Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Mishihari Lord]

Anyway, back to the original topic.

Waitaminute, isn't that against the forum rules?

 

[Voadam]

Waitaminute, isn't that against the forum rules?

As you may have picked up from my posts, I don't feel bound by the RAW unless I am playing in someone's game where there is strict adherence to the RAW or I am writing something for publication.

 

[DamionW]

Overall I think it's been clarified that much of this debate can be left to the area of personal preference and these type of interactions can be resolved in whatever manner the group wants. The key is just to have that resolution mechanism discussed and in the open from the beginning. However, because I like intellectual discourse, I'll respond to a few points...

In my experience it is. I haven't run into any experienced players who have trouble with 1st person dialogue. I don't know if everyone learns, if those that don't drift away from the hobby, or if those who don't don't play with groups like mine, but I haven't seen it.

That said, if I had someone in my game who was poor at 1st person dialogue, but kept trying and was still fun and entertaining, I'd probably give him a handicap (in the golf sense) as well.

Sometimes the problem isn't talking in character. The problem is convincing an NPC in character. As I've stated, I'm not new to roleplaying and I do enjoy 1st person exchanges and developing my character's identity. However, I will never be as persuasive as a 15+ CHA 5+ Bluff/Diplomacy type of character should be. I am simply not capable of maintaining suspension of disbelief, inputting the dialogue coming from the DM's roleplaying, formatting a persuasive response and then translating it into first person dialogue for my character. The skills needed to role-play in first person speech are different than those needed to be persuasive and convincing. That's why I always advocate that there should be some form of dice mechanic to drive a dialogue where an NPC is used as an obstacle. For example, you can determine the basic premise of your bluff/diplomacy/intimidate attempt, roll to see how bad or how well you succeed, and then have a first person exchange that matches that rough estimate of who persuades who. I've never advocated that first person exchanges should be removed, only that making them a deciding factor can leave a lot of character design not utilized.

Conversely, if I delivered a great argument in character and failed while someone succeeded with a level 2 resolution, I would feel cheated. High-fidelity roleplaying (my term for staying very true to your character's capabilities) is a worthy goal, but so is player control. Since you can't have both at the same time, you have to pick a balance based on your personal preferences.

My question for you if you felt cheated because you couldn't succeed with your great argument is: "What did you risk?" If I spend my character design in CHA and CHA-based abilities, that is character "capital" that hasn't been spent elswhere. That 16 CHA could sure improve my hp if I put it in CON instead. Picking the Persuasive feat is a big difference from picking Dodge or Enlarge Spell, or any other feat. If you as a player just happen to be good at creating a lie or negotiation and running with it no matter what the other person says, you give up nothing. You can use that skill whether your character is Grom the powerful fighter, Nicademus the cloistered wizard, Griznar the savage barbarian or whatever character you make. All you have to do is change your tone of voice and choose a modified chain of dialogue to portray. But did you lose anything for that? Is your character less capable in one area to gain the advantage of bypassing NPCs through convincing speech? If not, than how are you cheated?

As a related point, incentives strongly affect behavior. If players are rewarded for in-character dialogue, you will see more of it and they will try harder. As a result, they will get better at it, and your game will be more fun. I think that's a good reason all by itself to use dialogue-based resolution.

I agree about incentives, but I think you're missing a few things. To resolve an NPC's attitude to solely the limits of what a player can convincingly deliver in first person, what incentive is that really giving? If I know I just have to improve my personal oratory and improvizational skills in order to talk an NPC into changing their minds, what incentives are there to explore non-combat oriented characters? Choosing charismatic abilities quickly lose their incentive if they can never exceed the player's limits of charisma. Throwing a fireball as a wizard or performing a great cleave have some very high-fideilty, tangible incentives for the player to choose those for their character.

Imagine this if you will: If those heroics represent the martial and arcane capabilities to exceed the player's abilities meta-game, imagine a character designed to exceed a meta-game mortal in oratory abilities. Instead of locking a rogue into picking feats and skills to maximize their flanking and sneak attack capacity, instead the rogue's player is incentivized to grow their diplomacy ranks and the number of languages they speak. Each extra language opens a whole new realm of intelligent beings to use their guile and their ever-present force of will on. Imagine a level 12 character who has focused on charismatic abilities so efficiently that their Diplomacy checks are able to out-bargain a devil at its game. Would that be feasible for a player to do using their own vocabulary and skills? Probably not unless their oratory abilities in real life rivaled Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln. However, these characters in the game exceed our mortal limits, so if you trust the mechanics work and don't limit it to just what is exchanged in first-person speech, it opens whole new adventure hooks and character designs.

