Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[fuzzlewump]

@xechnao: Well, you'd be wrong to say that ability choice doesn't affect winning or losing. If it was only a matter of differentiating characters, then D&D should have a point-buy sort of system where instead of putting a high charisma you get a feature like "Smooth-talker" "Diplomat" etc. The numbers exist because whether you succeed or fail is somehow important, or at least important enough to have numbers assigned to them. I'm trying to figure out why and how it is important, in my previous post.

 

[xechnao]

@xechnao: Well, you'd be wrong to say that ability choice doesn't affect winning or losing. If it was only a matter of differentiating characters, then D&D should have a point-buy sort of system where instead of putting a high charisma you get a feature like "Smooth-talker" "Diplomat" etc. The numbers exist because whether you succeed or fail is somehow important, or at least important enough to have numbers assigned to them. I'm trying to figure out why it is important, in my previous post.

It is the winning or losing you are talking about that I do not get. The numbers you are talking about exist due to legacy reasons. The D&D party plays differently from edition to edition but the abilities, the classes and the numbers exist the same (more or less). Up to a certain point certain aspects of the game have to remain the same due to its popularity.

 

[Raven Crowking]

AFAICT, the problem this thread is dealing with comes down largely on the "DM as summer camp director" meme (as opposed to the "DM as creator of challenges and impartial referee" meme).

You want to know why people stopped having fun DMing 3e (those who did)? Look at this thread.


1. The players don't want to suffer the negative consequences for the character builds they have created.

2. A player asks why the DM put them in that situation, failing to take any responsibility for entering the encounter/influencing what the encounter is.

3. The DM feels he has to make things "fun" for the players at all times, so there can be no "unfun" consequences related to (1) or (2).


Sorry, but if you dump a stat, you should suffer the consequences of doing so. If you kill a guy in town, you should suffer the consequences of doing so. I mean, isn't this the edition where "0 hp" means whatever the player delivering the blow decides it means? In 4e is there any reason that an NPC has to end up dead at the end of any combat?

So, the player dumped stat. One or more players decided to kill the NPC. And the result is the DM's fault.

The real solution here is to ask everyone to take responsibility for what happens at the game table. Players are responsible for the weaknesses of their characters, and if that means that the player feels left out sometimes, it is that player's responsibility to make the most of it. The more the players contribute to deciding where to go and what to do, and the more the players can affect how an encounter unfolds, the more responsibility they must accept for what they encounter/how the encounter unfolds.

In return, the DM has a responsibility to create a milieu that has a lot of potential for fun (encounters, locations, and NPCs with the same), to adjudicate the rules and the world fairly so that the PCs can win or fail on their own merits, and to give the players plenty of opportunities to make meaningful choices.


So, in short, it isn't the skills that are the problem, it is the way the game sets up player expectations, and makes the DM responsible for everything that goes wrong should the players actually meet the consequences of their choices.

Meh.

In a lot of ways, this is the "Gary" vs. "Ted" thread all over again, where the players are text messaging and wandering off, but it is all "Ted"'s fault.





RC

 

[fuzzlewump]

You said a competitive mindset came from the RPGA, right? So, when ability scores were first used, in 1e correct? they obviously weren't used for legacy. Or whatever the real origin of ability scores is.I don't really care what they're meant to do, per se, but what they do is determine how likely you are to succeed at something. There's probably a quote from any D&D rulebook that will say that.

But, if we are going to talk about that, what they're meant to do, I'm not going to buy that ability scores were always around (especially in the beginning of D&D when the following didn't exist) for legacy and popularity.

 

[Raven Crowking]

At one time, they existed to give you information about a character. AFAICT, they exist now merely to determine a modifier.

I am perfectly fine with a character who is mostly clumsy, but is a gifted dancer (for example). I prefer a game where ability scores mean something.


RC

 

[fuzzlewump]

@Raven: I agree with you in a lot of ways. But, if going against that ideal gets more players to role-play at my table then I will sacrifice that.

