I don't like telling people who to interact with, even if it is an important NPC. There is always another way to solve an problem, even if not having the info from the NPC makes it more difficult to do so.
I play one of the characters. I didn't make him just purely to smash face, but frankly charisma is not high on the list of wizardly abilities or skills. I'm finding myself far less willing to speak NPCs as a result, which I've never experienced before as I normally play face characters. Now I'm totally okay with my wizard not being able to tell the most epic bluffs or convince a raging barbarian to put down his weapons, but he shouldn't auto-fail everything that requires convincing others simply because there's a skill requirement now. Also, in the game I play (not DM) other players have actually come up with really great ideas out of character, but actually chose not to speak up because of their poor social stats. It's pretty clear they want to say it, but are choosing not because of the rules.
That said if I have to work within the rules of the game I will simply just get a headband of intellect with the skill points in diplomacy and buy a circlet of persuasion. My whole point was that the rules suck. They discourage RPing. Why should all fighters and wizards be bad at diplomacy? It shouldn't be that way.
So many styles of play affect the answers, but for those GMs determined to punish the choice of social ineptitude: let the players choose the form of their failures, at least.
There are lots of cool ways to fail a social roll.
As a GM, I've run into this problem, and I came up with a rule of thumb to address this.
I hardly ever ask for a Diplomacy roll. I let PCs with ranks in diplomacy tell me when they want to roll, and only for the purpose of improving NPC attitude. PCs without diplomacy can talk freely without ruining NPC interactions.
I really like this idea. Characters can RP all day and would only need to use diplomacy/intimidate/bluff if they don't like the way things are going and want to try to change it.
I'd think that a new skill could replace these interaction skills, just as others have been replaced with more all encompassing skills.
I'd just call it Interaction and base it off your primary mental stat of choice. Each mental stat would affect how your character approaches interaction with others.
When based off Intelligence it is based upon your book learning, logic and argumentation and the desire to be seen as intelligent, educated or logical.
When based upon Wisdom, it is based upon appeals to good sense, anecdotes, folk lore and faith (yes faith and good sense seem like opposites, but often if you're speaking to the right person, the beliefs of faith seem common sense to the believer).
When based upon Charisma, it would be based upon getting someone to like you or dislike you based upon who you are as a person and to play upon emotions and wanting to please you or annoy you.
Its really about being creative in your game based upon the framework you're given. Even the Intimidate skill and Aid Another can result in "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine, rather than the "We both menace the guy" I would add the Interaction skill as appropriate to each class skill list in home games.
This is a prime example of why we need a better flagging system. This post has meaningful content and probably shouldn't be completely deleted, but it just casually insults every religious person ever. If post flagging took a notation rather than selecting from a drop box (one that doesn't actually have an explicit option for religiously or politically offensive material) this could have been handled through that system.I'd think that a new skill could replace these interaction skills, just as others have been replaced with more all encompassing skills.
I'd just call it Interaction and base it off your primary mental stat of choice. Each mental stat would affect how your character approaches interaction with others.
When based off Intelligence it is based upon your book learning, logic and argumentation and the desire to be seen as intelligent, educated or logical.
When based upon Wisdom, it is based upon appeals to good sense, anecdotes, folk lore and faith (yes faith and good sense seem like opposites, but often if you're speaking to the right person, the beliefs of faith seem common sense to the believer).
Faith, as a definition can be : "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." I use it in that sense, rather than another sense.
If that offends you, or supposedly, every other religious person, I think you or they need to consider whether their belief is based upon faith or scientific fact. Mine is based upon faith and I recognize that what I believe is not a fact for everyone else. I didn't think that this should be such an issue except that you brought it up as a problem.
I only mention it as being different than using "intelligence" as a trait and why to use wisdom. If it were faith in me as a person, then I would say charisma. Otherwise, why not base Clerics and all their abilities on Intelligence?
I'd be happy to edit it out if it were an option. I'm not here to upset anyone, but if you're easily upset then perhaps social media of any kind is not for you.
You could say that designers of the game could be offended by my suggesting a change in anything to it, but would it be reasonable?