How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?

[Avilan the Grey]

I think the best way to handle social interactions in an RPG is to not use any rules or dice at all. Especially when social interactions are a major aspect of the game.
As GM, I decide what the NPCs know, how they feel about certain things, and what they want. If it's a random NPC with no agenda in the story, I make a single reaction roll to see if he starts out friendly or hostile. If the players want to convince the NPC or want to lie to him, they have to come up with arguments and tell them. Then I decide if the NPC is convinced or not. A high or low Charisma score for the PC, or a high or low Wisdom score for the NPC affects how lenient or strict I am going to be when judging the players words. But there are no numbers or dice rolls involved.

I definitely disagree with this. It is better than fully free-form, but it still handicaps players who are not good at this sort of thing severely. Again, you might as well ask to measure how well a spell works with having the players actually perform magic IRL.

Using a dice roll to determine the outcome of a social interaction does not help at all. Instead, it pretty much removes the whole idea of social interaction from the game.

Sorry but what?
I don't know what kind of people you play with, but if you don't think players who use dice for "Persuade" and "Lie" etc actually talk with each other you are very very misinformed.

[Yora]

But it's too easy to slip into a pattern where one doesn't even even really try to make a big effort. I've been playing with lots of different groups and almost all players where seriously interested in getting deeply invested in interactions with and investigations of the environment. It's not that the players didn't care, but having an ability on your character sheet sends a very strong unconscious message that you should use the mechanical ability at every opportunity you can get.
Players saying "I search for traps" or "I make a disarm trap check" is something that happens all the time, and which I've heard also from many other people. And the same incentive is there when you have mechanical character abilities to persuade NPCs.
And maybe even worse is that it creates the assumption that any character who does not have a special ability to deal with a situation doesn't even have to try and let the expert have the field. It makes sense with such things as disarming traps or stuying magic runes. But talking isn't something that needs highly specialized training to do. Anyone can do it. And if you have a bard with Charisma 17 and 8 ranks in Diplomacy, why should a fighter with 12 charisma even try? Always send the bard.

Also, my experience with how people actually play the game is that people who are not good at arguing and haggling don't even want to play a character who does all the talking for the group. Even with a game mechanic to support them, they still would have to argue with the other players about what the PC is going to ask of the NPCs. Which is something for which you have to be assertive and enjoy getting into hot arguments, even among perfectly polite and good friends. If you even get the situation where such a player would make a character with high persuasion skills, the reality would most likely be that the other players are having their lively debate about how the party should progress, which NPC to approach, and what demands to make. And at the very end of the process the player with the diplomacy character is asked to do what they have just agreed upon. I just can't see a situation in which such a player would do anything but say "Okay, I am going to tell him what we just agreed" and a die is rolled.
And I have played with social interaction skills for over 10 years. Having such skills didn't change anything.

[Amphetryon]

And maybe even worse is that it creates the assumption that any character who does not have a special ability to deal with a situation doesn't even have to try and let the expert have the field. It makes sense with such things as disarming traps or stuying magic runes. But talking isn't something that needs highly specialized training to do. Anyone can do it. And if you have a bard with Charisma 17 and 8 ranks in Diplomacy, why should a fighter with 12 charisma even try? Always send the bard.

Also, my experience with how people actually play the game is that people who are not good at arguing and haggling don't even want to play a character who does all the talking for the group. Even with a game mechanic to support them, they still would have to argue with the other players about what the PC is going to ask of the NPCs. Which is something for which you have to be assertive and enjoy getting into hot arguments, even among perfectly polite and good friends. If you even get the situation where such a player would make a character with high persuasion skills, the reality would most likely be that the other players are having their lively debate about how the party should progress, which NPC to approach, and what demands to make. And at the very end of the process the player with the diplomacy character is asked to do what they have just agreed upon. I just can't see a situation in which such a player would do anything but say "Okay, I am going to tell him what we just agreed" and a die is rolled.
And I have played with social interaction skills for over 10 years. Having such skills didn't change anything.

I snipped the first part, because I've already argued the inverse of it a bunch. If you'd like another version of my response to it, please say so. For the "CHA 17 Bard with 8 Diplomacy ranks vs 12 CHA Fighter" example - setting aside that both characters have a positive modifier - the scores and skills exist to indicate which person SHOULD be trying in the social situations. If you would prefer the Rogue with a 17 DEX and 8 ranks in Disable Device to be the one playing with the box that's going 'tick-tick-tick' over the Druid with the 12 DEX, why? Because he's better equipped, according to the rules, to handle that device than the Druid is - even though the Druid is played by a bomb tech guy with a better actual understanding of how the ticking box is likely to be defused. . . .

Which leads to my second point: My experience with how people actually play the game is that people often (not always, often) gravitate toward archetypes that are escapes from their real-world skill set. That's why the bomb tech chooses the Druid, why the skinny guy who's getting a PhD in Theoretical Mathematics chooses to cut loose with a Barbarian, and why the guy with Asperger's Syndrome wants to try out a Bard - because the rules in place let them pretend to be good at something that's different than their real-life area of expertise. When you tie portions of their fictional characters' successes to how well the players, without using the game's mechanics, can mimic the behaviors they're describing, you're most likely cutting off that option. If this is your traditional approach, it may be a clue as to why folks in your games who aren't good at haggling and such avoid even attempting characters who are, in fact, good at these things.

