>>43835094
In my opinion, if a game has dice rolling mechanics for overcoming combat scenarios and exploration challenges, it should have dice rolling factor into social conflict as well. Furthermore, if any social challenges involve dice rolls, ALL social challenges should involve them. I'm defining challenge as a situation where failure is a distinct possibility and would have consequences for the character.

I don't think it would be fair for one player to have to roll for attack and/or damage in battle, while another simply describes their character's awesome attack expecting it to succeed without rolling any dice. In the same vein, if one player has to roll a Bluff check to talk their way past some guards, another player should not expect that a sufficiently good lie at the table should let them succeed automatically.

Part of my reason for supporting this style of gaming and GMing is the fact that players can't and shouldn't be expected to have the same capabilities as their characters. When you swing a huge axe in combat you don't have to demonstrate real-life strength in order to succeed. When you play a scholar of monsters you don't need to have memorized the monster manual in order to make a Knowledge check about them. In that same line of thinking, you don't need to actually be charismatic in real life in order for your character to be persuasive.

The reverse, naturally, is also true. If your character is a Charisma 6 Orc Barbarian with no social skills, being a charming person in real life won't (and shouldn't) make your character more charming or successful in social situations.

>>43835286
Thank you for putting this into words. I have had pretty much the same thoughts for a long time, but have never really been able to articulate them so effectively, possibly because I have no GM experience.

>>43835690
It's no trouble. I've recently been working on some social combat rules for my game, mainly because my players think that making a good argument should let them automatically succeed.

I should mention that a GM would do well to require at least SOME effort from their players. Even if a player is introverted or has poor social skills, they really should say more than just "I make a Bluff check." A GM can also give a small bonus or penalty for particularly good or bad arguments, but I stress that they should be -small-.

>>43835286

Another thing that might help is getting the players to make the roll -first-, THEN figure out how to roleplay the overall result, and preferably after being told whether or not the check succeeded.

This prevents the dreaded "really nice bit of roleplay, but skill check was shit" phenomenon, which can lead to a nasty disconnect from the character for that player as they suddenly feel a strong sense of futility in trying to play any further.

>>43835094
>>43835286

I am of the camp that the combat rules shouldn't mingle with social skills. I do a lot of RP in chatrooms and irc and in video games where there isn't any combat at all. Rolling dice can be interesting, but I'd much rather have the actual roleplay decide the outcomes of social interaction.

Also, as a DM in d&d games, I always have the same situation:

Player says something that makes a lot of sense. They even do a good job of getting in character, and deliver their idea in a way that would let it be received well by the npc.

DM: now roll some dice to see how well it works.

Player rolls a 1 (or something bad)

fail.

Or the opposite situation:

Player decides to drop trousers and deficate on the table (figuratively. Some things should always automatically fail to succeed).

DM: now roll some dice to see how well it works.

Player rolls a 20 (or a favorable result if we're playing Gurps or something).

In the end, I just got tired of it and removed bluff and diplomacy from the skill sets and let the RP decide stuff. I still keep "intuition" or "sense motive" skills. The players can always roll dice at me to get more information, and it's a check/balance against how it's easier for NPC's to lie if we're doing something text based.

"but wait, wont players know the npc is lying because you asked for a sense motive check, or because they wanted to take a sense motive check and rolled a 1?"

I make em roll sense motive checks all the time. Even when the npc is not lying. They then have some 1's even when the NPC has told no lie. Keeps em guessing unless they roll well.

I think a big part of what turns people off to social mechanics is that most games have really piss-poor social skill mechanics. Like the whole "player makes a really good argument, and it comes to nothing because lolnat1". A social encounter should not hinge on a single pass/fail die roll. After all, no other kind of challenge is decided in a single roll, right? Rather than a solitary check with binary outcomes, it's a lot better if a social encounter involves a series of checks to work toward the desired goal. A grand speech should be broken up into segments as you build toward your goal, gradually bringing the hearer around to your side and only at the very end seeing if they're willing to get behind you after all that.

