Social Skills: Are they necessary.

[Umbran]

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.

Um, note that Diplomacy is not a class skill for fighters, and fighters don't get many skill points to begin with. And with that arrangement your Int score is your 5th priority, so not many extra points from that. I don't think you'll find the character actually all that good at Diplomacy in the long run.

I think the better answer is: guess what, D&D is a class-based game, and yes, staying pure in a class limits your options! Go figure!

There's a fault in creating the concept of , "a Fighter that is good at diplomacy". Fighters are, by definition, bad at diplomacy, but good at fighting. If you tie the concept to the class, of course you are going to be limited. If you decouple the concept from the class, and say instead, "A character who is better than average at fighting, and has some diplomatic ability", that is well within the ability of 3e or 4e to build.

 

[Water Bob]

Um, note that Diplomacy is not a class skill for fighters, and fighters don't get many skill points to begin with.

Ah, I see. I'm not that familiar with D&D, and I guess I assumed that it was as easy as it is in the Conan game, which I do play.

For the Barbarian class, in Conan, Diplomacy is not a class skill, either. But, it's easy to multi-class into a class that does have Diplomacy as a class skill, and any INT points gained by the INT modifier can be put into any skill as if the skill were a class skill.

But, I see your point and stand corrected.

 

[Water Bob]

@ The OP: Also note that a skill like Gather Information also plays a part in many people's games. Many times a GM might haver a rumor chart, with "better" or more detailed information higher on the chart. The higher the PC's Gather Information throw, the better or more detailed information he'll learn.

Again, there is the flexibility to play this quick: (Player) I go into town, hit a few of the inns, have a few drinks, and slide some coin around. I'm interested in work. Do I hear of any jobs available in this rinky-dink town?

(GM) Well....there's only one inn in this village, and I want you to take off 1d10 gold pieces for the money you spent. Roll your Gather Information skill, and let's see what he found out.



Or, the GM can turn this into a roleplaying encounter, secretly throw the PC's Gather Information skill and check the chart, knowing now what is possible for the character to find out. Then, the GM just roleplays the encounter, maybe returning to the chart to alter the result, up or down,w with a modifier based on the player's roleplay.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Diplomacy is not a class skill for Fighters in 3e.

 

[Croesus]

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.

I disagree with a "line in the sand" (different strokes for different folks and all that...), but I do agree that the more critical question is when do you use social skills, when do you use the players' RP skills, and how do you mix them in the game?

One extreme: every social encounter is resolved with a series of die rolls. IMO, might as well be playing a board game.

Other extreme: every social encounter is RP'd and only player ability matters (and GM adjudication of the results). As others have mentioned, makes it very hard for some players to play certain types of characters, and also leaves a lot up to GM fiat.

I'd prefer something in between. Some sort of resolution mechanics, with considerable guidance to prospective GM's on when to use the mechanics and when to encourage players to RP the scene.

Not sure where I read this, but I try to run games per the following:

“I further posit that the decision of what to codify with resolution mechanics and what to leave fuzzy is not based on some logical analysis of mediating factors, but on what the designers think is fun to roll dice for, and what they think is fun to improvise.”

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My personal middle ground: problem resolved by the dice; good RP gets you bonuses, bad RP does not hurt you.

And, FWIW, I don't have a problem if the Player has scripted the RP as long as it's good.

 

[S'mon]

If you decouple the concept from the class, and say instead, "A character who is better than average at fighting, and has some diplomatic ability", that is well within the ability of 3e or 4e to build.

Well, if my concept is "A noble warrior who's good at diplomacy", like Shakesperare's Henry V say, in core 3e I have to be a LG Paladin, or multiclass into Bard. It gets a bit better with PHB2 as I can play the Knight class, or multiclass Fighter/Knight.

4e is a lot better as I can probably take a Background which gives me Diplomacy as a class skill, & at worst I can burn a Feat to get Diplomacy. I don't have to worry about Skill Points, I get an automatic +.5/level. I might even play a non-LG Paladin if the Divine power source doesn't mess with my character concept. And putting points in CHA shouldn't hurt me as it raises my Will defense.

 

[Water Bob]

And putting points in CHA shouldn't hurt me as it raises my Will defense.

Also helps you in the Bluff/Feint, Intimidate/Demoralize Opponent departments, both skills that you can use during melee combat. Yes?

 

[Umbran]

Well, if my concept is "A noble warrior who's good at diplomacy", like Shakesperare's Henry V say, in core 3e I have to be a LG Paladin, or multiclass into Bard.

Or, you can multiclass into cleric, or rogue, which also get Diplomacy as a class skill. The Negotiator and Skill Focus feats can also assist.

 

[chaochou]

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.

What we're talking about really is conflict resolution. They blacksmith wants 75 for the axe, I want to pay 50. We have a conflict. What mechanism are we going to use to resolve it?

We could, for instance, just use what I say 'in character' as a player at the table. But that's ignoring whether I'm a king, a peasant, a shifty-looking one eyed half orc. It's ignoring whether I robbed that blacksmith at knifepoint yesterday. The moment you take those into account, you're creating a 'social mechanic' whether you're aware of it or not.

A lot of gamers talk about 'handwaving' such situations, but (ime) it's more complex than that. What I think happens is the GM has their own personal drama ("is this important to the story / what makes a good story?") or karma ("who has the advantage?") mechanic and applies that instead of dice.

The methodology you use if you design a game is up to you. Conflicts of any type can be handled by drama, karma or fortune or combinations. To design a 'good' rpg, I think the starting point is to know what you're using and what effect you're aiming to get from it.