On 9/29/2017 at 5:35 PM, whafrog said:

If that's how you're "roll-playing" a social encounter, it's no wonder you don't like it. But the social skills exist for a good reason, and they are very useful, if you don't use them like that.

A different thread on the matter:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/259603-how-do-you-run-social-encounters/

This. One of my PCs in Star Wars is a Warleader, with Presence 3 and ranks in Cool, Negotiation, Charm, and Leadership. In short, he's a pretty social guy. His player, however, is not. Mildly autistic, awkward, and nervous, and he knows it. So when the time comes for him to inspire some rebellious activity, nobody expects him to go all "St. Crispin's Day" on us. If it's a roll of less importance, sure, he can Just roll the dice, but most of the time I'll ask him for an idea of what he says. He usually gives a Cliff's Notes version of what he says, and what he's trying to convince his target to do. I give him a Boost Die for getting into it, but the Character is not the Player. A funny, charming, gregarious player at the table makes the game more fun, but his character doesn't automatically get to steal the spotlight when talking to the king.

12 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

That's just bad GMing. I don't let players who are black belts or veterans get a pass, why should sociable characters?

I play with very personable people. And after they loquaciously and articulately lay out what their character is saying, they roll like everybody else.

Hm, I don't feel like a bad GM. I don't feel like a bad player, either. Yet I fall into this specific trap. Am I the smartest guy at the table? Unlikely! So maybe I'm just bringing my own hangups into the mix here.

I may have been a little hasty in my judgment without clarification, so let me clear up my thoughts:

If there are two players, one of whom is funny, charming, articulate, and outgoing, and another who is shy and awkward, but both of whom play the same type of characters and both players like puzzle solving, and you give a benefit in social encounters to the player who is funny, you’re a bad GM.

Some examples to highlight my thinking:

• The PCs encounter a group of fungaloids who happen to be vulnerable to acid. If the PCs use acid, either because of luck or a good Monster Lore roll or because they did some research back in town, YAY! A bonus. Good job. Dynamic combat.
• The PCs encounter a group of bears, and a player (who hunts bears) who is playing a city bard says “Well, bears are territorial, so I’ll make sure I pivot so I’m not between the bear and its territory” and you give the player a bonus for this, this, in my opinion, starts to get into bad GM territory.
• The PCs encounter a queen, and her primary goal in the scene is to secure the safety of her nephew. If the PCs mention they’re bringing up the nephew, either because of luck or because of a good Connections roll or because they did some research back in town, YAY! A bonus. Good job. Dynamic social scenes. (Or maybe a penalty, if they mention the nephew in the wrong way. But the point stands.)
• The PCs encounter a ship’s captain, and his primary goal in the scene is to make a lot of profit. The articulate PC outlines the variety of factors that would benefit the captain if they give the group passage, including witty anecdotes and sound logic. If you give the PC a bonus, moreso than you would a player who says “I roll Persuade. I make sure to mention that the captain will profit off of our charter.” then again, I think that enters into bad GMing.

This is (obviously) my personal opinion. But I play with salespeople and actors, and also really awkward people who dip more than a pinky toe in the spectrum. Rewarding one type of player over another would result in disharmony at my table. So, in my experience, it’s bad GMing. But obviously, everybody has their own definition and if something works at your table, do it .

40 minutes ago, CitizenKeen said:

I may have been a little hasty in my judgment without clarification, so let me clear up my thoughts:

I do feel like your advice is solid in most situations, so no worries. I don't disagree with what you've stated, but I'd like to throw a few examples from recent games wherein I play socially adept characters, and where dice and narration went askew:

1. 400+XP charmer lays it on thick for the Hutt standing in front of him, whose casino he and his buddies just shot all to heck. Excellent narration garners boost, but the dice don't agree. I'm a former music promoter, I know how to get smoove and by golly, this was about as smoove as it could be. The dice disagreed wholeheartedly. It was a stretch to reconcile the dice with the narration. "You just kissed that Hutt's posterior exceedingly well, provided an apt example of treachery in her own ranks, complimented her exquisite taste, and well..."