Imagine a character so powerful they can stop an army in their tracks with a well-placed monologue from a soap-box. Could many players truly accomplish this with their personal choice of vocabulary? Maybe, but maybe not. I think these create some very interesting incentives and they don't need to preclude first-person dialogue. You just need to trust that some of the mechanics allow the character to step beyond the specific words the player picks. At that point, the players whose spells and feats are limited to what can aid them in combat quickly see there's another road to take to make a powerful character. Not everything has to be about how many baddies you can kill in a round, but how many obstacles you can bypass in your career. These I think truly make for good incentives to diversify character design.

ThirdWizard totally missed the point. I want to resolve social interaction primarily though dialogue. Given that that's the system I'm using and everyone knows it, it's totally fair. Saying otherwise is like saying that it's not fair that I beat you at basketball because I'm better at basketball. That's the way the contest is defined, and if you're good at it, you'll do well.

Absolutely. If that's the way you and your group want to play, that's the way you want to play. Just make sure you know it is not the only one and when you ever game with a new group you are open in communicating that preference. Waiting until those interactions come up in play can lead to potentially dissatisfied players. That's all I've ever promoted and to promote the idea that using Level 2 abstraction as a possible resolution mechanism that doesn't have to detract from the game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bluffing guards:
LEVEL 1: PC - I bluff to the guard. DM - Umm, what are you trying to tell him?
LEVEL 2: PC - I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. DM - Okay, roll your bluff and I'll roll the guard's sense motive and we'll make up a dialogue that works.
LEVEL 3: PC - "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"

I think a point that's being overlooked in the discussion of the Level 2 mechanic is the last clause of the DM's reply - 'and we'll make up a dialogue that works'.

It's not necessarily a case of "I bluff along these lines", roll, resolve; there's a step after the roll and before the resolution where the roleplaying takes place.

I see this scene as playing out in a few ways, depending on rolls.

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... ooh, 23!
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"
DM: "Urk - yessir!" The guard gets out of the way and snaps to attention.

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... ooh, 23!
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<unconvincingly> I'm the city inspector... I mean, I'm from his office, and I need to go in there. So, you know, let me in, or I'll call the militia."
PC2: City guard. They don't have a militia.
PC: Whatever. "Or I'll call the city guard."
DM: Dude, that's so not a 23. But anyway - "Urk - yessir!" The guard gets out of the way and snaps to attention.

In both cases, the 23 is what determines the result, whether the player is good at scaring guardsmen or not. Maybe the second player here is trying his hardest, which we can't fault him for. Maybe he's just lazy and can't be bothered with the social interactions, which makes him less enjoyable to play with. But either way, the character rolled a 23...

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... er. A 6.
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"
DM: You call that a 6? You convinced me, but I'm afraid Grignr didn't quite pull it off. "Inspector's office? I'll have to see your orders, friend."

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... er. A 6.
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<unconvincingly> I'm the city inspector... I mean, I'm from his office, and I need to go in there. So, you know, let me in, or I'll call the militia."
PC2: City guard. They don't have a militia.
PC: Yeah, I know. I hate that d20.
DM: Yeah, that's about a 6, all right. "Inspector's office? I'll have to see your orders, friend."

Again, it's the 6 that determines the result. The first player here is failing to portray his character accurately - by delivering a believable, solid bluff to represent his 6, he's being a bad roleplayer. The second player, deliberately incorporating flaws in his speech and making it unconvincing, is playing the role appropriately.

-Hyp.

 

[DamionW]

Good point Hyp. Thanks for the input.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Overall I think it's been clarified that much of this debate can be left to the area of personal preference and these type of interactions can be resolved in whatever manner the group wants. The key is just to have that resolution mechanism discussed and in the open from the beginning. However, because I like intellectual discourse, I'll respond to a few points...

This has been a good discussion for me because I've been working on and off on coming up with some social mechanics that works for me. As you've probably guessed, the current one doesn't. I've been able to get some good insights from others as well as clarify my own position to myself. Anyway, on to the discussion ...

