Balancing social skills and role playing

[Sean Waters]

I know this is an old chestnut, but I was reading something recently on the boards and had a couple of thoughts to share.

 

There is ongoing debate as to how much player role playing should affect a character's chance of success with social skill rolls. On the one hand this is a point system, so you should pay for how good yourcharacter is in social situations, and not everyone is equally goodat role playing encounters, so you should not be penalised if you do not have great social skills in real life. On the other hand this isa role playing game, and that is kinda the point.

 

 

I'm pretty much in the first camp. If you buy a character with average INT and PRE and basic social skills, then you regularly get a bonus because you are coming up with clever approaches to social situations, you are notactually role playing the character you built, you are role playing acharacter who is much more socially competent, and that is not roleplaying at all.

 

 

However, I don't want it all to be down to rolls: role playing IS, after all what we aredoing here, and has to get a look in. Equally, I don't want characters who are already built for social interaction to be getting huge bonuses and derailing the game. "Hitler sees your point of view and calls off the war" is a desirable outcome in real life, but not necessarily in a role playing game as it sort of lets the air out of the tyres of the dramamobile.

 

 

So, a few possible approaches:

 

1. Every time a player gets a role playing bonus to a social skill through role playing, make a note and, when you get to 10 (or whatever number you choose) they have to spend their next available XP point on a social skill or skill level. This way they wind up with the character they are trying to play.
   
2. Limit the available role playing bonus for social skills to the number of levels you have in the social skill in question, whichever is greater, encouraging players to increase their social skill levels to get potentially better role playing bonuses.
   
3. Use your GM role playing skills to require something from the character in exchange for the bonus, for example, the NPC might require a favour, or require you to spend an hour drinking with them. This can stop 'role playing' bonuses getting out of hand, as there is always some quid pro quo. This is the most labour intensive one, but it is a RPG!
   

You could even combine all three! Any thoughts on this approach or a better way of handling it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I always come back to the belief that the role playing bonuses available for social skills should be no greater (and no less) than the role playing bonuses your character can get in combat.

 

Will I give you a bonus for a smart tactical move? Sure. Will I give you a bonus because you provide a cool description of your attack? Maybe. Will it be so significant that it means near-automatic success, or makes your character equal to the guy who invested 15+ more points in combat abilities? Probably not.

 

So I will give you bonuses for a smart tactical move. You know the Duke detests Goblinoids and you have evidence the Earl consorts with Goblinoids in his keep? Sure, presenting that to the Duke will make him more inclined to clamp down on the Duke. If you make a really impassioned speech supporting your presentation to the Duke, maybe that also gets a bonus. But it's not going to be a bonus that makes your 8 PRE, "Everyman Social Skills" character remotely as likely to succeed as The Face, 23 PRE, full suite of social skills and +3 levels with them.

 

And if your 8 PRE, "Everyman Skills" character is consistently played as an articulate, skilled orator, maybe we turn to that XP chart and apply a "Poor Role Playing" penalty. How is it good RP if your character described as "socially inept" is perceived by the rest of the players as a slick, glib con man or an orator on the level of Hitler or Churchill?

 

Sean, I like your idea of not actually docking that "poor RP" xp point, but instead requiring it be spent to bring the character more into line with the manner in which he is role played. It can go well beyond this arena. If the "Grim and Serious" character is cracking jokes every game, maybe he should have some xp required to be used to buy down/off that Complication, for example.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think I'm inclined to say that there should be no bonus to social Skill Rolls for good roleplaying. Rather than roleplaying driving the dice, I prefer to see the dice drive the roleplaying. In other words, rather than roleplaying out a Charm attempt (for example) and attempting the Charm roll at the end of the roleplaying exchange (with bonuses/penalties based on the roleplaying), I prefer to do the Charm roll at the declaration of the intent to try to Charm, then have the success or failure of the Skill Roll affect how the exchange is roleplayed.

 

I think this avoids both the problem of performing the roleplaying clumsily but succeeding with the roll, and the problem of performing the roleplaying brilliantly but failing the roll. With the roll-first method, a failed roll is followed by the clumsy exchange, which in turn explains/justifies the failed roll. On a successful roll, even if the initial roleplaying doesn't go well, you can (since you already know the roll succeeded) continue roleplaying past any initial problems until you reach a point believable for success.

 

While roleplaying generally wouldn't have an effect on the die roll this way, it would absolutely highlight opportunities to gain roleplaying bonuses for XP. Roleplaying Interaction Skill results well -- both successes and failures -- would be a clear indication that the character should get the roleplaying bonus XP for that adventure...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I always come back to the belief that the role playing bonuses available for social skills should be no greater (and no less) than the role playing bonuses your character can get in combat.