2. A weak sorcerer adept in talky skills speaks to a dragon - again, great narrative but the dice disagree and he's on the receiving end of an acid blast.

So I'm left feeling that despite a great narration, well-played by all parties, can go belly up when the dice don't agree. Of course we can narrate around it, but it really goes counter to the spirit of a game in general. Did I use my personal interpersonal skills as a meta bridge for my character? If I wasn't playing a smoove talker in each instance, yes. But I am playing a smoove talker, who smoove talked, but the dice said otherwise. It's easy to see how slicing or fighting are easily shoehorned into narrative results, but this feels different for me. Or, maybe I'm just special? I don't feel like I am any more special than any of you reading this. I have a hard time believing this isn't a common problem that I can yet overcome.

1 minute ago, themensch said:

So I'm left feeling that despite a great narration, well-played by all parties, can go belly up when the dice don't agree. Of course we can narrate around it, but it really goes counter to the spirit of a game in general. Did I use my personal interpersonal skills as a meta bridge for my character? If I wasn't playing a smoove talker in each instance, yes. But I am playing a smoove talker, who smoove talked, but the dice said otherwise. It's easy to see how slicing or fighting are easily shoehorned into narrative results, but this feels different for me. Or, maybe I'm just special? I don't feel like I am any more special than any of you reading this. I have a hard time believing this isn't a common problem that I can yet overcome.

I still feel like this is no different from combat or any other 'physical' action. The player is a well-trained martial artist (smoove) and the character is a vicious gladiator (smoove), and the character does some stabbing. A smoove smoover who's smooving. But sometimes the dice say "No."

The Hutt just didn't like you. Sometimes the smoover you are, the less likable you are. Easy peasy.

Just because your character sheet says you should be good at something doesn't mean you always are. I think that's a separate issue entirely from "social vs. combat" - that's just expectations of character ability.

4 minutes ago, CitizenKeen said:

Just because your character sheet says you should be good at something doesn't mean you always are. I think that's a separate issue entirely from "social vs. combat" - that's just expectations of character ability.

No I get that, I'm just going back to my original thought that this is harder to do with social skills than it is with any other kind of challenge. Nobody's going to sit down and actually perform some sort of slicing, and heaven forbid someone try to act out their martial arts expertise at the table. But social situations? That feels different. I used to avoid social characters in hopes it would prevent this sort of meta conflict, but that didn't work either. I guess this is less about the OP topic and more about "what's wrong with that mensch guy?"

26 minutes ago, themensch said:

400+XP charmer lays it on thick for the Hutt standing in front of him, whose casino he and his buddies just shot all to heck. Excellent narration garners boost, but the dice don't agree. I'm a former music promoter, I know how to get smoove and by golly, this was about as smoove as it could be. The dice disagreed wholeheartedly. It was a stretch to reconcile the dice with the narration. "You just kissed that Hutt's posterior exceedingly well, provided an apt example of treachery in her own ranks, complimented her exquisite taste, and well..."

A poor roll doesn't necessarily mean that your character screwed up; it just means that your action failed. You might have been the best tail-kisser in all the galaxy, but the Hutt just wasn't having it right then.

2 minutes ago, rsdockery said:

A poor roll doesn't necessarily mean that your character screwed up; it just means that your action failed. You might have been the best tail-kisser in all the galaxy, but the Hutt just wasn't having it right then.

Oh, I get it. It's just that the dice didn't at all follow the narration. Truly, I was smoove. Everyone at the table had to take a breath. But a single boost die didn't save me. Sure, the Hutt wasn't having any of it, that's the easy part. Making a plausible failure is where the difficulty came into play.

49 minutes ago, themensch said:

Oh, I get it. It's just that the dice didn't at all follow the narration. Truly, I was smoove. Everyone at the table had to take a breath. But a single boost die didn't save me. Sure, the Hutt wasn't having any of it, that's the easy part. Making a plausible failure is where the difficulty came into play.

