Could you elaborate?
As in: is the Player not good in roleplaying a social encounter, or is the player disruptive?
Less RP, more dice rolling.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you handle a character with high social skills played by a player without them?
The same way you handle a character with a high Craft (Armor) skill played by a character without it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you elaborate?
As in: is the Player not good in roleplaying a social encounter, or is the player disruptive?
I would assume the former.
There are plenty of gamers out there who want to play a smooth-talking charmer or the big bad intimidator despite (or more likely, because) they don't have those skills in real life. The problem is, nobody expects you to be good at swinging a sword if you play a fighter, or casting spells if you're a wizard. With the social skills, a lot of tables will expect the player to do some roleplaying to back up their words. This can be hard when the party's huge, muscular barbarian needs to intimidate, and the short, skinny guy playing him has to do the acting to pull it off.
Fuzzy got the solution; you pretty much have to focus more on the dice rolls, while trying to gently nudge the player to open up and develop their RP skills a bit. I find that a lot of players will get better at the roleplaying side of the game with time, experience, and confidence.
|
I do a passable job of intimidate (might sound a little Disney villianish), but can't diplo. Intimidate is fairly easy, just threaten to cut parts of their anatomy off, threaten their loved ones with grevious bodily harm...the Standard Operational Procedure of Pathfinders.
Diplo/bluff..uh the best I can do at a table is to tell the GM what I'm trying to achieve, but don't get me to say it out loud. I get self conscious about it.
Maybe you can just ask the player what he/she is trying to achieve then ask him/her to roll it?
A few bad-ass quotes from films or books can work great too.
|
I ask them what they're trying to achieve and have them roll. If they roll well, they achieve it (within the limits of the rules, anyway).
I generally do this after they roleplay out what they're saying (since I do wish to encourage roleplaying), but barring actively insulting the people they're talking to or something similarly egregious, the quality of their RL pitch doesn't effect how successful they are in-game.
For reasons made clear by others (ie: people who aren't great socially in real life should be allowed to play social characters) I strongly recommend that other people handle this similarly.
Maybe you can just ask the player what he/she is trying to achieve then ask him/her to roll it?
I would offer the player some suggestions about what options they have as negotiating tactics. Make it a multiple choice thing for them. This way the player makes some tactical choices and is more involved than just making a roll, without having to make a big speech.
For bigger, more key negotiations, you could build this out -
e.g. the party need to persuade the local lord to lend them a ship to get to the isle of doom before the cult of the rising tide perform the rite of the devastating mcguffin.
'OK Joe, how are you going to pitch this to the lord - how about one of the following?'
a) Offer that the party will do him a favour or mission for him to get the ship
b) As (a) but try to haggle to do the favour later
c) Stress the horrible consequences to all coastal towns if the rite of the devastating mcguffin isn't stopped
d) Hint that you are tough enough to just take the ship if he doesn't lend it
e) Pitch that if you succeed the party will be heroes and they'll be sure to tell the king how he was key to their success
f) As (e) but its all about telling the commoners
g) Offer a share of the cult's loot
Successful sense motive or gather information can of course give clues on the best choices.
The easy way to run this would be to then apply a mod to the diplomacy (or intimidate) DC.
Radical approach is that they need a successful roll + an appropriate tactic. Let's say (a), (f), (g) are good plans - his lordship is looking for what's in it for him, he knows the King wont care what scruffy adventurers say but it would be good PR with the commonfolk. (a) has an obvious downside of delay for the party of course.
If the player goes for a,f or g and hits the DC they get the ship.
If they go for a,f or g but miss the DC they don't persuade him but the conversation continues - they must pick another option and try again.
If they go for another (bad) option and hit the DC they don't get the ship but get a chance to try another tack.
If they go for a bad option and miss the DC they piss him off and get told to leave.
If they haven't persuaded him after 3 goes they get told to leave.
Allows you to have quite an involved negotiation even if the player isn't keen to talk it through.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to pitch in to Deadmanwalking and RDM42s ideas.
Talking in third person is underrated. Play a high Cha, high Diplomacy character by simply stating you're charming and suave.
