Can we all just agree that social skill checks were a mistake?

>"CLEARLY YOU MUST BE ABLE TO LIFT A 10 TON BOULDER IN REAL LIFE TO DO IT IN GAME HURR HURR HURRR"

you fucks realize tabletop RPGs are, by their nature, a SOCIAL EXPERIENCE right? They're a SOCIAL excercize for you to SOCIALIZE with others over a nice SOCIAL game.

If it were explicitly a PHYSICAL game like a sport then yes you better be fucking expected to kick a ball good. But for something explicitly a SOCIAL game then yes I think you should at least be able to hold a convorsation.

And no. If you're BAD at socializing you're probably not gonna have a good time at a tabletop game because hey guess what you're doing 95% the time when playing a tabletop game. Ya certainly aren't weightlifting or testing your reflexes. The other 5% is mostly just running math against others and even then there's usually arbitration based on what's narratively sound which is formed from the social contract.

>bunch of nerds gather around a table to play an RPG in a parents basement
>they are all expected to have social skills

I think you may be retarded

>Can we all just agree that social skill checks were a mistake?

Depends. Can you lift my fridge?

they exist so people who aren't socially adept or great at roleplaying can play a character who is suave and good with words. You know, the whole idea of roleplaying games? To do or be something you cant in real life.

Thank you for proving the tride and true meme:

Veeky Forums doesn't actually play games they just theorycraft all day.

But resolving entire combat encounters with a single roll is entirely a-okay, user. Check out how Burning Wheel handles it.

I play D&D with a group of mostly socially adept people but one of them, naturally, is very introverted and has trouble finding their place in the group. Stop making yourself look stupid.

user I think you're projecting a bit hard.

If it's a social experience, why are there no rules governing that experience?

RPGs are about building characters and rolling dice. Everything else is optional.

Man, you sound very strict. As a player I try to say what my character would say but sometimes I don't remember some words or how to say it in a way that is more persuasive.

So instead I say things like
>So after greeting the guard and making some small talk I try to steer the conversation toward his lieutenant wothout ever saying the name of the officer itself. Just nudging it to see if I can find out more without asking directly. Is that deception or...?

Unfortunately yes. Just like players that are impulsive and lack critical thinking generally suck at playing smart characters

>Get accused of not actually playing D&D based on absolutely nothing
>I'm projecting

Ok.

I know that you're making an exaggeration, but I'm somewhat agreeing with your examples. The fantasy of the games we play is grounded in the inescapable reality of the real world where we the players live, and should reflect it at least in some degree to maintain believability. A twig playing muscular character isn't believable because he doesn't know what having strength means from personal experience, as is shy person playing charismatic negotiator or someone without intelligence and analytical mind playing a wizard. It's just illusion breaking to me, as a player, when thr thespian of the theater of the mind does not remind me of their character in the slightest.

And I'm betting that introverted guy isn't gonna be playing a charismatic, extroverted bard whose role is party face any time soon?

If they did (they don't) the option is there for them. Also, what if your DM can hold a conversation but isn't adept enough at social interaction with strangers to know when you've said something convincing or not? There are a lot of different people who play these games so it's not something everyone can 'agree on' like the OP suggested.

It's ok. My players have to do the physical actions too if they want their characters to perform those feats. The start of the campaign was harsh but out of the 7 original players there is now 2 left. And with 5 years into this campaign it has shaped them into quite literal superhumans in both body and mind.

If your GM is that retarded that they can't tell the difference between an argument a part time guard would buy and an argument a 1000 year old vampire aristocrat would buy... I dunno, I feel real bad for you having a really shitty GM

If you are a 100 pound twig who goes to powerlifting competition, you are going to have bad time and not enjoy yourself

If you are shy social retard who goes to roleplaying campaign, you are going to have bad time and not enjoy yourself.

Choose your hobbies along your strengths, simple as that.

>shy social retard
But it doesnt even have to be that extreme.

There are people who are naturally good at public speaking and stuff like that.
They would have the advantage over the average players.

We're talking about players who can act normal and socialize normally, but still at a disadvantage and restricted compared to the guy who can create fucking poems and speeches instantly.

no the dm and players all help each other
do what some other user said you don't need to deliver the performance of a lifetime.
you can say "for a str check pick up a fridge" but how is that any more dumb and abstract than just letting someone roll 1d20 and if they get a 20 "loool the king gives u his kingdom coz ur so persuasive"

I don't see a problem with that. A person with better roleplay skills should perform better at roleplaying games, duh.

The player is not the character, therefore the players "stats" should not govern the characters stats.

so a random number from 1 to 20 should govern social interaction?

No. A random number from 1 to 20 provides a randomized effect which is mitigated by high stats and investment in skill ranks to show mastery. Therefore a high level Diplomacy skill user with high charisma is capable of wooing most peasants they encounter even if the dice roll 1, whereas the low rank Diplomacy skill user will fail. There is no critical success or failure on skill use.