Not really. He sees through the buttering up, being a sharp minded crime lord. (Using the threat on your roll, take a setback on the next social roll against him) If you can build up a great social speech against an NPC but can't fathom why they might not fall for it, study some psychology.

2 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

If you give the PC a bonus, moreso than you would a player who says “I roll Persuade. I make sure to mention that the captain will profit off of our charter.” then again, I think that enters into bad GMing.

There a fine line here. Some people give XP awards for good role-play, or just making the table laugh. I don't do that because I have no interest in penalizing the non-thespians, so I do it with boost or setback* dice instead. If someone at the table does something to increase the enjoyment at the table, if I can weave it into the story in the form of some shift in fortune I will do so.

* Generally I favour boost dice, but not all increases in enjoyment result in a benefit. If you're sassy to a king, well, everybody enjoyed the moment, but (at least my impression is) everybody also enjoys the increased tension.

7 minutes ago, whafrog said:

There a fine line here. Some people give XP awards for good role-play, or just making the table laugh. I don't do that because I have no interest in penalizing the non-thespians, so I do it with boost or setback* dice instead. If someone at the table does something to increase the enjoyment at the table, if I can weave it into the story in the form of some shift in fortune I will do so.

* Generally I favour boost dice, but not all increases in enjoyment result in a benefit. If you're sassy to a king, well, everybody enjoyed the moment, but (at least my impression is) everybody also enjoys the increased tension.

Some GMs might be blessed with a table full of players that throw maximum effort into their role playing for zero incentive, but I'm willing to bet most aren't over burdened with that problem. I don't see how you encourage good role playing if you don't reward it. It all just settles into "I rolled a 12, you hit, I did 8 damage, next" if you don't imo.

15 minutes ago, Timerron said:

Not really. He sees through the buttering up, being a sharp minded crime lord. (Using the threat on your roll, take a setback on the next social roll against him) If you can build up a great social speech against an NPC but can't fathom why they might not fall for it, study some psychology.

I uh...so yeah. I'm not conveying my mind properly, I'll just let it pass then.

I would suggest the problem here might be putting too much into a single roll? You wouldn’t typically resolve combat in a single to-hit roll, so similarly don’t set up a single ‘social’ roll to decide an interaction.

Let the face-dood have a roll to read the mark, another to use some relevant knowledge or experience to set up a proposition that should be attractive, another roll to read the reaction to that offer and a final roll to close the deal. Split the interaction down into chunks relate to each of these skill uses.

This also has the benfit of ‘course correcting’ the interaction. When we play we use this approach and if the player gets a poor roll they will adapt their characterisation, choosing ‘less good’ options or deliberately narrating a clumsy interaction if they got a poor roll.

Most of my players are pretty good at this, so we rarely have people ‘playing up’ (i.e. trying to be more eloquent than in real life) but if this does happen then the system still helps, with the GM narrating a positive response from NPCs, providing more insight to help shape the next stage in the process etc.

1 hour ago, dbm_ said:

I would suggest the problem here might be putting too much into a single roll? You wouldn’t typically resolve combat in a single to-hit roll, so similarly don’t set up a single ‘social’ roll to decide an interaction.

Yeah, upon reflection both of my examples would have worked better as a string of rolls rather than a pass/fail, an aspect I am often fond of proposing but for some reason didn't here. Each was a major scene, and each didn't benefit from single-roll resolution. Whaddayaknow, the system works, thanks for reminding me dbm_!

4 hours ago, dbm_ said:

I would suggest the problem here might be putting too much into a single roll? You wouldn’t typically resolve combat in a single to-hit roll, so similarly don’t set up a single ‘social’ roll to decide an interaction.

Let the face-dood have a roll to read the mark, another to use some relevant knowledge or experience to set up a proposition that should be attractive, another roll to read the reaction to that offer and a final roll to close the deal. Split the interaction down into chunks relate to each of these skill uses.

This, I feel, is a key point. Far too often in RPGs the social side of things is ignored or mechanically played down in the rules, leading to participants also glossing over those aspects and resolving them simply. What the game needs is for significant NPCs in social encounters to have some mechanical description, like, say, give the NPCs one or more motivations... oh wait.

