How do you make rulings on social interactions?

[Scuba Steve]

So something has come up in a little discussion with friends I've had that I found quite interesting.

Essentially, the scenario we've talked was; The player has made a compelling speech in first person, one that has something that would be reasonable for the NPC to accept. However the character of that player does not have the skills in charisma or persuasion/rhetoric, and suffers a negative towards any ability checks. What to do?

My friend said that they're motivated by roleplaying, and so if they were the GM in this situation, they would allow the situation to favour the player character, and would likely not even require a roll for any ability check.

I disagreed with him. While I also am motivated by roleplaying, I feel that the situation which has happened is not good roleplaying, as they are doing the whole "I can be persuasive or be intimidating IRL, so my charisma being an 8 shouldn't matter."

They then countered with a similar but slightly different scenario; The player has like before made a similar speech in first person that is compelling and one that would be reasonable for the NPC to accept. However the character does have bonuses to charisma and persuasion, but rolls a 1, and their bonuses are not enough to get past the check. Obviously this is unsatisfying and even kind of doesn't make sense given that they do have skills. Though as Captain Picard once said "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life."

I feel like sometimes rulings have to be a little hazy in order to best allow all types of players to have fun at the table (if there are less eloquent players who are playing), but even if there are only eloquent players at the table, to me it is bad roleplaying to let them get away with dumping charisma or social skills on their character just because they are personally good at improv and talking.

The age old "character skill vs player skill" clash.

 

[thebigh]

Unless you think the player is deliberately using CHA as a dump stat with the intention of using their own gift of the gab to cover it up, I'd let it go.

Alternatively, you could have the failed persuasion roll mean that the success comes at a significant cost. Maybe something along the lines of this:

The fire mage looks at you with suspicion. Although he must admit the truth of your words, he resents being shown up so undiplomatically in front of the whole Mage Council and clearly thinks you're trying to pull a swindle of some kind.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Unless you think the player is deliberately using CHA as a dump stat with the intention of using their own gift of the gab to cover it up, I'd let it go.

Alternatively, you could have the failed persuasion roll mean that the success comes at a significant cost. Maybe something along the lines of this:

The fire mage looks at you with suspicion. Although he must admit the truth of your words, he resents being shown up so undiplomatically in front of the whole Mage Council and clearly thinks you're trying to pull a swindle of some kind.

Maybe they aren't deliberately doing this, but then let's take for example strength. Would you allow your player to perform a feat of strength IRL that their character could never actually do, and let that serve as the result in game? How about letting them poke holes in you with a sword because they're skilled at fencing IRL, and letting that stand instead of making an attack roll?

If so, then fair play, even though I think that's kinda silly. But if not, then why do we allow improv and acting ability IRL to do the same thing? Improv and acting isn't the only thing that is "roleplaying".

 

[TristramEvans]

I agree that in the example as presented, the player is not role-playing their character, thus they aren't entitled to a "win" on the grounds of role-playing.

In that case I would probably, however, not have the player make a roll and then after the game have a discussion with them about how I approach GMing vs player stances, to make sure that moving forward my expectations as a GM are understood. But that's because that's how I GM. Others have different styles where that's acceptable. So it's really just about the player and GM coming to a mutual understanding from my PoV.

 

[thebigh]

Maybe they aren't deliberately doing this, but then let's take for example strength. Would you allow your player to perform a feat of strength IRL that their character could never actually do, and let that serve as the result in game? How about letting them poke holes in you with a sword because they're skilled at fencing IRL, and letting that stand instead of making an attack roll?

In principle there should be no difference, but in practice there is. Somehow "I roll diplomacy on the head mage" feels weaker and more boring than "I roll to hit the giant" and if I'm running a game I'd like to encourage roleplaying at my table wherever possible. So much so that if a player is roleplaying abilities his character doesn't have or sucks at I'd rather meet him half way than forbidding it and risking him becoming disengaged and turning into an "I roll this, I roll that" kind of player.

One way is letting the player have his way at a cost, like in the example I gave already. Another way of defusing this tension would be to say something along the lines of, "Hey, nice speech, Trevor. I can definitely see what your character is going for. But Grimsoul Skullcracker isn't the greatest orator in the world, so roll diplomacy at your usual modifier to see how much of that comes through when he tries to say it."

 

[PolarBlues]

You describe the dilemma very well.

• I want to encourage players to talk in-character, engage with the setting enough to make persuasive arguments as their character; it's one of the greatest joys of roleplaying
• I don't want to penalise shy or less eloquent players; the option of playing characters very different from yourself is another cornerstone of the hobby
• Depending on the system being played, I'd rather avoid loop holes or exploits by ignoring or misrepresenting the rules and attributes it provides for social tasks.

