Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[pemerton]

Where did this correlation between higher level and fame come from? A far as I know, nowhere at all is there any expectation that being any particular level has anything whatsoever to do with how well known you are, and it hasn't in decades.

In 4e, it's part of being Epic (as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posted).

For every story (in fantasy or real-life) of a hero who basks in the rewards of fame, I think there's another story where the hero is unknown and unloved.

But probably not in 4e. Epic Destinies are premised on the idea that the heroes are prominent figures.

Your roll on Diplomacy does not dictate the internal consistency of the setting (in my game), it dictates how your character interacts with the internal consistency of the setting (in my game). So, rolling your Diplomacy successfully means you've convinced him, but it does not mean that he's heard of you. There's no "Fame" skill. Equating "Fame" with Diplomacy is houseruling

I don't agree with this at all. What does the d20 roll to jump represent? Stumbling on the edge of the chasm, a sudden gust of wind, etc etc (under ideal conditions no one's maximum jumping distance varies by the amount of a d20 roll in D&D).

What is the equivalent of these random factors for talking to NPCs? Fame would be one of them. Visions of the impending arrival of demigods would be another (see below for more on this).

Hercules is epic, and most people know his name. What about the hermit that doesn't? If he still gets that +15 from fame alone, then it's not consistent. If it's from something else as well, then I don't think there's much of an objection.

An Epic hermit PC may not be famous, but radiates holy power instead. Or whatever. As Hussar has said, different PCs and different skills can obtain their level bonuses in different ways. (Or do you mean not a hermit PC, but a hermit NPC who hasn't heard of the PC - maybe the successful Diplomacy reflects a vision the hermit had the night before presaging the arrival of this important stranger.)

But I don't think there's anything odd about fantasy heroes who have become demigods having the capacity, one way or another, to influence yokels without trouble.

 

[LurkAway]

But probably not in 4e. Epic Destinies are premised on the idea that the heroes are prominent figures.

Although it's very difficult to be completely off the radar during the entire course of adventuring, I'd disagree that epicness is directly correlated with a sort of universal prominence. You don't have to be a secretive hermit or a lone wolf -- you could just adventure for a few years in a faraway remote wilderness, and then return to a civilization that treats you like any other schmuck or a just another dangerous looking schmuck like any other dangerous looking schmuck -- a very common narrative trope. To say that epic confers the same flat absolute universal bonus in all circumstances and all locations regardless of context is a gross simplification.

And then scale back to Paragon level, which still has a level-correlated bonus to diplomacy, but without the epicness of Epic, and you still have an abstraction that is a gross simplification without context.

An Epic hermit PC may not be famous, but radiates holy power instead. Or whatever. As Hussar has said, different PCs and different skills can obtain their level bonuses in different ways.

This is probably the crux of the matter. You will come up with "whatever" to support the existing rule and be satisfied with the conformed explanation, I guess. If the rule was different, if it wasn't a flat level-based bonus to diplomacy, you'd swing with that too, I'd guess. Whereas others feel that some narratives are more compelling and believable than others, absent the rule.

So if you had a hermit who lived in remote wilderness, a lone wolf who avoides social interactions, a treasure hunter who is famous in Timbuktoo and completely unknown in Kansas, and super-famous Hercules whose tales are widely known across the lands, you'll come up with whatever fiction to support the abstraction of their equal same level bonuse to diplomacy. I consider those 4 characters and the rule clearly doesn't fit in my mind, but I don't feel that I'm biased or obligated towards making it fit either.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't agree with this at all. What does the d20 roll to jump represent? Stumbling on the edge of the chasm, a sudden gust of wind, etc etc (under ideal conditions no one's maximum jumping distance varies by the amount of a d20 roll in D&D).

What is the equivalent of these random factors for talking to NPCs? Fame would be one of them. Visions of the impending arrival of demigods would be another (see below for more on this).

While you can certainly play the game this way, I definitely don't have a gust of wind hit their back at just the right moment if they get a 20. The wind is set before the jump, and if it's significant, it's factored into a bonus or penalty to their roll. So, while this narrative style works for you, it definitely does not fit with the style I use (which you don't agree with at all).

An Epic hermit PC may not be famous, but radiates holy power instead. Or whatever. As Hussar has said, different PCs and different skills can obtain their level bonuses in different ways. (Or do you mean not a hermit PC, but a hermit NPC who hasn't heard of the PC - maybe the successful Diplomacy reflects a vision the hermit had the night before presaging the arrival of this important stranger.)

But I don't think there's anything odd about fantasy heroes who have become demigods having the capacity, one way or another, to influence yokels without trouble.

It's not about the +15. It's about the "fame" part giving the +15 to all characters of that level. Yes, they're probably pretty famous (only probably), but to assume that the +15 bonus to Diplomacy comes from fame for everyone you meet brings a certain amount of inconsistency to the game, because odds are not everyone has heard of you, or all of your exploits. Hercules was very famous... in a certain section of the world.

As always, play what you like

 

[Mallus]

While you can certainly play the game this way, I definitely don't have a gust of wind hit their back at just the right moment if they get a 20. The wind is set before the jump, and if it's significant, it's factored into a bonus or penalty to their roll.

