Social skills in D&D: checks or role-playing?

[Nifft]

Just wanted to jump in here and point something out:
I'm not sure that's "roleplaying", in the sense of actually taking on a role. That's description.

That's true. I'm not trying to say what's acceptable roleplaying to me, since the topic that I was addressing was conflation of roleplay and description-of-result.

Those examples are of acceptable action descriptions.

-- N

 

[Nifft]

PS: If I can't get good role-play, at the very least I insist on unambiguous description.

 

[Henry]

I voted "I don't make them roleplay", though I'd LIKE to have voted for "I use the roll, but modify for roleplay."

Why? Because most of my players are not what some would call "strong roleplayers." I have some very good players, and we enjoy what we do, but the majority of them are not the type who really get into in-character interactions. Rarely do I have a player who makes a Diplomat-type, because they prefer to be "action heroes," not "schmoozers." There are a few who like to roleplay, and to their credit, they downplay their social skills when they play non-charismatic types. I do use their diplomacy and bluff skills for haggling and negotiations, though, and base the outcome on the degree of their success. (Low total result = they flubbed the chit-chat, and insulted the person somehow, High result = they managed to get on the person's good side in a major way.)

 

[mrglove]

I started out in Basic and 1e D&D where there were no skills, just a useless charisma score. We roleplayed out everything or the DM would adjudicate on the fly sometimes saying, "you've got a high charisma so they talk to you."

I'm pretty much stuck in that mode and happy with it.

Stats and skills are for things that can't be done by the player.

I don't allow intelligence rolls to solve puzzles or riddles, and I generally don't allow skill rolls to take over talking to people. Skills are for disarming traps, sneaking, physical in game stuff. Bluff lets you feint, sense motive counters that and detects charms.

I will modify NPCs reactions based on the charisma and skills of a player, so that high diplomacy/gather info characters have an easier time drawing out information through RP, but anyone can do it.

I also use social skill rolls when I want something to not be "on screen" such as downtime activity, seducing a barmaid, etc.

I like to keep interaction as interaction and rolls for things that can't be handled by thinking and interacting.

Skills seem overwhelmed by other class abilities in importance to the game so I also do not have a problem throwing in a bunch of social skills into my characters who I see as socially oriented such as my current eldritch knight who has developed a bit of bluff and diplomacy in addition to a fairly high sense motive as he works through politics and intricate plots.

Will this direction short change socially awkward players who want to play face characters but not actually roleplay? Sure, but that's fine for the style of roleplaying games we play with our balance of RP to dice and their role in our games. If a player wanted to force reactions out of NPCs as he talked to them despite being a social flub I would recommend playing an enchanter.

High ability and skill scores give bonuses, but "anyone can do it"? Then why in the world would someone who has the gift of the silver tongue because he spent the last seven years in theatre or for some other reason can woo the crown off a king ever want to invest any skill ranks or choose anything but the lowest ability score on charisma or charisma-based skillls if they know that they will never need them to succeed? For that matter, why would anyone who can't talk the scales off a dragon based on their own skills at smooth-talking ever want to put any skill ranks or higher ability scores on charisma or charisma-based skills if they know that they can't convince anyone to do anything except by the player's skills, not the PC's skills?

You said, "Stats and skills are for things that can't be done by the player." What if the player can't think up convincing arguments off the top of his head without thinking about it for a couple minutes, despite having a character with a 17 CHA and a maxed out diplomacy skill? What if the player really gets into role-playing his characters, but doesn't have the understanding of science and math that you may have, and so can't figure out problems that his character with a 16 INT or higher should be able to? I would say that those things can't be done by the player any more than the player could draw a sword and fight a trained warrior to the death (and win). And when you start deciding for yourself what someone should be able to do themselves, you start forcing players who can't fast-talk anybody and who aren't good at logic puzzles to play characters who are just like them - socially inept and stupid meat shields who just swing swords and axes because that's the only thing that you'll allow them to be good at that the player who plays them isn't good at. Role Playing Games should allow players to play as characters that are not anything like them, and saying "you must be able to do this or that in real life if you want to be able to do that as your PC" just sets limits, and RPGs, I feel, is about breaking limits and exploring new ideas.

