[d20 + D&D3.5] Fixing the Social skills

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I'd like to open up a discussion of how we could change the social skill rules of D&D and d20. I'm starting from the assumption that we should have some skills used in the game. I don't want to do away with social skills altogether.

D&D 3.5 and the d20 systems use skills to show how socially capable a character is. Characters can be significantly more or less charismatic than their players, so some system of reflecting the skill of the character as opposed to that of the player is desirable. However, role playing can suffer as a result of the ability to make a simple check for one's character.

Social skills include Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and Sense Motive. Of these, Gather Information and Diplomacy are the least satisfactory. Their use in game is often unbelievable. Intimidate follows very similar rules to Diplomacy, but the conditional nature of the support produced with intimidation makes the skill use more believable. I won't attempt to change that rule. Lying and the ability to see through lies are best handled with standard skill checks, as per the normal system.

A well-designed replacement for the social skills in d20 should: be simple to use be fair and consistent reflect the roleplaying of the player and the skills of the character

____________________________________

Gather Information:
In the normal d20 game, we use this skill to gain rumours from the society that a character spends some time talking and socialising with. The check represents hours of chatting in bars and buying drinks for patrons or similar activity. It is a trope common to investigation dramas.

Should we have this skill at all? If we don't use it, what replaces it? How should we modify it?
Here are my thoughts: Without this skill, the montage of bar-room investigation culminating in the hero hearing the information he needs may become a series of fully realised scenes in which the character talks with various uniformed folk until he strikes lucky and gets the lead he needs. At best, simply doing away with this skill requires more preparation on the part of the referee, to be ready for any instance where the PCs wish to make person-to person enquiries. At worst, it is dull. Can we use the Knowledge (Local) or Knowledge (Streetwise) skills to get our PCs to the information source in a similar mannner? The PC makes a knowledge check to think of the right sort of person to ask - whether a specific contact, or a general type of character. We use the same Gather Info DCs. The PC then locates such a person and we have a roleplayed scene. The trope of asking around is bars is preserved somewhat. Classes and occupations that have Gather Information as a class skill should gain Knowledge (Streetwise) or Knowledge (Local) (depending on the game system) instead.

What do you think?

____________________________________

Diplomacy:
This skill has been so abused that a type of character known as the "Diplomancer" has appeared in many gaming groups or console versions of d20 games. Taking an NPC from 'hostile' to 'helpful' only requires a check of 50 - which can be done by a surprising low level character. Here are some links (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) to articles that state the problem very well (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy-design.html), and offer some solutions.
I think these solutions suffer from being more comlpex than the rule they're replacing, which is already one of the more complicated skill checks in the d20 system.

Should we use this skill at all? If we don't use it, what replaces it? How should we modify it?
Here are my thoughts on this one:
As written, the Diplomacy skill is used to change an NPC's whole attitude toward the PC. This should more sensibly be restricted to changing the NPC's attitude toward a certain course of action. e.g. - The King wishes to invade Neighbouria, the PC wishes to persuade him that this is a rash idea. We should have some sort of reflection of the character's skill in persuading others included in any system: Characters often have differing CHA (and INT and WIS) to their players, so to rely purely on roleplaying will be unfair Conversely, GM judgement ("Player X is highly charismatic, while his character is not, so NPC Y will not be persuaded", or vice versa) is not acceptable, as not all such judgements will be fair and consistent The check cannot be the whole of the rule Content of the argument is vital. The skill result should not allow a player to simply say "Stupid king, that's a load of rubbish!", and thus persuade His Majesty of the error of His Majesty's ways. Delivery of the argument is also vital: as above.

