Poking things to see if they work

[Li Shenron]

I generally get concerned about "player skill" when we deal with interaction skills. I game to play someone with abilities different from my own. A player who is not well spoken, perhaps a wallflower, should be able to play a suave, smooth talking con man, or a diplomat, or whatever (just like an obese couch potato can play a nimble acrobat or powerful warrior). No one would think of asking a player to "role play" the Kirk shoulder roll coming up, dagger drawn, to slice an adversary.

But "role play your speech" is far more common. The glib, well spoken player who thinks on his feet should not get better results with his 8 CHA, no social skills character because of "player skill" than the 18 CHA PC who maxes out his social skills (at the expense of other abilities) who is played by an introverted, stuttering wallflower.

Put another way, the glib player's bonuses for a well made speech should be no greater than the combat bonus awarded our wallflower because he, IRL, has a black belt, and he demonstrates some martial arts moves in describing his character's actions. Similarly, if the wallflower is penalized for an insipid real-life speech, I want to see Tubby role play that sprint across the rocks and shoulder roll into an imaginary opponent, regardless of his character's acrobatics roll and BAB. The relative impact of character and player skill should be consistent across all tasks.

Or be upfront and state no one should waste skill points on interaction skills, or stats on CHA, as you will evaluate success and failure of interaction based on role playing and player skill alone. That's pretty much the pre-3e model as there were no social skills - and what was the lowest stat on most characters in 1e and 2e?

I prefer to acknowledge that mental and physical stats work differently. I am ok with physical actions be 100% due to characters and mental actions be 50% due to characters and 50% due to players.

But I do wish to balance player's skills with character's skills when it comes to mental stats and skills. I want both to reward a player who is clever/attentive/charismatic herself, and to rewards a player who strategically invests in her character's mental stats/skills.

 

[MerricB]

I generally get concerned about "player skill" when we deal with interaction skills.

It can be a problem. But, does not the tactically superior player (or optimizer) gain a benefit in D&D combat compared to someone who doesn't care as much? The simple fact is that player skill does matter in combat; the trouble is when player skill always trumps character ability in interaction.

The thing is, most interaction systems I've seen have been entirely too simple. Combat is relatively complex, should not negotiation be complex? But 3E (for example) just says "Make this Diplomacy check to change the attitude of the person you're speaking to". It's not exactly an interesting system. AD&D allowed you to make an check at the beginning of the interaction (modified by charisma) to determine their initial reaction. 4E nodded towards a more complex system with its skill challenges, but most turned into just "roll lots of dice well to succeed".

Designing a good interaction system is one thing I don't think D&D has yet. 3E might allow you to roll dice rather than speak, but it's not satisfying.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I generally get concerned about "player skill" when we deal with interaction skills. I game to play someone with abilities different from my own. A player who is not well spoken, perhaps a wallflower, should be able to play a suave, smooth talking con man, or a diplomat, or whatever (just like an obese couch potato can play a nimble acrobat or powerful warrior). No one would think of asking a player to "role play" the Kirk shoulder roll coming up, dagger drawn, to slice an adversary.

But "role play your speech" is far more common. The glib, well spoken player who thinks on his feet should not get better results with his 8 CHA, no social skills character because of "player skill" than the 18 CHA PC who maxes out his social skills (at the expense of other abilities) who is played by an introverted, stuttering wallflower.

Put another way, the glib player's bonuses for a well made speech should be no greater than the combat bonus awarded our wallflower because he, IRL, has a black belt, and he demonstrates some martial arts moves in describing his character's actions. Similarly, if the wallflower is penalized for an insipid real-life speech, I want to see Tubby role play that sprint across the rocks and shoulder roll into an imaginary opponent, regardless of his character's acrobatics roll and BAB. The relative impact of character and player skill should be consistent across all tasks.

Or be upfront and state no one should waste skill points on interaction skills, or stats on CHA, as you will evaluate success and failure of interaction based on role playing and player skill alone. That's pretty much the pre-3e model as there were no social skills - and what was the lowest stat on most characters in 1e and 2e?

Not buying it. The CHA score of the character should play a part in determining reactions but it shouldn't play the game for the player. A tabletop rpg is a social activity that takes place in the imagination of the participants. Communication between those participants is what drives the game. If every aspect of play is pawn/mechanic driven then you are really playing a board game. The player's contribution is, at that point, to choose moves and roll dice which is pretty much the base of boardgame play.

If a player is basically unable to communicate with other players then maybe roleplaying games isn't the best choice of hobby. I could see the point if unreasonable "performance" demands are being made such as requiring character voices and actual improv acting skill. But replying to a simple question like: " what do you tell the guard?" with " I got a 22" sucks the fun out of roleplaying.

