Some questions about social situations in a game.

[The_Gneech]

Most of the time, I'll play it out; I only bother with the roll if the outcome is in doubt (e.g., the NPC is wavering), or the player requests it ("Gimble would have something clever to say to the guardsman here; but I'm having a total brain-freeze as to what. Can I have a diplomacy check?")

But just as I would never rule that an NPC's diplomacy check can force the players to do something they don't want to, there are times when the NPCs will have a set reaction to the players no matter what the dice say.

-The Gneech

 

[shilsen]

I have a question about gaming. As a DM I was pondering on this question: how do you avoid that the outcome of social situations in a game (like convincing a local lord to help or trying to get a villian to release you) is a result of a dice roll and not of roleplaying. I have problems with skills as diplomacy and bluff, because they seem to take away the need of roleplaying the situation. How do you handle this ?

Actually, depending on definition, having the outcome of social situations decided by a dice roll and the use of skills like diplomacy and bluff is roleplaying. The player (whatever his personal social skills) involved is playing the role of a character who has certain skills and is succeeding or failing based on the character's abilities, not his own. Just like the weedy little English professor (that would be me ) playing the role of a hulking half-orc barbarian uses the dice and the high Str and BAB scores to do so.

That being said, since all dice and no player input is no fun, this is how I handle it IMC. The player speaks as the character and depending on how he does so gets anywhere from a +2 to a -2 on his roll. Works fine for us and never gets in the way of the roleplaying (using your definition here).

 

[Frostmarrow]

My DM use the skills to set the attitude of the NPCs. For instance a group of human trappers might start off as indifferent to my character. After the initial conversation, greetings and all, I get to roll the die (or sometimes he does). If I roll high enough (DC 15) the NPC's attitude is shifted to friendly. I get to role-play from there. I.e the NPCs will chat and offer limited help.

Or a more recent encounter my elven cleric of Corellon had. We had been stealing into the night to burglar a kidnap victim's house for clues. On the way, we were waylaid by hooligans who had it in for one of my friends. We managed to subdue some of them and the rest fled the field (or city street, as it were) when they heard guards approaching. We all fled in different directions. The barbarians and monks were soon gone. Me with my con 6 couldn't keep up so I snuck into an open backpocket tavern.

I said to the DM that I wanted to become best friends with the barkeep as soon as possible. He rolled the dice and then we role-played through the encounter. I was introduced to his wife and everything, so I got the feeling that the roll had gone my way (1d20+8).

Shortly after the guards entered the tavern and asked if the barkeep had seen any suspicious characters in the last hour. The barkeep glanced my way but decided that I couldn't possibly be wanted, as I was so cultivated and friendly. The barkeep said that no one had seen anything. The guests were only happy to sincererly agree.

 

[kamosa]

While I like the social skills as a way to let non-charismatic characters a chance to shine above their natural ability, I dislike the roll based social decisions that come off the current skill system. I find the swings created by the d20 are far too large to effectively manage social situations.

I've been kicking around an idea. I'll throw it out here and see how people react. Rather than rolling a d20 and applying it straight as a modifier to the social skills, what if I used the turning check rules to modify the result. Then, like turning, the outcome would be more based on the situational modifiers and the skill of the person than on the large fluxuation of a d20.

The other idea is to let players take 10 on all mundane social encounters and only roll the die when the situation is fluid or a horrible out come could occur if you don't succeed (ie the guard will ring the alarm if your fast talk doesn't convince him that you are allowed to be here.)

 

[Azizar]

Social skills

''Actually, depending on definition, having the outcome of social situations decided by a dice roll and the use of skills like diplomacy and bluff is roleplaying. The player (whatever his personal social skills) involved is playing the role of a character who has certain skills and is succeeding or failing based on the character's abilities, not his own. Just like the weedy little English professor (that would be me ) playing the role of a hulking half-orc barbarian uses the dice and the high Str and BAB scores to do so.''

You are right, but let's call it 'playing it out and base the results on what happend instead on what is rolled' then. So not just: ' you rolled 20 ? Ok, you convinced the chief to let your friends go. He also packs cookies for your way back home....' but actually playing the whole scene in character and decide what happeds next.

But i think it was not nessasary to say this, because, although I defined roleplaying wrong, you understanded the question.

