Right, Since Paizo are in a position to really, positively influence D'n'D. Please, Please, Please will you consider the addition of a better developed social conflict system. Something that gives even a tenth of the space to talking to other people that Combat Receives.
Also a character class, who's primary roll is infomation gathering and talking to people would be great. sure, they can have some fightie fightie abilities if they have to, but please, give me a class where talking is King.
Strongly seconded.
And it won't suck if you called that class a "bard"
Strongly seconded.
And it won't suck if you called that class a "bard"
3rded. Also agree that Bard is an EXCELLENT candidate for such a class. Certain Rogue builds should also be good at this as well.
FYI, I started a thread asking if people wanted Social Conflict rules. (LINK) As of right now, I have to say the reception was quite mixed, with equal proportions saying: 1) they want a more robust social encounter system, 2) they want the rules as is, 3) they want the rules to be even more simplified or even diceless.
Jason Buhlman has nowhere indicated he's interested in coming up with a social encounter system. Although I think it would be a good addition to the game, right now it doesn't appear to be a priority.
At any rate, I would not think having only one class be good at social encounters would be good game design. What happens then is in social encounters, only one player gets to participate, and everyone else twiddles their fingers because their participation can only hurt the party.
I'd rather have a system that allows all the players to participate meaningfully and in different ways.
Anybody interested in the sort of system I would like to see implemented can see a rough outline of it at my blog: (LINK)
|
Yes there definitely needs to be some rules, or at the minimum clarifications, for social interactions. Right now I know social munchkins who wield the Diplomacy skill like a club.
"I rolled a 40 on my diplomacy check, can I get their money pouch and their pants too?"
In Curse of the Crimson Throne I'm going to play a noble/swashbuckler so I'd like to see a social class as well. Not everything is about punching people in the face and stealing their wallet after all. }; )
|
I would like the system to include feats and/or alternate class features, since although I love the Bard, a rogue or Enchanter Variant also flavors nicely. Or what about a suave fighter?
I'd really like to see a new Social Combat subsystem for social encounter resolutions. I'm thinking something in the vein of Exalted 2nd, with a specific focus on debates (theological, mystical, political, etc.), verbal justs (swearing contest, wits-related pranks, etc.) and non-verbal contest, like staredowns or the like.
I think the game will be greatly improved with an easy and simple subsystem for these classes of tasks. Games of political intrigues, swashbuckling adventure and even investigation stories could all gain a lot of flavor from such a system.
Regards,
ZOOROOS
|
|
I don't think this is a good idea. It could easily complicate the roleplaying element of the game. Suddenly the funny, silver tongued rogue is just the player who rolls well and says "I'm funny. The die says so." The reason the combat system exists is because the scenarios are generally so fantastic and bloody that they would dangerous, exhausting and potentially embarrassing to act out. But we can easily simulate social encounters by, well, talking.
That said, I think that any good DM should defer to the Charisma and social skills of the PC and not the player when mapping out social encounters. I make note of these abilities in my DM cheat sheet, right next to the PC's combat stats. The charming PCs gets first crack at most interactions, and the NPCs will usually hand plot point items to them first. It's not a proper mechanic, but it the front-of-the-line treatment lets my players know I don't consider Charisma a throwaway stat.
|
Contributor
|
Also a character class, who's primary roll is infomation gathering and talking to people would be great. sure, they can have some fightie fightie abilities if they have to, but please, give me a class where talking is King.
That already exists. It's called a bard.
Or you can take the prestige class version of the bard and take levels in commoner.
;D
Also a character class, who's primary roll is infomation gathering and talking to people would be great. sure, they can have some fightie fightie abilities if they have to, but please, give me a class where talking is King.That already exists. It's called a bard.
Or you can take the prestige class version of the bard and take levels in commoner.
;D
no a bards primary role is buffing and mini magic effects.
I am talking about a class or classes, whos raison for existing is to do stuff in social encounters.
A character who is to fighter, what crane courtiers are to bushi in L5R
I don't think this is a good idea. It could easily complicate the roleplaying element of the game. Suddenly the funny, silver tongued rogue is just the player who rolls well and says "I'm funny. The die says so." The reason the combat system exists is because the scenarios are generally so fantastic and bloody that they would dangerous, exhausting and potentially embarrassing to act out. But we can easily simulate social encounters by, well, talking.
