Designing Social Skills

[beejazz]

Inspired by the Combat vs. Everything thread and the Charisma: The Ultimate Ability thread, I thought I'd start a discussion on ways to turn social situations into a fun minigame, as per combat and magic in most games. I'll probably do something similar going into item creation as a similarly fun minigame later.

Now, in my particular game, my goal is to take any given thing and make it fun to do and to play. If a character's going to invest in being a "face" type character, there should be different skills for different tasks, there should be an advantage for investing in those skills, and a character should be able to do better if they play better (for example, plausible lies should be easier to pull off than outrageous ones).

My thoughts are to include the following skills.

Charm: Makes friends, as per the diplomacy skill in DnD. It's a near complete ripoff of that system, with NPC attitudes ranging from hostile to helpful in five stages. It's a stunt for every step below friendly when improving an NPC's attitude (so even extraordinary diplomats have a hard time turning the hostile) and an additional stunt for every category you want to shift that NPC. Needless to say, this can get difficult. I'm not sure what circumstances would knock dice off this.

Bluff: Convinces someone that something is true when they have reason to believe otherwise. Add one die for each step below neutral to the difficulty. Also add dice if the lie is implausible. Someone who bluffs can also intentionally add dice to the difficulty in order to add dice to the difficulty of the sense motive check.

Persuade: Persuades someone to do something they might not otherwise. Add dice for each step below friendly to the difficulty. Also add dice if the NPC believes he or she might lose something unless that NPC is compensated with something of comparable value. Someone who persuades may also intentionally add dice to the difficulty in order to add dice to the difficulty of the soul check to resist.

Intimidate: Intimidate causes someone to be afraid of you. There will probably be degrees, as with NPC attitudes. It will probably also help with persuasion (while hindering bluff and charm checks). So it'll probably go from neutral to unnerved to afraid, and each step above neutral helps a persuasion check and hinders both bluffing and charm. You can add dice to the intimidate check to either move a person multiple categories or to make it more difficult to resist with a soul check.

Sense Motive: Lets you know something's up, though it won't generally tell you what.

Soul Check: In my game it's kind of like a will save.

How would you handle something like this in your favorite or homebrewed system?

[Ra-Tiel]

Whenever I read the words "social skills" and "minigame" in the same sentence, I am reminded of TES4:Oblivion and something dies inside me. While the basic idea behind that f*cking social-skills-attitude-wheel crap was good, it was just a horrible implementation. :-/ Anyways, you have to be very careful with social skills. They are not something "minor" (not that you said something like this), and deserve the same attention combat and spellcasting get.

I already see a problem with your "Charm" idea. If you base it off of d20's Diplomacy rules, it's by default highly broken. No matter how difficult you make it, or how high the DCs get, there will be a combination of spells, feats, class abilities, and items to create a character that can change even the most hostile balor into your best buddy on a rolled "2". Indeed, the very foundations of d20's diplomacy mechanics are seriously screwed up, as Rich Burlew already pointed out (although I don't necessarily agree on his fix).

The basic premise on social skills is twofold. You can follow either of these options...
#1: completely independent of player ability, similar to combat (BAB) or other skills (eg climb).
#2: based on player ability ("how well was the action described", etc).
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. While #1 is the in my opinion clearer and more logical solution, it completely negates a player's ability to influence social encounters, forcing everything under the dictum of the dice. On the other hand, option #2 undermines the point of PnP roleplaying - a player who's not good with words can never play a good bard or socially inclined rogue.

[Stargate525]

I am reminded of TES4:Oblivion and something dies inside me.

That's all the sentence needs, Ra-Tiel

[Lmns Crn]

Be careful that you consider the inverse of some of these actions (something I always thought D&D didn't really handle.)

If you can convince someone you're telling the truth when you're actually lying, you also need a way to handle convincing someone you're telling the truth when you actually are being truthful. I always had trouble with this, because I don't know if I can consider a sincere "No, really, I'm innocent!" to be a bluff (because it's not false), and there's not any other mechanic in D&D that deals with perceptions of truthfulness.

Also, if you can convince someone to be afraid of you, do you have a way to convince someone not to be afraid of you?

[Ra-Tiel]

That's all the sentence needs, Ra-Tiel

Don't get me wrong. TES4 was a good game, however that social minigame sucked. Real hard. :-/ It got quickly boring after like three times, and broke social skills as even a guy with Cha 35 and Speechcraft 10 could eventually convince every guard and every merchant.

Be careful that you consider the inverse of some of these actions (something I always thought D&D didn't really handle.)

If you can convince someone you're telling the truth when you're actually lying, you also need a way to handle convincing someone you're telling the truth when you actually are being truthful. I always had trouble with this, because I don't know if I can consider a sincere "No, really, I'm innocent!" to be a bluff (because it's not false), and there's not any other mechanic in D&D that deals with perceptions of truthfulness.

Also, if you can convince someone to be afraid of you, do you have a way to convince someone not to be afraid of you?

