DnD Social Mechanics Make you a Roleplaying Cripple

[@David-736x]

The comparison of using an intimidate skill to intimidate a god would be more like using a drive skill roll to drive a model T Ford up the side of a building.

[@ronwisegamgee]

I honestly don't know where people get the idea that D&D 3e social skills were a substitute for mind control. At best, Intimidation allowed the character to force their target into compliance in the short term, provided that what they were intimidated into doing wasn't fundamentally against their core self. Using Diplomacy as impromptu mind control is also nonsensical, as the best that one can do with it is shift the mark's disposition by two categories, IIRC. Afterwards, the scope of what the mark would do for you and how much it would cost you would be governed by their disposition (which would max out at Helpful, not this asinine "Fanatical" disposition that was introduced in the Epic Level Handbook). Bluff is also extremely context-sensitive; having +20 Bluff should not allow a child to, say, pass themselves off as the President of the United States, even if they roll a natural 20. The point I'm trying to get at is that it's the GM's fault for letting these kinds of shenanigans occur in the first place. This could entirely be due to them not having access to good GM advice, which I don't think D&D gives, since it's too concerned with rules mastery and combat.

[@RPGPundit]

I agree that, in no small part, bad DMing is to blame. But I also think bad DMing is a consequence of learning from the wrong systems.

[@TheManBehindtheScreen]

@@RPGPundit It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of those systems. 3e and Pathfinder in particular have this long running problem of skills being treated almost like spells in their effectiveness and in almost every instance it came down to the players and GMs not knowing how the system was supposed to work. Social skills treated like charm spells, stealth checks successfully made in empty rooms with no cover, climbing checks allowing characters to practically fly with how fast they scale surfaces. Every time I've seen stuff like this happen it was because situational elements were ignored or, worse still, someone rolled a 20 and the collective confusion of 20 being automatic success even though it's strictly stated that's NOT true for skills happens. For me, that kind of confusion speaks to a bloat of the rules. That it persists still, even with people actively showing where the rules say x, y, or z system doesn't work the way people think, goes to show most people don't want to be bogged down with conflicting info in a system. Whether it makes more sense doesn't matter, keeping it all in mind slows the game too much for players to care.

[@aleksanderalechin8466]

Q😊😮q

[@jfm.d5180]

@@RPGPunditI’m not sure I agree. Even the worst systems on this list (5e and pathfinder) would argue that- just like you can’t crack a mountain in half with an axe swing even if you roll a cumulative of 35- you can’t do the impossible with social rolls.

[@Dracopol]

A RPG has a wide array of physical skills and mental skills for a character, so it's okay to have a structure of dice-rolling for social skills as well. Characters won't be good in every area, _and neither will players_ . A fat kid can pretend to be a skilled fighter, a dumb kid can pretend to be a savvy wizard, and a geeky spaz should have a chance to pretend to be a suave Errol Flynn ladykiller type. I played a long campaign of Ringworld RPG (Basic RolePlaying), which was heavy on science skills as you come in on your starship and inevitably get shot down, and must figure out how to repair stuff and move around and interpret what you are discovering. There is the RPG called UNWRITTEN: Adventures in the Ages of Myst and Beyond, where there are "discovery" rolls and "deduction" rolls to have player's characters solve puzzles similar to the computer games, even if they personally are not good at puzzles. The dice-rolling is a way even for players not good at science to have their characters do science, or players not good at puzzles to do puzzles. Why not the same thing for geeky spazzy people to do social interaction? Perhaps there can be a D&D 5E supplement called CHAD & STACY'S GUIDE TO CHARISMA, and you will hear teen conversations as follows: DM: "Okay, you have to charm the local bar-wench into giving you the key to the chest in the inn-keeper's basement, where as a retired fighter he kept his dungeon maps." SNIVELLY MILQUETOAST (playing Drake Dramatic, suave ladies' man): Okay, I try my _Think Up Line_ skill...[rolls]...a success! DM (rolls on _Random Suave Lines_ Table): "You tell her a line about [64] how she has lovely eyes and...[rolls again, 04]...and how she's unique, not like other girls." SNIVELLY: "Girls fall for that stuff?" DM: "Oh, yeah. Read Appendix N. There's research that say that when you call them unique, they eat it up." SNIVELLY: [Reads] "Who's this guy in the list of consultants? 'Roosh V!' Huh, what a funny name..."

