Social Skills vs. PCs, a House Rule and Explanation

Having discussed this with the other DMs, we've come to see that there is a need for the house rule I'll be describing below. Normally, I would toss this elsewhere, as it's rather a minor change (in that it doesn't need much mechanical explanation), but it can lead to some touchiness if abused, so I want to explain it further as well--in order to make it perfectly clear what this rule is meant to do, and what it is not meant to do. As such:

House Rule: PCs may be affected by Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and other skills that function by changing their attitude towards the skill-user, if that skill is being employed by another PC.

What this rule is meant to do: Sometimes, we aren't as smooth and precise as our characters, or we can't quite convey just how fearsome-looking they really are, and while we try our best to reflect their stats appropriately through roleplay, sometimes it just doesn't happen. In such cases, rolls may be appropriate to augment the accompanying roleplay--this is why the skills exist in the first place.

Further, the rules regarding these skills' interaction with PCs (see p.128, DMG, in which PCs are considered de-facto "immune" to Diplomacy, etc.) assume that the only ones generally using these skills on PCs are NPCs, not other PCs. This is clearly not the case on a site such as ours, with a large numbers of PCs that can regularly wind up in situations where the use of these skills is appropriate.

Not allowing these skills to be used by PCs on other PCs thus strikes as an unintended over-limitation of the skills in question (especially as it leads to the unrealistic scenario of a PC being told a large portion of his skill investments are all but worthless, but for the very brief and occasional adventure situation). While some may argue that it may lead to the proliferation of "roll-play" over roleplay, we believe that used properly it can actually assist in and enhance roleplay.

An Example: Two characters are interacting in a social setting, with Donn's half-orc Grunt attempting to make friends with Keith's PC Baradir. For most instances, roleplay should be sufficient for this. However, circumstances may affect this in a unique fashion; for example, Grunt may have a heart of gold and a silver tongue, but if Baradir is prejudiced against half-orcs (as many northern rangers are) and Keith is roleplaying it to the hilt, Donn may be unable to reflect his character's high Diplomacy in a way to break through that veneer. In this case, Donn may want to ask Keith for a Diplomacy roll based on a common-sense evaluation of Baradir's attitude.

In this case, it would be reasonable to assume that Baradir's attitude towards Grunt would be Unfriendly (though the default is Indifferent). If Donn makes a Diplomacy roll, it would be DC 5 to maintain that rating, DC 15 to increase it to Indifferent, or DC 25 to Friendly. The ensuing roleplay can then take the roll into account: if Donn fails outright, Grunt has probably said something to cause even greater offense, moving Baradir to Hostile. Maintaining the rating, meanwhile, would allow the interaction to continue unmodified, as Donn fails to make a dent; an increase to Indifferent might soften Baradir a bit, causing him to merely grunt and nod instead of actively tossing out insults, while an increase to Friendly might cause him to actually listen, and at least ponder the possibility that Grunt might not be as bad as his kin. Such a case is truly what this rule was intended to help with; the player has used dice along with roleplay to truly reflect his character's capabilities.

These are merely roleplay suggestions, and even an increase to Friendly does not make Baradir instantly into Grunt's bestest buddy, or even necessarily force him to act totally as per the recommendations for Friendly behavior. The modifiers to attitude are nebulous, and to a large degree at the "defender's" discretion (to be based on a combination of both the roll and ensuing roleplay), though it is expected that both sides will act in good faith on the results of this roll.

Some situations will be more or less nuanced than others. For example, attempts to use Intimidate on another PC are generally successful or unsuccessful, and there's not much in-between. However, reactions may vary based on the result--basically, the result of a successful roll leads to the intimidator looking rather convincing, and the "defender" coming to the conclusion that he is a clear, viable, and imposing threat, with reactions from there again being based on a good faith roleplay effort from both sides. ("I won't be intimidated" is a poor, 'meta-gamy' response to successful Intimidation; "I put on a show of bravado to conceal that edge of unease he inspires," or "I back down for now, but I make a mental note to pay him back in spades later" are better alternatives.)

What this rule is not meant to do: This rule is not meant to replace roleplay entirely, or to be a Behavior Bludgeon. If you think the best way to make friends is have your character walk into the Blade and start making Diplomacy checks, you're not doing it right. If you think good rolls replace being a nice person when it comes to convincing someone to like you, so you can be a total jerk and still not make enemies because you have a +20 to Diplomacy, you're also not doing it right. And if you think this gives you carte blanche to tell other players how they will react to your PC, you're really not doing it right. Using these skills with the gross ineptitude of the above examples is a good way to get you smacked by a DM.

As I noted earlier, dice-rolling is not meant to be used as a total substitute for actual roleplaying, merely the occasional crutch for those that can't quite express themselves as well as their characters could, and the occasional enhancement to roleplay for those who want to spice things up a bit. Used incorrectly, it can be turned into as much (if not more) of an abuse as the twinkiest Combat-Twink who ever twinked, making the game a wank-fest that's fun for nobody (especially the DM that will be acting on the complaints you inspire).

For more information on how these skills are best used, I highly recommend you check this "Save My Game" article on the Wizards site, dealing specifically with this topic, which is helpful if somewhat tangential, and was fortuitously timed for the implementation of this rule.

Basically, it comes down to this: This rule both assumes and requires a certain level of maturity amongst the players, with regards to both using it and reacting to it. It probably shouldn't be relied upon very often, but once in a while it may be appropriate to assist and enhance roleplay. It has the potential for abuse, however, people who can't handle this rule in a mature and responsible manner--either by abusing it or reacting poorly to its results--may be asked to find somewhere else to play.