Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Hussar]

The pcs find a room with a bed in it. Under the bed is a gold goblet worth 500 gp that is not visible to the party upon entering the room.

How do I as GM determine whether the pcs find the gold goblet?

Method 1: One of the players says, "My pc looks under the bed."

Method 2: One of the players says, "I'm rolling a perception check, do I find anything?" and then rolls a number on a d20 adjusted by whatever applicable bonus.

Why is one method better than the other? Are they even mutually exclusive? If you generally use method 2, are you going to tell the player who says his pc looks under the bed that he doesn't find anything without rolling the dice?

And, in such a simple situation, there really isn't much of a difference. How about a counter example:

* Three Darkmantles lurk on the ceiling of the room above the door. If the players do not specifically state that they are looking up, they will not see the Darkmantles and the creatures will gain surprise on the party if they attack.

Now, in a game where you have some sort of "Spot" skill, is this fair or not? What if the players just say, "We look around"?

Or, to take your example RogueA, what if I state that Sir Billingsley searches the room. Do I find the goblet or not?

I've seen people, on this board, seriously state that a three foot long silver rod stuck in a torch holder is hidden from the PC's and wouldn't be found unless the players specifically mentioned looking at the torch bracket. ((Example is from The Moathouse in Village of Hommlet))

See, this is why I have such a hard time with free forming. What one person thinks is perfectly reasonable (I search the room - you find the goblet!) is unreasonble to the next person. It's not about good or bad DMing, it's about what the DM thinks is reasonable.

So, if I'm playing with a DM where I know that the stuff under the bed will only be found if I state, "I look under the bed", then my playstyle will reflect that. I'm going to piss about, spending all sorts of time, pixel bitching the room because I know that unless I say the right thing that the DM finds reasonable, I won't find whatever's hidden there.

And the same goes for free form RP'ing. I don't want to LARP thank you very much. I've done that, and it's fun, but, not what I'm interested in when I sit down to play D&D. And that's what happens, IME, when you free form social interactions - you're larping. Massive amounts of time gets spent in every interaction, simply because the player can never really know if he's exhausted all the options with a given NPC. So, the player tries, and tries, and tries again. With a mechanical resolution system, you KNOW if you succeeded or failed and can act appropriately. It gets the information into the player's hands as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Can mechanics hamper role play? Oh sure. The 3e Diplomacy table has been mentioned and I'd totally agree with that. The problem with D20 is that it lumps all non-combat into the same system, which doesn't really make a lot of sense. Climbing a wall is inherently different than talking to someone. They should use different systems. But, offloading everything onto the DM and saying, "oh, well, just talk it out" is not better, IMO. It's lazy game design and winds up causing far more friction at the table than it ever solves.

 

[Bedrockgames]

However, different systems can give better or worse advice to the GM on how to set those difficulty targets, relative to a particular desired play experience. So while systems can't protect from bad GMing, I think they can help produce better GMing.

The worst sort of system I'm familiar with is something like AD&D 2nd ed, which promises a play experience of heroic fantasy, but provides action resolution mechanics and advice that were designed for Gygaxian "skilled play", and then encourages the GM to fiat/override those mechanics in the interests of "story". So far from protecting from bad GMing, or producing good GMing, this is a recipe for encouraging crap GMing. I also suspect that it is bad experiences with precisely these sorts of systems that makes some RPGers prefer what they perceive as the "safe harbour" of social resolution mechanics.

I agree that 2E had some bad advice in terms of railroading, but i actually think it is the best version of D&D so far, and found NWPs just inobtrusive enough to satisfy my style of play. Also the setting material was excellent and the modules (if yiu cut away some of the railroading) are great.

I am the least railroady GM there is but really loved 2E. Though it is famous for bad advice regarding story (and i feel this criticism is 100% accurate), if you look past that one aspect the line actually had a good deal of solid gm advice. The blue boo line alone is a great gming resource. Like material from any perid, they were written with fads and trends as assumptions. Initially the story thing wasnt very apparent, it grew over time as vampire gained popularity. I just ran a 2E campaign and you can see how TSR tries more and more to emulate vampire as the 90s wear on. But the sin here is mostly just bad GM advice. Same thing with vampire. Every game i played of vampire was character driven and free from railroading. Since i didnt gm it myself and only used the book to make characters, i was pretty much unaware of the storytelling angle of the gm advice until years later

Personally i have not encountered many bad GMs as you descriptive here, and when I have it hasn't bothered me that much. So maybe that is why i never fled for "safe harbor" as you put it I do like the GM to have the traditional powers assigned to him, and i really hate it in games where pcs can take narrative control through mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The pcs find a room with a bed in it. Under the bed is a gold goblet worth 500 gp that is not visible to the party upon entering the room.

