D&D 4E 4E: DM-proofing the game

[apoptosis]

For example, the "social conflict" system (which we haven't seen yet; I am just going on the idea that it is "like combat"). PC/NPC interaction is one of those situations that is traditionally an area where the DM and the players engage in a kind of negotiation as opposed to a rules arbitration. Ultimately, the DM is empowered to have the NPCs react in whatever way he feels appropriate (and, of course, a good DM will be swayed by good player negotiation). With the proposed system, however, the player -- armed with a selection of social combat abilities and tactics -- can, through the application of those rules, "force the DM's hand" regarding an NPC. if that NPC fails his "social save" or runs out of "argument points" or whatever, the player is the one deciding what the NPC thinks or does. that is a net loss for the DM.

Hopefully though the reverse is also true. If the players fail the social save or run out of argument points, the DM gets to choose what the players do.

Not that it is DM dictating player choices per se, but that there is some benefit/loss that is adjudicated before the challenge happens between the DM and player and both parties must abide by the results of the challenge.

 

[The Little Raven]

But we do require a player to move his minis around the table in combat. That's player skill that matters a lot. So is negotiating with the DM (via PC/NPC interaction or searching for traps).

And those skills, as always, only grant you bonuses (like flanking for proper positioning, or a bonus to a Diplomacy check for an awesome roleplayed explanation), not grant automatic success. That's the difference between "Roleplay to get through this social encounter" and "Roleplay to more easily get through this social encounter."

Just like a player's tactical skill (moving minis) doesn't automatically ensure victory, neither should a roleplayer's gift of gab.

See, here's the rub -- to my mind he can't. Once you get to the point of rolling dice for combat or anything else, the dice are the arbiters. You don't fudge. You don't pump hit points. you don't have allies appear out of nowhere. That's DM Skill and it is just as important as player skill.

And that's where we agree, but differ. I don't like DM fiat tossed on top of something already decided (dice rolls), but I don't think that social encounters should be based on DM fiat (which is what roleplaying it out essentially amounts to).

 

[Reynard]

And that's where we agree, but differ. I don't like DM fiat tossed on top of something already decided (dice rolls), but I don't think that social encounters should be based on DM fiat (which is what roleplaying it out essentially amounts to).

But the proposed system is exactly that -- an oratory tactical kind of play that "reduces" (bad word, i know -- for the record, I think a system like this would be awesome for something like a Law & order RPG) social encounters to dice rolls - -and if you are a "let the dice fall where they may" type as I am, it means loss of DM perogative (maybe that's a better word than "power") in social situations.

 

[The Little Raven]

But the proposed system is exactly that -- an oratory tactical kind of play that "reduces" (bad word, i know -- for the record, I think a system like this would be awesome for something like a Law & order RPG) social encounters to dice rolls - -and if you are a "let the dice fall where they may" type as I am, it means loss of DM perogative (maybe that's a better word than "power") in social situations.

So, what you're basically saying is you want people to roll for combat expertise, knowledge, and skills, except when it comes to social stuff, where roleplayers will get a free pass and non-roleplayers will be stifled entirely, because it gives the DM an area in which DM fiat is the end-all be-all?

 

[Reynard]

I recognize this. I've been absent from the site for a week or so because of deadlines and crunch-time at work, but when catching up, I've noted a few occasions on which you (and Voss, too) have changed your mind based on information coming to light. You're a reasonable guy with a strong opinion and a willingness to go to the mattress to defend it...

By the way, Mourn, while I disagree with you fundamentally on a lot of issues regarding D&D, playstyle, etc... that's not an excuse to be dismissive or accuse you of "not reading" before you post. I apologize.

 

[The Little Raven]

By the way, Mourn, while I disagree with you fundamentally on a lot of issues regarding D&D, playstyle, etc... that's not an excuse to be dismissive or accuse you of "not reading" before you post. I apologize.

It's cool. Sometimes I don't read everything (because there's tons of it), so, no sweat, pal.

 

[Reynard]

So, what you're basically saying is you want people to roll for combat expertise, knowledge, and skills, except when it comes to social stuff, where roleplayers will get a free pass and non-roleplayers will be stifled entirely?

