And then there are the DMs that use all the rules even if the players don't want them.
So we should be protecting players from tyrannical DMs who don't listen to his players by not including rules people might enjoy?!
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.
Wait. Are you saying that the only reason to use dice to convince someone is by beating on them?
A DM should not be judging you on your own acting ability.
That's why you should use dice! If the DM is going to decide if a NPC goes along with you based on what you role-play exclusively, he is judging you on your acting ability.
We already have rules for that, diplomacy and bluff cover just about everything you'd want out of an encounter.
But they don't do it in a way where everyone in the party gets to participate meaningfully, as described several times.
|
Uh no, I watch them die. I'm a pragmatist.If you aren't willing to take a 50/50 risk to save the lives of everyone else in the party, I really don't want you on my adventuring team! In fact, if you aren't willing to take that kind of risk, you probably shouldn't be out fighting giant fire breathing monsters in the first place.
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?
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.
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. Of course, had you just tried to do it, a success would have gotten what you wanted in the first place.
Its is TRIVIALLY easy to play a game in which every character has the potential to face social rolls; in which one 'face' cannot be counted on to talk all the time, and in which the person doing the talking isn't always the one you want to be talking. It is so easy that ever game group I've ever been in has managed it without even considering the matter. There is nothing embedded into a normal RPG system that forces this "one talker" style of play. Even in D&D, which is more problematic than some systems since the difference between a trained character and an untrained character can be quite large. This is all a style of play that YOU have decided to use, and are then complaining about. Just stop playing that way!
I think you're confusing risk with calculated risk. First of all I ignored your DC 10, that's loaded. Why not DC 15 or DC 20? But if you're genuinely asking would I take a 50% chance to save someone the answer still stands. No. I deal in skill, not luck. If I can't swing the odds in my favor then it's a no go. See I think you're relying on other things, like oh it's a heroic action so it should probably succeed or gee if I let that roll stand then it's a TPK and my players will hate me. Tough. You take the risk, you suffer the consequences. No action points or DM fiat to bail your ass out.
If you do take stupid noncalculated risks often well guess what? You won't be fighting giant fire breathing monsters for long. Some of which are my best friends btw }: P.
Hey I'm all for generalism but people tend to specialize. So your rogue is tied up behind a locked door. Do you think the fighter or wizard busts out his Open Lock skill? Hell no, the fighter kicks down the door or the wizard casts knock. That's what they're good at.
I personally think that if you keep throwing social encounters and rolls at say Mongo the barbarian, the player is going to be pissed. He won't be happy you're getting him involved in things you know as a DM he's not good at. He'll think you're just trying to remind him of his social ineptitude. It's like throwing combat after combat at a scholar. You're getting him involved in the action! Huzzah. }: P
Please lets not get lost in rhetorics here. I think the point of contention, as it was already presented, is if a new social combat system would improve or hinder the game as present. I know such a system wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but saying that said system would only promote ROLL playing instead of roleplaying, or that would steal the thunder of an otherwise immersive social encounter is simply not true. By looking out of the d20 box by just a minute anyone could find dozens of social conflict systems, many of them from 'narrativist' or 'ROLEplaying' kind of games that bring both an adjucating social system and an immersive style of play while keeping faithful to their core design goals.
Previous posters have said Exalted 2nd' social combat system may be a bit too much crunch-heavy, but it's been highly popular nevertheless. The FATE system is another example, very flexible yet precise in bringing a certain degree of challenge to social encounters. And what about Requiem for Rome's debate rules? A roaring success, that one.
So all I am saying is that a social encounter system is not recent breakthru in the RPG community, it has proven succesful in several other games AND the current rules have been found lacking at best in providing exciting challenges and a fair rules adjudicating system.
Official or optional, I don't really care, as long as the interested parties can get nice system for their games. Options never hurts, after all.
Regards,
ZOOROOS
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.
Dude, if your DM doesn't take into account the veiws of his group, there is something seriously wrong with your social contract. Sucks to be in your SIS.
Such a system might well not even need to make ANY changes to the character sheet, and even if it did custom character sheets are common and suit all tastes these days.
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
There is a saying amongst Indie-RPG fans, "those one D'n'D boards should not complain of about rollplaying."