This one is more complex than Gather Information. I propose the following solution:
We retain the attitude states (hostile, unfriendly, etc) We change the DC, say +5 to all? (we are going to be giving out some big bonuses, after all) We apply the attitude states to courses of action, rather than the whole character An indifferent attitude to hostile action against the PC may not save them, but only reduce the target's actions to less lethal attacks Even a helpful attitude towards hostile action is likely to only result in the target trying to persuade the PC to leave Example: a guard ordered to prevent intrusion with lethal force (hostile attitude to intrusion) is persuaded to 'indifferent' by a PC, so he clubs the PC into unconsciousness and dumps him outside. Even if the guard is persuaded to 'helpful' toward the intrusion, he still has a hostile attitude to being found to have failed in his duty, so he will try to persuade the PC to leave. We add bonuses (or apply penalties) for the manner in which the character addresses the target We add bonuses (+2?) for every apparently valid point made toward the PC's favoured course of action The target's attitude can only be changed by one step for every valid point put forward, per check

What do you think? In effect, this is a series of guidance notes on the use of the Diplomacy skill, rather than a complete change. Assuming the principle isn't fatally flawed, I need help deciding on the DCs and the bonuses and penalties.

____________________________________

Again, just to reiterate - I want to fix the social skills so that they encourage roleplaying without replacing it, and without relying entirely on the roleplaying ability of the player.

Let me know what you think. Suggestions and counter-proposals are welcome!

[Riffington]

[list] As written, the Diplomacy skill is used to change an NPC's whole attitude toward the PC.[list] This should more sensibly be restricted to changing the NPC's attitude toward a certain course of action.

This is partly fair, but not entirely. After all, surely one rolls Diplomacy for situations such as "see if you make a good impression when you meet her father"...


Conversely, GM judgement ("Player X is highly charismatic, while his character is not, so NPC Y will not be persuaded", or vice versa) is not acceptable, as not all such judgements will be fair and consistent
I disagree completely here. First, if you can't trust the GM to be fair overall while advancing the plot and promoting fun, then no amount of dice will help. Having a system is nice, but it is certainly acceptable to let the GM run many/most situations without rolling.



The check cannot be the whole of the rule. Content of the argument is vital. The skill result should not allow a player to simply say "Stupid king, that's a load of rubbish!", and thus persuade His Majesty of the error of His Majesty's ways.

Agreed.


[list] We retain the attitude states (hostile, unfriendly, etc)[list] We change the DC, say +5 to all? (we are going to be giving out some big bonuses, after all)
Flesh this part out more. In most other skills, we give only small bonuses. Why should this be different? I'm not saying it shouldn't, just why.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

This is partly fair, but not entirely. After all, surely one rolls Diplomacy for situations such as "see if you make a good impression when you meet her father"...Good point. Maybe I should add in a note for general impressions. My main reasoning was to try to get away from 'combat diplomacy'.


I disagree completely here. First, if you can't trust the GM to be fair overall while advancing the plot and promoting fun, then no amount of dice will help. Having a system is nice, but it is certainly acceptable to let the GM run many/most situations without rolling.I'm reducing the argument to the extreme to make the point - not that you can or can't trust the GM not to try to make the game entertaining, but to rely entirely on GM judgement is to play a diceless system, not d20 or D&D.

Flesh this part out more. In most other skills, we give only small bonuses. Why should this be different? I'm not saying it shouldn't, just why.Sure - I continued on to suggest we give a +2 bonus to the check for each apparently valid point made by the diplomat when making their check, so leaving the DCs as they are written would make things too easy.
The +2 per valid point bonus encourages reasoned argument, too - it stops players from just saying "I try to persuade the King to lower the taxes" without any attempt to say why it would be a good thing to do.
Of course, the highly intelligent PC might know more valid points than the player, and so we can have a player simply make the check - but it'll be more difficult to achieve.

[Baron Corm]

Check this out, it's by Rich Burlew and can be found on that bar on the left: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

[Jack_Simth]

Check this out, it's by Rich Burlew and can be found on that bar on the left: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html
It's a good attempt, but that mostly just makes it a lot more complex, and breaks it in the other direction (making it painful for anyone who doesn't invest in Diplomacy - the 20th-level Wizard has difficulties convincing his equal-level lover to give him the time of day, for instance, unless he offers some hefty bribery).

