The need for social skills in D&D

[Voadam]

Of course, it leaves all aspects of social encounters entirely to your whim. Why not go with all aspects of play like that, and abandon dice entirely in combat, searching for traps, making saves, riding a horse, etc?

Don't be silly. Everything in the world outside of the players is ultimately up to my whim. The player portion of the interaction is not up to my whim and the point of interactions for me is that there is an interaction, not a yes/no success/failure.

Traps, I prefer to be very descriptive and do as much narratively as I can. This has meant players interacting more and the traps being more than just target DCs but something that came alive more in the game. I do use mechanics here a bunch though, especially when module descriptions are vague or the traps are magical or I'm not sure how it could be disarmed or heavily described.

Riding a horse? I don't make characters do skill rolls for simple things like riding a horse when they travel. If I feel I don't need a skill roll to adjudicate a situation I just adjudicate it.

Why is this bad for talking, and not for stabbing? Why do we roll to hit? Why dont we resolve initiative order just by letting the fastest speaker go first? Why have any rules at all? By your argument, we should just sit there and let the DM tell us everything that happens. After all "DM's whim" must be the best way to figure out how successful any attempted action is. And since all DM's are infallible (just ask a grognard!), why sully their divine intent with anything else?!

The player can roleplay the character and talk first person and the player can do the character's interaction. Since this is not a LARP the only physical thing a player can actually do as his character is talk and do social interactions. D&D Combat is an abstraction of a physical interaction that the player can not physically do for his character.

First person roleplaying is different from second person roleplaying. Social interactions can be done in first or second or third person style. It is a choice to be made based on preferred play style.

I like first person talking in character interactions. Therefore it is bad to use dice mechanics to interrupt or replace that aspect of the game. It is not bad for stabbing because the DM and player can't physically interact as the interacting characters. Even in combat though there is a play style choice that could be made for the DM to use dice mechanics or go narrative. I don't know any DM who does out every dice roll when a party is part of a war scene involving thousands of combatants. Narrative description by the DM to resolve some actions can be fine even for combat.

And you must sit back even when using dice and let your DM tell you everything that happens. All you can do is say what you try and what your modifiers and rolls are. The DM will tell you the results of your attempted actions whether he is doing it by whim or by dice. Even when you have target DCs and such before hand you must wait for the DM to tell you the result.

Player "I hit for 15 damage."

DM "It drops." or "It seems barely scratched" or "Your blow seems entirely absorbed by the fiend's otherplanar essence [DR]"

A successful diplomacy check can achieve the same result. Just because the president of the bank likes you doesnt mean he can let you inspect the vault. The only difference is, theres some mechanic so that even your typical power tripping DM acknowledges that the character made a good attempt.

The difference is that a power tripping DM must say the character came close but failed? While a narrative one can say whatever he wants to about the effort?

 

[Voadam]

Uh... yep, thanks. I agree.

But that's not really what I'm talking about either. We have mechanics that for adjudicating social encounters. But I don't think that a player who might not be particularly good at improvising on-the-fly social interaction should be barred from playing a social character.

You mean barred by his inability to roleplay an effectively charming character from playing a character that actually charms NPCs when its not offscreen.

Same thing for tactically dumb players from playing Napoleon type characters.

Or players who can't do riddles from playing a riddlemaster concept character

Or players who are poor at puzzles and mysteries from playing a Sherlock Holmes type investigator character.

Or dumb players from playing smart characters smartly.

 

[Mallus]

It's not nonsense.

I was specifically referring to the 'Do you make your players swing a real sword?' line of reasoning. That is nonsense. Swinging an actual sword or climbing an actual rope isn't part of the game. Choosing a character's actions, including what they say is.

Some people are going to be better at giving evocative descriptions of their character's actions in combat.

I'm talking about some people being better at combat. Not better at offering color commentary.

Let me ask this: "Why should we require tactically unskilled players (playing smart veteran warriors) to choose their own combat tactics when we don't require tongue-tied players (playing silver-tongued devils) to choose their own words?"

Rather than say "Look Joe, you're just not outspoken enough to play a quick-talking Rogue.

I never said anything about barring players from roles. But in a game where player input matter, its unrealistic to think that the outspoken person won't outperform (literally) the shy person when playing that rogue.

 

[Mallus]

You mean barred by his inability to roleplay an effectively charming character from playing a character that actually charms NPCs when its not offscreen.

Same thing for tactically dumb players from playing Napoleon type characters.

Or players who can't do riddles from playing a riddlemaster concept character

Or players who are poor at puzzles and mysteries from playing a Sherlock Holmes type investigator character.

Or dumb players from playing smart characters smartly.

Yes!

What should we do when a players character concept is at odds with their playing skill?

