Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[S'mon]

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 One of the guys I gamed with in college was extremely withdrawn, and his speaking voice was almost a whisper* and often quite slow & deliberate.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....

How did this work out in play? Did he play supposedly loquacious PCs? Did he paraphrase what his PC was saying, and then rolled a skill check?

IME, If the player gives enough information in the paraphrase that the GM can understand what the PC is saying, this can be workable, though I don't find it much fun.

My normal preference though would be that if a player doesn't want to talk, they play a laconic PC. Conversely, in [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s case of her getting tongue-tied sometimes, I can't see that being a problem in my games; stuff could come out a bit wrong but exact words are really not nearly as important as a lot of other factors in getting a good reaction - things like attitude & demeanour matter far more.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Did he paraphrase what his PC was saying, and then rolled a skill check?

Yeah, pretty much this, except it would be more like "I convince him to leave" or "I seduce her for info" then roll. Then the GM would fill in the blank by narrating the consequences of the roll.

He rarely actually spoke in character.

 

[BryonD]

But we don't really let anyone get away with any thing and we don't play like that. Actually you don't need social skills to do any of that...trust me we have been since 1e.

You said:

I would just rather the DM play off of how I actually do it in character than rely on my dice roll.

And you said some times you do it well and some times you do it poorly.
And the title of this thread is not about "rolls" it is about "skills".

The only reasonable interpretation of what you said is that if you role play a bluff really well, the DM should let the bluff work. If you are playing a clever bluff based character then cool. If you are playing a dumb ox then you have just let the character get away with something.

Maybe what you SAID and what you actually DO are not the same. But I'm limited to responding to what you said.

If you do what you said then you let characters get away with things.
If you don't then you use social skills, whether you write them on the sheet or not.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, pretty much this, except it would be more like "I convince him to leave" or "I seduce her for info" then roll. Then the GM would fill in the blank by narrating the consequences of the roll.

Did the GM (you?) enjoy doing that? I'd hate it. I feed off player energy, this would suck me dry very fast.

 

[Mark CMG]

So, which is better for a roleplaying game, while knowing there is some middle ground but speaking to the extremes so as to pick a side on which to err: not leveling the playing field and finding ways to get those not so good with roleplaying to become better roleplayers or designing a roleplaying system that levels the playing field so roleplaying is restricted in favor of making sure those who don't roleplay well never need to get better at the game they are playing? (Trick Question Trap, DC 15, posting your answer in-character gains a +2 bonus on the check even if your answer isn't perfect. )

 

[Elf Witch]

I think what bothers me the most is the idea that the person who is not glib of tongue and wants a to roll social skills is not a good role player.

My one player who was shy and easily tongue tied was an excellent role player. He never said I swing my sword he described what he was doing in combat when he played a cleric he actually called on his god for the power to heal he didn't just say I heal and roll.

The problem with diplomacy and bluff though was he would often stumble and stutter doing that type of role playing. Having the ability to also roll made him more successful he didn't just say I roll he described what he was trying to do. When using diplomacy with the king to get him to help the outlying villages he explained that he would tell the king the value of those people and would appeal to the king's honor and duty. Then he rolled to see how well he did and if he was able to get through to the king.

The problem with saying just try and that is all that matters is just not true not unless as the DM you have decided that it will always be a success. Even trained diplomats have been known to put their foot in their mouth at times or misunderstand the culture and make a mistake or just read the person wrong and say the wrong thing.

If the person is stumbling and stuttering and says the wrong thing do just go okay it works which imo makes it meaningless since it was an auto success so why bother with the role playing at all.

Or do you penalize the person because he lacks the skill to really use diplomacy or bluff.

Skill roles gives you a way to handle this in game other then just DM fiat if a person role plays it out brilliantly you can either have them not make a roll or give them a lot of modification to the roll. If a person gives you an idea of what he wants to say then rolls then he has a chance of playing a diplomatic character.

There is a big difference between just saying I roll my diplomacy or bluff and saying nothing else and a person at least describing what he is trying to accomplish and then rolling.

And if you are going to say you must role play everything out and no rolls do you also make your cleric role play out getting his spells from his deity and make sure he says the proper thing to heal? Do you make your fighters describe exactly how they swing their sword and wizards describe the hand movements and say the spell out loud?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Did the GM (you?) enjoy doing that? I'd hate it. I feed off player energy, this would suck me dry very fast.

I was a fellow player.

And while it may sound rough, it was actually kind of cool- it was kind of like hanging with someone with an extremely dry sense of humor. "I seduce her for info" *diceroll* actually got chuckles the first time...it was almost like a world-weary Bond was in action.

 

[Balesir]

Did the GM (you?) enjoy doing that? I'd hate it. I feed off player energy, this would suck me dry very fast.

Interesting. I get energy from player ideas, but not (particularly) from player performances. Maybe there is a whole new "energy source categorisation model" lurking to be explored, here?

 

[Mark CMG]

I think what bothers me the most is the idea that the person who is not glib of tongue and wants a to roll social skills is not a good role player.

