How do you make rulings on social interactions?

[AsenRG]

I once had a situation where players could not agree on battle plan for around 90 minutes of real time. I had them make an opposed roll against each other using character skills, either conversation or tactics to decide whose plan goes through. I don't know of I would do that again....definitely some resentment at the table for that call...but I really wanted the game to move on.

I can see myself doing that as well...

Then again, I can see myself also ordering pizza, and going to pick it up, instead. Depends on how I read the mood of the table!

 

[yosemitemike]

I don't see any dichotomy between NPCs as characters in the setting and NPCs as game pieces. Who they are and what they do informs their game stats which is how they interact with the system. Say the NPC is a night watchman. What they do? What are they there for? Well, night watchmen are there to keep people from going into whatever place they are watching at night and vandalizing it or stealing shit. That's their purpose as a game piece too. They are there to deter and prevent vandalism and theft. What game stats would they have. Maybe an average person with a bit better physical stats and some combat ability. Maybe a bit more observant than average. However the system defines that sort of thing. What stats/skills/abilities would a normal person working that kind of job have? That's what they are as a game piece.

 

[Exploderwizard]

I can see myself doing that as well...

Then again, I can see myself also ordering pizza, and going to pick it up, instead. Depends on how I read the mood of the table!

Yeah I would go for the pizza, then eat it, sit back and laugh at the party pointing out all the XP they were missing out on by spending the session arguing. This kind of crap is why I do not award XP at a flat rate per session.

 

[Lundgren]

If the group are having fun arguing, in my opinion, then that's what they should do. XP? My current game is Traveller.

 

[AsenRG]

From the original description, though, it didn't seem like they were having fun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's also the matter of the GM having fun, too. I don't mind letting players BS for a bit and try and figure shit out, but at some point I'm gonna expect them to make a decision so we can move along.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Ever I started playing D&D in 1978 it has always been a thing that you had groups that only played rules as written and groups where anything could go. As for me, I generally follow rules as written if something is covered. If it wasn't and made sense I would figure out a ruling. This is because you had to be flexible as the goal of my early campaigns is players to establish kingdoms or becoming powerful figures.

This is generally my approach. I do think the rules matter and it is good to follow them, but I also think some things aren't adequately covered and require rulings (and some systems when they are simple shine if you can implement rulings well). There is also the flexibility issue. I think that is important too. If players are locked into the rules and it is restricting their ability to interact fully with the setting (i.e. you can't see clear rules on how to resolve swinging from the chandelier and diving onto a foe from the sky OR the existing rules that might cover that don't do it well enough for the particular situation, then leaning on rulings is a very good solution). I will add, I usually consult with my players about rulings so everyone agrees it is fair and covering what they want to do

 

[Moonglum]

I think most of what we could put under the umbrella of 'social interactions' should be handled by freeform roleplay, both because it's more creative than any rule and because doing otherwise will quickly grind your session to a halt. But there are three rules-y things I appreciate as aids to this stuff:

- A well thought out reaction table, not because I need to be told how NPC's behave but because it can be hard to dream up a fresh reaction or attitude for absolutely every character and situation. Sometimes you just want to roll the bones and get a prompt so you have something to start with. The problem here is that most reaction tables are completely lacking in creative flair.
- I think the bigger-stakes interactions that drive campaign development are best handled through some sort of 'game within a game' subsystem of rules that establishes goals and mechanisms for social advancement, status, change, etc. En Garde! and, to a lesser extent, Flashing Blades are good at this. Most games are truly terrible at it, barely even acknowledging that characters exist within a social framework.
- I like encounter tables, dice or, even better, card decks, that include enough specificity to the situations that you have some prompts about how NPC's are likely to behave or react.

 

[David Johansen]

Whenever this topic comes along I feel compelled to share the story of the autistic kid at my store looking at the one page social interaction table from T5 and saying, "if only it were that easy."

