Abstraction in Combat and Social Interaction

[LibraryOgre]

So, the PvP Diplomacy thread trotted out an old chestnut that goes, essentially, "You don't make people demonstrate their sword skills, so why do you make them play out social interactions."

I truly dislike this saying. Partially because it is false. We do not make people act out each sword swing, but that's partially because a single roll of the die is not a single swing of the sword... it represents several feints, parries, and that one good opening. You miss a beat, lose the rhythm, and nothing falls into place... and you've rolled a 1, even though you "can't miss". What we insist on is tactics, and bad tactics will bring you down. Bad tactics are what makes people fear kobolds. Bad tactics is what leads to a TPK against low-level enemies who were willing to use good ones. Good tactics won't save you from defeat against a wildly superior foe... your 1st level party isn't going to take down a Great Wyrm Red just because you remembered to flank him... but they do tip the balance more in your favor.

In many game, combat is only partially about sword skill. Sure, the 10k5 guy is ALWAYS going to win against the 1k1 guy in L5R combat... or, at least close enough to always to be mathematically indistinguishable. But when opponents are roughly evenly matched, a lot more comes down to tactics... to eking out every possible bonus from your tactics, giving you each little edge you can. The 1k1 guy is best served by learning tactics that will give him every iota of bonus, because while 10k5 is likely gonna whup him, he can make it as hard as possible for him to do so.

Similarly, however, is social interaction. Sure, having a +20 Diplomacy modifier means you're pretty much always going to win against the +3. Even if he rolls his best, you have to roll 3 or less for him to have even a chance of beating you. But that means that the low-modifier guy, if he's going to get into combat with your silver tongue and asbestos hide, needs to build up every possible bonus... and, sometimes, that involves going off the reservation.

Tactics. In combat, there are all sorts of tactics. Get the high ground. Have somebody flank your opponent; even if they don't attack him, they make your job easier. Blind your opponent. Conceal your moves. Do the unexpected. Engage your opponents emotions so they get in the way. Go where he can't follow, or wear armor he can't penetrate. There are a lot of mechanics resolved around this. Flanking is a +2 bonus. If you make your opponent move, he doesn't get a full attack. If you Intimidate him or Bluff him, you get combat advantage. If you fly away and he can't fly, he certainly won't be hitting you with a sword, now will he? We are all familiar with these things.

Similarly, though, in social interactions, if you've got a bad score, you need to have the bonuses to improve your situation. Evidence. A good enough Honor rating that he thinks twice about attacking you. Allies who will watch your back and, even if they don't attack him, are still there to watch him. Most gamers, IME, think about these things, too... but they fail to use them, or demand bonuses for them.

So your fighter doesn't have much of a diplomacy score. Intimidate them, drive their ability to resist you down. Have the rogue dig up some juicy gossip that you can throw at them. Heck, preempt the entire conversation by challenging them to a duel in YOUR arena. A player who fails to engage in these actions as part of social combat is no different than a character who stands in the middle of a fight, not attempting to use positioning, feats, or other abilities to his advantage

Because we don't penalize people for not being Conan, but we do penalize them for not being Bobby Fischer. If they fail to use strategy and tactics, and boil everything down to a single die roll, they are going to fail if they're at a significant disadvantage. Not every time; they may pull that 1 in 400 chance where they pull a 20 and their opponent pulls a 1; but they're going to fail more often than not. And a player who does not think tactically about social combat, for all that they may be playing Rain Man instead of Dustin Hoffman, is going to get whalloped in social combat.

I realize there are generalities, and that there's always crazy DMs on either outlier... the kind who give you everything for a roll, and the kind who turn every gaming session into a Stanislavskian gulag. We all have stories about them... but we have stories about them because they're horrible GMs.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Interesting corollaries from that, actually, and it made me more clearly define how I view social conflict. And why I like Burning Wheel's model a lot.

Good social conflict shouldn't emulate a blow-by-blow argument, which is where it falls apart for many people. I think it's totally fine (and sometimes preferred) to abstract out a social conflict. In fact, I think that gamers need to be more comfortable with not playing something out line-by-line.

Second observation: tactics. I think that a good tactics system is the most important part of social conflict. What do social tactics look like? A good social conflict system should include a means to elegantly reward players for good tactics.

And I don't necessarily mean "you gain circumstantial bonuses for having evidence or leverage". That's no different than saying "you may take a movement action to gain a +2 circumstantial bonus to your combat roll". (Which could be an interesting idea, it actually reminds me of Apocalypse World.) If combat is given a tactical maneuvering system, social conflict can easily have one too.

