What makes social skills different?

[Tanarii]

no it doesn’t. You are have inconsistent expectations between “unlocking a door” and social skills.

The person does select an approach. They select “diplomacy” or “bluffing” or “intimidation” or “bribing”.

Thats not an approach, that's a skill you want to use. It doesn't provide sufficient information to determine a result.

The problem you're running into is that social skills are generally widely applicable to multiple approaches. On the other hand, so are well designed physical skills.

For example, 5e Sleight of Hand are used for palming small objects, picking pockets, and many other tricks of legerdemain.

If you tell the DM "I Sleight of Hand the Guard" all you've told him is what skill you want to use. You haven't told him if you're attempting to pick his pocket or conceal a dagger on your person.

Even "I pick the guards pocket" isn't enough info. Are you trying to do it sneakily from behind, or using the ol' accidentally bump into them routine. Each may have different consequences.


Edit:

I think "I attempt to convince the guard to let me pass by acting like I belong." outlines an intent approach well enough as "I'm going to try to force the bandit to surrender by disarming him." However asking for the exact wording of "acting like I belong" is like asking for "I hilt strike the bandit's axe close to the handle then hook around it and spin it against his grip."* To me those are the details of the attempt. The might be fun to fill in for flavour but I do not believe they should be required to make the attempt.

Then you agree with me. Although as a DM I might ask how your PC is dressed and for a reminder of what they look like, before deciding if resolution works.

But if the player told me "I Bluff / Decieve the guard" they haven't given me anything to go on in regards to approach, so I can't determine consequences properly. Or even chance of successful outcome. All they've told me is what number on their sheet they want to roll.

Further edits: although if "acting like I belong" means talking to the guard as if you belong, no, it's probably not enough for an approach. I'm going to want to know if your charcater has any idea what people who 'belong' in this location act like. Not the player, the charcater. But if it's a big-standard castle or nobles mansion, that's not going to be an issue.

[Aliquid]

If I see that this can be difficult for a player when the PC is supposed to be much better. But the fishing for the best approach that you describe can be a fine part of the role playing. That is also not necessarily contrary to Tanariis' method...

My problem with just wanting to roll Diplomacy or whatever, "GM tell me what my character would think and say (to convince the king)", is that it is players giving away their own agency. I want them to make descisions for their characters. This includes player skill in figuring out approach, which I think is a good thing, while PC skill determines if the approach is successfull.

I agree that would be lame roleplaying, but I'm not suggesting that it is taken that far, and I don't think anyone else on this thread is arguing that either.

Scenario one lazy player and DM
Player: "I use my bluff skill to get past the guard" (rolls a 19), "looks good enough to me. I'm inside now"
DM: "yeah whatever"

Scenario two jackass DM
Player: "I act like I belong and walk casually past the guard" (rolls a 19)
DM: "Nope doesn't work, the guard and everyone that used this door are elves, and you are clearly a dwarf. it doesn't work"
Player: "wait wouldn't my player have noticed that
DM: "not my fault you didn't think of that, the guard attacks"

Scenario two more appropriate situation
Player: "I act like I belong and walk casually past the guard" (rolls a 19)
DM: "It is pretty obvious to your character that everyone that is walking through the door is an elf... and it is unlikely you can pull this bluff off as a dwarf. You still want to try it?"
Player: "no, no I'll try something else. Does the guard look gullible enough to fall for a distraction, or is he hard core focused on his duty?"
DM: You can suss him out if you want. Roll against your wisdom...
Player: "I got a 17"
DM: The guard does look pretty bored...
etc

Thats not an approach, that's a skill you want to use. It doesn't provide sufficient information to determine a result.

Again, you are being totally inconsistent on how you are defining things.... so saying "I smash the lock" vs "I pick the lock" is picking an approach, but "I use diplomacy" vs "I use intimidation" is a skill you want to use? Pick one set of expectations and apply it to both situations. Picking vs smashing are also skills that you want to use.

[RazorChain]

I do think I like the middle ground approach of describing a rough strategy a lot. I'm here to roleplay, after all, not to act!

Roleplaying implies improv acting most of the time.

You know the word play..that's what stage actors act in.

So when roleplaying with my wife I cant just say "I'm a plumber now, seduce me"

I actally have to put on my tool belt, pick up my toolbox, go outside, knock on the door and ACT like a plumber.

[Tanarii]

Again, you are being totally inconsistent on how you are defining things.... so saying "I smash the lock" vs "I pick the lock" is picking an approach, but "I use diplomacy" vs "I use intimidation" is a skill you want to use? Pick one set of expectations and apply it to both situations. Picking vs smashing are also skills that you want to use.

Its not inconsistent at all. "I pick the lock" and "I smash the door" is only an Intention, not an Approach.

