Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[Tymophil]

It looks like skills don't matter in your system. Forget thinking about point allocation- that only seems to affect your degree of success, not whether you succeed or not.

That's right. I hate to tell someone that his action was very clever and to the point, but failed because of a bad roll...

If the action has little chance of being a right thing to do, then the dice gives me a hint of the outcome of the action. If it succeeds, it does what the player intented his action to do. If it fails, then something happens that is a hint for the player, pointing towards the best action to perform, in my mind, given the situation.

A Dungeon Master is the senses and the intuition of the characters. I give them hints when they fail, rather than when they succeed. When they succeed, the information they recieve is much more than hints. Mots of the time something new HAPPENS.

And what about the flipside? What happens if the PC is extremely skilled on paper, but says the wrong thing? It would seem that the reciprocal of your method would mean that his skill doesn't matter except in determining how bad the failure was.

Let's imagine that the intented action has no chance in succeeding. If the roll is a success, I give the character hints related to the situation, the best that the intented action could give. If it fails, I give hints that are of the very same kind, but with a dull tone...

I am not playing against the players. I want them to play. In order to play, they need information. I beleive that if the players don't come up with good methods/actions, it's mostly MY fault. So, rather than blame them or their dice, I feed them them with enough hints for them to perform better actions for the next turn...

No thank you- I'd rather a system that uses rolls lets the rolls be fully meaningful. IOW, if I, the player, gaffe my action in a social situation, then the high roll that describes what happens to the character Sir Rakehell the Glib- who is a lifetime courtier with maxed out social skills- should at leas have a chance of it meaning HE succeeded where I failed.

What do you mean by gaffing the action of your character ?

Let's imagine that Sir Rakehell the Glib tries to charm the Queen with a nice speech. I would first ask you what kind of speech Sir Rakehell would do, with a smile. Then, I would ask for a Diplomacy check. If the test is a success, then the Queen is very pleased with Sir Rakehell, and something good happens : he gets what he wanted, and maybe some more. If the roll is a failure (unlikely if social skill score is high), then the Queen is merely amused, and something simply useful happens : he gets what he wanted, and that's all.

Now, let's assume that you play in a very strange way, and state that Sir Rakehell tries to intimidate the Queen. Then, it is quite unlikely that the action will be met with success. If the tests is a success, then the Queen is offended, but one of the member of the court is impressed, and though Sir Rakehell will not be ableto talk to the Queen for a while, the nobleman introduces the rude Sir Rakehell to the etiquette, and gives several hints on how to talk in the proper manner to her Highness (getting some useful information in the process). If he fails, then he gets the irritation of the Queen in full force, and some nobleman taeches in a harsh way the rules of the etiquette (giving many hints on how the court works).

Now if you gaff several times by making inadequate/illogical actions, then maybe my table may not be for you...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Naw. IRL a high-CHA, high-Diplomacy person can gaffe horribly - and everyone around him still nods and smiles. That's what 'charm' is about. So, IMC you the player can gaffe badly, and that means your PC gaffed too, which raises the DC, but on a good high Diplomacy roll the NPCs will react accordingly: "Oh that Danny-PC! The things he says! Tee hee! What a card!"

I realize that even the best at something can fail in that task. I'd be an idiot if I didn't.

What I'm saying is that in reference to the model that I was responding to, I'd prefer to have the rolls determine succes or failure rather than merely the degree thereof.

Here's the difference:

In his system, if the player's words for Sir Rakehell's attempt at Diplomacy are wrong, his high skill levels and some hot-handed rolling can only determine how badly he fails. If the player Has the curse of a knotted tongue, Sir Rakehell will be forever failing at his task as the face of the party, and the epithet of "the Glib" will be an ironic jab. In short, the PC will not function in play the way it is designed.

In contrast, in a system where the PC's skills & roll matters more than the player's words, even if the player gaffes, the PC may still succeed. Perhaps he realizes as he speaks that his words are being ill-recieved, and with a slight change in tone, posture and words, turns a grave insult into something that is taken as a bit of humor(or some such). This way, even a player whose tongue has a Gordon knot it it can still play Sir Rakehell as being truly Glib.