»I walk up to the baron, using fine words to praise him and then - in the nicest and most subtle way possible - ask him for assistance in our upcoming adventure« is much faster and easier to say than actually saying fine words and asking subtly for assistance. And it most likely gets the point across to the GM and the other players better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For players with poor social skills I allow them to use the better of the roleplay or the skill roll. The roleplay does determine what they are looking to get. So if they ask for the wrong thing then they may not get what they want, but the success is based on the skill roll.
For players with good social skills playing a character with poor social skills I do the opposite. You should not be able to use your own skills to compensate for skills your character does not have.
I'd have the player describe the points they're making in general terms, maybe giving them a small nudge in the right direction through multiple-choice hints as mentioned above. You don't necessarily need to have a high Cha character monologuing all the time if the player isn't very good at that. Just have them state the type of thing the character is saying, and have them roll with appropriate modifiers based on the points they made rather than how well the player made them. That way they don't necessarily need to be good at talking pretty OOC.
|
I recently experienced probably what the OP is asking about. A couple of examples. I was trying to win over some NPC and said "something in elven...Oh? Sorry, you're so fair of skin that I mistook you for an elf." Which I and the rest of the players thought was very clever. The GM took it in completely the wrong direction "Well, you just failed because she's ugly and thinks you're insulting her." Me, "don't I get to roll?". GM, "sure but the DC is going to be really high because you insulted her." I roll--gm, before the dice stops rolling "no, haha". Ended up with a 19 diplomacy check and nothing out of it (sure, it's not an awesome roll, but it should definitely be "good enough" for whatever non-consequential npc a lvl 3 character is talking to).
Another example, GM gives some androgynous name with no description and I mistake them for the wrong gender and am them penalized on my diplomacy check.
I guess that's more of a GM problem than what the OP is asking. But the result is still the same. No more RP'ing and just dice rolling.
|
|
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
If Social skills in game did not have skill ranks and rolls then I could see an argument for what the Player says. But at times you have people who have 0 social skills and want to be the face and rely on the mechanics of the game more than their own skills at Diplomacy.
I get the player to describe what message they are trying to convey and get them to roll to determine how successfully they have delivered their speech.
The player may have an approach or mention a specific name that would effect the reaction to a good or bad roll.
E.g. Telling the Pharoah that the fine treasures you have with you were just plundered from the Pyramid is not likely to go down well with even the greatest diplomacy roll ever. Similarly, telling the King that you have found his beloved daughter but need some assistance to slay the dragon holding her is likely to get a positive result even if the roll for the delivery was terrible. The bad roll may indicate that the character did not relay the important information well or sounded a bit like extortion. The King is likely to meet the request even if he doesn't like you much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Yes, there are dice to determine how well you said something. The player should still give an indication of what their character's approach is. I'm going to greet them in a friendly manner, chat them up, and then ask for directions to the Forest of Misery. You don't have to be charming to do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Then what do you do for attacks, other types of Skill checks or ability checks?
Acrobatics check DC=16...player rolls a 20.
"Sorry you failed the acrobatics because you said you rolled to the left instead of the right...it increases the DC by +5 cause he is left handed." He gets the AoO and now your a corpse.
What a fun role playing game we can make it when we ignore the rules and throw out Real world justifications.
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Then what do you do for attacks, other types of Skill checks or ability checks?
Acrobatics check DC=16...player rolls a 20.
"Sorry you failed the acrobatics because you said you rolled to the left instead of the right...it increases the DC by +5 cause he is left handed." He gets the AoO and now your a corpse.
What a fun role playing game we can make it when we ignore the rules and throw out Real world justifications.
Did the player state what they were trying to accomplish with the Acrobatics check before making it? I assume so.
The player should also, at the very least, state what he/she is trying to accomplish with the Intimidate/Diplomacy/Bluff check prior to making the roll. That really doesn't take much effort. It also helps narrow down the list of possible outcomes the GM could come up with, hopefully closer to what the player desires on a successful check.
As opposed to saying "I'm making a Diplomacy check, but I'm not going to tell you what for"? I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that.
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Then what do you do for attacks, other types of Skill checks or ability checks?
