Moderate Approach to Rolling Social Skills

[Solaris]

If I say "I attack the orc.", we use the mechanical rules printed in the book to attack the orc.

If I say "I use diplomacy on the king.", we use the mechanical rules printed in the book under the skill "Diplomacy".

Diplomacy has simple mechanical rules that change someone's attitude on a result over a set DC. It is no more complex than hitting something. In fact, it is probably less complex.

According to the rules I don't have to tell the DM anything outside of "I use diplomacy on the king", because the mechanics and results of diplomacy are standard rules. I hit the DC, the king now goes from neutral to friendly. Ta Da! Amazing! Requiring anything further is pure house-rule.

It's a darn shame that dice roll can't tell him what you want, though.

The problem is that RPGs are team games. I am trying to find a compromise, but my group is split between players of two very different styles who wont budge an inch towards the middle.

Hopefully our nattering back and forth can help you come up with arguments to persuade them one way or the other - but barring that, pick the one you want to go with and tell the other group "tough nuggets". Sometimes, ya just gotta put your foot down.

[Sith_Happens]

The problem is that RPGs are team games. I am trying to find a compromise, but my group is split between players of two very different styles who wont budge an inch towards the middle.

Have you tried making a Diplomacy check?

[GloatingSwine]

If I say "I attack the orc.", we use the mechanical rules printed in the book to attack the orc.

If I say "I use diplomacy on the king.", we use the mechanical rules printed in the book under the skill "Diplomacy".

Diplomacy has simple mechanical rules that change someone's attitude on a result over a set DC. It is no more complex than hitting something. In fact, it is probably less complex.

According to the rules I don't have to tell the DM anything outside of "I use diplomacy on the king", because the mechanics and results of diplomacy are standard rules. I hit the DC, the king now goes from neutral to friendly. Ta Da! Amazing! Requiring anything further is pure house-rule.

On the other hand, if you don't tell the DM anything then you only get the basic result of the Diplomacy check. You used you diplomacy, the King now likes you more.

He won't do anything you want him to do because you didn't tell him what you wanted, but he really likes you now.

[Jay R]

On the other hand, if you don't tell the DM anything then you only get the basic result of the Diplomacy check. You used you diplomacy, the King now likes you more.

He won't do anything you want him to do because you didn't tell him what you wanted, but he really likes you now.

Oh, well done.

[Jormengand]

Have you tried making a Diplomacy check?

No, silly, that doesn't work. You need to tell the DM exactly what information you're using, and how you're using it. And you're not allowed to hit players with the DMG unless you can explain to the DM exactly how you're doing it.

[Jay R]

Getting back to Talakeal’s problem: he has two groups of people with incompatible playstyles at the table – neither of them, as near as I can tell, the style that he writes scenarios for.

You need to think of them as people who don’t know the game, or at least this version of the game. For the second group, I offer one recommendation somebody made before – prompt them. Ask, “Do you want to make a Sense Motive check here?”

If you had players who didn’t understand the combat, you’d prompt them with, you can move some many squares and then attack. That means that you can choose to move up and attack this orc or that orc, but not the others.”

Similarly, the first group needs to be told that role-playing the encounter is a necessary part of building up to the Diplomacy check. Point out to them that they need to at least explain what they are trying to convince the NPC to do, and what argument they use to do so. Explain to them that these are not part of their own diplomacy skills – just figuring out what happens in the game – just as flanking somebody in combat by moving your figure isn’t using your own flanking or combat skills.

Finally, as much as possible, compromise with them. You need to find a way to have social encounters that everyone (including you) can enjoy, and everyone (including you) can be satisfied with. That will probably mean less direct role-play than you are used to, more direct role-play than the first group is used to, and more dice-rolling than the second group is used to.

[SiuiS]

If I say "I attack the orc.", we use the mechanical rules printed in the book to attack the orc.

If I say "I use diplomacy on the king.", we use the mechanical rules printed in the book under the skill "Diplomacy".