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Check this out, it's by Rich Burlew and can be found on that bar on the left: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html
Thanks! Actually, I linked to that in my OP, and mentioned that I don't like it particularly. Jack summed up my issues with it in the post above - more complexity and more difficult.

Of course, I'm not saying that my proposed rule is better than The Giant's. I want to see what the Playground reaction and comments are - peer review is one of the most robust tests I can think of for new rule ideas.

[StormingMarcus]

I'd like to open up a discussion of how we could change the social skill rules of D&D and d20. I'm starting from the assumption that we should have some skills used in the game. I don't want to do away with social skills altogether. Good.


Lying and the ability to see through lies are best handled with standard skill checks, as per the normal system. In some cases it would be difficult do discern Diplomacy from Bluff. Half truths and omissions belongs to which one? A radical change would ditch Intimidate, Diplomacy and Bluff, to create Imposition (giving orders, intimidate, socials relations between not equals) and Persuasion (diplomacy and social relations between equals).


Gather Information: I'd leave it as is, but Knowledge (local/streetwise) should give sinergy bonus.


As written, the Diplomacy skill is used to change an NPC's whole attitude toward the PC. This should more sensibly be restricted to changing the NPC's attitude toward a certain course of action. Good change.


The check cannot be the whole of the rule Content of the argument is vital. The skill result should not allow a player to simply say "Stupid king, that's a load of rubbish!", and thus persuade His Majesty of the error of His Majesty's ways. Delivery of the argument is also vital: as above. My HR is: roleplay, then roll. Your interpretation gives huge modifier over the roll (up to +/- 10). You could limit it to +/-5.


We add bonuses (+2?) for every apparently valid point made toward the PC's favoured course of action The target's attitude can only be changed by one step for every valid point put forward, per check Also good changes.

If you want a d20 game that relies on social skills, you can also create some sort of "social battle system".

[lesser_minion]

I like the Giant's fix, which I don't really see as being that complex - there is no table required, and the modifiers are pretty simple. The only criticism that I can really agree with is the occasional requirement for the DM to make a judgement call - something the skill was intended to fix. However, at the end of the day, it is not the worst place to have a DM judgement call. It handles a potentially very complex situation very well. It also doesn't really need that much work. I'm also not really a fan of tables, which the Giant's fix does a very nice job of eliminating once and for all.

For this - I like the idea of multiple 'avenues' for persuasion, but I'm not really sure if you've fixed the judgement call issues of the diplomacy skill, and there is still the problem of that table, which needs to be killed thoroughly with fire.

As for the idea of having RP grant a huge modifier - this isn't an idea that I like. Most players are not going to want to roleplay a complete encounter with a merchant just because one character wants a potion. Most groups don't even roll that. It also introduces a kind of 'real-world' dice roll to the check - the player's argument and the DM's perception of the argument.

One of the social skills I hate the most in its existing form is bluff. It turns up whenever you attempt to deceive someone, even if it isn't really appropriate. A feint isn't a lie, it is a deliberate combat maneuver - why is it based on a social skill?

[StormingMarcus]

As for the idea of having RP grant a huge modifier - this isn't an idea that I like. Most players are not going to want to roleplay a complete encounter with a merchant just because one character wants a potion. Most groups don't even roll that. It also introduces a kind of 'real-world' dice roll to the check - the player's argument and the DM's perception of the argument. It just prevents players from saying: "F'n merchant, give me that f'n potion, and be freakin quick!", and roll a diplomacy check of 54! The merchant's example doesn't fit well (what's the purpose of rolling diplomacy to buy something?), but if the players are trying to gain help from the king, it's in their interest to roleplay it. If the modifier is little, maybe they are just going to say: DIPLOMACY ROLL! And, in a roleplaying game, it's not appropriate.

[lesser_minion]

I see your problem - my issue is just that occasionally a player isn't going to be able to think of an argument and would prefer to roll first. Some people roll the dice and then roleplay the results as well.

