The need for social skills in D&D

[Mallus]

It's incredibly limiting to think my character is only a pale reflection of me, the player.

You can think of your character any way you like... how you can play them is another story....

I'd rather use my imagination and transcend my own personal limits.

Nice sentiment, but not really relevant here, besides, your personal limits circumscribe your imagination.

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.

No, I get that. I really do. In the M&M game I'm in I play a chubby Latino kid from LA who's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling. Also, a Catholic.

In real life I am none of those things.

Why should my character be limited by what I, the player, can perform?

Because ultimately, D&D is a game, not just an exercise in adolescent power-fantasizing (wait, I say that with love). All games involve skill...

...unless, of course, they don't. But then if that's the case why would you play?

Let me ask you this: What do you think the role of player skill should be?

Why shouldn't players who favor role-playing over combat have a mechanic to reflect that?

You could just talk...

I find it ironic that people want to simulate the one thing in RPG's you don't actually have to.

If you remove the die roll... snip

Actually, I don't remove the die roll. Not entirely. My players can roll if they want to.

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.

That's a valid criticism and I don't really have an answer for it. It isn't fair. But I decided a long time ago that when I DM, I'm not going to discourage player input. I'm not going to quibble over whether an INT 8 PC could come up with the plan their player described, or if a CHR 6 half-orc PC could deliver the persuasive speech that just rolled off of their players tongue.

I want to encourage creative play from engaged players. If that means the characters actions don't always map to their written abilities, so be it.

It is just a game, after all.

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.

Again, I will accept a die roll to resolve a social encounter. I'll also resolve encounters by dice-free roleplaying, because sometimes that's more fun.

Every aspect of the game should include a margin of luck

Why?

If the players are happy running on pure narrative, just telling the DM their actions and listening to the results, why do dice have to be involved?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that is a pretty invalid argument.
If you did those things then in social situations you would also be forced to roll to see if you even start talkign to the npc.

Well, why not?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

That's the character generation system from the original Traveller, isn't it?

 

[Henry]

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.

However, I'm playing a psion because I can't move things with my mind in real life. For the same reason that I'm playing a character, to experience something I never would in real life, I'm playing a bard to experience what it's like to move people to tears with my words. In real life, I'm no Martin Luther King, Jr, or Winston Churchill, or Adolf Hitler, just like I'm not a premier warrior like Attila or Spartacus. I'm all for challenging the players, but barriers just to play a class isn't one of them. Barriers to puzzles, or sticky social problems, sure (like, how do I convince the NPC with the high Diplomacy and Sense Motive levels that the baronness is really a succubus?) but I would hate to limit a character concept because of lack of divine orational skill just like I would hate to limit a character concept because the player had never been in a fight in his life.

Also, don't forget that the player who focuses a PC on social skills can't hit worth a damn in combat, probably can't cast powerful spells, and can't shapechange into myriad useful forms; he's given up other powers for the power to influence others. He's not getting something for free, the way that Bob the Barbarian with his CHA 5 and no social skills is if he's delivering weep-worthy orations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I tend to think of it like this: The character is a filter through which the player interacts with the game environment. That filter allows the player to do things within the game that he could not do in real life. However, the filter doesn't eliminate the player, nor does it remove the necessity or value of the player's input. Nor should it.

You can have the DM present you with the perfect tank character, optomized for combat, but that doesn't mean that you will play him effectively. Nonetheless, the perfect tank will still likely do better in melee combat (not spellcasting!) than his wizard friend (regardless of the tactical understanding of the wizard's player, within reason).

Similarly, people like the 18 Charisma gnome even when he says the wrong thing. When the 6 Charisma half-orc barbarian in the party gives a stirring speech, they tend to associate it in memory with the gnome. Heck, they tend to bolster the gnome, agreeing with him to spite the barbarian.

But sometimes they accept that the barbarian is right. And sometimes the gnome's clever tongue backfires on him.

This is as it should be. Han Solo may be a slicker character than Luke Skywalker, but Leia gives Luke a kiss in ESB to spite Han. Even in Hellblazer, John Constantine isn't always immediately believed, and sometimes others believe characters other than John Constantine.


RC

 

[RFisher]

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?

I already voiced support for interpersonal skills, but...

(1) I'm perfectly OK with "whim" for everything. I'm perfectly OK with "mother may I".

Except those description assume the worse. In reality, we're all friends playing a game. In reality, the GM wants the experience to be the best it can be for everyone involved. In reality, the GM strives for impartiality. In reality, the GM considers the input of the players. Will he fall short? Sure, he's only human. The players are willing to give the GM a break because we're all friends playing a game.