Diplomacy has simple mechanical rules that change someone's attitude on a result over a set DC. It is no more complex than hitting something. In fact, it is probably less complex.

According to the rules I don't have to tell the DM anything outside of "I use diplomacy on the king", because the mechanics and results of diplomacy are standard rules. I hit the DC, the king now goes from neutral to friendly. Ta Da! Amazing! Requiring anything further is pure house-rule.

No, it's not pure house rule. Rolling diplomacy does absolutely nothing for you. It doesn't convey a message. Even if it did convey a message, you have to tell the DM what the message your character conveyed to his NPC is.

If you roll diplomacy good, you are liked but still have two cola in what the hell is going on and what you want, because you a roll haven't done that. Communication skills require communication. All this argument about the sanctity of diplomacy and players don't have to try is like saying it's enough to hold down the button on your wallow talkie, you don't need to make noise for the device to transmit.

On the other hand, if you don't tell the DM anything then you only get the basic result of the Diplomacy check. You used you diplomacy, the King now likes you more.

He won't do anything you want him to do because you didn't tell him what you wanted, but he really likes you now.

Precisely. Strict by the book diplomacy!

[Talakeal]

Getting back to Talakeal’s problem: he has two groups of people with incompatible playstyles at the table – neither of them, as near as I can tell, the style that he writes scenarios for.

You need to think of them as people who don’t know the game, or at least this version of the game. For the second group, I offer one recommendation somebody made before – prompt them. Ask, “Do you want to make a Sense Motive check here?”

If you had players who didn’t understand the combat, you’d prompt them with, you can move some many squares and then attack. That means that you can choose to move up and attack this orc or that orc, but not the others.”

Similarly, the first group needs to be told that role-playing the encounter is a necessary part of building up to the Diplomacy check. Point out to them that they need to at least explain what they are trying to convince the NPC to do, and what argument they use to do so. Explain to them that these are not part of their own diplomacy skills – just figuring out what happens in the game – just as flanking somebody in combat by moving your figure isn’t using your own flanking or combat skills.

Finally, as much as possible, compromise with them. You need to find a way to have social encounters that everyone (including you) can enjoy, and everyone (including you) can be satisfied with. That will probably mean less direct role-play than you are used to, more direct role-play than the first group is used to, and more dice-rolling than the second group is used to.

So I read the "quantum ogre" article series on the hack and slash blog. He seems to be saying something similar, that the Dm needs to explain everything to players so that they can know the consequences of their actions and what options are available so they can make infomed choices. To me this seems like it takes away player agency and seems somwhat patronizing, but it might be a good way to start. I think I will talk to my group about it.

[Solaris]

So I read the "quantum ogre" article series on the hack and slash blog. He seems to be saying something similar, that the Dm needs to explain everything to players so that they can know the consequences of their actions and what options are available so they can make infomed choices. To me this seems like it takes away player agency and seems somwhat patronizing, but it might be a good way to start. I think I will talk to my group about it.

I think it's not patronizing if you remain open to suggestions - lay out what you think are the more reasonable options, but let 'em come up with alternatives.

[Jay R]

So I read the "quantum ogre" article series on the hack and slash blog. He seems to be saying something similar, that the Dm needs to explain everything to players so that they can know the consequences of their actions and what options are available so they can make infomed choices. To me this seems like it takes away player agency and seems somwhat patronizing, but it might be a good way to start. I think I will talk to my group about it.

Well, clearly, one group doesn't realize that thinking through the encounter will help them when it's time to roll Diplomacy, and the other group doesn't know that additional information is available through Sense Motive, Knowledge, and other mechanical methods. Quite possibly they don't think of these things because of the way their old DMs ran the game. They need to learn your style.

To paraphrase an old legal maxim, "Any player knows the rules. A good player knows the exceptions. A great player knows the DM." It's not patronizing to give them a chance to learn the DM. You know from previous experience how frustrating it can be to play with a DM who makes assumptions you don't make.

