Five things that would change the game forever

[RFisher]

So why listing "bat guano" or similar if you never care about it?

I'm going to go out on a limb & say: For color?

 

[Dave Turner]

I would prefer to have the freedom as a DM to say that someone seems to be very persuasive and other people (NPCs) seem to be responding, but giving players a choice of how to respond --- instead of just following the results of a die roll. In some stories, one person is able to see through the well spoken words of another character. Perhaps in a D&D game, player characters are that sort of person -- the one person who does NOT cheer a dictator's speech. Or perhaps DMs can chose to judge how an NPC will respond, based on an NPC's nature and the result of a die roll.

In essence, you're agreeing with my original point. I believe that all the social systems and skills for D&D should be ripped out of the game and it should only concern itself with combat and physical action. In recent posts, I've been defending what a social system should look like if it's included in a game, but my original point was that D&D does social conflict extremely poorly and should drop the pretense that characters should try to solve social problems with die rolls (i.e. Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.).

On the tangential point of whether or not a game should have an elaborate rule system for social conflict, however, I think the social conflict rule system must be as robust as every other conflict resolution system in the game. If it isn't (as is the case in D&D), then the game is unfocused and is probably including the social conflict system as a nod to tradition rather than as a solid design decision. If a player wants to have a character who is unswayed by the rhetoric of the dictator, then he should have the stats for it, just as he should have the stats to match the vision of an indestructible warrior.

Also, a player should have the option of deciding his characters actions -- a diplomacy roll is NOT a charm spell. I agree that the current social rules are not perfect, but having rules determine how a PLAYER CHARACTER will respond will likely diminish many player's enjoyment of the game. I agree that a good roleplayer can choose how to react to a defeat, but should not the player not the dice determine how the PC will react?

Then why does the character have a Charisma stat at all? Character stats model the character's abilities. A character with low Charisma and no social skills is a terrible people person who probably can't convince anyone of anything they don't already believe.

It's not about how a player character RESPONDS, since that implies that there is no opposing force in the situation. I'm not suggesting that a character should have to roll to see if he likes someone he just met at a cocktail party. But if the cocktail guest is TRYING to get the character to like him (i.e. there is an active attempt to influence the character), then the character should absolutely have to roll to resist the charms (no pun intended) of the cocktail guest.

Further, a Charm Person spell IS like Diplomacy. Charm Person pushes an NPC's attitude to friendly in one fell swoop. Diplomacy just requires one minute per attempt and a variety of rolls to push up an NPC's attitude towards the PC. They both do exactly the same thing, just in different amounts of time. It makes sense that someone with lots of ranks in Diplomacy is like someone who can cast endless Charm Person spells. Both Charm Person and Diplomacy are opposed rolls. If you allow NPCs spellcasters to cast Charm Person on your PCs, then you should allow Diplomatic NPCs to have a similar effect on PCs. It's consistent.

FWIW I'm with you on this issue, and I thought I'd chime in so that you don't think you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness

Thanks for the assist! I'm a big fan of Heroquest as well, where this argument I'm putting forward is handled very well.

However, having a die roll determine how a player character reacts or feels sounds perilously close to a DM dictating character action.

The player decided what class, race, skills, and feats to play. If he or she was concerned that a silver-tongued NPC might influence her actions, she could have played a character who was able to resist that stuff. A character who plays a fighter decided that her character is going to be vulnerable to Will-based saves. A character who plays a wizard decided that his character is going to have very few hit points.

In any dice-based game, players can only manage risks, not prevent them. If there are skills in the game that allow a character to be influenced by an NPC (like Bluff or Diplomacy) then characters must abide by those rules.

The system that you're suggesting is much more prone to DM-dictated influence. In the system you're suggesting, the DM is deciding when a roll is needed and when it isn't and therefore when dice are going to be allowed to determine the course of the game.. The DM is deciding how charismatic or smart a character is, not the dice or the player. The system you're suggesting is ripe for inconsistency as DMs apply an ever-shifting rule standard in social conflicts.

None of this is to say that players shouldn't speak in-character to NPCs and to each other. I'm only saying that whenever a player is trying to actively influence an NPC with Charisma, there should be die-rolling. The same goes for NPCs actively influencing PCs, just like monsters actively trying to bite PCs need to roll (and the PCs need to suffer the results of that roll). Anything less is inconsistent.

I am worried that the effect of having rules saying that "Your PC is convinced by X's overwhelming diplomatic skills to the take the mission" will cut down on good roleplaying.

Why can't it promote good roleplaying?

