Funny thing is that, groups that do pretty much ignore the social skills do not help the whole "lets dump CHa to the ground" thing at all since the only use for CHA (outside the casters) IS the social skills..Many people dont think that is a thing that needs help.
The irony of the "uselessness" of CHA in most games is how primary it is in real life. Anyways, I've seen a lot of interesting ideas, but they all mostly center around the social contract. In my case, I think that's what will work best; my GM just aint making me roll at all. It's kinda crappy, because everytime I have tried to be a face it's turned out badly, but maybe I'll get lucky?
Still Gonna have to look in a different direction if I want to get something more rule-y. There's bound to be some satisfying abstraction for "social conflict". Gonna keep thinking.
Still Gonna have to look in a different direction if I want to get something more rule-y. There's bound to be some satisfying abstraction for "social conflict".
Have you checked out these? Full disclosure: I have not used them and know very little about them. But they are a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM Under The Bridge, do you honestly not understand why people reacted negatively to your post? Here, take another look at what you said (I'll add some bolding to help):
For the shy, I put them on the spot and ensure they can't remain invisible. They must contribute!You said that.
So, are you not aware that "put them on the spot" is a decidedly negative term? It very specifically refers to putting someone under pressure; generally enough pressure that even someone who might otherwise have been perfectly comfortable might end up faltering.
Since you later said "it's not a pressure cooker", then either you're changing your story or you used the term "put them on the spot" to mean something entirely different than what it actually does mean.
Furthermore, when you say that at your tables "they must contribute", the word "must" means you're placing a requirement on them. It implies demands or social coercion. Perhaps this was another poor word choice? In any case, what you actually said communicated a level of demand and force that of course people would react negatively to.
Go back and re-read what you originally wrote, one last time. Surely you can see how negative it sounded, yes? The responses you got are very far from "nonsense".
Heaven forbid I require my players to speak and make choices in a game that requires you to speak and make choices. ;)
No, I'm not changing my words because of an overreaction.
Still Gonna have to look in a different direction if I want to get something more rule-y. There's bound to be some satisfying abstraction for "social conflict".Have you checked out these? Full disclosure: I have not used them and know very little about them. But they are a thing.
I did not. I shall check them. But I still mean a proper framework for full-scale social combat, a little more complicated than what pathfinder has to offer. But I shall check them out.
Isn't Ultimate Intrigue supposed to be literally that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, social interaction is primary for survival in the modern world, and charisma is the (or at least one of the) primary importance stats for a modern populace.
...suddenly, my life makes a lot more sense.
tl;dr: I'm reluctant to come down solidly on either side of this issue, because it's so dependent on context. People have the right to not hang out with someone. I also think people should be flexible, and if everyone else in the group likes Person A and wants them in the game, then act like adults and compromise.
Some food for thought:
One of the objections to the Americans with Disabilities Act, typically from entertainment / luxury businesses like theatres and restaurants, was "they (disabled people) can just stay home." Yes, socially inept people who want to play RPGs, or who want to play the party face, can just go do something else. But what does it say about the members of a gaming group, if they're not willing to accommodate?
It might say a lot of different things, because as always, this is context-dependent. I think much of it boils down to how close the people are to each other.
If everyone has known each other for some time, and they all get along in out-of-game situations and generally consider themselves established friends, I would expect some discussion and negotiation to happen over what kind of game everyone wants.
If no one knows anyone before the game, I would expect the GM to be rather specific in how s/he is going to run the game, and about what kinds of players they're looking for. I have come across entirely too many games with new people where:
1) the GM is a killer and runs the game as a "GM vs the PCs" thing, and is far less concerned about whether the players are having fun than they are about whether they are having fun,
2) the GM is a railroader and runs the game like a tabletop version of an MMORPG,
3) the GM will not curtail inappropriate behavior from players (like someone playing the chaotic neutral jerk, or a chaotic evil rapist who goes on a spree in every town the PCs visit, then when called on that behavior, says, "but I'm just role-playing my character!"), either in-game or out-of-game,
4) the GM is trying to be reasonably flexible and offer up cool role-playing scenarios, but one or more of the players is self-centered and only cares about plot points focused on them, and
5) the GM is trying to be reasonably flexible and offer up cool role-playing scenarios, but one or more of the players is min/maxing, really good at combat, and never ever roleplays, speaks in character, or offers up any sort of character background or reasons for the character to be with the party.
