What makes social skills different?

[Floret]

My assertion is based on that social skills are not a thing which one needs to be trained in. Language, for example, seems to "come natural" to humans, and studies show that babies can tell the difference between the sounds of two different languages at a very early age. Reading emotional states in others is also a skill you can not avoid unless you are born without mirror neurons. Similarly, humans learn walking by the age of 1 (which is fairly late compared to other animals), without receiving any training in it. Perhaps you can make a case for a human growing up without other humans might not learn social skills nor walking (as it's learnt by watching and mimicking other humans), but such a human would not survive. Humans can climb before they can walk and they certainly jump at the age of two. These are not skills that have to be taught, they are learnt instinctively just by watching the people around you.

I am willing to bet money on that all one thousand of them will have at least some rating in the first six, but that all of them won't have the last three. In fact, I'd be very surprised if even one has lock-picking as a skill, and also if even one of them could survive on their one in the wild for a week. But, I accept that I might be wrong, so if you have doubts, please do the test.

Two points:
1. Social skills and languages, while possibly coming at a baselevel relatively natural, are still things that can be learned, and trained. And that, without training, many, many people will remain rather lackluster at, despite constant use.

2. The distinction you draw between skills is entirely arbitrary, as is any distinction for Skill lists in RPGs. What you are willing to include, in what detail grade, varies widely on what you are trying to do with an RPG, what you are trying to focus on.
The point being made is that while you might see "Picking locks" as an entirely separate thing, other people might be willing and able to argue that really, it is just a different application of skills we learn instinctively - Manipulating small objects, and that the ability to use a toothpick, in essence, is the same ability that is applied when opening a lock. After all, it's both operating blind, based on mostly haptic and accoustic feedback, with a thin tool, to carefully change small moving parts...

And, sure, picking locks doesn't come as easily as picking your teeth. But then again, sweettalking people or trying to sell them on an idea of yours doesn't come as easy as exchanging anecdotes to make your friends laugh does, and both are rather clearly social skills, trying to utilize people's perception of you.

[Segev]

While the differences between skills are going to be somewhat arbitrary, Lorsa seems to be using the skills to highlight areas of activity in a fairly intuitive way. Her choice of what constitutes "a social skill" is not arbitrary. Same with her choices of exemplar non-social-skills.

The point she seems to be making, and the point that I am making, is that social interaction is something all humans learn to some degree, but which some are better at than others. And actual results of social interaction, manipulation, and persuasion are much more nuanced than those of other skills.

In a sense, she's saying that "Diplomacy" and "Bluff" and "Sense Motive" are inadequate to social interaction modeling in a way that "pick locks" is not for the task of picking a lock.

The way I've framed it in the past is back to a comparison to combat. We don't have the player describe his character walking up and engaging in a series of impressive techniques, then tell him to "roll Melee," compare it to a DC, and decide whether he killed the orc or got killed by the orc based on that single roll and whether it met a single DC.

But we tend to treat Diplomacy exactly that way.

[Jay R]

In the game Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective, you simulate searching the newspapers for a clue by ... searching the supplied excerpts from the newspapers for a clue. This is generally regarded as elegant rules design. Other activities, like walking through London, must be simulated with game mechanics, not by walking through London.

In miniatures combat, you simulate the commander trying to invent a good tactical plan, by trying to invent a good tactical plan. Other activities, like artillery fire, must be simulated with game mechanics, not by firing artillery.

In both cases, it's done this way because they can. There are also parts of each game that you have to simulate with a mechanic.

The reason that social skills are often role-played instead of using a mechanic is that you can. You can actually simulate having a conversation by having one.

That doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it. In Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective, you could argue whether it's a good idea to let somebody with 21st century reading skills use her own skills instead of those of the 19th century detective's assistant she's supposed to be playing.

In the miniatures game, you could argue that neither player is as good at tactics as Wellington and Napoleon.

And in D&D, you could argue, and many people do, that the player's social skills aren't a good simulation of the character's.

That argument can be made, and is. But it's also irrelevant to the actual question in the thread title.

But the answer to what makes social skills different is exactly that we can simulate them by doing them. In this they are like searching the newspapers for clues, or inventing a battle plan, but unlike walking through London, firing artillery, and picking locks.

[jayem]

But, I do not think you should simply trust what I say simply because I say it. Rather, I think you should do a test. Randomly select one thousand healthy three year olds (I do acknowledge that there are cases for which this do not apply, such as humans that are born disabled). Then test these one thousand three year olds for the following skills:

1. Bluff
2. Climbing
3. Diplomacy
4. Jumping
5. Sense Motive
6. Walking/Running

and tell me if they seem to have an understanding for it.

Then test them for:

1. A knowledge skill of your choice
2. Lock-picking
3. Wilderness survival

and tell me if they seem to have an understanding for it.

I am willing to bet money on that all one thousand of them will have at least some rating in the first six, but that all of them won't have the last three. In fact, I'd be very surprised if even one has lock-picking as a skill, and also if even one of them could survive on their one in the wild for a week. But, I accept that I might be wrong, so if you have doubts, please do the test.

I think that (+ actually working out what it means to have an understanding) is what we'll need to do. And probably requires some understanding.
And short term getting a towns worth of 3 year olds might raise some questions

That said, I do know the mother of a 2.5 year old, and just the other day she was describing how he 'helps' with the cooking, and from the description I was shocked at the understanding he showed for so young (he's not really talked when I've seen him). I wouldn't give him level 0.2 in cooking, but then I wouldn't give him level 1 in walking either, and while I'm damn sure he can bluff/diplome and sense motive to some extent I'm pretty sure they are limited too. They've had a year of climbing stairs and jumping.

They aren't going to be Bear Grylls (an experienced wilderness guy), they probably wouldn't survive a week without preperation (though the body on shutdown is quite impressive, so I suspect a good 50 or so would survive 4 days, Child Protection would be seriously cross if I tried that). But I'm sure they'd begin to find shelter (not be able to make one), try to find food (probably poison themselves if actually left to eat it). If actually raised in the country, then they might actually find good food (but not reach it). Given a basic set-up in a moderately safe environment and a daysthey might, but it would still be an immoral and with enough failures. But then they don't know what a crampon is either, and couldn't persuade me they were Marylyn Munroe for a day let alone a week.