Caught between conflicting priorities, I sort of muddle my way through in a somewhat inconsistent, hybrid fashion. I let players who rather just talk, talk and players who rather just roll, roll. Occasionally I might do a bit of both, using the talking as a modifier to the roll if I feel talking alone is unbalancing the game too much.

It's a bit messy but it's all I got.

 

[Scuba Steve]

In principle there should be no difference, but in practice there is. Somehow "I roll diplomacy on the head mage" feels weaker and more boring than "I roll to hit the giant" and if I'm running a game I'd like to encourage roleplaying at my table wherever possible. So much so that if a player is roleplaying abilities his character doesn't have or sucks at I'd rather meet him half way than forbidding it and risking him becoming disengaged and turning into an "I roll this, I roll that" kind of player.

One way is letting the player have his way at a cost, like in the example I gave already. Another way of defusing this tension would be to say something along the lines of, "Hey, nice speech, Trevor. I can definitely see what your character is going for. But Grimsoul Skullcracker isn't the greatest orator in the world, so roll diplomacy at your usual modifier to see how much of that comes through when he tries to say it."

There's more nuance with roleplaying than just 'I roll X' or being charismatic IRL in a way that your low CHA character could never be.

I never reward players who say 'I roll X', but one can still be a charismatic bard by saying 'I want to persuade the politician by appealing to their sense of honour, and remind them of the time we did X for them, subtly hinting that they owe us.'

My response would be 'Excellent, roll persuasion with advantage'. If it succeeds, follow up with 'Do you want to actually give a speech on how that would look like?'

 

[Silverlion]

IS the player willing to try? If they are, and do so I let them roll with a benefit even if its bad. If they're GOOD at it, then I give them a bigger benefit. Because even someone who is unlikeable (low CHA in D&D terms) can manage to say the right things to influence others. Sure they're still not going to have a huge benefit because of that Low stat and likely low skill.

 

[AsenRG]

The age old "character skill vs player skill" clash.

...yeah, that much is obvious, so what's your point? We're not going to resolve this debate. At most, each of us shall pick what to do at his or her table.

I mean, I'm running Art of Wuxia now. There's three social skills, Detective, Scholar and Leader (they're very broad skills, so all go together with other stuff). All PCs have at least Detective, because you don't need it trained, and nobody has all three. If you would need to roll Leader for ordering people around/intimidation, does it mean the PCs can't intimidate anyone?
I'd call bullshit...

However, I usually don't require a roll for social stuff (except when I'm not sure what should happen). So yes, player skill matters, that's just a fact of life.
But then in what kind of games can you avoid player skill?

 

[Scuba Steve]

...yeah, that much is obvious, so what's your point? We're not going to resolve this debate. At most, each of us shall pick what to do at his or her table.

I mean, I'm running Art of Wuxia now. There's three social skills, Detective, Scholar and Leader (they're very broad skills, so all go together with other stuff). All PCs have at least Detective, because you don't need it trained, and nobody has all three. If you would need to roll Leader for ordering people around/intimidation, does it mean the PCs can't intimidate anyone?
I'd call bullshit...

However, I usually don't require a roll for social stuff (except when I'm not sure what should happen). So yes, player skill matters, that's just a fact of life.
But then in what kind of games can you avoid player skill?

I'm not asking for the debate to be resolved. My friend and I have already finished debating it among ourselves. I'm not asking for any advice there.

I'm asking how others make rulings on situations like this, and why the hobby has a fixation on calling 'saying things in character' to be roleplaying, but saying that combat isn't 'roleplaying'?

Why does the Shakespearean actor player get to use their out of game skill to influence the results in game so that their Barbarian Groglub the Dimwit can be incredibly persuasive without having to make rolls, but the bodybuilder player can't use their out of game ability to benchpress 600 lbs to influence the game so that their noodle arm Wizard Gaius Ulven can manhandle a massive boulder?

 

[Hairless Bear]

How I would handle the "The player has made a compelling speech in first person, one that has something that would be reasonable for the NPC to accept." situation as a GM.

In my opinion, there are three kinds of situations:

1. The PC tries to persuade someone to do something without any special approach, so I assign it a "vanilla" difficulty. It doesn't matter what CHA (or other attribute for a different tasks) the PC has. That is the point of rolling. No one gets automatic success or automatic failure for high or low CHA. Example:

The PC asks an NPC: "Excuse me can I pinch a cigarette please?"

