Manbearcat
Legend
The thread is a very worthy cause within the dialogue of our hobby. You've done more than enough to clarify the intent and structure of the system but I'm glad to lend a hand to that end to whatever degree I am able.
Burning Wheel and The Dying Earth both have social mechanics that can be used to resolve PC vs PC conflict. In BW, winning a Duel of Wits doesn't change anyone's mind, but you have to stick to the terms that were agreed prior to resolving the Duel, and if you don't like them must look for collateral ways around them. In The Dying Earth, minds can be changed by social conflict. Much as, in AD&D, there is no prohibition on one PC charming another.
Just to clarify (I'm tired and am having trouble parsing pronouns) - if player A succeeds on a social check, and player B has his/her PC ignore it, then player B suffers a resolution penalty that can also act as an augment for player A if player A escalates his/her PC's action against player B's PC?
So in 4e, something analogous might be a Diplomacy check or Intimidate check that causes a penalty to defences, or vulnerability to another character's damage, if the social check succeeds and the player chooses to disregard the outcome?
- He needs to get across and to the village. He is desperate. While options are a-many, they narrow in his mind. He draws in a deep breath, rounds his horse back a few paces...he's going for it! He narrowly succeeds the difficult check, right on the DC, but his horse is injured for the effort (negative to ride skill checks or movement rate...whatever might be applicable). 3 success:2 failure
Yep. 1 success = 1 bonus = 1 penalty. You can use the success as a bonus die to your own roll or a penalty die to the other character's action - which one depends on the fictional content of your actions.
I use this sort of technique too - within the standard skill challenge framework, I narrate something that gives a particular player a strong incentive to respond to it. This is also how I do things like motivate PCs who aren't optimisted face-people to nevertheless make social checks.I normally 'hit' players that are inactive, this normally will get them more involved on whats going on.
I'm not sure I agree with this, but am interested to hear more. In the "reforging Whelm" skill challenge, the player succeeded on his Endurance check to have his fighter-cleric PC hold the artefact steady in the forge so the dwarven artificers could grab it with their tongs.I do not think that players should be penalized in any way when they succeed, it takes the glory of a success and makes it mean less to the player.
Does any narration happen between these checks, or are they more like "simultaneous declarations of action" in some of the more old-school initiative systems?Each player goes around in turns and rolls a skill check, casts a spell, or uses an item they think is helpful to the situation.
I do not think that players should be penalized in any way when they succeed, it takes the glory of a success and makes it mean less to the player.
Does any narration happen between these checks, or are they more like "simultaneous declarations of action" in some of the more old-school initiative systems?
If the latter, do you integrate their resolution into one another? - or do the players already work that out among themselves in advance before making their declaration? - or are they all resolved independently of one another?
Does any narration happen between these checks, or are they more like "simultaneous declarations of action" in some of the more old-school initiative systems?
If the latter, do you integrate their resolution into one another? - or do the players already work that out among themselves in advance before making their declaration? - or are they all resolved independently of one another?