You completely misunderstand what a social encounter system does. Such systems are there to assign cedability. Effectively, a social encounter system is how you decide if the NPC is convinced or not.
There already is a social encounter mechanic. The Problem is it CRAP.
We already have rules for that, diplomacy and bluff cover just about everything you'd want out of an encounter.
And they do it hurrendously badly.
oh and Zooroos:
Exceedingly well said.
|
Please lets not get lost in rhetorics here. I think the point of contention, as it was already presented, is if a new social combat system would improve or hinder the game as present. I know such a system wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but saying that said system would only promote ROLL playing instead of roleplaying, or that would steal the thunder of an otherwise immersive social encounter is simply not true. By looking out of the d20 box by just a minute anyone could find dozens of social conflict systems, many of them from 'narrativist' or 'ROLEplaying' kind of games that bring both an adjucating social system and an immersive style of play while keeping faithful to their core design goals.
Previous posters have said Exalted 2nd' social combat system may be a bit too much crunch-heavy, but it's been highly popular nevertheless. The FATE system is another example, very flexible yet precise in bringing a certain degree of challenge to social encounters. And what about Requiem for Rome's debate rules? A roaring success, that one.
So all I am saying is that a social encounter system is not recent breakthru in the RPG community, it has proven succesful in several other games AND the current rules have been found lacking at best in providing exciting challenges and a fair rules adjudicating system.
Official or optional, I don't really care, as long as the interested parties can get nice system for their games. Options never hurts, after all.
I'm quite inclined to agree. I think it would be a nice addition.
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.
As was posted in a related thread, some players suffer from Asperger syndrome and similar conditions. These people have a hard time with real social interactions, making in-game social interaction STRICTLY roleplaying (a social interaction in itself) means they will never be good at it. The skills and a good social conflict system would give these individuals a chance to do in-game what they cannot easily do in real life.
|
|
As I haven't had the neccessary time yet to read all of this interesting thread, let me mention a few things I'd demand from a complex social system:
Sure the basics like bluff and intimidating and diplomatics should be covered, but I'd like subrules (or DC-charts or whatever) to handle negotiatians, seduction amd stuff like innuendo (from 3.0).
stormknight:
Firstly, i have to agree with you on a lot of what you said, it is possible to run reasonable social encounters at the momment, and to me it is fairly clear you have a fair idea how it is done.
That doesn't however mean that it is in anyway easy, or in most cases inclusive.
The very system itself discourages you from playing a fighter with social skills.
I have almost never played with a D'n'D group where the social aspect of the game is given anywhere near the attention that combat is given.
By contrast, when i have played in games where social interaction has system, the social aspect of the game allways seem to be blossoming. Its one of the reasons that i stopped playing DnD for a very long time and instead played just about anything else i could get my hands on.
It is only paizo's clear interest in storytelling, rather than dungoen bashing that has brought me back to this element of the hobby. I hope they will introduce a much greater attention to social mechanics and do everything they can to encurrage roleplay and the use of social conflict systems.
An to be honest, what good reason is there to oppose it, after all, if you don't want to use them, you can disregard them.
Yeah, i can list a few things i'd like done.
-Systems for influencing crowds/mobs
-debate rules
-social rolls being opposed
-social rolls effecting PC's with equal ability to there ability to affect the enviroment with them.
-a greater enphersis on classes, and/or feats which grant bonus to social rolls, which gives social interaction the attention it surely needs within the rules. Including feats related to Appearance and social status.
-systems for charisma based psychologicial attacks such as torture, interigation and programming/deprogramming
-all classes being able to take all social skills as class skills.(there is no good reason a fighter can't be a charming and elliquent speaker or a Barbarian cant sing well.)
-duel axis results on social rolls making it possible to successed at aim+improve social standing, successed at aim+damage social standing, fail at aim+improve social standing, fail at aim+damage social standing. With different approachs and skills influencing different axis.
- more mature npc attitude options to cover situations such as mutually benificial but unfriendly alliances, lust, hatred, alliance of neccitity and love.
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. The need convincing is where the dice comes in, if the NPC is going to be cooperative, there's not need for roles or rules.
And in combat encounters, I shouldn't have to roll, either. I should be able to walk up and smack the DM around, so that everyone will see how well I role-played the combat.
