Poking things to see if they work

[N'raac]

I think a good interaction system could suggest some bonuses, rather like combat bonuses, that could encourage more role playing and varied tactics. But I'd hesitate to really design too much structure. Whether a PC has a higher ground advantage in combat is fairly objective. Whether a PC is debating the NPC from a superior position (and should get a similar bonus) is subjective, but I think those are the kinds of bonuses that really should be considered. Does the player make a good argument for the PC, at least as far as the NPC is concerned? If so, offer the diplomacy version of combat advantage. That would allow the skilled player to adjust the odds in his or her favor.

All this is, to me, desirable. The player can decide to incorporate in-game knowledge (for example, that the King is a history buff, that they have evidence of Orcish involvement, or bluffing to create an implication of Orcish involvement) to enhance their in-game chances for success. Where I draw the line is granting bonuses because Bob made a really great speech for his 8 CHA, no social skills character, especially when this ultimately results in smooth talking Bob getting equivalent results to Ted's 18 CHA character with 10 ranks in diplomacy simply because Bob is articulate and well spoken, and Ted is not. Ted's character gets no advantages for the fact that Ted is a regular participant and winner of Iron Man competitions while Bob can't make it up the stairs from the basement without a break in the middle to catch his breath. Bob's character should not get an advantage because Bob himself is a god orator, nor should it suffer a disadvantage because Bob is morbidly obese and in horrible physical shape.

It all depends how the DM handles using those stats. If the DM really allows Charisma to be replaced by speech, then effectively you are not using the Charisma skills/checks mechanics in your game, in which case of course investing in it is worthless, or worthy only for a player who is charismatic. If that's how the DM wants Charisma to work, it might be better to even remove the stat from the game!

Agreed. And when Bob's bonuses from his personal skills result in him being able to get results comparable to the character who devotes character resources to persuasiveness, then we may as well remove interaction skills from the game as well.

Just let the player decide what to say in a speech (a mix of player's Int, Wis and Cha), and let their own description grant a small occasional bonus (player's Cha), then make them roll (character's Cha), and you already have a first draft for balancing player's vs character's abilities.

Again, I think the use of in-game resources should grant a bonus. I don't think "Bob is a persuasive speaker" should translate to "Bob's character is a persuasive speaker" any more than an Olympic gymnast should have some advantage on his character's DEX or acrobatics skill.

With this in mind, you can see that physical checks also depend on player's ability because it's the players who decides they want to shoot an arrow or swing from the chandelier, only they don't depend on player's physical abilities, but it's still up to them to make the right decision. IOW you do get good acrobatics, knowledge, search, perception or disable device results with good play and descriptions... it's quite common that a player is rewarded by the DM for guessing exactly where to search for traps or where to climb, rather than generically search or climb, and while this is not about "acting in character" it does require both thinking and talking skills from the player.

Here again, wouldn't an experienced, well trained expert be better able to assess the best places to climb, and the most likely places to search for traps, just as a skilled swordsman is better able to assess the best time to strike to bypass his opponent's defenses? If we have a paramedic in our group, should he get bonuses to the Healing skill for being able to specify exactly how one would stabilize a burn victim after the Red Dragon's attack? If so, why should a player with a degree in chemistry not be able to have his character make drugs, poisons, etc. using his own skills?

The player and the character are, and should be, separate. The player's skill at directing the abilities of his character will, and should, influence in-game success. The player's ability to emulate a character's skills should not.

BTW I don't endorse the idea that players should purposefully do stupid things if their PC is low-Int or low-Wis. I prefer my players to play their best when making decisions, and if they have some good ideas they think their PC could have never have, they can resort to tell us OoC and I certainly won't shut them up!

When your "low WIS, impetuous, impulsive" character routinely takes a reasoned, methodical approach and patiently approaches problems in the best possible tactical manner, I'm not seeing a low WIS, impetuous, impulsive character in play. Instead, I am seeing a playing piece in a boardgame, whose decisions are ruled entirely by the player's interpretation of the best possible tactical choices. To me, at least, that is poor role playing. The "Game" has overridden the "Role Playing" aspect. If the only way I know your character has a sub-par CHA and no social skills is because you read it to me from your character sheet, I don't believe your character is well played. Quite the reverse, if the impression from watching game play is that your character is a persuasive diplomat then I consider your role playing to be poor to nonexistent.

