Thread 96663500

How can people stand to play characters without social skills? I can understand if it's going to be a campaign set in bumfuck dungeonville where you will literally never get to speak to another human-adjacent being, but those games are fortunately a rarity these days.

A player in my group declared that he wanted to play the "face" and then later noticed that I gave my character high social skills. He started bitching very passive aggressively but we can all tell what he's actually trying to say.

So I have to ask, what the fuck? How is this considered normal? This nigga seriously expects me to just sit around and watch him talk to people? That's like 80% of the fucking game. And what if I don't agree with what he's saying? No fucking thank you. I'd very much like to speak for myself.

>>96663500 (OP)
People like that are either pricks or they are so engrained in "party role" mentality that they don't conceive of roleplaying.

>>96663500 (OP)
>we can all tell what he's actually trying to say
I can't tell what you or he are trying to say. Maybe you should just fucking say it.

>>96663500 (OP)
In my experience, a lot of it is fear or trepidation about actually roleplaying and acting out dialogue in character. The rest is people who've ended up in so many situations where social skills are useless that they gave up putting points into them, such as the dungeon traversal game style you talked about, or some GMs being absurdly stingy about when social skills apply to an interaction.

>>96663500 (OP)
D&D started as a dungeon crawler game where "social skills" almost never mattered.

Sometimes I want the social handicap that comes from being a hideous, bald, scarred son-of-a-bitch who's missing teeth and slurs his native tongue like he's been kicked in the head hard by a mule.
It just makes my character's heart of gold shine that little bit brighter when I do manage to win over some random wanker in a tavern that wants me to go slap some goblins or something.

>>96663500 (OP)
The kind of player that doesn't put some kind of social skill into their character is usually a min-maxer or someone who is overly embarrassed at their ability to socialized. But the kind of fuckwad that gets angry at OTHER players having social skills on their character are basically narcissists that want the spotlight all to themselves.

Never let yourself be caught with such a gaping weakness for your character, no matter how much someone might say otherwise. Having at least one social-oriented skill in order to not become an inept troglodyte that npcs can run circles around in the social ring is just common sense. Even the dumbest ogre or brawniest musclehead should at least have the ability to properly intimidate people into doing what they say and/or the ability to not be fooled by brazen lies or low-effort deception.

social skills are the first thing we learn as babies

you're basically not even a person without them

>>96663720
I find that even experienced players sometimes gets trapped in the mentality that rolling a skill you're not proficient in is automatically a failstate.

>>96663500 (OP)
You don't need a stat to allow you to roleplay.

Also, the other guy's complaint is that in a lot of systems a party only needs one face character and you're spending character resources to get into a niche that he's already filled. Whether or not that's an actual problem depends on the context but you sound like a cunt so I'm taking his side on this.

>>96664285
>in a lot of systems a party only needs one face character
And as mentioned in the OP, this is a completely retarded premise that gets parroted constantly and doesn't actually make any sense.

>>96664371
DESU, I get it. Not many people enjoy social combat in game form. Roleplaying their banter or openly expressing their thoughts, very different story, a lot of people love to freeform that shit. But social combat is generally less fun in games that only do the bare minimum with it since since unlike a lot of other actions, social actions have multiple ways to enter a fail state. A lot of DMs not only ask for both the right rolled number, they also want the right intent when it comes to what words will or won't work. This can lead to situations where someone makes an incredible speech to convince the guard to let them go through, but the dice determine that it just didn't work. Or to the opposite, where someone rolls ridiculously well in their ability to lie to the guard, but they get stumped on what to say to reflect their success, sometimes to the point of going "But I got a nat 20, isn't that enough?" to avoid fucking up.

That's where it usually ends up with the party effectively dumping all the social combat onto one "face" for everything, instead of everyone having at least some degree of social expertise to make sure everyone can contribute such as the wealthy aristocrat adventurer taking charge of talking to nobility or the criminals chatting up their fellow scumbags. It's easier that way for the rest of the party, far less likely to hit a mechanical failure to let the guy specialized for it handle the heavy lifting, and usually the "face" is the one who enjoys the role of being the party spokesman anyways.

So what happens when characters who didn't specialize in "basic social skills" (lol) have to interact with people?

>>96664480
Why are heroes lying to guards?

>>96664480
What is a party spokesman?

>>96664560
Cause the guards are working for the ninja clan that kidnapped the president's daughter.

>>96664566
Usually what "The Face" tends to be in actual play, picking the one guy who is least likely to mechanically fuck up to speak on their behalf and represent their collective interests. Like if they're negotiating a business deal with a client, or have to convince a stubborn self-interested noble that it's in their best interests to work with the PCs.

