D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

Glyfair · Aug 20, 2007

Ari has posted the following in his blog and I hadn't seen this referenced elsewhere.

Social encounters. For those who don't just want to RP such things without some mechanical impact, the game has rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth.

As written it sounds interesting. As described it could be awesome, or it could be stupid. Definitely interesting.

Dog Moon · Aug 20, 2007

Glyfair said:
As described it could be awesome, or it could be stupid.

My friends always made fun of me for saying statements like that. They always seem to think I'm saying 'It'll be good or bad' which could be true for most things, but I always mean it'll be one of the extremes.

I agree though. Bluff always worked fairly well, IME, but Diplomacy certainly had some problems. Going through a social combat could be interesting, but a part of me thinks that after the first time or two, it'll just become a nuisance. Guess it all depends on how long these social combats are supposed to last. Back and forth each once and it should be fine - perhaps going into greater detail than what I'm accustomed to while gaming - but social combats which essentially last like '10 rounds' would become very annoying for most of the people at the table, if not all.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Zaruthustran · Aug 20, 2007

I just hope they allow *all* characters to be social characters, if the player wishes. Right now, if you're the type of player that likes to RP and talk to NPCs then you're stuck with classes that have the Diplomacy skill. Such a player is screwed is he or she plays a wizard, ranger, fighter, or barbarian--classes that are literally without social skills.

It always struck me as needlessly stupid that if you as a player wanted to be a Captain, an armed and armored frontline leader of men who could go toe-to-toe with the best the enemy had to offer (in other words, +1 BAB/level), then you *had* to be a Paladin. Had to be a lawful good, spell-casting, god-fearing, code-following, horse-summoning crusader with all the baggage that came with it.*

Here's to hoping that 4E finally gets rid of the "big dumb fighter" cliche.

-z

Of course, multiclassing allows you to mitigate some of those issues, and that's why most players I know have characters with at least two classes. Yuck. They should just completely separate combat role from noncombat role, and let players pick whatever they most want to play.

theredrobedwizard · Aug 20, 2007

I, for one, look forward to this. My real problem has always been the "I'll just RP really well and it will offset my character's negative charisma modifier" issue. I have had quite a few players start with an 8 or 6 Cha and then RP like they're a trained stage performer.

My being proficient with a rapier in real life has very little impact on my characters (except that I tend to always pack a finesse weapon in addition to my others). In other words, I don't get a bonus to hit because I can swing a sword in real life; why should Diplomacy be any different?

Mechanics for social situations are a good thing.

By the way, your Captain of the Guard Charisma Fighter would probably have a level of either Marshal or Noble/Aristocrat. Multiclassing is not a bad thing.

-TRRW

Glyfair · Aug 20, 2007

Zaruthustran said:
I just hope they allow *all* characters to be social characters, if the player wishes. Right now, if you're the type of player that likes to RP and talk to NPCs then you're stuck with classes that have the Diplomacy skill. Such a player is screwed is he or she plays a wizard, ranger, fighter, or barbarian--classes that are literally without social skills.

I think this was less of an issue with pigeonholing the fighter (something that is going to happen in a class based system in some fashion) as a problem with the skill system.

In 3E there were pretty much only 3 tiers of skill that were important. There was no skill, in which case you didn't bother with anything non-routine. Then there was "maxed out for your level" which assumed it was a class skill and you would have a 50-50 chance or slightly better of exceeding the challenge, and there was "specialized" (maxed out skill points, plus skill focus and other bonuses) where you pretty much always succeeded at your challenges at your level.'

In 3E having maxed out a cross-class skill was sort of pointless. You would be fine with routine things, but would have little chance at any skill attempts that were supposed to be at your level.

Arashi Ravenblade · Aug 20, 2007

Ive always played social encounters that way. What was stopping us from doing what 4e is suggesting? Ive been doing it for years.

Abisashi · Aug 20, 2007

Arashi Ravenblade said:
Ive always played social encounters that way. What was stopping us from doing what 4e is suggesting? Ive been doing it for years.

Nothing; it's entirely possible that 4e will be published and turn out to be exactly identical to your current house rules. Role playing games are techniques, not technology, and as such you don't need to buy them to have access to their capabilities.

Tharen the Damned · Aug 20, 2007

Even if there is a "social encounter" there still have to be rules how and if the "opponent" is "beaten" or not. And these rules will use some kind of dice roll.
I always let my player roleplay his use of Diplomacy and if he made a good speech he got a +2 or even higher circumstance bonus.
Maybe social skills will not be resolved by only one die roll.
Example: An angry mob wants to lynch the bard (for whatever reason). The Bard's Player annonces that he will use diplomacy to sway the mob.
The bard has the surprise round and makes his first diplomacy "attack": He wants the mob to listen to him.
1st Diplomacy skill check
Lets say he passes the DC.
Then the bard again has the initiative (his INI modifier is his Cha. Bonus. much better then the average mob person). Now he uses a Full round action to halt the mob so he can explain next round that the whole affair is in fact a misunderstanding.
2nd Diplomacy Check.
Lets say he passes the DC again.
The mob halts
Now it is the mobs turn. One of the ringleaders (the father of this beautiful maid the bard san so many songs to) tries to incite the mob again.
1st Diplomacy check of the mob
Lets say he does not pass the DC.
Now the Bard is doing his 2nd full round action. Now he does his best to explain why he was found with these 2 maids, the stolen Horse and the Majors Tax Chest in the old Barn outisde the village.
The DM asks the Player to make up a speech. The Player is very creative so the DM assigns a +2 circumstance bonus.
3rd Diplomacy check
Lets say the Bard passes the DC again.
He has succeded. the villagers believ that he stole the Horse to free the maids and the Tax chest from these Orcish Robbers. In fact, his last Diplomacy check exeeded the DC by far. So the DM rules that the villagers no see the Bard as a Hero, thanking him and throwing a party in his honor...
That is how a Diplomacy "encounter" might work.

Pale · Aug 20, 2007

So what's the reason to quantify these types of encounters with rules? As was said before, I've been doing it this way since I started playing (with AD&D). It simply doesn't need to be written into the rules. Waste of page space, really.

jasin · Aug 20, 2007

What's the reason to quantify anything with rules?

Objectivity, the inherent fun of playing a game by the rules rather than winging it, an aid for people who don't have the ability or desire to wing it...