"Curse that silver-tongued devil! He assured us that there would be enough riches in this tomb to retire with. Instead, we've unleashed a demon from it slumber! As soon as we destroy that demon, I'm going to make that bastard pay!"

"You lied to me, Piratecat (why not? )! I thought we were friends, but you were always in it for yourself. That money didn't go to the orphanage, but to your lavish country estate. I swear by the gods that you will pay for your deception!"

That kind of thing strikes me as good roleplaying fodder.

 

[Abstraction]

What color is bat guano, anyway?

 

[William Ronald]

Dave, I agree with you in part that the social situation rules are far from perfect. However, I think that as I am unfamiliar with the sort of social skills system you are describing, I tend to be somewhat skeptical of it.

I think player characters are handled a bit differently from NPCs as the players, not the DM, control the PCs. I think that one of the problems with social situations is to try to decide how one fictional character with free will controlled by a player interacts with another one controlled by a DM. Also, I think that most people prefer to chose how their characters react to a situation, DMs are perhaps less committed to how NPCs chose, as most DMs do not have the same investment in a given NPC as most players have with their PCs.

I suppose the current rules are a rough compromise, as uncharismatic characters suffer from low charisma scores.

{QUOTE=Dave Turner]It's not about how a player character RESPONDS, since that implies that there is no opposing force in the situation. I'm not suggesting that a character should have to roll to see if he likes someone he just met at a cocktail party. But if the cocktail guest is TRYING to get the character to like him (i.e. there is an active attempt to influence the character), then the character should absolutely have to roll to resist the charms (no pun intended) of the cocktail guest.
[/quote]

So, the same mechanic should apply to a PC as to an NPC. I can see many players arguing that their characters would not respond to someone's charm. As for constantly requiring rolls for social interactions, I think many players would still prefer to decide for themselves how someone acts. Also, players and DMs can agree when dice rolling is appropriate, but can engage in roleplaying before the first die is rolled.

If my proposed way of handling has the potential for abuse by DMs, so does a system that relies solely on die roles. People may feel that they have little control of their characters, and that they are just following the rolls of the dice. I have suffered from railroading DMs, so perhaps you can see why I prefer to have players try to determine how their characters will react.

Dave, in some respects, I agree with you. It is very hard to adequately model complex social interactions at times. However, I must agree to disagree with you on the issue of treating social interactions in the same manner as combat. The last thing I want as a player is to have a DM tell me that my character feels a certain way because of a die roll. I can accept this for NPCs -- within certain limits. However, I think players generally do not wish to be told what there characters feel and think. Sorry to be a bit skeptical of your approach, Dave, but I have had a few experiences that make me a bit cautious about your approach. (In one campaign, everythign became about bonuses and die rolls -- and went to the level of absurdity. I ended up walking out on a group that I had played with for many years because I no longer enjoyed that campaign, believed in that setting, or felt that my characters had any impact. I almost quit gaming altogether. So, perhaps you can understand why I am reluctant about a system where everything is based on die rolls. Most DMs I know use the current rules, but also use some judgement -- and interact with their players for some feedback. I suppose extremes of just relying on die rolls -- or a DM deciding who is charismatic and who is not -- can be subject to different kinds of abuse.)


Also, should skill with social interaction depend solely on class? It is somewhat influenced by class and skill choices, but I worry that treating social interaction like combat would

Why can't it promote good roleplaying?

"Curse that silver-tongued devil! He assured us that there would be enough riches in this tomb to retire with. Instead, we've unleashed a demon from it slumber! As soon as we destroy that demon, I'm going to make that bastard pay!"

"You lied to me, Piratecat (why not? )! I thought we were friends, but you were always in it for yourself. That money didn't go to the orphanage, but to your lavish country estate. I swear by the gods that you will pay for your deception!"

That kind of thing strikes me as good roleplaying fodder.

I can also see the opposite happening as players feel that it is they have little control over their actions, are told by dice rolls how to react and feel, and find that it is the NPCs that have become the star of the show. Your approach, as well as using the existing rules, or another method all boil down to the quality of the DM and the players. I just worry that in the hands of some DMs, players may feell that they have little control over their characters. This may diminish enjoyment of the game -- and fun is the whole point of RPGs!

Any alternate takes on different ways of handling social interactions? Dave, I respect your opinions, but I do not entirely agree with them, If the rules for social interaction are indadequate, perhaps change them. Perhaps some balance between following die roles and giving players choice over how their characters think, feel and react might be best.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

1) Since good versus evil (or law versus chaos) is sort of a basic thing in most heroic fantasy, I really don't see any reason to drop it, especially considering how much some of the people (around here anyway) really go for the goody two shoes heroic PC thing. If you don't want to use it, you simply don't use it or ignore it except for flavor.