Acrobatics check DC=16...player rolls a 20.
"Sorry you failed the acrobatics because you said you rolled to the left instead of the right...it increases the DC by +5 cause he is left handed." He gets the AoO and now your a corpse.
What a fun role playing game we can make it when we ignore the rules and throw out Real world justifications.
. . . I'm sorry, "Said?"
I demand that my players go to gymnasium and jump from the balance beam to the parallel bars before they roll on an acrobatics checks. It feels like they're role playing, not just playing. :P
|
|
As opposed to saying "I'm making a Diplomacy check, but I'm not going to tell you what for"? I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that.Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Then what do you do for attacks, other types of Skill checks or ability checks?
Acrobatics check DC=16...player rolls a 20.
"Sorry you failed the acrobatics because you said you rolled to the left instead of the right...it increases the DC by +5 cause he is left handed." He gets the AoO and now your a corpse.
What a fun role playing game we can make it when we ignore the rules and throw out Real world justifications.
Did the player state what they were trying to accomplish with the Acrobatics check before making it? I assume so.
The player should also, at the very least, state what he/she is trying to accomplish with the Intimidate/Diplomacy/Bluff check prior to making the roll. That really doesn't take much effort. It also helps narrow down the list of possible outcomes the GM could come up with, hopefully closer to what the player desires on a successful check.
I'm in the Boat of:
I will make a Diplomacy to Get better selling prices. *roll*............THe roll determines the outcome.
As opposed to:
"You know shop keep I found this +1 Longsword on the body of X who was plaguing the city. You should hook a hero up and say give me 60% sell value." *Roll*................The RP and GM moods/recpection determines the success.
One follows the rules the other partially follows the rules and keeps everything in DM fiat land that is determined by the Players RP abilities and the DM's Mood/judgement of your RP.
Roleplaying is what triggers the roll. The roll is what determines the outcome. If a player is reluctant to roleplay, I ask the questions about what they're doing...
How do you do that?
What kinds of things do you say?
What do you want from him?
If a player is forthcoming and very verbose, I sometimes cut them off in the middle and have them roll, then ask them to color their dialogue based on the roll (giving them the opportunity to roleplay their failure, or giving them a hint of something particularly effective they can add on a stunning success). It also gives me a chance to determine the NPC's reaction earlier, because I always follow the dice (though a failed diplomacy doesn't mean the NPC doesn't like you, it might mean they aren't able to do what you want).
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Yes, there are dice to determine how well you said something. The player should still give an indication of what their character's approach is. I'm going to greet them in a friendly manner, chat them up, and then ask for directions to the Forest of Misery. You don't have to be charming to do that.
Well you failed, this guy is gruff and hates people that use polite speech and hates small talk. Had you said you "Go up and curse him out and ask for directions bluntly" would have giving you a success. This is a role playing game after all, and that's how he'd respond to what you said you did, hope you find someone else in this town who can give you directions.
Hence it's much safer to say, I ask that man for directions and let the diplomacy check handle the "how" you tried.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you failed, this guy is gruff and hates people that use polite speech and hates small talk. Had you said you "Go up and curse him out and ask for directions bluntly" would have giving you a success. This is a role playing game after all, and that's how he'd respond to what you said you did, hope you find someone else in this town who can give you directions.
Hence it's much safer to say, I ask that man for directions and let the diplomacy check handle the "how" you tried.
Only if your GM is a complete a#+#$$%.
The correct way to do this, IMO, is to roleplay what you want to say, or at least, as BretI suggests, describe how you interact with people. then you roll. If you roll well, they respond well to your approach, if you roll poorly they respond poorly.
Both extremes of this argument are sorta mind-boggling to me. Failing before you roll is ridiculous, but from my perspective so is arguing that nobody should roleplay their characters dialogue or behavior at all. This is, as mentioned, a role-playing game.
Well you failed, this guy is gruff and hates people that use polite speech and hates small talk. Had you said you "Go up and curse him out and ask for directions bluntly" would have giving you a success. This is a role playing game after all, and that's how he'd respond to what you said you did, hope you find someone else in this town who can give you directions.
