What makes social skills different?

[hifidelity2]

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?

It shouldn’t BUT

I normally offer my players one of 3 options

First however

Tell me what you want to do –

“I want the guard to let me into the castle and I want to use my Bribe Skill”
Which is the same as
I want to get past the locked door using my Pick lock skill


So now as a DM I know what you want to do and what skill you want to use

BUT while a lock will have a fixed difficulty level social interactions don’t
- the lock does not care if you use tools made or pure gold or that you know where its family lives
- The guard does

So I need the player to tell me how much (say gold) he is willing to pay


I then given the PC 3 options
Just roll a dice, I will determine success based on the Difficulty modifier I have set and if need be tell the PC to knock X gp off their character sheet
Roll play light, roll a dice. May get a slight bonus (or penalty) to the dice roll
Roll play heavy and get a bigger bonus (or penalty)

This way some players who are more socially awkward can still play the “Face “ character while those who love that part of roleplaying can really go to town

[Jay R]

If a DM asks a player “which lock pick tool do you use” and the player says “I don’t know, but my character would.” That’s ok.

If a DM asks “what argument do you use to persuade the NPC” and the player says “I don’t know, but my character would”. Is essentially the same thing.

If what lockpick tool is used doesn't matter, and what argument is used does matter, then these are not even close to the same thing. From a tactical point of view, they are near opposites.

A closer analogy is fighting. You can't be surrounded by ten goblins, one goblin mage, and two ogres, and say, "My character fights.". The DM will ask which weapon are you using, and what maneuver are you attempting, and who is your target. These decisions matter, and the player needs to make them. Similarly, you can't just roll diplomacy in a crowd. You need to tell the DM who are you trying to convince, what argument are you using, do you have any corroborating evidence.

So from my perspective, to be fair to the player, you shouldn’t punish him/her for not knowing what approach to use.

I suspect that here is our greatest disagreement. I do not believe that allowing the players to occasionally fail at a task because they didn't do it well is "punishing" them. I don't believe that when players fail because they didn't find the essential facts, or because they ignored them when they were available, is in any way punishing them. I think it's playing the game.

I repeat: this is a choice, and different gaming groups do it differently. Since having the conversations is something that I and my group really enjoy, we play out the conversations. Since trying to find the clues to help us do things better is a fun part of the game for us, we play out trying to find out about the person we need to persuade.

Others don't want to do that, and get past the discussions with a single roll. They can play that way, and enjoy it. That does not invalidate the way my group plays.

[Max_Killjoy]

If what lockpick tool is used doesn't matter, and what argument is used does matter, then these are not even close to the same thing. From a tactical point of view, they are near opposites.

Somewhat related to that, I've found a belief that if one just finds the right "lockpick" (action, statement, argument, etc) one can get whatever one wants from another person, that there's a correct action to get the desired response if one can just figure it out... rather alarmingly common in the subcultures (gaming and overlapping). Or perhaps a frustration that it isn't that way. "I did X, so they're supposed to do Y now", and then it doesn't happen.

A closer analogy is fighting. You can't be surrounded by ten goblins, one goblin mage, and two ogres, and say, "My character fights.". The DM will ask which weapon are you using, and what maneuver are you attempting, and who is your target. These decisions matter, and the player needs to make them. Similarly, you can't just roll diplomacy in a crowd. You need to tell the DM who are you trying to convince, what argument are you using, do you have any corroborating evidence.

I've found that some gamers see social aptitude as a "black box" IRL, so they treat it that way in-game, as well.

I suspect that here is our greatest disagreement. I do not believe that allowing the players to occasionally fail at a task because they didn't do it well is "punishing" them. I don't believe that when players fail because they didn't find the essential facts, or because they ignored them when they were available, is in any way punishing them. I think it's playing the game.

IMO, there's a problem whether they're allowed OR not allowed to fail. Failure should be the result of their decisions, actions, rolls, etc, or lack thereof. And if the PCs fail, it's not punishment, it's how things worked out.

[Calthropstu]

This is LITERALLY the role-play vs roll-play debate. There really is no right or wrong answers to the original post.

Yes, it is concievable that your character could come up with a unique or appropriate social response that you as a player cannot concieve, and conversely it's possible you can come up with a response your character never would. The roll play is technically the "appropriate" way, but many, as evidenced here in the thread, find this approach unrewarding. Coming up with cheesy one liners to seduce drunken cheerleaders, coming up with responses to defuse complicated situations, writing letters to high ranking diplomats, trying to convince the assassin's target to not go up to the podium to speak.

"I try to convince the elven diplomat to support our ally for the throne. I roll a 27 diplomacy."
To many that's a lot less satisfying than:
"I ask the elven diplomat how he likes our kingdom and what he thinks of the throne candidates..."
*After an engrossing conversation in which pc attempts to highlight the qualifications of said ally*
"I roll a 27. With the circumstance bonus you gave me for my approach it becomes a 32."