That said, I think that any good DM should defer to the Charisma and social skills of the PC and not the player when mapping out social encounters. I make note of these abilities in my DM cheat sheet, right next to the PC's combat stats. The charming PCs gets first crack at most interactions, and the NPCs will usually hand plot point items to them first. It's not a proper mechanic, but it the front-of-the-line treatment lets my players know I don't consider Charisma a throwaway stat.
As a 'Hard Skill' larper, i have to call you on that one. It is entirely possible to act out most scenes that pop up atleast in low level adventures and even in many high level aventures.
A strong GM should not let it boil down to "I'm funny. The die says so."
I think that better roleplaying and greater creativity come when under some constraints. As a player, if I see that I rolled well on my Diplomacy check, I have a clearer idea of how to play that scene. As a DM, if I see that a player failed a check, I can play that scene to bring about that resolution. Both parties can better tailor their efforts if they know where the efforts need to go.
There should be a clear system for social conflict that provides a framework for acting in the scene. An argument can be as exciting as a combat, especially if the parties go back and forth in initiative-based turns with each party member able to contribute (e.g. the fighter holds the man up against the wall while the bard speaks calmly and slowly offering reasonable alternatives to being beaten while the paladin watches for deceptions and subtle changes in response, cuing the bard).
The social conflict rules should be simple; probably fitting onto one page with DCs and uses for various skills. An effort should be made to ensure that all kinds of characters can have some meaningful impact upon the scene, just as all characters should have some meaningful impact upon combat.
In the interest of backwards compatibility, there shouldn't be a "social hit points" rule for individual characters, as no previously published materials will have them. Instead, scenes in general could have a certain number of "social points" which are deducted until a side wins or stops negotiations. Simple bluffing past the guards could require only 10 points to be made (One DC 10 check). Convincing the warmongering barbarian king to call off the assault, however, would have 150 points to deduct, requiring numerous rolls and assists by the whole party, while the players roleplay what their dice rolls actually mean in terms of action and the story.
The best part about having a comprehensive system is that it allows for all play styles. People who don't want to roleplay social situations don't have to; they can just roll dice. People who want no dice involved can simply ignore the rules, just as one could ignore certain combat rules in the interest of the story or game. Best of all, those who want an integrated system, as I do, can actually have it and have it work well.
No social conflict systems dang it. What's the point to ROLEPLAYING if all you do is ROLL? Leave the dice rolling for making NPCs do/say things they don't want in social encounters and for those situations the system is fine.
If you don't want to use them you can ignore them.
But if they arn't there, people who want them dont have them.
Its also my experience that social conflict systems encurage people to roleplay out social situations. Especially those who have less social acumen in real life.
If there is a system that reflects what they're character should be able to, rather than what they them selves can do, it gives them a reason to try. Where they would normally shy away from such things.
In case some of you didn't know, there's social combat mechanics in Exalted 2nd Edition that really "rules"!
I have to say, while I do want a social conflict system in D&D, I don't want it to be quite as dice-heavy and complicated as Exalted. I have found that Exalted really does cut down on the role-play, and its resolution system can sometimes be as complex as grappling in 3.5. Of course, it doesn't help that Exalted uses the ridiculous White Wolf "dice pool" system in which you're rolling twenty dice for every action.
I do think Action Points should be spent defending oneself from social attacks, and I like that aspect of Exalted.
I think a middle ground can be found in between what we have now and Exalted
In case some of you didn't know, there's social combat mechanics in Exalted 2nd Edition that really "rules"!I have to say, while I do want a social conflict system in D&D, I don't want it to be quite as dice-heavy and complicated as Exalted. I have found that Exalted really does cut down on the role-play, and its resolution system can sometimes be as complex as grappling in 3.5. Of course, it doesn't help that Exalted uses the ridiculous White Wolf "dice pool" system in which you're rolling twenty dice for every action.
I do think Action Points should be spent defending oneself from social attacks, and I like that aspect of Exalted.