 

[ffilz]

I think most of what we could put under the umbrella of 'social interactions' should be handled by freeform roleplay, both because it's more creative than any rule and because doing otherwise will quickly grind your session to a halt. But there are three rules-y things I appreciate as aids to this stuff:

I have been left in the dust too many times to appreciate running social interactions (or much of anything actually) without having some "game" procedure behind it. With free form, your PC can only be as socially adept as yourself. On top of that, if the system allows you to allocate character generation resources to social attributes and skills, but then those are ignored for free form play, the player who spent those resources has a less effective PC than the socially adept player who spent little if any resources on those attributes and skills. That can actually make the situation even worse for the less socially adept player. And actually, the bigger risk with free form social interactions is not so much social adeptness but GM favoritism. The two are related, and it's sort of more that a player who interacts socially in more similar ways to the GM is going to have an advantage.

That said, I definitely don't want to reduce social interaction to "I want to get past the guard, I rolled under my CHA, what next?"

 

[David Johansen]

I'd expect a serious penalty unless they're the guards from Monty Python's Quest For The Holy Grail.

 

[Chaotic Wooster]

Good lord.

Does the game have social attributes/skills and a task resolution system? Use them. It doesn't? Referee decides based on situation. Generally, referee decides anyway, taking rolls and player's choice of words/actions into account.

The player is more interesting in 'roleplaying'? Tough. They should've picked a character with higher social attributes/skills. If your Charisma is the shits, then your social skills are probably the shits too. Deal with it.

As is almost always the answer when anything like this comes up, I can only honestly present my own point of view and approach. It's worked for over thirty years though, and it is this. "I'm the referee, so I'm right." Players are always free to go elsewhere. After the game or between sessions, we can discuss rules, rulings, preferences. At the table, it is how I say it is. I'm not mean, loud or unfair. But if players can't accept that (in order to keep things moving, give everyone equal time, and keep us all engaged) I'm right... They're welcome to go. And they're welcome to come back after experiencing other referees' games if they decide they prefer my approach after all.

 

[Agemegos]

The player is more interesting in 'roleplaying'? Tough. They should've picked a character with higher social attributes/skills.

Yeah. I consider it good role-playing, or even just proper roleplaying, to play your character and not yourself. And I think that covers using out-of-character skills just as much as using out-of-character knowledge. So I prefer to count on my players not to make very persuasive arguments when they are playing unpersuasive characters. If they do anyway, by mistake or in the heat of the moment, I might ask them gently whether they think their character would actually say that (or do that), given their knowledge and skills.

 

[Imaginos]

With the one guy I mentioned above, he wouldn’t stop trying to bulldoze, so I finally started with “ok, so you say all that, and it comes out like” then I would do a wimpy/cowering voice.

 

[AsenRG]

With the one guy I mentioned above, he wouldn’t stop trying to bulldoze, so I finally started with “ok, so you say all that, and it comes out like” then I would do a wimpy/cowering voice.

That works as well...

But overall, Chaotic Wooster is right: the Referee is right. The rest is details!

 

[Chaotic Wooster]

When discussing this with a player prone to speechifying, I suggested the best way to see it was that what he, as a player, said is how the speech sounded in his character's head. It's what he rehearsed in the mirror. But there in the feasting hall, he stumbled over the words, mixed them up and muttered too much to make an impression.

The player was used to getting his own way with other referees. Never put points into social traits, and just ignored it at the table. I explained that our group didn't work that way. At the time we had a very shy lass and an autistic lad, neither of whom liked talking a lot in real life, but who wanted their characters to be better at it than they were.

He agreed, and had fun playing his character as a bit of a raspy and blunt arsehole from then on. Disagreements on my refereeing style haven't always ended so well, but I can usually get through to all but the most belligerent players.

 

[yosemitemike]

If the group are having fun arguing, in my opinion, then that's what they should do. XP? My current game is Traveller.