Intentions + Approaches
"I pick the lock with my Thieves Tools"
"I smash the door with my axe"
"I persuade the guard by reminding him he owes me a favor"
"I intimidate the guard by glowering at him and flexing my muscles"

There are multiple approaches with each intention, and all you're giving is intention. Furthermore, it's not even clear exactly what you're intention is in the latter two. What are you trying to persuade the guard of? What are you trying to intimidate him to do? You're not giving the DM enough information to resolve outcome, and determine consequences.

[Darth Ultron]

I think "I attempt to convince the guard to let me pass by acting like I belong." outlines an intent approach well enough as "I'm going to try to force the bandit to surrender by disarming him." However asking for the exact wording of "acting like I belong" is like asking for "I hilt strike the bandit's axe close to the handle then hook around it and spin it against his grip."* To me those are the details of the attempt. The might be fun to fill in for flavour but I do not believe they should be required to make the attempt.

As I posted above, this is where I stand too. Plenty of players can quickly rattle off a paragraph of ''fantasy physics'' for some type of action or combat. From ''I spin around in a half circle and swing my sword in a low stab under his shield " to the complex rules like ''ok, I will take a move action for 10 feet, then turn and use my feat". So asking that a player say something similar for social stuff fits.

So is ''swinging a sword in a half circle and then stabbing'' a good way to get past a shield? Maybe not. But it sounds good and passes the ''fantasy test''. Very few people that play the game are classical weapons experts(and it's not like they all agree anyway).

So really it is treating social skills just like everything else in the game.

When a character uses a skill like Hide, is to more:
Player:''Um, my character just hides, somehow and rolled a 20" or more like
Player "My character drops down to the ground and gets behind the water barrels."

Like the trick of pretending to have a prisoner to get past some guards is a very common thing you see in a lot of fiction (it is in Star Wars, for example.....). Chances are it would never work ''for real''...but that does not matter...it works in fiction. And most reasonable Dm's would let this Bluff ''work''...more or less.

And few DM's would ever want a player to do a social thing ''for real''. It's not like the DM wants the player to ''really'' persuade the NPC. It's a lot more vague and just to say ''how you would do it".

[Pelle]

Its not inconsistent at all. "I pick the lock" and "I smash the door" is only an Intention, not an Approach.

I think a reason for the felt difference may be that for these examples, the approach is not specified, but kind of implied. It may exist a clearly best approach, best chance to succeed and lowest consequences, which the player and GM both have in mind without needing to specify.

Or neither the player nor GM have the same personal skill as the PC, and just trust in PC to figure out the approach. Example, GM has decided on a DC 15 lock as appropriate challenge, but doesn't know what that would look like, and neither GM nor player knows anything about lock picking.

[hymer]

I remember reading a Lovecraft story, where he wrote something like "The protagonist asked clever questions, and was able to get the truth out of the other guy. The truth was this:"
That's pretty bad writing! We want to know what those clever questions were! So here's a different take on the difference between the aforementioned skill types:

We all know what a conversation looks and sounds like. I need some details to the narrative to find it believable. Going from 'No, I won't let you do that' to 'Okay, then, go ahead' needs some context. Was it a veiled threat? Bringing up new information? Pleading? Bribery? That sort of thing will also affect what happens from here on. If someone took a bribe, that's saying something about them. If they stand up to the veiled threat, there may be some reaction.
Not so with picking a lock or jumping a chasm. But if we were all hobby lockpickers, then maybe we'd be much more interested in that, and know enough about it to want more detail. It's a double pin tumbler lock, huh? Some dwarf must've installed that. And I'm going to need both hands to get this one. (I know nothing about locks, so I'm just using words, there.)

But I can see that if you are playing your games with little in the way of narrative or immersion, then it doesn't matter so much.

[WarKitty]

I think a reason for the felt difference may be that for these examples, the approach is not specified, but kind of implied. It may exist a clearly best approach, best chance to succeed and lowest consequences, which the player and GM both have in mind without needing to specify.

I had thought of this as well. If I'm picking a lock, and I'm a character that normally picks locks, there's a pretty good chance that I'm taking out my tools that I have to pick locks and using them to pick the lock.

I tend to favor the "intent + approach" method, but keep it fairly vague. So if you're going to try to bluff, for example, I'll usually call for what lie you're telling. So if you're entering the palace and trying to bluff that you belong - are you pretending to be a servant on an errand, or a noble who's too important to be bothered? Something like "I act like a servant who is hurrying on some errand" is fine.

If it's a bad idea, I'll call for a roll of the appropriate skill to notice that it's a bad idea. If it's a really bad idea, I'll call for a roll and then just tell them anyway.