In the first case, the roll is the be all end all. In the latter, it's a back and forth between player and gm, culminating in a roll. The roll in this case represents your character's reactions during the conversation and the impression you leave, while you control what is actually said. Controlling what is said allows you to try for bonuses on the roll as well. Gm's can reward ingenuity after all, and a good role play session can be a lot more rewarding than simple combat or dice rolling hand waved communication with npcs.

[Tanarii]

This is LITERALLY the role-play vs roll-play debate. There really is no right or wrong answers to the original post.

It is rather, isn't it?


But I think the "right" answer is: blend the two to some degree.

As such, I've been intentionally avoiding calling the 'sides' that, because my point is: try and avoid that kind of black and white thinking, that it must be one extreme or the other, and look at what underlies resolution of actions on the DM's side of the screen.

Because starting with a rigorously methodical analysis of resolution theory (in the white room), then taking that and doing a less-rigorous application during play (because real world), is extremely helpful in determining how to effectively blend the two.

Even if there's still room for some debate on how much precision is needed in Approach, at least it gives us a chance to break out of the trenches of ARGLE ROLLPLAY BARGLE ROLEPLAY.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Which is why I said "rejiggered" and not "reskined"

Well, in that case...you're not wrong, but I'm not sure you're meaningful, either. You've probably heard a thousand variations on "There is nothing new under the sun". This goes double for game mechanics. There are only so many ways to numerically represent how close you are to victory, and only so many of them are simple enough that humans can understand how close they are to winning (or losing) at a glance.


Jay R: The first two points have been brought up before, so you should have had time to come up with a good counterargument for them.

If what lockpick tool is used doesn't matter, and what argument is used does matter, then these are not even close to the same thing. From a tactical point of view, they are near opposites.

The thing is...what lockpick tool us used does matter. It's just that most people neither know enough about lockpicking to make that kind of decision nor care enough to describe their plan in detail.

A closer analogy is fighting. You can't be surrounded by ten goblins, one goblin mage, and two ogres, and say, "My character fights.". -snip-

Believe it or not, there are games where that's enough! D&D isn't one of them, because combat is the game's primary focus. Because of that, the rules for combat are far, far deeper and more nuanced than the rules for skills. On the other hand, lockpicking and diplomacy are not primary focuses of the game, so their rules are ridiculously simple.

I suspect that here is our greatest disagreement. I do not believe that allowing the players to occasionally fail at a task because they didn't do it well is "punishing" them. I don't believe that when players fail because they didn't find the essential facts, or because they ignored them when they were available, is in any way punishing them. I think it's playing the game.

It can be either one, depending on the circumstances. Spend five seconds thinking about how a bad DM might run with this advice and you'll realize that your definition of playing the game and cruelly punishing the player are the same coin, spent by different people.
Moreover, unless we have vastly different definitions of "punishment," it's still "punishment". It's punishment for "not playing the game," but it's still the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

This is LITERALLY the role-play vs roll-play debate. There really is no right or wrong answers to the original post.

Considering the content of the rest of your post (and the connotations associated with "roleplay" and "rollplay"), I find your platitude unconvincing.
I also disagree with you. If you want to roleplay your social interactions, play a game designed to support that. While we're not exclusively focusing on D&D, we have been using its mechanics as a basis for comparison, and most games have something similar. They are not for you.

[Calthropstu]

Considering the content of the rest of your post (and the connotations associated with "roleplay" and "rollplay"), I find your platitude unconvincing.
I also disagree with you. If you want to roleplay your social interactions, play a game designed to support that. While we're not exclusively focusing on D&D, we have been using its mechanics as a basis for comparison, and most games have something similar. They are not for you.

The thousands of hours I have spent playing 3.0/3.5/PF disagree with your assertion. Hell, a good gm + good players can pretty much wing the whole thing without dice ever coming into play until absolutely needed.
I have played both combat heavy + dice heavy games and dice light games and can enjoy both.
So I stand by my original assertion. There really is no wrong way for a gm to handle social skill use in this context.

[Max_Killjoy]

The thousands of hours I have spent playing 3.0/3.5/PF disagree with your assertion. Hell, a good gm + good players can pretty much wing the whole thing without dice ever coming into play until absolutely needed.
I have played both combat heavy + dice heavy games and dice light games and can enjoy both.
So I stand by my original assertion. There really is no wrong way for a gm to handle social skill use in this context.

Sure there is, it's just not a single wrong way.

The wrong way to do this is the way that makes the game no fun for the players involved in a particular campaign.

[Aliquid]

If what lockpick tool is used doesn't matter, and what argument is used does matter, then these are not even close to the same thing. From a tactical point of view, they are near opposites.

I agree with GreatWyrmGold. Which tool you used does matter. It could make the difference between jamming the lock permanently, breaking your tools, so you can't pick future locks, or just messing up, and being able to try again.

I suspect that here is our greatest disagreement. I do not believe that allowing the players to occasionally fail at a task because they didn't do it well is "punishing" them. I don't believe that when players fail because they didn't find the essential facts, or because they ignored them when they were available, is in any way punishing them. I think it's playing the game.

