Social Skills in 3.X

[Gnimish88]

Okay, something has been bothering me about how the social skill system works in 3.X.
As it stands, to use virtually any skill, you say what you want to do and roll the dice. For example, I try to Tumble past the orc or I am going to Craft a longsword. In theory, social skills would work he same way, as in I use Diplomacy on the Baron, or I try to Bluff the guard. Having played D&D since the days when these were covered by role-playing and the DM decided if you said the right things or not, I would find this rather unsatisfying. On the flip side, using only role-playing and GM discretion would screw social characters whose players may not have the real world equivalent of an 18 charisma and 10 ranks in Diplomacy and make skill points spent in such skills largely wasted. One way I have seen it done requires one to role-play what you want to say, then the GM deciding if it justifies a skill check. If you don’t role-play well enough, you don’t get a roll. However, good role-playing gives you no bonus, and a bad dice roll will still result in failure. I feel that this is about the worst of both worlds, since good role-playing and attention to detail is not rewarded. I would think that a system that gives a bonus to the check for good role-playing would work but have never tried it. Anyone else have any thoughts or solutions to this issue, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a complex subject. Resorting only on the skills and dice rolls penalizes the players with very good ideas themselves beside their own character; resorting only on roleplay penalizes the players which have done the strategic decision to einvest into their PC's charisma and related skills.

The best way to play it is to be found in between the two. Úse roleplay to solve some matters of having to found what to say exactly, otherwise use it in majority of situations to give good bonuses to the charisma-based rolls.

I always say to players that whether their PCs manage to win a "social challenge" depends on two things: what they say and how they say it. "What" has to be found out through roleplay, while "how" is decided by the dice.

E.g. you want to get past the guard, what do you tell him... that you have a message for the king (lie). Had you found a better lie (roleplay) should make the thing easy, however how your character says the lie (skill check) depends on his tone of voice and personality, not the player's. After all, a player who has a low charisma shouldn't be penalized to play a charismatic character just as a weak player has no penalties when playing a strong PC.

edit: to sum up, I meant that I have always used bonuses/penalties to the skill checks depending on the roleplay part, and I still think it's the best way to play it

 

[Otterscrubber]

IMC, we generally allow for role-playing to supersede dice rolling. If I am DM and a player comes up with a brilliant lie or strategy to bypass the guard (using the above example) I wont even roll dice, he just gets by. If the strategy is iffy or the lie has a decent chance of not being believed then we resort to the dice to represent that perhaps his rogue with 20 ranks in bluff might have thought of something else more clever. If the roleplay is really, really bad (like bordering on metagaming) then I would assign a penalty or worse case scenario just say it fails. I do expect the players to put in some kind of effort for social interaction after all.

 

[DarkMaster]

IMC, we generally allow for role-playing to supersede dice rolling. If I am DM and a player comes up with a brilliant lie or strategy to bypass the guard (using the above example) I wont even roll dice, he just gets by. If the strategy is iffy or the lie has a decent chance of not being believed then we resort to the dice to represent that perhaps his rogue with 20 ranks in bluff might have thought of something else more clever. If the roleplay is really, really bad (like bordering on metagaming) then I would assign a penalty or worse case scenario just say it fails. I do expect the players to put in some kind of effort for social interaction after all.

I think you should always roll dice, the lie might be excellent but the fighter with no social skill trying to fool the gard is sweating like pig and cannot find his word, the guard will suspect something wrong.

In the real world take a stand up comic. A stupid joke told by a profesionnal entertainer might get more results than a very good one told by somebody with no entertainement skills.

What I would do in the case of an excellent lie is I would add a modifier to the skill roll, but I would not give him/her automatic 20+ roll.

The social skills are not use to determine the content only the way the content is delivered, and that is something I found that was lacking in the previous edition.

