The need for social skills in D&D

[Ed_Laprade]

Ok, I've got a CHA of 16, pumped 10 ranks into Diplomacy and rolled a nat 20, but because I've had a brain fart I can only mumble a basic idea of what I want to say. But the Half-Orc with a CHA of 10, rolls a 10 and has no ranks in Diplo has a player who comes up with a spiel that's the envy of everyone at the table. I fail, he succeeds. Bye, I'm outa here.

If, on the other hand, it's stated as a house rule that only your perfomance will effect CHA skills, I'm never gonna put points in them.

 

[pogre]

Naturally gifted tacticians are rewarded with positive outcomes in battle. Naturally gifted social players are gifted with a modifier to their success (usually +2). I appreciate their efforts and it adds to the game.

It does not hurt you to play a charming character if you, the player, are not - but IMO you're not adding much to the game either if you are just rolling dice.

 

[billd91]

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?

No, I most emphatically wouldn't agree. They won't excel quite as well, but even a shy or inarticulate person may be able to come up with a good approach to take for a social situation in game and, with well invested character development, have a good chance of pulling it off.

Same thing with the master tactician thing.

That's party of the point of RPGs: playing something you're not. If we ditch that, then why are we playing anything but Pencils and Paychecks?

 

[roguerouge]

rather simple solution

In my games, good role play gets you a +2 bonus on your social skill checks and an egregiously bad job gets you a -2. That way anyone can play the Face and you still encourage good play.

Except the +2/-2 rule goes out the window when it's funny. One time, a BBEG with a particularly baroque fantasy-style name got let off from his attempted murder rap because the party barbarian couldn't remember his name when questioned by the cops. The next day's town newspaper (put out by BBEG's organization) ran as its cover story, "Who is Antoine Ta-wa-wa? Local hero alleges mystery man behind recent riot." The illustration was a silhouette with a question mark over it.

And you can never "Jedi Mind Trick" a fellow player without recourse to a spell.

 

[RFisher]

I guess I tend to be in favor of social skills. I expect the player to do more than just say "I try to insert skill name" or such. On the other hand, I don't apply modifiers due to roleplaying. I want to encourage roleplaying, but I don't want to judge it. A good charisma/skill means the character was eloquent & subtle even if the player wasn't. Likewise, a low charisma/skill means the character was wooden & blunt even if the player wasn't.

Of course, there's a gray area between what the player says & how they say it that can make separating the two less-than-perfect. But I do my best.

I'm happy to just use charisma rather than specific skills in my current classic D&D campaign, though.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

First of all, I clearly stated in my original post that I am not advocating the elimination of role play, so let's not use that argument:

You clearly stated that you want the roleplaying not to matter. Whatever happens in in character conversation, you want the die roll to determine the results. No fun at all.

 

[Mallus]

No, I most emphatically wouldn't agree.

And here I thought I was being so reasonable...

They won't excel quite as well, but even a shy or inarticulate person may be able to come up with a good approach to take for a social situation in game and, with well invested character development, have a good chance of pulling it off.

Same thing with the master tactician thing.

I don't understand what this means. It sounds like you're saying "Bad tacticians who come up with good tactics will succeed' and 'Bad negotiators who come up with a good strategy/approach (which is really the key to navigating social situations) will succeed".

That's party of the point of RPGs: playing something you're not.

Here's where things get tricky. Yes, RPG's let you take on the roll of something you're not. For example, D&D let's me play a wizard who casts mighty spells.

But suppose I don't cast the right mighty spells at the right time. My spell selection is suspect and I don't manage my magical resources well. Basically, I suck at playing a wizard.

But it's my desired intent is to play an effective, heroic wizard. The kind of guy who saves the day with his magic.

Except that I can't. At least not through my chosen actions in play.

To what extent should the rules compensate for this and allow me to take on the role of a good D&D player? Or at least, to essentially have in-game play skills that I don't?

If we ditch that, then why are we playing anything but Pencils and Paychecks?

If we ditch player skill, what kind of game are we left with?

Full disclosure: I like presence of social skills in 3.x. I use them. Sometimes. And sometimes I turn them off and my group resolves social situations by roleplaye and consensus (basically I'm not the only 'judge' evaluating how successful the roleplaying is. If a particular bit entertains the whole table, then more likely than not it 'succeeds' and I react accordingly.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

Of course.

First roll for your Defensive Tactics skill to determine if you provoke an AoO each round. Then roll your Offensive Tactics to see if you attack the target you wish to. Finally, if you wish to make a special attack, roll against your Special Tactics skill. Not only does this prevent better tacticians from dominating combat, but it completely eliminates the complexity of Attacks of Opportunity.


RC

 

[Mark CMG]

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?

I ran a session yesterday that was a combination of roleplay and die rolling to handle diplomacy, bluffing, sensing of motives, etc. I usually leave it up to the players to steer what percentage of roleplying will be involved and encourage them to do more of whatever they try. I prefer roleplaying, myself, as much as can be done in any game that requires some mechanics but I don't feel comfortable insisting that players do more roleplaying than they feel comfortable doing.

Then they killed some things and took their stuff. Much fun!

 

[Voadam]

Let's face it, not all players are created equal. I've seen my share of shy players during games. I've seen games where amateur actors dominate the role-playing, causing others who don't possess the same thespian ability to fade into the background. Other people just have different playing styles: They love the tactical side of D&D, but don't feel the need to get into character.

Should these types of players be prevented from playing bards, or information-gathering rogues? Should they be prevented from playing fighters who can inspire a group of townspeople to defend their town from invading orcs? Of course not. But DMs who handwaive away skills such as diplomacy or intimiate do just that.

A player who does not feel the need to "get into character" wants to play a social character without getting into character?

boo hoo. I like PCs getting into character so I don't cater to the specific player wants of those who want to play social characters without getting into character when I DM.

How does a fighter mechanically inspire a group of townspeople? With his two skill points and cross-class diplomacy skill that does not seem the route for inspiring people, even with skill focus diplomacy. Oh I know, he threatens them with immediate death if they don't pick up their pitchforks and fight the horde and rolls his maxed out intimidate to get temporary compliance. Very inspiring.