I think a middle ground can be found in between what we have now and Exalted
It isn't ridiculous if you want a realistic statisicial spread ;), that said, i think that while Exalted 2nd edition's social conflict rules are interesting. Something a little more stream lined would be useful for PRPG.
|
|
Also a character class, who's primary roll is infomation gathering and talking to people would be great. sure, they can have some fightie fightie abilities if they have to, but please, give me a class where talking is King.That already exists. It's called a bard.
Or you can take the prestige class version of the bard and take levels in commoner.
;D
no a bards primary role is buffing and mini magic effects.
I am talking about a class or classes, whos raison for existing is to do stuff in social encounters.
A character who is to fighter, what crane courtiers are to bushi in L5R
I'm going to disagree with you a bit here Zombie. I think the Bard is a great candidate for this. The bard's role historically is as story teller and diplomat and that would fit well with what you are looking for I think. I do agree more and better mechanisms for social interaction would be a definitive plus to the game.
Phalazar:
While the 'conceptual' Bards would be a good choice, for such a class.
The currently existing bard class does not fill the roll i am thinking of. With some major reworking, to give them class abilities related to influencing public opinion and mood. They would make exilent Assertive social class, as could palidins. However, i personally think there is room for atleast one class which is even more heavily focused on social actions than the bard.
No social conflict systems dang it. What's the point to ROLEPLAYING if all you do is ROLL? Leave the dice rolling for making NPCs do/say things they don't want in social encounters and for those situations the system is fine.
Agreed. Everyone playing this game should know how to talk already (one hopes.)
Rules for talking oughta be pretty low on the list of priorities.
No social conflict systems dang it. What's the point to ROLEPLAYING if all you do is ROLL? Leave the dice rolling for making NPCs do/say things they don't want in social encounters and for those situations the system is fine.Agreed. Everyone playing this game should know how to talk already (one hopes.)
Rules for talking oughta be pretty low on the list of priorities.
Hazel, i know how to fence(i am admittedly very rusty), should that effect if i succeed or fail in combat during a game?
Has anyone used Dynasties and Demagogues from Atlas Games? I have a copy but haven't yet had the opportunity to use it in a game. It contains social conflict resolution rules; three versions of it, in fact, varying in degrees of complexity. The most complex system seems to be primarily geared toward debating, with all sorts of tactics that the player can choose from as he attempts to sway people to his side of the argument, but I see how it could be extrapolated to cover all kinds of social conflict.
I'm of the opinion that social conflict rules should be there as an optional rule. Just as my character may be stronger than me or more intelligent than me, my character may be more charismatic than me. Now, that could simply mean that even though the things he says aren't any more brilliant than the next guy's statement, due to his attractiveness, the quality of his voice, and his sheer force of personality, people eat it up as if he were dispensing pearls of wisdom. This happens in real life with celebrities and politicians all the time.
But say, for the sake of example, that in real life I'm not a very witty person. In such a case, I might love to play the stereotypically witty swashbuckler, because I want to vicariously experience being able to make jokes and influence people and so on. It's a bit of wish-fulfillment, like the guy who gets picked on in real life might like to play the burly fighter or barbarian that regularly performs great feats of strength. Since my character is not me, why should my character be limited by my real world abilities?
no a bards primary role is buffing and mini magic effects.
I am talking about a class or classes, whos raison for existing is to do stuff in social encounters.
Drum would be deeply offended by your assertion. He would require you to call him "Mr. Fasketel", no familiarity permitted.
My bard, Gwaylar "Drum" Fasketel, has been a unique experience. He doesn't stand around "buffing" the players, but gets up front and saves their asses from those they don't want to fight. He turns the arguement around with we're at odds with authority and he's talked us out of a fight on occasion when the villian was too much for us to handle.
He's the "Face" for our team. He negotiates for better pay when the patrons want it cheap, he bails the them out of jail when the drunken types get arrested, etc.
He's also the guy that steps in and says "You know, I read about this once..." when the cleric/wizard types are standing there scratching their heads...the triple whammy of Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History) combined with Bardic Knowledge makes him an excellent researcher when it comes to finding the answers.
He does have his quirks, of course, a couple of weeks ago the party had to convince that it simply wasn't possible to haul an entire library with him...
To say a bard is merely for "buffing and minimagic" is like saying a cleric's purpose is to "turn undead". Be wary of over-simplification.
