[X] My Assistant

[Yerameyahu]

That's okay, we're just as bad at 'realistic' tactics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As long as you *do* something, people agree with it, and *something* happens, it's a good RPG. The only problem is when you do nothing (or do something no one can agree with).

[Draco18s]

That's okay, we're just as bad at 'realistic' tactics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As long as you *do* something, people agree with it, and *something* happens, it's a good RPG. The only problem is when you do nothing (or do something no one can agree with).

Let me make a comparison.

A friend of mine, Jim, is such a charismatic person, but also creative and intelligent. He's run some of the best games I've ever been witness to. He's also made some of the most interesting characters I've ever meet.

That said, here's what I can remember of a D&D 4 published campaign we did.

Some tomb-ghost-thing is questioning the party and determining if they are Right and Just and should have the Legendary Artifact of Plot.

A question is asked, something along the lines of "Why are you here?" and Jim pipes up with a very good reply, before anyone else can get two syllables out. I don't recall what it was he said any more, but it was well worded, answered the question, and also justified why we should have Phat Loots.

GM said, "And...that answered his next question too." (Something along the lines of "why do you consider yourselves 'good'")

Jim had no real way of knowing that the ghost was going to ask that, but not only had a prepared reply, he'd given it before it was asked!

[Ol' Scratch]

The question is: Did his character have the appropriate skills and abilities to be that clever and sophisticated, or was he playing a dumb-as-rocks barbarian with a Charisma of 6? And was any kind of Diplomacy or Bluff skill test rolled to see if it actually worked? Because if not, he was simply using his own knowledge and ability to basically "cheat" rather than actually playing his character or the game itself.

Again: Social encounters are not special or unique. They should be treated just like any other kind of encounter.

[Yerameyahu]

Right. Which is indeed cheating. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) I'm not sure how that's related to what I said, though, Draco18s. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The question here is 'how can a not-smart player play a smart character?'; replace 'smart' with 'social', 'tactical', anything. It's the same basic question, which is good; it allows us to use the same basic answer. When you say, 'I shoot him', you roll do see if your character can *do* that. When you say, 'I say blah blah <something witty>'… you roll to see if your character can say that.

The issue of 'don't metagame' is a separate, and pretty simple, issue.

[Draco18s]

The question is: Did his character have the appropriate skills and abilities to be that clever and sophisticated, or was he playing a dumb-as-rocks barbarian with a Charisma of 6? And was any kind of Diplomacy or Bluff skill test rolled to see if it actually worked? Because if not, he was simply using his own knowledge and ability to basically "cheat" rather than actually playing his character or the game itself.

That wasn't my point, now was it?

Irrespective of his character's charisma and skills, that's what social interaction does look like, whether we like it or not.

That's someone who knows how to be a face, being a face. Those of us who can't pull off something like that are left with dice.

NPC: "Why are you here?"
PC: *Rolls charisma dice* Four hits.
GM: "You give the correct answer."

[Yerameyahu]

But what is your point? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 'Some people know how to socialize?'

[Boxymoron]

NPC: "Why are you here?"
PC: *Rolls charisma dice* Four hits.
GM: "You give the correct answer."

And in this kind of situation, The DM could help out, throw a few hints, or help work out a good answer with the face, if the face's player is welcome to it. Hell, even if the player wouldn't know what to say, saying anything to accompany the dice roll could possibly make things hilarious.

I could be a fan of the GM giving bonuses/penalties towards a player if they come up with something good, but I would think that it should probably be discussed beforehand with the players and a note made of it. Hell, challenge the player every now and then with the roll, have them offer up a good explanation/comment, but if they really are a bit challenged in the social aspect, don't penalize them too much, if at all.

</ramble>

[Ol' Scratch]

NPC: "Why are you here?"
PC: *Rolls charisma dice* Four hits.
GM: "You give the correct answer."

