The need for social skills in D&D

[Mallus]

I know you're talking about the strategic placement of combatants, flanking, charging, and knowing when to use combat feats...

Yes. I'd throw in knowing how to work as part of a team, too.

...but a better BAB is designed to represent a better combat prowess.

'Prowess' and 'tactics' aren't the same thing. Not even in the semi-abstract world of D&D combat. Ask any DM who has challenged his or her party with well-played low CR opponents.

Haven't you ever seen a character that's powerful on paper rendered useless (or next to useless) by an inexperienced player?

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.

I'm not arguing that the social rules be junked... heck, I use them in my own campaign.

I'm just wondering why there's no support for rules that even the playing field for tactically-challenged players...

 

[Shroomy]

I'm just wondering why there's no support for rules that even the playing field for tactically-challenged players...

I would argue that there are actually a lot of these rules in D&D: aid another, flanking, attacking from higher ground, cover, etc. All of these rules are presented in relatively simple terms in the PHB and provide concrete bonuses to AC and attacks. Even if one is not a master of tactics, a D&D player should be able to grasp these concepts and make fairly sound tactical decisions based on them if they know how the base mechanics work.

One could also say that utilization of miniatures is another help in this regard since it allows players to visualize their relative positions.

 

[Mallus]

Even if one is not a master of tactics, a D&D player should be able to grasp these concepts and make fairly sound tactical decisions based on them if they know how the base mechanics work.

And if they don't?

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I dont think Charismatic skills should go away, but I do give the players the opportunity to talk in character to the NPC and then role and I modify the NPC's roll based on how i Thought the player did. If the player doesnt want to, then it's a straight up roll with no modifiers based on how I think their "Performance" was as a roleplayer.

 

[Shroomy]

And if they don't?

Then they'll go through a lot of characters. But how hard is to realize that a fairly small subset of basic actions can do a lot to improve your attack bonus and AC? I would say that it is easier to realize this than it is for new players to realize when it is an appropriate time to use Bluff or Diplomacy.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've seen it espoused, time and time again on this board and others: People who disregard "social" skills such as diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, in some cases even gather information. Their reasoning is typically as follows: Why should I let a player roll to resolve an action that should be addressed by good role-playing?

Hogwash.

Yadda yadda yadda ...

I totally disagree. If I wanted to play a game where everything was resolved by rolls, I would play a wargame or Monopoly. If I'm going to make the effort to do some good roleplaying, I want my efforts to matter in resolving situations.

I have difficulty believing the "shy player" argument. I've played with any number of people that were fairly shy IRL but none of them had any problem roleplaying in-game.

We have rolls for combat because really huritng each other is undesirable, and we have rules for magic because it doesn't work IRL. Social interaction is quite easy to do for real in-game and too complex to be modeled by a few rolls, so it's better role-played out.

 

[Mallus]

But how hard is to realize that a fairly small subset of basic actions can do a lot to improve your attack bonus and AC?

There's a little more to combat tactics than that...

In another vein, I could ask "How hard is it to talk?

And the answer to that, of course, is "It depends on the person".

I would say that it is easier to realize this than it is for new players to realize when it is an appropriate time to use Bluff or Diplomacy.

I'd say the opposite. People navigate social situations every day. Ho can that not be more intuitive/easily grasped?

 

[ruleslawyer]

I would argue that by rewarding good tactics and sound decision-making, the game is already favoring players with those skills. The question is whether it should reward players who are clever and eloquent in their role-playing. I say yes. However, I do think that, at the same time, shy or non-eloquent players should have the option of investing in a social maven PC. So, I use the following rule:

Whenever using a social skill (Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy), you have two options: Either you can describe the action in general terms ("I tell the guards I'm a king's messenger"), or you can play out the interaction in detail. If you do the former, roll a skill check as normal. If, OTOH, you do the latter, your role-playing effort is used in place of the die roll: A minimum of 8 for a poor or uninspired performance, to a maximum of 20 for a truly inspired performance.

I find this works quite well in play. Since instituting this house rule, I have yet to see a player choose to roll a social skill check.

As an aside: I might play devil's advocate and argue that while there's no reason to prevent anyone from playing exactly the kind of character they want, it's probably a bit boring to have a social PC being played by a shy or inarticulate player. A big part of the fun of tabletop play is everyone getting into their role; A quiet and non-interactive player running a talk-a-blue-streak, charming, ingenious rogue isn't really likely to contribute much to play, especially if he's afraid to act much out of fear of seeming little like his character.

 

[S'mon]

Playing D&D I've never seen a GM pay any attention to my Intimidate rolls, no matter how high I roll. I sympathise with their position. Probably best to eliminate these skills; eyeball PC CHA.

Edit: Re the tongue-tied player, a pet hate of mine is truly embarrassing play of supposedly charming PCs. If you really absolutely can't pull it off, please don't play a high-CHA character.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The problem with eliminating social skills is twofold, IMHO. First, it implicitly promotes one kind of playstyle, namely hack-and-slash. Like it or not, having rules for something tends to communicate its importance to the game, and cutting out social skills sends a certain message about the game to players. Second, it explicitly nips the social character archetype in the bud. If there aren't mechanics to build one, then one might as well just focus around building a combat or spellcasting monster.