Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[Imaculata]

A descriptive approach and an active approach are treated the same by me. However, in both cases I will lower the difficulty of the DC if the approach stated is clever. If a player role-plays particularly well, I may just give them an automatic success at what ever they are trying to accomplish. But a player who states a very clever approach, can be rewarded the same way.

For example, a player who states "I sneak past the guards" may need to make a check. But a player who states "I wait till the guards are occupied, and then sneak past them" may have an automatic success, or a lowered difficulty.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

One thing we as GMs do that we shouldn't, I think, is only ask for or provide detailed descriptions when there is something going on. Every door is just a door until it is magically cursed. Every path across a room to the other side is vague until there is a pit trap. Etc.

It's a tough but to crack because you don't want to have the game grind to a slog because the players are paranoid, but you don't also want them to call foul when you spring a trap on them out of nowhere.

I think it's also in the details. Never asking and just assuming is kind of bad. Always asking is better, but really not so easy for an DM because if you don't know about "something" then it's hard to ask for "it" just in case "something" comes up later and asking "it" only then reveals there's something fishy to the players.

Not always asking but asking sometimes even though it doesn't matter did the trick for me so far.

It also depends on HOW you ask.

"I investigate the statue."

1. "Do you touch it while investigating?" --> Player will immediately think touching might do something; not so good

2. "Can you describe how you investigate it?" --> Player might assume it could matter but has no clue why or that touching is related to it; better

3. "You take a closer look at the statue. It's shiny. Wanna do anything else?" --> Player thinks his investigation was acted out, he gets the information from the DM how the investigation was interpreted without making it suspicious in any way and the DM just asked a question he always asks, so nothing suspicious about that either; works quite well

 

[Ristamar]

I think it's also in the details. Never asking and just assuming is kind of bad. Always asking is better, but really not so easy for an DM because if you don't know about "something" then it's hard to ask for "it" just in case "something" comes up later and asking "it" only then reveals there's something fishy to the players.

Not always asking but asking sometimes even though it doesn't matter did the trick for me so far.

It also depends on HOW you ask.

"I investigate the statue."

1. "Do you touch it while investigating?" --> Player will immediately think touching might do something; not so good

2. "Can you describe how you investigate it?" --> Player might assume it could matter but has no clue why or that touching is related to it; better

3. "You take a closer look at the statue. It's shiny. Wanna do anything else?" --> Player thinks his investigation was acted out, he gets the information from the DM how the investigation was interpreted without making it suspicious in any way and the DM just asked a question he always asks, so nothing suspicious about that either; works quite well

The question I always come back to when considering D&D trap mechanics and search procedures is "how much fun is this and is it worth the time and effort?"

In regard to example #3, this approach may be tense and exciting for some groups of players for each potential trap encounter. For my group, though, it's often the start of a bland game of Twenty Questions. The time investment in prep and play isn't commensurate with our enjoyment or the consequences of failure.

I like basic traps to be fast and simple, a quick BANG moment without hinging on semantics. If delivering (or disarming) that BANG requires even 2 or 3 minutes of table time, I've done something wrong.

Complex traps and puzzles that demand a lot of care or effort definitely have a place in the game and can make for a memorable, pivotal component of an adventure. But if a trap is going to chew up a lot of table time, there should be something more mechanically interesting on the bad end of the stick than a simple Saving Throw.

 

[5ekyu]

A descriptive approach and an active approach are treated the same by me. However, in both cases I will lower the difficulty of the DC if the approach stated is clever. If a player role-plays particularly well, I may just give them an automatic success at what ever they are trying to accomplish. But a player who states a very clever approach, can be rewarded the same way.

For example, a player who states "I sneak past the guards" may need to make a check. But a player who states "I wait till the guards are occupied, and then sneak past them" may have an automatic success, or a lowered difficulty.

To me, looking at your guard examples, i would treat both cases identically for a few reasons.