>>96664480
>A lot of DMs not only ask for both the right rolled number, they also want the right intent
This shit pisses me off, imho the answer should be easy here. This is what I do as DM (d&d 5e):
>player needs to know what they want from the NPC, and decide what tactic they think is the best to do that (flattery, intimidation, logic, etc)
>(OPTIONAL) the player speaks in-character
>they then roll the appropriate stat
>success is determined by the two non-optional points above
>if they spoke in character, it can help guide me in the response (if they use certain keywords, namedrop, ask for specific details, etc) but does not affect whether the outcome is positive or negative unless they say something obviously stupid

This is the best way because it follows the pattern of every other skill type. Consider getting through a door:
>"I want to get through the door (goal). I will try to pry open the lock (tactic)."
>(OPTIONAL) "I jimmy the lock using my dragonbone lockpick, cursing under my breath."
>Roll

It's always nice when a player can add flavor, describe with more detail, etc their actions. Them cursing under their breath informs the character, the world, etc but doesn't have a mechanical purpose. So too with diplomacy. "I want to convince the guard to let me through by being nice" is all I need, I don't need the specific words, just like how I don't need you as a player to know how to actually pick locks.

Now, you might say "This takes roleplaying out of it" but I disagree. To me, roleplaying is not speaking in funny voices - it is making decisions on behalf of a character, based on that character's personality and knowledge and traits, etc. You still need to decide if your character is choosing to be nice, a kiss-ass, guilt-tripping, arrogant, haughty, meek, logical, etc. And your decisions do matter, because what the NPCs do in response will differ based on your goal and tactics - regardless of your roll. No theater acting required.

>>96664582
Why is the party doing everything together? What happens if two different players want to make separate, independent deals with different organizations?

>>96664602
Yes, you need to decide what your character actually says.

>>96664371
The retarded part is the fact that OP believes he has to just sit there like a bump on a log unless he has "talky man" written on his character sheet.

>>96664285
>you sound like a cunt so I'm taking his side on this.
An objectively correct stance. You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir.

>>96664602
Personally, my preference is to just ask the players to do social combat rolls mainly if they're trying to make characters act against their normal interests, such as if they're already hostile to the party or guarding a secret, and just say whatever they want for anything lesser. I find it a waste of time for them to need to roll to say convince a regular kid or some hobo to tell them what direction they saw someone they're trying to tail went.

>>96664607
Then they're kind of at an impasse until they work it out or make their choices seperately. That's the downside to having only one 'Face' to foist everything onto.

>>96664620
if no one's going to take anything your character says seriously then yes you might as well shut the fuck up

>>96663500 (OP)
>fortunately

>>96664285
>Also, the other guy's complaint is that in a lot of systems a party only needs one face character and you're spending character resources to get into a niche that he's already filled.
>playing a game system where its impossible for characters to have overlapping non-combat skills that actually makes sense in the context of the game
>thinks this is the norm everywhere
D&D retards are so stupid and delusional its unreal.
>>96664620
Then why do you have problems with OP investing in social skills?

>>96664285
>>96664646
Upvoted!

Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind sir.

>>96664689
Yes. Dungeon crawlers are complete ass. Video games do it better.

>>96664285
>in a lot of systems a party only needs one face character
in a lot of bad systems with bad GMs
PCs with different backgrounds having more favor with different NPCs is a perfect way to justify not having a single fag hog all the spot light

>>96664371
It makes perfect sense, you're just too obtuse to get it.
You don't need skill rolls just to chat and roleplay, you only need them to convince NPCs. And the party SHOULD literally agree on everything as they're intended to work as a single, efficient unit. If they ever make competing rolls against each other somebody's getting kicked out of the group.

>>96664944
>you don't need to learn how to talk, just have mommy speak for you

>>96664848
u r gay and u glow

>>96664873
If you're concerned with "spotlight" you're a bad actor, in both senses of the word. The NPCs don't normally interact with party members individually anyway, they interact with the entire party as a whole so it makes perfect sense to simply have one minmaxed talker handle all of it. Only situation where you'd need individual social skills is if you're splitting the party (bad idea) or outright having in-party conflicts (even worse idea).

>>96664607
>Why is the party doing everything together
because dividing the party sucks

>>96664654
>I find it a waste of time for them to need to roll to say convince a regular kid or some hobo to tell them what direction they saw someone they're trying to tail went.
Well yeah, just like I dont ask for a roll to search a corpse's pockets, light a torch, etc. Some things are free because there's no reason the kid wouldn't point the nice heroes in the direction of the scary badguy.

>player makes min maxxed combat machine with crap social skills
>gets upset whenever people dont take his sperg character seriously

Social skills in tabletop have always been extremely gay. We roll for combat because we aren't physically fighting. We roll for lockpicking because we aren't physically picking a lock. We don't have to roll for talking because everyone at the table can talk. We don't need to simulate bluffing, just fucking bluff the guard. We don't need to simulate bartering, propose a deal with the merchant. Talking is just about the only thing at the table we don't have to simulate, putting a skill and rolling a dice to say how well you lie without actually telling the GM how you lie is just about the gayest fucking thing in this whole hobby

>>96665381
Doesn't change the fact that they're there, which automatically makes you stupid if you don't max them out.

>>96663500 (OP)
>So I have to ask, what the fuck? How is this considered normal? This nigga seriously expects me to just sit around and watch him talk to people? That's like 80% of the fucking game. And what if I don't agree with what he's saying? No fucking thank you. I'd very much like to speak for myself.

While we're talking about social skills, have you tried talking to him?

