Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[Blue]

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.

To play devil's advocate, what's the difference between a player showing good tactics in a combat (especially theater of the mind combat), which can have mechanical effects (more targets in an area of effect, positioning) and a player show "good tactic" in a social situation (correct levels of politeness, good cop/bad cop, flattery, proper accent, etc.).

 

[5ekyu]

To play devil's advocate, what's the difference between a player showing good tactics in a combat (especially theater of the mind combat), which can have mechanical effects (more targets in an area of effect, positioning) and a player show "good tactic" in a social situation (correct levels of politeness, good cop/bad cop, flattery, proper accent, etc.).

A player showing "good tactics" in combat that have an in-game mechanics impact is showing skill at "the game system".
Any player can learn the game and learn how combat works and make good choices or bad choices for that and get the same benefits.

A player does not get "mechanical advantages in combat" for describing well how his character is making the attack, how his character's sword strike is curving around the shield, etc.

Exact same thing for a social encounter - especially as seen in play many times in my game -
Getting "help" by say getting someone else the NPC likes as a backer - gain advantage.
Arming oneself with info from prior "research" - no different from doing research to show you that trolls need to be burned or that Gruesomes fear silver. Likely also results in advantage but might even move to auto-success depending on the extremity. These are the social equivalents of using terrain.

But, neither of those rely on how well the player decides to "flatter or intimidate" or describe how he does it or chooses *his* words as a player.

The players are going to benefit from knowing how to play the game and how their characters work and play to those strengths - even when - especially when - that means handing "go get me an edge" to an ally by research (or by standing within 5' on an enemy so the rogue's sneak hits.)


So, your knowledge of playing the game plays at all times - but your own personal player-side IRL knowledge of "how medicine works" or "how allista work" or "how actual real magic spells work" do not get into the resolution process.

There is a ton of abstraction within the game's resolution system and it hinges resolution around the character and the challenge and the environment/scenery - not the player knowing the "skill".

In my games - the "describe how the swing goes" is part of the result not part of the attempt.

Then again, for non-instant tasks i always use three-way tasks resolution (akin to death saves) and that encourages multi-faceted approaches and even multi-person efforts.

As an aside: have a highly charismatic character in one of my games. Character is an unabashed rake/flirt. Player often expressed things as fairly direct double-entendre - sometimes single entendre.) The resolution determines what the character says and how it is received - not the player's phrasing and word choice and ability to keep a straight face. That may mean others observing from the side may wonder "how did that line work" when the gentleman takes it in a humorous or intriguingly direct way. In fact, that same line trying to be delivered by their non-proficient and non-charismatc 16 character might well fail, badly.

thats because it is the character who performs the task and delivers the pitch - not the player.

just like i do not make the player sing when their character performs and use that for resolution.

Edit to add - noticed did not specifically address the examples of AOE blasts and positioning... it should be obvious from the above but those are examples of a player knowing how the game works - what the radius of his spells, how movement thru enemies or AO work, are etc and how to apply them. So, no "player IRL knowledge of the task" applies.

Oddly tho, while ToM was mentioned, both of those seem to be more applicable to grid-based play *or* character-based skills since ToM doesn have players choosing exact positions on any actual sense, just seeking results in character "she tries to catch as many enemies as possible" or "she tries to block the approach" etc which would come back to "character traits" not what/how well the player says things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To play devil's advocate, what's the difference between a player showing good tactics in a combat (especially theater of the mind combat), which can have mechanical effects (more targets in an area of effect, positioning) and a player show "good tactic" in a social situation (correct levels of politeness, good cop/bad cop, flattery, proper accent, etc.).

What qualifies as good social tactics? I'd say not intentionally insultung social peers or betters, being polite, working to find useful information for negotiations, and being willing to compromise all work. And all of these are used in the goal/approach just like tactics are used in combat. Both are then tested similarly via checks to determine success.

To take this directly on point -- both are rewarded equally by seeing your goals more likely being achieved.

 

[iserith]

To play devil's advocate, what's the difference between a player showing good tactics in a combat (especially theater of the mind combat), which can have mechanical effects (more targets in an area of effect, positioning) and a player show "good tactic" in a social situation (correct levels of politeness, good cop/bad cop, flattery, proper accent, etc.).

