D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[Mallus]

IMO using the mechanics is more authentic because it forces the evolving social interaction to be tied to the role and not the player.

That's just not a big priority for me. I don't care if Bob plays his elf 'right'. I'm much more concerned that Bob is an engaged player.

It is not roleplaying unless you are in the character's role rather than just beign yourself.

I don't agree with this at all. I can be pretty theatrical when it comes to D&D, funny voices and all (but no costumes worn to sessions, thank god), but in the end it's a game a not a piece of theater. If a player derives pleasure from immersing themselves in their created role, terrific. If not, equally terrific. They are a lot of ways to play.

I've seen people do great drama scenes. But I wouldn't say they were roleplaying for crap because they were completely ignoring the parameters of the character they were supposed to be portraying.

I just can't get behind any definition of role-playing that equates the making of 'great dramatic scenes' with 'crap role-playing'. What the goal again? Is it the playing of roles without regard to whether they're actually fun, enjoyable for the player and the rest of the folks around the table ? Is that Method RPG'ing?

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

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.

If you ruun a game with a lot of combat encounters, like one set in an enormous dungeon filled mostly with mindless undead, it would be tantamount to ask a player whose character is weak in the combat department to sit out of the game, as well.

If your game is heavily slanted towards social situations, then the characters should be slanted to handle that. If a player consciously decides to go against the grain, as it were, and specifically build a character lacking in those skills, then he should feel the consequences of his choices.

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.

Frankly, I don't really care about dump stats, as well. If Bullroarer Burpingbelly wants to have rubbish CHA, then by Jove, he should have rubbish CHA. However, ignoring a character's flaws because it's not "fun" for the player is preposterous -- you might as well give the character a 18/18/17/16/14/14 attribute array.

What I would do, if I didn't think a player knew better, is sit down with the them and say: I find it a little strange that Bullroarer would be able to pull a credible impersonation of Cary Grant, you know? Maybe you'd like to review some things about the character's concept? and then work it out. Otherwise, I'd tell them that they knew there'd be social situations in the game, so why didn't they take that into consideration in character creation?

Of course, if I want a game to have a dominant theme, like intrigue, sea voyages, or the Undead, I had darn well make sure that the players know that when they're building their characters. This way, they won't need to sit out of anything if they don't want...

 

[Stalker0]

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.

I'm playing a low charisma character in a high social game, and I have to disagree with you strongly. Low charisma doesn't mean that you sit out, you have to try harder.

For example, my group often gets invited to special gatherings. Not me. That doesn't mean I just sit down and cross my arms, it means I have to go around and try to find a way to get an invitation, by hook or by crook. Sometimes I play silent, other times I say rude or unnerving comments. Sometimes I have the fun of getting thrown out of bars (literally!!)

But I SHOULD be penalized for having that low charisma. I'm having fun with it, but there are times it hurts me. But I have an incredible int score, and as an archivist that's a big benefit.

Playing a low charisma doesn't mean you have to sit back in the corner all the time, but it doesn't mean you get to talk with the lovely princess with everyone else, sometimes you get thrown in with the servants and have to deal with them.

 

[buzz]

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.

I don't know squat about literary deconstruction; it's bee a while since I got my English degree. All I can say is that I've found the resulting conversation in the Duel of Wits to be extremely satisfying, far more so than purely performing for the DM. Things will often end up in unanticipated ways, and, IMO, that makes for truly rewarding, collaborative story-creation.

That said, if your group finds a more freeform, negotiation-based method to be rewarding, you keep doing it. You can always put aside the social combat rules. I'm just glad to see that D&D will be addressing this aspect of roleplaying and getting more in line with current RPG design.

 

[buzz]

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.

Yes, TSOY is a great example of a simple implementation of this sort of conflict resolution, as is Spirit of the Century. Both are great "crossover" RPGs for gamers who want to get a taste of new-school conflict resolution mechanics.

 

[Mallus]

If your game is heavily slanted towards social situations, then the characters should be slanted to handle that.

I prefer to accommodate players. I'm not so interested in telling them what to play --outside of the few broad parameters. Besides, it's interesting to watch the 'wrong' characters stumble around like bulls in an enchanted china shop.

If a player consciously decides to go against the grain, as it were, and specifically build a character lacking in those skills, then he should feel the consequences of his choices.

In all seriousness, why? How does that make the game more enjoyable? Again, I'm out to entertain my players, not teach them the consequences of wanting to play the game with the character of their choosing. Hence, I seek to accommodate, and after that, encourage participation during actual play.

However, ignoring a character's flaws because it's not "fun" for the player is preposterous -- you might as well give the character a 18/18/17/16/14/14 attribute array.

Some PC's in my current campaign come pretty close to that array...

To clarify, I'm only talking about ignoring a character's flaws on occasion, and specifically with regard to player participation in planning or social encounters. I wouldn't let someone do it all the time.