Do not underestimate the Bard's advantage in a social situation. He usually has high charisma, and often high bluff or Diplomacy. If she has to, she can resort to using fascinate/suggestion, or enchantment spells...but often, she doesn't have to.
The game actually has a great deal of opportunity to design social encounters. There aren't good guidelines for designing them, but the tools are there: Present a social situation, consider what kinds of skill checks would achive various ends (Diplomacy DCs, Bluff DCs, etc.), arguably if a demonstration of prowess is required, perhaps a fighter's BAB becomes a skill check against a DC, etc.. Not unlike designing a good trap (heheh, social traps!)...
Feaelin: You clearly play a bard the way i would like to see them played and the way in which i would and have personally played them. However, from having played with far to many less that great D20 using groups, i have rarely seen bards used, and when they have been frankly there where there to provide bardic music and that was it.
Bards are the 'social class' despite there class features not because of them. i will admit it did sell them short a better term would be to describe them as the 'generalist' of a party, but it isn't because i dislike them. I would like to see them become a character class who should be considered to be as important in every game as fighter, wizard, clerics and rogues. or if not bards, another class who perform a social roll.
The game actually has a great deal of opportunity to design social encounters. ...{SNIP}... Not unlike designing a good trap (heheh, social traps!)...
I think that is the crux of a lot of difference here. There are three analogies that different DMs employ:
Social Encounter as Theater: These are the folks who want no dice whatsoever. Social encounters may be infrequent, or quite frequent, but the DM wants nothing to interfere with his unfettered discretion. On one hand, this allows for better immersion in which people are judged by their role-play. On the other hand, it benefits people with good real-world social skills at the expense of those who would like to be in-game something they aren't out-of-game (i.e., social). It also minimizes social skill and the Charisma stat.
Social Encounter as Traps: This is the current system, in which almost all social encounters are resolved by the guy with the highest Charisma (and usually the party bard or rogue). If social encounters are kept short, like a trap encounter, this works well. Like traps, what happens is when the party sees the encounter, everybody but the PC who will deal with it takes a break. I.e., when you see a trap everyone says "Let the rogue handle it", and when you see a social situation, everyone says "Let the bard/beguiler/diplomancer handle it". However, if the encounter is more than a single Disable Device or Diplomacy roll, then it becomes a drawback, because for a large swath of game time most of the party is doing nothing but watching the DM and the bard have a one-on-one role-play experience. In other words, the current system discourages involved social conflict.
Social Encounter as Conflict: This is what I prefer. With a more complex social conflict system, every member of the party gets to participate in a meaningful way without stepping on one another's toes. It allows you to distinguish the sort of social strengths your character has (negotiator, information gatherer, intimidator) in the way PCs now can in combat (blaster, archer, tank, flanker, buffer, etc.) The danger is a system that is too complicated bogs the game down.
I am really not happy with the idea of a "party face" (i.e., the guy who does all the role-playing). I look at it as if someone were the "party combatant" in that a single roll or two determined whether a foe was physically beaten. I don't think that's good game design and I think it is the main reason bards are infrequently played. In combat, they can't keep p, and out of combat they monopolize the table. That's simply a bad recipe for intra-player fun.
Note I am also not crazy with the fact that traps can only be overcome by a single class (Rogue at levels 1-6 and then CODzilla after that). I am a firm believer that every player should have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in any encounter.
Feaelin: You clearly play a bard the way i would like to see them played and the way in which i would and have personally played them. However, from having played with far to many less that great D20 using groups, i have rarely seen bards used, and when they have been frankly there where there to provide bardic music and that was it.
Bards are the 'social class' despite there class features not because of them. i will admit it did sell them short a better term would be to describe them as the 'generalist' of a party, but it isn't because i dislike them. I would like to see them become a character class who should be considered to be as important in every game as fighter, wizard, clerics and rogues. or if not bards, another class who perform a social roll.
You raise some good points. I'll admit it is a challenge for the GM and a challenge for me, to play Drum well, and not fall back on being "buff guy".
An excellent post, Wrecan. I believe it covers the issues involved well.
