|
Less = dumbing down. Someone who wishs to do nothing more than 'Kill things and take their stuff' can choose to only ever take three skills and max them out and need never worry about what skills his character should have. But, for those of us who play characters, who's backgrounds reflect into their build, or As DMs set a wide variaty of skills checks to represent the challanges of the world, it would be a great loss to have the game more further towards 4e's skill system.Two quick points on this:
1) Skill groups written at the right level might be the innovation we need. I'm really liking what I'm hearing about recent input on grouping acrobatics, stealth, perception, etc. Its always, always bothered me that over the years nobody ever grouped these into straight-forward "useful" groups. Less=simplicity, and once and for all lets clean up this skill point mess...
2) Back in the old days, Jason Bulmahn would hop into these threads... I'm not talking about the fact that PAIZO is closed for the holiday, I'm just noting the "radio silence" lately... as a designer/developer myself, I know the importance of keeping the project on track for August '09, but seriously, have we got the skill points right for Pathfinder RPG?
POINT TAKEN. I understand where you're coming from, and you've broadened my point of view...
Less = dumbing down. Someone who wishs to do nothing more than 'Kill things and take their stuff' can choose to only ever take three skills and max them out and need never worry about what skills his character should have. But, for those of us who play characters, who's backgrounds reflect into their build, or As DMs set a wide variaty of skills checks to represent the challanges of the world, it would be a great loss to have the game more further towards 4e's skill system.
Then Perception would need to be broken down into Listen + Spot + Search + Taste + Smell + Touch.
I have absolutely nothing against the small micro-skills you advocate (a la 3.5), nor do I particularly mind broader skill headings (in the direction of 4e) -- either way is playable. What I'm adamantly against is the "partial consolidation" we have in the Beta: some combined "super-skills" (Acrobatics, Perception), and other "micro-skills," all with the same cost. A system in which consolidation is arbitrary and incomplete, in which sometimes micro-skills stay separate, and sometimes are combined five and six at a time, makes no sense at all -- not from your point of view (many micro-skills are better), nor from mine (broad skill headings are OK).
I have absolutely nothing against the small micro-skills you advocate (a la 3.5), nor do I particularly mind broader skill headings (in the direction of 4e) -- either way is playable. What I'm adamantly against is the "partial consolidation" we have in the Beta: some combined "super-skills" (Acrobatics, Perception), and other "micro-skills," all with the same cost.
I agree; I have no idea why they took popular skills like Tumble and Search and bundled in a bunch more abilities into them, especially when it doesn't make much sense in some cases. ("I have really keen eyesight, so that means that I can smell an elf at 50 paces. Also, I'm an Olympic long jumper, so that means that I'm an expert at the balance beam as well.")
Kirth Gersen:
If only it where that simple. In my opinion, you are confusing what perception represents. Perception does not represent how sharp your specific senses are. Rather it represents your ability to filter sensory data for useful information. You ability to pull out the sound of individual whispers in an auditorium full of muttering, opposed to just hearing the wall of noise.
Most humans have hearing and vision on the same general range, of quality, yet two people who have exactly the same quality of vision may vary in their ability to pick out the shape of a man in camouflage. Clearly, going up levels can't make the characters eyes and ears sharper, but it can improve the characters skill at picking out details. This skill applies to both sight and hearing. Though it can be argued that taste as smell are a separate, but single skill, almost all applications are already covered by profession and craft skills. Touch, I believe is trained in manner as sight and hearing
Wisdom represents (in theory) your hard wired ability to spot patterns in sensory information and applies universally.
Lastly some people have hearing or vision which is substantially better or worse than average. This should be covered by Merits or Flaws, representing an inborn advantage or deficit.
My point being that at least in the case of perception, the choice to consolidate is valid, yes it does create a 'super skill' but it is a super skill which reflects roughly what occurs in real people.
Please don't think that I think the skills system is perfect, I don't some of the social skills which where consolidated shouldn't have been and we STILL lack a decent social conflict resolution system, but I have accepted we won't be seeing one this time around. But I do feel is it a little more reflective of reality and a little more sound than it was, over all. It is certainly better than 4e, and arguably better than 3.5 in some aspects. Hell we didn't even mine the one really good 4e 'innovation', the skills challenge, but yeah.
And I do see the point about acrobatics, which Hogarth goes on to expand upon. But it is a different issue again to perception. Most acrobatic based actions require the same core skills and are largely dependant on the physical fitness of the person. Core athletics skills and a good state of fitness will go a long away to wards allowing you to do the basics on the horse, even if you're an acrobat who specialises on the Parallel bars. The problem is that two people with the same Dex and the same ranks in Acrobatics are equally good at both, when they would not be. In an ideal system, this should be covered by skill specialisations, but that is something I doubt we well be seeing in pathfinder.
Pondering on skills...
I've spent what some members of my family consider way too much of the last 30 years (when I became a Boy Scout and got introduced to the game) thinking about D&D and tinkering with it. I've read through the points here that various writers have made, and considered them, and I have a few thoughts. Be afraid. :-p
A) Stealth vs. Perception. Yes, it is much more likely for a greater wyrm that has maxed out his stealth to be able to surprise anyone short of Zeus. If I am a great dragon, powerful and mighty (and arrogant), I am going to spend my time pursuing skills and abilities that will enhance my prestige and reputation. Smaug was capable of great stealth, but his main focus was on skills that made him more powerful and fearsome. I'll max Appraise first, because in my greed I will want to know to the last copper piece how wealthy I am. I'll max out Fly to increase the fear that comes as I effortlessly wind my way through the crowded heights of the mountains or the close in spires of the city below. I'll max out Linguistics and Diplomacy so that I can interrogate anyone that I have captured, and gather information about my foes or threats to my might. Perception as well, so I can notice if anything is even slightly amiss in my lair. Stealth? Only cowards need stealth, and if I am considered a coward my own kind will destroy me long before any foolish adventurers do. Besides, my thought as a DM about dragons and Stealth is that if maxing out the stealth of a dragon to lay waste to a party of my friends seems like a grand idea to me, then I suck both as a DM and as a friend. And in my opinion and experience, DMs/friends that suck that badly quickly have no group or friends. The problem should fix itself, and it usually does.
B) On the subject of 'useless' skills, it is my opinion that any skill that the DM doesn't make desirable becomes useless. If a skill isn't being used, then perhaps I need to come up with ways to make that skill attractive. Either through role play (Ryn, a cleric of the God of Battle, is told by the bishop that his skills in siegecraft are not up to the expected standard. "How can you serve Sunsu when you can't tell me the best way to breech a standard moat and rampart? Perhaps, instead of adventuring, you need to spend some more time in the cloister?") or by making there be a reason for the skill to come in handy (Your party has taken refuge from marauding lizardmen in the town of Talltree. The village militia is a dozen semi-trained men, and the warband you tangled with is two score strong. The lizardmen were heading in this direction, and you provide the best hope of survival. How will you defend the villagers?). These are semi-ridiculous examples perhaps, but they illustrate my point. Of course, Zombieneighbors gave even better examples of making Craft:Basketry useful. I bow before your wisdom.
C) Perform. In the past, I have treated perform much like Speak Language: For every rank of the skill you buy, you can add another type of performance to your repertoire. First rank, Lute. Second rank, fiddle. Third rank, singing. And so on. This way it can be specific for certain instruments instead of categories, and there's always a good reason to buy another rank, be it in flute, yodeling, oratory, or drama.
D) Forgery needs to be its own skill. It is my opinion based on my own attempts at forgery when I was younger that knowing how to speak more languages does not help one become a better forger. Forgery is an intellectual art, but it is also a very physical skill in that it requires a steady hand and a certain physical grace. And it is also a charismatic skill because often one needs a major set of brass ones to make it work. If one is going to combine it with another skill, then combine it with Bluff and have that opposed by Sense Motive, because a good forgery is as much in the presentation as it is the documents.
E) Linguistics. This skill in PathFinder annoys me to no end because it wrongly includes the ability to forge documents. If one wants to package another skill with Linguistics, Decipher Script is a good choice. The more languages one knows the easier it is to puzzle out messages in different but associated languages. I know some French, which means I have a decent chance of puzzling out the meaning of a passage in Spanish or Italian.
Please let me know what you think. I always appreciate input and other ideas. I'll be making Craft:Basketry seem like a darn useful skill now, thanks to Zombieneighbors. :-)
I agree that Diplomacy could be easily bundled with Intimidate and that Forgery should be removed from Linguistics and bundled with Bluff (and maybe called Deceit). Search could also be removed from Perception and bundled with Appraise (as Investigate), if people really feel strongly about it.
"Forgery" isn't limited to documents; it may include paintings, jewelry, fake IDs, etc. And if I want a fake painting, I'd commission a painter (fine artist), not an expert in dead languages (nor a con artist). In short, it should be a function of the Craft skill; the Linguistics apsect should come into play ONLY when forging documents and no "sample" language is available.
Separating Search from Perception would make the whole deal a lot more palatable for me. The idea of an Investigate skill (also rolled against for noticing clues at the scenes of crimes, etc.) might be cool.
@Zombieneighbors: I understand your concerns about "realism" of skills, but honestly, being trained to alertness doesn't make one an expert on finding traps. That aside, sometimes excessive realism is irreconcilable with good game design. The game has always eschewed realism in favor of smooth play; notice abstract "hit points," the fact the rules don't support broken limbs resulting from a 100-ft. fall, combat rules in which all participants politely wait their turns and in which simultaneous actions never occur, etc. From that perspective -- while it might be "realistic" to have an Acrobatics super-skill and a Perform (oratory) micro-skill that is somehow separate from Perform (acting) -- that sort of setup makes for poor game play, because it creates situations in which the referee is forced to actively work against the written rules in order to get the game to function.
However, we can keep super-skills and micro-skills AND have a well-designed game... if we just adjust the pricing. If Perception MUST be a combined skill, it should cost 3 skill points per rank, not 1. Stealth should cost 2 skill points per rank. Etc.
I see four workable solutions and one poor solution here.
1. Break skills back out into 3.5e sub-skills: no problem.
2. Continue skills combinations (Athletics, etc.) so that all skills come in roughly equally-sized "bundles": unrealistic, but OK.
3. Specifically expand the usefulness of "micro-skills" in the written rules: if Craft (basket weaving) actually states that the skill is essential for siege construction (as in your example), so be it.
4. Have some combined skills and some minor skills, but price them differently: less elegant, but a quick and effective solution.
5. Have some combined skills and some micro-skills, priced the same. Actively discourages investment of more than 1 rank in the micro-skills. Requires DM to actively works against the game rules if greater investment is made. Possibly more "realistic," but makes for poor game play.
"Forgery" isn't limited to documents; it may include paintings, jewelry, fake IDs, etc. And if I want a fake painting, I'd commission a painter (fine artist), not an expert in dead languages (nor a con artist). In short, it should be a function of the Craft skill; the Linguistics apsect should come into play ONLY when forging documents and no "sample" language is available.
Separating Search from Perception would make the whole deal a lot more palatable for me. The idea of an Investigate skill (also rolled against for noticing clues at the scenes of crimes, etc.) might be cool.
@Zombieneighbors: I understand your concerns about "realism" of skills, but honestly, being trained to alertness doesn't make one an expert on finding traps. That aside, sometimes excessive realism is irreconcilable with good game design. The game has always eschewed realism in favor of smooth play; notice abstract "hit points," the fact the rules don't support broken limbs resulting from a 100-ft. fall, combat rules in which all participants politely wait their turns and in which simultaneous actions never occur, etc. From that perspective -- while it might be "realistic" to have an Acrobatics super-skill and a Perform (oratory) micro-skill that is somehow separate from Perform (acting) -- that sort of setup makes for poor game play, because it creates situations in which the referee is forced to actively work against the written rules in order to get the game to function.
However, we can keep super-skills and micro-skills AND have a well-designed game... if we just adjust the pricing. If Perception MUST be a combined skill, it should cost 3 skill points per rank, not 1. Stealth should cost 2 skill points per rank. Etc.
I see four workable solutions and one poor solution here.
1. Break skills back out into 3.5e sub-skills: no problem.
2. Continue skills combinations (Athletics, etc.) so that all skills come in roughly equally-sized "bundles": unrealistic, but OK.
3. Specifically expand the usefulness of "micro-skills" in...
i go with choice 6: fix more agregious errors, such as forgery being part of linguistics. leave everything else alone as being a happy medium.
I really don't see why we need to spell out fairly obvious uses of numerous skills. If Mini-maxer No.30,125 can't work out that Basket weaving is going to be useful for making water proof baskets to transport water rashions across the desert, i am not entirely sure why we should point it out to him. I'd much rather his DM lets abomination of destruction number 12 from the player die of thirst because he lacks relivant skills.
Their are no useless skills, only unimaginative players.
@Zombieneighbours: I agree with you on the usefulness of skills being up to the GM and the players and I would personally change only the very strange aspects of the skill system (e.g. forgery).
Perception does not represent how sharp your specific senses are.
Then why do a whole bunch of races have an ability called "Keen Senses" that gives a bonus to Perception?
Perception does not represent how sharp your specific senses are.Then why do a whole bunch of races have an ability called "Keen Senses" that gives a bonus to Perception?
Because having keen senses helps you with Perception. I think what Zombie was saying is that the Skill Points in perception don't actually fix your myopia.
Because having keen senses helps you with Perception. I think what Zombie was saying is that the Skill Points in perception don't actually fix your myopia.Perception does not represent how sharp your specific senses are.Then why do a whole bunch of races have an ability called "Keen Senses" that gives a bonus to Perception?
Let me put it another way, then. How can I have a (human) character who has really keen hearing other than (a) putting ranks in Perception (thus giving him really keen eyesight) or (b) asking my DM to let me have a racial bonus or a competence bonus or something like that?
There are no useless skills; only unimaginative players.
What's no problem in your group, or mine, might be a problem for a group of newbie players afraid to stretch the boundaries, or a group of very imaginative players with a rules-lawyer DM who declares that any out-of-scope use calls for a different skill. The written rules, as much as possible, should accommodate as many styles of play as possible -- not just yours or mine. And if the hobby is to grow, the written rules should be geared more towards inexperienced players and DMs, not experienced ones. Spelling out possibilities, in that regard, is better than saying "get a better DM" or "get better players."
Let me put it another way, then. How can I have a (human) character who has really keen hearing other than (a) putting ranks in Perception (thus giving him really keen eyesight) or (b) asking my DM to let me have a racial bonus or a competence bonus or something like that?Because having keen senses helps you with Perception. I think what Zombie was saying is that the Skill Points in perception don't actually fix your myopia.Perception does not represent how sharp your specific senses are.Then why do a whole bunch of races have an ability called "Keen Senses" that gives a bonus to Perception?
By taking a feat/trait/merit which gives a bonus to that specific sense.
Just as if you had bad sight, you would take a flaw to represent your bad vision.
There are no useless skills; only unimaginative players.What's no problem in your group, or mine, might be a problem for a group of newbie players afraid to stretch the boundaries, or a group of very imaginative players with a rules-lawyer DM who declares that any out-of-scope use calls for a different skill. The written rules, as much as possible, should accommodate as many styles of play as possible -- not just yours or mine. And if the hobby is to grow, the written rules should be geared more towards inexperienced players and DMs, not experienced ones. Spelling out possibilities, in that regard, is better than saying "get a better DM" or "get better players."
The Problem is that backwards compatiblity hamstrings the changes that would need to be made to really fundermentally fix the skills system.
I personally feel that fixing the most silly bits forgery for instance and then adding a 'golden rule' disclaimor is the best we can achieve. Spell out that the listed uses of the skills are not the soul uses, that players and DM should coperate to find a reasonable way for players to achieve there goals.
I would love to see every possible action covered by rules, but it is impracticial.
I mean i have idea's for an entire Skill system, which i might even write up for my home game some day, but the changes that would have to be made are fairly extreme.
One of the most important would be foundational training. Which boils down to, cant have spell craft 7, unless you also have knowledge (arcane), knowledge (the planes) and gather infomation 2 with a specialisation in library use. No skill is learned truely independantly, one cannot understand higher principle of a subject without having the skills to learn them.
I really like those foundational training ideas -- that way you almost have "skill chains," and ranked skills make sense.
As long as we're daydreaming, I'll tell you what I'd REALLY like, would be a two-tier system of skill groups and specific skill specializations. For instance, for x cost you could buy ranks in the Craftsman group (carpentry + stonemasonry + plumbing + electrician, etc.) and be a general handiman, or you could specialize in one type (e.g., carpentry) for a proportionately lower per-rank cost. Pereception would be a group; Listen, Search, Sense Motive, etc. would be specializations. And so on. That way, 4e fans can just buy big groups; 3.5 fans can buy individual specialties; Pathfinder fans can do some of each. Anything not specifically covered would default to ranks in the most germane group.
Too bad that won't work -- the base "1 point per rank" system won't really accommodate it.
I really like those foundational training ideas -- that way you almost have "skill chains," and ranked skills make sense.
As long as we're daydreaming, I'll tell you what I'd REALLY like, would be a two-tier system of skill groups and specific skill specializations. For instance, for x cost you could buy ranks in the Craftsman group (carpentry + stonemasonry + plumbing + electrician, etc.) and be a general handiman, or you could specialize in one type (e.g., carpentry) for a proportionately lower per-rank cost. Pereception would be a group; Listen, Search, Sense Motive, etc. would be specializations. And so on. That way, 4e fans can just buy big groups; 3.5 fans can buy individual specialties; Pathfinder fans can do some of each. Anything not specifically covered would default to ranks in the most germane group.
Too bad that won't work -- the base "1 point per rank" system won't really accommodate it.
I think i already mentioned skills specialisation in one of my rambles on the subject. Ideally this system needs it to provide the proper balance of smoothness of use and realism.
While we are day dreaming, i will again reiterate my desire to see a proper social conflict system added to the game ;)
While we are day dreaming, i will again reiterate my desire to see a proper social conflict system added to the game ;)
Amen! That's sorely needed. My band-aids like Will negates (NPCs vs. Diplomacy) -- or, more often, calling for opposed checks when negotiating -- only go so far.
While we are day dreaming, i will again reiterate my desire to see a proper social conflict system added to the game ;)Amen! That's sorely needed. My band-aids like Will negates (NPCs vs. Diplomacy) -- or, more often, calling for opposed checks when negotiating -- only go so far.
I started working on a house rule for a system at the beginning of the year. But i doubt it will ever get finished.
It worked on the concept of balancing good relations and achieiving your goal.
You could use blackmail to achieve your goals this time, quickly and bluntly, but that would massively damage your relationship with the target, making future negotiations more difficult.
It also had a demeanor system. So that a manipulator could make it appear that he was loosing a discussion but drag people further into his plans.
|
|
As long as we're daydreaming, I'll tell you what I'd REALLY like, would be a two-tier system of skill groups and specific skill specializations. For instance, for x cost you could buy ranks in the Craftsman group (carpentry + stonemasonry + plumbing + electrician, etc.) and be a general handiman, or you could specialize in one type (e.g., carpentry) for a proportionately lower per-rank cost. Pereception would be a group; Listen, Search, Sense Motive, etc. would be specializations.
It'd never make it into the official rules, but a GM could easily "sell" partial ranks in certain skills - 1 skill point buys 1 rank of Perception or +2 only when listening, kind of like some racial bonuses work. 1 skill point buys 1 rank of Acrobatics or +2 only when balancing . More record keeping but not that bad.
What you call the Craftsman group, I've always though of as the proper role for Profession. To me, Profession is everything a person in a particular job know and can do, while Craft is a very specific ability. Profession (builder) would encompass carpentry, stonemasonry, thatching, etc., everything one needs to build a house. Craft (furniture) would be much more specific and much more limited, usually ties to making a certain thing, or at least doing one specific thing. Craft (pastries) or Craft (poem). Why every take Craft then? Because, in my mind, Profession would only be a class skill for Experts. In the old 3.5 cross-class world, Profession would cost everyone else double, and in Pathfinder, only Experts would get the +3 bump. That way, Experts would always be better blacksmiths than PCs. But anyone could learn a specific making skill, like Craft (blades) or Craft (bows), and these more limited skills could still be useful to PCs without all the professional know-how.
As long as we're daydreaming, I'll tell you what I'd REALLY like, would be a two-tier system of skill groups and specific skill specializations. For instance, for x cost you could buy ranks in the Craftsman group (carpentry + stonemasonry + plumbing + electrician, etc.) and be a general handiman, or you could specialize in one type (e.g., carpentry) for a proportionately lower per-rank cost. Pereception would be a group; Listen, Search, Sense Motive, etc. would be specializations.It'd never make it into the official rules, but a GM could easily "sell" partial ranks in certain skills - 1 skill point buys 1 rank of Perception or +2 only when listening, kind of like some racial bonuses work. 1 skill point buys 1 rank of Acrobatics or +2 only when balancing . More record keeping but not that bad.
What you call the Craftsman group, I've always though of as the proper role for Profession. To me, Profession is everything a person in a particular job know and can do, while Craft is a very specific ability. Profession (builder) would encompass carpentry, stonemasonry, thatching, etc., everything one needs to build a house. Craft (furniture) would be much more specific and much more limited, usually ties to making a certain thing, or at least doing one specific thing. Craft (pastries) or Craft (poem). Why every take Craft then? Because, in my mind, Profession would only be a class skill for Experts. In the old 3.5 cross-class world, Profession would cost everyone else double, and in Pathfinder, only Experts would get the +3 bump. That way, Experts would always be better blacksmiths than PCs. But anyone could learn a specific making skill, like Craft (blades) or Craft (bows), and these more limited skills could still be useful to PCs without all the professional know-how.
Why not? Specialisations are an almost universal system in RPG's these days. Why should D'n'D and its derivatives drag its arse on this?
|
|
While we are day dreaming, i will again reiterate my desire to see a proper social conflict system added to the game ;)Amen! That's sorely needed. My band-aids like Will negates (NPCs vs. Diplomacy) -- or, more often, calling for opposed checks when negotiating -- only go so far.I started working on a house rule for a system at the beginning of the year. But i doubt it will ever get finished.
It worked on the concept of balancing good relations and achieiving your goal.
Just a quick and poorly thought out idea. Right now, NPCs basically have an attitude score, the DCs to get them to do certain things. What if you treated those attitudes more like hit points? Instead of trying to hit a certain DC with your Diplomacy roll, you chip away at it. A successful Diplomacy check vs. DC10 (regardless of the NPCs attitude) allows you to improve the NPCs attitude by 1d4, and for every 5 you beat the DC by, you get to up the die: beating DC10 by 5 raises it to d6, by 10 raise d8, etc. So it's more like "attacking" their attitude. If you fail by 5, you worsen their attitude by d4, fail by 10 and you worsen it by d6, etc. Social combat.
Or, everyone could start with the same number for attitude, say 20, but the DCs for certain dice would vary, i.e., if they are indifferent DC10 gets you a d6, but if they're unfriendly, it only gets you a d4, and if they're hostile, it only gets a flat 1 in "attitude damage."
In a more developed system, you could actually center the system on 0 with indifferent being 0, friendly being 10 and helpful 20. Unfriendly would be -10 and hostile -20. The someone would literally have a "negative attitude" toward you.
Intimidate (including blackmail) can also be used to adjust someone's attitude and might have larger "damage dice" because it can adjust someone's attitude more quickly, BUT unlike regular hit points, attitude points don't heal. Next time you meet that NPC, she's got the same opinion of you. That's fine with Diplomacy, but what if Intimidate flipped as soon as the threat was removed? Say you'd "improved" someone's attitude by 10 points through Intimidation, from indifferent to "friendly." Next time you meet them, their attitude is 10 points worse, decidedly unfriendly!
Bluff, the third leg of the persuasion trifecta, would be similar to Intimidate except that the negative effects wouldn't kick in until the NPC figured out the truth. The positive effects would last longer so maybe the "attitude damage" dice would be more in line with Diplomacy. That would be more in line with Bluff seeming to be the truth anyway.
Getting a tad more complicated, maybe their "social armor class" would be their Will save. That could set the starting DCs! 10 + Will. A weak willed guy with a Will of -2 starts at a DC8 to adjust his attitude, while a strong willed fellow with a Will of +4 starts at a DC14 to adjust. Not a huge difference but enough that every person isn't exactly the same.
Hum. It could definitely use some work, but not bad for a instant little social combat system based loosely on the existing attitude adjustment system.
EDIT: Okay, after a few minutes of thought, I like the set scale of attitude adjusting dice - DC10 is always d4, DC15 is always d6, etc. The increased difficulty comes from having to chip away at higher attitude scores. Having different scales for different attitudes would be too complicated and require a table. BUT, a DM could still adjust the DC like any other skill check with situational modifiers, aid another checks and synergy). Bluff would use the same scale but Intimidate wold get a slightly better one.
While we are day dreaming, i will again reiterate my desire to see a proper social conflict system added to the game ;)Amen! That's sorely needed. My band-aids like Will negates (NPCs vs. Diplomacy) -- or, more often, calling for opposed checks when negotiating -- only go so far.I started working on a house rule for a system at the beginning of the year. But i doubt it will ever get finished.
It worked on the concept of balancing good relations and achieiving your goal.
Just a quick and poorly thought out idea. Right now, NPCs basically have an attitude score, the DCs to get them to do certain things. What if you treated those attitudes more like hit points? Instead of trying to hit a certain DC with your Diplomacy roll, you chip away at it. A successful Diplomacy check vs. DC10 (regardless of the NPCs attitude) allows you to improve the NPCs attitude by 1d4, and for every 5 you beat the DC by, you get to up the die: beating DC10 by 5 raises it to d6, by 10 raise d8, etc. So it's more like "attacking" their attitude. If you fail by 5, you worsen their attitude by d4, fail by 10 and you worsen it by d6, etc. Social combat.
Or, everyone could start with the same number for attitude, say 20, but the DCs for certain dice would vary, i.e., if they are indifferent DC10 gets you a d6, but if they're unfriendly, it only gets you a d4, and if they're hostile, it only gets a flat 1 in "attitude damage."
In a more developed system, you could actually center the system on 0 with indifferent being 0, friendly being 10 and helpful 20. Unfriendly would be -10 and hostile -20. The someone would literally have a "negative attitude" toward you.
Intimidate (including blackmail) can also be used to adjust someone's attitude and might have larger "damage dice" because it can adjust someone's attitude more quickly, BUT unlike regular hit points, attitude points don't heal. Next time you meet that NPC,...
An interesting idea certainly.