Original D&D didn't have any interaction skills beyond the reaction roll for a reason.

If there is someone in the group with an actual impairment, such as stuttering, you can take that into account. The quality of the message is separate from the delivery. A clever or funny delivery is extra entertainment for the table (which is its own reward) but shouldn't overshadow the content of the message. Such an impairment isn't an excuse to assume the player is dull and unable to think of some kind of meaningful response.

As to CHA being the lowest stat in older editions, it is not true. If stats are generated randomly then the player isn't choosing to "put" anything into CHA, it ends up being whatever is rolled. Sometimes a high CHA would be rolled and the player would wish it was in a different stat-until the benefits of a good reaction bonus and hireling loyalty become life saving.

 

[N'raac]

I prefer to acknowledge that mental and physical stats work differently. I am ok with physical actions be 100% due to characters and mental actions be 50% due to characters and 50% due to players.

But I do wish to balance player's skills with character's skills when it comes to mental stats and skills. I want both to reward a player who is clever/attentive/charismatic herself, and to rewards a player who strategically invests in her character's mental stats/skills.

So if I have a charismatic player who invests entirely in combat skills for the character, he should get 100% of the benefits from his combat skills, but still get half the benefits of non-combat skills due to player ability.
Meanwhile, a player who is not so charismatic, but invests all their character resources in interaction skills, should suck on ice in combat, but only get half the benefits to interaction.
Seems like only the charismatic player should buy interaction skills, since they are the only ones who will get the full benefit from that investment, and wallflowers should stick to combat characters. Not the approach I prefer.

It can be a problem. But, does not the tactically superior player (or optimizer) gain a benefit in D&D combat compared to someone who doesn't care as much? The simple fact is that player skill does matter in combat; the trouble is when player skill always trumps character ability in interaction.

First, I didn’t say bonuses in noncombat skill should be eliminated, but that they should be on a par with bonuses in combat. A player does not get a bonus for showing you how skillfully he can fence in real life, so he should not get a bonus for being a great speaker in real life either.

He might get a bonus for, say, having higher ground (set out in the rules). A similar bonus might apply to interaction skills because he has a bit of dirt on the other person trying to persuade the same target. He may have physical evidence which would be persuasive to the target, or he might just purchase a gift for the target of his diplomatic efforts. But if the maximum bonus I would give in combat is, say, +4, and it scales down from there, I would suggest the maximum interaction bonus should similarly be +4, and scale down similarly.

I do agree a more robust negotiation system would be good, but I can also see it implemented in play. If we just drop in on the King looking to get our desired result (whatever that may be), are our chances very good? Maybe we should start by researching who has the King’s ear, and working on some of his advisors to build support for our position. Perhaps we can find out some things of value to the King, and show that we have common goals and values by our actions. In other words, apply some tactics to the efforts to win the King over, and not just say “I rolled a 22 – does the King agree?”

Rather than a single die roll, the efforts to persuade the King now become a tactical exercise different from, but on a similar scale of complexity to, combat.

Not buying it. The CHA score of the character should play a part in determining reactions but it shouldn't play the game for the player. A tabletop rpg is a social activity that takes place in the imagination of the participants.

I could also assert the STR and DEX of a character should play a part in determining success in combat, but should not play the game for the player. Let’s see Charlie Couch Potato role play that shoulder roll.

If a player is basically unable to communicate with other players then maybe roleplaying games isn't the best choice of hobby. I could see the point if unreasonable "performance" demands are being made such as requiring character voices and actual improv acting skill. But replying to a simple question like: " what do you tell the guard?" with " I got a 22" sucks the fun out of roleplaying.

If he pulls sword and challenges the guard, what will we require for his success in combat? Does he just get to roll and get a 22? Does that not equally suck the fun out of the game? I don’t disagree that the game is much more engaging when the players put some real thought and description into their actions, but the default level of description and effort should not differ between, say, Searching, swinging a sword and persuading a guard. If I can make a normal to hit roll with “I attack the guard”, then a normal diplomacy roll should arise from “I persuade the guard”. If I would allow a +1 bonus in combat for a well described attack, a similarly well described interaction should generate the same +1 bonus.

Original D&D didn't have any interaction skills beyond the reaction roll for a reason.

Another option is certainly to say “Don’t bother with interaction skills – in my game, success or failure in interaction is determined by role playing”. But don’t let a player spend a pile of character resources on CHA and interaction skills, then say “Well, sure, you have a +15 roll, but Charlie made a good speech so his 8 CHA, no interaction skills character gets knighted and your character is tossed out on his ear“. There is a reason CHA was commonly a dump stat in OD&D.