Well, Law vs. Chaos is not a normal part of heroic fantasy, unless Law is a proxy for Good and Chaos is a proxy for Evil.

I was thinking about alignment this weekend. I've always hated it, but I've viewed it as sort of a necessary evil (no pun intended). At a minimum, you need some way to measure Evil when you cast detect evil.

Then I realized that there was already a mechanic for just the same thing: Force Points and Dark Side Points.

Why not keep Law and Chaos as some sort of personality descriptor (and I was thinking about others, like the Five Factor Personality traits), and just accumulating Good Points and Evil Points? A character can start out with some, if he's a good cleric or paladin, and the rest he earns through his deeds. There would have to be better guidelines than the ones I just wrote, but those who don't like it can just assume a number of Good Points or Evil Points based on a character's class or level, or a monster's type and hit dice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Law vs Chaos is most prominently featured in the work of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, but there are all kinds of characters out there that embrace chaos as opposed to law.

Often, it IS used as a proxy for good & evil...but there are examples that don't. One of the more recent examples can be found on Adult Swim in Samurai Champloo. Mugen and Jin are quintessential swordsmen, but Mugen is clearly excited by causing chaos. He is a thrill-seeker who is happiest when things are out of whack. Jin, in contrast, is reserved and trying to achieve inner and outer peace.

Similar dichotomies can be found in characters in Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven, the Arthurian legends, Beowulf and other fiction.

 

[RFisher]

What color is bat guano, anyway?

Visit Natural Bridge Caverns sometime & check out "Mt. Guano".

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I was gonna keep my mouth shut until I saw this.

My own personal list of things I'd love to see gone from D&D forever is pretty straightforward:

*You Are What You Wear. D&D is way too gear-dependent for my tastes. I like class-based Defense Bonus; I like the Conan d20 method of having stats go up across the board instead of having to wear a headband of intellect and a periapt of wisdom and gauntlets of ogre power and a ring of dexterity and a belt of constitution and a cloak of charisma and half-a-dozen ioun stones whizzing around your head.

*Vancian Magic. I'd love to see that cow made into Sacred Hamburger.

One other thing I'd like to see is magic scaling better. Magic missile is a good example: it's a first level spell, but it's just as useful at 9th, as opposed to sleep or cure light wounds, which rapidly become useless just a few levels down the road. Who needs five versions of cure X wounds? Just make a single cure spell that levels up with the caster.

And what I have to say is: I agree wholeheartedly. The fundamental change to D&D would be to alter the magic system and have it become less gear dependent. One could argue that it's no longer D&D in that case, but I'm with The Gneech when it comes to defining what makes D&D "D&D." It's the dungeons and the iconic monsters. I'd add one more thing. I'm not sure the color/alignment/breath weapon dynamic has to stay, but Dungeons & Dragons has to have Dragons as well as Dungeons. Oh yeah...and magic...D&D has to have magic. Not necessarily the same system as it has now, but it has to have some.

Anything else, as far as I'm concerned, is up for grabs. You could run a game using Fantasy HERO in which the characters go down into a Dungeon and fight beholders -- I'd think of that as D&D, and sign me up!

I totally agree...except for the comment on Fantasy HERO...I HATE the HERO System. I played out a Champions combat...once. It took an hour to resolve a 30 second battle. I think I won, but I'm pretty sure I was asleep at the end. I haven't played HERO System since. But I digress...

Personally, I consider the upcoming Iron Heroes to be basically an alternate D&D book (Legal disclaimers notwithstanding). That's in spite of it changing classes, magic, the magic gear system, eliminating several iconic races (which I'll be houseruling back in), and a whole bunch of other things.

Gone is gear dependency. Gone is Vancian magic.

Sign me up.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Chair, Comfy, 1 ea.

CARDINAL FANG! Bring forth....THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!!

 

[The_Gneech]

I totally agree...except for the comment on Fantasy HERO...I HATE the HERO System. I played out a Champions combat...once. It took an hour to resolve a 30 second battle. I think I won, but I'm pretty sure I was asleep at the end. I haven't played HERO System since. But I digress...

Well, the HERO System can definitely get bogged down, no question, but I ran a Fantasy HERO campaign for six years, and on the whole I wouldn't say it's any slower than, say, D&D once you hit 7th level or so. (Champions is a bit worse because of all the powers and point-pools being shifted around, but it's probably on par with, say, 11th-level D&D.)

Still, we are talking about D&D here, so I'll hush now.

-The Gneech