This is where I discuss Burning Wheel. I like Burning Wheel's "Duel of Wits" because it fulfills both criteria. You abstract an argument into "volleys", where the dice determine the effect of each volley. There are also tactics involved: you have a Rock-Paper-Scissors sort of dynamic, and your current situation dictates how risky you can afford to be with your choice.

I'd like to see systems include some nod to the actual maneuvering of social interaction. It's a lot more complex and subtle than "I talk him into letting us pass".

[Water_Bear]

I like roleplaying social interactions. When I'm a Player I try to talk to every NPC I can, conversations debates whatever, and I usually try to negotiate or barter whenever I get the oppertunity. As a DM I love making villain speeches, pre-recorded illusory halves of conversations, and obviously RPing any random NPC the players run into. I try to be in-character while also making the best points I can and generally working the conversation towards whatever goal the character has at the moment.

But I can't really justify penalizing other people for not doing that.

There really are people with poor social skills, whether from autism or just from social isolation in childhood/young-adulthood, who cannot be expected to keep up with their 18 Charisma Sorcerer. I've seen a lot of Players like this, people who really have a hard time with ordinary day-to-day interactions with the people around them, and they just want to have fun at the table without having their nose rubbed in that fact. No-one's sense of verisimilitude is worth taking that away from someone.

As a DM, I'll let Players talk tactics OOC to coordinate and make sure they're using their abilities efficiently, and I let people know if they're going to make a mistake their character would recognize. If players are bad at arithmetic, bad at CharOp, bad at tactics, every DM I've ever seen would cut them a break or at least get someone else in the Party to help them. Why in the world is social interaction so much more important than these that we can't let someone just roll the dice and see how they did?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

As a DM, I'll let Players talk tactics OOC to coordinate and make sure they're using their abilities efficiently, and I let people know if they're going to make a mistake their character would recognize. If players are bad at arithmetic, bad at CharOp, bad at tactics, every DM I've ever seen would cut them a break or at least get someone else in the Party to help them. Why in the world is social interaction so much more important than these that we can't let someone just roll the dice and see how they did?

Um...couldn't you do the same for a social situation?

Otherwise, flipside, I could say "why in the world is combat so important..." etc.

The thing is, the relation between combat and social mechanics is very asymmetrical. What boils down to a single roll in the social side is preceded with large amounts of tactics and setup in combat. Why not both?

[TuggyNE]

So, the PvP Diplomacy thread trotted out an old chestnut that goes, essentially, "You don't make people demonstrate their sword skills, so why do you make them play out social interactions."

I truly dislike this saying. Partially because it is false.

Oddly, I disagree with your conclusion (presented up front), but as far as I can tell, the entire rest of your argument is fine. Mind filling me in on just why you consider that statement false?

In particular, you seem to be arguing rather well for a moderately-abstracted view of social interaction, where it's necessary to keep track of roughly what your character is claiming, arguing, or ducking, but the die rolls largely govern the final results (with copious circumstance modifiers added to represent the player's skill in maneuvering at a higher level). Which, I would argue, isn't making them play out social interactions in the sense often objected to, because it specifically relies on character skill to make the final determination.

[LibraryOgre]

Oddly, I disagree with your conclusion (presented up front), but as far as I can tell, the entire rest of your argument is fine. Mind filling me in on just why you consider that statement false?

Editing got to that one a bit. Basically, we don't make people play out sword skills because sword skills are, for the most part, irrelevant to the game, with tactics being far more relevant.

[NichG]

With regards to the argument about variances in player ability:

As a DM, I really want the players to be clever, creative, inspiring, witty, and all those other things that are honestly difficult to do. The reason is that such things bring the game much closer to what it is in some sense emulating, and it improves the experience for everyone at the table. When I read a book, I'm going to be more interested if the author comes up with an honestly clever way for the hero to trick the villain than if the author makes the villain take a pratfall because its the only thing they can think of.

So what it comes down to is, I will help players who are having problems, but with the goal of eventually helping them improve and be able to do these things on their own. I'm willing to give handicaps, to give hints, to demonstrate social (or optimization, or combat tactics) techniques, and so on in order to make this happen.