Social Encounter as Conflict: This is what I prefer. With a more complex social conflict system, every member of the party gets to participate in a meaningful way without stepping on one another's toes. It allows you to distinguish the sort of social strengths your character has (negotiator, information gatherer,...
This would be the "ideal" I think. At least for my enjoyment of the game. I think though, that it isn't the game system that needs changed to achieve this ideal.
I think to achieve this the GM needs time and creativity to present challenges that offer those kinds of opportunities. It would help to have "Excellent examples" to draw from: There are plenty of modules, but only a few have good mixed encounters. There is plenty of discussion on how to design creatures, magic items, and combat challenges, but less on Traps and situations where combat cannot be the solution. We see it in the movies, but it doesn't make it into our games as often as it should: The hero has a boss, friends, family, etc. who they have to maintain good terms with, but can place them in social conflicts where the combat won't work. I have see a few articles discussing it, but fewer still actual examples.
It might help to provide a detailed mechanism for it, but it might not. It might help to simply demonstrate how flexibile the existing game is: write encounters where a fighter's combat ability is important in a /social context/, etc. Perhaps a "Mission: Impossible"/Alias style encounter where each character has a task to perform to make the whole thing come together: the wizard uses prestidigitation to help the rogue steal the plans, while the bard distracts the crowd/victims...or the fighter provides the distraction by starting a brawl, etc.
|
Has anyone tried out the alternative rules for Diplomacy at giantitp.com? I personally haven't, but they look intriguing and perhaps offer a chance for more involvement of other PCs. They seem to provide a more concrete system for resolving social conflict modifiers but without too many dice rolls; this might be the sort of thing I'd like to see if social conflict gets some more rules, but I haven't tried it out in-game yet.
edit: Rich Burleu's website.
Feaelin: You clearly play a bard the way i would like to see them played and the way in which i would and have personally played them. However, from having played with far to many less that great D20 using groups, i have rarely seen bards used, and when they have been frankly there where there to provide bardic music and that was it.
Bards are the 'social class' despite there class features not because of them. i will admit it did sell them short a better term would be to describe them as the 'generalist' of a party, but it isn't because i dislike them. I would like to see them become a character class who should be considered to be as important in every game as fighter, wizard, clerics and rogues. or if not bards, another class who perform a social roll.
You raise some good points. I'll admit it is a challenge for the GM and a challenge for me, to play Drum well, and not fall back on being "buff guy".
Done well, a social conflict system (and maybe even classes) would make your life easier, get other people involved and make your experience more rewarding.
Has anyone tried out the alternative rules for Diplomacy at giantitp.com?
I have. They do prevent the Diplomancer situation in which the half-elf beguiler's +40 Diplomacy check converts the warlock's drow army to Pelor with a song. But then again, so does Pathfinder by simply capping the attitude shift to two steps.
But what neither it nor Pathfinder (currently) does is eliminate the fact that one PC can (and usually will) dominate any social conflict. In both rules, the only person in the party who should be participating in social conflict is the PC with the highest Diplomacy modifier. Nobody else can contribute meaningfully.
Social Encounter as Conflict: This is what I prefer. With a more complex social conflict system, every member of the party gets to participate in a meaningful way without stepping on one another's toes. It allows you to distinguish the sort of social strengths your character has (negotiator, information gatherer,...
I heartily agree with all you just wrote, wrecan. The system must encourage play. That's the pure and simple truth. A system for social encounters or social combats that let everybody share the spotlight while keeping some room for diplomatic-focused characters would be a significant improvement for social-focused play. We'd have more intrigue adventures, swashbuckling scenes and more exciting investigative stories for all to enjoy, since it would be supported by the rules. Optional or otherwise, a social conflict system could really add a new dimension to good old d20 games.
Regards,
ZOOROOS
and where deciding what your character does is replaced with rolling the dice and telling a story about what you rolled.
You mean like combat?
I like the idea of other PCs being able to contribute to the social conflict.
Part of me (the player part) feels that way because it's good for all of the players to feel like they can contribute to the situation somehow.
And part of me (the sadistic DM part) feels that way because low CHA / WIS characters may inadvertently blurt out something inappropriate or damaging to the diplomatic procedure, making success less likely.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hi, Wrecan.
The boards ate my post, so I'm going to try this again.
