate. I'm currently trying to make my own game as a challenge to myself and was wondering what the ENworld Community's opinion was.

IMO, it totally depends on the GM, the group, and the type of game they enjoy. People who just want to get into the action, find treasure, gain XP, and kill the draggy are sometimes not interested in those skills. Those fighters look at CHA and WIS and their "dump" stats, where they put their low scores (unless CHA is important to them as a prerequisite for some Feat or Combat Maneuver, like Feint).





Then there are the roleplayers. My group loves action, don't get me wrong. There's nothing like an awesome combat encounter. But, my group can also spend entire sessions in a town, just roleplaying at the inn or with the trader or smith--or maybe when buying a horse. Our last two game sessions were like that, and we definitely made throws using the "social" skills.

One of my players has aspirations of uniting the clans (It's a Barbarian themed game...even here, social skills are important), and he keeps his Diplomacy skill maxed out.

So, my answer: It depends on the group and what type of encounters they enjoy.

The only reason I was thinking about was making social encounters come down to actual roleplaying instead of dice rolls, but I know that also could negatively affect some players.

It's true that, with dice rolls, it's easy for GM's to forget roleplaying and completely let the dice decide everything.

I might do that from time to time. Let's say that the PC group decides that they want to send one character, maybe it's an NPC, to another clan to convince them to send warriors to help the PC do whatever it is that they're doing atm.

Now, this could be the "focus" of the game, and if it is, I'll focus the game on the trials and tribulations of the PCs who went to convince the other clan to send people.

But...let's say that's not the focus of the game. Let's say that I want to keep the game focussed on the main PCs who are about to face overwhelming odds.

All I want to do with the NPC (or even the PC) who left to go try and bring in the cavalry is wait an appropiate amount of time then make a roll to see if they were successful.





The encounter might play out like this:

1. The PCs are worried. There's a lot of bad guys out there. Can we afford to send someone? Yes. We must. Let's send the NPC henchman.

2. I say the henchman leaves--a runner on a journey to convince a rival clan to come help them. But, I keep the action focussed on the PC party. What preparations are you making for the imminent attack?

3. The attack happens. The PCs are taking a beating. Hey, GM! How's that runner doing? Is he back yet? Do we have an answer? Nope. Not yet.

4. A breather in between attacks. Man, we sure could use that runner returning with some help. How'd he do with them? You don't know. He hasn't returned. No sign of him.

5. The bad guys attack again. The first attack was just a probe. This is an all-out assault. The players are starting to feel like the GM is going to massacre them with all the NPC foes fighting them. Where's that fu-blank-ing runner! We need him NOW, or there's not going to be anybody left to miss him. He's not back. HE'S NOT BACK YET? HOLY (CENSORED)!.

6. It's a last ditch effort. The PCs have no hope. They're doing everything they can, but there are just too many bad guys out there. GM says: OK, let's see how the runner did. Roll his Diplomacy skill. It's tough task to convince the other clan to come, so he needs a 15 or better.

7. The roll is successful! YESSSSS!!! OK, you see a banner on a spear cross the ridge behind you...now, there are horses, with men on them, as far as the eye can see. Your runner rolled a natural 20 on the Diplomacy check, so he didn't only get the clan you sent him to get, he was able to convince their ally clan two. You've got two clan's worth of allies now! Let's continue the battle!





You see, there is a place for social dicing.





And, I use dicing to help me roll play as well. Last game session, yesterday, the PC's had a foe they had captured tied up to a pole in the pig pen. They were trying to interrogate him. I had already decided that this NPC would be very tight lipped when he was captured, but the players were quite good and roleplaying the interrogation of him.

Because of their roleplay, I decided to make a check to see if this dude would crack. I asked the players who was doing the most roleplaying with the foe what his Interrogate skill was. Then, I allowed a bonus from the second PC that was there, using the Aid Another rule. Then, I threw in another bonus for the "scare" methods the players were using.

This, I rolled as an Opposed Roll against the NPC's WILpower. Or, in other words, the number that was thrown on the Interrogate skill became a DC that the NPC had to be as a WIL save.

Well, the NPC beat it, rolling a total of 21!

