Running Social Encounters

[Blackhawk748]

Ill be running a Pseudo Oriental Fantasy game in the near future, and since court intrigue is a big deal in most Oriental settings id like a hand in learning how to deal with social encounters.

So, how do you lot play out social encounters and challenges?

[Quertus]

Can of worms, anyone?

Me, I use social skills - if the system has any - as a guideline for how people will react, as well as, to put it horribly, how many "social HP" you have. That is, if you have horrible social skills, one mistake, and people will at best excuse themselves. Great social skills, and an insult may be taken as a jest or a roast. But I otherwise simply role-play every NPC, same as I would a PC.

Actually, I can't really say "otherwise", because I try to do the same thing when I'm a player, filtering the player's dialog and stated actions through a filter of how charismatic / diplomatic / convincing their character supposedly is.

[hifidelity2]

I allow / encourage the PC's to role-play and can then augment their roleplaying with a dice roll (as some people are naturally better at this)

I like the idea of "Social HP" though so might think of adding that to the players stats

[Quertus]

I allow / encourage the PC's to role-play and can then augment their roleplaying with a dice roll (as some people are naturally better at this)

I like the idea of "Social HP" though so might think of adding that to the players stats

Perhaps "starting attitude" is a better description of the way I handle social encounters than "Social HP". One could view it as a system where a "helpful" individual is more likely to point out your "mistake", while a "hostile" one will rake you over the coals for a single slight.

This would even make 3.x D&D diplomacy actually mean something, if you wanted to, you know, make a formal system out of it instead of just eyeballing it, like I do. Each NPC is predisposed to a certain initial reaction level (which varies by individual, based on the NPCs personality - NPC Quertus favors wizards and elves, and distrusts druids, for example). Diplomacy changes that. And that determines your "social HP", as their reaction drops one (or more?) level for each "mistake" or "push" you make. And probably raises one (or more?) for favors, concessions, etc.

[weckar]

Well, most social encounters are at their core about convincing someone else of one or more of your own ideals. In other words: Moral Kombat.

[Satinavian]

Well, most social encounters are at their core about convincing someone else of one or more of your own ideals. In other words: Moral Kombat.

No, not really. Half of social encounteres are a cooperative excercise with either a mutual beneficial outcome or failure for both. And the hard part is trying to figure out which is which.

This is why social combat rules don't really work very well outside of fringe cases like court battles.

[hifidelity2]

Perhaps "starting attitude" is a better description of the way I handle social encounters than "Social HP". One could view it as a system where a "helpful" individual is more likely to point out your "mistake", while a "hostile" one will rake you over the coals for a single slight.

This would even make 3.x D&D diplomacy actually mean something, if you wanted to, you know, make a formal system out of it instead of just eyeballing it, like I do. Each NPC is predisposed to a certain initial reaction level (which varies by individual, based on the NPCs personality - NPC Quertus favors wizards and elves, and distrusts druids, for example). Diplomacy changes that. And that determines your "social HP", as their reaction drops one (or more?) level for each "mistake" or "push" you make. And probably raises one (or more?) for favors, concessions, etc.

We play a lot of GURPS and this has that in that a success or failure generally moves you up and down the reaction table

So the DM determines what you initial disposition is from (IIRC) very favourable to very unfavourable (either random or DM determined) and then you roll your social skill to move up / down the chart. That’s way 1 failure / success does not determine the whole interaction

If you fail you can try again, at minuses or use a separate skill – so for example try diplomacy and if that fails maybe move onto fast talk or intimidation

I remember once the party was at am imperial ball and one of them tried to chat up the princess – rolled a fumble, tried to recover and rolled a second one. If something like this happens I sometimes tell the players that nothing has happened and I will “Keep the fumble until later” (they hate that)

The PC then roll played that nothing had gone wrong so he later asked her for a dance and fumbled the dance roll (it was a good night for the DM!). I had it that he tried for a quick grope (1st Fumble) while dancing, she rebuffed him and he tripped grabbing the front of her dress to steady himself and ripped it off (Dance Fumble) and then rather loudly said “Well you have a nice pair of T!ts” (2nd fumble)

It took the party a long time and quite a number of dirty jobs for the emperor before they cleared that debt

[Quertus]

GURPS

It's great that my ideas can be of use to you, even though the way you play is in several ways the exact opposite of the way I play.