[Airk]

As far as I am concerned, the best rule for social interactions in an RPG is that you are NOT ALLOWED to roleplay it until AFTER the dice are rolled.

Think about it. You don't describe any OTHER actions in the game beyond a statement of intent until you roll the dice. You never say "I leap forwards, past the useless intervention of his guards, hew through his shield and split him in half at the waist with my vorpal greatsword!" and THEN see if you roll a 20. You say "I'm going to try to cut him down with my vorpal greatsword." so that when you roll a 2, you don't wonder how to reconcile that with your awesome description.

So you say "I attempt to persuade His Lordship to give us the supplies we need, and imply that we know about his involvement with the red blades." and THEN you use whatever resolution mechanic the game gives you for resolving the situation to determine whether you roleplay giving a great speech or roleplay putting your foot in your mouth.

Note that this becomes practically enforced by things like Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, which break an argument down into smaller components, but it's just as true in a game like D&D where it's just a single die roll.

If you have problems with your players not "getting into it" then there's something bigger wrong with your game - because your players should be "into it" ALL THE TIME, not just when they get a chance to make a speech.

[Cronocke]

As far as I am concerned, the best rule for social interactions in an RPG is that you are NOT ALLOWED to roleplay it until AFTER the dice are rolled.

Think about it. You don't describe any OTHER actions in the game beyond a statement of intent until you roll the dice. You never say "I leap forwards, past the useless intervention of his guards, hew through his shield and split him in half at the waist with my vorpal greatsword!" and THEN see if you roll a 20. You say "I'm going to try to cut him down with my vorpal greatsword." so that when you roll a 2, you don't wonder how to reconcile that with your awesome description.

So you say "I attempt to persuade His Lordship to give us the supplies we need, and imply that we know about his involvement with the red blades." and THEN you use whatever resolution mechanic the game gives you for resolving the situation to determine whether you roleplay giving a great speech or roleplay putting your foot in your mouth.

Note that this becomes practically enforced by things like Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, which break an argument down into smaller components, but it's just as true in a game like D&D where it's just a single die roll.

If you have problems with your players not "getting into it" then there's something bigger wrong with your game - because your players should be "into it" ALL THE TIME, not just when they get a chance to make a speech.

I love Legends of the Wulin for this reason. You roll the dice, then decide what you're going to do with them, rather than declaring you want to do something cool and then coming up with an awful roll.

[Segev]

I think the disconnect here boils down to this. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

One side feels that people who have no inclination, talent, or interest in roleplaying out the social aspects of the game should still be allowed to play a social character without feeling ill-equipped or stigmatized for their choice.

I wouldn't say "no inclination" to roleplay "out the social aspects of the game," but rather "who are not talented socialites."

I am in no way advocating "I roll to hit him in the socialize" as the way to run this, any more than I advocate "I roll to hit him with my sword" as the way to roleplay combat.

I am advocating having something other than "can you persuade the GM with your eloquence?" as the resolution mechanic, just as I advocate having something other than "can you hit the GM with a foam sword?" as a resolution mechanic for attempting to hit the monster with your character's sword.

Even more importantly, I am advocating having there be something more than "I roll Diplomacy" just as there's something more than "I roll Combat to see if I win the whole fight." But I want it to be a number of rolls or other mechanical gameplay choices which make up the success/failure, while at the same time offering opportunities to roleplay what those choices represent in terms of your persuasive efforts.

[NichG]

Actually, this brings to mind a question: out of everyone on the thread, who has experience with social mechanics other than a single skill check? It's generally better to rely on actual play for evidence rather than theorycraft.

The closest I've gotten to this in terms of resolution mechanics was probably Exalted. However, generally speaking even when such mechanics were available the tables I've played tended to avoid using them in play, so it may not be a completely fair comparison. Similarly, I've played 7th Sea which has a repartee system of sorts, but the table quickly decided not to make use of it. I've also played L5R, but iirc there I think the resolution was more single check driven (also, our courtier was extremely shy in real life and despite having full access to the mechanics for this kind of thing still didn't really engage in any social interaction)

As far as mechanics which modify social interactions but do not provide resolution, however, even something like D&D has them (as LudicSavant pointed out with respect to things like Detect Thoughts) and in those cases they do get frequently used at the tables I play at. Information-gathering powers in particular tend to get a lot of use, as do abilities that give the players a degree of narrative control (e.g. the arcana from 7th Sea that lets you find a friendly contact wherever you are, things like that).

I don't have a problem with this - but this isn't usually where I think the instances come out. The problem is when the person trying to SocialPlay a character is sabotaged by their body language, hesitance in speech, poor word choice, failing to pick up verbal cues their character wouldn't miss, phrasing, missed ettiquete, etc.

The difference between "Okay, I go up to the king, greet him warmly and cordially and offer our services as heroes-for-hire."
And:
DM: "Okay, you're standing before the king, he says, "Hi, Bold Adventurers. Wherefore is the purpose of this audience."
Player: "Huh? Oh, oh, right. Hi King! We're adventurers. Need anyone killed?"

The problem with the second example isn't actually the lack of eloquence though. Its easy enough to ignore the 'Huh? Oh, oh, right. Hi King!' bit because its essentially content-free (one should be a little careful, because a very socially savvy player could be intentionally trying to display a particular degree of irreverence rather than just being unable to do otherwise).