Those games inevitably stall out, if I don't leave them first. It's a waste of time and could be avoided simply by GMs providing a short statement about what kind of game they want to run, and what kinds of characters will be acceptable in their game. Things like "I never require players to roll CHA skills; they just have to role-play everything" are rather important, and should be communicated clearly before the game starts.
I've had a scenario with an established group of friends and gamers: the GM presented a sudden problem to me that had to be solved socially. I absolutely nailed the improv. Then he asked me to roll, and it wasn't that great. So he started talking as my character, saying ridiculous stuff, effectively overwriting my skill as a player. It was the strongest disincentive to role-playing that I have ever known personally. I left the game partly because of it.
I'm not saying that all players should be required to be improv masters and that CHA rolls should never matter - I am saying that there should be flexibility in the system. As a player, and a socially inept person, I really appreciate it when the GM will give me auto-success or a big bonus to roll if I come up with something really appropriate to say. I also appreciate it if I just narrate what my char is trying to accomplish, and the GM lets me roll to determine the outcome.
I don't think the sports analogy is a good one - it's not like anyone's 'team' is going to lose a game because they let someone on the autism spectrum play in their group, for example. Or at least, not if the GM can just make a simple exception for this one person, and agree to weight an interaction more towards that player's roll than that player's talking in character.
Socially inept people tend to thrive and learn when in the company of other people who can demonstrate what good social interaction sounds like. I think it would be unkind to deny someone a chance to have those experiences just because they want CHA rolls weighted differently, but are otherwise a friend and good player.
If your group of friends has a member who is physically disabled, you think you might plan at least some outings where that person could attend? If they're vegan, might you go out to eat most of the time to places that have vegan stuff on the menu? If they're poor, might you plan most of your gatherings to be low- or no-cost, or offer to cover for them, because you want their company?
As an engineer, I can tell you that every system I have used until now (only a dozen lets say, but still) takes an exceedingly shoddy view of how technology is created & functions. I understand the need for expediency but still...
I hear you. I know a lot about wilderness survival, and game rules rarely reflect reality in this regard.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not. I shall check them. But I still mean a proper framework for full-scale social combat, a little more complicated than what pathfinder has to offer. But I shall check them out.Still Gonna have to look in a different direction if I want to get something more rule-y. There's bound to be some satisfying abstraction for "social conflict".Have you checked out these? Full disclosure: I have not used them and know very little about them. But they are a thing.
Player: I want the magistrate to rule in my favor. I roll an verbal assault with my witty repartee ability.
GM: The magistrate has a bonus to his social defense from his soulless beurocrat class feature. He also attempts to demoralize you with a sarcastic condescension attack.
Player: I deflect his sarcastic condesention with a well-timed quip about the chastity of his mother. I also escalate the encounter by rolling for a thinly-veiled threat.
GM: His local influence ability gives him a circumstance bonus against thinly-veiled threats. He takes a full-round action to begin overt posturing.
Player: Crap, fine. I will ready a statement of contrition for when he completes overt posturing. What is that, 3 rounds?
GM: Yep, you need to make 3 will saves.
Player: 12, 17, 6.
GM: Ok, you lose 2 points from your clout pool. The magistrate rules against you. Your statement of contrition counters his fickle vengeance ability so your clout pool will refresh normally in 2 weeks.
----------------------------------------
I don't know. Just not my bag...
I did not. I shall check them. But I still mean a proper framework for full-scale social combat, a little more complicated than what pathfinder has to offer. But I shall check them out.Still Gonna have to look in a different direction if I want to get something more rule-y. There's bound to be some satisfying abstraction for "social conflict".Have you checked out these? Full disclosure: I have not used them and know very little about them. But they are a thing.Player: I want the magistrate to rule in my favor. I roll an verbal assault with my witty repartee ability.
GM: The magistrate has a bonus to his social defense from his soulless beurocrat class feature. He also attempts to demoralize you with a sarcastic condescension attack.
Player: I deflect his sarcastic condesention with a well-timed quip about the chastity of his mother. I also escalate the encounter by rolling for a thinly-veiled threat.
GM: His local influence ability gives him a circumstance bonus against thinly-veiled threats. He takes a full-round action to begin overt posturing.
Player: Crap, fine. I will ready a statement of contrition for when he completes overt posturing. What is that, 3 rounds?
GM: Yep, you need to make 3 will saves.
Player: 12, 17, 6.
