Roping non-social characters into courtly politics.

[Isamu Dyson]

How do you pull this off?

A great example is the typical D&D Fighter: they have one social Skill that isn't useful for most political maneuvering. Furthermore, they lack Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Local), and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty).

However, the Fighter's player could have consistently been roleplaying the Fighter well, plus they may have clout with a reputation earned as being a hero of no small fame.

So, the GM wants a noble/political heavyweight to pull them into a side-story or perhaps quest that requires them to interact with others in the same social circle(s). With that in mind, what is the GM to do? Should they merely handle everything with pure roleplaying? Is this fair when a party might include, say, a Bard, Paladin, or Rogue that has a significant investment in relevant Skills?

[Rhynn]

Only use skill check when there's some uncertainty. Let the players maneuver instead: if they have something that the other party wants, or are holding something over their head, why would they need to make dice rolls? "Naw, I randomly decided I don't care that you'll reveal my deep dark secrets..."

It's fine that they'll be at a disadvantage in some things, e.g. in D&D 3.X not having Sense Motive means the DM isn't going to tell you "yeah that person is lying." You can still figure out that they are hella lying, though. Diplomacy lets you negotiate when you don't have no leverage. And so on. Having or not having a skill doesn't need to affect every situation.

[Honest Tiefling]

They could also be helpful in other areas that don't require the skills other people invested in but he didn't. A champion fighter who is a hero of the people might be able to score some invitations to events due to his reputation. He could make a distraction while other people went behind the scenes to score information. Depending on the region, he might be able to try for knighthood or join a tourney. A rather grateful (or desperate) noble might try to hire the guy on as a bodyguard.

Personally, I feel that yes, you shouldn't have to roll in situations where common sense is telling you something, nor does it mean you cannot RP your character suspecting things anyway. But that doesn't mean that a 10 charisma fighter with no diplomacy ranks should be Role Played as the best diplomancer ever. I tend not to stay in games very long if I feel that skill investment means nothing, but that could be personal taste.

[MonochromeTiger]

How do you pull this off?

A great example is the typical D&D Fighter: they have one social Skill that isn't useful for most political maneuvering. Furthermore, they lack Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Local), and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty).

However, the Fighter's player could have consistently been roleplaying the Fighter well, plus they may have clout with a reputation earned as being a hero of no small fame.

So, the GM wants a noble/political heavyweight to pull them into a side-story or perhaps quest that requires them to interact with others in the same social circle(s). With that in mind, what is the GM to do? Should they merely handle everything with pure roleplaying? Is this fair when a party might include, say, a Bard, Paladin, or Rogue that has a significant investment in relevant Skills?

mix of the two, if there are characters with relevant abilities make it clear that they may want to use those skills in the following encounters to get the most out of it. for those that don't have social skills that fit the situation..just treat them as a noble would treat anyone who is considered famous, important, or useful enough to keep around but not knowledgeable enough to understand the "important" things like who does and doesn't want a particular law to come into effect or the horrible scandal of sir fancyton and the chambermaid (as opposed to the obviously unimportant things like that swarm of undead outside the peasant village).

[Vamphyr]

If you're trying to bring a non-social character (Fighter) into heavy political and social situations you'll want to use a lot of roleplay instead of rollplay.

If they don't have the skill for Knowledge: History, don't make them use it! If it's important that they know, have someone explain it to them.

So, terrified Politician-A has his assistant contact the Fighter for a private meeting. Upon entering his chambers, Politician-A quickly greets him and explains that he fears for his life from assassins/whatever. The Fighter will naturally ask questions which allows the NPC to fill in any knowledge roll information that a Bard would have been able to make themselves. Instead of being ahead of the curve and able to play the politician, the fighter is trying to play catch up to whatever spin Politician-A is putting on the story.

Doing this drags the fighter into the situation (maybe he gets hired as a bodyguard, or to hunt down another politician) and could even be used to cause turmoil in the party as Politician-A begins to suggest that he believes the Bard is the one who is really sending assassins....

[madtinker]

If I was the player: A person can try to be helpful and just put his foot in his mouth. Play the low charisma fighter as someone who laughs at the wrong jokes, or can't tell when his stories aren't appropriate, or is just plain awkward. He could lack tact, or maybe he doesn't bathe, or have the right table manners. But as has been said, that doesn't mean that people won't listen to him. Maybe Crocodile Dundee is an appropriate model for this kind of character.

If I was the DM: I would houserule that after so much time in the limelight, he either gets a story-reward bonus to diplomacy for his fame, and/or let him count social skills as class skills.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

You can always find room for the hitty-guy in a plan. See Jayne in Firefly and Elliot in Leverage. Sure, they're heist/caper shows, but that doesn't change the fact that they model a D&D team dynamic really well. In a creative plan, you use the tools you have, and not just the obvious skills.

So basically, the players should plan.