[@willinnewhaven3285]

The people who claim that old school is only about combat because that is what the rules emphasize have it exactly backwards. You have rules to handle situations that have to be abstracted and you take care of the more important stuff yourselves.

[@juddgoswick2024]

Hear, hear!

[@DAEDRICDUKE1]

This is why modern whitewolf sucks

[@somerando8615]

4:40 This is literally the fix to all social skills. Every game I've ever seen with social skills the DM (or GM or whatever it's called) asks the player what they are actually saying. And when the other person is mulling over what the player said and weather or not to go along with it, that's when the actual die roll happens. 10:09 This happened to me while running a "new school game" with a girl I knew in college who was shy and awkward but wanted to play the prettiest princess who was outgoing and fun, and not the weird chick who sits in the corner of every social event we ever brought her along to. Social rules were great because she could describe in third person what she wanted her character to accomplish, what deal she wanted to strike, or what she'd bring up to motivate someone. She could disassociate outside her character and describe how a charismatic person might get something done, and then roll some dice to actually do it. This is the same way that my overweight friend would describe how he wants his barbarian to smash a goblin in the face before rolling a d20 to smash a goblin in the face.

[@sirguy6678]

Always a good analysis of the changes in gaming- I appreciate your thoughts- new school players are very mechanically trained- like playing a video game- old schoolers had less rules and systems- we had to make it up as we went along -

[@mykediemart]

I'd say that the Old/New school type isn't always about age or edition. I have played with older people go into "I perception check! Sense motive!" mindset and I have had the flip of that with my son and his friends who play video games to the min/max and would rather roleplay and figure out npcs by what / how they say things rather then use dice. Which was much to my surprise.

[@sirguy6678]

Myke Diemart - unfortunately or fortunately- it always comes down to player, play style, and game masters- I never try to say “it’s always this way” because everyone has an exception- almost annoyingly so- I don’t think OSR is any more or less talented as players, but the rules of feats and abilities has grown exponentially through the editions- allowing for game masters to have players roll against it or role play it out - it is a lot more fun when the bard player has to role play seducing the red dragon versus just rolling a 20 sided die and adding bonuses-

[@mykediemart]

@@sirguy6678 I agree with ya and the nat 20 on a skill roll being "better then magic" some players have. I just found it refreshing that the young crew gravitated to more RP - searching rooms was looking under chairs, tapping walls, pulling on sconces ect. and the "old school peeps" went for the what can I roll?

[@wagz781]

Usually my group makes people roleplay things unless we get in someone that's new/shy or someone knows what they want but they as a player can't formultate the words correctly even if their character should be able to. For that reason the social skills help provide a crutch to those that aren't naturally charismatic in and of themselves. The only other time we use the skills is when their arguement is convincing enough to not be turned down outright, but not so convincing that the people they're trying to change the mind of will buy into it completely.

[@pappabear4977]

My players abused sense motive all the time. I like the old reaction roll with charisma modifier.

[@grumpygrognard7292]

I consider myself to be very old-school style and while I don't agree with having a version with a plethora of rules for every possible situation, I would let the Charisma and Wisdom scores of the PC factor in to those scenarios. I would avoid getting too metagaming and depending too heavily on the player's cleverness, personality or wit over that of the character's. Think about it, if someone at the table who is fielding a thief states that they are trying to pick a lock, i'm not going to toss him a padlock and picks and say, "Role play it."

[@innocentsmith6091]

Persuasion should be treated exactly like the reaction roll. Charisma is an extremely powerful ability now, with paladins, warlocks, et al. Anyone who complains about it being a nerf can shove it. And going by the social interactions section of the DMG, it's supposed to be much closer to that than a binary, mind-control-esque power.

