The need for social skills in D&D

[Hypersmurf]

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.

I have a vague memory of takyris coming up with a system at one point that somehow substituted Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive for a 'social attack roll', 'social AC', and 'social hit points', or something similar. So you could turn a conversation into a combat, by using a Bluff check to 'attack' the opponent. I suspect that there was a requirement that the Bluff actually be enacted as well, of course.

It sounded pretty cool at the time.

-Hyp.

 

[buzz]

I have a vague memory of takyris coming up with a system at one point that somehow substituted Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive for a 'social attack roll', 'social AC', and 'social hit points', or something similar. So you could turn a conversation into a combat, by using a Bluff check to 'attack' the opponent. I suspect that there was a requirement that the Bluff actually be enacted as well, of course.

It sounded pretty cool at the time..

Dynasties & Demagogues has a system something along these lines, as I understand it. I mean to check it out someday.

 

[Hussar]

There is a bit of a problem with what you are saying though Buzz. It doesn't come down to a single die roll. Or at least, it shouldn't and that's where the disconnect comes in. Every time you speak on a different topic, a new roll can be added in. Take the proverbial bluffing the guard routine.

Player: I approach the guard and greet him. (Rolls diplomacy.)
DM: Oooh, bad roll. The guard stares icily at you and puts his hand to his sword. "Begone!" he commands. or:
Not bad. The guard says, "Good day citizen. How may I help you?"
Player: "I need to see the duke. It's a matter of great importance." (rolls diplomacy)
DM: Bad Roll: "The duke cannot be disturbed. Be off with you."
Good roll: "The duke cannot be disturbed. He is not seeing anyone."
Great roll: "The duke cannot be disturbed. But, I think I saw the duchess heading towards the garden."
Player: Ok, time to bluff. "Of course he can't be disturbed. He's waiting to see me! Shall I tell him I was late because of you?" Rolls bluff.

And so on.

The biggest problem I see when we talk about social mechanics is that everyone uses one die roll and that's it. That's like running combat off of one roll. It doesn't work like that. Granted, diplomacy doesn't allow rerolls, but, that's for trying to diplomacy one thing. If you change topics, give different information, whatever, then you should be rerolling diplomacy to see how this new tactic fares.

So, we get the best of both worlds. The players still get to stretch their inner thespian if they wish, but, they are not held hostage to the DM for not acting up to his or her standards.

 

[buzz]

There is a bit of a problem with what you are saying though Buzz. It doesn't come down to a single die roll. Or at least, it shouldn't and that's where the disconnect comes in. Every time you speak on a different topic, a new roll can be added in. Take the proverbial bluffing the guard routine.

FWIW, I probably wouldn't be having the player make two separate Diplomacy rolls in such quick succession. Heck, I'm not sure the player should be rolling if all the PC's saying is, "I need to see the duke; it's important." We have yet to determine if Diplomacy is even an option.

Anyway, the meat of the conversation with the guard in your example is still handled by one roll, and in even in your version, the outcome of that roll had virtually nothing to do with the result. The DM basically decided that no Diplomacy roll, no matter how good, was going to allow the PC to see the duke. Sure, then the player shifted to Bluff, but that doesn't change the fact that Diplomacy was a simple pass/fail. And, as far as we know, the DM could have pre-decided that Bluff's no use, either.

Regardless, I'm not arguing that social interaction should always be an elaborate process mechanically. Ideally, you scale things depending on relevance.

Irrelevant (no roll): "Joe Commoner #4 is entranced by Shelia the Bard's enticing ways."
Relevant (simple): "There's a guard outside the duke's door. You can try etiquette, or see if you can bluff your way in."
Critical (elaborate): "As the entire council watches, the duke turns to you and demands you explain to him why he shouldn't go to war with your nation."

As it is now, D&D handles the last two situations identically: a pass/fail roll that doesn't necessarily produce a concrete result. As a DM, I want to use the rules in these situations, because I want both the player and the PC's skill in play, and dice should be involved, IMO. However, I can see how unappealing it can be, as D&D is just not very robust about it.

Then again, I don't really look for D&D to serve as this kind of game. I believe it's fundamentally about killing things and taking their stuff. However, if they're going to do social mechanics at all, I'd like to see mechanics that are little more useful and fun.

 

[Hussar]

Anyway, the meat of the conversation with the guard in your example is still handled by one roll, and in even in your version, the outcome of that roll had virtually nothing to do with the result. The DM basically decided that no Diplomacy roll, no matter how good, was going to allow the PC to see the duke. Sure, then the player shifted to Bluff, but that doesn't change the fact that Diplomacy was a simple pass/fail. And, as far as we know, the DM could have pre-decided that Bluff's no use, either.

Not entirely though. Yes, the DM decided that Diplomacy couldn't work. That's covered in RAW anyway. It doesn't matter how friendly the guard is, he's not going to disobey orders. All diplomacy really does is shift attitude. So it is possible for the DM to decide beforehand that diplomacy won't really work. However, the player won't know this and should be trying first.

OTOH, Bluff is a bit more specific. If you succeed at your bluff, the target "reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe." Now, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax because the DM can't decide on autofail on this one. If the guard believes the bluff, then his actions should be determined based on that belief (leaving the question of poor DMing off the table for a moment). In the guard example, the guard believes the bluff, thus believes the PC should be allowed in to see the Duke.

Now, the players could have chosen bluff right off the bat, but, that carries more risk. A failed diplomacy check doesn't usually carry too many penalties, other than making you a bit more unpopular. So, the players have different options to try to get the desired result.

My problem is that I see DM's allow a fifteen minute conversation to pass, broaching several topics with point and counterpoint, and THEN roll the diplomacy roll, thus possibly negating the last fifteen minutes of play. IMO, that's not the best way to use the rules.

