GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Wicht]

So, I think neither stats nor rule0 should really be used, no matter what edition. I don´t think these can really portrait a complex person. Stats, no matter how they have been generated, should only come up in combat.
Having said this, IMO interacting with an important NPC like the queen should be broken down into tasks, with DCs tailored to the situation. Does she respond well to flattery? Is she the trusting kind? Does she have racist views towards a certain race or nation? That´s why I mentioned the skill challenge rules as an example. When I create stats for her and come up with a, let´s say, +12 Diplomacy as an end-result, it´s global. I could go on further and add or remove situational boni.
This can get messy real quick.

Sticking with Pathfinder, which is what I play, the rules really cover this interaction already and it hinges completely on her beginning attitude and her charisma. Her level and will saves, et. al never enter into it. You determine the beginning attitude of the Queen. We'll say that she is indiffent. DC is to make her Friendly is going to be 18 (15 + cha. modifier), and helpful is a DC 23. If she has some inherent bias, I'd adjucate a -2/+2 to difficulty as appropriate. Furthermore, if the PCs are asking for simple advice its -5 DC and if they want complicated aid its +5 DC.

Again, no DM ruling nor planning is needed. You just adjucate based on the circumstances. There's really nothing messy about it.

 

[Wicht]

This is a great way to keep social interactions lively, and surprising even to the DM. However, you don't gain much by using the actual game mechanics. Simple percentage rolls work fine.

To the contrary, by using the already existing mechanics I gain two things: consistency and simplicity.

Simplicity in that I don't have to make up percentages on the spot, I just use the stats I already have or an average of average stats; furthermore I only have to roll 1d20 as opposed to 2d10s.

Consistency in that I know I am being completely fair and impartial and the difficulty will remain uniform as opposed to being based on my mood at the moment.

The consistency alone is reason enough for me to use the rules even when rolling for things "offstage."

 

[Coldwyn]

Sticking with Pathfinder, which is what I play, the rules really cover this interaction already and it hinges completely on her beginning attitude and her charisma. Her level and will saves, et. al never enter into it. You determine the beginning attitude of the Queen. We'll say that she is indiffent. DC is to make her Friendly is going to be 18 (15 + cha. modifier), and helpful is a DC 23. If she has some inherent bias, I'd adjucate a -2/+2 to difficulty as appropriate. Furthermore, if the PCs are asking for simple advice its -5 DC and if they want complicated aid its +5 DC.

Again, no DM ruling nor planning is needed. You just adjucate based on the circumstances. There's really nothing messy about it.

Maybe I missunderstand you or we´re talking about two different things.

The reaction chart has been with D&D sind the 3E DMG and you´re right, as just this point the NSC would be "Queen, Cha 16, indifferent, doesn´t react well to irishman" and that´s enough.
What I´m interrested in is what comes after the reaction tests. If, for example, I succeed on my diplomacy check and make her helpful, do I still need to haggle, bluff, sense motive and so on on each subject I talk with her, and if, how is it handled?

 

[Stoat]

I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.

I'm not the kind of person who throws references to Page 42 around, but I'd use page 42 for this.

In other words, a task with DC 5 is an easy task for a first level NPC. First level NPC's routinely accomplish DC 5 tasks. That's what a "basic peon" can do. From there, you can use the other levels and DC's on the chart to extrapolate what a focused NPC can do and what a world-renowned heroic NPC can do.

 

[billd91]

What I´m interrested in is what comes after the reaction tests. If, for example, I succeed on my diplomacy check and make her helpful, do I still need to haggle, bluff, sense motive and so on on each subject I talk with her, and if, how is it handled?

That's the important question, isn't it? And that's what a lot of people focused on the mechanics of sticking the Diplomacy roll forget. A helpful queen doesn't mean she gives you the keys to the castle. She's got plenty of other issues on her plate, responsibilities to live up to, she may not be able to give the PC everything he wants. What the DM has to do is get the players to make their request and then weight that request against the other concerns of the queen. And there's no hard or fast way of determining what the queen's limits are - that's all DM judgement.
If the helpful queen disappoints the PCs by a little bit, I'd give them another Dip check to see if they could make her helpful + and get that little bit more help from her. If the helpful queen disappoints because their request is frankly outlandish, I'd give them another Dip roll to keep her opinion of them from sliding downward from helpful. But that's probably about it for mechanical resolution at that point.

 

[Jhaelen]

And Jhalen, there were two well-designed classes in the PHB3? Which ones? [/Snark]

Well, my two favorite classes in PHB3 are the monk and the seeker.

Across editions I've always been a big fan of psionics, though I have to admit I'm on the fence about the 4e psionic classes. I'll reserve final judgement until I've had a chance to actually play one (preferably a telepath psion).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Help me underestand this.
You´re talking about a sandbox kind of game here, right?