GM: Ok, you lose 2 points from your clout pool. The magistrate rules against you. Your statement of contrition counters his fickle vengeance ability so your clout pool will refresh normally in 2 weeks.
----------------------------------------
I don't know. Just not my bag...
While I dont know if that would be the exact method, I do like how you set it up. It all sounds rather entertaining, and would add genuine strategy to social conflict...
Again, whiteboard. Removes the pressure of speaking while letting you still communicate. Bonus for letting you play a character with a much different voice than yours. Just make sure people can read your handwriting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reread my description of A, Philo.
She's a real person and a good friend.
If I did what you and DMUTB said she would be hurt, feel betrayed, either leave or sit there suffering in silence, quite possibly have a panic attack, and NEVER return. Oh, and she'd tear me a new one over IM.
If people wish to engage that way as a means of working on their issues, awesome. It's not for you to force them to do so against their wishes.
My advice applies to the majority of gamers. This is a special case because it's strong enough to qualify as a disability. I'd make an exception for somebody with these issues. For somebody who is merely reluctant, I'm not asking for funny voices and acting, but I am asking how they are going to go about this. I've gamed with many people with social issues and I try to encourage people to exercise themselves in a safe and supportive environment.
Not everybody can write that fast, Hyper. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My general take on this issue:
I use the rules to determine success/failure. It doesn't matter how eloquent you are/aren't as a player. You give your speech, then you roll and that roll determines your success. Giving the speech is what triggers whether you roll or not, regardless of the quality of said speech.
I don't give bonuses for being a good public speaker as a player. You will never earn a bonus from me for YOUR ability to speak well.
I will give bonuses for ideas though. If you know the king hates orcs, reminding him that orcs killed his father will give you a bonus to convince him to go to war with the orcs. If you know tavern wench loves sweets, giving her chocolates will give you a bonus to gather information. These aren't related to your speaking ability, but rather learning about your target and paying attention to clues.
As for dealing with unexpected results, that's basically the job description of a GM. I don't negate the roll by saying it doesn't make sense. Rather I create a reason for why it does make sense.
Roleplaying, to the best of your ability, is what earns you the roll. That's all it does with me. You should roleplay because you enjoy it, and you should do as much or little as you're comfortable with. The other aspect of my job as a GM is to make it as comfortable as possible, which means NOT punishing you the player for my subjective judgement of your roleplaying.
I don't consider being put on the spot to be the same as a pressure cooker situation. I consider it to be a challenge that a player can overcome on the way to becoming a better roleplayer, as well as a more expressive person in control of what they want to say and do.
Life skills: they can be improved across many games.
(Side note: the social benefits of D&D is a quite old discussion. Arising from the defense of the hobby from religious conservatives many decades ago.)
The npcs also do not ignore a character just because the player is shy. They get focus and attention like all my players. How the player reacts is up to them. If they wish to leave of course they can, but over the years this method of steadily pushing them to play and do more, with indeed putting them on the spot once in a while, has helped the following players: really awkward guy who didn't get social cues, shy alabaster girl from wealthy background, distant Asian guy, quiet foreign girl with low rp confidence. Just talking about these four in the past few years, they all improved, it ended up being good for them and good for the games they participated in-because they were actually participating. That is why I do it. I don't consider challenges to be negative by default or a pressure cooker. For if we are not challenged how will we get xp and improve?
Thank you for reading. I hope you understand.
My general take on this issue:
I use the rules to determine success/failure. It doesn't matter how eloquent you are/aren't as a player. You give your speech, then you roll and that roll determines your success. Giving the speech is what triggers whether you roll or not, regardless of the quality of said speech.
I don't give bonuses for being a good public speaker as a player. You will never earn a bonus from me for YOUR ability to speak well.
I will give bonuses for ideas though. If you know the king hates orcs, reminding him that orcs killed his father will give you a bonus to convince him to go to war with the orcs. If you know tavern wench loves sweets, giving her chocolates will give you a bonus to gather information. These aren't related to your speaking ability, but rather learning about your target and paying attention to clues.
As for dealing with unexpected results, that's basically the job description of a GM. I don't negate the roll by saying it doesn't make sense. Rather I create a reason for why it does make sense.
Roleplaying, to the best of your ability, is what earns you the roll. That's all it does with me. You should roleplay because you enjoy it, and you should do as much or little as you're comfortable with. The other aspect of my job as a GM is to make it as comfortable as possible, which means NOT punishing you the player for my subjective judgement of your roleplaying.
