The need for social skills in D&D

[Raven Crowking]

This is what I put in my House Rules document:

Roleplaying and Diplomacy Checks

A player who adopts an in-character voice to present Diplomancy check should be rewarded, just as a player who creates a clever combat stunt can gain a bonus to attacks. The DM will typically award a +2 bonus (to a maximum of +10) for each good, compelling point he makes, particularly those that cater to the NPC's goals, hopes, fears, and ambitions. These bonuses can be increased above +2 for points or proposals that seem particularly fitting.

For example, an NPC who is surrounded by the party and on the edge of death will likely be open to an offer to accept his surrender. The DM may consider a particular oration enough to guarantee a successful check, but this is the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand, no penalty is imposed for poor oratory skills. Not everyone has the desire to act out their characters or the improvisational abilities to do it well. If you prefer not to roleplay, you can simply summarize the important points you wish to stress as part of a Diplomacy check to gain an appropriate bonus.​

 

[Mallus]

Wading back into this thread...

For me, the immersive experience is key.

That's funny, I say the same thing. But for me, speaking as my character, voicing every word (often in a screwy accent), and having those words decide the outcome, helps create an 'immersive experience'.

Rolling some dice to determine the outcome of a conversation takes me out of character.

I like exploring fictional worlds... snip

I'd suspect you'd like my game. The Story Hour's in my sig, if you're curious.

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.

Let my quote the band X: "this is the game that moves as you play". Actually, I'm not sure what that means, but I've always felt its a good description of D&D.

I guess I take it to mean that D&D provides an assortment of radically different challenges (It's a wargame with riddles! It's a logic puzzle with improv!). But it's still, at its core, a game. Something like a simulation of heroic (I use that term loosely) literature, all about heroic daring-do, which pretty much demands conflict and the overcoming of nigh-insurmountable odds.

You might get most of your enjoyment from the drama workshop aspect, but that doesn't change the 'core mission' of game.

 

[Voadam]

That's funny, I say the same thing. But for me, speaking as my character, voicing every word (often in a screwy accent), and having those words decide the outcome, helps create an 'immersive experience'.

Rolling some dice to determine the outcome of a conversation takes me out of character.

Same.

 

[Voadam]

Sometimes the same words spoken by one person will elicit eye rolling that, when spoken by someone else, garner nods.

That's the role of Charisma/skills/rolls. The mechanics are less about choosing the right words & more about how those words are received.

For me.

I'd say that's why I don't want dice rolls.

When I'm rolling my eyes I don't want to agree because of dice rolls as if I was nodding.

Having everybody say "its unrealistic from how things happened, but that's the way the dice and mechanics say things should go" is not as cool as everybody feeling the scene flowed naturally and they felt they were there.

For me.

The role of charisma/skills/rolls is to handle mechanics I don't want to handle other ways, opposed charm commands, sorcerer spellcasting, paladin power mechanics, feinting in combat. Rolls are just when you want some randomness added. First person immersive talking is better than mechanics that override first person interactions.

Again, for me.

 

[replicant2]

That's funny, I say the same thing. But for me, speaking as my character, voicing every word (often in a screwy accent), and having those words decide the outcome, helps create an 'immersive experience'.

Rolling some dice to determine the outcome of a conversation takes me out of character.

You might get most of your enjoyment from the drama workshop aspect, but that doesn't change the 'core mission' of game.

Wouldn't you agree that you're twisting around my argument here? Let me explain:

I have advocated since post 1 that social situations should be roleplayed out, and, when appropriate (i.e., a moment of life and death, or extreme crisis) resolved with a die roll. The element of skill -- i.e., ranks in diplomacy, coupled with modifications for good RP, certainly has a strong "game" aspect to it, no?

You also called my support of playing a character for the sake of characterization "drama workshop." Yet you state that you like getting into character for the "immersive experience," and that die rolls interfere with your immersion.

Don't you see this as an inherent contradiction?

How can you on the one hand slag my line of thinking as drama for drama's sake and non-gamist (the "Spirit of D&D"), then turn around and support a line of play (roleplay only), that is drama without the dice, and completely unlike a game?

It's been 4 pages of posts now and I haven't come any closer to your line of thinking. It may be time to call it a day.

I'd suspect you'd like my game. The Story Hour's in my sig, if you're curious.

Maybe reading how your game plays would help me. I'll check it out.

Let my quote the band X: "this is the game that moves as you play". Actually, I'm not sure what that means, but I've always felt its a good description of D&D.

I guess I take it to mean that D&D provides an assortment of radically different challenges (It's a wargame with riddles! It's a logic puzzle with improv!). But it's still, at its core, a game. Something like a simulation of heroic (I use that term loosely) literature, all about heroic daring-do, which pretty much demands conflict and the overcoming of nigh-insurmountable odds.

I'm in agreement here. It's a game that's very hard to define and means a lot of things to different people, as evidenced by this long, unwieldy thread of ideas. But I've enjoyed the thought process.

 

[Mallus]

You also called my support of playing a character for the sake of characterization "drama workshop," yet you state that you like getting into character for the "immersive experience," and that die rolls interfere with your state?

Don't you see this as an inherent contradiction?