>>96665331
I have a player currently who made a character focused on schmoozing, and he is very bad at roleplaying this so he becomes the butt of several jokes. Instead of being a sperg about it he takes it with humour and it's fun to have him step in the salad. Almost every issue people face in RPGs, as well as life, can be solved by not being a cunt.

>>96665381
Playing a homebrew Traveller game, and we have no skill for lying or deceiving. I make them make a verbal explanation of their approach and roll an appropriate skill (Explosives for a lie about explosives for example). This works well when the bluff is in dispute and could go either way, but surprisingly it has made them very averse to lying to people because as it turns out my players aren't very good liars in real life. You win some you lose some.

>>96665381
>We don't have to roll for talking because everyone at the table can talk.
You aren't literally your character, retard.

>>96665437
>Almost every issue people face in RPGs, as well as life, can be solved by not being a cunt.
except everyone who gets ahead in life acts like a cunt, but you're probably a woman so you conflate charisma with actual good will.

>>96664826
>Then why do you have problems
OP is the one who says he has a problem, and my point is that it's self-inflicted and he can solve it by not creating the problem in the first place. If he prefers to step on other players' toes and then complain to /tg/ about it, that's on him.

>>96665437
>he is very bad at roleplaying this so he becomes the butt of several jokes.
Yeah its always important to remember that the PC is basically playing a game of telephone with the player, social stats are just how well they convey the ideas the player had.

>>96664660
How do you figure?

>>96664944
What's the point of multiple characters if the party is effectively a single character that gets multiple actions?

Why invite more than one player if players aren't allowed to set their own goals or act independently?

>>96666043
Agreed, I find going too hard one way or another is worse than just staying comfortably in the middle.

>>96664964
What are you talking about? Of course they interact individually.

>>96665224
How does your character have a family or friends or hold a job?

>>96665381
There are systems where your characters can have capabilities beyond that of any human, and that includes social capabilities. Of course you should roll.

>>96664285
The problem is you and that retard treat roleplaying games like video games at worst, wargames at best.
Not everyone wants to play as your silent mercenary backup while you go out and make all the decisions and have all the conversations.
That's fucking ridiculous and you're a selfish, autistic freak for not being able to understand why people don't like that.

>>96664602
There's a difference between doing a theater voice and being able to comprehend and explain what your character says.
It doesn't take an expert to string together a sentence, you people always compare SPEAKING to having advanced knowledge of fencing, or lockpicking, or physical sciences, or whatever, but come the fuck on dude. It is NOT very much to ask that you know what your character is actually saying.
>"The guard spots you. What do you do?"
>"I trick him!"
>"How?"
>"OH MY GOD, WHY WOULD YOU ASK ME THAT, THAT'S NOT MY JOB. JUST LET ME ROLL DECEPTION."
That's fucking retarded. It just is. I accept that it's possible to play like that and get to the end of a game, but why you would want to execute this hobby in an objectively shitty way boggles my mind. Okay, you can play like that. However, playing like that sucks and is retarded.

>>96666238
No, it should be possible to create a character that's better than you at deceiving people. Your position is wrong.

>>96666253
You're fair to have that position, but leaving that kind of thing solely to the DM to decide only allows them to fuck you over harder in the end by your own volition.

>"The guard spots you. What do you do?"
>"I trick him!"
>"How?"
>"I dunno, you tell me, it's not my job to think up this shit"
>"...The sound of wind passing and a strong smell of fecal matter fill the air. Your character screams how he pooed his pants and needs the bathroom. You trick the guards, who tell you to go down the corridor to the bathroom on your left, looking at you with pure disgust the whole time."
>"That's not what I wanted to do!"
>"You're the one who told me to tell you what you did to trick the guard. You have a better plan, you tell me."

>>96666306
Obviously, you don't leave it to the DM. That's why you have rules, and dice.

>>96666322
No ruleset I know of tells the DM how to decide how a successful outcome should look in exacting words beyond "it works".

>>96666332
Is your total lack of taste and experience supposed to be my problem or something?

>>96666356
Nah, your lack of actual experience playing roleplaying games is definitely not my problem, anon

>>96666364
Your lack of experience, rather. You lose.

>>96666382
I'm sorry you shat your pants when your DM asked you what your character decided to do, anon.

You lose.

>>96666440
Didn't roll for it, lol

>>96663791
D&D started as a worldsim but the players were wargamers and were more interested in dungeoncrawling than anything

You lose.

>>96666322
>>96666356
>>96666382
You were absolutely destroyed in that argument, and you have no leg to stand on beyond just petulantly whining about it.

>>96666253
There is a breaking point where you need to be able to describe what your character is trying to do. Otherwise, someone could simply say, in every single dialogue, "I convince the character to do whatever would be most beneficial to me while not costing me anything. I do not have to decide what that is, my character would know that." This doesn't sound very fun for anyone involved.

>>96663500 (OP)
>>96663720
>>96663791
Social skills are just as important inside the dungeon as outside, unless all the encounters you run into are mindless things like zombies or oozes.

>>96666178
What exactly do you think "You don't need a stat to allow you to roleplay" means?

You lose.

>>96663500 (OP)
I had this exact experience in Shadowrun. They really love their role sanctity over there.