If players are trying to run amok with diplomancy, just tell them that the DC is too high for the stupid shit they're trying to get people to do.

I mean, it's "possible" to convince someone that they need to eat that barrel of snakes over there to save the kingdom, but odds are you don't have enough bonuses to sway people as a stranger, or even as a well known hero. You'd have to essentially be the setting's Jesus, and even then, you'll run into people that simply don't believe you.

I feel like social rolls would be better if you got your players to focus on courses of action that appeal to the particular NPCs weaknesses, so to speak. I personally would like a system where DCs are pretty high, and focusing on obtaining bonuses against your target help greatly in achieving your objective.

If that makes any sense.

ok so a random number between like 8 and 27 determines social interaction for a bard and between 4 and 23 for a barbarian?

> Can we all just agree that social skill checks were a mistake?
Not really, no.
The social skill checks are awful because they use dice for conflict resolution.
There are much better ways to implement social interactions than fucking dice - trait keywords, reputation parameter, tactical verbal "fighting" etc.
The concept of a social skill check is solid, but the execution is utter shite.

No a random number between 28 and 47, for a 20th level Character with max Diplomacy ranks and an 18 Cha, and between 5 and 24 for a 20th character with 18 Cha and no Diplomacy ranks. Aka, one is trained and skilled, while the other coasts on self confidence alone.

Of course that's using PF rules. For other systems, the max rankings may be different. But the gist of it is that skills are what differentiate what a character is capable of not just their ability scores like so many idiotic dumbfucks on this baord beleive since they don't actually play any games.

ok but what about at say 3rd level, and not 20th level.

Here's how I know you're a cunt who wants to dump CHA without actually taking a drawback from it.....

At third level, it's between 10 and 30, or 5 and 20. The average DC to change an average indifferent peasant's attitude is roughly 17. The trained character will be changing attitudes of peasants far more often even at just third level compared to an untrained individual, much like that traveling salesman who went to marketing school versus the one who just thinks he's hot shit.

Supposed to be 24 not 20 there.

projecting

Not him, but you are using that term wrong.

how so

When I see a twig or a fat fuck who can't even walk without having to pause to take a breath of fresh air playing high CON or high STR characters it also break the social convention of the game by your own logic.

Can we all just agree that combat and roll checks were a mistake?

They're required, but I don't think they're required only as a crutch for people who can't hold a conversation. Rather, like most things in life, it's because of the rare dickhead that needs to be kept on a leash.

The GM, some GM, that GM, is going to tell you "no, the guard doesn't believe you", no matter how convincing you think your argument might be. Hell, you might be a world-class diplomancer, and your reasons for being allowed to enter through the town gate might be perfectly reasonable. But unless you as a player can point to the book and say "yes he does, because X rule says my Y number is bigger than his Z number," some GM who thinks he's the cleverest shit alive is going to rule that none of your attempts at diplomacy or guile or charming will ever work. Every guard will know when you're lying, every bandit will laugh at your attempts to intimidate them, every bar wench will slap you the moment you want to turn your swag on, because your social skills with never live up to the GM's self-diagnosed level of personal genius.

Sometimes rules aren't just to give players the easy way out or restrict them; some rules are meant to keep the GM in line too.

i only make my players roll that if the conversation would be a stretch or if they are too lazy/inarticulate to talk out what they want to say well IC

Taking out social rolls advantages naturally charming and persuasive players, and disadvantages players who aren't. Yes. That is true. But, do social roles really solve the non-charming-player-of-charming-character problem?

Have you ever actually played a game where a player who wasn't very skilled or interested in speaking in character was the party face? It sucks, even with social rolls. It's really not a satisfying experience for anybody.

>"Throw down your arms, humans! We have you surrounded."
>I, uh, convince the hobgoblins to let us go.
>What do you say to them?
>Look, I rolled a 44 on diplomacy; they're going to let us go.
>Yeah, I got it. Just say something in character.
>"Let us go."

Social skill checks are inadequate solution for an unsolvable problem.

While true, social stats and rolls are useful when the player has no way of actually roleplaying a situation without access to esoteric knowledge.

>But resolving entire combat encounters with a single roll is entirely a-okay, user.
Well yeah, because in combat you can utilize a plethora of abilities to take out your opponent while in games like D&D, skill checks are usually bare-bones and come down to either you successfully do a thing or you don't.

If there was actually a mechanical difference between being a scarred bum wearing a potato sack and being a noble dressed in fine regalia with a properly groomed mane, or addressing someone in their native tongue/dialect vs. speaking enough to get a basic point across, or being a half-orc vs. an elf, then people would put more thought into how they formulate their arguments beyond "eh, I got a 21 on my persuasion so how much does he give me for that sword."

