Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Dannyalcatraz]

They suck so much that they can't even describe OOC what they want to achieve IC?

Like the guy I mentioned upthread? Yeah. Its not that he couldn't describe stuff OOC, its that his doing so would be a pain for the rest of the people at the table.

Besides, once you're talking OOC, you're halfway to using a skill system anyway.

In a way, its the conflict between:

P: "I want to seduce her for info."

GM: "Regarding?"

P: "The guy who hired her."

GM: "RP it."

P: "Ummmm...I...approach her...ummmmm...and I say..."

Other Ps, after 20 minutes of cheesy, grandma-inapropriate pickup lines: "GET ON WITH IT, MAN!"

And:

P: "I want to seduce her for info."

GM: "Regarding?"

P: "The guy who hired her."

GM: "That's difficult, you'll need a 17 on a D20- roll the dice."

*18*

Other Ps: "HUZZAH!"

Now, on occasion, its a blast watching a player stumble over a social interaction, but if this is going to be that player's norm, and his PC is frequently in social in-game situations, it gets painful and annoying. And personally, I'd rather be able to sit next to a guy who is able to play the PC of his choice- even if its so against his personality that it is difficult for him to do- and have the game move along than have that player either told not to play PCs of that kind or start self-censoring his PC concepts so he won't get in that situation because its no longer fun due to this rules void.

 

[Janx]

They suck so much that they can't even describe OOC what they want to achieve IC?

Are the levels of player interaction at:

1. player actually speaks eloquently as his PC
   
2. player attempts to speak eloquently as his PC but makes some mistakes, but people get the gist of his intended representation rather than his actual
   
3. player is totally unable to speak as his character would
   
4. player can describe in detail what his intent and approach is for his Diplomacy check without actually saying the words his PC says. (Ex. as I am dressed like a messenger, I explain to the guard that I am here to deliver a message to Lord Voldemort's person, using my Disguise and Bluff skills to convince him).
   
5. player can kind of describe his intent but little else (ex. I try to convince the guard to let me through with Diplomacy)
   
6. play can't even articulate a strategy statement for his skill check (ex. I bluff the guard to let me in)

Scenarioes 1, 2 and 4 are acceptable to me.

I like roleplay, I'd like your PC to say the right stuff. If you're a bit inept, that's OK. I expect every player to be able to do #4, because it is no less a requirement for combat, magic, and every other thing the PCs do.

I expect #5 from a newbie.

If there's a player who can't do #3 and fallsback to #6, that seems like a big problem for a game that involves talking and describing what your going to do.

It's also of note, while folks consider the Social Skills as some sort of verbally-challenged equalizer tool, I do not. The rules are to standardize the resolution of social situations. I don't expect them to be some the Martin Luther King of game rules.

I also find the situation of truly non-social people being drawn to play social PCs as very probable. Possible, yes. It's very possible that undiplomatic jerks who think they are diplomatic will be drawn the class, due to another phenomenon.

But people who KNOW they are socially challenged, I suspect that would be the last class they pick. Just like public speaking is something they avoid. If they happen to help somebody, great. But I would think encouraging somebody to actually speak in chracter in front of a small group of his friends would be far more helpful than some rules to let him avoid facing the problem.

That makes me sound like a big meany or something, but my point is, consider the rules from a matter of getting consistent and fair arbitration of social encounters from your GM, regardless of whether he is in actor or narrator head-space. GMs do get biased, and players can't read their minds to know what was fair. Systemetizing the process was an attempt to clean that up.

 

[Janx]

Now, on occasion, its a blast watching a player stumble over a social interaction, but if this is going to be that player's norm, and his PC is frequently in social in-game situations, it gets painful and annoying. And personally, I'd rather be able to sit next to a guy who is able to play the PC of his choice- even if its so against his personality that it is difficult for him to do- and have the game move along than have that player either told not to play PCs of that kind or start self-censoring his PC concepts so he won't get in that situation because its no longer fun due to this rules void.

here's an alternative script , what I categorized #4:

P: "I want to get the info about the guy who hired her, so I'm going to approach her, make small talk, and steer the conversation toward her employer. I'll keep it all friendly and flirty, maybe even a seduction if it'll work"

GM: "That's difficult, you'll need a 17 on a D20- roll the dice."

*18*

Other Ps: "HUZZAH!"

GM: you manage to get the info and her phone number. She seems like she's interested, but not quite ready to close escrow.

Note, my example, the player gives a lot more info about his approach and style, yet avoiding the socially awkward bits.

If a player can't speak in character, why should be not be capable of what I demonstrated?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Note, my example, the player gives a lot more info about his approach and style, yet avoiding the socially awkward bits.

If a player can't speak in character, why should be not be capable of what I demonstrated?

I don't know the why, but the guy I described to S'mon upthread (post #56) would have taken forever to utter that script you described. Really, it would have been pure pain after the 3rd such interaction.

Instead, with the rules in place, he had fun, we had fun, and the game moved along.