>>96663500 (OP)
you should tell him not bitch on the forums like a little bitch guy.

>>96663791
The idea of social skills came after it was just a co-op wargame, and allow you to do more than just fight. I don't hate it and think it can be fun and useful however theater kids find out and try to make that the thing over the combat.

>>96663500 (OP)
I'd just let everybody be the face during different sessions. Just give that specific player a goal that caters to their skill set. After everyone gets a go at it, it's all communal from then on. It actually helps people get to know each other, inside the game and out.
>Communal
>Face sessions
>Communal
ezpz

>>96666238
I'm >>96664602
I use that process because I have a player at the table who completely freezes up when asked to speak in character. I have no idea why. She's otherwise a perfectly fine player, despite starting the hobby as a complete and utter normie (like one step below instathot). She was a friend of another player, somehow he convinced her to play it and she took to it surprisingly well... except that she freezes up when asked to speak in character.
Everyone else speaks in character at the table, just her. If I forced her to speak in character she'd probably just stop playing. I'd prefer the slightly less "immersive" approach if it keeps my table together.
She's actually the second player I've had with this problem, too. I had a wallflower type who loved strategizing but back when we required speaking in character, he would just never speak.

>>96669297
I personally just leave it to players to decide who will do the talking based on their character backgrounds. Like in an L5R investigation game I was running, when they went to the slums they had the Dragon monks talking to most of the peasantry since their social positions made the peasants more at ease, and the Phoenix shugenja who had a notable weakness for girls insisted on interviewing the women at a renowned okiya personally. People get a lot more invested when they feel it's "their time to shine" outside of just rolling dice to beat higher social numbers for social combat.

>>96663791
>Find another group of adventurers in the Dungeon
>They want to negociate who gets to explore and loot what part

>>96670339
I play Cyberpunk and the 3 players have widely different outfits. I make it a rule that business types assumes the guy in a suit is in charge, punks look at the guy in leathers, and so on.

character skill > player skill last post

>>96670827
Nah. As a GM, I'm not a mind-reader. I don't need players to drop a five minute speech on the spot every time, just like I don't need the exact angle of how someone swings their sword at the monster, but you can at least tell me the goddamn intent of what you're trying to do. Cause you don't want to leave that shit in my hand, I always monkey paw that shit to make people act like total buffons in their success if I have nothing to go on.

nah you lose

>>96666382
>>96666440
>>96666658
>>96667545
>>96671744
There's no way one anon is this butthurt, right?

>>96672684
Considering he's given up on actually giving a refutation in favor of spamming, it's pretty clear he's butthurt

>>96672684
>>96672779
Got some kind handicapped weirdo these days who just tries to pick fights then spams. It's a good teaching example for the ancient truth that you do not feed the trolls.

>>96664607
>What happens if two different players want to make separate, independent deals with different organizations?
Compromise. It's a party-based game, most of them don't work if the party isn't willing to cooperate.

You can usually tell if a system can support party splits or not based on whether investing in combat abilities comes at direct cost to non-combat ones.

>>96672880
Find a compromise between my cock and balls. I'm doing what I want whether you like it or not.

>>96666145
Because TTRPGs are generally for having fun "as a group". That's fundamentally part of the social contract required to get the game running.

That means compromises. The kind of compromises can vary based on the party members and GM, but you can't get around without them. The party can have different motivations and incentives for acting as part of the group, but the group as a whole needs to be able to pursue the same goal or reasonably coordinate party splits. Whether it's because they're forced together by circumstances, because they like each other, because the GM tied all their backstories together, it doesn't really matter.

>>96672906
No anon, you ain't doing fucking shit because you're either nogames or you're about to be. Nobody likes shitheads that wander off to do their own thing without the party, they don't last in any group.

>>96672936
I'm the one playing and you bet your ass I'm making the most of my 4 hours per week. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself.

Or maybe next time make a character who isn't a helpless feebleminded retard with an attack button.

>>96672967
>I'm the one playing
Solo games? Ya go ahead, only way you're getting games at all.

>>96672880
What do you mean? I didn't say they shouldn't cooperate, I said they should be able to act independently if they want to, since they're separate individuals.

>>96672936
As a group doesn't mean you're playing four parts of one body. Each character has his own life and his own obligations.

>>96673004
Generally, if I'm playing, and I don't see any way to contribute or be affected by anything anyone is doing in a beneficial way, I don't see it as a win to play with that group. It's best to keep in mind that these games are meant to be a collaborative experience, not players taking turns playing a 2 player game with the DM.

>>96663500 (OP)
>Tldr: Why don't people play like I like?
They don't have to.