No one is saying that's how you go about it. You still have to explain what it is you're doing and how you're going about doing it. It's just up to the dice and other game mechanics to determine if it's successful, not your own personal ability. In other words, it should look more like this:

GM: "The security guard sees you coming and stands up to intervene. 'What are you doing here?' he asks, obviously annoyed by your presence."
PC: "I try to convince him that we're from the utility company and that we need to check for some faulty wiring." <rolls appropriate dice>
GM: <counters with his own rolls> "The guard gives a slightly suspicious look, but then nods you past, apparently satisfied by your explanation."

[Whipstitch]

The thing is, by merely choosing what kind of Charisma+Skill combination they want to use and what they hope to accomplish you can start to get a pretty decent idea of what they are going to try to do. Generally you try to fool people (con), put some of your cards on the table and make an exchange of some sort (negotiate), appeal to authority (leadership) or try get in their head (intimidate). That the scenario can use more fleshing out than that is definitely true but as a GM I simply don't feel as hung out to dry as draco's example would imply and there's some definite starting points to work with.

[Draco18s]

And in this kind of situation, The DM could help out, throw a few hints, or help work out a good answer with the face, if the face's player is welcome to it. Hell, even if the player wouldn't know what to say, saying anything to accompany the dice roll could possibly make things hilarious.

I could be a fan of the GM giving bonuses/penalties towards a player if they come up with something good, but I would think that it should probably be discussed beforehand with the players and a note made of it. Hell, challenge the player every now and then with the roll, have them offer up a good explanation/comment, but if they really are a bit challenged in the social aspect, don't penalize them too much, if at all.

</ramble>

No one is saying that's how you go about it. You still have to explain what it is you're doing and how you're going about doing it. It's just up to the dice and other game mechanics to determine if it's successful, not your own personal ability. In other words, it should look more like this:

GM: "The security guard sees you coming and stands up to intervene. 'What are you doing here?' he asks, obviously annoyed by your presence."
PC: "I try to convince him that we're from the utility company and that we need to check for some faulty wiring." <rolls appropriate dice>
GM: <counters with his own rolls> "The guard gives a slightly suspicious look, but then nods you past, apparently satisfied by your explanation."

Ah ha!

So we admit that social combat isn't like gun combat at all!

The thing is, by merely choosing what kind of Charisma+Skill combination they want to use and what they hope to accomplish you can start to get a pretty decent idea of what they are going to try to do. Generally you try to fool people (con), put some of your cards on the table and make an exchange of some sort (negotiate), appeal to authority (leadership) or try get in their head (intimidate). That the scenario can use more fleshing out than that is definitely true but as a GM I simply don't feel as hung out to dry as draco's example would imply and there's some definite starting points to work with.

Well, yes. But that's the mechanical equivalent of deciding whether to use a shotgun (longarms) or a P93 (automatics) to kill someone.

Except that in social encounters, each of those skills have vastly different purposes from each other. Using con to lie your way past a guard is the combat equivalent of "I want to kill that guy" and we all know that there's more to it than that.

Just to jump back a bit:

Hell, even if the player wouldn't know what to say, saying anything to accompany the dice roll could possibly make things hilarious.

Not really.

NPC: "Why are you here?"
PC: "Because 14 pancakes shingle a dog house." *8 successes on the dice*
GM: *Not impressed*

[Ol' Scratch]

Ah ha!

So we admit that social combat isn't like gun combat at all!

How do you figure? "Gun combat" should look similar. You shouldn't be able to just say "<rolls dice> four hits" in response to a combat situation. You need to describe what it is your doing.

[Draco18s]

How do you figure? "Gun combat" should look similar. You shouldn't be able to just say "<rolls dice> four hits" in response to a combat situation. You need to describe what it is your doing.

"I'm shooting him" *rolls dice* "Four hits."

