Missing Skill - Etiquette?

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

When you have a situation where there is a chance of success or failure and there are no mechanics at all it has as much point to it as a Teddy Bear Tea Party with your annoying little sister.

You and your sister are just sitting there going 'Blah, blah, blah, yes you can have a cup of tea Mr Buttons.' So yes, roleplaying does, sometimes, need mechanics or else it is just blah, blah.

Heraldry only seems to be related to the History skill and not Etiquette to us now days because we don't use it now and it is a part of our history. In the days it was used it wasn't, except in the case of Heralds producing Patent of Arms to prove lineages and rights to use arms. Usually when contested in court, such as when 2 people have the same coat of arms and they have to decide who had it first and which one must change them, or whether or not they are legally permitted to have them at all.

In those days it was an important part of the upper classes, and later the middle classes. A person's coat of arms was directly linked with their fame and honour. An upper class person was a product, a brand, a business.

Heraldry is still around today. If I started producing a cola product now and put Coke or Pepsi all over it you would see how relevant it is today when I end up in court. Brands live and die by their fame and their percieved business practice. Tournaments (and hanging their arms outside the inn they were staying at), building churches and donating to the poor were the advertising medium of the age. Newspapers, television, hoardings (arms on the tavern) and charity works are the medium of the modern age. You wouldn't use the History skill for modern advertising and business.

 

[Wepwawet]

There is no need for such a skill, it's already covered by others:
- History: heraldry, courtly/official law, even manners (as you know, each society has it's own set of rules)
- Religion: as you said, when dealing with clergy. Maybe the same goes to Nature, if you're dealing with more primal societies.
- Diplomacy: the obvious skill, when speaking with nobles, higher classes or whatever
- Streetwise: could be used when dealing with lower classes.

In the end the most important ones to represent Etiquette will probably be History and Diplomacy.

So, for what you want the best is what Danceofmasks suggested: giving bonuses to situations based on a character's background.
It could well be a feat giving +2 bonuses to diplomacy, history and religion when dealing with nobles and high classes, and all that.

So, I say create a new feat instead of a new skill. The set of skills is good as it is.

 

[Snotboy]

When you have a situation where there is a chance of success or failure and there are no mechanics at all it has as much point to it as a Teddy Bear Tea Party with your annoying little sister.

You and your sister are just sitting there going 'Blah, blah, blah, yes you can have a cup of tea Mr Buttons.' So yes, roleplaying does, sometimes, need mechanics or else it is just blah, blah.

SSSHH! Not so loud! If people get wind that the essence of role-playing is collaborative storytelling much like you described, it might look uncool and we won't get prom dates!

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

SSSHH! Not so loud! If people get wind that the essence of role-playing is collaborative storytelling much like you described, it might look uncool and we won't get prom dates!

The trouble with it all being up to the DM in cases of success and failure is that you can always win if:

1. You suck up to the DM.
2. You are the DM's best friend.
3. You are a girl.
4. You know the DM well enough to know what buttons to press to get the right result.
5. You cleverly use lawyer speak to bamboozle the DM.
6. You word it well enough that the DM looks like an idiot if he doesn't agree.
7. The DM is weak and will go with anything.

You will always lose if:

1. The DM hates the fact you are more clever than he is. (Most people are more clever than the DM. If they were clever they would be playing and not spending days of hard work so the players can ruin it all.)
2. The DM sees himself as an Alpha-male and will try to stamp you down at every given moment.
3. The DM is grumpy about the fact that killing PCs every second just isn't the done thing anymore. If he can't have fun neither can you.
4. The DM is called Clayton and doing anything other than rolling to hit and damage for 3 hours is too much like hard work and imagination with the exception of NPCs like the gruff burley tavern owner who I secretly suspect is related to the King, the captain of the guard, the boss of the thieves guild, the store owner, the old man and the young girl on account of them being exactly the same. Sorry got issues.

I like roleplaying, but I see it more as a modifier to chances of success rather than the be-all and end-all of success or failure.

 

[MrBeens]

The trouble with it all being up to the DM in cases of success and failure is that you can always win if:

1. You suck up to the DM.
2. You are the DM's best friend.
3. You are a girl.
4. You know the DM well enough to know what buttons to press to get the right result.
5. You cleverly use lawyer speak to bamboozle the DM.
6. You word it well enough that the DM looks like an idiot if he doesn't agree.
7. The DM is weak and will go with anything.

You will always lose if:

1. The DM hates the fact you are more clever than he is. (Most people are more clever than the DM. If they were clever they would be playing and not spending days of hard work so the players can ruin it all.)
2. The DM sees himself as an Alpha-male and will try to stamp you down at every given moment.
3. The DM is grumpy about the fact that killing PCs every second just isn't the done thing anymore. If he can't have fun neither can you.
4. The DM is called Clayton and doing anything other than rolling to hit and damage for 3 hours is too much like hard work and imagination with the exception of NPCs like the gruff burley tavern owner who I secretly suspect is related to the King, the captain of the guard, the boss of the thieves guild, the store owner, the old man and the young girl on account of them being exactly the same. Sorry got issues.

I like roleplaying, but I see it more as a modifier to chances of success rather than the be-all and end-all of success or failure.

What you are talking about here is nothing to do with the thread and everything to do with having a bad DM.

 

[Snotboy]

What you are talking about here is nothing to do with the thread and everything to do with having a bad DM.