[@AdorkableDaughterofNyx]

Skill System moved the skills from "the player's capabilities" to "the character's capabilities". this same problem applies to skills like "perception" or "investigation". i ask for an Intended Approach, an Intended Result, if appropriate, a specific angle or persona. as an example, "by pretending to be a sweet and cheerful young girl: Umbrie chats her way with the fellow guests at the tea party, discreetly asking questions disguised in a form of childish canting that can be best described as a useage of double meanings." and i'd be like "roll your investigation at +4."

[@jamesc.2054]

Bards. Friggin' bards.

[@MarkMassengale]

I started as a DM in 1990 or so. And I absolutely agree with the GM needing to evaluate the situation and call for rolls only when needed! However I think the issue you describe is actually a different one: some modern games are just a bit to mechanics focused, yes, but this is also a systemic failure of modern games to teach GMs to require fiction first- or they simply have triggers that don't require fiction first. Another issue, the rules fail to account for what a player hopes their action will do- they prescribe results instead of honoring the player's intent. Old school games were close, but some lacked a way for a PC to be more savvy or charismatic (than the player is). Consider that such games would benefit from combining the new school a bit. And the modern games would benefit from the old school a bit (by not prescribing outcomes in their skill checks), so it goes both ways. In other words, combine "you must describe the PC using the skill to roll a skill" with "the roll will only do as much as the GM says". The first part is the "you must have leverage to intimidate / where do you socialize, and what do you say?" And the second ensures those points in social skill aren't wasted

[@sameraiza5767]

I grabbed the reaction table from 1st edition the second I discovered it, a year ago

[@Vesuya]

100% agreement. In fact, modern players assume that they are actively rolling for everything. They tell you, "roll to Sense Motive!" They're excited about it - I get that. When a player makes a perception roll, everyone dog-piles onto it. "What about me?" I work around this by using the old school method modified by 5e rules, when I play 5e. ONLY the DM may request a skill roll, no matter the situation. Often, I ask the player, "What do you do?" or "What do you say?" Only after I hear their decision do I say, "roll Persuasion," etc. Even playing this way, the reaction roll is a fantastic mechanic. I vastly prefer it.

[@innocentsmith6091]

Rolling before the DM tells you to is the core of every problem with the skill system. There shouldn't even be skill rolls for any action where the roll doesn't really matter.

[@spudsbuchlaw]

That's how the game works, innately. Usually, the player can initiate something that they know they can do, like " Can I roll to pick this lock?" But the game, as written, has the DM designate when skillckecks and the like are called for, you dont need to homebrew shit

[@scottanderson8167]

True as usual Kaz. RP is a was to find new avenues of adventure and it really only works any deeper than that if you trust everyone at the table. When I Ref a game I roll reaction rolls to let me know a little about what the NPC is thinking, but I take that as a cue to RP rather than a result in itself. Deep RP is a reward unto itself- a table reward rather than an in-game reward.

[@mykediemart]

I like how you presented both sides of the skill role argument. I tend to fall to the play it out and use rolling only when an impasse occurs in the game. I have considered using a system to gauge progress in social interactions (much like combat takes out HP till the desired result occurs -usually death) subbing in Wis or Int for HP for the interaction and giving only X number of attempts. not sure as I like to keep things moving in a game. 5e needed to make the skill system optional by default.

[@RPGPundit]

I have never seen "social combat" mechanics that weren't absolutely worthless pretentious bullshit of the worst kind.

[@shinrafugitives3880]

Bruh... that intimidation roll wouldn't even come close to passing on a God. In 3.5, the DC to intimidate is 10+hit dice+wisdom mod. That wouldn't even work on an 11 hit die creature.

[@Manifestopheles386]

I think another solution would be to add a player's social skill stat along with their charisma modifier to the reaction roll as well... that would still allow the player to justify investing in these skills as certain characters (especially with noble backgrounds and the like) just like irl might actually have had some formal training in, say, diplomacy for example, and that way you can still incorporate reaction rolls in new school RPGs, while still having the player actually justify his diplomacy skill with accurate roleplaying since only then would a reaction roll be warranted.