But at the end of the day, I want to reward the ones who add to the game by putting real cleverness, real compelling speech behind the numbers and the scenario. I want players to keep doing clever things - really, seeing what zany, amazing, incredible, etc stuff players can come up with in a pinch is really what the game is about to me. This means creating an environment where players cannot participate entirely independent of their own ability. There are lots of things that can be done to help people catch up, or to normalize difficulty for the ability of the table as a whole, but when it comes down to it I want good players or at least players who are willing to try to improve.

I'll admit that nothing I've said so far wouldn't apply to a game that required players to swordfight in real life to resolve combats. However, I somehow feel its easier to teach and coax out mental abilities than physical abilities. There's a lot of muscle memory, strength training, etc, etc that gets in the way of doing it physically. That said, I've played with a GM who proposed a push-up rule (get a +1 bonus on a given roll after seeing the result per push-up you do). It wouldn't treat me well, but its at least an interesting (if somewhat arbitrary) idea. I've also been in a somewhat Call-of-Cthulhu-esque game where it was proposed that instead of rolling dice to determine if you're terrified, you can opt to take a fear challenge of the GM's choosing (which you can always bow out of and default to the roll). Things like 'I've left a bag of dice in the attic. Fetch them with the light off', 'go view an image on this website', etc.

[TuggyNE]

Editing got to that one a bit. Basically, we don't make people play out sword skills because sword skills are, for the most part, irrelevant to the game, with tactics being far more relevant.

OK, fair enough. I suppose the real question is then primarily a matter of taste: are player social skills the point of the game, or not? I prefer a game in which social tactics are still important, but not specific phrasing etc for the most part; I think I've also made something of a case that that should be the default in D&D-like games.

But at the end of the day, I want to reward the ones who add to the game by putting real cleverness, real compelling speech behind the numbers and the scenario. I want players to keep doing clever things - really, seeing what zany, amazing, incredible, etc stuff players can come up with in a pinch is really what the game is about to me. This means creating an environment where players cannot participate entirely independent of their own ability. There are lots of things that can be done to help people catch up, or to normalize difficulty for the ability of the table as a whole, but when it comes down to it I want good players or at least players who are willing to try to improve.

Hmm, that's a decent counterargument for why it can be fun to switch to a player-skill-required game. I don't really have much to say to that except what I've already said, and to note again that I don't think this should be assumed as the default.

[kardar233]

Coming from a free-form background, I don't like the use of dice in social situations in general.

This is an example interaction from one of my games. My character, Aliza, has finally discovered that the lord of the house she wants to take over is a spy for an opposing kingdom. She steps out of her hiding place, uses a hurled dagger to destroy his runestaff and then...

Aliza: Hello, Lord Mulgrum. Or should I say, Koldun Kapitan Alexey Vasilyev?
Alexey: It took you long enough. You're not bad, though.
Aliza: Thank you. Let's lay it out, shall we? I want this fief. I'm not particular about how I get it. I had your son poisoned and pinned it on you, using the poison you used to kill the wives who could have outed you.
Alexey: Yes, he was a tough one. He got all the way back here with enough strength to attack me, so I had to ice him. You could have used a stronger dose.
*Aliza curtseys.*
Aliza: My deepest apologies. Now, if I want this fief, the most straightforward way would be for me to kill you, out you as the spy and claim it as my reward.
Alexey: You think you can take me?
Aliza: I'm pretty sure, yeah. You think you can dodge this iron rod when it's coming at you at ten times the speed of a cannon shot?
Alexey: If you were going to do that, you would have done it already.
Aliza: Yeah. I'm not a fan of doing things straightforwardly. Now, I've told the authorities that it was your son who was the spy, and that you poisoned him because you found out and didn't want a scandal. I could let you go, stick to the official story, and you could head back to your Motherland in peace on "retirement".
Alexey: Why would you do that? You've got the opportunity to out a veteran spy, red-handed.
Aliza: Because I look long-term, and I realize that what's better than a new fief is a new fief and friends in Ayn Vanar's court. I've got big plans. So, what do you say?
Alexey: Agreed.

Now, that's pretty much bald of flattery and speech tricks. It's basically just laying out the situation that Aliza has set up.

In a situation like this, there should be no chance for failure. The character of Alexey has been defined as a cold, logical man, and there's no way he would throw his life away when there's a better offer.

Here, Alexey (despite being an NPC) has the same kind of defined mindset that a PC has. There isn't room for using Diplomacy or similar against PCs because (disregarding the OOC concerns about control of the character) that PC's personality dictates that they are going to act that way; that personality happens to be controlled by a player behind that. I don't see why NPCs should be any different.