Hence it's much safer to say, I ask that man for directions and let the diplomacy check handle the "how" you tried.
Only if your GM is a complete a+@$+@#.
The correct way to do this, IMO, is to roleplay what you want to say, or at least, as BretI suggests, describe how you interact with people. then you roll. If you roll well, they respond well to your approach, if you roll poorly they respond poorly.
Both extremes of this argument are sorta mind-boggling to me. Failing before you roll is ridiculous, but from my perspective so is arguing that nobody should roleplay their characters dialogue or behavior at all. This is, as mentioned, a role-playing game.
So if you were a GM how would you handle a player saying, "I ask that man for directions, Diplomacy 34."?
Would they get their directions since they passed the DC to get someone that is "Indifferent" to "Give simple advice or directions", Heck they most likely passed the DC needed to have a "Hostile" person "Give simple aid" unless the hostile person's charisma was a 28.Would they fail the check since they "didn't say how they were asking directions"?
Would they be unable to make the check since they "didn't say how they were asking directions"?
*And nobody is saying you shouldn't or can't give more than this. We're saying that this is all that should be required.
EDIT: Or would you say that since they didn't say how that they just went up and asked right up with no further dialog, in which case is should be handled the same as my first example, since it'd just be checking to see how well the NPC responds to abrupt questions about directions.
I do agree that getting some idea of how they are acting, and what they want to achieve is the main thing. It does seem unfair to either penalize someone or reward someone because their character's social skills are to far removed from the player's.
|
|
So if you were a GM how would you handle a player saying, "I ask that man for directions, Diplomacy 34."?
Why would I have a player roll to ask a random person on the street for directions in the first place?
Rolling dice is for important situations, ones with real and interesting consequences for success and failure. Asking for directions rarely qualifies unless you're asking for directions to something secret from someone important. And if you're doing that, this is a roleplaying scene, and should probably be gone into a bit more than that.
Would they get their directions since they passed the DC to get someone that is "Indifferent" to "Give simple advice or directions", Heck they most likely passed the DC needed to have a "Hostile" person "Give simple aid" unless the hostile person's charisma was a 28.
Assuming I was doing this? Sure, if they roll they succeed. If they rolled after only saying that, though, I'd probably ask something like the following:
'Okay, what do you actually say? Do you just walk up and bluntly ask for directions, are you friendly and work your way around to it? What?'
Then narrate his response (including giving the directions, since they succeeded) appropriately.
Would they fail the check since they "didn't say how they were asking directions"?
Of course not. That's idiotic.
Would they be unable to make the check since they "didn't say how they were asking directions"?
Again, of course not. That's idiotic.
*And nobody is saying you shouldn't or can't give more than this. We're saying that this is all that should be required.
Good. But that's certainly not what it sounded like. Just for the record.
EDIT: Or would you say that since they didn't say how that they just went up and asked right up with no further dialog, in which case is should be handled the same as my first example, since it'd just be checking to see how well the NPC responds to abrupt questions about directions.
As stated above, I'd ask how they did it and narrate appropriately.
So if you were a GM how would you handle a player saying, "I ask that man for directions, Diplomacy 34."?
It sounds like it adds nothing to the story. If it really does add nothing to the story, I skip past the details and say they found the place.
If it was something trivial, it takes trivial time.
If they were trying to find someplace that isn't well known then I would treat their roll as a Gather Information (a sub-category of Diplomacy) attempt and it takes some time before they find the place. Knowledge: Local would just allow them to know where it is.
In any case, I wouldn't pull some sort of "Gotcha!" trick.
So if you were a GM how would you handle a player saying, "I ask that man for directions, Diplomacy 34."?It sounds like it adds nothing to the story. If it really does add nothing to the story, I skip past the details and say they found the place.
If it was something trivial, it takes trivial time.
If they were trying to find someplace that isn't well known then I would treat their roll as a Gather Information (a sub-category of Diplomacy) attempt and it takes some time before they find the place. Knowledge: Local would just allow them to know where it is.
In any case, I wouldn't pull some sort of "Gotcha!" trick.
