Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[Li Shenron]

Tara wants to play a wizard. She can't cast magic, but that's fine, it's just a game. Tom and Jerry are both playing front-line melee of different classes. Jerry used to be a Marine and he can really describe it, Tom ... not so much. But hey, we have mechanics for that and as long as Tom can manage decent tactics we're okay. It's funny, Tom is playing a ranger even though Jerry would be the one who could describe all of the woodscraft. Christine wants to play a half-elven paladin of Corellon; she's a laid back agnostic from a family of them that probably never was to a religious service except for weddings and funerals. Still no problem - it's a fantasy game.

And then we have Harry. He just finished watching Ladyhawke (again), and he wants to play a glib, silver-tongued character. But our Harry is anything but a smooth talker. He's earnest and loyal, but never been good with words.

So what do you do? No one else needs to demonstrate actual skills of their characters - that's what the mechanics are there for. But everyone at the table can convince in character and the closest Harry will get is "I interject a bunch of witty remarks so they like me."

Do you let the mechanics and dice carry him, just like Tara's Fly spell? Do you convince Harry that other people's character concepts can come true but not his, even though the rules allow it? Would you just expect Harry not to ask to play something that so far our of his personal wheelhouse?

This is a made-up example, but how do you, at your table, handle this if it comes up? And the flip side - that player who likes to talk and is good at it but for this character picked CHR as their dump stat and didn't take any social skills.

Dualism between player and character abilities is very normal in a RPG, and I find that it is important to make both of them count.

The exact way how to handle them is less important. In 5e the idea is that rolls aren't always required, only when the DM is actually undecided on the outcome. Most DMs like some randomness, and so they will ask for a roll a lot of times. But they still often just let a player's good idea work.

Personally I think I am quite generous, and I tend to ask for a roll when they have a bad idea, or at least a not very convincing one. The result of this, is that a player who's very good at roleplaying may succeed when her character would fail, while a player who's bad at it will manage through her character's good rolls.

By the way it's not true that this works only for social skills. I have players who know a lot about nature and they come up with great ideas about getting along in the wilderness, even if they play a bookish wizard or urban rogue, and I am sure that military-trained players will come up with the best group tactics in combat even if they play a character that is useless in a fight.

It's very important to not force these players to downplay the game when their character is poor at what they're otherwise good at. Don't tell a smart player to shut up because her half-orc barbarian has low Int (it's ok if she purposefully wants her PC to do something stupid, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't suggest to the rest of the group what's instead a good idea).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Dualism between player and character abilities is very normal in a RPG, and I find that it is important to make both of them count.

The exact way how to handle them is less important. In 5e the idea is that rolls aren't always required, only when the DM is actually undecided on the outcome. Most DMs like some randomness, and so they will ask for a roll a lot of times. But they still often just let a player's good idea work.

Personally I think I am quite generous, and I tend to ask for a roll when they have a bad idea, or at least a not very convincing one. The result of this, is that a player who's very good at roleplaying may succeed when her character would fail, while a player who's bad at it will manage through her character's good rolls.

By the way it's not true that this works only for social skills. I have players who know a lot about nature and they come up with great ideas about getting along in the wilderness, even if they play a bookish wizard or urban rogue, and I am sure that military-trained players will come up with the best group tactics in combat even if they play a character that is useless in a fight.

It's very important to not force these players to downplay the game when their character is poor at what they're otherwise good at. Don't tell a smart player to shut up because her half-orc barbarian has low Int (it's ok if she purposefully wants her PC to do something stupid, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't suggest to the rest of the group what's instead a good idea).

I somewhat disagree. Goal and approach is necessary, so if the player of a cloistered wizard is personally nature savvy they still have to present an approach to thier goal for their character. The idea may be spot on, but if it's not something that an approach from the character fits, it's going to be a roll at best. I have no problem taking what would be true of nature here and saying, "well, this time it's not like this because X, but Bob the wizard missed the signs."