[Totally Guy]

In the other thread you said that the method depended on the type of game and I think that shows a good level of understanding. But it also means that you can't generalise with a thread like this. You need to be specific about what type of game you're talking about.

I think that games that support a thing can be played with that thing. Games that don't support a thing can be played without the thing being a focus of play. But that's not a particularly interesting opinion.

[Madeiner]

In a situation like this, there should be no chance for failure. The character of Alexey has been defined as a cold, logical man, and there's no way he would throw his life away when there's a better offer.

Diplomacy is used to convince someone to do something they normally wouldn't want to. If your character proposes something, and the NPC like this one decides on his own accord that it is the right choice, you dont need to roll anything.

If the NPC in question was a murderous barbarian, then i would have let you roll diplomacy, at a high penalty in this case, to "convince" him to listen to you and do as you say.

[scurv]

I distinguish between by Dice Roll Play groups and my role-play groups

If its roll-play or if we are in roll-play mode (it happens to the best of us) Dice rolls for social situations can be acceptable, with in reason. Let me paint a picture to illustrate this.

You are in the center of your maze, and this ragged and very bloody motley-crew advances on you in formation, Their leader (you think) Is this huge mass of muscle with a 5 cha and a 22 str (I do permit low cha to have a positive effect in some situations...like this one Lets be real, do you want to pick a fight with the person who has a face that looks like hamburger?) Walks upto your position headless of your drawn weapons, Though the people behind him are well armed and ready to strike. And he looks down at you and simply grunts.

Now although all of the above may not be explicitly stated in rp, That is what the npc's are seeing and knowing. and it is what I would take into account. Although in roll play....Well let us just say dialogue from pc's is not why I would do roll play. (on those rare times it is normally just trying to make it though a crawl)



In the more role-play situated groups, I accept that not every player is as able to express them self as others. I personally am well familiar with that
from both the LD (edit) student (/edit) and the support helper roll (not by choice!) . What I care about is effort. Very few people lack the full spectrum of social and intellectual skills to fully handy cap them in that regard. If the player needs to step oocly for a moment to explain what they want. so be it, But as a social and talk/text based game, I want social interaction to be the basis of decision making.

This is why I have a sit down with each player when we draw up their chars. Quite often people who have issues expressing them self, Still are very capable of observation and reasoning skills. I will be the first to say that life is not fair and neither am I, But I am reasonable, As long as the player is making an effort we can work that. I am not allergic to a little coaching of the player and I do keep tabs, If there IRL social skills handicap them to a certain extent in regards to other pc's, I try to toss them a bone later.

Now understand, I came up in an LD program due to my lack of social skills. So that being said I am use to dealing with the spectrummy personalty's. Granted I fully understand how taxing it can be to deal with those. But if you are wishing to deal with socially inept players. here is a simple rule of thumb that works.

Be blunt, Blunt to the point of being slightly on the rude side.
Have them tell you, what you just told them.
Do not hint, It will be missed.
Accept that there is going to be some hurt feelings, Just do not make it personal.
And act early. It does a favour to all concerned.

[Thinker]

I do like the idea of adding tactics and extending negotiations. I have always been dissatisfied with the single roll that is used in most systems to resolve any sort of conflict. Even telling a lie should require more than just opposed rolls with added synergy. I don't think that the answer is to force players to roleplay the social situation though.

The players should be able to use tactics that the game should codify. Games discuss flanking, reach, charging, cover, concealment, disarming, grappling, tripping, and many other tactical decisions. They do not do the same for social situations. Therefore, it seems as though games should provide a codified list of negotiation tactics and the benefits of doing so. Luckily, Wikipedia has a list of tactics used in negotiations. The article also discuss the importance of body language in resolving communications.

It shouldn't be too difficult to homebrew such a subsystem for a game that already has some rules for social interaction.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

In a situation like this, there should be no chance for failure. The character of Alexey has been defined as a cold, logical man, and there's no way he would throw his life away when there's a better offer.

Here, Alexey (despite being an NPC) has the same kind of defined mindset that a PC has. There isn't room for using Diplomacy or similar against PCs because (disregarding the OOC concerns about control of the character) that PC's personality dictates that they are going to act that way; that personality happens to be controlled by a player behind that. I don't see why NPCs should be any different.

In response to this bolded bit: why not? I find "there's no way ______" to be a rather limiting proposition when it comes to interesting stories. It's when our expectations are unexpectedly contradicted that stories are made. Characters shouldn't be completely predictable; they're complex creations with a number of motivations and aspects.

