Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[iserith]

This is one of the things where your behavior as DM determines how your players play like.

If you reward good roleplaying and clever ideas, your players will try their best to come up with something.
Advantage is that it creates more interesting gameplay. Disadvantage is that players that aren't good at this might feel punished.

If you make everything into a dice roll as long as your players describe what they want to accomplish, then players will eventually stop thinking of ideas themselves and just say "I come up with a great idea".
Advantage is that even players who can't do what their PC is supposed to be good at are not disadvantaged. Disadvantage is that the roleplaying gets pretty boring, unless you as the DM, then come up with good ideas for your players (and that turns into you basically dictating what the PCs do which is another disadvantage on top).

My solution to not being good at something is to keep practicing that thing until I am good at it. So I don't accept "I'm not good at X" as an excuse from anybody, barring some kind of unavoidable disability.

The way one gets good at coming up with a cogent goal and approach (which is all that is necessary to play the game) or being entertaining while portraying a character via active roleplaying (which is nice, but not necessary) is doing it, repeatedly, while sometimes making mistakes and learning from them.

 

[Jester David]

It is an issue when DMs expect the smoother talker character must replicate the smooth talker player’s words.

I still prefer to have the player say this gist of what their character is saying. If they’re hitting the major notes and salient points. The dice just reflect how something is said more than what.
I dislike it when the game decends into “I make a persuasion check.” When social combat becomes as tied to dice as physical combat.

 

[sim-h]

For me, D&D is meant to be fun. A blast. For that reason I try to encourage players to play characters suited to the personality of the player so they don't get caught out of their depth or forcibly taking a course of action when the player is itching to do the opposite. My players ain't multi-talented actors, no offence to them, some are better than others. Let's face it, if the 'face' player Active Roleplays, it is just much more FUN for everyone. Sure the mechanics are the same as for a descriptive RPer, but the experience of everybody at the table is diminished by a one liner descriptive command.

So no pressure, face guy, no pressure - BUT YOU'RE MAKING THAT SPEECH!

 

[sim-h]

One other thing - if you want a more involved and detailed interaction, try something like the Audience rules from the Adventures in Middle Earth 5e supplement (Cubicle 7). I've not used it, since my players are too old school to refrain from looting bodies and trying to kill every last enemy (AoME requires a different mindset) but they look really good and might address some of the concerns.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is one of the things where your behavior as DM determines how your players play like.

If you reward good roleplaying and clever ideas, your players will try their best to come up with something.
Advantage is that it creates more interesting gameplay. Disadvantage is that players that aren't good at this might feel punished.

If you make everything into a dice roll as long as your players describe what they want to accomplish, then players will eventually stop thinking of ideas themselves and just say "I come up with a great idea".
Advantage is that even players who can't do what their PC is supposed to be good at are not disadvantaged. Disadvantage is that the roleplaying gets pretty boring, unless you as the DM, then come up with good ideas for your players (and that turns into you basically dictating what the PCs do which is another disadvantage on top).

I don't understand how you go from "players describ[ing] what they want to accomplish," to "I come up with a great idea." If I'm requiring a goal and approach to that goal, simply saying "I use a great approach" diesn't ever work. The substitution here is an assumption that the DM is a moron with no standards. It's unwarranted.

 

[Blue]

I’ve never had any trouble getting players to RP in conversation though. I have had more than one PC with personality traits we might regard as “bad” who had high charisma checks. My approach avoids any dissonance on that front. I treat it like collaborative word-building

Just as a side note, it's not been discussed if 'Larry' is a good roleplayer or not. Just that he doesn't have a smooth tongue. He might be an avid and experienced roleplayer, but with a limited repertoire. Perhaps he's great at jerks with and without a heart of gold, shifty rogues no one trusts, and civilization-puzzled outlanders that may have anger issues. Just that he can't do glib or silver-tongued.

This isn't saying you aren't considering his, just adding in more information that your post brought to mind.

 

[Blue]

My solution to not being good at something is to keep practicing that thing until I am good at it. So I don't accept "I'm not good at X" as an excuse from anybody, barring some kind of unavoidable disability.

Is this just a social skills divide? If I'm playing a character with the appropriate skills can I say "I attempt to track the wolves" without having any knowledge how to do it as a player and no supporting details to define my skill use?

Is a player saying "I track the wolves" or "I intimidate the guards" without further details treated the same in terms of what player knowledge about their character's skills is required?

 

[iserith]

Is this just a social skills divide? If I'm playing a character with the appropriate skills can I say "I attempt to track the wolves" without having any knowledge how to do it as a player and no supporting details to define my skill use?

Is a player saying "I track the wolves" or "I intimidate the guards" without further details treated the same in terms of what player knowledge about their character's skills is required?

A goal and approach is all that is required for any action declaration. What you want to achieve and how you go about that, offered with reasonable specificity.

My statement was that if you're not even good at that, then get cracking on getting better! And if you're not good at active roleplaying, while it's not required to play the game, there's only one way to get better - just do it.

 

[Blue]

For me, D&D is meant to be fun. A blast. For that reason I try to encourage players to play characters suited to the personality of the player so they don't get caught out of their depth or forcibly taking a course of action when the player is itching to do the opposite. My players ain't multi-talented actors, no offence to them, some are better than others. Let's face it, if the 'face' player Active Roleplays, it is just much more FUN for everyone. Sure the mechanics are the same as for a descriptive RPer, but the experience of everybody at the table is diminished by a one liner descriptive command.

So no pressure, face guy, no pressure - BUT YOU'RE MAKING THAT SPEECH!

Sure, but will you penalize a character built to speak well when the player, who isn't glib, gives an unconvincing speech?

Picture two players wanting to play a character who is really good at somethign they are not. One wants to be a master of traps and picking locks. The other wants to be a smooth-talking face. Both build their characters with equal bonuses in the various skills needed.

Can both of them play their characters equally effectively regardless of their personal ability in their skills? Or is there a divide for social skills?

 

[Oofta]

A goal and approach is all that is required for any action declaration. What you want to achieve and how you go about that, offered with reasonable specificity.

My statement was that if you're not even good at that, then get cracking on getting better! And if you're not good at active roleplaying, while it's not required to play the game, there's only one way to get better - just do it.

This is also assuming that people enjoy that aspect of the game, I know I do and I encourage it. However, as I said earlier it's one thing to encourage and gently guide someone in this kind of scenario, but if they don't enjoy it or are not comfortable I'm not going to force it.

I don't try to push my ideas of fun onto other people. In my games if someone says "I try to convince the bouncer to let us in" that is a declaration of intent, just like "I track the wolves." I may ask them for more detail on any skill check if it's not clear. For example, are they willing to bribe the bouncer? Do they mention something that might be useful the the bouncer or decide to intimidate if they're unsuccessful at first?

I'd rather do it as RP, but if someone prefers RP-lite it's their choice not mine.