But when the player says 'Need anyone killed?' that is communicating a very specific thing - if I took the first sentence and made the content the same, it'd be something like: "Okay, I go up to the king, greet him warmly and cordially and offer to kill people for him"

It starts to go beyond a matter of 'word choice' and is really a matter of distinct decisions. If you say 'I rent a room at the nearest inn' then its odd to later complain 'actually, I just wanted a place to sleep, my character would know someone in town where they could crash for free, so the DM should have had him do that instead of paying for the inn' because you specifically said you wanted to room at the nearest inn, not that you wanted a place to sleep.

Which, I think just goes to show that you can't escape the need for clear communication no matter what you do. Even as a pure interaction between player and DM, if you have problems expressing your intent then you're going to have problems playing the game all the time, not just when having a character socialize.

[Segev]

I've also played using Exalted's system. As I've said (or at least alluded to), it's...flawed. Still, it does dig into the mechanics a bit more than "make a diplomacy roll." Unfortunately, it doesn't dig too much further.

In theory, you can build Intimacies over the course of several Scenes of social interaction, and change people's opinions that way. You can also use those Intimacies to gain bonuses on rolls to persuade people to act a specific way for the duration of a scene. Unfortunately, there isn't enough "positioning" to be done, and it amounts to one or two rolls under most circumstances because characters can spend Willpower to ignore successful social influence. After spending 2 in a scene, they're immune for the rest of it. Still, it is closer to playing like a combat where at least there are hit points to wear down, even if it's one hp per attack.

It's a step in the right direction in that it at least explores some options. It found more "what not to do" than "what to do," I think, but Exalted 2e still provides some solid points on which to try to build a better system in the next iteration.

[Cronocke]

I wouldn't say "no inclination" to roleplay "out the social aspects of the game," but rather "who are not talented socialites."

And I said that.

One side feels that people who have no inclination, talent, or interest in roleplaying out the social aspects of the game should still be allowed to play a social character without feeling ill-equipped or stigmatized for their choice.

So I was basically right, I just covered extra bases that didn't need to be covered, apparently.

I am in no way advocating "I roll to hit him in the socialize" as the way to run this, any more than I advocate "I roll to hit him with my sword" as the way to roleplay combat.

And I didn't say you did.

I am advocating having something other than "can you persuade the GM with your eloquence?" as the resolution mechanic, just as I advocate having something other than "can you hit the GM with a foam sword?" as a resolution mechanic for attempting to hit the monster with your character's sword.

You know, LARPers love hitting each other with foam swords to resolve combat. So there is a subset of the community that likes what you're talking about.

Even more importantly, I am advocating having there be something more than "I roll Diplomacy" just as there's something more than "I roll Combat to see if I win the whole fight." But I want it to be a number of rolls or other mechanical gameplay choices which make up the success/failure, while at the same time offering opportunities to roleplay what those choices represent in terms of your persuasive efforts.

And my response to this was and is that there are some people for whom any number of rolls is inadequate, or even contrary to their desires. Allow me to quote myself:

The other side argues that people who hate making character sheets and keeping a running tally of Points Spent when making or advancing a character, whether this is skill points or experience points, and don't feel comfortable adding a large number of situational modifiers on the fly as each turn changes the playing field, should still be allowed to play whatever character they want as well.

There are two schools of thought here, and they're not necessarily contrary to one another.
The person who has no social presence or skills should still be allowed to play a charming or witty character without being penalized for their real-life weaknesses in that field.
The person who is superb at public speaking and debate shouldn't feel like his real-world skills are useless at the table and he should just be quiet and do the math already.
There is a way to satisfy both these conditions, and it would involve something similar to the stunting mechanic in Exalted, or the description mechanic in Legends of the Wulin.

[Airk]

There are two schools of thought here, and they're not necessarily contrary to one another.
The person who has no social presence or skills should still be allowed to play a charming or witty character without being penalized for their real-life weaknesses in that field.
The person who is superb at public speaking and debate shouldn't feel like his real-world skills are useless at the table and he should just be quiet and do the math already.
There is a way to satisfy both these conditions, and it would involve something similar to the stunting mechanic in Exalted, or the description mechanic in Legends of the Wulin.

Why not? If I spend a bunch of time learning how to fight with a sword, should that improve my chances in combat? No it should not. The player is not doing these things, the character is. I don't CARE how eloquent you are, if you're playing a rube with 6 charisma and roll a 4 on your diplomacy check, your eloquent speech means nothing.

This is why you DON'T GIVE the eloquent speech until after you find out of it's appropriate. I don't understand why this isn't the standard. Doesn't ever RPG teach you the difference between "intent" and "stating results"? Giving an eloquent speech is stating results.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

As far as I am concerned, the best rule for social interactions in an RPG is that you are NOT ALLOWED to roleplay it until AFTER the dice are rolled.

Think about it. You don't describe any OTHER actions in the game beyond a statement of intent until you roll the dice. You never say "I leap forwards, past the useless intervention of his guards, hew through his shield and split him in half at the waist with my vorpal greatsword!" and THEN see if you roll a 20. You say "I'm going to try to cut him down with my vorpal greatsword." so that when you roll a 2, you don't wonder how to reconcile that with your awesome description.