[@davidmegarrysdungeon6046]

It's difficult to discuss these sorts of issues with newer gamers, because as we all are, they're a bit emotional about Their System. Yet newer gamers do not have the full background on many systems like older gamers do, especially those of us who also war game. I have gone back to running OD&D, set in Blackmoor of course. Sometimes with supplements and MM and sometimes just core 3 LBB's. The only social mechanic I use are 2d6 with a char mod as you described. Even with thieves in the game sometimes there's none of that, I open he chest, roll the dice. First comes the: Tell me exactly what you are doing. The entire concept of Role Playing is global whether you are interacting with someone or, interacting with the environment. It is not a video game on paper, you have to say what you do and mean what you say. This rules free style is lost on those who have never done it. I think the only way to show them the difference may be by having actual play videos that feature what I call, Traditional Role Playing where the mechanics are sometimes under the hood and hidden from players. - Griff

[@joshjames582]

I agree strongly with all that, David, especially the very last part. I think that I'm personally gonna take a hiatus from refereeing pen and paper campaigns for a while due to burnout and frustration with modern players, and when I get back into it I'm gonna run a "Blackmoor style" game where there's no character sheet for them to stare at to look for hidden special powers. To me, a roleplay campaign is a conversation between the referee and the adventuring party. You tell me what your character is doing in the context of the fantasy scenario, be it a dungeon or the court of the Baron, and I'll tell you when to roll dice and what the results mean. It's really such a simple and pure concept that's been hopelessly polluted over the decades to the extent it's difficult to find players willing to participate in a pure roleplay experience. I'll have to be very explicit when I run my next game that there is no book to consult and that I'm only interested in imaginative people who can problem solve and play a character.

[@jfm.d5180]

In your example of the person rolling to intimidate the deity, I think the wiser decision would be for the GM to not call for a roll at all or refuse a roll. You shouldn’t roll if the outcome is impossible. I think social skills are important because they allow somebody with difficulty in playing those social skills still have some success based on the character they are playing. Similar to having the ability to play very accurate Eld Ranger, even though I have no idea how to fire a bow accurately. @AllSeeingEye made a good video on this called “how to do persuasion in Tabletop RPGs

[@TableTopFanatic]

I always say "Tell me how you want to do this" and if they give me a good enough logical explanation I allow them to roll. If not then no roll.

[@RPGPundit]

Ok, yes that's fine & logical, but then are you saying that in social situations between PCs & NPCs you don't have any acting-out of that interaction? Like, they say, "I'm going to threaten to hurt the guard's puppy if he doesn't let me through the gate" but you don't actually roleplay out the scene? I mean, if you don't, there'd be nothing wrong with the method you describe but it means you really aren't ever role-playing?

[@TableTopFanatic]

@@RPGPundit No we role-play everything. What I meant by "Tell me how you want to do this" is when I present my players with a situation it's expected of them to act as if they're actually facing whatever obstacle I've put in their way. If they go up to the guard and decide to threaten his puppy that guard may not even care and actually thank them for getting rid of "the mangy piss pot" and then there would be no role. Alternatively the guard could be terribly hurt at the prospect of losing "the puppy my deceased wife left me" in which case they would be entitled to a roll. I only ever say "Tell me how you do this" to remind characters that they have to think outside the box.

[@allang9313]

I agree with TableTopFanatic's first post. Individual groups are free to decide how much roleplaying they want, but the essence of RPGs is getting the opportunity to play a character unlike yourself. This might mean someone who doesn't have a degree level education wanting to play an IQ 18 mage, or someone with poor social skills wanting to play a bard with 18 charisma. Getting an idea from the player of what their approach to the situation is then asking for a dice roll has always seemed like a good balance to me. I might give a bonus if the player provides a good piece of acting to accompany their idea. I also agree that the quality of the rules will "move" players and DMs up or down the roleplaying scale. Also, although consistency is an admirable trait in a DM, the rules are not absolute. As someone else mentioned, "a successful driving role should not allow a player to drive their Model T Ford up the side of a building", and neither should a God-like (Thor was unable to intimidate Thanos), or an egomaniacal character (James Bond is unable to intimidate Le Chiffre) be susceptible to intimidation unless an individual can do something to shake their opponent's faith in themselves (Bond had to defeat Le Chiffre at poker before Le Chiffre gained any level of fear of Bond and so became susceptible to intimidation). As with so many aspects of RPGs, flexibility and compromise provide the basis for an enjoyable game.

