Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Tymophil]

One of my gaming buddies is coarse and brash. This is his nature, and we like him for it. Whenever he says something in character, his nature will shine through. This is why he is a computer programmer and not an actor.

Thus, no matter what he says to the Queen, regardless of the relevant skill, he will say what he says in his own abrasive wording.

It would seem that in your system, this would consistently work against him.

I don't get it. Are you saying thet your gaming pal is unable to simply state : "Sir Rakehell tries to charm the Queen with a speech."

What would this player actually say in the circumstance ?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Sir Rakehell tries to charm the Queen with a speech."

That may be how he starts, but that won't be where he ends. Actual verbiage may or may not be Grandma Approved.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But if you stick with your RL-abrasive-computer-programmer persona I am going to very rapidly get sick of pretending you're actually being charming and diplomatic.

I hear what you're saying.

This guy has probably had several DMs like that over the years- I've only seen him play a "Face" once in the past 14 years and it was only his rolling that made the situation anything but laughable.

But I'd still rather play a game and sit at a table that let him play a "Face", regardless of his RW personality, as opposed to one where he was effectively bard (get it? . I slay me!) from doing so because he's generally an ass (though a good natured one).*













* if he ever gets a White House invite- improbable though that is- I expect him to do something like John Riggins did...

 

[Tymophil]

That may be how he starts, but that won't be where he ends. Actual verbiage may or may not be Grandma Approved.

I have to say that I would not play with such guy for long... Basing a rolepay system on such players is not a course that I would follow.

 

[Barroll]

Now I have to decide If I wish to hybrid these in my group or, completely disregard them... Hrmmm.

 

[S'mon]

I hear what you're saying.

This guy has probably had several DMs like that over the years- I've only seen him play a "Face" once in the past 14 years and it was only his rolling that made the situation anything but laughable.

But I'd still rather play a game and sit at a table that let him play a "Face", regardless of his RW personality, as opposed to one where he was effectively bard (get it? . I slay me!) from doing so because he's generally an ass (though a good natured one).*

If it's not a problem for you or anyone at your table, completely fine of course. I guess those other DMs felt more like me.

 

[Janx]

How is "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the queen" significantly different from saying, "I use Diplomacy on the Queen"? After all, it means exactly the same thing, just stated from a slightly different perspective.

I see a difference. It's the key words of "to be sweet" which shows his intent and approach.

"I use Diplomacy" barely tells me anything.

Bear in mind, I'm shifting to Rich Burlew's version, wherein Diplomacy is really a Persuasion check. At which point, the PC trying to persuade the queen to like him.

I see a couple telling things from Danny's example. His friend is socially uncouth. Either GMs discouraged him from playing Social PCs or he naturally selected to NOT play a social PC. Somebody who is socially uncouth tends to not value social skills. Therefore they would be inclined to think a social PC sucks. The actuallity probably lies in the middle.

As to fumbles and failures for skills, I don't think they have to be critical or catastrophic. Highly skilled people have simple failures too. They just happen much less frequently. And considering the soft skills like Diplomacy, it can be for a simple reason of "the queen does not like you for some reason" It doesn't have to be some extreme failure.

 

[Hussar]

The difference is huge : the first is in character somehow (very dry, I must say). The second is not allowed at my table... This is nor roleplay for me, it kills immersion.

The player must state an action, then we decide what skill is used.

But, what if Diplomacy actually is is best ability?

I guess I just don't worry overmuch about this level of hair splitting. Granted, when we play, usually checks come out after some role play has been going on, so, it's not something I've ever seen that the player will start with "I diplomatize the queen".

But, I'm honestly not drawing a whole lot of distinction here. Whether his actions are couched in game language or not, it's pretty clear what the intent is, so, I roll with that.

 

[billd91]

How is "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the queen" significantly different from saying, "I use Diplomacy on the Queen"? After all, it means exactly the same thing, just stated from a slightly different perspective.

Perspective and attitude make a huge difference for the atmosphere at the table. It's like the difference between your teenage daughter saying "Sure thing, Dad" and "Yeah, whatever" when you tell her to get off the computer and empty the dishwasher. They're both in the affirmative, but you come away with a very different impression.

 

[Tymophil]

But, what if Diplomacy actually is is best ability?

I prefer the player to state what action his character does, then we decide what skill is used. I don't care what are his best abilities. I cannot build a story, nor can the player, around a skill bonus on a character sheet. We both need actions to have the ball rolled, so do the other players around the table. Around my table anyway...

I guess I just don't worry overmuch about this level of hair splitting. Granted, when we play, usually checks come out after some role play has been going on, so, it's not something I've ever seen that the player will start with "I diplomatize the queen".

So we agree, the skill test is the result of an action, or a series of actions. It is not even always required. I tend to use it quite often, in order for the player to get the feeling that his character sheet matters. It may seems contradictory with my other posts, but it isn't in my mind.

But, anyway, if the players chose the best course of action, there is no way that this will result in a disaster, even a failure, whatever the roll says.

If he chose an obviously inadequate action, the roll will help me decide what kind of information I have to give him to make a clearer picture of the situation (it also buys me precious time to think). I no longer waste my time with players that don't give a damn. So I assume that if the player chose a strange course of action, it's because he could not draw an accurate picture of the scene. Therefore, it is my fault, and my task is to make the picture clearer.

My tone is quite important. When the roll is a failure, I may even give more information than when it's a success, but a use a less cheery tone, and mots of the time, the information points at the less brillant part of the intervention.
When the roll is a success, my tone is more intertaining.