The need for social skills in D&D

[Raven Crowking]

What I did do was criticize, I mean discuss, some people's reason for preferring a crunchy, dice-based social conflict resolution system. Which boiled down to "Because it allows verbally challenged players to play charmers and leaders".

To which I responded "Then how about a crunchy dice-based system that allows tactically challenged players to play master tacticians?". (which Raven Crowking actually began sketching out)

What makes social interaction a special case?

I suspect that the players who prefer mechanical socializing are better tacticians than speakers. It's about privileging what they're good at.

And that is, frankly, what I'd like to see an answer to.

Why not roll to see if you provoke an AoO?

Why not roll to see if you attack the foe that is most advantageous?

Why not roll to see if you memorized the right spell today?

Why not roll to see if you say the right words?

Or, in other words, why is social interaction the singular part of the game in which some players fear to have any actual input based upon their (player) abilities? Why does every other aspect challenge the player as well as the character, but in this one area certain players balk at the idea that they should even face a modifier based on their input?

 

[BryonD]

That doesn't work for everyone. What if the players enjoy the challenge of crafting a persuasive argument?

I'm pretty much certain that nearly all hack n' slashers enjoy the thought of smashing their axe through the ocs armor and into its ribcage. With every roll of the die that is what they are GOING FOR. But then the die does what it will and the actual narrative conforms to that.

Just as the H'n'S player is going for the best killing blow every time, the heavy social RPer is going to be going for the most rewarding RP result as well. So, think of the best (your hypothetical player is now covered), roll the die, establish result, and THEN play out what actually happened. This in no remote way prevents the PLAYER from crafting a persuasive argument. But it then adds on top of that a model of what the character does (which isn't the player, pretty much by defintion of "role play") and adds to that the further challenge of adapting the already developed persuasive argument into whatever form fits game "reality".

 

[BryonD]

And that is, frankly, what I'd like to see an answer to.

Why not roll to see if you provoke an AoO?

Why not roll to see if you attack the foe that is most advantageous?

Why not roll to see if you memorized the right spell today?

Why not roll to see if you say the right words?

Or, in other words, why is social interaction the singular part of the game in which some players fear to have any actual input based upon their (player) abilities? Why does every other aspect challenge the player as well as the character, but in this one area certain players balk at the idea that they should even face a modifier based on their input?

I think that is a pretty invalid argument.
If you did those things then in social situations you would also be forced to roll to see if you even start talkign to the npc. You would be forced to roll if you use diplomacy or intimidate. You would be forced to roll to see if you talk to the right person.
The claim that social interaction is in any way a "singular" case where player input is invalid is simply absurd. Players have every bit as much freedom to leverage their characters social skills during RP as they do their characters combat skills during fights.

 

[ruleslawyer]

If a player delivers a speech that leaves the other players in tears and the DM's jaw on the table, and then rolls a Diplomacy check of 4, then even with a circumstance bonus for the speech, the result will still in all likelihood be a dud. There is a disconnect, then, between what the player delivered, and what, presumably, the character said. This is not good roleplaying. It may be good oration, but since the player is playing the role of someone who is demonstrably not a good orator, by giving a stellar oratory performance, he is doing a poor job of playing that role.

I think the objective should not be to make the best persuasive argument; it should be to make the argument that best matches the die roll.

-Hyp.

IMHO, that's anticlimactic. The issue to me isn't whether there should be mechanics for resolving social interaction, but whether inspired or hard-working players should be rewarded. IMHO, they absolutely should. I'd prefer to at least give the player a higher chance of success if he does something inspired, whether it's tactical, dramatic, or even just the result of a lot of effort. Otherwise, the game ends up rewarding players almost exclusively in one arena: Character-building.

 

[Mallus]

This in no remote way prevents the PLAYER from crafting a persuasive argument.

No, it doesn't.

It prevents the persuasive argument from meaning something.

Unless the persuasive argument can add a monster of a circumstance bonus (not just a paltry +2). In which case you're essentially back to the DM deciding if argument works or not, give or take a small amount of randomness.

 

[BryonD]

What I did do was criticize, I mean discuss, some people's reason for preferring a crunchy, dice-based social conflict resolution system. Which boiled down to "Because it allows verbally challenged players to play charmers and leaders".

How about so that the CHARACTER performs at the skill level of the CHARACTER, regardless of skill level of the PLAYER. This applies for great characters and weak characters and great players and weak players and all mix and match variations and shades of grey.

Having a really good player smooth talk a DM into something that the character shouldn't be able achieve is just as disruptive as shutting out a shy player. And if the DM is making judgements to prevent these issues then we are back to "How good you said it doesn't matter, it is your character's skill that counts." And if you go there then a well establish non-arbitrary system is better than DM whim. (Unless it is a really good, consistent DM, but then you are back to a consistent RULE based system, it just may not be the one in the PHB, but exactly WHAT system is used is not relevant to the point at hand.)

 

[Mallus]

Otherwise, the game ends up rewarding players almost exclusively in one arena: Character-building.

QFT!

 

[Arnwyn]

Not that I necessary believe the following, but:

Should these types of players be prevented from playing bards, or information-gathering rogues? Should they be prevented from playing fighters who can inspire a group of townspeople to defend their town from invading orcs? Of course not. But DMs who handwaive away skills such as diplomacy or intimiate do just that.

Sure. If you're ty at soccer, don't play soccer. If you're ty at chess, don't play chess.

If you're bad at conversation/diplomacy, don't play a bard. If you're crappy at tactical thinking, don't play a fighter. That's just the way things go.

Put another way: Why don't DMs who prefer to resolve diplomacy through role-play do the same for other skills?[/QUOTE]
Simply put: Mental vs. physical. 'Nuff said.

(Again, not that I necessarily believe that there's no place for the Diplomacy skill...)

 

[BryonD]

No, it doesn't.

It prevents the persuasive argument from meaning something.

As it SHOULD!!!! That is WHY the rule is there.
The whole point is the CHARACTER is NOT the PLAYER.

If a player comes up with a great arguement for why a Great Wrym red dragon should give them an item from its hoard, is the matter resolved and the dragon will do this?

I can not see how a good, enduring game could be based on any answer other than "insufficient data".

If the player is running a L25 Bard then "Hell Yeah" the dragon is all over handing off this gadget. If the exact same player, saying the exact same thing the exact same way is running a CHR8 Ftr1, then it is a laugh and a gobble.

Just as slamming your axe into the orc's ribcage is good in theory, it takes more than the PLAYER saying they want to do it. The CHARACTER must first be capable of achieving it and then follow that up with living up to their potential.

 

[BryonD]

If you're bad at conversation/diplomacy, don't play a bard. If you're crappy at tactical thinking, don't play a fighter. That's just the way things go.

YUCK

So only play characters that are more or less like you already and don't dare try doing something different than you.....

:\