I'm not an authority on nature, so I can't always judge. Best to let the in-game bits (proficiency in nature, expertise, ability checks) do the validating rather than me. This allows players to be able to rely on their characters rather than the DM and also keeps a knowledgable player from playing into another character's balliwick. I do allow cross-talk, though, so knowledge nature player is more thsn welcome to offer suggestions to the knowledge nature character players. Still probably going to go more off of goal/approach, "are you proficient/expert," and ability checks, though.

 

[Yunru]

Well, I do need a little more than "I try to use Persuasion on him!", which players have tried on me from time to time. What are you trying to persuade this person of? But that's no different from how I run any other skill, it's just that the question seems to arise a lot more often with social skills. "I try to Sneak past the guard" might also be an unacceptably ambiguous declaration, under some circumstances.

Bah, you just need to get them used to doing it properly. It's no more effort to say "I try to Persuade my way past the guard"

 

[Reynard]

Bah, you just need to get them used to doing it properly. It's no more effort to say "I try to Persuade my way past the guard"

I think the key is for the GM to be generous and give players the benefit of the doubt in most cases, and to ask for clarification and detail when it is necessary and/or fun. No one likes the "gotcha" game.

 

[clearstream]

This is a made-up example, but how do you, at your table, handle this if it comes up? And the flip side - that player who likes to talk and is good at it but for this character picked CHR as their dump stat and didn't take any social skills.

For me it works roughly like - the player chooses what to do, the character determines how well they do it. If they dumped Charisma and didn't take social skills, their best intentions are likely to go awry. The only stat this gets kind of sketchy for is Intelligence: frequently published adventures stipulate Perception for situations that I run as Investigation.

One problem with social skills, however, is that they route a lot of narrative leverage through a narrow set of abilities. I feel like at the table, over reliance is sometimes placed on Persuasion. I try to mix in Deception, Insight and Intimidation judiciously. Last session our Warlock wanted Persuasion, but as he was relying on an implied threat, I ruled Intimidation, as an example. I need to find more ways to get in Performance!

 

[Yunru]

But as for the original question: Acting is not roleplaying. Making choices is.
If the character makes a choice, that's what determines whether there's a roll, whether there's advantage, etc.
They can say it as an eloquent prose, or a single third-person line, it doesn't matter, that's just window dressing.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I encourage the person to give me the outline of what they say and to RP as much as they are comfortable with. That means that I will do my best to get them to talk, to make their case and speak in person.

Then I pay attention to what they are saying and not necessarily how they are saying it. I give them hints (potentially with insight checks) on what they kinds of things they can say, or gently steer them a bit.

RP can be a great way for a person to practice and improve on their social and speaking skills, but it does require that as a DM I am willing to work with them. It's not a goal of mine to be an educator, but I know that I present myself better in part because of D&D.

 

[aco175]

I think that if you do not give some benefit of doubt, you will be telling your players that they should play only one type of player. Players will hear that they just should stick to X character since you will not let them play Y character without making the ROLEPLAY part difficult. Eventually they will go away.

There are situations where players should try and give some roleplay, but I try and make it easier than not. It's like saying my smart wizard could figure out the riddle since he is like 4x as smart as I am.

 

[Gwarok]

I would be absolutely in favor of letting the dice carry the character, and for the reason you mentioned. NONE of us can actually do anything our heroric fantasy characters can do, which is the whole point of roleplaying. The fact game mechanics fill the gaps is essential.

Of course there are some limits to it. As someone once said about watching some piece of fiction that was preposterous, "Coming in I agreed to suspend my disbelief, not hang it from the neck until dead!" Harry is going to be under some obligation to get it in the ballpark. He can't walk up to the NPC he's trying so schmooze, spit in his face, then ask him for a favor because he beat the DC 20 DC on the persuasion check, or whatever example fits the bill.

 

[Satyrn]

Bah, you just need to get them used to doing it properly. It's no more effort to say "I try to Persuade my way past the guard"

Barbarbarian: I try Intimidate the dragon into surrendering.

Rogue: I try to Deceive the dragon into surrendering.

Bard: I try to Persuade the dragon into surrendering . . . "Pretty Please?"