If there is someone in the group with an actual impairment, such as stuttering, you can take that into account. The quality of the message is separate from the delivery. A clever or funny delivery is extra entertainment for the table (which is its own reward) but shouldn't overshadow the content of the message. Such an impairment isn't an excuse to assume the player is dull and unable to think of some kind of meaningful response.

Emphasis added. If the player adds valid content, then this should influence the roll. But the bonus should be independent of delivery. Having evidence of the Orc invasion plans may add, say, +4 to getting the Guard to summon the Captain at this late hour, but it is still much more likely that bonus will result in the skilled orator’s +15 base roll’s success than the surly dwarf’s -1.

As to CHA being the lowest stat in older editions, it is not true. If stats are generated randomly then the player isn't choosing to "put" anything into CHA, it ends up being whatever is rolled. Sometimes a high CHA would be rolled and the player would wish it was in a different stat-until the benefits of a good reaction bonus and hireling loyalty become life saving.

If those benefits did become life saving – rather than interaction being determined by player skill instead. In the more recent editions, choice of stat allocation, and skill point allocation, makes this much more an issue. To me, an 18 should be equally impressive in every stat.

 

[saskganesh]

I prefer to acknowledge that mental and physical stats work differently. I am ok with physical actions be 100% due to characters and mental actions be 50% due to characters and 50% due to players.

But I do wish to balance player's skills with character's skills when it comes to mental stats and skills. I want both to reward a player who is clever/attentive/charismatic herself, and to rewards a player who strategically invests in her character's mental stats/skills.

Pretty much how I play. I don't require (and nor do I want!) players to physically attack me in order to show off their character's combat skills.

With social situations, it's a blend of player and character ability. I'll make reasonable adjustments both ways. And sometimes a high capability character in the hands of a low capability player will get hints on how to proceed on a critical matter such as a sensitive negotiation, but in the end the player will still have to make choices...dice shouldn't cover everything. Anyhow, my player's trust me to be fair, or I would not have a game.

 

[Li Shenron]

So if I have a charismatic player who invests entirely in combat skills for the character, he should get 100% of the benefits from his combat skills, but still get half the benefits of non-combat skills due to player ability.
Meanwhile, a player who is not so charismatic, but invests all their character resources in interaction skills, should suck on ice in combat, but only get half the benefits to interaction.
Seems like only the charismatic player should buy interaction skills, since they are the only ones who will get the full benefit from that investment, and wallflowers should stick to combat characters. Not the approach I prefer.

This sort of "math" will get you nowhere...

You can't compare "investing" in combat vs in interaction. The two things don't cost the same, don't work the same, don't use the same character's "building blocks", depend on what the DM puts in the adventure, depend on what each player decide their character to do... IOW you can't measure them against each other. My "50%-50%" remark was obviously just a rule of thumb.

 

[N'raac]

This sort of "math" will get you nowhere...

You can't compare "investing" in combat vs in interaction. The two things don't cost the same, don't work the same, don't use the same character's "building blocks", depend on what the DM puts in the adventure, depend on what each player decide their character to do... IOW you can't measure them against each other. My "50%-50%" remark was obviously just a rule of thumb.

Is there a perfect balance? No. But if I only get half the benefit from one choice, why would I not choose something that gives me all the benefits.

If I can arrange or buy my stats, STR always gives a bonus to hit and damage, but my CHA bonus can be replaced with a well role played * speech. High INT will always give me my knowledge skill (and other skill) bonuses and skill points, and WIS will always improve my Will saves and other skills. My CON and DEX bonuses don't rely on role playing. CHA? Maybe I get my bonuses, maybe not.

Can I get bonuses to acrobatics, knowledge, search, perception or disable device with good role playing, or lose my bonuses by just using the skills? Nope, but I have to role play Bluff or Diplomacy to the GM's satisfaction to get mileage from those skills. Each rank costs the same one skill point.

Feats - skill focus, the two skill feats, etc. Not for interaction - I only get half mileage. I'll take it for Spellcraft and UMD instead, since I don't have to role play those.

Now, maybe you do require role playing* for INT and WIS abilities as well, but they're much less conducive to that approach, so my experience is that it's only interaction skills that get shafted with "I don't care what the CHARACTER can do - the player has to demonstrate the skill as well".

* And why do we think it is GOOD role playing to portray an 8 CHA clod with no social skills making eloquent and persuasive speeches? To me, that's out of character, so it's bad role playing. What other bad role playing should we reward?