 

[buzz]

My problem is that I see DM's allow a fifteen minute conversation to pass, broaching several topics with point and counterpoint, and THEN roll the diplomacy roll, thus possibly negating the last fifteen minutes of play. IMO, that's not the best way to use the rules.

This I would agree with. The DM needs to make it clear that the players are in a situation where dice are going to be rolled, and everyone needs to be on the same page as to what's at stake, and how they're going to accomplish/resolve it. Sure, the roll can still come at the end of that fifteen minutes of banter, but said banter should be aimed towards influencing the roll.

D&D, however, still doesn't do this very well, IMO. It still mostly comes down to whether the DM buys your argument, regardless of the roll. E.g., even if the guard falls for the bluff, it doesn't insure that he lets the PCs in. Maybe he simply notifies the duke, and the duke says "Who? Send them away."

 

[Jacen]

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.​

Congratz... You just make sure that fighter doesn't take any diplomacy or takes just one point and then puts players charisma on the table. And why so? Well +10 means that fighter needs to put 10 levels worh of skillpoints to that. "Small" bonus but totally nullifies interest to invest SPs.

So making dplomatic cleric is no good because dummass barbarian can be more effectic diplomat with "roleplaying" player. If PC has 1 or 11 points of SP is big difference. Take 10 is either 11 or 21 and 21 is quite good performance. so by taking 10 and giving "speach" could give a result of 21 to 23 if the more diplomatic PC gets worse player speach.

And the same player could get bonus from 2 to 10 depending on DM. Same acting and two different results with two DMs. If I do have a tic for sarcasm and some subtle jokes and DM doesn't like or understand either that means that there aren't any NPC that likes my way of talking. Or inteligence enough to understand the hidden joke that is directed to dumb fighter between two high inteligence mages. DM had a bad day? Bad for you diplomacy...

I agree that IC talk adds something to the game, but in my opinion that shouldn't resolve the social skill usage. Well bonus for trying is OK, but it should be 1 or (at max) 2 points. 2 points can mean 4 used skill points and that is much for that int 6 barbarian.

I agree too that D&D doesn't have proper resolution for social aspect, but hey - it is mostly hack&slash.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Congratz... You just make sure that fighter doesn't take any diplomacy or takes just one point and then puts players charisma on the table. And why so? Well +10 means that fighter needs to put 10 levels worh of skillpoints to that. "Small" bonus but totally nullifies interest to invest SPs.

If the fighter can actually get that +10 bonus, he's earned it. If someone is trying to persuade you that they have your best interests at heart, and they are making compelling points that actually match your interests, then you are more likely to be persuaded.

"I need this, you need that, so I'll give you that if you give me this" doesn't require that you actually like the other person, or that they are a smooth-tongued devil. Those SP in diplomacy represent, IMHO, getting what you want without having to give anything in exchange.

but hey - it is mostly hack&slash.

Maybe at your table.


EDIT: BTW, you failed to note that the dumbass barbarian might be able to get that +10 modifier, but so can the cleric with 11 SP. Hence, the barbarian has, say +10 (or even +6 modified by ability score), and the cleric has something in the order of +21 (or more). Obviously no difference in their skill levels.

 

[buzz]

If the fighter can actually get that +10 bonus, he's earned it.

I think the point Jacen is trying to make is that it's not the fighter earning the bonus, it's the fighter's player. While that's not necessarily unreasonable, allowing for up to +10 is weighting the player's ability a lot heavier than the PC's.

Also, Diplomacy technically has nothing to do with what you're saying, just how you say it. Remember, all the skill does is affect the NPC's attitude. It does not compel the NPC to agree to anything. The reasonableness of the PC's request is something you evaluate after the Diplomacy check, e.g., you shift the duke's attitude to Friendly, which means he "wishes you well." Now the DM has to decide: does this new attitude have any effect on the duke's decision to agree to your request?

IOW, it would make more sense to hand out bonuses for circumstances that make the NPC find the PC more appealing, which could be anything from: the PC being a trusted ally of the NPC, to the PC offering a generous gift, to the NPC being drunk.

The above, in a nutshell, is my basic beef with Diplomacy. It doesn't really resolve what I think players really want it to resolve, i.e., "Does the PC agree to do what I ask?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the point Jacen is trying to make is that it's not the fighter earning the bonus, it's the fighter's player. While that's not necessarily unreasonable, allowing for up to +10 is weighting the player's ability a lot heavier than the PC's.

"A good rpg challenges both the player and the character."

Also, Diplomacy technically has nothing to do with what you're saying, just how you say it.

Where does this come from?!? I couldn't find that in the RAW.

Remember, all the skill does is affect the NPC's attitude. It does not compel the NPC to agree to anything. The reasonableness of the PC's request is something you evaluate after the Diplomacy check, e.g., you shift the duke's attitude to Friendly, which means he "wishes you well." Now the DM has to decide: does this new attitude have any effect on the duke's decision to agree to your request?

And, I would argue, if someone is doing something for you, you are far more likely to wish them well. Remember, per RAW, those attitude adjustments are important not for how the character feels but for what the character does based upon how he feels.

IOW, it would make more sense to hand out bonuses for circumstances that make the NPC find the PC more appealing, which could be anything from: the PC being a trusted ally of the NPC, to the PC offering a generous gift, to the NPC being drunk.

Sure. But, so what? These things are not mutually exclusive.

My goal is to give rewards for the players paying attention to what's going on, and for thinking about who and what the NPCs are. I want my players to understand that it's not only okay to bargain, it is a good thing. YMMV.

The above, in a nutshell, is my basic beef with Diplomacy. It doesn't really resolve what I think players really want it to resolve, i.e., "Does the PC agree to do what I ask?"

Then you ought to houserule, like me.