PDA

View Full Version : Social Conflict Mechanics - An Examination and an Inquiry



Neon Knight
2011-05-25, 11:46 AM
Rules for "social combat" or otherwise mediating and resolving social encounters, be they debates, arguments, or philosophical discourse are something that crop up in games frequently. They range from very simple methodologies to more elaborate subsystems. And occasionally, they are a point of contention between gamers.

Of course, different systems, being built to achieve different things, use social resolution mechanics for differing purposes for a myriad of reasons. Talking about this in a general, theoretical sense thus understandably suffers from a lack of clarity and non-universal applicability. Still, I want to try to discuss social resolution mechanics in as broad a manner as possible. Thus, please note as a disclaimer that a large number of caveats will probably apply to a number of the arguments, assertions, and statements made in this post, and in the following discussion.

At the same time, however, this is a largely personal matter, dealing with how individual beings enjoy or do not enjoy certain things about role playing games. It inevitably ends up coming back to the person responding emotionally to the events going on, and thus this discussion cannot and will not avoid anecdotes and personal opinion. Furthermore, conclusions and assertions made should not be considered as advocated objectively, as absolute, or as applying universally.

So, to begin, what is a social conflict mechanic, and why do games have them? In general, mechanics are means by which players interact with the game. When talking about social conflict mechanics, we will probably be dealing with the sort that involve, at least at some point, the generation of a random result, taking into account the modifiers brought about by the specific situation. Thus, the purpose of a social conflict resolution mechanic would be to generate a random result (while still accounting for the modifiers of the situation and setting) of the event covered by the mechanic.

Already, however, we arrive at an interesting juncture. Are social events and social interactions the sort of thing for which we want a random result generated for? The answer is complex.

From a personal standpoint, and from a general theory perspective, I am very uneasy with social conflict mechanics often because they will randomly decide the resolution of a social interaction, and thereby determine a certain facet of my character's personality with a random result. How a person reacts to social situations, arguments, persuasion attempts, and other such things are often a part of their personality, and can affect the general story or idea of the character. Furthermore, if the social resolution mechanic actually decides the decision the character will make as a result of the interaction, it begins to enter territory that I find intolerable.

And yet, at time, I do find such mechanics bearable, and even interesting and enjoyable at times. They can allow persuasive, clever, and silver tongued characters to actually feel so and achieve the results necessary to bring their concepts and reputations to life. And, contradictorily, there have been times where an unexpected and random result has led down interesting roads, and resulted in plot twists and character development that otherwise would not have occurred.

My general belief is this: the more established character, fluff, and personality that is established about the setting or individuals involved in the situation, the less a social mechanic is desirable in resolving the situation. It's a simple statement giving the great lengths this post has taken to get to this point, but there we go.

When characters are painted in broader strokes, less defined, and are in general less decided upon, social resolution mechanics can provide a result that might otherwise be hard to decide, or can provide further definition through that result. The more strongly defined and determined a character is, the less desirable a random result tends to be, even if it calculates in some of that definition and established personality into the result.

When dealing with minor characters, social resolution mechanics seem reasonable, and a welcome measure. When dealing with more established personalities, the major characters of a game or story, my unease with these mechanics begins to increase greatly.

Thus, I find it problematic when a social focused character attempts to use their abilities on a strongly defined personality, whether that be a PC or NPC. On the one hand, I feel bad not allowing the character to shine and actually use their abilities and personality. On the other hand, potentially compromising and changing the target's character or personality can, in some cases, also seem untenable. From the perspective of a player, in certain games and with certain characters, such a thing doesn't seem intolerable. Several MAID games I've been a part of were largely made great by some surprising interactions with random results... but, on the other hand, MAID is a game that is largely random by nature. This is par for course, and if the same thing were to happen in another game, like DnD, Exalted (but Exalted is a very, very particular and troublesome case, which needs its own discussion), MnM, etc.

In short, I'm hoping for some other perspectives, positions, and philosophies on/about social conflicts, their resolutions, and the mechanics sometimes used to achieve this. Examples from specific systems are welcome, as is broad theory discussion. I'm hoping to find some way that I can come up with a methodology that allows persuasive characters, PC and NPC, to be persuasive without harming the integrity of the subject of such interaction's character. Whether that is a specific mechanic, subsystem, or just a general policy, I do not care.

Do any in the Playground has wisdom in this regard? Is there no balm in Gilead?

Jude_H
2011-05-25, 11:59 AM
I think you're talking about a specific system, but generalizing to Social Conflict Mechanics in general.

It sounds like you're talking about a game modeled like d20, with wild swing, a few dice rolls unaffected by character actions or motivations and a binary pass/fail outcome. Those do have the potential to trivialize a character's personality and the tension in a negotiation.

A counterexample would be Dogs in the Vineyard. It has complex social mechanics which do incorporate randomness, but which are cued from a character's values, beliefs and experiences. Instead of coming away with a clear pass/fail outcome, one character can out-negotiate the other through game rules, but the character on the short end of the argument can typically raise the stakes by introducing another of their beliefs or experiences or by stepping up the action.

For a game that's not about talking things through, the d20 approach works fine. It quickly determines outcomes of talky scenes so players can get back to running around in caves and skinning monsters. The DitV approach might be interesting in a game about character values and negotiation, but it would be cumbersome and useless in D&D.

Totally Guy
2011-05-25, 12:37 PM
I love a good social conflict. We had one the other day in a Burning Wheel game that I ran.

The player character, Warlord Drodush had been captured by his enemy, Herzog Gawrok and her loyal demon. Both wanted to control the orcish hordes but Gawrok had seized leadership. Gawrok had Drodush before her and wanted to throw him into the dungeon.

Drodush suggested that he'd be more useful to her as a commander.

I asked if that was a social stake. The thing that would happen if he won. It was.

I then had to think of a stake for Gawrok. If I couldn't think of anything Gawrok wanted but couldn't currently get I'd have to then say that Gawrock declines to negotiate and I'd throw him in the dungeon. But I consulted my notes and saw that Gawrok had bargained with her soul to a demon. Drodush's soul would be just as good as his bloodline was as strong as hers.

I set Gawrok's stake as "You will give me your soul to prove your worth."

Now it was Drodush's player's turn. Would he rather decline and face the dungeon, or fight to be a commander and risk his soul.

He accepted. The dungeon was no longer a possible outcome. He'd leave the room a commander or soulless.

We both planned out some key things to say to get our points across and then when we were ready we let each other have it. Me saying the bits I'd planned and him saying his. We rolled dice all the way through.