2. The PC uses an approach that in real life would increase the odds of succeeding. That means I can still imagine that the PC fails. In that case I lower the difficulty or let the player roll with advantage or whatever way the rule system provides. Example:

The PC notices that the NPC has a pink patch on their forearm, identifying them as a member of the Demon-Admirers political party.
The PC: "What a terrible day, I was just on a public meeting with those pesky Angelists. I am not sure whether they are deaf or just stupid. By Samael, I need a cigarette, can I pinch one?"

3. The PC uses an approach that I can't really imagine would fail. No matter what the CHA attribute, I give the PC automatic success. Example:

The PC gathers information about the NPC. It's Mark. Mark collects decorative horseshoes.
The PC: "Hi Mark, can I have one cigarette for this beautiful decorative horseshoe?"

Notes:

• I said there are three kinds of situations, but in reality it's five kinds - the PC can use a bad approach that either makes the difficulty higher or means automatic failure.
• I use the word "approach", but it can be a lot of things. For example asking a friendly NPC instead of a stranger should help you increase the odds.

 

[sharps54]

You describe the dilemma very well.

• I want to encourage players to talk in-character, engage with the setting enough to make persuasive arguments as their character; it's one of the greatest joys of roleplaying
• I don't want to penalise shy or less eloquent players; the option of playing characters very different from yourself is another cornerstone of the hobby
• Depending on the system being played, I'd rather avoid loop holes or exploits by ignoring or misrepresenting the rules and attributes it provides for social tasks.

Caught between conflicting priorities, I sort of muddle my way through in a somewhat inconsistent, hybrid fashion. I let players who rather just talk, talk and players who rather just roll, roll. Occasionally I might do a bit of both, using the talking as a modifier to the roll if I feel talking alone is unbalancing the game too much.

It's a bit messy but it's all I got.

This is basically where I am at although I do make players that are socially awkward still explain what they are trying to do. It’s never just roll to bluff the guard. Tell me how you are bluffing and then roll. I don’t necessarily make them roleplay it out but I do require them to present something.

 

[Scuba Steve]

This is basically where I am at although I do make players that are socially awkward still explain what they are trying to do. It’s never just roll to bluff the guard. Tell me how you are bluffing and then roll. I don’t necessarily make them roleplay it out but I do require them to present something.

As long as they're describing their actions or intentions, I'd call that 'roleplaying it out'.

 

[Raleel]

I tend to opt into the "what's on the sheet" option. I see this with my group regularly. not with charisma, but with Intelligence or some smarts skill. They are all very smart people, but their character with average or lower intelligence or perhaps no skill in analysis or in the topic matter has no idea.

A low charisma player playing a high charisma character just rolls. We are sad they aren't a high charisma person and making an excellent speech to inspire the troops, but the very nature of roleplaying isn't "yourself, but as a dragonborn fighter" it's "I'm playing as this person, and they have flaws I don't. My flaws they don't have get covered by dice rolls."

edit: to put it another way - we see those actors who have little range. they play themselves in every movie. When they try to move out of that and fail, are they roleplaying? Probably badly

 

[AsenRG]

I'm not asking for the debate to be resolved. My friend and I have already finished debating it among ourselves. I'm not asking for any advice there.

Oh, OK, then I got you wrong!

I'm asking how others make rulings on situations like this, and why the hobby has a fixation on calling 'saying things in character' to be roleplaying, but saying that combat isn't 'roleplaying'?

I don't know why, in fact, I've asked the same question!

Me? I treat combat as roleplaying as well! Admittedly, it's much harder to roleplay it in 1st person (at least safely...), so I'm also less likely to give an outright success/failure result. But I'm quite likely to give bonuses and penalties, from +10% to "flip-flop at will", to "roll only one die, double it, that's your critical result - if you fail, it's failing big time, same if you succeed"...

Why does the Shakespearean actor player get to use their out of game skill to influence the results in game so that their Barbarian Groglub the Dimwit can be incredibly persuasive without having to make rolls, but the bodybuilder player can't use their out of game ability to benchpress 600 lbs to influence the game so that their noodle arm Wizard Gaius Ulven can manhandle a massive boulder?

See above, the safety part. Also, I've got no Shakespearean actor players, so it's much easier to deal with it. If I had them, I'd have needed to call for rolls more often - I've done that in other groups - but as it is, it's hardly an issue...

Such questions are, I believe, better left to be adjusted according to whatever works for the group, instead of as a Refereeing Principle Thou Shall Obey Under Fear Of Doing It Wrong (according to the highest opinions of semi-random Internet guys).