[Max_Killjoy]

Roleplaying implies improv acting most of the time.

You know the word play..that's what stage actors act in.

So when roleplaying with my wife I cant just say "I'm a plumber now, seduce me"

I actally have to put on my tool belt, pick up my toolbox, go outside, knock on the door and ACT like a plumber.

You're cross-applying definitions.


The word "play" in RPG has nothing to do with the noun, the thing done on stage and in front of an audience. It's the verb, thus "playing", as in to play a game or to play with other people. A roleplaying game is a game in which one plays a role -- a character -- and interacts with the setting and characters in the manner in which that character would do so.


Improv acting can be a tool used in playing an RPG; it is not the core of what an RPG is, it is not the origin of RPGs, and it is not necessary to the playing of an RPG.


Just because some acting techniques, a therapy method, and something do in their bedrooms, have the same name, doesn't make an RPG necessarily all that much like any of those things.

[Aliquid]

I think a reason for the felt difference may be that for these examples, the approach is not specified, but kind of implied. It may exist a clearly best approach, best chance to succeed and lowest consequences, which the player and GM both have in mind without needing to specify.

Or neither the player nor GM have the same personal skill as the PC, and just trust in PC to figure out the approach. Example, GM has decided on a DC 15 lock as appropriate challenge, but doesn't know what that would look like, and neither GM nor player knows anything about lock picking.

Another annoyance with the lockpick analogy is that I have never heard of a situation where the player is punished for not being good at thieving and making a bad choice for his character... but you keep hearing stories of a DM punishing a player for making a bad "approach" with a social skill.

Maybe the analogy should be that the DM says "So, when you pick that lock, with your lockpicking set, do you use the torsion wrench, the torsion wrench, the half diamond, or the s-rake pick?" The player wouldn't know... and the DM shouldn't punish the player for not knowing.

I had thought of this as well. If I'm picking a lock, and I'm a character that normally picks locks, there's a pretty good chance that I'm taking out my tools that I have to pick locks and using them to pick the lock.

I tend to favor the "intent + approach" method, but keep it fairly vague. So if you're going to try to bluff, for example, I'll usually call for what lie you're telling. So if you're entering the palace and trying to bluff that you belong - are you pretending to be a servant on an errand, or a noble who's too important to be bothered? Something like "I act like a servant who is hurrying on some errand" is fine.

If it's a bad idea, I'll call for a roll of the appropriate skill to notice that it's a bad idea. If it's a really bad idea, I'll call for a roll and then just tell them anyway.

And that's all I am asking for, if the character would know better, the DM gives the player a 'heads up' and gives him the option to abort, rather than having the plan fail, and applying a consequence.

[WarKitty]

And that's all I am asking for, if the character would know better, the DM gives the player a 'heads up' and gives him the option to abort, rather than having the plan fail, and applying a consequence.

Honestly I've found that comes up with other skills as well sometimes. Like knowledges sometimes, I'll just tell a player to roll a certain knowledge, because I know there's something they would know that would affect their plans, but the player hasn't thought of it.

[Quertus]

Then you agree with me. Although as a DM I might ask how your PC is dressed and for a reminder of what they look like, before deciding if resolution works.

Getting a good idea what the character looks like is almost the only thing I ask for at the beginning of the game, along with name, AC, and any special senses etc I need to be aware of.

Another annoyance with the lockpick analogy is that I have never heard of a situation where the player is punished for not being good at thieving and making a bad choice for his character... but you keep hearing stories of a DM punishing a player for making a bad "approach" with a social skill.

Maybe the analogy should be that the DM says "So, when you pick that lock, with your lockpicking set, do you use the torsion wrench, the torsion wrench, the half diamond, or the s-rake pick?" The player wouldn't know... and the DM shouldn't punish the player for not knowing.

See, I both agree and disagree. "As you stick your hand into the idol's mouth, it snaps shut, chopping your hand off." Players absolutely have been punished for choosing the wrong technique to disarm a trap.

I can't speak for all GMs, but, for me, it's the price you pay for taking action without first gaining knowledge - you didn't take the time to find out that the NPC was a vegetarian, or gay, or whatever. Just like you pay the price when you didn't take the time to learn that the golem was healed by fire, or that the ooze dissolves metal on contract.

Now, sure, 3e has Knowledge skills, so you don't need to test all monsters with an alchemy kit before firing your big guns... but it doesn't have a "learn all the NPCs secrets" skill... oh, wait, bardic lore and knowledge:local probably cover that at some tables.

[Tanarii]

Another annoyance with the lockpick analogy is that I have never heard of a situation where the player is punished for not being good at thieving and making a bad choice for his character... but you keep hearing stories of a DM punishing a player for making a bad "approach" with a social skill.