Eventually, however, there is going to be a point where a player might have to say "I politely ask the guard to leave", simply because he can't think of anything. Normally, however, I would require a halfway-decent argument, probably informed by relevant Knowledge checks, appraise checks and sense motive rolls. That makes the bard and the cleric quite good diplomats - both have the class skills that would allow them to pull off a Knowledge (what they're talking about) check.

[StormingMarcus]

Eventually, however, there is going to be a point where a player might have to say "I politely ask the guard to leave", simply because he can't think of anything. Normally, however, I would require a halfway-decent argument, probably informed by relevant Knowledge checks, appraise checks and sense motive rolls. That makes the bard and the cleric quite good diplomats - both have the class skills that they might be able to pull off a Knowledge (what you're talking about) They have not roleplayed well nor bad (they have not roleplayed at all, but that's another issue), so the modifier to the roll is +0... I think it's a good compromise.

[lesser_minion]

Well, as I said, it would be pretty rare for me to actually allow a player to do that. However, eventually the character becomes distinct from the player - the modifiers you've suggested are practically a whole separate dice roll to the one taking place on the table.

You basically have the player making a real-life diplomacy check to determine his dice roll for the in character diplomacy check. It also doesn't really do enough to get around "merchant, give me a potion" *rolls* OK that's a 62 - 10 for the RP, so that gives me a roll of 52. Does he do it?

[StormingMarcus]

Well, as I said, it would be pretty rare for me to actually allow a player to do that. However, eventually the character becomes distinct from the player - the modifiers you've suggested are practically a whole separate dice roll to the one taking place on the table.

You basically have the player making a real-life diplomacy check to determine his dice roll for the in character diplomacy check. It also doesn't really do enough to get around "merchant, give me a potion" *rolls* OK that's a 62 - 10 for the RP, so that gives me a roll of 52. Does he do it? So, what's your solution? Mine, i think, it's an improvement over the original. Along the change of attitude to a course of actions, and not to the charachters, it could be a nice fix.

[imp_fireball]

Roleplaying shouldn't offer huge bonuses or any bonus for that matter. Instead, there should be penalties to bad roleplaying.

And yes, diplomacy should persuade someone to a specific course of action rather than charm them into being your friend or in sacrificing themselves in your name because your charm dominated them as if you acquired psychic powers (in the case of fanatics). Persuading someone to become a fanatic, would mean actually telling them to join your side.

INT should reflect the logic in what you say and WIS should represent your perception in the way you swing around what you say. However charisma reflects how the other person absorbs it.



A scenario where you have reasonable wis and int but low charisma (note that it isn't completely representative of the character's stats)

Not really roleplaying

Father, "And you must be impfireball! Please come in, have a seat!"

Impfireball the level 1 commoner, "KK"

Father, "Right... so it's great to finally meet the man himself! What are your hobbies, what have you and my daughter been up to? Where do you see yourself in five years?"

"Gimme your girl!"

"Excuse me?"

"Get outta the way so that I can be with your girl now! Yadda, yadda, just gimme the girl y'know!"

"Please leave."

"No, no, gimme your girl."

"Please... please leave now."

"Your supposed to gimme your daughter and stuff! Give me your approval and all that and then I can quickly get outta here and bang your daughter some more."

*father slowly leaves to get shotgun*

"Oh be nice, a shotgun doesn't even do all that much damage compared to my hitpoints d00d."

Trying to Roleplay:


Father, "And you must be impfireball! Please come in, have a seat!"

Impfireball the level 1 commoner, "Hello to you to sir. Thank you sir."

Father, "Right... so it's great to finally meet the man himself! What are your hobbies, what have you and my daughter been up to? Where do you see yourself in five years?"

Impfireball, "Ah... yes, the good ol' five years question! But I can't really answer that first, can I?"

*Father simply continues to smile while seemingly observing Impfireball under suspicious eyes*

"As for my hobbies, I like crochet, golf. Those sorts of things? Y'know, I heard from your daughter that you did some of that, yourself?"

