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.
>>96663500People like that are either pricks or they are so engrained in "party role" mentality that they don't conceive of roleplaying.
>>96663500>we can all tell what he's actually trying to sayI can't tell what you or he are trying to say. Maybe you should just fucking say it.
>>96663500In 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.
>>96663500D&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.
>>96663500The 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 babiesyou're basically not even a person without them
>>96663720I find that even experienced players sometimes gets trapped in the mentality that rolling a skill you're not proficient in is automatically a failstate.
>>96663500You 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 characterAnd as mentioned in the OP, this is a completely retarded premise that gets parroted constantly and doesn't actually make any sense.
>>96664371DESU, 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?
>>96664480Why are heroes lying to guards?
>>96664480What is a party spokesman?
>>96664560Cause the guards are working for the ninja clan that kidnapped the president's daughter.>>96664566Usually 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 intentThis 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 stupidThis 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.">RollIt'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.
>>96664582Why is the party doing everything together? What happens if two different players want to make separate, independent deals with different organizations?
>>96664602Yes, you need to decide what your character actually says.
>>96664371The 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.
>>96664602Personally, 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.>>96664607Then 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.
>>96664620if no one's going to take anything your character says seriously then yes you might as well shut the fuck up
>>96663500>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 everywhereD&D retards are so stupid and delusional its unreal.>>96664620Then why do you have problems with OP investing in social skills?
>>96664285>>96664646Upvoted! Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind sir.
>>96664689Yes. Dungeon crawlers are complete ass. Video games do it better.
>>96664285>in a lot of systems a party only needs one face characterin a lot of bad systems with bad GMsPCs 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
>>96664371It 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
>>96664848u r gay and u glow
>>96664873If 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 togetherbecause 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
>>96665381Doesn't change the fact that they're there, which automatically makes you stupid if you don't max them out.
>>96663500>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?
>>96665331I 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.>>96665381Playing 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 problemsOP 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.
>>96664660How do you figure?
>>96664944What'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?
>>96666043Agreed, I find going too hard one way or another is worse than just staying comfortably in the middle.
>>96664964What are you talking about? Of course they interact individually.
>>96665224How does your character have a family or friends or hold a job?
>>96665381There are systems where your characters can have capabilities beyond that of any human, and that includes social capabilities. Of course you should roll.
>>96664285The 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.
>>96664602There'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.
>>96666238No, it should be possible to create a character that's better than you at deceiving people. Your position is wrong.
>>96666253You'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."
>>96666306Obviously, you don't leave it to the DM. That's why you have rules, and dice.
>>96666322No ruleset I know of tells the DM how to decide how a successful outcome should look in exacting words beyond "it works".
>>96666332Is your total lack of taste and experience supposed to be my problem or something?
>>96666356Nah, your lack of actual experience playing roleplaying games is definitely not my problem, anon
>>96666364Your lack of experience, rather. You lose.
>>96666382I'm sorry you shat your pants when your DM asked you what your character decided to do, anon.
You lose.
>>96666440Didn't roll for it, lol
>>96663791D&D started as a worldsim but the players were wargamers and were more interested in dungeoncrawling than anything
>>96666322>>96666356>>96666382You were absolutely destroyed in that argument, and you have no leg to stand on beyond just petulantly whining about it.
>>96666253There 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>>96663720>>96663791Social skills are just as important inside the dungeon as outside, unless all the encounters you run into are mindless things like zombies or oozes.
>>96666178What exactly do you think "You don't need a stat to allow you to roleplay" means?
>>96663500I had this exact experience in Shadowrun. They really love their role sanctity over there.
>>96663500you should tell him not bitch on the forums like a little bitch guy.
>>96663791The 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.
>>96663500I'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>Communalezpz
>>96666238I'm >>96664602I 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.
>>96669297I 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
>>96670339I 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
>>96670827Nah. 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>>96671744There's no way one anon is this butthurt, right?
>>96672684Considering he's given up on actually giving a refutation in favor of spamming, it's pretty clear he's butthurt
>>96672684>>96672779Got 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.
>>96672880Find a compromise between my cock and balls. I'm doing what I want whether you like it or not.
>>96666145Because 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.>>96672906No 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.
>>96672936I'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.
>>96672880What 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.
>>96672936As a group doesn't mean you're playing four parts of one body. Each character has his own life and his own obligations.
>>96673004Generally, 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>Tldr: Why don't people play like I like?They don't have to.
>>96672684I'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.
>>96673326Moron.
>>96673605Sorry you lost the argument and have bad taste and wrong preferences RETARD
>>96674340
>>96674365Yep, you got owned :)
>>96672997While 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.
>>96674332Why do you think so?
>>96663791And there's a reason everyone moved on from that.
>>96663500I’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.
>>96666163His family is back home, his job is being an adventurer and his party members are his only friends
being a combatslopper is just so pointlesstwo of you will always kill you
>>96683516Two characters that are equally as intelligent and have as many resources as one of you will also likely be able to outpersuade you.
>>96684989people who are built to get along with others will more than likely get along with each other
>>96663500>a game where social skills are a stat>someone appoints themselves a faceHave 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.
>>96685027Sure, 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.
>>96685610never said any of that retard