Maybe you'd like to review some things about the character's concept? and then work it out.

It's simpler to just acknowledge that the character is as smooth as Cary Grant on occasion. I'm a huge fan of simple.

Otherwise, I'd tell them that they knew there'd be social situations in the game, so why didn't they take that into consideration in character creation?

I can think of a number of reasons why not, the simplest being that the player didn't have a firm idea of their characters personality at the start of the game. Or they did, and then decided to change it. Or that even though they enjoying playing a certain type of character most of the time, sometimes they like to break out of that (consistency being the 2 hit die hobgoblin of little minds and all that...).

It my experience that 'going with the flow' leads to a more fun game. You could say my DM'ing philosophy is best summed up by the classic scene in Animal House, where Bluto gives a moving, yet factually incorrect speech invoking the German attack on Pearl Harbor, which is to say, more often than not when confronted with a player's actions don't neatly match up to their characters abilities, I say 'Forget in, he's rolling'.

 

[Mallus]

All I can say is that I've found the resulting conversation in the Duel of Wits to be extremely satisfying, far more so than purely performing for the DM.

You make it sound like a seal performing for a fish. Which, if it felt like that, would explain why you'd want a more codified resolution system for handling social interaction.

It may be time for me to ask my group if make them feel all seal-like.

Things will often end up in unanticipated ways, and, IMO, that makes for truly rewarding, collaborative story-creation.

I'm all for better collaborative story-creation (for a DM who's fond of fiat, I distribute a lot of narrative authority to the players in my game). And I'm anxious to try both BW and SotC. The question is when and under what GM.

I'm just glad to see that D&D will be addressing this aspect of roleplaying and getting more in line with current RPG design.

Despite my misgivings, I'm curious to see what the designers come up with for 4th ed. It would be nice to have a better set of social rules that can periodically implement in my campaign

 

[BryonD]

That's just not a big priority for me. I don't care if Bob plays his elf 'right'. I'm much more concerned that Bob is an engaged player.


I don't agree with this at all.

But that is roleplaying by its very defintion.

I can be pretty theatrical when it comes to D&D, funny voices and all (but no costumes worn to sessions, thank god), but in the end it's a game a not a piece of theater. If a player derives pleasure from immersing themselves in their created role, terrific. If not, equally terrific. They are a lot of ways to play.

You don't have to role play to have fun. But if you are not playing the role the you are not role playing.

I just can't get behind any definition of role-playing that equates the making of 'great dramatic scenes' with 'crap role-playing'. What the goal again? Is it the playing of roles without regard to whether they're actually fun, enjoyable for the player and the rest of the folks around the table ? Is that Method RPG'ing?

No no no.
I did not say that great dramatic scenes are equated to crap role playing.
I said that it is crap role playing if it isn't being the character.
And that is true regardless of great drama or crap drama.

Obviously you don't care about being in a certain character. That is fine and I won't take the slightest issue with that. It is easy enough to pick a role that is fun and then build and play THAT role. But if you build a character that is one thing and then play it another way, then you may be doing a wonderfully fun thing that is exactly what you want out of D&D. But you are not roleplaying. Honestly, suggesting that they not be fun is an absurd misrepresentation of my point.

I want roleplaying. I want actual by the defintion roleplaying.
So we are not going to see the same things as good since we are looking for different ends.
But, since D&D is a roleplaying game, I think my objective is more in line with what it is aiming for.

 

[apoptosis]

Yes, TSOY is a great example of a simple implementation of this sort of conflict resolution, as is Spirit of the Century. Both are great "crossover" RPGs for gamers who want to get a taste of new-school conflict resolution mechanics.

I love Burning Wheel but I found that it was too rules heavy for my group. TSOY ended up being a good game that has great conflict resolution with minimal rules set; It really takes a while to understand the coolness of the damage tracker, it really stumped me at first as how can a system that equates all damage (physical, emotional, social etc.) until I really started thinking in terms of stakes and goals.

I havent played SotC but have wanted to.

I have really started to enjoy conflict resolution systems, it will be a shame that when they go to 4E that they dont use them more in the rules. On the other hand I am aware that many people who have tried and used the conflict resolution systems simply do not prefer them to the classic type of resolution systems.

 

[buzz]

I love Burning Wheel but I found that it was too rules heavy for my group.

I'd give the same advice about BW that people often give about GURPS: BW is like a cow; you cannot eat the whole thing at once. Just take the cuts you need.* The BW book itself advises this as well. If you ever play in one of Luke Crane's BW demos at GenCon or elsewhere, you'll notice that he does not bust out the detailed conflict rules all that often, especially with large groups. Once you've got them under your belt, though, they're really fun. I think so at least. Still, I know that it doesn't appeal to everyone.

SotC I cannot recommend enough. Funnest RPG evar!

* Original GURPS version of this was coined by Dr. Rotwang! on RPG.net, iirc.