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. The need convincing is where the dice comes in, if the NPC is going to be cooperative, there's not need for roles or rules.And in combat encounters, I shouldn't have to roll, either. I should be able to walk up and smack the DM around, so that everyone will see how well I role-played the combat.
Agreed, and when my character is shooting into combat, i like to demonstrate my skill as an archer, on the GM. Its lots of fun.
In my games, I take circumstance modifiers into account, such as "the orc hates you, because you are an elf and he has been classically raised to loathe elves for no good reason, so enjoy your -20 racism penalty".
However, I also let other party members roll to aid on diplomacy. They're aiming for DC 10. They have to roll, as per normal Aiding rules. If they fail by 5, they hinder the diplomacy, and impose a -2 penalty. This causes the PCs with poor charisma to stay out of it (if the player starts speaking up mid-negotiation I ask them for their aid roll, and they learn real fast how it works), and causes PCs with decent charisma, or ranks to spare, or a character concept that encourages being diplomatic even though someone else in the party is better at it, to provide a useful bonus.
If four people armed to the teeth tried to talk me into anything, I'd be paying attention to all four of them, not just the guy doing all the talking. Sure, he gets MOST of my attention, but I'm still watching the others. If they're all making ugly faces at me, or tossing off color jokes at each other, I'm going to be less inclined to "acquiesce to their requests". But if the other three have earnest expressions, and nod at the right times, and pay me a modicum of respect, I'm going to be more favorably inclined to the main speaker, since I'm not being put on my guard by the rest.
I've always had a problem in D&D when it comes to figuring out how NPCs should react to the PCs. I have a bad habit of fiating outcomes and I don't like 1-roll-wins "faceman" interactions with NPCs.
In the old days, it was sufficient to RP through such encounters; it was expected. But most modern RPGs have come to realize that a player's social skills should be seperated from their character's social skills - just in the same way the physical skills were done at the beginning.
I'd like to see an "optional" chapter in the pfRPG for social rules for those of us (including me) who would like to integrate it into the game.
JRM>
Would you expect a character to ignore any of the following, because they do not want it to happen to there character.
str-Damage from strength based combat, or falling due to failed skill check
dex-Shooting Damage from a bow or crossbow
Con-Poison or disease.
Int- the effects of arcane magic
Wisdom- damage from divine magic
Why should charisma the redheaded step child of attributes, why should PC's be immune to its effects when all other attributes can systemicially effect them.
on another note: I really like your ideas on ramification for social attacks.
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...
first .. a paladin that allows party members to "beat the crap" out of people will soon be a fighter. second role playing should be done by players, and good role playing rewarded by the DM. oops sorry this isn't a grognard board
I think a social conflict system might be a good expansion or accessory to add on later but my prefrence is to leave such rules out of the core rule book. This sounds more like an optional rules set that could be added by those wishing to do so. Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive or I should say Deception and Diplomacy are good enough for core rules.
Is it wrong that usage of the phrase "ROLL play" makes me want to choke a baby? If you don't want to roll to see how well your character can do something, there's some diceless systems you can try. Handling social situations entirely by roleplaying with absolutely no usage of rules punishes players who aren't strong, assertive speakers (like, say, the introverted nerds who make up a huge portion of D&D's traditional player base), and completely eliminates the reason to even have a charisma stat. Socially talented persons can play half-orc barbarians with a charisma of 5 and woo everybody they meet, and the the quiet guy with a stutter can play a bard with a charisma of 20 and max ranks in every social skill and be laughed at by bums.
If you don't want to use the rules for social interaction, that's fine. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. That's like saying that monk shouldn't be a class because nobody in your group ever plays one.
An to be honest, what good reason is there to oppose it, after all, if you don't want to use them, you can disregard them.I'm going to tackle this one first. How easy something is to disregard something depends on how integral to the system is. Some things are easy to drop out; others can be quite challenging. Its pretty clear, for example, that it will very difficult to play 4E without a battle grid. I'm sure you can do it, but it will take a lot of work and make a lot of abilities hard to use. That's one of the things that hurts my interest in 4E; while I like playing with minis, I don't want to be stuck with them all the time. On the other hand, having measurements in squares is an easy drop; if you don't like it, just multiply them all by 5, call it feet, and you're good.