And on the flip side, any crunchy social resolution system worth its salt should include modifiers for plausibility/appropriateness. Social encounters will always have a subjective component involved; you can't script them out as thoroughly as you can combat. But you can embrace that subjective aspect and encourage the GM to apply modifiers as appropriate. (And for things that just plain should not be able to succeed, period -- as opposed to things that are just highly unlikely -- I don't think I've ever seen a game that doesn't say "don't even bother rolling for things where the outcome is an obvious foregone conclusion".)

It also would help if people would realize that a fundamental part of roleplaying games is that you never have 100% perfect control over your character in the absolute narrative sense. That's why there are chances of failure; you can't just declare something and assume it happens precisely as you say. Just because you come up with a compelling persuasive argument doesn't mean your character has the social wherewithal to deliver it effectively. I'm sure we all know how vast the divide can often be between how something sounds in one's head and how it comes across when one tries to put it out into the world.

>>43835842
That can work sometimes, but it also means telling a player "Hey, you failed this bluff check so have your character tell a really terrible lie." I despise telling players what their characters should say (or do) so I wouldn't go with the 'roll first' approach unless absolutely necessary.

>>43835956
Like I said, I think you need rules for resolving combat challenges with dice rolls if you do the same for combat and exploration. IRC roleplaying without dice rolls naturally doesn't require dice rolls for social situations.

As for rolling 1s / 20s and succeeding when you should / should not... well, isn't that part and parcel with a dice-based game? Sometimes the burly warrior can't hit a Kobold four rounds in a row, while the Wizard lands a pair of critical hits on an Ogre and knocks it out. In addition, I'd like to reiterate my point that just because a player is competent OOC doesn't mean their character should get any special bonus IC, and vice versa.

Oh, and you bring up something interesting with Sense Motive. Instead of having players roll openly and seeing the results, why not have the GM roll for them instead secretly? I'll give an example:

GM: The merchant says that he'll pay you ten silver per wolf pelt you bring him, and that it's a fair deal.
Player: Hmm... I don't know, that sounds a little now. Is he trying to rip me off?
GM: Good question. (Rolls the player's Sense Motive vs. the merchant's Bluff, the player succeeds) From the way he licks his lips nervously and darts his eyes you're pretty sure he's ripping you off.
>alternatively
GM: (the player fails) No, he seems to be giving you a fair deal.

A lot of games have certain skills, like Perception, be ones the GM rolls (or monsters roll against the PC's passive value) because it prevents players from meta-gaming.

>>43836319
Hi, >>43835286 here. My game has social combat as a series of opposed rolls between both characters, with the objective of getting a certain number of successes before your opponent. You can get a bonus to your rolls if you make arguments that capitalize on other skills you have; for example if you're haggling over the price of a weapon you can use an appropriate Knowledge or Crafting skill to point out flaws in the weapon or discuss the average market price. You can't invoke these extra skills effectively more than once per social combat, because making the same argument over and over isn't as effective as switching tactics or presenting new evidence.

>It also would help if people would realize that a fundamental part of roleplaying games is that you never have 100% perfect control over your character in the absolute narrative sense.
Players don't have perfect control over their characters, no. If, for example, they are knocked unconscious or killed, they can't have their characters take actions. HOWEVER, players should almost always, if not always, be in control of their character's choices. That includes choosing what they say unless something is physically preventing them from doing so. Some may disagree with that, and I understand that, but I believe that taking away choice from players is unacceptable.

It's almost as if different people have different preferences in what rules should cover, and no game will be perfect for every audience.

>>43835286
I do stuff like this and if they roleplay well or shitty i give them bonuses or penalties

>>43836459
I use a similar system of sequential checks myself, plus a Disposition score you can increase by improving their opinion of you, giving bonuses to further rolls. (Fantasy Craft is my system of choice.)

>HOWEVER, players should almost always, if not always, be in control of their character's choices. That includes choosing what they say unless something is physically preventing them from doing so.
Sure, but there's a tremendous difference between WHAT you say and HOW you say it, just like there's a tremendous difference between attacking an orc and cutting him to ribbons with flawless swordsmanship. If somebody presents a brilliant speech but miserably flubs the roll, there are any number of ways you can spin that as the delivery being botched in some fashion, even if the content is essentially as the player laid out. The simple fact is that it doesn't much matter how compelling your case is if you come across as too timid, creepy, insincere, abrasive, or otherwise just not persuasive in how you comport yourself when saying it.