There isn't one in my view. A player has to state a goal and approach regardless of what he or she wants the character to do, be it fighting or talking. That statement of goal and approach is roleplaying - the player determining what the character does, thinks, or says. However flowery the language offered by the player, a goal and approach can be boiled down to its basic parts and the DM can adjudicate from there. But just like a player with a character in a combat scenario can use a class feature to get advantage on an attack roll (say), so too can a player make use of an NPC's personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw (once discovered) to gain advantage on any subsequent Charisma check. There are tactics to a social interaction challenge just as in combat and they are baked right into the rules. It doesn't rely entirely on a player's personal social skills. The issue is that a lot of DMs in my experience don't have a clue about how to run social interaction challenges in a way where players can leverage such tactics.

On the matter of "picking favorites" or liking players who are good at certain aspects of the game, I think that's just fine. If a player can't even muster a simple goal and approach regardless of the type of challenge at play and also has no desire to improve on those areas where he or she is weak, I have about 40 other players who will be happy to take his or her place. The DM, of course, should remain consistent in his or her rulings so that the players can make informed decisions.

 

[smbakeresq]

There isn't one in my view. A player has to state a goal and approach regardless of what he or she wants the character to do, be it fighting or talking. That statement of goal and approach is roleplaying - the player determining what the character does, thinks, or says. However flowery the language offered by the player, a goal and approach can be boiled down to its basic parts and the DM can adjudicate from there. But just like a player with a character in a combat scenario can use a class feature to get advantage on an attack roll (say), so too can a player make use of an NPC's personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw (once discovered) to gain advantage on any subsequent Charisma check. There are tactics to a social interaction challenge just as in combat and they are baked right into the rules. It doesn't rely entirely on a player's personal social skills. The issue is that a lot of DMs in my experience don't have a clue about how to run social interaction challenges in a way where players can leverage such tactics.

On the matter of "picking favorites" or liking players who are good at certain aspects of the game, I think that's just fine. If a player can't even muster a simple goal and approach regardless of the type of challenge at play and also has no desire to improve on those areas where he or she is weak, I have about 40 other players who will be happy to take his or her place. The DM, of course, should remain consistent in his or her rulings so that the players can make informed decisions.

In many cases its the DMs fault players don't show good "tactics" when they do things as if a player tries something they don't get rewarded for it if "it isn't in the rules." There is an inspiration mechanic, but few use it, and the few that do are so stingy they stifle the game. Inspiration is so the players can choose when to get an advantage for something for RP something well in the past, but there is no reason it cant be don't right away at the table with or without a check of any sort. If you hand these things out liberally as a DM then your players will pick up on it and do it more, improving the game. If you make it an endless of checks to do anything, then it might not be worth it.

If a player says "I am going to jump on the table ands then jump off it to add to my axe blow" then I would give them a small bonus to damage right there even though it isn't in the rules since I want to encourage that behavior. In a social encounter the players can get bonuses just for suggesting something novel or for something else appropriate, sometimes with a check and mostly sometimes without. Social encounters are by definition more under the DM control (since he/she has to play everyone else in the room) so should be handled more free-flowing and more liberally. If a person acts in character and uses flowery terms appropriate to the situation I am certainly giving them a bonus for the attempt, that's behavior you want to encourage. I have told players before "She got a bonus and you didn't because you didn't sound as inspired" to get the message across. Failing to role play in character well enough (not everyone is a great actor) shouldn't be penalized, that pushed people more into a shell, which I see with new players generally. Encourage them.


Your the DM, the official, you have to officiate the game right to encourage good play and discourage bad play. If someone shows up dressed as their PC and you are not giving the bonuses all night long you are probably doing something wrong. Bringing IBC Root Beer for the DM might get you a free potion.

 

[iserith]

In many cases its the DMs fault players don't show good "tactics" when they do things as if a player tries something they don't get rewarded for it if "it isn't in the rules." There is an inspiration mechanic, but few use it, and the few that do are so stingy they stifle the game. Inspiration is so the players can choose when to get an advantage for something for RP something well in the past, but there is no reason it cant be don't right away at the table with or without a check of any sort. If you hand these things out liberally as a DM then your players will pick up on it and do it more, improving the game. If you make it an endless of checks to do anything, then it might not be worth it.

Here here! And while we're on that topic: My Case for Inspiration.