The dice are thrown to help us choose what prevails in a situation with so many variables. They are an abstraction of everything going on in the situation that could spiral out in ten different ways.

Embracing the unexpected and moving the story along that way does wonders for drama.

[Slipperychicken]

Um...couldn't you do the same for a social situation?

Otherwise, flipside, I could say "why in the world is combat so important..." etc.

The thing is, the relation between combat and social mechanics is very asymmetrical. What boils down to a single roll in the social side is preceded with large amounts of tactics and setup in combat. Why not both?

Because many games don't have such extensive mechanics to encourage social strategy. If a game did have as many rules dedicated to social interaction as dnd 3.5e does to combat, you would see players optimizing social tactics, and arguing on these boards about which argument-presentation method is the best, or which mud-slinging tactic is most effective, and so on.

As it often is, though, the outcome of social interaction is almost entirely fiat. Optimization is impossible without an established conflict-resolution framework (i.e. rules), to objectively determine the effect of any social action. Establishing such a framework would allow players to strategize their social interactions effectively.

[NichG]

Combat tactics and social tactics either supported by or ignored by the mechanics leads to sort of an interesting point. Namely, when you explicitly codify a list of things in mechanics then you can get paradoxical stories. What I mean by this is, certain things 'make sense' in our real-life intuition and experience and any codified list of mechanics only approximates and generalizes those (and then only to the best of the ability of the system designer). Different types of players will respond to these paradoxes differently, and it can be the source of a lot of strife at the table depending on how fixated someone gets on the one or the other.

For instance, player 1 is thinking using real-life intuition and decides that sneaking up on an enemy (Player 2) and holding a dagger to their back is really threatening. Player 2 knows that he is not helpless, only flatfooted, and that Player 1 is not a rogue, and that he can survive 1d4+Str damage, or even a full attack of those, so is completely unthreatened. Different people will favor Player 1's or Player 2's interpretation depending on their gaming philosophy, but both players are at least somewhat 'right' about their decisions - Player 1 is respecting the tropes of the story, and Player 2 is respecting the mechanics, and here they come into conflict.

One solution is to abstract enough away that you can narratively justify the success or failure of the attempt to cover up the paradox (e.g. Player 2 is unthreatened due to mechanical considerations, but its narrated as being the consequence of some unspecified fact like Player 2 mishearing the threat, or having confidence in his armor, or whatever). This narrative healing is used to good effect in some styles of roll-driven RP, where you roll and then use the roll to guide the conversation. However, if you're trying to make a more tactics-driven game, I'm not sure its the right direction to go in.

I think the key is to try to make mechanics that augment the things that we as humans are best at figuring out, rather than to try to replace them. Also, focus the mechanics on large-scale decision making and offscreen decision making. An example of some stuff from my campaign:

Spoiler

Show

There's a PrC called 'Mastermind' which lets you 'have retroactively made some preparation you could do without serious risk a certain number of times per game'. So if you're playing out a trial scene or something, you could use this to 'have planted evidence' or 'have bribed the witness'. Things like that.

There's an added ability to Bluff for a 'Spy' PrC called 'Spin'. This lets you alter the story that people remember after a series of events, even if it doesn't let you alter the immediate impression. So for instance if a villain did something villanous he could try to use Spin to, in an abstract and global sense, pin it on someone else or at least get away with it in the public image. But he could still be convicted in a trial with direct witnesses - however, if he was good enough at Spin, he could even have the population ready to rebel at the unfairness of the court system.

I also like the earlier suggestion that Diplomacy can be used to determine, in a broad sense, how other NPCs view the person who goes against the suggested course of action. There's an interesting tradeoff there, and if you want to start putting mechanics to it that are more advanced than pass/fail skill checks you could imagine something like 'social HP' which directly correspond to how much the current social environment supports the character - how many favors, supporters, etc they have. If they are out of social HP, then they are completely vulnerable to the opinions others create of them (so you can frame them, paint them as a coward, whatever) unless they go along with your desires.

[Gamer Girl]

I see social interactions as an important part of the game. But not the part of the game that is listed on table B-6 on page 134. Social interaction is the important part of the game as your sitting around a table with real people. An to role play is a huge part of the game.


If a player really wants to do the ''I roll a 20 and convince the guard to let me go'', I gently suggest that they might want to go play a video game. Then they can have fun in a world where every NPC just stands around with no life and waits for the player to speak to them. When you sit down at a role playing game, your gong to be expected to play a role in the game. Not roll your way through a game.