For one, I usually don't aim for humor. Instead, I aim for... Hmmm... Characterization, and player agency. IMO, it would be out of character for, say, Superman to grope the alien princess. So I let the players describe their actions as they want, and go with that for the direction they take the conversation, sometimes with a, "... and what are you trying to accomplish here?" if it isn't obvious to me. Then their social skills, and the nature of their relationship with the other person determine the particulars of how far they can get, how much backlash they suffer, how that affects the relationship, etc.

Another difference you may have noticed is that I generally rely more on the level of skill than on rolls. But I largely rely on neither. That is, I usually play social interaction as more of a puzzle of "can you find the right pieces" than as a game of chance. The king is likely to respond better to, say, someone who rescues his daughter than to a skilled talker who brings back her corpse. Someone is more likely to respond to your advances if you're their type, or have laid the proper groundwork. Some people respond better to blatant bribes, while others prefer "generous contributions". Etc etc.

But what's fun is, despite these differences, we can both appreciate adding similar concepts to the social challenge.

[erikun]

I'm hardly an expert on social encounters. I've not ran that many and haven't really experimented with different social systems all that much. So here are my (inexperienced) thoughts on the matter.

If it is just a social situation, then there is no need for rolling. Just have the characters interact and roleplay as they would. Most characters just conversing or interacting are not going to have a reason to roll against one another. There is no need to roll when being introduced to the princess, unless the system has some sort of "first impression" mechanic. There's no need to roll to purchase something from a store vendor, since they are unlikely to deny PCs from making purchases.

The only time you would begin rolling is if there is some sort of conflict: if what the player(s) wants and what the NPC wants are different things. In this case, get an idea of what the NPC wants to do, and then have the player rolls influence either the attitude or influence their outlook of the situation. If the fruit vendor does not want to buy the party's +5 Longsword stolen from the throne room, then absolutely no amount of negotiation is going to change that. If the party makes the vendor friendly, then the vendor might mention that anyone caught with stolen royalty treasure is likely to be beheaded... but they aren't going to buy it. Similarly, if a NPC is guarding a door, then the party might cause them to lower their guard with befriending them. The party might convince the guard to join them if they can provide benefits for the NPC which outweight what they already have. (perhaps reliable protection for family and relocation?) But the heavily armed party is not just going to be able to sweet-talk their way past someone specifically designed to keep them out.

Of course, in the case of a different outlook, the NPC would need to believe the party can actually accomplish the task. The guard would need to believe that the party really could ensure their family's safety. Or, on another track, the guard would need to believe that the party really could kill the current evil king and put a better one on the throne... or at least believe that things won't get worse, and that the guard won't get blamed if the party is found inside.

[oudeis]

Ill be running a Pseudo Oriental Fantasy game in the near future, and since court intrigue is a big deal in most Oriental settings id like a hand in learning how to deal with social encounters.

I think court intrigue was a big deal in every setting. The Golden Age of Athens, the Roman Empire- both Eastern and Western- and the Republic which preceded it, Baghdad at the turn of the first millenium, or Ireland during the struggle with Viking invaders are all going to be seething with political maneuvering and scheming.

[Taffimai]

I've always run social skills similar to knowledge skills. So instead of roleplaying the encounter and then rolling the dice to see how well it turns out, the players would roll, get my feedback on how best to tackle the situation, and then roleplay it armed with that information.

[Frozen_Feet]

Mostly acting and talking. The players play their characters and I play mine. When I don't know how a character might initially react to the player characters, I roll on a reaction table, adjusting for numerical values like PC appearance and charisma. When I don't know how an interaction during the encounter might play out, I have another table for Loyalty and Morale I use to check which way the NPC reactions might swing.

But I never use rolls to decide what player characters say, or how, or to who, nor do I allow them to use dice for such. I may give suggestions if they're stymied, but making those decision is up to them.

[Sirdar]

Me, I use social skills - if the system has any - as a guideline for how people will react, as well as, to put it horribly, how many "social HP" you have. That is, if you have horrible social skills, one mistake, and people will at best excuse themselves. Great social skills, and an insult may be taken as a jest or a roast.

I've always run social skills similar to knowledge skills. So instead of roleplaying the encounter and then rolling the dice to see how well it turns out, the players would roll, get my feedback on how best to tackle the situation, and then roleplay it armed with that information.