Often, the group is not having fun. Some players are having fun. Everyone else, including the GM, are sitting around waiting for this to be over so they can get on with the game.

 

[Lundgren]

Often, the group is not having fun. Some players are having fun. Everyone else, including the GM, are sitting around waiting for this to be over so they can get on with the game.

That's something that very much depend on the group, and for some groups, that is a big part of the game.

Often, the group is not having fun? Most groups? Maybe. But far far from all.

 

[gruagach]

I've definitely GMed sessions where the players had a blast shopping for gear, arguing among themselves and with assorted NPCs (merchants and other customers). For. The. Entire. Session.

And, sessions where players enjoyed debating, in character, over a course of action. For. The. Entire. Session.

I've also had players fall into an in character "analysis paralysis" hole due to competing in-character goals / motivations, or just out of pure player stubbornness.

The former can be fun (for some). The last example is hardly ever fun in retrospect, or even in the moment. Discerning the line between "we're having fun here" and "help us GM-wan-kinobi, you're our only hope!" can be tough.

When in doubt, I just have a seemingly random group of Ninja (*fill in genre appropriate sneaky assassin type here) attack the party. Seems to typically get 'em moving.

 

[thebigh]

The worst session I was ever in was one long AGM for the thieves' guild we were members of. It was awful.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

When in doubt, I just have a seemingly random group of Ninja (*fill in genre appropriate sneaky assassin type here) attack the party. Seems to typically get 'em moving.

Like the Raymond Chandler quote When in doubt have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand. I approve thoroughly.

I, like a lot of people have posted above, go with the players idea is what the character is attempting to do, the roll determines if they succeed or balls it up. Player getting first dibs on how their character put their foot in their mouth. It means players can still use their own ideas but low social started characters can't just charm everyone. And every now and then the monosyllable barbarian comes out with an surprise eloquent speech.

But there is another idea I've been mulling over that I've not had a chance to put into practice yet.

So, I think a successful check should mean the player succeeded in being the quality they wanted. (charming, threatening etc) but it doesn't decide how the NPC reacts to that approach. That is decided by the NPCs character.
In the past I've used this idea now and again when it made sense, but I was thinking if it would work applied strictly across the board.

So for example a PC tries to threaten a market trader to get information and passes their roll. The PC was successfully threatening, the trader can see/feel that and gives them the info. Standard stuff.

Next time the PC threatens someone and makes their roll and so was also really threatening but this time the person they are messing with is Liam Neeson who also sees/feels the PC is a credible threat but because he's Liam bloody Neeson he doesn't give the PC what they want he gets angry. As that is how Liam Neeson responds to a real threat. And as he has a special set of skills that make him a nightmare for PCs like that he tries to stab them with a pen or an Uzi or something.
Two passed checks, very different results as the situations were different.

It would need a bit of trust and communication as the players can ace the roll and still get a bad result if the approach was wrong and it could be open for abuse if the GM wants to fudge things, there would be no opposed rolls or modifiers based on the other party as the roll is based 100% on the player skill not the listeners reaction. But I think it would push the PCs to thing more about how they deal with PCs and remove the "don't roll, it just doesn't work" scenarios as a roll will always have some effect pass or fail. Sometimes fail would even get the more favourable result depending on the situation.
Anybody tried anything similar or have any opinions if it would work? Or is this just kinda what happens anyway just framed slightly differently.

 

[Matthias]

With respect to PCs vs. NPCs I’m strongly in the camp of viewing them as basically the same kind of thing (even as PCs are much more important and detailed.)

An NPC may be designed with a functional purpose in mind (as a hook for the next quest, or comic relief, or whatever) but the same is true of PCs. In most traditional games PCs should be built to be competent and motivated adventurers, for instance, and if I build my paladin as a “tank” or give her a tragic backstory it’s because those support the kind of stuff I want to do.