Good uses for a fighter type: guarding someone, threatening someone, capturing someone, breaking into places by force, being an enforcer or collecting promises from political figures, etc.

[Knaight]

An alternate method would be to look into systems in which broad swaths of characters aren't arbitrarily denied social skills, and instead are likely to have different ones. Take a situation where you have two PCs - a noble involved in courtly politics, and a warrior who's that noble's bodyguard. Which of the two seems more likely to be able to build a rapport as a friend with lower classes. Which of the two are likely to have a direct line there at all? Which of the two are likely to have any idea what rank and file military types thing about a situation?

I'm guessing it's not the noble. There's a whole broad area of information that can be better gained through the bodyguard, and some systems actually acknowledge this. On top of that, the noble is clearly recognizable. The bodyguard might not be, which makes planting them somewhere that much easier. There's also more room for the bodyguard to act in some circumstances, as it's likely easier for a noble to sweep things under the rug and have a reputation as someone with some dubious people under them than it would be for them to keep themselves out of trouble in said situations and deal with the reputation of themselves being untrustworthy.

[Vamphyr]

An alternate method would be to look into systems in which broad swaths of characters aren't arbitrarily denied social skills, and instead are likely to have different ones. Take a situation where you have two PCs - a noble involved in courtly politics, and a warrior who's that noble's bodyguard. Which of the two seems more likely to be able to build a rapport as a friend with lower classes. Which of the two are likely to have a direct line there at all? Which of the two are likely to have any idea what rank and file military types thing about a situation?

I'm guessing it's not the noble. There's a whole broad area of information that can be better gained through the bodyguard, and some systems actually acknowledge this. On top of that, the noble is clearly recognizable. The bodyguard might not be, which makes planting them somewhere that much easier. There's also more room for the bodyguard to act in some circumstances, as it's likely easier for a noble to sweep things under the rug and have a reputation as someone with some dubious people under them than it would be for them to keep themselves out of trouble in said situations and deal with the reputation of themselves being untrustworthy.

You could remove class based restrictions on skills. Just tell your players "this is going to be a political game and some knowledges may help" and let them pick what they want.

[Knaight]

You could remove class based restrictions on skills. Just tell your players "this is going to be a political game and some knowledges may help" and let them pick what they want.

I'd generally not use D&D for this at all (it is clearly not what it was made for), but gutting the whole "cross class" notion is a good start.

[SiuiS]

Politics and intrigue != social skills.

Politics happens when the players want a thing, and the only way to get that thing is to solve two or more other parties who are at odds. The fighter's reputation, killing capacity, previous quests and single social skill are as relevant in politics as they are in any other part of the game.

My favorite "knowledge skill" method involves the fighter (or whoever) recognizing they are going into a conflict and preparing. Learning useful info from books and conversation to prepare for conflict is the longhand version of rolling a knowledge check to get info to prep. And any smart fighter would prep for this conflict as much as he would prepare for a hard battle of more attack-roll proportions.

[Vamphyr]

I'd generally not use D&D for this at all (it is clearly not what it was made for), but gutting the whole "cross class" notion is a good start.

Yeah, D&D is not very versatile once you start breaking the "SEE MONSTER, HIT MONSTER, LOOT CORPSE" campaign structure.

I think it's definitely possible though, you just need to make a lot of changes and use a lot of house rules to make it flow better. That way the fighter isn't constantly confused as to what everyone is talking about and the diplomancer isn't convincing the king that he'd really rather retire and leave the throne to him.

[Telok]

Back in AD&D most social and political encounters were roleplayed with the occasional charisma check thrown in and things worked just fine. There was no "social combat" or defined "face role" so people just responded to the circumstances in character. People who couldn't "contribute" were generally just not trying.

I'd just advise not making every social interatcion with people into a skill roll. If something absolutely has to be some sort of social skill check make it into seven or eight rolls that anyone can succeed on and allow second chances at higher difficulties. This allows everyone to contribute and the people who invested heavily in social abilities can bail out the more socially inept if they get into trouble.

[Remmirath]

My belief is that everything social should always be handled with pure roleplaying first and foremost, backed up by the occasional skill check when it is necessary to know how well the character did at something. There should not be any problem with having a character with no skills whatsoever in Diplomacy, Bluff, and so forth engage in political maneuvering, although they might end up outgunned by the opposition. Charisma checks, intelligence checks, and wisdom checks can also be helpful under such circumstances.

As for lacking Knowledge skills, just so long as they keep that in mind in character I don't see any problem with that. If possible they can research things in a library or ask other characters who know more to prepare, or they could just try to work around their general lack of knowledge on the subject. It should represent a different challenge, not a reason not to engage in any sort of politics at all.