 

[DarkMaster]

IMC, we generally allow for role-playing to supersede dice rolling. If I am DM and a player comes up with a brilliant lie or strategy to bypass the guard (using the above example) I wont even roll dice, he just gets by. If the strategy is iffy or the lie has a decent chance of not being believed then we resort to the dice to represent that perhaps his rogue with 20 ranks in bluff might have thought of something else more clever. If the roleplay is really, really bad (like bordering on metagaming) then I would assign a penalty or worse case scenario just say it fails. I do expect the players to put in some kind of effort for social interaction after all.

I also wanted to added like it is not easy to role play very well somebody with very high or very low INT,WIS,CHA same apply for social skills.

Do not either limit the PC by the player or vice versa. If your human player have the equivalent of 15 bluff but it's PC has only 2, then you will end up with this character having a virtual +13 skill points for free.

Same if you have a genious in your group that play a 7 int fighter.

 

[hong]

I have the player either say what the character is saying, or describe it. Based on that, they make either a Diplomacy, Intimidate or Bluff check to pull it off. Most of the PCs have at least one of these skills maxed out, or close to it, plus I'm fairly lax on "inappropriate" uses of a skill (eg trying to Intimidate a local lord). Mind you, IMC it tends to be rare for really critical outcomes to be decided this way.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

My players don't call for a roll. I call for the roll. The players keep talking until I do so.

PC: I approach the guard.

DM: The guard is a haggard-looking man with red-rimmed eyes. He gives you a questioning look.

PC: "Uh, hello there. Is this the Grimoult Manor? I have a message from Lady Kendra."

DM: Make a Bluff check.

I'll determine the appropriate skill and assign a circumstance modifier depending on what the PC says, but the bottom line is the skill check. I'm a kendo student. Should I get huge bonuses to my fighter's attack roll if I can hit a tennis ball with a head swing? I figure no. So the bard shouldn't get huge bonuses for being a glib talker either.

 

[DarkMaster]

I have the player either say what the character is saying, or describe it. Based on that, they make either a Diplomacy, Intimidate or Bluff check to pull it off. Most of the PCs have at least one of these skills maxed out, or close to it, plus I'm fairly lax on "inappropriate" uses of a skill (eg trying to Intimidate a local lord). Mind you, IMC it tends to be rare for really critical outcomes to be decided this way.

I don't see any problem to have a really critical outcomes be decided this way as I don't have a problem having a critical one decided by whether or not the fighter will kill the dragon during it's next attack before it toast them to death during his attack.

Your PC are defined by what is on the sheet not who play them. I don't ask the player who play the thief, could you tumble in front of me and I will judge if you succeded. following the same logic she doen't have to be a lawyer to play a character who is a master bluffer. People enjoy this game because they can play heroes that are way more skillfull and ressourcefull than most of us.

 

[hong]

What's funny is when someone makes a perfectly reasonable-sounding spiel, and then rolls a 3 on their Diplomacy check.

"Your highness, I would just like to compliment you on your simply divine outfit, which does NOT make your butt look fat at all, despite rumours to the contrary."

 

[hong]

I don't see any problem to have a really critical outcomes be decided this way as I don't have a problem having a critical one decided by whether or not the fighter will kill the dragon during it's next attack before it toast them to death during his attack.

Your PC are defined by what is on the sheet not who play them. I don't ask the player who play the thief, could you tumble in front of me and I will judge if you succeded. following the same logic she doen't have to be a lawyer to play a character who is a master bluffer. People enjoy this game because they can play heroes that are way more skillfull and ressourcefull than most of us.

Oh, I don't really have a problem with letting character skills decide the outcome. It's the risk of reducing everything to a single [Diplomacy|Intimidate|Bluff] check that I'm wary of. It's bad from a variability point of view (you don't really want one bad roll screwing things up, or one good roll making things too easy), and it also makes for an anticlimactic feel.

What I usually do, if a lot is riding on the result of an encounter, is split it up into multiple skill checks. This means that there's a chance to recover if they flub a couple of rolls, plus it allows for an escalating sense of tension as negotiations edge closer to a successful outcome (or a failed one, as the case may be).