You aren't using the stats on the character sheet then... if you flip this argument on its head, you have a huge amount of room for abuse. You can have a player who thinks quick and is a good 'actor' always put charisma as a dump stat on his characters, because who cares what the Chr is, he can succeed anyway.

If you let a character with high charisma and wisdom fail because the player does a poor job of roleplaying something cleaver... then you would likely do the opposite too, i.e. letting a character with a low charisma and wisdom succeed because the player does a good job or roleplaying. Both of these scenarios are unfair to me.

If you want to focus on role-playing rather than roll-playing, then you need to actually play the role of the character as written on the character sheet. You need to act with the skills of the character on the character sheet, not with the skills of the player. If the character is better than the player at something, then the player needs help to make sure he is "better" at that. If the character is worse at something than the player, then the player must restrain himself and deliberately fail at some things.

There really is no wrong way for a gm to handle social skill use in this context.

Actually there is one wrong way to handle this. If the GM handles it in a way that ruins the fun for the players, then the GM is doing it wrong. If the GM and the players both enjoy the same style... then go at it. But I do think that there are other gaming systems that are far more conducive to that style of play.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The thousands of hours I have spent playing 3.0/3.5/PF disagree with your assertion. Hell, a good gm + good players can pretty much wing the whole thing without dice ever coming into play until absolutely needed.
I have played both combat heavy + dice heavy games and dice light games and can enjoy both.
So I stand by my original assertion. There really is no wrong way for a gm to handle social skill use in this context.

There's a difference between a system which does not actively impede your efforts and the right system. If you don't understand that, there's no purpose continuing this discussion.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree with GreatWyrmGold. Which tool you used does matter. It could make the difference between jamming the lock permanently, breaking your tools, so you can't pick future locks, or just messing up, and being able to try again.

As a general question, while the tools matter to the character; are they important to how the game works? That is, does taking time to figure which pick gets used and how, enhance or detract from the enjoyment of a particular game for a particular set of players?

This might be my personal preferences talking and that's all, but to me it seems that the details of character interaction -- social, combat, whatever -- deserve more "screen time" than which tools are used how in the picking of a lock, and that taking 10+ minutes of real life time to work out how a lock gets picked is going to have much more niche appeal than taking 10+ minutes to figure out a combat to the death, or the negotiations that lead to peace or war for the next decade, or two characters who've been engaged in a "we're in love, shut up" plot finally realizing they feel more than friendship, or whatever example you want to give.

You aren't using the stats on the character sheet then... if you flip this argument on its head, you have a huge amount of room for abuse. You can have a player who thinks quick and is a good 'actor' always put charisma as a dump stat on his characters, because who cares what the Chr is, he can succeed anyway.

If you let a character with high charisma and wisdom fail because the player does a poor job of roleplaying something cleaver... then you would likely do the opposite too, i.e. letting a character with a low charisma and wisdom succeed because the player does a good job or roleplaying. Both of these scenarios are unfair to me.

If you want to focus on role-playing rather than roll-playing, then you need to actually play the role of the character as written on the character sheet. You need to act with the skills of the character on the character sheet, not with the skills of the player. If the character is better than the player at something, then the player needs help to make sure he is "better" at that. If the character is worse at something than the player, then the player must restrain himself and deliberately fail at some things.

I don't see how you got that out of the post you quoted, maybe I missed some earlier context. In that specific post, Jay R appears to be talking about characters failing because of their actions, not about letting players ignore the characters' stats and backgrounds and whatnot.

But I totally agree that part of roleplaying is making sure that the build fits the character you want to play, and that you play the character that the stats are mapping. As discussed in another tread, stats do matter.

Actually there is one wrong way to handle this. If the GM handles it in a way that ruins the fun for the players, then the GM is doing it wrong. If the GM and the players both enjoy the same style... then go at it. But I do think that there are other gaming systems that are far more conducive to that style of play.

Heh -- I said almost the same thing.

[Thrudd]

The "wrong way" is to tell the players the game works a certain way (or allow them to assume it will be played according to the written rules), and to then ignore or circumvent those rules without warning. If the game has rules for social interactions involving dice and invested character resources, you need to inform the players if those rules are being altered, replaced or ignored, so they can make good decisions regarding the allocation of their resources and prepare themselves for what the game will require of them. "Fun" is not an objective measuring stick for anything.

So if you're going to ignore the dice and expect players to do acting, or even if that's an option they can choose, you need to tell them so. Preferably when they are making their characters.

Whatever solution someone wants to use for adjudicating social interactions is fine, so long as the players know how the game works. If it's subjective improv acting with the GM rather than dice rolling, that's an important thing to know.

[Max_Killjoy]

The "wrong way" is to tell the players the game works a certain way (or allow them to assume it will be played according to the written rules), and to then ignore or circumvent those rules without warning. If the game has rules for social interactions involving dice and invested character resources, you need to inform the players if those rules are being altered, replaced or ignored, so they can make good decisions regarding the allocation of their resources and prepare themselves for what the game will require of them. "Fun" is not an objective measuring stick for anything.

So if you're going to ignore the dice and expect players to do acting, or even if that's an option they can choose, you need to tell them so. Preferably when they are making their characters.