I would entirely in favor of suggested optional or extra social systems; I'd love to see them. But I don't want to see a system in which they are integral. Because personally, I'm probably not going to like them :)
Open up your 3.5 PHB to page 5 and take a look at the things you'll need to play. Go ahead, I'll wait.
From what I understand, 4e will be no harder to play without minis than 3e is. There's already a lot of abilities that are hard to use without a grid, I assure you. :p
As far as social systems go, I'm not sure how they could be integral. Social encounters at all aren't integral to D&D; you could hypothetically run a D&D game without your players ever speaking to anyone but each other. Heck, from what little I played of the World's Largest Dungeon, it's not even all that implausible. (Of course, from what little I played of the World's Largest Dungeon, it's also kind of a terrible module.)
Further, the more abilities you add, the more it forces the game to a play style where social abilities have to be used. If someone invests a skill or two, that is not really a big investment. To my experience, in the course of a normal action adventure game you'll get enough uses out of it for it to be worth it. Probably more so than many other skills. But if you have an entire class invested in it, all of a sudden you need to change the very nature of the game so that the player has enough to do. And I don't think that is a good thing.
I'm not sure about this. It's the old "Favored Enemy" problem; either you need to know what the game is going to have and choose your favored enemy accordingly, or the DM needs to change the campaign to what your favored enemy is, or it's an ability that has a very high chance of being totally useless. Similarly, if you're fighting a chaotic neutral organization bent on summoning slaadi, the paladin is going to get the short end of the stick. Mounted combat characters in dungeons with narrow hallways? Short stick. Demon-fighting specialist prestige class fighting against an incursion of devils? Short stick. Undead hunter fighting orcs? Short stick. Enchanter fighting undead? Short stick.
Social systems, to me, largely seem to defeat that. If someone tries to persuade you, its your character's personality that determines how you respond. When the result is dictated to you, your character's personality - the very reason for playing the game - is taken out of your hands.
This is why I don't think the analog to getting stabbed is accurate; when someone stabs you, your character's personality does not decide how much it hurts her. The choice of how you respond to being stabbed is still up to you (Do you run? Attack back in a fury? Try to calm your foe?) The personality - the roleplaying is still in your control. That's why social actions are not the same as many other things that people "don't want to happen to their character."
Further, I feel that personality is absolutely critical in how people respond. Your personality determines how someone affects your far more than their skill.
This is very interesting. Enhance...
When the result is dictated to you, your character's personality - the very reason for playing the game - is taken out of your hands.
This is absolutely true. Hence:
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs.
The result is never dictated to you, as a player character. (The result is absolutely dictated to you as a DM, but it's kind of inappropriate to think of NPCs as "your" characters when you're the DM anyways.)
Social skills are absolutely, positively, and always always always a player tool. This is because the player characters are important, by merit of being player characters, and the game treats them differently as a result of this. The D&D rules for Diplomacy, flawed though they may be, have something very much right in this: social encounters are a one-way street. The PCs have total control over what they do, even in response to something else. The DM only has control over what the NPCs do if he overrides the rules (which, as always, he should do as needed - and social encounters deserve a lot of circumstance mods.)
Huh.
I can see that there are some folk out there who would get something positive from a Social Combat/Resolution system. I can also see that there are at least an equal number that would rather pound sensitive parts of their anantomy flat with a potato masher rather than use said SC/R systems.
So make it an option.
Making it part of the core rules would be a HUGE mistake IMHO. This is a not some flawed dice-pool abomination from the 80's. This is a modern retread on a game that at it's eseence, boils down to defeating the forces of fantasy evil, and taking their stuff. For a lot of us, any complex social interaction is handled by roleplay, and the thought that playing our PC to the hilt, arguing well and cogently, only to have it blown by a roll in some byzantine system for having a debate is a slap in the face. Heaven forfend a roleplayer is actually judged on, ya know, roleplaying...
You can say that it's not fair that the socially inept guy who can't speak well needs a system to play his CHA 18 Bard. I'd counter that he shouldn't be playing a bard. I don't expect the social butterfly of my rp group to suddenly whip up a Gangrel in WoD, so why am I expecting the guy that likes to crush things to suddenly wax poetic about the merits of social equality and the redistribution of wealth in a feudal society?
Make it an option, not a core rule.