I would recommend that you remind them ("what information do you have that might help convince the king" or "do you want to try Sense Motive"?) a few times.

If you still need to do it five games later, then you need to consider if they can play in your game. But first give them a reasonable chance to learn it.

[Talakeal]

This touches on a related problem:

I come up with a scenario without meaning to think up solutions. However, I am an analytical person, and my mind inevitably goes over the scenario in my head coming up with possible outcomes and solutions.

When the game comes around my players are stumped and give up telling me I have put them in a no win situation.

I then defend myself by saying, "How about trying X, Y, or Z?" reciting possible outcomes I have thought up.

Then my players claim I have put them on a railroad with only one possible solution which they can't ever guess because they aren't mind readers.

I can't imagine that if I started prompting them to do things in social situations I wouldn't have similar results.

[Jay R]

This touches on a related problem:

I come up with a scenario without meaning to think up solutions. However, I am an analytical person, and my mind inevitably goes over the scenario in my head coming up with possible outcomes and solutions.

This is the problem. As soon as you think of a solution, find a way to prevent it.

If you know one way to solve the problem, then the 999 other ways the players come up with won't work. But if you present them a problem for which you don't have an immediate solution, all 1,000 things the players come up with could work.

When the game comes around my players are stumped and give up telling me I have put them in a no win situation.

I then defend myself by saying, "How about trying X, Y, or Z?" reciting possible outcomes I have thought up.

Which reinforces in their minds that they have to find your idea. Never give them your solution. It can't help.

But I do recommend knowing what adventure they get thrown in if they fail in the current problem. I love having a situation which, if they cannot solve it, will throw them in the briar patch.

I can't imagine that if I started prompting them to do things in social situations I wouldn't have similar results.

If there's one way to convince the king, then it will. But if you just know who the king is, and can have him react to what they say, then they can come up with the successful approach.

[Talakeal]

This is the problem. As soon as you think of a solution, find a way to prevent it.

If you know one way to solve the problem, then the 999 other ways the players come up with won't work. But if you present them a problem for which you don't have an immediate solution, all 1,000 things the players come up with could work.



Which reinforces in their minds that they have to find your idea. Never give them your solution. It can't help.

But I do recommend knowing what adventure they get thrown in if they fail in the current problem. I love having a situation which, if they cannot solve it, will throw them in the briar patch.



If there's one way to convince the king, then it will. But if you just know who the king is, and can have him react to what they say, then they can come up with the successful approach.

I think either you are misunderstanding me or vice versa, but it sounds like you are saying I should actively shoot down any scenario which I have thought out?

The problem isn't that I shoot down their plans, the problem is that they talk themselves out of making a plan and convince themselves the situation is hopeless*.

They say things like "This is impossible. We leave because there is nothing we can do here. I give up and go home. Well, so much for that stupid adventure. What the hell were you thinking putting us in a no win situation like this?"


*Or do something completely random and stupid without actually thinking of basic consequences and then get mad at me for playing out the situation with what I perceive to be the logical consequences. They love, for example, to use innocent civilians as bait and then throw a tantrum if the enemy actually takes the bait and leaves them responsible for getting someone killed.

[NichG]

I think either you are misunderstanding me or vice versa, but it sounds like you are saying I should actively shoot down any scenario which I have thought out?

The problem isn't that I shoot down their plans, the problem is that they talk themselves out of making a plan and convince themselves the situation is hopeless*.

They say things like "This is impossible. We leave because there is nothing we can do here. I give up and go home. Well, so much for that stupid adventure. What the hell were you thinking putting us in a no win situation like this?"

*Or do something completely random and stupid without actually thinking of basic consequences and then get mad at me for playing out the situation with what I perceive to be the logical consequences. They love, for example, to use innocent civilians as bait and then throw a tantrum if the enemy actually takes the bait and leaves them responsible for getting someone killed.

