The need for social skills in D&D

[Voadam]

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.

A roll based task resolution could be more or less specific for anounced actions and factors considered. This can be true for combat or social resolution.

However in dice less you don't anounce your actions in minute detail, you just do them.

"I feint to the left then spin around to get momentum with my sword as I swing to attack from the right at a slight angle coming down from above." can be modeled using a more specifically detailed combat resolution mechanics. In a foam sword LARP you just swing and do it.

"I tell him a joke to break the ice and try to get a feel for how he's reacting then move into the negotiations. I keep a friendly demeanor, my arms are not crossed so my body language is open, I maintain eye contact and smile, being sure to show my teeth and if we laugh I join in heartily." could be modelled with detailed dice resolution mechanics too. Diceless the player just talks.

What actions are done by dice mechanics are a play style choice.

Using dice mechanics to resolve social interactions accomplishes different ends than allowing face to face interactions happen without using dice mechanic resolutions.

 

[billd91]

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

No. Because even walking up to an opponent and swinging for the fences is, in fact, a tactic. It may not be a very sophisticated one but it nevertheless is a tactic. It's very easy to grasp some aspect of D&D tactics. Some master more. I don't see that as a significant difference.

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

<snip>

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

Now aren't we back at real life? If the player has to role play out the encounter as if in real life, then why can't we look at the combat rules and compare them to real life? Both involve abstractions from reality, but it seems you place a burden far closer to reality upon the social encounter rather than the combat encounter. Is that fair? Shouldn't the shy player be able to say "Um. I... uh... walk up to the guard and try to be sort of... uh... buddy-buddy. Hey, uh... pal... um, why... why not come and, um, join us for a drink over here in the shade. You can, um, still see your post from here." or something like that and still be able to pull it off with a good diplomacy skill?

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. Because even walking up to an opponent and swinging for the fences is, in fact, a tactic. It may not be a very sophisticated one but it nevertheless is a tactic. It's very easy to grasp some aspect of D&D tactics. Some master more. I don't see that as a significant difference.

The question wasn't "Have you ever played with someone who can't use any tactics?" but "Ever game with someone who just didn't get D&D tactics?" IOW, someone who didn't understand the fundamental mechanics used to make D&D combat more tactical than "walking up to an opponent and swinging for the fences".


(Mallus, tell me if I'm out of line here.)

 

[billd91]

The question wasn't "Have you ever played with someone who can't use any tactics?" but "Ever game with someone who just didn't get D&D tactics?" IOW, someone who didn't understand the fundamental mechanics used to make D&D combat more tactical than "walking up to an opponent and swinging for the fences".


(Mallus, tell me if I'm out of line here.)

The answer again is no. There are different levels of understanding but everyone I've played with has understood them at some level.

 

[replicant2]

If you think roleplaying is acting or being "the life of the party" you're wrong. Roleplaying i s simply making a good attempt to play the character. It doesnt replace the skills but should be used in conjunction with them. A good DM can balance them both.

Oh brother... have you read my posts? I've stated on multiple occasions that key social resolutions should be roleplayed out, and resolved with an appropriate die roll, modified by good/bad role-play or a good effort on the part of the player. This is precisely the conjunction of role-play and skills you're promoting.

In fact, I think I've stated with a fair degree of lucidity that I'm opposed to players who dominate role-play when they've elected to use charisma or intelligence as a dump-stat.

 

[replicant2]

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.

I agree--to a degree. D&D is a game and thus player skill is a piece of the puzzle. I'd also argue it's a roleplaying game, and hence has inherent differences from other games like Life or Yahtzee. While I like solving puzzles and overcoming tactical challenges, I don't approach each session with "effectiveness" in mind or playing to overcome obstacles.

For me, the immersive experience is key. I like playing characters that can do much more than I'm capable. I like exploring fictional worlds that offer so much more than my 9-5 workday. If I do so with a character that's not the most "effective" for me, I could care less, as long as I'm having fun.

Besides, playing a PC so alien to my own persona presents an interesting "challenge to be overcome" in its own right.

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.

See my answer above. I like solving in-game problems, but it's not the reason I play D&D. Were it the sole, or even main reason, I'd probably derive more satisfaction playing chess, Jenga, or wargames.

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.

I'm with you here.