How should the rule system help players to play characters they effectively can't. And how do you do that without rendering a smart player's smart play meaningless?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Don't be silly. Everything in the world outside of the players is ultimately up to my whim. The player portion of the interaction is not up to my whim and the point of interactions for me is that there is an interaction, not a yes/no success/failure.

In a system designed for widespread use, action resolution shouldnt be entirely subjective, which is the diceless alternative. And as I've stated, and you intentionally ignore, the dice system doesnt negate player interaction. It does however, limit DM's ability to more easily play favorites and railroad your players (or at mimum make it more obvious when its being done). Most mini tyrants dislike having their power erroded. Its no surprise you prefer the diceless alternative, hiding behind the veneer of RP superiority, thereby implying that anyone who touches dice during a social encounter ISNT actually roleplaying the encounter.

Riding a horse? I don't make characters do skill rolls for simple things like riding a horse when they travel. If I feel I don't need a skill roll to adjudicate a situation I just adjudicate it.

Again ignoring the point. Why dont you RP will saves then? Knowledge checks? Jump checks? Search? Fortitude saves? I mean, wouldnt it be more fun to have the player say "I try and shrug off the poison" and you get to decide based on whether you think their character can or not?

The player can roleplay the character and talk first person and the player can do the character's interaction. Since this is not a LARP the only physical thing a player can actually do as his character is talk and do social interactions. D&D Combat is an abstraction of a physical interaction that the player can not physically do for his character.

Its not about what you can and cant do. Its about resolving the action after its done. The player gives his speech, its Oscar worthy, light shines from the heavens... then what? We're back to the point of an attack where you stated you were swinging your sword. Did it hit? Did the guard believ you? The other step needs to be resolved. Any system without such resolution is not actually functional.

First person roleplaying is different from second person roleplaying. Social interactions can be done in first or second or third person style. It is a choice to be made based on preferred play style.

I like first person talking in character interactions.

As do I.

Therefore it is bad to use dice mechanics to interrupt or replace that aspect of the game.

A 5 second roll and simple math cacluation destroys all mood you've created? Dear god, I hope no outside stimuli ever enters your fragile gaming environment.

It is not bad for stabbing because the DM and player can't physically interact as the interacting characters.

You cant realistically interact as player and NPC either. You arent actually going to evoke emotions of lust, fear, etc in your DM (or at least rarely). You arent actually going to convince them your character didnt steal the coin purse, when he knows for a fact you did. Even first person discussions are an interaction simulation. That's why it needs a mechanical outcome resolution. Unless you just have blind faith in the fairness of all DM's everywhere, in which case I've got a bridge for sale.

 

[replicant2]

I enjoy these point-counterpoint discussions, so here goes.

People say this a lot, but that doesn't make it true. I think it be more accurate to say something like, 'Players vary in how closely they identify with their characters. Sometimes with the same character. In the same session'..

Nevertheless, the player is not the character whom he/she plays. His or her real-life abilities, in my opinion, should not provide undue positive or negative influence on that of their character.

The point is to have fun.

Undoubtedly true, but some people's ideas of fun differ significantly than others'. Some people enjoy the challenge of improv acting or matching wits with the DM to determine the outcome of a social conflict, others do not. Some people enjoy D&D as a tactically-oriented miniatures battle. Who's to say who is right?

That's not usually the crux if it from what I've seen. Conflict and reward is. Problem solving. YMMV.

I'll add the YMMV caveat, and add that I enjoy problem solving and conflict and reward too. I also get a kick when our DM busts out the battlemat and we go at-it with miniatures. But back in college I played in a group loaded with theatre-types, and the point for them was being a character and playing a role.

Because sometimes its more fun if they are. Because there isn't much point in maintaining strict character fidelity for its own sake. If that results in the deemphasizing of entertaining play. At some level D&D has to be a game, where the play matters, and not an exercise in fantasy-themed improv.

Many would argue that playing a role is what D&D (and roleplaying in general) is all about, and is the unique aspect that makes the game entertaining. Again, YMMV.

Hey, we agree!

Enough of that.

But some people enjoy acting out the oddity that lives in their heads, not the result of some die rolls.

You can think of this two ways: One, act out the oddity in your head until your heart's content, and it's up to the DM to assign a modifier to the die roll.

Two, nothing says that you cannot act out the results of a die roll, good or bad. I'd find that to be a rather entertaining exercise.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Two, nothing says that you cannot act out the results of a die roll, good or bad. I'd find that to be a rather entertaining exercise.

This is my preference.

Just as we don't describe the result of an attack attempt before making the attack roll, my philosophy is that we don't describe the result of a Diplomacy check before making the Diplomacy roll.