It may just be that you're making things too hard for your players' current abilities. Or, more perniciously, that at one point you made things too hard for them and now they've convinced themselves that they basically can't deal with anything.

Try running a few absolutely trivial challenges for them and see if this is still true. Basically the equivalent of popcorn fights for social encounters. Give them opportunities to observe/spy on NPCs involved in their own social interactions, and allow it to serve two purposes: one, they see what kinds of things can be done without feeling like it's their agency you're messing with, and two it gives them ammunition against those NPCs later on. Give them a bunch of easy magic bullets to use at first like finding material evidence of NPC plots, that sort of thing.

Once you have found something which is easy enough that they don't even have to pause to think about what to do, you can start building the difficulty back up from there.

[Urpriest]

I'll give my previous suggestion again: some checks you need to make secretly for your players, not because you're coddling them but because it's not appropriate for them to be making them actively anyway. If the players are in a social situation, it's your job to roll Sense Motive checks (whether they ask for them or not, since they're reactive) and then tell them what they discover, because if they roll they'll know how well they rolled. Same with Knowledge (which can include things like Nobility and Royalty and Local for socially useful stuff). Do that, and you'll find they'll be stumped a lot less often.

[goto124]

I think either you are misunderstanding me or vice versa, but it sounds like you are saying I should actively shoot down any scenario which I have thought out?

The problem isn't that I shoot down their plans, the problem is that they talk themselves out of making a plan and convince themselves the situation is hopeless*.

They say things like "This is impossible. We leave because there is nothing we can do here. I give up and go home. Well, so much for that stupid adventure. What the hell were you thinking putting us in a no win situation like this?"


*Or do something completely random and stupid without actually thinking of basic consequences and then get mad at me for playing out the situation with what I perceive to be the logical consequences. They love, for example, to use innocent civilians as bait and then throw a tantrum if the enemy actually takes the bait and leaves them responsible for getting someone killed.

Could you give us some examples please? Perhaps it would explain the situation better.

[Jay R]

I think either you are misunderstanding me or vice versa, but it sounds like you are saying I should actively shoot down any scenario which I have thought out?

Pretty much. Specifically, you should actively shoot down any scenario you've thought out to the point that your players can't find a solution.

The problem isn't that I shoot down their plans, the problem is that they talk themselves out of making a plan and convince themselves the situation is hopeless*.

OK, then any plan for that situation is beyond their current capabilities. It doesn't matter whether it's beyond the PC's mechanical abilities, the player's critical thinking abilities, or the player's current psychological state. It's still too hard a scenario for them.

Maybe these guys need a CR of three levels below their characters. I don't know. But the observed fact is this: the current scenarios are too hard for these players and characters.

They say things like "This is impossible. We leave because there is nothing we can do here. I give up and go home. Well, so much for that stupid adventure. What the hell were you thinking putting us in a no win situation like this?"

Then you aren't providing a game that they find fun. Adjust it so they will.

*Or do something completely random and stupid without actually thinking of basic consequences and then get mad at me for playing out the situation with what I perceive to be the logical consequences. They love, for example, to use innocent civilians as bait and then throw a tantrum if the enemy actually takes the bait and leaves them responsible for getting someone killed.

Then tell them clearly and unambiguously, outside of the game, that using innocent civilians as bait will cause unsolvable problems. Then, within the game, when they propose such a move, tell them in advance what their characters ought to know about the consequences of those actions in the society they live in and the players don't.

[GloatingSwine]

OK, then any plan for that situation is beyond their current capabilities. It doesn't matter whether it's beyond the PC's mechanical abilities, the player's critical thinking abilities, or the player's current psychological state. It's still too hard a scenario for them.

Maybe these guys need a CR of three levels below their characters. I don't know. But the observed fact is this: the current scenarios are too hard for these players and characters.

It doesn't sound like CR is the issue.

It sounds like this is the issue:




(Maybe they actually just need dungeon crawls forever if they can't do anything else)

[Talakeal]

Pretty much. Specifically, you should actively shoot down any scenario you've thought out to the point that your players can't find a solution.