 

[sharps54]

As long as they're describing their actions or intentions, I'd call that 'roleplaying it out'.

Sure, I what I mean is that I don’t do an improvised theater act with them where I make them act out a convincing bluff of the guard

 

[Ynas Midgard]

I try to treat social challenges as I treat searches. If someone announces they wish to search a room, they get to roll for it, but the result stands. If, however, they explicitly say they want to examine the weird skull mounted on the wall, they automatically find the secret door, no roll required.

Similarly, each NPC has (in practice, I have it figured out for major NPCs only) one or more "locks and keys" (to borrow a term from Courtney Campbell's On the Non-player Character). Basically, some approaches are hard-coded to result in a certain response (just like objects and secrets are placed in an area), while others remain subject to a roll (whether because the players don't specify their approach or because the particular interaction isn't detailed in my notes).

For example, Gregor is secretly in love with Mina, so much that he'll basically accept any offer that brings him closer to her. He is also way too serious, so a light-hearted approach (not to mention outright joking) invokes a hefty penalty on all future rolls. Mina, on the other hand, loves animals; gifts of rare and/or beautiful animals grant a big bonus to all future rolls with her. She respects power, and demands or negotiations coming from a (perceived) person of authority gain another big bonus. Attempts at persuading her on religious grounds, however, fall on deaf ears, and insisting on the matter results only in ridicule.

Of course, most of the time it's extrapolated from personality traits and such, but the important thing is that it's not the delivery of the player that determines whether they need a roll and with what modifiers, but the approach. Player skill is applied in determining which option to pick.

 

[ffilz]

Player skill mismatch with the character is impossible to eliminate. Even though we don't require any physical action from the player to evaluate combat, there are still choices the player makes that one player might be better than another at, but just as I wouldn't allow a physical action in the game to be resolved using player physical action, I don't like it when players want to rely on player charisma. Now it helps that I don't actually go for much social play.

As to a poor roll making a PC that has a good skill look bad, this is the system we are playing. The dice rolls have a probability of failure. Just because you have a 90% skill doesn't mean you never fail. The systems have fumble chances too. So lots of opportunity for the dice to speak counter to the character sheet. So yea, you can have a great plan (great speech or even just social plan or a good combat plan) and still fail because of the dice. That's the game we're playing. That said, there are times where we don't roll. Almost never in combat, but plenty of other actions. So yea, the player with a good plan might avoid the need for a roll. I'm OK with that sometimes causing mismatch. Also, we're playing an RPG with lots of player choice, not Chutes and Ladders.

It's a fine balance. And different GMs will have different balance but don't expect me to play long in a campaign though where player social skill excellence overrides the game.

 

[ffilz]

Note that another problem with the GM accepting the player's speech is that not only is the PC not being role played by their mechanical expression, but the NPC ALSO is not necessarily being role played. The GM is evaluating the speech at least somewhat by what moves him. Sure, he may reject a speech where the player rattles on about something that offends the NPC, but other aspects are probably leaning into the GM's bias.

By making sure that a skill roll is always made, or at least always made for some level of interaction, we are also assuring that the NPCs aren't predictable and that their mechanical representation has meaning.

 

[David Johansen]

Generally I just have them roll some dice if they don't like my ruling. Then I mitigate the outcome, not totally flip flop the npc's position. One problem with social skills in most rpgs is that there also needs to be a social defense. GURPS has Willpower but rules as written it doesn't really change social outcomes as these are based on reaction rolls not opposed rolls.

 

[Fenris-77]

Social Skills are always a bit of a pain in the ass. They do generally follow the basic Declare-Decide-Describe loop that is fundamental to TTRPG play, but the moving pieces are a lot fuzzier. It's really easy to picture and declare physical actions like I attack the orc with my sword but but somewhat less easy to do the same for something like I try to convince the guard to let us by. Those social actions often happen in the middle of a lot of conversation at the table and it can be tough sometimes to pick out what should or shouldn't be a resolvable action. In the second case there are a lot of questions remaining about that possible action, most of them to do in some way with the notion of 'how' the character is doing the thing. This is also where a lot of ideas about directly referring to character sheet elements like skills, rather than roleplaying the action, tend to slip in. From another angle we have the example of the eloquent speech designed to sway the guard but that is obviously indexing player skill rather than avatar skill.