No matter what they did to him, that NPC wasn't going to open his mouth.

And, these two checks--the Interrogate and the WIL save--I rolled behind the screen. I didn't want the players knowing anything about the throws. I would roleplay the results.

It was a pretty fun encounter. But, here is another example of how I use dice rolls with roleplaying.

At first, the character were not going to even get a throw. It was an entirely roleplayed encounter. I didn't decide to bring out the dice until I saw that the players where both being persistent and pretty creative in their interrogation of the bad guy. Because of their roleplay, I decided that they earned a throw.

And, the throw didn't really decide things. It just gave me a clue about how to play the NPC. Was he giving in to the PC's techniques? Or, did he have what it took to withstand what they were doing?

The dice decided that part, and I just roleplayed the result with the NPC.

The players could have continued and maybe have earned a new throw. But, they became convinced that the NPC wasn't talking, and they were all honor-bound not to mess up the prisoner too much as he was do to fight for his life the next day in the arena.







Point of this long post? There are times when I think it's appropriate to just let the dice decide a social interaction and be done with it. And, there are times when roleplay is king, but I use the dice to help guide the roleplaying encounter.

So my answer to the OP: Yes, those skills are important, probably more to roleplayers than to people only interested in a Combat driven game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you don't have social skills, it might be an idea to go the whole hog and remove Int, Wis and Cha, or anything resembling them. The intellect and social skills of the PC become equal to those of the player. This avoids the problem of conflict when PC stats and player ability are not equal.

 

[S'mon]

I'm fine with games where social interaction is resolved through roleplaying in character, with no dice rolling. I don't see any great need for social-interaction skills, and they can sometimes be actively harmful to roleplaying. They also limit character concepts; eg in 3e especially it was almost impossible to create a Fighter with good diplomatic skills.

 

[RedTonic]

3.5e/d20 are the only systems I've played where the characters' social skills are determined mechanically and the outcome of any matchup is determined largely by dice rolls. I've been lucky to play with a lot of gifted RPers, so this hasn't often been an issue. The thing to consider is, as others have pointed out, your audience. If this is supposed to be a product for everyobody, then including a simple mechanic for resolving social situations without relying on an individual players' social skills would be useful. You don't have to make it as granular as D&D has; your skill could simply be "Social," with the 'method' (suave, witty, threatening, etc.) determined by the player, with bonuses assigned to the particular characters' talents (you're trained to interrogate? +2 to interrogations. You're a bouncer? +2 to intimidation), etc. This could easily be resolved with just opposed d6s, IMO.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think MichaelSomething hit the nail on the head; or at least my opinion is in accord. To explain further:
- I think there is a definite line in the sand that should be drawn between when you roll for a social encounter and when you play it out.

There are some situations where you as the DM/GM don't wish to "bog" the game down in "trivial" encounters. For these trivial encounters, there needs to be a simple mechanic to resolve them. However, what is interesting is what is defined as trivial - or actually, what we really want is what is defined as non-trivial. In that way, if either the DM/GM on one side of the screen or the players on the other believes a social encounter to be "non-trivial", then it must be played out. Thus, the expectation should be that the encounter is to be played out unless the DM/GM indicates otherwise; and then it is quickly resolved with a roll.

That's my preference anyway.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you are designing a new game then think about the core goals and activities of that game. Are social situations a focal point for the game? If not then perhaps a simple stat or two along with some roleplaying can handle these parts of the game when they come up.

If social maneuvering is central to the game, then perhaps a more in-depth treatment of the subject should be thought about.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I'm just wondering if people think it is necessary or not for a good tabletop rpg to feature social stats and skills i.e. Charisma, Diplomacy, Intimidate. I'm currently trying to make my own game as a challenge to myself and was wondering what the ENworld Community's opinion was.

Are social skills necessary? No, but neither are any of the other rules.

Are they necessary for a good tabletop RPG? Absolutely. The role of a character may include great social skill, something that some (very many) players lack.