Eventually Drodush won. But not without compromise. In this case the demon who had been on Gawrok's side during the ordeal had gleaned Drodush's intention of usurping Gawrok. Once they were alone the demon told him that he'd worked hard on keeping Gawrok in power for her soul, and should Drodush take power the demon would take his soul in place of hers.

Beyond explaining that Gawrok had promised her soul to a demon for his aid I had not planned for anything like this. The new situation was full of conflict that put the player character at odds with everything he'd so far defined himself to be.

Delwugor
2011-05-25, 12:39 PM
Strongly depends on the type of game I'm playing.
For dungeon crawls and heavy combat the old GM decides rule works very well.
Political, social and investigative games I like a robust system such as Burning Empire's Dual of Wits or Strands Mental Conflict.
For most games and situations one or more skill/ability checks work reasonably well.

Different social mechanics can also be done on a situational basis. For example:
Convincing the bar wench to tuck you into bed is a simple GM ruling based on charisma.
Convincing the bar owner to introduce you to the Head of the Thieves Guild gambling in the back room is a simple diplomacy/persuasion check or maybe a couple of them.
Convincing the Head of the Thieves Guild he should join you in opposing the city's oppressive Lord Mayor is a full blown DoW or Mental Conflict.

obliged_salmon
2011-05-25, 02:53 PM
If you throw dice about anything, it's because you're willing to risk something. In the case of social conflict, what you're risking is, inherently, the thoughts/opinions/persona of your character. You are subjecting him to change. This is not a bad thing. Now, you should always have the option of not throwing dice, of backing down, or of ramping things up to violence. But if you're having a duel of wits with the big bad, you should be able to convince him to halt his evil plans (if you win), at risk of him convincing you to support him (if you lose). That's my opinion. Why should the stakes be any less important or binding than those of a combat?

Totally Guy
2011-05-25, 03:15 PM
But if you're having a duel of wits with the big bad, you should be able to convince him to halt his evil plans (if you win), at risk of him convincing you to support him (if you lose).

We've done that before. It was a draw!

The hero, Bob Sporrington, a bumbling wizard, wanted the big bad to stop his plan.
The big bad, Mordak, the hero's former mentor wanted the wizard to aid him as a fellow wizard.

The result of a draw was that Mordak would work together with Bob to make a magic moral compass to stop Mordak from losing his way. When not on that task Mordak would continue the evil scheme unmolested. Only the moral compass would stop him from following through with it.

The saddest thing was that as soon as the compass was completed Mordak was killed by a giant magic proof scarab that the other players had released up his tower. He was so close to his redemption...

Aux-Ash
2011-05-25, 03:51 PM
In my meaning, success or failure of a social conflict should not hinge on a single skill check. Just like physical conflict should not hinge on a single skill check.

Rather it should be a challange for the players to overcome, with some tactics, some skill and perhaps even some equipment. The players should have some goal and some obstacles to overcome in these situations.

In order to talk someone over to your side you should have to rely on several techniques (smooth talking, bribing, intimidating, convincing, impressing, promising, deceit, lies and so on). Maybe have the character with the silver tounge convince someone and have the massive thug chip in with a subtle threat of what would happen if the npc betrayed their trust. Making it a cooperative effort the entire party should be able to participate in and affect.

Similarily, magic and such should be allowed to influence but not control these situations.

I'd also say that every character one interacts with should have a few core values that cannot be changed. You shouldn't be able to convince staunch monarchists to topple the monarchy, mothers to sell their children into slavery, people to toss themselves off cliffs for no reason and so on.

Partial successes or failures should also be possible. You might not be able to convince the guard to abandon his post, but maybe he'll just look away (or perhaps just not report you).

I think that could enrichen many rpg's social side quite a deal.

Arbane
2011-05-26, 02:30 AM
I rather like the way Weapons of the Gods handles social influence abilities: Using them successfully lets you "discover" a linked pair of conditions on a character (even yourself) - basically, it lets you dump a paired advantage (if the character goes along with whatever you're trying to get them to do) and a disadvantage (when they go against it). Using other social tricks, you can make the conditions more severe or mute them, change what sets them off, etc.

Very elegant idea, giving you a carrot and a stick for social-fu. Too bad it's written in a style that requires a Bergstrom-to-English translation for a lot of people. :-P

Neon Knight
2011-05-26, 10:50 AM
Replies by Poster:

Jude_H


I think you're talking about a specific system, but generalizing to Social Conflict Mechanics in general.

It sounds like you're talking about a game modeled like d20, with wild swing, a few dice rolls unaffected by character actions or motivations and a binary pass/fail outcome. Those do have the potential to trivialize a character's personality and the tension in a negotiation.

A counterexample would be Dogs in the Vineyard. It has complex social mechanics which do incorporate randomness, but which are cued from a character's values, beliefs and experiences. Instead of coming away with a clear pass/fail outcome, one character can out-negotiate the other through game rules, but the character on the short end of the argument can typically raise the stakes by introducing another of their beliefs or experiences or by stepping up the action.

For a game that's not about talking things through, the d20 approach works fine. It quickly determines outcomes of talky scenes so players can get back to running around in caves and skinning monsters. The DitV approach might be interesting in a game about character values and negotiation, but it would be cumbersome and useless in D&D.

I don't like Dogs in the Vineyard. A full review would be cumbersome and offtopic, so I'll just stick with a brief: interesting but narrow and limited setting (although you can adapt it to other things, but that takes work and homebrew to some degree), and mechanics that are questionable at best, and sort bad and mildly exploitable at worst. DiTV is something I might play once, twice, maybe even three times, but it won't be a staple of my gaming, and if I do play it, I might just use the setting and Strands of Fate/Wushu/Savage Worlds/MnM mechanics instead.

I don't play that much D20 derived stuff, and while I do encounter this issue there, I also encounter it in other systems as well.



Glug


*snip*

A lovely anecdote, but how applicable is this to games that aren't about these sort of issues and subjects? How applicable is it to games where players don't have super strong ambitions?




Delwugor


Strongly depends on the type of game I'm playing.
For dungeon crawls and heavy combat the old GM decides rule works very well.
Political, social and investigative games I like a robust system such as Burning Empire's Dual of Wits or Strands Mental Conflict.
For most games and situations one or more skill/ability checks work reasonably well.

Different social mechanics can also be done on a situational basis. For example:
Convincing the bar wench to tuck you into bed is a simple GM ruling based on charisma.
Convincing the bar owner to introduce you to the Head of the Thieves Guild gambling in the back room is a simple diplomacy/persuasion check or maybe a couple of them.
Convincing the Head of the Thieves Guild he should join you in opposing the city's oppressive Lord Mayor is a full blown DoW or Mental Conflict.