Maybe the analogy should be that the DM says "So, when you pick that lock, with your lockpicking set, do you use the torsion wrench, the torsion wrench, the half diamond, or the s-rake pick?" The player wouldn't know... and the DM shouldn't punish the player for not knowing.

Now thats a good example for the situation going too far. Unless the DM and player want it to go to that level.

To use the 'I Decieve by acting like I belong' situation ... additional information on if you're acting like a servant or noble may be needed, because that can have important consequences down the line. But unless the player wants to get into details, it's not necessary to go into how the PC carries their body, if they turn to face to the wall when other nobles approach or not as a servant, or how they greet other nobles as a pretend noble.

And that's all I am asking for, if the character would know better, the DM gives the player a 'heads up' and gives him the option to abort, rather than having the plan fail, and applying a consequence.

Agreed. In addition, a fair question from a player is always "would my character know a good way to do that?"

Getting a good idea what the character looks like is almost the only thing I ask for at the beginning of the game, along with name, AC, and any special senses etc I need to be aware of.

I see 25-30 diffent PCs in the typical week, plus henchmen. Often the same player, with a different PC, to make things more confusing. I need reminders.

[Quertus]

I see 25-30 diffent PCs in the typical week, plus henchmen. Often the same player, with a different PC, to make things more confusing. I need reminders.

Oh, for sure. I was just saying I agree that it's important.

[Jay R]

So, here's a thing that's been bugging me for a while:

If I were to try and open a lock in most games, I roll some dice to see if I succeed.
I do not actually need to provide a strategy to open the lock - this is a skill my character has, after all, not me.

Yet, if I were to convince someone of something and roll my persuasion, my GM always asks me to come up with an actual argument.
If it is not good enough, I fail regardless of the roll, even though with his skills my character likely could have come up with a good one.

What makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way?

The simple answer to the general question "What makes social skills different that they can be treated this way?" is that they simulate playing the role and picking a lock does not.

Sometimes we choose to act out the parts that can be acted out. Since I want to re-use my friends, and I don't have a treasure chest for you to unlock, we have to roll dice for combat and lockpicking. But we can choose whether or not to act out conversations. Despite all the arguments each side has for being the only "right" side, this is a choice, and some people will choose differently from you.

The more complex answer to the specific example above is that you already provided the equivalent of the argument. I consider the following two things to be similar:

1. Player: I roll to pick a lock.
DM: What lock are you picking, and do you have a lockpick?

2. Player: I roll to persuade the king to go to war.
DM: What argument are you using?

If you try to convince the king that this is a moral war against the dark forces, and he has a secret alliance with the dark forces, then no, your argument cannot succeed, just as you can't pick certain locks. If you tell the king that his two daughters are in a village in front of the marauding army, then you have a chance of persuading him.

Your skill roll cannot make the moral war argument work in this situation, just as some locks can't be picked.

Quite often, there is no secret treaty that will invalidate some arguments, but sometimes there is such a treaty, or some other fact your PCs don't know, which will make certain arguments fail automatically. And as the DM, I can't tell you which situation you're in, so I have to treat every situation as if what approach you take affects whether it can work.

And no persuasion roll will work as mind reading to gain information that the PC does not have.

[Quertus]

And no persuasion roll will work as mind reading to gain information that the PC does not have.

No, but a Sense Motive* roll may help the PCs notice how the king reacts when you mention his daughters, or the dark forces with which he has a pact.

* substitute equivalent by system.

[RazorChain]

You're cross-applying definitions.


The word "play" in RPG has nothing to do with the noun, the thing done on stage and in front of an audience. It's the verb, thus "playing", as in to play a game or to play with other people. A roleplaying game is a game in which one plays a role -- a character -- and interacts with the setting and characters in the manner in which that character would do so.


Improv acting can be a tool used in playing an RPG; it is not the core of what an RPG is, it is not the origin of RPGs, and it is not necessary to the playing of an RPG.


Just because some acting techniques, a therapy method, and something do in their bedrooms, have the same name, doesn't make an RPG necessarily all that much like any of those things.

Yeah I should have toned down the snarkiness in my bad attempt at humor.

But lot of people take part in roleplaying games to act out a role and like to stay in character rather than just narrate what the character does.

So the OPs problem seems to be more about style than mechanics or both.

[Nightcanon]

So, here's a thing that's been bugging me for a while:

If I were to try and open a lock in most games, I roll some dice to see if I succeed.
I do not actually need to provide a strategy to open the lock - this is a skill my character has, after all, not me.

Yet, if I were to convince someone of something and roll my persuasion, my GM always asks me to come up with an actual argument.
If it is not good enough, I fail regardless of the roll, even though with his skills my character likely could have come up with a good one.

What makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way?

Early iterations of RPGs didn't have social skills, and players had come come up with what they said to the king/ city guard etc (in some ways it was part of thefun).
I suspect social skill mechanics were introduced with an eye on potential future cRPGs, and subsequently were incorporated into the armamentariums of certain classes. By RAW, you probably should be able to say 'my PC gives the guard some BS story to make him let us pass' and have the DM roll for it (because you have a skill rank on your sheet), but that's a bit of a departure from where the game has evolved from. Similarly, there's a (slightly lame) history of using logic puzzles and riddles that should theoretically be amenable to my 20 Int wizard putting on his +6 hat of intellect and me saying 'I'm now smarter than many gods; I look at puzzle and solve it'. Again, the history of the game suggests that my friends and I should (personally rather than vicariously through our characters ) be solving this with our own Int scores.
It's probably something to discuss with your DM- if it isn't fun for you because of shyness or similar social handicap than it's not unreasonable to say 'I try to persuade the guard that we are allowed in the restricted area' and proceed to rolling for Bluff.

[RazorChain]

Another annoyance with the lockpick analogy is that I have never heard of a situation where the player is punished for not being good at thieving and making a bad choice for his character... but you keep hearing stories of a DM punishing a player for making a bad "approach" with a social skill.

Wait? What! Never had people bungling stealth rolls during infiltration? Botching their lockpicking rolls when under time pressure? Failing their houldout to sneak in a weapon? Or just plainly deciding to pick pocket the Duke while he's surrounded by his guards?

[LudicSavant]

So, here's a thing that's been bugging me for a while:

If I were to try and open a lock in most games, I roll some dice to see if I succeed.
I do not actually need to provide a strategy to open the lock - this is a skill my character has, after all, not me.

Yes, you *do* need to provide a strategy to open the lock. In this case, it's "I use my lockpick to open the lock." Your actual action is being determined and described. We know what happened on screen.

There are other strategies of opening locks, too. You could cast a spell that opens locks. You could break the lock. And so on and so forth. The difference here is that the alternate strategies tend to be covered by different skills.

I think Angry DM fielded this question once and used the analogy of a player saying they were trying to kick down a door or open a door with a crowbar to saying they wanted to slap a door. And all of those different approaches would have different modifiers or DCs for the check.

[Darth Ultron]

Another annoyance with the lockpick analogy is that I have never heard of a situation where the player is punished for not being good at thieving and making a bad choice for his character... but you keep hearing stories of a DM punishing a player for making a bad "approach" with a social skill.

Maybe the analogy should be that the DM says "So, when you pick that lock, with your lockpicking set, do you use the torsion wrench, the torsion wrench, the half diamond, or the s-rake pick?" The player wouldn't know... and the DM shouldn't punish the player for not knowing.

To be fair, a lot of DM's to ''punish'' players for making bad approaches in game play. If a character just walks over and picks a lock...and does not check for a trap....they will get hit by the trap. If a character attacks a foe that is stronger they will loose the fight...and maybe die.

[Nightcanon]

Perhaps not for locks, but you could easily take this approach to traps:

1) Are you trying to disarm or disable?
2) The trigger, or the mechanism?
3) Be able to reset or repurpose?
4) Hide your tracks?

I don't think it would be unreasonable in that situation to say that I (the player) have never so much as set a mousetrap in my life, but I'm playing a 9th level rogue with maxed ranks in disable device, and I'll like to roll, please. There is a bit of a line with larger traps (having spotted the paving stone that acts as a pressure plate for cave-in, can I chalk a big circle round it and instruct my party not to stray inside 'for free', rather than attempting to disable the mechanism? Can I ask my fighter buddy to lay his tower shield over the 5' wide trapdoor so we can all walk across?) where there might be 'player-smarts' options that could be argued to make a roll unecessary.

[Aliquid]

Wait? What! Never had people bungling stealth rolls during infiltration? Botching their lockpicking rolls when under time pressure? Failing their houldout to sneak in a weapon?

Those are simply poor rolls, not a failure because the player didn't think of a thieving tactic that met the DM's standards.

Or just plainly deciding to pick pocket the Duke while he's surrounded by his guards?

OK, that is a good analogy of a situation where the character will fail no matter what the roll is, because it is a dumb idea...
But I don't think I have ever seen something like that happen. I think it is because RPG players are often good at strategic decisions of that nature, but some lack for social decisions.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way?

