The need for social skills in D&D

[Mallus]

If you can't swing 5-and-a-half foot sword, please don't play a fighter or barbarian....[snip]

This argument always get made when this topic is debated, and frankly, it's nonsense.

It should be, "Can you move a mini on a map?", not "Can you really swing a sword?".

We're talking about the player's skill at playing out an aspect of D&D. How far should the rules go in making players who are bad at something into ones indistinguishable from players good at that thing?

 

[Mallus]

A glorified game of "mother may I".

Sometimes the game is exactly that.

Sometimes it's a DM evaluating the PC's actions and deciding the outcome. You may not like that vis a vis social interactions, and that's fine. But consider how many rules there aren't. No real rules or even guidelines to help a DM evaluate strategy. How does a DM decide if a group's plan to overthrow the King will work? Or rather, how difficult it will be given their chosen course of action?

This is essentially what people who dont like rolling for social resolution are wanting.

So what's the role of player input in social resolution?

 

[Hjorimir]

Personally, I put a greater emphasis on what is said in role-play than I do for any social skill roll. Why? Because we have more fun that way. I'm not pretentious enough to say my way is the right way, but I know what I like and I stick to it.

I'll never let rules get in the way of fun. Of course, fun is a matter of taste, but players with different tastes are always going to have problems.

 

[billd91]

So what's the role of player input in social resolution?

They decide who to approach, how they're doing it, the basics of what they're going to saym, what results they're trying to achieve. A DM should take those into consideration when adjudicating the die roll. Are some of those things going to help or hinder? Are some of them even achievable or will they get the PC into trouble?

Plus, just like with combat, players describing what they do and how they do it adds color to the game. Just as rolling to hit an AC doesn't negate the fun of saying "I aim a quick slash at his knees", rolling a diplomacy check doesn't negate the fun of role-playing it out.

These aren't that different from playing a careful tactical game in combat, though the situations could be considerably more varied such that some codified set of modifiers isn't something the game can easily present. Any player, regardless of real skill in these matters, can sometimes come up with good ideas in this regard and still succeed even if they're shy or stammer a lot when actually put on the spot if their PC is built to do so.

 

[theemrys]

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.

..

Personally, I disagree with this. I think part of the fun of the game is playing the character... which means if you're playing someone with a 6 int, your ideas that you present should reflect this. This is the way the groups I've gamed with have been (focusing on the RP side) and it's been great fun, especially when one of the player's who's really good at tactics is playing the orc barbarian who's tactical advice is "time for big club or little club?". Not only can it be a fun challenge for the player involved, but gives opportunities for the shy players to step up and give suggestions.

 

[Voadam]

I found most DM's who dont like social rolls are typically the old school DM's who love to play favorites. Removing the die roll turns the game into "guns", where one person says the equivalent of "I convince them" and the DM is the kid whose yard you're playing in. Ever wonder why charisma was used as a dump stat in older editions? Blame your typical power tripping DM's.

The reason you roll for attack rolls is because theres no clear resolution with saying "I kill the orc". Same with lying to a guard. That's where the dice come in. It doesnt matter if the PLAYER is the most exceptionally convincing person around, the fact that a diceless resolution boils down to "Convine me. And I'm automatically biased because I know you're character is lying" should point to why the skill system is a good idea.

That's funny. I dislike social rolls. I am old school. I don't think it is because I play favorites, but because I like the actual roleplaying where people get into character, talk as their character and interact with NPCs by talking with them in actual conversations.

That is a fun aspect of the game.

Interrupting it with dice rolls and modifying how NPCs act after I figure out how their level of modified dice roll success against a target number equates into a narrative change on a chart (his reaction is shifted one category more friendly, what was it to start with?) and then figure out how this should modify his interaction then try to implement that, is annoying for me. It can lead to incongruous results based on die results and modifiers that have nothing to do with the situation. I find it better to just keep the flow going and handle the interactions without the dice. I find it more fun and less jarring.

True, saying "I convince him," would be no resolution whereas "I convince him, I got a 32 against his resisted 14" can generate a concrete resolution. Except for how the DM has the NPC react now that he believes your lie temporarily according to the skill roll result or now that you have made him a little more friendly. But it gives you a number to argue with instead of how the interaction actually went, common sense, and the relevant circumstances.

The rules as written still allow a ton of DM adjudication and can still allow a game to be just a matter of "Mother may I". A DM could say "He is convinced that you are right but says he unfortunately still can't let you pass." or even "The skill doesn't do that. Diplomacy only changes an attitude."

"I convince him. I roll a 32" is actually one of the things I dislike about social skill rolls.

 

[Mallus]

They decide who to approach, how they're doing it, the basics of what they're going to say, what results they're trying to achieve.

I'm with you so far...

A DM should take those into consideration when adjudicating the die roll.