Making it an option would be fine with me. However, to date, nobody on the Pathfinder Design Team has indicated any interest in seeing a robust social encounter mechanic. C'est la vie.
Huh.
I can see that there are some folk out there who would get something positive from a Social Combat/Resolution system. I can also see that there are at least an equal number that would rather pound sensitive parts of their anantomy flat with a potato masher rather than use said SC/R systems.
So make it an option.
Making it part of the core rules would be a HUGE mistake IMHO. This is a not some flawed dice-pool abomination from the 80's. This is a modern retread on a game that at it's eseence, boils down to defeating the forces of fantasy evil, and taking their stuff. For a lot of us, any complex social interaction is handled by roleplay, and the thought that playing our PC to the hilt, arguing well and cogently, only to have it blown by a roll in some byzantine system for having a debate is a slap in the face. Heaven forfend a roleplayer is actually judged on, ya know, roleplaying...
You can say that it's not fair that the socially inept guy who can't speak well needs a system to play his CHA 18 Bard. I'd counter that he shouldn't be playing a bard. I don't expect the social butterfly of my rp group to suddenly whip up a Gangrel in WoD, so why am I expecting the guy that likes to crush things to suddenly wax poetic about the merits of social equality and the redistribution of wealth in a feudal society?
Make it an option, not a core rule.
To which the logicial counter is that in that case, the 'stength 8' player shouldn't be playing a fighter.
Why do we have this one thing, this odd little anomoly of social skills being hard skilled.
If this where maelstrom, and i had to use my physicial skills at larp fighting, i wouldn't care about hard skilled socialise.
But every, every, everything else in DnD is based on mechanics.
To which the logicial counter is that in that case, the 'stength 8' player shouldn't be playing a fighter.Why do we have this one thing, this odd little anomoly of social skills being hard skilled.
If this where maelstrom, and i had to use my physicial skills at larp fighting, i wouldn't care about hard skilled socialise.
But every, every, everything else in DnD is based on mechanics.
Actually that's not the logical counter on any level. It's not even analagous.
I don't remember any version of D&D requiring any physical action beyond rolling dice and writing things down as opposed to, ya know, roleplaying, which does require some level of social interaction and social capability.
And see, this isn't Maelstrom, or any other LARP. And additionally, not even all LARP's require actual combat, or even light touch. Heck some forbid it...
So by all means keep your dice pool inspired flow chart of social interaction out of my roleplay please.
What they currently have is a quick mechanic for resolution to keep game play moving along. That is what the game needs as a core mechanic. If you want something else, put it in a splat book.
To which the logicial counter is that in that case, the 'stength 8' player shouldn't be playing a fighter.
Why do we have this one thing, this odd little anomoly of social skills being hard skilled.
Oh, heavens! Is this little fallacy still being bandied about?
Of course it's not the "logical counter". The logical counter is that in this case, the poor-combat-tactics player shouldn't be playing a fighter. (And guess what? He/she shouldn't.) Just like in any game, if you expect great success, you play what you're good at.
The first thing that people must realize is that social/mental skills and physical skills are different; especially so in a game that is social/mental by definition. They just are - and the sooner people realize this fact the easier it will be to make better arguments for some sort of a social system.
Now, with all that said, I'd be interested in seeing what might be done with some sort of social system, especially if was completely separate and modular... but I must admit, that interest is fading after seeing some of the extremely poorly made "pro" arguments in this thread. Sorry guys.
I must admit, that interest is fading after seeing some of the extremely poorly made "pro" arguments in this thread. Sorry guys.
That was utterly uncalled for. You don't find some people's pro arguments convincing? Fine. Judge a proposal on its merits, not on your personal feelings for individuals.
As an example of an inchoate social system I've been toying with, click on the link: LINK
I disagree.
In this case, proditor argues that ones personal social ability should should limit ones ability to play or not a social character. Despite there being a social stat in the game which reflects the characters social ability.
At no time would we expect our strength(the dominate stat in combat) to be treated in the same way.
The fact that ones tacticial ability can also in practice effect a combat, does not disqualify the previous statement.
Character and player are not the same entity and should not be treated as such by the rules.
I disagree.
In this case, proditor argues that ones personal social ability should should limit ones ability to play or not a social character. Despite there being a social stat in the game which reflects the characters social ability.