Most people do not have any experience opening locks--or, for that matter, doing most of the things they do in tabletop RPGs. You can't expect people to know enough about that kind of thing to ask Bob how Billow is going to open that lock or whatever. However, you can expect people to have experience talking to each other, so people expect that you'd be willing and able to talk through the process of diplomacy in a way that most people couldn't talk through picking lock or swinging a sword.
There are, of course, some issues. I don't think I'd be alone if I said I knew more about how mechanical locks and HEMA work than I do about how people work, and while I've had more of a chance to practice the practical side of talking with people, I'm still not that good at it. That's not getting into little details like how I have exactly as much experience picking locks as I do convincing criminals not to kill me or negotiating alliances.

Playing in a game with dice rolling instead of dialogue seems rather sterile and not very engaging to me personally, but to each their own, I suppose.

Personally, I could go either way depending on the situation. If I can think of something interesting to say, I'll say it, but if not, I'd rather just roll. If I wanted to roleplay an argument about something which ultimately doesn't matter, I can just go to the Internet.
Seriously, though. It can be interesting and fun, or it can be boring and annoying. In the former case, I'll roleplay it as much as the DM has responses for. In the latter case, I'd rather just roll. (And most of the people I play with tends towards rolling much more quickly.)

One reason that matters for me (as a DM) is that unlike lock-picking or chasm jumping, the approach really really matters for social skills.

I admit that I don't know a lot about either of those, but for their closest analogues I'm familiar with and most other (non-combat, non-social) skills I possess, approach does matter. It's just that approaches are hard to understand if you don't already have a good idea of how that kind of problem-solving works. For instance, I might be able to design a good experiment for determining the properties of some magical substance or the origin of an alien artifact, but most other people don't have as solid a grounding in the sciences.
The big difference is that humans instinctively understand social interaction. (It's probably one of the reasons we have such an inflated brain size.) Hence, we're expected to be able to figure out what approach would work in social situations, even though there is empirical evidence that people making similar decisions IRL with orders of magnitude more experience, time, and flexibility have a disturbing tendency to screw things up.

What makes social skills different is that we're all used to using them, as opposed to fighting skills, breaking and entering skills, arcane skills, and acrobatic skills - so we don't usually try to simulate them, because we hardly think of them as skill tasks.

Between martial arts classes as a kid and having a brother, I have some experience in fighting. Gym gave me athletics experience, the fact that I frequently found my change jar emptying mysteriously suggests that my brother had breaking and entering experience, and while I don't have any arcane skills, I'm pretty confident in saying that I probably would have a little if they existed.
Of course, none of this is comparable to what adventurers use those skills for...but then, I don't think that any social situation I've been in compares to what D&D characters use their social skills for, either.

To answer the first thing the OP asks - why can he roll a die and be done with it for lock-picking, but not for "social stuff" - I'll ask a similar question:
"Why can I just roll a die to see if I can leap across this chasm, but I have to roll tons of dice and make all sorts of tactical decisions to see if I can defeat these kobolds in combat?"
The difference in both situations is the same: one is a singular action that is not easily broken down into sub-actions where individual successes and failures pile up to lead to a final outcome; the other is a scene unto itself, with many things that can be tried.

If you can't think of a way for jumping across a chasm to be made into an engaging scene, you...well, I guess that would take a pretty skilled writer. So let's go back to the original example.
If you can't think of a way for picking a lock to be made into an engaging scene, you need to see more spy films. On the other hand, if you think that combat always needs to be a big detailed scene, you need to see fewer spy films. The reason that combat has complicated mechanics while lockpicking does not is that combat is the central focus of D&D's mechanics, while lockpicking is not. (Don't tell me combat is only one of the foci; how many books are dedicated lists of people to talk to or places to explore?) The same goes for all skills, actually...including diplomacy. That's why the 3.5 diplomacy rules are so simple and so easily-broken; nobody cared enough until more social-minded players focused on them and broke the system.
I'm kinda disappointed that no RPGs I've seen have any kind of social mechanics even comparable to typical combat mechanics. They're certainly possible--I've seen excellent social mechanics in video games, albeit in a bare-bones format--but nobody seems to care. I've seen it as an alternate ruleset in Pathfinder...but only in SRD settings, not at any table. Social interaction via roleplaying doesn't leave much room for interesting decisions, the way tactical combat (sometimes) can. It's just "How much do I want to bother, and what sounds vaguely reasonable?"

I remember reading a Lovecraft story, where he wrote something like "The protagonist asked clever questions, and was able to get the truth out of the other guy. The truth was this:"
That's pretty bad writing!

Not nearly as bad as what comes out of some of my gaming buddies' mouths when they try to roleplay. Which is probably related to why they don't try.

The simple answer to the general question "What makes social skills different that they can be treated this way?" is that they simulate playing the role and picking a lock does not.

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean here. To me, "a role" is all about what one does. If talking is what the person being played would do, that's part of the role. If lockpicking is what that person would do, that's another part of the role.