Although Quertus and Taffimai run their social encounters quite differently, I think they both solve the most important problem. That is, to provide a fair and natural way to handle the situatuion when a player and his/her character have very different social abilities. And you can still roleplay the encounter to the best of your abilities as a player, which is very important. Especially when the character is a social God and the player is not. It feels so awkward when a player combines the worst bluff with a great dice roll and the DM lets the NPC swallow it. I think this type of situation can be avoided by going with either Quertus (tolerance/intolerance depending on skill check) or Taffimai's (guidance/lack of guidance depending on skill check) advice.

[LibraryOgre]

When possible, I prefer to follow the rules, perhaps giving bonuses to eloquent players... though not so much as to overshadow those who have invested in it mechanically.

Based on Savage Worlds, I actually worked up a system of social combat for d6/Star Wars. Rather than "hit points", it's based on who has the advantage during multiple exchanges... argue hard enough, and you can force the other person to concede your point, even talk them around to your position. They might reset over time, but it wins the encounter.

[Quertus]

When possible, I prefer to follow the rules, perhaps giving bonuses to eloquent players... though not so much as to overshadow those who have invested in it mechanically.

Based on Savage Worlds, I actually worked up a system of social combat for d6/Star Wars. Rather than "hit points", it's based on who has the advantage during multiple exchanges... argue hard enough, and you can force the other person to concede your point, even talk them around to your position. They might reset over time, but it wins the encounter.

I assume "argue hard enough" means "well enough"? People who argue hard enough often make people dig in their heels and stop listening.

Ok, crazy question for anyone who has a social system they use: how does your system handle this scenario?

A council of various races (think LotR) is arguing what to do with the McGuffin of power. Said McGuffin used to belong to, say, a supposedly deceased dwarf deity. But you know a secret - that deity is still alive. Heck, maybe you even are that deity in disguise. You know for a fact what the owner's wishes are, and cannot be swayed by other's attempts to interpret scripture, omens, etc. But you also aren't going to say a word to reveal your secret, so you aren't arguing with the force of your conviction.

Meanwhile, there's a bunch of other plans about what to do with the McGuffin, from giving it to the Chosen One (note: there are at least 2 contenders for this title), giving it to the best warrior even if they aren't the Chosen One, giving it to the person who needs it most, tearing it apart to try to make more, or using it as bait to draw out some enemies.

How do your systems handle who finally convinced whom to do what with the McGuffin?

[LibraryOgre]

I assume "argue hard enough" means "well enough"? People who argue hard enough often make people dig in their heels and stop listening.

Ok, crazy question for anyone who has a social system they use: how does your system handle this scenario?

A council of various races (think LotR) is arguing what to do with the McGuffin of power. Said McGuffin used to belong to, say, a supposedly deceased dwarf deity. But you know a secret - that deity is still alive. Heck, maybe you even are that deity in disguise. You know for a fact what the owner's wishes are, and cannot be swayed by other's attempts to interpret scripture, omens, etc. But you also aren't going to say a word to reveal your secret, so you aren't arguing with the force of your conviction.

Meanwhile, there's a bunch of other plans about what to do with the McGuffin, from giving it to the Chosen One (note: there are at least 2 contenders for this title), giving it to the best warrior even if they aren't the Chosen One, giving it to the person who needs it most, tearing it apart to try to make more, or using it as bait to draw out some enemies.

How do your systems handle who finally convinced whom to do what with the McGuffin?

In the system I outlined above, I'd say that you have folks arguing the various sides, and some coming around to others points of view. If the DIQ isn't going to reveal his choice, then he may be outvoted, but others will be argued down to a majority opinion.. they may have regrets afterward, and may reset their opinion, but someone will come around, eventually.

The problem will be time, and its impact. If the McGuffin needs to be dealt with quickly, that's going to start putting pressure on people to form alliances and choose a path, regardless of what they really want. "I think it should go with Chosen One A, but Chosen One B is an acceptable choice, so I'll switch allegiance to that so we don't sit here while the world crumbles."

[Honest Tiefling]

I really...Just wing it. I don't know, I've never tried a social combat system, but I ask players HOW they are trying to make the approach, then roll. The roll determines how good they were at their particular tactic, while the approach is well, the tactics chosen.

