Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[ExploderWizard]

And that's where you're strictly, objectively wrong. The content of the player input necessarily affects what happens next. Otherwise, there's no narrative to hang the story on. The roll simply determines whether a brilliant plan succeeds brilliantly without a hitch or brilliantly, but with an unexpected consequence.

And this is where I believe you to be wrong.

There IS no narrative. This isn't story hour, its actual play.

 

[TwoSix]

And this is where I believe you to be wrong.

There IS no narrative. This isn't story hour, its actual play.

If we've reached the point of axiomatic difference in viewpoints, then I feel satisfied. I agree to disagree.

 

[Mark CMG]

Experience awards for interaction and exploration are more in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands than a strict, mechanical definition, but both will appear in the final experience point system with full guidelines.​

There's your problem. The XP system isn't designed to support all three "pillars" in the same fashion, so the XP system is what needs an overhaul. XP for treasure was problematic, so it got changed. XP for killing is problematic, so it needs changing. For my part, I use what I call an "Event System" wherein each GM/group can consider what is important to the campaign they are playing. If it is determined that a single battle constitutes an "Event" then so be it. If a mission is considered an Event then that works for that group. After a given number of Events, a character or group advances, and none of it needs to be necessarily tied to combat specifically if that isn't meant to be the focus of a campaign. It's simple and a natural evolution of the XP system meant to be more inclusive for as many styles of play as one could imagine.

 

[Fifth Element]

The point is, using charisma as a dump stat will have penalties associated with it that cannot be completely negated by a smooth talking player.

Ultimately this doesn't address the question. Saying Charisma can come into play, sometimes, with certain things is fine, but the question is really: why does Charisma not come into play in the situations where it most likely should, based on its own description?

You're saying some penalties cannot be completely negated by a smooth-talking player. You're omitting at least two aspects:

1. That a smooth-talking player can obtain in-game benefits that he should not, when his character has a low Charisma. He's still a smooth talker regardless of his character sheet.

2. That a non-smooth-talking player doesn't receive the benefit of a high Charisma on his character sheet, because the player's own "interaction skills" are poor.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There's your problem. The XP system isn't designed to support all three "pillars" in the same fashion, so the XP system is what needs an overhaul. XP for treasure was problematic, so it got changed. XP for killing is problematic, so it needs changing. For my part, I use what I call an "Event System" wherein each GM/group can consider what is important to the campaign they are playing. If it is determined that a single battle constitutes an "Event" then so be it. If a mission is considered an Event then that works for that group. After a given number of Events, a character or group advances, and none of it needs to be necessarily tied to combat specifically if that isn't meant to be the focus of a campaign. It's simple and a natural evolution of the XP system meant to be more inclusive for as many styles of play as one could imagine.

That made me chuckle a bit. I got an image of a bad TV promo taking place at a D&D session:

[Deep announcer voice]

" That battle with the goblin guards was NOT THE EVENT!"

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ultimately this doesn't address the question. Saying Charisma can come into play, sometimes, with certain things is fine, but the question is really: why does Charisma not come into play in the situations where it most likely should, based on its own description?

You're saying some penalties cannot be completely negated by a smooth-talking player. You're omitting at least two aspects:

1. That a smooth-talking player can obtain in-game benefits that he should not, when his character has a low Charisma. He's still a smooth talker regardless of his character sheet.

2. That a non-smooth-talking player doesn't receive the benefit of a high Charisma on his character sheet, because the player's own "interaction skills" are poor.

What is omitted exactly? A low charisma character will suffer on reaction rolls and have reduced henchman hiring capacity regardless of the player.

A high charisma character will get the benefit of bonuses on reaction rolls and be able to hire more henchmen regardlesss of the player.

Each and every player has options that can possibly improve or worsen a reaction roll without considering the character.

So a player with a low charisma character has to come up with appropriate steps to try and mitigate the penalty as much as possible. There is nothing keeping a high charisma character from doing the same things to make the reaction even more favorable.

Beyond the reaction roll, it is up to the player to try and shape outcomes during an interaction.New information can be exchanged and if it is of importance, a new reaction roll might be called for using not only the CHA modifier but a bonus or penalty for actual content of the information This is called playing the game, and mashing a button and saying " I got a 30, I win" just doesn't feel satisfying.

 

[Mark CMG]

" That battle with the goblin guards was NOT THE EVENT!"

