Social Skills: Role versus Roll Play

[Umbran]

Thoughts? How do others use the social skills? How do we improve this area of our games? etc?

When a character comes up with a good plan to conquer a physical challenge, the DM is within rights to give him a bonus on the die roll, right? Same thing with social challenges. If the player role-plays properly, they'll get a bonus on the die roll.

 

[BSF]

First off: CHA dump statting. I use point-buy for my players. It is not unusual for one stat to be extraordinarily low. That's fine! I let my players know that a disadvantage is _always_ a disadvantage.

If my players want to take a low CHA, choose to not purchase any social skills and want to have an immensely social character, it will _always_ be viewed in the worst possible context by the NPC's.

I don't want to discourage RolePlaying, but I think it is unfair to penalize the player that built a social skill character by rewarding the CHA dump with the same interaction.

But, my experience is that good Role-Players like to round out the character and stay true to the character. A good Role-Player might even build a CHA dump character, avoid the social skills, and play somebody that really isn't that likeable. Even though the Player is somebody that could also play a high CHA, strong social skilled character.

So, for me, it isn't that big an issue.

Role-Playing Social Skills: For the character that has good social skills, but the player doesn't, I wing it. If the player tries to RP the situation, I encourage them so they continue to RP. Then, I let a die roll carry the rest of the weight. We are in this to have fun and if they keep pumping up social skills because they like the character, I will let their skills take over when the player falters.

Let's face it, not everyone is a social butterfly, well-liked by everyone. But, that doesn't mean they don't wish they were! This is a fantasy game. If everyone is having fun, great!

Roll-playing social skills: OK, it happens. Sometimes the player wants to just boil it down to a die roll. That can be frustrating at times. I try to encourage the player to Role-Play it, but sometimes the player is stubborn. So, roll it and let it ride as an opposed check. Sometimes, the player will encounter somebody that is highly skilled as well and the NPC "wins" the check. Often, the player will feel frustrated and we will have a discussion after the game. What that will boil down to is pretty simple. "If you had role-played out the scenario, I probably would have given you bonuses to your die roll. As it was, you were just outdone by the NPC. Better luck next time." Generally, that will encourage them to use their brain a little more than their die rolls.

Now, there are times when an arbitrary die roll works just fine. "You want to negotiate a lower cost on all those rations you are buying? Sure, you are likeable and have strong negotiating skills. Tell you what, roll a diplomacy check and I will tell you what kind of discount you get." Especially when dealing with non-recurring NPC's.

Exceptions to skills: I generally rule that skills do not affect other characters. I do not _like_ having one player's character usurped by another. If you want to cast a Charm spell on the person, fine. They get a save and they are perfectly free to attack you if they save. But, I will also step in and point out that a specific character is skilled in certain areas and if one character is going to disagree, I want to know what the justification is. I mean, if you have created a very lawful character that has a history or respecting authority, etc. and that character is suddenly a troublemaker in the party, they are not being true to the character. It might be the beginning's of an alignment switch...

I also run a few of the NPC's with the same rules as the PC's. No matter how good your diplomacy, you cannot just role the die to convince the King to bend to your will. You will have to Role-Play that with me! The diplomacy skills you have cultivated will certainly get you up through the bureacracy to see the King, but you will need to RP the encounter once you get there.

 

[barsoomcore]

Just as note, the new adventure from Dire Kobold, Free Lunches (written by a guy named core from barsoom) DEMANDS good social skills from the players. Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive and possibly even Intimidate are all going to get a workout there...

IMC, those skill are among the most important. There's at least as many Sense Motive rolls as Spot. Being able to make a Diplomacy roll allows me to breeze through interactions where all that really matters is the outcome (does the watchman let them pass or not?), and allows players who are not very socially adept play characters who are (and vice versa). I award bonuses for good stories or ideas, just like I do in combat.

But hey, Dire Kobold. You know you want to subscribe...

 

[Desdichado]

Aha! The 100 CAN$ Question!

Why so cheap?

 

[Belen]

Hmm...it would be nice to go with a mechanic that promoted more Role play.

I think Cha. modifier= number of social class skills for classes other than Bard and rogue could be useful, but I wonder if it is balanced.

You have to love these 3e conundrums.

Dave

 

[reapersaurus]

This whole quandry is one of the bigger problems in roleplaying in my opinion, and experience.

There's just no one way to cover both ends: to promote roleplay, yet realistically allow the PC to do something the player can't.

And in Play-by-Post, it's even harder to get across that "everything I'm typing should be viewed thru the filter of my PC having max in CHA and Appearance."

 

[Spatula]

Maybe I am remembering wrong, but in 2e, I had MORE roleplaying than I do now. I wonder if the flat numbers have had anything to do with it.

Did you use the reaction tables, with the CHA reaction mods, in 1e or 2e? The only thing 3e adds to that is the ability to improve your result on the table (through Diplomacy ranks). The 'roll-playing' of social interactions has always been a part of D&D.

3E also adds Bluff, but the description of the skill specifically lays out how the player's role-playing affects the DC. The player can't just say, "I bluff him into letting me pass," a specific approach to the bluff needs to be presented, then the DM adjusts the DC depending on how plausible it is. So I don't see a problem there.

