Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[Quickleaf]

What do you mean, exactly? Do you mean that a player with a +8 in a skill, for example, can better make use of help because the skilled PC can either better direct the helper and/or the skilled person is better able to judge the usefulness of information from the helper? Or is it something else?

Sure. I’m talking about the soft social side of the game, not the Help Action, and not even rolling dice. For example, my players were parlaying with an elusive NPC Mage and wanted to ask the right questions to get the NPC to open up. The rogue player - who was hidden at the time - posed a really good question. I let the bard player (who struggles with the “acting” / NPC interaction part of the game) use the rogue player’s idea to present the question to the NPC as his own. Because the bard player was running a high-Charisma PC who was supposed to be both well studied and socially savvy.

 

[5ekyu]

Those are actually pretty good requests from players. The problem is when you don't get both intention and approach.

Player: Where is the wolf den?
GM: You don't know, so how are you going to find out?
Player: I don't know.

P: I open the chest.
G: It's locked. How are you going to open it?
P: I don't know.
G: You could pick it, you could smash it, you could search around for a key,...
P: I dunno, I just open it alright!

P: I convince the guard to let us pass.
G: That's a good move, how are you going about that?
P. Oh, this is too hard, I attack the guard!

Or one from my game recently...

P: I investigate the statue.
G. OK, you discover it's made of stone but is covered with a sticky substance that soaks through your gloves. CON save please.
P. I didn't say I touched it!

"G. OK, you discover it's made of stone but is covered with a sticky substance that soaks through your gloves. CON save please."

Since this is one from yourcrecdng game you can answer this hopefully - was this outcome (investigating and failing to notice the goo until touch it enough to get thru protective gloves to Con save) the result of a failed investigation check or was this done house rule botch?

It really reads like the outcome of a badly failed notice traps type check but since no roll or such was mentioned its unclear.

Obviously, if the player had just blown a roll the "touch it" has some more standing and obviously if they had just succeeded at a check the question of not noticing goo before soak thru could be an issue.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

That statue example would be a case where I particularly would definitely ask my player "How do you investigate it?" to make sure whether he is just taking a close look or touching it.

 

[Reynard]

That statue example would be a case where I particularly would definitely ask my player "How do you investigate it?" to make sure whether he is just taking a close look or touching it.

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.

 

[Ristamar]

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.

That is one area where passive skills (perception and investigation and insight, mostly) come into play. The specifics of their application and efficacy may vary from table to table, but they are designed to help reduce that slog.

 

[sim-h]

Or one from my game recently...

P: I investigate the statue.
G. OK, you discover it's made of stone but is covered with a sticky substance that soaks through your gloves. CON save please.
P. I didn't say I touched it!

The player is in the right there. As DM I always ask for more specifics, when something like that could occur. "How do you investigate it? Are you touching it?" I do this even when there is no harm in touching the object, to prevent players automatically fearing the worst if I ask a leading question like that. [edit] Rya already said this above, sorry for duplicating

Under those circumstances you are pretty much forced to say "Yeah, well be more specific next time, now make the save!" which will annoy the player.

 

[sim-h]

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?

There is a divide for social skills - yes. That's just the nature of the beast. I wouldn't penalise a player who gave an unconvincing speech, but I would grant advantage to a player who made a highly convincing speech or argument, either in terms of content, delivery or both.

 

[billd91]

The player is in the right there. As DM I always ask for more specifics, when something like that could occur. "How do you investigate it? Are you touching it?" I do this even when there is no harm in touching the object, to prevent players automatically fearing the worst if I ask a leading question like that. [edit] Rya already said this above, sorry for duplicating

Under those circumstances you are pretty much forced to say "Yeah, well be more specific next time, now make the save!" which will annoy the player.

I disagree that the player is in the right, particularly if their check to examine the statue wasn't high enough to detect the contact poison. The skill checks/stat checks that govern this sort of thing should be considered encompassing enough and flexible enough to avoid the annoyance of pixel bitching that "how do you investigate it/are you touching it" represents. A sufficient check, whether it's search in 3.5 or intelligence (investigation) in 5e or whatever, should detect the contact poison and save the PC from touching it. An insufficient one should not unless the player thinks to mention they're just visually examining the statue beforehand - and then they shouldn't get their full bonus on the search since they are deliberately restricting their full searching/investigating capabilities.

I don't have a lot of patience for players who want to search everything with a skill check and yet still be protected from the negative consequences of doing so if they do poorly. You either do the pixel bitching (which will strain both of our patience in the long run) or you will accept the negative consequences of making a broader skill check and pay the price of doing poorly at it/reap the benefits of doing well. All that said, I am quite happy to make the searching easier on players who make good, specific choices in their searches based on good understandings of genre tropes and narrative flow.

 

[daimaru42]

The low charisma character played by a high charisma player is a clear problem. I ~really~ like having my character make suggestions and think things out so trying to play someone with low intelligence would be ~hard~.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

This was i think a lesson learned way way way back in the days of old school but some later notions of "how to gm right" have tried to push "only roll when it matters" sorts of procedures where this kind of thing seems to become more the norm.

In my games, there are three things that happen -

first - i assume competence on the **characters** part so i do not assume a mistake occurs in any arena the character is strong in. this makes it less critical that the players make every statement a "wish-proofed" if-then-else nested loop syntax of security.

Second- over time we develop a common shared sense of how things work. they see what "i investigate" has meant in the past and so do i and so neither are surprised when something happens after a successful check or a failed one.

third - my players generally after a while develop some routines or lists - SOP - that they might even write down and reference for particular things that don't fit well into 1 and 2. Mostly it is so they can try and get their actions straight when it dives into nitty gritty detailed devils.