 

[pemerton]

This kind of thing is what made skill challenges kind of drab and predictable. Either those with the highest skills in the right areas handled everything or the challenge required participation by all and was pretty much doomed to failure because the low modifier folks sank the ship.

4E nodded towards a more complex system with its skill challenges, but most turned into just "roll lots of dice well to succeed".

I think you guys need better skill challenges in your gaming!

But putting that to one side, interesting OP and responses. Here is a recent post which says a bit about how my group handled (some of) Shrine of the Kuo-Toa in 4e.

 

[GMMichael]

Re: extended discussion

"Players shouldn't roleplay physical actions."
Why not? Yes, you don't want players tumbling through your living room and hurting themselves. But let's resurrect 2e's called shot rule. Instead of letting the attack rolls speak for themselves, you can plant some hidden bonuses into combat. Like:

"I shove the dwarf back, and follow up with a right-side chop."
Use against a dwarf known to be less stable than others. GM grants attack bonus after the shove.

"The dwarf, feeling beat-up (at 50% hp), grimaces as he raises his sabre to attack."
GM's hint to players that they should be making called-shots on the sabre side.

---

"There's no mechanics for social encounters."
Pretty easy to make some. Set the DC for convincing an NPC of something. Each character then gets a chance to (let's borrow a 3e rule) Aid Another, picking out a motivator of the NPC. This looks like a skill that the NPC might have, or might be highly interested in. If the characters beat a DC on those checks, each successful proposition becomes an Aid Another bonus to the PC making the final argument, or conclusion. The best socializer of the party makes the final check, with all the successful propositions, to try and beat the NPC's convincing DC.

But since I'm a more half-and-half guy:
If you want to change an NPCs mind, you roll it. If you do a good job of roleplaying your character while trying this, you'll get a bonus (or penalty) based on this.

---

And just to chime in...yes, characters with both low intelligence and low wisdom should be making mind-appropriate decision, even if those are stupid. If one's low but the other is average or above, the player has a way out of (and a reason not to) making stupid decisions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think you guys need better skill challenges in your gaming!

Already ahead of you. Even when I ran 4E I abandoned the practice. Skill use-yes. Skill challenges-no.

 

[howandwhy99]

As I understand it, D&D uses 2 methods for players to achieve game objectives.
- 1 is maze navigation, which is entirely a test of player skill (though "character skill" or ability affects maze accessibility, at the most basic think: sight and hearing).
- 2 is variable chance rolls, the odds of which are determined by the situation as well as character ability. Player ability doesn't come into the second method unless you engage in cheat-rolling, but of course your previous navigation alters your odds too.

The combat system uses both actions and dice rolling to enable plenty of player challenge and yet account for character ability ratings. It also defines all the pertinent game area within which the combat occurs. Still more mazes and probabilities.

Conversation with game constructs in D&D can do this too. Who your character is usually determines some of how other characters treat him or her. How you as a player navigate a conversation affects your outcomes. Character ability in part affects what is open to you as well as die roll odds. It's similar to combat, but without the need for drawing a grid map (IME anyways). The fine detail of spatial positioning isn't needed, but conversational positioning is definitely in play.

You might think, "I don't need a map to talk with others", but you already are using them: mental concepts and the languages used to express them. Without some common understanding with another it is very difficult to communicate with them. This all stretches further than a simple chat of course, but the game begins with common player concepts just as combat does. Your character has arms, legs, hands, a body mostly like yours, and an ease of expressing how you use it. Talking with an NPC presumes a degree of abstracted shared language and set of concepts as well, which work within the symbol set comprising the minds of NPCs in your game.

The trick is determining what you want to include to cover for what goes on in those minds. The easy part is a great deal of what NPCs know and are navigating through themselves arises from their understanding (and misunderstanding) of the world and their past actions therein. If you're running a campaign, that map has already been drawn - which saves us a lot of time from redundant copying.