Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Henry]

Oh. I don't see it that way at all. If I role-play a bluffing attempt a check only slows down play and risks making the answer non-sequiteur.

Honest question - what benefits do you give someone who puts lots of skills and feats into bluff, diplomacy, and intimidation in your games? Or, would it be a waste to do so?

 

[Voadam]

I forget when and where, but I read a nice little article on this subject not long ago. Its thesis was that many D&D players and campaigns rely heavily on combat to solve problems because their combat skills are well-defined and reliable, while their social abilities were not and to some extent always depended on DM fiat. For example, a rogue needing to escape an area and make their way past a guard could choose to bluff or hide, and sneak attack. If they bluff and are forced to role-play and await the DMs judgement on how believable their lie was, then the outcome is highly uncertain from the player's point of view. On the other hand, if they sneak attack the player has an excellent idea of what their chances are of taking out the guard (and they're probably quite high). If the player wishes to survive they probably choose the sneak attack, and similar arguments can be made for choosing a combat solution over any other social interaction.

If, on the other hand, they know that this kind of bluff has a DC of 15 and they've maxxed out their bluff ranks, and can trust the DM to acknowledge their investment by calling for a roll regardless of their role-play effort (maybe they just aren't feeling very creative that night, or the player might just be lousy with words) and abiding by the results, then bluffing becomes an equally attractive option.

In short, if they players trust that investing points in social skills will yield reliable in-game results then they will use those skills to good effect. Calling for skill rolls in challenging social situations actually encourages role-playing, because it encourages players to invest in and use these skills.

--Ben

Ah, yes they will use those mechanical skills more but that doesn't mean they will roleplay more. They can handle any situation with social skills and a die roll without ever uttering an in character word.

If you want that then the social skill system is for you.

However if you want them to actually roleplay then you either modify the interactions to fit the die roll, possibly leading to some inane results and requiring interrupting the interactions to roll dice and check mechanics and evaluate how things should go based on the numbers, or you are back to social interaction success depending on DM/PC interactions.

 

[BryonD]

Oh. I don't see it that way at all. If I role-play a bluffing attempt a check only slows down play and risks making the answer non-sequiteur. The dice will not make allowances for good arguments. Perhaps the DM will adjust the result a bit but that only slows down play even more. Rolling dice in conversation is a bit too Monty Python-esque for my tastes.

You can't be serious comparing attack rolls and diplomacy? Just because I enjoy doing my own talking doesn't mean I like to do my own fighting.

How do you establish the difference between a CHR 10 Ftr1 trying to bluff a town guard with a CHR24 Brd18 trying to trick an old dragon?

Are players banned from playing characters who are more (or less) capable of bluffing than they themselves are?



To me the "game" part is just as important as the "role playing" part.
I enjoy playing all kinds of characters and I will happily RP a high level slick talking bard. But I know that I have absolutely zero chance of actually simulating that degree of talent.
I RP the bluff because it is fun.
Then I roll to see how good the CHARACTER did because it is a game about being something that I am not.
Best of both worlds.

 

[MeepoDM]

"SV P" What does this part mean?

That is how the beastie gets his Saving Throws. P means physical and M mental. A Physical means STR, DEX, and CON, and of course M means INT, WIS, and CHA. If a monster has a P or M for saves, it means all of his Saving Throws for those attributes are Primes and anything else is secondary.

 

[Starman]

There's a guy in my group who is definitely not graced with great social skills. He has trouble communicating effectively at times. He uses the wrong words or says the wrong thing. When he wants to roleplay a character that is very effective speaker or liar, he would be screwed if the DM did not allow him to make a roll. Generally, he roleplays what he says (or tries to say) and the DM has him roll his appropriate social skill to see how well he does.

The point is that if he was not allowed to roll the die to see how well he does, he would never succeed. He tries, but he is just not effective with words. How do other people handle this kind of situation?

Starman

 

[Voadam]

Honest question - what benefits do you give someone who puts lots of skills and feats into bluff, diplomacy, and intimidation in your games? Or, would it be a waste to do so?

A couple ways to handle this.