How do I as GM determine whether the pcs find the gold goblet?

Method 1: One of the players says, "My pc looks under the bed."

Method 2: One of the players says, "I'm rolling a perception check, do I find anything?" and then rolls a number on a d20 adjusted by whatever applicable bonus.

Why is one method better than the other? Are they even mutually exclusive? If you generally use method 2, are you going to tell the player who says his pc looks under the bed that he doesn't find anything without rolling the dice?

This captures one of the core issues I run into with many skill checks. It is not that skill checks are bad and free forming them is good. But both have advantages and disadvantages. This exampe you raise actualoy came up in one of my recent campaigns. In the end i decided the pc specifically saying he looks under the bed is more important than what he rolls.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

both have advantages and disadvantages.

Exactly- and having both in your arsenal means you're well armed; you can use each when appropriate.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Double Post.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Exactly- and having both in your arsenal means you're well armed; you can use each when appropriate.

I think that is a valid approach but not objectively better than doing one or the other. I generally use social skills, but only very rarely. So i tend to agree they can be handy to have. However i've played games without them and while there is a tradeoff, this can be a fun way to run or play a game.

 

[chaochou]

The pcs find a room with a bed in it.

"Er, I look under the bed"
"It's a mimic, you're dead, try again!"
"I ..."
"You're dead, try again!"
"Check for traps!"
Ding!

It's the player using a player resource to, in effect, skip over the situation - instead of having to engage the fiction, the player is saying to the GM "I want you to frame a new situation - one in which my PC sees whatever interesting stuff there is to see in this room."

Yes! (my xp well is dry, sorry.)

But this got me thinking. There's this kind of context-free situation (You're in a room with a bed in it) and you're asked "What do you do?"

Do I?
* check for traps
* set the bed on fire
* look under the bed
* cut the mattress open
* go to sleep
* close the door and go somewhere else
* make a rope out of the sheets
* search for clues about the occupant
* ask for a perception check

I don't really think any are more or less valid choices for a player, but the answer will offer a glimpse of genre expectations and playstyle.

 

[Mallus]

One thing I've noticed in cross-edition discussion is a radically different idea of what a "low" attribute score is and what its significance is.

In older editions, an 8 in an attribute score is slightly below average. So, in charisma terms, that's not someone with "no social skills." That's someone who might be a bit awkward from time to time, but generally makes his way through life without too many social disasters.

Right. I've come to really appreciate the way AD&D handles this. An 8 in CHA means no modifier, at all, to social reaction rolls, however it also means that PC will only have a small number of loyal hangers-on. That PC is at no disadvantage in the short-term --they can be persuasive, charming, etc.-- but over the long run, the mechanics clearly state they're not really a people-person.

This strikes me as elegant. It puts the focus where I like it --on what is said at the table, right now-- but still makes CHA meaningful (of course, that "meaningfulness" sorta requires henchmen to play an important part of the campaign -- which can be a drawback if they don't).

The worst sort of system I'm familiar with is something like AD&D 2nd ed, which promises a play experience of heroic fantasy, but provides action resolution mechanics and advice that were designed for Gygaxian "skilled play", and then encourages the GM to fiat/override those mechanics in the interests of "story".

Slight tangent: there are other ways to make 2e, and even 1e work better in high heroic, epic fantasy mode, without resorting to rampart fudging or railroading, ie high stats, some of the UA options like weapon specialization, an abundance of the right magic items/spells.

I'd say the bulk of my initial experiences with AD&D & 2e were played like this. I didn't really encounter "purer", High Gygaxian D&D until I started discussing gaming on the Internet!

As I said in that thread, this strikes me as obviously being a resolution system, with three steps: (1) the player describes where his/her PC is looking (prefereably in 1st person), and (2) describe how intently his/her PC is looking, then (3) the GM, based on his/her conception of the relevant fictional situation, tells the player what his/her PC sees.

It sure *is* a resolution system. I'd call it an informal system, as opposed to a formal one.