And tactics are important in combat, but both in and out of combat. In a true role playing game, you have to think out and plan before you take actions. Again, if you just want to endlessly fight monsters, who nicely sit and wait for you to approach them you might want to just play a video game.

[navar100]

I see social interactions as an important part of the game. But not the part of the game that is listed on table B-6 on page 134. Social interaction is the important part of the game as your sitting around a table with real people. An to role play is a huge part of the game.


If a player really wants to do the ''I roll a 20 and convince the guard to let me go'', I gently suggest that they might want to go play a video game. Then they can have fun in a world where every NPC just stands around with no life and waits for the player to speak to them. When you sit down at a role playing game, your gong to be expected to play a role in the game. Not roll your way through a game.

And tactics are important in combat, but both in and out of combat. In a true role playing game, you have to think out and plan before you take actions. Again, if you just want to endlessly fight monsters, who nicely sit and wait for you to approach them you might want to just play a video game.

I agree a player should make some effort, but he doesn't have to compete for an Oscar or Tony Award to do so. It is enough to say what idea he is trying to get across. He could pay a bribe or convince the guard he's underappreciated to not be so loyal or use seduction then roll for success. For those players who can improvise a grand tale of speech hooray for them. They should still roll. For those players who can't, state the tactic used then roll. Neither way is BadWrongFun.

[Thrawn4]

The right degree of abstraction is actually a matter of taste. On the one hand, you can have a very fair game that only relies on a characters stats. Every conflict is solved by one or more dice rolls, for example Lying, Charisma, Improvise and so one during a conversation. The downside here is that players have no decision whatsoever and basically play with statistics.
On the other hand you can also give incentives for the players to be involved into the game by solving conflicts through application of their real life skills, e. g. using their people skills or muscles instead of a dice. The downside here is that it is often unfair. People have different skills, and not all of them are useful in every campaign.
As nobody likes a game that is unfair or only about statistics, all games are somewhere in the middle of this scale. Most of them allow to make different decisions that influence the chances. Whether and where this decisions have a huge impact is dependant on the system and the house rules, but everybody adheres to rules that they consider fun. Some like the medieval-fight-monster-in-the-wilderness style and don't need complex systems for diplomacy, whereas others enjoy a witty discussion. Really a matter of taste.

BUT the reason why we don't ask players to apply their real life knowledge of swordfighting is because people in general would not like it, either because they just want to play a game without having to study a new subject, or because not everybody is familiar with it and this would be unfair.
However I am sure that if you found a group of players who all enjoy real life swordfighting anyway, they might actually like to involve their swordfighting in their campaign.

TL/DR: We apply social skills but not RL swordfighting because the former offers more much more incentives for most people.

[Friv]

I see social interactions as an important part of the game. But not the part of the game that is listed on table B-6 on page 134. Social interaction is the important part of the game as your sitting around a table with real people. An to role play is a huge part of the game.

If a player really wants to do the ''I roll a 20 and convince the guard to let me go'', I gently suggest that they might want to go play a video game. Then they can have fun in a world where every NPC just stands around with no life and waits for the player to speak to them. When you sit down at a role playing game, your gong to be expected to play a role in the game. Not roll your way through a game.

And tactics are important in combat, but both in and out of combat. In a true role playing game, you have to think out and plan before you take actions. Again, if you just want to endlessly fight monsters, who nicely sit and wait for you to approach them you might want to just play a video game.

I'm going to repeat myself from the other thread:

If you let someone take Charisma and the Diplomacy skill, don't act shocked when they try to use it.

The idea that if someone would like their character to have versimilitude, they must be a video-game loving roll-playing freak is one of the most annoying fallacies I've ever encountered.

Guess what? I'm a decently charming guy, but I'm not capable of swaying crowds or convincing hostile people to sign on to my project. If I could do that, I'd be a millionaire and not a guy chatting on an online forum. The idea that I am forbidden from ever playing a smooth-talking conman because you've decided that I don't want to have character interactions is extraordinarily insulting. Maybe I just like playing conmen.

[Baka Nikujaga]

Personally, I enjoy writing scripts beforehand for my players (or other players, if I get to play), listening to their reactions, and improvising as necessary. But, at the same time, I realize that not all of the people I play with may be capable of role-playing all of the aspects of their character. As an example, one player might be playing as a Paladin and can properly RP social interactions with either a single individual or a small group of individuals, but isn't confident in improvising either a rallying speech or threat against a large group. Similarly, a player might not be particularly good at improvising in any such situation but would still like to make such a character. To hold either of these facts against the respective player by either invoking penalties or denying them access to a skill seems a bit harsh and unfair.

