Social skills are always tricky. You have the twin problems of player has great stats, but can't string a sentence together; and player has the gift of the gab, but the GM calls for a roll and their stats suck.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 04:01:49 PM
Social skills are always tricky. You have the twin problems of player has great stats, but can't string a sentence together; and player has the gift of the gab, but the GM calls for a roll and their stats suck.

It's no trickier than any other skill. If the player is completely uninterested in combat, they shouldn't play a fighter. Otherwise they're just pushing the "I attack" button. Same shit, different pile.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 14, 2023, 04:11:32 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 04:01:49 PM
Social skills are always tricky. You have the twin problems of player has great stats, but can't string a sentence together; and player has the gift of the gab, but the GM calls for a roll and their stats suck.

It's no trickier than any other skill. If the player is completely uninterested in combat, they shouldn't play a fighter. Otherwise they're just pushing the "I attack" button. Same shit, different pile.

Except that there's no reasonable expectation for players to engage in the actual task for any other type of in-game activity (except maybe strategy & puzzle solving, which rarely have an in-game skill analog, and are almost invariably 100% player driven). And no way for actual player skill to effectively translate into actual play. EXCEPT for social skills, which ANYONE can attempt and (unlike any other task) have always been expected to do so (at least on some level). And which also seamlessly translate into actual play if the player is any good at them.

A player being actually good at real physical combat has zero impact on their ability to get their character through combat in actual play. If their character sucks, they suck, period. If their character is good, they're good regardless of how bad the player is IRL.

But a player being good at social skills can potentially bypass the need for them in-game (unless the DM insists on Roll Playing the social encounter, which antithetical to actual Roleplaying, as in RPGs). And unlike combat, the player needs to engage in actual social activity to handle social encounters, which has always been a fundamental part of TTRPGs. But combat has always been handled strictly through roll-playing.

There's just no comparison between social skills and other in-game activities (again, except for strategy and puzzle solving, which are sorta on the same boat as social skills as something players can and are expected to do since the dawn of TTRPGs).

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 05:53:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 14, 2023, 04:11:32 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 04:01:49 PM
Social skills are always tricky. You have the twin problems of player has great stats, but can't string a sentence together; and player has the gift of the gab, but the GM calls for a roll and their stats suck.

It's no trickier than any other skill. If the player is completely uninterested in combat, they shouldn't play a fighter. Otherwise they're just pushing the "I attack" button. Same shit, different pile.

Except that there's no reasonable expectation for players to engage in the actual task for any other type of in-game activity (except maybe strategy & puzzle solving, which rarely have an in-game skill analog, and are almost invariably 100% player driven). And no way for actual player skill to effectively translate into actual play. EXCEPT for social skills, which ANYONE can attempt and (unlike any other task) have always been expected to do so (at least on some level). And which also seamlessly translate into actual play if the player is any good at them.

A player being actually good at real physical combat has zero impact on their ability to get their character through combat in actual play. If their character sucks, they suck, period. If their character is good, they're good regardless of how bad the player is IRL.

But a player being good at social skills can potentially bypass the need for them in-game (unless the DM insists on Roll Playing the social encounter, which antithetical to actual Roleplaying, as in RPGs). And unlike combat, the player needs to engage in actual social activity to handle social encounters, which has always been a fundamental part of TTRPGs. But combat has always been handled strictly through roll-playing.

There's just no comparison between social skills and other in-game activities (again, except for strategy and puzzle solving, which are sorta on the same boat as social skills as something players can and are expected to do since the dawn of TTRPGs).

Huh? Social skills is some kind of weird exception except for the other exceptions that you list? Like "strategy" is just some minor thing that happens from time to time? Scoff! Barely worth mentioning! Maybe we play different games, but even in combat there's a lot of discussion as to tactics and who should do what when.

Players who know good tactics win more combats, that's a fact. Do they have a "tactics" skill? Depends on the game, I suppose, but I would treat that the same as a social skill.