A solid enough approach. Strands of Fate's Mental Conflict system is very close to what I consider about the best approach to the issue, although there are some particulars that need some tweaking.

oblidged_salmon

If you throw dice about anything, it's because you're willing to risk something. In the case of social conflict, what you're risking is, inherently, the thoughts/opinions/persona of your character. You are subjecting him to change. This is not a bad thing. Now, you should always have the option of not throwing dice, of backing down, or of ramping things up to violence. But if you're having a duel of wits with the big bad, you should be able to convince him to halt his evil plans (if you win), at risk of him convincing you to support him (if you lose). That's my opinion. Why should the stakes be any less important or binding than those of a combat?

While I appreciate that you took the time to reply to my thread, and I respect your right to have your own opinion, I find that this position and the assumptions it is based upon do not apply to me, the games I play, the stories I tell, or the people I tend to play with. Therefore, it is of little applicability to me. And this thread is about, at least in part, things that are applicable to me.



Aux-Ash


In my meaning, success or failure of a social conflict should not hinge on a single skill check. Just like physical conflict should not hinge on a single skill check.

Rather it should be a challange for the players to overcome, with some tactics, some skill and perhaps even some equipment. The players should have some goal and some obstacles to overcome in these situations.

In order to talk someone over to your side you should have to rely on several techniques (smooth talking, bribing, intimidating, convincing, impressing, promising, deceit, lies and so on). Maybe have the character with the silver tounge convince someone and have the massive thug chip in with a subtle threat of what would happen if the npc betrayed their trust. Making it a cooperative effort the entire party should be able to participate in and affect.

Similarily, magic and such should be allowed to influence but not control these situations.

I'd also say that every character one interacts with should have a few core values that cannot be changed. You shouldn't be able to convince staunch monarchists to topple the monarchy, mothers to sell their children into slavery, people to toss themselves off cliffs for no reason and so on.

Partial successes or failures should also be possible. You might not be able to convince the guard to abandon his post, but maybe he'll just look away (or perhaps just not report you).

I think that could enrichen many rpg's social side quite a deal.

This is something a little close to what I'm looking for. As a general design approach, it seems like a solid enough idea. I think the "core values" bit is the part I find most important, and what I'm most concerned about.


Arbane


I rather like the way Weapons of the Gods handles social influence abilities: Using them successfully lets you "discover" a linked pair of conditions on a character (even yourself) - basically, it lets you dump a paired advantage (if the character goes along with whatever you're trying to get them to do) and a disadvantage (when they go against it). Using other social tricks, you can make the conditions more severe or mute them, change what sets them off, etc.

Very elegant idea, giving you a carrot and a stick for social-fu. Too bad it's written in a style that requires a Bergstrom-to-English translation for a lot of people. :-P

Now this has got my interest. This is intriguing. This just might be the ticket. I'll have to look Weapon of the Gods up.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 11:57 AM
I believe that there must be an objective (though not necessarily random) force that determines the outcome of every significant action in a game. For insignificant actions, the GM and the players should decide the best way to handle them. Some roll even for that, some prefer to gloss over them, etc. But for significant actions, I do not, in general, allow either the GM or the player to determine on their own what the result is.

As you said, anecdotes are unavoidable, so here's mine. I have encountered many GMs over the years that insist that social conflicts are to be resolved mainly via proper roleplaying. Some of them make a token effort to say "the roll will help you support your piece of roleplaying," but it's an auxiliary function, a brief nod of acknowledgement to the numbers on the player's character sheet. They believe that the player should make an effort to act as the character and do their best to be as suave or intimidating as their character is supposed to be. I have never, ever understood why this is so. Never.

To me, asking Bob to roleplay his bard's charming nature is exactly like asking Alice to go outside and lift a small car to prove that her barbarian can lift a castle gate. When I was told that I could make a charming character but I would have to back that up with actual roleplaying, I agreed with a disappointed sigh, just as if I had been asked to go outside and bench-press a marble table because I wanted to play a strong warrior. It's just arbitrary, to me.

Roleplaying is supposed to be separate from mechanics. You can't resolve combat with actual combat in the real world. The GM isn't supposed to hire goons and give them real weapons and then ask the players to find actual broadswords and laser guns. And then eat popcorn as they mutilate each other at his whims. Social conflict is precisely the same. You can't say that "because my character has a strong personality and I roleplay him very well, it's not fair that I have to bow down to an objective means of resolving social conflicts." Because it'd be just like a professional fencer resenting that he has to roll for attack, or a Black Ops specialist complaining about having to roll every time he wants to sneak up on somebody. "But I'm stealthy! You never hear me come!" is a valid argument, but the game has stealth covered with rolls and not actual demonstrations of stealth, buddy.

Now, if the players and the GM agree before the game begins that they are not happy with a particular mechanic and they want to do away with it (perhaps they're all Black Ops playing D&D), then they're more than welcome to replace it or do away with it altogether. That's perfectly fine, and could lead to awesome sessions. But I still believe that every game should have an objective, mechanical (though again, not necessarily random) way of resolving any kind of significant conflict that might arise in the game.

I think that the main issue here is that games are built to cater to the players expectations and wants. When D&D was originally developed, what mattered was (unsurprisingly) combat and exploration. Social conflict was merely solved via rolling, like stealth. Gaming has evolved over the years, and has embraced a wider player base that demands more things. If you believe that a game doesn't have an adequate way of resolving a certain conflict (in this case, social), then see if someone has made a better one. If not, invent your own. If you want a game where someone's values act as a shield against persuasions (such as a happily married man having a bonus to resist the seductions of a succubus, or a monk with a vow of poverty resisting a bribe), then invent your own.

Is it hard work? Yes. But you have a community to help you, and if it really, really matters to you, then it'll have a fruitful reward in the end.

Totally Guy
2011-05-26, 12:25 PM
A lovely anecdote, but how applicable is this to games that aren't about these sort of issues and subjects? How applicable is it to games where players don't have super strong ambitions?

It's not applicable to games which it doesn't apply to.:smalltongue:

Chauncymancer
2011-05-26, 06:09 PM
I believe that there must be an objective (though not necessarily random) force that determines the outcome of every significant action in a game. ...

As you said, anecdotes are unavoidable, so here's mine. I have encountered many GMs over the years that insist that social conflicts are to be resolved mainly via proper roleplaying. ... They believe that the player should make an effort to act as the character and do their best to be as suave or intimidating as their character is supposed to be. I have never, ever understood why this is so. Never.