There's another way you could look at it, too, where it's a bit of an abstraction. (Related to the fact that you could describe a combat approach that doesn't realistically make sense.) You could set up a social encounter where the social interaction sets up what your roll is going to be. (This makes the most sense in something like Burning Wheel, where there's multiple social skills representing different approaches.)

Here's how it works: you conduct the engagement until you get to a tipping point. This requires a good bit of awareness. What I mean by a "tipping point" is the bit where you've made your case (by threatening, bargaining, or buttering-up), but now it's time to see how it's received. And you roll the dice in order to see how all of the other random factors fall: the things you can't account for, the things you can't properly convey at the table. Body language, contextual responses, and the backstory and experiences of the other party.

You accept that you can't perfectly account for it, so you leave it to the dice to figure out what happens.

The game that I like the best for this is Leverage. When you roll a Face action, the GM pulls in dice for a number of factors...and nobody knows how much those factors will influence the difficulty of your roll. The GM rolls, then you roll. You do the same thing: pulling in a bunch of factors (like your ability to charm someone, a character trait, any advantages you've established so far). Then you see what happens. And sometimes, the roll generates complications: your persuasion attempt goes in an unexpected direction because of something that the people at the table didn't realize.

Basically: the less you get worked up over the specific details, and the more okay you are with letting randomness deliver a judgement, the better things are. I've found that the best justification period is "You did a pretty good job, but there's something you didn't realize about your target, and you totally put them off through no fault of your own." So you appealed to the value of family ties in your speech. How were you to know that the Duke's siblings were cruel to him in the past?

[Dimers]

The person who is superb at public speaking and debate shouldn't feel like his real-world skills are useless at the table and he should just be quiet and do the math already.

Nobody should be told to "just be quiet and do the math already", certainly. But neither should someone be rewarded or penalized in-game for out-of-game things. Financiers don't expect extra money in Monopoly, soldiers don't get an accuracy bonus for their troops in Warhammer, swimmers can't have their robot move faster in Don't Get Bit, occultists don't know special lore in Call Of Chthulhu -- there's no reason someone good at talking should get to ignore the rules for social interaction in D&D.

EDIT: Games should certainly exist in which players can apply/test their own social skills. Many do, in fact, though far fewer say so explicitly. When I play ... say ... Cosmic Encounter, I'm quite aware that I'm using my social skill in persuading other players to join my side in a battle or bluffing my opponent about what kind of card I'm going to play to resolve it. Since I kinda suck at that kind of manipulation IRL, I avoid that sort of game once I realize how much social skill it involves. I don't think Cosmic Encounter shouldn't exist, I just think I shouldn't play it. For TTRPGs, my default assumption is that my character can be good at whatever the character sheet says, so if there are social attributes listed, I expect to succeed or fail based on that attribute rather than my own expression. And if I may be so bold -- I have yet to see a RPG that doesn't have social attributes on the sheet.

[Airk]

<snip>

Interesting idea, but I think it would rub people the wrong way even more, AND it doesn't clear up the whole "Why didn't I get a bonus for good roleplaying?" whine.

[AMFV]

Why not? If I spend a bunch of time learning how to fight with a sword, should that improve my chances in combat? No it should not. The player is not doing these things, the character is. I don't CARE how eloquent you are, if you're playing a rube with 6 charisma and roll a 4 on your diplomacy check, your eloquent speech means nothing.

This is why you DON'T GIVE the eloquent speech until after you find out of it's appropriate. I don't understand why this isn't the standard. Doesn't ever RPG teach you the difference between "intent" and "stating results"? Giving an eloquent speech is stating results.

I really like this. I'm probably going to start using this in my games from now on. Thank you!

[Segev]

I still object to the "no inclination" line because I don't think anybody here IS arguing for that. It's a straw man that distracts from the more important objections by being easily demolished and pretending to be a support equal to the others.

And you're missing the point when you focus on "number of rolls." The point is mechanical depth. "It takes 10 rolls" is not really any better than "it takes 1 roll." The choices between rolls are still not meaningful, mechanically. There's a reason few people run combat as "okay, roll your attack, now your damage" without even considering tactical positioning. And even THEN, 3.5 offers such choices as how much to power attack and the like. Not to mention spells, sneak attack, etc.


The position I advocate is one of having mechanical depth with meaningful choices. Ideally, it will be "shaped" like a social interaction such that RP of the actions represented by the mechanics will naturally follow if the players do have the inclination.

If players don't have the inclination, that's a different matter entirely, and really isn't what I'm discussing nor for what I'm advocating.


Also, while I'm aware LARP can include boffers, that's hardly a form of resolution germaine to the typical discussion of RPGs. Usually, LARPing is considered different enough to be called out as the topic. I'm not denigrating it, and if you want to do boffer-style LARPing combined with "your character is no more or less persuasive than you are," that's fine and dandy. My problem is that people don't seem to recognize that "your personal eloquence determine's your PC's" is basically taking boffer-style LARPing to the tabletop game.

[AMFV]

I still object to the "no inclination" line because I don't think anybody here IS arguing for that. It's a straw man that distracts from the more important objections by being easily demolished and pretending to be a support equal to the others.