I didn't mean 'drama workshop' in the pejorative sense. My bad. I thought of using that term as a shared joke between colleagues, or at least, people who play an odd game in similar ways... albeit using different tools.

Recall that a few posts back I admitted to using accents... often for entire gaming sessions.

Apparently I didn't make my point well. I was only trying to point out the centrality of problem-solving in D&D play (often referred to as 'killing things and taking their stuff'). Even dramatic exploration for its own sake usually happens in then context of some overarching problem/plot that needs solving.

How can you on the one hand slag my line of thinking as drama for drama's sake and non-gamist (the "Spirit of D&D"), then turn around and support a line of play (roleplay only), that is drama without the dice, and completely unlike a game?

Because I wasn't slagging your line of reasoning or preferred playstyle, though now I can see how you got that impression.

Maybe reading how your game plays would help me. I'll check it out.

If nothing else, it's funny. The player who writes most of it has a real gift for comedy.

 

[replicant2]

This is what I put in my House Rules document:

Roleplaying and Diplomacy Checks

A player who adopts an in-character voice to present Diplomancy check should be rewarded, just as a player who creates a clever combat stunt can gain a bonus to attacks. The DM will typically award a +2 bonus (to a maximum of +10) for each good, compelling point he makes, particularly those that cater to the NPC's goals, hopes, fears, and ambitions. These bonuses can be increased above +2 for points or proposals that seem particularly fitting.

For example, an NPC who is surrounded by the party and on the edge of death will likely be open to an offer to accept his surrender. The DM may consider a particular oration enough to guarantee a successful check, but this is the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand, no penalty is imposed for poor oratory skills. Not everyone has the desire to act out their characters or the improvisational abilities to do it well. If you prefer not to roleplay, you can simply summarize the important points you wish to stress as part of a Diplomacy check to gain an appropriate bonus.​

I like this. I think it's a perfect blend of roleplay, "tactical" (i.e, player) input, and still keeps the use of social skill checks.

 

[replicant2]

I didn't mean 'drama workshop' in the pejorative sense. My bad. I thought of using that term as a shared joke between colleagues, or at least, people who play an odd game in similar ways... albeit using different tools.

Recall that a few posts back I admitted to using accents... often for entire gaming sessions.

Apparently I didn't make my point well. I was only trying to point out the centrality of problem-solving in D&D play (often referred to as 'killing things and taking their stuff'). Even dramatic exploration for its own sake usually happens in then context of some overarching problem/plot that needs solving.

Not a problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I like this. I think it's a perfect blend of roleplay, "tactical" (i.e, player) input, and still keeps the use of social skill checks.

Thank you kindly.

 

[buzz]

Interesting thread.

First off, I like social mechanics for reasons Hussar and Wolfwood2 mention above. Whether it's combat or conversation, if it's an important event, you should be rolling the bones. Sure, marshal your resources, pick your tactics, craft a plan, adopt an accent... but, ultimately, we use the mechanics to determine the end result.

That said, I think the real issue at the heart of these discussions is this: The social mechanics in D&D aren't very interesting.

At the core, they are very simple task resolution, just like swinging a sword. However, with swords, it's never down to just one roll. It's a series of rolls, positioning, and tactics, usually over a series of rounds. Determining the outcome is an entire process.

With D&D's social skills, otoh, it's one roll and done. Did your gather information or not? Yes or no. Did you bluff the guard? Yes or no.

On top of this, the mechanics don't necessarily provide a solid outcome. Make a stellar Diplomacy check, and the NPC becomes "helpful." Does that mean they actually help you? Not necessarily. The ultimate outcome is still in the DM's hands.

And on top of that is the whole issue of how the player's ability as an actor or debater interacts with the mechanic. Since the roll is all-or-nothing, the players are faced with their roleplaying being judged all-or-nothing. IMO, that puts the DM in a tough position. "Do I reward Shelley because she cracks me up?" "Do I penalize Todd because he's shy?"

Ergo, I think this is why we see such polarized positions from some people on the subject of social skills, because there is literally no rule preventing the following:

Player: "I tell the guard that these aren't the halflings they're looking for. I rolled a 27 on my Bluff."
DM: "The guard buys it."

There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but I can understand that it doesn't make for the most enjoyable play in every situation. Ergo, I can see why some people would rather opt for dinner theater over using the mechanics.

If you've ever had a chance to play with the Duel of Wits mechanics from Burning Wheel (and if you haven't, you should check them out), you'll know that it's possible to make a crucial debate as engaging as a fight to the death... all while leaving plenty of room for roleplaying (What are you asking for? How are you asking? When are you asking? Are you doing so covertly or in an obvious way? What concessions are you willing to make? Etc.)

Ergo, I think it's less a matter of whether social mechanics preclude roleplaying or not, and more whether the mechanics provide a compelling reason to use them in place of straight-up "dinner theater."

IMO, D&D's social mechanics don't fare too well. My groups rarely, if ever, use them. When they do come into play, it doesn't seem that they actually make much of a difference in our games. It's not a really a conscious decision; barring a player who has twinked his PC's Diplomacy to enable "mind control," they just have so little impact that nobody thinks about them.