D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[Mallus]

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.

Can you --slowly and carefully, seeing as I can be a little slow on the uptake sometimes-- explain to me why 'dump-statting CHA' is such a big deal, in light of all the other problems that can lead to uninteresting/bad games.

I've never seen a campaign abandoned because of rampant dump-statting.

Why worry about having any Cha at all, if you know that you can out-talk the DM, and by extension, his characters?

You could easily get rid of CHA. One could argue the prior editions of D&D did that in practice anyway.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'd recommend that anyone who has doubts about social mechanics try to play some games that feature them, e.g., Burning Wheel or Spirit of the Century. I've noticed that both skeptics I've encountered online and ones in my D&D group have a mistaken impression of how such mechanics impact the game.

The simple fact is that there is no roll/role divide, and utilizing a system to resolve conflicts in a social arena in no way prevents in-character dialogue, immersion, or narrative flavor. It simply supports resolution of social situations the same way that combat rules and skill rules support those situations. As a player, you are still calling the shots and making choices for your PC, as well as interacting with the game environment. The difference is simply that dice and your PC's ability are brought into play, when there is a conflict that needs to be resolved. Obviously, if there is no conflict, there's no need to use the mechanic, just like anything else.
*snip* example of play

I dunno. I find the above a lot more enjoyable than the typical Mother-May-I of pure Player-DM negotiation. It also gives players a reason to care about non-combat abilities.

"I agree with buzz. (I should put that in my sig.)"

I also agree with buzz.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Can you --slowly and carefully, seeing as I can be a little slow on the uptake sometimes-- explain to me why 'dump-statting CHA' is such a big deal, in light of all the other problems that can lead to uninteresting/bad games.

Go over and check out the threads on rolling ability scores versus point buy, to see why someone might think that the ability to chuck out an entire ability score without suffering any penalty for doing so might not be fair to the other players. If one is concerned about having some kind of parity of character abilities, as those who support point buy over random rolling are, a situation in which a player can cheat by being actually charismatic while playing a character that lacks charisma threatens that parity.

Also, if one considers that in a game there might be two players who are playing social characters, one who is naturally glib, and one who is not, the glib player perhaps doesn't need to worry about putting skill points into his social skills. The player who lacks those skills in real life must spend the points if he wants to achieve any kind of social victories, and may even need to demand that the DM pay attention to his skill rolls when attempting social interactions, if the DM is the "talk it out" sort.

These are both unfair situations. You might have no problem with either of them in your game, but that's just your game, and from what you've been saying, it probably doesn't generalize well to other people's games. You have personally constructed a system that works for you and your players, but it's probably idiosyncratic and relies a lot on your own ability to apply fiat based on your experience with running the system. You're probably very good at it by now, but without you at the helm it probably wouldn't work as well. What D&D needs is a system that doesn't necessarily require the DM to be a wise manipulator of social interactions.

Having a robust system of social interaction that not only allows players to play characters that have different skillsets than the players do, but also allows for fair resolution of social interactions, is a good idea. To be fair, such a system must apply penalties to players who choose to have a low Cha and Wis scores and no ranks in social skills, just as the physical combat system penalizes players who choose to have low Str or Dex scores, wield improvised weapons, and wear no armour.

Another option is to throw out social skills altogether, which some people advocate. However, I think that providing the ability for someone to play an experienced con artist, when the player is not himself one, is a worthy goal for a fantasy role-playing game.

 

[BryonD]

Can you --slowly and carefully, seeing as I can be a little slow on the uptake sometimes-- explain to me why 'dump-statting CHA' is such a big deal, in light of all the other problems that can lead to uninteresting/bad games.

I've never seen a campaign abandoned because of rampant dump-statting.


You could easily get rid of CHA. One could argue the prior editions of D&D did that in practice anyway.

Because


we


want


to


roleplay


actual


characters.


A

"character"


is


more


than


a


set

of


combat


stats.

 

[BryonD]

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.

????

Since when is playing a low CHA character less fun or in any way a disincentive?
It sounds to me like you are making really bad assumptions and really have no clue what you are talking about. I've had tons of fun when LOW cha characters were forced into social interactions. OTOH, I have had experiences where disjointed DM fiat turned social interactions into a farce and sucked all the spirit right out of the game.

Hell, even if you throw the mechanics out the window, a low CHA character should come off as a low CHA character in free form. Seriously. Still keeping to no rules in mind, if the player isn't trying to be his character in a social interaction that would be just as un-fun to me if a fighter player got tired of swinging a sword and declared he was casting a fireball in the middle of combat (without a magic item, I mean just abandoning the character idea suddenly)

As I said before, roleplaying means playing a character. If you are not playing a character then you are not roleplaying. I want roleplaying. Obviously it isn;t required for your fun, so that is great. But your position is going to be aof limited value in determining what is best for D&D at large. You may as well start a thread about how nuclear weapons should work in D&D. It is simply outside the boundary conditions of the system.

 

[olshanski]

It's the same for social situations: You say what your character is going to say, and then roll your dice to resolve it. If your performance was good (made the effort to talk in character, tried to find his "weak spot", and so on), you're going to get some bonus (DM's discretion, but that's the case most of the time), but the roll, representing your character's abilities rather than your own, will ultimately determine whether you succeed or not.
.....
Do you want to punish the not-too-social players, and reward silver-tongued power gamers by ignoring one half of the ability scores and probably more than half of the skills?

Well by your definition above, you are still rewarding the silver-tongued power gamers by giving them a bonus to their skill check based on a good performance.

I could easily see a situation where a wallflower trying to be the negotiator regularly gets a -2 modifier for failing to get into character, much less saying anything remotely socially acceptable... while the group thespian regularly scores a bonus of +2 or more because he is able to play in character and still use convincing argument.

