delericho
Legend
I don't find the current social mechanics in D&D/PF terribly satisfying.
Typically, when the PCs interact with an NPC, there will be a DC associated with changing their reaction, which applies whether they try to Bluff their way past, Intimidate the NPC into doing their bidding, or try to sway their opinion using Diplomacy. The problem is that the party usually has a 'face' character, usually the one with the highest Cha. And said character will either be trained in only one of the skills (so will always try that one), or will be trained in several of them. The problem there is that all these skills are (rightly) tied to Cha, and so the player is generally rolling the same modifier against the same DC in each case - it doesn't actually matter what he tries to do.
(Some adventures do give separate DCs for different interactions, but this tends to be presented in a rather verbose manner, and so tends to be quite rare.)
What I suggest:
Assuming the scenario boils down to "the PCs want something" (and not just small talk), assign the interaction into one of four categories:
Browbeat: Whether by issuing commands, intimidation, bluster, or outright torture, the PC tries to compel the NPC into doing what he wants.
Deceive: Selective use of the truth, fast-talking, or outright lies.
Reason: The PC launches an appeal to the NPC's intellect, using a reasoned argument, negotiation, or similar.
Seduction: An appeal to the emotional or physical desires of the NPC. This could be actual seduction, but also includes bribery, the offer of immediate power, food for a hungry NPC, simple begging, or whatever.
(The categories are necessarily broad, almost certainly have significant overlap, and probably omit more than a few scenarios. I doubt the full range of human interaction can be easily categorised by any system like this, any more than alignment can capture the full range of human morality!)
Having set up the four categories, each NPC could then be given a baseline "Social Defence" (this would be based on Insight in 4e), plus a set of modifiers indicating how they react to the four categories.
So, Inspector Javert (from "Les Miserables") would have a relatively high Social Defence, and react poorly to any sort of emotional appeal (Seduction -2). However, he's actually quite quick to yield to authority (Browbeat +2). Neither reason nor deception are particularly effective or ineffective with him (+0).
When the PCs interact with the NPC, then, the DM should judge which of the four modifiers best applies, and should have the player add the appropriate modifier. (So, when Fantine begs Javert to have mercy, her player must make a Diplomacy check against his Social Defence. However, because begging falls under 'Seduction', a -2 penalty applies to the roll.)
Added Complexity:
Of course, it would be easy to add complexity to these modifiers by adding further detail. Indeed, for important or recurring NPCs this is probably a good idea.
Perhaps a character is a terrible racist, and takes anything said by a Warforged in the worst possible light (Warforged suffer a -4 penalty in all categories.) Perhaps a character hates bribery... but has a weakness for jewellery (Seduction -2, but +2 if jewellery is offered). And so on.
Additionally, there is probably a place for auto-success and auto-failure conditions to account for player skill. The bandit chief's lieutenant would be willing to change sides if offered a pardon... if the PCs find this out, they can offer her the pardon and bypass the roll entirely. The rich noblewoman loves flattery (Seduction +2), but has an allergy to flowers... if the PCs try to impress her using flowers, the roll becomes impossible. (Of course, there need to be mechanisms for the PCs to actually find these things out!)
About "Removing Roleplaying":
None of the above is intended as an attempt to remove roleplaying in favour of an abstracted "push-button" version of social interactions. In fact, the opposite is the case.
As we know, there are some players (and DMs) who have real problems with roleplaying encounters. They would much rather just grab the dice, roll Diplomacy, and have done. And if the DM asks, "but what do you actually say?" they'll quickly become lost (and, quite possibly, become quite frustrated).
Introducing a system like this represents a "baby step" towards more detailed roleplaying. Sure, they maybe can't think quite what their PC says, but surely they can consider how their character approaches the problem - does he try to bluster, lie, reason, or flatter? Four options is few enough that they can surely pick one easily enough. (And, from there, it's another easy-ish step to more detailed interactions...)
And for DMs, introducing the four categories allows them to quickly detail NPCs in a shorthand - one ex-soldier may miss the discipline of military life (Browbeat +2), while another left because he was truly sick of it (Browbeat -2). It doesn't require a lot of extra book-keeping, and provides a fair amount of guidance, at least in general terms.
(Also, the system is also light enough that groups who object to it could ignore it easily enough - it's not as if we're adding pages of detailed rules and dozens of extra stats!)
