The need for social skills in D&D

[takyris]

Ditto. I wouldn't mind playing a game with no charisma and no social skills, but that would pretty much kill any chance of my shy players playing fast-talking persuaders in exactly the same way that "swing this sword to see how well your character swings HIS sword" kills any chance of the unathletic player playing mighty-thewed barbarians.

Most of the problems seem to stem from people not reading the rules correctly. See above, with the example about the rogue stealing and the ranger getting bluffed. Per the rules, the ranger gets a +20 to his Sense Motive check unless the rogue's player is good enough to make a PLAUSIBLE bluff ("I'm taking her coin purse, yeah, because the cleric says that she was going to use the money to buy drugs. You saw how she was in that last fight. Please don't ask the cleric, though. He made me promise not to tell anyone. Just trust me on this. This if for her own good. We don't want her buying drugs."), in which case the ranger only gets a +5 or +10.

But "No, I didn't!" is clearly in the absurdity realm.

 

[billd91]

Let me ask you this...

How is that any different from combat being 'dominated' by certain people, ie, the ones with good tactics?

Consider that tactical skill is not abstractly represented in the rules and comes solely from the player. Is that another problem that needs fixing?

No. No matter what the tactical situation is, the tasks are still going to be governed by rolling dice. A good tactical sense from the player will minimize certain risks and maximize certain strengths, sure. But then, so will good role playing for the social situations. Let the players figure out how best to bring their strengths to bear and then roll the result.

 

[Mallus]

Let the players figure out how best to bring their strengths to bear and then roll the result.

Would you agree then that especially shy and/or inarticulate people should usually avoid trying to play glib fast-talkers and conversely, people with a poor grasp of D&D combat tactics avoid playing master tacticians?

 

[Agamon]

No. No matter what the tactical situation is, the tasks are still going to be governed by rolling dice. A good tactical sense from the player will minimize certain risks and maximize certain strengths, sure. But then, so will good role playing for the social situations. Let the players figure out how best to bring their strengths to bear and then roll the result.

Exactly. If you have good tactics, it helps, but the game lets the dice be the final arbiter. If you have good social skills, that helps (it should give you positive modifiers), but the roll should still be made even if just to see the reaction from the NPC. Maybe the NPC just doesn't want to be helpful, is in a bad mood, or just hates people that talk a lot.

Social events shouldn'y ever really just be a die roll though (unless it's an unimportant matter and rushing though it is a good idea). There should be some RP or at the very least a somewhat detailed stated intention by the player, then the die is rolled.

 

[Ciaran]

Here's the combat equivalent of "I bluff them":

Player: "I hit for 12 damage."
DM: "Huh? Which ogre are you attacking? And are you using your bow or your sword?"
Player: "Stop asking me questions! I hit for 12 damage!"

Social die rolls need at least as much context.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's certainly impossible to forget about the player's persona and let the character do everything itself... A smart player should not make mistakes purposefully when playing a low-Int character for example, and a charismatic player should not be forced to shut up if he has a great idea about something to say that could save the characters.

But at the same, rolling the dice is a must, otherwise the character's own persona is never part of the game.

I think that you shouldn't penalize a smart player but you shouldn't either penalize a smart character. In 3ed is very easy to first let the players do the talk, then give circumstance modifiers depending on how good their ideas are, and finally roll Cha or skill checks.

After all, bluffing and diplomacy are not so much about WHAT you say (e.g. what lie) as much as they are about HOW you say that. And it doesn't matter how the player says it, since it's the character's voice which speaks in the game at the end. The player may say the biggest lie or the greatest speech ever with full confidence (after all, he's just sitting at a gaming table) but if the character is in front of a fully-armed guard or a trial for murder, it's quite a different thing...

 

[BryonD]

I've never understood why it has to be one or the other.

It is completely possible to have the fun or roleplaying a social encounter and then use the mechanics to establish exactly how well the character pulled off the player's approach. It is easy to assume the the L15 bard character came up with a better way to put in words the shy player's idea or that the meat shield fighter simply botched the delivery of his brilliant player's master plan. And the variation that produces allows even more chances for on the fly role playing immedaitely after the true results are established.

 

[BryonD]

Oh, and it is easy to avoid "Jedi Mind Tricks".

Solution: A decent DM

 

[Merkuri]

Consider that tactical skill is not abstractly represented in the rules and comes solely from the player. Is that another problem that needs fixing?

One could argue that combat tactics is simulated by BAB and AC. I know you're talking about the strategic placement of combatants, flanking, charging, and knowing when to use combat feats, but a better BAB is designed to represent a better combat prowess. No matter how much tactics the player of the mage knows, he's just not going to be as effective as the barbarian in hand-to-hand combat. Arguably, this parallels how the player with a high charisma character will do better in social situations than the player with a low charisma character, regarless of the players own social skills.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I agree with you, Replicant2. But this has been discussed around here before, and I'd expect to see some very vocal opposition posted.