 

[Psion]

I think Cha. modifier= number of social class skills for classes other than Bard and rogue could be useful, but I wonder if it is balanced.

Eh. Use the background option mechanic from the second world sourcebook if you want to expand their skill selection. Makes more sense that way.

 

[Orias]

That's why I love my group. We put ranks in skills like Diplomacy, various Knowledge, & other "dump" skills, often time having characters with their highest skill in a useless profession, or a hobby or knowledge, & we usually NEVER roll for those skills. They are simply there to have a paper representation of how we play our characters.

We are usually good about playing characters accourding to their stats, but sometimes we get a little off on this.

That aside, sometimes we do make a few diplomacy rolls here & there, & stuff like that, because sometimes you are playing characters who are smarter/more charasmatic/scarier/whatever than yourself, & most often you are playing in situations that are a little hard to comprehend from anything besides a far removed stature. We never substitute a roll for good role playing, but sometimes we can't be as empthatic or as out going as we are trying to get our characters to act, so sometimes a roll will boost our impression of what they are doing.

 

[Merova]

Social Simulation

Hi all!

Here's my take on this issue. For you RPGnetters out there, my apologies for reinflicting the "social simulationist" rant on you in yet a new venue.

First, let me lay out the groundwork on my game design terms of criticism. There are five primary areas of conflict in RPGs; we'll call the the five "S"s:

1) Swordplay (ie: combat related challenges)

2) Survivalist (ie: althetic or wilderness related challenge)

3) Stealth (ie: sneaking, breaking & entering related challenges)

4) Snooping (ie: knowledge and investigation challenges)

5) Social (ie: diplomacy and influencing people type challenges)


Each of these types of challenge ought to be given an equal scope of mechanical facilitation with adequate technique of implementation in the core rules of a game. With each set at an equivalent value, the players may design their characters with the knowledge that their "currency" (ie: ability scores, skill ranks, class types, etc.) purchases an equal ammount of "in play" influence.


Problem #1: D&D and much of d20 does not create a system of task resolution with equal granularity between challenge types. It does very well at implementing "combat" related challenge. It's decent at "steal" and "survival." It's poor at "snooping" and "social." How do you run a combat? Well, the rules are offered in loving detail. How do you run a debate? Umm, you roll an opposed Diplomacy check between participants.

Whereas combat has numerous factors and modifiers, from equipment lists to tactical advantages of terrain, social challenge is given a bland one roll pass/fail resolution system. The game dumps the burden of presenting exciting social challenge upon the GM and her players, rather than offering deep facilitation.

This leads to:

Problem #2: Dramatist vs Gamist conflict in style of play (or Roleplay vs. Rollplay, to use the more denigrating terminology.) In the genre of rpg, there are many styles of play, which focus on different elements of play style. The one that seems to be problematic in social simulation is one of "stance."

There are many types of stances that come into play in the average game session, from actor-immersive to actor-token to author to audience-interactive to audience-silent. In stereotypical depiction, gamist players approach their characters as tokens to move through a conceptual wargame, while dramatist players go the "immersive" route as if an rpg was just an opportunity for impromptu acting.

There's nothing wrong with either style, but a group may contain players with different approaches to stance. When these stylistic preferences come into conflict, the system needs to be robust enough to handle it. The "dramatic" incorporation of resolution modifiers and implementation of extended tasks could be of assistance to both types of players, but D&D offers little assistence.

Moreover, this compounds with:

Problem #3: "Currency" and narrative control. When a player creates a character, she's allocating her resources (ie: "currency") to "buy" a story type. When these resources are allocated, she's expecting to see her character's investmant make appropriate returns at these situations. It's a passive form of narrative control.

When a GM then betrays this investment through scenario design or whimsical task adjudication, it's upsetting to the character. For instance, the player creates a tough and surly combatant, but the GM then places the party into endless intrigue conflicts that involve no combat at all, session after session. Obviously, the player invested in a combat "market" and becomes disgruntled when it doesn't pay off.

This is equally as true for the situation when the character is a social expert, yet the GM always determines the resolution based upon whimsy; buying social expertise through the mechanics becomes an empty investment. In both of these situations, the GM has betrayed player expectations.


(OFF TOPIC) D&D has the merits and flaw built into the class structure. For instance, with their low hit points and BAB, all wizards are assumed have the "Low Pain Threshold" and "Combat Inept" flaws, while they gain the "Ally: Familiar" and "Strong Will" merits. In relationship to the main topic, all rogues and bards are assumed to have access to the "Persuasive" advantage, which gives them an advantage in social challenge if they choose to "buy" it with their skill points.

Altering this balance by granting greater access to social skills may result in odd balance factors, especially if social challenge is a small part of your campaign. Think of playing a bard, where not only are you inferior in combat, but even during social challenge the fighter and wizard are nearly as competant as you. Not too fun, eh?


Well, that's enough of the rant for now. Obviously, there are other problems involved, but it's my opinion that the root of it all can be traced back to the core rules and it's lack of a robust system for social challnge.

Note: this problem is being remedied in d20 supplements, such as Spycraft, Fading Suns, and the most excellent Dynasties & Demagogues which nearly kills the "social simulationist" rant.

In any case, thanks for reading.

---Merova