1 is to consider it part of the character such as their charisma score, and have people react better to them in the areas their sheets say they are better at. So people are a bit scared of the high intimidation character to start whereas a no skill person must make it work entirely through roleplay.

2 is that those are there only for times the DM doesn't want to roleplay it out ("OK you spend some time interrogating the prisoners, roll").

3 is to reserved them for mechanical issues only, bluff is for feint and creating hide opportunities. Diplomacy and intimidation are therefore unimportant except as prereqs and character trait issues (I consider myself a nice guy, I put some points in diplomacy).

And all three could be combined for modifying interactions in general without rolling, handling non-roleplayed situations, and there for mechanical reasons.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Honest question - what benefits do you give someone who puts lots of skills and feats into bluff, diplomacy, and intimidation in your games? Or, would it be a waste to do so?

I don't know as I'm usually the player. I know that I do buy those things for my characters when suitable but I don't know if I get my points worth from doing so. I guess it works sometimes and sometimes not. If the DM feels up to some real role-playing then my having those skills won't matter much. However, if the DM is sleepy and I get to roll the dice they will matter.

The thing is that I never know. Though, I do know that if I instead invest those points into tumble and spot I will benefit from them every single session.

On the rare occasions I do DM I find myself trying to abide by the rules but that it is taxing to do so. I takes a lot of effort to keep all the character's social stats in fresh memory. -An effort that could be better spent on plot or action. Of course I can always ask but doing so gives away game information to the players. "What's your sense motive score again?"

 

[Frostmarrow]

How do you establish the difference between a CHR 10 Ftr1 trying to bluff a town guard with a CHR24 Brd18 trying to trick an old dragon?

Are players banned from playing characters who are more (or less) capable of bluffing than they themselves are?



To me the "game" part is just as important as the "role playing" part.
I enjoy playing all kinds of characters and I will happily RP a high level slick talking bard. But I know that I have absolutely zero chance of actually simulating that degree of talent.
I RP the bluff because it is fun.
Then I roll to see how good the CHARACTER did because it is a game about being something that I am not.
Best of both worlds.

Quite simply I wouldn't try to protect the less talented talkers with checks. The thing is that some people are bad with tactics. Others are brilliant. Some people lead and yet others have a hard time just to follow. Some people are silver tongued and others are tongue-tied. That's just the way things are.

The thing I've always loved with RPGs are the ways I can better myself by playing them. I can draw a hero carrying a sword, I can make an argument with a town guard, I can make a coherent legal/rules argument with my DM, I can read English, I can add, et c. Those are the things I've learned from playing RPGs. By taking away the opportunity to argue a point in game (and making a check instead) you take away a perfect opportunity for me to practice my glib. That's just the way I see it.

Demosthenes couldn't argue a point. In fact he couldn't even pronunce words correctly. However, he became the father of rhetoric just the same by realising his limitations and practising his art.

 

[Voadam]

What would the stat block for a creature with special abilities or spells look like?

 

[Starman]

Quite simply I wouldn't try to protect the less talented talkers with checks. The thing is that some people are bad with tactics. Others are brilliant. Some people lead and yet others have a hard time just to follow. Some people are silver tongued and others are tongue-tied. That's just the way things are.

The thing I've always loved with RPGs are the ways I can better myself by playing them. I can draw a hero carrying a sword, I can make an argument with a town guard, I can make a coherent legal/rules argument with my DM, I can read English, I can add, et c. Those are the things I've learned from playing RPGs. By taking away the opportunity to argue a point in game (and making a check instead) you take away a perfect opportunity for me to practice my glib. That's just the way I see it.

Demosthenes couldn't argue a point. In fact he couldn't even pronunce words correctly. However, he became the father of rhetoric just the same by realising his limitations and practising his art.

Except that some people aren't playing RPGs to "better" themselves. They are playing to have fun. Why should they be penalized if they want to imagine that they are brilliant speakers and can be the center of attention with their glib tongue? I don't know of any DM who makes their players act out their combats (LARPers aside). Why should social situations be different?

I'm not advocating throwing out the role-playing part all together. I'm just saying that a player should be able to roll dice to help simulate his social skill just as he does in combat.

Starman