At no time would we expect our strength(the dominate stat in combat) to be treated in the same way.
The fact that ones tacticial ability can also in practice effect a combat, does not disqualify the previous statement.
Character and player are not the same entity and should not be treated as such by the rules.
That was utterly uncalled for. You don't find some people's pro arguments convincing? Fine. Judge a proposal on its merits, not on your personal feelings for individuals.
I haven't the foggiest what you're talking about. I was specifically talking about the given proposals (ie. the "pro" arguments). You might want to tone down your sensitivity level a notch - you're not being persecuted here (not by me, at least).
I don't know (nor care about) any "individuals" involved - it's only the arguments that were poor (to me).
As an example of an inchoate social system I've been toying with, click on the link: LINK
Thanks!
The fact that ones tacticial ability can also in practice effect a combat, does not disqualify the previous statement.
It does AFAIC.
In the end, though, this is simply a rift that can't be crossed - because it's based on personal preferences and expectations of the game.
The fundamental disconnect is that there are parts of the game where a player can/wants to make decisions (eg. where to move in combat) and parts of the game where a particular sub-segment of players don't want to make decisions (eg. what to say). And the issue is: everyone is going to draw their line in the sand in a different place.
A player may want to play a "social" chararacter but be lousy at talking, and thus wants to roll. Okay... but what about a character who is lousy at combat tactics? What options does he/she have during combat maneuvers? After all, he/she isn't a trained fantasy fighter - thus, they should get to make some sort of "roll" to determine the best tactics all the time, right? And what about the DM who is poor at 'talking' - shouldn't he/she get to roll to convince the PC? (The PC and player, as you said yourself, are not the same.) Where does one stop? Where does one draw the line?
There simply won't be any agreement, because that line is different for everyone. (Though, IMO, those wanting social rules are more inconsistent!) I was a fence-sitter (and still sort of am) when it comes to social rules, but the more I see, the more I realize that including social rules in a social game seems to be a bit inappropriate. [But I might still be able to be convinced otherwise, because I'm intrigued at the concept...]
(However, comparing physical skills to mental skills in a mental game continues to be disengenuous - people need to stop that.)
You used the term fallacy. Tell me, is it formal or informal.
If my arguement is a fallacy, you can demonstrate it.
Fallacy is not an 'AFAIC' kind of word. Its also not a word that should be thrown around.
Simple fact, in this game, we have systems in place to deal with things which effect assignment of credibility. Magic and moral effect can both influence character behaviour and place credibility for character actions briefly into the hands of the games master or applies modifers to character actions.
Why should social skills be the only thing in the game which player character are insulated from?
The only arguement other than this, seem to be, i don't want it, because i wouldn't use it.
Well other people, a lot of them by the look of this thread, would like them.
I make a compelling and incisive counter-argument that makes your previous posts in this thread look poorly reasoned.
*rolls die*
Woo! 29!
I love this new system.
You must be confused, because what you just described is the current system.
You must be confused, because what you just described is the current system.I make a compelling and incisive counter-argument that makes your previous posts in this thread look poorly reasoned.
*rolls die*
Woo! 29!
I love this new system.
Yeah basicially :)
|
I think you're right, I am confused.
I don't understand where the conceptual line is here. It seems like a social conflict system would circumvent the need for meaningful interaction. If a roll can reflect a character's oratory/seduction/debate/comedic skills, then what could we reasonably expect of a player in a social situation? A declaration of intent?
Say, if I were an akward person, but wanted to play a charismatic knight. Would I be able to interact solely through the dice?
I just don't understand how this could be fun for the other players at my table.
|
|
Hmm. Maybe I am confused - I guess I'm not fond of the current system either. I guess that's why my group doesn't use it.
There's a conceptual difference between pretending someone's strong vs. pretending someone's funny. The fomer is easy, the latter is frustrating.
Likewise, I wouldn't pretend to understand someone who didn't speak English because it's on their character sheet. For better or worse, certain real life skills are required for for a meaningful and entertaining night at the gaming table.
I appreciate the egalitarian spirit of the proposal, but I'm wary of any social game system that seemingly circumvents the personality of the players.
Hmm. Maybe I am confused - I guess I'm not fond of the current system either. I guess that's why my group doesn't use it.