That's the reason (besides shamelessly plugging my Tri20 system :P ) why I would prefer skills that describe the goal and not the action, like
* Communication for all "honest" dealings with people (negotiating prices, finding out rumors, navigating a noble court, etc)
* Culture for getting along in a certain society (knowing the correct forms of addressing a noble, not making yourself look like an idiot at a banquet, etc)
* Subterfuge for all "dishonest" dealings with people (lie, feint, disguise, etc)

Of course, I "borrowed" these from BluePlanet (credit given, where credit is due ;) ).

This has the advantage that it's a broader field and more generally applicable, contrary to the d20 version of social skills. It doesn't have the problem you mentioned (I want to convince him that I'm innocent, what skill do I use? I'm not lying or feinting, so no Bluff. I'm not intimidating him, so no Intimidate. I'm not trying to make him my buddy, so no Diplomacy. ...  :?: ). With my suggestion from above it would be clear: Communication.


//Edit: I think DnD does have a mechanic for the situation LC described. But it would not be a check the player makes for his character, but rather a check the GM makes for the NPC: Sense Motive. The PC just tells him "I'm innocent". And the guard either believes it or not (makes his check or not). The DC would have to be adhoc'ed by the GM, but a base DC of 15 plus/minus the circumstancial modifiers listed under the Bluff skill should be a good starting point.

[brainface]

If you can convince someone you're telling the truth when you're actually lying, you also need a way to handle convincing someone you're telling the truth when you actually are being truthful. I always had trouble with this, because I don't know if I can consider a sincere "No, really, I'm innocent!" to be a bluff (because it's not false), and there's not any other mechanic in D&D that deals with perceptions of truthfulness.

Intimidate[/b] makes someone do something they didn't want to do (but doesn't control their belief or reaction to you)
Bluff makes someone believe something (but doesn't control their actions or their opinion of you)
Diplomacy makes someone have a higher opinion of you, but doesn't directly control their beliefs or actions

So intimidate should be useable for taunting as well as scaring someone off, bluff convinces someone something is true whether it is or not, and diplomacy makes someone generally act more friendly to you--the angry town guard will still arrest you but maybe they won't chain you or put you in the worst cell like they were going to.

[Ra-Tiel]

My take on it is this:
Intimidate makes someone do something they didn't want to do (but doesn't control their belief or reaction to you)
Bluff makes someone believe something (but doesn't control their actions or their opinion of you)
Diplomacy makes someone have a higher opinion of you, but doesn't directly control their beliefs or actions

So intimidate should be useable for taunting as well as scaring someone off, bluff convinces someone something is true whether it is or not, and diplomacy makes someone generally act more friendly to you--the angry town guard will still arrest you but maybe they won't chain you or put you in the worst cell like they were going to.

This may be the logical step to take, but alas this is not how DnD works according to the rules. :( However, I still think that a different, more goal-focused, naming convention would be a good thing.

[LordVreeg]

In my skill based sytem, we use the following Social skills(so far). Understand that the existence of these skills leads to their usage.  Every single time a PC meets someone new (or someone who does not remember them), they need to make a Social reaction CC roll.  And because the game has these skills in place, the game goes into place these skills are useful.  About 1/4 of my NPC's or Antagonists have the Skill 'Basic Social'.


Basic social, which delineates the ability to propetly comport yourself and put on the best and most compelling face in different social circumstances.  This skill is also added right onto the cocial CC roll a character makes every time they meet someone new.
It has sub skills of Social Dynamic, Friendship, Contact, Barrister, which are more fine tuned variations of the same.
Friendship has Bonding as a futher sub skill, and Barrister has International Barrister as a subskill.

Courtly Manners is a subtly different base skill, more suited just to the court and to the upper classes, with Gesture and Message as sub skills.

Basic Leader is a social skill normally picked up later in a PC's career, used primarily dealing with cronies and followers, though it can be used with other players.  Exhort and Organize are sub skills of Basic Leader.   Exhort has a cool sub-skill, Fight to Oblivion.

Basic Carnal is another basic subskill, but one that presupposes a pretty fun character.  Control and Seduction are subskills here. Normal Succubi are Level 10 Basic carnal (20%) and level 5 seduction (25%) for a +45 seduction skill.

 It might help to understand that a character with a parent or base skill gets a small amount per level, but can use that amount on any of the applicable sub skills.  So a character with Level 4 Basic Social may have a 9% ability, but it can be used for any subskills under that area, like the contact skill.  The more specific a sub skill is, the better the amount gained per level.  So if that same chaarcter has Level 4 Basic Social (9%) and level 2 Contact (10%), they actually have 9% is Social Dynamic, Friendship, and Barrister, but 19% in Contact (9%+10%).
In the World of Factions, communication skills and social graces are nearly as important as combat skills.  There are dozens of other skills under different areas that are also regularly used (Actor and sage are pretty common).
link to skills page

EDIT---
Ah, yes, Ra-Tiel reminds me.  The abve listed skills are under social.
Basic Merchant is an artisan skill, with Haggle/ Barter as a subskill and Competitive price as a subskill.  
Also, when a skill is used against another NPC or Antagonist, such as bartering, their skill is compared to yours to give an adjusted amount.