I really like your insidght that social encounters are typically more like traps than combats. I think that's inescapable, though.
Combats are essentially reciprocal: you hit the orc, the orc hits you.
Traps are one-sided: you try to do something to change the trap, the DC resists the change. The trap never tries to deactivate you back.
Because D&D is a role-playing game, and --barring magical effects like dominate-- players should have free-will with their characters, social encounters are one-sided: you try to do something to change the NPC's mind, and the DC represents the NPC's background and willpower, resisting the change. The NPC never tries to convince you back.
So we could take a look at what Dave Noonan says about "encounter traps" over at the Wizards' boards, and the traps people said they liked, and try to apply analogous lessons to social encounters.
The problem, I think, isn't that the social encounters are traps; the problem is that they're bad traps. "Diplomancers" make a simple roll, and there you go.
But I think that roll needs to have heavy modifiers, including steep negatives if you try to, say, persuade the city guards without (a) knowing anything about the people here, nor any information about the murder three nights ago, nor any understanding of how this guard feels or what she's trying to do on her watch.
And if the your fellow party members can succeed at those Knowledge, Gather Information, and Sense Motive rolls with sizable results, they might even provide solid bonuses to your Diplomacy roll.
Which makes me wonder, idly: if it's against the law in this city to magically charm a shopkeeper into letting the enchanter steal his stuff, shouldn't it also be illegal to attempt diplomacy with magical enhancements?
I have a hard time imagining what all these "one character dominates social situation" games are like. I picture a group of PCs marching in single file into a party
I think that's a problem. I picture a party being invited to a royal ball wherein they will be making contacts with nobles who might hire them for adventures, while interacting with other adventurers also trying to gain those jobs, as well as nobles who might try to deceive them about the true nature of the job in question...
I picture a party happening upon a village of halflings ready to stone a wood elf who is protesting his innocence of the crime of which the halflings believe him guilty.
I don't imagine that the only encounters are the ones that can be stategized on a battle grid.
Do you really play games like that?
No, because I don't play with the silly social encounter rules in 3.5 anymore. And truthfully, I don't know anybody who does. So why shouldn't Pathfinder find a better path to social encounters?
Wouldn't the NPCs find it odd that no one else is talking.
No. Most NPCs would assume the guy talking is in charge.
Does the PC with the highest Diplomacy score yell at the NPCs when they try to talk to anyone else?
Yelling doesn't seem very Diplomatic.
Don't all the other PCs talk and interact just because that's what makes sense to do regardless of their social scores?
It doesn't make sense. If you know every time you speak, people want to throw tomatoes at you, and when your friend Bardy McBard speaks, everyone wants to be his best friend, then opening your mouth makes no sense at all.
Don't the low CHA PCs speak up just because they don't know any better than to keep quiet
They do that once, and then if they do it again, the other PCs beat the crud out of him.
Shouldn't the tough barbarian war party leader walk up and address the tough, armed half-orc because that's the PC she most relates to?
Only if your DM regularly gives out +20 circumstance bonuses to offset the fact that your bard can sweet-talk that half-orc into laying down his weapons. Because right now, with the rules in Pathfinder as they exist, that barbarian actually doesn't relate to the tough, armed half-orc at all. Because that barbarian is not trained in Diplomacy and probably has a Charisma penalty.
I'm very unenthused about the idea of 'social conflict' rules.
Sure. If the only picture you have of adventurers is a them single-file in a dungeon hallway, why would you even need the pale social encounter rules that Pathfinder has at all?
I'm not sure quite what they would be
Have you ever played a game with social encounter rules that involve more than Cahrisma + Diplomacy?
|
|
I think that's a problem. I picture a party being invited to a royal ball wherein they will be making contacts with nobles who might hire them for adventures, while interacting with other adventurers also trying to gain those jobs, as well as nobles who might try to deceive them about the true nature of the job in question...You are misunderstanding. I'm not saying that I picture a normal social situation being 'party in single file between charmer'. I'm saying that's what these 'one person does all the talking' descriptions sound like. If you are at a party, people are going to be talking to ALL of the PCs and interacting with them (or being influenced by said PCs refusal to interact) regardless of whether they want to be the 'face' of the party or not. In my barbarian leader example, she doesn't know which party member has the high diplomacy score - she knows who looks biggest and toughest, and that's who she wants to talk to. Its not that the half-orc will do as well as the bard; its that the situation makes him the one who has to try to carry the brunt of it (with the bard supporting as best he can). A player, playing a wizard with moderate social skills, might come up with a clever idea to try to talk the party out of trouble and not happen to have the telepathy needed to fill the bard in and have him try it instead.