I'm definitely mostly with the more nuanced than lock-picking (probably not Survival)

[Segev]

In the game Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective, you simulate searching the newspapers for a clue by ... searching the supplied excerpts from the newspapers for a clue. This is generally regarded as elegant rules design. Other activities, like walking through London, must be simulated with game mechanics, not by walking through London.

In miniatures combat, you simulate the commander trying to invent a good tactical plan, by trying to invent a good tactical plan. Other activities, like artillery fire, must be simulated with game mechanics, not by firing artillery.

In both cases, it's done this way because they can. There are also parts of each game that you have to simulate with a mechanic.

The reason that social skills are often role-played instead of using a mechanic is that you can. You can actually simulate having a conversation by having one.

That doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it. In Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective, you could argue whether it's a good idea to let somebody with 21st century reading skills use her own skills instead of those of the 19th century detective's assistant she's supposed to be playing.

In the miniatures game, you could argue that neither player is as good at tactics as Wellington and Napoleon.

And in D&D, you could argue, and many people do, that the player's social skills aren't a good simulation of the character's.

That argument can be made, and is. But it's also irrelevant to the actual question in the thread title.

But the answer to what makes social skills different is exactly that we can simulate them by doing them. In this they are like searching the newspapers for clues, or inventing a battle plan, but unlike walking through London, firing artillery, and picking locks.

The thing is, that Sherlock Holmes game isn't an RPG. It may have a narrative that you're a detective's assistant, but you don't pull out that game with the intention of crafting a character with stats independent of your own capabilities and role-playing the story. That game is about exercising your personal mental faculties to solve a mystery.

When you play Risk, or Axis & Allies, or Diplomacy, or Warhammer, you're not role-playing a general. You're playing a tactical or strategic war game. The game is about your own skill and luck in utilizing forces at your disposal.

When you play an RPG, however, you are getting into the role of somebody decidedly not you, and the whole concept centers around that avatar being somebody who has their own role in the game, narratively and mechanically. Your skill comes in deciding how they approach their problems, in showing how well you can play their role and use their mechanics to achieve their goals. Deciding what your warrior does is not demonstrating your own skill with the bow. Deciding what your bard's approach to a seduction is is not you demonstrating your own sensual prowess.

[WarKitty]

I'm pretty sure real-world physics and chemistry knowledge have come up a few times in my games. Usually it's the other problem there - having to say, that may be the case but how the heck would your character know that? I promise you do NOT know how to make a gun, even if you do in real life.

[Tinkerer]

I'm pretty sure real-world physics and chemistry knowledge have come up a few times in my games. Usually it's the other problem there - having to say, that may be the case but how the heck would your character know that? I promise you do NOT know how to make a gun, even if you do in real life.

Yeah, strongly agree. And I strongly encourage all of my players to NOT pick a topic that they are well versed in unless they know how to handwave properly within the setting. For instance having a hacker player playing a hacker character rarely works out well unless they accept they are using Hollywood Hacking (well a little bit less stupid than that but close). Otherwise it just winds up being quite dull to the rest of the party and frustrating to the GM. During session zero I'll often go through a number of the players skills and talk to them about what is and isn't possible with those skills.

Of course sometimes you wind up with a compromise which works out well. For instance having a hacker player specify that rather than furiously mashing a keyboard for a few seconds they carry a Batman style utility belt full of flash drives and connectors containing all of their premade programs.

[Jay R]

The thing is, that Sherlock Holmes game isn't an RPG. It may have a narrative that you're a detective's assistant, but you don't pull out that game with the intention of crafting a character with stats independent of your own capabilities and role-playing the story. That game is about exercising your personal mental faculties to solve a mystery.

When you play Risk, or Axis & Allies, or Diplomacy, or Warhammer, you're not role-playing a general. You're playing a tactical or strategic war game. The game is about your own skill and luck in utilizing forces at your disposal.

When you play an RPG, however, you are getting into the role of somebody decidedly not you, and the whole concept centers around that avatar being somebody who has their own role in the game, narratively and mechanically. Your skill comes in deciding how they approach their problems, in showing how well you can play their role and use their mechanics to achieve their goals. Deciding what your warrior does is not demonstrating your own skill with the bow. Deciding what your bard's approach to a seduction is is not you demonstrating your own sensual prowess.

All of this is interesting, and none of it has anything to do with my point. You are trying to argue about what's the right way to play out the role in a role-playing game. I'm not interested in that question; I'm well aware that people play them both ways.

I'm answering the question, "What makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way?" That's the OP's original question.

You have successfully developed your position that different games are different. I never denied it. I deliberately took examples away from role-playing games because my point wasn't about rpgs. It was, and is, about rules. Specifically, I was answering what makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way. The answer is that social skills, like clue-searching and battle planning, can actually happen at the table. Lock-picking, walking through London, and firing artillery cannot.

You have successfully defended your position that playing the way some people play is superior to playing the way other people play. I have no idea why you thought I was defending the other way some people play.

I only made one statement about the relative value of the way these games simulate anything. That was that searching through the newspapers in [I]SHCD "is generally regarded as elegant rules design."

So let me be clear:
1. I am not taking a side on the best way to play social situations in role-playing games.
2. I acknowledge that people have played them both ways, and will play them both ways.
3. I am answering the question about what makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way.
4. The answer is that they can. We can actually have the conversation, in a way we cannot actually pick the lock.

[Segev]

All of this is interesting, and none of it has anything to do with my point. You are trying to argue about what's the right way to play out the role in a role-playing game. I'm not interested in that question; I'm well aware that people play them both ways.

I'm answering the question, "What makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way?" That's the OP's original question.

You have successfully developed your position that different games are different. I never denied it. I deliberately took examples away from role-playing games because my point wasn't about rpgs. It was, and is, about rules. Specifically, I was answering what makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way. The answer is that social skills, like clue-searching and battle planning, can actually happen at the table. Lock-picking, walking through London, and firing artillery cannot.

You have successfully defended your position that playing the way some people play is superior to playing the way other people play. I have no idea why you thought I was defending the other way some people play.

I only made one statement about the relative value of the way these games simulate anything. That was that searching through the newspapers in [I]SHCD "is generally regarded as elegant rules design."

So let me be clear:
1. I am not taking a side on the best way to play social situations in role-playing games.
2. I acknowledge that people have played them both ways, and will play them both ways.
3. I am answering the question about what makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way.
4. The answer is that they can. We can actually have the conversation, in a way we cannot actually pick the lock.