Theory wise, Rebecca Bogstrom defines "fun" as the function of amount of time and effort you spend on the various elements of the game, and your effect on the world therefore (spending as little time on the boring and as much on the awesome as possible) so, real world example, my gaming circle emphasizes in-character dialogue as the most fun part of the game: We want as much time as possible spent on in-character dialogue, and want in-character dialogue to have a disproportionate effect on the game. So in our game, you would have to role-play the interaction, and your rp would have a disproportionate effect, because dialogue is our focus and we don't care if combat or other skills is a little (or lot) abstracted. It's our way of forcing new players to get on the dialogue wagon.

erikun
2011-05-26, 06:46 PM
If we're comparing social mechanics to martial (combat) mechanics, then it would be good to first look at what combat mechanics are for, what they do and don't do.

Combat mechanics, as the old saying goes, are to prevent the old "I hit you!" "Did not!" that came from playing Cops & Robbers. Combat is a hectic, confusing place, and all the various mechanics that make someone proficient in fighting are not spelled out in the game system. Thus, we roll a die. People better at combat (high STR, high attack values) get preferential treatment. The rest is assumed to be a combination of "luck": superior advantage, better footing, distractions, taking advantage of openings, and so on. It is assumed that most people aren't "perfect", don't maintain proper martial defenses 100% of the time, and occasionally mess up. Thus, the system works.

Just as important, there are times when an attack roll is unneeded or uncalled for. Stabbing a tied up prisoner does not require one. Hitting someone from behind when they aren't prepared for it frequently does not, either. Most people barely need to try to avoid a commoner trying to swing a giant's greatsword. Guards standing watch don't need to bother with listen checks to hear the party kicking over pots and arguing. And so on.

Just as with martial combat, there are times when rolling in "social combat" isn't necessary or even desired. For the most part, it involves times when the outcome really was never in question - much like martial combat. Trying to convince the BBEG to give up his ways and raise bunnies and that the kingdom won't hold it against him isn't something that will work. The PCs can't convince the king to hand over his kingdom. You aren't going to convince the merchant to sell his goods for free.

Oh, you certainly could make rolls for these situations, but you end up with just as silly results as the commoner-with-giant-greatsword cutting off the prepared fighter's head in one hit.

On the other hand, the times you want to use social combat rules is when the outcome isn't so sure, and when you have a lot of mitigating facors working together. The BBEG may not like the idea of raising bunnies, but what about breaking that contract with a demon and offering him a place in Celestia? You won't convince the king to hand over his crown, but convincing a large audience that the king is no longer worthy is not such a sure conclusion. And you won't get the merchant to give away goods for free, but what if you threaten to blackmail him - will he cave in, or will he go running to the town guards? These are situations where social combat become a lot more interesting, and a lot more important.

Saph
2011-05-26, 06:53 PM
They believe that the player should make an effort to act as the character and do their best to be as suave or intimidating as their character is supposed to be. I have never, ever understood why this is so. Never.

There are several good reasons to run social encounters at least partly via roleplaying, instead of by dice. Here are a few of them:

1) It gets people acting in-character. Talking in-character tends to get players to identify with their characters, and in general, the more players identify with their characters, the more interesting the game is.

2) It's possible to act out a social encounter. It isn't really possible to act out a combat encounter, at least not if you're playing tabletop. (If you're playing LARP, then people most definitely do act out their combat encounters, which rather shoots a hole in your "no-one ever physically RPs combat" argument.)

3) Most game systems tend to encourage or at least allow a very wide range of social ability (an 18 Cha Bard vs. an 8 Cha Barbarian, a Toreador vs. a Nosferatu). If you insist that the outcome of social encounters must be determined solely by the numbers on the player's character sheet, then whenever you run a social encounter half the party will be unable to contribute. This leads to bored players.

I've played games in the past where the GM ran social encounters purely by the numbers, and I always found them very dull. I remember one 4e D&D session where the GM ran Skill Challenges this way, and I quickly realised that putting any thought into what I said was pointless. It didn't matter how brilliant or stupid my character's words were, all that mattered was whether my skill roll was high or low. When an impassioned appeal to reason has the same chance of success as a grunt, don't be surprised when you start getting a lot of grunts.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 09:41 PM
Theory wise, Rebecca Bogstrom defines "fun" as the function of amount of time and effort you spend on the various elements of the game, and your effect on the world therefore (spending as little time on the boring and as much on the awesome as possible) so, real world example, my gaming circle emphasizes in-character dialogue as the most fun part of the game: We want as much time as possible spent on in-character dialogue, and want in-character dialogue to have a disproportionate effect on the game. So in our game, you would have to role-play the interaction, and your rp would have a disproportionate effect, because dialogue is our focus and we don't care if combat or other skills is a little (or lot) abstracted. It's our way of forcing new players to get on the dialogue wagon.

Well, see, I still don't understand. Why does the new player have to be forced to get on the dialogue wagon? Because your group likes that? How many of those people actually like it and aren't saying they do because they've been conditioned to feel that way?

I don't mind that groups like yours exist, I just don't understand why it's so universally accepted and embraced unquestioningly (except for those groups who look down on roleplaying). I don't like to feel like I have to "prove" my roleplaying capabilities. But then again, I've just had this argument with a friend, and he explained to me that apparently people like being asked to demonstrate and partake in their interests, so if Alice is a bodybuilder and she's playing a barbarian, then apparently she might find it actually pleasant to be asked to lift something heavy In Real Life. Or if Bob is a music buff and he's playing a bard, he might actually enjoy being asked to write his own music and actually sing in front of everyone else.

I guess it's just a matter of tastes.


There are several good reasons to run social encounters at least partly via roleplaying, instead of by dice. Here are a few of them:

1) It gets people acting in-character. Talking in-character tends to get players to identify with their characters, and in general, the more players identify with their characters, the more interesting the game is.

I think there's a difference between acting vaguely IC (not being OOC, basically), and having to actually make an effort at some piece of roleplaying. If a sorcerer has to give a speech to his troops, the former is saying a couple of vaguely appropriate lines (such as "Be brave! We shall prevail!") and then assume that the actual speech was far better than that (as determined by the dice roll) and the latter is actually giving a rousing speech on the fly. I don't have a problem with the former, I have a problem with the latter.


2) It's possible to act out a social encounter. It isn't really possible to act out a combat encounter, at least not if you're playing tabletop. (If you're playing LARP, then people most definitely do act out their combat encounters, which rather shoots a hole in your "no-one ever physically RPs combat" argument.)