>>96672684
I've come across either this guy, or someone similar on /tg/ a few times. It's hard to estimate how many people on /tg/ just genuinely act similarly, or if there's just one dedicated autist who's always at it again in every new thread.
He picks pointless autism fights, has a bad attitude, loses arguments, and then has a mental breakdown. I wouldn't even say his opinions are always shit, but he's the kind of person who just adopts opinions from nerd forum consensus and can't really back himself up if he gets pressed, which he does get pressed because he's an asshole with a confrontational attitude. Some people just get married to what they're supposed to say and believe, and if you disagree with them they get angry, but they completely flounder in their counter-arguments because they're too dumb to understand *why* they think what they do, just that they're supposed to think that based on some half-remembered post they read years ago.
I actually kind of like talking to him, because normally when I win an argument with someone I don't get to literally see them vanquished into a mind-broken retard. I'd always secretly hoped that whenever I win an argument on /tg/ the other guy gets brain-blasted into a cowering wreck just kind of weakly spamming, but in this case it's actually visible.

>>96673326
Moron.

>>96673605
Sorry you lost the argument and have bad taste and wrong preferences RETARD

>>96674365
Yep, you got owned :)

>>96672997
While I personally agree with you, I can see why some groups would go the opposite track if they're generally just trying to get through the current adventure. Side tangents and separate goals compete with the GM's attention a lot, and it can get irritating having to basically have your ability to play put on hold just so the game can deal with one half of the table's stuff. Though it does lead to a number of tables going too extreme and demanding a group think mentality so that their own playtime isn't impacted.

>>96674332
Why do you think so?

>>96663791
And there's a reason everyone moved on from that.

>>96663500 (OP)
I’m playing a fat autistic wizard on a quest to obtain an elven waifu. It’s refreshing to play something different from yourself every once in a while.

>>96666163
His family is back home, his job is being an adventurer and his party members are his only friends

being a combatslopper is just so pointless

two of you will always kill you

>>96683516
Two characters that are equally as intelligent and have as many resources as one of you will also likely be able to outpersuade you.

>>96684989
people who are built to get along with others will more than likely get along with each other

>>96663500 (OP)
>a game where social skills are a stat
>someone appoints themselves a face
Have you tried, and I know this sounds radical, have you tried not playing D&D?

Hear me out, lots of games don’t have a point value for social interactions at all because that’s, as you said, 80% of the game, and shouldn’t be relegated to rolling dice.

Also, there are games with social stats that actually have a framework for contested social interactions so it’s very truly a choice of role to invest in these or not. None of these games are a current edition of the world’s most popular pile of hot garbage.

>>96685027
Sure, if you believe "get along" in the way two socially-savvy vampires in VTM, one Anarch and one Camarilla, are able to "get along" by not directly fighting each other and instead manipulating other people into doing it for them. No idea why you would assume that someone who is charismatic can't also have enemies or goals that necessitate hurting others.

>>96685610
never said any of that retard

>>96685628
You're right. You basically just implied that for some reason, characters who are socially skilled will automatically get along, and I provided an example of why that isn't the case. In the future, you might be able to explain your own ideas better by using an example too.

>lots of games don’t have a point value for social interactions at all because that [...] shouldn’t be relegated to rolling dice
For example, OD&D and 1e, aka the only ones that should count (adding in a skill system was a mistake)

>>96690167
meant for
>>96685055

>>96673605
I get what you mean, It's like winning Yugioh in the anime, but in real life.
You see his argument points hit zero and go "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!" as his colors invert and he shatters into a million pieces.

>>96663500 (OP)
Killing people is fun. Talking to them is not.

>>96663500 (OP)
>A player in my group declared that he wanted to play the "face" and then later noticed that I gave my character high social skills.
How about you grow some social skills in real life and fucking communicate with your fellow players, you fucking cunt.

>>96664873
Or you could be good at different things, like a normal party.

>>96667473
> Social skills are just as important inside the dungeon as outside

Can you give me an example of that? I can't think of any scenario in which social skills matter in a dungeon

>>96703758
>Troll wants to eat you but is dimwitted enough to hear your rationalisations for why it should leave you alone
>Dragon is too lazy to kill you, but will protect is treasure, and as a compromise will consider letting you leave with some minor valuables if it means it doesn't have to get up
>Golem is set to destroy the party, but its parameters are up for discussion
>Djinn does djinn shit lamp bastard
>Goblins want to wipe out xvarts, maybe you can help
>An ancient guardian spirit of the loot room needs you to answer me these riddles three
>Spirit of dead cleric wont tell you where bombs are located unless you can convince him that he was a good cleric who died well and must now go to the afterlife
I mean I basically just stole all of these from Baldur's Gate 2 so maybe I'm cheating but still

>>96703758
Coming across a competing adventuring party raiding the same dungeon you are, and convincing them to either leave or join forces with you rather than just kill you and take your stuff, for one

>>96663500 (OP)
>high social skills
Just like high int and wis scores, this is just one thing you have to be able to actually roleplay, you can't let your supposed scores do the walking if you can't do the talking

>>96703813
>>96703845

I have yet to see any situation of that kind come up in any sort of game. Not once have I seen any of that happen and I'm pretty sure no one else has. Those are all great ideas though, just incredible rare. Hell, you may end up not using social skills ability scores like in B/X and simply have the player talk instead of having the character sheet do it for you.

>>96703758
A megadungeon where there are a variety of different groups of inhabitants who are all initially hostile to the party as outsiders, but some of which can be convinced to be tolerant of them through diplomacy. This would allow the team to have an easier time and potentially get some benefits depending on the strengths of who they've allied themselves with.