Ok, back to the social skills. How about removing social skills from the game ? What would be the effect of that ? I know, it makes it harder for naturally un-charismatic players to play a charismatic character. But as a dm, you could take that in consideration, and give him a chance to maybe 'outshine' himself in the game. It could make charisma an even more likely target for 'stat dumping' but on the other side, it could make charisma more important, because you cannot compensate the dumpstat with ranks in a skill (like 6 charisma, but 14 ranks in diplomacy). You can also design social feats to compensate, like a feat called Diplomacy, with a charisma prereq., which gives the character the skill of engaging in a formal negotiation or a Feat called fast talking or innuendo, feinting etc. Not just feats that give you a bonus to diplomacy or bluff. An effect will be that more power will go to the Dm, because there are no set dc's. Another effect will be that classes such as the rogue and the bard will suffer because part of their appeil and power is drawn from social skills. You will have to think about something to compensate. How do you feel about this ? Do you have suggestions ?

P.s Sorry for the bad grammer and spelling, But as a Brabander I am not used to write in english

 

[diaglo]

it has more to do with how your group likes to game.

my current DM is a storyteller style. so i make my roleplay as loose and ambigious enough so that he can interpret enough to fit the story.

another DM i had was more tactical. so the roleplay was based on roll first and then act accordingly.

yet another DM wanted everything in roleplay only. so he hung on ever word we said. even to the point when asking another player if they wanted anything while i was up... the DM made us act it out.

 

[kigmatzomat]

We're a bit more convoluted. The players tell me what they want to discuss (I'm going to fast talk this guy to let me into the castle), they roll the dice to see how good they should try to be, and then we role play.

Skill indicates the quality of your presentation, not content and the modifier I apply to the listener is based on the content. A blatantly stupid idea is still a stupid idea. A bit of genius wrapped up in anti-social package might manage to succeed despite the worst efforts of the messenger.

Alternately, a stupendous roll could obfuscate moronic drivel to the point that people go along with it for a few hours.

Success is role-played by how the NPC reacts. Even a fumble-tongued player gets a pat on the back when his suave bard has butter sit in his mouth for an hour without melting.

But it's not always easy. The hardest really is when the players have an awesome die roll but an incredibly foolish idea.

 

[kamosa]

We're a bit more convoluted. The players tell me what they want to discuss (I'm going to fast talk this guy to let me into the castle), they roll the dice to see how good they should try to be, and then we role play.

Skill indicates the quality of your presentation, not content and the modifier I apply to the listener is based on the content. A blatantly stupid idea is still a stupid idea. A bit of genius wrapped up in anti-social package might manage to succeed despite the worst efforts of the messenger.

Alternately, a stupendous roll could obfuscate moronic drivel to the point that people go along with it for a few hours.

Success is role-played by how the NPC reacts. Even a fumble-tongued player gets a pat on the back when his suave bard has butter sit in his mouth for an hour without melting.

But it's not always easy. The hardest really is when the players have an awesome die roll but an incredibly foolish idea.

I guess that is the fundamental dicatomy of why social skills are such a thorn in peoples side. Some people just want a decision made and they will play to that decision, and some people want to have their actions dictate the decision not leave it totally up to chance.

For my part I always want my players to try to be thinking of how to maximize the situtation. I want them to try to come up with the best scam, bluff or diplomacy. I feel if I limit them to just the points on the page, IE I roll and them tell them to live up to the result, I am pushing down on their personal creativity.

I never feel like this takes them out of character, in fact, I've had players that had fun coming up with the worst lines ever for a situation, because it is what their character would do. But, in the end it comes from them, not from me or from an arbitrary roll of the dice. I know that not every player is a creative player or a charismatic player. But I would rather use the rules to pull those people up, than use the rules to push down on those that are creative and charismatic.

 

[pdkoning]

I play a bard, and I am in and out character a smooth talker. We combine role and roll playing to determine the outcome of social 'encounters'

It appears to me that people who are no smooth talkers usually do not spend skill points in diplomacy and such.

 

[ichabod]

I agree that the cha int and wisdom scores of a player are separate, but the problem is that one should encourage the player's to role play out their stats and not roll play out the stats.

No, one should encourage players to have fun. There are plenty of people who don't enjoy trying to act, and you thinking it is fun is not justification for forcing them to do so.