[@petepoli50]

I heard it was Dustin Hoffman method acting for Marathon man and running a lot before the scene was filmed lol

[@MsGhoulz]

The good old idiot brute that threatens every NPC and gets nothing out of it but less gold.

[@alexnutter4534]

As a fan of heavy RP systems like L5R or Genesys, I like the integral social "combat" that can take place. HOWEVER, Pundit has an excellent point in that the culture has shifted to a entitled reliance on stats when it comes to interactions. Sad to see the degeneration of the game.

[@FlyingAxblade_D20]

@13:00~~"Cyrano" I put bag over my head and speak =) I still think that the Charisma Bonus, not the Charisma Stat, should influence whether the Character is initially viewed in Celebrity terms. Whether Infamy or Fame, depends on how they act, and who they attract, not who they repel though...as in even someone that doesn't like Billy the Kid, will begrudgingly, not necessarily fearfully, respect the known thief & brigand, because obviously he had in game terms a very high Charisma, look at the loyalty he received. Same could be said of a cult leader, his Charisma bonus, brings other NPC's to him, but they have a much higher loyalty.

[@thisisabcoates]

5e GM here. It's easier for me to say "you have X% chance of persuading someone" than "you've swayed them completely". I will take into account NPC disposition, but I don't use explicit mechanics. The other time I use them is when the NPC would logically say no, but them emotionally saying yes would advance the plot. Even then, I set the DC to at least 20, so even our WM sorc with +6 Persuasion will still have a hard time.

[@thisisabcoates]

@c30f$p@d3z Funnily enough, I do have a social disorder in the form of (mild) autism

[@NotaroName]

When your player wants to do something impossible you should not just say "no", nor should you ask them to roll. Remember that you should only ask (or allow) a player to roll where success or failure are possible. If success is not possible instead tell them what it would take. "Sorry but the god will not even perceive your attempt to intimidate, but you have heard legends of weapons that can harm a god, perhaps if you possessed one you might be able to intimidate the god." Something like that.

[@DiscoBarbarian]

The reaction roll table is literally the mechanic of Apocalypse World based games.

[@RPGPundit]

I guess that would explain why it's had some success in spite of being a piece of crap Storygame. It's like a parasite that can animate the corpse of it's host to try to masquerade as alive & infect others...

[@DiscoBarbarian]

Haha... you might be right.

[@TeapotSpouts]

This topic pops up every so often. I disagree, in principal, however I also am charismatic and extroverted in real life, so it never affected me. You don't ask the fat nerd at the table pick up a dumbbell or swing a sword or shoot a bow in real life. No, they are not physically capable of doing this in real life, so they get to describe loosely and sometimes poorly how they attack or bend bars/lift gates. Very very few players have an IQ over 100, reflected in game as a 10 intelligence. So how can they roleplay that 180 IQ wizard. They can't. Same with high Charisma individuals when the player is the opposite. This is why the rolls and skills matter. To facilitate gamers doing shit they cannot and likely will not ever be capable of doing. And to make someone roleplay out the detailed conversation of convincing the city watch to let you go but not going out in the backyard to demonstrate how you fire two arrows accurately at the orc eye within 6 seconds is disingenuous at best, bad gaming at worst. Describe what or how you want to try and influence the watch, then roll. Just like any other skill in the game. It's that easy. Forcing someone to behave or function at the table to simulate how the character would do something is just bad. Most gamers simply are not the social type, can't convince people to do anything, and use gaming to overcome that. Just like the ones who need the high combat skills to not be bullied or the high thief skills to be light fingered and nimble. I've done videos and podcasts on this topic. No one likes the pov this paints, but it is true. If you force one tire of skill at the table, force them all. And I know the usual response is well if they act it out well, I give them a bonus. That is even worse. Those who can't act are unfairly penalized and those who vibrantly describe that bow shot are as well. The skills and abilities are part of the GAME. It's just a game. The character sheet is the psychopomp by which the player transcends to that realm. Dramatic use of roleplay at the table sounds a lot like what the Story games facilitate. It actually is that.