It might be, if that is how the GM/group determine they wish to play. It might also be that gaining some item from or beyond the guards is the Event, so killing the guards becomes a choice and merely a means to an end. It might be that establshing relations with the goblin community is the Event, so killing the guardsmight or might not be advantageous toward that end. The nature of Events can change from time to time and need not even be immediately apparent to the players. It's a highly flexible and robust system.

 

[pemerton]

How much of what the player does or says influences the die roll?

That depends, but here's one extreme - it only influences whether he gets a roll at all.

In addition to this, what the player does or says also influences the consequence of the die roll - it establishes the paramaters of the fiction within which the GM must narrate consequences for a successful or unsuccessful check.

But whatever is made up is just fluff to justify rolling again. The actual content of the player contribution doesn't play a significant role in the resolution of the situation.

Are you talking about some actual resolution systems - and if so, which one? - or are you talking about a system you made up (a bad one, by the sound of it)?

In the resolution system that I use, for example, the content of the player contribution plays a very significant role in the resolution of the situation.

This is called playing the game, and mashing a button and saying " I got a 30, I win" just doesn't feel satisfying.

And this takes me back to our starting point - are you interested in talking about the actual resolution systems that are actually being used by me, by Mustrum_Ridcully, by Burning Wheel players, etc, or are you only talking about systems that are no good, that no one is using, and that I'm not even sure exist outside your own conjecture (given the Crazy Jerome has corrected me on 3E Diplomacy skill)?

 

[ExploderWizard]

In addition to this, what the player does or says also influences the consequence of the die roll - it establishes the paramaters of the fiction within which the GM must narrate consequences for a successful or unsuccessful check.

The consequences are not the odds.

'The parameters of the fiction' , is this for reals?

Are you talking about some actual resolution systems - and if so, which one? - or are you talking about a system you made up (a bad one, by the sound of it)

People have been communicating with one another through the medium of the spoken word for very long time. I cannot take credit for making that up.

And this takes me back to our starting point - are you interested in talking about the actual resolution systems that are actually being used by me, by Mustrum_Ridcully, by Burning Wheel players, etc, or are you only talking about systems that are no good, that no one is using, and that I'm not even sure exist outside your own conjecture (given the Crazy Jerome has corrected me on 3E Diplomacy skill)?

The more I think about it, the more I believe you are right. People aren't really talking to each other anymore. Everyone is in the bubble of their own little worlds.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The content of the player input necessarily affects what happens next. Otherwise, there's no narrative to hang the story on.

In addition to this, what the player does or says also influences the consequence of the die roll - it establishes the paramaters of the fiction within which the GM must narrate consequences for a successful or unsuccessful check.

Yeah, this is my experience. Take the GitP Diplomacy skill revision. What you say clearly matters: you offer a deal, and what you offer (as determined by player input, not PC input) sets the DC. Then, you roll to see if you're successful (the better the deal or the more they like you, the easier it is), or if you fail (the worse the deal or the more they dislike you, the harder it is), and if so, to what degree you failed (failure by 1-5 means they may counteroffer; failure by 10 or more means the negotiation is over, and they're done considering what you're offering).

I use a heavily modified version of this revision for my Negotiation skill, and it requires player input to be used. You can't make the check without a deal. You can't say "I want this guy to be my friend" and then make a check. You can throw out a terrible deal "you should give me that sword at a discount, because I'm just awesome", but it probably won't work on most people (maybe your really good friends).

This required player input can extend to every social skill. So you want to roll a Bluff check... what's the lie? What modifier does that give to the roll? If you fail, does he see through the Bluff for what it is, or just think you're holding something back? If you want to ingratiate yourself to someone over a matter of weeks, what do you do to make yourself more liked? What modifier does that give?

While ExploderWizard may not like the above methods, it certainly calls for player engagement (rather than "just a die roll") by forcing players to describe what they're saying or doing to even attempt to do it; it also advances the narrative or fiction (that's the in-game events, to ExploderWizard) in the same way that talking it out with no rules would (though not necessarily with the same results, since it gives mechanical weight to PC ability).

It may bore ExploderWizard or B.T., but it's certainly more interesting to me as GM than talking everything out, because I get to see the narrative/fiction (in-game events) go places I didn't necessarily think they would, and this makes for an enjoyable experience. Of course it's preference, but the mechanics certainly don't have to be boring, and this goes double for the results. As always, play what you like