I hate to tell someone that his action was very clever and to the point, but failed because of a bad roll...

And yet that kind of thing happens all the time IRL. Talented comedians bomb. Great actors deliver a wooden performance or forget their lines. Incredible musicians hit sour notes or forget parts of songs they wrote. Veteran Diplomats say just the wrong thing. Hall of Fame athletes make game-losing plays.

What doesn't happen is that those individuals make a habit of it.

Let's imagine that the intented action has no chance in succeeding. If the roll is a success, I give the character hints related to the situation, the best that the intented action could give. If it fails, I give hints that are of the very same kind, but with a dull tone...

This goes back to what I was saying about "pixel bitching."

Some players are simply not going to get the subtle hints- I'm playing with a guy like that right now- so all of your nudging will avail him naught. Were he to play a charismatic PC, it would always come off as an ass under your system.

In contrast, when the PC's actual attributes & skills matter more than the Player's words, his insulting words instead get passed off as a bit of humor, a historical reference...maybe a preface to something greater.

 

[Tymophil]

I realize that even the best at something can fail in that task. I'd be an idiot if I didn't.

What I am saying is a little different. If the player states the best action for his character, why should he fail on a dice roll ? There are not even fumble in the D&D4 system ! Why bother people with such a Damocles sword ?

I prepared a scene, the character does what is the most logical, the most clever, the wisest. Why should he fail ? Sure, I want his skill bonus to matter and it does. But, utimately, what is a point of failing what should fail, just because a dice roll must be a fail/succeed tool ? It slows the action, makes things more mechanical, impedes the unfolding of the plot. What is the benefit of such an approach ?

What I'm saying is that in reference to the model that I was responding to, I'd prefer to have the rolls determine succes or failure rather than merely the degree thereof.

Here's the difference:

In his system, if the player's words for Sir Rakehell's attempt at Diplomacy are wrong, his high skill levels and some hot-handed rolling can only determine how badly he fails. If the player Has the curse of a knotted tongue, Sir Rakehell will be forever failing at his task as the face of the party, and the epithet of "the Glib" will be an ironic jab. In short, the PC will not function in play the way it is designed.

You did not read my message. The player doesn't have to perform to succeed. All he has to do is state what his character will do. If he wants to perform, I'm fine with that (as long as he doesn't steal the spotlight for the other players). But all the player has to do is clearly state his character's action, nothing more, nothing less. If the player cannot simply say : "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the Queen." then he may be cursed beyond help...

In contrast, in a system where the PC's skills & roll matters more than the player's words, even if the player gaffes, the PC may still succeed. Perhaps he realizes as he speaks that his words are being ill-recieved, and with a slight change in tone, posture and words, turns a grave insult into something that is taken as a bit of humor(or some such). This way, even a player whose tongue has a Gordon knot it it can still play Sir Rakehell as being truly Glib.

What is the point of such system ? If the player wants to play his character in a certain way, it should play in a certain way. If the player wants his PC to insult, his character should insult. If he wants to palay it as a diplomat, then a diplomat it should be at that moment.

As a player I would feel insulted if the intent of the actions of my character would be modified by the GM, because of a roll. I would also feel ashamed to play a character in such a way that it would embarass the GM and other players.

If I say : "Sir Rakehell tries to bluff the Queen into believing that he's an ambassador for Gundia." I am fully aware that my bluff may be called for. Then a roll is something that is mandatory. Its result is something that can tell success/failure.

If I say : "Sir Rakehell presents his best poem to the Queen.", I would be sad to roll a dice and being replied. The Queen doen't like poems (because you rolled poorly) and you get thrown in jail for your impudence.

And yet that kind of thing happens all the time IRL. Talented comedians bomb. Great actors deliver a wooden performance or forget their lines. Incredible musicians hit sour notes or forget parts of songs they wrote. Veteran Diplomats say just the wrong thing. Hall of Fame athletes make game-losing plays.

What doesn't happen is that those individuals make a habit of it.

I play a fantasy roleplaying game, such reference don't make sense in such a fiction.

If my character says the right thing, there should be no way in the world that it becomes a bad thing because of a dice...

This goes back to what I was saying about "pixel bitching."

???