If a player says "I am going to jump on the table ands then jump off it to add to my axe blow" then I would give them a small bonus to damage right there even though it isn't in the rules since I want to encourage that behavior. In a social encounter the players can get bonuses just for suggesting something novel or for something else appropriate, sometimes with a check and mostly sometimes without. Social encounters are by definition more under the DM control (since he/she has to play everyone else in the room) so should be handled more free-flowing and more liberally. If a person acts in character and uses flowery terms appropriate to the situation I am certainly giving them a bonus for the attempt, that's behavior you want to encourage. I have told players before "She got a bonus and you didn't because you didn't sound as inspired" to get the message across. Failing to role play in character well enough (not everyone is a great actor) shouldn't be penalized, that pushed people more into a shell, which I see with new players generally. Encourage them.

Your the DM, the official, you have to officiate the game right to encourage good play and discourage bad play. If someone shows up dressed as their PC and you are not giving the bonuses all night long you are probably doing something wrong. Bringing IBC Root Beer for the DM might get you a free potion.

I likely wouldn't encourage certain of the things you mention here and might not go about it the same way, but I certainly share the value of incentivizing the sorts of behaviors the group wants to see in play.

 

[smbakeresq]

Here here! And while we're on that topic: My Case for Inspiration.



I likely wouldn't encourage certain of the things you mention here and might not go about it the same way, but I certainly share the value of incentivizing the sorts of behaviors the group wants to see in play.

It could be because you do not understand the greatness of IBC Root Beer....

 

[smbakeresq]

As far as inspiration, its like medals in combat, as stated by George S Patton:

'We must have more decorations and we must not give them out with a niggard hand. A young soldier upon being asked by Napoleon what he desired in recompense for an heroic act said, “Sire, the Legion of Honor”, to which Napoleon replied, “My boy, you are over young for such an honor.” The soldier again said, “Sire, in your service, we do not grow old.” This story is as true as it is tragic. Our men do not grow old. We must exploit their abilities and satisfy their longings to the utmost during the brief span of their existence. Surely, an inch of satin for a machine gun nest put out of action is a bargain not to be lightly passed up.


The more you give out inspiration, the more inspiring your PC will act. No PC that attends the game will ever not either have inspiration or be working towards it after just spending it.

 

[5ekyu]

As far as inspiration, its like medals in combat, as stated by George S Patton:

'We must have more decorations and we must not give them out with a niggard hand. A young soldier upon being asked by Napoleon what he desired in recompense for an heroic act said, “Sire, the Legion of Honor”, to which Napoleon replied, “My boy, you are over young for such an honor.” The soldier again said, “Sire, in your service, we do not grow old.” This story is as true as it is tragic. Our men do not grow old. We must exploit their abilities and satisfy their longings to the utmost during the brief span of their existence. Surely, an inch of satin for a machine gun nest put out of action is a bargain not to be lightly passed up.


The more you give out inspiration, the more inspiring your PC will act. No PC that attends the game will ever not either have inspiration or be working towards it after just spending it.

Just to be clear, are inspiration points something tangible and real that in your game the characters see or are aware of and seek?

That seems to be the gist of your example and closing.

If so, how do you represent them? What does a rogue scout wood elf hunter perceive them as and know of them and how to get them?

I ask because our group is less enamoured and generally dislike player side token pool that have significant influence on in character play and results but if they were character side that might be more to our liking.

Can ypu give some examples of different characters and how their in character inspirations workin play and the benefits you have seen - assuming of course these motivators vary by character?

 

[Imaculata]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding what the example was meant to illustrate. This is not a matter of player competence. You don't actually have to be a doctor to state your approach to a medical emergency in such a way to achieve an automatic success, or advantage. If a player states that instead of attempting to heal someone themselves, they bring their wounded friend to the nearby hospital, then that does not require any expert medical knowledge.

Similarly, you don't have to be an expert thief yourself in order to state an approach that is more likely to get you past the guards unnoticed. Maybe your character sets off an explosive on the other side of town that draws all guards in that direction? Automatic success, there are no more guards.

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.

I agree that the way a DM should rule this is situational. But the idea that the stated approach to an action is irrelevant to the outcome, and that time taken and resources spent are more important, I completely disagree with.

I don't care how many resources a player spends to execute their dumb plan, or how long they take to execute their dumb plan. If it's a dumb plan, it is going to fail. Either automatically, or by me increasing the likelihood of failure by giving disadvantage.

And a smart plan executed with minimum resources and executed hastily, could still be an automatic success if it's a really smart plan. Or I might grant advantage.