The OP did, in fact, ask what made them different. But we can't discuss what makes them different in RPGs by saying "in games that aren't RPGs, the player's skill at various things is the whole game itself."

Given your point 4, let me state that you're wrong. We absolutely can have a "pick the lock" check rely on the player's own ability to do so. I could make a game called "Master Thief" which comes with a box locked with a real lock that uses a key to open it, and comes with a set of lockpics. The players would have to successfully pick it if they wanted to get to the treasure inside the box, as part of the game.

So, no, there's nothing special about social skills in that respect that makes them different compared to lock-picking.

What makes them different is in the granularity of resolution, in the possible approaches and in just how much the rules are abstracting in social interaction by where they set the skill roll, vs. how much they're abstracting by where they set the skill roll for picking a lock.

[Calthropstu]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You want to make a case for that it is possible to make the exact same assertion but switch "social skills" to "general survival"? Well, what does general survival even mean here? If you mean simple things as eating and breathing, then yes, humans are hardwired for those things. But those are not even represented as skills in any RPG I know of. If you mean cooking food, then no, that is not actually a skill that everyone automatically picks up (as was evident among British nobility in the Edwardian era).

My assertion is based on that social skills are not a thing which one needs to be trained in. Language, for example, seems to "come natural" to humans, and studies show that babies can tell the difference between the sounds of two different languages at a very early age. Reading emotional states in others is also a skill you can not avoid unless you are born without mirror neurons. Similarly, humans learn walking by the age of 1 (which is fairly late compared to other animals), without receiving any training in it. Perhaps you can make a case for a human growing up without other humans might not learn social skills nor walking (as it's learnt by watching and mimicking other humans), but such a human would not survive. Humans can climb before they can walk and they certainly jump at the age of two. These are not skills that have to be taught, they are learnt instinctively just by watching the people around you.

This is not true for survival skills, nor is it true for any knowledge skill or lock-picking. I mean, *I* am fairly good at item manipulation, but I STILL can't pick locks. It is very possible to grow up without any knowledge about common law whatsoever.

Unfortunately, one can not say that the Athletics skill in D&D is possessed by everyone, as it includes swimming. Swimming is not something humans learn naturally, it is something that requires specific training. Something that is quite evident in Sweden today with the recent immigrants; many of them can't swim. Actually, many of them do not know the Swedish law either nor common lore about the country. If you swap "law" for "morality", then you could possibly make a case for it.

But, I do not think you should simply trust what I say simply because I say it. Rather, I think you should do a test. Randomly select one thousand healthy three year olds (I do acknowledge that there are cases for which this do not apply, such as humans that are born disabled). Then test these one thousand three year olds for the following skills:

1. Bluff
2. Climbing
3. Diplomacy
4. Jumping
5. Sense Motive
6. Walking/Running

and tell me if they seem to have an understanding for it.

Then test them for:

1. A knowledge skill of your choice
2. Lock-picking
3. Wilderness survival

and tell me if they seem to have an understanding for it.

I am willing to bet money on that all one thousand of them will have at least some rating in the first six, but that all of them won't have the last three. In fact, I'd be very surprised if even one has lock-picking as a skill, and also if even one of them could survive on their one in the wild for a week. But, I accept that I might be wrong, so if you have doubts, please do the test.

I actually disagree.
I (and anyone who went to school) have ranks in knowledge skills (history, religion). I also am able to pick a lock, and survived homeless in a tent in the woods when I was 17 in upstate ny.

So I would pass those three bottom ones with flying colors.

[Jay R]

Given your point 4, let me state that you're wrong. We absolutely can have a "pick the lock" check rely on the player's own ability to do so. I could make a game called "Master Thief" which comes with a box locked with a real lock that uses a key to open it, and comes with a set of lockpics. The players would have to successfully pick it if they wanted to get to the treasure inside the box, as part of the game.

Yes, that's correct. You could invent an entirely new game with entirely new gaming equipment, and the statements I made about how D&D is actually played today wouldn't apply.

Meanwhile, at every D&D game I've ever played, the DM and the players are conversing. A game of D&D is a conversation punctuated with dice. And no lock has ever been picked at the table (in any game I've seen). And this really is the reason why some DMs want you to play out the conversation and no DMs (that I've ever seen) want you to actually pick a lock.

When you publish Segev's Lockpicks and Labyrinths, then in that game it will be different. And maybe somebody will write into L&L forums to ask what makes lockpicking skill different from hiding in bushes that the game provides locks but no bushes.

But in the games we're discussing here, conversations happen and lockpicking doesn't. Really.


So, no, there's nothing special about social skills in that respect that makes them different compared to lock-picking.

Except that D&D is actually played that way - with conversations and without locks. It really is.


What makes them different is in the granularity of resolution, in the possible approaches and in just how much the rules are abstracting in social interaction by where they set the skill roll, vs. how much they're abstracting by where they set the skill roll for picking a lock.

No matter how much you try to deny it, one difference is that no DM has ever had a lock sitting on a table for me to pick, whereas the equipment for playing out a conversation (a DM and a player who can converse) is always there at the table.

[ImNotTrevor]

Yes, that's correct. You could invent an entirely new game with entirely new gaming equipment, and the statements I made about how D&D is actually played today wouldn't apply.

Meanwhile, at every D&D game I've ever played, the DM and the players are conversing. A game of D&D is a conversation punctuated with dice. And no lock has ever been picked at the table (in any game I've seen). And this really is the reason why some DMs want you to play out the conversation and no DMs (that I've ever seen) want you to actually pick a lock.

When you publish Segev's Lockpicks and Labyrinths, then in that game it will be different. And maybe somebody will write into L&L forums to ask what makes lockpicking skill different from hiding in bushes that the game provides locks but no bushes.

But in the games we're discussing here, conversations happen and lockpicking doesn't. Really.



Except that D&D is actually played that way - with conversations and without locks. It really is.



No matter how much you try to deny it, one difference is that no DM has ever had a lock sitting on a table for me to pick, whereas the equipment for playing out a conversation (a DM and a player who can converse) is always there at the table.

Doesn't all of this directly contradict your use of no -d&d examples earlier since he just did exactly that and now you take issue with it as not being applicable?