Some players are simply not going to get the subtle hints- I'm playing with a guy like that right now- so all of your nudging will avail him naught. Were he to play a charismatic PC, it would always come off as an ass under your system.

Players are what you make them for most part. Once again, the DM is the eyes, the ears, the skin, the taste, the nose, the intuition, the knowledge, the culture of the PC. If the player is not getting subtle hints, then resort to not subtle ones. I want everyone to play around the table, but I surely don't want the system to play on its own...

A charismatic PC should be able to play any way the player wants... That the player should rely on the Charisma of the PC is obvious, and my system (as you call it) doesn't make it impossible, nor even difficult, it's even desirable. The action the player intends for his PC is what matters, then the skill kicks in. If the action is the right/best/coolest/brightest/etc. thing to do, then it would a shame to cut his wings but having a dice telling him that his action is a failure.

In contrast, when the PC's actual attributes & skills matter more than the Player's words, his insulting words instead get passed off as a bit of humor, a historical reference...maybe a preface to something greater.

Once again, if the player meant that his PC insulted, I would consider a shame to have the DM telling him that his character's words are considered funny because he succeeded his skill test ! A successful skill roll should mean that the insult was pretty... insulting !

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the player states the best action for his character, why should he fail on a dice roll ?

Because even the best in the world sometimes fail at what they are best in the world at.

There are not even fumble in the D&D4 system ! Why bother people with such a Damocles sword ?

IMHO, that is a flaw with 4Ed.

You did not read my message. The player doesn't have to perform to succeed. All he has to do is state what his character will do.

Ah, but I DID read your npmessage, and said nothing of performance.

One of my gaming buddies is coarse and brash. This is his nature, and we like him for it. Whenever he says something in character, his nature will shine through. This is why he is a computer programmer and not an actor.

Thus, no matter what he says to the Queen, regardless of the relevant skill, he will say what he says in his own abrasive wording.

It would seem that in your system, this would consistently work against him.

If I say : "Sir Rakehell presents his best poem to the Queen.", I would be sad to roll a dice and being replied. The Queen doen't like poems (because you rolled poorly) and you get thrown in jail for your impudence.

Sometimes, your best is simply not good enough. Sometimes, it's your words, other times, it's your delivery. Sometimes, neither your words nor delivery are up to the task. (You failed your roll outright.)

Sometimes, unbeknownst to you, someone else has simply been better...or poisoned your audience against you. Maybe the Queen simply doesn't care for "your kind." (There were negative modifiers to your roll you had no knowledge of.)

I play a fantasy roleplaying game, such reference don't make sense in such a fiction.

Why not?

Are all the jugglers & actors in your world perfect?

Once again, if the player meant that his PC insulted, I would consider a shame to have the DM telling him that his character's words are considered funny because he succeeded his skill test ! A successful skill roll should mean that the insult was pretty... insulting !

Even the worst insult can be turned into a positive by someone socially skilled and charismatic. That is the very essence of a Friar's Club Roast, for instance, or why my buddies can call me the N-word (under certain circumstances).

 

[Janx]

Even the worst insult can be turned into a positive by someone socially skilled and charismatic. That is the very essence of a Friar's Club Roast, for instance, or why my buddies can call me the N-word (under certain circumstances).

Exactly. The GM should always be monitoring for the player's INTENT when determining what happens next. Because INTENT gives CONTEXT to the actions of his PC.

If Danny's abrasive Nerd friend (I assume that was the N word he meant) is trying to be nice and diplomatic to the queen, hopefully I can detect that intent, despite his coarse statements.

That intent gives context to what he said. If I realize that he was TRYING to be diplomatic, I can interpret what he said differently than if I thought he was deliberately trying to be rude. If I don't even attempt to discern his intent and take him literally at what he says, the player may never be able to succeed, unless he takes some serious communication classes for himself.

 

[Hussar]

You did not read my message. The player doesn't have to perform to succeed. All he has to do is state what his character will do. If he wants to perform, I'm fine with that (as long as he doesn't steal the spotlight for the other players). But all the player has to do is clearly state his character's action, nothing more, nothing less. If the player cannot simply say : "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the Queen." then he may be cursed beyond help...