 

[TerraDave]

I don't think I grumble anywhere enough yet.

.......(I do play Advanced Squad Leader when I get the chance, though!)

One of the biggest challenges that has been facing the designers of D&D over the past few years is that the nature of Adventure Paths (and such scenarios) requires a different underlying system than what D&D began with. When you're in a megadungeon, you can run away. When you reach the final Boss of an AP, the final battle needs to be big, memorable and achievable. And it's a major difference in design style. Great encounters need to be designed, rather than arising organically out of play. And some of the solutions that have been used leave me underwhelmed.

(Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms is one such. Play a rogue in that fight. Get frustrated).

Cheers!

If ASL is not a dead give away, I don't know what is?! And you grumble, especially for a quasi-official optimist.

In terms of the phenomenon you point out, I refer to that as "encounterism". I didn't really understand it when I started playing 4E, now I understand it all too well. A big part of the problem with it is that it feeds off itself. You have well balanced encounters that fall within a certain range of difficulty...but thats all you have. It can become very restrictive in terms of the wider campaign, as you imply.

 

[billd91]

The thing is, most interaction systems I've seen have been entirely too simple. Combat is relatively complex, should not negotiation be complex? But 3E (for example) just says "Make this Diplomacy check to change the attitude of the person you're speaking to". It's not exactly an interesting system. AD&D allowed you to make an check at the beginning of the interaction (modified by charisma) to determine their initial reaction. 4E nodded towards a more complex system with its skill challenges, but most turned into just "roll lots of dice well to succeed".

Designing a good interaction system is one thing I don't think D&D has yet. 3E might allow you to roll dice rather than speak, but it's not satisfying.

I think a good interaction system could suggest some bonuses, rather like combat bonuses, that could encourage more role playing and varied tactics. But I'd hesitate to really design too much structure. Whether a PC has a higher ground advantage in combat is fairly objective. Whether a PC is debating the NPC from a superior position (and should get a similar bonus) is subjective, but I think those are the kinds of bonuses that really should be considered. Does the player make a good argument for the PC, at least as far as the NPC is concerned? If so, offer the diplomacy version of combat advantage. That would allow the skilled player to adjust the odds in his or her favor.

I think 4e's attempt at skill challenges at least tried to give a structure for such things. Trying to get the king to devote troops to a problem the PCs have uncovered could be improved by successfully bluffing, using diplomacy, realizing the king was a history buff, blah, blah, blah. The skill challenges just screwed the pooch on the terms of success - trying to get more involvement yet, probably inadvertently, making the chances of success more difficult as a result. But what I think can be salvaged is the idea of trying a number of supporting tasks to accomplish the goal. I'd just be more interesting in counting the number of overall successes compared to the number of overall failures rather than putting them in a race.

 

[Li Shenron]

If I can arrange or buy my stats, STR always gives a bonus to hit and damage, but my CHA bonus can be replaced with a well role played * speech. High INT will always give me my knowledge skill (and other skill) bonuses and skill points, and WIS will always improve my Will saves and other skills. My CON and DEX bonuses don't rely on role playing. CHA? Maybe I get my bonuses, maybe not.

Can I get bonuses to acrobatics, knowledge, search, perception or disable device with good role playing, or lose my bonuses by just using the skills?

It all depends how the DM handles using those stats. If the DM really allows Charisma to be replaced by speech, then effectively you are not using the Charisma skills/checks mechanics in your game, in which case of course investing in it is worthless, or worthy only for a player who is charismatic. If that's how the DM wants Charisma to work, it might be better to even remove the stat from the game!

Just let the player decide what to say in a speech (a mix of player's Int, Wis and Cha), and let their own description grant a small occasional bonus (player's Cha), then make them roll (character's Cha), and you already have a first draft for balancing player's vs character's abilities.

With this in mind, you can see that physical checks also depend on player's ability because it's the players who decides they want to shoot an arrow or swing from the chandelier, only they don't depend on player's physical abilities, but it's still up to them to make the right decision. IOW you do get good acrobatics, knowledge, search, perception or disable device results with good play and descriptions... it's quite common that a player is rewarded by the DM for guessing exactly where to search for traps or where to climb, rather than generically search or climb, and while this is not about "acting in character" it does require both thinking and talking skills from the player.

BTW I don't endorse the idea that players should purposefully do stupid things if their PC is low-Int or low-Wis. I prefer my players to play their best when making decisions, and if they have some good ideas they think their PC could have never have, they can resort to tell us OoC and I certainly won't shut them up!