Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[catsclaw227]

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.

I can kind of see where you are coming from, but there are a lot of other examples where rolling behind the screen are more apropos.

For example a Listen check at a door. How can you know how well you "performed" if in fact the lurker was totally silent or they had a silence spell? Do you think, "I did a fine job listening there!", so obviously there's nothing there? Checks like Listen sorta have to be done hidden.

Now are you saying that you think ALL rolls should be out front? For example opposed checks like Bluff vs Sense Motive where the Sense Motive roll was hidden? I think I missed it if you had an opinion about this situation.

 

[Mallus]

So for the people who are advocating systemless roleplaying of social skills, why can't I do the same with other skills?

It's simple, really. Social encounters --ie, talking-- is the thing you need to simulate least.

Role-playing games are played by talking.

I've been through scouting- why can't I just describe my survival , and tracking instead of getting a social skill? I've learned how to pick locks, so why can't I just describe the process of picking a lock?

Isn't OD&D played more-or-less exactly like this?

I just see social skills being subjected to a strange double standard that doesn't apply to other skills...

It's not a double standard. It's a question of whether the in-game act requires simulating or not.

Things like sword-fighting and spell casting require simulating.

Things like disarming complex mechanical traps/puzzles doesn't outright require simulating; the trap can be described using words and maybe visualization aids, as can the solution process . This is a bit cumbersome using speech, but it can, and has, been done (often). The biggest problem with this is the need for a steady supply of new brain-teasing puzzles to spring on the players. The biggest advantage of this method is the feeling of accomplishment the players get for solving the problem themselves.

Things like speech, negotiations with NPCs are a special case. They don't require simulating at all. Everyone can just talk. And again, if it's the players own words that "win" the social encounter, they greater the feeling of accomplishment.

This may favor players who are better at talking. Then again, if you handle social encounters/negotiations with some sort of abstract system, then you favor players better with abstract systems/mechanics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the reason for the double standard for social skills is that people seem to think that anyone should be able to do it. And as I've said, I've seen first hand that there are those who can't, either on occasion or as their personal norm.

Lets get away from the baseline social stuff like bluffing guards, seduction of barmaids, or info-gathering on the streets and look at the higher end stuff like diplomacy, etiquette, and courtly behavior. I'm not exactly uncouth youth, but I occasionally make a faux pas in situations involving societal levels above the station of my birth. I was born a poor black child (a real one, not like Navin Johnson) and an army brat, but I currently rub elbows with the 1%ers...some of whom game. What you or I think of as adequately RPing high society level social events, they would consider butchery.

So it's good that, when I game with them, I have that mechanical crutch to use when my knight is before his betters.

So, while I agree that RPing social situations is the preferred method, I firmly believe that social skills are a vital inclusion to a good RPG system, and excluding them would be a bad idea.

 

[Mallus]

I think the reason for the double standard for social skills is that people seem to think that anyone should be able to do it.

Don't more gearheaded/systems-oriented people make a similar assumption w/r/t "fixing" social encounters?

"We'll make the game more fair by replacing in-game conversation with abstract mechanics!"

What if you're a gamer who's not so good with mechanics? (we've all seen, known, and/or been them, right?). What if you are good with words?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"We'll make the game more fair be replacing conversation with an abstract, mechanical system!"

Nobody on this thread has so far advocated replacing conversation with an abstract mechanical system, just that the abstract mechanical systems are a good idea to include, so they're available for use if/when they are needed.

 

[Mallus]

Nobody on this thread has so far advocated replacing conversation with an abstract mechanical system, just that the abstract mechanical systems are a good idea to include, so they're available for use if/when they are needed.

You're right -- I was exaggerating a wee bit for effect, and I agree that abstract systems for handling social encounters are good to have. I use them myself (when the players ask to roll... my default is usually pure talking).

But my point remains: abstract social systems aren't inherently more fair, they just privilege different aptitudes. If it's wrong to assume everyone can talk, it's equally wrong to assume everyone can leverage the [mechanics you're using instead of talking] to their advantage.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

abstract social systems aren't inherently more fair

...except when they enable persons to do things- in this context, play a charismatic, socially adept character- that are beyond their normal capabilities.

If it's wrong to assume everyone can talk

It isn't, but it IS wrong to assume that everyone can talk well enough to play Sir Rakehell the Glib convincingly.

And I firmly believe that a modern RPG should not discourage anyone from playing Sir Rakehell the Glib merely because their personal social abilities are somehow lacking. A roleplaying game should not be so focused on the acting side that it forgets that the real challenges should be to the PC's abilities, not the players. The PC is the player's waldo to the campaign world.