And you will equally be able to ignore any other system that might be implemented.
|
|
Hmm. Maybe I am confused - I guess I'm not fond of the current system either. I guess that's why my group doesn't use it.And you will equally be able to ignore any other system that might be implemented.
Or you could just implement the system in your own game and refrain from proposing it here. But the fact that you did means we're arguing about consensus. Subtractive ideas have just as much weight as additive ideas in this discussion.
But the fact that you did means we're arguing about consensus. Subtractive ideas have just as much weight as additive ideas in this discussion.
It seems that you should be indifferent to my proposal since it will have absolutely no effect on how you play. So what is your "subtractive idea"? That we eliminate Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information and Sense Motive from the game entirely and leave it completely up to role-play at the table? That would certainly same some space in the game books.
|
|
I'm not indifferent to your idea. I think it's bad, but I also think it's well written and intriguing, in a way that could alter group consensus on what social skills mean. I plan to play Pathfinder with people I haven't met yet, and I'd prefer they not develop your notion of social conflict resolution.
My subtractive idea is that Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information and Sense Motive checks take into consideration the roleplaying efforts of the player as much as it does the skill. That at least attempting to give a speech should be statistically more rewarding that just rolling well. I think this encourages a player to inhabit a character, play to their strengths and tell a good story.
I don't mean to suggest that you aren't making a good case, but it's one I happen to disagree with and believe would be a disservice to the game. Our game philosophy is just different on this point.
Hi,
I think we're getting lost on minutae here. A social system shouldn't be about micromanaging every sentence spoken, every turn of phrase or every argument arising between PCs. Nor it shouldn't require a single roll or a single specialized character either. A social conflict system should provide a rules platform for rewarding storytelling experiences and an exciting set of challenges.
Say for example, a DM wants to portray a moral struggle in her story. She could do it by way of a physical conflict, like a deadly battle against a mind-controlled ally, or by way of a mental or social conflict, like a heated debate in court against an ill-justified war where the PCs must influence the crowd to vote against it. The former method is fully supported by the current rules, letting you describe turn by turn an exciting fight, whether the outcome is just or not, or reasonable or not. The latter, on the other hand, is just a matter of a single roll or simple interpretation.
Mind that the reasons provided for going to war or not don't matter in the end, just the idea of showing said moral struggle and the challenge provided to the PCs when their abilities to influence the outcome comes to the fore. A single roll is too light a way of deciding a matter of such grave importance. Interpretation only can provide interesting insights about the moral struggle at hand, but doesn't mean in the end whether the crowd witnessing the debate will in the end support the PCs' way of action, save as the DM's fiat.
Now you can have a really clever DM, but a system for social conflict resolution could be paired to the arguments and counter-arguments posed by PCs and NPCs alike, captivating their audience by way of eloquence, emphasis and good-timing. Every roll can show the players how good they're doing it so far while having at the same time a sense of immediacy and growing tension, and without resorting exclusively to the players' real capabilities. Now I don't know every of you, but I think such a system can provide optional challenges, room for interpretation and the PCs social traits' usage, a certain degree of randmomness in social situations, and a sensible tool for both timid DMs and overbearing ones.
I'm growing a bit tired of this constant arguing really. Without ill intentions, I'm beginning to feel that a social conflict system for this thread would be a nice addition to the present conundrum... :P
Regards,
ZOOROOS
I said it on the other thread already, but I'll try to be a tad more obvious:
Example
DM "The guard notices you standing in the shadow of the large oak that stands beside the moat. 'You there, what are you doing?' Roll for social initiative."
Player *rolls* "15 plus charisma modifier, total 17."
DM "OK, you begin."
Player "I use befuddling oratory on him." *rolls* "21."
DM "The guard uses sunder argument." *rolls* "22, he caught you telling a lie."
Player "I use dodge suspicion." *rolls* "15."
DM *rolls* "You succeeded."
Sorry, no bloody social encounter rules! It is a ROLE-playing game, if you are, as a person, unable to make small-talk or bluff someone, you should at LEAST have the ability to describe the result of what you want to achieve and have the DM weigh out the consequences etc.
I suck at intrigues! I am upfront and honest, yet, in a game of Vampire Dark Ages, I managed to spin so many plots against a huge group of vampires that I really got a big ball rolling, without really ever having to resort to playing a convincing intrigue. Merely by describing what I wanted to achieve.