I think there's an issue here though: Dumping strength and being bad at climbing/swimming/whatever has a profoundly different effect than dumping charisma and being bad at diplomacy/intimidate/bluff at the table.

Dealing with the consequences of being a poor climber is completely different than dealing with the consequences of being a poor diplomat for the player. One discourages the player from rolling a climb check. The other discourages the player from speaking, which is infinitely worse for a PnP roleplaying game. This is, however, just my experience.

 

[xechnao]

You said a competitive mindset came from the RPGA, right? So, when ability scores were first used, in 1e correct? they obviously weren't used for legacy. Or whatever the real origin of ability scores is.

I don't really care what they're meant to do, per se, but what they do is determine how likely you are to succeed at something. There's probably a quote from any D&D rulebook that will say that.

But, if we are going to talk about that, what they're meant to do, I'm not going to buy that ability scores were always around (especially in the beginning of D&D when the following didn't exist) for legacy and popularity.

D&D sprang from wargames. At the time there was no RPG design experience as it is now. But still, since then D&D has to keep some things the same because of its popularity.

The success on "something" you are talking about has to do with something predetermined and this is tournament play that wargames or RPGA have established.

It is not that I am saying something really strange I think.

 

[Raven Crowking]

@Raven: I agree with you in a lot of ways. But, if going against that ideal gets more players to role-play at my table then I will sacrifice that.

IME, the opposite is true. Sacrificing the "summer camp director" meme (from 2e) has had a beneficial effect.

Dealing with the consequences of being a poor climber is completely different than dealing with the consequences of being a poor diplomat for the player. One discourages the player from rolling a climb check. The other discourages the player from speaking, which is infinitely worse for a PnP roleplaying game. This is, however, just my experience.

It differs from mine, but then I only require checks when the outcome is in doubt, and I don't necessarily have the players roll them (or even know that they have been rolled). Sometimes I just use the raw numbers as a guide to roleplaying NPCs. I certainly do not allow "I roll a Diplomacy check!" without more information that that.

I also allow skills like Diplomacy to have combat benefits, such as being able to improve your AC by making a foe less willing to hit you, or intimidating so as to improve the effect of a blow. And, yes, you have to describe how you want the skill to apply.

A low Charisma/poor Diplomacy may encourage players to keep silent -- but only if you allow PCs to avoid all conversation in the first place. Towns divide parties, IME, and many times PCs will have to be their own spokesperson, whether they like it or not. Certainly, the town watch shouldn't simply turn to the party "face".

In short, if the DM has a responsibility to let the PCs can win or fail on their own merits, and to give the players plenty of opportunities to make meaningful choices, the DM also has a responsibility to make sure that the NPCs treat the PCs as individuals.......whether this is the easiest thing for the party to handle or not.

Certainly, trolls do not stop pursuing the PCs because they reach a cliff and have to send the "climb face" up first. Neither should the town watch particularly care who the "social face" is (although their reaction to the social face may help the others).



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ fuzzlewump: Of course, there is a problem particular to 4e where dumping a stat like Strength no longer carries the necessary negative consequence to combat ability, whereas dumping a stat like Charisma retains necessary negative consequences. I'm not really sure how to address this within the context of the 4e design parameters.....reason tells me that "I'm diplomatic because I have a high Constitution!" makes sense within the context of 4e (as I understand it, anyway, which is to a limited degree), but my gut tells me that this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Surely it must be possible to make viable characters without using Charisma as a dump stat? Perhaps the problem is that "viable" to some now means an 18 in the primary stat?


RC

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

skills and stats

In the context of 3E, I think this discussion is missing a point...which is that a dumped stat actually has far less impact on a skill roll than a class choice.

Having an 8 in CHA instead of 12 only subtracts 2 from a diplomacy check. But having 2 skill points per level and lacking diplomacy as a class skill probably means that you don't have ranks at all.

So effectively, the game says that a straight Fighter can't have a good diplomacy skill. Now, if that means he gets fewer opportunities to roleplay his character because the party wants to 'win' and is constantly turning to the 'face' guy , then I think that's a bad thing.

Ken