On the other side of the screen being able to roleplay a bunch of weird little guys is just one of the core things I like about GMing.

 

[Chaotic Wooster]

With respect to PCs vs. NPCs I’m strongly in the camp of viewing them as basically the same kind of thing (even as PCs are much more important and detailed.)

An NPC may be designed with a functional purpose in mind (as a hook for the next quest, or comic relief, or whatever) but the same is true of PCs. In most traditional games PCs should be built to be competent and motivated adventurers, for instance, and if I build my paladin as a “tank” or give her a tragic backstory it’s because those support the kind of stuff I want to do.

On the other side of the screen being able to roleplay a bunch of weird little guys is just one of the core things I like about GMing.

I basically see NPCs the same as PCs, but able to drift into and out of focus. NPCs get promoted to speaking roles if the players show an interest, or they can remain as background extras.

But in theory, I treat them as PCs. Because if they're there in the scene, they can have tragic backstories, secret cult membership or a peculiar sexual fetish for nacho cheese should the situation call for it. The difference really is that PCs have a character sheet with everything on it, NPCs start with nothing, and I add details if it matters. Obviously, if the players don't care and never see them again, they likely never get any of this. But the potential is always there.

Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. instilled in me the notion that any NPC has the potential to matter. Because between families, mentors, friends, enemies, lovers and the fast, dirty and expendable NPC rules, I found I liked treating them as more than just a forgotten name on the back of a character sheet or a mere face in the crowd.

For all this, I refuse to let players have their characters walk all over NPCs socially. Yes, the PCs are the focus of the game. No, that doesn't mean they get to be jerks without repercussions. The merchant they threaten's likely got guild membership, maybe protection from a thieves' guild, half a dozen angry sons, or at the very least the ear of the other traders nearby who can jack the prices up on adventurers who act like they're a big deal.

I try to make my campaign settings feel fairly real and like living places, not just playgrounds for player characters. A big part of that, to me, is having the characters interact in a sensible manner, or accept that outlandish behaviour will get them a reputation. This goes back to using social traits, player's words, and the situation to determine the results of social interaction.

 

[yosemitemike]

That's something that very much depend on the group, and for some groups, that is a big part of the game.

Often, the group is not having fun? Most groups? Maybe. But far far from all.

I used the word often rather than always for a reason.

 

[Lundgren]

I used the word often rather than always for a reason.

Well, you needed to point out a most to my reply on if the group enjoy it, they should do it. So, it seems that we are agreeing, right?

 

[Skarg]

With the one guy I mentioned above, he wouldn’t stop trying to bulldoze, so I finally started with “ok, so you say all that, and it comes out like” then I would do a wimpy/cowering voice.

Yep, that's one way.

I have sometimes done this kind of translation for players who fail to roleplay the culture or limited info of their PCs, too.


I can think of several other approaches in GURPS. For example:

* The GM might decide that the PC has the player's delusion that they have great social skills, to the point that they think they are being compelling like the player, even though they actually only have the PC's abilities, for which results get rolled for using the rules, and the GM roleplays the response back. No need to tell the player who can't be bothered to roleplay, that this is what is happening. Though the GM could make a social IQ roll for other PCs, and slip them notes if/when those PCs notice something, that the PC in question actually isn't being anywhere near as charismatic as the player.

* The GM might decide that the PC actually DOES have the player's level of social skills, and list appropriate skill levels and point costs to represent those, on the GM's copy of that PC's record sheet (which the player doesn't see). And then, figure out what compensating unknown/unchosen disadvantages that PC might also have . . . or just withhold future character point awards to compensate . . . and/or give all the other PCs advantages (and/or future character point awards) to let them also have other advantages worth that many points. (GURPS has a practically endless variety of ways a GM can reward or penalize a PC.)

* The GM could tell the player that if they can't roleplay the social ineptitude of their PC, that they need to pay the points for it somehow, adjusting the PC, adding disadvantages, etc.

