D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[Gentlegamer]

Bad Example!

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

 

[DonTadow]

By that logic, D&D didn't become a roleplaying game until 3rd edition, at which time it became a bad one.

And by bad do you mean more popular than it has ever been with nearly 4 times the players it had in the two previous editions combined? Or do you mean bad like in superbad? or bad from the late 80s definition of super cool?

1e and 2e by definitions of its own creators had poorly written rules that did little more than establish a brand, not create a coherent game.

 

[Mallus]

So you think it's alright that a guy who can talk straight is able to have a character who is a great diplomat even though he doesn't put any of his character's resources into into things that would support it.

I do.

For the simple reason that I enjoy it when players talk it up in character at the table. It's almost always hilarious. It's fun. It's the kind of atmosphere I want during an RPG session.

So I'm not going to offer any mechanical disincentives for playing that way, even if that means turning a blind eye to some of the rules.

That way, his character will be a combat machine and master diplomat.

So what? There are worse things that can happen in game. Player disinterest and lack of participation, for instance.


You know, it occurs to me that even if you make social interaction into an abstract game, some people are going to be better at it than others. Wouldn't a system for handling diplomacy be equally unfair to a player who wanted to play a master diplomat but sucked at the mechanics that governed it?

There comes a point where you have to accept that RPG's require some level of player skill or they gameplay gets reduced to the statement of desired outcomes and some die rolls. All we are really arguing about is where the line gets drawn.

 

[DonTadow]

In my experience, you have the "bad DM" & the "not bad DM". The game with social rules is just as bad under the "bad DM" as the game without social rules. Likewise, the game without social rules is just as good under the "not bad DM" as the game with social rules.

I've never seen rules make a "bad DM" better. (Broken record time: Only maturity & experience can do that.) If you have an adequate-or-better DM & mature players, then you don't need rules to make him fair. And the "bad DM" evolves or gets replaced in short order.

Coherent rules can help make a bad DM better by giving him clear guidelines to follow. The reason most DMs turn out to be bad ones is because the rules are unclear and they have to make them up themselves or try to interpret them. Now, DM'n has a lot of skills in it, certain extra skills make you great. One of them is understanding game structure. Most DM's don't know this nor do they need to if they understand the rules. Bad DMs however don't understand the rules and lack understanding in game structure to make up their own rules.

The reason why you have such a disparity in role playing and role playing rules in dungeons and dragons (despite social skills rules being in the majority of the other popular systems) is the lack of social rules in the game. thats why now, you DMs have to emphasise things like heavy role playing, or light role playing or hack and slash. Consistancy in social rules setting insures everyone is on the same playing field.

 

[buzz]

Bad Example!

Eww.

Okay, there are limits. But, still!

 

[ST]

What I find so interesting about this thread is how different the campaigns people are describing are from each other. And yet they're all D&D. In fact some people are very insistent that they want to still be "playing D&D, as written", and that might change.

First off: The very first paragraph in the first post states that the old method will still be presented, and this will be an option. So no worries there!

But it's a generally interesting design issue: D&D has very little discussion of how to adjudicate social conflicts, and so many DMs have developed their own methods of handling it. I'd argue that these little 'gaps' that get filled in by the group are so numerous that nobody is "playing the same D&D". And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that some people aren't happy with what they've used to fill in a given gap, so a tested system to handle it will be welcome to them.

I do think it's interesting that there's discussion of treating any conflict as an encounter (someone mentioned traps earlier, as well as social conflict). Spycraft 2, a d20 game, includes rules for things like chases and escapes as encounters, as well. It's interesting to compare that to systems that use a conflict resolution (stakes-setting) system.

For what it's worth, I think some of the friction in the thread comes from saying "I prefer X in my D&D game" and it being read as "D&D should do X". For instance, man I hate extended in-character dialogue. Hate, hate, hate it. I don't enjoy it. And yet I GM games that include lots of conversation, political intrigue, etc., and very little combat. Not using the first-person voice doesn't mean you aren't playing your character. I'd love playing in some groups, not enjoy playing in others. And that's how it should be -- it'd be a pretty boring hobby if every game was exactly the same, I think.

 

[buzz]

ST, your post is full of awesomeness.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Some kind of stake setting or bribery mechanic for social interaction would be preferable to the persuade hammer approach.

You know, Rich Burlew (of Order of the Stick fame) posted a rewrite of the Diplomacy skill that was based on bribery/stake-setting. It's free on his website, and is open content. I also happen to like it a lot.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Exactly.

I've yet to meet a human being actually capable of the kind of fast talk that would be needed to achieve the things that some characters do in my game.
If you want want to try your own skills at it fine, I'm game. You'll get a fair trial. Then the dragon will eat you.

Even worse is when somebody dumps their CHA and then wants to act out a brilliant social triumph. To me it is crazy talk to say that you are using RP over rules when you are not even faithfully roleplaying the character.

On the other hand, you CAN use the rules and also roleplay the results.

QFT. In games where you can just talk your way through encounters without having to look at your social skills, Cha becomes even more of a preferred dump stat than it already is. Why worry about having any Cha at all, if you know that you can out-talk the DM, and by extension, his characters?

 

[Mallus]

The reason most DMs turn out to be bad ones is because the rules are unclear and they have to make them up themselves or try to interpret them.

I disagree with your opinion.

The reason why you have such a disparity in role playing and role playing rules in dungeons and dragons (despite social skills rules being in the majority of the other popular systems) is the lack of social rules in the game.

The simpler answer is that different players enjoy different aspects of role-playing, and, in fact, even define the act in very different ways. Having a set of coherent rules won't change that.