Yeah, it is unfortunate when they rp well and then the dice gods laugh at them.
Yeah, it is unfortunate when they rp well and then the dice gods laugh at them.
Similarly, it's unfortunately when the players go into combat with a really good plan, but the dice gods laugh at them. I don't play it as JUST the dice gods laughing at them though. I come up with legitimate reasons that explain their failure*.
Just because the players have a good plan does not mean it automatically succeeds. They have to execute the plan, which is done in this game by rolling dice and exceeding the required number.
*I do this for a very specific reason. I hate it when I fail as a player and the GM just kind of has this blank expression and doesn't say why. It makes me feel like I've got no clue what to do next. So when I GM, I make sure players know a cause for why they failed, that way they can either try a different approach or remove this obstacle to failure, allowing them to try their approach again.
Yeah, it is unfortunate when they rp well and then the dice gods laugh at them.
Similarly, it's unfortunately when the players go into combat with a really good plan, but the dice gods laugh at them. I don't play it as JUST the dice gods laughing at them though. I come up with legitimate reasons that explain their failure*.
Just because the players have a good plan does not mean it automatically succeeds. They have to execute the plan, which is done in this game by rolling dice and exceeding the required number.
*I do this for a very specific reason. I hate it when I fail as a player and the GM just kind of has this blank expression and doesn't say why. It makes me feel like I've got no clue what to do next. So when I GM, I make sure players know a cause for why they failed, that way they can either try a different approach or remove this obstacle to failure, allowing them to try their approach again.
Well there is a saying, no plan survives contact with the enemy. I also explain why the best laid plans went awry, but I don't want to take too much control of their character to make them a buffoon or absolutely tongue-tied and only sprouting gibberish should they mess up a social check. I've played with dms that present your char with the new identity of failure after a few bad rolls and I don't want to repeat that! The dice gods speaketh their wishes and that stands, but as a dm it is a part of our role to explain and clarify without taking the reins completely from the pcs.
For combat I try to make it as exciting as possible, so a miss isn't a "your character is terrible" moment, hopefully it is building up to a change of fate. If my monsters attack with a series of 1s, I will try to emphasise how it all went wrong for them, however I want them to take my (in this case) griffons seriously as a challenge and not consider them completely useless due to the four 1s that opened that combat on Sunday.
I did not. I shall check them. But I still mean a proper framework for full-scale social combat, a little more complicated than what pathfinder has to offer. But I shall check them out.Still Gonna have to look in a different direction if I want to get something more rule-y. There's bound to be some satisfying abstraction for "social conflict".Have you checked out these? Full disclosure: I have not used them and know very little about them. But they are a thing.Player: I want the magistrate to rule in my favor. I roll an verbal assault with my witty repartee ability.
GM: The magistrate has a bonus to his social defense from his soulless beurocrat class feature. He also attempts to demoralize you with a sarcastic condescension attack.
Player: I deflect his sarcastic condesention with a well-timed quip about the chastity of his mother. I also escalate the encounter by rolling for a thinly-veiled threat.
GM: His local influence ability gives him a circumstance bonus against thinly-veiled threats. He takes a full-round action to begin overt posturing.
Player: Crap, fine. I will ready a statement of contrition for when he completes overt posturing. What is that, 3 rounds?
GM: Yep, you need to make 3 will saves.
Player: 12, 17, 6.
GM: Ok, you lose 2 points from your clout pool. The magistrate rules against you. Your statement of contrition counters his fickle vengeance ability so your clout pool will refresh normally in 2 weeks.
----------------------------------------
I don't know. Just not my bag...
And here I thought you had no sense of humor.
That was delightful.
Yeah, it is unfortunate when they rp well and then the dice gods laugh at them.
Similarly, it's unfortunately when the players go into combat with a really good plan, but the dice gods laugh at them. I don't play it as JUST the dice gods laughing at them though. I come up with legitimate reasons that explain their failure*.
Just because the players have a good plan does not mean it automatically succeeds. They have to execute the plan, which is done in this game by rolling dice and exceeding the required number.
*I do this for a very specific reason. I hate it when I fail as a player and the GM just kind of has this blank expression and doesn't say why. It makes me feel like I've got no clue what to do next. So when I GM, I make sure players know a cause for why they failed, that way they can either try a different approach or remove this obstacle to failure, allowing them to try their approach again.