Whatever solution someone wants to use for adjudicating social interactions is fine, so long as the players know how the game works. If it's subjective improv acting with the GM rather than dice rolling, that's an important thing to know.

Another good point. Avoid the shell-game, or letting mismatched assumptions fester into conflict.

[Floret]

Lots of good points, I especially liked Floret's and Mark Hall's posts. But I'm going to address a different issue, which is the approach model brought in by Tanarii. I think the idea is correct, but I think the part it misses, or perhaps just doesn't address explicitly enough. The difference between social skills and others by this model in my mind is that people ask not only for the approach but the details as well.

I think I have never been complimented on making a good argument for people I generally at least halfway disagree with, but thanks^^

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.

The reason social skills are different is that they are, as presented in most games, essentially the equivalent of having a "fight skill," where the actual dice resolution is a single "fight roll," and the player either "roll plays" it and just says "I roll fight; do I win?" or "role plays" it and describes his entire combat scene and approach, then rolls the dice anyway.

If social mechanics are to live up to what people seem to want from them when they demand that you "role play" it, then they need to have the depth of physical combat. Rolls aren't to "persuade," but to learn about the other socialites, to see if you can sway or tempt them, to stoke anger or greed or lust or joy. To get them into a position where their natural inclination is to go along with what you want. It would be like rolling lots of rounds in combat, but more puzzle-like because you're not just wearing down "will points" to browbeat them into being your mind-slave. You're interacting with their mechanical social statistics to manipulate them into doing what you want.

I think a certain lack of creativity in RPGs and the media they draw from is somewhat responsible here (Or maybe physical violence is just inherently more engaging to humans than other things. Might be.) - RPGs should probably have rules for the things they want to accomplish, more detailed for the ones they focus on. For some reason, most RPGs have decided they want to focus on combat, but social interactions are superficially relevant to the actual gameplay. I certainly wouldn't wanna add complex social rules into a game like DnD, it seems to irrelevant - but I certainly have heard of games that have a "fight roll", where this is the relevant thing. Maybe a heist game might have this... (Which begs the question why shadowrun needs complex combat mechanics; or if the fact that it HAS draws it to be so much less of a heist game than the general theme might have you believe...)
The last time this discussion came around, I might have been more on the side of social mechanics being in everything, but if a game focusses on social interactions should absolutely flesh it out more (I don't actually know any, but suspect there must be. Does Monster Hearts do it?)

A matter of what the game is about. I think it's entirely possible to abstract things to different levels, even though they seem "equivalent" IRL, or have a game with an extensive sneaking and trapfinding subsystem, but "combat rolls". So... I agree, but only sort of

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 think players should be given the agency to give theirs away. It might not been your style, but "this takes away player agency" as an argument for an inherent difference seems to me a bit like saying "this bit has to have player agency". I have seen players surrender to the GM the decision how they feel about certain things (According to clan stereotypes in L5R); and myself often surrender the agency of giving in to some temptation or not to the dice.
All a matter of taste, and I find if a player decides "I don't want that agency", it would be wrong to force them to take it - though it might be a sign of incompatible gaming preferences if it appears often and the GM chafes against it.

Roleplaying implies improv acting most of the time.

Others have said it already, but no. This equates roleplaying with the "talky" part of RPGs, which it absolutely shouldn't be reduced to. In a similar vein...

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 disagree. Picking a lock, how, why and how efficiently your character does it absolutely simulate playing the role. A role doesn't end when dice are rolled, a role extends to character capabilities. Roleplaying is not only talky-time (Not that I am saying you said that).
(There might be an argument for simulating character personality, but personality and role should not be conflated.)

Spoiler: Semi-related gaming story

Show

I once had a GM interrupt a fight to have the NPC deliver a monologue, to "give us the opportunity to roleplay" and talk with him. As I and some other players pointed out: Talking, in that moment, would have been the antithesis of roleplaying. It would have actively forced me not to play my role - of a character that really, really thought that guy needed killing, and wouldn't stop to listen to his infame lying (Or what she percieved as such) for a second.

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.

I think the problem here is that what counts as "Intent" and "Approach" can vary wildly in broadness, depending on how much you are willing to abstract things.
"I want icecream" is an intention as much as "I want chocolate and peppermint ice cream" is; or even "I want chocolote and peppermint icecream, for free, from that one specific merchant".
If you see "I want to get past the guard" as the intent (Because hey, that is the actual goal of the character"; then "by intimidating him" becomes an approach. The end goal isn't actually the intimidation, after all, but what you want to achieve with it. Just as the actual intention is getting past the door - picking the lock or smashing it usually isn't what you are after, aka. the intended goal.

(It might be what you intent to do; but differenciating "I intend to do X" from "I want to solve this in way Y" will get increasingly nitpicky. Now I agree that for social interactions, what argument you use will greatly change how things might play out - but THAT is the actual crux with just rolling persuasion, that you cannot properly improvise on, and the discussion about intent and approach only obfuscates the issue. Intent and approach are depending on perspective, context and level of abstraction too much that they would be able to serve as complete guidelines.

