3e requires players to sink resources in socially-adept PCs as they level. A CHA 15 AD&D fighter is always charismatic. A CHA 15 3e fighter is kinda-sorta charismatic, but requires careful grooming as they level in order to be capable as both face and fighter (and 3e makes this specific type needlessly difficult to create).
I was thinking of action resolution rather than PC build. I agree that it is hard to recreate the high CHA fighter in 3E (likewise, though to a lesser extent, in 4e - though arguably that's a deliberate design feature, to open up space for the warlord).
AD&D's reaction rolls happen right at the start of an encounter (I think). They set the initial attitude of the NPCs, before the players do anything. So you could say they set the base difficulty.
3e social skill checks occur in response to player speech/action. So they provide explicit pass/fail branching during the encounter.
It's a while since I've run or played AD&D, but what you say sounds right. Although I think I may have expected the PCs to at least talk for a bit before the reaction result was cemented - how else is the CHA meant to come into play? And other factors that play into reaction/loyalty/morale, like the reasonableness of any offer? (I used to use a version of the system that was published in a mid-80s Dragon - maybe #99 or thereabouts? - that combined the modifiers scattered throught the DMG into one handy set of charts based on a d20 rather than a d%.)
Out of curiosity - why? Doesn't this place more emphasis on a player's character building skills and die rolls than their live play around the table?
For the same reason as you give in your reply to Hussar:
if, during a session, I'm about to hand out a "whacking great bonus" (nice phrase, BTW), I'd probably just forgo the roll. A that point, I don't need the system to determine the result. I've already (mostly) decided (by virtue of assigning the big bonus).
Agreed. If the play at the table settles the matter, there is no need to roll (say yes or roll the dice).
Conversely, however, if the dice are to be rolled, then the dice should matter, in which case I prefer to keep bonuses modest.
Does this place more emphasis on PC-build? Yes and no. If you build your PC as a Bluff and Intimidate machine, I prefer that such a PC
should play differently from a PC who is build as a Diplomat. Such a PC
should come acrross as manipulative, insincere and (perhaps) shallow.
The player of such a PC has an incentive, then, to try to affect situations so that (for example) lying, rather than honest conciliation, will be the better strategy (or at least a viable one). Much like the player of an archer has an incentive to try to affect combat situations such that ranged combat is viable.
In both cases, the build shapes the parameters for the exercise of player skill in play. The interesting thing about social builds, however, compared to combat builds, is that they are more likely to lead to the players trying to shape siutuations in different directions, which I think can add to the tension at the table.
I'm not questioning whether words+(good) system can produce interesting and satisfying results. It's just that I'm after a particular kind of satisfaction; "winning" on the strength of what I (or my players) actually say.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if their are interesting consequences for solving/not-solving the riddle. What matters, where the fun is, is the act of solving the riddle.
I'm not quite sure what you see as the analogue, in social encounters, of "solving the riddle" (I assume that we're not, here, talking about "what's the password?" or "what's the polite form of greeting in Nyrond?" encounters).
I use two sorts of die-based action resolution in my 4e game. I use simple checks when a PC says something hoping to trick, or threaten, or calm, or befriend someone, and it is not obvious what the result of that attempt should be (eg will the cultist spill the beans, or is s/he so fanatical that s/he'll take her/his secrets to the grave?). A check against the appropriate DC gives the answer. If, due to some factor such as (i) knowing the personality of the NPC, and/or (ii) the words actually spoken for the PC by the player, the result is obvious, then no die roll is needed. (For this second sort of assessment I will have regard to the PC's skill bonuses - for example, even if a player delivers some words somewhat haltingly, if they're intended as a threat and the PC is trained in Intimidate I will assume that in the gameworld the words have been uttered in a menacing fashion.)
The second sort of resolution system is the skill challenge. The function of skill checks, in this system (at least as I use it) is to trigger the introduction of complications until the challenge comes to an end. If a check succeeds, the complication builds on things going the player's way. If a check fails, the complication builds on things going against the player (perhaps failure of task, but more likely failure of intent - eg you persuade the baron of your sincerity, but he responds in a different way from that which you hoped/expected).
In this sort of system, the words uttered are crucial - they set the context for ensuing complications - and the actual checks work more at the metagame level, pushing the scene one way or another until it reaches its resolution.
I find that using this sort of approach has at least three payoffs for my game. One, it helps make social conflicts fill "space" at the table, in something like the way that combat tends to by default. Two, it produces unexpected outcomes and compromises. Because of the system of structured introduction of complications, the players
have to have their PCs keep saying things - and new things - which means that strategies and goals evolve over the course of the resolution (this is a function, in part, of the creation of "space"). Third, it means I don't have any problem of only the party "face-man" speaking. If the complications in a situation mean that (for instance) the dwarven warpriest is going to look like an idiot unless he says something, then he
will speak, even if the die roll is likely to fail (and hence produce a players-adverse rather than player-favouring consequence). This third consequence also relates to what I said above, about the players having an incentive to shape situations to suit their builds - suddenly the whole table becomes involved in trying to set up a situation in which the dwarven warpriest can avoid looking like an idiot, and yet not be having to make checks that will fail and drag the whole party down. (A somewhat analogouse dynamic to that of keeping the MU safe in combat.) And when this is taking place, what is said will matter (there's a big difference, for example, between (i) saying that Lord Derrik the warpriest of Moradin is to hoarse too speak, or (ii) saying that Lord Derrik does not deign to speak to his lessers, or (iii) setting up a physical situation in which Derrik only has to speak a couple of lines, and those lines can be fed to him by his handlers).
Obviously, as you and Hussar already noted, this is largely if not completely a matter of taste, but I find I'm getting much better - and, more importantly, better "whole of table" - social dynamics using this sort of system, then I have got in the past out of more free-form style. (There seems to be at least a 3rd style out there, of using die rolls in place of actually engaging the fiction. I have never used such a system, and in my view it is not about action resolution at all - it is about "scene framing" - in effect, the player who, when told that his/her PC meets a stranger, says "I roll Diplomacy" is saying to the GM "I want to reframe this scene from a meeting with a neutral or hostile stranger to a meeting with a friendly or devoted stranger".)
I've *yet* to play Burning Wheel... perhaps this year. The Duel of Wits sounds fascinating, I'd love to see what it produces with my gaming group. Does BW handle satire well?
I haven't played Burning Wheel, but hope to in the future. I use the books to guide my 4e GMing - I think both the core BW rulebooks, and the Adventure Burner, are better guides for the 4e GM than most of what WotC has produced. There are at least 4 key ideas that I use: Say yes or roll the dice (although admittedly BW cribs this from Dogs in the Vineyard); Let it Ride; favouring Intent over Task when adjudicating failed checks; and focusing on stakes and compromise when adjudicating social skill challenges.
As to whether BW handles satire, I'm not sure but would say "perhaps, with some drifting". It is written to be played fairly seriously. For a satirical game in which social confilct resolution is at the core, I would check out The Dying Earth.
Parity would be too much. We don't really need that level of mechanics in social interaction. But, the current level isn't enough, again IMO. I want a solid mechanical framework to work with.
