D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

FWIW, I don't give bonuses based on performance. I give bonuses based on whether the player comes up with something that is actually important to the other party in the discussion. If the low-cha fighter spits out "the guys we're after are the ones who stole your horse," it'll get the same bonus as it would if the high-cha bard does. It's not a matter of player charisma, but bringing something into the discussion that the other party cares about. Bargaining chips, and the like. The skill roll tells us how well the character played his hand.

 

[RFisher]

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 can't really say either way.

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.

No! I am explaining that the DM being predisposed to yes is a vital part of the style I'm describing. That does not imply that it isn't or shouldn't be done under other styles.

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.

It's not quite that. There are generally going to be limits.

Every PC may be equally good at everything without it being pointless and boring. (Though I put the "may" in that sentence for a reason.)

It's like the "let them set their own ability scores" thing. Every time I've seen it done the players pick lower scores than they would've had had they used point-buy or their typical results when rolling.

In my experience, players will differentiate their characters all on their own. They'll even come up with weaknesses & play to them.

 

[buzz]

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.

If it's a mechanical disincentive to include social resolution rules, then one would think D&D players would choose to avoid physical combat at all costs, given that 90% of the rules are about that.

Social mechanics, if anything, are an incentive to include social scenes in your games.

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?

Save for freeform, RPGs have rules. There's no getting around that. And as was pointed out by LostSoul, these rules can be simple enough that mastery should really not be an issue.

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

IIRC, Gygax's Lejendary Journeys RPG did away with all non-physical stats, based on the assumption that players were going to run their PCs at their own level of aptitude regardless.

All I can keep coming back to is something that's hard to express without coming off like an elitist jerk (which is not my intent), but it's true nonetheless.

The idea that social mechanics "get in the way" or eliminate roleplaying is wrong. Period. It really shouldn't even be an issue of debate. Games that use them have been around for practically a decade now. Plenty of people in this thread and elsewhere have played them and can give concrete examples of play that, if anything, feature more "roleplaying" than games that don't feature these mechanics.*

By including these sorts of mechanics, D&D4e is simply catching up to current RPG design. The only question in our minds should be whether 4e's implementation is enjoyable and productive, or not. Unfortunately, it's hard to talk constructively about that until we actually see the rules.


* Noonan's example of the party convincing the lich to help them fight the dragon is a good one. Under 3.5, this would not have happened unless you already knew that your DM was predisposed to allow that sort of play. By 3.5 RAW, killing all the monsters is a far, far more viable option. The presence of the social rules in 4e, however, turned diplomacy into another viable option, thus creating a facet of the adventure's "story" that would probably not have happened otherwise.

 

[BryonD]

No! I am explaining that the DM being predisposed to yes is a vital part of the style I'm describing. That does not imply that it isn't or shouldn't be done under other styles.

OK

I'm not at all convinced saying yes when a playing ignores his character's weaknesses is a good thing. And if a DM doesn't say yes when an action goes to a character's strenghts then there is a DM with problems that go far beyond this topic. So your distinction seems pretty moot.

It's not quite that. There are generally going to be limits.

Every PC may be equally good at everything without it being pointless and boring. (Though I put the "may" in that sentence for a reason.)

It's like the "let them set their own ability scores" thing. Every time I've seen it done the players pick lower scores than they would've had had they used point-buy or their typical results when rolling.

In my experience, players will differentiate their characters all on their own. They'll even come up with weaknesses & play to them.

Yeah, and that is exactly what happens when mechanics exist.

The player's selections control the mechanics, not the other way around.


But then once the mechanics are there they just serve to fairly and consistently reinforce the strengths and weakness that the PLAYER has selected.
In my experience players will certainly play their characters strengths and weaknesses. But when it is down to fiat and the character is facing an important challenge the faithfulness starts to fade into wide shades of grey. Then you end up with a DM standing up and saying "NO" when they should and the player feeling ripped off, or the character gets a hollow victory. As I said before, really great groups can overcome this. But I don't think the rules should cater to that small select group. That small select group also tends to be the ones far and way most able to recognize rules they can set aside to make the game best for themselves. So having the rules does no harm to the small portion of great players who don't want them and lacking the rules does some harm to most everyone else. This includes a lot of players who may think they hate the idea but would be quite amazed how much some basic guidelines would support their immersion and fun.