And you're missing the point when you focus on "number of rolls." The point is mechanical depth. "It takes 10 rolls" is not really any better than "it takes 1 roll." The choices between rolls are still not meaningful, mechanically. There's a reason few people run combat as "okay, roll your attack, now your damage" without even considering tactical positioning. And even THEN, 3.5 offers such choices as how much to power attack and the like. Not to mention spells, sneak attack, etc.


The position I advocate is one of having mechanical depth with meaningful choices. Ideally, it will be "shaped" like a social interaction such that RP of the actions represented by the mechanics will naturally follow if the players do have the inclination.

If players don't have the inclination, that's a different matter entirely, and really isn't what I'm discussing nor for what I'm advocating.


Also, while I'm aware LARP can include boffers, that's hardly a form of resolution germaine to the typical discussion of RPGs. Usually, LARPing is considered different enough to be called out as the topic. I'm not denigrating it, and if you want to do boffer-style LARPing combined with "your character is no more or less persuasive than you are," that's fine and dandy. My problem is that people don't seem to recognize that "your personal eloquence determine's your PC's" is basically taking boffer-style LARPing to the tabletop game.

They do realize that, that's why the comparison was made. Otherwise making that comparison would make no sense.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Also, while I'm aware LARP can include boffers, that's hardly a form of resolution germaine to the typical discussion of RPGs. Usually, LARPing is considered different enough to be called out as the topic. I'm not denigrating it, and if you want to do boffer-style LARPing combined with "your character is no more or less persuasive than you are," that's fine and dandy. My problem is that people don't seem to recognize that "your personal eloquence determine's your PC's" is basically taking boffer-style LARPing to the tabletop game.

Boffer combat is also rather different from actual combat.

[NichG]

And if I may be so bold -- I have yet to see a RPG that doesn't have social attributes on the sheet.

'Last Stand' doesn't really. It has four attributes, which are more or less interchangeable except when explicitly called out by a special ability: Disruptor, Operative, Tactics, Leadership. You can in fact kill a giant robot with Leadership, or maim a monstrous crab with Operative, or whatever you like. While the game does have some verbiage about 'social conflicts' being able to make use of those stats as well, the stats themselves are not social attributes.

Nobilis doesn't either. While there's the possibility of creating socially powerful mechanical effects, they're more along the 'Detect Thoughts' line of things than the 'roll Diplomacy' line of things.

[Airk]

I really like this. I'm probably going to start using this in my games from now on. Thank you!

My favorite part about it is actually the fact that it makes how you handle things MORE consistent, because with everything else, you say "I try to climb the wall!" or whatever and then roll to see how well you do and then describe it.

I can't actually take credit for this idea though, I read it somewhere relatively recently. I can't remember where though. =/

[Dimers]

I can't actually take credit for this idea though, I read it somewhere relatively recently. I can't remember where though. =/

*cough*severalofmypostsinotherthreads*cough* Probably not the only place you've seen it, and you said it better than I do, but yeah ... I've been espousing that for a good long while.

'Last Stand' doesn't really. It has four attributes, which are more or less interchangeable except when explicitly called out by a special ability: Disruptor, Operative, Tactics, Leadership. You can in fact kill a giant robot with Leadership, or maim a monstrous crab with Operative, or whatever you like. While the game does have some verbiage about 'social conflicts' being able to make use of those stats as well, the stats themselves are not social attributes.

Nobilis doesn't either. While there's the possibility of creating socially powerful mechanical effects, they're more along the 'Detect Thoughts' line of things than the 'roll Diplomacy' line of things.

Coo'. Been meaning to check out Nobilis anyway. I guess I'll move that up to the top of my list.

[Avilan the Grey]

The person who is superb at public speaking and debate shouldn't feel like his real-world skills are useless at the table and he should just be quiet and do the math already.
There is a way to satisfy both these conditions, and it would involve something similar to the stunting mechanic in Exalted, or the description mechanic in Legends of the Wulin.

So you are saying that the olympic class fencer should be allowed to demonstrate his skill instead of rolling?
Edit: Never mind, point have already been made.

[Sartharina]

Interesting idea, but I think it would rub people the wrong way even more, AND it doesn't clear up the whole "Why didn't I get a bonus for good roleplaying?" whine.

Actually, his discussion of the Leverage System did seem to do so, by apparently giving bonus die or the like because your "Good Roleplaying" would imply you found advantages to bring up in the conversation - and the DM also gets advantages for Good Roleplaying by fleshing out the NPCs with their motivations and previous experiences.

I like it when good roleplaying carries mechanical clout behind it, so that a bad-at-diplomacy character can still have his bad-at-diplomacy-ness sabotage well-meaning and otherwise-effective behaviors (Sorry Igor, but while your arguments were sound and tailored to your target, your inability to go two sentences without slobbering and stuttering made you come across as a buffoon and hinder your case.), and a good-at-diplomacy character can have that mechanics salvage or carry otherwise bad or weak roleplaying (Despite the bard's inability to keep her foot out of her mouth, her enthusiasm and grace won over the crowd despite her broken logic and clueless arguments.) But, those are edge cases, and they allow people who are "meh" mechanically in diplomacy to still pull their weight.

[Airk]

Actually, his discussion of the Leverage System did seem to do so, by apparently giving bonus die or the like because your "Good Roleplaying" would imply you found advantages to bring up in the conversation - and the DM also gets advantages for Good Roleplaying by fleshing out the NPCs with their motivations and previous experiences.