You're trying to complicate something absurdly simple. I can in fact have a conversation at the table. I cannot pick a lock at the table. Therefore I can play the role by having the conversation my PC is having, but I cannot play the roil by picking the lock my PC is picking.

You can have a conversation. You cannot stand in front of a crowd at the table. You cannot be in a damp dungeon, tied up to the wall ****-talking the guard into coming close enough for you to grab their keys. You cannot be in a great crowd of people, trying to argue with a guard for a relief from the toll, while the people behind you get slowly angrier and angrier. You cannot stand surrounded by swords, trying to convince the bandits not to kill you.
The point is... If the abstraction you can get by sitting at the table and talking is close enough for you, that's fine, and great for you - but the situation is about as equivalent as taking a padlock and fiddling about with it, before slotting in the key and opening it is for picking a lock in a dungeon. That is, superficially similar, but by far not the same thing.

It's not how swordfighting or archery works in real life either

I mean, sure. Pretty much nothing is - or should be, probably, for matter of "playability" be represented ingame in the way it actually works in real life. It all depends on how much abstraction for what thing you are willing to accept. I am actively in favour of social skills being a thing that exists, no matter if they aren't "realistic".

If what lockpick tool is used doesn't matter, and what argument is used does matter, then these are not even close to the same thing. From a tactical point of view, they are near opposites.

A closer analogy is fighting. You can't be surrounded by ten goblins, one goblin mage, and two ogres, and say, "My character fights.". The DM will ask which weapon are you using, and what maneuver are you attempting, and who is your target. These decisions matter, and the player needs to make them. Similarly, you can't just roll diplomacy in a crowd. You need to tell the DM who are you trying to convince, what argument are you using, do you have any corroborating evidence.

Question: Why? Why can you not say that - If we are arguing system-agnostic here. I mean, sure, in most rulesystems, that doesn't fly. But some rulesystems don't have anything for social interaction, some do, to very different levels of abstraction, and we aren't talking system-specific.
So... if something isn't important to the game or the players involved, why shouldn't it be glossed over?

(The argument of "The GM might need to know what you are trying to succeed at" stays, sure, but it is rather hurt by the analogy. If the goal is clear from context - winning and killing the enemies in a fight, and maybe rallying a mob in a crowd scene, simply rolling might just work.)

[Pelle]

I think players should be given the agency to give theirs away. It might not been your style, but "this takes away player agency" as an argument for an inherent difference seems to me a bit like saying "this bit has to have player agency". I have seen players surrender to the GM the decision how they feel about certain things (According to clan stereotypes in L5R); and myself often surrender the agency of giving in to some temptation or not to the dice.
All a matter of taste, and I find if a player decides "I don't want that agency", it would be wrong to force them to take it - though it might be a sign of incompatible gaming preferences if it appears often and the GM chafes against it.

Yes, it's a personal gaming preference. When I GM I enjoy seeing my players make interesting decisions. I like to game with my friends, not alone by myself with their character sheets. I understand why players may want to, but opting out of the agency often feels like choosing not to play the game we all agreed to play. That's fine, but then why bother showing up?

Letting dice determine your PCs' action is a small pet peeve of mine. Take responsibilty for your PC, please, and own its decisions! Any decision is fine, even following a stereotype or doing the most "optimal" choice.

I think the problem here is that what counts as "Intent" and "Approach" can vary wildly in broadness, depending on how much you are willing to abstract things.
"I want icecream" is an intention as much as "I want chocolate and peppermint ice cream" is; or even "I want chocolote and peppermint icecream, for free, from that one specific merchant".
If you see "I want to get past the guard" as the intent (Because hey, that is the actual goal of the character"; then "by intimidating him" becomes an approach. The end goal isn't actually the intimidation, after all, but what you want to achieve with it. Just as the actual intention is getting past the door - picking the lock or smashing it usually isn't what you are after, aka. the intended goal.

Not all social interactions require the same amount of approach specification, but some need more than others.

I think that if I as GM can see that depending on the persuasion approach the chance of success and the risks involved will vary, I want the player to specify so that I can set the DC and determine consequences. That is not punishing the player.

If it is inconsequential either way, who cares? It can be handwaved if noone wants to spend time on it.

[Aliquid]

Actually... an even bigger problem I just thought of is that if you just role-play the story out by "improv acting", then you are pitting the DM's acting skills vs the Player's acting skills.

If the DM is better at diplomacy, or if the DM is more verbally assertive, then the DM will always win the argument.

"I hold all the power because I am the DM, and I am a better negotiator than you... so I always get to dictate where this story goes. You are just along for the ride"

[kyoryu]

Not all social interactions require the same amount of approach specification, but some need more than others.

I think that if I as GM can see that depending on the persuasion approach the chance of success and the risks involved will vary, I want the player to specify so that I can set the DC and determine consequences. That is not punishing the player.

If it is inconsequential either way, who cares? It can be handwaved if noone wants to spend time on it.

Yes, but "I social past the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I open the box." It's just not enough info.

"I intimidate the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I pick the lock." That's enough info to determine the likely difficulty and outcomes (both positive and negative) of the action.