For a long-term player, point balance can also be applied to later characters or events, karma points, or whatever.

 

[Skarg]

Like the Raymond Chandler quote When in doubt have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand. I approve thoroughly.

I, like a lot of people have posted above, go with the players idea is what the character is attempting to do, the roll determines if they succeed or balls it up. Player getting first dibs on how their character put their foot in their mouth. It means players can still use their own ideas but low social started characters can't just charm everyone. And every now and then the monosyllable barbarian comes out with an surprise eloquent speech.

But there is another idea I've been mulling over that I've not had a chance to put into practice yet.

So, I think a successful check should mean the player succeeded in being the quality they wanted. (charming, threatening etc) but it doesn't decide how the NPC reacts to that approach. That is decided by the NPCs character.
In the past I've used this idea now and again when it made sense, but I was thinking if it would work applied strictly across the board.

So for example a PC tries to threaten a market trader to get information and passes their roll. The PC was successfully threatening, the trader can see/feel that and gives them the info. Standard stuff.

Next time the PC threatens someone and makes their roll and so was also really threatening but this time the person they are messing with is Liam Neeson who also sees/feels the PC is a credible threat but because he's Liam bloody Neeson he doesn't give the PC what they want he gets angry. As that is how Liam Neeson responds to a real threat. And as he has a special set of skills that make him a nightmare for PCs like that he tries to stab them with a pen or an Uzi or something.
Two passed checks, very different results as the situations were different.

It would need a bit of trust and communication as the players can ace the roll and still get a bad result if the approach was wrong and it could be open for abuse if the GM wants to fudge things, there would be no opposed rolls or modifiers based on the other party as the roll is based 100% on the player skill not the listeners reaction. But I think it would push the PCs to thing more about how they deal with PCs and remove the "don't roll, it just doesn't work" scenarios as a roll will always have some effect pass or fail. Sometimes fail would even get the more favourable result depending on the situation.
Anybody tried anything similar or have any opinions if it would work? Or is this just kinda what happens anyway just framed slightly differently.

Yes, this is what AsenRG was describing a number of posts earlier. It's also like what The Fantasy Trip and GURPS books say to do. The PCs and what they do are only part of what happens in a social situation with NPCs. Sometimes it will just be clear to the GM what the NPCs would do in response to a PC communication, and it may not always be what the PCs want, even if they make a great roll with a high skill, if it makes sense the NPCs would react a certain way even to a very well-performed social overture. Reaction rolls are more for cases where the GM doesn't already know what the NPCs' reactions would be.

 

[AsenRG]

Yes, this is what AsenRG was describing a number of posts earlier. It's also like what The Fantasy Trip and GURPS books say to do. The PCs and what they do are only part of what happens in a social situation with NPCs. Sometimes it will just be clear to the GM what the NPCs would do in response to a PC communication, and it may not always be what the PCs want, even if they make a great roll with a high skill, if it makes sense the NPCs would react a certain way even to a very well-performed social overture. Reaction rolls are more for cases where the GM doesn't already know what the NPCs' reactions would be.

To expand on this...

One thing that RPGs take for granted is that skill matters above all. Skill, as I define it, is manipulating the factors you can influence. Amusingly, RPGs - contrary to popular belief - already do a decent work at representing this.

However, there are also factors you can't influence. Like "you're talking with a group of skinheads and you're in a rabbi costume", for a borderline-social example of "stuff you can't influence".
And the the impact of those is way too often overlooked or minimised.
The truth is that way too often, those factors limit what you can achieve, how hard it's to win, how badly, how much and how easily you can lose, and even what you can attempt.
Conversely, when in your favour, it can obliviate the need for a skill roll.
But even with the best of skills, you're not going to achieve results that are outside of the limits above. (Well, at least you're not going to achieve them in one social encounter. Over time you can achieve...pretty much anything, which is also unlike what the simplified theories are saying! But RPG encounters are - way too often - one-time events).