I don't count that as "good roleplaying" - indeed, I would give those same bonuses for the sort of thing I mentioned in my original post: "I attempt to persuade His Lordship to give us the supplies we need, and imply that we know about his involvement with the red blades." - the bolded part indicates that you've found an advantage to use in the conversation. But that's not roleplaying. That's just knowing how to prod your "opponent".

I like it when good roleplaying carries mechanical clout behind it, so that a bad-at-diplomacy character can still have his bad-at-diplomacy-ness sabotage well-meaning and otherwise-effective behaviors (Sorry Igor, but while your arguments were sound and tailored to your target, your inability to go two sentences without slobbering and stuttering made you come across as a buffoon and hinder your case.), and a good-at-diplomacy character can have that mechanics salvage or carry otherwise bad or weak roleplaying (Despite the bard's inability to keep her foot out of her mouth, her enthusiasm and grace won over the crowd despite her broken logic and clueless arguments.) But, those are edge cases, and they allow people who are "meh" mechanically in diplomacy to still pull their weight.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You lead off saying essentially "I think good roleplaying should impact the results of social skills" and then go on to give some examples of how that would...not happen?

[Sartharina]

I don't count that as "good roleplaying" - indeed, I would give those same bonuses for the sort of thing I mentioned in my original post: "I attempt to persuade His Lordship to give us the supplies we need, and imply that we know about his involvement with the red blades." - the bolded part indicates that you've found an advantage to use in the conversation. But that's not roleplaying. That's just knowing how to prod your "opponent".

Which requires investment in the world and understanding of what's going on, and is integral to roleplaying. I consider Roleplaying to be more about making and presenting decisions and context for those decisions than merely acting.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You lead off saying essentially "I think good roleplaying should impact the results of social skills" and then go on to give some examples of how that would...not happen?

The converse of that is that someone who's good at roleplaying is actually getting the option to roll those dice at all by provoking the situation.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Actually, his discussion of the Leverage System did seem to do so, by apparently giving bonus die or the like because your "Good Roleplaying" would imply you found advantages to bring up in the conversation - and the DM also gets advantages for Good Roleplaying by fleshing out the NPCs with their motivations and previous experiences.

An important note: Leverage doesn't reward "good roleplaying" in the sense of "I'm good at giving a social performance", but in the sense of "I'm good at engaging the fiction of the game and looking for advantages that I can use". You gain those advantages by succeeding at other rolls, which means you're leveraging things that you've already discovered in the game. Like, maybe in a prior scene you discovered some dirt on a politician. If you bring it into your attempt to intimidate the politician, it acts as an advantage for you (you roll an extra die into your pool).

Of course, doing something like that comes with its own consequences: you've defined the terms of this social dialogue, and cut off other avenues. And if it goes wrong...

Short version: not a big fan of mechanical benefits for your skill at roleplaying, but it's great when mechanics engage with the content of roleplaying--i.e., doing stuff to parts of the fiction and making choices about what to do.

[Cronocke]

Why not? If I spend a bunch of time learning how to fight with a sword, should that improve my chances in combat? No it should not. The player is not doing these things, the character is. I don't CARE how eloquent you are, if you're playing a rube with 6 charisma and roll a 4 on your diplomacy check, your eloquent speech means nothing.

This is why you DON'T GIVE the eloquent speech until after you find out of it's appropriate. I don't understand why this isn't the standard. Doesn't ever RPG teach you the difference between "intent" and "stating results"? Giving an eloquent speech is stating results.

I would love for more systems to involve rolling the dice first and deciding what you do with them after the fact. But the current paradigm for the vast majority of systems is "I say what I'm doing, then I roll the dice to see how it works." As a direct result, they favor one type of player - the guy who knows how to minmax his character sheet. You can invoke house rules and player preference to try to mitigate that, but it's still the way the system works. Your ability to do whatever-the-Hell in real life doesn't matter, as you state. And not everyone considers this something to be emulated.

Nobody should be told to "just be quiet and do the math already", certainly. But neither should someone be rewarded or penalized in-game for out-of-game things. Financiers don't expect extra money in Monopoly, soldiers don't get an accuracy bonus for their troops in Warhammer, swimmers can't have their robot move faster in Don't Get Bit, occultists don't know special lore in Call Of Chthulhu -- there's no reason someone good at talking should get to ignore the rules for social interaction in D&D.

But we're not talking about Monopoly, Warhammer, Don't Get Bit, Call of Cthulhu, or D&D. We're talking about what the rules should be for a hypothetical game system.

I get it - the easiest resolution mechanic to use for an RPG is dice. Gamers tend to have dice, so games should use dice. Gamers tend to have paper, so use character sheets. But how hard is it for a new player to make a character sheet on their own for your typical D&D clone? If they're good at math they'll have a leg up, to be sure, but those with different talents will have a hard time - and if everyone else is optimizing even slightly, it's going to be even harder for them to stay relevant.

Why is it such a thoughtcrime to want to throw them a bone, and give them numeric bonuses for using the talents they do have?

And actually, I'm pretty sure Monopoly favors those who are good at handling their finances - it was originally made as a subtle jab at capitalism.

