Social skills in D&D

[Quasqueton]

The above poll concerns strictly D&D3 play. The below question concerns play in earlier editions.

For those of you who used to, or still do, play earlier editions of this game, how did you handle social interaction in the game? How did you adjudicate/rule on PCs bluffing guards, intimidating bullies, diplomacizing merchants, etc.?

How did you handle Players with low charisma/social skills playing characters with high Charisma?

How did you handle Players with high charisma/social skills playing characters with low Charisma?

Quasqueton

 

[freebfrost]

I chose "other" simply because the method varies greatly in any particular game that I have.

Sometimes the player wants to be more involved in the roleplay and will want to act that scene out, and I usually will let them try that approach. I may take that into account and adjust a subsequent die roll, or I may let their approach make the decision for me.

Then again, there are times when I just ask for die rolls to adjucate those situations.

So it really is a bit of both.

 

[Voadam]

I never used the reaction charts, I just eyeballed the PC's charisma, thought about their character concept as played, evaluated the situation, and based the situation NPC interaction on that. Charisma was much less important than how the character was played and developed.

I talked through a lot of interactions although I would occasionally sum up when called for by the pace of the game.

I am more likely to sum up minor interactions now in 3e, although I still just eyeball and base off of character and situation without rolling anything. I found that basing roleplay off of rolling led to unnatural social interactions that were not fun to roleplay.

 

[Kanegrundar]

We simply talk it out with the character's Charisma score and skill ranks as a guideline on how well he would be in the situation.

Kane

 

[ThirdWizard]

The player doesn't really know if a diplomacy/bluff check is needed. They roleplay interactions out, sometimes people just agree with them and there's no check needed. If I decide the NPC doesn't want to go along with them, then I ask for a diplomacy check, and run it by the rules on that, modifying the reaction based on that. Often times the NPC is convinced by the PC without need for a diplomacy check. And sometimes NPCs are so guillible that no bluff check is needed. So, PCs don't ask to use the skill themselves.

We run intimidate a little differently, that can be a concious effort on the part of the PC, though they still have to roleplay it out.

 

[sniffles]

Those are good questions, Quas. I've always thought it would be unfair to rely entirely on the player's behavior, since a player can either be much better or much worse than his character at things like Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Info, etc. So the dice roll can be used to adjust for that.
But if the player says something really inappropriate to the situation and yet rolls really well, how do you determine the result?

As an example, I recall a particular situation in which a PC with a very high Diplomacy was trying to talk to a forest drake that had just lost its mate. Unfortunately the player made the mistake of repeatedly referring to the dead mate during his speech. The GM in that instance ruled that the drake became angry and reacted poorly. I'm inclined to think the player should have been given a break since his PC was very diplomatic usually, but I don't want to turn social situations into entirely dice-driven events.

 

[Akrasia]

I chose 'other'.

We simply talk it out with the character's Charisma score and skill ranks as a guideline on how well he would be in the situation.

Kane

That's exactly what I did in my 3e campaign -- I had the players role-play what their PCs said, and the NPCs' reactions were based on what they said, modified upwards or downwards depending on their charisma and diplomacy (or bluff, or whatever skill seemed relevant).

The only time we simply rolled was when we wanted to 'fast forward' through some relatively unimportant encounters (e.g. gathering information from a number of taverns, buying and selling stuff, etc.).

 

[Quasqueton]

I let my Player as his PC talk it out with me as the NPC, then I have the Player roll the dice (and I roll dice, if applicable) to determine how well the character handled the situation. I use the "DM's best friend" (+2/-2 circumstance modifiers) depending on what the Player said.

Offering a bribe to the door guard? If he is Lawful, that's probably a -2 on the roll. If he is Chaotic, that's probably +2 on the roll.

Etc.

I then use the Diplomacy chart to judge the result. Made the indifferent guard friendly? He lets you past. Fail, and he rebuffs you.

As an example, I recall a particular situation in which a PC with a very high Diplomacy was trying to talk to a forest drake that had just lost its mate. Unfortunately the player made the mistake of repeatedly referring to the dead mate during his speech. The GM in that instance ruled that the drake became angry and reacted poorly. I'm inclined to think the player should have been given a break since his PC was very diplomatic usually, but I don't want to turn social situations into entirely dice-driven events.

This is where the DM's best friend would work well. For repeatedly mentioning a sore/sad subject, give the Player a -2 to -4 on his Diplomacy roll.

Quasqueton

 

[Slobber Monster]

I've recently started using Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules, and I've gotta say they're a big improvement. The changes make Diplomacy work more like Bluff. Here's the key thing in my mind:

2.) In 3rd Edition, Diplomacy is defined as "Making people like you." I want to change that definition, for I think it lacks depth and is poorly understood. In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them." The idea is that anything you need to ask another person can be phrased in the form of a trade-even if you are offering "nothing" on one end of that trade, or something very abstract.

So this way the PC's have to formulate a proposal before they roll a Diplomacy check. They can't just say "I use Diplomacy on him". Likewise with Bluff they have to describe in at least rough detail the lie or con they're using so I can assign a DC modifier based on how stupid/clever it is.

I occasionally like to use NPC's who are physically harmless, but disseminate a mixture of important information and outrageous lies. So I call for lots of opposed Sense Motive / Bluff checks in the course of conversations.

 

[Wombat]

We prefer to use, "Perform first, dice after". If a player is particularly inspired he may even get a bonus to his die roll. We simply like this method