When Failure Isn't Failure

The Problem with Social Skills in RPGs

For a while now, I've been working with a method of handling social skills and social rolls in roleplaying games. In the past, I really didn't know what I was doing. It was all sort of unconscious. However, after listening to a Fear the Boot podcast, I made me think about how I was specifically handing these things.

The dilemma is this - you have a character who is about to make a social roll. It might be Charm, or Command, or Diplomacy, or what have you. The player role-plays every well, making a good argument or impassioned speech. However, they blow the roll. Now what? Does the gamemaster go by what the dice say? Or does he let the roleplaying decide what happens?

This little quandary is two-fold. If the gamemaster decides to let the dice decide, then isn't he kind of being a buzz-kill? I mean, the player might have delivered a bang-up job at role-playing. Or, the player might have presented some killer points in his argument.

However, if role-playing rule the day, then is he being fair to the players at the table who aren't so good at schmoozing the GM? I really saw this point at a Gen Con I attended, where I ran a table for a guy who had enough self-awareness to realize that he wasn't a very charismatic individual, but made the point that he had the right to play a character who was. After all, he pointed out, you can play a character who is really good at swinging a sword, even if you can't.

The reason that this problem arises so often is because often the GM doesn't know what kind of rolls need to be made until the he and the player role-play the situation out. The GM might say, "Okay, the way you phrased this, that's a Diplomacy check." Or the GM might say, "Actually, you're trying to push your way through - that's an Intimidate check." The GM rarely has the opportunity to have the PC make a skill check first and then roleplay the result. Almost always, there is a role-playing scene followed by a skill check.

My Solution

What I've done to solve this little problem is to have it both ways. Here's what I do: A player's role-playing and description determines what is at stake. A character's skill test determines how much of the stake is gained.

So, for example, a PC might walk up to a guard and attempt to convince him to be let in through a gate. If the player does a good job at role-playing, I'll go ahead and say that the guard is convinced. However, I have the player roll a skill test anyway, to see if he or she gets anything extra. For example, the PC might have already convinced the guard to let him by, but a successful skill test means that the guard also gives the PC a piece of information. Or even becomes a contact for the PC. Also, the better the result of the PCs skill roll, the more I'll give to them. Perhaps the guard provides valuable information and becomes a contact besides.

Now let's say that Mr. Non-Charismatic Player comes up and just wants to attempt to skill-check his way past the gate. I'll try to pull some role-playing out of the player, but once I see that the player has reached his or her comfort limit, I stop. Then, I let the dice let me what happened. This happens even if I think that the person has done a fairly poor job of role-playing. If the player in question has really screwed the pooch, I might even say, "Actually, you succeeded on your skill check, so I can tell you that what you're saying will probably piss the NPC off. You sure you want to keep telling him that?"

As you can see, this method still gives an advantage to the guy who can role-play really well. If I'm a charismatic player and have a character with high social stats, I'll still be better than the guy who is not as charismatic and has a character with high social stats. So, to counter-balance this, I will let players I'll at least tell me generally what they want to say. They can outline their points to me. Thereafter, I'll come in and sort of cinematically describe what they do and how impressive they are socially, not unlike what I might do in a combat scene. This keeps the games narrative flowing and avoids the trap of, "I make a Diplomacy check. I passed."

But the main point is - if you're not so charismatic at the table, that's okay. You are not screwed. In fact, if your social skill is high enough to succeed most of the time, you will succeed and I will let you succeed.

Applications to Other Skills

So far, this technique has worked fairly well for me. Furthermore, as I'm refining this idea, I'm expanding it into other skill checks as well. This is particularly important in Rogue Trader. In our recent second session, I deemed that the Rogue Trader had successfully negotiated some equipment for their dynasty.

However, I still had them make an Acquisition Test to see if they could buy the equipment. I told the group up front that, because of good role-playing, they would get the equipment irregardless. However, I deemed that if they failed the Acquisition Test, they wouldn't be able to buy more new equipment for a long while.

That's one more thing that's worked for me with this stake-setting technique - after role-play, I try to state what is at stake upfront. By outlining the stakes upfront, I maintain my impartiality when it comes to the actual roll and it heightens tension a bit, because the players know exactly what they are rolling off for.