The need for social skills in D&D

[Arnwyn]

I was an awful soccer player in school, but it didn't stop me from playing. I had a blast. The trick was to enjoy something other than winning.

Oh, certainly. The implication in my post was about the results one is expecting. I definitely didn't mean one can't have fun if they're playing something they're not that good at.

 

[billd91]

Let me ask this: "Why should we require tactically unskilled players (playing smart veteran warriors) to choose their own combat tactics when we don't require tongue-tied players (playing silver-tongued devils) to choose their own words?"

But we really don't. We don't expect the tactically unskilled players to do much more than pick a little bit of movement and a little bit of feat selection. We don't expect them to do the exacting sort of things like how the character feints or where they aim on the target to effect a telling blow.
Requiring the role-playing character to choose all of their own words in an RP encounter would be tantamount to doing exactly that.

I never said anything about barring players from roles. But in a game where player input matter, its unrealistic to think that the outspoken person won't outperform (literally) the shy person when playing that rogue.

It may be unrealistic, but that's OK in general. You expect the more dynamic players to do better than less dynamic players in all cases. But by using the social skill rules, a shy player can still be effective as a silver-tongued rogue even if he won't be as effective as the more outgoing player with the same build.

 

[replicant2]

Well Mallus, it seems you and I have reached loggerheads over certain ideas and concepts, so I'm not sure if continuing will really bear any fruit. But here's one last go-around...

You can think of your character any way you like... how you can play them is another story.... Nice sentiment, but not really relevant here, besides, your personal limits circumscribe your imagination.

Can you cite any research, scientific or otherwise, that states that one's imagination is limited by experience? I don't agree with that sentiment at all, and pride myself on imagining and playing characters with traits far different than my own.

No, I get that. I really do. In the M&M game I'm in I play a chubby Latino kid from LA who's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling. Also, a Catholic.

In real life I am none of those things.

First of all, that game sounds cool.

Second of all, because you are none of those things in real life, it doesn't preclude you from playing said chubby Latino kid. Why couldn't you also choose to play him as a charismatic wrestler-turned-movie star, a-la The Rock, even though you, the player, might not possess sufficient charisma? I'd argue you can, you seem to think that is not an option.

Because ultimately, D&D is a game, not just an exercise in adolescent power-fantasizing (wait, I say that with love). All games involve skill...

...unless, of course, they don't. But then if that's the case why would you play?

Let me ask you this: What do you think the role of player skill should be?

Playing a character with high charisma and social skills does not equal "adolescent power-fantasizing." On the contrary, I enjoy playing characters with low intelligence and charisma, and I roleplay accordingly.

For example, I don't expect my barely literate half-orc to have the same chance as the eloquent, high charisma bard of swaying the town guard to let he and the rest of his band of adventurers through the city gates.

The role of player skill should be accurately portraying his or her character, not merely projecting himself or herself through the character. My stats aren't the character's stats, and my skill comes in accurately portraying my character in-game.

You could just talk...

I find it ironic that people want to simulate the one thing in RPG's you don't actually have to.

You don't need a simulation to help you determine your chances of swindling a hardened merchant out of 100 gold? To help two rulers whose kingdoms have been warring for centuries reach a diplomatic solution? To convince a hungry ogre that you would make a lousy meal?

Again, I'm not condoning breaking out the dice to resolve the vast majority of social interactions. These are best left to role play and DM judgement calls. But in opposed matters of life or death, or in a matter of extreme difficulty (as I described above), I believe a social skill check should be made.

Actually, I don't remove the die roll. Not entirely. My players can roll if they want to.

I'm glad to hear this.

That's a valid criticism and I don't really have an answer for it. It isn't fair. But I decided a long time ago that when I DM, I'm not going to discourage player input. I'm not going to quibble over whether an INT 8 PC could come up with the plan their player described, or if a CHR 6 half-orc PC could deliver the persuasive speech that just rolled off of their players tongue.

I want to encourage creative play from engaged players. If that means the characters actions don't always map to their written abilities, so be it.

