PDA

View Full Version : Abstraction - Interesting Combat, Boring RP



Grinner
2012-03-22, 06:41 AM
The Problem with Abstraction: Interesting Combat, Boring RP

When D&D 4e was released, it was decried as an MMORPG-gone-tabletop. Roleplaying was no longer the objective of the game, and combat had been made king. Certainly, given the changes made in comparison to previous editions and even the terminology used to describe the monsters, this was not an entirely undue accusation.

But let's not kid ourselves. D&D has never been about roleplaying. In every edition*, roleplaying has been just an optional side-show to the main attraction: combat. 4e was just a little more honest about it. Take a gander at the classes, feats, and spells listed in any Player's Handbook. Notice that most of the classes are distinctly oriented towards combat. Notice that most of the feats contribute some sort of bonus to a character's performance during a fight. Notice that most of the spells are some variation of Maim (Fireball), Protect(Diamond Skin), Heal (Cure Light Wounds), or Bypass-Problem-That-Could-Otherwise-Be-Solved-With-Some-Keen-Roleplaying-Or-Even-Just-An-Appropriate-Skill-Check (Charm Monster, Rope Trick, etc.).

Now take a look at the skills section. Take a look at a few of the skills like Gather Information, Diplomacy, Bluff, Search, etc. Most of these skills do one thing. They guarantee a given outcome, regardless of however horrendously the player handles the situation. In doing so, they also eliminate dramatic sequences from the course of gameplay. Why spend time chasing down clues throughout the city and risk the attention of the local crime lords when the partyface can just make a Gather Information check instead? Why carefully examine each element of a scene for traps when you can just make a Search check instead? Why comb the city library for information on the terrors of the night plaguing nearby villages when a bardic lore check and a flurry of Knowledge checks will suffice?

Look back to the chapter on character classes. Specifically, carefully examine the spellcasting classes: all of them use spell slots. In D&D, magic, despite the etymology of the term, is nothing more than a numbers game, usually with an application of creative logic to boot. This is only worsened by the fact that spellcasters are automatically assumed to possess any spell component of a value less than 1 gold piece. Given few limitations and no drawbacks, is it surprising that wizards are so broken at high levels?

Given so many ways to bypass roleplaying, the world's oldest roleplaying game is not a roleplaying game. It's just a game.


*I should note that I've never played anything earlier than 3e, though I have played a few retroclones. Also, the retroclones tend to avoid many of the problems listed here.

B!shop
2012-03-22, 07:28 AM
What I didn't like of D&D 4E when i got it (I must admit I didn't read in depth all the rules) was the massive stereotyping of classes: paladins and fighter got a taunt, casters are crowd controllers, healers or damage dealers, etc...

Yes, you can play older D&D editions (or most rpgs around) just as tactical/number "games", yet before 4e you could customize and "un-stereotype" your class. It needs more work for players (and DMs), yet you could play a social fighter, a tanking bard, or whoever you want and you get the skills/equipment/styles to do this.
In 4e as far as I remember reading the manuals you can't or at least you aren't encouraged.

That's why I still preffer to play with 3e/pf more than 4e.

dsmiles
2012-03-22, 07:45 AM
Don't get me wrong, here, I like the 4e system. It works spectacularly for Gamma World. It just doesn't fit with DnD, IMO. I just can't get into it in a long-term sort of way.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 08:15 AM
Given so many ways to bypass roleplaying, the world's oldest roleplaying game is not a roleplaying game. It's just a game.

*I should note that I've never played anything earlier than 3e, though I have played a few retroclones. Also, the retroclones tend to avoid many of the problems listed here.
...bolded for contrast :smallsigh:

Pre-WotC D&D was much more of a "roleplaying" game than WotC D&D by the very measures you've listed. Non-combat skills (i.e. Non-Weapon Proficiencies) in 2e could work in one of two ways: either (A) you rolled under the relevant stat (modified by the DM) and the DM figured out what happened if you succeeded or (B) you convinced the DM that what you were doing would work and if he was convinced, it did. In fact, the rules said that anyone trying to use an Engineering check to build a catapult could instead built a scale model for the DM to demonstrate how his character would solve the problem.

Earlier editions didn't even have skills -- if you wanted to find a trap or secret door you had to tell the DM how you were doing it.

That said, D&D was originally a squad-based dungeon raiding system with some Magic Tea Party thrown in. So yeah.

* * *

What exactly was the point you were trying to make :smallconfused:

Saph
2012-03-22, 08:18 AM
That said, D&D was originally a squad-based dungeon raiding system with some Magic Tea Party thrown in. So yeah.

One of my favourite six-words-or-less descriptions of old-style D&D is "skirmish warfare in an underground menagerie".

Grinner
2012-03-22, 08:47 AM
...bolded for contrast :smallsigh:

Most. Not all of them, in my experience at least.


What exactly was the point you were trying to make :smallconfused:

I found myself wondering that as I posted it.

I had intended to write about how the simplification of various aspects of the game into things like hitpoints, spell slots, certain skills (especially the mentioned ones), etc. detract from storytelling/roleplaying.

I ended up writing about the game's focus on combat.

razark
2012-03-22, 08:57 AM
Given so many ways to bypass roleplaying, the world's oldest roleplaying game is not a roleplaying game. It's just a game.
So you're finding ways to bypass the roleplaying, and then complaining that there's not enough roleplaying?

Isn't it more related to the players'/DM's playstyles than the system itself?

Grinner
2012-03-22, 09:01 AM
So you're finding ways to bypass the roleplaying, and then complaining that there's not enough roleplaying?

Isn't it more related to the players'/DM's playstyles than the system itself?

C'mon. Are you intentionally misreading it?

I'm saying that, by RAW, a player need not treat D&D as a roleplaying game. But yes, this is largely dependent upon the DM and players.

razark
2012-03-22, 09:04 AM
C'mon. Are you intentionally misreading it?

No, I'm going by my limited experience within my gaming group, that will go multiple sessions between combat while doing various other in-game activities.


I'm saying that, by RAW, a player need not treat D&D as a roleplaying game. But yes, this is largely dependent upon the DM and players.
But the rules also say that you don't have to use RAW, but can customize the way you play. So, if you like the RP part, find a group that likes to RP, instead of hack-n-slash.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 09:08 AM
What really grinds me about 4e are the skill challenges. They take a scenario that is ripe for role-playing, and reduce it to a bunch of the blandest dice rolls I have ever come across. Oh, look, a magical spellplague barrier. Instead of actually working out how to get past it, are actions are just providing bonuses to dice rolls, and if you make enough rolls you get past. You are crossing the desert, and because half of you made your endurance check, nobody takes any damage. Oh, you are trying to impress these 4 people, so each player matches up with them one by one, and must make a series of skill checks to impress them. All real examples I've run into, from playing in official modules. It takes the freeform roleplaying aspects, and nails them into a flat, bland system.
In contrast, I've never seen anyone run roleplaying in 3.5 in a similar manner. you are not just rolling bluff checks to trick the guards, you are telling them a lie, then using your character's stats to see if it was convincing. The mechanics of the system should be focused on combat, but they should leave the roleplaying open ended. If you are trying to solve a problem, you should be using your skills to produce a directly linked effect. You throw a grappling hook up the wall, there is now a rope, it makes it easier to climb. You make a forged document, and it adds to your faccade when the time is right. You make the climb check, and you get up. Your partner fails, and they fall. No magical "you got 15 successes in the challenge ,you win!" BS. If you want everyone to get up the wall, then you need to figure out how to get everyone up the wall. If you are trying to avoid being noticed by guards, you need to actually avoid their notice, not "get 5 failures".

