D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[olshanski]

Are there any examples of what social combat looks like? (I don't have the inclination to purchase new gaming systems just to see if they have a social combat system). {sorry about the simul-post with the one above.. still, more examples would be appreciated}

I am very interested in this discussion.

I did like the diplomacy check as a way of resolving negotiations, but part of me really missed the whole roleplaying dialogue and getting into character. It could be that as a DM I wasn't going to force my players to get into character to gain an arbitrary +2 bonus on a check.... The fact that a socially inept player could roleplay a bard with a +30 Diplomacy modifier didn't really add to the game... now you've got a player that can barely string together a sentance while looking you in the eye trying to negotiate peace between two kingdoms... I don't know if providing the opportunity for a real-life wallflower to play a suave, charismatic courtier is really a great benefit. Perhaps another player is really outgoing, but has chosen to play a barbarian... he has to sit by during any social interaction.

Many games work fine by rewarding players for their own real-life strengths. There is nothing fair about trivial pursuit or bridge.

In 3.5 D&D, A player who is mathematically inclined and reads a lot of rules is probably going to be better in combat than another player who is not so good with rules. I believe that in most cases with 3.5, a 10th level character should always be superior to a nearly identical 9th level character, but in truth, if you let a very experienced player run the 9th level character he will be a better combatant than the 10th level character in the hands of an inexperienced player.

Are they going to make rules with 4E so that a new and inexperienced player is going to be just as effective as an experienced and knowledgable player at the same character level? If both players are using a 15th level fighter, are the two fighters going to be identical in all ways, or will the experienced and mathematically inclined player be able to exploit feats (select the right time to power attack or grapple) in order to make his character more effective?

If you can agree that identical characters are going to be more or less effective in combat based on the aptitude and abilities of the players, then why is social interaction somehow treated differently? Why must the playing field be level for social interaction?

Do D&D designers want to punish the social players by not allowing them to use their gifts for conversation unless they make certain choices in character development? (you can argue that the +2 modifier for convincing roleplaying is a nod toward acknowledging that some players simply have a greater chance at success).

 

[buzz]

Do D&D designers want to punish the social players by not allowing them to use their gifts for conversation unless they make certain choices in character development?

It's not about punishing anyone. It's about avoiding railroading and bullying, and about creating rules that make the game more fun. That system mastery will play a factor is part and parcel of D&D. Just because the socially apt player has to interface with the system doesn't mean that they still won't get to shine.

EDIT: And, remember, it's not like you roll dice every time the player wants their PC to talk to someone. If there's no conflict, there's no need to roll dice.

 

[Fenes]

We do fine with rolling a skill check before or after playing out a scene/dialogue. It makes skills and stats matter, but also gives room for creativity.

 

[drquestion]

Are there any examples of what social combat looks like?

Do you mean something like an actual play example? Here's a thread from the burning wheel boards describing a campaign that I took part in (I played Rodrigo, the social guy):
http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2001&highlight=duel+of+wits

Posts 1 and 9 describe the play sessions, and both have a duel of wits. Note that, in both, my character is the main participant, but the other characters step in to help, or in the second one, gang up against me (I still won!), so they've got stuff to do.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

(snip)
The fact that a socially inept player could roleplay a bard with a +30 Diplomacy modifier didn't really add to the game... now you've got a player that can barely string together a sentance while looking you in the eye trying to negotiate peace between two kingdoms... I don't know if providing the opportunity for a real-life wallflower to play a suave, charismatic courtier is really a great benefit. Perhaps another player is really outgoing, but has chosen to play a barbarian... he has to sit by during any social interaction.

If the player is really outgoing but has chosen to play a barbarian use CHA for a dump stat, they should sit by during any social interaction, just as the player who chose to play a wizard use STR for a dump stat should sit by when the characters are trying to bash doors open. Or, hey, they should, but shouldn't expect to be successful most of the time.

In other words, if the character concept includes "bad in social situations" -- as indicated by low INT, WIS, and/or CHA -- then they should be relegated to a support role. The characters whose concept includes "bad in combat situations" -- as indicated by low STR, DEX and/or CON -- should be relegated to a support role in combat, as well.

In 3.5 D&D, A player who is mathematically inclined and reads a lot of rules is probably going to be better in combat than another player who is not so good with rules. (...) Are they going to make rules with 4E so that a new and inexperienced player is going to be just as effective as an experienced and knowledgable player at the same character level? If both players are using a 15th level fighter, are the two fighters going to be identical in all ways, or will the experienced and mathematically inclined player be able to exploit feats (select the right time to power attack or grapple) in order to make his character more effective?

If you can agree that identical characters are going to be more or less effective in combat based on the aptitude and abilities of the players, then why is social interaction somehow treated differently? Why must the playing field be level for social interaction?

Do D&D designers want to punish the social players by not allowing them to use their gifts for conversation unless they make certain choices in character development? (you can argue that the +2 modifier for convincing roleplaying is a nod toward acknowledging that some players simply have a greater chance at success).