It appears the effort to use a diplomacy skill or charisma ability is simply used to mitigate the fact that some people are more adept than others at social situations....

That makes me ask myself...
What is gained by this mitigation process and what is lost?

What's lost is that ocasionally the group thespian (the player) is denied a chance to shine because of what is written on his character sheet... in exchange, a wallflower player's character has a chance to shine, regardless of how bumbling and incompetent the player is with social situations. Certainly, in many cases the shy member of the group will play the low CHA dwarf, while in other cases the handsome and loquatious player chooses to go the bard route and be the face person for the group. In this case, the reality mimics the players and you are back to the whole argument about rewarding the player that fences with modifier on his characters BAB.

How damaging to the game would it be if there were no CHA ability and no Diplomacy skill?

I guess what I am asking is "Is there any method other than straight DM fiat for situations in which you let the players roleplay and ignore the CHA or Diplomacy?"

 

[RFisher]

But there is more than just bad and not bad DMs.

In my experience, that's the only distinction that matters. Most of the TRPG sessions I've played in were good. Most of the GMs I've played with were adequate. Sure, a good GM can mean a great session, but a great session doesn't necessarily mean you had a good DM.

(instead of just ignoring them, which is always easier than leave holes in the rules you have to patch if you want those rules)

No, ignoring rules is not always easy for everyone. It is work for me to search for the gems I want to use when they're mixed in with a lot of rules I don't want to use.

You can't really praise a game for things it doesn't support.

Yes, I can. Watch: I love classic Traveller because it doesn't have classes. I love oD&D because it doesn't have skills.

Saying that you should roleplay in a book is not the same as supporting roleplay.

Actually, I'm not sure that it even did that.

Look, I've got a list of criticisms a mile long for previous editions of (A)D&D starting with the fact that they didn't adequately--for my thick skull--explain how they were meant to be played.

& I've said that I have used social combat, like it, & am looking forward to what 4e is going to give us in this area.

But the (for lack of a better term) negotiation/fiat style of play is a perfectly valid & enjoyable option as well.

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. That way, his character will be a combat machine and master diplomat. The shy guy, on the other hand, doesn't have a chance to play a decent diplomat (because you ignore skills like diplomacy - or if you do use them half-heartedly, he will be able to have diplomatical skills only at the expense of his combat ability). Now, that shy guy might happen to be a crack shot in real life, but he doesn't get to use that skill in the game.

Actually, I believe I said that once I stopped worrying about them, such problems went away.

If I'm not going to use social skills or mental attributes, then I'd prefer that they not be in the game. Then how people have allocated their resources isn't an issue. (Though attributes tend to be less of a problem in this way than skills.) If players have spend resources on mechanical abilities, I do feel a need to make them count for something.

Which is probably why I tend to dislike such things. I'd rather be predisposed to saying "yes" to whatever a player wants his PC to do & then let the player express the character's strengths through actions than to have the players struggle to express their character concept through mechanics & then feel like I have to go out of my way to make those mechanical choices seem to matter.

That predisposition to yes, by the way, means that I'm going to let the shy guy's attempts at diplomacy succeed as well as anyone else's. At least, I'm going to do my best, & I can certainly say that more rules don't make my best any better.

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.

The only things I've seen make a bad DM are immaturity & inexperience. Mostly immaturity. I've never seen unclear rules, poor rules interpretation, or poor judgements be a real problem with a mature DM & mature players. In fact, some of the greatest sessions I've been lucky enough to be a part of probably included all of those things.

 

[BryonD]

Well by your definition above, you are still rewarding the silver-tongued power gamers by giving them a bonus to their skill check based on a good performance.

I agree with you and don't use this type bonus for this reason.
Just as I do not give to hit bonuses for good attack descriptions.

In an established group it is easy to get to know what level of RP comfort each player has and for the DM to use XP rewards for good play. To me this is a better option.

That said, giving a -2 or +2 to a character with a +15 or better skill is miles better than just throwing a fiat answer at anything the player says with no regard to the character at all.

 

[BryonD]

But the (for lack of a better term) negotiation/fiat style of play is a perfectly valid & enjoyable option as well.

Absoutely.

Ans so long as the DM keeps what the character is capable of in mind (even if this is just a vague understanding between the player and DM with zero rules attached) then it can be every bit as awesome and a mechanical system.

However, as I said before, I don't believe you have ever met a player who could talk an ancient red dragon into sharing an item from its horde. No moreso than you have met a person who could cast a fireball. So the dragon will eat you.

I think that having a system to roleplay on top of is a much better system for the mass of people who play and very much so for new players.

I also think that a social mechanic system can very obviously be ignored. But if it is not there then no one has it.

 

[BryonD]

Which is probably why I tend to dislike such things. I'd rather be predisposed to saying "yes" to whatever a player wants his PC to do & then let the player express the character's strengths through actions than to have the players struggle to express their character concept through mechanics & then feel like I have to go out of my way to make those mechanical choices seem to matter.

I don't think that is a very fair statement. You are implying that using a social mechanic means these DMs don't prefer to say yes. Which is far from true.

Unless you are suggesting that every single character should be good at everything and have no weaknesses. I think that would be pointless and boring. So if that is what you mean, then we very much disagree. If you say yes to everything, every time then it isn't a game, it just a series of freebies.

But if you are simply saying that a player should be able to define his own character's strengths and weaknesses and the DM should say "yes" to this, then you haven't said anything special. But if a player defines social as a weakness, or even just defines some other area as a key strength and simply neglects to mention it, and the DM then lets the character get away with anything they can dream up then it would be a completely hollow victory for the character. I mean, just getting your DM buddy to say "yeah, he agrees" holds nothing in terms of accomplishment compared to fairly achieving something in a social exchange that models actual ability.