Scott Rehm (the Angry GM) recently wrote some excellent articles on this very subject (here's a link to one of them) and he makes an excellent point about how we should picture the NPC side of this equation. NPCs are just obstacles for the characters that need to be overcome, no more no less. They have 'buttons' that are usually defined in a write up of some kind (things like motivation, disposition, and so on). In any case where the NPC shouldn't be acting as an obstacle then there should be no rolling. The only time we roll social actions is where elements of the NPC disincline them to be helpful, or perhaps more specifically where the stated motivations of the NPC are at odds with the player declaration. NPCs. depending on their depth of field can have one or multiple sources of conflict and that is what the players need to address via their avatar action declarations.

Those declarations, independent of system specific skills break down into some basic categories: (I'll use Scott's reading again here) connect, assert, understand, convince and negotiate. Resolving social interaction is then about matching a type of action to an obstacle. Here I'll just tell you to click the link and read the whole article, it's worth reading and my patience for summary is drying up fast here.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

There's more nuance with roleplaying than just 'I roll X' or being charismatic IRL in a way that your low CHA character could never be.

I never reward players who say 'I roll X', but one can still be a charismatic bard by saying 'I want to persuade the politician by appealing to their sense of honour, and remind them of the time we did X for them, subtly hinting that they owe us.'

My response would be 'Excellent, roll persuasion with advantage'. If it succeeds, follow up with 'Do you want to actually give a speech on how that would look like?'

That's roughly my approach. In a game with stats and skills, I think those should matter whether they're social or combat. (If people want to persuade through raw player ability alone, that's what most of my LARPs do).

The one qualifier is that the amount of bonus I give is reliant on the player, not the character.

If you bring your A Game, you'll get a bonus.

However, in one group I had both a classically trained actor constantly in and out of auditions and a woman with serious social anxiety who found talking to people in general really diifferent. For obvious reasons, what it required for him to get the bonus was different from her.

 

[robertsconley]

So something has come up in a little discussion with friends I've had that I found quite interesting.

Essentially, the scenario we've talked was; The player has made a compelling speech in first person, one that has something that would be reasonable for the NPC to accept. However the character of that player does not have the skills in charisma or persuasion/rhetoric, and suffers a negative towards any ability checks. What to do?

The issue is that the player is not roleplaying their character. A player continually ignoring the fact their character has a 7 charisma is the same type of issue as they not playing that they are a Habitual Liar (GURP Disadvantage), or their Lazy Passion dominates (Pendragon), or commit a selfish act when they are Lawful Good (D&D).

Whether that issue is a problem depends....

My friend said that they're motivated by roleplaying, and so if they were the GM in this situation, they would allow the situation to favour the player character, and would likely not even require a roll for any ability check.

Sure and there are a lot of good reasons to go that route.

I disagreed with him. While I also am motivated by roleplaying, I feel that the situation which has happened is not good roleplaying, as they are doing the whole "I can be persuasive or be intimidating IRL, so my charisma being an 8 shouldn't matter."

And there are equally good reasons to go this route as well.

The age old "character skill vs player skill" clash.

It is not really, it is about what is fun for the player, the group, and what works for the campaign. It is resolved by talking about the issue, coming to an understanding of how to resolve it, and occasionally touching base again to make everybody have a good time with the decision.

The essential truth that most folk miss in these debates is that if the player is not going to play a low charisma, that they are habitual liars, have a lazy passion, or being lawful good then they are not going to do so. So either as the referee you roll with it or push it. Possibly to the point where the player is no longer welcomed in the campaign.

My experience is that most players, when this is an issue, are indifferent to the nuances of roleplaying. The primary reason they are there is to adventure as their character, and outside of a quirk or two they are not interested in living the lives of their characters. Doesn't mean they won't roleplay but when it does happen it is clear that it is them with the abilities of the character doing the roleplaying.

Another nuance is that if the player is trying to cheat (it happens with GURPS especially) it has been my experience this is not an isolated behavior and is accompanied by a bunch of other issues. In this case, it is a more general issue that should be dealt with on that basis.

And final nuance is when the player has a different view of how the system works especially in regards to roleplaying. This can be problematic to resolve if they are not willing to concede that alternative interpretations are valid.

My Take

I refereed GURPS as my main system from 1987 to 2015 for a variety of groups and players. By the mid-2000s I realized that the traditional GURPS method as having X points in disadvantage was for the birds. Even for me as a player who likes to create a distinct personality for my characters and immerse myself in them. Everybody was just fishing for the points after the first or second disadvantage. This wasn't just a Rob thing but a consensus of the core group of GURPS players I was with. So we jettisoned disadvantages except for a handful like missing limbs that had a clear impact on playing a character. Even then we limited the # of points you could get.

