Depends on the system

For PF or some other garbage, of course not. With WoD, then it is worth giving a shot.

>>46170767
Just yesterday my cleric had to channel negative energy on some peasants because she failed her intimidate check (only +2 on lvl 15). 40 people died. The townguards were not too happy

>>46173835
Oh but sense motive can br really useful even woth gms that value free-form social RP, especially since we play over roll20 without video there is no way to determine if someone is lying to you if you don't know exactly what the truth us before you ask

>>46170767
Depends on the system

Generally anything that just has a single roll with a binary 'success/fail' state, I would say no, pretty much for the reasons you mentioned.

But other systems have more in-depth social systems- DresdenFilesRPG, like other Fate variants, has social interaction as essentially a mirror image of physical combat, so GMs who care about social interactions might actually USE the social system instead of freeform because it's not a boring and swingy 'single roll, pass/fail' sort of nonsense.

>>46170767
If your GM can't improv NPCs, forget it.

>>46173958
GMs who really like social interactions also balk at social combat.

>>46170767
Depends.

Does the GM think roleplaying games should involve roleplaying?

If so, social mechanics seem to replace that with rollplaying. Actually coming up with a lie beats making a Deceive check 10 times out of 10.

>>46173958
Fate and related games somehow managed to make social encounters take longer to resolve than to roleplay.

Somehow.

>>46170767
Yes. I have a player who wanted to dump Charisma for his monk, and made his character creepy and weird. But when things come to social, he always tries to take over on that aspect with roleplaying, before whining and saying "Oh come on" when I tell him to put his dice where his mouth his.

It's hilarious.

>>46170767
Legend of the Five Rings has some excellent built in systems for this. Because it's all samurai and a very strict social order being able to socialise is very, very important. Parties without a courtier (or someone who can fill in) suffer from severe lack of options whenever they are dealing with other samurai. And if you fuck up and manage to insult the local lord with a gift that you didn't know was inappropriate...well enjoy being stabbed I guess. Or sent home in disgrace.

>>46175826
L5R has literally no social combat rules outside of core.

>>46170767
>>GMs who care plenty about social interactions balk at the concept of making social rolls frequently
On what do you base this?

Ive been working a lot on figuring out a system that addresses this issue, providing mechanical impact to social stats that is neither "win/fail" or a federal issue.

Best ive come up with is to give a few stats to represent your effect on people/appearance/aura ie charm, threat, and dignity and another "defensive" stat, Resolve.

Characters passively compare their stats to get results, modified by circumstance. If a more dramatic conflict occurs, players may make rolls to damage a characters resolve, or roll to percieve ways to do so.

Anyone else toyed with the idea of new social systems? Ive read up on exalted and fate, plus a few other more obscure ones, but so far havent found anything that sits fully right with me, including my own idea really

>>46170767
It's worth investing some points in social skills, because then you can point to them if anyone asks you about it, even while you sweet-talk your way through the enemy fortress.

You don't need a lot, just enough to pass a first level thing, then the GM will remember it for later.

>>46170767
I always feel it's appropriate to have the player roll their social skill first, and then depending on the result, they can roleplay how they try to convince the guy. I've always found it a little silly that a player could put forth a compelling arguement that *should* change the other persons mind, and then because they rolled shit, the guy just goes "lol no" and the negotiations fall apart.

As long as everyone is on the same page, a shit roll can equate to a poorly thought up argument or counter point, to the above well thought out opposition. But I supposed it could become a little convoluted for the player to decide at what degrees should they add in other counterpoints in their favour. But I don't have this issue with my players, so I suppose mileage may vary with this method.

>>46170767
>>GMs who care plenty about social interactions balk at the concept of making social rolls frequently and prefer that you freeform social interactions, except for maybe a single social roll once every other session

Only shit GMs do this.

You need to have the appropriate Charisma to back up your talk, just like you need the appropriate Strength to back up your punching.
[rename stats as necessary]

You can't avoid making a Strength check by doing ten pushups.
What kind of idiot GM would allow bypassing a Charisma check by talking really well?

>>46175926
Reading comprehension. He doesn't talk about social combat but about status

Seems to me that if you are freeforming (or over-acting) the talking bits then your social skills can guide the conversation regardless of whether or not a check is made.

Like a level 10 wizard with -1 diplomacy offends every socialite within earshot every time he talks, even though he's not asking for anything he just sucks at making friends.