>>96703955
>Not once have I seen any of that happen and I'm pretty sure no one else has.
Just cause you've never experienced it personally doesn't mean it never happens, anon.

>>96704115

Did it ever happen at your table? Most people don't even delve in dungeons anymore, old school folks are the only ones who still do, and they're not into social interactions and roleplaying in general.

>>96704233
Adventuring party, no. Changing someone's mind in a dungeon setting, yes actually. It was a session where the antagonist was essentially a mercenary hired by the overarching villain of the campaign, ambushing them when they tried to exit said dungeon to bring their heads back for a reward. Rather than choosing to fight him, they leveraged some of the loot gathered from the dungeon to effectively "buy" his contract to convince him to leave them alone as well as spill the beans on just who hired him. And they only came up with that plan once they sussed out the mercenary was only there for a payday, not a fight to the death, and properly paired their bribe with a convincing argument that whatever he got from turning in their heads and selling their gear would be worth less than whatever they could pay him right now.

>>96703955
>not using social skills ability scores like in B/X
Older editions of D&D explicitly had Reaction Adjustment as a factor of Charisma score to see how likely it was for monsters to be neutral or willing to talk compared to immediately hostile.

You must play with some incredibly boring people if you've never even met a djinn or had to talk your way past some magical guardian.

>>96704499
No one used that slop.

>>96663500 (OP)
What if I told you that I generally don't like talking to people?

I let talkfags handle all that, I'm here for the problem-solving.
Ya'll jabber, I'll be busy over here poking things to see what they do and devising the rube goldberg nonsense that's going to pull off something improbable and save the day.

>>96703955
You might just be playing at mediocre tables. I have done several types of these gags and I've been in games where others have, and dnd modules from before 4e often have a "pick your side" element to them. Hell, it's common enough to be a cliche almost.
>>96704233
Oh, yeah, I'm old, and play with fellow olds. But you gotta rethink what you're saying, we don't roleplay but also we roleplay out dungeon politics? Can't both be true. I suggest abandoning DND and only returning to it if you're ready to play ADND\OSR, in the meantime enjoy other classic games like Traveller, CoC, and Cyberpunk. You can have it both ways, you can have your high-acting social interaction roleplay, and also emulate old school games, you're blessed in that way.

Are they really required in D&D?

>>96663500 (OP)
You are courting death

>>96690351
you lost the argument :)

>>96703955
I've never been to Australia, therefore Australia doesn't exist

>>96704233
How would you know?

>>96704976
Talking to people is problem solving. It's not a matter of preference, you're just not actually good at solving problems.

>>96704519
Why do you think so?

>>96664689
imagine a game where you can do literally anything and you still try as hard as possible to turn it back into stale video game shit

>>96664867
>>96710382

There's nothing wrong with dungeoneering.

>>96663500 (OP)
Because social skills are fucking worthless. There are no magic words that work on everyone.

The strength of your social influence comes from factors like your reputation, your inherent value, and the immediate circumstances surrounding your request or demand. By putting your character resources into something that contributes absolutely nothing of value you are making yourself socially undesireable.

>>96712747
>Because social skills are fucking worthless. There are no magic words that work on everyone.
...He says while posting an image of a character from a kung fu puppet show who is known for his memetic capacity to effortlessly manipulate the fuck out of people who know and want him dead for being a conniving rat bastard manipulator that ruins people's lives for the sheer fun of it, using nothing but his words and ability to pingpong their wrath towards other people.

It's fun once in a while to play a charismatic likable character. But it's not required for every character you play to be a sociable "people-person".

>>96712791
>>96712791
>using nothing but his words
...and perfect animal handling, disguises, crafting, alchemy, infinite money, a reputation for being the greatest thief, literal magic, the greatest martial arts on the planet...

>>96712805
Honestly, most of his actual attempts at manipulation are done by either shoving moral people into really shitty situations that means they have no choice but to listen to him to get out of, or the equivalent of asking the people who want him dead "Would you like to shoot me now, or wait till you get home?", and then letting them all fight over who gets first dibs on killing him. The other tricks are just to keep people from actually succeeding at trying to kill him, since everyone that spends five seconds with the guy is fully aware he's not to be trusted but still allows themselves to get screwed over either out of pride or desperation.

>>96712829
Yes, as I said, social influence is about rigging the situation in your favor, not saying magic words.

>>96712747
>There are no magic words that work on everyone.
But if there were, then you'd be stupid not to maximize your ability to use them.

And in tabletop games, that's exactly what those skills are.

>>96704233
Plenty, really. Heck, the module I'm running right now has several instances of potentially talking enemies out of a fight, intimidating foes into giving up early, bribing/distracting a warlord into pretending he didn't see you, and even talking a major antagonist into switching sides by making the argument her boss has lost his fucking marbles.

All optional of course, but my players have taken several of those chances already with no intentional prompting on my part.

>>96713432
You didn’t say that though
Unless that’s an example of using magic words to convince someone

>>96713432
Words are part of rigging the situation, though. Basically no other character in the series has the social savvy to attempt what he's doing even if they did have all his resources.