(Although, I've long wondered if the word "game" really applies to any role-playing games.)

An inexperienced GM may do worse, but you encourage & advise him, & he becomes an experienced GM.

If you're not all friends, then I can't relate. I can't imagine regularly playing with a group without becoming friends.

(2) I'm not persuaded by the notion that everything in the game must the consistent with everything else. Why not have "social hit points"? A successful social skill check inflicts "social damage". Once the NPC's SHP reach zero, you've convinced (or whatever-ed) them.

(Which could actually be pretty cool, but I wouldn't implement such a system only the grounds that combat works that way. I'd do it because it might be fun.)

Believe it or not, it can actually be fun to handle different things in different ways.

 

[Voadam]

Also, don't forget that the player who focuses a PC on social skills can't hit worth a damn in combat, probably can't cast powerful spells, and can't shapechange into myriad useful forms; he's given up other powers for the power to influence others. He's not getting something for free, the way that Bob the Barbarian with his CHA 5 and no social skills is if he's delivering weep-worthy orations.

Eh, fighters, rangers, barbarians, wizards, sorcerers do not get diplomacy as a class skill.

But Paladins, monks, rogues, bards, clerics, and druids do.

Bluff is pretty specialized for rogues and bards.

But Intimidate goes to fighters, barbarians, paladins, sorcerers, rogues, and bards.

D&D social skills are convincing, tricking, and scaring.

IME when going for mechanical social optimization it makes sense to max one skill and get the others to 5 ranks for the synergy. You can only use one at a time and using one method with a high roll is better than having the option to use multiple methods at a lower score. This in turn drives the characterization of the character towards the mechanical number on the sheet and the methods outlined in the rules for using that number.

 

[Henry]

IME when going for mechanical social optimization it makes sense to max one skill and get the others to 5 ranks for the synergy. You can only use one at a time and using one method with a high roll is better than having the option to use multiple methods at a lower score. This in turn drives the characterization of the character towards the mechanical number on the sheet and the methods outlined in the rules for using that number.

On the other hand one social skill is nigh-useless without at least two of the other three. A paladin or cleric who focuses in diplomacy is useful in negotiations, but useless when a troll is threatening to off the mayor's daughter unless they perform a service (unless they switch to the old standbys of kicking butt). Intimidate is useless when subtlety is called for (you can't intimidate the local noble without a backlash); bluff is useless when you need to be sincere (like honest negotiations between two rival factions). A DM who calls for one social skill in all situations is IMO erring in the same way that a DM who allows a fireball to solve all problems does.

One considers finally that a paladin, cleric, or sorcerer who uses their meager skill points to focus on social skills is screwing themselves on every other skill they use, from jumping, to spellcraft, to knowledges, to climbing, and even to the skills they can't afford to not have at least one rank without (such as tumble). Top this off with the fact that you have to be able to SPEAK to the creature to influence it (not everything speaks common). This is a major sacrifice when plumbing into heavy skill use, something rogues and bards can do effortlessly. All these can and have come into use in my campaigns; in fact, I've had people take cross-class ranks in diplomacy just because I tied purchases and bargaining to it; if the party "mouthpiece" wasn't available, they didn't want to be taken advantage of by the local merchants...

 

[Voadam]

On the other hand one social skill is nigh-useless without at least two of the other three. A paladin or cleric who focuses in diplomacy is useful in negotiations, but useless when a troll is threatening to off the mayor's daughter unless they perform a service (unless they switch to the old standbys of kicking butt). Intimidate is useless when subtlety is called for (you can't intimidate the local noble without a backlash); bluff is useless when you need to be sincere (like honest negotiations between two rival factions). A DM who calls for one social skill in all situations is IMO erring in the same way that a DM who allows a fireball to solve all problems does.

Our experiences differ then. As a player I have usually been able to frame my approach to use my character's one/best skill.

Although even when playing a social skill optimized bard or beguiler, I probably would go with an incapacitating mental spell over talking when a troll threatens someone.

 

[Voadam]

Top this off with the fact that you have to be able to SPEAK to the creature to influence it (not everything speaks common).

Most everything that speaks does speak common. Gnolls, dumb giants (trolls, hill giants, ogres) and lizardy things (kobolds, troglodytes, and lizardfolk) don't but orcs, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, every other giant, ogre magi, even gargoyles, giant eagles and owls, and otyughs do. Most intelligent outsiders have telepathy or tongues and fey are listed either as speaking common or that some speak common.