I am a huge fan of 1E. I think dice rolls are for things that can't be negotiated at the table. You know how the thief sucked at low levels in earlier editions -- 20% to find or remove traps, for example? Well, that's because those numbers only mattered if the player said, "I search for traps." more often, even finding and/or disarming a trap was a negotiation -- I look here, I pull this, Can you draw it so I know what it looks like. Stuff like that. Essentially, any part of the game that *can* be handled through player/DM negotiation is better handled that way.

 

[The Little Raven]

I am a huge fan of 1E. I think dice rolls are for things that can't be negotiated at the table. You know how the thief sucked at low levels in earlier editions -- 20% to find or remove traps, for example? Well, that's because those numbers only mattered if the player said, "I search for traps." more often, even finding and/or disarming a trap was a negotiation -- I look here, I pull this, Can you draw it so I know what it looks like. Stuff like that. Essentially, any part of the game that *can* be handled through player/DM negotiation is better handled that way.

Alright, then I think the discussion over social systems is effectively over, since we're coming from diametrically opposed view points on that (I think rules to simulate all types of action, including social, are necessary in a game in which you're playing someone other than yourself), and I don't see the discussion having any use for either of us (since it's honestly a matter of at-table preference).

 

[Lanefan]

So, what you're basically saying is you want people to roll for combat expertise, knowledge, and skills, except when it comes to social stuff, where roleplayers will get a free pass and non-roleplayers will be stifled entirely, because it gives the DM an area in which DM fiat is the end-all be-all?

Er...pardon what may sound like a dumb question, but why would a non-roleplayer be playing a roleplaying game? For such this is, at its core; a face-to-face form of human social interaction around an ongoing story, without a script and ad-libbed all the way. Those who are better at ad-libbing are, one hopes, going to either design their characters around such or back off when the talking starts.

And the DM has to be at least as good at this as the best of her players, to play the socially-adept NPCs to their best potential. Unfortunately, not all are...

Lanefan

 

[SSquirrel]

TLDR version:Thus the dangers of late night posting! The dread....TANGENTING!!

The way we always ran things like social bits that we had skills for (or lacked skills and were just trying to pull it out of our....hat *wave's Eric's gramma!*) would be something like this:

DM:The guard is drawing his sword and walking toward you with a look say8ing that if you live thru this you will wish you hadn't.
Me:Hmm...fast talk, fast talk, what's that number...ooh that's low. Ok.
Me(PC):"Hey I can tell that you're a very dedicated individual and you believe in protecting your king's treasure, but did you know that the king decreed a drop in guardsman pay by 1s/day? Here, lemme show you a copy of the decree..."*roll*

or the alternate from when you're super tired or not feeling very creative..

Me(PC):Hey we don't want any trouble here, we just came to wash the windows and HOLY @&*% WHAT IS THAT? *skill roll* *initiative*
Me:Aw crap.

heh. Make at least the beginning sound somewhat decent, make your roll and hope. I don't want everything to be long drawn out discussions. My last group we had a 1st time DM who was also an actor. Lots of good ideas, LOADS of character involvement and development, but after 9 months we were only level 3. I don't even like starting below level 5, maybe 3. We had a guy whine that "if you don't start at L1 you don't truly know your character". My answer was that of course I do, I'm the one making up the guy, I can wing another paragraph or 2 to account for a couple of levels

I'm great at character concepts, but horrible with names. I've had 2 or 3 sessions go by before I had a name for my guy before. Start with the race, class and some numbers. I start getting a general idea and flesh it out more in my head as I develop skills and feats. I have friends who are the reverse. They start w/a fully fleshed out character idea in their head, but then they don't roll like they require for the idea to happen and they get bummed and have trouble coming up w/another concept they like close to as well as the first. I'd rather start with nothing and develop something. Helps if I can account for bad rolls first.

A lot of that doesn't have much to do with what we're going at here, but I started out trying to show that a blending of the 2 (or at least a vague nod in the direction of playing it out) is perfectly acceptable. At least among my friends. Heck, I have friends who just say "I fast talk the guy. *roll* 22" and play continues. It's all about what everyone at the table wants. But that gets back to the social contract, which is actually rather important on the whole DM power level.