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 09:26 AM
I had intended to write about how the simplification of various aspects of the game into things like hitpoints, spell slots, certain skills (especially the mentioned ones), etc. detract from storytelling/roleplaying.
One of Oracle_Hunter's Maxims of RPGs (SnM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TradeSnark)) is You Don't Need Rules For Roleplaying with the corollary that no amount of rules can stop you from roleplaying. People who want to describe how their fighter walks down a hallway will do it whether or not there is a mechanical effect to that description. Roleplaying is its Own Reward (Maxim #85).

Additionally, increased abstraction in mechanics can aid roleplaying/storytelling in that the Players and the DM will have fewer (and simpler) rules to get in the way of telling a good story. Of course, it will not always work that way, but WoD has traditionally had one of the most abstracted systems of doing pretty much anything (e.g. epic speech = CHA + Expression check) and is generally regarded as a very storyteller-friendly system.

N.B. Terms like "abstraction," "roleplaying," and even "storytelling" have loose definitions at best, making them awkward choices when trying to analyze them. I am assuming -- for the time being -- that our definitions of these terms are sufficiently similar to permit debate. In the event that your response is "but X doesn't work that way" please include a definition of the X term in the following post. It'll help in the long run :smallsmile:

Anxe
2012-03-22, 09:30 AM
I totally agree. You can use the rules to completely avoid most forms of actual roleplaying (You still need to decide if your character Bluffs the guard or decapitates him, but both are solved by the rules). And like you and others have said, roleplaying needs to be put it into the game by the players, not by the system.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 09:33 AM
I have never believed that a system can influence a group's roleplaying. A genre might, though.

For instance, I think everyone can agree that the old Storyteller system was awful, and yet my Vampire group almost always tried their best to roleplay interesting characters. By contrast, whenever I GMed a fantasy game, no matter the system (we tried GURPS Fantasy, OD&D and Advanced Fighting Fantasy), the characters almost always were terribly flat.

As for D&D specifically, I think it's main problem, regardless of the publishing company or edition, is the focus on simplistic dungeon crawls in its pre-made adventures. Dungeon crawl, regardless of the system, truly does discourage roleplaying.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 09:35 AM
All real examples I've run into, from playing in official modules. It takes the freeform roleplaying aspects, and nails them into a flat, bland system.

Might I suggest the problem lies with the official modules, then, not with the system? I can assure you, a well-crafted skill challenge can be a great addition to an adventure!

Grinner
2012-03-22, 09:53 AM
One of Oracle_Hunter's Maxims of RPGs (SnM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TradeSnark)) is You Don't Need Rules For Roleplaying with the corollary that no amount of rules can stop you from roleplaying. People who want to describe how their fighter walks down a hallway will do it whether or not there is a mechanical effect to that description. Roleplaying is its Own Reward (Maxim #85).

Personal Anecdote: Once upon a PbP game, I played a skill monkey. During one encounter, the party came upon a clearing in the middle of a forest, and in the center of this clearing, a spear-impaled skull stood. A scrap of paper was stuffed into the jaws of the skull

Suspecting a trap, I made a Search check to search the surrounding area, but since I had made a Search check, the DM also included the skull. Turns out that the paper had an exploding rune on it.

Now, not dying was pretty cool, but by rights, my character should have received a face full of 6d6 force damage.


Additionally, increased abstraction in mechanics can aid roleplaying/storytelling in that the Players and the DM will have fewer (and simpler) rules to get in the way of telling a good story. Of course, it will not always work that way, but WoD has traditionally had one of the most abstracted systems of doing pretty much anything (e.g. epic speech = CHA + Expression check) and is generally regarded as a very storyteller-friendly system.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that when mechanics overtake roleplaying in a *roleplaying* game, something is definitely wrong.


N.B. Terms like "abstraction," "roleplaying," and even "storytelling" have loose definitions at best, making them awkward choices when trying to analyze them. I am assuming -- for the time being -- that our definitions of these terms are sufficiently similar to permit debate. In the event that your response is "but X doesn't work that way" please include a definition of the X term in the following post. It'll help in the long run :smallsmile:

Duly noted.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 09:53 AM
I have never believed that a system can influence a group's roleplaying. A genre might, though.
There are a few to the contrary.
oWoD (and even nWoD) attach mechanical benefits to roleplaying in certain ways. In oWoD it had to do with your Nature and Demeanor (i.e. vague archetypes) and in some games it was the only way to restore Willpower within a session. In nWoD there is the comparatively more sophisticated Virtue and Vice system. In both cases it is hard to trigger these mechanics without roleplaying and, indeed, the text of the rules discouraged STs from granting the benefits if the Players didn't work hard enough.

Bliss Stage does this more broadly by having fully half the mechanics (specifically, the reward & advancement portion) depending solely on free-form roleplaying scenes between characters. Briefly, a Player's main character ("Pilot") is placed in a scene with one of the other characters he has a Relationship with (Relationships are a term of art in this context) and that character is then acted out by either another Player or the GM. A third person (Player or ST -- whomever is free) then acts as Judge and calls the scene into action and declares when it is done. When the scene is over the Judge then decides what category of scene it was (based off of simple criteria in the rulebook) and grants the Pilot a mechanical benefit as a result.
In each of these cases, the mechanics attached to roleplaying influence how a Player works within a system. In the weakest case (WoD), Players who do not roleplay as the system demands either run out of Willpower (a valuable resource) or simply have less use of it. In the strongest case (Bliss Stage) if you do not bother to roleplay you will not be able to heal damage from the dice-rolling part of the game, let alone increase the strength of your main character to face additional obstacles.

In short, while mechanics cannot stop roleplaying (as Roleplaying is its Own Reward) they can influence and even increase roleplaying if they tie rewards to them. Of course, no amount of rules will turn a schlub into Shakespeare but that should go without saying :smalltongue:

EDIT:

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that when mechanics overtake roleplaying in a *roleplaying* game, something is definitely wrong.
Well now, "overtake" is a difficult term to parse.

In the Strongest case, this means "dice rolls should never trump diceless actions" in which case why have rules at all? If you didn't say you searched the skull, why should the DM give you the benefit of the doubt? If your argument isn't persuasive to the Duke, why should any Diplomacy check matter? If you hold such to be true then the only mechanic you need for any game is a coin-flip to decide situations where the DM is undecided. The general argument against this is that people play roleplaying games to be people they are not -- if the 90 lb weakling can pretend to be Conan the Barbarian, why can't the wallflower pretend to be Casanova? Neither can be done without rules that permit the former to swing a sword that weighs more than himself and the latter to seduce ladies even if he can't string two words together on his own.

