The need for social skills in D&D

[Psion]

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.
(...)
Now, I'm not espousing the elimination of good role-play. Being in character is what separates D&D from other board games. Encourage role-play, but in the end, let the dice decide. If you want to tack on a modifier for a great speech by the player, feel free. But don't penalize the shy player.

I prefer a mixed approach--I often provide modifiers for good roleplay or clever ideas, but the dice still get rolled. The dice and modifiers represent things in the world that aren't represented by strict roleplaying. As is often said about public speaking, it's all about the delivery.

Ranks in skills are part of the representation of the character. Sure, a player relate an eloquent speech, but if he rolls bad or has poor modifiers... picture the delivery as deadpan, whiny, or taken in the worst way.

 

[Ringan]

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?

Mallus,
I think this is a very good point, and DMs should at least consider it. For games that have at least some story focus and differences in player skill, it doesn't seem right that veteran players' characters do better because of their information asymmetry over newbie players. Maybe one could use character INT and WIS to restrict certain tactics/maneuvers? I can't think of a great solution here.

 

[replicant2]

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.

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:

Now, I'm not espousing the elimination of good role-play. Being in character is what separates D&D from other board games.

Secondly, you may feel social interaction is easily modelled in game. If you as a player are capable of inspiring townspeople to revolt; of swindling jaundiced merchants into believing a 300 g.p. gem is actually worth closer to 500 g.p.; or of negotiating a peace treaty between two warring kingdoms, all the more power to you. I, the player, am certainly not capable of those things.

Personally, however, I like to pretend my character is capable of great acts like those described above. I also like to pretend that I'm capable of killing a man in single combat or scaling a sheer wall. But in real life, I'd have as much chance of negotiating my release from a barbarian horde as I would surviving in a melee against a hardened warrior with an axe. Hence the need to resolve all said actions with a die roll.

 

[replicant2]

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.

Exactly. If you equate social skills purely on what the player is capable of, charisma becomes purely a dump stat. And everyone can boost their STR or INT to 18 until their hearts' content, and hack and slay their way through every game session.

Now, some would argue that that's the soul of D&D , though I do like some social interactions from time to time.

 

[Aaron L]

I agree that social skills are needed as much as physical skills because not all players are good at talking, but it's a tricky thing not to let rolls replace roleplaying. Liberal use of DM bonuses should be used to encourage real roleplaying and dialog so players don't rely totally on rolling dice, those bonii directly relating to the amount of effort made by the player (not necessarily the skill of the attempt) If someone who is tongue-tied does his best to make a rousing speech or grand diplomatic greeting, then he should be heftily rewarded, as much as the RL charismatic guy who makes an actual rousing speech or grand diplomatic greeting (or maybe more, because it's harder for the tongue-tied guy to do it, and may even be embarrassing for them.)

And with enough encouragement and practice, even tongue-tied and shy people can eventually start getting good at making good with the flowery speech in game. I have first hand experience with this, as I'm quite (read: extremely) shy and tongue-tied, but have gotten not quite so bad (sometimes even good!) at it.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I'm all for granting bonsues and such for "giving a good speech"...as long as I'm able to get bonuses when I bust a chair over someone's back to show how I dropped that Orc Chieftain.

More seriously, some bonuses are fine, but I agree that your CHARACTERS CHA should have something to do with it as well, not just your own personal charisma. Maybe a sliding scale, where if you have a high charisma and give a rousing speech, you get bigger bonuses then if you have a low charisma. After all, it's not just what you say, or even how you say it, but also how you come acrossed to your audience and what you look like. Lower charisma could mean you have a nervous tic that throws people off, or your don't notice the flies buzzing around your mouth or maybe you just have a smell problem.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I agree, replicant. There is a need for this kind of skillset to be represented in the game mechanics. Pretty much for the reason you gave, too.

 

[Fedifensor]

Something to remember is that social characters are like clerics. You want at least one in the party, but there's no need for everyone to play one. Whenever the party is in a social situation, it generally doesn't help to have multiple people trying to talk at once. Instead, the party has a designated spokesman, and everyone else clams up or nods at the appropriate times.

So, if you know that another player is playing the socialite, you can usually get away with playing the character with no social skills.

 

[MerricB]

In a computer RPG, you often need to have certain levels of skills (attributes, etc.) to have certain dialogue paths open up to you. A variant of this can be useful in D&D.

I tend to have Diplomacy (and related skill) checks indicate how well the PCs are guiding the conversation, but they still need to guide it in the right manner. A PC who asks "What about the bridge?" will be told about the bridge... a PC who says, "I chat to the mayor" and that's it will only get basic details.

Cheers!

 

[howandwhy99]

Per the rules in OD&D:

Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth. Its primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract. This is not to say that he cannot hire men-at-arms and employ mercenaries, but the charisma function will affect loyalty of even these men. Players will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order to strengthen their roles in the campaign. A player-character can employ only as many as indicated by his charisma score:

Charisma Score 		Maximum # Hirelings 		Loyalty Base
3-4				1				-2
5-6				2				-1
7-9				3
10-12				4
13-15				5				+1
16-17				6				+2
18				12				+4

In addition the charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover.

Finally, the charisma will aid a character in attracting various monsters to his service.


Obviously, the peril of becoming a swine or a witch's lover is the most important reason for charisma. This is blandly called attitude adjustment in later editions (I kinda wish they left it as stated here). The method was: Roll the d6, succeed or fail, charisma may modify. Roleplaying is what you do to signify you are actually attempting to change someone's atttitude. It can be as much or as little about the player's own charisma as you want it to be.