Ok, can I ask for a little clarification?

Are you saying that I should simply throw out any scenario that I have imagined how it could play out? I think this is going to leave my players very bored as they walk around in a randomly generated sandbox world with no plots or unique elements.

Are you saying I should shoot down any player plan which I have considered as a possible outcome? This is going to leave my players extremely frustrated as usually I have put WAY more thought into the game than they are and it is only once in a blue moon that they surprise me.

Or are you simply saying I should find a way to turn off my brain between the first inspiration for an encounter and actually playing it out? I don't think this is possible for me to do (and if you know a technique please let me know, it would help a lot in my life away from the game), but even if it is, won't that leave me unprepared and forced to improvise a lot of the game on the spot? In my experience I make my worst decisions off the cuff.

Or is it something else entirely?

OK, then any plan for that situation is beyond their current capabilities. It doesn't matter whether it's beyond the PC's mechanical abilities, the player's critical thinking abilities, or the player's current psychological state. It's still too hard a scenario for them.

Maybe these guys need a CR of three levels below their characters. I don't know. But the observed fact is this: the current scenarios are too hard for these players and characters.

Then you aren't providing a game that they find fun. Adjust it so they will.

The problem is really that they often give up after the first setback. No matter how easy I make the game it will still be a problem unless everything is auto pass to all solutions.

For example, I put a locked door in front of them. They go to have the rogue pick the lock, I tell them they need to roll a 5 or better. They roll a 2. At that point they decide the door is impossible and turn around and go home. They don't try and have the fighter bash the door down, they don't try and have the mage cast knock, they don't try and blow the door up, they don't try and tunnel through the wall next to the door, they don't try and find an alternate way. Their first attempt didn't work, and they get discouraged. If their party had a motto it would be "When then going gets tough, we go home!".

Like, to use the example from a few pages back, when their idea to convince the king to give in didn't solve their problems they simply left. They didn't try using stealth, treachery, or deceit. They didn't try attacking the king. They didn't try talking to the other side. They didn't try negotiating with a different tactic. They didn't bring in outside help. Nothing, they simply tried one approach and then left when it didn't solve all of their problems.

It doesn't sound like CR is the issue.

It sounds like this is the issue:




(Maybe they actually just need dungeon crawls forever if they can't do anything else)

LOL, pretty close actually. Usually they try ONE thing though, then give up.

Even dungeon crawls don't help. They will try to decipher the "puzzle" that is actually just a random dungeon dressing, try and break down an adamant wall, bribe their way past a golem, or stab a ghost, and then when that doesn't work they leave the dungeon and go back to town.

[Jay R]

Ok, can I ask for a little clarification?

Are you saying that I should simply throw out any scenario that I have imagined how it could play out? I think this is going to leave my players very bored as they walk around in a randomly generated sandbox world with no plots or unique elements.

Are you saying I should shoot down any player plan which I have considered as a possible outcome? This is going to leave my players extremely frustrated as usually I have put WAY more thought into the game than they are and it is only once in a blue moon that they surprise me.

Or are you simply saying I should find a way to turn off my brain between the first inspiration for an encounter and actually playing it out? I don't think this is possible for me to do (and if you know a technique please let me know, it would help a lot in my life away from the game), but even if it is, won't that leave me unprepared and forced to improvise a lot of the game on the spot? In my experience I make my worst decisions off the cuff.

Or is it something else entirely?

Something else entirely. I'm saying not to write all the easy solutions away. Write a scenario that these players can conquer.

The problem is really that they often give up after the first setback. No matter how easy I make the game it will still be a problem unless everything is auto pass to all solutions.

Do you suppose that they have played before with a DM for whom the most obvious thing to do was always correct, and they were really just meeting monsters, rolling dice until the monsters fell over, and then moving on to the next monsters?