That's what my normal game experience is like. It also includes people able to accomplish quite a bit with 'normal' social skills; you don't need a +40 Diplomacy modifier to accomplish something useful.
You're not being realistic. If I see another player dumping tons of skill points into diplomacy or at least a hefty amount, am I tempted to throw a few into my character as well? Hell no, the face has it covered, I can move my points into listen or spot, skills I'm potentially going to use more. I'm not alone in this, nobody likes to be overshadowed. So as a result yes bard or not soon someone from the party comes to dominate social encounters.
A smart player of that half orc would direct the speaker to the bard with a simple, "talk to the boss, I just work here".
Would you really want to get raked over the coals socially if you're rolling straight charisma or even negative?
Thanks, Alex.
Anyway, I think the real division evidence in this thread has made me despair that Paizo would be interested in stepping into this morass and implementing a robust social encounter system. Doing so is sure to alienate a large segment of the potential market for the game. The safer bet is to let things sit, because fewer people get upset when you don't change something than when you do. Which is a shame, but completely understandable.
|
|
Thanks, Alex.
Anyway, I think the real division evidence in this thread has made me despair that Paizo would be interested in stepping into this morass and implementing a robust social encounter system. Doing so is sure to alienate a large segment of the potential market for the game. The safer bet is to let things sit, because fewer people get upset when you don't change something than when you do. Which is a shame, but completely understandable.
I think it's because social encounters tend to be nebulous and not as defined as combat encounters. Most people think the talky bits of an adventure are just to get to the fighty bits. Most of the time they're right as several adventures back this up. How many times have you gotten, talk to authority figure, go to dungeon, fix problem, return to authority figure for reward. Rinse, repeat.
I have to deal with this sort of thing right now as my DM wants to rush through the roleplaying of RoTRL to get to the next encounter. I'm like slow the hell down, this IS the adventure.
PCs don't take social encounters as seriously or with as much gravity as a combat encounter. Players will jump to attention when a goblin's trying to eat your PCs face, most PCs won't put up much of a defense when some noble is convincing the king to enact adventuring taxes or limits to open weapon carry laws.
Kinda like real life.
If I see another player dumping tons of skill points into diplomacy or at least a hefty amount, am I tempted to throw a few into my character as well?Do you also think "Another player can swim really well, so I'll just drown if I get dumped in the water?"
All party members need to swim to get across the river. Only one party members needs to talk to get through a social encounter (under the current rules). That's the nature of social encounters. Your analogy is woefully inapt.
Here's a better one:
Do you think "Well, the Rogue is Trained in Theft. I should become cross-trained in Theft too, even though that will use up two skill proficiencies, will only be cross-trained, I have an Ability penalty, and an armor penalty on Theft checks"?
And when the party comes across the lock needing picking, who do you think should do it? You with your +4 Theft roll, or the rogue, with his +24 Theft roll?
Now, replace "Theft" with "Diplomacy" and "Rogue" with "Bard".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If I see another player dumping tons of skill points into diplomacy or at least a hefty amount, am I tempted to throw a few into my character as well?
Do you also think "Another player can swim really well, so I'll just drown if I get dumped in the water?"
(laughs) Hello, stormknight.
The distinction here, of course, is that everybody sinks or Swims on their own merits, but a party only needs one person to roll a Diplomacy check.
Likewise, everybody wants Balance, because Sir Percy over there having Balance doesn't help you much, but if Percy's reading a lot of books on Knowledge (nobility), you might want to consider spending your skill points on something not quite so redundant.
|
|
If I see another player dumping tons of skill points into diplomacy or at least a hefty amount, am I tempted to throw a few into my character as well?Do you also think "Another player can swim really well, so I'll just drown if I get dumped in the water?"