Of course, social checks that deal entirely with speaking should be handled by roleplay anyways.

Why not a combination of both? GM moves the diplomacy check up or down depending on how good the player's argument is.

Yeah, in much the same way as the dude who walks into every game itching to fight shit is going to be less capable of handling a political campaign than someone who takes their time and keeps notes on what a noble said or the dude who has the intellect of a dead marmot is going to have a more difficult time playing a high INT character than someone who is naturally intelligent.

No, because physical actions have well documented context within the game's world. A 100 lb. twig will always deal 1d10 if they swing with both hands with an axe in 5e in the same way that a dagger wielded by Bif Atlas will always deal 1d4 damage regardless of how strong the character is.

Social and Mental checks are more ephemeral by their nature and your effectiveness in those areas has as much to do with your strengths as a player as your numbers on a character sheet.

Like even a dude with 20 INT will only go so far if the player has an 8 INT IRL. Same with charisma.

At the same time though, how much esoteric knowledge do you need to say something to the effect of "You don't want to do this to us, we're dangerous individuals, please let us go."

Even then, knowing what's most appropriate to do based off of esoteric knowledge would be an INT thing, not a CHA thing.

Social skill checks are fine as long as you don't let your players just say "I use my X skill!" If you make them narrate or play out what they're doing then have them roll the appropriate skill, they're perfectly fine.

Yes, sometimes that means someone's brilliant argument will fail to convince the person they're making it to. We're on Veeky Forums, we know better than anyone how realistic that is.

But then it would still give the advantage to the guys who are naturally charismatic and it would still be dependent on roleplay, so what's the point?

just integrate rolling and roleplaying
>person makes a good argument, give advantage/bonus die
>person makes a bad one, give disadvantage/penalty die
have a challenge be outright impossible if they behave too out of line
succeeding a skill check doesn't necessarily mean everything goes according to plan, it can just mean a hostile guy becomes less hostile

A good argument can be one narrated in third person.

So that's what Roleplaying is to you, a random die roll?
>shakes head

A combination of social skill checks and the player's roleplaying is my preferred way to deal with social situations, and I think it works very well that way. The key is knowing when a social stat is necessary and how a successful roll will affect the situation, including the grades of success. This kind of point is a step in the right direction - it is easier to convince someone to do something if what you are saying is what they want to hear in the first place.

Sometimes there are situations where it is too time consuming to roleplay whole conversations, especially when they're taking place over a lengthy period of time or with multiple npcs, so the presence of a social stat can be useful.

Third person dialogue is annoying to keep track of and it still wouldn't change the fundamental fact that the guy with good IRL CHA is going to win out over the dude who can't even speak higher than a whisper.

Also, this would put the shy guy in even more of a disadvantage since he probably won't be adept enough to address someone using 3rd person dialogue.

The only mistake was not keeping 4e's skill challenges in 5e, which was the only good part of 4e.

You're not as suave, smart or wise as you think you are, and most importantly not "Napoleon crossed with Einstein"

Not really. It takes basically no Charisma to say "my character explains how dangerous what we're up against is to this city, and how it's imperative to his continued survival that he helps us," or "my character tries to convince him that giving a discount to legendary heroes will encourage people to shop here instead of with his competitors."

Yet at the same time, you'll still find people who say shit like this even though a basic argument would take, as you said, no charisma.

There's no in-game cure for being bad at roleplaying.

So why even bother pretending that social rolls are required, let alone a good idea? If the player's a good roleplayer, they'll be a good roleplayer regardless of the game having persuasion skills or not.

why dont we just remove all social skills from the game, pure combat all the way

Because some people still have the notion that your options as far as what your character can do only goes as far as what's written on your character sheet.

So if you don't have "charismatic" with a list of arbitrary numbers following it, it means that your character is not charismatic, even if they present a logical argument that would otherwise convince the guard to look the other way or haggle a shopkeep's asking price down 3% or so.

Introducing skills at all, not just social ones, was a mistake

No, social skill checks are a good way of letting uncharismatic people play charismatic characters, but they don't replace roleplaying.
What the character says can give their roll a modifier, though. Someone who failed the roll by a point or two but posed an excellent argument IC might pass the check; someone who repeatedly swears at the king while trying to gain his favor might take a -6 or more to the roll - just because of how obvious it ought to be that swearing at the king is bad.

I run B/X and never had any problem with social rolls.

Combat:
>attack a monster
>roll attack + STR
>resolve what happened
>repeat

Social:
>Say something to monster
>roll monster reaction + CHA
>resolve what happened
>repeat

Every other roll in the system is a one-time-thing (per character per level).