>>96714289
>The strength of your social influence comes from factors like your reputation, your inherent value, and the immediate circumstances surrounding your request or demand
Anything else, retard?

>>96714298
>blows hallucinogenic magic smoke into a guy's face to force him to fight someone else
Yup, classic Diplomancer stuff.

>>96663500 (OP)
I think, as someone who had to really work at becoming less socially retarded over time, that it's great fun to play someone with lower social skills as long as you don't make it fucking obnoxious, and play it as an actual flaw to struggle with and hopefully overcome.
There are lots of ways to have low CHA/shitty social skills - I once played a druid who had bonkers WIS, but not great CHA, so I decided "this character is really bad with words, but has the right idea, and just can't communicate well".

Now if we're talking just projecting your sperg-self into the character and having low social skills as a player, you're fucked. cooked. chopped.

What happened in your situation sounds like an insecure player who may be inexperienced and wants to live the fantasy of being less awkward and socially stunted, and lacking much experience in the matter, wants to let numbers carry him.
If you have the same or higher tier of social stats, he feels redundant, and like his function is straight up gone - lots of players live by the notion that it's cool to play a party where each person has a different specialty that complements and completes the others, rather than everyone being the same vague mix of "generally okay at the same things".

Of course it depends on the game if diplomacy is ever viable (I've had sweaty OSRtists tell me if you're not dungeon crawling you're doing it wrong), but in the case it's not a complete wash, someone is probably going to be better at it than others. Ideally, given this is a fucking team game, you should have a roughly unified idea of what you want to achieve and how to achieve it, and everyone can contribute - and high social stats don't mean you HAVE to take the spotlight at every opportunity - I'm playing a character with absolute god social stats at the moment, but I'll gladly let the fighter with a donut for charisma do the talking too.

Character limit is coming up, but in the case this isn't ragebait, I hope it was helpful, k

>>96714312
Thanks for confirming you never said that shit

>>96715462
nobody ITT being able to convince him is proof that he's correct

>>96715499
Because talking to someone with a charisma score of 0 is pointless

>>96715499
Any tips for convincing myself this is true?

>>96715499
I mean folks where's the lie?

>>96715499
I've always held that an intelligence malus should raise the DC on Persuasion checks because there's no convincing an idiot.

>>96715508
>>96716780
>>96721684
If you can't prove him wrong then by your own logic you're the one with 0 charisma.

>>96664615
Your voices are VERY funny anon but no they arent necessary

>>96664964
>Only situation where you'd need individual social skills
All of the NPCs in my world are racist to one degree or another. They also trend towards being obtuse assholes more interested in delivering a punchline than useful information. Your party's minmaxed "face" WILL run into someone important who hates his guts and trolls him solely because of something he picked at chargen.

>>96690351
I can hear it LMAO

>>96721701
Thing is that not only is he treating variables as factors, unreliable ones at that, that’s just not how social skills work in tabletop games. It is a combination of what you say paired with how well you can articulate it, aka the intent paired with the appropriate stat. You could be the most charismatic fucker on the planet, you aren’t going to convince someone by just being pretty looking if what you say involves calling their mother a whore repeatedly. By his logic, Charisma should be treated more like a dbz powerup where you just flare up your Charisma aura and instantly win people over, no words ever exchanged.

>>96703955
I only run the very first dungeon with no gimmicks. Every single dungeon after has a gimmick somewhere once players know how exploring the dungeon works.

>>96721888
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>96721903
TL;DR "Proving him wrong" is pointless since not only is his logic is shit and worthless, that's not how social skills work in rpgs anyways.

>>96721701
What is "my own logic"? I feel like you're assuming I hold a view that I never expressed.

>>96722868
I don't think you even read the original post in this reply chain.

>>96663791
Only if you're too stupid to use social skills to get yourself a bunch of henchmen.

>>96663500 (OP)
I like fumbling social rolls, because it provides funnier roleplay opportunities, and more fights.

My characters are always roleplayed as being socially unaware and conventionally uncouth; it's how I connect emotionally to them.

It reflects my life experiences; I go in with good intentions, say something stupid, and a fight breaks out, I shrug, and try to enjoy the fight.

I'm not really a good roleplayer; I mostly just roleplay as myself.

>>96663500 (OP)
In every man vs society story man always loses.

>>96663500 (OP)
>How can people stand to play characters without social skills?
It can be fun.
I like playing deeply flawed characters, some have no social skills, some cannot engage in a fight and thus need trickery, etc.
And depending on your teammates and their creativity, you can have really fun moments.

>>96663791
Mostly because it didn't have a skill system.
Charisma mattered for the amount of henchmen you could reliably have around and improved your reaction rolls.

>Intimidation
Combat but better (because you don't have to fight)
>Deception
Stealth but better
>Persuasion
Animal handling but for people

>>96663500 (OP)
I rp as people without social skills who become the face of the party. I can flawlessly do macho man's voice. I go expertise into athletics, and intimidation proficiency(my cha is actually pretty high). I just force people to watch my retard sprint -slow motion with the Chicago bulls' theme song in the bg- at a child who looked at him the wrong way, beating the DM's natural 20 roll for the kid to escape. There's a hag somewhere and this kid somehow knows it(he doesn't)

>>96738279
Intimidation is absurdly overpowered in WFRP 4e. You just scream at people and they take massive penalties and have to run away from you. It also powers you up and is AoE.