There's a difference between simulated combat and actual combat. There should be a difference between simulated social prowess and actual social prowess. Just like in LARPing you touch someone lightly with a wooden sword and that is translated as a grievous wound in the world of make believe, it should be equally acceptable to say "I think you're a beautiful lady, why don't you give us the key to the Duke's mansion?" than actually making an effort to roleplay a realistic attempt at seduction.


3) Most game systems tend to encourage or at least allow a very wide range of social ability (an 18 Cha Bard vs. an 8 Cha Barbarian, a Toreador vs. a Nosferatu). If you insist that the outcome of social encounters must be determined solely by the numbers on the player's character sheet, then whenever you run a social encounter half the party will be unable to contribute. This leads to bored players.

Then why do we allow exactly that for other situations, like stealth, for example? Or wilderness survival? Or exploration? Or a race? If you put the party in an antimagic field, for example, the wizard will be hard-pressed to contribute meaningfully to the fight. Yet those situations happen. If the rogue is the only party member capable of stealth, why do we have stealth sequences in the first place? If the ranger is the only one who can track, why do we have the party track down a foe?


I've played games in the past where the GM ran social encounters purely by the numbers, and I always found them very dull. I remember one 4e D&D session where the GM ran Skill Challenges this way, and I quickly realised that putting any thought into what I said was pointless. It didn't matter how brilliant or stupid my character's words were, all that mattered was whether my skill roll was high or low. When an impassioned appeal to reason has the same chance of success as a grunt, don't be surprised when you start getting a lot of grunts.

That's bad for you, yes, but perhaps there is a very shy person sitting next to you who really wanted to play his charming bard and he's glad he's not put into the spotlight every time he has to talk. Maybe to him, it's actually more fun to roll and feel victorious than to give a nerve-wrecking performance every time a social conflict shows up.

NichG
2011-05-26, 09:53 PM
There is a fundamental question which needs to be answered (lets say, for a given table) before any sort of resolution can be made.

The question is 'How does the table feel about challenge?'

It is a reasonable point of view that the purpose of the game has nothing to do with challenge. That any challenge that may be perceived is, perhaps, merely a way to get adrenaline going or merely to represent the challenge felt by the character and not the player. You could run a game entirely for the story that is created as a result of running the game for example.

So in those settings, I agree that requiring a player to demonstrate their physical combat ability might be taken as equivalent to requiring them to demonstrate their ability to give an inspiring speech.

On the other hand, if challenge is intended to be an aspect of the game, then it comes down to what is being challenged? Generally, tabletop games are somewhat cerebral exercises - combat tactics and character design are the two canonical challenges in D&D. Additionally, puzzles are often a component of D&D adventures, and those are usually a player mental challenge not a character mental challenge (after all, 'you need to pass a DC 24 Int check to pass this point in the plot, keep rolling till you get it' is pretty boring).

Along those lines, it seems reasonable that for many groups social encounters are part of the challenge. If you're a shy player who is bad at social encounters, then the game encourages you to overcome that limitation, just as if you were a player who is bad at building characters, or a player who is bad at making tactical decisions during combat.

There is no reason why one couldn't have a game where you have to lift weights or do pushups instead of rolling dice.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 10:12 PM
On the other hand, if challenge is intended to be an aspect of the game, then it comes down to what is being challenged? Generally, tabletop games are somewhat cerebral exercises - combat tactics and character design are the two canonical challenges in D&D. Additionally, puzzles are often a component of D&D adventures, and those are usually a player mental challenge not a character mental challenge (after all, 'you need to pass a DC 24 Int check to pass this point in the plot, keep rolling till you get it' is pretty boring).

And I am actually personally against all those kinds of challenges. I think challenges (beyond what is strictly in the rules, such as combat) are supposed to be self-imposed. Puzzles should not be required to be solved by players. I would feel entitled to take my wizard's character sheet, show it to the DM, and say "This guy has 20 Int. Let me see if he knows the answer." And if he says "It's better if you do it yourself!" I'm going to say "Sigh, fine." just as if I had used the words "Cha" instead of "Int" and "social conflicts" instead of "puzzles." I wouldn't object, however, if another player wanted to disregard his psion's 30 Int and solve the puzzle himself, just as I wouldn't object to a drama student wanting to roleplay his charming bard.


Along those lines, it seems reasonable that for many groups social encounters are part of the challenge. If you're a shy player who is bad at social encounters, then the game encourages you to overcome that limitation, just as if you were a player who is bad at building characters, or a player who is bad at making tactical decisions during combat.

There is no reason why one couldn't have a game where you have to lift weights or do pushups instead of rolling dice.

I would say, again, "Then why doesn't D&D encourage players to take up fencing, throwing, weight lifting, sneaking, wilderness survival and delving into occult lore?" :smalltongue:

EDIT: Just to clarify, I do get your point, and I completely agree. I think the thing I agree the most is that it's something that should be agreed upon on each table. I think that a roleplay-heavy game is fine, just as one that replaces Strength checks with weight lifting, or even tracking with a treasure hunt in the local woods, or has the players solve the puzzles themselves. I just think it's only polite to get player consensus first.

Saph
2011-05-27, 01:47 AM
Then why do we allow exactly that for other situations, like stealth, for example? Or wilderness survival? Or exploration? Or a race? If you put the party in an antimagic field, for example, the wizard will be hard-pressed to contribute meaningfully to the fight. Yet those situations happen. If the rogue is the only party member capable of stealth, why do we have stealth sequences in the first place? If the ranger is the only one who can track, why do we have the party track down a foe?

"I want to track down the goblins."
"OK, roll Survival."
"19."
"You manage to follow the tracks through the woods. They lead to . . ."

I don't do long 'sequences' for solo skills like stealth and tracking, precisely because it stops most of the players from contributing.


That's bad for you, yes, but perhaps there is a very shy person sitting next to you who really wanted to play his charming bard and he's glad he's not put into the spotlight every time he has to talk. Maybe to him, it's actually more fun to roll and feel victorious than to give a nerve-wrecking performance every time a social conflict shows up.

And if I run into this hypothetical shy person who can't stand the spotlight yet wants to play a charming bard, then I'll start worrying about it. In the meantime, I'm more concerned with my real, actual players. :smalltongue:

The problem here is that it seems that you aren't really explaining just why it's such a bad thing to have different resolution mechanics for different types of challenges. All things being equal, having players get into character and RP things out usually leads to more fun results than having them just roll a dice. It's not practical for players to act out a feat of strength, but it is practical for them to act out what their character is saying at the formal banquet.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-27, 04:40 AM
"I want to track down the goblins."
"OK, roll Survival."
"19."
"You manage to follow the tracks through the woods. They lead to . . ."