And if there's one area where player control over character choices should be compromised to some extent, it's in emotional matters, because people IRL are never absolutely in control of their emotions. Most games have some form of fear or morale effects in some way or another, which are certainly one such instance, and many also include other emotion-based mechanics that compel certain kinds of behaviour (even if they steer clear of full-blown "I'm playing your character now" mind control effects). As alluded to in my point above re: delivery, social encounters have a very big emotional component, even in matters that are supposed to be very serious and rational like high-stakes diplomatic and business negotiations. It's just how human social interaction works. So it's not unreasonable for some details of phrasing or tone to be improved or compromised compared to the player's description due to a good or bad roll (respectively).

>>43835956
>Step 1: Roleplay
That is: have your players explain what they would like to do "I want to deceive the guard into letting us pass without inspection" Players might mention any circumstances that could possibly affect the outcome.

>Step 2: Roll the dice.
Of course you don't proceed to this step until you've decided that there's a reasonable chance of failure/success and/or failure is meaningful.

>Step 3: Get in character and act out the outcome.
Once the players have chosen their course of action (roleplaying) and the dice/modifiers (when appropriate) have decided the outcome, you turn to the acting part of the process. Add some flavor/meat to the proceedings by talking out the scene if you're up to it. Try to get the characters involved to put their own take on "The guards didn't believe you."

If you let the acting decide the outcome you are divorcing the outcomes for a character from the character (who may be among the worlds most/least charismatic individuals per their construction.)

While it's not possible to make character performance completely independent of the player guiding the character, I think it's certainly desirable to minimize this dependence whenever it's practical to do so.

>>43836629
I agree. You can have them flub the delivery but you can't tell the player "Your Wizard says 'HERP DERP I AM A STUPID!' and starts chewing the sleeve of their robe."

Emotional manipulation... well, one of the tenets I stick with when I GM is The Mind Is Sacred. Essentially, magic can mess with a character's emotions on a chemical, physiological level but nothing, absolutely nothing, can make a character think or believe something the player doesn't want them to. That means no memory modification and no mind control. Sure, you can cast spells that let you manipulate a person's body like a puppet, but you can't make someone WANT to do anything.

This is naturally my style of GMing and what I'm comfortable with as a player, and is by no means a recommendation for anyone else. It's mostly in reaction to a long series of bad experiences with mind-controlling PCs and antagonists that ruined whole campaigns. Seriously, nothing is more frustrating than being told "Your character now believes that [insert name here] was your best friend from childhood and you will now do literally anything they say without question, even if it's suicidal." That actually happened in a game I was in. So, yeah, I don't tell players what their characters think or do.

>>43836736
I can definitely see how abuse of outright mind control could sour you on that. Personally, I think there's a significant difference between that kind of shit and broad-strokes emotional effects like, "You're face to face with an ancient and terrible demon lord who has laid waste to countries, and it looks like he's ready to lay waste to you. Roll to see if you've got the stones to stand your ground before such a great and terrible embodiment of carnage and cruelty." Or simple siren song type things that have an attractive effect without giving the ability to give orders or the like.

Because otherwise, you end up with every single PC being Unflappable McHardass, because of course nobody's going to willingly roleplay being unnerved by an imposing enemy or enraptured by siren song. At most, they'll stage very composed and carefully-orchestrated tactical retreats when faced with an obvious mechanical disadvantage. And that's frankly just boring and kind of smacks of powerlevel bullshit.

>>43836319
So basically NWoD?

>>43836366
>detect motives rolled by GM
I like doing this, but my players universally max this skill so usually they get full disclosure.

The main problem is actually describing the analysis of the end result to the players accurately; one of them is literally autistic so trying to get across the point that someone is truthful or not (he's talking animatedly, earnestly extolling the praise of this powerful weapon he's sellinh at a high price) compared with "you can't read his poker expression".

It's easier to remove the "got it wrong" clause and just tell them if the sense motive succeeded (and if they're lying or not) or if it is unclear, or if there are hidden motives or anything.

>>43835094
>Why can an RPG writer never win when it comes to social skills?
Because people seek not solutions, but an excuse to complain and find vindication in self held opinions

>>43836498
>Stop liking what I don't like!