Sure you do! When you say, "I want to pick the lock with my lockpick," that's a description of approach! Just like any RP ou'd be asked to do by a DM.

That argument isn't quite wrong, but it's certainly not right. While it's the same kind of thing, it's far from being the same magnitude of that thing. The Diplomacy equivalent would be "I want to convince the king to give me a raise," which does make it clear what you're trying to affect (the king) and with what (your rhetoric), but nothing else. Because, y'know, not many people are used to asking for a pay raise from someone with the personal authority to have you decapitated if you annoy them.

[Tanarii]

I'm kinda disappointed that no RPGs I've seen have any kind of social mechanics even comparable to typical combat mechanics. They're certainly possible--I've seen excellent social mechanics in video games, albeit in a bare-bones format--but nobody seems to care.

Interesting. The vast majority of social mechanics in CRPGs I've encountered are garbage. As as RPGs that try to deal with it on anything more complicated than 'GM decides when check is needed, use system mechanics for a simple check with GM decided skill at GM decided difficulty, GM decides what outcome represents'. Certainly attempts to make it more mechanical, more like combat systems, are universally disasters. Because they're too limited and robotic. And social interactions are broad, and require another human being to adjudicate the situation. Huge amounts of GM discretion combined with a simple and easy to adjust resolution method is, as far as I'm concerned, generally the best method.

That's not to say that a not-overly-regimented system can't assist a GM for time to time. Things like skill challenges, used as a framework to apply to a social situation, can be useful, if done right. Provided they aren't too rigorously applied until they create nonsense results. (Torchbearer's generic challenge system also looks like it could work okay for that.)

OTOH people who are very familiar with combat probably feel the same way about strict mechanical combat systems creating nonsense results and not being particularly realistic. ;)

[Xuc Xac]

If I were to try and open a lock in most games, I roll some dice to see if I succeed.
I do not actually need to provide a strategy to open the lock - this is a skill my character has, after all, not me.

Yet, if I were to convince someone of something and roll my persuasion, my GM always asks me to come up with an actual argument.
If it is not good enough, I fail regardless of the roll, even though with his skills my character likely could have come up with a good one.

What makes social skills so different that they can be treated this way?

People frame things incorrectly and/or fail to see the whole picture.

For an example of the first, saying "I pick the lock" isn't equivalent to "I persuade someone". Just saying "I convince him" is like saying "I pass the locked door". You need to specify how you do it. Pick the lock, smash the door, teleport through it, etc. If you want to convince someone, you need to specify if you're threatening, bribing, flirting, etc. Your character's skills at those different approaches will make a difference.

For an example of not seeing the whole picture, people always make the argument that "it's just talking, so the player can say the words that the character says", but social interaction *isn't* just talking. The local high school drama club can read the exact same script as Tom "5 Oscars" Hanks but it won't be as good. I can swear loudly, but it won't same impact as it does coming from Sam Jackson. There's more to it than just the words.

Or think of a musician doing a cover song. They can use the same music and lyrics but vary drastically in the quality of their performance. Sometimes it's so good that it becomes the definitive version of the song and sometimes it's so bad that it gets booed off the stage at the local coffee shop's open mic night. Sometimes a professional musician does the same song night after night for years but occasionally has a bad night and just doesn't hit it like they usually do.

How would you react to the words "Come here and give me a kiss"? Does it make a difference if the speaker is an 80-year-old granny or your supermodel crush or a creepy homeless man on the subway?

I'm always reminded of the old man at the gas station at the end of the movie "Wayne's World". The guy gives him directions and starts to get wistful and reminisces about his youth. He's kind of flat so Wayne breaks the fourth wall and says "I know this is just a bit part, but can't we get a better actor?" Then they swap the old guy for Charlton Heston who delivers the exact same lines but with more feeling and Wayne chokes up and wipes away a year.

When it comes to social skills in a game, the player is just the script writer who comes up with the dialogue. The PC is the actor who has to deliver the lines. If they have high charisma, they'll make any awful dialogue sound cool. With low charisma, they'll be unimpressive no matter what they say. If they choose the wrong approach (using lockpicks on a door that doesn't have a key hole, attempting to intimidate mindless undead), they'll fail no matter how good they are.

[WarKitty]

Wait? What! Never had people bungling stealth rolls during infiltration? Botching their lockpicking rolls when under time pressure? Failing their houldout to sneak in a weapon? Or just plainly deciding to pick pocket the Duke while he's surrounded by his guards?

Clarification here - we're talking about PC skills vs player skills. So the idea is that the PC has a good lockpicking skill, but the player has no idea how to pick a lock and is all thumbs anyway. So the player gets asked how he's picking the lock, and describes something that wouldn't actually work, then no matter how high he rolls he can't pick the lock.