Yes, the other guy rolls too (in both situations), but that's what gun combat boils down to: each person decides that they're killing someone else and rolls a handful of dice. There's a few other modifiers you can drag into it, yes (say, aiming) but social situations lack these modifiers as mechanical bonuses and instead rely on player skill--NOT CHARACTER SKILL--to invent and often just to justify the dice roll rather than aid the dice roll.

[Ol' Scratch]

I honestly have no idea why you're having so much trouble with this concept. It isn't rocket science. You don't have to be a smooth pimp to describe that you want to try walk up to some woman at the bar and throw her your best pick-up lines, then roll the dice to see how it plays out. And you don't have to be a tactical genius to describe that you want to quick draw your pistol and shoot the guy to the left, then roll the dice to see how it plays out. It's all the same, dude.

[Draco18s]

I honestly have no idea why you're having so much trouble with this concept. It isn't rocket science. You don't have to be a smooth pimp to describe that you want to try walk up to some woman at the bar and throw her your best pick-up lines, then roll the dice to see how it plays out. And you don't have to be a tactical genius to describe that you want to quick draw your pistol and shoot the guy to the left, then roll the dice to see how it plays out. It's all the same, dude.

Generally speaking because:

The GM asks a question. The response cannot be "I tell a lie" and rolling dice. Social situations have almost never been that simple. They always involve an ACTUAL RESPONSE from the player, which is backed up by a throw of the dice to see how effective it was.

Akin to having to require every player pick up a toy gun and point it at a target on the wall and pull the trigger before they can pick up the dice to see how well they shot the other guy.

[Yerameyahu]

The point is, I daresay, that you're already saying, "I'm *shooting* him." You're not saying, "I'm combatting him." And you're shooting him with a certain gun, with certain bullets, etc.

And I think you *can* say, "I tell a lie." It's not optimal, but it's acceptable. What you can't do is say, "I social him".

[Ol' Scratch]

Yes, and when a GM describes a combat situation, you can't just furrow your brow and nasally vomit up "Derp, I attack him!" You have to say how you're attacking him, what you're attacking with, how you're drawing the weapon if any, and any other circumstantial information needed as appropriate to that situation. Likewise, when a GM has an NPC ask a question, you can say "I tell a lie," but you then have to follow it up with what kind of a lie, even if just a rough description of what you're trying to do. If you have an actually convincing lie prepared, so much the better. At best it might get you a special bonus on the dice roll, but that's no different than coming up with a brilliant tactical move in a combat situation.

[Draco18s]

The point is, I daresay, that you're already saying, "I'm *shooting* him." You're not saying, "I'm combatting him." And you're shooting him with a certain gun, with certain bullets, etc.

Ahh... so....you're saying that there's more choices, like

deciding whether to use a shotgun (longarms) or a P93 (automatics)

What are those options when talking to someone?

The rules say I have four:

How to act (Etiquette--the least well defined skill of all time, almost the point of not being an active skill)
Lying (Con)
Making a deal (Negotiation)
Dominating them into submission, verbally (Intimidate)

NONE of these options equate to "attack someone: pick a skill (longarms, unarmed, blades, automatics, pistols, clubs) and options (bullet type, aiming, cover) plus situational (running, concealment, vision penalties)"

And I think you *can* say, "I tell a lie." It's not optimal, but it's acceptable.

If only it was that simple. Without feel like a copout. Yes, "I tell a convincing lie" is the table-effect of saying "I attack him." But "I attack him" is the reason I no longer play D&D.

Now here's a question:

What dice roll constitutes "I tell the truth"?

[Yerameyahu]

Leadership, probably. I still think you're wrong about copout, and about 'I attack him'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) My point is more that choosing the lie (even the 'type of lie') is equivalent to taking cover or flanking: no dice roll, just 'world knowledge'. Also, we didn't really mention 'stating the goal'. Along with, 'I lie', it should be clear what the intended result is.

Let's look at other examples.
• First Aid? Pretty naked: 'I medic him.'
• Infiltration? Usually elaborated: 'I climb the fence, peek from behind the wall…'.
• Magic? Naked again: 'I cast stunball'… somehow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But at least you've chosen the spell.
… and so on? There seems to be a range of 'extent of elaboration', but social is in the middle someplace.