I don't do long 'sequences' for solo skills like stealth and tracking, precisely because it stops most of the players from contributing.

Well, all right, if you're consistent like that, I guess I can't find fault in that reasoning.


And if I run into this hypothetical shy person who can't stand the spotlight yet wants to play a charming bard, then I'll start worrying about it. In the meantime, I'm more concerned with my real, actual players. :smalltongue:

The problem here is that it seems that you aren't really explaining just why it's such a bad thing to have different resolution mechanics for different types of challenges. All things being equal, having players get into character and RP things out usually leads to more fun results than having them just roll a dice. It's not practical for players to act out a feat of strength, but it is practical for them to act out what their character is saying at the formal banquet.

They're not hypothetical, by the way. They're out there. ;)

I complain when a resolution mechanic is favoured over the other. I don't mind that the DM might say "Oh, that was a fine piece of roleplay you just pulled! Who cares if you rolled a 2 on that Diplomacy check! I'm letting that speech decide the outcome!" as long as he respects my ability to choose if I want to roleplay beyond the minimum necessary to avoid breaking immersion or not.

It's like stunts in Exalted. You don't have to do them, but the players who do get bonuses. That's great. I wouldn't approve of a DM who made stunts compulsory, though, whether by blatantly stating it or by adjusting enemy stats so that you need every little bonus you can get if you hope to win.

What I advocate for is freedom of choice. I want to feel free to choose whether I go the extra mile with my roleplay or I am Mr. Bland McBlandity's accountant.

Saph
2011-05-27, 05:52 AM
They're not hypothetical, by the way. They're out there. ;)

I complain when a resolution mechanic is favoured over the other. I don't mind that the DM might say "Oh, that was a fine piece of roleplay you just pulled! Who cares if you rolled a 2 on that Diplomacy check! I'm letting that speech decide the outcome!" as long as he respects my ability to choose if I want to roleplay beyond the minimum necessary to avoid breaking immersion or not.

That's fair enough, and it's pretty much how I run my games - I don't stop players from simply rolling the dice with minimal description added, it's just that most of the players find it more fun to act it out. Often they end up saying exactly the wrong thing, but those often turn out to be the highlights of the session, such as one memorable game where the party "diplomat" managed with five minutes of conversation to turn an unfriendly but largely indifferent NPC into a mortal enemy who wanted nothing more than to kill him as painfully as possible. :smallbiggrin:

I do draw the line at puzzles though. I don't mind if a player wants to fast-forward a conversation with a Diplomacy check, but I'm not letting them fast-forward a puzzle encounter with an Int check. Honestly, if you're going to resolve logic or lateral thinking problems with "Roll (insert mental stat here), if you get high enough you succeed, if not you fail" I think you're better off never including puzzles at all.

Arbane
2011-05-27, 12:47 PM
I do draw the line at puzzles though. I don't mind if a player wants to fast-forward a conversation with a Diplomacy check, but I'm not letting them fast-forward a puzzle encounter with an Int check.

Like I said to one DM, "My character's got an 18 int, I don't."


Honestly, if you're going to resolve logic or lateral thinking problems with "Roll (insert mental stat here), if you get high enough you succeed, if not you fail" I think you're better off never including puzzles at all.

...I like this solution. :D

Saph
2011-05-27, 01:35 PM
...I like this solution. :D

Probably the most successful scenario I've ever written was a puzzle-based adventure where the players have to solve a variety of problems designed to test different aptitudes, kind of like a D&D version of the Crystal Maze. It was so popular I took it out from the campaign, turned it into a one-shot, and ran it several times afterwards.

I've run it a total of four times now for four groups. I've yet to hear a player say "Man, it was so slow having to play through all those different puzzles. If only we'd just rolled Int checks we would have finished in half an hour." (In fact I've yet to have a player demand to solve an in-game puzzle with an Int check at all, which makes me suspect that hating puzzles and wanting to resolve everything with dice is a minority trait among gamers.)

NichG
2011-05-27, 02:04 PM
Different tables, different kinds of fun I think.

The really touchy part is, if you've got a table like Saph's, and someone who just wants to roll (and furthermore wants it to be 'fair' by making the rolls the dominant contribution) wants to join that table, at some point the DM should say 'look, from what I can tell your style of play doesn't mesh with ours, I have nothing against you personally, but I don't think this is the game for you'.

At what point does the matter of 'no, you have to solve the puzzle yourself' or 'no, I'm not going to let you use your Diplomacy score and just grunt, make an effort at least' become an irreconcilable point?

oxybe
2011-05-27, 02:36 PM
this is how i view social skills:
-what you say determines your intent. the better you relay the intent of your speech, the easier for me, the GM, to adjudicate the dice roll that's going to follow.

let's say your pc, Ragnar the Adequate, needs to talk to the local lord about the current over-taxing and is currently trying to get the secretary to push him forwards in the appointments.

"I need to see Lord Such-and-Such immediately! i've overheard several of the peasants preparing themselves to lynch him if he doesn't repeal the current high tax laws!" is going to have a much different reaction then if you simply say "Ragnar goes to the secretary and requests to speak with Lord Such-and-Such"

the first gives me far more information to work with when it comes to how the secretary will respond to your intent (you want to meet the lord)

-what you roll decides how well the intent is relayed into the game world.

no matter how eloquent the player is, he's not the one actually talking: the character is. this is why i don't mind social conflict mechanics, and in truth, i prefer having them there to determine how well the character interacts with NPCs based on the player's intent.

in the first, if you succeed, she'll probably rush you up the line. if you fail, she'll probably get the guards to kick you out for creating a ruckus.

the second one, where you simply state the intention to meet him, will most likely cause you to not have to roll at all, but simply be penned in at a later date, or until someone drops/misses their appointment.

by that point, however, the mob will have formed and be thirsting for blood...

but yeah: you RP your intent and the mechanics resolve how this is relayed to in the game world.

so yeah i'm pro-social mechanics and against RP-replacing the need for a roll, but that doesn't mean that RP gets a backseat... the clearer you can make your intent, the better the possible results.

SIDE NOTE
the main problem i have with most "brain" puzzles is that you're actively challenging the players, rather then the characters.

i'm a much bigger fan of puzzles that require use of character ability to overcome them:

the wizard & cleric decipher the location of the switch based on scrawls of previously trapped people, the fighter holds/removes the big heavy thing while the rogue disables the switch.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-27, 03:22 PM
Probably the most successful scenario I've ever written was a puzzle-based adventure where the players have to solve a variety of problems designed to test different aptitudes, kind of like a D&D version of the Crystal Maze. It was so popular I took it out from the campaign, turned it into a one-shot, and ran it several times afterwards.