Well there is a saying, no plan survives contact with the enemy. I also explain why the best laid plans went awry, but I don't want to take too much control of their character to make them a buffoon or absolutely tongue-tied and only sprouting gibberish should they mess up a social check. I've played with dms that present your char with the new identity of failure after a few bad rolls and I don't want to repeat that! The dice gods speaketh their wishes and that stands, but as a dm it is a part of our role to explain and clarify without taking the reins completely from the pcs.
For combat I try to make it as exciting as possible, so a miss isn't a "your character is terrible" moment, hopefully it is building up to a change of fate. If my monsters attack with a series of 1s, I will try to emphasise how it all went wrong for them, however I want them to take my (in this case) griffons seriously as a challenge and not consider them completely useless due to the four 1s that opened that combat on Sunday.
Maybe my explanation was unclear, but you misunderstood it.
I do NOT explain how their character is dumb, putting his foot in his mouth, tongue-tied or any describe any other aspect of their character.
Rather, I come up with external reasons why they failed. Such as pointing out how the king's adviser keeps whispering in his ear during the character's speech. I use the aftermath of the failed roll to clarify what obstacles still stand in their path so that the players have at least one obvious path of action to continue moving forward should they choose to do so.
Yeah, it is unfortunate when they rp well and then the dice gods laugh at them.
Perhaps one of the characters uses a turn of phrase that is used by the enemy of the person they're trying to convince. It makes them think that they are trying to fool them. This is the kind of thing that has nothing to do with the player or the character. It's just poor luck.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m also worried about this as a GM. My own current standard is “Roleplay it, you roll a proper check, with possible bonuses/negatives depending on how good an idea it was, though it will always mostly rely on your stats”. But it still worries me, because it’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t want to start balkanizing people out of the face role.
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?.
The characters ability to be a good talker should not be hindered or enhanced by the players any more than a character should get a bonus to strength because the player can bench press 400 pounds.
Basically I look at the general point the player is trying to get across, and the character says it as effectively as the rolls are.
The player can make an outstanding speech, but if he makes a bad roll, then his well intended compliment can come across as a back handed compliment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me: " I want to be charming to the bad guys girlfriend when I see Her at the party so she will give me the key code. I rolled a critical success."
GM: "What do you say to the women at the party to charm Her and have Her reveal the key code to you?"
Me: "Well since me, the player, has no idea how to handle myself in this situation, I don't know what to say. But my character has done this hundreds of times before, and I made the roll, so my character says the right thing."
Thats how it should be handled.
In the games I run, it falls a bit short. I don't ask for a heck of a lot more, but I would be pushing for more details about it. What kind of charming are you trying to be? Seductive? Friendly? Formal? I'm not going to require you to give speeches or anything if that's something you can't do, but I expect a degree of analysis, strategy, and tactics just as I expect it in combat and exploration scenes. And I reward it as well. Frankly, I'd get just as annoyed at a fighter's player who doesn't understand their feats or a skill monkey who doesn't use their skills.
If all detail is going to be stripped from any particular element of the game, including social interaction, it's not a game I'm going to run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if the player in question finds appropriate equipment that gives him a bonus to lifting, it can. For example if he's trying to lift a gate and he finds a lever or makes one, is it not allowed to help him because the player is being clever not the character? I'm sorry but "I diplomance him. What do I get?" Doesn't work for me.I’m also worried about this as a GM. My own current standard is “Roleplay it, you roll a proper check, with possible bonuses/negatives depending on how good an idea it was, though it will always mostly rely on your stats”. But it still worries me, because it’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t want to start balkanizing people out of the face role.
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?.
The characters ability to be a good talker should not be hindered or enhanced by the players any more than a character should get a bonus to strength because the player can bench press 400 pounds.
Basically I look at the general point the player is trying to get across, and the character says it as effectively as the rolls are.
The player can make an outstanding speech, but if he makes a bad roll, then his well intended compliment can come across as a back handed compliment.
I see it as all of the choices in combat being hand waived. The roll represents your to hit and damage but you still have to choose what weapon, who to hit, where to stand, to move or not, tactical delay, ready an arrow to disrupt the mage, hide in cover, etc, etc. After the GM calls for initiative you don't just get to say, "OK, I do combat, did we win? what do you mean I have to tell you what I do? My guy is a 13th level fighter with a 15 INT! He's smarter and more experienced! I shouldn't have to do the tactics."