[Draco18s]

I still disagree, but I'm going to stop trying to explain it.

My final comment is this:
It's frustrating being someone who doesn't know how to socially engineer the world around you. There's no way I can explain my experience to you, because you simply won't be able to grasp how difficult it is to not know what to say and when to say it, even trying to walk you through exactly what I think in a certain situation won't work because your mind will have already jumped to the conclusion that I cannot make, or have difficulty making.

I would love to be someone like my grandmother (I have a picture of her and the Dali Lama*), but I simply don't have the guts to not-care about who's fingers I step on on my way to absolute power. That is: I don't like hurting people's feelings (my grandmother had no such qualms). Thus she got where she got, and I have a desk job writing code.

I like writing code, don't get me wrong, but I also haven't shaken the hands of interesting people.

*If you don't know how difficult that is, simple: it's really damn hard to get a personal photo of you and the Dali Lama taken with your own camera. It simply does not happen.

[Yerameyahu]

I'm sorry that you're giving up, because I still don't understand what you're talking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The simple fact is that the player doesn't need to know what the character knows. It does make better RP, but it's hardly necessary, *and* everyone can learn (maybe the basics, maybe slowly) the 'vocabulary' of any RP task (social, combat, whatever). Once you discount metagaming, all RP tasks are the same kind of thing. Things like socializing and planning are indeed trickier, but not categorically different. They all take imagination, potentially outside of your experience, potentially outside of your previous imaginings.

[Draco18s]

I'm sorry that you're giving up, because I still don't understand what you're talking about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The simple fact is that the player doesn't need to know what the character knows. It does make better RP, but it's hardly necessary, *and* everyone can learn (maybe the basics, maybe slowly) the 'vocabulary' of any RP task (social, combat, whatever).

Here's a problem, and it's not a game problem:

I, as being someone who is not good in social situations, have difficulty playing RPGs in general because, in general, RPGs are social situations.

[Yerameyahu]

That's a new and different problem from what I've seen in this thread, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Given the gamer stereotypes, I doubt you're alone, though. As on a recent Big Bang Theory, 'god help this game if socially inept people can't play'. But some people might know nothing about planning ahead, and they might have trouble playing planning-ahead games (all of them). But they can learn, and be helped along. In the end, it might be not worth it to them. *shrug*

[Draco18s]

I'm learning, obviously. But I find asynchronous mediums much easier to deal with.

[Yerameyahu]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm glad to hear that. A good GM and group should be okay with you wherever you are along that path, though. If you said to me (GM), "I want to get this guy to like us," but you had no idea at all how to do that, that would be okay (for a beginner). You would choose/be prompted to choose a method: name-dropping, flattery, flirting, gift, etc., and this choice would determine the Active Skill. But, you could also choose an Active Skill (at random, 'I'll use Leadership'), and the GM/group could also nudge you from there to the RP method (perhaps 'inspiring solidarity'). In either of these cases, player non-social-ness isn't inhibiting a social character, and all players should also be happy with their play/roleplay. Right?

[Draco18s]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm glad to hear that. A good GM and group should be okay with you wherever you are along that path, though. If you said to me (GM), "I want to get this guy to like us," but you had no idea at all how to do that, that would be okay (for a beginner). You would choose/be prompted to choose a method: name-dropping, flattery, flirting, gift, etc., and this choice would determine the Active Skill. But, you could also choose an Active Skill (at random, 'I'll use Leadership'), and the GM/group could also nudge you from there to the RP method (perhaps 'inspiring solidarity'). In either of these cases, player non-social-ness isn't inhibiting a social character, and all players should also be happy with their play/roleplay. Right?

See, I'd never have considered "flattery" as a tactic for getting someone to like you.

In any case, "yes" is the answer to your question, with emphasis on "should."