So you are saying that the olympic class fencer should be allowed to demonstrate his skill instead of rolling?

No. Nobody is saying that you should do anything instead of rolling. I'm saying that the guy who minmaxes all his characters to high heaven, and the girl who has only ever played one or two games before but really, earnestly wants to prove she's willing and able to play and be effective, should not be wildly different on the power scale.

As you all seemed so eager to say - it should be about how the dice fall, and not where your real life skills lie.

[Airk]

I would love for more systems to involve rolling the dice first and deciding what you do with them after the fact. But the current paradigm for the vast majority of systems is "I say what I'm doing, then I roll the dice to see how it works."

No, you are incorrect. You do not say "what you are doing"; You say what you are TRYING to do. There is an important distinction.

As a direct result, they favor one type of player - the guy who knows how to minmax his character sheet.

SOME games favor this. I think it is completely unreasonable, however, to assert that a game that has one stat and 1-2 skills for "talking to people" somehow favors people who min-max. It's just not a great leap to understand that if you want to be good at talking people into things, that you might want to have good numbers in the talking skills and stat.

It's only when you get into games with elaborate point buys and feats and blahblahstuff that you are seriously rewarding minmaxing in any meaningful sort of way. Otherwise, you are just rewarding characters for being good at something (and less good at other things).

Also, let's be honest. Who the hell "minmaxes" for optimal social skills?

You can invoke house rules and player preference to try to mitigate that, but it's still the way the system works.

It's the way bad systems work, maybe.

Your ability to do whatever-the-Hell in real life doesn't matter, as you state. And not everyone considers this something to be emulated.

Actually, everyone I know would like to be able to do things in the game that they can't do in real life. The pretty much necessary counterpoint to this is that you might not be able to do something that you CAN do in real life. If I am an olympic swimmer, and my character has no points in Swim, my character CAN'T SWIM. There is no reason that my character should be an excellent orator with zero points there just because I've been training in public speaking. I'm sorry, there just isn't. Skills need to be handled uniformly.

I get it - the easiest resolution mechanic to use for an RPG is dice. Gamers tend to have dice, so games should use dice. Gamers tend to have paper, so use character sheets.

You are off base. This has nothing to do with "resolution mechanisms"; This has to do with WHO is performing the action. It is not the player. Therefore, yes, we use a "game" to decide how well the character does things. The game might just say "Your character is awesome at persuading people, so he can totally talk someone into giving him free supplies because he has the "Silver Tongue" aspect" or whatever. Dice and character sheets don't actually need to be involved.

But how hard is it for a new player to make a character sheet on their own for your typical D&D clone?

While YOU appear to be fixated on D&D and games that offer lots of minmaxing options (though not so many as you imply for social skills), I think WE in this thread are more interested in discussing RPGs as a whole. Certainly, I am.

If they're good at math they'll have a leg up, to be sure, but those with different talents will have a hard time - and if everyone else is optimizing even slightly, it's going to be even harder for them to stay relevant.

Actually, I consider this to be pretty much a blatant falsehood. Games have tradeoffs. If someone puts points in Empathy/Charisma/Whatever, there is going to be a corresponding lack of points elsewhere. Similarly, if someone buys a "feat" that makes them good at persuading people to do stuff, that's a feat they didn't spend on Cleave, or whatever. If someone takes the aspect "Texas Snake Oil Salesman" then that has clearly defined benefits - but it also means they might not have room for "Fastest gun this side of the Pecos".

Why is it such a thoughtcrime to want to throw them a bone, and give them numeric bonuses for using the talents they do have?

Because you're not throwing bones to anyone else? What about the guy who is bad at math AND bad at social skills, but happens to be a gifted athlete? Why don't you throw HIM a bone? C'mon. The most fair way to approach this is the one that DOESN'T involve arbitrary handouts.

No. Nobody is saying that you should do anything instead of rolling. I'm saying that the guy who minmaxes all his characters to high heaven, and the girl who has only ever played one or two games before but really, earnestly wants to prove she's willing and able to play and be effective, should not be wildly different on the power scale.

And I'm saying that in a game that's not awful, the girl WILL have a chance to show off what she can do, so long as it's what she decided her character 'should' be good at... or if the dice do her a favor. After all, these games are about interesting stories, not about always succeeding. And at the end of the day, in most game systems, is not possible to be dominant in all areas, even with minmaxing. If it is, it's your own fault for playing such an awful game.

As you all seemed so eager to say - it should be about how the dice fall, and not where your real life skills lie.

Which is why games that reward system mastery suck, yes, but that's unrelated to this discussion, because it includes ALL aspects of the game, not just social skills.

[Cronocke]

Which is why games that reward system mastery suck, yes, but that's unrelated to this discussion, because it includes ALL aspects of the game, not just social skills.

I think that is the discussion, actually, but alright. If that's your stance, I agree wholeheartedly and concede.

[AMFV]

No, you are incorrect. You do not say "what you are doing"; You say what you are TRYING to do. There is an important distinction.

Well this varies from system to system. Sometimes rolling the dice is an absolute commitment to attempting something, sometimes it's not. Particularly in social situations, where a diplomacy fail might mean that you fall silent when you should have spoken.