 

[BryonD]

The idea that social mechanics "get in the way" or eliminate roleplaying is wrong. Period. It really shouldn't even be an issue of debate. Games that use them have been around for practically a decade now. Plenty of people in this thread and elsewhere have played them and can give concrete examples of play that, if anything, feature more "roleplaying" than games that don't feature these mechanics.

Absolutely correct. And a completely essential point to the discussion.

 

[Rakin]

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.

Isn't this bad rollplaying?

It is and I just reread this, and thats the point he's making. oops.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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

Prior editions did not separate race and class. Prior editions restricted many classes by race or ability scores....

 

[Mallus]

Because we want to roleplay actual characters. A "character" is more than
a set of combat stats.

Byron, try to understand that when I advocate resolving social encounters primarily through negotiation/fiat that in no way means I want to ditch characterization and reduce a PC to combat abilities. It means I prefer to handle those parts of the game without mechanics. That's all.

If you want some context, go read the Story Hour in my sig. It's a very good representation of my game, full of terrific, if amoral and slightly ludicrous, characters. And its funny. Really funny. Trust me.

 

[Mallus]

Social mechanics, if anything, are an incentive to include social scenes in your games.

That's not really what I meant by meant, but then, I suspect I wasn't being very clear.

When DM'ing, I place a really high value on player participation/the play around the table. I don't want characters sitting out of social encounters because they have a low mechanical chance for producing a successful outcome. If the player of a low CHA PC delivers a rousing real-life speech that wows the whole table, more often than not, I'll let that decide the outcome. I don't want to discourage, or at least render inconsequential, that kind of live play. I much prefer to render (occasionally) the character's abilities inconsequential, or at least overlook them.

And I'm not sure I understand why social mechanics would encourage the inclusion of social encounters. I've always found that it's strictly a taste issue. I run a lot of social, or at least combat optional encounters because I enjoy them; the robustness --or even the presence-- of social resolution mechanics isn't a factor.

RPGs have rules. There's no getting around that.

Then there's no getting around that some people will want to play characters they can't. Replacing 'talking' with the 'talking game' won't change that, or at least I don't see how it would. Whatever resolution system is in place, someone will be bad at it.

All I can keep coming back to is something that's hard to express without coming off like an elitist jerk (which is not my intent), but it's true nonetheless.

For the record, you sound like neither 1) and elitist or 2) a jerk.

The idea that social mechanics "get in the way" or eliminate roleplaying is wrong. Period. It really shouldn't even be an issue of debate.

Understand where I'm coming from. Most (but not all) of the social encounters in the games I play in are resolved using negotiation/fiat. The exact words the player's speak come out of their characters mouths. They're natural sounding conversations between the players and DM, peppered with non-mechanical metagame talk.

I didn't mean to suggest that the use of social mechanics would eliminate roleplaying, just the they would change the timbre of it. And I based that off your example of the Duel of Wits (gotta say, Lost Souls sample sounded a lot smoother/cooler). I still have concerns that by explicitly turning conversation into a tactical game (which is is already, implicitly) it'll lessen it somehow.

Frankly, I don't see how much more immersive you can get then speaking the exact words your character is speaking, and having said words resolve the encounter, though I am game to try different systems...

The only question in our minds should be whether 4e's implementation is enjoyable and productive, or not.

You know, I really am in total agreement here. I'm not opposed to social mechanics. I use the fairly poor ones included in 3.5 myself. But I'm opposed to the idea that those kinds of rules represent some kind of panacea for problems posed by shy players and obstinate, unresponisve DM's.

 

[Jhaelen]

FWIW, I don't give bonuses based on performance. I give bonuses based on whether the player comes up with something that is actually important to the other party in the discussion. If the low-cha fighter spits out "the guys we're after are the ones who stole your horse," it'll get the same bonus as it would if the high-cha bard does. It's not a matter of player charisma, but bringing something into the discussion that the other party cares about. Bargaining chips, and the like. The skill roll tells us how well the character played his hand.

Absolutely! It's not so much the 'how' of the roleplaying, it's the 'what'. I think it's good style to reward inventive players by granting them small bonuses to skill rolls. I've never had the impression that other players resent it if good ideas are appropriately rewarded.