To this end, I'll advocate for a system like the one that navar100 voiced. If the players feel up to the challenge, than it's important to let them improvise (or recite, if it was prepared beforehand) and, maybe, grant them some sort of bonus, if that player performed particularly well. But I think it's equally important to realize that not everyone enjoys participating in social encounters because, despite what may be written on the character sheet, the player, him or herself, might not feel that he or she is up to par.

[NichG]

Similarly, a player might not be particularly good at improvising in any such situation but would still like to make such a character. To hold either of these facts against the respective player by either invoking penalties or denying them access to a skill seems a bit harsh and unfair.

...

But I think it's equally important to realize that not everyone enjoys participating in social encounters because, despite what may be written on the character sheet, the player, him or herself, might not feel that he or she is up to par.

Its always important at any table to establish what people at the table enjoy. Some people like tactical, challenging combat. Other people want to kick ass and not worry too much about the details.

I guess my question would be, if you have a player who doesn't enjoy participating in social encounters, what is the particular reason they have made a social character. If they truly dislike social encounters then it might be best to just put things in the game they do like, and avoid trying to test them with social encounters (while the players who do like it can shine there).

I guess I feel a bit like a player who doesn't enjoy social encounters but builds a character designed to mechanically defeat social encounters could be saying 'I don't want to bother with this, so I made it so my character can just defeat it without me having to engage in it'. If there's a mix of interests at the table, it might just be better to not try to force that player into social encounters. If everyone but that one player wants to do social encounters, then it might be worth considering if there's a fundamental conflict (i.e. one person is basically playing a different game than everyone else).

The other possibility is that the player wants to explore the fantasy that they are socially brilliant when they are personally not. In that case its an opportunity to help them actually learn some of those skills and improve. The DM has people respond positively to that character a bit more readily than others so that they feel encouraged to try, and then as they get better the DM can slowly remove that handicap.

I think that perceived 'harshness' and 'unfairness' is kind of hypocritical though. A player who can't grasp game mechanics very well is at a disadvantage when playing a game with mechanics, but we don't consider it 'unfair' for games to have mechanics because these players exist. Instead, we cooperate and help them improve or at least have something playable. If you're up front about the fact that you're playing a game about social interactions, I don't think its at all unfair to expect players to interact socially and for their personal skill in that to matter, just like amongst a group of chess player personal skill at chess can vary a lot.

I guess part of the reason that such things feel unfair to people is because the game is generally designed to be collaborative instead of competitive?

[Gamer Girl]

If you let someone take Charisma and the Diplomacy skill, don't act shocked when they try to use it.

I'm never shocked. This is really one of the top five ways I often kill off a character. It's common enough for a player to try the ''rule the world with diplomacy'' trick and then they are shocked when the foes still attack and kill their helpless character.

Guess what? I'm a decently charming guy, but I'm not capable of swaying crowds or convincing hostile people to sign on to my project. If I could do that, I'd be a millionaire and not a guy chatting on an online forum. The idea that I am forbidden from ever playing a smooth-talking conman because you've decided that I don't want to have character interactions is extraordinarily insulting. Maybe I just like playing conmen.

Well, I just see Social Roll Playing to be a waste of time.

Player 1:"I walk into town and con everyone out of their money'' Rolls dice.
DM:"Wow, it's so much fun to sit here and watch you roll.''

I guess that is fun to someone, but not to me.

[Zeful]

Well, I just see Social Roll Playing to be a waste of time.

Player 1:"I walk into town and con everyone out of their money'' Rolls dice.
DM:"Wow, it's so much fun to sit here and watch you roll.''

I guess that is fun to someone, but not to me.

Name a single game where the rules actually state that's what's supposed to happening? Without a single game that tells you that's what you're supposed to do, your argument has no merit because it's not the rules screwing things up- it's the DM.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, I just see Social Roll Playing to be a waste of time.

Player 1:"I walk into town and con everyone out of their money'' Rolls dice.
DM:"Wow, it's so much fun to sit here and watch you roll.''

I guess that is fun to someone, but not to me.

Well, how would the other players feel as you and that one player acted out every single con?