Even with other systems by point, I was evolving to a "show not tell" mentality over roleplaying. If you played an elf, you could roleplay however you liked. However the NPCs of the setting still judged the character by the expectations and standards they had about the elves including other elves. Most of what the player did would be chalked up to eccentricities and tolerated but stuff that is way outside of the accepted in-game boundaries was reacted to negatively.

I handled this in-game so a smart player had plenty to work with to decide how to handle this. Either by changing how they behaved as their character or making sure their ass was covered enough to ignore the social norms.

As for the specific example of charisma I handle it in the following ways.

• Recognizing that not players have good social skills, I pay more attention to the content of what they are saying than the presentation.
• But if the presentation (or content) is that good then that counts more than any stat or roll.
• Conversely, if the player's content/plan/proposal misses the mark then no high stat or roll is going to resolve things socially with the NPC.
• Most of the time the social interaction is still up in the air afterward so the stat or roll is useful to resolve the outcome and thus how I roleplay the NPC.
• Since 95% of the time I handle this first person, there are not a lot of edge cases. I have fairly decent acting ability and thus the players often have the information to switch gears in the middle of the roleplaying.
• For the ones that are that clueless, I will do some coaching to help the player along. Point out the choices and possibilities and let the player decide. I will slant the information I give based on what their character ought to know.

Overall beyond a charisma or personality stat and a basic role I am not fond of social mechanics. And have steadily grown less fond of them over the years in favor of more natural first-person roleplaying coupled with coaching and tweaking how I roleplay as the referee based on the character sheet.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A low charisma doesn’t mean the character can never be charming or persuasive. It just means it’s harder to do for them than it is for others.

I don’t think that players of low charisma characters are not roleplaying their characters if they actually roleplay a well thought attempt at persuasion.

That’s what dice are for. Make the roll and see what the result is.

If they roll well enough, then they’re persuasive and get the job done. If they don’t roll well enough, then it means they didn’t succeed.

If it’s just a matter of determining why such a well roleplayed argument failed, then make it some quality of the NPC. Narrate something like “You see his eyes widen as he sees the logic in what you say… and you think you have him, but then you mention his family, and his eyes narrow. You realize too late you made an error bringing them up.”

Something like that.

Don’t penalize players for being creative. The GM just needs to be creative in response.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Ultimately the big thing for me is does it make sense?

Yeah, if you're playing a big, mean, ugly, uncharismatic goof and you want to sweet talk someone? I probably don't care how well you give the speech...you're trying to game the system in a way opposed to the very character you opted to play. But if you figure out how to make the point in a way that's true to the character? I'm probably inclined to give you a situational bonus that would likely wash with your penalty. If the point is good enough, or you have nuggets of info you can drop that are big enough? Then yes, I may well be inclined to even skip the roll altogether.

As others have said, there's various ways to reinterpret situations and rolls. You may have a great point but deliver it in the worst possible way. Happens all the time with people who are intelligent but shy, or educated but socially stunted. Maybe your body language is all wrong for the situation.

 

[T. Foster]

The player has to tell me what their character is saying. They don’t have to do it directly in first person, but they have to give me the gist and substance of it. That’s the requirement to unlock the ability to make a die roll. Not “I bluff the guard” <roll> but what they’re saying to try to bluff the guard - what story they’re telling - and if I decide they’ve met that threshold then I call for a roll.

But once the roll is called the rules/stats determine the success of the attempt - a character with high charisma, high bluffing skill, etc (however the system handles it) will generally do well even if their player is shy or socially awkward, and vice versa. But you have to make the initial effort to trigger the roll.

 

[sharps54]

Yep. The biggest thing I want to avoid is penalizing a player that doesn’t have great social skills who tries but flubs the talking part of the role play with the GM.

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

For me it depends. I mean, if the person plays their character in such a way that they deserve to succeed then I feel there is no role necessary. Why stop the flow if all is going well?

However, if someone (a player) isn't that eloquent, or is a bit shy and may not be able to articulate their character's position through roleplaying. I won't make them fail or have to make roll per se. Assuming they can explain what their character is attempting in the social interaction and if they hit the right 'beats' when explaining to me what they are after then that's all good too.

 

[ffilz]

For me it depends. I mean, if the person plays their character in such a way that they deserve to succeed then I feel there is no role necessary. Why stop the flow if all is going well?

However, if someone (a player) isn't that eloquent, or is a bit shy and may not be able to articulate their character's position through roleplaying. I won't make them fail or have to make roll per se. Assuming they can explain what their character is attempting in the social interaction and if they hit the right 'beats' when explaining to me what they are after then that's all good too.