Yeah, I don't ask them to make sword swinging motions, but as far as table top games are concerned that's the least important part of combat.

Besides, MOST encounters are essentially a SOCIAL encounters (or puzzles if you want to get pedantic). The opposing side always wants something, sometimes even mindless (e.g., GTFO of our crypt). You may not play that way, but in my view there's always an alternative to combat. Figuring out the alternative and acting on it is up to the player. There is no "parlay" button.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 03:11:25 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on August 14, 2023, 12:32:24 PM
This is preference I think. For me the big thing that made 3E more difficult in terms of RP was the use of social skills. If you read the rules as written they aren't as much of an interference as they often became in play (but that was the problem, people used them more like buttons than the way they were written). Also a lot of this stuff could have been better handled and been less of an issue for my style of RP if it had been treated more as ad hoc modifiers to your reaction adjustment in certain conditions. But the skill system was clearly very popular with a lot of people. I just personally noticed it was one of the things that changed the feel of play for me when I went back and ran stuff using the core 2E books (it had NWPs as optional rules but the core ones were a lot less intrusive IMO)

TBH, I think that Social Skills are kind of an edge case, cuz there's no good way to handle them. And the case can be made that (unlike any other skills I can think of) social skills can genuinely replace RP/player creative thinking with a roll. Granted, this is partly the result of people using skills more like a button rather than as written or intended. But if I can't use my social skills to sway a NPC then what's the point of social skills? Why not just get rid of social skills and just RP it out entirely instead?

But if I CAN use social skills to sway an NPC, then skills (or an old school "Reaction roll") end up replacing actual RP with a roll. Granted, there's also potentially a middle way: have players RP their characters AND make them make a skill/reaction roll to determine how good the outcome is. But that's still kind of a cumbersome way to handle it, cuz you're engaging in RP--which can be great, but the player could roll poorly and end up with a lesser outcome despite handling the actual RP excellently. And vice versa.

I still want to like social skills, and think that they're extremely important and even vital skills IRL. But when it comes to actual play, it's kinda difficult to handle them satisfactorily.

Another way to handle them is as knowledge skills. 2E did this for Etiquette (which specifically said it didn't replace role-playing and merely supplied the player with information concerning what is appropriate for the social situation). It has been a while so I am just going by memory but I do recall looking at the social skill entries again in 3E and realizing most people were likely using them incorrectly. But I will say, for my own sessions the feel of the game changed tremendously. I had run Ravenloft using the 3E material and it never felt quite like it had in the past (which I assumed was mostly to do with the 2E period being my decade of Ravenloft). But when I switched systems back to 2E, it definitely felt  the way it had before and the main reason seemed to be the social skills and other skills (there was just more direct interaction with NPCs and the setting). Again though I get that skills are popular. 2E is also a bit of a hard sell for some players. But when I run Ravenloft now I do so using the 2E system (which is also good because it opens up all the Ravenloft books from that era to me----and I just like the flavor of those more than the 3E material that was released)

My solution for social skills is they only affect attitudes not decisions. Using Persuade and rolling well means the subject will take your words in the most favorable way possible.

If you roll through the roof and demand the king hand over his crown to you so you can rule the kingdom, he laughs and presumes you're joking as no one as charming as you could say such a thing as anything other than a jest. Roll poorly and he'll take as a clear insult; that you don't believe he's fit to rule and deserve to be punished for your impertinence.

The same goes for Deceit. The best results on a Deceit check means the subject believes that you believe what you're saying.

If you claim the king has been replaced by a doppelgänger and you have to help you kill the imposter, they'll believe you're a well-meaning but deceived or delusional fool. This might cause them to pay more attention to the king to see if they notice anything off themselves, but unless your tall tale makes sense to them, they're not going to do something obviously stupid because of your successful bluff.