[@RPGPundit]

Except "social skills" were never meant to be part of the game.

[@TeapotSpouts]

Kasimir Urbanski - RPGPundit not completely true. Oe had a Charisma score and ability scores were used at the time to facilitate "skills". Then came 1e and the trend continued.

[@RPGPundit]

@@TeapotSpouts as I explained in this very video Cha/Reaction is totally different from PC point-allocated social skills, and has the opposite effect.

[@TeapotSpouts]

Kasimir Urbanski - RPGPundit but it doesn't. If the attribute is used in any way to facilitate game play, that is facilitating skills in one form or another. Strength bonus to the attack roll. Dex bonus to ranged. Int to facilitate lore. Skills can be important or the verisimilitude thereof. Either way, skills are in there game and the character is the focus, not the player.

[@jamesc.2054]

@@TeapotSpouts There's an important fact you're missing here: You're sitting at a table playing a social game, and there are and have always been certain expectations and constraints involved. You're not running about in a live action, simulationist environment wherein the actors/participants are expected to engage in physical activity. The participants have always, however, been expected to engage in the social aspect of the tabletop RPG. The Pundit is absolutely correct when he points out the system abuses that occur in games that include a lot of social mechanics. I've seen it, and I'm sure you've at least heard the stories if you have none to relate firsthand.

[@chrisdonovan8795]

There is a place for diplomacy rolls, although it's more of a knowledge roll. If you're trying to speak with someone of status, or power, in an unfamiliar setting, the roll would inform the player of the social requirements. For example: To speak to a high priest of an unfamiliar religion, you might not know that the only way to have an audience would be to speak at a certain point in a ceremony. Such a roll might also tell the player that his character should be wearing the garb of a believer as well. This approach does not determine the outcome. It simply provides the information necessary to allow for a successful conversation. It's up to the player to meet the conditions and then say the right thing.

[@RPGPundit]

That's not usually how new-school games interpret that skill. But in Lion & Dragon, for example, there's a "Court" skill that's about knowing proper etiquette.

[@natehewett4009]

I disagree with almost everything he says. He's conflating acting with role-playing, and player skills to character skills, though he did make a slight nod to the charisma score, and flat-out acknowledges that players who are suave have an advantage - and he's basically saying he prefers DM fiat to player agency. A few things he said are useful. Diplomacy is not mind control. There are some things that diplomacy doesn't cover. It doesn't matter if a player has a Diplomacy score of +80 - they can't just talk their way into the throne room and have the king give them free access to the treasury. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But the TLDR version is that he prefers a mind game player vs DM. The DM determines what the motivation is, and if the player can figure that out, they win without a roll. If they can't, then they may lose without a roll. If it's somewhere in between, DM fiat based on the PLAYER'S skill at being convincing rather than the character. I started playing with AD&D 2nd edition, and I absolutely believe that handling social mechanics partially through dice rolls is a better system. In my opinion, it doesn't take away from role-play, it enhances it and helps separate the player from the character.

[@RPGPundit]

Only needs could think that NORMAL HUMAN SOCIAL INTERACTION is "an unfair mind-game" that should be replaced by a mechanized system of maths & random chance.

[@natehewett4009]

@@RPGPundit I presume you mean nerds. And I never said that. I said there's a difference between the player and the character whose role they're fulfilling. And to divorce the player from the character, having a system to represent the character's skill at social skills as opposed to the player's is a good thing.

[@pappabear4977]

Hey Pundit. I joined RPGsite.

[@wynandlouw6222]

The principle is the same as for all DnD rolls. 1) If the character has no chance of succeeding (like intimidating a god) then no roll is done. 2) If the character has no chance of failing (like a barbarian intimidating a kid) no roll is done. 3) If the character has a chance at success but may fail, the player has to roll. The idea that social rolls are counter role playing is simply false. As GM I always force my players to rollplay the interaction, wether they make the roll or not.