I see it as all of the choices in combat being hand waived. The roll represents your to hit and damage but you still have to choose what weapon, who to hit, where to stand, to move or not, tactical delay, ready an arrow to disrupt the mage, hide in cover, etc, etc. After the GM calls for initiative you don't just get to say, "OK, I do combat, did we win? what do you mean I have to tell you what I do? My guy is a 13th level fighter with a 15 INT!...On the other hand, if the player in question finds appropriate equipment that gives him a bonus to lifting, it can. For example if he's trying to lift a gate and he finds a lever or makes one, is it not allowed to help him because the player is being clever not the character? I'm sorry but "I diplomance him. What do I get?" Doesn't work for me.I’m also worried about this as a GM. My own current standard is “Roleplay it, you roll a proper check, with possible bonuses/negatives depending on how good an idea it was, though it will always mostly rely on your stats”. But it still worries me, because it’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t want to start balkanizing people out of the face role.
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?.
The characters ability to be a good talker should not be hindered or enhanced by the players any more than a character should get a bonus to strength because the player can bench press 400 pounds.
Basically I look at the general point the player is trying to get across, and the character says it as effectively as the rolls are.
The player can make an outstanding speech, but if he makes a bad roll, then his well intended compliment can come across as a back handed compliment.
Which is more important to you:
(a) the quality of a persons speech
(b) the effort they put into said speech
For me, it's (b). I don't demand GOOD speeches from my players. I just insist that they put effort into it. Do their best, talk in character and figure out who they are talking to. I don't care if they're a professional thespian, do accents or any specific detail. All I care about is that they are putting time and effort into the roleplay aspect.
That earns them a roll.
No bonus or penalty is accrued through the quality of said roleplay. But if you don't roleplay, you don't earn a roll.
Your earlier bit, using a bunch of possible social combat terms, was amusing, but if I were using a system like that you would have to come up with something appropriate to fill each spot. You don't just get to say "I use witty insult" at my table. You have to say something, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be an attempt, and it qualifies you to use said game option.
For example, it comes up more than a few times in my Pathfinder game, players say "I roll to gather information". My first response is "where do you go? who do you talk to?" I want to know how they go about doing it before they roll. Even if they make perfect choices, they still have to roll. Maybe they choose the perfect guy who knows the information and he wants to share it, but if they fail the roll there's a complication. He has the info, but someone is threatening him if he tells, or he asks for a lot of money, or he only knows where the info can be found, but it's in a very secure location.
At my table, roleplaying earns you the roll, or usage of a game option. You have to put something into the fiction though to trigger it. Games with complicated social interactions only feel boardgamey if you DON'T require people to use/advance the fiction to trigger game mechanics.
Just like combat, you don't JUST say "I attack", unless you've added enough context already to the fiction to establish what kind of attack and with what.
Your assumptions are predicated on the usage of a mechanic implying that there is no fiction associated with said mechanic, which from most game designer perspectives would be considered user error, as most roleplaying games are designed to be used while roleplaying and not as a fictionless board game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is important to me is, "what do you say?"
I don't care about timing, delivery, or even effort. I just want to know what you say. To me, that is just as important as where you stand on the grid. If you tell me, "I attack him with my short sword," then I look at the grid and say, "nothing happens because you are 10 ft away."
Likewise if you say, "give me the info I want or I'll cut your finger off," then it doesn't matter what you roll if his boss will kill him and his family if he talks. The roll represents how well you come across, but just like standing 10 ft away with a short sword, you have to put yourself in a position to be successful. If the position you take is, "cut off a finger," and the guy is dealing with death of his family, then you don't have a chance of success.
That is why I need to know what you say. The skill doesn't figure out the words for you, the skill represents how well you convey your words. In the same way that the attack roll doesn't figure out your tactics for you it just determines how well you hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specifically regarding intimidation and human behavior, people aren't as logical as we assume them to be. While the guy's family might be under threat if discovered to have talked, he also might be extremely squeamish and detest physical pain, or just easily scared. In that moment he stops thinking about his family and thinks just about the pain he's about to feel.
But without a roll, you've determined that he's suddenly immune to certain kinds of persuasion.
For me, I'd ask for the roll. If the player fails, I'd have the NPC respond that he's worried about his family more than he is about his finger. If the player succeeds, he spills the beans, then starts crying as he realizes he's just doomed his family, telling the players this information as well.
If there are particularly good-hearted characters, I'd definitely play up that last part.
I say let the dice fall where they may. I DM the results, not some presupposed fiction I have set in my mind.
