Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Elf Witch]

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.

You would be wrong in thinking that socially challenged people never have a desire to try and play a more socially out going character. Part of the fun of role playing is playing against type.

You brought up a point that I agree with, social skill rolls takes it out of the hands of the DM and while I am a big believer in DM control and trusting your DM having a roll can be the fairest way to adjudicate it. I have seen issues in older versions of the game where someone gave a great speech and the DM said no it didn't work and players feel picked on and railroaded.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If someone is unable to even describe in third person, what thier actions for the character will be then honestly it might be time to rethink the whole roleplaying thing.

 

[Hussar]

Out of curiousity, outside of very new players, has anyone ever actually seen, "I diplomatize him" from a player?

Honestly, I've never seen it. I've seen lots of statements of intent "I want to X" and then rolls, but, afaik, never just a bare, "I rolled a 17, does the guard let me pass?"

And, just as a point about my earlier point (which is now buried in the depths of this thread), having difficulty separating the line between stonewalling and freebies isn't the same as saying I'm incapable of doing so. I just find that line somewhat arbitrary sometimes - without social mechanics, it's me deciding whether or not the player succeeds. Nowhere else in an RPG does the DM do this. And, I'm not 100% comfortable with doing it in social interactions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"I rolled a 17, does the guard let me pass?"

Seen it.

Hell- DONE it on some of my off-days. Or the DM's off-days.*









* IME, GM's think the situation is a LOT more interesting than it actually is and/or are looking for a key phrase/question to be asked- like a TTRPG version of pixel bitching. Sometimes, GM's, we're just not that into your scene.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And, just as a point about my earlier point (which is now buried in the depths of this thread), having difficulty separating the line between stonewalling and freebies isn't the same as saying I'm incapable of doing so. I just find that line somewhat arbitrary sometimes - without social mechanics, it's me deciding whether or not the player succeeds. Nowhere else in an RPG does the DM do this. And, I'm not 100% comfortable with doing it in social interactions.

That comfort comes from running games and making judgement calls, and it isn't completely without social mechanics.

Think of all the things a player could do to get a big fat bonus, take a look at the CHA of the PC. Sometimes a high CHA is more than enough, sometimes extra effort is required depending on the disposition of the npc. Did an associate of the player just insult the guy? That will have to be overcome.

Good interaction between people at the table is unmatched by any resolution system. Its that kind of interaction that helped skyrocket the game in popularity.

 

[LostSoul]

This thread is interesting.

If anyone's interested, here's a table that converts the 2d6 Reaction Roll from B/X to work with WotC-D&D stat modifiers.

3d6 Roll 
+ Charisma Modifier	Reaction				
4 or less		Extremely hostile, no dialogue possible
5-8			Hostile, possible attack	
9-12			Uncertain, cautious, and wary
13-16			Interested in dialogue
17+			Looking to make friends

I think I changed the reaction descriptions a bit. Oh well.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

"I rolled a 17, does the guard let me pass?"

I've seen "I rolled a 17, does the guard let me pass?"

"What were you rolling to do?"

"Is a 17 plus my diplomacy enough to get me past?"

"No."

"How about 17 plus my bluff?"

"It probably would be depending on his sense motive."

"Then I was rolling to bluff my way past."

"You're supposed to specify that before you roll..."

"But I rolled a 17!"

 

[S'mon]

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.

I think I might enjoy playing with your group after all, then.

 

[S'mon]

. I have seen issues in older versions of the game where someone gave a great speech and the DM said no it didn't work and players feel picked on and railroaded.

I felt a lot more resentful & railroaded in the Savage Worlds game I mentioned, where I gave a good speech AND had maxed-out persuasion skills and the GM wouldn't let it have an impact because of the adventure. Even worse was that I had to leave the game early due to the massive riots in London that night, and after I left the GM let a PC WITHOUT massive persuasion skills, but the player very forceful IRL, do what I had been trying to accomplish!

At least if there are no social skills, the GM's bias is all behind the curtain!

 

[S'mon]

I just find that line somewhat arbitrary sometimes - without social mechanics, it's me deciding whether or not the player succeeds. Nowhere else in an RPG does the DM do this.

No, you do it all the time. 99% of PC in-game activities succeed without a roll, because you the GM decide that the PCs can eg walk down the street without falling over. If you find adjudication of social situations harder then mechanical support may be useful for you, but you are constantly adjudicating the rest of the environment without rolling dice.