"Ah yes... yes, I do do that. Yep, I enjoy it. What else about you?" *father frowns now*

"Your daughter and I have been up to plenty of things. Mostly movies and I try to afford the occasional fancy dinner every now and then."

Father, "Hm..."

"And in five years? I shouldn't say settling down should I?"

Father, "You plan to settle down???" Sounds slightly shocked and afraid that it is his daughter Impfireball is settling down with.

"Well I shouldn't say that, but y'know... I don't really know it's hard to say. I'm still going to school and I'm working part time. Who knows how that will change in the future. Anyway, sir, I really do enjoy being with your daughter."

"Well that's.... that's nice." Father appears downcast.

Impfireball, "Well nice seeing you."

"You too." *Father smiles forcefully and shakes Impfireball's hand*
---------------

In the above scenario, the low charisma affected the interaction however Impfireball's high int and wis lead the father to essentially agree with everything Imp said although the father is still prone to act differently.

Imp's wis lead him to study and discern beforehand that crochet and golf were sports that the father enjoyed however the father appeared indifferent to him noticing that due to the low charisma affect; which is a good example that I tried to make.

Also Imp would have a hell of a time trying to get the father's attention at a social gathering when he is among other friends. There's also the circumstance in which the NPC is hostile that logic and reasoning won't work.

An NPC who is assigned to kill you might not be hostile towards you (hostility to meant to be an emotion under the SRD) and so charisma might not influence his actions as much. But if you want to play it by this ruling, then keep reading.

Finally, int and wis would not be checks made during social interaction but charisma to make an impression would be.

Here's a scenario in which the character has high charisma but low int and wis (again, it does not apply to roleplaying):

Not really roleplaying

Father, "And you must be impfireball! Please come in, have a seat!"

Impfireball the level 1 commoner, "KK"

Father, "Right... so it's great to finally meet the man himself! What are your hobbies, what have you and my daughter been up to? Where do you see yourself in five years?"

"Gimme your girl!"

".... what? Sorry, I must have heard you wrong?"

"Get outta the way so that I can be with your girl now! Yadda, yadda, just gimme the girl y'know!"

"Um... no need to be so rash."

"No, no, gimme your girl."

"Can you rephrase that?" *father is nervous and GM is turning the character's charisma check into an intimidate check*

"Your supposed to gimme your daughter and stuff! Give me your approval and all that and then I can quickly get outta here and bang your daughter some more."

"I'm... I'm going to have to ask you to leave, I'm sorry."

"OMG, your so stupid. You gotta gimme the girl so that I can bang her, what's not to understand chop chop!"

"Please leave?"

"Chop chop!"

"You gotta go now... I can't have you in here like this, I... something else just came up, maybe we can meet at a late date?"

"Choppa choppa!"

*is sweating* "I've gotta go to the washroom. I will return."

"What the hell? Hurry up yo!"

*father dials 911 whilst in the 'washroom'*

---------------
The final part would probably be the father making a bluff check on the character. If the bluff fails then the GM would probably say to the character, "He sounds like he's lying; you've heard similar tones in others, etc." or something to that extent.

It's quite simple. The character acts without intelligence or wisdom or any attempt at roleplaying, but holds the fathers attention and even frightens the father due to his high charisma. Also the checks can be warped due to roleplaying. It'd be hard to not simply declare that social interaction, aside from the skills and circumstantial checks provided in the SRD are at GM discretion (warping checks according to roleplaying, ie.), though since you'd have to say that it is up to the GM depending on what the players choose to say while making a social based check that the GM can turn that into an intimidate or whatever; such a GM might also be riding by the book directly, is new to GMing, etc.

That's where the line blurs.


Trying to Roleplay:


Father, "And you must be impfireball! Please come in, have a seat!"

Impfireball the level 1 commoner, "Hello to you to sir. Thank you sir."

Father, "Right... so it's great to finally meet the man himself! What are your hobbies, what have you and my daughter been up to? Where do you see yourself in five years?"