I do suggest that if you feel uncertain to stat up some assassins. That way if you feel you have painted yourself into a corner or lost momentum you can just have one burst in. Also think of back-up nobles in case they succeed.

Also consider spying. Even if your players aren't the sort to deal with politicians in a 'efficient' manner, getting to know the NPCs will probably help your party get invested. Spying on things such as their mood, topics to avoid (uh-oh, problems with the consorts! Better not bring them up...), religious or philosophical views and general modes of speaking will probably be good ways to feed different approaches and setting information to your players.

And if all else fails, blackmail is technically social.

[Martin Greywolf]

First thing you need to ask yourself is: does the system I use have a good mechanical way to deal with social encounters? If the answer is yes (FATE), use that, if the answer is no (DnD 3.5), you have a problem.

Now, a good mechanical system has to do several things. They are, in no particular order:

• Give you a clear idea what the number to roll against is
• Make you roleplay, or at the bare minimum not hinder the roleplay
• Be adjustable to most situations out of the box
• Use your character's social skills in a meaningful way

Now, you can "just roleplay it out", without any rolls, but a massive problem with that is that you essentially make characters focused in social skills, or any investment in a social skill, a pointless waste of time. Obviously, you don't roll for every single sentence, going to buy a sword for the usual market price needs no rolling, but you have to be able to use the social skills when talking to a king - or in your case, the maharaja.

Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that rule 0 still applies, and if someone is trying to do something impossible with a skill (in the context of a given universe), you can step in and tell them no. A nice example is using seduction to knock someone out due to blood loss - not applicable to gritty medieval world, very applicable to a wacky anime setting. This, of course, requires you all to be on the same boat as far as campaign tone goes, but that's something you should have dealt with anyway.

Also, as I said, you need to have a clear guideline to what the difficulty of a given roll is - this guideline needs to be easily accessible to the players. FATE deals with it via adjectives attached to a target number (e.g. you need to be at least "legendary" negotiator to convince them of this), but you can make a chart of examples or modifiers. The point is, it must be easily visible, and it's best if it's fairly lightweight.

In actual play, what your character says is the "attack description", and the roll determines if it goes through. Sometimes it only colors the way a response is made, at other times it has more significant outcomes. For example:

PC: O great Maharaja [lists about 18 titles], we humbly bid you welcome.
rolls for diplomacy, succeeds
Maharaja: I see that news of my glory reached your far away land. Speak your mind, foreigner.
PC: We bear bad news to you, I'm afraid. Your most trusted advisor has conspired with your enemies behind your back.
rolls persuasion, fails
Maharaja: My advisor has served me faithfully for many years! I will not let a newcomer such as you speak ill of my most trusted man!
rolls intimidation, fails
PC: Alas, Maharaja, we have in our hands a proof of his misconduct, a letter from raja of your border provinces.
rolls persuade on handing over the letter, fails
Maharaja: The raja was always too ambitious, too jealous of his betters, and now he has found himself a lackey to do his bidding.
PC: O maharaja, we are but foreigners! How could we have known the raja was such a shortsighted man? We wanted to but serve your majesty.
rolls for panicked persuasion, succeeds
Maharaja: Very well, foreigner, it is possible you acted in ignorance. I will let you leave, but let this be a lesson to you - do not interfere in affairs you know very little of.

Another one:

PC: O great Maharaja [lists about 18 titles], we humbly bid you welcome.
rolls for diplomacy, fails
Maharaja: What is it, foreigners? I have precious little time to devote to you, I trust you have a good reason to disturb my rest.
PC: We bear bad news to you, I'm afraid. Your most trusted advisor has conspired with your enemies behind your back.
rolls persuasion, succeeds
Maharaja: My advisor has served me for many years, foreigner, I trust you did not come to me without proof?
PC: Indeed, raja of the northern provinces has given us this letter.
rolls persuade on handing over the letter, succeeds
Maharaja: These are heavy accusations indeed, but little more than that. I cannot in good conscience condemn my advisor on them alone.
PC: O maharaja, we are foreigners in your land. Perhaps we could help you in your investigations?
rolls for persuasion, fails
Maharaja: While I appreciate your offer, this is a matter of state. You will remain my guests while I have my advisor investigated.