>.>

I hope I'm not mixing people up but this strikes me as wildly hypocritical.

[jayem]

I actually disagree.
I (and anyone who went to school) have ranks in knowledge skills (history, religion). I also am able to pick a lock, and survived homeless in a tent in the woods when I was 17 in upstate ny.

So I would pass those three bottom ones with flying colors.

The question specified 3 year olds. Although with a threshold corresponding to adult experience for at least 2 of the last 3 and (presumably) a threshold corresponding to infant experience for the other 6.
Mainly, I suspect, because of the granuality of resolution thing. Passing the level 0.2 lockpicking challenge by identifying the right key, or failing by having to try each in turn doesn't make a lot of difference and you can see why it gets forgotten about. Even a 0.01 baby bluff has a range of options

[Jay R]

Doesn't all of this directly contradict your use of no -d&d examples earlier since he just did exactly that and now you take issue with it as not being applicable?

>.>

I hope I'm not mixing people up but this strikes me as wildly hypocritical.

Contradict? No. But in answering different questions, I use different techniques.

First, I answered the question about what makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way. To answer that, I used examples from other real games, saying that social skills in the real game of D&D is similar in some ways to clue-searching in the real game of Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective and planning battles in real miniatures games.

Then Segev invented a completely hypothetical game that might not fit what I was saying. To respond to that, I needed to contrast a hypothetical game that will never exist with the real game of D&D.

This is the third side road I've had to deal with, rather than actually discuss my point. So let me ask a question:

Does anybody seriously disagree with my contention that real conversations happen at D&D games, and real lock-picking doesn't? Anybody?

[Segev]

While you do sit and use words and dice to converse and detail your moves in a game of D&D, you do not, in point of fact, convince the DM to sleep with you when your bard seduces the barmaid. Well, not in any game I've ever played, and I actually have never played with a DM where I would have wanted to seduce him or her.

D&D manifestly does not use the players' skill at socializing as the metric for how well the characters they're playing do at it; it has Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive skills. So the notion that social skills are different because the way we play the game is "socializing" is incorrect. I can see why you'd make that mistake, but it's still a mistake.

[jayem]

Contradict? No. But in answering different questions, I use different techniques.

First, I answered the question about what makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way. To answer that, I used examples from other real games, saying that social skills in the real game of D&D is similar in some ways to clue-searching in the real game of Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective and planning battles in real miniatures games.

Then Segev invented a completely hypothetical game that might not fit what I was saying. To respond to that, I needed to contrast a hypothetical game that will never exist with the real game of D&D.

This is the third side road I've had to deal with, rather than actually discuss my point. So let me ask a question:

Does anybody seriously disagree with my contention that real conversations happen at D&D games, and real lock-picking doesn't? Anybody?

That is the wrong question (compare the question with which cards to turn over to determine a rule).

The statement "Lock Picking CAN'T happen in D&D games and social skills can" would give an explanation as to why it is treated differently. However we have yet to receive an argument that Lock Picking can't happen (although it would require preparation). And really (as Segev's last post shows) the actual relation ship between the real world and game world social skills use is really not clarified either.

The statement "Lock Picking DOESN'T happen in D&D games" merely shows that it is treated differently. This supports the premise of the thread, without offering an explanation. If you pointed out that it did happen THAT would be interesting.

[Lorsa]

I think that (+ actually working out what it means to have an understanding) is what we'll need to do. And probably requires some understanding.
And short term getting a towns worth of 3 year olds might raise some questions

That said, I do know the mother of a 2.5 year old, and just the other day she was describing how he 'helps' with the cooking, and from the description I was shocked at the understanding he showed for so young (he's not really talked when I've seen him). I wouldn't give him level 0.2 in cooking, but then I wouldn't give him level 1 in walking either, and while I'm damn sure he can bluff/diplome and sense motive to some extent I'm pretty sure they are limited too. They've had a year of climbing stairs and jumping.

They aren't going to be Bear Grylls (an experienced wilderness guy), they probably wouldn't survive a week without preperation (though the body on shutdown is quite impressive, so I suspect a good 50 or so would survive 4 days, Child Protection would be seriously cross if I tried that). But I'm sure they'd begin to find shelter (not be able to make one), try to find food (probably poison themselves if actually left to eat it). If actually raised in the country, then they might actually find good food (but not reach it). Given a basic set-up in a moderately safe environment and a daysthey might, but it would still be an immoral and with enough failures. But then they don't know what a crampon is either, and couldn't persuade me they were Marylyn Munroe for a day let alone a week.

I'm definitely mostly with the more nuanced than lock-picking (probably not Survival)

My premise has always been "all healthy humans will have social skills, but not all healthy humans will have cooking skill". That you can find one child with some understanding of cooking doesn't contradict it. In fact, what you need is to find one healthy human without social skills. Alternatively, that in a random selection of a large number of humans, all of them have cooking.

I chose three year olds simply to highlight how basic social skills actually are. As human beings we can't avoid them. Our brains are hardwired to learn social skills (and basic motor skills and understanding cause-> effect). This is one way in which they are different from most skills which require some form of extra understanding or knowledge like cooking or lock-picking.

The part where we need to define "basic understanding" is true. I have an idea in my mind about what I mean, but I haven't been able to formulate it into writing yet.




I actually disagree.
I (and anyone who went to school) have ranks in knowledge skills (history, religion). I also am able to pick a lock, and survived homeless in a tent in the woods when I was 17 in upstate ny.

So I would pass those three bottom ones with flying colors.

You being able to pick a lock and live in the wilds != everyone can do it. I am not sure why you reached this conclusion. Also, the fact that you have to put it "anyone who went to school" as a requirement to have knowledge skills shows how they differ from social skills.

Not everyone goes to school, and schools differ in what they teach over the globe and definitely over history. Not all humans that has ever lived have had Knowledge: US History,. but all healthy homo sapiens that has ever lived have had basic social skills. If you truly want to contest it then give me a large enough random selection of people and show that they all have the very same knowledge skill OR find me a person without social skills.



