Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[S'mon]

and someone who uses charisma for a dump stat but tries to play the smooth operator is just as likely going to get a penalty from me as DM for bad RPing.

I actually have more of a problem with the CHA 7 PC, who to my mind might be a bit reserved and withdrawn, being played as an obnoxious jerk who annoys every NPC he meets. At least in a socially oriented campaign such as a city-based one, I'd prefer it if players didn't intentionally disadvantage themselves beyond the requirements of the dice.

When it comes to very low CHA, I recall a CHA 3 half-orc assassin PC who disguised as a beggar and was played so repulsively, people he met would ostentatiously ignore him, letting him shank them in the back. I thought that was brilliant Gamist use of a low stat. This was possible in 1e as Disguise skill wasn't dependent on CHA. I've had a lot of trouble with 3e's link between stats and skills - low WIS Rogues who can't spot things as well as the Cleric, low CHA Rogues who can't disguise themselves, etc. I find 1e's discrete sub-systems allow for a lot more flexibility in the type of characters played.

 

[S'mon]

On the DM's side of things, I don't like the freeform system since it makes me too visible as the DM. The players want to bluff the guard. Ok, fine. But, I, as DM, KNOW that they're lying. So, do I let them pass or not? Well, I judge their performance, but, I don't want to make it too easy do I? But, too difficult and now I'm just stonewalling. Finding that line between the gimme and the stone wall is very difficult for me. So, I'd much rather let the mechanics determine success.

I don't have any trouble getting in-character as the guard - actor stance rather than pawn stance - but I think maybe some GMs do. If I'm the guard, I know what I the guard know, not what the GM knows. I know what my motivations are, I'm not going to stonewall for metagame reasons.

 

[The Shaman]

If I'm the guard, I know what I the guard know, not what the GM knows. I know what my motivations are, I'm not going to stonewall for metagame reasons.

This, to me, is one of the fundamental skills a rpg referee must have, the ability to separate each npc from the hive-mind of character and campaign knowledge vying for neurons in the referee's head.

And could someone please xp [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] for me?

 

[S'mon]

I've used rolls for social interactions in every game I've ever played, from the Charisma-adjusted reaction rolls and loyalty scores for henchmen and hirelings in AD&D to the Contact rules in Top Secret to the social skills of d20, and in my experience they neither inhibit roleplaying nor do they result in the players substituting skill rolls for actually having to figure out how to best use those skills to get what they want.

It's possible for them to work ok, if the game is well designed. Most skill-based systems (BRP say) work ok, in the manner you describe. I run 4e social skills similarly and have not had major problems. 3e, OTOH, is terrible. Skill siloing such that the Fighter PC can never be socially effective and never dare say anything to anyone. A Diplomacy skill that BtB is trivially easy for Face PCs and acts like virtual mind control. Design that encourages players to treat social skills as abstract resources "I Diplomatise him". And it's all supposed to be 'balanced', a low-Dip PC is supposed to be advantaged in other areas, a high-Dip PC class supposedly pays for that, so any restriction on social skill use and the GM can be accused of cheating the Bard.

With 4e's equalising of combat power for everyone, a GM can be a lot more flexible in his approach to social interaction without being accused of nerfing a PC class.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The game handles skill allocation and social skills poorly anyhow. They make a great many assumptions such as a fighter won't be very socially capable even if he is a general working for a king. They assume a fighter won't be trained well for stealth or infiltration. They assume this even if you are a fighter trained at fighting school or by a professional military.

They automically assume every thief is highly skilled and well-trained even if raised as a beggar on the streets with no one much to school him or much chance to hone social skills.

Every sorcerer or oracle by virtue of their main statistic will be socially capable and amongst the best speakers, most beautiful people, and most attractive of people even if they spend only moderately on their social skills.

Every cleric is not very skilled whether raised in a village hamlet or in the greatest church in the biggest city in the entire realm with the most rigorous academic requirements. Even though this isn't particularly true given most priests had some of the best access to education in human history.

Let's just say D&D and Pathfinder do a very poor job of allocating skills and do the best we can with it. The skill system was a move in the right direction. But they can still do better such as eliminating skill points by class and giving each person quite a few skills points and letting them spend them as they wish according to how they want to fashion their characters. If someone wants to make a stealthy fighter or a very learned priest, it should not in any way imbalance the game.