That's another way to do it. Reward clear intent, whether spoken in eloquent words or well explained and at least raising relevant points to support the plan. We can all enjoy the well spoken player without giving them undue advantage in the game.

 

[Scuba Steve]

A low charisma doesn’t mean the character can never be charming or persuasive. It just means it’s harder to do for them than it is for others.

I don’t think that players of low charisma characters are not roleplaying their characters if they actually roleplay a well thought attempt at persuasion.

That’s what dice are for. Make the roll and see what the result is.

If they roll well enough, then they’re persuasive and get the job done. If they don’t roll well enough, then it means they didn’t succeed.

If it’s just a matter of determining why such a well roleplayed argument failed, then make it some quality of the NPC. Narrate something like “You see his eyes widen as he sees the logic in what you say… and you think you have him, but then you mention his family, and his eyes narrow. You realize too late you made an error bringing them up.”

Something like that.

Don’t penalize players for being creative. The GM just needs to be creative in response.

Sure, a low charisma doesn't mean they can never be charming or persuasive, nor does a low intelligence score mean they never show glimpses of intelligent thought, but as you say that's what the dice are for. Those moments when they can get lucky. But those should be rare events.

The issue comes up when they're regularly doing these kinds of things (because they're almost never one-off things) that are contrary to how their character's stats show. Why even have stats at that point if they don't even matter?

As previously mentioned, we don't do it for players who are exceptionally strong but playing a weakling wizard, so why does one type of individual get to utilize this and others do not? It's arbitrary and unfair to those who built their character in a certain way and are roleplaying to the way that character is built, and then letting someone else not play to the way their character is built and still gain advantages within the game for it.

Creativity is fine and should be rewarded, but only when that creativity is done within the parameters of the character. An 8 INT character should not be making battlefield plans like Hannibal Barca, and should not get rewarded for trying to do so. They might get lucky in picking an ambush spot, but not performing a double envelopment like at Cannae.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, a low charisma doesn't mean they can never be charming or persuasive, nor does a low intelligence score mean they never show glimpses of intelligent thought, but as you say that's what the dice are for. Those moments when they can get lucky. But those should be rare events.

The issue comes up when they're regularly doing these kinds of things (because they're almost never one-off things) that are contrary to how their character's stats show. Why even have stats at that point if they don't even matter?

As previously mentioned, we don't do it for players who are exceptionally strong but playing a weakling wizard, so why does one type of individual get to utilize this and others do not? It's arbitrary and unfair to those who built their character in a certain way and are roleplaying to the way that character is built, and then letting someone else not play to the way their character is built and still gain advantages within the game for it.

Creativity is fine and should be rewarded, but only when that creativity is done within the parameters of the character. An 8 INT character should not be making battlefield plans like Hannibal Barca, and should not get rewarded for trying to do so. They might get lucky in picking an ambush spot, but not performing a double envelopment like at Cannae.

I didn’t mention anything about giving a player any kind of advantage. I said to rely on the stats and the dice to determine the outcome, and on GM creativity to make sense of the outcome given the fictional circumstances.

All I said was not to punish a player for being creative.

 

[Triumvir]

This has come up in our OSR game recently. What we did (sort of by default) is to accept the players (not PCs) pool their thinking. For verisimilitude purposes, the players' bright ideas can be assumed to have been thought up by the smart characters. Even if not the character of the player who actually came up with it.

It's kludgy and wouldn't help if you had all low INT PCs.

Another question is what happens if you had all low INT players playing geniuses. Maybe easier to handle through DM hint giving.

 

[Scuba Steve]

I didn’t mention anything about giving a player any kind of advantage. I said to rely on the stats and the dice to determine the outcome, and on GM creativity to make sense of the outcome given the fictional circumstances.

All I said was not to punish a player for being creative.

Fair enough, that's my misunderstanding.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Another question is what happens if you had all low INT players playing geniuses. Maybe easier to handle through DM hint giving.

That is an interesting scenario. I don't think I've ever had an instance where I could legitimately say any of my players would be low INT, but I can't quite think of a way to resolve it to any kind of satisfaction without doing hint giving or just helping them formulate a plan.

I'll have to think about this more.

 

[AsenRG]

Social Skills are always a bit of a pain in the ass. They do generally follow the basic Declare-Decide-Describe loop that is fundamental to TTRPG play, but the moving pieces are a lot fuzzier. It's really easy to picture and declare physical actions like I attack the orc with my sword but but somewhat less easy to do the same for something like I try to convince the guard to let us by. Those social actions often happen in the middle of a lot of conversation at the table and it can be tough sometimes to pick out what should or shouldn't be a resolvable action. In the second case there are a lot of questions remaining about that possible action, most of them to do in some way with the notion of 'how' the character is doing the thing. This is also where a lot of ideas about directly referring to character sheet elements like skills, rather than roleplaying the action, tend to slip in. From another angle we have the example of the eloquent speech designed to sway the guard but that is obviously indexing player skill rather than avatar skill.