This splits the difference I feel... Charisma/Presence matters for greasing the wheels, but it doesn't solve things on its own. The player who tanks their Charisma hoping to rely on their personal BSing ability can still manage to do so, they just need to be a lot more careful about how they word and phrase things because everyone is going to think they're a smarmy git and habitual liar (so having supporting evidence will likely be necessary).

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 05:53:25 PM
A player being actually good at real physical combat has zero impact on their ability to get their character through combat in actual play. If their character sucks, they suck, period. If their character is good, they're good regardless of how bad the player is IRL.

Say what? So you are saying that some random geek who knows how to build a character can deal with a combat situation better than an experienced seal commander? Now granted if you are playing D&D combat like Coleco head to head football where the party has no option but run in and exchange math with the bad guys then yeah. If there is any planning or tactics involved in the process then hell yeah the traine pro will have an edge so long as the player also understands the game reasonably well.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 14, 2023, 06:13:09 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 05:53:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 14, 2023, 04:11:32 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 04:01:49 PM
Social skills are always tricky. You have the twin problems of player has great stats, but can't string a sentence together; and player has the gift of the gab, but the GM calls for a roll and their stats suck.

It's no trickier than any other skill. If the player is completely uninterested in combat, they shouldn't play a fighter. Otherwise they're just pushing the "I attack" button. Same shit, different pile.

Except that there's no reasonable expectation for players to engage in the actual task for any other type of in-game activity (except maybe strategy & puzzle solving, which rarely have an in-game skill analog, and are almost invariably 100% player driven). And no way for actual player skill to effectively translate into actual play. EXCEPT for social skills, which ANYONE can attempt and (unlike any other task) have always been expected to do so (at least on some level). And which also seamlessly translate into actual play if the player is any good at them.

A player being actually good at real physical combat has zero impact on their ability to get their character through combat in actual play. If their character sucks, they suck, period. If their character is good, they're good regardless of how bad the player is IRL.

But a player being good at social skills can potentially bypass the need for them in-game (unless the DM insists on Roll Playing the social encounter, which antithetical to actual Roleplaying, as in RPGs). And unlike combat, the player needs to engage in actual social activity to handle social encounters, which has always been a fundamental part of TTRPGs. But combat has always been handled strictly through roll-playing.

There's just no comparison between social skills and other in-game activities (again, except for strategy and puzzle solving, which are sorta on the same boat as social skills as something players can and are expected to do since the dawn of TTRPGs).

Huh? Social skills is some kind of weird exception except for the other exceptions that you list? Like "strategy" is just some minor thing that happens from time to time? Scoff! Barely worth mentioning! Maybe we play different games, but even in combat there's a lot of discussion as to tactics and who should do what when.

Players who know good tactics win more combats, that's a fact. Do they have a "tactics" skill? Depends on the game, I suppose, but I would treat that the same as a social skill.

Yeah, I don't ask them to make sword swinging motions, but as far as table top games are concerned that's the least important part of combat.

Besides, MOST encounters are essentially a SOCIAL encounters (or puzzles if you want to get pedantic). The opposing side always wants something, sometimes even mindless (e.g., GTFO of our crypt). You may not play that way, but in my view there's always an alternative to combat. Figuring out the alternative and acting on it is up to the player. There is no "parlay" button.

Yeah, I remembered Strategy and Puzzle Solving after I was almost done with my post. Then added them as an afterthought, cuz I realized that they were exceptions too (probably not the most effective way to bring them up). But the point is that you told Grognard GM that handling social skills is "no trickier than any other skill", except that they demonstrably are. Because the issues that we're talking about apply only when dealing with them, and maybe Strategy and Puzzle Solving.

Social Skills, Strategy and Puzzle Solving are the only skills I'm aware off where 1) players are normally expected to engage in the actual activity involving the use of those skills. And 2) player skill in those areas seamlessly translates into actual play.

Players are not expected to spar the GM in order to fight enemies in-game, do a backflip to engage in acrobatic stunts, or build a house model to design a house in-game. And the fact that they might have skills in those areas IRL does not mean squat in the game. Only character skill matters when engaging in any activity within the game—except when dealing with Social Skills, Strategy or Puzzle Solving.