Also, as an addition, I sometimes use reaction rolls - actually a d6-d6, really, for a -5 to +5 result - when I know what the reaction is going to be, but am not sure how intensive, or how far-reaching, it's going to be. I mean, "please, leave me be" is one negative result, "leave now or I'm going to shoot you" is another. Both are cutting the communication short, but one is what I'd do on a +5, the other, on a -4 or -5. (Because a -5 with an NPC that's predisposed to violence means that I'd have the NPC wait for you to turn around before shooting you in the back - however, with one that's not, the above is the -5 result).

 

[TristramEvans]

Yes, this is what AsenRG was describing a number of posts earlier. It's also like what The Fantasy Trip and GURPS books say to do. The PCs and what they do are only part of what happens in a social situation with NPCs. Sometimes it will just be clear to the GM what the NPCs would do in response to a PC communication, and it may not always be what the PCs want, even if they make a great roll with a high skill, if it makes sense the NPCs would react a certain way even to a very well-performed social overture. Reaction rolls are more for cases where the GM doesn't already know what the NPCs' reactions would be.

That's generally how I handle it. I'd rather role-play the NPC than leave them to procedurally determined responses, I only do this when a PC is specifically trying to influence them or persuade them to act against their best interest. But the roll results are always interpreted through the filter of the NPC's personal goals and motivations.

 

[ffilz]

I'm seeing some good advice on how to handle things.

• Encourage players to role play commensurate with what's on the character sheet
• Design the character to match how you want to role play it
• Social skills are not mind control, consider how the NPC would react to the social manipulation
• If you use social skills PvP, encourage players to role play the mechanical result, but also consider how the PC would react to the social manipulation

A final thing, when considering player ability vs. mechanics. Remember all those RPG descriptions that referenced cops and robbers. If you're skipping the mechanics and letting players speak/act out their social manipulation without reference to the mechanics, you're playing cops and robbers and all the challenges that those "what is an RPG" descriptions talk about why we have an RPG and don't play cops and robbers.

But also remember that an RPG isn't a board game or miniatures wargame with set rules, an important part of an RPG is the "do anything the character could reasonably do." And on that point, there's another thing pointing at social manipulation not being mind control. Is it realistic that the grubby peasant, no matter how many orcs he just killed, can convince the king to hand over his throne? Probably not. On the other hand, maybe it is possible if the grubby peasant actually did the right set of things.

 

[T. Foster]

A lot of attention is being given to the smooth-talking player who refuses to play a their socially inept character correctly and gets unfair advantages. I don’t have any problem addressing that by fiat (as described - “that’s what you wanted to say but because of your stats it comes out like this instead…”). What is a stickier issue for me is the opposite - the shy or socially awkward player with an ostensibly smooth-talking character.

I’m that player - less so as an adult than when I was a kid, but I’m still not ever going to be comfortable giving emotive in-character speeches or trying to actually verbally fast-talk or seduce someone. And I know lots of other players, especially young ones, who are as bad as I was or worse (including some on the spectrum). And if those players want to play a fast-talking roguish Han Solo type character despite - or even because - it’s so different than what their real personality is, I’m not going to either tell them they can’t or make that character ineffective in their ostensible speciality just because the player isn’t comfortable making in-character speeches.

 

[robertsconley]

I’m that player - less so as an adult than when I was a kid, but I’m still not ever going to be comfortable giving emotive in-character speeches or trying to actually verbally fast-talk or seduce someone. And I know lots of other players, especially young ones, who are as bad as I was or worse (including some on the spectrum). And if those players want to play a fast-talking roguish Han Solo type character despite - or even because - it’s so different than what their real personality is, I’m not going to either tell them they can’t or make that character ineffective in their ostensible speciality just because the player isn’t comfortable making in-character speeches.

