The need for social skills in D&D

[Mallus]

Not only does this prevent better tacticians from dominating combat, but it completely eliminates the complexity of Attacks of Opportunity.

Exactly!

And then we have the kind of D&D they play in Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".

 

[Mallus]

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

That's a good description of how social encounters work in my game. The players effectively choose which resolution system to use, either by-the-book or pure roleplaying, or a mix of the two.

It's rare that my players reach for their dice to resolve social tasks. And this is group that once had 3 out of 4 PC's with 16+ charisma. In a campaign pretty far away from a hack-n-slash dungeon crawl...

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

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.

Hear, hear!

In my opinion, the argument that aptitude at skills involving social interaction is a matter of good roleplay is inherently self-defeating. I consider "good roleplay" to be the representation of one's character such that he or she adheres to his or her alignment, motivations, personality, strengths, and weaknesses. Just as some real-world people lack social grace and emotional intelligence, so too should some characters. The portrayal of a character without the requisite skill and/or natural aptitude as adept at social interaction is fairly obviously an example of extremely poor roleplay.

Perhaps some gaming groups are so unused to seeing anything but hack-n-slash combat that any attempt to imbue a character with any type of personality whatsoever, however erratic, is applauded without regard for its adherence to that which seems reasonable and appropriate for that character. However, in our gaming groups, it is a matter of course to define each character's "intangibles" at his or her creation, and any diversions from these guidelines are seen as extremely poor play without any exceptional justification.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

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.

When are either of these outcomes really likely, though? Either DMs just handwave social interaction (in which case there *are* no social skills to speak of, outcomes are purely RP performance-based, and there are no skills to put points into), or there are hard-and-fast rules, in which case having skill ranks and a high Cha are important investments. A +2 circumstance bonus for an excellent performance hardly enables the half-orc's roll of 10 to equal your expected average result of 23, for instance.

Take my house rule, for instance. A player can get a result up to 10 higher than the expected roll (a natural 20) for truly inspired eloquence; more likely is a 15 or so for a really good speech or serious effort. That still means that social skill and Cha investment matters a LOT; for one thing, no one's talking his way into consistent 20s IMC without actually playing a social character, and for another, Diplomacy +11 and no eloquence still beats Diplomacy +0 and superior eloquence 100% of the time, and beats Diplomacy +5 and superior eloquence almost all the time.

But, to be honest, it's about effort. This is a communal experience, and if my players just want to sit and substitute dice for RPing interaction, I am *not* going to bestow rewards equal to those for players who throw themselves into a role.

As for the combat analogy: I think the most apposite analogy is the sound tactics one. As pogre points out, sound tactics ARE rewarded in the game by better outcomes in combat. Likewise, good RPing should be rewarded by better outcomes in social situations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Roll a check against your Tactical Spell Selection skill (DC = EL of encounter). If you succeed, you may swap one spell you think your character selected for the spell your character actually selected.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

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.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

If you really absolutely can't pull it off, please don't play a high-CHA character.

If you can't swing 5-and-a-half foot sword, please don't play a fighter or barbarian. If you can't pick a complex lock and sneak up behind people, avoid the rogue class. While we're at it, unless you understand higher mathematical theory and occult lore, best avoid the wizard.

DnD is not a LARP. This is a game played at a table with food and drinks and books. If one can suspend their disbelief to battle grotesque monsters and play good-natured grave robbers, why is it so hard to imagine players that try characters with (GASP!) different personalities than their own?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you can't swing 5-and-a-half foot sword, please don't play a fighter or barbarian. If you can't pick a complex lock and sneak up behind people, avoid the rogue class. While we're at it, unless you understand higher mathematical theory and occult lore, best avoid the wizard.

Dont take the bait. Its a completely different matter, because attack rolls have an actual resolution. It doesnt matter if you cant swing a sword, because attack vs. ac is cut and dried. Check the total of your roll. Did it meet or exceed AC? Then you hit.

Try to bluff or use diplomacy? One player could give the most Oscar worthy performance, and its still up to the DM's whim. Someone else at the table could suck, but hey, they bought the pizza.

 

[Mallus]

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.

So D&D is more a game of stating desired outcomes (then rolling some dice) than coming up with ways to achieve those desired outcomes?

I don't think there's a right answer to that question. But I do think this subject is really interesting. What are we talking about when we talk about playing D&D? How much is simulated and handled via dice, and how much comes directly from the player's brain, or other part of their anatomy, as the case may be.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So D&D is more a game of stating desired outcomes (then rolling some dice) than coming up with ways to achieve those desired outcomes?

Thats what doing any aspect is without dice. A glorified game of "mother may I".

Player: "I swing my basterd sword to the right, attempting to cleave the orc in twain!"
DM: "Hmm, ok"

Player: "Sweat beading on my brow, I lift the tripwire while securing the pressure mechanism and"
DM: "It explodes, you die"
Player: "Huh? Why?"
DM: "You didnt do it well enough".

DM: "The vile sorcerer finishes his incantation. You can feel his mind overwhelming yours, and a desire to turn on one another."
Player 1: "MUST... BREAK.... FREE!"
Player 2: (player makes a horrible grimace, physically shaking, etc) "GRAAAAARGH! NO!"
DM: "Ok, player 2, you break free. Player 1... not enough teeth gritting, or maybe if you'd grunted harder... you have to attack your friends"

This is essentially what people who dont like rolling for social resolution are wanting. I prefer my players to act in character when performing social skills (and hitting orcs, and disarming traps or attempting will saves), because I think it adds to the immersion, but I still have them roll. Its not a matter of inept players being disadvantaged, its a matter of there needs to be a way to get a result aside from the DM's whim. Hopefully the above examples illustrate why its a bad idea.