It's pointless to say "I smash my axe through the orc's armor and deep into his ribcage" when you haven't determined whether or not you made your concealment miss chance for the dim light yet.

Similarly, if I'm playing the bard who's trying to convince the earl's wife that she needs to get us on the guest list for the banquet, 'Diplomacy +6' isn't enough to tell me how I should be portraying that. There's a huge difference between how I'd roleplay a Diplomacy result of 26 vs a Diplomacy result of 7, so until I've rolled the die, I don't know whether I should put in maximum effort, or go for a delivery that falls flat with an unfortunate social gaff thrown in for good measure.

It may be that even on a good day, the best I could hope to actually aspire to would be the equivalent of a 17... but hey, I can use that 17 to represent the bard pulling off a 26. On the other hand, I can probably manage the 7 if I have to.

If a player delivers a speech that leaves the other players in tears and the DM's jaw on the table, and then rolls a Diplomacy check of 4, then even with a circumstance bonus for the speech, the result will still in all likelihood be a dud. There is a disconnect, then, between what the player delivered, and what, presumably, the character said. This is not good roleplaying. It may be good oration, but since the player is playing the role of someone who is demonstrably not a good orator, by giving a stellar oratory performance, he is doing a poor job of playing that role.

I think the objective should not be to make the best persuasive argument; it should be to make the argument that best matches the die roll.

-Hyp.

 

[Voadam]

Again ignoring the point. Why dont you RP will saves then? Knowledge checks? Jump checks? Search? Fortitude saves? I mean, wouldnt it be more fun to have the player say "I try and shrug off the poison" and you get to decide based on whether you think their character can or not?

Physical thing with a range of options that are hard to determine versus how someone I control and make decisions for responds to talking?

You truly don't see a difference?

A save is tough to say how it should come out. A jump check? I don't think I've ever called for one. I do narrative adjudications on easy to determine things all the time without calling for checks. For tough to adjudicate things a task resolution mechanic is a useful tool.

NPC interactions are not hard for me to adjudicate and I enjoy the straight interactions. If I found it hard to adjudicate or did not want to do interactions I'd use a dice mechanic instead. If I wanted the result to be random I'd use a dice mechanic. If I wanted it to be solely determined by character skill I'd use the dice mechanic with taking 10.

 

[Mallus]

I enjoy these point-counterpoint discussions, so here goes.

Right back at 'ya...

Nevertheless, the player is not the character whom he/she plays. His or her real-life abilities, in my opinion, should not provide undue positive or negative influence on that of their character.

Of course they are. The character is a subset of the player. If it isn't the players real-life abilities influencing the character then what does? Magic? Faeries? A pink laser from space?

The character is only not the player to the extent the player chooses. Creating a persona is part of the fun, but let's be honest, exactly who gets excited when you role a natural 20? Not Trogdor the Plagiarized, because he doesn't really exist. Who feels a sense of accomplishment when their clever spell use prevents a TPK? It ain't Wizbag of the Pointy Hat...

Some people enjoy the challenge of improv acting or matching wits with the DM to determine the outcome of a social conflict, others do not.

Sure. That's why in my own game I use two social resolutions systems side by side, one based on the RAW and one based on my whim, I mean, group consensus.

Some people enjoy D&D as a tactically-oriented miniatures battle. Who's to say who is right?

I didn't call a particular playstyle wrong.

What I did do was criticize, I mean discuss, some people's reason for preferring a crunchy, dice-based social conflict resolution system. Which boiled down to "Because it allows verbally challenged players to play charmers and leaders".

To which I responded "Then how about a crunchy dice-based system that allows tactically challenged players to play master tacticians?". (which Raven Crowking actually began sketching out)

What makes social interaction a special case?

I suspect that the players who prefer mechanical socializing are better tacticians than speakers. It's about privileging what they're good at.

Many would argue that playing a role is what D&D (and roleplaying in general) is all about, and is the unique aspect that makes the game entertaining. Again, YMMV.

I'd argue many people are being a little disingenuous (not that there's anything wrong with that)... since they're playing D&D, a game with little mechanical support for deep immersion roleplaying and a whole lot for problem-solving with a greatsword.

One, act out the oddity in your head until your heart's content, and it's up to the DM to assign a modifier to the die roll.

I think getting people to agree on a fair size for that modifier is going to be hard.

Two, nothing says that you cannot act out the results of a die roll, good or bad. I'd find that to be a rather entertaining exercise.

I enjoy succeeding or failing on the merits of what I do in play. Some kind of Yahtzee-based improv... not so much.

 

[Mallus]

I think the objective should not be to make the best persuasive argument; it should be to make the argument that best matches the die roll.

That doesn't work for everyone. What if the players enjoy the challenge of crafting a persuasive argument?