Beyond that is detail that, in most cases, won't really impact what the potential outcomes *are*, and can be fairly safely subsumed into a die roll *if you want*.

[Tanarii]

"I intimidate the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I pick the lock." That's enough info to determine the likely difficulty and outcomes (both positive and negative) of the action.

Personally, I disagree. To me, "I intimidate the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I open the container". It requires more info to determine the likely difficulty and outcomes (both positive and negative) of the action.

But that's really the point of this thread, really. There's definitely room for the line on what's sufficient information to resolve the action to be drawn different places. What matters is for the DM and player to get on the same page.

[kyoryu]

Personally, I disagree. To me, "I intimidate the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I open the container". It requires more info to determine the likely difficulty and outcomes (both positive and negative) of the action.

But that's really the point of this thread, really. There's definitely room for the line on what's sufficient information to resolve the action to be drawn different places. What matters is for the DM and player to get on the same page.

That's fine.

My point is more along the lines that "picking the lock" is a poor analogy for some of the more genericized uses of social skills that get floated around - those are closer to "open the box."

To be clear, when I say 'likely outcomes', I don't really mean success or failure - I mean the shape of what success and failure look like. A failed intimindation will likely have a similar result for most tactics used... though perhaps I'm just immediately jumping to an assumption of physical intimidation vs. blackmail, etc. - if you're not making that assumption, then yeah, I'd agree with you 100%.

[Floret]

Yes, it's a personal gaming preference. When I GM I enjoy seeing my players make interesting decisions. I like to game with my friends, not alone by myself with their character sheets. I understand why players may want to, but opting out of the agency often feels like choosing not to play the game we all agreed to play. That's fine, but then why bother showing up?

Letting dice determine your PCs' action is a small pet peeve of mine. Take responsibilty for your PC, please, and own its decisions! Any decision is fine, even following a stereotype or doing the most "optimal" choice.

1. Surrendering over your agency over decisions in one instance does not mean doing it always. The ability to say "Yaknow, I just don't know, you decide" comes with no compunction to use it; and having used it once doesn't mean you have to use it again. The extreme you are constructing is not conductive to a constructive discussion about real possibilities of handling these things.
Or, in other words, to answer the question "Why show up?": Because most of the time, you don't opt out.

2. Letting the dice determine the actions of a PC is not synonymous with refusing responsibilty for the decision. In the moment I decide to adhere to the dice, I am responsible for the resulting action, not any outside entity; as much as I would be if I made a decision independent of a dieroll. I made the decision to roll, after all.

Frankly, I simply don't know how tempting holding a bottle of an alcoholic drink in the face of my - incredibly strong-willed - character; who nonetheless, unlike me, has a moral code forbidding it; after nearly dying to a foe minutes before deemed impossible to even be real would be. I mean, sure, I can try to feel into the situation - but sometimes, things are just too far outside my frame of reference that I can get closer than "Well, there are two possibilities here" (Refusing, or drinking, in the example). And just like I might throw a coin when faced with such a decision in my day to day life, in TRPGs I like to ask the dice; the instrument for simulating character capability, if the impulse is strong enough. It has nothing to do with not taking responsibilty.
(Interestingly enough, despite the insane dicepool, everytime drinking came up my character failed her roll miserably. Became somewhat of a running gag.)

Not all social interactions require the same amount of approach specification, but some need more than others.

I think that if I as GM can see that depending on the persuasion approach the chance of success and the risks involved will vary, I want the player to specify so that I can set the DC and determine consequences. That is not punishing the player.

If it is inconsequential either way, who cares? It can be handwaved if noone wants to spend time on it.

I am not disagreeing. In fact, I am very much agreeing - my point was merely that the reason that social skills might require more detail than others is not because they in fact don't; just perceptions differ - but that they are simply more open-ended, most of the time, and have more diverse things falling under the same skill.
"You need more info on what you're trying to be able to properly respond and spin this further" is a quite convincing argument; A discussion about what is needed to count as an "approach" is... not, at least to me.

Personally, I disagree. To me, "I intimidate the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I open the container". It requires more info to determine the likely difficulty and outcomes (both positive and negative) of the action.

But that's really the point of this thread, really. There's definitely room for the line on what's sufficient information to resolve the action to be drawn different places. What matters is for the DM and player to get on the same page.

That is an issue of abstraction levels, personal perspective, and general lack of comparability between different kinds of actions.
There is no baseline for what counts as "equivalently abstracted", because we are comparing things that are mostly incomparable; all immesurably complex, in ways probably none of us fully understand, looking at different aspects of them. Not even comparing apples to pears; more like comparing apples to a basketball - how DO you compare these? Chemical components, maybe, or the shape? But what is the shape of an action, what are its chemical components?

I simply think that there is no way to objectively judge what level of detail would be "equivalent", and arguing about what actions actually are equivalent is futile. Are all skills equivalent? Subskills? Then different games have different definitions of what is equivalent. By how many words are needed to say your action?