Step (3) means that the GM has a lot of power in this resolution mechanic. The GM is not all-powerful, but clearly the GM has more power than a mechanic whereby (for example) a player is able to make a die roll, or play a Fate token, or whatever, and thereby be entitled to be told by the GM what hidden things become visible.

Re: spotting in older D&D - there are more steps and a bit more structure, which addresses your issue. Admittedly this wasn't clear to me back in my formative gaming years in the mid-80s.

Players spend time to search. That's the currency.

For each unit of time spent to search an area (or part), there's a chance for a monster to wander by and (usually) attempt to eat their PCs. That's the cost.

All PCs have a low base chance to spot hidden things while searching. Some have passive search skills which reveal (certain) hidden things, like doors, which don't cost time to use.

Players are free to search specific sites in an area, which should speed the process up, reducing the cost in time. DMs are also free to screw up this rather neat mechanic, by forcing players to "pixel bitch" large areas, instead of simply "charging" them time and rolling for a random encounter.

Now I didn't like this much back in the day, mainly because "wandering monsters" offended by then-simulationist sensibilities ("where do they wandering in from?!"). However, from a game design perspective, it works quite well, and I've warmed to it in my middle age.

Of course, the farther you move away from the dungeon crawl paradigm, then less well it works. For investigation scenarios, I'd use another kind of plot-based "timer", or just shift the challenge from finding clues to doing something with them (I believe this is sorta how the GUMSHOE system works).

Both systems presuppose the GM's authority over backstory, but the "player describes, GM decides" approach also gives the GM significant authority over plot.

I'd say it's scenario/setting design which gives the GM the most meaningful control over plot. Everything else is just gravy (and hyperbole!). That said, as much as I like "player describes, GM decides" --even in 3e & 4e!-- I'm also uncomfortable with too much GM overdetermination. I freely admit I usually don't know what the most logical, consistent, dramatic, or interesting result of the PCs course of action is. So when I'm in doubt, I make up some percentages on the spot and roll the dice.

It's fast, it results in me being as surprised by the outcome as the players, and it keeps the focus on live play, as opposed to the way formal systems like 3e's tend to shift the focus to bonus-stacking and/or character building outside of the session.

edit: another thing, my experience with various kinds of free-form resolution is it frequently defaults to (simple) mechanics; roll under an ability score on a d20, etc.

If there are power issues at the table, I don't think that system is a particularly good way to resolve them - I'm from the "social contract trumps system" school - but it is possible for a group which does not have trouble with power issues to nevertheless prefer a resolution system which reduces the GM's authority over plot.

Yes. I agree -- if for no other reason than pure psychology. It's easier to be told "no" by a die roll/abstract rule system than it is to hear the same from another human being.

Exactly- and having both in your arsenal means you're well armed; you can use each when appropriate.

I've said that all along, Danny.

 

[rogueattorney]

And, in such a simple situation, there really isn't much of a difference. How about a counter example:

* Three Darkmantles lurk on the ceiling of the room above the door. If the players do not specifically state that they are looking up, they will not see the Darkmantles and the creatures will gain surprise on the party if they attack.

Now, in a game where you have some sort of "Spot" skill, is this fair or not? What if the players just say, "We look around"?

Or, to take your example RogueA, what if I state that Sir Billingsley searches the room. Do I find the goblet or not?

I've seen people, on this board, seriously state that a three foot long silver rod stuck in a torch holder is hidden from the PC's and wouldn't be found unless the players specifically mentioned looking at the torch bracket. ((Example is from The Moathouse in Village of Hommlet))

See, this is why I have such a hard time with free forming. What one person thinks is perfectly reasonable (I search the room - you find the goblet!) is unreasonble to the next person. It's not about good or bad DMing, it's about what the DM thinks is reasonable.

So, if I'm playing with a DM where I know that the stuff under the bed will only be found if I state, "I look under the bed", then my playstyle will reflect that. I'm going to piss about, spending all sorts of time, pixel bitching the room because I know that unless I say the right thing that the DM finds reasonable, I won't find whatever's hidden there.

And the same goes for free form RP'ing. I don't want to LARP thank you very much. I've done that, and it's fun, but, not what I'm interested in when I sit down to play D&D. And that's what happens, IME, when you free form social interactions - you're larping. Massive amounts of time gets spent in every interaction, simply because the player can never really know if he's exhausted all the options with a given NPC. So, the player tries, and tries, and tries again. With a mechanical resolution system, you KNOW if you succeeded or failed and can act appropriately. It gets the information into the player's hands as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Can mechanics hamper role play? Oh sure. The 3e Diplomacy table has been mentioned and I'd totally agree with that. The problem with D20 is that it lumps all non-combat into the same system, which doesn't really make a lot of sense. Climbing a wall is inherently different than talking to someone. They should use different systems. But, offloading everything onto the DM and saying, "oh, well, just talk it out" is not better, IMO. It's lazy game design and winds up causing far more friction at the table than it ever solves.