In the Weakest case this means "rules shouldn't stop me from making the story work" -- if the bad guy needs to escape, then movement rules shouldn't stop him from doing so. In the alternative, this means that when you give a persuasive argument to the Duke no amount of bad dice juju should stop it from working. The Weakest case is best addressed by good rule design and, unfortunately, good adventure design: good rules reflect the expectations of the Players and good adventures aren't derailed by bad dice rolls. Ultimately this is an unsatisfying response -- what makes for "good" rules? -- but it is still the proper response; all it really means is now we have to have a discussion about what makes "good" rules :smallbiggrin:

navar100
2012-03-22, 10:04 AM
A 98 pound weakling player can play a Schwarzeneggar barbarian and no one complains.

A player with an IQ of a rock can play a Voldemort wizard and no one complains.
(The concept, not counting 3E spell casting derangement syndrome which is a different topic but I digress.)

A player with the personality of watching paint dry wants to play a Palpatine bard but people complain because he rolls a die with +20 Diplomacy instead of "roleplaying".

It is true pre-3E you had to tell the DM where and how you search for traps, explain how to build a catapult, etc., and that was the problem. You the player had to be a genius and/or a manipulator. If the DM didn't like what you said, tough luck, you suck, you fail. You suffer "gotcha" traps because you didn't say "I check the ceiling for traps". Players always say "I flip over the mattress and tear the pillows" and other ad nauseum exacting details when searching a room because otherwise they won't find the secret door, treasure, or whatever for not specifying looking at a particular spot in the room.

The advent of Skills helped remove Il Duce Gotcha DMing. It allowed players to play the heroic characters they imagined. It does not take away the roleplay unless players and DM choose to. A 3E player saying "I search the room" and rolls a Search check is roleplaying just as much as the 2E player who had to say "I check under the bed, in the mattress, under the mattress, in the pillow, under the sheets, under the blanket, and check for a secret compartment in the bed spring. When I'm done with that, I look at the dresser. I open all drawers checking for false bottoms. I look under the dresser, behind the dresser, check for secret compartments in its back, search the floor underneath it. I look through everything I find in the dressers, searching all pockets, opening everything that can be opened, ..."

Siegel
2012-03-22, 10:04 AM
I have never believed that a system can influence a group's roleplaying. A genre might, though.

For instance, I think everyone can agree that the old Storyteller system was awful, and yet my Vampire group almost always tried their best to roleplay interesting characters. By contrast, whenever I GMed a fantasy game, no matter the system (we tried GURPS Fantasy, OD&D and Advanced Fighting Fantasy), the characters almost always were terribly flat.

As for D&D specifically, I think it's main problem, regardless of the publishing company or edition, is the focus on simplistic dungeon crawls in its pre-made adventures. Dungeon crawl, regardless of the system, truly does discourage roleplaying.

About system matering: This is completly wrong in my opinion. Look at a system like Wushu ur exalted. You get bonus dice for describing cool things (in combat or otherwise) and so your fights tend to get more colorfull instead of "i use twin strike".
Look at burning wheel. You can't convince someone without speaking your part in a duel of wits. IT'S IN THE RAW! (and don't even get me started on the BITs)
Look at burning empires, the scene economy put's a high presure on you to get the most out of even your roleplaying talky scenes. Look at FATE and the power it gives you in the creation of the story.

About the flat fantasy characters, check out Burning Wheel, it creates really interesting character just by char. generation.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 10:06 AM
Might I suggest the problem lies with the official modules, then, not with the system? I can assure you, a well-crafted skill challenge can be a great addition to an adventure!
Better than a freeform experience? i have yet to even see a theoretical skill challenge that is superior to actually running through a scenario properly.

SilverLeaf167
2012-03-22, 10:08 AM
The thing is, a true roleplaying game (by your definition) wouldn't be a game at all. Everything would be handled through roleplay, including character creation and combat. Thus you wouldn't require, or even have, any rules at all. Freeform roleplaying exists, after all, but even those games usually have some rules. Those rules are just simple enough to give lots of space to roleplaying.

A roleplaying game shouldn't be considered "roleplaying in a game"; it's actually a "game with roleplaying". Roleplaying is technically, and practically, just an addition to the fleshed-out mechanical rules of any given system.

Grinner
2012-03-22, 10:14 AM
The thing is, a true roleplaying game (by your definition) wouldn't be a game at all. Everything would be handled through roleplay, including character creation and combat. Thus you wouldn't require, or even have, any rules at all. Freeform roleplaying exists, after all, but even those games usually have some rules. Those rules are just simple enough to give lots of space to roleplaying.

Well, there are some things that are better handled in the arena of the mind.

Combat and decapitations, for instance.... :smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 10:15 AM
Better than a freeform experience? i have yet to even see a theoretical skill challenge that is superior to actually running through a scenario properly.
Man, I must have a lot of time on my hand :smalltongue:

Hypothetical: Convincing the Duke

Free-form
Players seek to convince the DM that the Duke should give their PCs money. Players that good at manipulating the DM will have a better chance at succeeding than those who are not. If Wally the Wallflower is playing Bruce the Bard then he is likely going to fail in this scenario, even if Bruce the Bard should have had the best chance of convincing the Duke.

3.X
One or more PCs make a single Diplomacy check apiece to convince the Duke. Better, because now the characters are as persuasive as they "should" be (i.e. they can be better or worse than their Players) but still problematic. Putting aside the obvious flaws in the 3.X Diplomacy system, you still have the chance of Bruce the Bard rolling a 1 and -- assuming his score is not astronomical -- failing at a task that might have otherwise been easy for him. A single point of failure is what causes Wizards to beat Fighters at arm wrestling :smallbiggrin:

4e
One or more PCs make a series of appropriate skill checks to convince the Duke. As a Skill Challenge, the party only fails to convince the Duke if there are multiple failures which means it is unlikely that Bruce the Bard's single unlucky roll will lose the game for everyone. In general, multiple rolls permit relative skills to beat out blind luck (both good and bad) and deliver results more in keeping with everyone's expectations about their characters.

Now, Skill Challenges have their own flaws in execution but, in principle, they are sensible ways to run many, if not all, skill-based encounters.

SilverLeaf167
2012-03-22, 10:24 AM
Well, there are some things that are better handled in the arena of the mind.

Combat and decapitations, for instance.... :smallwink:
Oh, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with freeform roleplaying. In fact, I used to play it quite a lot; I just haven't really had the opportunity to do so lately. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't play D&D, M&M, GURPS or whatever and expect the level of roleplaying found in freeform. They're very different systems (as in, freeform doesn't have a system at all :smallwink:), even different genres.

dsmiles
2012-03-22, 10:25 AM
The thing is, a true roleplaying game (by your definition) wouldn't be a game at all. Everything would be handled through roleplay, including character creation and combat.
I agree with your overall statement, but I must point out systems like Amber Diceless. It's still a game, and everything is handled through roleplay.

SilverLeaf167
2012-03-22, 10:28 AM
I agree with your overall statement, but I must point out systems like Amber Diceless. It's still a game, and everything is handled through roleplay.
Oh?
Are you serious about it not having any rules at all? No rules for character creation or interaction? "Diceless" doesn't necessarily mean "no rules".
And if it truly has no rules, I kind of wonder how the "system" differs from a storybook for people to base their own collaborative fanfics on.

dsmiles
2012-03-22, 10:39 AM
Oh?
Are you serious about it not having any rules at all? No rules for character creation or interaction? "Diceless" doesn't necessarily mean "no rules".
And if it truly has no rules, I kind of wonder how the "system" differs from a storybook for people to base their own collaborative fanfics on.