Any thoughts?
Typically, when the PCs interact with an NPC, there will be a DC associated with changing their reaction, which applies whether they try to Bluff their way past, Intimidate the NPC into doing their bidding, or try to sway their opinion using Diplomacy. The problem is that the party usually has a 'face' character, usually the one with the highest Cha. And said character will either be trained in only one of the skills (so will always try that one), or will be trained in several of them. The problem there is that all these skills are (rightly) tied to Cha, and so the player is generally rolling the same modifier against the same DC in each case - it doesn't actually matter what he tries to do.
(Some adventures do give separate DCs for different interactions, but this tends to be presented in a rather verbose manner, and so tends to be quite rare.)
What I suggest:
Assuming the scenario boils down to "the PCs want something" (and not just small talk), assign the interaction into one of four categories:
Browbeat: Whether by issuing commands, intimidation, bluster, or outright torture, the PC tries to compel the NPC into doing what he wants.
Deceive: Selective use of the truth, fast-talking, or outright lies.
Reason: The PC launches an appeal to the NPC's intellect, using a reasoned argument, negotiation, or similar.
Seduction: An appeal to the emotional or physical desires of the NPC. This could be actual seduction, but also includes bribery, the offer of immediate power, food for a hungry NPC, simple begging, or whatever.
(The categories are necessarily broad, almost certainly have significant overlap, and probably omit more than a few scenarios. I doubt the full range of human interaction can be easily categorised by any system like this, any more than alignment can capture the full range of human morality!)
Having set up the four categories, each NPC could then be given a baseline "Social Defence" (this would be based on Insight in 4e), plus a set of modifiers indicating how they react to the four categories.
So, Inspector Javert (from "Les Miserables") would have a relatively high Social Defence, and react poorly to any sort of emotional appeal (Seduction -2). However, he's actually quite quick to yield to authority (Browbeat +2). Neither reason nor deception are particularly effective or ineffective with him (+0).
When the PCs interact with the NPC, then, the DM should judge which of the four modifiers best applies, and should have the player add the appropriate modifier. (So, when Fantine begs Javert to have mercy, her player must make a Diplomacy check against his Social Defence. However, because begging falls under 'Seduction', a -2 penalty applies to the roll.)
Added Complexity:
Of course, it would be easy to add complexity to these modifiers by adding further detail. Indeed, for important or recurring NPCs this is probably a good idea.
Perhaps a character is a terrible racist, and takes anything said by a Warforged in the worst possible light (Warforged suffer a -4 penalty in all categories.) Perhaps a character hates bribery... but has a weakness for jewellery (Seduction -2, but +2 if jewellery is offered). And so on.
Additionally, there is probably a place for auto-success and auto-failure conditions to account for player skill. The bandit chief's lieutenant would be willing to change sides if offered a pardon... if the PCs find this out, they can offer her the pardon and bypass the roll entirely. The rich noblewoman loves flattery (Seduction +2), but has an allergy to flowers... if the PCs try to impress her using flowers, the roll becomes impossible. (Of course, there need to be mechanisms for the PCs to actually find these things out!)
About "Removing Roleplaying":
None of the above is intended as an attempt to remove roleplaying in favour of an abstracted "push-button" version of social interactions. In fact, the opposite is the case.
As we know, there are some players (and DMs) who have real problems with roleplaying encounters. They would much rather just grab the dice, roll Diplomacy, and have done. And if the DM asks, "but what do you actually say?" they'll quickly become lost (and, quite possibly, become quite frustrated).
Introducing a system like this represents a "baby step" towards more detailed roleplaying. Sure, they maybe can't think quite what their PC says, but surely they can consider how their character approaches the problem - does he try to bluster, lie, reason, or flatter? Four options is few enough that they can surely pick one easily enough. (And, from there, it's another easy-ish step to more detailed interactions...)
And for DMs, introducing the four categories allows them to quickly detail NPCs in a shorthand - one ex-soldier may miss the discipline of military life (Browbeat +2), while another left because he was truly sick of it (Browbeat -2). It doesn't require a lot of extra book-keeping, and provides a fair amount of guidance, at least in general terms.
(Also, the system is also light enough that groups who object to it could ignore it easily enough - it's not as if we're adding pages of detailed rules and dozens of extra stats!)
Any thoughts?