If you want to play a game where players actually role-play their actions, play something other than D&D. D&D does not have stunt dice. It does not encourage role-playing during situations where a die roll is relevant. It is a small-scale tactical wargame. There are games with stunt dice, like the White Wolf ones. There is FATE, which has Aspects, and Cortex, which has Traits and specialization, which encourage the player to at least describe which route of persuasion he's taking. I think L5R is also good for this. But not D&D, not any edition of it.

[valadil]

IMO, combat is the wrong comparison to make. You're better off comparing socials skills with other skills.

Let's say you're in a dungeon and the entire party falls into a 15 foot pit. You might make a climb check. Maybe you'll use a rope. If you're particularly worried about falling, you might even knot the rope.

So what's the difficulty of the climb check? Well that depends what you're doing. Climbing a wall is a different matter than climbing a rope. A knotted rope is just a little bonus. The point is, what you're rolling for depends on how you're going about making the check.

In my opinion social skills work the same way. If someone tries to roll diplomacy against a guard that's a different check than if they provide a convincing argument. Rolling the die with no demonstration or explanation of what you're trying to say is just like trying to scramble up the wall.

Keep in mind, I don't expect a player to have as smooth a delivery as the character they're playing. They don't even need to demonstrate what they're going for. I just want an explanation of how they expect the skill to work so I can figure out how successful they might be.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Well, I just see Social Roll Playing to be a waste of time.

Player 1:"I walk into town and con everyone out of their money'' Rolls dice.
DM:"Wow, it's so much fun to sit here and watch you roll.''

I guess that is fun to someone, but not to me.

It's all in the presentation.

[Medic!]

Something that hasn't been explicitly mentioned is the almighty DM's Best Friend, which comes into play very heavily with skill checks more-so than combat.

In combat, circumstance bonuses are pretty well fleshed out already (attack bonuses for a charge, for flanking, bonuses or penalties for being prone, on higher ground, etc).

In a social situation, what you say can have a pretty decent impact.
As an example, with convincing a guard to let you go:

Spoiler

Show

PC: I'm sorry, Captain, my mother is deathly ill, and we don't have enough money for a doctor. I'll put the bread back, no harm done, right? I know it was wrong, and I'll work off the damages to the shopkeeper's door with him. Please don't take me to jail, as you can see I'm just a puny waif, it would destroy me!

PC makes his diplomacy roll, and the DM can either add some bonuses (at the most generous I'd say +2 for flattery calling the Lieutenant a Captain, another +2 for working off the damage *enforced by the guard*, and +2 for sympathy with the sick mother) +6 to your check ain't such a bad deal!

Conversely you could assess penalties: -2 for calling the Major a Captain, -2 because the Major hates being reminded of the plight of the filthy poor who'd rather steal than work, -2 for lying about your intention to fix the door.

[Morithias]

Question for all the DMs who demand roleplaying charisma based skills.

What would you do if it was a class feature rather than a skill?

What if it flat out says YOU DON'T HAVE TO ROLL period?

I present, the propagandist's (champions of darkness) capstone.

"Information Dissemination (EX): At 5th level by combining this talent with his other skills a propagandist can put a "Spin" on news and events, to manipulate how people interpret those events. He can present a specific interpretation and make it sound plausible to the "masses" or downplay the implications of an event so that people either miss them entirely or dismiss them as not very likely. This ability also gives the propagandist a sense of timing as to when to release certain news in order to achieve the desired reaction. This ability has no roll, but relies on the DM's ability to incorporate the information into her story plot."

Ravenloft - Champions of Darkness, page 33.

What do you do? If you disallow this, your player might as well not taken the class, which makes charisma and social based classes useless. Everyone might as well play the tier 1 god clerics and wizards, since "I can level your city so surrender" is legit, while "I want to forge a diplomatic relation" depends on the autistic kid roleplaying a peace treaty like a diplomat rather than a disabled kid having a good time.

I like charisma based classes, it helps that I had a lot of drama training, but most people don't. Most people aren't trained actors, they're a bunch of people with a hobby that involves sitting around a table and talking in funny voices.

[Zeful]

Well, how would the other players feel as you and that one player acted out every single con?

If you want to play a game where players actually role-play their actions, play something other than D&D. D&D does not have stunt dice. It does not encourage role-playing during situations where a die roll is relevant.

Um, what? Did we even play the same game? Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, these are things that need roleplay to work properly, for the simple fact that the DM cannot read the player's mind to know the whos, whats, and wherefores. The player needs to explain why he's using the skill, what he's looking to get out of it, and then it's a small jump from an OoC explanation, to In-character role play.