Oh there's rules for character creation, the rest is sort of vague, though (IIRC). It's the closest to a FFRPG I've ever seen a PnP game go.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 10:48 AM
Man, I must have a lot of time on my hand :smalltongue:

Hypothetical: Convincing the Duke

wonderful, exactly the type of scenario I despise skill checks for.


Free-form
Players seek to convince the DM that the Duke should give their PCs money. Players that good at manipulating the DM will have a better chance at succeeding than those who are not. If Wally the Wallflower is playing Bruce the Bard then he is likely going to fail in this scenario, even if Bruce the Bard should have had the best chance of convincing the Duke.

This is the problem with mental skills, which is why I still use skills.


3.X
One or more PCs make a single Diplomacy check apiece to convince the Duke. Better, because now the characters are as persuasive as they "should" be (i.e. they can be better or worse than their Players) but still problematic. Putting aside the obvious flaws in the 3.X Diplomacy system, you still have the chance of Bruce the Bard rolling a 1 and -- assuming his score is not astronomical -- failing at a task that might have otherwise been easy for him. A single point of failure is what causes Wizards to beat Fighters at arm wrestling :smallbiggrin:

Who said that should all come down to one die roll?Granted, 3.5's default diplomacy systems is completely borked, but you need to do a hybrid of the two. players chime in with their arguements, building up support for their arguement. People aid, and the skill check alters his disposition towards you. If you flubb it and roll a 1, you made some kind of faux pas, and accidentally insulted him. You, or perhaps an ally, can step in and apologize, rectify the situation, and get the discussion back on track.
Also, a 1 is not an auto-fail. If you are good enough to succeed on a 1, you succeed. If not, then you don't.
But just because you are not running it as askill challenge should in no way imply its a single dice roll. If it is a single die roll, then its a minor thing that would not be worthy of a skill challenge anyways. You shouldn't be making one dice roll to win over the duke. You should convince him you are friendly, perhaps offer him a gift, convince him that he should send aid to the elves, negotiate the exact nature of that aid, determine what he gets in return, etc. The encounter should not be one skill check. But each skill check should have a direct meaning to what you are doing.



4e
One or more PCs make a series of appropriate skill checks to convince the Duke. As a Skill Challenge, the party only fails to convince the Duke if there are multiple failures which means it is unlikely that Bruce the Bard's single unlucky roll will lose the game for everyone. In general, multiple rolls permit relative skills to beat out blind luck (both good and bad) and deliver results more in keeping with everyone's expectations about their characters.

Now, Skill Challenges have their own flaws in execution but, in principle, they are sensible ways to run many, if not all, skill-based encounters.
Ok, so now your outcome is based soley on multiple dice rolls. Why, yes, that fixes everything! Its not like most skill-based scenarios weren't based on multiple dice rolls anyways. Seriously, having a series of skill checks where you need x successes before y failures is a really horrible mechanic. You run the same scenario is a more open ended system, and you still have many skill checks to determine how things turn out. Only, instead of some arbitrary success/failure metric, you have individual consequences of the actions, which can lead to divergent scenarios where different skills may come into play to recover from a mistake. A skill challenge removes all of those aspects, and makes it into a series of abstracted dice rolls.


For yet another alternative, we have skill games, like in legend. In fact, the core legend rules has a skill game for precisely this scenario. http://www.ruleofcool.com/ Look it up, you can get it for free. Basically, you make a series of skill checks, which skill you use allowing the other party to make a counter skill check. Their is a DC, and if you beat it, you get a token. If the opponent beats it with their skill, they get a token. a token represents a unit of political capital. You can spend them to make demands, and they can spend their's to refuse your demands or make a counter-demand, among other things. This leads to interesting interactions, like you can agree to a demand they bid on, so they lose those chips, meaning you may be able to push through your own demands easier. It creates interesting give/take dynamics. These chips can also carry over between encounters, so it can be wise to hold onto some for later. If you frequently do things for another group without complaint, you can build up a large supply of chips as they become indebted to you for your work. Making a demand for a lot of chips later is essentially calling in a favor.
And you are not just making skill checks. You have to make your arguments, and the tone of the argument determines which skill you use. This means that if somebody has a good wisdom, then it is harder to bluff them, if they have a good int, it is harder to gain the advantage with diplomacy, and they have a good charisma it is hard to intimidate them. So, based on who you are dealing with, and your own talents, different approaches will meet with varying degrees of success.
Your roleplaying is still key, though you don't have to be casa nova to succeed. You are not just racking up meaningless successes and failures, each check has a clear meaning with a tangible result. The entire exchange is a game of itself, with strategies and counter strategies, not a collection of dice rolls.

SilverLeaf167
2012-03-22, 10:55 AM
Oh there's rules for character creation, the rest is sort of vague, though (IIRC). It's the closest to a FFRPG I've ever seen a PnP game go.
But not entirely freeform. :smallwink: But let's let that "argument" die.
This brings up another question, though: if there are no rules for anything other than character creation, why do you need character creation rules? If they have no mechanical capabilities anyway, why can't you just make up and play whatever character you want?

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 10:58 AM
For yet another alternative, we have skill games, like in legend. In fact, the core legend rules has a skill game for precisely this scenario. http://www.ruleofcool.com/ Look it up, you can get it for free. Basically, you make a series of skill checks, which skill you use allowing the other party to make a counter skill check. Their is a DC, and if you beat it, you get a token. If the opponent beats it with their skill, they get a token. a token represents a unit of political capital. You can spend them to make demands, and they can spend their's to refuse your demands or make a counter-demand, among other things. This leads to interesting interactions, like you can agree to a demand they bid on, so they lose those chips, meaning you may be able to push through your own demands easier. It creates interesting give/take dynamics. These chips can also carry over between encounters, so it can be wise to hold onto some for later. If you frequently do things for another group without complaint, you can build up a large supply of chips as they become indebted to you for your work. Making a demand for a lot of chips later is essentially calling in a favor.

And you are not just making skill checks. You have to make your arguments, and the tone of the argument determines which skill you use. This means that if somebody has a good wisdom, then it is harder to bluff them, if they have a good int, it is harder to gain the advantage with diplomacy, and they have a good charisma it is hard to intimidate them. So, based on who you are dealing with, and your own talents, different approaches will meet with varying degrees of success.
I didn't see the rules when I followed the link, so I'll go off of your description.

First of all -- a fine system. However, it is not a freeform system and your original question was "when would you use a skill challenge instead of freeform." I can't make heads or tails of your specific response to my hypothetical so I'm going to assume we must disagree on some fundamental level and I'll move on.

Now, the Legend system looks like a fine (and intricate) social mechanic which is reminiscent of Burning Wheel. I would expect such a mechanic in a game where negotiating (particularly long-term) would be an important part of gameplay -- you wouldn't want each side to roll a bunch of dice every time the PCs decide to bribe a guard or seduce a wench for example. In a faction-style political game this would be appropriate but for a dungeon-crawling and dragon-slaying game? Not so much.

EDIT: Additionally, how does it function with the following situation?