So to get back to the point, the social skill system is the least of my concerns as far as skills go. It does allow players that may not be the most charismatic roleplayers to try a different type of character and still be effective. I'm ok with it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They could fall back on magic spells, or on a high CHA stat that makes NPCs favourably inclined to them to begin with.

Using magic as a fallback is a cop-out, and furthermore, is not always available. The PC may not posess "social magic"; magic may be suppressed or nullified; it may also not be permitted in certain areas without express permission- spellcasting in the presence of the king may be every bit as punishable by death via poisoned crossbow bolt as would be drawing a weapon.

As for having a high Cha stat, once you've gone there, you're halfway to using social skill mechanics anyway.

I have never ever seen a shy or withdrawn player have any trouble with roleplaying in-character if the DM gives them space to do so (a DM can be a dick in social encounters, but he can in combat encounters too).

I have, and more than once. One of the guys I gamed with in college was extremely withdrawn, and his speaking voice was almost a whisper* and often quite slow & deliberate. Having him RP a social situation would have required more than the short sentences he would utter quickly in combat, like "I shoot him" and thus would have been extremely drawn out. Were it not for that game's social skills, the GM would have been exhausted by session's end. And despite all this, he always was pleasant to game with and had cool PCs who did what you'd expect those PCs to do. IOW, he grasped the process and contributed to the game for all.

Without those systemic social skills, though....






* having heard him yell in frustration and joy, I know it was not a physical limitation.

 

[S'mon]

This, to me, is one of the fundamental skills a rpg referee must have, the ability to separate each npc from the hive-mind of character and campaign knowledge vying for neurons in the referee's head.

And could someone please xp [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] for me?

Cheers

It helps if the GM enjoys getting into the mindset of the goblin gate guard, the Banite priest or whatever. My players seem to love it when I roleplay the NPCs*, and doing that is one of the great joys of GMing for me, so it all works out great for me.

*Certainly in my 4e tabletop games, where roleplayed conversation is a welcome change from lengthy combat. Some of my online text-chat Yggsburgh city campaign players would probably be ok with a bit less in-character interaction, but I haven't seen any real complaints.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't have any trouble getting in-character as the guard - actor stance rather than pawn stance - but I think maybe some GMs do. If I'm the guard, I know what I the guard know, not what the GM knows. I know what my motivations are, I'm not going to stonewall for metagame reasons.

This, to me, is one of the fundamental skills a rpg referee must have, the ability to separate each npc from the hive-mind of character and campaign knowledge vying for neurons in the referee's head.

Is this something ("actor stance" and getting in character, with NPCs) that newer rulesets, perhaps in an effort to increase the player pool and sales, tend to downplay as part of the necessary DM/GM toolkit for running roleplaying games?

 

[S'mon]

Let's just say D&D and Pathfinder do a very poor job of allocating skills and do the best we can with it. The skill system was a move in the right direction. But they can still do better such as eliminating skill points by class and giving each person quite a few skills points and letting them spend them as they wish according to how they want to fashion their characters. If someone wants to make a stealthy fighter or a very learned priest, it should not in any way imbalance the game.

I agree strongly with this. The siloing-by-class of skills in 3e+ works very poorly indeed. Every PC should have similar freedom with skill allocation, then some special non-combat abilities by class, eg only wizards can actively manipulate magical energies, Rogues get big bonuses to their class specialty skills; or if you want to keep the 1e flavour then only Rogues can hide in shadows, climb sheer surfaces, move with complete silence et al.

But the main thing is to move away from "You get 2 skill points per level in these crappy skills" to every PC getting the same number of skills (maybe affected by INT) and a free choice which skills to specialise in. Diplomatic Fighters, educated Clerics, et al.

 

[S'mon]

Is this something ("actor stance" and getting in character, with NPCs) that newer rulesets, perhaps in an effort to increase the player pool and sales, tend to downplay as part of the necessary DM/GM toolkit for running roleplaying games?

Maybe. That might be why the 4e Skill Challenge mechanics looked so weird to me, not to mention "An Encounter with guards at the city gate isn't Fun".

Is it really a rare ability though? Surely the ability to play a role is more common than the ability to master very crunchy, complicated RPG rules systems?

Sometimes I start to think that modern games designers, at least D&D games designers, are a strange bunch. They seem to think that reading and mastering 400 page rulebooks with 60-page combat chapters is easier than just pretending to be an Elf, or a guard. I'm sure that is true for some people, Hussar maybe, but it seems like a pretty narrow target market.