And if need to get across the water to save the rest of the party, do you think "My swim isn't as good, so I'll just sit here and watch them die", or do you say "Hmm, well, I can maybe make a DC 10 even untrained...I'll go for it!"
Uh no, I watch them die. I'm a pragmatist. Maybe I'll try and throw a rope or something but I'm sure as hell not going to make things worse by getting my ass all stuck out there as well.
Here's an even better one for you. Party's in a sword fight, I'm a scholar, no spells. Do I leap into the fray with my trusty quarterstaff when I see my fighter near defeat? Hell no, then they'll cut me down as well without breaking a sweat. Wow that'll help.
And thus...
Bard is in tense negotiations with a noble. I'm a fighter, do I leap into the conversation with a straight diplomacy roll or well timed one liner? Hell no, I'll make things worse. The party will thank me then right?
As Dirty Harry I believe once said, "A man's gotta know his limitations." }: P
|
I want to add my vote to the list of folks wanting a social or mental conflict resolution system, and I want to add that I EAGERLY SALIVATE at the thought of getting one for Pathfinder.
As food for thought, or perhaps a model off which to base the structure, I think the FATE system (http://www.faterpg.com/) works really well for conflict resolution. Did I say really well? Because I mean really REALLY well. Simple to learn, fast to use, and also dynamic.
Ok...the bard is in intense negotiations. Meanwhile, one of the enemy warriors comes over to talk with you. Do you go interrupt the bards delicate and tense negotiations with the enemy ambassador to come bail you out?
No. You put your finger to your lips and say "Shhh."
Really, when you've got a penalty on social interaction, you let the people who can socially interact do it.
When the wizard with 8 Strength is standing there and the warrior comes by says "Let's arm wrestle. If I win I get your spellbook," does your wizard really say, "Well, the barbarian is busy, so I guess I'll go ahead and handle this feat of strength." No.
but a party only needs one person to roll a Diplomacy check.And when the party Rogue is tired up in the locked room ahead, only one one person needs to roll to open locks - but sadly, its not the best one, since he's all tied up at the moment.
Are you saying your characters will blow two Skill proficiencies on Theft in the off-chance that the party rogue is momentarily unavailable when a lock needs picking? Really?
In my barbarian example, sure the half orc can say "Er, talk to him". Right. Roll Diplomacy. Succeed, and now the bard can give it a try. Fail, and your party has already blown your shot - you WERE that one person, whether you liked it or not.
Ah, so you railroad to force people to engage in situations their players are ill-equipped to handle. Got it. Personally, I'd rather have a handle that makes all characters properly equipped to deal with social situations, without the DM having to railroad players and make up rules and scenarios on the fly.
Its is TRIVIALLY easy to play a game in which every character has the potential to face social rolls
Sure, but as written right now, Pathfinder is not such a game. Your own examples show that you have to fudge scenarios and railroad players to get it to work. All I'm suggesting is the rules work with you, not against you.
This is all a style of play that YOU have decided to use, and are then complaining about. Just stop playing that way!
Maybe you didn't notice, but this message board is intended ot discuss ways to change the game and develop Pathfinder. So, we do want to stop playing that way. We want well-developed rules for social interaction that don't involve contrived situations that force us to work around the fact that the game currently encourages one and only player to have social skills.
|
|
If you don't want to use them you can ignore them. But if they arn't there, people who want them dont have them.
And then there are the DMs that use all the rules even if the players don't want them.
And then there's the wasted space on the character sheet.
Etc.
Its also my experience that social conflict systems encurage people to roleplay out social situations. Especially those who have less social acumen in real life.
Sounds like ROLL play to me. A social encounter has an objective, it should not be an objective that requires you to roll a dice. Either the NPC is going to go along with what you say, not, or need convincing. Thee need convincing is where the dice comes in, if the NPC is going to be cooperative, there's not need for roles or rules.
A DM should not be judging you on your own acting ability. If I'm studdering trying to get out a sentence and my character doesn't studder, the DM should be able to tell the difference. :P
If there is a system that reflects what they're character should be able to, rather than what they them selves can do, it gives them a reason to try. Where they would normally shy away from such things.
We already have rules for that, diplomacy and bluff cover just about everything you'd want out of an encounter.