Hey all,
I'm going to be running a Hell's Vengeance game soon and I was hoping to get some advice on an issue I've seen in quite a lot of games.
Often I find characters without social skills (intimidate, bluff or diplomacy) are often reluctant to get involved in dialogue as they fear being forced into a skill check they will likely fail. The result is often one or two players hogging the majority of social/talking encounters despite other players wanting to take part but being scared to.
I was considering a few different approaches:
1. Roll intimidate, bluff and diplomacy checks in secret and give players large circumstantial bonuses if they say something that chimes especially well with the NPC. My biggest concern with this is whether it would damage player agency, it also has the ability to invalidate certain class abilities like inspiration.
2. Treat group social skills as communal, so if a diplomacy check is required the highest diplomacy check in the group would be rolled. This is often an approach you see in CRPGs, but I'm not sure it translates very well to the tabletop.
3. Give every character some extra skill points per level to spend purely on social skills, so every character has a social niche they can fill. Biggest downside here is probably giving certain characters too many skill points, but that may not be the end of the world.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Hm, I understand your issue.
It's a matter on how you phrase things when speaking to NPCs.
If they're talking about an issue and the non diplomatic PC has a question, and the NPC refuses to answer, the diplomatic PC could take the lead and rephrase the question in a more diplomatic way.
This won't affect the roll, and everyone is able to participate.
If you give skill points for everyone, the diplomatic one might feel his efforts are not rewarded, after all she might have spent quite a bit on buffing diplomacy to no avail, when everyone else is getting it for free.
I believe PC should be able to contribute to the conversation, but if they don't have diplomacy they shouldn't be demanding things. They will bring new ideas to the conversation that the Lead can use.
It creates a more dynamic conversation
Letric wrote: Hm, I understand your issue.
It's a matter on how you phrase things when speaking to NPCs.
If they're talking about an issue and the non diplomatic PC has a question, and the NPC refuses to answer, the diplomatic PC could take the lead and rephrase the question in a more diplomatic way.
This won't affect the roll, and everyone is able to participate.
If you give skill points for everyone, the diplomatic one might feel his efforts are not rewarded, after all she might have spent quite a bit on buffing diplomacy to no avail, when everyone else is getting it for free.
I believe PC should be able to contribute to the conversation, but if they don't have diplomacy they shouldn't be demanding things. They will bring new ideas to the conversation that the Lead can use.
It creates a more dynamic conversation
Yes good points.
I like the suggestion about allowing another PC to rephrase a question/statement. A lot of games I've been part of the GM forces the character that made a statement to immediately roll the skill check. Allowing another character to jump in and make the skill check allows people to contribute but also allows for "face" characters to feel valuable.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tacgnol9001 wrote: ...give players large circumstantial bonuses if they say something that chimes especially well with the NPC. This line of thinking, 100%
It's not enough to go "I use Diplomacy". Diplomacy is a million-billion things; appeals to logic or compassion, bribes, recitations of legal precedent, general friendliness and warmth, flattery,
etiquette, charm, wit...there are so many ways to communicate with someone that would fall under the penumbra of Diplomacy. And they are not equal in all situations.
A vampire might response well to base flattery or an extensive knowledge of archaic manners, but appealing to his compassion isn't going to be met with much success.
A criminal underling might take a bribe, but maybe his boss appreciates intelligent conversation more.
And that's just Diplomacy. Bluff and Intimidate offer just as many options.
I don't even let my players announce that they're using a given skill; they tell me what they're doing and how they're going about it, and I'll assign the appropriate skill from there. "I try to get the general to see reason. This is a fight he cannot win." --that sounds like Diplomacy by means of logic, maybe. "I warn the general that things will turn out poorly if he continues." --Intimidate, thinly veiled threats. "I act confident, like there's no doubt in my mind that the general could ever win." --Bluff via...posturing?
And then it's just a matter of figuring out how susceptible the general is to logic, threats and posturing.
Don't even get me started on Sense Motive, though. If one more player tries to roll Sense Motive without a clear objective in mind...
Everyone's making some good suggestions (and I like what Quixote said about Sense Motive...I'm not sure my players frequently have that problem, but it's helpful for me to keep in mind when it comes up).
I might add that in my games, I will reward players who "RP out" a Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy check (or even Sense Motive, though that's been rare for me) with either a bonus to their roll or waiving the need for a roll altogether (though still might do the opposing roll and mask it by having the player roll the die thinking it's for him/her). This gives a reward for engagement, even among players with characters who are less than optimized for social encounters.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rewards for what most people refer to as "role-playing" and what is actually acting doesn't sit well with me anymore.
Some people like to act. To use a funny voice and be dramatic and grandiose. They usually say "I do..."
Some people prefer to enjoy their hobby in a quieter, more introverted manner. They tend to say "my character does..."
They're both playing the game, participating at their comfort level. Handing out hard, mechanical rewards for what amounts to a personal preference is like rewarding players based penmanship.
Now, if one player thinks they can sit back and not even bother with a "my, character does"-type statement and coast through my carefully constructed encounter, they're in for a rude awakening. You don't need to talk in a silly voice, but you need to do *something*.
With some people prompting them with ideas when they look lost can help, "Are you going to schmooze them into believing you're on the same side, or fast talk them into an admission, or what?" for example.
Bonuses for good roleplaying is always good! Sure, not everyone is great at improv, but rewarding strong effort makes a difference in players' attitude towards RP.