[BWR]

The most important thing in any social encounter is the NPCs. You have to know who they are, what they know, what they think and how they are likely to react to different things.
Once you have that down you can fiddle with the mechanics of whatever system you are using to fit the scene, and other people here have done a better job of talking about that than I could.

Depending on the situation and system, I vary between a straight roll, 'social HP' version and a skill challenge system (a set number of successes must occur before a set number of failures, various skills may be employed depending on the situation).
I do not require players to roleplay a social encounter, though it's nice if they do, primarily because some players are **** at that sort of thing and I don't want them to ruin things for their characters. Like the honest Tiefling, I will usually require a description of the approach they take, even if I don't expect them to roleplay it.

[Quertus]

Now, you can "just roleplay it out", without any rolls, but a massive problem with that is that you essentially make characters focused in social skills, or any investment in a social skill, a pointless waste of time.

I won't deny, going 100% player skill - especially in games which have character skill - is my least favorite way of handling social interaction. However, I would like to point out that my way involves almost no rolls, feels like just role-playing it out, but is informed by social stats. Back in older editions of D&D, when the charisma stat was the extent of your social skills, I ran a game for a group of players who hasn't really played with me before. It just so happened, the lowest charisma in that party was a 15. I dare say their experience was the opposite of feeling that investment went to waste.

The most important thing in any social encounter is the NPCs. You have to know who they are, what they know, what they think and how they are likely to react to different things.
Once you have that down you can fiddle with the mechanics of whatever system you are using to fit the scene, and other people here have done a better job of talking about that than I could.

Depending on the situation and system, I vary between a straight roll, 'social HP' version and a skill challenge system (a set number of successes must occur before a set number of failures, various skills may be employed depending on the situation).
I do not require players to roleplay a social encounter, though it's nice if they do, primarily because some players are **** at that sort of thing and I don't want them to ruin things for their characters. Like the honest Tiefling, I will usually require a description of the approach they take, even if I don't expect them to roleplay it.

This. Although I'd add, "if they do role-play it out, don't let them ruin it for their character". If ever there was a time for retcon, helping the anti-social / socially-inept player RP the silver-tongued socialite is it.

[Haldir]

Our game last week went for about 8 hours, and we didn't do a single round of combat. It was all really fun social interactions.

I generally don't use any rolls for social interaction until an NPC needs to react to something the player does. When I need to decide how an NPC reacts I take into account a few things:

1. Did the player make a good try at roleplaying with the NPC to influence them?
2. What does the NPC think and feel, does he have any limits or biases? These are the things that determine the DC.
3. The actual strength of the players roll. I never roll anything socially for NPC's, I leave it all up to player agency.

So if a player rolls well, even if they made a ****ty attempt at the roleplaying, they can succeed. My warlock managed to convince an officer of the law that he was going to use a cursed dagger to find the criminal who enchanted it by rolling a Nat20 and saying "Come on, man!'

[Yora]

I simply have the players explain what kind of arguments they are making to convince an NPC of something they want. How well it is delivered or presented doesn't matter much. In case that really matters the character has to make a Charisma check, but primarily it's about presenting good reasons why NPCs should cooperate.

[Bogwoppit]

I have a couple of methods I commonly use - firstly, I have players roll their social skill check before they roleplay their action; secondly, I've adopted the Intrigue mechanics from A Song of Ice and Fire RPG.

Rolling first allows you to see the success or failure on the dice, and play accordingly. There's nothing worse at breaking immersion than making a bad roll after a good speech. By rolling first, you give the player agency in acting out any failure, instead of imposing it on them.

ASOIAFRPG has an intrigue systems that asks for different checks depending on your intent: check out the rules on page 17 of the free quick start rules here:
Freeronin.com/gr_files/SiF_Fast play.PDF

I didn't find it difficult to use similar ideas in my other games. Your mileage may vary.

[Frozen_Feet]

Regarding the "Council of Elrond" example:

If all the characters debating are player characters, this is where I lay back and enjoy the show. The players are essentially doing my job for me.

If there is one or more NPC present: each NPC has a Loyalty/Morale score. This gives a probabilistic chance of how unyieldingly the NPC will stick to their side's opinion. If a player character's opinion aligns with theirs, they will side with that PC by default. Any compromise will trigger a loyalty check, adjusted by PC's charisma and potential bribes; so will being outnumbered/outvoted.