>>96712747
>>96712805
I can actually kind of see it.

But on the other hand, it could be easily said that your worth as a human being comes down to the people you konw. So how exactly are you supposed to make sprawling friendships when you can't even roll a single persuasion check?

>>96743611
It's not one or the other, is the thing. It's true that there's no perfect combination of words that will brainwash someone into doing whatever you want. But there's also no form of reputation or intrinsic status that makes everything that comes out of your mouth turn to gold either. It's a combination of knowing what to say while knowing the right way to say it.

Or if you can't swing either, than just making sure the other party is just gullible, stupid, and-or pig-headed enough to believe whatever it is you want them to think they want to hear.

>>96703955
>I have yet to see any situation of that kind come up in any sort of game. Not once have I seen any of that happen and I'm pretty sure no one else has.
Do you play in some sort of god awful game where the only solution to every problem is a sword? Are your party and DM retarded?

Why would you assume that's what everyone else is doing?

>>96744477
>It's a combination of knowing what to say while knowing the right way to say it.
And this is exactly what is represented by social skills.

>>96663500 (OP)
>How can people stand to play characters without social skills?
welp, my players have none, so it works for them

>>96664602
I give bonus for OPTIONAL part, heck, sometimes make it auto pass if really good
If no player input, he's gonna get my interpretation of how's it gone

>>96667473
if you play talking game, sure
my retarded players just use bigger hammer, when smaller does not do it's job

>>96666253
>>96664602
Football is a physical game, and so you need a baseline physical capacity to play. Physical cripples are excluded.
Dee un dee is a social game, and so you need a baseline social capacity to play. Social cripples are excluded.
You can disagree, but you should know that nobody cares about the opinions of social cripples.

>>96664285
Uh, you actually do. I harshly enforce character types based on skillsets.

>>96663500 (OP)
What the fuck could you possibly get from chatting up an NPC? Imagine making your entire character about this.

>>96747972
Isn't that a bard?

>>96748302
>Isn't that [the most useless member of every party]
It often is.

>>96744477
>It's not one or the other, is the thing
It is though. You have limited resources to build your character with.

>>96704115
No, but it does suggest that on average, social skills aren't as important in the dungeon as outside, which was the original claim he was responding to.

>>96663500 (OP)
You can still do this and have it be fun, just need to make it interesting.

I played an avenger with low charisma in D&D, and rather than the boring stoic type I just made it so that he was a reasonably persoable guy but went to pieces speaking in public or to more than like two people.

So useless as party face but still fun to roleplay, especially when the party cottoned on and started making him the face of the group for a laugh.

>>96664964
no only MY npcs will interact with individual party members and expect different things from each, but also splitting the part isn't just an "idea" but something that you will be REQUIRED to do in several occasions, and the best course of action in others, because people simply can't stay always close together in a small group all their life permanently

Charismatic characters should only be played by people with actual charisma. Otherwise there is dissonance.

>>96666322
Then who do you leave it to anon? Because dice don't give explanation on the actual game context of outcomes and your lazy "it's not my job to" bs brings down the quality of the game down tremendously for everyone.

>>96663500 (OP)
>Social
>Skills
Wew, sure reeks of NARP in here.

>>96663500 (OP)
I don’t think players who lack social skills can really help themselves on that front.

>>96663500 (OP)
Minionmaxxing is the most broken strategy in every RPG that exists and the only reason it's ever out of the limelight is when the GM goes out of his way to make it impossible.

>>96663500 (OP)
People who have social skills in real life, don't need rules for social skills in games.

>>96755960
I hate when a player is really charismatic because it makes their interactions feel like Metagaming, while I need them to keep the vibe going for the table. I wish I could just explain to play more reserved, but so many are noobs and I don't want to stifle them.

>>96756182
All you have to do is ask them to roll. If they fail the roll, you explain that while they had a good idea in their head, they somehow fail to convey it fully or convincingly.

>>96755960
Shit like intimidation or deception doesn't care about how good the player is.

what do you max after social skills

>>96663500 (OP)
I don't take social skills, I don't metagame who has the best social stats in the party, I don't roll to haggle, convince, negotiate or seduce
I talk to npcs in character and if they don't like me or what I do we fight until there is no more disagreement

>>96760153
The skill used to make explosives. If there's none, the skill used to make poisons.

>>96760153
>outdoor survival
>crafting
>medicine
>stealth
>perception
>mobility
>combat
in that order

>>96712747
yup social skills just make you a useless leech

they're good in theory but not in practice, you have to do shit yourself

>>96712747
Based and true.

>>96712791
He has never been in a position where he would need to roll a social skill.

>>96744477
It's one or the other when you're choosing between social skills and other skills. But as far as reputation is concerned, useful (non-social) skills and reputation go hand in hand.

>>96663500 (OP)
post vocaroo of how he talks to your NPCs.

>>96672906
based phil poster