I've run it a total of four times now for four groups. I've yet to hear a player say "Man, it was so slow having to play through all those different puzzles. If only we'd just rolled Int checks we would have finished in half an hour." (In fact I've yet to have a player demand to solve an in-game puzzle with an Int check at all, which makes me suspect that hating puzzles and wanting to resolve everything with dice is a minority trait among gamers.)

And I personally love puzzles and I would have enormous amounts of fun with that. I would still hold what I said because it's something that goes beyond me. It's an ideal that I defend. Nobody should be forced to bring their RL skills or qualities to the table. The game has perfectly adequate resolution methods and everyone should be allowed to resort to them whenever they want to. The key here is choice. Everyone should always have the choice of going the extra mile, bring a little of themselves to the table and get a bonus for that, or take the safe route and roll a dice.


Different tables, different kinds of fun I think.

The really touchy part is, if you've got a table like Saph's, and someone who just wants to roll (and furthermore wants it to be 'fair' by making the rolls the dominant contribution) wants to join that table, at some point the DM should say 'look, from what I can tell your style of play doesn't mesh with ours, I have nothing against you personally, but I don't think this is the game for you'.

At what point does the matter of 'no, you have to solve the puzzle yourself' or 'no, I'm not going to let you use your Diplomacy score and just grunt, make an effort at least' become an irreconcilable point?

I think that the DM should be flexible. Yes, we know that he works hard to make it fun for everyone, but that's not his or her job alone. Players should work just as hard. Sure, if the entire table agrees on something, why not change stealth checks to actual stealth, combat to LARPing and strength check to weight lifting? That's perfectly acceptable. But you should remember that it's your table that likes it so and that other tables might disagree and that doesn't make your consensus "the right one."

I think that if a DM likes certain things (like making puzzles for their players to solve, or watching their players get deeply into character), they shouldn't force their tastes to the players. I think that it's a responsibility of the players to say "Man, we had so much fun with that campaign! We should totally pay him/her back by doing those things he/she likes in the next one!"

But that's just my take on it.

NichG
2011-05-27, 03:32 PM
And I personally love puzzles and I would have enormous amounts of fun with that. I would still hold what I said because it's something that goes beyond me. It's an ideal that I defend. Nobody should be forced to bring their RL skills or qualities to the table. The game has perfectly adequate resolution methods and everyone should be allowed to resort to them whenever they want to. The key here is choice. Everyone should always have the choice of going the extra mile, bring a little of themselves to the table and get a bonus for that, or take the safe route and roll a dice.


Earlier though you agreed that it was a valid playstyle for people who enjoyed bringing RL skills and qualities to the table though, so long as thats the way that particular table liked to play.

There's nothing wrong with playing a game that challenges the players in various different ways. Using RL skills is one form of challenge. So is making tactical decisions in combat. There's no fundamental reason why 'rules mastery' should be the main external skill requirement of a tabletop RPG aside from what the players and DM in particular want to do.



I think that the DM should be flexible. Yes, we know that he works hard to make it fun for everyone, but that's not his or her job alone. Players should work just as hard. Sure, if the entire table agrees on something, why not change stealth checks to actual stealth, combat to LARPing and strength check to weight lifting? That's perfectly acceptable. But you should remember that it's your table that likes it so and that other tables might disagree and that doesn't make your consensus "the right one."


This is beyond just the matter of the DM though. If you have a table of players who want to act out social interactions and have that matter, who want to solve puzzles themselves, etc, and an external player wants to join the game and wants those things gone, then the table has every right to tell that new player 'this is how we play, and if you join our group this isn't going to change'.

My question was, is this something you'd actually personally leave a game over, or is this entirely a 'theory' discussion?

Saph
2011-05-27, 03:38 PM
Different tables, different kinds of fun I think.

The really touchy part is, if you've got a table like Saph's, and someone who just wants to roll (and furthermore wants it to be 'fair' by making the rolls the dominant contribution) wants to join that table, at some point the DM should say 'look, from what I can tell your style of play doesn't mesh with ours, I have nothing against you personally, but I don't think this is the game for you'.

At what point does the matter of 'no, you have to solve the puzzle yourself' or 'no, I'm not going to let you use your Diplomacy score and just grunt, make an effort at least' become an irreconcilable point?

I'm not actually sure, myself.

We don't force players to roleplay, or to act in-character: if you just want to roll the dice, you can. And problems and puzzles are generally discussed round the table, so if you don't feel like taking part in the discussion about how to get across the coloured hall, you can go get a drink and let the others deal with it. You won't get any less XP or treasure, and you won't be any more likely to die.

The thing is, though, you'll probably also have less fun. The real reason I try to get players involved with the game and encourage them to identify with their character is that time and again I've noticed that they enjoy themselves more that way. That's why the above problem never really comes up - the players eventually notice this too.


And I personally love puzzles and I would have enormous amounts of fun with that. I would still hold what I said because it's something that goes beyond me. It's an ideal that I defend. Nobody should be forced to bring their RL skills or qualities to the table. The game has perfectly adequate resolution methods and everyone should be allowed to resort to them whenever they want to. The key here is choice. Everyone should always have the choice of going the extra mile, bring a little of themselves to the table and get a bonus for that, or take the safe route and roll a dice.

Sure, they've always got the choice. It's just that if they don't use any of their RL skills or qualities, then they're missing out on a huge aspect of the game. I'm not going to "punish" them for only using in-game resolution mechanics, but I do think they're kind of punishing themselves.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-27, 04:26 PM
Earlier though you agreed that it was a valid playstyle for people who enjoyed bringing RL skills and qualities to the table though, so long as thats the way that particular table liked to play.

And I say it again in that very same post you quoted. :smalltongue:

There's a difference between "We all like this" and "Not all of us like this but we enforce it all the same."


There's nothing wrong with playing a game that challenges the players in various different ways. Using RL skills is one form of challenge. So is making tactical decisions in combat. There's no fundamental reason why 'rules mastery' should be the main external skill requirement of a tabletop RPG aside from what the players and DM in particular want to do.

And I don't think "rules mastery" or "tactical decision making" is supposed to be expected of a player either, because that too, as you so aptly put it yourself, is an external skill. There are DMs who require players to think tactically and optimise the hell out of their characters if they have any hope of surviving an encounter. Others make encounters that anyone with the bare minimum of rules knowledge can overcome. I advocate for the freedom of choice. With the caveat that if the whole table wants to go further, that's fine, as long as they understand that it's their consensus and not "the way the game is meant to be played."


