The need for social skills in D&D

[Mallus]

How about so that the CHARACTER performs at the skill level of the CHARACTER, regardless of skill level of the PLAYER.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Without player input, the character doesn't perform at all, being a fictional construct lacking independent existence and volition...

Character's performance is inextricably linked to the player's skill.

If that wasn't the case, then badly-played characters would be as effective as well-played characters, so long as their abilities were on par. Is this your experience?

So... now that we've established that player skill has some bearing on determining outcomes, I'll ask again: "When should the rules be used to compensate for a player's weaknesses, if at all?"

 

[Mallus]

Sure. If you're ty at soccer, don't play soccer. If you're ty at chess, don't play chess.

I was an awful soccer player in school, but it didn't stop me from playing. I had a blast. The trick was to enjoy something other than winning.

I was much better at chess. Can't say I enjoyed it that much more...

 

[shilsen]

So... now that we've established that player skill has some bearing on determining outcomes, I'll ask again: "When should the rules be used to compensate for a player's weaknesses, if at all?"

When I say so.

Really.

 

[replicant2]

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...

You see, the players' real-life abilities should never be the sole influence on his or her character. It's incredibly limiting to think my character is only a pale reflection of me, the player. I'd rather use my imagination and transcend my own personal limits. This is the elemental piece you don't seem able to grasp--when I play a character, I want to play someone larger than myself, larger than life, with abilities far greater than my own. Why should my character be limited by what I, the player, can perform?

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.

Why shouldn't players who favor role-playing over combat have a mechanic to reflect that? The reason I'm in favor of some form of social skill mechanic is that mechanics and skills, modified by attributes like intelligence and charisma, allow a player who chooses to play a diplomatic bard, peace-spreading cleric, or inspirational, henchman-leading fighter the opportunity to do so. Skills and rolls provide the mechanics to back it up, just like a wizard has spells and a fighter a high BAB.

If you remove the die roll, you effectively remove the PC's motivation for ever playing a character like those I've described above. Sure, he can play them and role-play them to the hilt, but by adjudicating everything by DM fiat, as you've espoused, he is on the exact same playing field as the combat-built barbarian, who can also role-play every encounter as a suave sophisticate should he choose. Does that strike you as fair? Why should a player ever put points into diplomacy, or intimidate? They become wasted skills, by that line of reasoning, and the player would be best served taking tumble or spot.

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.

Again, this strikes me as a reach. I'm quite sure there are better systems for role-play out there, but D&D always has been and always will be the 800-lb. gorilla of role-playing games. I think it's safe to assume it's the gateway game of 99% of the role-players out there, many of which cannot find a group of gamers outside of D&D.

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

Why should it be? Make it clear that you are allowing a +5/-5 modifier check for good/unconvincing role play. Take it to a vote.

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

So you accept that, despite brilliant tactics and positioning, your fighter can still miss on 10 consecutive die rolls in a combat, yet you won't accept a dice roll determining a role-played social encounter. I don't get it. Every aspect of the game should include a margin of luck, despite the skill of the character (or player) involved.

 

[Voadam]

You see, the players' real-life abilities should never be the sole influence on his or her character. It's incredibly limiting to think my character is only a pale reflection of me, the player. I'd rather use my imagination and transcend my own personal limits. This is the elemental piece you don't seem able to grasp--when I play a character, I want to play someone larger than myself, larger than life, with abilities far greater than my own. Why should my character be limited by what I, the player, can perform?

So do you always want to play high level characters and not 1st level ones?

The mechanics also limit your abilities.

Commanding leader of men fighter? How many levels do you have to be before the mechanics can support this without house ruling?

Charming wizard diplomat? Even with a high int to spend on cross class skills this is a tough row to hoe.

Even a social monster designed bard has limits at low levels.

 

[Voadam]

This is my preference.

. . .

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.

That is certainly a valid way to play. Mechanics based and roleplay to the die results. I've done this and it can be fun.

If that is your play style preference go for it.

It is sort of like improv drama where you are given a role and a motivation.

I prefer D&D to be different, however. I prefer for players to come up with a concept for their characters and to play to their concept instead of to the mechanics on the page.

Straight D&D still has a lot of limits in its mechanics, and I don't want talking to be a niche character build in my games.

I don't want just the one diplomat character doing the interactions, I want everyone to get into it.

 

[Voadam]

YUCK

So only play characters that are more or less like you already and don't dare try doing something different than you.....

:\

I'd put it differently. Play any concept you want that works for the game. Be aware though that in my game you will have to do the thinking, decision making, and talking for your character.

Also be aware that if you delay too long in declaring your action when it is your turn in combat I will declare your character to have delayed a round and move on to the next player in initiative order.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't want just the one diplomat character doing the interactions, I want everyone to get into it.

You want all the characters to get into it, or you want all the players to get into it?

It doesn't make sense for a group of adventurers to let their 5-Cha Barbarian talk to (or go anywhere near!) the easily-offended-but-high-paying nobleman. Regardless of how eloquent the player is.

But that doesn't mean the player can't participate.

An easier example to use for illustration is puzzles. The player of the trapmaster rogue and the Int-through-the-roof wizard hate puzzles. The player of the dumb-as-a-plank fighter eats Very Hard Sudoku and cryptic crosswords for breakfast.

But when it comes to aligning the gears bearing the symbols of the planar duchies with the colour of the dragon that represents the alignment of the plane they reside on, it makes a lot more sense if it's the rogue and the wizard who solve the problem than the fighter.

As a DM, I have no issue with the fighter's player coming up with the solution... but presenting it to the other players out-of-game, and having the answer provided in character by the wizard and the gears manipulated by the rogue. The question often comes up "How is someone of average or above-average intelligence supposed to play a character with an Int of 22?" My suggestion: let the character benefit from the gestalt mind of the players combined, not just the single player who can't possibly do his intellect justice.

Similarly, while it's nice for all the players to participate in delicate negotiations, it makes no sense at all for some of the characters to be involved, 'cos they'll just screw it up...

-Hyp.

 

[Voadam]

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?

Any player can play any concept. Not all players can play them masterfully.

I don't see this as different from players with differing ability to play a psion effectively. Choosing powers, ability score array, feats, resource management for power points and when to power up the powers with extra points, all of these variables can lead to different power levels in equal level psions.

Same thing for wizards: spell book selection, spells prepared for the day, feats, magic item selection, when to use your spells, when to hold onto some and ration yourself, etc.

Some players are good at tactics others are not. Some players are good at plots and figuring out mysteries, others are not. Some are good at social interactions, some are not.

Give two players the same character sheet and they can play them differently to different levels of effectiveness in different situations.

Not all players are equal at all aspects of the game. Tough.

This is not an area the rules need to smooth out IMO.

I am happy that each equal ECL characters (even social build ones) are roughly equal in combat survivability and contribution and that complete optimization is not required for the game to be fun for me.

 

[DonTadow]

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.

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.

Put another way: Why don't DMs who prefer to resolve diplomacy through role-play do the same for other skills? The player who has an uber-powerful fighter doesn't have to describe the feint and series of crafty parries and counterthrusts that result in a critical strike; the rogue who disarms a highly complex trap can do so with a die-roll, not by a player who thinks like McGyver and can describe how a complex spring mechanism works.

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.

Anyways, just some food for thought.

If you think roleplaying is acting or being "the life of the party" you're wrong. Roleplaying i s simply making a good attempt to play the character. It doesnt replace the skills but should be used in conjunction with them. A good DM can balance them both.