Now, sometimes I tell players PRIOR to the roll that a certain course of action has extra difficulty. For example I'd probably give someone +5 or maybe even +10 against an intimidate if they knew there were other much worse outcomes. Threatening a gang member with a beating is nothing special, it's something they expect every day. That doesn't mean it won't work, it just means it's harder.
|
Talk to your GM, tell him you would like an idea of the DCs involved in your social interaction checks. Then ask the GM if you can roll first, then roleplay second. This lets you use the dice as prompts for how to play the scene.
Example:
Player: "I'd like to bribe the guard to let us into the castle."
GM: "The guard doesn't know you, so he's indifferent. DC 15, you get a +2 circumstance bonus for every 10 go you offer. But there is a -5 penalty because he could get punished if caught."
Player: "I'll offer 20 gp." "After modifiers, I got 25!" "Listen friend, I am supposed to be inside that party, but my invitation got lost. I did find this pouch of gold. Perhaps you could return it to its rightful owner?"
GM : "Of course sir, I know a father with some hungry children who missed this gold pouch dearly. Come right in."
I think problems like this happen due a lot to a lack of rules transparency between the GMs side and players side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, this reminds me of a different forum post I read a while back covering the same topic. I can't remember the exact detailing but it did culminate in a hilariously sarcastic post detailing the hilarity of attempting to get players to use their real life knowledge of social skills. It went a little something like this....
"Ah, so you feel that players should earn their diplomacy or intimidate rolls by telling you in detail what their character says? Why don't you apply that to other skills then?
If you want your fighter to make an attack roll, he better whip out a sword and demonstrate exactly HOW he attacks. After all, he has to earn that roll.
The rogue wants to pick a lock? Better hope she knows how to do it in real life because she has to earn that role.
And what about the cleric making a heal check? She has to detail the anatomy of the human body in what she is trying to fix. She has to earn that roll.
And the bard? He wants to use his Perform (Exotic Belly Dance) skill? Well then... He better EARN that roll."
Specifically regarding intimidation and human behavior, people aren't as logical as we assume them to be. While the guy's family might be under threat if discovered to have talked, he also might be extremely squeamish and detest physical pain, or just easily scared. In that moment he stops thinking about his family and thinks just about the pain he's about to feel.
But without a roll, you've determined that he's suddenly immune to certain kinds of persuasion.
For me, I'd ask for the roll. If the player fails, I'd have the NPC respond that he's worried about his family more than he is about his finger. If the player succeeds, he spills the beans, then starts crying as he realizes he's just doomed his family, telling the players this information as well.
If there are particularly good-hearted characters, I'd definitely play up that last part.
I say let the dice fall where they may. I DM the results, not some presupposed fiction I have set in my mind.
Now, sometimes I tell players PRIOR to the roll that a certain course of action has extra difficulty. For example I'd probably give someone +5 or maybe even +10 against an intimidate if they knew there were other much worse outcomes. Threatening a gang member with a beating is nothing special, it's something they expect every day. That doesn't mean it won't work, it just means it's harder.
I have not decided he is immune to a type of persuasion. In the game there are three types of persuasion, intimidate, diplomacy, and bluff. He isn't immune to intimidate, but your words won't reach him just as your short sword won't reach the foe 10" away.
If someone is particularly squeamish (or whatever for the example) then I will take that into account as the GM. But at the end of the day I need to know what words you use just as I need to know where you are standing and what weapon you are using. You can't just tell me "I attack," or even "I go over there and stab him." I need to know what square you go to and if you stab him with a dagger or a short sword.
Similarly, you can't just say, "I intimidate him." I need to know what your words are because your approach may not work, or may be more or less difficult depending on how you approach it. Using the previous example; the guy you are getting info from has "DR" from physical threats (notice I say threats, not actual torture which may or may not be different) because he knows what is at stake. But you can still intimidate him with other means. Just as a creature has DR slashing so I need to know if you hit him with a dagger or short sword.
Social situations have far too many facets to abstract or standardize, that is up to the DM. But, for me, I need to know the words (or at the bare bare minimum the ideas) you are using.
To parse the language some, I don't think you need to EARN the roll, but rather certain things have to happen to TRIGGER the roll.