First, simply put, its the character's (pc and npc) competence at the task that matters, not the player's competence that tells him to add in the extra bit.

Second, since we are not wizards (usually) or doctors (usually) or shapeshifting wilderness hunters (usually) IRL the idea of "adding more detail for auto-success" cannot be evenly applied to all important skill checks. What is the equivalent to " wait until the guards are occupied" magic words that make a treat disease check on the fly auto-success, that make decipheric mystic symbols auto-success, that make tracking some barbarians on thr run auto- matic.

Third, we establish early on more specific standards for auto-success that factor in character ability and difficulty. See the options in the DMG for some examples but also just look at jumping for a good example in the PHB. We also establish early on that (in line with working together) more resources thrown at a task is a way to get advantage and so "taking more time" can adjust the "roll" and the auto-dc-success for proficient players. Net result is, shown from early on that auto-sux is a natural event that comes out of character ability and challenge, not saying the right phrase.

In fact, until the guards arecoccupied might be the worst time to move, depending on what is occupying them.

 

[5ekyu]

I think it's also in the details. Never asking and just assuming is kind of bad. Always asking is better, but really not so easy for an DM because if you don't know about "something" then it's hard to ask for "it" just in case "something" comes up later and asking "it" only then reveals there's something fishy to the players.

Not always asking but asking sometimes even though it doesn't matter did the trick for me so far.

It also depends on HOW you ask.

"I investigate the statue."

1. "Do you touch it while investigating?" --> Player will immediately think touching might do something; not so good

2. "Can you describe how you investigate it?" --> Player might assume it could matter but has no clue why or that touching is related to it; better

3. "You take a closer look at the statue. It's shiny. Wanna do anything else?" --> Player thinks his investigation was acted out, he gets the information from the DM how the investigation was interpreted without making it suspicious in any way and the DM just asked a question he always asks, so nothing suspicious about that either; works quite well

Agree - narrate what you can to resolve the little that was asked appropriate to character and challenge and stop short of pulling the trigger on bigger steps until they follow up.

Especially if dealing with unfamiliar player.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yes player wit and cunning cannot be applied equally to all skills, but I don't really care if that is the case to be honest. I want my players to do everything they can to not roll the dice, but that can't be done in a lot of cases. That's cool. I want to keep the focus on the player rather than the PC as we are players sitting around a table playing games. If a attentive player picks up on all the clues and realizes that if they approach King Bill in a certain way, with comfort about his recently lost son and comments how the dastardly Count Jerk is a real...jerk, will get him to open up I'd rather reward that compared to just putting it down to a Diplomacy check. Sure it rewards players who are naturally gabby and good at that, and that is fine with me. IME it rewards engaged players rather than the guy who just says "I'll make a skill check", which is what I want, player competence coming to the fore.

Its probably obvious that I am not a fan of D&D with a lot of skills, or any to be honest beyond that they can't possibly replicate at the table like most class skills.

 

[robus]

To me, looking at your guard examples, i would treat both cases identically for a few reasons.

First, simply put, its the character's (pc and npc) competence at the task that matters, not the player's competence that tells him to add in the extra bit.

Well surely it’s both? it’s a role-playing game for goodness sakes, so good role-playing (active or descriptive) should be rewarded IMHO.

Second, since we are not wizards (usually) or doctors (usually) or shapeshifting wilderness hunters (usually) IRL the idea of "adding more detail for auto-success" cannot be evenly applied to all important skill checks. What is the equivalent to " wait until the guards are occupied" magic words that make a treat disease check on the fly auto-success, that make decipheric mystic symbols auto-success, that make tracking some barbarians on thr run auto- matic.

i think we’re kidding ourselves if we think anything is evenly applied in a game of make believe! Even you want even adjudication play a CRPG...