Then not only are players expected to engage in actual social interaction, puzzle solving or planning, but if they're good in those areas it actually gives them an edge during play. That means that if you do want to have "skills" as defined abilities in the game then handling those skills is necessarily "trickier" than dealing with other skills. Because players themselves are not expected to engage in any other activities (only their characters do) and their real life skills (or lack of) have no impact in play.

But Social Skills, Strategy and Puzzle Solving are the inverse. And while you might be able to point out ways to still (sorta) handle those skills in-game regardless, that doesn't mean that those issues don't exist or that those possible solutions are flawless. I tend to handle social skills more or less how you and Chris mentioned, but that's still clunkier than simply rolling an attack roll and letting character skill drive the outcome entirely. As opposed to guesstimating how player RP vs character skill roll affects the whole thing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 14, 2023, 09:17:48 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 05:53:25 PM
A player being actually good at real physical combat has zero impact on their ability to get their character through combat in actual play. If their character sucks, they suck, period. If their character is good, they're good regardless of how bad the player is IRL.

Say what? So you are saying that some random geek who knows how to build a character can deal with a combat situation better than an experienced seal commander?

No, I'm saying that their character can fight better in-game, cuz real life combat skills (other than strategy) have no bearing in the game world. Only character skill matters.

Was it easier to RP in earlier editions?

Flat out NO.

Nothing has changed in difficulty. You have ever colour of the rainbow in style and beyond from start to today.

The only thing that has changed is that we've had 10+ years of storygamers pushing agendas and the fallout of that. That and the standard resurge of woke pushing to "clean up" thing as every wave has.

Quote
I don't think game mechanics determine the level to which any particular group can focus on roleplaying.

AD&D's game mechanics actually focus very tightly on roleplaying.

If you roleplay badly it reflects back through the game mechanics and brings your character down.

Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 16, 2023, 02:00:41 AM

Quote
I don't think game mechanics determine the level to which any particular group can focus on roleplaying.

AD&D's game mechanics actually focus very tightly on roleplaying.

If you roleplay badly it reflects back through the game mechanics and brings your character down.

Can you give some examples as to why this is truer for AD&D than for...most any game?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 16, 2023, 02:12:10 AM

Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 16, 2023, 02:00:41 AM

Quote
I don't think game mechanics determine the level to which any particular group can focus on roleplaying.

AD&D's game mechanics actually focus very tightly on roleplaying.

If you roleplay badly it reflects back through the game mechanics and brings your character down.

Can you give some examples as to why this is truer for AD&D than for...most any game?

I like AD&D better and have had anecdotal experiences that aren't necessarily true for anyone else.

Therefore AD&D IS better for RP.

Well, objectively I think that GURPS has the most mechanical support for roleplaying. Character points (the XP of this game) are awarded primarily to each player based on how well he or she role played the character that was created rather than how successful the group was in their goals. That is pure mechanical support for roleplaying. GURPS has based most of the in game rewards for PCS on role playing. More than any version of D&D or any other game that I have played has done. I still don't play GURPS regularly due to lack of prep time but those are the facts.

There is nothing to discourage roleplaying in any edition of D&D but the classic editions had a bit more to encourage it, including alignment and associated behaviors.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 16, 2023, 06:40:01 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 16, 2023, 02:12:10 AM

Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 16, 2023, 02:00:41 AM

Quote
I don't think game mechanics determine the level to which any particular group can focus on roleplaying.

AD&D's game mechanics actually focus very tightly on roleplaying.

If you roleplay badly it reflects back through the game mechanics and brings your character down.

Can you give some examples as to why this is truer for AD&D than for...most any game?

I like AD&D better and have had anecdotal experiences that aren't necessarily true for anyone else.

Therefore AD&D IS better for RP.

Spoilers, dude!