Impfireball, "Ah... yes, the good ol' five years question! But I can't really answer that first, can I?"

*Father chuckles* "You don't have to!"

"Haha, nope. As for my hobbies, I like crochet, golf. Those sorts of things? Y'know, I heard from your daughter that you did some of that, yourself?"

"Yeah, I do do some of that! Actually, I gotta admit that I do a lot of it. Those are my ultimate hobbies! And you too? Man, we should really get down to the range sometime, y'know?" *father smiles wide*

"Oh, I don't know sir, I'm really busy." *bluff check*

"Hehe, well alright, alright. That I understand."

"Your daughter and I have been up to plenty of things. Mostly movies and I try to afford the occasional fancy dinner every now and then."

Father, "Wow, so you really put yourself out do you? How's my daughter gonna return the favor do you think?" *jokes*

"Haha, I'm not at liberty to say. But in five years? I shouldn't say settling down should I?"

Father, "Oh hell, you never know!"

"Well I shouldn't say that, but y'know... I don't really know it's hard to say. I'm still going to school and I'm working part time. Who knows how that will change in the future. Anyway, sir, I really do enjoy being with your daughter."

"Oh definitely, I'm very happy for you." *Father smiles genuinely.*

Impfireball, "Well nice seeing you."

"Ah, you too. You kids get a long fine. Don't worry about me sneaking up behind you at parties or anything!"

"Oh, I won't. Not if you say so."

*father continues smiling as if hoping Impfireball will like him*

----------------
The father doesn't necessarily agree with what the character says however the charisma makes him easier to talk to. The character can change his emotions but not his opinions. He tries harder to please the character rather than the character please him. He also feels like he is educating the character but doesn't mind because of the initial impression that the character made.


- Seeing if you made a good impression with the girl's father might be a charisma check where diplomacy offers synergy bonuses. This could apply particularly to montage checks.

- These sorts of interactions would demand more of intelligent characters working in conjunction with the charismatic types. The charismatic voices the opinions and the reasoning of the intelligent characters to create better harmony and with the system in place it would actually benefit as a sort of tweaking towards roleplaying affecting social interaction.

- Consider that the states of mind such as 'hostility', 'friendly', etc. are emotions and charisma often includes the manipulation of emotions. There are some creatures that are more hostile than others out there and there are those that have different social customs that might even require something unique (a hostile state of mind towards the other is a way of acknowledging said person, and 'friendliness' doesn't actually exist among the culture - could apply to demons and other such creatures... although this is more oriented towards wis and int affecting roleplaying if that rule is applied) as well so that could play into over all interactions.

-----------
That's what I've got to say for now. Does anyone else jive?

[lesser_minion]

As I said, I like the Giant's solution, and all that really has to be done from there is to set out the guidelines for when a character doesn't need to be persuaded (ie. "Hey, mind if I take a cookie"). I'm not really worried about the idea of a high level character refusing gifts ("hey Zeus, Lord of the Immortals, would you like this staff of the magi?No, I have twelve already.")

Personally, as I said, I would expect a decent argument, informed by other relevant skill checks before I would allow an NPC to be completely won over to the negotiator's point of view on any given activity. I also wouldn't use a weird 'six successes before four failures' mechanic, and I would avoid the tables. I'll post a full set of guidelines in a few minutes.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...huge load of examples that are very valid...
Yeah, I get that. In any situation, the GM has to judge a little of the manner of the character and factor it into the success of their actions. There are many ways that you might want to persuade a person of your good intentions.

Does that mean we can do away with Diplomacy? I don't think so. We need something for the times when you are trying to persuade someone to follow a course of action that you prefer.

Lesser_minion, I'm not sure what you mean by "a weird 'six successes before four failures' mechanic". Looking forward to your guidelines...

[lesser_minion]

The weird 'six successes before four failures mechanic' is the 4e approach. While it includes the mix of skills I was looking for, it is not necessarily a nice way of doing things.

As for the rules - good point. Remind me to say 'at some point' in future. They will come, however...