[Darkxarth]

Hm, I agree with Ra-Tiel about Charm having the same problem as D&D Diplomacy.  However, if this is in a game you're running, you should be able to control it.  And adding conditions to what the skills can and can't do (as brainface pointed out) is a good idea too.

I usually don't have too many problems (in personal experience) with the Social skills (most of my players are hack/slash).  However, a few weeks ago the party bard almost turned a violent NPC (and I thought possibly minor returning protagonist) into a Helpful ally.  She only got Friendly, but it was still enough to avert the little encounter I had planned and basically remove the NPC as a recurring antagonist.  So, while I could have said "She [the NPC] is unmoved by your words and orders her bodyguard to beat the tar out of you guys," I really didn't want to rip off the group, especially since the Bard had such a good roll.

[Ra-Tiel]

Hm, I agree with Ra-Tiel about Charm having the same problem as D&D Diplomacy.  However, if this is in a game you're running, you should be able to control it.  And adding conditions to what the skills can and can't do (as brainface pointed out) is a good idea too.

The main problem with d20 social skills is that their descriptions are too vague. The description of Bluff says little more than "you can lie", and Diplomacy little more than "you can make other people your friends". Sometimes I'm really astonished how WotC could miss some of the very basic concepts of fantasy roleplaying, like eg trying to barter with a merchant for a better price, or convince a constable you're innocent, or fasttalk your way out of a bar fight. Diplomacy is all and neither of that; while the skill's name suggests that you'd use it for that, the mechanics are almost the opposite. Just because the merchant suddenly likes you (completely ignoring his own motivations and intentions, nonetheless!) doesn't mean he'll give you a better price.

I usually don't have too many problems (in personal experience) with the Social skills (most of my players are hack/slash).  However, a few weeks ago the party bard almost turned a violent NPC (and I thought possibly minor returning protagonist) into a Helpful ally.  She only got Friendly, but it was still enough to avert the little encounter I had planned and basically remove the NPC as a recurring antagonist.  So, while I could have said "She [the NPC] is unmoved by your words and orders her bodyguard to beat the tar out of you guys," I really didn't want to rip off the group, especially since the Bard had such a good roll.

While I fully understand your position and sort of agree with your decision in that situation, it clearly shows one of the problems of d20 social skills. They are - at the same time - too vaguely described and far too powerful. For example, changing an NPC from "hostile" to "friendly" is only a DC35 check, no matter if that NPC is a hungry half-orc brigand or a seriously p*ssed off balor. Even someone who is not completely optimized can easily do that by level 3 (human bard1/warlock1/marshal1, 6 ranks, 3 cha, 3 skill focus, 2 bluff synergy, 2 know (nobility) synergy, 2 sense motive synergy, 6 invocation, 3 motivate charisma aura = 27 total).

And than, the NPC suddenly becomes your best friend, willing to risk his life for you after like 6 seconds of talking? Anyways, what does "friendly" or "helpful" mean? While for the half-orc from above it could mean that instead of killing and robbing you he shows you a secret entrance to the thieves' guild quarters, for the balor "friendly" could mean giving you a quick painless death instead of torturing you to death over the course of 5 years in neverending agony.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]The main problem with d20 social skills is that their descriptions are too vague. The description of Bluff says little more than "you can lie", and Diplomacy little more than "you can make other people your friends". Sometimes I'm really astonished how WotC could miss some of the very basic concepts of fantasy roleplaying, like eg trying to barter with a merchant for a better price, or convince a constable you're innocent, or fasttalk your way out of a bar fight[/blockquote]
Yes.  My issue as well.  I ended up with specific skills partially due to the amount of 'social gaming' my setting used/uses.  As was mentioned in the Comabt Vs. Everything thread, the crunch must match the game in that having a really complicated combat system and social skills/communication systemw ith so little thought put into them promotes a game predicated on combat as the dominant conflict resolution.

[beejazz]

Be careful that you consider the inverse of some of these actions (something I always thought D&D didn't really handle.)

If you can convince someone you're telling the truth when you're actually lying, you also need a way to handle convincing someone you're telling the truth when you actually are being truthful. I always had trouble with this, because I don't know if I can consider a sincere "No, really, I'm innocent!" to be a bluff (because it's not false), and there's not any other mechanic in D&D that deals with perceptions of truthfulness.

Also, if you can convince someone to be afraid of you, do you have a way to convince someone not to be afraid of you?
[/quote]
I was thinking that making people afraid of you made them less friendly, and the reverse. Not sure how I'd codify that.

[beejazz]

already pointed out[/url] (although I don't necessarily agree on his fix).

Seen that when I read the last thread. This is based on D20's skill mechanic, but my way of implementing it makes it hella rough to turn hostile folks, and bonus-mongering is nigh impossible in my system to begin with.

As for Burlew's suggestions, that's the general idea behind my persuasion skill.