How is "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the queen" significantly different from saying, "I use Diplomacy on the Queen"? After all, it means exactly the same thing, just stated from a slightly different perspective.

There are not even fumble in the D&D4 system ! Why bother people with such a Damocles sword ?

IMHO, that is a flaw with 4Ed.

I would point out that there have never been fumbles for skills in any version of D&D. This isn't new to 4e.

 

[S'mon]

One of my gaming buddies is coarse and brash. This is his nature, and we like him for it. Whenever he says something in character, his nature will shine through. This is why he is a computer programmer and not an actor.

Thus, no matter what he says to the Queen, regardless of the relevant skill, he will say what he says in his own abrasive wording.

It would seem that in your system, this would consistently work against him.

It certainly would in mine. He wants to be coarse and brash, he can play a Viking, or a Dwarf. I had a Norwegian player once, very brash, he made a great Viking. Or if he's apergery he can play an aspergery wizard.

If you want to be a charming courtier, try stretching yourself a smidgin and actually play a charming courtier. You don't actually have to get it right, a made-for-TV facsimile is fine. But if you stick with your RL-abrasive-computer-programmer persona I am going to very rapidly get sick of pretending you're actually being charming and diplomatic.

 

[pemerton]

And yet that kind of thing happens all the time IRL.

<snip>

Some players are simply not going to get the subtle hints- I'm playing with a guy like that right now- so all of your nudging will avail him naught. Were he to play a charismatic PC, it would always come off as an ass under your system.

Are you giving advice on how others should play, or just pointing out your own preferences?

All sorts of things happen in real life that I'm not interested in replicating in an RPG. That doesn't mean that I resolve social interactions the same way that Tympophil does - I've already explained my methods upthread - but I don't consider the mere fact that "that kind of thing happens all the time IRL" to be an especially important consideration in shaping an action resolution system.

What I am saying is a little different. If the player states the best action for his character, why should he fail on a dice roll ?

<snip>

I prepared a scene, the character does what is the most logical, the most clever, the wisest. Why should he fail ?

<snip>

If my character says the right thing, there should be no way in the world that it becomes a bad thing because of a dice

I tend to agree with this. That is why I tend to see the die roll as also having a metagame dimension, for regulating the introduction of complications. If your PC says the right thing but fails the die roll, then some unforeseen complication, adverse to your PC, comes into play - eg just as you are reciting your poem to the Queen, a pigeon flies overhead and craps on her shoulder.

If the player wants to play his character in a certain way, it should play in a certain way.

<snip>

If the player wants his PC to insult, his character should insult.

<snip>

if the player meant that his PC insulted, I would consider a shame to have the DM telling him that his character's words are considered funny because he succeeded his skill test ! A successful skill roll should mean that the insult was pretty... insulting !

Because D&D has never drawn a very clear distinction between task performed, and intended consequences of that task, it can lead to trouble in this sort of adjudication. If a player has his/her PC deliver an insult, and succeeds on the die roll, then I would assume that the insult has had whatever the intended consequence was - riling a person, intimidating them, amusing the rest of the audience, or whatver else may have been intended. Both Diplomacy and Intimidate (and perhaps also Bluff) could therefore be used to deliver insults, depending on what the intended consequence is.

 

[Tymophil]

How is "Sir Rakehell uses his best abilities to be sweet to the queen" significantly different from saying, "I use Diplomacy on the Queen"? After all, it means exactly the same thing, just stated from a slightly different perspective.

The difference is huge : the first is in character somehow (very dry, I must say). The second is not allowed at my table... This is nor roleplay for me, it kills immersion.

The player must state an action, then we decide what skill is used.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Are you giving advice on how others should play, or just pointing out your own preferences?

My personal preference is that failure should always be an option. The possibility of failure- even catastrophic failure- makes for a more interesting game.

I would point out that there have never been fumbles for skills in any version of D&D. This isn't new to 4e.

In the strictest sense, this is 100% correct. It is, however, something that many of my DMs have somewhat HRed- when it comes to results, a truly bad skill roll can- but does not necessarily- have extremely bad results. A 1 is just as bad in Diplomacy or Climbing as it is in initiative or attacks.