Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Mark CMG]

You missed a word there. And it makes a difference. I feel that sometimes a DM is not up to the task of conveying the information the player will need in any situation. Not every time. Of course not. But, it does happen often enough that it becomes problematic. At least for me. Either I haven't explained what's going on well enough, or the DM hasn't. I've seen far too many table arguments from both sides of the DM's screen to think that this is entirely me.

See, you are saying it's up to the GM to make sure the players knows as much as the character should know. Ok. Fine. But, who determines that level? The GM of course. What if he's wrong? What if the GM thinks that the player has all the pieces when he really doesn't? We've seen more than a few Agony Aunt type columns either on message boards or in Dragon to think that this is an isolated corner case that rarely comes up. DMing advice after Dming advice says to give more information to the players and err on the side of too much rather than not enough.

So, you want to solve a "sometimes" GMing problem not with allowing the GM to get better at their job but rather by removing some roleplaying from the game by design?

I would point out that this is a traditional aspect of the game for you. And that's great. It's not for me. I don't like pixel bitching. Trying to read the DM's mind is an exercise in futility and bogs down the game.

Although, I have to admit, the one true wayism here is rather a breath of fresh air. If I don't play the way you play, I'm not even role playing anymore. Nice. If I want a stronger mechanical framework for social interaction, I'm no longer roleplaying. Even better. I'm sure people playing things like Dogs in the Vineyard or various other games with strong social mechanics are perfectly happy not playing roleplaying games if the criteria for being a roleplaying game is freeforming social interactions.

Look, I get that you don't want mechanical frameworks for social interactions. I understand, I really do. I've certainly played that way more than a few times. However, what I'm looking for here is the recognition that this is simply one way of playing. Not the only way. Just one way. There are other ways to do it.

Loads of games have mechanical frameworks for social resolution. D20's is ... a bit meh to be honest. Too binary and far too easy to abuse. Spirit of the Century, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sufficiently Advanced, all systems I've used in the past few years, all have strong social mechanics that work rather well and that I find actually promote a great deal of roleplay.

At least for me. For others? Maybe not so much. But, then again, what do I know? I'm not even a roleplayer anymore apparently. Wow, can't play D&D because I play the wrong edition. Can't DM because I need training wheels. Now I can't even roleplay. This has been a good week for people to be more inclusive of other playstyles.

You can dress up replacing actual roleplaying with die rolling but it doesn't change what it is. I think it is important to note how you use the terms "playstyle" and "gaming style" when talking about "roleplaying styles" that are either devoid of roleplaying or in the process of having the roleplaying elements stripped away.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, you want to solve a "sometimes" GMing problem not with allowing the GM to get better at their job but rather by removing some roleplaying from the game by design?

I look at it as having a mechanism within the rules to solve a problem that may occur that a player, GM, or both may not be up to handling from time to time.

If it helps, think of it as having a small spare tire- its not a substitute for a normal tire, but when you need one, you really need one that you know will work.

 

[Hussar]

So, you want to solve a "sometimes" GMing problem not with allowing the GM to get better at their job but rather by removing some roleplaying from the game by design?

Yuppers. Give me training wheels every day. I'll leave the "expert GMing" to those who want to believe they have achieved that level.

You can dress up replacing actual roleplaying with die rolling but it doesn't change what it is. I think it is important to note how you use the terms "playstyle" and "gaming style" when talking about "roleplaying styles" that are either devoid of roleplaying or in the process of having the roleplaying elements stripped away.

Thank you. It's good to know where you're coming from on this. So, basically, just so I'm not accused yet again of putting words in anyone's mouth, you're saying that unless you free form social interactions, a person's gaming is " devoid of roleplaying or in the process of having the roleplaying elements stripped away"? That adding mechanics to social situations constitutes removing roleplaying elements?

Would that be a correct assessment of your point of view?

 

[Mark CMG]

Yuppers. Give me training wheels every day. I'll leave the "expert GMing" to those who want to believe they have achieved that level.

Removing the roleplaying doesn't make you a better GM, it just makes you a GM of a game with less or no roleplaying.

Thank you. It's good to know where you're coming from on this. So, basically, just so I'm not accused yet again of putting words in anyone's mouth, you're saying that unless you free form social interactions, a person's gaming is " devoid of roleplaying or in the process of having the roleplaying elements stripped away"? That adding mechanics to social situations constitutes removing roleplaying elements?

Would that be a correct assessment of your point of view?

No. There are two components to the term roleplaying game. However, mechanics can exist without dice being in front of the eyes of the players. The interface with the GM, no matter whether there are dice randomizing things behind the scenes or not, are what constitute the roleplaying. When you substitute dice rolling for that interaction, you strip away some of the roleplaying. When you completely replace the interaction with dice rolling and no more interface than mere exposition, then the game becomes devoid of roleplaying.