[Dimers]

I'm kinda disappointed that no RPGs I've seen have any kind of social mechanics even comparable to typical combat mechanics.

There was a WoD Vampire supplement for ancient Rome that included rules for rhetoric, mostly to be used in Senate-type situations to convince or woo a powerful crowd. It had tactics-level maneuvers more or less on par with those for melee combat. Which is to say, not great, but considerably better than nothing.

To further this discussion ... the Shadowrun game series uses much more detail for locks, traps and security measures than most game systems. "I pick the lock" isn't something you can just say in Shadowrun. Likewise, "I hack the system and corrupt the data file" -- in GURPS or WoD that might be enough, but not Shadowrun. D&D doesn't have mechanical depth in that area. Choosing between masterwork lockpicks, improvised lockpicks and sledgehammers is a drop in the bucket, and not a good comparison to the incredibly complex web that makes up social interactions.

When I GM and a player wants some important social thing to happen, I ask them to roll first and then roleplay in accordance with the result. The character's mechanics matter, and you have your chance to be flavorfully in-character. Furthermore, if the player doesn't want to or can't make it work, I encourage the rest of the players to help fill in.

[Quertus]

People frame things incorrectly and/or fail to see the whole picture.

For an example of the first, saying "I pick the lock" isn't equivalent to "I persuade someone". Just saying "I convince him" is like saying "I pass the locked door". You need to specify how you do it. Pick the lock, smash the door, teleport through it, etc. If you want to convince someone, you need to specify if you're threatening, bribing, flirting, etc. Your character's skills at those different approaches will make a difference.

For an example of not seeing the whole picture, people always make the argument that "it's just talking, so the player can say the words that the character says", but social interaction *isn't* just talking. The local high school drama club can read the exact same script as Tom "5 Oscars" Hanks but it won't be as good. I can swear loudly, but it won't same impact as it does coming from Sam Jackson. There's more to it than just the words.

Or think of a musician doing a cover song. They can use the same music and lyrics but vary drastically in the quality of their performance. Sometimes it's so good that it becomes the definitive version of the song and sometimes it's so bad that it gets booed off the stage at the local coffee shop's open mic night. Sometimes a professional musician does the same song night after night for years but occasionally has a bad night and just doesn't hit it like they usually do.

How would you react to the words "Come here and give me a kiss"? Does it make a difference if the speaker is an 80-year-old granny or your supermodel crush or a creepy homeless man on the subway?

I'm always reminded of the old man at the gas station at the end of the movie "Wayne's World". The guy gives him directions and starts to get wistful and reminisces about his youth. He's kind of flat so Wayne breaks the fourth wall and says "I know this is just a bit part, but can't we get a better actor?" Then they swap the old guy for Charlton Heston who delivers the exact same lines but with more feeling and Wayne chokes up and wipes away a year.

When it comes to social skills in a game, the player is just the script writer who comes up with the dialogue. The PC is the actor who has to deliver the lines. If they have high charisma, they'll make any awful dialogue sound cool. With low charisma, they'll be unimpressive no matter what they say. If they choose the wrong approach (using lockpicks on a door that doesn't have a key hole, attempting to intimidate mindless undead), they'll fail no matter how good they are.

Wow. Whenever this topic comes up again, can you copy & paste this in? Because this really hits the nail - no, this hits several nails on the head.

[jayem]

People frame things incorrectly and/or fail to see the whole picture.

For an example of the first, saying "I pick the lock" isn't equivalent to "I persuade someone". Just saying "I convince him" is like saying "I pass the locked door". You need to specify how you do it. Pick the lock, smash the door, teleport through it, etc. If you want to convince someone, you need to specify if you're threatening, bribing, flirting, etc. Your character's skills at those different approaches will make a difference.

Surely that's a prime example of the two elements being treated at different picture levels (whether for good reason).
You could just as well say (the sentence structure suggests it makes much more sense)...
"I pick the lock" and "I convince the person" are roughly equivalent.
"I get passed the locked door" and "The difficult person does XYZ" are roughly equivalent.
"I pick the lock by using a lockpick" and "I persuade the person by using threats" are roughly equivalent.
"I check for traps and pick the lock" and "I examine for character and threaten the person"
"I pick the lock by individually lifting the pegs so they align with the end of the barrel", "I persuade the person by threatening them with their daughter"
"I insert my pin and lift the first peg by 1mm,2 mm 3mm", "I say 'is your son enjoying his maths lesson'"

There's sensible reasons, a lockpicking attempt at the end of the day can only go in two ways (as the lockpick doesn't do anything back), whereas a dialog can go way off course.