 

[Janx]

I don't know the why, but the guy I described to S'mon upthread (post #56) would have taken forever to utter that script you described. Really, it would have been pure pain after the 3rd such interaction.

Instead, with the rules in place, he had fun, we had fun, and the game moved along.

Can't argue with that then.

Would it be fair to say, of the 6 kinds of social interaction styles I listed, that we should be willing to accept the "best" that a player can deliver. Which might be lower than we prefer.

You're guy might be a #5 or 6 is all he can do, so don't bug him about doing 1-4.

But I can do #1 or #4, so I should generally execute in those 2 modes. Me slopping down to #6 is just lazy on my part.

 

[Mallus]

The simplest solution to the Social Skills Conundrum is this:

1) Allow your more tongue-tied players to roll for success in social encounters, using skill checks or straight CHA rolls, if you're not using a skill system.

2) Allow your more verbally-talented players to just talk it out.

3) When someone complains about "dump-statting", give them the mother of all dirty looks and tell them to pipe down.

4) Profit!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do think it's fair to ask players to RP things they can RP, no question. I also think its fair to have mechanical supports for those who have problems in that area.

And as I write this, I realized that this can be highly variable, not just from player to player, but also from session to session for any single player. Let's face it: RW concerns- jobs, family, illness, fatigue, stress- can harm your performance in any other part of your life, including gaming. A person who is normally King of all Roleplaying may show up to game one day and be gaming on autopilots due to, well, whatever, and if he's the party's "Face" that could have lasting consequences if you force him to RP when he's not up to it. In game and interpersonally.

The social skills may be a crutch...but crutches exist for a reason.

 

[Janx]

The simplest solution to the Social Skills Conundrum is this:

1) Allow your more tongue-tied players to roll for success in social encounters, using skill checks or straight CHA rolls, if you're not using a skill system.

2) Allow your more verbally-talented players to just talk it out.

3) When someone complains about "dump-statting", give them the mother of all dirty looks and tell them to pipe down.

4) Profit!

Dump statting is a concern for players. One guy spread his stats out, so he could justify his PC not sucking at social scenes. Another guy dumpstats his CHA and talks his way to success. That's not fair.

I think my implementation (as refined by the long thread about forcing PCs with low stats) solves the problem:

1) listen to what the player's intent is. Whether roleplayed, tactically described, or lamely so.

2) roll the applicable check (attribute or skill). Apply a bonus ONLY for tactical consideration, not roleplay (did the guy dress like the person he claims to be, etc).

3) describe the outcome as befits the result

4) give bonus XP for actual roleplaying the scene.

step 1 allows for Danny's friend or for me to run at the same table. The GM takes our intent, not our actual description.

step 2 protects from dump-statters trying to RP a freebie

step 4 gives a reward outside of the encounter for actually roleplaying. This also covers the PC who roleplays a low stat as a unpleasant person. They aren't double-penalized for their portrayal and the GM's initial reaction plus a modified skill check for a terrifying performance. The player gets XP for roleplaying in the scene.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

My group basically does a reverse to the "say something, roll for it, then see if it works" method.

Basically what happens is the player rolls first, and then roleplays their dialogue either well or poorly depending on the result of the roll. It works quite well, bonuses for good roleplay still happen (and from time to time will push a roll just over the threshold of success), and I imagine a player uncomfortable with RP could just cut the middle step, simply rolling and then seeing if they succeeded.

It also prevents Cha-dumped PCs from simply talking their way to victory, since the small bonus from good roleplay very rarely pushes someone's score high enough to turn failure into success, and would do so even less for a PC getting massive Charisma penalties.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, I can certainly accept Mark's point that you can roleplay without speaking in character, but as DM I would normally want the players to speak in-character and respond likewise. Occasional exception if eg the players just can't accept me as an ingenue elf princess flirting with the dashing knight PC, if they're going to laugh at me I'll paraphrase her words if really necessary.

In general the getting-in-character and talking-in-character is something I really enjoy as GM and player, it's a major part of the game's pleasure for me. I suspect that even with good friends, if they didn't want to do that I wouldn't enjoy playing an RPG with them. But that's just me, your group should do what suits you.

I think one of the big misunderstandings going on here is that people who like social rolls are not getting into character and not talking in character,

I play with a bunch of role players they base all their actions on role playing on what their character would really do, I watched us almost get a TPK because we all played our characters without knowledge on how to destroy a troll though everyone at the table knew what to do.

We have conversations in character for planning. And we are almost always in character during the game. One of our rules if it comes out of your mouth the character said it unless you say right up front that you are stepping out of character for a moment.

I do try and role play out a bluff or diplomacy but if I am having a bad day and sometimes my brain acts up and once it starts I get more frustrated so on those days I would rather have the choice to tell what I am doing and hope my roll is good enough to accomplish the task.

As I said before my shyer players sometimes will try and role player it out and they are more willing to try knowing that there is a roll to back them up and that the success does not just hinge on their ability to talk.