If you told Rob of the 1990s the above, I would had replied that I thought I cover it by adjudicating things on the basis of the player's intent and plan. But it wasn't until early 2010s that I had a high school kid with a bad stutter along with a very shy adult player in a game store campaign that it was put to the test. I was pleased that it worked out overall with some fine tuning. The biggest challenge was dealing my hearing loss. Hearing the soft whispers of the shy player and making sure I understood the player with the stutter was a challenge.

 

[Skarg]

...

Also, as an addition, I sometimes use reaction rolls - actually a d6-d6, really, for a -5 to +5 result - when I know what the reaction is going to be, but am not sure how intensive, or how far-reaching, it's going to be. I mean, "please, leave me be" is one negative result, "leave now or I'm going to shoot you" is another. Both are cutting the communication short, but one is what I'd do on a +5, the other, on a -4 or -5. (Because a -5 with an NPC that's predisposed to violence means that I'd have the NPC wait for you to turn around before shooting you in the back - however, with one that's not, the above is the -5 result).

Yep. The -5 result might even be "they noticed you coming, armed, loaded, aimed for the door, and shoot as soon as someone steps through it."

 

[AsenRG]

Yep. The -5 result might even be "they noticed you coming, armed, loaded, aimed for the door, and shoot as soon as someone steps through it."

Sure, but I intended this as an example of using a "reaction roll" where we know the general direction - in this case, failed negotiation, NPC doesn't want to see you any more - but not the intensity of it. So the "shoot as someone passes the door" is no longer on the cards.

 

[Skarg]

Yeah, and someone might actually be bamboozled for a minute, but then make their IQ/skepticism roll and think, "wait . . ." and then work on getting their revenge, sooner or later.

 

[David Johansen]

I think it's partly the degree of what can be accomplished. If you're in your lord's livery trying to chat up an enemy guard. A success might get you something but it won't get you as much as you might from one of your lord's guards.

 

[AsenRG]

I think it's partly the degree of what can be accomplished. If you're in your lord's livery trying to chat up an enemy guard. A success might get you something but it won't get you as much as you might from one of your lord's guards.

Yes, I did mention "what can even be attempted". I mean, you could bribe a guard of your lord to let you in after nightfall, and you could bribe an enemy guard to let you in after nightfall, but I'd expect the likelihoods of success and the price to be radically different...

 

[Exploderwizard]

A lot of attention is being given to the smooth-talking player who refuses to play a their socially inept character correctly and gets unfair advantages. I don’t have any problem addressing that by fiat (as described - “that’s what you wanted to say but because of your stats it comes out like this instead…”). What is a stickier issue for me is the opposite - the shy or socially awkward player with an ostensibly smooth-talking character.

I’m that player - less so as an adult than when I was a kid, but I’m still not ever going to be comfortable giving emotive in-character speeches or trying to actually verbally fast-talk or seduce someone. And I know lots of other players, especially young ones, who are as bad as I was or worse (including some on the spectrum). And if those players want to play a fast-talking roguish Han Solo type character despite - or even because - it’s so different than what their real personality is, I’m not going to either tell them they can’t or make that character ineffective in their ostensible speciality just because the player isn’t comfortable making in-character speeches.

I see this problem as an outgrowth of the misconception that role playing is performance or acting. If people have fun talking in character, affecting a character voice and similar performance, then sure let them have fun. None of that is required to role play. All a player needs to do to role play is to react to the in game stimuli as if they were there. When it comes to saying something to an NPC all the player needs to do is relay what they want to say. If the game system has skills for this then the skill will determine how good the effort was. If the game doesn't have social skills, then the reaction can be based on the substance of what the player wants to say, tempered by the CHA, or whatever stat represents that kind of trait. I never like to shut down players who enjoy performing, but don't let such players automatically succeed based on an entertaining performance.