You're comparing two different things, here. The player who is more experienced at combat is the one who's better at understanding his options and deciding the best move for the situation, and not the one who's county champion in fencing. By a similar token, the player who is more experienced at social interaction should be the one who's better at understanding his options and deciding the best move for the situation, and not the one who's inter-school debate club champion. Do D&D designers want to punish the fencing players by not allowing them to use their gifts for wielding a sword unless they make certain choices in character development?

If social resolution was like 2e "I hit. I hit again." combat, you'd have a valid point. On the other hand, if social combat rules end up at least half as tactically interesting as mêlée combat is in Bo9S (arguably a preview for the 4e mêlée system), there's plenty of space for players to become good social players, maximising their characters' abilities, just like regular combat does.

 

[Mallus]

The following is how they might work a la Burning Wheel... snip

Thanks for the example, buzz.

If that's the way BW's Duel of Wits plays out, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy it. Sounds too intrusive. It's like a deconstruction of an actual conversation, which, in a way, is exactly what it is. A deconstruction done not as critical inquiry, rather as a way of quantifying social interaction into a game-friendly form.

The thing about literary deconstruction is, the process usually has the unintended consequence of rendering the deconstructed text unsatisfying. Busted. No longer capable of fulfilling its original function. Which sounds like the case with the Burning Wheel.

What you're left with a better game and a worse conversation. Which isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to social encounters in an RPG. That said, I like idea of explicitly setting the stakes, but I'd rather do that informally, outside of a system that dissects social interaction into a less enjoyable --for me--, more abstracted and tactical form.

But I'm still game to try Burning Wheel, and I may get a chance this fall when after a friend who's more deeply steeped in the indie RPG scene moves to Philly...

 

[Mallus]

If the player is really outgoing but has chosen to play a barbarian use CHA for a dump stat, they should sit by during any social interaction

If you run a game with a lot of social encounters, say one set in an enormous city, where even the monsters talk --a lot--, one that has no dungeon crawling component to speak of, that's tantamount to asking the low CHA player to sit out of the game, to not contribute.

That's the last thing I want to encourage a player to do.

Personally, I really couldn't care less about issues like dump-statting. I'm far more interested in promoting lively, active, and engaged play from everyone at the table. If that means the INT 8 barbarian occasionally comes up with a genius plan, or the CHR 7 wizard is sometimes as charming as Cary Grant, so be it.

As DM, I've never enjoyed players 'sitting out' of a situation.

 

[apoptosis]

Thanks for the example, buzz.

If that's the way BW's Duel of Wits plays out, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy it. It reads like a deconstruction of an actual conversation, which, in a way, is exactly what it is. A deconstruction done not as critical inquiry, rather as a way of quantifying social interaction into a game-friendly form.

Unfortunately, as with literary deconstruction, the process usually has the unintended consequence of rendering the deconstructed text unsatisfying. Busted. No longer capable of fulfilling its original function.

What you're left with a better game and a worse conversation. Which isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to social encounters in an RPG. That said, I like idea of explicitly setting the stakes, but I'd rather do that informally, outside of a system that dissects social interaction into a less enjoyable --for me--, more abstracted form.

But I'm still game to try Burning Wheel, and I may get a chance this fall when after a friend who's more deeply steeped in the indie RPG scene moves to Philly...

Burning wheel is a very tactical game so its Duel of Wits is a very tactical endeavor. Another example would be Shadow of Yesterday. Social combat is JUST like physical combat. It does not have the same tactics as in Burning Wheel but it does use stake setting. In that game you both set your stakes and the winner get his stake (simple die comparison, uses FUDGE dice). But if you really want to win the social combat you can then Bring Down the Pain which then breaks social combat into a more granular style.

Hard to explain via post, but it is a nice system that is simple and makes social conflict interesting. The really interesting part of it is that if you decide in the middle of the social confilct that you are just going to skewer your opponenent with you sword and not your tongue then the social damage carries over into physical damage (all damage is on one damage tracker).

Apop

 

[Mallus]

weird double post, grrr!

 

[Mallus]

Burning wheel is a very tactical game so its Duel of Wits is a very tactical endeavor.

I agree that it sounds interesting. But it also sound like a system like that would offer me one pleasure at the expense of another, making it at best a trade-off.

Social encounters in the game I'm currently running are plenty tactical. They proceed my mix of of the D&D RAW, DM Fiat, and something like Group Fiat, where the whole table gets their say evaluating how the NPC's will respond to a giving PC's social tactic. So far this has worked like a charm.

The really interesting part of it is that if you decide in the middle of the social confilct that you are just going to skewer your opponenent with you sword and not your tongue then the social damage carries over into physical damage (all damage is on one damage tracker).

Of course, that's just brilliant. Would have been perfect mechanic for a PC in my current game.