You don't require them to speak in precise, technical detail about their combat actions, let alone act them out (this isn't LARP). Why would a game demand that they speak in precise technical detail about their non-combat actions, or even act them out completely? Sure, they are free to do so, and should probably get a circumstance bonus for doing so well, but it shouldn't be required, any more than players are required to be sharpshooters or fencing experts to play combat characters.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Social Skills: Are they necessary?

Obviously not. Look at [Insert a random name from your Ignore List here]: he/she/it doesn't have good social skills and is still able to type, troll, and insult with ease.

 

[Water Bob]

I'd actually like to see more social interaction rules. You don't see them very often in RPGs. As with 3.5E, they're there, but you don't really see any supplements (or even chapters) in sourcebooks that focus on that sort of thing.

I think it would be neat to see some suggested mechanics for social tasks make it into the game. There's a start with using Bluff for the Feint in combat and the Demoralize Foe option of the Intimidate skill. But, I'd like to see more.

For example, if you're looking at some mass combat rules, there should be a quick roll one could make for a "fire 'em up Braveheart type speech" that the commander could make to the troops before entering battle. His roll would determine what modifier the troops used in the fight. Maybe it's a bonus to the Morale checks to keep units from breaking. Maybe it's an overall +1 to attack that every man in the unit gets at the start of combat. Whatever it is, it is something tangible--a modifier--so that players will desire it and think that building up that skill in their commanders is not a waste of skill points.



Think of what something like this would for Bard type characters (or even the character considered the group leader) in a regular roleplaying situation. Just like a Bless or Protection From Evil spell, the group leader (if there is one) could make a quick pep talk to the other PCs in the group, make a roll, then give each of them some type of bonus (if the roll was successful) before entering into the fray.

This could be a bandit leader egging his men on with dreams of loot that will make the entire band comfortable for the rest of their lives. It could be a cleric, down on one knee, praying to his god to look out for the flock as they enter into this next endeavor (i.e. The Bless spell). Or, it could even be a normal, everyday adventurer saying a few kind and encouraging words to the rest of the group before entering the next dungeon.



Social interaction rules could be set-up, too, for games that focus on Noble characters. Instead of the standard adventure types, this game focusses on the people who typically hire the adventurers for the quests that they do. Instead of standard combat, there would be similar rules for verbal combat between competing factions. The noble/High Cleric/King/whatever must first meet with an adventuring group. A roll is made to see if they accept the quest or not. If they do, that one part of the plan completed. Then, the noble must convince the Duke of so-in-so that blah, blah, blah is needed before the adventure group returns with the Awesome Magic Item. So, that is verbal combat.

A quick roll determines if the Adventure Group returns with the Awesome Magic Item, but the focus of the game is political maneuvering, backstabbing, and dealings of the noble at court or in the city.

That type of game might be quite fun and a change of pace for your typical players who spend every game session exploring the next dungeon.



There's a lot of interesting game situations to explore with social interactions--and to this point, most games don't exploit that area.

They also limit character concepts; eg in 3e especially it was almost impossible to create a Fighter with good diplomatic skills.

What? How do you figure?

You just have to value CHA when devloping your Fighter character. Maybe you take that stat that you were going to put into CON and instead put it into CHA.

A fighter needs his hit points, sure, but arranging beginning stats is about resource managent. If a player sees his Fighter type as a "Leader of Men", then CHA is an important stat to him. And, with 3E, there's even more reason to have a high CHA because of the Feint and Demoralize Opponent options of the Bluff and Intimidate skill--both real options that a fighter can use to get a mechanical benefit in melee.

It's definitely not "impossible" to create Fighter under 3E rules that is good at Diplomacy. You just have to value CHA and Diplomacy as much as you do STR, CON, and DEX. You put your highest roll into STR. You put your second highest roll in to CHA. Third highest goes into CON. And fourth highest into DEX, etc.

 

[NewJeffCT]

yes, the social skills and non-physical abilities need to be in the game. The skills are there to help players that might not be so skilled at bluffing, intimidating etc in real life, but want to play a character that can do that in game. The scrawny computer nerd who wants to play a Conan-like barbarian, or the shy & socially awkward actuary who wants to play a James Bond like spy, etc.

If my players had to rely on their own wits, wisdom & charisma in game, they'd never make it past the first adventure.