6 hours ago, dbm_ said:

I would suggest the problem here might be putting too much into a single roll? You wouldn’t typically resolve combat in a single to-hit roll, so similarly don’t set up a single ‘social’ roll to decide an interaction.

Let the face-dood have a roll to read the mark, another to use some relevant knowledge or experience to set up a proposition that should be attractive, another roll to read the reaction to that offer and a final roll to close the deal. Split the interaction down into chunks relate to each of these skill uses.

A problem that tends to crop up for me in social situations is that the moment dice get rolled the momentum of the situation changes gear and slows down. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does take people out of the narrative and back to the game. I try to have as few rolls during social encounters as possible to preserve the "theatre" of the encounter.

I agree that social encounters should be resolved similarly to other encounters by relying on game mechanics rather than the personal charisma of the players but there is a fine line between maintaining the flow of a story and grinding a social encounter into chunks between rolls.

1 hour ago, Popdart said:

I agree that social encounters should be resolved similarly to other encounters by relying on game mechanics rather than the personal charisma of the players but there is a fine line between maintaining the flow of a story and grinding a social encounter into chunks between rolls.

This is true, and is actually an issue with all sorts of encounters in RPGs. I can't tell you how many times I've seen groups loose any sort of narrative drama in combat and fall back on just the mechanical dice rolls.

Its a fine line to walk.

Very interresting debate with some brilliant posts by all of you. Great read. It is natural for a well spoken player to be able to express himself in a social envounter, compared to a Black belt expressing his physical ability before attacking someone.

With combat you most likely say what you want to do, Roll the dice and then explain the outcome.

For social encounters you can do the same. State your intentions, Roll the dice and then make your speech. It is as much a Challenge for a great role player to mess up his smooth talking. That still leaves the not so smooth talking players or players who don't enjoy expressing themselves that way. They simply don't and the dice tells the story - at least the GM should be a person who is able to express himself I think, so he can explain what's said if the player really doesn't like it.

The social skills should mean something, just like knowledge skills should not be ignored even if a player has information.

i am always the GM and have been so for 25+ years with my group of players (2 of them are childhood friends). My players love role playing games, but they do not enjoy long Inter character role playing. They do play their roles and also put their character statistics etc into their role playing. We had a couple of guest players for a while who really enjoyed monologues and having long RP chats around the table. That just didn't sit so well with the rest of us as our main focus has always been the story we tell more than expressing characters inner feelings and personalities. The story we tell together is the core of our experience and role playing are small drops that add spice. That said as a GM I do role play NPCs all the way, voices, facial expression etc. and my players would hate if I didn't.

We have played a lot of CoC in the past and we sort of bring that model into most of our games, where the story needs to be Explored and put together or figured out. Preparing our next adventure which will be Masks of Nyarlathotep an NPC popped up in the players memory - Baron Hauptmann - whom the players still remember 20 years later with fond dread. That tells us that we're doing something right, because we have many such NPCs, events and stories we will always remember. I think one of the main reasons we have played together for so long is that everyone feels at home at the table, the game mechanics are given power, so a player does not have to be well spoken to play a smooth talking journalist.

After we parted ways with the two players I mentioned before we had a chat and all agreed that we just don't enjoy playing with people who put character before story, because it made progress in the story slow and obfuscated by personal monologues often not directly related to the story. They are really nice persons, but they just weren't a fit for our table. We try to strike a balance where story is first and then expressing characters, where the game mechanics are given the power to drive both in unexpected directions. It is very much a game for us and we would not enjoy playing a game without a solid system.

5 hours ago, Gallows said:

After we parted ways with the two players I mentioned before we had a chat and all agreed that we just don't enjoy playing with people who put character before story, because it made progress in the story slow and obfuscated by personal monologues often not directly related to the story. They are really nice persons, but they just weren't a fit for our table. We try to strike a balance where story is first and then expressing characters, where the game mechanics are given the power to drive both in unexpected directions. It is very much a game for us and we would not enjoy playing a game without a solid system.