 

Will I give you a bonus for a smart tactical move? Sure. Will I give you a bonus because you provide a cool description of your attack? Maybe. Will it be so significant that it means near-automatic success, or makes your character equal to the guy who invested 15+ more points in combat abilities? Probably not.

 

So I will give you bonuses for a smart tactical move. You know the Duke detests Goblinoids and you have evidence the Earl consorts with Goblinoids in his keep? Sure, presenting that to the Duke will make him more inclined to clamp down on the Duke. If you make a really impassioned speech supporting your presentation to the Duke, maybe that also gets a bonus. But it's not going to be a bonus that makes your 8 PRE, "Everyman Social Skills" character remotely as likely to succeed as The Face, 23 PRE, full suite of social skills and +3 levels with them.

 

And if your 8 PRE, "Everyman Skills" character is consistently played as an articulate, skilled orator, maybe we turn to that XP chart and apply a "Poor Role Playing" penalty. How is it good RP if your character described as "socially inept" is perceived by the rest of the players as a slick, glib con man or an orator on the level of Hitler or Churchill?

 

Sean, I like your idea of not actually docking that "poor RP" xp point, but instead requiring it be spent to bring the character more into line with the manner in which he is role played. It can go well beyond this arena. If the "Grim and Serious" character is cracking jokes every game, maybe he should have some xp required to be used to buy down/off that Complication, for example.

 

That makes a lot of sense: a well role played approach to combat (well, I say 'role played', it tends to be a cunning tactical use of the available environment) might get you a +1 to +3 bonus to the roll, but combat tends to involve several rolls, so whilst that is a substantial bonus, you are unlikely to be able to repeat it in that combat, which means, assuming that the bonus is effectively diluted. Social interaction is all too often done on the outcome of a single roll, and a small bonus can make a big difference.

 

Derek's approach is very good: it actually takes the strength of both the roll and role play aspects and uses them together, although that may well defer the problem to an extent: someone with good social skills in the real world, a player who is good at acting, will accumulate XP faster than someone with poor social skills, and imagination.

 

I mean a lot of people like Star Wars, but we can't all be George Lucas.

 

OK. Bad example...

[Manic Typist]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Huh. Very interesting. I'll have to mull that over....

[Enforcer84]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I like your idea Derek.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

There is ongoing debate as to how much player role playing should affect a character's chance of success with social skill rolls. On the one hand this is a point system' date=' so you should pay for how good yourcharacter is in social situations, and not everyone is equally goodat role playing encounters, so you should not be penalised if you do not have great social skills in real life. On the other hand this isa role playing game, and that is kinda the point.[/quote']

I don't see that as a counter point. From Wikipedia (some bold added by me):

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.

Now most people asume that Social interaction should be (literally) acted out. But literally acting is only a small part of roleplaying or "acting out a role".

 

Perhaps one of the problems is, that there is little decision making possible in only one Roll. Combat allready has this: do I go for the high Damage, low OCV, low DCV maneuver or do I wait for my allies entangle to make a haymaker? Do I use the Flash or the Blast?

But social and technical skills tend to lack it. As Sean pointed out and is well decribed in this article:

http://www.projectrho.com/rpg/cidiagram.html

 

And Fun in RPG's is mostly about making meaningfull decisions.

 

I think I'm inclined to say that there should be no bonus to social Skill Rolls for good roleplaying. Rather than roleplaying driving the dice, I prefer to see the dice drive the roleplaying. In other words, rather than roleplaying out a Charm attempt (for example) and attempting the Charm roll at the end of the roleplaying exchange (with bonuses/penalties based on the roleplaying), I prefer to do the Charm roll at the declaration of the intent to try to Charm, then have the success or failure of the Skill Roll affect how the exchange is roleplayed.

 

I think this avoids both the problem of performing the roleplaying clumsily but succeeding with the roll, and the problem of performing the roleplaying brilliantly but failing the roll. With the roll-first method, a failed roll is followed by the clumsy exchange, which in turn explains/justifies the failed roll. On a successful roll, even if the initial roleplaying doesn't go well, you can (since you already know the roll succeeded) continue roleplaying past any initial problems until you reach a point believable for success.

I agree fully with that and would even say this is they way to handle combat as well. A lot of cool action in comics can just be a few successfull dice rolls with a description that does not totally follows maneuver names.

[phoenix240]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think I'm inclined to say that there should be no bonus to social Skill Rolls for good roleplaying. Rather than roleplaying driving the dice, I prefer to see the dice drive the roleplaying. In other words, rather than roleplaying out a Charm attempt (for example) and attempting the Charm roll at the end of the roleplaying exchange (with bonuses/penalties based on the roleplaying), I prefer to do the Charm roll at the declaration of the intent to try to Charm, then have the success or failure of the Skill Roll affect how the exchange is roleplayed.