The part about a character knowing for fact the wishes of the McGuffin's creator is completely irrelevant if that information won't come up; if the character with such information is a NPC, then I might give them an unbreakable loyalty score, meaning they will not compromise or side with an opposing faction on this particular issue. It is only important if that NPC is in the position to make the ultimate decision on the matter.

If a lot of council members are NPCs, I might have to do a lot of behind-the-scenes rolling to determine how NPCs align with each other before accounting for the players. The alternative being that I pick a default outcome which will happen if the PCs fail to convince anyone.

[ImNotTrevor]

With said Council of Elrond situation about multiple opinions clashing in various directions, you would probably need a system explicitly built with this kind of incredibly complicated social interaction in mind, such as The Burning Wheel, to be able to get much game out of it.

The way I'd handle a similar situation in a PbtA system (my preferred) would essentially be to roleplay out the argument until I hear a specific instance of a player trying to get someone to do something. At which point I would say "What exactly do you want them to do?" They tell me, and if they could reasonably be convinced of that I have the player roll 2d6+Stat.
On a =<6, they fail and things get worse.
On a 7-9 they get what they want but there are strings attached.
On a 10+ they convince them handily.

Lather, rinse, repeat until everyone is on the same page or it devolves into fighting. Whichever comes first.

[Frozen_Feet]

You don't need a complex system to get things out of it. That's what I'd call a mechanistic fallacy.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate a swordfight, you need mechanics, or you need to stop talking around a table.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate dudes talking around a table... they can just talk around the table. Negotiations are their own game already, with their own risks and rewards directly stemming from what is being talked about.

Mechanics only make sense when:

1) one or more players suck at negotiating, and you want to give their characters a leg up.
2) you are the GM or otherwise play multiple characters, and mechanics make it faster for you to make decisions than deciding each character's opinion yourself.
3) everyone at the table actually just hates negotiating, so you turn to something else to solve the situation.

Seriously. Acting out the opinions of different characters, and witnessing others do the same, is one of the most basic facets if roleplaying. If it becomes less interesting to you when more opinions are involved, or when there's no die rolls involved, it raises questions of why'd you even bother with social intrigue.

[ImNotTrevor]

You don't need a complex system to get things out of it. That's what I'd call a mechanistic fallacy.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate a swordfight, you need mechanics, or you need to stop talking around a table.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate dudes talking around a table... they can just talk around the table. Negotiations are their own game already, with their own risks and rewards directly stemming from what is being talked about.

Mechanics only make sense when:

1) one or more players suck at negotiating, and you want to give their characters a leg up.
2) you are the GM or otherwise play multiple characters, and mechanics make it faster for you to make decisions than deciding each character's opinion yourself.
3) everyone at the table actually just hates negotiating, so you turn to something else to solve the situation.

Seriously. Acting out the opinions of different characters, and witnessing others do the same, is one of the most basic facets if roleplaying. If it becomes less interesting to you when more opinions are involved, or when there's no die rolls involved, it raises questions of why'd you even bother with social intrigue.

I like having mechanics because there's a G after the RP. While it is RolePlaying, it is also a Game.

When I'm doing just RP without the G, then I don't invoke rules for things. When I've got the G, I'm there for a game, and sometimes I want the game to extend to the whole thing.

And yes, my wording was poor but systems with complicated ways of dealing with social combat are nice from a purely organizational standpoint. Having a clear rundown of where everyone sits on the opinions landscape and what everyone wants to achieve therein is not particularly different from figuring out where everyone is on the literal landscape and what they each want to acheive therein. You don't need a battle grid to play D&D. But it can be helpful.

Do you NEED rules? No.
But as I've asserted in other threads, there is no rule that is strictly needed.

Are they nice to have to provide a framework in really complicated social situations for the same reasons a battle grid is good for really complicated combat situations? Yes.

[LibraryOgre]

Mechanics only make sense when:

1) one or more players suck at negotiating, and you want to give their characters a leg up.
2) you are the GM or otherwise play multiple characters, and mechanics make it faster for you to make decisions than deciding each character's opinion yourself.
3) everyone at the table actually just hates negotiating, so you turn to something else to solve the situation.