This is a great thing to realize and discuss, as it informs everyone of the expectations at the table. I know I'm the "talky" person in some of these posts but that is honestly newer to me. I should be careful to observe how this works with the rest of my groups as there might be unspoken expectations. If we're all in it to smash orcs and I instead charm them, I might be robbing the other players of their good time if I don't do it just so .

21 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Some GMs might be blessed with a table full of players that throw maximum effort into their role playing for zero incentive, but I'm willing to bet most aren't over burdened with that problem. I don't see how you encourage good role playing if you don't reward it. It all just settles into "I rolled a 12, you hit, I did 8 damage, next" if you don't imo.

If players have to be bribed into inhabiting their characters, would the issue not be that they're not really into the roleplaying side of the game so much? I've never had problems coaxing roleplay out of my players, I've had to avoid giving any special rewards for it because they'd be getting those rewards every session. And that's been the reality for 9/10 groups I've run for.

I do run all my games online (Roll20 typically, IRC back in the day) though, which might be a deciding factor. Text tends to lend itself to more roleplay oriented players.

As for removing the disconnect between the roll and the actual roleplayed dialogue, I usually just handle rolls first, then get the player to roleplay out the actual interaction the roll relates to; they can more realistically roleplay a successful or failed negotiation that way, knowing what the result is. Probably wouldn't work for all groups, though? Definitely requires a fair bit of cooperation.

8 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

If players have to be bribed into inhabiting their characters, would the issue not be that they're not really into the roleplaying side of the game so much? I've never had problems coaxing roleplay out of my players, I've had to avoid giving any special rewards for it because they'd be getting those rewards every session. And that's been the reality for 9/10 groups I've run for.

I do run all my games online (Roll20 typically, IRC back in the day) though, which might be a deciding factor. Text tends to lend itself to more roleplay oriented players.

Not bribed, rewarded. I don't penalize the player that just wants to roll the dice, but I certainly don't reward them either.

On 10/1/2017 at 9:32 PM, 2P51 said:

The real GM gets both. Allowing one gives a pass to naturally skilled players. Reducing it to just dice rolls is roll playing, not role playing. Good use for Boosts and Setbacks. Encourages people to step outside their comfort zones and try harder, or pay a consequence for not trying.

While I agree that everyone should at least try to participate and engage the game, I completely disagree that a shy or less "verbally clever" player should have to "git gud" to benefit socially. I don't make the player of a fighter swing a sword at the table or a thief go steal stuff, the dice decide. It should be the same with a social character. Nobody should be punished for being themselves, provided they're engaged.

For the clever, silver-tongued players, I give Boost dice. They should be rewarded. The inverse of inflicting Setback dice on the rolls of a shy player would be wrong. It'd be like saying a fat player can't play a lithe ninja because they're too fat.

Just now, Alderaan Crumbs said:

I don't make the player of a fighter swing a sword at the table or a thief go steal stuff, you let the dice decide. It should be the same with a social character. Nobody should be punished for being themselves, provided they're engaged.

For the clever, silver-tongued players, I give Boost dice. They should be rewarded. The inverse of inflicting Setback dice on the rolls of a shy player would be wrong. It'd be like saying a fat player can't play a lith ninja because they're too fat.

I don't inflict Setback dice for just choosing to roll the dice, never said that. I ask people what they're going to say in a social encounter. If they say something witty, clever, good, etc, I give a Boost, if they say something lame or silly I give a Setback. If they don't really point out what they say, they roll their dice pool whatever it is. I have guys that want to say dumb **** to actually get Setbacks because they like the tangible feedback on role playing a mouthy idiot.

I don't make anyone swing a sword at the table either, but in my combat example. One of my guys could've just said he was making a Brawl attack against the space ninja on top of the grav train and would've rolled his dice pool. What he said though was he was going to do a Captain Kirk flying drop kick at the guy. That was awesome, so I gave him a Boost.

Setbacks don't mean bad role play, Setbacks mean you're role playing badly. It's all role playing, which is the point.

Nevermind