Wouldn't those modifiers put an uncharismatic player at worse position than a charismatic one? It's unfair to punish a player wanting to play a smooth talker when he himself isn't good at coming up with what to say. Shouldn't you then penalize the barbarian player who cannot lift your fridge in combat too?

Depends on the game, dude. Do you want to spend an hour rolling to debate in a game about killing things in cold blood with an axe? Do you want to spend an hour rolling to attack one person in a game about an entire ww2 operation?

Unless your group is full of retards you'll never have an issue.

>player metagaming

You could abbreviate that to just "playing", because that's what it is.

No. Even an uncharismatic player can have good arguments.

The player in that situation doesn't want to roleplay, not can't roleplay. It's like low-level combat.

>"I roll to hit the guy with my weapon."
>You're, uh, wielding a bow.
>"Does an 18 hit?"
>Are you shooting them, or just swinging-
>"I'm using my bow at them."

Still, you're punishing tue player for his inability to come up with an argument that his character should be able to formulate. Either the character is defined by the numbers on the sheet alone, or you have to ask the barbarian player to lift weights.

If you're gaming with friends, you probably know approximately what they're capable of - if Jeff couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag and Rick was captain of the debate team, the bar for Jeff getting a bonus is lower than Rick.
I kind of forgot that's not how a lot of people here play.

I don't mind having the barb player having to lift weights.

Again, that is player ability affecting character ability which shouldn't happen at all. The entire point of roleplaying games is to be able to play someone you're not, not just your approximation in a fantasy setting.

You could see it like a novel instead of a play. Bilbo's stay in Rivendell is brushed over in a few paragraphs rather than pages and pages of direct speech.

>"I try to convince the hobgoblins to let us go."
>"Okay, roll Diplomacy."
>"44."
>"Nice! After some careful negotiation, the hobgoblins agree to let you pass, on the condition that you never return."

After all, you don't act out every single inn stay or purchase of gear, do you?

No, because there are already in-game measurements for how much a character can damage/lift/throw/etc. based off of their STR score.

There is not, however, a measurement that dictates the quality of an argument beyond the GM's discretion.

>You smack the ogre with your bow dealing 1d4+strength mod damage.

see Also, if you really need the STR based character just to lift a fridge, see pic related.

>After all, you don't actually roleplay, do you?
FTFY

The best way to test a character is to see how they interact with the environment around them in and out of combat.

What I'm saying is that the GM should use his discretion and not have the quality of the argument affect the game in any way, but act solely as a neutral adjudicator of the rules. Even if the player didn't spoke beyond expressing his wish to interact with an NPC, his character's odds at success should not change because we're playing our characters not as ourselves.

Not to be pedantic, but the DC for that check would be absurdly high. And you can't crit skill checks.
Mind you, the best way to handle social skills is having a base DC in mind, raise or lower it by up to 5 in either direction (25% more likely is HUGE) depending on the persuasiveness of the player. It still means roleplaying, but the wallflower can play a diplomancer if he builds for it.

>Something something about how remove the Strength stat as well as all combat rolling and replace it with a rack of weights.

>Anytime in combat the martials want to attack they must perform a certain amount of reps. More weights = more damage.

>, but the wallflower can play a diplomancer if he builds for it.
No he can't if you tack those huge 25% penalties on his character just for not being very good with words in real life.

This is my favorite shop on The Citadel.

Can Veeky Forums just make this system already? Collaborate with Veeky Forums or something.

>implying gallons of milk fit on coaters

>What I'm saying is that the GM should use his discretion and not have the quality of the argument affect the game in any way, but act solely as a neutral adjudicator of the rules.
Again, barring GM's discretion, there isn't really an in-game measurement that objectively states what a good argument is from a bad one.

There's also the fact that interacting with NPCs is not only a CHA trait, but also an element of roleplay. If the player is unwilling to provide even a basic outline for their argument, how exactly are you supposed to give proper feedback beyond "you say you rolled X and the hobgoblins look at you with confusion" or something along those lines?

Nobody ITT is asking anyone else to pull off a Broadway performance here, we're just asking, if the player can't be arsed to give even a basic premise for his argument,why even have social rolls in the first place?

Not if you're stacking penalties for not giving an argument beyond "I rolled a 47, you HAVE to let us go now!"

>Implying anyone is going to be able to afford weights when most people can't even buy the books for most systems.
>Implying anyone in the tabletop community is going to waste an afternoon lifting weights anytime they attempt to stab an ogre.
>Implying this will affect mage characters who exclusively cast spells without even having to make a roll.
>Implying Veeky Forums isn't just as autistic and sad as Veeky Forums is.
Shit game, shit premise.

Yep. I also punish players for not being able to come up with tactics their characters should understand, or come up with solutions to dilemmas their characters should have no trouble finding.

It sounds like what you want is for a bunch of people to sit around rolling dice while I narrate the choices their characters make based on the results of the rolls.