Exactly. I suppose I should clarify my point before I get hit with the no-sarcasm stick though.

Whenever an outcome is uncertain in your game, you first reaction shouldn't always have to involve reaching for your dice. A situation can become an opportunity to have a moment of pure entertainment amongst yourselves, and turn your characters and the environment they exist in into something more alive and immersive. My friends and I still chuckle about a Vampire campaign where the 'Storyteller' had my 'Charisma Is My Dump Stat' friend role out a feeding at the local club we revolved around.

Worrying too much about finding a place for an Etiquette skill, in my opinion, is missing an opportunity to have fun with friends around a table--dorkiness be damned.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

What you are talking about here is nothing to do with the thread and everything to do with having a bad DM.

I mention this because most people don't want social skills, like Etiquette, and would rather have no mechanics for roleplaying as was infered by the comment about collaborative story telling. So mentioning and suggesting yet another social mechanic could cause a written kicking I'm not too interested in receiving.

Well mechanics in roleplaying are unavoidable. It is just in the DM version the DM is the mechanics and a fairly bad one at that. The examples I gave are extreme, but they exist in all DMs to a certain degree, consciously or unconsciously. It is frustrating to succeed or fail (either one) at something based purely on your relationship with your DM and how good, bad, fair, unfair, or competent he is.

I was just saying that if you roleplay well then you get bonuses, if you roleplay badly you get penalties. If the social actions are the equivelant of walking or cooking (automatic success and not worth complicating) then they do not require any mechanics.

It was inevitible that some roleplaying definition differences come up when talking about social skills, but people have different play styles and like different things about rpgs which is its greatest strengths.

I have nothing against no-mechanic roleplaying at all, I'm not going to tell you how to play.

I only started thinking about the social skills because I do want a good system for social mechanics, purely for times when success and failure, benefit and disaster are an issue. If the players and DM are happy to completely ignore any social mechanics, that's completely fine by me. It is easy to throw away a chunk of mechanics, not so easy to invent a whole system of them yourself.

The Etiquette thing has come from the fact that I believe 4th edition is going the right way for the social mechanics, but hasn't quite got there yet. The Etiquette skill (or rather an Upper Class enviroment skill like the Streetwise Lower Class Enviroment Skill) was the first thing that seemed to be missing.

 

[Keenath]

Heraldry only seems to be related to the History skill and not Etiquette to us now days because we don't use it now and it is a part of our history. In the days it was used it wasn't, except in the case of Heralds producing Patent of Arms to prove lineages and rights to use arms. Usually when contested in court, such as when 2 people have the same coat of arms and they have to decide who had it first and which one must change them, or whether or not they are legally permitted to have them at all.

But that IS a good use of history. To recall whose family line uses a particular coat of arms would relate to their history. Just because it's history doesn't mean it's ancient history!

It would be proper to use History skill to talk about when a castle was built or who somebody's grandfather was, so why not use it to come up with information about a family crest? The symbols on crests are almost always references to important family events (like battles won), symbols of what the family values ("the bear stands for strength and the vine for peace") or vague puns.

Remember, 4e wants you to expand the use of each skill, not limit it. And it's just fine to have overlaps; that means more characters can be trusted to handle a particular check. You can see how either Diplomacy or Streetwise would work in this situation? That's great! Let the players use whichever method they like. I could also see Intimidate relating to getting a good reaction in a seedy neighborhood, because the lowlifes would respect strength.

There's nothing wrong with letting a player get the advantage of his skill choices if he can justify it.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

But that IS a good use of history. To recall whose family line uses a particular coat of arms would relate to their history. Just because it's history doesn't mean it's ancient history!

It would be proper to use History skill to talk about when a castle was built or who somebody's grandfather was, so why not use it to come up with information about a family crest? The symbols on crests are almost always references to important family events (like battles won), symbols of what the family values ("the bear stands for strength and the vine for peace") or vague puns.

Remember, 4e wants you to expand the use of each skill, not limit it. And it's just fine to have overlaps; that means more characters can be trusted to handle a particular check. You can see how either Diplomacy or Streetwise would work in this situation? That's great! Let the players use whichever method they like. I could also see Intimidate relating to getting a good reaction in a seedy neighborhood, because the lowlifes would respect strength.

There's nothing wrong with letting a player get the advantage of his skill choices if he can justify it.

Fair point. Overlap is a good thing.

Perahps Nature, Dungeoneering and Streetwise should be pulled out and become background bonus/penalty modifiers (with other backgrounds) to other skills such as history (you have experience with history and rumours of that enviroment), bluff, perception, diplomacy, intimidate, insight, stealth (blend in with the crowd), thievery (knowing your targets) etc.

I think you should be able to buy these backgrounds (or call them something else) like skills. A Bard should be able to mingle with both the upper and lower classes, it is his sort of job.

Hmm ... or you could assign background-based bonuses/penalties.

Such as +2 to diplomacy checks while dealing with high society (and associated issues such as imported fashion), -4 to diplomacy checks while dealing with low society.

I have to apologize, my train of thought is starting to look like homebrew/house rule.

 

[robsenworldaccount]

I agree w/ this poster.

TBO

The invention of more skills is unecessary
It only appears to simulationists.
I'm a simulationist and I came to the following conclusion
You don't need more skills( or a rulebook to state how a teapot workS) to simulate; that comes from your character.