SOME games favor this. I think it is completely unreasonable, however, to assert that a game that has one stat and 1-2 skills for "talking to people" somehow favors people who min-max. It's just not a great leap to understand that if you want to be good at talking people into things, that you might want to have good numbers in the talking skills and stat.

It's only when you get into games with elaborate point buys and feats and blahblahstuff that you are seriously rewarding minmaxing in any meaningful sort of way. Otherwise, you are just rewarding characters for being good at something (and less good at other things).

Also, let's be honest. Who the hell "minmaxes" for optimal social skills?

Well that depends, complex games reward the ability to understand and implement complex systems. Simple games typically reward different things. All games require skill. ALL games require skill of some kind, whether it's social skill (for the most freeform games, and I'm talking completely freeform) or the ability to organize complex systems and understand implications of combing elements of the systems (for the most complex games, like HERO System.) D&D actually falls middle ground here, there is a high degree of system mastery, but it is not enough that the DM needs to supervise all elements of character creation as in Mutants and Masterminds or HERO system, where it is very to unbalance the system with smaller degree of effort than D&D.

I Minmax for social skills, I've created characters that are built for that. If you were familiar with D&D, instead of deriding you'd realize that one of the most broken builds (and one of the earliest to come online) is focused entirely on diplomacy and being good at it.

It's the way bad systems work, maybe.

Bad systems, in your opinion. I enjoy complexity of systems, it's fun for me. I can understand that it wouldn't be fun for everybody, but it's fun for me.

Actually, everyone I know would like to be able to do things in the game that they can't do in real life. The pretty much necessary counterpoint to this is that you might not be able to do something that you CAN do in real life. If I am an olympic swimmer, and my character has no points in Swim, my character CAN'T SWIM. There is no reason that my character should be an excellent orator with zero points there just because I've been training in public speaking. I'm sorry, there just isn't. Skills need to be handled uniformly.

Well it depends, on how skills resolution is handled. Typically people are rewarded for being socially adept in almost all games. In the example of not giving real estate moguls bonus money in Monopoly we've ignored the fact that they'd be better at monopoly. The same as a military veteran could be better at W40K (Don't quote me on that I'm not familiar enough with the game to know if that's true or not.) But it is impossible to create a game that does not use real world skills to some degree.

You are off base. This has nothing to do with "resolution mechanisms"; This has to do with WHO is performing the action. It is not the player. Therefore, yes, we use a "game" to decide how well the character does things. The game might just say "Your character is awesome at persuading people, so he can totally talk someone into giving him free supplies because he has the "Silver Tongue" aspect" or whatever. Dice and character sheets don't actually need to be involved.

This is true, but knowing which aspects will be useful is certainly a skill, or CONVINCING somebody that an aspect is useful in a particular situation certainly involves social skills.

While YOU appear to be fixated on D&D and games that offer lots of minmaxing options (though not so many as you imply for social skills), I think WE in this thread are more interested in discussing RPGs as a whole. Certainly, I am.

I think WoD has a much more focused social skills system. There are also other games that involve complex mechanical systems that are not D&D, it is a little bit disingenuous to imply that D&D is the worst offender or even the most focused on mechanical optimization, I promise it's not.

Actually, I consider this to be pretty much a blatant falsehood. Games have tradeoffs. If someone puts points in Empathy/Charisma/Whatever, there is going to be a corresponding lack of points elsewhere. Similarly, if someone buys a "feat" that makes them good at persuading people to do stuff, that's a feat they didn't spend on Cleave, or whatever. If someone takes the aspect "Texas Snake Oil Salesman" then that has clearly defined benefits - but it also means they might not have room for "Fastest gun this side of the Pecos".

Not all games have tradeoffs. Sometimes some options are simply better. Or options are randomly decided as in Older D&D or Rolemaster. Now if the game has character customization to that degree then there could be tradeoffs. But you could have a certain number of social feats or whatever, that you couldn't spend on other things, you don't necessarily have to have tradeoffs between social ability and combat ability. In fact in D&D (3.5 and Pathfinder) the majority of social ability comes from skills, and spending points on social skills generally does not jeopardize your combat potential since there are very few skills that can be used in combat.

Because you're not throwing bones to anyone else? What about the guy who is bad at math AND bad at social skills, but happens to be a gifted athlete? Why don't you throw HIM a bone? C'mon. The most fair way to approach this is the one that DOESN'T involve arbitrary handouts.

Well he can play LARP and get to hit people with foam swords. That's a chance to utilize his abilities. He could do some kind of outdoor adventure LARP, involving hiking and climbing or aerobics.

Which is why games that reward system mastery suck, yes, but that's unrelated to this discussion, because it includes ALL aspects of the game, not just social skills.

Well some people enjoy system mastery. Furthermore I posit that there is no such thing as a game that does not reward you for being good at the game. Provide me with one example of a game that can be played as well by somebody whose never played it and somebody who has.

[Dimers]

those with different talents will have a hard time - and if everyone else is optimizing even slightly, it's going to be even harder for them to stay relevant. Why is it such a thoughtcrime to want to throw them a bone, and give them numeric bonuses for using the talents they do have?

What I'm saying is, for those players -- new or very experienced -- who DON'T have social skills, why not throw THEM a bone and not force them to be socially awkward in the game?

Also, in the games I've been part of, the experienced players help the newbies make the characters that the newbies envision, so that they don't have to miss out on the mechanics side of things.