If so, you need to talk to them, away from the game, and make it clear that your game actually involves thinking, and trying several things to see what works. And you need to find out it they are willing to play such a game. If not, cut your losses, and quit frustrating everyone by preparing a game that they will never play.

Like, to use the example from a few pages back, when their idea to convince the king to give in didn't solve their problems they simply left. They didn't try using stealth, treachery, or deceit. They didn't try attacking the king. They didn't try talking to the other side. They didn't try negotiating with a different tactic. They didn't bring in outside help. Nothing, they simply tried one approach and then left when it didn't solve all of their problems.

You have to decide whether this description is 100% literal, in which case they cannot play a real game at all, or if you are exaggerating, in which you need to decide how and in what way, and figure out what the real problem is.

At present, you are not running a game that they are playing. Focus on finding out, in conversation with them, if there is such a thing as a game you are willing to run and they are willing to play.

[Talakeal]

Something else entirely. I'm saying not to write all the easy solutions away. Write a scenario that these players can conquer.



Do you suppose that they have played before with a DM for whom the most obvious thing to do was always correct, and they were really just meeting monsters, rolling dice until the monsters fell over, and then moving on to the next monsters?

If so, you need to talk to them, away from the game, and make it clear that your game actually involves thinking, and trying several things to see what works. And you need to find out it they are willing to play such a game. If not, cut your losses, and quit frustrating everyone by preparing a game that they will never play.



You have to decide whether this description is 100% literal, in which case they cannot play a real game at all, or if you are exaggerating, in which you need to decide how and in what way, and figure out what the real problem is.

At present, you are not running a game that they are playing. Focus on finding out, in conversation with them, if there is such a thing as a game you are willing to run and they are willing to play.

Ok, that makes a little more sense. I totally did not get that out of your initial statement.

In that situation they only tried one approach, not an exxageration afaik. Note, however This is not a constant problem, but it is a frequent one, usually happening at least once a session.

One of the most egregious examples I can think of is when the BBEG was performing a ritual that would enslave the entire world. The players broke into the villian's sanctum, and begged the villain to stop. When the villain did not give in they decided to go home and wait to see what happened. They could have easilly defeated the villain in combat (which is what I expected) but for so some reason they didnt. Nor did they try some creative or crazy plan. They simply tried a single line of dialogue, and when that didnt yield results went home.

[Solaris]

One of the most egregious examples I can think of is when the BBEG was performing a ritual that would enslave the entire world. The players broke into the villian's sanctum, and begged the villain to stop. When the villain did not give in they decided to go home and wait to see what happened. They could have easilly defeated the villain in combat (which is what I expected) but for so some reason they didnt. Nor did they try some creative or crazy plan. They simply tried a single line of dialogue, and when that didnt yield results went home.

... Huh. I've heard of players not biting at plot hooks, but that's ridiculous.
Bunch of players not trying to killmaim the BBEG when handed the opportunity. Are you sure they didn't just utterly loathe the campaign world and wanted it all to suffer horribly?

[Jay R]

Ok, that makes a little more sense. I totally did not get that out of your initial statement.

Yes, I keep modifying it as I get more information - which is what I suggest you do with your game.

In that situation they only tried one approach, not an exxageration afaik. Note, however This is not a constant problem, but it is a frequent one, usually happening at least once a session.

One of the most egregious examples I can think of is when the BBEG was performing a ritual that would enslave the entire world. The players broke into the villian's sanctum, and begged the villain to stop. When the villain did not give in they decided to go home and wait to see what happened. They could have easilly defeated the villain in combat (which is what I expected) but for so some reason they didnt. Nor did they try some creative or crazy plan. They simply tried a single line of dialogue, and when that didnt yield results went home.

Then there are two questions you need answers to:
1. Why do you want to run a game for them?
2. Why do they want to play in a game you run?

The crucial, inescapable fact is this. At present, you are not running a game that they are playing. Focus on finding out, in conversation with them, if there is such a thing as a game you are willing to run and they are willing to play.