I would say it is completely fair. The main determiner of social situations in a roleplaying game should always be the roleplaying, and those characters who have invested more in said skills will simply come across better and be better at trying the things they try -- which does not necessarily mean that they will come up with the right things to do or say, just that they are likely to succeed at doing those things that they do try. Conceivably the fighter could end up getting further with a blunt method than the others do with a more diplomatic method. It's all about the information they gain, what they do with it, and (most importantly) what their characters would do with it and want to do.

Sidenote: I do also always advocate removing skill restrictions as a house rule, but this can work either way. I simply find them rather obnoxious and never useful.

[Scow2]

Aye - a lack of knowledge skills means a lack of on-the-spot knowledge, not incapability of gaining that knowledge. If you have no knowledge skills, you know what you know. If you do have knowledge skills, you know what you don't know (Or is it you don't know what you know?)

[avr]

If you do leave skill rolls as important & remove or loosen the cross-class restrictions then you still also need to give the fighters and clerics of the world a couple more skill points per level. 2 + INT isn't enough for many non-INT based characters to splash out on knowledges and social skills.

Edit: if this is an existing game it needs to be handled another way. Maybe only the hero will get to have a private audience with some people; in a public audience the bard can do his stuff but will be competing against other highly skilled opposing characters present.

[Rhynn]

Back in AD&D most social and political encounters were roleplayed with the occasional charisma check thrown in and things worked just fine.

The loss of reaction rolls in D&D 3E was at least as bad as the loss of morale, IMO. I love how ACKS makes use of reaction rolls for many things; trading goods, henchmen, etc. (ACKS also lets any character take proficiencies like Diplomacy or Intimidation to "specialize" in reaction rolls.)

[Slipperychicken]

The loss of reaction rolls in D&D 3E was at least as bad as the loss of morale, IMO. I love how ACKS makes use of reaction rolls for many things; trading goods, henchmen, etc. (ACKS also lets any character take proficiencies like Diplomacy or Intimidation to "specialize" in reaction rolls.)

What I like about the idea of reaction rolls is that it makes social interactions less dependent on the players' persuasive ability, and also opens the door for encounters to be solved with diplomacy. Like if you bump into some patrolling orcs while adventuring, they might think you're a cool guy and let you go (even more so if you bribe them with something like booze or gold), rather than immediately trying to bash your face in.

[Rhynn]

What I like about the idea of reaction rolls is that it makes social interactions less dependent on the players' persuasive ability, and also opens the door for encounters to be solved with diplomacy. Like if you bump into some patrolling orcs while adventuring, they might think you're a cool guy and let you go (even more so if you bribe them with something like booze or gold), rather than immediately trying to bash your face in.

Exactly! People eventually came to think that "random encounter" means a fight, but in old D&D, it could mean anything: the reaction roll determines how those orcs or goblins take to you. ACKS provides great context for interpreting reaction rolls (and uses them for a huge variety of things, like trying to hire henchmen or hirelings, or taking over a criminal guild), but it's largely common sense: even "Friendly" orcs are basically just willing to live and let live, or might be amenable to being paid to attack somebody they think is weaker...

And, obviously, the GM is perfectly free to just make a ruling: "sorry, zombies are motivated by an all-consuming lust for living flesh and have no sense of self-preservation, they attack automatically." And so on.

[Tengu_temp]

Watch the Firefly episode "The Shindig" to see not one, but two examples of non-social characters in such situations. Needless to say, it becomes kind of a trainwreck (in the fictional world - the actual episode is very fun), but that's what it's all about! You use such situations to shake things up a little, engage the characters in all kinds of trouble as they insult all the wrong people, but also let them earn all kinds of unsuspected allies who are impressed by their attitude and/or skills.

[BWR]

While roleplaying is the most important thing, I am a strong believer in using skills for certain things. Just like it's unfair to expect players to know how to fight with a sword IRL to determine if their PCs win in a fight, it's not always fair to ignore the system in favor of players that can talk better than others.

If player A is a great talker and can always talk his PCs in or out of situations, he doesn't need to have mechanics that say his characters are good talkers.
Player B is a bit less eloquent, a bit slower to understand what sort of approach is good, but wants to play someone who is that good. Now mechanics are a good way of allowing B to do what he wants.
But what happens when PC A, who is less mechanically adept at talky-stuff, is at odds with PC B? Say they both want something from the same NPC and are trying to convince him. Player A gets by on his innate talking abilities even if his PC is strictly speaking not so good at this, mechanically. Player B pretty much has to rely on the mechanically superior PC to get the job done.
Should roleplaying/acting trump mechanics? Is it fair to those who have built their characters to be good at something to be outshined by someone who doesn't even bother with mechanics?