Meanwhile a level 2 Sorceress with +10 Bluff is actually a compulsive liar who lies even when she doesn't have to. But she's hot so everyone believes her anyway.

Diplomancy is usually non-optimal even in talk heavy campaigns (which I'm not a fan of anyway) I'll grant you that, but in terms of being non-boring it's a fuckton better than craft skills being rolled for half an hour every other session.

For experienced players with a GM that doesn't require much roleplaying (particularly regarding separation of character and player knowledge), even the knowledge skills are a waste of time unless they're a prereq for something.

So if you're a wizard that starts with 20 INT (11 Skill points per level), you've already maxed perception, ride, fly, stealth, spellcraft and UMD, the rest of your skill points are just for flavor anyway. May as well take diplomancy.

>>46176026
>I've always found it a little silly that a player could put forth a compelling arguement that *should* change the other persons mind, and then because they rolled shit, the guy just goes "lol no" and the negotiations fall apart.
Not really all that silly when you consider how much delivery and tone affect the way people respond to an argument. Very few people actually go purely by the actual content of the argument alone; if the other guy comes off as hesitant, or creepy, or otherwise untrustworthy, that will severely hamper the impact of his argument, even if the content is sound.

So you can have a great argument, but the way it comes out of the PC's mouth isn't necessarily exactly the way it came out of the player's. This can go both ways -- a player who's a great speaker OOC might give a compelling argument, but then roll poorly and IC it comes out with none of the flair and grace the player put into it, spoiling the impact. Conversely, a player who's shy and awkward OOC might give a good framework for an argument in a way that's too awkward to come across as very persuasive, but his silver-tongued character delivers it in a much smoother fashion that goes over a lot better with the NPCs.

Though, overall I do think the best approach is to give just an overall gist of the angle you're going for, and leave the details of the argument vague until after the roll. Gives enough of a hook to apply circumstantial modifiers depending on if you're hitting a point the NPC will respond well/poorly to, but makes sure the IC dialogue meshes well with the mechanical results.

>>46170767
>maybe a single social roll once every other session
Can't say I've used a lot of skills much more than this, on average.

>>46178378
Not uncommon in D&D, given how much of a hassle skills are to work with (particularly since you pretty much never have more than one PC with a decent bonus in a given skill, so it's hard to get the whole party involved) and how trivial it is to just use spells or items to handle what would otherwise be skill-based challenges.

>>46176026
Democritus rolled very badly

>>46170767
I hate it when I have to roll for diplomacy or any other social interaction but I have to roll a 19 or 20 every time or fail, even with 15 Charisma.

Fuck it, I wanna play shadowrun

>>46176095
But you need to have a way to fly before you can take the fly skill, so you can't take it at level 1 unless you have a natural fly speed.
Also wizards are 2+int mod a 20 int is a 5 mod being human +1=8 skill points a level, not sure where the extra three are coming from.

Do you niggers even have good DMs?

It's not the DM's job to outline everything your character gets to say and do.
It's his job to referee the dumb shit that players build their shit characters want to do.

If the fighter wants to fight and make fighting rolls, he should be let to fight and make those rolls.
If the bard wants to socialize and pretend to be a lawyer, he should be let to speak and make those rolls.

>>46170767
I just prepared a new character with only social skills. I call her the game breaker.
If I actually used her (which I won't), the DM would have to plan the entire adventure just to stop her from brainwashing all villains. But if she's stopped from using her tongue, then she's completely useless. Either way, it's not a character for a fun adventure.

>>46176026
Generally when a player makes a convincing point and there's no potential complications to the communication between the PC and the NPC (abysmal charisma, different cultures, different social classes or whatever) then I wouldn't ask for a die roll at all.
Just like I'll allow any barbarian with a strength score of 18+ to bash in a simple wooden door without rolling a die.
The dice are consulted when there is a reason to assume that a particular action might fail.

>>46170767
I am a frequent GM, and I do care plenty about social interactions. While I don't make players roll social rolls very often, it is mostly due to them engaging in fairly normal conversations. I call for rolls when they try to bluff, intimidate, persuade, be diplomatic, gather information, sense motive or perform.
Although intimidation, persuasion and diplomacy are used only as an added measure of credibility when PCs are interacting with social skills.

Bottom line is, social skills are worth picking them up in games where they will be of some use. D&D and the like which are often more centered around hack&slash won't be such fertile grounds for characters relying on social skills.

>>46170767
I'd rather your investments in social skills gave somewhat firm limits on how much you could influence someone. Going beyond those limits is entirely the GM's call.