Seriously. Acting out the opinions of different characters, and witnessing others do the same, is one of the most basic facets if roleplaying. If it becomes less interesting to you when more opinions are involved, or when there's no die rolls involved, it raises questions of why'd you even bother with social intrigue.

It very much depends on the system. If the system has resources that can be devoted to improving social abilities, then going with "Just act it out" penalizes those players who invested in social abilities. The example I use is from d6, the opposed "Willpower v. Intimidation". If I am facing Darth Vader, with an impressive Intimidation score, he's very likely to use that score against me. If I have put dice into Willpower, I should have a better chance of resisting that intimidation than Bob, who didn't. If Bob is able to suffer no consequences for putting nothing into Willpower, then I've wasted dice that could've gone to something else... why improve Willpower if someone who hasn't improved it can declare by fiat not to be convinced or intimidated?

This doesn't mean that sitting around and talking it out is unimportant... or unfun... but if the system has mechanical choices being made, then those choices should matter.

[EvilCookie]

I remember once the party was at am imperial ball and one of them tried to chat up the princess – rolled a fumble, tried to recover and rolled a second one. If something like this happens I sometimes tell the players that nothing has happened and I will “Keep the fumble until later” (they hate that)

The PC then roll played that nothing had gone wrong so he later asked her for a dance and fumbled the dance roll (it was a good night for the DM!). I had it that he tried for a quick grope (1st Fumble) while dancing, she rebuffed him and he tripped grabbing the front of her dress to steady himself and ripped it off (Dance Fumble) and then rather loudly said “Well you have a nice pair of T!ts” (2nd fumble)

It took the party a long time and quite a number of dirty jobs for the emperor before they cleared that debt

Please, dont do this to your players.
Let your players play their own characters, doing this can completely destroy someones character.

The rolls should be made for how the NPCs react to what players say and for skill checks.

It feels awful for a player when the GM starts controling their character, especially when the GM says you do something utterly insane (like sexually assaulting a member of the royal family)

The dance fumble makes sense, you made a mistake dancing, fell, and tore of a peace of the princess' dress. Its even an interesting plot hook.

And let your players decide what their characters do. I doubt anyone would say "nice tits" in that situation, because thats how you meet Timmy the Executioner.


What makes sense with fumbled social rolls is something along the lines of "You said something but the princess misunderstood/misheard/thought you were using the sarcasm)

Dont tell your players what they did, tell them how your world reacted to their action.

[hifidelity2]

I remember once the party was at am imperial ball and one of them tried to chat up the princess – rolled a fumble, tried to recover and rolled a second one. If something like this happens I sometimes tell the players that nothing has happened and I will “Keep the fumble until later” (they hate that)

The PC then roll played that nothing had gone wrong so he later asked her for a dance and fumbled the dance roll (it was a good night for the DM!). I had it that he tried for a quick grope (1st Fumble) while dancing, she rebuffed him and he tripped grabbing the front of her dress to steady himself and ripped it off (Dance Fumble) and then rather loudly said “Well you have a nice pair of T!ts” (2nd fumble)

It took the party a long time and quite a number of dirty jobs for the emperor before they cleared that debt

Please, dont do this to your players.
Let your players play their own characters, doing this can completely destroy someones character.

The rolls should be made for how the NPCs react to what players say and for skill checks.

It feels awful for a player when the GM starts controling their character, especially when the GM says you do something utterly insane (like sexually assaulting a member of the royal family)

The dance fumble makes sense, you made a mistake dancing, fell, and tore of a peace of the princess' dress. Its even an interesting plot hook.

And let your players decide what their characters do. I doubt anyone would say "nice tits" in that situation, because thats how you meet Timmy the Executioner.


What makes sense with fumbled social rolls is something along the lines of "You said something but the princess misunderstood/misheard/thought you were using the sarcasm)

Dont tell your players what they did, tell them how your world reacted to their action.

Well I'm sorry but my party like my style of DMing - OK may not be to your style but each to their own

The whole point of Fumbles (this was using Spacemaster) is to give the DM some "fun". For some skills its explained (and indeed the fumble tables for firearms can let you kill your friends) so a series of Fumbles in a social situation like this was for the game totally relevant.

We have been playing together for over 25 years, we understand each others styles and they would be quick to tell me if they didn't like the way I ran my games