Sometimes the problem isn't talking in character. The problem is convincing an NPC in character. As I've stated, I'm not new to roleplaying and I do enjoy 1st person exchanges and developing my character's identity. However, I will never be as persuasive as a 15+ CHA 5+ Bluff/Diplomacy type of character should be. I am simply not capable of maintaining suspension of disbelief, inputting the dialogue coming from the DM's roleplaying, formatting a persuasive response and then translating it into first person dialogue for my character. The skills needed to role-play in first person speech are different than those needed to be persuasive and convincing. That's why I always advocate that there should be some form of dice mechanic to drive a dialogue where an NPC is used as an obstacle. For example, you can determine the basic premise of your bluff/diplomacy/intimidate attempt, roll to see how bad or how well you succeed, and then have a first person exchange that matches that rough estimate of who persuades who. I've never advocated that first person exchanges should be removed, only that making them a deciding factor can leave a lot of character design not utilized.

Sure, staying in character and being persuausive at the same time is tough, but, hey that's part of the fun. As you say, you probably won't ever be as persuasive as the guy who get +20 on his check, but when checking for success, I don't expect that. If you come up with a really good argument for a regular person I'll probably judge that you succeed. If I were using the skill, I'd probably do it like this "You made a good case, that's +7, your skill is 14, for a total of 21. I set the TN at 20, so he's persuaded" Or include a random element, whatever.

Fortune at the start mechanics such as you suggest have never appealed to me. If I'm doing something in-game, I want it to affect what's happening. Roleplaying an interaction when I already know how things will turn out seems like a waste of time.

My question for you if you felt cheated because you couldn't succeed with your great argument is: "What did you risk?" If I spend my character design in CHA and CHA-based abilities, that is character "capital" that hasn't been spent elswhere. That 16 CHA could sure improve my hp if I put it in CON instead. Picking the Persuasive feat is a big difference from picking Dodge or Enlarge Spell, or any other feat. If you as a player just happen to be good at creating a lie or negotiation and running with it no matter what the other person says, you give up nothing. You can use that skill whether your character is Grom the powerful fighter, Nicademus the cloistered wizard, Griznar the savage barbarian or whatever character you make. All you have to do is change your tone of voice and choose a modified chain of dialogue to portray. But did you lose anything for that? Is your character less capable in one area to gain the advantage of bypassing NPCs through convincing speech? If not, than how are you cheated?

What I did was waste time and effort on an attempt that couldn't succeed while the other guy succeeded without any such expenditure. I guess I value such personal resources over character resources. This is probably just an issue of clarifying expectation ahead of time. If I knew that mechanics would determine results ahead of time, I'd be fine with that, but I wouldn't put any effort into dialogue either.

I agree about incentives, but I think you're missing a few things. To resolve an NPC's attitude to solely the limits of what a player can convincingly deliver in first person, what incentive is that really giving? If I know I just have to improve my personal oratory and improvizational skills in order to talk an NPC into changing their minds, what incentives are there to explore non-combat oriented characters? Choosing charismatic abilities quickly lose their incentive if they can never exceed the player's limits of charisma. Throwing a fireball as a wizard or performing a great cleave have some very high-fideilty, tangible incentives for the player to choose those for their character.

Imagine this if you will: If those heroics represent the martial and arcane capabilities to exceed the player's abilities meta-game, imagine a character designed to exceed a meta-game mortal in oratory abilities. Instead of locking a rogue into picking feats and skills to maximize their flanking and sneak attack capacity, instead the rogue's player is incentivized to grow their diplomacy ranks and the number of languages they speak. Each extra language opens a whole new realm of intelligent beings to use their guile and their ever-present force of will on. Imagine a level 12 character who has focused on charismatic abilities so efficiently that their Diplomacy checks are able to out-bargain a devil at its game. Would that be feasible for a player to do using their own vocabulary and skills? Probably not unless their oratory abilities in real life rivaled Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln. However, these characters in the game exceed our mortal limits, so if you trust the mechanics work and don't limit it to just what is exchanged in first-person speech, it opens whole new adventure hooks and character designs.

The incentive is to keep using in-game dialogue and thereby get better at it, making the game more fun. You make some good points here which basically describe why I'm trying to come up with a mechanical system I like. A pseudo-Ghandi would be fun to play, but I certainly can't do it just with RP. I'm leaning towards dialogue + skill > TN, which would provide incentive both to use persuasive dialogue and to get the skills. The thing I find unsatisfactory here is that no matter how high your skill, you still can't speak like Ghandi and won't get the satisfaction of speaking that well, only the succeses that would derive from it. I'm pretty sure there's no solution to this.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Hypersmurf:

That's a good way of including both the roleplaying and the mechanics, but there's one more thing that's important to me in resolving social interaction: if I'm doing something in-game, I want it to affect what happens. If an action has no effect on the game world I probably won't bother with it. I dislike such "fortune at the start" approaches in general.