You account for wind direction and intensity at any given moment, including sporadic gusts? That's remarkably thorough! It's more Gygaxian than Gygax! I assume a chart is involved... do you consult it as a standard practice, or only for dramatic moments?

(note pemerton did say "gust of wind" and not "sustained winds"... also note, the more exhaustively the GM claims to model the physical worlds their games are set in, the more they open themselves up the criticism their attempts at said modeling are grossly incomplete and/or inaccurate).

 

[Janx]

While you can certainly play the game this way, I definitely don't have a gust of wind hit their back at just the right moment if they get a 20. The wind is set before the jump, and if it's significant, it's factored into a bonus or penalty to their roll. So, while this narrative style works for you, it definitely does not fit with the style I use (which you don't agree with at all).

As always, play what you like

I think your method of claiming that you factor in every thing BEFORE a die roll is not how most humans work. Hence the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

You seriously know if there will be a gust of wind (which itself is a burst event) at the exact right or wrong time a jump is made?

To then be able to say if said burst happens and what is its impact on the DC?

As opposed to what just about everybody else does which is to let the d20 be rolled, and then claim some random event like a gust of wind is what accounted for the random result.

Otherwise, assuming you have such perfect control and calculation of all factors, there really is no need to roll the die. Just add up all these modifiers you are in perfect control and knowledge of determine if they succeed.

Your claim strikes me as the same as the NPC taking the best route debate. That you have such perfect and total knowledge of every pixel, every object, every molecule and its motion that the die roll can't represent the abstractness of this knowledge because it contradicts your perfect and absolute knowledge.

Whethere you are truly capable of these feat, only you can say. The rest of us are operating under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princinple as it applies to running an RPG. We cannot absolutely know or even think of every factor that actually impacts a situation. Such as the moisture level in the ground, the exact wear pattern on the shoe, the exact footfall position as the running approaches the precipice and makes his launch. Exactly how many millimeters from the edge was he? What was the relative position of his last foot to pebble #24609? If his foot overlayed it, what impact did it have on his launch? What was the air flow at each moment during the entire run, jump and land sequence?

This is the kind of stuff rolling the dice abstracts. No human can practically manage all that data in a realtime game setting. Just roll the damn die and if the results are particularly extreme, make up some reason that supports it as needed.

Why is this such a big deal? Determinism vs. non-determinism. With perfect vision and information, we can calculate how EVERYTHING will turn out. There is no randomness. However, we do not have perfect vision, information or even execution. Thus, what we attempt to do has a wider variance in outcome. That's what appears random to us, the observer.

If you've truly thought of everything, there is no die roll.

 

[Janx]

Here's an experiement:

look at your players and their PCs. Take stock of which players are more socially adept and which are socially worse.

Of those 2 extremes, which players tend to suceed/get what they want in your games? Which ones tend to have more troubles?

The socially adept players probably rub you wrong less often. They tend to approach you diplomatically about what they intend to do. They certainly tend to avoid pissing off NPCs.

Contrast to your socially inept players. They tend to be blunt with you, and argue more. They tend to cause you more headaches and apply the same approach with NPCs. As a result, they get less favorable outcomes in-game and out-of-game.

This isn't something you can manage with rules. It's simply a fact that the very definition of being socially adept (charismatic) means they are going to get favorable outcomes in social situations (dealing with you and NPCs).

This should not bother you. No more than a PC being played by a criminal mastermind is going to fare better than a PC being played by the village idiot. The smart player is going to make smarter choices, and the dumb player's PC is going to die when he tries to scratch his hemoroid with a dagger that the smart player happened to poison because he knew the idiot was going to do that eventually.


While I'm sure the social skills were added to standardize handling of social outcomes, I don't think the designers intended them as some sort of handicapping system so the social moron can run with the rest of us. D&D is not some kind of therepuetic tool for rehabilitating the maladjusted into the rest of society.

 

[LurkAway]

I don't think anyone tries to model prevailing weather conditions before making a jump roll; I don't think that was the intention.

 

[Mallus]

I don't think anyone tries to model prevailing weather conditions before making a jump roll...

Exactly!

(which is why interpreting a natural 20 on a Jump check as a beneficial gust of wind is perfectly reasonable)

 

[LurkAway]

Exactly!

(which is why interpreting a natural 20 on a Jump check as a beneficial gust of wind is perfectly reasonable)

I rolled a 20 on my Willpower check, so I've refrained from derailing further the thread with a confused tangent about gusts of wind.

 

[The Shaman]

This isn't something you can manage with rules. It's simply a fact that the very definition of being socially adept (charismatic) means they are going to get favorable outcomes in social situations (dealing with you and NPCs).

This should not bother you. No more than a PC being played by a criminal mastermind is going to fare better than a PC being played by the village idiot. The smart player is going to make smarter choices, and the dumb player's PC is going to die when he tries to scratch his hemoroid with a dagger that the smart player happened to poison because he knew the idiot was going to do that eventually.


While I'm sure the social skills were added to standardize handling of social outcomes, I don't think the designers intended them as some sort of handicapping system so the social moron can run with the rest of us. D&D is not some kind of therepuetic tool for rehabilitating the maladjusted into the rest of society.

Worth repeating.


(And if some kind soul would XP [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] for me, I would appreciate it.)