Social skills vs. ... all other mechanics

[5ekyu]

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.

In my opinion the example given was insufficient to assign right or wrong.

We have a statement and an outcome and a clear sense of disagreement between player and Gm as to whether the two match up.

We do not know the second most important detail - was there a check and was it failed or succeeded?

We do not know the single most important thing - how does this match up with how it has been seen in play prior to now? is this the first time an investigate check has been made evenr in the game? Did any of those include "Gm assigned touching" and if so were those objected to or accepted? What expectations have already been set prior to this case?

Without those - i myself cannot say whether or not the Gm was right or wrong or the player is right or wrong - all i can say is what was presented is an example of a player and a Gm on opposite sides of the page as to whether or not this was an expected outcome and that IMO **more often** than not indicates a Gm who has not established clearly enough what the players can expect.

In my games my player's and their characters are often surprised by what happens - but not to the process in the game as to how it happens.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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 tell my group that unless you tell me different "I check out the statue, chest, door, etc" means you eyeball it from a distance. Otherwise they always claim they didn't touch it despite "checking it out". So I tell them "you are standing in front of the item, describe what your PC is doing with a bit more detail than I check it out".

 

[iserith]

It does seem that you treat social skills the same as other skills. The consistency, plus what you were talking about earlier in terms of descriptive RP in an earlier email, do open things up.

Yes, absolutely. I treat every action declaration the same regardless of pillar. I ask of the players that they adequately perform their role so that I can perform mine at least as well. When either party falls down on the job, it makes the job of the other harder.

 

[5ekyu]

I tell my group that unless you tell me different "I check out the statue, chest, door, etc" means you eyeball it from a distance. Otherwise they always claim they didn't touch it despite "checking it out". So I tell them "you are standing in front of the item, describe what your PC is doing with a bit more detail than I check it out".

i think its pretty common for most tables to develop their own shortahdn and jargon - spot, check out, examine, study, search, - tend to develop into various mutual expectations they share on both sides of the table. In my experience they also develop a tendency to spotlight exceptions - as in "I am making sure to not touch it" when something gets their spidey sense tingling.

but that said, again without knowledge of a check we are left with mostly snatching at smoke whisps...

lethal goo covered stone should have a lot of visual clues (perhaps other senses like smell) in **most** cases - like dust on the goo thicker than on the other parts of the stone, bugs dead and stuck on the goo, different glint in the torchlight - all of which would seem to me to add up to a check to notice these in your investigation *before* your investigation gets to the touching phase - assuming even minimal competnece meaning you look, smell, etc **before** touching.

Honestly the example seemed so contrived that if it weren't spotlights as an actual in play recent session i would have just dismissed it as a forum faux extremity.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

The dice determine it in the end. At best you give the occasional advantage or disadvantage if the player really says something memorable either good or bad but these should be exceptions not the rule.

Don't like to used it to much as an example but Critical Role is a good example here. No matter how smooth the players actually sounds he still makes them roll the dice. On occasion he gives advantage of the player is extremely inspired and it fits the situation.

You have to do this otherwise players who are naturally good speakers will dump start their social skills and compensate with their real skills and that is just not fair to the game.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I GM a lot at conventions so this can be tough to accomplish. I try and be clear during the opening about how I do things, and my games are ongoing so people who play multiple sessions have a familiarity. It's one of the reasons I am okay with pretty broad statements of intent even if they lean more on the game mechanics than the fiction.

 

[5ekyu]

I GM a lot at conventions so this can be tough to accomplish. I try and be clear during the opening about how I do things, and my games are ongoing so people who play multiple sessions have a familiarity. It's one of the reasons I am okay with pretty broad statements of intent even if they lean more on the game mechanics than the fiction.

Absolutely. The few times i run open tables at events or whenever i add newcplayers i push more to be clear and question and frankly even more to presume competence. A situation like the investigate soak thru above would not ever be something i spring at an open table or on new player. Its imo just not something i would do.

Conversely, if i were a player at such i would myself try and help aboid it in character by myself asking questions.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I tell my group that unless you tell me different "I check out the statue, chest, door, etc" means you eyeball it from a distance.

That's good advice, I'm going to use that from now on.

I've also learnt a phrase from Apocalypse World that I'm going to use more. If a player says something incomplete (like "I convince the guard to let us pass") I'm going to respond with "Cool, what does that look like?"

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's good advice, I'm going to use that from now on.

I've also learnt a phrase from Apocalypse World that I'm going to use more. If a player says something incomplete (like "I convince the guard to let us pass") I'm going to respond with "Cool, what does that look like?"

Oh I like that.

 

[Blue]

That's good advice, I'm going to use that from now on.

I've also learnt a phrase from Apocalypse World that I'm going to use more. If a player says something incomplete (like "I convince the guard to let us pass") I'm going to respond with "Cool, what does that look like?"

Just to return back to the OP, so it sounds like if you do that consistently that there is no divide between social skills and other skills.

The next question is - do you assign bonuses/penalties based on how the player describes it, or strictly by the character competencies or lack thereof?

In other words, is the "Cool, what does that look like" to provide a narrative to envision, but not change the difficulty (like in AW), or does a player need a level of competence in mundane skills in order not to have their character penalized?