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).

"Consistency" was a poor word-choice on my part. I think fairness is more apt. I don't think it's particulary fair to give combat-heavy characters a mechanical edge, and remove the mechanical advantage of a charismatic PC by eliminating social skills and replacing it with pure player-driven RP.

For the record, I started with AD&D too. It's still a great game. I think D&D 3E has improved on it in many ways, but not all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The answer again is no. There are different levels of understanding but everyone I've played with has understood them at some level.

Have you ever played, then, with someone who didn't understand social interaction "at some level"?

 

[billd91]

Have you ever played, then, with someone who didn't understand social interaction "at some level"?

No. Everyone has understood it at some level.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, here's a great example of how it can work out. In a campaign I was running, one of the characters was an uncharismatic (6 Cha) elven rogue... (Figured as an elf, at least he was still more attractive than humans... he had a LOT of personality issues which is what made him so fun). The rest of the party was invading the enemies castle through the roof, but there wasn't enough room for all on the flying carpet. Since this rogue (Griere) didn't have a high opinion of the party, he decided to work at bluffing his way in. This was NOT a social character, but it was his call. He headed up the front entrance, disguised in a cloak recovered from an enemy before... and headed in. he was stopped by a number of Hobgoblin guards... They questioned him so we made the bluff check... he got a net 4... Figuring he was screwed, he said "I'm here to kill your mothers"... the hobgoblin's rolled a natural 1 on the sense motive... "Alright, come on in then". It was pretty funny, but the way the rolls went made for some very interesting scenarios. This has happened to me before in many different games, both in combat as well as social situations. I think the rolls work well to be a guide as to how to roleplay it out.

Y'know, this got buried WAY back, but I think it bears repeating. There's a very, very good reason to use dice to decide social interactions and theemrys has put his finger on it nicely.

Randomness.

If we go by the DM judging the player's performance, we pretty much remove any random element from the situation. For the most part, people who can talk well will talk well and those that can't, won't. Any social interaction which is based purely on player performance will almost certainly be a forgone conclusion. Add in bad DMing where it doesn't matter what you say, the answer will again be a forgone conclusion and any social situation becomes pretty meaningless.

For example, if the DM wants you to know that Jeoffry Bloggins is holed up in the old mansion, then, he's going to tell you that information regardless of what you say. But, if you rely on the dice to give direction, then the DM is somewhat constrained and the story that develops isn't entirely dependent on what the DM wants.

With social skills, it becomes another tool by which the players can affect the story. In theemrys' example above, most DM's, lacking a social mechanic, would never let the character pass. But, the dice say that he does. And it becomes a memorable moment. I've had similar examples in my games as well. The paladin character opens the door to the room full of goblins, mumbles something, but makes a good diplomacy role. The gobbies stand down and it turns into a pretty decent rp session. Not what I had intended - I figured it was going to be a fight and was pretty surprised when the paly player talked first. But, hey, it became a better scene because of it.

Honestly, using dice, IMHO, makes for better scenes.

 

[Wolfwood2]

A few thoughts on this thread.

There is nothing more painful and boring for me than watching a shy, uncreative person try to play a character who is a clever, dashing speaker. I'm sorry, but games are supposed to be fun, and watching someone like that stumble and hestitate their way through a roleplay encounter is incredibly boring. If rules could be set up to encourage people like that not to play highly social characters, I would be in favor of it. I guess that makes me a bad, bad man.

Now let me qualify that. I don't insist that the player be good at speaking. I just insist that they be clever social tacticians who can come up with interesting and fun social strategies. Then by all means roll the dice to figure out how well the PC carried out that strategy.

For instance, take the stereotypical problem of talking your way past a door guard. A PC might try to convince the guard they are carrying an important message, or that they are a friend of one of the residents, or that they are part of the king's dreaded secret police, or they might just plain try to make friends with the guard and bribe him.

It's the responsibility of the player to chose which of those social tactics they roll with, because the type of tactic chosen will have reprecussions on the future plots. If you're the type of player who can't handle that... if you're going to hesitate for minutes at a time going, 'I don't know, I don't know, how should I do this"... please do not play a social character. (Can you tell I have bitter experience here?)

Once the tactics are chosen, by all means roll the dice.

That's my take on it.