 

[Janx]

...except when they enable persons to do things- in this context, play a charismatic, socially adept character- that are beyond their normal capabilities.

By Danny's example, I may know how to speak politely and convincingly. I may even have watched a couple episodes of The Tudors.

But do I REALLY know the proper forms of speech when addressing the king?

Does the GM know if I screwed up and said "Your Majesty" instead of the standard "Your Grace"?

For immersion purposes, it may be sufficient that I spoke eloquently. But if you want to nitpick, I said it wrong as a player, because I do not actually know the actual social rules that you use when addressing true royalty.

Thats where the skill check transforms my intent into intepretation in the game world. I roll high, the GM says I said it right and did not offend the king. I roll low, the GM says that my low-birth and poor upbringing was offensive in my address and that the king will not help us.

Basically, the idea of "if you say it, your PC says it" is incorrect because your PC cannot really be saying it. He's speaking an alien language and following alien social customs. We can translate a real world attempt to what happened in the game world, but it's not literal.

Since it's not literal, there is clear justification for resolving it mechanically.

 

[Eric Tolle]

It's simple, really. Social encounters --ie, talking-- is the thing you need to simulate least.

That's a rather circular assumption- and one in which I haven't seen much direct evidence for.

Role-playing games are played by talking.

There's an assumption there that all speech is the same, and therefore no skill is involved. The members of Toastmasters would beg to differ.

Isn't OD&D played more-or-less exactly like this?

The version before or after thieves? And in the latter, would you allow a fighter to be better at opening locks than a thief, our a mage to be better at bending bars based on his ability to describe the action?

It's not a double standard. It's a question of whether the in-game act requires simulating or not.

Things like sword-fighting and spell casting require simulating.

Nonsense! I've been to any number of live-action events where sword-fighting has been done. Likewise magic has been performed by people accruing it out. Perhaps you lack martial ability, but that's no excuse-simply play a non-combatant.

Things like disarming complex mechanical traps/puzzles doesn't outright require simulating; the trap can be described using words and maybe visualization aids, as can the solution process.

So are you saying there should be no skills for such? Or are you proofing that people who spend skill points on those skills can be trumped by people who simply talk a better game?

Things like speech, negotiations with NPCs are a special case. They don't require simulating at all. Everyone can just talk.

So you don't believe things such as oratory, debate, negotiation or social skills are trainable abilities. That explains a lot.

This may favor players who are better at talking. Then again, if you handle social encounters/negotiations with some sort of abstract system, then you favor players better with abstract systems/mechanics.

If the game has a unified skill system, that player would probably be having problems with the system as a whole. In which case the player can probably ask for help from the referee or other players without disrupting the flow of the game. Do you allow such in a "just talking"?

Which brings up a different problem; just taking is completely left to the whim of the referee as to whether the attempt works. I prefer rules-based backing on social tasks to hoping that the referee liked the pizza I fed him before my attempt.

 

[rogueattorney]

A series of tangentially related thoughts...

I think I come near the middle ground on this issue, but probably favor the "talk it out" crowd more.

I vastly prefer OD&D's & B/X D&D's one-size-fit-all reaction roll chart to discreet skills. Trying to intimidate? Roll on the chart and modify by charisma. Trying to bluff? Roll on the chart and modify by charisma. Etc.

However, I do require at least a minimum of explanation of what the player wants to have happen. I'm not looking for one whole heck of a lot of detail beyond "I hit him with my sword" or "I cast whatever spell."

I don't understand why DMs can't separate the content of what a player says from how he says it. If the player states the wrong content, how is that any different from choosing a less effective spell or combat maneuver?

If the player is trying to convince the bandits to join the party's side of a battle, shouldn't the DM be able to ask the player what reasons the bandits would do such a thing? Shouldn't the player at least be able to give a reason or two? Even if it's, "'Cus if you do we'll give you gold instead of kill you."

I've also never understood why speaking in third person is any different/better/worse than speaking in first. Personally, I find myself going back and forth throughout a session without much thought. The important thing is that the information is conveyed.

Going into long dialogues in funny voices and requiring me to do the same is probably the single easiest way to get me to leave the table.

I think the single biggest issue with regard to this subject is that the players first and then the game abandoned Charisma's original function, which was the acquisition and maintenance of allies, with social skills being an unsatisfactory replacement. In OD&D, Charisma received more ink that any of the other attribute scores. It quite easily had the most concrete effect on game play. Heck, STR, INT, and WIS solely gave xp bonuses to certain classes and had no other stated in-game effect. By the time 2e came out, the relative importance of attributes had been completely inverted and CHA was considered a "dump stat."