"Sufficient information to resolve the action appropriately" seems a good line for determining how much detail is needed, but I cannot help but notice it seems to have little relationship to actual levels of abstraction.

Actually... an even bigger problem I just thought of is that if you just role-play the story out by "improve acting", then you are pitting the DM's acting skills vs the Player's acting skills.

If the DM is better at diplomacy, or if the DM is more verbally assertive, then the DM will always win the argument.

Not necessarily - it is a bit more complicated.
What is happening is not the player convincing the GM with the arguments of the character; it is that the player is trying to convince the GM that the arguments of the character would convince the NPC. The GM need not be convinced himself - but convincing your GM is actually involved in some way.
So why I don't think it will necessarily get to the level you fear (After all, social interaction in Larp - which is basically purely improv acting works, and can create a satisfying gaming experience not dominated by one singular person; social stuff is rather complex), there is a possibility for it to get out of hand.

[Frozen_Feet]

Actually... an even bigger problem I just thought of is that if you just role-play the story out by "improve acting", then you are pitting the DM's acting skills vs the Player's acting skills.

If the DM is better at diplomacy, or if the DM is more verbally assertive, then the DM will always win the argument.

"I hold all the power because I am the DM, and I am a better negotiator than you... so I always get to dictate where this story goes. You are just along for the ride"

Nope.

Nooooope.

The reason why this train of thought, especially what I underlined, does not hold, is because you forgot how acting skill is measured:

It's not measured by winning.

It's measured by convincingly playing a role.

And the GM's role could be anything. It could be a stern, no nonsense diplomat. But just as well it could be a weak-willed doormat, or easily-provoked hot-head.

The GM's role, could very well be to lose. And those GMs who actually have skill in improv acting WILL do this.

This doesn't mean the GM isn't being manipulative, though. A really skilled actor and devious scenario designer will introduce character who are set to lose on purpose, all to steer the players towards a set outcome while making them think it was their idea.

Remember: even in adversarial games, where the GM is primarily playing the antagonists, that's usually not the only hat they're wearing. They're also the scenario designer and play the support roles as well.

[Tanarii]

To be clear, when I say 'likely outcomes', I don't really mean success or failure - I mean the shape of what success and failure look like. A failed intimindation will likely have a similar result for most tactics used... though perhaps I'm just immediately jumping to an assumption of physical intimidation vs. blackmail, etc. - if you're not making that assumption, then yeah, I'd agree with you 100%.

The shape of what success and failure looks like it what I (generally) think of as consequences. And those tend to stem from specific approach to attempting to resolve the intended action.

Again though, that's not always something that's clean cut. Sometimes the shape of success / failure is more a matter of "exactly what did I succeed or fail at?", and that's more of clarifying intent, so it's more a matter of the outcome, rather than approach and consequences.

(I'm using very specific terms here though, so if other people think of terms differently.)

[Max_Killjoy]

As a side note, what's with "improve" instead of "improv"?

[Aliquid]

Nope.

Nooooope.

The reason why this train of thought, especially what I underlined, does not hold, is because you forgot how acting skill is measured:

It's not measured by winning.

It's measured by convincingly playing a role.

Fine, but what if the player can't convincingly play an assertive confident character, because the player is personally passive and insecure in nature...

Then this player "improv acts" his character against a stubborn NPC. The DM (who personally happens to be quite assertive) easily and convincingly plays the stubborn NPC, and gets his way.

And the GM's role could be anything. It could be a stern, no nonsense diplomat. But just as well it could be a weak-willed doormat, or easily-provoked hot-head.

The GM's role, could very well be to lose. And those GMs who actually have skill in improv acting WILL do this.

That sounds a bit too 'pre determined' to me. The GM should go design the scenario and the NPC with the mindset that "This non-nonsense diplomat will [/I]probably[/I] win over the PCs, but lets see how the dice roll", or "This weak-willed doormat will probably be pushed around by the PCs, but who knows, they might roll a 1, and push this guys buttons enough that he snaps and lashes back at them"

[Aliquid]

As a side note, what's with "improve" instead of "improv"?

I'm going to say autocorrect. Spellcheck doesn't like it.

[Pelle]

Yes, but "I social past the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I open the box." It's just not enough info.

"I intimidate the guard" is roughly the equivalent of "I pick the lock." That's enough info to determine the likely difficulty and outcomes (both positive and negative) of the action.

Beyond that is detail that, in most cases, won't really impact what the potential outcomes *are*, and can be fairly safely subsumed into a die roll *if you want*.

For the guard example I may agree, and would perhaps just handwave it myself depending on the situation. For another situation, like intimidating the king, the sub-approach will matter. Threating to kill him - high DC due to his armed guards, threatening to kill his hostaged son - DC depends on which one, threatening to expose his dirty secret demonic pact - low DC. This situation will also be more narratively important/interesting, so here I expect players to engage more in the social encounter.

[Pelle]

1. Surrendering over your agency over decisions in one instance does not mean doing it always. The ability to say "Yaknow, I just don't know, you decide" comes with no compunction to use it; and having used it once doesn't mean you have to use it again. The extreme you are constructing is not conductive to a constructive discussion about real possibilities of handling these things.
Or, in other words, to answer the question "Why show up?": Because most of the time, you don't opt out.