 

[SavAce]

A lot of attention is being given to the smooth-talking player who refuses to play a their socially inept character correctly and gets unfair advantages. I don’t have any problem addressing that by fiat (as described - “that’s what you wanted to say but because of your stats it comes out like this instead…”). What is a stickier issue for me is the opposite - the shy or socially awkward player with an ostensibly smooth-talking character.

I’m that player - less so as an adult than when I was a kid, but I’m still not ever going to be comfortable giving emotive in-character speeches or trying to actually verbally fast-talk or seduce someone. And I know lots of other players, especially young ones, who are as bad as I was or worse (including some on the spectrum). And if those players want to play a fast-talking roguish Han Solo type character despite - or even because - it’s so different than what their real personality is, I’m not going to either tell them they can’t or make that character ineffective in their ostensible speciality just because the player isn’t comfortable making in-character speeches.

This gets at some things for me. This idea of playing a fast-talking roguish Han Solo type character. Is it accurately reflected in an RPG by the character having high social skills on a character sheet? Skills that make him more likely to succeed at social tasks than other characters? Like, Han Solo wasn't very convincing on comms trying to pretend to be a Stormtrooper before shooting the console. He chatted with Jabba about late payments, but it didn't keep him from becoming a trophy in Jabba's palace. For all of his posing like he's a smooth talker, he's really pretty immature and easily upset when it comes to Leia. More than being skilled at this, it seems more like he's just willing to try, because you miss all of the shots you don't take. Outside of skills, he just has a seat-of-the-pants attitude.

On the audience side, by which I mean me as a player in an RPG witnessing events in our game, I'm never gonna think of another player's character as a fast-talking roguish Han Solo type character based on character sheet skills and rolls. I'm going to remember the performance, the actual portrayal, the in-character conversations. I agree that RPGs don't have to involve a performance or acting, but an RPG session without performance from either players or the GM will always feel flat and lifeless to me compared to one that does. The in-character performance and witnessing it from others are easily, if not the top, within the top 3 reasons I'm even playing these games in the first place. When it comes to players who struggle with the portrayal of certain kinds of characters, sure, definitely let the game skills do work and let people play the characters they want. Hopefully they are able to step up and entertain the table (something I consider a responsibility shared by everyone at the session).

I guess, to keep my post from being too wide-ranging, I think any social rules in an RPG should be able to aid any player regardless of their adeptness in real social situations. There are aspects of play, though, that you can't "number on a sheet" your way out of, and that would be how the GM and other players perceive your character based on how you perform the playing of them. If a player is naturally shy, cautious and trepidatious, they can have a character who is likely to succeed at social rolls, but it won't make them a glib fast-talker unless they as a player at the very least decide to put the character in the situation. If a player wants to play a glib fast talking character and can't help but role-play them in a crass, off-putting way, well, the rules can grant him some success, but no one will feel great about it or will really feel like the character is charming.

 

[Skarg]

SavAce I mainly agree.

With my main RPG friends, they've usually tended to try to align their roleplaying to their PCs, and their character stats not much better than their own abilities.

If/when we've had a social-skills-challenged who wanted to play a socially-gifted PC, we tend to be aware of that and support them doing their best, translating the performance in our imaginations.

But there's definitely a layer of what the player does or says they do, and what the conversation and situation is, that tends to take precedence for me over the skill-levels and rolls part - I tend to only consult those game mechanics when I'm not sure what the result should be from the roleplaying and situation going on.

Though there is also a mode of play possible where I'd handle it all with the mechanics. NPC vs NPC interactions, or maybe a programmed adventure, or when the players want to forego roleplaying some social situations, etc.


As for Han Solo, I think he's smart and has some Fast-Talk skill, more Streetwise skill, etc, but you're right those aren't at especially high levels. High enough that he survived, and that he knew when to blast Greedo before Greedo fired. He had penalties for trying to fast-talk Death Star security right after blasting his way into the detention level, may have not rolled well, and also, that was maybe never going to do more than delay an investigation.