I'm going to greet them in a friendly manner, chat them up, and then ask for directions to the Forest of Misery.
You're the one that came up with the example case. Asking for directions. So the scenario is, you'd expect the player to say, "I'm going to greet them in a friendly manner, chat them up, and then ask for directions to the Forest of Misery." and they say, "I ask that man for directions to the Forest of Misery, Diplomacy 34."
How would you handle it? Did the player do enough or not?
Feel free to change the exact use of a social skill to whatever you feel is worthwhile. But this is the nature of the question.
It sounds like you'd let the player just say, "I ask that man for directions to the Forest of Misery, Diplomacy 34." In which case I wonder why you'd say the player should do more.
Assuming I was doing this? Sure, if they roll they succeed. If they rolled after only saying that, though, I'd probably ask something like the following:
'Okay, what do you actually say? Do you just walk up and bluntly ask for directions, are you friendly and work your way around to it? What?'
Then narrate his response (including giving the directions, since they succeeded) appropriately.
"I don't know, I just ask the guy for directions in a manner that a 34 diplomacy would do."
Is this valid?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't know, I just ask the guy for directions in a manner that a 34 diplomacy would do."
Is this valid?
Not really, no.
Diplomacy 34 isn't a method (except in the most general sense that it isn't Intimidate), it's a degree of effectiveness. They have succeeded, but that isn't what the question is about. the question is about how their character is choosing to interact with the game world.
I would't have them auto-fail or anything, but someone who refused to roleplay to that degree (ie: not willing to even in the smallest way when prompted by the GM) in important situations (ie: those I'd call for a roll at all in) would rapidly no longer be really welcome in a game I was running.
Note that this has never happened. everyone I've ever asked that sort of question to has had an answer. And often, for the more socially awkward ones, opened right up and done some really enjoyable roleplaying. Sometimes all people need is a slight prompt.
You should not make players automatically fail or succeed rolls based on their own talking abilities.
But at the same time, it's a roleplaying game. You should actively encourage roleplaying. Your players shouldn't consider it a punishment when they have to talk to an NPC, they should enjoy the interaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both when running and playing RPGs, I find a lot of the interest and fun of non-combat interactions is the dialogue. Just skipping over the actual speaking and rolling a die, seems to take away a lot of the interest and enjoyment, as well as breaking immersion.
That said, it is important for people without a skill in real life to be able to have their character do it, so while I expect my players to act out the interaction, the result of the interaction will be almost solely based on the role, with some circumstance bonuses being based on their approach. I try not to have these be the players smooth talking (or lack thereof) but instead be things that are intrinsic in the offer i.e. a bribe far above market value might get a bonus. In addition, an NPC might have things that motivate them especially. Some might love money, other be patriotic etc. and sometimes things that they are turned off by. Using these things as part of your 'offer' or argument will also get a bonus or a penalty. A player might stumble on those things just by chance (either for a bonus or a penalty) but if they first interact or observe to discover what makes someone 'tick' (using sense motive usually) they can be assured to know what to bring up to make someone more on their side.
"I don't know, I just ask the guy for directions in a manner that a 34 diplomacy would do."
Is this valid?
Not really, no.
Diplomacy 34 isn't a method (except in the most general sense that it isn't Intimidate), it's a degree of effectiveness. They have succeeded, but that isn't what the question is about. the question is about how their character is choosing to interact with the game world.
I would't have them auto-fail or anything, but someone who refused to roleplay to that degree (ie: not willing to even in the smallest way when prompted by the GM) in important situations (ie: those I'd call for a roll at all in) would rapidly no longer be really welcome in a game I was running.
Note that this has never happened. everyone I've ever asked that sort of question to has had an answer. And often, for the more socially awkward ones, opened right up and done some really enjoyable roleplaying. Sometimes all people need is a slight prompt.
Fair enough. You'd un-invite a player that behaved so. I'm glad it's never been an issue for you. I just hope if it ever does come up for you that nobodies feelings get hurt.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a Dice Game.
Let the rolls decide the skill as it is intended to do.
Some of us consider it a Role Playing Game. It even says that on the cover.