Yes, it was a bit extreme. Still, in the moment, I'm not so happy about it. As the GM I don't like to decide for a PC, even if it is only once in a while.

2. Letting the dice determine the actions of a PC is not synonymous with refusing responsibilty for the decision. In the moment I decide to adhere to the dice, I am responsible for the resulting action, not any outside entity; as much as I would be if I made a decision independent of a dieroll. I made the decision to roll, after all.

Ok, when you are deciding on specific odds for the different actions and so on, it's better than refusing to decide. When I have seen it though, it has felt more as giving responsibility over to the die, absolving the player. Like if rolling 50-50 for either fleeing or attacking, the player goes through with the result, without demonstrating that there was a chance for something else happening instead. So it has felt to me like the player is asking "should I play a cowardly or brave character? - let a die decide", rather than deciding to play a conflicted character who wants to to both. Maybe you accomplish it better.

I am not disagreeing. In fact, I am very much agreeing - my point was merely that the reason that social skills might require more detail than others is not because they in fact don't; just perceptions differ - but that they are simply more open-ended, most of the time, and have more diverse things falling under the same skill.
"You need more info on what you're trying to be able to properly respond and spin this further" is a quite convincing argument; A discussion about what is needed to count as an "approach" is... not, at least to me.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to disagree there; I just wanted to change topic, and felt that part of your post was the most relevant...

[kyoryu]

The shape of what success and failure looks like it what I (generally) think of as consequences. And those tend to stem from specific approach to attempting to resolve the intended action.

Again though, that's not always something that's clean cut. Sometimes the shape of success / failure is more a matter of "exactly what did I succeed or fail at?", and that's more of clarifying intent, so it's more a matter of the outcome, rather than approach and consequences.

(I'm using very specific terms here though, so if other people think of terms differently.)

Yes, I agree. In general, an action in a more freeform system (such as social skills tend to be) needs to clarify both the intended goal as well as how the character intends to accomplish that, to a degree of detail that the likely possible outcomes can be determined.

I think there is little or no disagreement here.

For the guard example I may agree, and would perhaps just handwave it myself depending on the situation. For another situation, like intimidating the king, the sub-approach will matter. Threating to kill him - high DC due to his armed guards, threatening to kill his hostaged son - DC depends on which one, threatening to expose his dirty secret demonic pact - low DC. This situation will also be more narratively important/interesting, so here I expect players to engage more in the social encounter.

Yeah, see, I just presumed the physical sort of intimidation, which was my error. You'd absolutely need to know if you're trying to intimidate with physical force, or with exposing the demonic pact. Not only will that change the DC, but it will lead to greatly different outcomes, succeed or fail.

[Tanarii]

I think there is little or no disagreement here.

Probably not. Of course, when I'm just responding to the little specific details I am nit-picking on, and not the entirety of a post (and with some people vice versa) it can be hard to tell that I'm sitting over here going "yeah you make sense".

Yeah, see, I just presumed the physical sort of intimidation, which was my error. You'd absolutely need to know if you're trying to intimidate with physical force, or with exposing the demonic pact. Not only will that change the DC, but it will lead to greatly different outcomes, succeed or fail.

And in some cases (like 5e variant ability checks) may actually change the ability score being used for the check.

[Frozen_Feet]

Fine, but what if the player can't convincingly play...

A player who picks any role that they are too unskilled to play for any reason will lose a game. News at eleven.

Trivial fact: all games which are not utterly random require player skill. Systems design can influence which skills, but a socially unskilled player being unable to play socially challenging roles is not worse than a mathematically unskilled player not being able to count dice probabilities (etc.).

When it comes to social skills, it is always preferable to teach the unskilled player to be better, than bypass those skills via simulation. The reason is simple: completety detached from inability to portray a role, tabletop games are a social hobby. If you can teach the awkward player to be even slightly more assertive, slightly more well-spoken etc., this directly makes them more pleasant to be around as a person. I feel most roleplayers shirk away from doing this only because their own social skills leave much to be desired... and the entire hobby is worse for it as a result. Or, like I've seen a person on these boards put it: roleplaying games are a social hobby, with some of the most spectacularly anti-social hobbyists.

That sounds a bit too 'pre determined' to me. The GM should go design the scenario and the NPC with the mindset that "This non-nonsense diplomat will [/I]probably[/I] win over the PCs, but lets see how the dice roll", or "This weak-willed doormat will probably be pushed around by the PCs, but who knows, they might roll a 1, and push this guys buttons enough that he snaps and lashes back at them"

As with mathematical skill checks, a GM has full spectrum of possibilities to use, from auto-fail to auto-success. Where to put their foot down and when is the open question. Pretty much all well-designed scenarios I've seen mix deterministic and non-deterministic elements, so focusing on whether some given element of a scenario is one or the other is usually poor practice compared to more holistic evaluations of a scenario.

Or, in other words, a scenario's decision should be viewed in its entirety where possible, instead of narrowly focusing on single decisions.