The way I read the rules, a players RP'ing would constitute a circumstance bonus, which is +2/-2. right?. That's not much when you consider how easy it is to get a skill like Diplomacy into teens (and probably even low twenties).

Now you could use larger bonuses, in order to make RP'ing more signifigant, but in doing so you're drifting back into 'mother-may-I" territory, where the DM essentially decides the outcome, albeit with a little randomness thrown in.

Plus, just like with combat, players describing what they do and how they do it adds color to the game. Just as rolling to hit an AC doesn't negate the fun of saying "I aim a quick slash at his knees", rolling a diplomacy check doesn't negate the fun of role-playing it out.

I think describing a combat maneuver is categorically different from roleplaying out social encounters. The one is just as you say, flavor. The other is a form of problem solving. It's more akin to combat strategy, not an individual blow. It's a place where the player is challenged and demonstrates their ability at the game.

It's nice to roll high, but its nicer to solve a problem through your own cleverness and planning. That's my point in a nutshell.

I guess the ideal would be a game that allows different players to succeed on their own terms. Where sometimes the fast-talkers prevail solely on the strength of their fast-talk, and other times, shy stammers get to move nations with their (entirely simulated) words.

 

[replicant2]

Personally, I disagree with this. I think part of the fun of the game is playing the character... which means if you're playing someone with a 6 int, your ideas that you present should reflect this. This is the way the groups I've gamed with have been (focusing on the RP side) and it's been great fun, especially when one of the player's who's really good at tactics is playing the orc barbarian who's tactical advice is "time for big club or little club?". Not only can it be a fun challenge for the player involved, but gives opportunities for the shy players to step up and give suggestions.

I think this is a very important point and a large reason why I started the thread. You, the player, are a being separate and distinct from the player-character.

Isn't this the whole point of a role-playing game? Assuming a role? If you accept that statement, then why should the player's social skills be the equivalent of his or her character's?

Of course I realize it's very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the player from the character. Hence, I like the idea of role-playing out the social encounter, assiging a modifier for good role playing and good ideas vs. poor or no role play (-5/+5), and rolling the die. Then role-playing the result of the die.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Dont take the bait.

Bait taken, happily really. The quote from my previous post is an annoying and elitist attitude that I don't appreciate it. No one should be barred from playing the character they want because they don't have the 18 Cha equivalent in real life. How silly.

This argument always get made when this topic is debated, and frankly, it's nonsense.

It should be, "Can you move a mini on a map?", not "Can you really swing a sword?".

It's not nonsense. I'm not seeing how your example is any different from "Can you roll a d20 using your Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate modifier?"

We're talking about the player's skill at playing out an aspect of D&D.

Ok, that's fine. Some people are going to be better at giving evocative descriptions of their character's actions in combat. But I'm not going to distribute penalties because someone says "I charge and attack with my sword. I rolled a 17, is that enough to hit?" rather than "I hurtle forward and smash into the orc, swing my sword in a violent vertical arc." or whatever.

How far should the rules go in making players who are bad at something into ones indistinguishable from players good at that thing?

I don't think you can write rules for that. I think that sort of thing is always going to fall into the purview of the DM, the judge. The rules lay out the basic frameworks, the concepts. It's up to the DM (and other players to an extent) to teach people and give that framework context.

Rather than say "Look Joe, you're just not outspoken enough to play a quick-talking Rogue. I'm sorry, it's just not gonna work for me," be more constructive. If you're experienced with that sort of thing, offer some advice. If not, that's what message boards like ENWorld are for.

I'd rather work with individual players than against them. That's one of the important parts of being a good DM.

 

[wayne62682]

It might have been said already... but I am firmly in the camp of letting the dice decide what happens, BUT the player should make an attempt to roleplay it out. For example, I'm a pretty shy person in real life and I get embarrassed when I try to really roleplay a character. Say my character is a charismatic rogue and I'm trying to bluff my way into the Duke's chambers. Assume I have a good Bluff skill. Would I expect to tell the DM "I try to bluff my way past the guard" and then roll a die and have that be it? No, of course not. But, I would also not want the entire scenario to hinge ONLY on my (the player) ability to interact with the "guard" (i.e. the DM) and convince him; I would expect my character's skill to factor in (not necessarily as in getting a bonus for weaving a convincing story, I mean letting the skill check be the final arbiter).

I actually played with two folks who felt that if you couldn't roleplay a charismatic character right, you shouldn't be allowed to. They seriously said to me that if I play, say, a charismatic Paladin, I better be able to speak with a commanding presence and get others to follow me WITHOUT resorting to "game mechanics". I felt it was utter rubbish.

So, to give an executive summary of my views: The mechanics are what determines the success/failure of the action. Roleplaying it out (or at least making the attempt to, not just saying "I use Diplomacy") is what adds to the atmosphere.