My one player who was shy and easily tongue tied was an excellent role player. He never said I swing my sword he described what he was doing in combat when he played a cleric he actually called on his god for the power to heal he didn't just say I heal and roll.

The problem with diplomacy and bluff though was he would often stumble and stutter doing that type of role playing. Having the ability to also roll made him more successful he didn't just say I roll he described what he was trying to do. When using diplomacy with the king to get him to help the outlying villages he explained that he would tell the king the value of those people and would appeal to the king's honor and duty. Then he rolled to see how well he did and if he was able to get through to the king.

The problem with saying just try and that is all that matters is just not true not unless as the DM you have decided that it will always be a success. Even trained diplomats have been known to put their foot in their mouth at times or misunderstand the culture and make a mistake or just read the person wrong and say the wrong thing.

If the person is stumbling and stuttering and says the wrong thing do just go okay it works which imo makes it meaningless since it was an auto success so why bother with the role playing at all.

Or do you penalize the person because he lacks the skill to really use diplomacy or bluff.

Skill roles gives you a way to handle this in game other then just DM fiat if a person role plays it out brilliantly you can either have them not make a roll or give them a lot of modification to the roll. If a person gives you an idea of what he wants to say then rolls then he has a chance of playing a diplomatic character.

There is a big difference between just saying I roll my diplomacy or bluff and saying nothing else and a person at least describing what he is trying to accomplish and then rolling.

And if you are going to say you must role play everything out and no rolls do you also make your cleric role play out getting his spells from his deity and make sure he says the proper thing to heal? Do you make your fighters describe exactly how they swing their sword and wizards describe the hand movements and say the spell out loud?

That's where the combination of "roleplaying" and "game" come in. It isn't about just trying to roleplay and thus automatically being awarded a success. It's about trying to roleplay as best you can and also having some dice rolls (the "game" part) augmented by the actual roleplaying. However, using the example of someone who has a disability as your example might be feathering the nest a bit in terms of discussing what a roleplaying game should take into consideration by design. You put them up as an exception that needs consideration, but I would counter that it would need to be an exception taken into consideration by the table/GM rather than in the design of the actual game, lest we fall into the trap of designing the game in such a way that the person at the other end of the roleplaying-ability-spectrum be restricted in their fun by rules that make roleplaying less important in the roleplaying game.

Most people who play a particular type of game do so to experience that type of game and with the understanding that they will progress as that type of game player, and I don't think they expect the game to be designed against type just because they might not be good at that type of game right from the start. So, the question becomes, can a game of any type be of its best design by taking the standard that it be designed for players who are not good at that type of game playing? OR, is a game of a certain type best designed when it is designed toward its type with the hopes of attracting players who want to play that type of game even if they aren't very good at it from the start but hope to improve at that type of gaming the more they play? (With the understanding that, for any type of game, there will be some players of that game who enjoy playing it even if they never manage to play it above a certain level of play, and also the understanidng that there will be some people who excel at that type of game innately.)

 

[Elf Witch]

That's where the combination of "roleplaying" and "game" come in. It isn't about just trying to roleplay and thus automatically being awarded a success. It's about trying to roleplay as best you can and also having some dice rolls (the "game" part) augmented by the actual roleplaying. However, using the example of someone who has a disability as your example might be feathering the nest a bit in terms of discussing what a roleplaying game should take into consideration by design. You put them up as an exception that needs consideration, but I would counter that it would need to be an exception taken into consideration by the table/GM rather than in the design of the actual game, lest we fall into the trap of designing the game in such a way that the person at the other end of the roleplaying-ability-spectrum be restricted in their fun by rules that make roleplaying less important in the roleplaying game.

Most people who play a particular type of game do so to experience that type of game and with the understanding that they will progress as that type of game player, and I don't think they expect the game to be designed against type just because they might not be good at that type of game right from the start. So, the question becomes, can a game of any type be of its best design by taking the standard that it be designed for players who are not good at that type of game playing? OR, is a game of a certain type best designed when it is designed toward its type with the hopes of attracting players who want to play that type of game even if they aren't very good at it from the start but hope to improve at that type of gaming the more they play? (With the understanding that, for any type of game, there will be some players of that game who enjoy playing it even if they never manage to play it above a certain level of play, and also the understanidng that there will be some people who excel at that type of game innately.)

Having social skills in the game allows you to attract both types of players if you really think about it. A group with a lot of charismatic people at the table can choose to house rule social skills out and just go with role playing all those type encounters.

A group who has players with issues or who just don't want to mess with role playing have a rule that adjudicates how to handle it.

Some people have the natural ability to sell ice to Eskimos but most of us don't. A person with a high charisma represents that type of person I have only really seen one person at a gaming table who in real life represents that level of charisma.

I have a friend who is in a wheelchair from being born with spinal bifida in real life he could not swing a sword in combat or be an agile tumbling rogue yet the game allows him to play out his fantasy and no one ever has an issue with that but a shy person having the fantasy of being a fast talking bard or swashbuckler seems to cause some people to have issues.

A game that tries to be inclusive for different type of players and play styles is going to be more successful than one that excludes people.