PC: "Bartender, give me a free drink."
Bartender: "OK, and as that's your fifth free drink from me, you now have to kill my wife." [uses chips]

dsmiles
2012-03-22, 11:02 AM
This brings up another question, though: if there are no rules for anything other than character creation, why do you need character creation rules? If they have no mechanical capabilities anyway, why can't you just make up and play whatever character you want?It's been a long friggin' time, but (again, IIRC) it has to do with some sort of "trait" type thingies that you can call on in-game to create specific effects. If you have read the Amber books it gets a little clearer, because there is nothing a true Amberite cannot find in shadow. A near-FFRPG is pretty much the only way to pull off roleplaying in an Amber-like setting, IMO.

EDIT: This is a better explanation than I could ever come up with. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game)

Mike_G
2012-03-22, 11:07 AM
I totally agree. You can use the rules to completely avoid most forms of actual roleplaying (You still need to decide if your character Bluffs the guard or decapitates him, but both are solved by the rules). And like you and others have said, roleplaying needs to be put it into the game by the players, not by the system.


You can use the ruels that way, but you don't have to.

I started with Red Box D&D back in 1980. I've played GURPS, RQ, Harn, Traveller, CoC and most anything else that came out in the last thirty years. The mechanics never got in the way of roleplay for my groups.

When I play, or DM, I will have the player actually presnt the bluff. "We're here from the Inspector General's Office. You better hope all those masterwork longswords are cleaned and sharpened, and if any of them are missing, you'll be on a fast oxcart to the Orcish Front. What did you polish that breastplate with? Your mom's dirty knickers? Now open up this door and at least try to stand at attention, you sorry excuse for a soldier!"

Then, I may have them roll Bluff versus Sense Motive, modified by how good the story is. It's fun, it's roleplaying. It does give them some reward for dumping points into Bluff. Sure, you could just say "I bluff the guard. *roll* Beat a 23 or open the door, mook." But that's hardly satisfying if you want to play Moist von Lipwig.

If the party is combat focused, and you'd rather handle your fast talk and haggling and princess seductions with a few quick skill checks so you can get back to slaughtering goblins, the rules allow for it. They don't force you to play it that way.



I love to play

nedz
2012-03-22, 11:09 AM
I think we may be uncovering a fallacy here ?
A varient of stormwind perhaps ?

3.5 skill checks such as Diplomacy and Bluff did trouble me at first because they seem to take away the actual roleplay of the situation, until I worked out a way to do it.

How I handle these situations now is to make the skill check, and then roleplay the result. OK it doesn't help that these skills can be optimised to the point where this can break down: this nullifying stormwind simply because you have loaded the dice; but there are fixes for that.

Now not every player will do this, some will just assume that a bad diplomacy roll is a failure they can ignore - rather than a situation which they can roleplay causing offense etc. BUT this is a failure of the player and not the system.

Ed: formatting

Pinnacle
2012-03-22, 11:10 AM
Today I learned that "roleplaying" and "freeform determination of success or failure" are the same thing!

Seriously, whatever character the trained-in-Diplomacy player plays being the best at Diplomacy is not better roleplaying.



If you didn't say you searched the skull, why should the DM give you the benefit of the doubt? If your argument isn't persuasive to the Duke, why should any Diplomacy check matter?

Because my character is better at it than I am.
That my character might be worse at something than I am is also relevant, although it doesn't apply to this example.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 11:25 AM
I didn't see the rules when I followed the link, so I'll go off of your description.

You have to go to the "get the game" link and look at the non-combat encounters section of the rules.


First of all -- a fine system. However, it is not a freeform system and your original question was "when would you use a skill challenge instead of freeform." I can't make heads or tails of your specific response to my hypothetical so I'm going to assume we must disagree on some fundamental level and I'll move on.

When I said I hate skill challenges, I didn't mean to imply that I hate all skill systems that ever exist. I hate the 4e skill challenges. They lack the dynamic interactions that make such events interesting. If what you do doesn't really matter, then it undercuts the role playing. If I make my skill check in a skill challenge, I'm not really accomplishing much, I'm getting an abstract success. If I make my skill check in a more dynamic situation, the result has a direct, meaningful impact.


Now, the Legend system looks like a fine (and intricate) social mechanic which is reminiscent of Burning Wheel. I would expect such a mechanic in a game where negotiating (particularly long-term) would be an important part of gameplay -- you wouldn't want each side to roll a bunch of dice every time the PCs decide to bribe a guard or seduce a wench for example. In a faction-style political game this would be appropriate but for a dungeon-crawling and dragon-slaying game? Not so much.

As I said, you don't need to get into a big involved thing when it really is just a skill check. bribing a guard would just be a skill check, not a social encounter. If you tried to use a skill challenge for bribing a guard it wouldn't work either.



EDIT: Additionally, how does it function with the following situation?

PC: "Bartender, give me a free drink."
Bartender: "OK, and as that's your fifth free drink from me, you now have to kill my wife." [uses chips]
You have the option to refuse the demand if it is unreasonable and walk away, though there are often consequences. In that case, there wouldn't really be consequences to abandoning it because their request is unreasonable. Similarly, requesting the queen give you her country because you have an extra chip will not go down well either.
Also, giving into demands doesn't mean you get chips. It means you are not spending chips while your opponent it. The bartender would have to be engaging the player in conversation, and earning tokens in the first place. And since you don't enter a social encounter until there is a confrontation or potential conflict, chatting about his day doesn't cut it. You would actually have to be engaging in a debate about the topic first. Hence, it would never be "kill my wife" from out of the blue. He would have to be convincing you to do it. If you are spending your tokens in the middle of the debate to get free beer, then you are mismanaging your social encounter, so it should not be surprising you fail.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 11:57 AM
You have the option to refuse the demand if it is unreasonable and walk away, though there are often consequences. In that case, there wouldn't really be consequences to abandoning it because their request is unreasonable. Similarly, requesting the queen give you her country because you have an extra chip will not go down well either.

Also, giving into demands doesn't mean you get chips. It means you are not spending chips while your opponent it. The bartender would have to be engaging the player in conversation, and earning tokens in the first place. And since you don't enter a social encounter until there is a confrontation or potential conflict, chatting about his day doesn't cut it. You would actually have to be engaging in a debate about the topic first. Hence, it would never be "kill my wife" from out of the blue. He would have to be convincing you to do it. If you are spending your tokens in the middle of the debate to get free beer, then you are mismanaging your social encounter, so it should not be surprising you fail.
Ah, well I suppose any system like that would need to have a DM Fiat escape clause to work.

Mostly I was curious about the idea of spending chips to "force" an action from the opposite party as was implied by your example. My worry was that this system would promote metagamesmanship by PCs (who can hoard chips by doing trivial tasks to spend on forcing a major concession) and, as an extension, NPCs. If NPCs found that they could be compelled by Destiny to fulfill requests by their minions then surely anyone with power would have had to build up a vast store of these chips to maintain their position in society. That is to say, powerbrokers would be adept at manipulating the diplomatic system because otherwise they would never have been powerbrokers.

Generally, I dislike systems that force parties (particularly PCs) to do things that should be governed by free will. Even if the King has granted the PCs a ton of boons over time he shouldn't be able to force them to rescue his daughter through system mechanics -- the PCs should be able to decide "nah, we're bugging out." I can see how generally this can work on one-off situations (e.g. Burning Wheel's social mechanism) but the concept of metagame Plot Chips that persist over time bothers me.