The question specified 3 year olds. Although with a threshold corresponding to adult experience for at least 2 of the last 3 and (presumably) a threshold corresponding to infant experience for the other 6.
Mainly, I suspect, because of the granuality of resolution thing. Passing the level 0.2 lockpicking challenge by identifying the right key, or failing by having to try each in turn doesn't make a lot of difference and you can see why it gets forgotten about. Even a 0.01 baby bluff has a range of options

The granularity of resolution is definitely a key (pun intended) part of this as well. And part of what I mean with "understanding" is that people understands that social skills have a large set of outcomes. They know how it works even if they're not very good at it. People generally do not understand lock.picking above "you insert thin metal pieces and twist them around a bit". Which really won't open many locks. Fitting the right key into the right lock is NOT lock-picking and not represented by a skill in D&D. That is more "lock opening" or "fit the right block into the right hole" and something I expect any human to do as well given enough time to try the keys.

We can do the same test for adults if you want. For example, all of us have social skills (as is evident by us communicating here), but not all of us can pick locks (I can't). Nor could I survive for any length of time in the wilds.



While you do sit and use words and dice to converse and detail your moves in a game of D&D, you do not, in point of fact, convince the DM to sleep with you when your bard seduces the barmaid. Well, not in any game I've ever played, and I actually have never played with a DM where I would have wanted to seduce him or her.

D&D manifestly does not use the players' skill at socializing as the metric for how well the characters they're playing do at it; it has Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive skills. So the notion that social skills are different because the way we play the game is "socializing" is incorrect. I can see why you'd make that mistake, but it's still a mistake.

I get a feeling you think that Jay R is arguing for why they should be treated differently, when he in fact are trying to explain a way in which they are different (which can be a reason why some GMs treat them different).

You even recognize this difference yourself when you say that you do sit and use words to converse and detail the moves in D&D. The difference between social skills and basically any other skill is that social skills are a requirement to even play the game! While you can play a war game without communicating, you can't play D&D without communicating.

That doesn't mean they should be treated differently, but it is a way in which they differ from lock-picking. You need social skills to play D&D, but you don't need lock-picking. You could invent a RPG which needs it, but it does not exist today.

Also, I don't think anyone has suggested that you should convince the GM to sleep with you in a RPG. What some GMs prefer is that you convince their NPCs, which is a different thing entirely.

I am not sure why you think the statement of "two skills are different because one is a prerequisite to play the game whereas the other is not" is incorrect. Again, that does not mean they should be treated differently, just that there is a difference.

In any case, it is not the only difference, nor the most important one, which is why I think it's sad we spend so much time arguing over whether or not this is a difference or not.I guess it is because we are in agreement with most other points.

[Jay R]

That is the wrong question (compare the question with which cards to turn over to determine a rule).

The statement "Lock Picking CAN'T happen in D&D games and social skills can" would give an explanation as to why it is treated differently. However we have yet to receive an argument that Lock Picking can't happen (although it would require preparation). And really (as Segev's last post shows) the actual relation ship between the real world and game world social skills use is really not clarified either.

The statement "Lock Picking DOESN'T happen in D&D games" merely shows that it is treated differently. This supports the premise of the thread, without offering an explanation. If you pointed out that it did happen THAT would be interesting.

Nonsense. People don't pick locks at the table because there are no locks at the table.
People don't suggest picking locks at the table because there are no locks to pick at the table.
People don't argue about whether you should roll a die or pick a lock because we have dice and no locks.

But let's get past this nonsensical diversion from the point. Feel free to change my statement to "everything needed to have real conversations always exists at D&D games without special preparations, and everything needed to have real lock-picking does not exist at D&D games without special preparations."

This point is real. Nobody suggests picking a lock at the table because there is no lock to pick. People suggest having conversations at the table because there are always conversations at the table.

This is really true, and remains true no matter how many word games people bring in to avoid the plain fact that because conversations already happen at the table, some people suggest having the conversation instead of rolling a die for it.

[Tanarii]

While you do sit and use words and dice to converse and detail your moves in a game of D&D, you do not, in point of fact, convince the DM to sleep with you when your bard seduces the barmaid. Well, not in any game I've ever played, and I actually have never played with a DM where I would have wanted to seduce him or her.

D&D manifestly does not use the players' skill at socializing as the metric for how well the characters they're playing do at it; it has Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive skills. So the notion that social skills are different because the way we play the game is "socializing" is incorrect. I can see why you'd make that mistake, but it's still a mistake.
That's where I was going to go, except I was going to use negotiating a ceasefire or treaty with humanoids as the example. Or scaring a large Orc warrior to back down or face the consequences.

However, none of these contradict Jay R's point that these involve talking, and that's the difference.

Talking is something that already happens at the table. Which is why some DMs make the mistake of consistently thinking you not only can, but should, only need talking at the table to resolve these things, based on the players personal skills and knowledge as the primary or only factor in resolution.

In other words, the DM bases it off how good the player chooses their precise words, and how skilled their delivery is. As opposed to discerning Intent and Approach and basing it on that. That's always a mistake IMO.

[jayem]

People don't pick locks at the table because there are no locks at the table.
People don't suggest picking locks at the table because there are no locks to pick at the table.
People don't argue about whether you should roll a die or pick a lock because we have dice and no locks.

But let's get past this nonsensical diversion from the point. Feel free to change my statement to "everything needed to have real conversations always exists at D&D games without special preparations, and everything needed to have real lock-picking does not exist at D&D games without special preparations."

This point is real. Nobody suggests picking a lock at the table because there is no lock to pick. People suggest having conversations at the table because there are always conversations at the table.

This is really true, and remains true no matter how many word games people bring in to avoid the plain fact that because conversations already happen at the table, some people suggest having the conversation instead of rolling a die for it.

That's a little bit better. [The argument is valid, and the conclusion relevant, and the premises almost true]

Of course the odds are actually fairly high that there is a lock to pick within the greater table space (and definitely loads within fairly easy reach). Getting a lock that you don't care about could be done easily, you could get a decent range for £5 in 10 minutes. What you don't have is the picks [which would cause serious issues, and if we change your point to be about them, it's almost ok], though for at least one suitcase lock (which is probably closer to actual fantasy locks) you just need a paperclip*. You can get cardboard kits at enlarged scale, if it were a fundamental part of the game, [which would presumbly have less legal issues].

But accepting that it is genuinely harder to find a lock that you are willing and able to pick, that would be a motivation. And the argument in general is valid. I don't think it can be the real explaination, because if it were it could be so easily resolved, it's almost as true to say "there are no locks at the table because people don't suggest using them".

