>Diplomacy/Persuasion/Negotiation/etc. are skills
How does this make sense? Tying knots, playing an instrument, and picking locks are skills. They determine what a character can do or give some bonus. But any non-mute character in a role-playing game can talk (since it's a human being playing a role), so why are these "skills" with associated "skill checks" in so many systems?
>>43742087
By the same line of reasoning, every non-maimed character can move his hands, so tying knots, playing an instrument, and picking locks shouldn't be skills either.
>>43742087
By OP's totally-not-a-bait-thread logic, since I am capable of lifting my arms, I must be capable of lifting a minivan over my head.
>>43742087
>implying that you have the same diplomacy based skills as a hostage negotiator.
It IS a skill. Some people are so socially inept they can't talk to people in public, anon.
>>43742160
>>43742228
I haven't learned to play the guitar, so I can't play the guitar. I haven't learned to ride a horse, so I can't ride a horse. Maybe I'll get lucky or I can rely on some kind of natural talent (which could be a percentage change or a general ability check in a role-playing game). Then I can figure out a few chords or manage to direct the horse.
But in a role-playing game, anyone can talk, so you can say something perfectly convincing or charming or sensible through your character's mouth. There's no cut-off point there, besides you can talk or you can't. Even the smelly barbarian might make a perfectly sound suggestion to the king, although the problem there is whether he's playing his character properly, not that he doesn't have Rank 3 in the Diplomacy stat.
Ability scores usually equate to your raw potential to interact meaningfully with other people.
Even if you have equal ability to speak a language, someone else is going to have different tone and timbre, mannerisms, and approach to speaking. Any and all of which contribute to your actual success when attempting to use speech.
Beyond that, without both solid instruction and practical experience, it doesn't matter what your pure, raw potential is. I'm not necessarily talking about formal instruction, simply knowing people who are good at persuasion or intimidation and using it with their guidance is often good enough to get basic skills.
Think of the lowest functioning autistic person still capable of technically speaking a language, and who has lived as a recluse most of their life. You think that with that background and nothing else they can debate, seduce, cajole, bargain, and self promote like a politician or actor, simply on the basis that they are also capable of using speech?
That we can even separate people into good at getting their way and bad means that there is a divide, and the fact that it is possible for people to move from one side to the other with deliberate effort means that skill is involved.
>>43742374
Because unfortunately, it is working.
>>43742374
Because this thread clearly suggests that you are capable of perfect charm and unassailable, incisive argumentation.
>>43742374
I can ride a horse. Does this mean that the GM should allow my character to know how to ride a horse as long as I describe the actions he's performing, even if the character has no horseriding skill? After all, I know how to do it.
>>43742452
Well apparently I'm deceiving everyone into thinking I'm trolling, so I guess I have some ranks in Deception.
To use a not-perfect analogy, is puzzle-solving a skill? Puzzle-solving comes up in dungeon crawl games all the time. There's a switch puzzle, the sphinx gives the adventurers a riddle, or the party has to navigate a maze.
But these are all active things the players (and their characters) respond to. They pull the left switch, they guess "time", they take the left path.
Why is that not a skill check? One guy takes training in the Puzzle-solving skill, he handles all the puzzles. He rolls a 17, there's that puzzle solved.
And again, even the unintelligent barbarian might solve a complex riddle, because his player did. But that comes down to whether you consider that poor role-playing or good game-playing.
>>43742542
>Well apparently I'm deceiving everyone into thinking I'm trolling
>>43742457
Well there I'd stick with the "playing the character properly" proviso, which depends on the game, setting, and play style.
Like that guy who plays a medieval fantasy game but he knows how to make explosives in real life, so his character tries doing that in the game. One GM might say his character doesn't know that so it can't be done, another GM might decide explosives don't work that way in his setting, another GM might be completely fine with it.
But again, almost any character can talk and say convincing things. At worst it might come down to the GM saying, "Your character isn't smart enough to say something like that," but generally if someone can say a sentence isn't it the sentence itself that determines the success or failure? "I tell the king to fuck off" isn't going to go down well, even with +10 to Persuasion and a natural 20.
>>43742087
I'm tempted to introduce you to one of my ex bosses, he hired me as a sysadmin and I would go to his house to start setting up a home office, only to end up moving a bookcase. It was seriously freaky when you realised what you were doing halfway through, it's how I bet NPCs feel when we natural 20 our diplomacy and they end up giving us the guided tour of their doom fortress.
>>43742584
As a social scientist trained in economics, sociology, and social psychology, let me just assure you that if this isn't bait, that you're totally wrong, have no idea about social interaction, and shouldn't be allowed near sharp implements.
There's a whole science behind persuasion. Start w/ Professor Cialdini's book Influence if you're interested. Persuasion is absolutely a skill, one you can have a talent for or not, but also something you can learn and develop through study and experience.
>>43742087
its not real life
>>43742912
Thanks, this is at least more interesting than "hurr bait_something.jpg".
But how do you think that should map to a role-playing game? Especially one where players (and their characters) are saying dialogue word-for-word? I'm sure there are nuances to influencing people that go beyond what you say, but saying something terrible will always end badly.
>>43742087
OP sucks, but good excuse to tell a story.
> Be me.
> Knew an old guy, very very cool.
> Retired Marine.
> One day, "yeah, I was a certified hostage negotiator."
> Me: "Wow, any good stories?"
> Him: "Only negotiated one hostage situation. They just aren't that common."
> Me: "How'd that one case go?"
> Him: "I shot him."
Turned out that it was a tense situation during a war, there weren't many people around to manage the situation, and he was ALSO the only certified rifle marksman in the area. So he ended up having to cover his own negotiation.
The criminal was wounded by the shot. He was apprehended and ended up spending his life in federal prison. The hostage was released unharmed. My friend went on to earning many decorations, then retired and did other cool things. He really was a character. He could drive you nuts, but I've never met anyone who didn't absolutely love him.
>>43743005
GURPS Social Engineering is a good place to start. If this thread is still around in a few hours and I have time, then maybe I'll post a little primer.
The thing is that like Intelligence, this is both an attribute the character has AND something that the player has which is expressed through his character. So it requires sensitivity and caution on the part of the DM, but then again so do many non-physical skills.
>>43742912
>social scientist
I didn't know 9gag gave titles.
>>43743005
>But how do you think that should map to a role-playing game? Especially one where players (and their characters) are saying dialogue word-for-word? I'm sure there are nuances to influencing people that go beyond what you say, but saying something terrible will always end badly.
Before readimg manuals about social sciences, start reading RPGs, since you seem lacking in that area too.
Acquaint yourself with the notion of "fortune in the middle", for one.
Responding to an obvious bait thread.
Because being able to talk about SPECIFIC things in a PREDETERMINED way is a skill. Like knowing how to play jazz and the proper way to communicate to royalty. If you've never dealt with royalty and talked to them like an average Joe, bad things will happen.
If you want the player's skill of communication to be the determining factor as opposed to the character's, then remove the skills and CHA ability scores entirely.
>>43742087
The fact you couldn't persuade everyone in this thread is a good example that persuasion can fail if you're incompetent and requires a skill and skill check.
>>43746152
it is impossible to tell a fair difference between persuasion failing and someone changing their mind without introducing recursively infinite statistics between the target's level of free will and the amount of railroading fate gives him