Also: this system makes life harder for Wally the Wallflower because he cannot convince that a request is "reasonable" as well as Smooth Sammy. Personally, I prefer systems which minimize the impact of DM manipulation but YMMV :smallsmile:

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 12:05 PM
There are a few to the contrary.

True. But at least for oWoD (I've only skimmed the new one, can't really comment on it), the encouragement to roleplay is still very light, in my opinion (there are ways to recover Willpower even without roleplaying your Nature/Demeanor - resting, for instance).


Better than a freeform experience? i have yet to even see a theoretical skill challenge that is superior to actually running through a scenario properly.

It depends on the scenario. For instance, what if the Paladin, the Rogue and the Warlock were fighting off an evil half-demonic sorcerer directly empowered by the Beast of the Abyss, while the Cleric and the Wizard were performing a ritual to sever the connection between the Beast and the sorcerer and to provent the Beast's children from being summoned? (That is, part of the group is fighting the sorcerer, while the Cleric and the Wizard are doing an Arcana/Religion skill challenge to make the sorcerer lose some of his abilities and to prevent him from calling minions to his side every other round.)


Ok, so now your outcome is based soley on multiple dice rolls. Why, yes, that fixes everything! Its not like most skill-based scenarios weren't based on multiple dice rolls anyways. Seriously, having a series of skill checks where you need x successes before y failures is a really horrible mechanic. You run the same scenario is a more open ended system, and you still have many skill checks to determine how things turn out. Only, instead of some arbitrary success/failure metric, you have individual consequences of the actions, which can lead to divergent scenarios where different skills may come into play to recover from a mistake. A skill challenge removes all of those aspects, and makes it into a series of abstracted dice rolls.

It depends on how you run it. The way I see it, the conversation with the Duke should be roleplayed in "stages", so to speak: every PC who takes part in the discussion (that is, roleplays it) should roll Diplomacy; successes mean they're gradually convincing him it is in his best interests to comply with their requests, while failures mean he does not lend credence to a specific argument, until finally the duke either loses patience with them and the audience is ended, or they manage to fully convince him.

Let's see an example: the PCs are trying to convince the Duke that a local goblin tribe is going to attack his feud, and that they're well-equipped and well-trained, without any proof other than their word. (This is important; definitive proof means there's no need for the challenge to even take place, unless the Duke is particularly obtuse.)

Let's say the group is a Human Bard, a Dwarf Fighter, an Elf Ranger and a Gnome Sorcerer.

Bard: "My lord, we bring you terrible news! Goblins are planning to attack your lands."

(Bard succeeds on his Diplomacy roll.)

Duke: "Those foul creatures! But worry not, faithful friend; the local guards are more than capable of driving them off."

Sorcerer: "No, my lord, they won't be enough. They had good weapons and seemed skilled in their use."

(Sorcerer fails.)

Duke: "Goblins, skilled and well-armed? Impossible! Your sorcery is unmatched, master Gnome, but you are no soldier; surely you were deceived by your lack of experience with such matters."

Ranger: "No, my lord, I can assure you my companion speaks truly, for I have seen it with my own eyes: these goblins are being led by Hrothgar, the Iron Wolf of the North, the most famed goblin warlord of our generation."

Fighter: "And I know of what I speak, my lord: their weapons were made of the finest steel, and the craftsmanship could rival that of my own kin."

(Fighter and Ranger are well-known to the Duke as skilled warriors. Both gain a +2 bonus and succeed on their rolls.)

Duke: "Terrible news indeed, my friends! But if I send troops to reinforce the garrisons in my lands, my enemies may take advantage of the opportunity to attack me as well!"

Bard: "My lord, after you save your lands and the kingdom itself from the threat of Hrothgar, Iron Wolf of the North, certainly your fame will be such that none of them will have the courage to raise arms against you!"

(The argument isn't so good, so the Bard suffers a -2 penalty, but it's not so terrible as to be dismissed out of hand. Bard succeeds even so.)

Duke: "You speak truly, good minstrel. Summon my warriors!"

Of course, in an actual game this would certainly be a lot less neat and simplistic, but I think it could be run like this, in general terms.

bloodtide
2012-03-22, 12:26 PM
When D&D 4e was released, it was decried as an MMORPG-gone-tabletop. Roleplaying was no longer the objective of the game, and combat had been made king. Certainly, given the changes made in comparison to previous editions and even the terminology used to describe the monsters, this was not an entirely undue accusation.

4E was very much geared for the type of gamer(often, but not always younger) that not only can't role-play, but also did not want to role-play.



But let's not kid ourselves. D&D has never been about roleplaying. In every edition*, roleplaying has been just an optional side-show to the main attraction: combat.
Given so many ways to bypass roleplaying, the world's oldest roleplaying game is not a roleplaying game. It's just a game.


Ok...now Ye old D&D, like 0E, was in fact all about combat. But that was a long, long time ago and the game has evolved. By the time 2E came around it was all about role-playing with combat as a side show.

It's easy enough to understand. When you play combat only D&D, it is just a game, you might as well play Risk or Chess. And you don't really feel an emotional attachment to the game pieces in Risk and more then you'd feel it for a character sheet. But then something magical happened, myself and hundreds of other gamers saw D&D as something more: an alternative reality simulation and not just a game. We created complex characters, plot, story lines, drama, history and all sorts of role-playing. For us it's simple, the 'official rules' cover the mechanics of the physical alternative, while we the gamers cover everything else.

The D&D rules have never tried to cover true role-playing, and that's good, as it's impossible. You only get two choices: A light couple page system for role-playing social interactions that would basically not cover anything useful(roll a d20 if you roll high everyone is happy!) or a complex 300 page system that tries but fails to cover everything(you could have a huge table for 'bonuses to the like roll', but the table can only have so many entries and can never cover the infinite number of possibles.) In short, you can't have rules for true role-playing.

So why does D&D even bother with 'lite' role-playing rules? Well, as I said the game has evolved. While a 1E adventure would be 'kill all the drow', a 3E adventure is more 'discover why the two elf kingdoms are on the brink of war and make peace'. As you can see the 3E adventure will involve role-playing, diplomacy, interaction and all sorts of things other then combat. So the D&D rules have some 'lite' role-playing rules to cover that type of stuff. As to why....

This is a simple truth: at least 50% of gamers can't role-play. It sounds harsh I know. But it's true. The reasons vary, but the true is that most people can't role-play. And even when they try to role-play, a great many people are simply bad at it. (American Idol, as well as any talent show, quite well demonstrate this also)

So you have a game where a player will need to role-play(they will need to negotiate with the elf king to stop a war), but the player(s) won't be able to do it(or the DM won't be able to do it, or both). So how do you have something be part of a game that half the players can't do? You add in a simple roll mechanic. That way everyone can play the game.

And, of course, for 3E and especially for 4E the role-playing rules promote 'fairness for all'. After all, some players can role play walking up to the elf kind and give a speech and say all the right things and be quite dramatic. While other players can't. Even if the player has a 'high charisma' character, the player can't play that. So it's unfair that the good role-player would 'get' everything. So to 'balance' things out, and make 'everything fair', D&D has lite role-playing mechanics.(And like all such things it hurts and dumb downs the ones with talent and helps only those who have no talent).