I always liked the compromise that the players need to explain how they try to convince an NPC, and the die roll representing how well they say it.

Why can't you roleplay combat? I.e. "I flick my wrist at the apex of the swing, carving through the beast. Blood spurts from a nicked artery, bone and hide slowing my blade only minimally."

vs

"I swing at the bear"

>>43835094
That's a really cute boy.

Also people like different things. You'll never please all of them.

>>43835094
The point is not to make rules that govern social interaction, but instead rules that FOSTER social interaction.

>>43838224
Hello, Exalted.

>>43836889
Oh sure, some effects like the Frightening Presence of dragons and enthralling powers of certain Fey creatures still exist in my game. They're rare but -terrifying- because of how strong they are. Generally speaking I keep most Save or Suck effects minimal, because they're no fun.

Personally, I think the way to get around Unflappable McHardass is to tell the player that they're doing shitty RP and need to improve. One time I ran a horror game and one of the characters was constantly acting like it was no big deal, laughing it up and cracking jokes the whole time. He kept deflating the sense of dread I was building by making puns and mocking the whole scenario. Guess which character was the primary target of most enemies. I told him that he was ruining the atmosphere and that he needed to either treat the situation appropriately or leave the table. He shaped up after that.

>>43837233
If your players max sense motive, they really should be succeeding at it quite often so that's not a huge problem. I'm not sure what advice I can give with your autistic player, good luck with that.

>>43838833
Yes and no. Having your social interaction rules designed to encourage social interaction is a good thing. It rewards players who want to talk and deal rather than just fight everything and everyone they see. At the same time you need a functional structure for those rules that's balanced and robust, and that places limitations on what you can and can't do with 'social combat'.

The main rule I go with is that both sides must state (out of character) what they want the other to do if they win, and they must both agree to the terms before rolling. If one side succeeds on the required number of checks they win, but if the other side got at least half as many successes as needed it's a compromise instead, where they meet each other halfway in favour of the victor.

>Example
A nobleman is offering the party 300 gold in total to clear out some nearby caves filled with bandits. The noble and party thief start to haggle, and they establish terms. The thief wants twice as much gold and paid expenses during the job, the noble wants to pay half as much and also swear the thief to secrecy about the job. Both agree to these terms, then they start making opposed skill checks. After several checks the thief wins, but it's a narrow victory, meaning they compromise in the thief's favour. The thief gets 500 gold and no paid expenses, and a sense that the noble isn't telling them everything they should know about this job.

>>43835094
>>43835286
The problem with this is:
>In combat, you can let a character who's not built for fighting join in and he'll still be able to do a little damage and contribute on some level.
>In social situations, if you let someone who's not built for talking join in, then they become an active hindrance to the party.

>>43839753
Being unskilled in social situations doesn't necessarily make you a hindrance. It can, sure, but a non-combat character who gets into a fight can be a hindrance as well, since the party might have to expend resources to heal them or remove negative status effects they suffered from battle.

>>43836366

>Hey, you failed this bluff check so have your character tell a really terrible lie.

You don't need to be that specific though. It should be closer to, "How did your character fuck this up?"

For the bluff check example, the failure state for a bad bluff doesn't have to be just a terrible lie. Maybe the PC told a great lie but is terrible at hiding their facial expressions. Maybe they just froze up on the spot, started telling a great lie but took longer and longer pauses. Maybe your lie was perfect but whoever you were bluffing had former knowledge that the PC was full of shit.

You can have your PCs roleplay failure without you telling them what they should say.

>>43840023
I think you're splitting hairs here. Nevertheless I agree with you.

>>43839753
One solution could be allowing other players to assist. The classic example being the fighter assisting an intimidate check by standing in the shadows with his arms crossed.

But I could also see
>heckling the party's opponent in a debate
>stirring up the crowd in advance of the cleric's speech calling for a crusade
>mingling pleasantly with other courtiers while the party face charms the king, so that when his advisers and hangers on back up the good impression.
>drag hecklers out of the crowd and quietly beat them up in a dark alley
>stir up a riot in town so that you can point to the "runaway chaos" in the realm when you meet with the high priest

I can even imagine a system where a social obstacle has a certain number of "hitpoints", and the party has to work together to cleverly whittle it down in a certain number of rounds. Perhaps a powerful character could solo the encounter with a good roll, but the safer bet is to have everyone play out an action that helps the overall goal.