*This again shows that lockpicking does follow through in steps from basic skills, as much as advanced social skills from basic ones.

[Xuc Xac]

Nonsense. People don't pick locks at the table because there are no locks at the table.
People don't suggest picking locks at the table because there are no locks to pick at the table.
People don't argue about whether you should roll a die or pick a lock because we have dice and no locks.

But let's get past this nonsensical diversion from the point. Feel free to change my statement to "everything needed to have real conversations always exists at D&D games without special preparations, and everything needed to have real lock-picking does not exist at D&D games without special preparations."


We also have pencils and paper at the table. If you were playing a character with several ranks in an art skill, how would you feel if your character were commissioned to paint a portrait of the king and the GM just said "Go ahead and draw it and I'll judge how well your artist does"?

Or if your thief character wanted to forge some documents and the GM said "Here's paper, pen, and a red crayon. Show me how you imitate a letter of marque with the duke's wax seal." What's the problem? Every player of tabletop RPGs has basic literacy and can write words on paper...

Yes, every neurotypical human has basic social skills like recognising when someone is angry or making small talk with an acquaintance. Those basic skills would be considered "untrained" or "0 ranks" in most RPG skill systems. "Public speaking" ranks higher than "death" as a common fear. If they have to go to a funeral, most people would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy. Not everyone can be a great public speaker or a fast-talking salesman or a sultry femme fatale with a velvety purr.

An armchair general playing a wargame can come up with a tactical plan but still need to roll the dice to see how well the toy soldiers carry out that plan. A player of a fighter can come up with a detailed description of how he swings from a chandelier and makes an attack with a battle ax but still needs to roll the dice to see how well the character's muscles and coordination carry out those actions. And a player can use their basic human social skills to explain what they want to say and accomplish with talking, but they still have to roll to see how well their character actually delivers their lines.

[Jay R]

We also have pencils and paper at the table. If you were playing a character with several ranks in an art skill, how would you feel if your character were commissioned to paint a portrait of the king and the GM just said "Go ahead and draw it and I'll judge how well your artist does"?

Or if your thief character wanted to forge some documents and the GM said "Here's paper, pen, and a red crayon. Show me how you imitate a letter of marque with the duke's wax seal." What's the problem? Every player of tabletop RPGs has basic literacy and can write words on paper...

Those are still missing my basic point. The game of D&D is not generally played through the medium of drawing. The game of D&D is not generally played through the medium of forgery.

The game of D&D, at a table at least, is generally played through the medium of conversation. [Even a game played over the net is played via conversation, even if that conversation is written down.]

Even when a player doesn't re-enact the conversation between her character and the king, telling the DM what she's trying to do with it is in fact having a conversation, in the way that telling the DM she's painting a portrait or forging a document is not drawing or forging - it is done, once again, through the medium of conversation.


Yes, every neurotypical human has basic social skills like recognising when someone is angry or making small talk with an acquaintance. Those basic skills would be considered "untrained" or "0 ranks" in most RPG skill systems. "Public speaking" ranks higher than "death" as a common fear. If they have to go to a funeral, most people would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy. Not everyone can be a great public speaker or a fast-talking salesman or a sultry femme fatale with a velvety purr.

Absolutely true, but not relevant to my point. People are in fact having a conversation in which they are trying to communicate intent to the DM and sway his decisions, throughout the game. They really are.

Since we are simulating the characters' conversation by a conversation punctuated by die rolls in any case, many people go ahead and simulate the conversation as itself (punctuated by die rolls), rather than as a description of itself (punctuated by die rolls).


An armchair general playing a wargame can come up with a tactical plan but still need to roll the dice to see how well the toy soldiers carry out that plan. A player of a fighter can come up with a detailed description of how he swings from a chandelier and makes an attack with a battle ax but still needs to roll the dice to see how well the character's muscles and coordination carry out those actions. And a player can use their basic human social skills to explain what they want to say and accomplish with talking, but they still have to roll to see how well their character actually delivers their lines.

True, but so what? I'm not defending one way that lots of people enjoy against the other way that lots of people enjoy, so defending which way you enjoy is not germane to my point.

The answer to what makes social skills different in D&D is that we are already using them. We cannot play tabletop D&D without them. The game of D&D is already a social skill.

[jayem]

Absolutely true, but not relevant to my point. People are in fact having a conversation in which they are trying to communicate intent to the DM and sway his decisions, throughout the game. They really are.

I hope they are not, that would be cheating just as much as changing a dice roll.

They are making sensible decisions, and then communicating the intent to the GM. Communicating accurately, skillfully. Communicating things that will sway his decisions, yes.

In certain situations the GM may add another layer where they can 'sway' his decisions. And obviously when the players and GM have a disagreement about what is actually right then persuasion is valid.

[Jay R]

I hope they are not, that would be cheating just as much as changing a dice roll.

Huh? This is what conversation is. Everything I say can change the DM's understanding of the situation. When I tell him my character pulls out his sword, I am swaying his decisions about what my character can do next.

But it's more than that. When I ask him if there is a bush I can hide behind, or how unstable the ground under the ogre looks, or if the door is flammable, I'm actively trying to get him to re-think the situation he's dreamed up, and consider aspects he may not have considered yet. What is that but swaying his decisions?


They are making sensible decisions, and then communicating the intent to the GM. Communicating accurately, skillfully. Communicating things that will sway his decisions, yes.

In certain situations the GM may add another layer where they can 'sway' his decisions. And obviously when the players and GM have a disagreement about what is actually right then persuasion is valid.

Right, exactly. All of this as well. These are excellent counter-examples to your overly broad first paragraph -- a far better refutation than I could write. Good job.

[Did you modify your position in the process of writing? I find that happens to me a lot.]

[jayem]

Huh? This is what conversation is. Everything I say can change the DM's understanding of the situation. When I tell him my character pulls out his sword, I am swaying his decisions about what my character can do next.

But it's more than that. When I ask him if there is a bush I can hide behind, or how unstable the ground under the ogre looks, or if the door is flammable, I'm actively trying to get him to re-think the situation he's dreamed up, and consider aspects he may not have considered yet. What is that but swaying his decisions?



Right, exactly. All of this as well. These are excellent counter-examples to your overly broad first paragraph -- a far better refutation than I could write. Good job.

[Did you modify your position in the process of writing? I find that happens to me a lot.]