[@RPGPundit]

But if the player is rolling something they have invested special points into, then that roll MUST take primacy over how well or badly they roleplayed. If not, the characters who are heavy on social skills are basically a massive rip-off. That's where the dilemma is.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Oh dear Lord I am glad the last version of D&D I played was 2nd ed after listening to this. It is a ROLE playing game,,, not a ROLL playing game!

[@magustrigger9195]

I can sympathize with people who are terrible social interactions types. Yeah they shouldnt play the "face" of the party but forvnon kitchen table games it might be hard for the purple hair types or neck beards to interact like humans with npc's.

[@blackbarnz]

I'm not certain that playing without social skills is definitive stylistic characteristic of old school gaming. Didn't Pendragon, WEG Star Wars D6, Vampire the Masquerade have some mechanics to resolve some social interactions? If so those games are 30 years old give or take. I don't have much experience with those games. Traveller had a "Social Status" stat that I think effected social resolution and that game is 43 years old. I'm not sure I never played, that stat has just been stuck in my head for years. When "Reputation" became a thing in WotC SW D20 I remember making a correlation between the two stats. .. I guess if you're strictly a TSR, WotC, Paizo gamer social skills are kinda new school, 3e in '99,. Though I'm looking at my TSR AD&D 2e -Player's Options: Skills & Powers printed in '95 and I'm seeing some character "traits" that effect Social Resolution. I never really played 2e RAW though, I preferred 1e. Think I might've been resisting change and I was in my late teens early twenties during 2e so I couldn't afford new books.

[@joecoo4615]

Role play would be the obvious action but how long do you let the improv go on before it gets tiresome. At the end of the day you are playing a game. Games have rules. Therefore social interaction can have rules. You don't need all the skills that a heck of alot of games bang in. (Palladium books I'm looking at you) set up like a combat letting players select Between Wisdom, Inteligence or Charisma modifiers (Or comeliness if you are using that attribute ) Characters battle out like any other battle. You give a number of H.P's to the interaction and players have to reduce it to 0. You don't need to make opposing roles Just give the players X in X chance of beating those points. You could possibly have them going against a timer They have X chances in X number of rounds to persuade , intimidate etc. If they fail to reduce the target they fail to pull off the social interaction. You get bring in randomised Hit Points Easily enough to Here's a quick example. 1D8 roll 1/2. 25 Hits Required Modifier 3/4. . 15 5/6. 10 7/8. 5

[@FlyingAxblade_D20]

"muh tingler!"

[@willhicks6963]

Hmm interesting points. Not sure if I agree completely, but I disliked the entire social system of dnd in most aspects. I always thought it was there for newbies. Most games I’ve actually played have been far more interested in the dialogue than dice rolls to adjust attitude.

[@magonus195]

I half disagree. The reality is that good roleplaying is not for everyone. I have seen lots of shy or non-witty players rely on dice to smooth out their substandard roleplaying, and I don't hate that. We don't make Fighters armwrestle in real life to solve in-game fights, after all. If it's just up to roleplaying, I can think of two or three players in my regular groups (myself included) who will just dominate social interactions.

[@WayneBraack]

And yet it's a skill that those in your opinion are lacking and can be developed with practice. Also it's really not hard. You don't act. You don't need to be good at anything other than a a little intellectual communication.

[@jfm.d5180]

@@WayneBraackthe counter argument isn’t that you shouldn’t roleplay. You still have to explain what you’re saying or how you’re saying it or what argument you’re making in order to make the roll that will influence the likelihood of the roll succeeding. But you and I probably can’t lift 800 pounds and swing a battle axe like Conan and yet we get to play those characters without argument… if people want to play intrigue heavy characters (and the player lacks IRL social skills) why do we hamstring them?

[@Norvik_-ug3ge]

The issue with wanting the players to roleplay social interactions is that the player's social skills may not match those of his/her character. It should be possible for a player with no talent at bluffing to play a character who is a master of bluffing. We don't expect players to pretend to cast spells at the table, why should they have to act out the bluff at the table? As long as the DM handles it fairly, I don't see a problem.

[@pappabear4977]

Off topic, I had a player quit my medieval realist campaign because he said he felt too limited

[@juddgoswick2024]

Well, there's the "authentic" part in action.