We can never forget that at its heart D&D is a social game of real people coming together to play a game that exists mostly in our heads. the person with the most power in the game is the DM and if that DM wants to reward certain kinds of player behaviour by reducing the difficulty due to their effective engagement with the world and the narrative more power to them.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes player wit and cunning cannot be applied equally to all skills, but I don't really care if that is the case to be honest. I want my players to do everything they can to not roll the dice, but that can't be done in a lot of cases. That's cool. I want to keep the focus on the player rather than the PC as we are players sitting around a table playing games. If a attentive player picks up on all the clues and realizes that if they approach King Bill in a certain way, with comfort about his recently lost son and comments how the dastardly Count Jerk is a real...jerk, will get him to open up I'd rather reward that compared to just putting it down to a Diplomacy check. Sure it rewards players who are naturally gabby and good at that, and that is fine with me. IME it rewards engaged players rather than the guy who just says "I'll make a skill check", which is what I want, player competence coming to the fore.

Its probably obvious that I am not a fan of D&D with a lot of skills, or any to be honest beyond that they can't possibly replicate at the table like most class skills.

When want to play a game about player wits - there are plenty to choose from and we do a lot. chess, Go, frag, munchkin, backgammon etc etc etc etc where all the pieces are the same and its players that matter. Sometimes these are even cooperative ones - common goals against a timer or random stop.

When we play a role playing game, its about the role playing and the challenges and there we try and make sure the mechanics emphasize and resolve around the character. i dont let the strong player who works out have his character lift more than the mechanics we agreed on say he should... i dont let the runner who does marathons have his character outpace or outlast others more than the character stats and mechanics we agreed on say we should.

When we have seen games where just as you say the smooth talking player can get more done socially whether his character is good at that or not, we have seen quite a few cases of this not leading to good outcomes as far as that "role playing" part that we love. it has also resulted in over time undervaluing those attributes and skills - resulting in the chargen being about the other things.

So, all in all, if we are to have some degree of integrity in the agreements we made to play by, those mechanics we agreed to play with, we have found it better if their weight is at least attemtped or desired to be treated equally and no particular subset being relegated to "just player your way thru that".

it has served us better, so far as we can tell.

if i were going to run a game where that wasn't true, i would just drop the cha stats and skills altogether and leave that as "this part of the game will be player side only" (alternate costs rarely tends to balance out IMX)

 

[5ekyu]

Well surely it’s both? it’s a role-playing game for goodness sakes, so good role-playing (active or descriptive) should be rewarded IMHO.



i think we’re kidding ourselves if we think anything is evenly applied in a game of make believe! Even you want even adjudication play a CRPG...

We can never forget that at its heart D&D is a social game of real people coming together to play a game that exists mostly in our heads. the person with the most power in the game is the DM and if that DM wants to reward certain kinds of player behaviour by reducing the difficulty due to their effective engagement with the world and the narrative more power to them.

In my experience, rewarding good role playing is simply picking favorites - "i like players who are good at this aspect". In my experience, some players are good at that and some aren't - so i do not see it as reasonable for me to pin in game results on how closely the player's "fun" matches what i like - or to have the in-game world outcome affected by it intentionally.

World of make believe etc.. yup its a world of make believe and the only reason we have rules and consistent approaches and fairness is that we choose to value those things.

We can never forget that at its heart D&D is a social game of real people coming together to play a game that exists mostly in our heads. the person with the most power in the game is the DM and if that DM wants to essentially make it harder or short change certain kinds of player behaviour by reducing the rewards they get due to their preferences being different from the Gms, then if the players are all ok with that unlevel playing field, thats their choice.

its just not a choice that i have found serves us well.

 

[guachi]

When players do some variation of "I investigate it" my go response as DM is "distance and senses?"

Do this often enough and the players realize I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" but I need more information to know how to describe what they discover.

Are you approaching and rifling through the desk or standing ten feet from it and looking at it?

Are you touching to statue trying to find some secret catch or are you standing ten feet from it looking at it?

Are you opening the potion and tasting it or just staring at it?