Then what do you do for attacks, other types of Skill checks or ability checks?
Acrobatics check DC=16...player rolls a 20.
"Sorry you failed the acrobatics because you said you rolled to the left instead of the right...it increases the DC by +5 cause he is left handed." He gets the AoO and now your a corpse.
What a fun role playing game we can make it when we ignore the rules and throw out Real world justifications.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to give you a -4 to attack if you drop prone before making your melee attack and give the other guy an AoO if you then try to stand up. And if you position yourself below the bad guy who's standing on a wall, he'll get cover from you and a higher ground bonus for his attacks. And if you decide that you really want to use a dagger against a skeleton, you end up doing 1d4 against DR 5/bludgeoning. And if you charge a group of orc barbarians who are waiting for you and taunting you while wielding longspears and mysteriously holding their actions, that result is predictable too.
There are all sorts of stupid things that players can do with their supposedly competent characters in combat and those things effect both the difficulty and consequences of the battle as well as the possibility of success.
I don't see why social interactions should be any different just because the rules are less defined. It's one thing to not be as smooth as James Bond in real life and to depend upon you diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, and sense motive checks to pull it off. But you have to at least be socially aware enough to know what the appropriate thing to try is.
I don't see why social skills should be different to everything else, noone expects you to be a gymnast to roll acrobatics, a talented musician to use perform, have memorised half the bestiary to make your knowledge rolls to find out about monsters or swing a sword around to make your attacks.
I don't see why social skills should be different to everything else, noone expects you to be a gymnast to roll acrobatics, a talented musician to use perform, have memorised half the bestiary to make your knowledge rolls to find out about monsters or swing a sword around to make your attacks.
I've seen this argument many times, and it always makes me wonder what a typical game session looks like when this view is in effect.
It would seem to discourage role-playing on the players' side, which I would think would then have a spillover effect of the DM doing less role-playing.
I know that if I am DMing and I give an impassioned speech as an NPC trying to persuade the PCs and the majority of the responses I get are the names of mechanical skills and dice rolls, I'm going to lose interest in RPing NPCs.
Echo anyone talking about a mix of things. RP'ing is nice, but it's a game where we "do" things we can't actually do in real life, too. Encourage the player to explore it verbally, and then meet him/her to bridge the gap.
How do you handle a character with high social skills played by a player without them?
Same as I handle any type of character. You tell me what you're aiming to do, & then I'll tell you what (if any) DC/skill/type of check/etc to make.
If you can RP it? Great! Otherwise you can describe it in 1st person, or 3rd person. Whatever you prefer. The key here is that I want to know what you're attempting accompanied by a description. Just saying "I use diplomacy on them, I rolled a __." will NOT get you much. 1) I didn't ask you for a roll or tell you a DC. 2) That doesn't tell a story....
I don't see why social skills should be different to everything else, noone expects you to be a gymnast to roll acrobatics, a talented musician to use perform, have memorised half the bestiary to make your knowledge rolls to find out about monsters or swing a sword around to make your attacks.I've seen this argument many times, and it always makes me wonder what a typical game session looks like when this view is in effect.
It would seem to discourage role-playing on the players' side, which I would think would then have a spillover effect of the DM doing less role-playing.
I know that if I am DMing and I give an impassioned speech as an NPC trying to persuade the PCs and the majority of the responses I get are the names of mechanical skills and dice rolls, I'm going to lose interest in RPing NPCs.
Roleplaying and character efficacy are different things.
A dwarf with 5 Charisma and zero ranks in Diplomacy shouldn't give eloquent speeches, so rewarding a player who does with automatic success doesn't seem right to me. Especially if another player has a character with 20 Charisma and maxed Diplomacy.
I do still expect the second player to give their best effort, but it's the roll that determines the outcome. The roleplaying is the bar to trigger to the roll.
You could go the Elcor route and start your sentences with the intended emotional resonance, like: [happily] That is great. Or: [badassfully] That was not my intention.
Roleplaying and character efficacy are different things.
I don't see the connection between my post and yours. I wasn't discussing automatic successes - I was questioning if viewing social skills as 412294's post indicates would discourage role-playing.