Depending on solving a puzzle by rolling your intelligence probably isn't a good idea. But, if someone is having trouble, rolling their intelligence may provide them with a hint of some kind, maybe a clue as to which direction to be thinking in. Maybe they might remember a puzzle that they know the solution to that is similar; the answer is not the same, but maybe the type of puzzle is, or some aspect of the puzzle seems similar. A puzzle based on colors and patterns may remind them of another in which the colors represented syllables or sounds or speech of some sort, and may clue them in on what kind of answer they need to give. It wouldn't give them the answer, but it would perhaps get them to realize that they needed to make the correct sounds in the correct order in order to solve the puzzle.

Likewise, you could maybe give hints on how to approach NPCs in conversation. If the NPC is a married woman of moderate wealth, maybe the PC could notice that she is wearing a wedding ring of some appropriate value, maybe a gold band. An NPC married woman of little wealth but married to a craftsman might have something like a ring made of wood, but ornately designed. A PC could perhaps know that a certain type of noble of such and such a clan and society will probably be interested in how to advance his or her clan's standings in their society more than his or her personal standing among their own clan. Or maybe people of this society values actions rather than words. All of these things could give the PC (and the player) an idea on what to say or do to win the NPC's trust, or whatever.

 

[mirzabah]

Somewhere between 3 & 4 for me. Roleplaying is encouraged, but I never "insist" upon it. Like someone said, this is not improvisational theatre

 

[Plane Sailing]

Confession time.

I rarely roll, or have my players roll, social skills (such as Bluff or Diplomacy) during play. I dislike the notion of letting the dice decide how a character acts, be that character a PC or an NPC. To my mind, that defeats the whole point of roleplaying.

Do your players bother putting scarce skill points into these skills then? Or do they just put them into skills where they are still useful (climbing, jumping, spot etc)?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Do your players bother putting scarce skill points into these skills then? Or do they just put them into skills where they are still useful (climbing, jumping, spot etc)?

They put points into these skills whenever it fits the character. "Rarely" doesn't mean "never," after all. And even when we're not rolling, I don't ignore the character's skill level when determining how the NPC reacts. It's just not the only thing I consider, and we only bother to roll under certain circumstances.

 

[Urbannen]

What I don't like is when the DM says, "Sure, we use the Diplomacy skill," and then never asks for a Diplomacy check.

A lot of DMs do not fully understand the PHB rules for social skills. They usually say they intend to use them, but cannot articulate how they will be incorporated into their game. As written, Diplomacy, Bluff, and even Gather Information can become very powerful, very quickly. Most DMs do not base their games around the use of these skills, so they are unwilling to give that much power to them. For instance, I am playing a cleric/rogue with a +15 in Gather Information and a +14 in Diplomacy, and he's only 5th level. I should be getting tons of inside info with my Gather Information check and gaining the trust of the suspicious with my Diplomacy. However, that would put a serious damper in the DM's plans (IMO), so I just have to "roleplay" the character's skills. As he said, "Diplomacy should not be as powerful as Charm Person."

I don't think I mind when DMs ignore the social skills, I just think that they should be aware that they are doing so so they can tell players not to waste their points.

 

[BryonD]

Do the characters, in effect, always take 10? I understand that you don't necessarily use quantification at all. But how do you fairly differentiate between a character with a +5 diplomacy and a character with a +18 diplomacy?

I get the idea that you provide better results if the player has a really good approach or simply impresses you. But do you really penalize the player if they stutter or mis-speak, or simply you think their approach is dumb?

Are your players capable of talking cleverly enough to sway an ancient dragon if they really met one?

The idea that you shouldn't use skills because these are the things that players can do is just silly to me. Much of the fun of the game is doing fantasy heroic things that the player CAN'T do in real life.

A great D&D diplomacy check can (and, IMO, should) be every bit as amazing and fantastic and real-world impossible as wild shape, spells, whirlwind attack, etc... I can't imagine reigning that in to real world limits.