I can only speak for how I'd run a game, but if I'm running by B/X or 1e game, I'd roll for surprise on the darkmantles. I think that's a pretty clear place where the surprise rules apply. Maybe the monsters would get a bonus. Regardless, there'd be at least a chance that the pcs spot them even if they don't mention the ceiling.

But that goes back to what I was saying in my previous post... There's space in the game for both approaches and certainly situations where one method might be more appropriate than the other or serve the group's game better.

As for the torch bracket... If they specifically say they're looking at the bracket, they find the silver rod. If they just generally say they're searching the room for secret doors, traps, or whatever, they have their character's normal chance of finding stuff. I'll often default to a 1-2 in 6 if nothing's specified in the rules. If they don't search the room they're not going to find it.

I don't think it's bad to allow DMs to set what they think is reasonable. But then, I've generally played with reasonable people and don't know why anyone would bother to do otherwise.

I don't think "There's a bed" followed by "I look under the bed" is pixelbitching. To me, pixelbitching is "Do I find anything under the 5th cobblestone over in the third row of cobblestones? Ok, do I find anything under the 6th cobblestone over..." etc. Maybe that's a fine line to others, but the distinction seems pretty clear to me.

If there's a non-hidden element to the campaign world, I think the players should engage with it -- the bed in my example, the idol with gemstone eyes, the dungeon door, etc. If there's a hidden element in the campaign world, that's when I go to search/spot/perception checks -- secret doors, traps, the darkmantles in your example. That's just not anything that's ever seemed particularly complicated to me or that ever needed to be spelled out in any rule book.

Moving back to social encounters... I absolutely agree with you about rp'ing every single thing that happens in an rpg. It drives me batty and I wouldn't want to do it. I refuse to roleplay buying equipment or flirting with the barwench for example.

But for more substantive encounters, it comes down to me to what the players want out of an encounter and whether I as a DM think they can get it. Tell me what you're trying to get the npc to do and what you say to him to get him to do it. Keep it simple and direct. No big, flowery speeches or any of that dreck. That's more likely to annoy me than help you.

If what you're saying isn't obviously reasonable or unreasonable, I'll roll on the reaction chart, adjust for charisma and whatever other circumstances might exist, and tell you what happens. If you want to continue to engage the npc from there, we repeat the process. I don't see why it requires 3e's bluff, sense motive, intimidate, diplomacy, etc. hierarchy of skills to do it reasonably.

 

[Mallus]

What one person thinks is perfectly reasonable (I search the room - you find the goblet!) is unreasonble to the next person. It's not about good or bad DMing, it's about what the DM thinks is reasonable.

System doesn't really address this, though. You end up swapping accusations over pixel-bitching for accusations the DM set the Search DC too high, ie swapping one implementation of unreasonableness for another.

I don't want to LARP thank you very much.

Me neither! First off, I'd have to sew a costume...

And that's what happens, IME, when you free form social interactions - you're larping.

Or you're playing D&D the way people have played it decades. LARPing has a specific meaning. Let's keep it that way, eh?

Massive amounts of time gets spent in every interaction, simply because the player can never really know if he's exhausted all the options with a given NPC. So, the player tries, and tries, and tries again.

There is no reason this has to happen. This is a worst-case scenario.

With a mechanical resolution system, you KNOW if you succeeded or failed and can act appropriately. It gets the information into the player's hands as quickly and efficiently as possible.

This, however, is a fair point. Resolving social encounters mechanically can be faster, and it can deliver interesting results. I don't think anyone is debating that.

But what if you're interested in more than the results? What if you're after entertaining in-character conversation? The highlights of many of my gaming sessions are the batsh*t clever things the players say.

What if you also want the feeling of accomplishment that comes from having the exact words you chose decide the encounter's success?

These are things social resolution mechanics cannot provide, by design, even. Which is why free-form compliments a formal system nicely.

It's lazy game design and winds up causing far more friction at the table than it ever solves.

It's not lazy design. It's design with a slightly different goal.