 

[DonTadow]

I think a point that's being overlooked in the discussion of the Level 2 mechanic is the last clause of the DM's reply - 'and we'll make up a dialogue that works'.

It's not necessarily a case of "I bluff along these lines", roll, resolve; there's a step after the roll and before the resolution where the roleplaying takes place.

I see this scene as playing out in a few ways, depending on rolls.

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... ooh, 23!
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"
DM: "Urk - yessir!" The guard gets out of the way and snaps to attention.

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... ooh, 23!
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<unconvincingly> I'm the city inspector... I mean, I'm from his office, and I need to go in there. So, you know, let me in, or I'll call the militia."
PC2: City guard. They don't have a militia.
PC: Whatever. "Or I'll call the city guard."
DM: Dude, that's so not a 23. But anyway - "Urk - yessir!" The guard gets out of the way and snaps to attention.

In both cases, the 23 is what determines the result, whether the player is good at scaring guardsmen or not. Maybe the second player here is trying his hardest, which we can't fault him for. Maybe he's just lazy and can't be bothered with the social interactions, which makes him less enjoyable to play with. But either way, the character rolled a 23...

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... er. A 6.
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"
DM: You call that a 6? You convinced me, but I'm afraid Grignr didn't quite pull it off. "Inspector's office? I'll have to see your orders, friend."

PC: I'm going to try to bluff the guard into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. Bluff check... er. A 6.
DM: Go on, then.
PC: "<unconvincingly> I'm the city inspector... I mean, I'm from his office, and I need to go in there. So, you know, let me in, or I'll call the militia."
PC2: City guard. They don't have a militia.
PC: Yeah, I know. I hate that d20.
DM: Yeah, that's about a 6, all right. "Inspector's office? I'll have to see your orders, friend."

Again, it's the 6 that determines the result. The first player here is failing to portray his character accurately - by delivering a believable, solid bluff to represent his 6, he's being a bad roleplayer. The second player, deliberately incorporating flaws in his speech and making it unconvincing, is playing the role appropriately.

-Hyp.

I approach npc interaction differently to avoid these scenerios. I hate using words like intimidate, bluff and diplomacy during game. I ask my players to role play first, then tell me what their rolling for (or i tell them what the roll would be). This way the scenerio goes like this

PC: (unconvincely) Um.. I am from the city guard... militia i mean.. let us in or i will smite you in some god's name (roll 23)
DM: The city guard looks at and his eyes glare into yours as if he is attempting to see the truth behind them. "Ah, you must be new, we call them guardsmen here. Carry on".

The roll has nothing to do with what is being said, it has to do with how convincing you are trying to say it. Second scenerio
PC: " "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!" Roll 6
DM: His voice bellows louder than yours" I'm not sure where the hell you're from, but you best lower your voice and turn around before my blade finds itself between your ribs. I have strict orders to not let anyone by and that includes you."

Again you have the role playing (which is prominent) and then the roll to see if the npc was intimidated.

 

[Voadam]

I agree about incentives, but I think you're missing a few things. To resolve an NPC's attitude to solely the limits of what a player can convincingly deliver in first person, what incentive is that really giving? If I know I just have to improve my personal oratory and improvizational skills in order to talk an NPC into changing their minds, what incentives are there to explore non-combat oriented characters? Choosing charismatic abilities quickly lose their incentive if they can never exceed the player's limits of charisma. Throwing a fireball as a wizard or performing a great cleave have some very high-fideilty, tangible incentives for the player to choose those for their character.

The incentives are to actually first person roleplay interactions, not to design characters mechanically a certain way. This also means that mechanics will not be a limitation on roleplaying. The incentive from having roleplay determine interactions and not mechanics and dice is to encourage first person roleplaying and have players deal with the reactions to their roleplaying.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The incentives are to actually first person roleplay interactions, not to design characters mechanically a certain way. This also means that mechanics will not be a limitation on roleplaying. The incentive from having roleplay determine interactions and not mechanics and dice is to encourage first person roleplaying and have players deal with the reactions to their roleplaying.

In other words, the incentive is to make Charisma a dump stat and show off your theatrics in game despite the character's low charisma, which indicates an inability to influence others.