[@pappabear4977]

Judd Goswick He lasted a long time though. He said I should give the players agency in creating the world, a world which I’ve already created. I told him to find another campaign.

[@joshjames582]

@@pappabear4977 Or better yet - volunteer to be a GM instead of a player. The GM creates the world. I'm personally burned out on lazy, entitled players who expect me to accommodate their snowflake characters, as well. I'll always love pen and paper RP campaigns but I've gotta walk away a while and take a long breather, then put out very specific feelers for very specific types of players when I get back into it again. In the meantime I'm gonna play a shit load of roguelike pc games for inspiration.

[@pappabear4977]

Josh James Yep. I spent a lot of time putting together a living realistic medieval world and then he threatens to quit and suggests that I allow the players create the world with me. In other words he tried to bully me Into allowing him to hijack my world. He said the world is only pen and paper without the players. I found a replacement for him in a week. He’s probably out there looking for a group or sorting through all the stupid Alice in Wonderland campaigns that are out there. I guess he learned that it’s the DM who creates the world, not the player.

[@purplehaze412]

I'm not sure I agree with this: the social skills already back up what your character's stats (and, it is *very important* to remind when saying this: the stats and/or path they EXPLICITLY chose). If the player is meant to be roleplaying their character, I think they should also be roleplaying their stats. Using 5e (a common platform as an example): Insight - A character must be WISE to be good at an INSIGHT check. A WISE player would be prodding in a WISE manner.... an un-wise player wouldn't be doing so... therefore even their best attempts at prodding within character would still fall flat. If a player is unrealistically roleplaying their stats, it breaks this system - this, I argue - is what is lost upon players... playing a 9INT or 9WIS or 9CHA character. If the player's RP starts from the stats.. (Which they chose, btw), the system works fine If the player's RP starts from themself.. playing themself in a character, the system falls apart. This also bears in mind that REGARDLESS, players are roleplaying something, and then the DM prompts the skill check - not the player. A player should never/extremely-rarely say, "Can I intimidate/persuade?" The RP should come from the stats, which should reinforce the skills, which should then be prompted in even the first place by the DM. /rant, just my 2¢.

[@EMSBroAtrem]

Real charisma should not play a big role in social encounters ,its bad role play Social mehaniks are important part of playing not yourself No mater how good player are ,if he has 6 charisma the character is bad at talking

[@legacygamemastering8046]

I find you very wrong on this. A few new systems (mostly looking at games like Chronicle System) have amazing social skill rules while still encouraging heavy roleplay. You have a dichotomy that says either you have heavy RP or you have dice rolling. I normally only allow a die roll on a social skill once they tell me how they are approaching it. I can then set the DC or DN or whatever you want to call it based on how they are approaching it and who they are targeting. Using social skills is a valid rules choice and can be just as exciting as making players talk it out.

[@legacygamemastering8046]

@c30f$p@d3z Same ditchotomy.

[@legacygamemastering8046]

@c30f$p@d3z Same ditchotomy. You either roleplay it out with no dice or you sling dice. Most people are in between. Tell me how you are trying to con the person. I then set a DC and you roll to see if you are smooth enough. If you fail, we then rp out the failure.

[@legacygamemastering8046]

@c30f$p@d3z So your just a piss-poor player? Done arguing with you. You won't change my mind and I won't change your's.

[@spudsbuchlaw]

I never see new school players skipping to skill checks. The player goes to an NPC, talk to them, and depending on what is said, the DM may ask for Persuation, Intimidation, etc. This is how it works, atleast as I've seen. I've seen people argue it shouldn't work like this, because it requires a charismatic character be played by a person who can channel that charisma. Similarly, we dont require a player to be as strong as their barbarian. I can see why this is the case, but in practice, people RP. I think its better because it forces you to RP, rather than just roll dice.

[@spudsbuchlaw]

Although, in menial tasks that require social interaction, say asking townspeople for directions, I think, as you put it, dont play out driving the car. As no one at the table wants to have your character spend 30 irl minutes trying to find the one guy that knows where you're trying to go, it's easier to make a roll, and use that roll to determine how long it takes and how well you could get that information, but as I said, this is to be used sparingly