This is beyond just the matter of the DM though. If you have a table of players who want to act out social interactions and have that matter, who want to solve puzzles themselves, etc, and an external player wants to join the game and wants those things gone, then the table has every right to tell that new player 'this is how we play, and if you join our group this isn't going to change'.

My question was, is this something you'd actually personally leave a game over, or is this entirely a 'theory' discussion?

Well, true, I guess. I suppose that it's not fair for a new player to expect his play style to be accommodated. I would agree that if the table makes their rules perfectly clear to the new player, then it's up to him or her to submit to them or leave. I would wish, though, that "do whatever you want" mentalities were more prevalent.

If it was made clear to me before I joined, I would consider it carefully and see if the benefits of joining would outweigh the downsides. However, if it was sprung on me out of nowhere after I've already joined, I would make a token effort to satisfy the request, then talk to the DM in private after the session and get a good explanation of what these new rules are before deciding if they're really worth me leaving over them.

I think that the difference between being allowed to roleplay (or solve puzzles or whatever) and being forced to roleplay is the same as being allowed to eat delicious cake and being strapped to a chair and force-fed delicious cake.


Sure, they've always got the choice. It's just that if they don't use any of their RL skills or qualities, then they're missing out on a huge aspect of the game. I'm not going to "punish" them for only using in-game resolution mechanics, but I do think they're kind of punishing themselves.

I agree, actually. But isn't it better to tempt them from afar? To say "Oh, what a delicious cake we're having!" or perhaps let them roll while everyone else roleplays so that he or she can decide for themselves if that's appealing. I assure you, you'll have much better results if the initiative comes from within than from outside.

NichG
2011-05-27, 05:07 PM
As far as rules mastery goes, though, its something thats very integrated into many systems, and D&D 3.5 is among the most tightly integrated. For the 'do what you want' mentality, you still need to figure out how to handle situations like the following:

1. Player 1 is an extremely well-spoken individual playing a Wis 12, Cha 10 Fighter. He knows exactly what to offer NPCs to make them cooperate with the party, can pick up on when the DM is lying and when the DM is telling the truth, etc.

2. Player 2 is just there to have fun and doesn't know the system very well, or how to be tactical. His character is an unoptimized Rogue who ostensibly should be the PC that ends up handling lying and deception, but he doesn't know how to mechanically support it very well and he's not good at it out of character.

3. Player 3 is a strong optimizer. He's playing a Sorceror who keeps a collection of scrolls of all sorts of other casting classes and has picked up a few ranks of UMD cross-class so that he can use them. He's also a Diplomancer and has a Diplomacy check in the 40s at Level 5, and can also do comparable Bluff checks via Glibness.

Each of those players has gone a certain distance to make contact with the game in ways they enjoy. However, the DM may be in a bit of a tight spot here.

If the DM rewards Player 1's roleplay, Player 3 could say 'hey, why is Player 1 succeeding in all of his negotiations but you won't let my huge Diplomacy check just bypass it all?'.

If the DM rewards Player 3's system mastery by playing Diplomacy/etc straight, Player 2 could rightly say 'I'm feeling really uncomfortable at this table because it seems like no matter what I do my character is irrelevant'.

The DM could, I suppose, make the game super-easy so all three players always succeed, but that doesn't necessarily solve the situation either since Player 3 could still just insist that his higher scores mean that he gets to do it first, or whatever.

There isn't really 'a' clean solution to this. Everything is going to involve some sort of compromise. Thats why I think there isn't an objective answer to whether, e.g., the game should challenge player skill in various things or not.

For what its worth, my answer to the three players would be to warn Player 3 that social stuff will be based on player skill and ask him to optimize around something else, encourage Player 1, and help Player 2 build a more effective character or give him some unique other thing (plot relevance, whatever) that isn't going to be overshadowed by Player 3's mechanics. But I'm not claiming thats 'the right' answer, its a subjective choice that comprises my particular GMing style.

jseah
2011-05-27, 07:53 PM
I've modified my games' (D&D 3.5) diplomacy rules.
No amount of rolling will make anyone do anything in my games. You cannot convince an NPC to do anything via only a roll. You need to say something.

Diplomacy however, isn't irrelevant. The social skills control what information you have to affect what you want to say.

In particular, I make players roll *before* they say something. (or retcon it in afterwards) A good diplomacy check will tell you what you might offer / threaten an NPC with to get him to do something. A bad check might give no or false information.
Players can also opt to not roll and simply guess. However, I leave out descriptions of NPC attitudes (because those are subsumed into the check) so it really is a guess.
They can also roll, and simply retract their attempt. Finding out that it will take about >1000 gp to bribe an NPC (he appears to speak of his liege very highly) might mean that not attempting a bribe might be better. And there are times when I have to say that convincing an NPC of something is plain impossible. (eg. suicidal actions, at least those that appear suicidal to the NPC)

A good bluff check makes you sound as if you believe what you're saying. Sense motive literally senses what the target's intentions are out of a speech/action.

If you push the right buttons on an NPC, which I decide what they are, you can get him/her to do something. The social skills let you find out what those buttons are, whether you push them or not is up to you.

-------------------------------

You might not that I never really addressed the "inspirational" speech thing. That's because it has never really come up in my games for some reason. Perhaps my NPCs have a tendency to be too logical but I can't quite see many of them reacting well solely because of the good delivery of a request.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-27, 07:55 PM
For what its worth, my answer to the three players would be to warn Player 3 that social stuff will be based on player skill and ask him to optimize around something else, encourage Player 1, and help Player 2 build a more effective character or give him some unique other thing (plot relevance, whatever) that isn't going to be overshadowed by Player 3's mechanics. But I'm not claiming thats 'the right' answer, its a subjective choice that comprises my particular GMing style.

I think that's a perfectly valid solution. However, I'm the kind of DM that prefers to leave "big decisions" (such as this one) to player consensus. I gather the players around and say "Okay, I've noticed some issues here. What do you suggest we do?" and serve more as an arbiter in a discussion than the sole decider of what happens in a game.

Therefore, in the case you proposed, I couldn't point out at a single possible outcome. I can't say "I would decide that we go with X." I would try to make sure everyone understand what each player wants out of the game, so that they can say "Okay, fine, Player 1 gets to roleplay and Player 3 gets to roll and I stay out of the social conflicts," for example. Or that they will all make an effort to roleplay. Or that rolls decide everything and Player 1's epic speeches are just decoration and not actually meaningful. It will depend on what they feel would make the game fun for everyone.

I don't really think that the DM is entitled to make this sort of decision on their own, since it regulates the behaviour of all the players at the table, and I believe that if I'm going to regulate the way someone acts, they should have a say in that.