Something I've had to deal with in my personality and how I game is focusing too much on the mechanics. I like the mechanics, but sometimes if you focus on them too much, the game gets dry. So what I try to do now days is focus on the fiction. Stay in the fiction and when the fiction calls for a roll, or triggers some mechanic, then we go to the mechanic. Once the mechanic resolves, we then go back to the fiction using this resolution to tell us which direction it goes.
Many times I've had the party, within the fiction, sitting around their headquarters planning. Then someone says something like "I convince the king to do this thing for us." The problem being that within the context of the fiction they aren't even in the presence of the king. So I have the break it down for me, what's the first step? Do you leave your house, or do you send him a message asking him to come to you?
I don't think you need to EARN the roll, but rather you must contribute to the fiction in order to TRIGGER it.
You know, this reminds me of a different forum post I read a while back covering the same topic. I can't remember the exact detailing but it did culminate in a hilariously sarcastic post detailing the hilarity of attempting to get players to use their real life knowledge of social skills. It went a little something like this....
"Ah, so you feel that players should earn their diplomacy or intimidate rolls by telling you in detail what their character says? Why don't you apply that to other skills then?
If you want your fighter to make an attack roll, he better whip out a sword and demonstrate exactly HOW he attacks. After all, he has to earn that roll.
The rogue wants to pick a lock? Better hope she knows how to do it in real life because she has to earn that role.
And what about the cleric making a heal check? She has to detail the anatomy of the human body in what she is trying to fix. She has to earn that roll.
And the bard? He wants to use his Perform (Exotic Belly Dance) skill? Well then... He better EARN that roll."
I don't expect a fighter to tell me how he uses his sword, but I expect him to tell me where he stands, the path he takes to get there, which weapon he uses, which opponent he attacks, if he readies an action, if he stealths, if he full attacks or if he moves and attacks, etc, etc. He doesn't just get to say, "I roll an attack," just like the social encounter requires more than, "I use diplomacy."
I need to know the words (or at the bare bare minimum the ideas) you are using.
Where in my posts have I said you don't need to say the words? You stated this twice in your post, so I'm guessing it's central to your counter argument to mine, so I'm really, really curious where I implied you don't need to say the words?
Please highlight the point where I say you don't need to talk when doing social interactions. If you can't highlight that in my posts, I'd appreciate if you stop trying to imply that that is what I'm saying.
Except I already know that I've stated multiple times, pretty much in every post, that you DO need to talk in order to trigger the roll. So I have no idea why you're responding to me in a disagreeing tone with this as a central point of your argument. It suggests to me that you don't actually care what I'm saying and have decided to just disagree with purely to disagree with me.
I need to know the words (or at the bare bare minimum the ideas) you are using.Where in my posts have I said you don't need to say the words? You stated this twice in your post, so I'm guessing it's central to your counter argument to mine, so I'm really, really curious where I implied you don't need to say the words?
Please highlight the point where I say you don't need to talk when doing social interactions. If you can't highlight that in my posts, I'd appreciate if you stop trying to imply that that is what I'm saying.
Except I already know that I've stated multiple times, pretty much in every post, that you DO need to talk in order to trigger the roll. So I have no idea why you're responding to me in a disagreeing tone with this as a central point of your argument. It suggests to me that you don't actually care what I'm saying and have decided to just disagree with purely to disagree with me.
I don't think I have a counter argument to yours. I think we are very closely aligned. But you thinking that I am arguing with you does make your posts make more sense.
You know, this reminds me of a different forum post I read a while back covering the same topic. I can't remember the exact detailing but it did culminate in a hilariously sarcastic post detailing the hilarity of attempting to get players to use their real life knowledge of social skills. It went a little something like this....
"Ah, so you feel that players should earn their diplomacy or intimidate rolls by telling you in detail what their character says? Why don't you apply that to other skills then?
If you want your fighter to make an attack roll, he better whip out a sword and demonstrate exactly HOW he attacks. After all, he has to earn that roll.
The rogue wants to pick a lock? Better hope she knows how to do it in real life because she has to earn that role.
And what about the cleric making a heal check? She has to detail the anatomy of the human body in what she is trying to fix. She has to earn that roll.
And the bard? He wants to use his Perform (Exotic Belly Dance) skill? Well then... He better EARN that roll."
I laughed heartily. Okay, I guess I can play a fighter, rogue (and maybe a monk if I watch more Jackie Chan films), but I guess I will never be able to play an alchemist, wizard, sorcerer (I must channel the inner fire, alas I have no inner fire), cleric, ninja and I am worlds away from the righteousness needed for a paladin. :''(