>>43840023
The "fail forward" style of arbitrating rolls can also take into account circumstances out of your control.

You lied perfectly, but an inept friend blows your cover. Or the guard has been told to expect infiltrators trying to bullshit their way into the castle.

>>43839753
>>43840333
It also helps if you play a system that makes it easy to pick up a well-rounded set of skills without compromising your primary role in the party, and doesn't demand full-bore specialization in a skill to be able to use it effectively (instead basing difficulties around a moderate level of investment, with all-in building around a skill making you legendarily awesome).

Like, for instance, not D&D.

>>43840379
>Or the guard has been told to expect infiltrators trying to bullshit their way into the castle.
Someone read the evil overlord list?

Is there a "social health" system anywhere?
Closest I've seen in the few systems I know is Exalted 3e and that isn't even close.

>>43835094
>"This game sucks and replaces roleplaying with dice rolls."
anyone who says this can die in a fire

>>43844802
I'm glad you like it. Hopefully it inspires you to improve your GMing. We're all working to get better, after all.

>>43846385
In my homebrewed game (roughly D&D inspired) characters make a skill check at the start of Social Combat to determine their starting 'social hit points'. Each 'round' has both sides presenting their argument and making another skill check. The winner subtracts 1d6 + an attribute from the social hit points of all his opponents. Social combat ends when all characters on one side of an argument lose all their social hit points. Characters can invoke other relevant skills and special social-oriented abilities to gain bonuses or otherwise help out. Characters don't generally assist each other in social combat, and doing so is limited in how often it can be done and how effective it is.

Example: Albert and Brianna are arguing with Caith. Albert and Brianna believe that Caith drinks too much and wants her to go cold turkey for at least a week. Caith wants her friends to get off her back and stop bringing it up for at least a month. Both sides agree to the stakes and roll for social hit points (SHP), getting a 11, 8, and 14 respectively. For the first check Albert wins, rolls, and reduces Caith's SHP by 5, down to 9. His player describes Albert pleading with Caith about how it's ruining her life, and Caith's player reacts by seeming to be visibly shaken. Caith then wins the next round, subtracting 8 SHP from both of her friends and knocking Brianna out of the fight. Her player describes Caith telling Albert and Brianna that it's none of their damn business, and Brianna's player describes her character bursting into tears and walking away. Finally, Caith wins again, knocks Albert down to 0 SHP, and wins the battle. Her player describes how Caith calls out Albert on his hipocrisy, since he's a heavy drinker himself, and Albert's player describes his character nodding tersely and dropping the subject.

I hope that makes sense.

How do you guys handle social encounters in your games? I'd love to know what rules (if any) you use.

>>43848559
Exalted 3e has decent enough so I haven't bothered to change it.

>>43835094
I run 5e games right now, personally I just use the "assume success if they are proficient" rule in the DMG. More or less it then becomes a matter of roleplaying your character properly getting around constantly having to roll skill checks. I'd still ask for a check if their is an actual threat of failure (this happens more with Deception than anything really).

I try to encourage RP over dice as much as possible at the table, even in combat.

>>43850342
Hello.
Might I interest you in Exalted?

>>43835094
>put less salt into meal
this sucks, it's not salty enough

>put more salt into meal
this sucks, it's too salty

why can a meal never have the correct amount of salt?

>>43850380
Cut off tongue, feed it back.

>>43835094
>Why can an RPG writer never win when it comes to social skills?

Because no single game is going to satisfy everyone. Fortunately, not only is there a fairly large variety of games that offer all kinds of different mechanics, there's also the option of tweaking existing rules to fit the play-style of your own group or even making up your own roleplaying game!

>>43846641
I think that works in a mainly emotional sense. The dice rolls are about how impactful the speeches are, but not necessarily how correct they are.

So someone who 'loses' social combat may be shaken or boo'd off the stage, but can still be ultimately correct.

It has a lot of practical applications ie. stirring up a crowd or persuading people to a cause, but you might need something else for people who are already on guard and are looking for rational arguments.

>>43851858
Yeah, that sounds pretty damn nice.
So does world peace and matter/anti-matter constructors for everyone.