If you lack even that bit of imagination...um...don't play?
Maybe Selk and Archgamer want to take a look at my proposed rules -- which I've linked to in this thread -- before they go making assumptions that social encounter rules mean rolling dice every time someone speaks. If they would, they would see that I am not advocating that dice replace role-play, that a player's ability to strategize socially be diminished, or that there be a roll every time someone opens their mouth. Maybe they would see that the suggestion merely expands the woefully clumsy Diplomacy/Intimidate rules which their DMs apparently already ignore.
Sheesh. Maybe, Archgamer, if you lack the imagination to think there might be a way in between "never roll" and "always roll"... um... don't participate in game design threads. (Or even better, maybe when you do participate, you keep the snarky insults like the one above in the sandbox.)
|
|
I said it on the other thread already, but I'll try to be a tad more obvious:
Example
DM "The guard notices you standing in the shadow of the large oak that stands beside the moat. 'You there, what are you doing?' Roll for social initiative."
Player *rolls* "15 plus charisma modifier, total 17."
DM "OK, you begin."
Player "I use befuddling oratory on him." *rolls* "21."
DM "The guard uses sunder argument." *rolls* "22, he caught you telling a lie."
Player "I use dodge suspicion." *rolls* "15."
DM *rolls* "You succeeded."Sorry, no bloody social encounter rules! It is a ROLE-playing game, if you are, as a person, unable to make small-talk or bluff someone, you should at LEAST have the ability to describe the result of what you want to achieve and have the DM weigh out the consequences etc.
I suck at intrigues! I am upfront and honest, yet, in a game of Vampire Dark Ages, I managed to spin so many plots against a huge group of vampires that I really got a big ball rolling, without really ever having to resort to playing a convincing intrigue. Merely by describing what I wanted to achieve.
If you lack even that bit of imagination...um...don't play?
This post irritates the crap out of me. I like the concept of a social conflict resolution system, and I don't want to hash it out with someone who won't, or doesn't intend to, use it.
You don't like it? Not a problem. Please don't clutter this thread with criticisms of people who want it.
Should the system be mandatory for all people to use? No. Then again, neither is any other part of d20. Check out what WotC learned about how players will "route around" parts of the game that they don't like; they cited attacks of opportunity as an example of an often routed around rules mechanic.
I'd like to see more talk, from those of us interested in such a system, on what we'd like it to look like. For example, I want a social conflict resolution system which doesn't require a lot of number crunching to make backward-compatible with other d20 products.
What else?
I disagree.
In this case, proditor argues that ones personal social ability should should limit ones ability to play or not a social character. Despite there being a social stat in the game which reflects the characters social ability.
At no time would we expect our strength(the dominate stat in combat) to be treated in the same way.
The fact that ones tacticial ability can also in practice effect a combat, does not disqualify the previous statement.
Character and player are not the same entity and should not be treated as such by the rules.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Surprsingly if you want to move a heavy weight, you don't look at the 98 pound weakling and suggest they give it a shot.
Now, since this is a social game, and you had to completely ignore that RL strength has no impact in this social game to make your argument, I'll refer back to my argument of "I don't care if your sheet says you have an 18 CHA and you made every roll on this insane flow chart for social interaction, the matron mother is not going sleep with you because you said 'Hey babe, nice webs.'"
It's one thing to ask me to suspend my disbelief, it's another to hang it by the neck until dead.
So I'll reiterate this one more time.
I am not against there being a social combat system for those that get their jollies making die rolls to see how witty they are, but I am against it being a core mechanic.
|
|
So I'll reiterate this one more time.I am not against there being a social combat system for those that get their jollies making die rolls to see how witty they are, but I am against it being a core mechanic.
Got it. Not a core mechanic. I agree.
And I'd like to see what kind of system we can come up with.
So I'll reiterate this one more time.I am not against there being a social combat system for those that get their jollies making die rolls to see how witty they are, but I am against it being a core mechanic.
Got it. Not a core mechanic. I agree.
And I'd like to see what kind of system we can come up with.
I agree, I'd like to see what people have up their sleeves.
I agree, I'd like to see what people have up their sleeves.
For the third time, here's the bare bones of my ideas: