| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'm hoping we'll see in PF 2.0 are options for characters who don't want to do physical combat. In our group, there's a lot of social activity involved in our encounters, before we even get to the weapons, and it would be great to see character options which step away from physical combat and go more into social conflicts. Whether it's trying to negotiate with a hostile force, convert people to the cause, or cloak and dagger in the king's court, having characters able to do more outside of combat would be a godsend.
Think about it - a cleric who's more oriented towards uplifting spirits and inspiring the faithful than about smiting undead and fighting on the front lines. A magician who's about bewitching and entrancing opponents with words and illusions than fireballs and lightning bolts. A rogue who can talk anyone out of their goods, convince everyone he's on their side, while walking away with their belongings.
I would love to see archetypes and feats that put as much emphasis on social activities as they do on combat activities.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the distinction between Skill Feats and other Feats allows anyone who wants to do so to focus on Social Skills without it being at the expense of their combat ability.
Skill Feats seem very likely to do the sort of things you want, and focusing on it seems likely to be rewarded in the sort of game you describe.
I would like to see the structure of a social encounter fleshed out a bit more, which Ultimate Intigue did not really do. Formalizing processes that appear in many of the scenarios and adventure paths would be advantageous I think.
|
|
I would like to see the structure of a social encounter fleshed out a bit more, which Ultimate Intigue did not really do. Formalizing processes that appear in many of the scenarios and adventure paths would be advantageous I think.
IIRC, most of these processes dealt with
A) Reputation / honor / relationships with NPCs
B) Building and managing a resource (caravane, ship, rebels)
And both were sometimes intertwined
With some streamlining, it should not be that hard to get those two from the get go
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like more social fu and social encounters, definitely, but I'm not really a fan of "social combat"... I've tried Exalted and it was a damn mess. If the system is very simple I can get behind it, but if it starts telling me to apply a hundred modifiers and use this or that skill I'm just gonna do as I always do - have my players roleplay the scene and roll some dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A standard tactic of our party was that the high cha mesmerist used charm person + diplomacy and her cleavage and often we had a helper for the rest of the dungeon
"You are a traitor to them anyway, stick with us and we help you to get out and a bit afterwards"
I guess that was partially social combat :P
But I don't think 'social combat' need that much rules, just a player with some sense oftalking his/her way through, a diplomacy check or two and maybe will saves against it and bam, done
Nothing ruins a PFS scenario faster than that one guy who thinks he can solve every encounter by rolling a diplomacy check. I am actually worried that with the new skill feats Diplomacy might scale up strong enough that the "social-fu" guy can just say "on a 5+ nobody else in the party gets to do anything".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big problem with social combat type rules is the same problem that would show up if there were detailed trap disabling rules or similar. It's a longish encounter where the face does his stuff while everyone else sits around with a thumb up their rear waiting for their chance to play. Keep it simple and RP it out if you want to talk down combatants, I'd rather avoid complex systems that only a few people in the party will be exploiting.
At least, not in the core. Splats are fair game.
Well, that depends on how the social rules work. If there's a way for folks with bad diplomacy to still make a positive contribution without the risk of sabotaging the whole group, we aren't in bad shape. Just allowing for PF1 Aid Another can work, for example.
There are social challenges in some APs where other skills can be utilized-- using a relevant common interest, like Profession (Soldier) for buttering up a general. But these require a lot of pre-planning to make work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I would kind of like to see is that "no man is an island".
And by that I mean, I want characters that are constructed such that they would be a detriment to social experiences , that they in fact are. I don't really want "bystander" to be an option. The socially inept person tries to butt in and will make an ass of themselves, but you're social butterfly has to step in and save the situation and still try to accomplish their goal.
As to the OP's original post...I'm not really sure what they want. You can already do all the things the OP wanted in the original PF through the use of skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One reason I like social-fu is because it allows a player who's not good at this kind of thing to actually be able to play a character who's better at that kind of thing. Much like how someone without much knowledge of the setting can use lore skills.
On top of that however, I believe that other tactics should be just as viable as combat. You run into a pack of goblins - how do you convince them to take your side and work with you? Or to convince a member of the Frost Giants to betray his lord?
How do you convince the King's Court to blackball someone you don't like, so they lose influence? These could all boil down to 'roll diplomacy', but that doesn't really lay out a system for if you're trying to do anything nifty or different - and there's no *Classes* that do this sort of thing - one reason my sister's pissed off with Starfinder. She wanted at least one purely social class - and there aren't any.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One reason I like social-fu is because it allows a player who's not good at this kind of thing to actually be able to play a character who's better at that kind of thing. Much like how someone without much knowledge of the setting can use lore skills.
On top of that however, I believe that other tactics should be just as viable as combat. You run into a pack of goblins - how do you convince them to take your side and work with you? Or to convince a member of the Frost Giants to betray his lord?
How do you convince the King's Court to blackball someone you don't like, so they lose influence? These could all boil down to 'roll diplomacy', but that doesn't really lay out a system for if you're trying to do anything nifty or different - and there's no *Classes* that do this sort of thing - one reason my sister's pissed off with Starfinder. She wanted at least one purely social class - and there aren't any.
Having a class be purely anything isn't a great idea, when that thing is only one part of the game. Ideally, everyone can participate in most situations that tend to arise. A Bard may be the most social class in the playtest, but it shouldn't be useless in combat (because combat will happen) just like fighters shouldn't be useless out of combat.
I do agree that allowing for solutions to encounters other than kick the door down and murder the dudes is nice, though unless you don't have anyone interested in or built for combat then some combat should probably still happen.
|
|
It was always more efficient to play a character with a strong contribution in combat and roleplay through non-combat encounters despite the PC having little social skills rather than try the opposite
I hope PF2 will be more balanced here
That's a GM problem, not a system problem. Would you let someone build an entirely social character and then let them roleplay through a combat using their OOC knowledge of martial arts? No? Then make people roll for results.
What you choose to be good at is a strategic choice that should carry consequences, so unless you plan to remove the mechanical benefit of social interaction, you shouldn't let people succeed at it for free.
And yet that is the reason why combat-related stuff, including magic, takes so much place and has so many options, not to mention enthusiasm
While social combat is very much not a thing
In the end we want to crush our enemies, not talk them into submission
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was always more efficient to play a character with a strong contribution in combat and roleplay through non-combat encounters despite the PC having little social skills rather than try the opposite
I hope PF2 will be more balanced here
That's a GM problem, not a system problem. Would you let someone build an entirely social character and then let them roleplay through a combat using their OOC knowledge of martial arts? No? Then make people roll for results.
What you choose to be good at is a strategic choice that should carry consequences, so unless you plan to remove the mechanical benefit of social interaction, you shouldn't let people succeed at it for free.
And yet that is the reason why combat-related stuff, including magic, takes so much place and has so many options, not to mention enthusiasm
While social combat is very much not a thing
In the end we want to crush our enemies, not talk them into submission
Eh, my own group strongly prefers avoiding combat through dialogue when possible. Even the martials who dumped charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One reason I like social-fu is because it allows a player who's not good at this kind of thing to actually be able to play a character who's better at that kind of thing. Much like how someone without much knowledge of the setting can use lore skills.
On top of that however, I believe that other tactics should be just as viable as combat. You run into a pack of goblins - how do you convince them to take your side and work with you? Or to convince a member of the Frost Giants to betray his lord?
How do you convince the King's Court to blackball someone you don't like, so they lose influence? These could all boil down to 'roll diplomacy', but that doesn't really lay out a system for if you're trying to do anything nifty or different - and there's no *Classes* that do this sort of thing - one reason my sister's pissed off with Starfinder. She wanted at least one purely social class - and there aren't any.
I totally agree with you, Chris, more social scenarios in which everyone in the party can participate would be nice - probably they'll focus on combat in the Playtest but we can start clamoring for more social engineering right now.
I'm also quite excited about what I'm seeing, as in: seems to me the skill feats will give characters a lot of social options, and rogues and bards, for instance, will get even more (but any character could be very memorable in social encounters if played well, and I don't mean Critical Role well...).
I think we don't need social rules though - the players and the GM can always angle for a social encounter, and role-playing well, succeeding at the right skill checks, having some cool feats, discreetly using a couple spells or magic items and so on should be enough for the group to keep the social encounter going as long as everyone wants, and solve situations brilliantly without drawing a blade even once (and making friends has always benefits).
Would that be okay or would you rather a sort of "social combat system" with clearly defined rules and consequences?
I've never really been into social mechanics/skills in RPGs, ever since my first 3rd Ed session when one of the other players interrupted the DM by incredulously saying "Sense Motive..." and started to roll a d20. Later on I heard about Diplomancers and was really put off.
That's not a very functional social contract between players and DM, though. Usually I can assure you that some persuasion/deception/intimidation rolls or a well-timed disguise self spell can work wonders and result in a lot of fun for everyone (you've never had this experience?). Of course the group's cohesion must be decent - if it's an adversarial relationship with everyone... geez. I'd run.
I like social stuff as much as (or likely more) the next guy and would gladly like a little more support for it (the how much they like you scale doesn't really cut it.) But if I ever want to run a game in which combat is not the focus, I'll go to literally any other game that isn't part of the DnD heritage.
True that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, to make everyone happy there might be *optional* detailed social interaction rules! So those of you who like a lot of rules can use them, and those of us who prefer to improv and role-play can go on doing just that!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw the thread title and thought it would match my thoughts on subject, but focus seems to entirely be on "roll play" Diplomacy as mini-game. Which I don't really care what they do with numbers or Feat abilities, that kind of is a kill-joy to me as far as roleplaying goes. (we don't need fancy mechanics to allow ANY player to strongly roleplay, which is game enhancing whether they "win" or not)
Anyhow, more to my thoughts on how to reconcile the two:
Perhaps Diplomacy success would rather be more of a feedback on whether your proposed interaction would be a good idea or not. I.e, you're looking for a certain NPC who is a smuggler and you're talking to some of their extended family. They ask what NPC is up to (since you act like you know their relative) and you are going to tell them they've been successful smuggling drugs, but rival gangs are out to get them because they stole from them. What should a high Diplomacy check do? What if it just "told" you "they would react badly to that, since you're telling them their relative is a low life criminal" which allows you to instead tell a pleasing tale of a wayward cousin working with the king's guard fighting off bandits (feel good story) that they respond well too and are more amenable to sharing info.
Whereas now, a high Diplo check essentially compels WHATEVER you do to be treated in a good and effective way, bypassing the GM's roleplaying awareness as to NPC's psychology and what would be good/bad for them. A high Diplo check also bizarrely constrains interactions for characters with high modifiers, since they literally can't have a bad result, when GM asks for Diplo roll and they murder it, well the NPC thought that was great and convincing. But if we go with something like what I propose, the character would have feedback on their perceived advisability of a proposed interaction but can go ahead and do it anyways no matter the Diplo check. This lets a "Diplomancer" character choose to take un-Diplomatic actions (which may actually serve constructive goal, as well as simply being in character etc). It also allows characters to simply act according to personal code or agenda, i.e. "I must tell the truth and the full truth" and have that play out logically.
I think something like that would keep the roleplaying more centered on roleplaying, while still allowing mechanics to be beneficial, in guiding real roleplaying towards effective outcomes. This doesn't depend on players being comfortable first-person-voice roleplaying, if they indicate conversation which Diplo accurately suggests is good route, the rules would point GM to accepting that as succesfull, but it would shift the focus back to where creative astute roleplaying is the name of the game, not where it is simply outcome of char-op minigame which determined the Diplomacy modifier. I think it also is more inviting of newbies since they don't need to be mechanical experts to roleplay a conversational interaction, the GM can give the results of Diplo as hints/aids to their conversational choices in naturalistic way that doesn't present barrier to roleplaying but actively welcomes it.
I'd be interested in feedback on the approach I proposed, which is pretty basic so far and could be enhanced alot more... Or other approaches which bring back social interactions more towards roleplaying front and center.
I saw the thread title and thought it would match my thoughts on subject, but focus seems to entirely be on "roll play" Diplomacy as mini-game. Which I don't really care what they do with numbers or Feat abilities, that kind of is a kill-joy to me as far as roleplaying goes. (we don't need fancy mechanics to allow ANY player to strongly roleplay, which is game enhancing whether they "win" or not)
Anyhow, more to my thoughts on how to reconcile the two:
Perhaps Diplomacy success would rather be more of a feedback on whether your proposed interaction would be a good idea or not. I.e, you're looking for a certain NPC who is a smuggler and you're talking to some of their extended family. They ask what NPC is up to (since you act like you know their relative) and you are going to tell them they've been successful smuggling drugs, but rival gangs are out to get them because they stole from them. What should a high Diplomacy check do? What if it just "told" you "they would react badly to that, since you're telling them their relative is a low life criminal" which allows you to instead tell a pleasing tale of a wayward cousin working with the king's guard fighting off bandits (feel good story) that they respond well too and are more amenable to sharing info.
Whereas now, a high Diplo check essentially compels WHATEVER you do to be treated in a good and effective way, bypassing the GM's roleplaying awareness as to NPC's psychology and what would be good/bad for them. A high Diplo check also bizarrely constrains interactions for characters with high modifiers, since they literally can't have a bad result, when GM asks for Diplo roll and they murder it, well the NPC thought that was great and convincing. But if we go with something like what I propose, the character would have feedback on their perceived advisability of a proposed interaction but can go ahead and do it anyways no matter the Diplo check. This lets a "Diplomancer" character choose to take un-Diplomatic actions (which may actually serve...
There are some pretty good suggestions in here. It also correlates to a problem I've had with sense motive. A big part of diplomacy (and charisma in general) is being able to read your audience. But usually if you pump charisma up you wind up dumping wisdom, and vice versa. So it hard to get someone who is both good at talking to people and reading others.
I've got a player with some high charisma characters, but (as he puts it) low IRL charisma. He's got a tendency to say stuff he probably shouldn't... So on occasion this is pointed out, and he goes "It occurs to me not to say that." It is a soft retcon, but seems to be a happy medium. Where as when the same player pilots a dwarf with 5 charisma, all bets are off. ;)
Perhaps Diplomacy success would rather be more of a feedback on whether your proposed interaction would be a good idea or not.
I love where Quandry is going with this.
I could certainly get behind a system where you roleplay it out but high diplomacy results get you a ton of hints on the right things to say.
Equally I could live with an system where there are good and bad approaches to take with an NPC and which one you choose has major modifiers to your social skill checks.
There should be a combination of both characters social stats and the line they try to use at play. I know a lot of people hate being forced to roleplay a conversation (in a role-playing game...) but I think its fair to ask for their character's general approach - e.g. appealing to their better nature, hinting what's in it for them, charming and flirty or lofty and statesmanlike?
Guessing what sort of people you are talking to and what will appeal to them best is a conversation the whole group can get involved in, even if the face character makes the roll. Or alternately, the master diplomat gets a ton of clues on the best thing to say, but anyone can have the actual conversation...
Yeah, I think mentioning specific points is really good-- I've seen APs that offer pretty hefty circumstance bonuses for that.
|
|
Perhaps Diplomacy success would rather be more of a feedback on whether your proposed interaction would be a good idea or not.
This is an interesting idea, but it has its own problems. Speaking from my own experience in real life, one of my best social skills is telling the truth in a way that doesn't offend people.
Your setup leaves no room for something like that, where you can tell people that their relative is a smuggler without offending them, which is a skill I have in real life...and I'm no diplomat. Some people are much better at getting people to listen to unpalatable truths without blaming the messenger than I am.
Knowing how to approach people is important, but it's as much a matter of presentation as it is of content, at least for most people and most situations. And that's a lot harder to codify and a lot more difficult for players who aren't good at social stuff to properly manage than content distinctions.
And really, knowing the right content and approach is more Sense Motive/Perception than it is Diplomacy. Diplomacy is much more the approach portion of the attempted interaction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point out that the PF1 social combat rules do cover skill checks to find the right topics to talk about with the target, and encourages modifiers based on the person that is talking and how they choose to make their approach. The War for the Crown and Hell's Rebels/Hell's Vengeance APs have been putting those rules through their paces.
I won't claim it is perfect, but it is something that they've been working and tinkering with while designing PF2. I'm virtually certain we'll see something along the lines that Quandary suggests.
As a side note, despite my loquaciousness while behind a keyboard, while talking I am extremely blunt and the type that won't use three words when one will do. This translates directly to the table, so my RP leaves something to be desired (and is the reason I more often assist GMing rather than pull the full duty myself). So I'm one that relies on those diplomacy rolls turning my bare descriptions and sentences into honeyed words, just as we all would rather roll a d20 instead of whacking the DM about with a foam bat for attack rolls.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bring it up because there's a segment of players and DMs that feels if the player manages to say the right word or line, the character should be able to accomplish their diplomacy task no matter what the roll says. There was the old advice that you could almost always afford to dump charisma because effective roleplay could override a low charisma skill bonus, and that seems wrong to me. If I'm getting the advantage of my character's high skill bonus when as a player I'm just mumbling, I should also have to take the result of a low skill check even if I say the exact right thing.
I bring it up because there's a segment of players and DMs that feels if the player manages to say the right word or line, the character should be able to accomplish their diplomacy task no matter what the roll says. There was the old advice that you could almost always afford to dump charisma because effective roleplay could override a low charisma skill bonus, and that seems wrong to me. If I'm getting the advantage of my character's high skill bonus when as a player I'm just mumbling, I should also have to take the result of a low skill check even if I say the exact right thing.
That's why I think the happy medium is that good role-playing should at best supplement your roll, not replace it. I've made some pretty impassioned and logical pleas to NPCs before, only to roll a nat 1. So my big speech was rather ruined when I literally vomited on the person whose help I was requesting. Such is life!
Yeah, generally I give a +2 to +4 bonus for good RP of social interactions, but the character stats are still primarily responsible.
I've tried to complete remove the social skills from a game before, but ultimately my players didn't go for it. I did tell them however that I reserved the right to not allow some things to function at my discretion. Because sometimes there is no convincing the king to give you whatever you want, or intimidating the 10,000 yr old dragon.
As a GM I definitely prefer narrative control of social interactions. I want to be fair to players, but ultimately want control to have the story go a certain way. Players on the other hand want control too, and their best method is through skill checks with high modifiers.
Ultimately, while I could try to force what I want as a GM, I would have probably lost my players so we ended up running it per the standard rules.
(My big gripe is that the rules for diplomacy and intimidate have been busted forever, and it's hard to make a NPC that can't be convinced by someone moderately invested in diplomacy.)
|
|
I bring it up because there's a segment of players and DMs that feels if the player manages to say the right word or line, the character should be able to accomplish their diplomacy task no matter what the roll says. There was the old advice that you could almost always afford to dump charisma because effective roleplay could override a low charisma skill bonus, and that seems wrong to me. If I'm getting the advantage of my character's high skill bonus when as a player I'm just mumbling, I should also have to take the result of a low skill check even if I say the exact right thing.That's why I think the happy medium is that good role-playing should at best supplement your roll, not replace it. I've made some pretty impassioned and logical pleas to NPCs before, only to roll a nat 1. So my big speech was rather ruined when I literally vomited on the person whose help I was requesting. Such is life!
I would only ask that players are not forced to roleplay their PCs' dumped mental abilities if they do not wish to. The mechanical penalties should be punishment enough
And if the INT8 PC's player has a stroke of genius that the INT22 PC's player missed, the party should not be punished for it