So, if I say: The hamlet you are in right now is attacked by orc raiders. The towns militia is present but handled as minions, four of the attacking orcs are minions as well. I chose this setup because of ease of gm´ing and the narration of quick deaths on both sides.

You say that everything I declared minion here must be minion all the time, right?

So to expand my example and with it the question, if I say whenever the PCs aren´t present or involved, the militia a lvl x warriors with appropiate equipment and hp, as well as the orcs, then this would be impossible for you because a thing can only be specified as one kind for the sake of simulation and can´t be situational nor different in a narrative context, right?

So you consistently handle background activities solely based on game mechanics, not on a narrative basis, if I understand it right.

But on what basis do you initiate background action then, if it´s not on a narrative on? Do you use random charts where you roll what happens on day x at location y and what parties are involved? If yes, on what basis have they been created?

If I bother to provide stats for something, then it's got what it's got. If events take place in the world that do not involve the PC's then whatever is most likely to happen given what is known about the situation simply happens. No stats, no tables, and no undetermined outcome needed.

 

[Wicht]

Maybe I missunderstand you or we´re talking about two different things.

The reaction chart has been with D&D sind the 3E DMG and you´re right, as just this point the NSC would be "Queen, Cha 16, indifferent, doesn´t react well to irishman" and that´s enough.
What I´m interrested in is what comes after the reaction tests. If, for example, I succeed on my diplomacy check and make her helpful, do I still need to haggle, bluff, sense motive and so on on each subject I talk with her, and if, how is it handled?

Again, the rules give you guidelines, each request requires an additional roll with the DC being based on the NPCs current attitude and the nature of the request. Complicated aid +5, dangerous aid +10, aid that could result in punishment +15, each additional request pass the first +5.

Attitude shifts garnered through diplomacy last 1d4 hours or longer at the DMs discretion and any NPC can alway refuse a request that goes against the NPC's values or nature. There is no rule that says the queen has to give the PCs the castle just because they have silver tongues. The answer to ridiculous requests should always be "no."

 

[Raven Crowking]

My experience is that mechanical definitions are situational. The majority of people, places and things are simply <undefined> in terms of game mechanics . "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes".

As the need arises, the DM switches to a more precise mechanical description.

How is "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes" a mechanical definition? How does "Grod has an AC of 15, 12 HP, and a 16 STR" change "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes"?

What you are doing here is conflating two partial descriptions with two complete descriptions. Moreover, only one is mechanical. When the mechanical description changes, it reflects a change in the campaign world or in Grod -- Grod has thrown away his shield, so his AC is worse; he is wounded, so he has fewer current hit points; he has gained a level, and he has become stronger.

And as the needs change, so too, does the descriptive language employed. "Grod has been conscripted in the Orc Army. He is now part of a squad of 20, with an Attack Value of 3, a Defense Value of 1, and Morale of 2".

Even these numbers are, presumably, based off of the other mechanics. What Grod is has not changed at all. Inside or outside the unit, his statistics are representative of the same base "reality".

A good, similar, example can be found in the 1e DMG, which gives a primer on altering D&D character stats to allow them to interact with the Boot Hill and Metamorphis Alpha games (and vice versa). The goal in both the 1e DMG and in the skirmish system is to keep the character's statistics as consistent as possible within the framework being used.

The 4e minion rules -- if, and only if, the minions are quantum in nature, becoming minions when facing PCs but not when facing farmers -- are of a different nature entirely. Their statistics are not being kept mechanically as close as possible within a given framework; what their statistics represent -- the underlying "reality" -- is itself being changed based upon the framework (often narrative framework) used.

Appropriate for some types of playstyles, of course, but certainly not approriate for all.


RC

 

[Coldwyn]

Again, the rules give you guidelines, each request requires an additional roll with the DC being based on the NPCs current attitude and the nature of the request. Complicated aid +5, dangerous aid +10, aid that could result in punishment +15, each additional request pass the first +5.

Attitude shifts garnered through diplomacy last 1d4 hours or longer at the DMs discretion and any NPC can alway refuse a request that goes against the NPC's values or nature. There is no rule that says the queen has to give the PCs the castle just because they have silver tongues. The answer to ridiculous requests should always be "no."

I understand how these mechanics work.

But still we´re not talking about the same things. What about sense motive and bluff, for example? Or Innuendo when it still was around? These skills are more or less all level-based and we´re using comparing rolls here.

So if I flat-out lie to the queen that the endeavor I aks from her is purely positiv to her (bluff vs sense motive) it should influence the situation in any way, for example modifying the reaction test for the request from complicated aid to normal request. Else, diplomacy would be king and the other social skills a waste of skill points and space in the PHB.

If these skills matter, we´re in stat-country again.