Pooled checks are also viable-ish, but I like making it so that anyone who participates can aid, and the person with the highest bonus can roll. I also like to call for checks rather than letting people just tell me what they want to roll, like Quixote was talking about.
Extra skill points is a fair idea, but spending them on social skills is liable to make everyone's character sheet look about the same. I'm a fan of the Background Skills set, which opens enough skills that aren't frequently rolled but flesh out a character that players feel a bit more free to spend skill points elsewhere. Especially if a player invests in something like one of the non-monster knowledges or a profession, it feels good to reward them with opportunities to flex those.
Further, I'm a big fan of failing forward. It can feel frustrating to a player when they make a passionate, logical, convincing argument and roll a 2 on the die, missing the DC hard. Rather than having a heinous reaction, the NPC might lose interest in the subject, make a counteroffer, whatever. But the plot progresses forward, just in a way that maybe they didn't anticipate. It's like having a Climb DC that one PC just can't pass when climbing is the only way to progress to the next part of the dungeon. Do you have them fall forever until they give up and leave the party and the dungeon, or do you have their failure trigger a swarm of bats in the cave to make things more difficult for a bit? Treat their social checks like this: reward creative thinking and roleplaying, but have consequences for failure that enrich the experience and nove the story forward.
Wyran Tegus wrote: Bonuses for good roleplaying is always good! Sure, not everyone is great at improv, but rewarding strong effort makes a difference in players' attitude towards RP. Rewarding effort is one thing. Rewarding good acting over perfectly serviceable but probably less entertaining third-person declarations of action and intent (because some people at less shy, or spent time in medical school instead of community theatre) is another. Like giving cool-looking dice a re-roll or bonus xp for good snacks.
You could try having people roll their dice and then act out what happpens. This way if they roll badly you get to see what insults and social faux pas they come up with.
Alternately
Ask them to act out the scene, then you pick 2 players to roll bluff/diplomacy/intimidate. Whoever rolls lower aids the other (or fails to aid of they roll low enough).
You can give bonuses (or penalties) depending on how you think they went, either modifiers to their roll or to the amount they aid the other person.
You could also allow different skill checks (eg. Good-Cop/Bad-Cop is Diplomacy/Intimidate ... or Bluff/Intimidate if you're just going to murder them anyway). You could decide when doing this who's rolling and who's aiding, or you could leave it to chance. The important thing here is that YOU decide what check they're rollong ("Alan roll Intimidate to aid Stephanie's Diplomacy"), and you decide any buffs/jerfs you give them ("Alan, your aid gives +3 to stephanie's roll if you successfully aid").
You could also allow more than 2 people to roll if you think the group joined in well enough.
Also, have some fun hijinx ensue if they fail. That'll encourage them to try more.
MrCharisma wrote: You could try having people roll their dice and then act out what happpens. This way if they roll badly you get to see what insults and social faux pas they come up with. Oh, man. This too. I forget that some people still do this backwards.
You don't go "I do a triple backflip, land on the monster's back and drive my blade straight through its skull!" *roll* "...does a 7 hit?"
For some reason, a lot of people do social rolls backwards.
Roll your Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate, THEN figure out what it means.
It can work either way, you just need a little more GM creativity.
PLAYER: "I must compliment you on your beautiful baritone, truly speaking with you is a joy" - I roll Diplomacy
*rolls 5*
GM: The Red Raven looks angry: "My parents were killed by a Baritone, How dare You Sir!"
If you want people to talk in character, join conversations with NPCs and such, tell them that. Inform them that the only people rolling a Diplomacy check is the person effusively complimenting the NPC to adjust their attitude; the only person rolling Intimidate will be the one cracking their knuckles and threatening the NPC's relatives for non-compliance.
In other words, level no consequence on your players for not taking ranks in social skills.
This does however beg the question in the players' minds: why should I talk to this person? If the one PC with the Diplomacy +14 has a guaranteed lock on getting the mayor to like the PCs enough to give them the key to the haunted mansion on their own, why does it matter if I'm there?
Some players naturally enjoy speaking in character and might jump in for the fun of it. Other players are staunch combat-optimizers and don't care at all about the social aspects of this game. Neither gamer is doing it wrong, they're both having fun in their own way and their participation or lack thereof is more about their own enjoyment.
All of that said, here's one way I've offered incentive for other PCs to get in on NPC conversations: using other skills for Aid Another bonuses.
If you approach the woodcutters in the Hollow's Last Hope adventure and ask them for a map, the characters will need to get the foreman on their side. This person is a professional woodcutter; perhaps a PC with 1 rank in Profession: Woodcutter could roll that skill instead of Diplomacy to help out.
Entertaining kids with Sleight of Hand or a cool Performance skill might create a circumstance where they're more receptive and their attitudes might change; approaching a druid with your encyclopedic lore from a Knowledge: Nature skill might have a beneficial effect.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions, they are extremely helpful.
I think ultimately I'll give people plenty of warning if they are heading in a direction that seems as though it might require a skill check, maybe give opportunities for face characters to jump in.
I'll probably also use a mixture of circumstantial bonuses where appropriate, such as when a character may have expert knowledge or has used a particularly good line of argument.
I also like the idea of allowing characters to use non-social skills in certain contexts during a conversation.
I've heard PFS allows aid another (which has no negative effect on failure) on diplomacy, likely to deal with exactly your problem.
|