Special Note: This is not about the 'typical nerd' that plays D&D and has no social skills and can't role-play. After all, that is a myth made up by the 'mainstream popular crowd' as a slur against D&D. In fact plenty of 'nerds' open up greatly at the game table. And while granted half of all players still can't role-play, it;s not as they are all nerds...they are all types of people. The inability to role-play effects everyone.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 12:47 PM
Ah, well I suppose any system like that would need to have a DM Fiat escape clause to work.

Mostly I was curious about the idea of spending chips to "force" an action from the opposite party as was implied by your example. My worry was that this system would promote metagamesmanship by PCs (who can hoard chips by doing trivial tasks to spend on forcing a major concession) and, as an extension, NPCs. If NPCs found that they could be compelled by Destiny to fulfill requests by their minions then surely anyone with power would have had to build up a vast store of these chips to maintain their position in society. That is to say, powerbrokers would be adept at manipulating the diplomatic system because otherwise they would never have been powerbrokers.

Generally, I dislike systems that force parties (particularly PCs) to do things that should be governed by free will. Even if the King has granted the PCs a ton of boons over time he shouldn't be able to force them to rescue his daughter through system mechanics -- the PCs should be able to decide "nah, we're bugging out." I can see how generally this can work on one-off situations (e.g. Burning Wheel's social mechanism) but the concept of metagame Plot Chips that persist over time bothers me.

Also: this system makes life harder for Wally the Wallflower because he cannot convince that a request is "reasonable" as well as Smooth Sammy. Personally, I prefer systems which minimize the impact of DM manipulation but YMMV :smallsmile:
Token's are not general. You can't go around town collecting tokens from people, and then go up to the king and throw a pile of them at his feat and make demands.
And thinking of it as forcing things against free will is wrong. Its a representation of your influence and how persusive you have been in the engangement.
As for gathering a relative token surplus for giving into tasks, its generally not going to be 20 small tasks. But imagine. You are dealing with somebody on a frequent basis. They keep doing favors for you, Then they ask you for a favor. You would be more inclined to grant it. That is all it is representing.
And it has always struck me as very odd how asymmetrical diplomacy was. You could make a NPC with piles of charisma, oozing diplomacy, able to woo anyone he feels like, but as soon as he meets PCs, that all is meaningless. Or do you think that the DM should be casa nova to roleplay him good enough to really woo the players?



It depends on how you run it. The way I see it, the conversation with the Duke should be roleplayed in "stages", so to speak: every PC who takes part in the discussion (that is, roleplays it) should roll Diplomacy; successes mean they're gradually convincing him it is in his best interests to comply with their requests, while failures mean he does not lend credence to a specific argument, until finally the duke either loses patience with them and the audience is ended, or they manage to fully convince him.

Let's see an example: the PCs are trying to convince the Duke that a local goblin tribe is going to attack his feud, and that they're well-equipped and well-trained, without any proof other than their word. (This is important; definitive proof means there's no need for the challenge to even take place, unless the Duke is particularly obtuse.)

Let's say the group is a Human Bard, a Dwarf Fighter, an Elf Ranger and a Gnome Sorcerer.

Bard: "My lord, we bring you terrible news! Goblins are planning to attack your lands."

(Bard succeeds on his Diplomacy roll.)

Duke: "Those foul creatures! But worry not, faithful friend; the local guards are more than capable of driving them off."

Sorcerer: "No, my lord, they won't be enough. They had good weapons and seemed skilled in their use."

(Sorcerer fails.)

Duke: "Goblins, skilled and well-armed? Impossible! Your sorcery is unmatched, master Gnome, but you are no soldier; surely you were deceived by your lack of experience with such matters."

Ranger: "No, my lord, I can assure you my companion speaks truly, for I have seen it with my own eyes: these goblins are being led by Hrothgar, the Iron Wolf of the North, the most famed goblin warlord of our generation."

Fighter: "And I know of what I speak, my lord: their weapons were made of the finest steel, and the craftsmanship could rival that of my own kin."

(Fighter and Ranger are well-known to the Duke as skilled warriors. Both gain a +2 bonus and succeed on their rolls.)

Duke: "Terrible news indeed, my friends! But if I send troops to reinforce the garrisons in my lands, my enemies may take advantage of the opportunity to attack me as well!"

Bard: "My lord, after you save your lands and the kingdom itself from the threat of Hrothgar, Iron Wolf of the North, certainly your fame will be such that none of them will have the courage to raise arms against you!"

(The argument isn't so good, so the Bard suffers a -2 penalty, but it's not so terrible as to be dismissed out of hand. Bard succeeds even so.)

Duke: "You speak truly, good minstrel. Summon my warriors!"

Of course, in an actual game this would certainly be a lot less neat and simplistic, but I think it could be run like this, in general terms.
But that is not a skill challenge, that is a more freeform dynamic approach, which is what I'm advocating.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 12:56 PM
You could make a NPC with piles of charisma, oozing diplomacy, able to woo anyone he feels like, but as soon as he meets PCs, that all is meaningless. Or do you think that the DM should be casa nova to roleplay him good enough to really woo the players?

I like the approach adopted by the old "DC Heroes" roleplaying game (which survived in the newer, but still old, "Blood of Heroes: Special Edition": you can affect PCs with any type of regular social interaction, but they can cancel it by spending Hero Points (a difficult concept to translate into D&D, but it's a combination of Action Points with an additional pool of Hit Points).


But that is not a skill challenge, that is a more freeform dynamic approach, which is what I'm advocating.

I'd say it is a skill challenge, only one reduced to the game's basic description of the subsystem: a combination of tasks solved by skill rolls, where the amount of successes and failures are measured until ultimate success or failure is achieved.

Grinner
2012-03-22, 12:57 PM
bloodtide: When I imagine roleplaying, I don't think of anything as grand as Moss's performance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iztRfwxiq28) in The IT Crowd. Something as simple as diplomatically presenting a reasonable argument to the King, even in the third person, instead of just rolling for it will suffice.

But that's just me.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 01:00 PM
And thinking of it as forcing things against free will is wrong. Its a representation of your influence and how persusive you have been in the engangement. As for gathering a relative token surplus for giving into tasks, its generally not going to be 20 small tasks. But imagine. You are dealing with somebody on a frequent basis. They keep doing favors for you, Then they ask you for a favor. You would be more inclined to grant it. That is all it is representing.
Well now, it depends on whether or not (1) you're the sort of person who keeps track of how often someone has done you a good deed and (2) you're the sort of person who cares.

The Legend system assumes that everyone in the world who you will engage socially is both someone who keeps track of favors and cares about the number of favors done for them. It makes sense for certain settings (e.g. aristocratic courts, shadowrunning) but less sense for others (e.g. entering dungeons, slaying dragons). While a Mr. Johnson is likely to care about the number of jobs you've done for him, bandit leaders, warlords and even dragons could probably care less. Under a less structured system the DM has the freedom to either count those favors or not through the granting of bonuses or automatic successes in skill checks. In Legend everyone you engage in a social challenge must operate under the given social paradigm.


And it has always struck me as very odd how asymmetrical diplomacy was. You could make a NPC with piles of charisma, oozing diplomacy, able to woo anyone he feels like, but as soon as he meets PCs, that all is meaningless. Or do you think that the DM should be casa nova to roleplay him good enough to really woo the players?
This is because the game is about the Players, not the NPCs.