As for the OP, since Fighter is famous, perhaps more famous than the other characters with actual skill ranks, it seems natural that said noble approaches Fighter first. He may be attracted to the reputation but quickly find out that Fighter isn't quite the big man off the battlefield. Nice enough but maybe lacking in refinement, ignorant on several important issues and has no poker face. However, these hangers-on of his seem to show some ability and promise, and they might be the ones who end up taking the noble's attention in the conversation (especially if they speak up rather than let Fighter do all the work).
So Noble gets all the PCs on board. They decide to use Fighter's fame to get them a foot in the door but let the people with actual ability do the actual work.

[Isamu Dyson]

I'll respond at length later, but I want to clarify one thing. The Fighter is not being brought in as some sort of hired muscle: they're expected to consistently put their face out there and interact in a calm, (relatively, given the politics) reasonable fashion.

[MonochromeTiger]

I'll respond at length later, but I want to clarify one thing. The Fighter is not being brought in as some sort of hired muscle: they're expected to consistently put their face out there and interact in a calm, (relatively, given the politics) reasonable fashion.

.....well the good news is you said fighter and not barbarian.

[skyth]

Just like it's unfair to expect players to know how to fight with a sword IRL to determine if their PCs win in a fight, it's not always fair to ignore the system in favor of players that can talk better than others.

Exactly. I had that problem with a player in a group I was in before. The player was pretty charismatic, but his characters always used Charisma as a dump stat and he didn't take any social skills. Yet, he was the 'face' of the group...At least the one that did the most talking with NPC's.

[MukkTB]

If we're trying to be fair then you can't let someone dump charisma and then be the party face.

We should probably look to combat for a guide to how much should be dependent on the build and how much should depend on the roleplay. So let me bring up theoretical fighter dude, Fred.

Fred has a big base attack with good feats and a lot of theoretical damage. However he is a moron. He tries to trip things that can't be tripped. He attacks with weapons that won't penetrate damage reduction. He stabs obvious reshirts instead of going after the big bad. He runs out into the middle of combat instead of taking cover. He doesn't flank. He blames other people for his failures and for not backing him up.

So despite his build, Fred is a terrible combatant and actually annoying and detrimental to have on the team. If we take this into the realm of roleplaying social encounters, that means a diplomancer should probably suck balls if he wears a silly outfit, says insulting things to people, and disregards important plot points. In short, roleplaying matters a lot.

Lets look at a different theoretical fighter dude, Jacob. He has 3/4 base attack, simple weapon proficiency, and fights sword and board. His damage output is pretty mediocre, and he isn't all that survivable despite an ok AC. However he is always flanking the enemy. He fights in bottlenecks where only 1 or 2 mooks can get at him at a time. He takes cover when it makes sense. He shields the party casters when they need it, and he always has the right equipment for the job.

Jacob is preferable to Fred but he's still fighting an uphill battle. In fact if Fred is really optimized and Jacob is really badly optimized its possible Fred may still do better. With regard to social play that means that good roleplay should be workable with bad stats, but it should be tough without the numbers to back it up. They should be saying, "I really wish I had the diplomacy skill to help me out."

[The Fury]

Y'know, these are exactly the kinds of situations that I really enjoy roleplaying. Maybe it's because I like fish out of water scenarios so much, and I also like being able to see how a kingdom in the campaign world is run.
I guess as long as the fighter's player is willing to go more roleplay-heavy it shouldn't be too big an issue. As for stuff to help level the playing field, if the fighter is given some opportunities to cheat-- not like fudging dice or anything, but given a chance to page through a history book before going to a social function so (s)he can fake being knowledgeable, or maybe even get a brief circumstance bonus to making rolls if they do come up. Stuff like that.
As for the other players-- if you can involve them and they'd like to be, by all means do it. Was there a reason why they might not be included or would that be getting into too much detail?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Also, if the Fighter's failures cause complications, those complications can serve as a useful distraction from the real plots going on. The non-social character can make a great "wingman".

Fighter: <accidentally gets someone's name wrong>
Bard: <plays up scolding the fighter for his misstep and ingratiates themselves with the nobles>

[Jack of Spades]

The archetypal Fighter can also make a great reluctant king. Ned Stark could probably considered the Lawful Good endgame of such a leader: practical to a fault, but just barely capable of maintaining courtly manner when necessary. Although hopefully the results would be a bit different. Or not, whatever floats your boat.

I mean, assuming the token Mage doesn't decide to go for ultimate supremacy, the natural leader of the party (which usually falls on the fighter because tropes) will believably receive at least a sizable fief for most serious questing. In such a situation the obvious move would be to hire someone to teach just enough of The Noble Way to get by.

Or, of course, the fun way to do it is to roleplay the rest of the party getting the Fighter up to snuff, sort of like the montage in A Knight's Tale. A whole bunch of good, fun interactions floating around down that route.

[Axiomatic]

It's a strange feudal system where none of the warrior class of nobility are, you know, fighters.

[Rhynn]

It's a strange feudal system where none of the warrior class of nobility are, you know, fighters.

That's what I call a runaway skill system.