 

I think this avoids both the problem of performing the roleplaying clumsily but succeeding with the roll, and the problem of performing the roleplaying brilliantly but failing the roll. With the roll-first method, a failed roll is followed by the clumsy exchange, which in turn explains/justifies the failed roll. On a successful roll, even if the initial roleplaying doesn't go well, you can (since you already know the roll succeeded) continue roleplaying past any initial problems until you reach a point believable for success.

 

While roleplaying generally wouldn't have an effect on the die roll this way, it would absolutely highlight opportunities to gain roleplaying bonuses for XP. Roleplaying Interaction Skill results well -- both successes and failures -- would be a clear indication that the character should get the roleplaying bonus XP for that adventure...

 

Do you feel there should be a bonus for good "tactics" when it comes to Social skills: mood setting, learning your target's preferences, etc as a set up to the skill roll?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Do you feel there should be a bonus for good "tactics" when it comes to Social skills: mood setting' date=' learning your target's preferences, etc as a set up to the skill roll?[/quote']

 

Absolutely.

[phoenix240]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Absolutely.

 

Thanks, I like your suggestion. It does side step some of the common problems with Interaction skills. Definitely something to think about using

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Gracious, this has been useful; I agree with Christopher as well: combat could often benefit from this approach. Rather than "I approach at a run, leap high into the air, and slam my foot into the side of his head Damn! 17!", you would go , "I run at him and leap to roundhouse kick him but he ducks at the last moment and I sail past, missing entirely and barely avoid falling as I land." Bonus XP, possibly for fighting defensively for the next few phases because of shaken confidence.

[phoenix240]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Gracious' date=' this has been useful; I agree with Christopher as well: combat could often benefit from this approach. Rather than "I approach at a run, leap high into the air, and slam my foot into the side of his head Damn! 17!", you would go , "I run at him and leap to roundhouse kick him but he ducks at the last moment and I sail past, missing entirely and barely avoid falling as I land." Bonus XP, possibly for fighting defensively for the next few phases because of shaken confidence.[/quote']

 

It would help with those weird Hit Locations results.

 

"I fake a left then throw a jab!"

 

*roll* You hit... in the left leg!

[Enforcer84]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

"He should not have tried to kick me just then..."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

"Actually I was aiming for the leg all along...I always hit what I aim for!"

[Ragitsu]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Actually, given that the player rarely sees an NPC's opposed roll (to resist social influence), it could very well be that their character delivers a fine speech, yet fails to really touch the emotional/logical sensitivities of the NPC in question. In other words, the NPC rolled well enough to "win".

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Do you feel there should be a bonus for good "tactics" when it comes to Social skills: mood setting' date=' learning your target's preferences, etc as a set up to the skill roll?[/quote']

I think that would fall under a complimentary Roll, in most of the cases. This can even be using the skills of somebody else, like Quark asking Worf how to woe Grilka.

 

I've made an analysis of the most common "Interrogation" techniques you will see in Cop/JAG/CSI style Series:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/88554-How-do-you-interrogate-thugs-and-villains?p=2278815#post2278815

In the core most of them are just Conversation, maybe with a complimentory skill roll. And even then you still have plenty of "techniques" to choose from.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Cop show interrogation techniques are awful. Probably realistic, but awful.

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think Derek's suggestions sound the best I've heard. +1

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Cop show interrogation techniques are awful. Probably realistic' date=' but awful.[/quote']

Realistic, prooven and (most importantly for Superheroic games) follow the convention of Geneva/human Rights. They are allowed to be used against Criminals, POW, Mooks, the arch-nemesis and everyone else (even "on" witnesses), no "Is it right/good to do that?" nessesary*.

 

 

*Exceptions could of course come in complications. A Honest character can't use lies, but might be able to use a different approach more effectively.

[casualplayer]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I give social skill bonuses for players that take advantage of the in-game opportunities I provide for them as a GM, and I do provide them. If they are a Toastmaster or debate champ and their character is Slow Thrud the Tumble-tongued I'm not going to let them try to free-port their own skills into the game unless their character shares that skill at that level.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Realistic, prooven and (most importantly for Superheroic games) follow the convention of Geneva/human Rights. They are allowed to be used against Criminals, POW, Mooks, the arch-nemesis and everyone else (even "on" witnesses), no "Is it right/good to do that?" nessesary*.

 

 

*Exceptions could of course come in complications. A Honest character can't use lies, but might be able to use a different approach more effectively.