 

[molepunch]

Good points from both camps. I'm torn! I think RP matters and that dice rolling should never suffice for social encounters, but I also think people should be allowed to play a sassy, savvy smooth-talker in the game even if they are not.

It's clear the two camps can't really reconcile, so it's best to set some ground rules for social encounters before you start a campaign, I guess.

 

[S'mon]

On the viewing of dice rolls, I'm actually on Hussar's side here(!) - I very much like players to see all the dice rolls. I take it that the dice roll represents how well the PC did at something, and IRL you are aware how well your words came out, how well you swung that sword, etc. When the in-world results don't appear to match up with the number on the die - you rolled a 1 on diplomacy, yet the king seems persuaded - the player and the PC can rightly be suspicious.

This approach relies on no fudging and playing it straight down the line. It takes the dice roll as a simulation of what is happening in-world, and this then lets the player Gamistly step-on-up and use that in-world knowledge to their advantage.

To me, that is the perfect interaction of game world, game mechanics, and player skill.

 

[Mark CMG]

I take it that the dice roll represents how well the PC did at something, and IRL you are aware how well your words came out, how well you swung that sword, etc.

If that were true dating would be a breeze and people would rarely wait expectantly for the results from academic exams and job interviews.

 

[S'mon]

If that were true dating would be a breeze and people would rarely wait expectantly for the results from academic exams and job interviews.

Knowing how well you peformed is not the same as knowing the task DC and everything else about the situation. But personally I've always had a pretty good idea how well I've performed in all those situations (albeit my dating experience is rather limited, I've never had the 'I fancy her, did she like me?' experience); if I've been surprised by the result it was extraneous factors I didn't know about.

Eg I recall a history exam, I did worse than expected, but so did everybody else in the class - it seemed that the examiner was not marking us fairly.

Eg I recall a job interview, I performed well, but did not get the job. The interviewer kindly told me by phone that they had received a poor reference for me. I think it was an ex-boss who had it in for me - he had been telling me he was giving me a good reference, but secretly stabbing me in the back. I changed my referees, presumably got decent references, and got the next job I applied for.

 

[Mark CMG]

Knowing how well you peformed is not the same as knowing the task DC and everything else about the situation. But personally I've always had a pretty good idea how well I've performed in all those situations (albeit my dating experience is rather limited, I've never had the 'I fancy her, did she like me?' experience); if I've been surprised by the result it was extraneous factors I didn't know about.

Eg I recall a history exam, I did worse than expected, but so did everybody else in the class - it seemed that the examiner was not marking us fairly.

Eg I recall a job interview, I performed well, but did not get the job. The interviewer kindly told me by phone that they had received a poor reference for me. I think it was an ex-boss who had it in for me - he had been telling me he was giving me a good reference, but secretly stabbing me in the back. I changed my referees, presumably got decent references, and got the next job I applied for.

But do you know that every time you were uncertain about the results it was due to mitigating circumstances and that you were accurately assessing your own abilities with the same precision a player gets from knowing die results? How would you really know? (Perhaps you only believe you are as accurate in self-assessment as you think.) Are all characters guaranteed the same level of certainty no matter their Ability Scores? A character with a high Wisdom being equally self-aware as one with a low Wisdom? A character with a low Intelligence being equally able to assess a situation as well as one with a high Intelligence? These are things a GM can factor into the description of a very successful, moderately successful, precisely successful, moderately failing, or extremely failing die roll that are also off the table when the player knows the die results in social interactions. I don't believe that there should be as much certainty as knowing the die results brings to the table and further believe that being aware of the die results creates just one more barrier to the immersion that roleplaying games are meant to foster.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have noticed a trend in all my characters that I don't like to put any points into social skills even for classes that have them as class skills.

I would prefer to role play and let the DM decide how the NPC reacts rather than leave it up to the dice. Or when I try to bluff, sometimes I do it well, and other times I do it badly. I would just rather the DM play off of how I actually do it in character than rely on my dice roll.

When we play AD&D (I’m the DM) the social skills thing is not an issue, but we play PF at the moment. I have been on a slow trend of being negative towards social skill rolls for a while before even 4e came out though.

The key is in balancing the importance of RP against the importance of the die rolls, depending on the gaming group's preferences.

But if it bothers you even just the existence of social skills, think of this...

There are people who are good at writing songs, and others who are good at singing them. The majority of songs recorded and performed are written by a different person than the singer.

So when you have a social situation in a game, try to see the player as the songwriter (it's him who chooses what to say -> RP) and the character as the singer (it's him who manages how to say it -> die rolls). Best results are achieved when both of them are good at their own job.

Pretending that the player's own charisma should take over the character's charisma (thus also relying on RP instead of die rolls for the "singing" part) is a possible setup if the gaming group agrees on it, but so would be the opposite case where you allow a player to pretend that his character should also know what to say when the player is out of ideas...