Scott Rehm (the Angry GM) recently wrote some excellent articles on this very subject (here's a link to one of them) and he makes an excellent point about how we should picture the NPC side of this equation. NPCs are just obstacles for the characters that need to be overcome, no more no less. They have 'buttons' that are usually defined in a write up of some kind (things like motivation, disposition, and so on). In any case where the NPC shouldn't be acting as an obstacle then there should be no rolling. The only time we roll social actions is where elements of the NPC disincline them to be helpful, or perhaps more specifically where the stated motivations of the NPC are at odds with the player declaration. NPCs. depending on their depth of field can have one or multiple sources of conflict and that is what the players need to address via their avatar action declarations.

Those declarations, independent of system specific skills break down into some basic categories: (I'll use Scott's reading again here) connect, assert, understand, convince and negotiate. Resolving social interaction is then about matching a type of action to an obstacle. Here I'll just tell you to click the link and read the whole article, it's worth reading and my patience for summary is drying up fast here.

I like a lot of what the Angry GM says...but this part kills it for me:

Non-player characters aren't characters. They're not roles you play. They're not living, breathing inhabitants of your fantastic world. They don't have hopes or dreams or fears or desires. They're game constructs. They exist for game purposes.

...yeah, at this point I'm asking myself "then why am I running this" (though maybe I should add "for free", there)?

Ultimately the big thing for me is does it make sense?

Yeah, if you're playing a big, mean, ugly, uncharismatic goof and you want to sweet talk someone? I probably don't care how well you give the speech...you're trying to game the system in a way opposed to the very character you opted to play. But if you figure out how to make the point in a way that's true to the character? I'm probably inclined to give you a situational bonus that would likely wash with your penalty. If the point is good enough, or you have nuggets of info you can drop that are big enough? Then yes, I may well be inclined to even skip the roll altogether.

As others have said, there's various ways to reinterpret situations and rolls. You may have a great point but deliver it in the worst possible way. Happens all the time with people who are intelligent but shy, or educated but socially stunted. Maybe your body language is all wrong for the situation.

Also, this - Referee adjudication remains the best option there is for this kind of stuff, IME...and I've seen a lot of approaches.

 

[Triumvir]

That is an interesting scenario. I don't think I've ever had an instance where I could legitimately say any of my players would be low INT, but I can't quite think of a way to resolve it to any kind of satisfaction without doing hint giving or just helping them formulate a plan.

I'll have to think about this more.

It's just a slightly facetious logical possibility, not something I've ever come across either. I wouldn't waste your time on it mate!

 

[Scuba Steve]

It's just a slightly facetious logical possibility, not something I've ever come across either. I wouldn't waste your time on it mate!

It's all in good fun just trying to figure out these kinds of things. Not like I'm going to lose sleep over it (he says, while staying up late; unable to sleep).

 

[Silverlion]

I can't remember which game it was, but I recall some video game handled certain low ability scores by letting the player try at the task, and then it would re-interpret what they said/did to suit their attribute. That's close to how I do it, if a PC with a low score gives me a rousing speech/social thing--but has a low score, I let them, and they may get a bonus as I mentioned above, but they're still rolling against that low score and how the person receives the message as the low score impacts it.

 

[Fenris-77]

I like a lot of what the Angry GM says...but this part kills it for me:

...yeah, at this point I'm asking myself "then why am I running this" (though maybe I should add "for free", there)?

There's nothing saying you can't have fun with it, but the GMs job isn't the same as the players' job. The romantic in you might want him to be wrong, but he's not IMO.

 

[AsenRG]

There's nothing saying you can't have fun with it, but the GMs job isn't the same as the players' job. The romantic in you might want him to be wrong, but he's not IMO.

He's wrong IME, though.

Granted, it's not the same job - you only play out the NPCs the party interacts with - so there are differences, but there's no need to approach it in a fundamentally different manner.

In other words, he's saying that NPCs=/Cs, as in "not even on the same scale".
I'm saying that PCs=NPCs+, or if you prefer, NPCsC-, whichever you prefer.
The two approaches might seem close, but are actually about as compatible as me and the people who think stealing the PCs' d is wrong...

Also, the "romantic in me" cracked me up!