It is just a game, after all.

Again, I will accept a die roll to resolve a social encounter. I'll also resolve encounters by dice-free roleplaying, because sometimes that's more fun.

Agreed, and if everyone in your group is having fun, don't change a thing. As long as players know up front that sinking points into social skills isn't the optimal choice, and that their role-play will determine the result of social encounters, that's cool.

I actually would have no problem playing in a diceless social resolution system, with one huge caveat: That players who insist on using charisma and intelligence as dump-stats role-play accordingly. You absolutely cannot have it both ways. The player of a 6 intelligence barbarian should be precluded from playing him as a social charmer.

Why?

If the players are happy running on pure narrative, just telling the DM their actions and listening to the results, why do dice have to be involved?

As others have stated, you're not being consistent here. If you want to open up combat and spell-casting results to pure narrative and remove the dice, that would level the field.

 

[RFisher]

As long as players know up front that sinking points into social skills isn't the optimal choice, and that their role-play will determine the result of social encounters, that's cool.

Yeah. This is one of those tough things for the judge in any RPG. If players are spending points on something, you really have to find a way to make that meaningful.

Which, in most discussions like this about a certain skill or class of skills, is my ultimate answer. Do we need it? No, but if you let the characters have them, you need to use them.

That players who insist on using charisma and intelligence as dump-stats role-play accordingly.

I often try to look at those--Int in particular--as mechanics only. It is a number--call it Foo instead of Int if you must--that governs how many skills the character can have & his ability to cast arcane spells. I don't insist a player "plays dumb" because the ability happens to be called "Intelligence". After all, the player with an 18 Int can't role-play being a genius. (OK, there are some ways around that, but that's not the point.)

Although, my players will revel in playing dumb whenever they get the chance. (^_^)

As others have stated, you're not being consistent here. If you want to open up combat and spell-casting results to pure narrative and remove the dice, that would level the field.

But consistency is not necessarily needed. (See "social hit points".)

 

[Mallus]

We don't expect the tactically unskilled players to do much more than pick a little bit of movement and a little bit of feat selection.

It sounds like your reducing all player combat skill in D&D to 'a little bit of movement and feat selection' in order to make your point. Is that what you really mean?

 

[Elf Witch]

I think social skills are very much needed in the game. They give everyone a chance to play swashbuckler or bard.

I am very much in favor of role playing and I think that a good DM knows when to call for a roll and when to let the role play stand on its own.

As an example I was playing a knight with a high diplomacy and I was having to convince an enemy king that we did not mean naything warlike by coming to their city that we were on a mission of peace and trying to find a cure for a plague that was going to wipe out the entire world.

Now sometimes I can come up with the best speeches and sometimes I can't. That day I was tripping all over my words. The more I role played it the more tongue tied I got. The DM finally took mercy on me and had me roll a diplomacy check.

I have seen a DM let a low chr character make and amazing speech and let it stand because it was awesome and the player did not use his natural charisma all the time. I have also seen DMs require checks on players who are naturally charasmatic who are choosing to play 8 Chr character but keeps coming up with these amazing speeches.


As for the people who say that if you can't play a smooth talking bard in real life don't play one well then if you can play a smooth talking bard please only play that and leave the sullen barbarian and fighter classes to those who can't play a bard. yep that sure sounds like fun. :\

I don't understand this all or nothing apporach to using social skills. Their is a big difference between always and neverusing the rolls.

 

[Mallus]

But here's one last go-around...

Sure... one more time Let me start off by trying to clarify things...

We disagree on how social skills should be viewed. Are they more player skills or character skills? You favor character, I favor player. Though in practice I'd bet there's not so much difference between us.

And for the record, I wasn't trying to 'prove' that social skills shouldn't be treated as character skills. I was just pointing out that the reason people frequently site for doing so "The game's all about people playing something they're not" is unevenly applied.

When I applied the same argument to combat, I got a bunch of answers than ran the gamut from "unconvincing" to "unconvincing in a different way".