 

By awful, I mean they are script constructs that only work because the script says that they do. In reality, if any sort of confession was obtained by many of those methods, the confession would be evidentially worthless.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

By awful' date=' I mean they are script constructs that only work because the script says that they do. In reality, if any sort of confession was obtained by many of those methods, the confession would be evidentially worthless.[/quote']

I am not certain what you say is wrong:

The techniques as whole?

They are from the Army Field Manual on interrogation.

 

How they are protrayed in the shows?

Well, it's TV. Where an Ip adress can be 827.750.384.601, all telephone numbers start with 555 and Defibrilators are used for things they never could do in real life. (At least for the numbers I am certain that there are choosen that way so nobody tries to actually call.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

From a legal point of view, it is easy to attack confessions obtained using threats or trickery.

 

Tell us or we can not protect your daughter...well I only told them what they wanted to hear because I was worried about my daughter. doesn't mean it is true.

 

I only admitted that the drugs were mine because they told me my son was saying they were his and I did not want him to get into trouble.

 

I mean you might get accurate information, but the only way to be sure is independent verification and, in a lot of cases all you have is a confession, which can be legally attacked. There are many reasons why people might, and do, provide false information, and, often, the reason is the way someone is being interrogated.

 

Moreover, whilst it might be OK (and by 'OK', I mean, 'Not OK at all') for the US army to use these techniques, but not only would you have your case thrown out of a non-military court for using them, but you would be prosecuted yourself: you can't keep someone incommunicado for 30 days and expect to do less than 12 months in prison, probably a lot more if you have spent that time threatening them.

 

TV cop shows are not as bad, but often use threats and lies that would render a confession pretty useless from a legal standpoint. In fact I was watching something a couple weeks ago, possibly an episode of Bones, where they were intimidating this guy who turned out to be the wrong man, but they put him through the wringer. It would be nice if, just once, they went back and said sorry.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

From a legal point of view, it is easy to attack confessions obtained using threats or trickery.

 

Tell us or we can not protect your daughter...well I only told them what they wanted to hear because I was worried about my daughter. doesn't mean it is true.

 

I only admitted that the drugs were mine because they told me my son was saying they were his and I did not want him to get into trouble.

 

I mean you might get accurate information, but the only way to be sure is independent verification and, in a lot of cases all you have is a confession, which can be legally attacked. There are many reasons why people might, and do, provide false information, and, often, the reason is the way someone is being interrogated.

Well, according to current jurisdiction US cops can lie to get a confession and the confession will hold up in court (as well as any evidence they found because of the confession).

What they cannot do is threaten the offendor in any way, even remotely.

For example:

Saying "we have a witness who saw you" is okay.

But saying a mother "that state financial aid for her infant children would be cut off, and her children taken from her, if she did not 'cooperate'" was not allowed, because it resulted in a false confession.

 

Moreover' date=' whilst it might be OK (and by 'OK', I mean, 'Not OK at all') for the US army to use these techniques, but not only would you have your case thrown out of a non-military court for using them, but you would be prosecuted yourself: you can't keep someone incommunicado for 30 days and expect to do less than 12 months in prison, probably a lot more if you have spent that time threatening them.[/quote']

You picked the one of the two things clearly marked as "not if Convention of geneva applies".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Well' date=' according to current jurisdiction US cops can lie to get a confession and the confession will hold up in court (as well as any evidence they found because of the confession).

What they cannot do is threaten the offendor in any way, even remotely.

For example:

Saying "we have a witness who saw you" is okay.

But saying a mother "that state financial aid for her infant children would be cut off, and her children taken from her, if she did not 'cooperate'" was not allowed, because it resulted in a false confession.

 

 

You picked the one of the two things clearly marked as "not if Convention of geneva applies".

 

Last first, Geneva has nothing to do with civil jurisdictions. Whilst a lot of that is just 'psych' anyway, the simple fact is you can't 'just' take interrogation techniques from a manual, you actually have to be good at it, which includes not just a plan of attack but judging your victim, sorry, suspect.

 

I do not know that much about US criminal law, but a couple of points:

 

1. if you gain information from an interrogation that you can subsequently independently verify then cool, you do not need the confession, so how you got the information may become irrelevant BUT if you tell a witness that they have clear evidence that he committed an offence and he says 'well, OK then' because he was stoned and can not remember whether he did or not, well, it is going to be worthless.

 

2. generally people's rights have been eroded in the UK over the past decade or two, and police powers considerably enhanced. I imagine it is the same in the US, on the 'terrorist threat' pretext. The most worrying thing is that people don't know. Certainly in this country, if someone was represented at a police interview and the information supplied by the police to the legal representative was a lie then the case would fail, because the police would then be undermining the right of the suspect to get informed and accurate advice. In essence they would be co-opting the legal representative to help mislead the suspect.