Roleplaying these things is still fun, no doubt. But there is just no reason that roleplaying and objective conflict resolution within a larger than life fantasy setting need be at odds.

 

[Voadam]

High ability and skill scores give bonuses, but "anyone can do it"? Then why in the world would someone who has the gift of the silver tongue because he spent the last seven years in theatre or for some other reason can woo the crown off a king ever want to invest any skill ranks or choose anything but the lowest ability score on charisma or charisma-based skillls if they know that they will never need them to succeed? For that matter, why would anyone who can't talk the scales off a dragon based on their own skills at smooth-talking ever want to put any skill ranks or higher ability scores on charisma or charisma-based skills if they know that they can't convince anyone to do anything except by the player's skills, not the PC's skills?

Charisma is important for bards, paladins, sorcerers, and clerics for their class abilities.

In my game social rolls are mostly for off screen things or their game effects (rogues like to feint using bluff, sense motive is nice to detect charms, etc.), so they still get used, only rarer than in games where PCs say I bluff the guard into letting me into the king's chamber".

Also as I said before I eyeball their score, skills, and character history and presentation, and use that to modify how NPCs react when we are roleplaying the interaction. I don't make rolls but I am more inclined to let characters with a socially emphasis work with it more, and no skill ones have a tougher in game interaction. No rolls needed, but still an in game effect and we keep it in roleplaying mode instead of just dice.

You said, "Stats and skills are for things that can't be done by the player." What if the player can't think up convincing arguments off the top of his head without thinking about it for a couple minutes, despite having a character with a 17 CHA and a maxed out diplomacy skill? What if the player really gets into role-playing his characters, but doesn't have the understanding of science and math that you may have, and so can't figure out problems that his character with a 16 INT or higher should be able to? I would say that those things can't be done by the player any more than the player could draw a sword and fight a trained warrior to the death (and win). And when you start deciding for yourself what someone should be able to do themselves, you start forcing players who can't fast-talk anybody and who aren't good at logic puzzles to play characters who are just like them - socially inept and stupid meat shields who just swing swords and axes because that's the only thing that you'll allow them to be good at that the player who plays them isn't good at. Role Playing Games should allow players to play as characters that are not anything like them, and saying "you must be able to do this or that in real life if you want to be able to do that as your PC" just sets limits, and RPGs, I feel, is about breaking limits and exploring new ideas.

If a dumb player plays a high int character they get more skills and can be a potent wizard. A high charisma character can get good saves as a paladin or power themselves as a sorcerer. If you want to play a social character in my game you have to be willing to talk and try to be social. If you want me to interrupt roleplaying or give plot answers to characters because the character is diplomatic or smart, too bad that is not how it works in my game.

Depending on solving a puzzle by rolling your intelligence probably isn't a good idea. But, if someone is having trouble, rolling their intelligence may provide them with a hint of some kind, maybe a clue as to which direction to be thinking in. Maybe they might remember a puzzle that they know the solution to that is similar; the answer is not the same, but maybe the type of puzzle is, or some aspect of the puzzle seems similar. A puzzle based on colors and patterns may remind them of another in which the colors represented syllables or sounds or speech of some sort, and may clue them in on what kind of answer they need to give. It wouldn't give them the answer, but it would perhaps get them to realize that they needed to make the correct sounds in the correct order in order to solve the puzzle.

Likewise, you could maybe give hints on how to approach NPCs in conversation. If the NPC is a married woman of moderate wealth, maybe the PC could notice that she is wearing a wedding ring of some appropriate value, maybe a gold band. An NPC married woman of little wealth but married to a craftsman might have something like a ring made of wood, but ornately designed. A PC could perhaps know that a certain type of noble of such and such a clan and society will probably be interested in how to advance his or her clan's standings in their society more than his or her personal standing among their own clan. Or maybe people of this society values actions rather than words. All of these things could give the PC (and the player) an idea on what to say or do to win the NPC's trust, or whatever.

I give characters a read on people, sometimes by simply eyeballing their skills and character, sometimes rolling If I want to put some randomness into it. However, this is very different from them saying "I use diplomacy to get past the guard." This is an aid for them to use in interaction, not a replacement for it.