I also find it happens to me, (and often I'm a natural fence sitter anyway). But this time no, I think those 'counter examples' need to be kept separate.
Between talking about 'social' and 'non-social' interactions, I think there is an emotionally rational shifting of the goalposts, that is dangerous. Leading us to think we've got an explanation, while actually missing the point. The only thing is I'm not sure what the actual point is (though I think the existence of another responsive complex actor and the potential multitude of outcomes makes a key difference).

In this case I think to classify the first example as 'swaying' is practically off the slippery slope. Yes the GM changes state, but it's contracted in the same way as if I say 'Knight to E4'. He knew in advance, he'd told in advance, what the new state would be (more or less). Short order you end up with the sword out, if you could transmit that knowledge any other way it would be identical.

The second example is more complex and borderline, if that were the least swaying example I'd happily count it in.
If you're trying to trick the GM, it's clearly swaying, but clearly dubious gamesmanship.
If you're asking determine a more or less preplanned situation, in which case your clearly not swaying, it's just you have a bit more control over your knowledge.
As you go of the 'rails' , so are collaberating together (with the GM having a final word) it could be hard to distinguish. Some of these cases will be swaying and fair. And (outside when swaying is used to represent swaying, is about as swayingy as things get).

My example where the swaying is in game, I would put in yet another position. The PC shouldn't be trying to sway the GM, the PC should be trying to sway the NPC emulated by the GM (it may actually be the case that the player can 'hack' into the GM or be forced to work around the GM's flawed emulation, but that's the game failing). It's potentially an example of how/that game social skills are treated differently.
Where in-game Swaying is implemented by a different mechanism, this is different again, but not immediately relevant.

Communication, is clearly a central element of the game mechanics, and it is a social skill that often goes hand in hand with the social skills that include Swaying*. The set of Social skills that involve Swaying can be borrowed to simulate the in game mechanics of Swaying. The set of social skills that involve Swaying can sometimes start to intrude into the game mechanics fairly benignly.

*and one I'm not very good at.

[Jay R]

The PC shouldn't be trying to sway the GM, the PC should be trying to sway the NPC emulated by the GM...

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes there's no clear distinction.

When I ask if there are any bushes near the ogres for me to hide behind, I am not trying to sway the ogres to plant a shrubbery. I'm trying to sway the DM to consider a question about the location he may not have considered yet.

And here's an example when who I bluffed turned out to be the DM. But do you have any way of knowing who I was trying to bluff?

A guardsman was trying to not allow my lower-level wizard into the city. I said, "I pull out my Wand of Frost and tell him that if he doesn't move, I will freeze him."

He let me through, but about five minutes later the DM said, "Hey, wait a minute. You don't have a Wand of Frost."

"I know. It was a bluff."

"But you don't have a wand."

I replied, "It's been on my character sheet for the last four games. Here, look."

There, in my inventory, it very clearly said, "fourteen-inch polished stick of wood."
For the record, this was original D&D, which had no bluff or diplomacy skills

You started this by saying that trying to sway the DM was "cheating just as much as changing a dice roll." Cheating is breaking the rules. Please cite the exact rule you think I was violating in that case.

But this is yet another diversion. I'm returning to my primary point.

The process of playing D&D, as I have always experienced it, and as every book explains it, is not picking locks at the table.
The process of playing D&D, as I have always experienced it, and as every book explains it, is not forging documents at the table.
The process of playing D&D, as I have always experienced it, and as every book explains it, is not swinging swords at the table.

But the process of playing D&D, as I have always experienced it, and as every book explains it, really is conversing at the table.

I am astounded that I've spent three days dealing with people who don't want to admit this self-obvious fact.

[Darth Ultron]

My example where the swaying is in game, I would put in yet another position. The PC shouldn't be trying to sway the GM, the PC should be trying to sway the NPC emulated by the GM

Well, the trick is the Player must do both, sway the NPC and the GM...but sure the imaginary PC should only be trying to sway the imaginary NPC.

Like say a player has a character and wants to get that PC past a gate guard. First, the player needs to be aware of the setting, location, local details and everything else relevant about the game world. So if the gate guard is a poor low class thug guarding the Riverdale Casino the player should know that stright up money should get them past the guard. But, say a Royal Hawk Guard that is rich and high born, can not be bought, but might let someone past ''for the good of the kingdom''.

BUT, at the same time, the Player must also know the DM. What the DM likes/dislikes or thinks or has a personal view of shapes and controls the game. So even if the player thinks of something or tries something, it will only have a chance of working if the DM might agree.

If the DM does not like and agree with the idea that ''a poor low class thug guard'' would take money to look the other way, then it will not happen, period. So a player can ''try'' all day long, but the DM will just go ''nope''.

But the DM will like and agree and think that something might work, lets say the ''poor low class thug guard'' will fall for the dumb 'look behind you' trick, then that has a chance to work.

[Jay R]

Well, the trick is the Player must do both, sway the NPC and the GM...but sure the imaginary PC should only be trying to sway the imaginary NPC.

Oh, very well said. That is a precisely thought and precisely worded comment. I wish I'd come up with it.

[jayem]

Well, the trick is the Player must do both, sway the NPC and the GM...but sure the imaginary PC should only be trying to sway the imaginary NPC.

Like say a player has a character and wants to get that PC past a gate guard. First, the player needs to be aware of the setting, location, local details and everything else relevant about the game world. So if the gate guard is a poor low class thug guarding the Riverdale Casino the player should know that stright up money should get them past the guard. But, say a Royal Hawk Guard that is rich and high born, can not be bought, but might let someone past ''for the good of the kingdom''.

BUT, at the same time, the Player must also know the DM. What the DM likes/dislikes or thinks or has a personal view of shapes and controls the game. So even if the player thinks of something or tries something, it will only have a chance of working if the DM might agree.

If the DM does not like and agree with the idea that ''a poor low class thug guard'' would take money to look the other way, then it will not happen, period. So a player can ''try'' all day long, but the DM will just go ''nope''.

But the DM will like and agree and think that something might work, lets say the ''poor low class thug guard'' will fall for the dumb 'look behind you' trick, then that has a chance to work.
I like that, and it's more or less what I said about emulating but the 'swaying' the GM ought to be different.