The rules really can't help you play any kind effective character, because playing effective characters requires both player and character skill.

Can you cite any research, scientific or otherwise, that states that one's imagination is limited by experience? I don't agree with that sentiment at all, and pride myself on imagining and playing characters with traits far different than my own.

Heh... I was nitpicking. You exact words were "I'd rather use my imagination and transcend my own personal limits." (Note you didn't say "experience").

Doesn't everything you do/are fall within your personal limits? It sounded like you wrote 'I use my imagination to imagine more things than I can imagine".

Sorry...

First of all, that game sounds cool.

It is. Most fun I've had playing an RPG in years.

Playing a character with high charisma and social skills does not equal "adolescent power-fantasizing."

You misunderstood me. I think D&D = "adolescent power fantasy".

Heck, make that "most RPG's".

On a cranky day I'd throw in "most fantasy literature and good chuck of sci-fi too".

But that's another topic. We could start another thread...

The role of player skill should be accurately portraying his or her character, not merely projecting himself or herself through the character.

I'd wager a lot of people feel differently. The vast majority of players I've seen enjoy personally solving in-game problems (including combats), not just character acting.

A friend of mine once described the soul of RPG play as 'brainstorming solutions for crazy problems". Sounds good to me.

You don't need a simulation to help you determine your chances of swindling a hardened merchant out of 100 gold? To help two rulers whose kingdoms have been warring for centuries reach a diplomatic solution? To convince a hungry ogre that you would make a lousy meal?

Need? No.

Remember that previous editions of the game didn't have any rules for social encounters (aside from the 'hate table' and max number of henchmen).People made do. By talking. Or by not having any real social encounters.

The game is probably better off having social rules. So long as people disregard them from time to time.

As others have stated, you're not being consistent here. If you want to open up combat and spell-casting results to pure narrative and remove the dice, that would level the field.

Does consistency have an intrinsic value that I'm not aware of

Yes, I'm suggesting the use of different subsystems. In fact, I think that the use of mutually incompatible subsystems is a hallmark of RPG's (of course, I started with AD&D, so that kinda figures).

 

[billd91]

It sounds like your reducing all player combat skill in D&D to 'a little bit of movement and feat selection' in order to make your point. Is that what you really mean?

Pretty much. The amount of tactical work that goes into combat in D&D rules is miniscule compared to what would be involved in real life. You move to a position that has certain (dis-)advantages, pick the feats and gear in play that have certain (dis-)advantages, and resolve with a die roll. And that's it. It's pretty abstract compared to reality. We don't expect them to choose their specific aiming point, the angle their blade swings, the speed at which it moves, the series of attacks on the left lower quadrant that will draw the defender's defenses lower to enable you to strike high and to the right, and so on.
A similar process can be accomplished with social skills and should be supported by the rules. Your position in this debate seems to say that the social skill using player should be accountable for all of those sorts of minutae.

 

[Raloc]

I usually play it a couple of ways. If the player wants to RP their speech, but their character is basically incapable of such a display, I make them roll anyway (and when I play, I hold to this myself: e.g. my CHA 8 level 15 fighter can't make a speech for crap, even though I can, so I always roll Diplomacy after writing my speech to see what actual effect it had on my soldiers). If the PC is capable of the quality of RP or better, I just say they passed to whatever degree I feel is appropriate. If the player can't write a good speech, and his character is a silver-tongued devil, I'll have the player roll.

Seems to work fine for my group.

 

[Mallus]

Pretty much.

I've got one simple question: Ever game with someone who just didn't get D&D tactics?

The amount of tactical work that goes into combat in D&D rules is miniscule compared to what would be involved in real life.

True. And completely besides the point. When did we start talking about 'real life' and how the D&D rule set maps to it?

I was just pointing out that not all players are good at combat. It's skill some have and some don't.

Same as with social skills.

Your position in this debate seems to say that the social skill using player should be accountable for all of those sorts of minutiae.

If by 'all those sorts of minutiae' you mean 'talking', then yes.