Threatening the GM to lower a dice roll would more or less come under GM's word being final
Blackmailing the GM
Flirting with the GM
Bribing with the GM
Lying to the GM about character sheets info
Fast talking the GM
Nagging the GM
Protesting the GM's decisions (unreasonably) and this comes under the above
I hope wouldn't be seen as acceptable behaviour (or vice versa). While for the PC and NPC it's totally different

There will be times when you 'sway', by pointing at relevant facts that might have been missing (and trace amounts of the above might follow, particularly when the GM fails to implement a consistent world). And obviously there is a grey area where you chose which facts you want to focus on and have a bit of a self-interest in the outcome. Or not (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0196.html). But it's mainly reasoning,

[Segev]

If the assertion is that social skills are erroneously ignored because players and GMs mistake the kind of social interaction that happens to run the game for the same thing as the kind of social interaction that characters are doing in game, then I can agree.

That erroneous equation of the two is a notion that needs to be combatted.

[Lorsa]

If the assertion is that social skills are erroneously ignored because players and GMs mistake the kind of social interaction that happens to run the game for the same thing as the kind of social interaction that characters are doing in game, then I can agree.

That erroneous equation of the two is a notion that needs to be combatted.

Rather than being completely wrong, I think it is more a case of a slippery slope where people have trouble finding the middle ground (and have different ideas where to be on the sliding scale).

As has been mentioned before, never having any in-game conversations ever would be rather dull and boring for many people. And when you decide to have them, it can be hard to know where to draw the line of "this is where social skills need to be rolled". It also depends strongly on what you put into your social skills.

Is Bluff only about delivery or is it also about coming up with the correct lie? Is Diplomacy only about correct use of body language and tone of voice or is it also about finding the right things to say? I don't think the rules are very clear on this subject.

Skills in D&D (and other games) differ a bit in this area. For example, combat skills are typically only ever about how good you swing the sword, not about knowing who to hit and when. The players always have to use their own tactical skills, despite their characters logically being better (or worse actually) than themselves. Survival, on the other hand, does not only involve how to set traps or what roots can be eaten, but also where to set the traps and where to find the roots. So, it has to be up to every table to decide how they want to run their social skills; is it only about delivery or will it also contain knowledge the player might not have.

I choose to run my games in the first way; that it is only about delivery. Therefore, I need to know what lies my players want to tell or what arguments they want to use to convince the NPCs. On the other hand, I wouldn't punish them for bad delivery. If the delivery is bad, I would let them roll. Obviously if they have a good delivery but bad skill they'd also have to roll. On the other hand, if the delivery is good AND their skill is high, I might let it pass without rolling. Same situation as if a player with high survival skill describes very well what their character does to gather food and find shelter.

One thing we do know from social situations in real life is that there are times when delivery really doesn't matter. People with poor delivery can also convince others of things (especially their friends) and people with good delivery can fail to convince others (there are very smooth talking politicians that has never convinced me of their positions). Which means that sometimes, we really have to forget the social skill roll altogether as the message chosen can only end up one way against this particular NPC. Being hung-up on always rolling will achieve some very un-intuitive results.

Most players seem quite happy usually with how I use their social skills. They get a use for them, but they understand they won't magically give them the right lie or the right argument. They can stutter all they want at the table when they deliver the line "we are here to inspect the tapestries", if their skills are high the guards will buy it anyway.

The largest issue I've had is in PC-to-PC interaction. Since in this case I can't be the judge of this particular argument would convince the character or not (that power has to lie with the player), I can't call for rolls or judge resolution based on social skills. This is where I need my players to both be good roleplayers AND have a "GM-like" understanding. So that if they feel that a certain argument could convince their character, but they felt the player's delivery was poor, they can ask for a roll themselves and adapt accordingly. Not to mention that my players need to not play their characters with better social skills than they have written down during the PC-to-PC interactions. It is a measure of trust I put in the hands of my players, and sometimes it fails. I've always found it to be a slippery slope if I meddle with it though, as I feel a PCs personality should be in the hands of the player. I have enough characters to portray anyway.

[Segev]

This is why I would love to see more in-depth social systems that actually answer some of those questions. You don't find yourself asking if the base attack bonus is just how well you swing your sword or also covers properly choosing to swing over or under a shield or where to stand; the rules tell you what you need to know.

I like allowing IC conversation where players want to engage it, but then having sufficient rules to know how to model what you're trying to do. Preferably without just shrugging and saying "Make a melee roll to see if that described attack beats the DC I set for this combat."

[Lorsa]

This is why I would love to see more in-depth social systems that actually answer some of those questions. You don't find yourself asking if the base attack bonus is just how well you swing your sword or also covers properly choosing to swing over or under a shield or where to stand; the rules tell you what you need to know.

I like allowing IC conversation where players want to engage it, but then having sufficient rules to know how to model what you're trying to do. Preferably without just shrugging and saying "Make a melee roll to see if that described attack beats the DC I set for this combat."

Yes I agree. In depth social systems would be quite welcome. There seems to be some headway in this area lately though. For example, the new edition of WoD has a more intricate system for how to get people to do what you want, and Burning Wheel goes even further.

Anyway, Merry Christmas and such!

[Tanarii]

This is why I would love to see more in-depth social systems that actually answer some of those questions. You don't find yourself asking if the base attack bonus is just how well you swing your sword or also covers properly choosing to swing over or under a shield or where to stand; the rules tell you what you need to know.You may not, but plenty of DMs and Players do. Because attack bonus doesn't tell you exactly what it entails, it's abstract. So is AC.

And some groups will add complex mechanical house rules to attacking because of that, adjusting the numbers needed because specific attack method X, or to add damage resist Y to armor. Just as some groups will make complex social mechanical systems.

Other groups recognize that it's an abstract resolution, all you need is intent to attack by swinging your sword or using a spell. Just as for a social system all you need is intent to persuade by bribing with 50gp, or intimidate by flexing muscles and making a vaguely threatening statement.

Where it gets weird is very few groups would be willing to just roll an attack without the details of their attack method (melee attack, but leaving out "with my magic sword"), but some are willing to do exactly that with social (I persuade him).

Even weirder, almost no one would narrate an attack without rolling, except in very exceptional circumstances. Whereas many seem to be willing to do that on a regular basis. Apparently "automatic success/failure" is more common in their eyes for social than combat. (Or more likely, they aren't using that as a standard for judging if a roll is needed or not.)