Players Like Autonomy (Maxim #1) so it is beneficial to give them as much as is feasible. One thing which almost always ticks off Players is when they are told But Thou Must (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust) so as a DM it is a good idea to keep those to a minimum. It is one thing to employ the occasional charm spell or mutually-agreed kludge ("of course we'll do what the old man in the tavern says") but it is another to have a persistent and common mechanic that can bind the hands of the Players.

Naturally, anyone's tolerance for this will vary but as a default I like to keep this to a minimum. If I ever run a game with that sort of mechanic I will make sure to tell them all about this mechanic before they even sit down at the table. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind playing in such a system for a bit provided it is fairly limited -- Burning Wheel, for example, doesn't allow its equivalent of Plot Tokens to carry beyond the given encounter.

bloodtide
2012-03-22, 01:31 PM
bloodtide: When I imagine roleplaying, I don't think of anything as grand as Moss's performance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iztRfwxiq28) in The IT Crowd. Something as simple as diplomatically presenting a reasonable argument to the King, even in the third person, instead of just rolling for it will suffice.

I agree. But again, most people can't even do that. That is why D&D has some lite and lame role-playing rules: to make it fair and balanced for everyone.

You can see examples of social situations like this everyday, everywhere. All a person needs to do is ask for something nicely, for example....yet they can't do it.

And that is only the social part, does not even cover the intelligence part. Where you look at the fact and such and them come up with something to say. But, yet again, most people can't do this.

Ask 100 people 'how to stop the king from going to war' and you will get a ton of 'I don't know's and 'uhmmm?'s. Yet even if you know absolutely nothing about the conflict you can say something like 'war is bad and people will die and you should avoid that'. It's simple and obvious, yet most people won't be able to think of that.

prufock
2012-03-22, 01:36 PM
Certain skill checks allow you to avoid roleplaying. No skill check requires you to avoid roleplaying. I don't think this is a weakness, but a strength.

For social skills, I use Bluff as my template. By the rules, you must present your bluff in dialogue (not indicated in the SRD, but implied; more explicit in the PHB). You receive a bonus to your check based on the DM's assessment of how well you've presented your bluff.

This forces you to roleplay. It also makes your bonuses/die rolls important. It isn't entirely an arbitrary DM decision, but the DM decision factors into it.

I expand this format to include diplomacy, intimidate, and gather info. There's no reason you couldn't expand it to the other skills as well - describe your actions well, you get a bonus. I use opposed checks for diplomacy, too, but that's just a house rule.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 01:40 PM
I'd say it is a skill challenge, only one reduced to the game's basic description of the subsystem: a combination of tasks solved by skill rolls, where the amount of successes and failures are measured until ultimate success or failure is achieved.
It is NOTHING like a 4e skill challenge. nowhere were you keeping track of successes and failures. one person fails to make a convincing arguement, and others are able to step in and recover it. the 4e skill challenges remove all relationships between what you did and the precise effect of that action. And this is with diplomacy, which is probably the single most applicable area for that system to make sense. It makes more sense to have a scale of how convinced they are/how much they like you, and successes and failures modify that. The moment you have 7 successes, 4 failures, and you need 8 sucesses before 5 failures doesn't make much sense. we have been arguing for 11 checks now, and he is simultaneously almost convinced and almost ready to throw us out, depending on our next words? Plus, the skill challenge system doesn't really allow for partial victories, where you succeeded at one aspect of what you wanted, but not others, not does it really allow for you to go over and above. You could say something like "and if you managed 4 successes before your 4 failures, you only accomplish x, and if you manage 12 then you get reward y", but that still lacks a connection to what you actually did.


Well now, it depends on whether or not (1) you're the sort of person who keeps track of how often someone has done you a good deed and (2) you're the sort of person who cares.

The Legend system assumes that everyone in the world who you will engage socially is both someone who keeps track of favors and cares about the number of favors done for them. It makes sense for certain settings (e.g. aristocratic courts, shadowrunning) but less sense for others (e.g. entering dungeons, slaying dragons). While a Mr. Johnson is likely to care about the number of jobs you've done for him, bandit leaders, warlords and even dragons could probably care less. Under a less structured system the DM has the freedom to either count those favors or not through the granting of bonuses or automatic successes in skill checks. In Legend everyone you engage in a social challenge must operate under the given social paradigm.

The favor aspect of it is really minor, people are focusing on it way too much. Its more likely to come into play within the course of an encounter, where you choose to give in to their demands without counter-bidding. It encourages a give and take within a negotiation. With the warlord example, think of it more like you are gradually winning them over by agreeing with them. you could get the edge simply by having more social skills and rolling good, or you can supplement that with giving in to the other person.
You are taking an abstract representation of your progress and influence with them and assuming it necessarily means the same things to everyone.



This is because the game is about the Players, not the NPCs.

Players Like Autonomy (Maxim #1) so it is beneficial to give them as much as is feasible. One thing which almost always ticks off Players is when they are told But Thou Must (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust) so as a DM it is a good idea to keep those to a minimum. It is one thing to employ the occasional charm spell or mutually-agreed kludge ("of course we'll do what the old man in the tavern says") but it is another to have a persistent and common mechanic that can bind the hands of the Players.

Naturally, anyone's tolerance for this will vary but as a default I like to keep this to a minimum. If I ever run a game with that sort of mechanic I will make sure to tell them all about this mechanic before they even sit down at the table. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind playing in such a system for a bit provided it is fairly limited -- Burning Wheel, for example, doesn't allow its equivalent of Plot Tokens to carry beyond the given encounter.
It think its fairly rare to go into a negotiation session in that system and come out with only 1 side giving something.And its less "You are forced to do this" and "you have been maneuvered into agreeing to this". Its also much easier to resist, easier to have the appropriate skills, and much harder to optimize your skill checks. So its not like some guy is going to drop out of nowhere, say "You are my slave!" with a diplomacy check of 100. And, again, there is aways the option to walk away.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 01:50 PM
It is NOTHING like a 4e skill challenge. nowhere were you keeping track of successes and failures.

...But I was!


one person fails to make a convincing arguement, and others are able to step in and recover it.

But that's exactly what a skill challenge is meant to represent - the group, as a whole, trying to successfully perform an action. In a Diplomacy skill challenge, this could work like in my example - each and every PC presenting an original argument or supporting another's argument; in a History skill challenge, this could probably be portrayed as the group poring over a library's books together. And so on and so forth.

As for partial successes... Yeah, that's something that the GM would have to judge on his own, indeed.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 02:05 PM
...But I was!
No, you created a script that happened to make perfect sense and come to its conclusion at the right time. If players are actually making arguements, having a precise number of successes does not naturally line up with when they would actually be successful.



But that's exactly what a skill challenge is meant to represent - the group, as a whole, trying to successfully perform an action. In a Diplomacy skill challenge, this could work like in my example - each and every PC presenting an original argument or supporting another's argument; in a History skill challenge, this could probably be portrayed as the group poring over a library's books together. And so on and so forth.

As for partial successes... Yeah, that's something that the GM would have to judge on his own, indeed.
Having a skill challenge for a single action is ridiculous. Portraying a history skill challenge as the group pouring over books sounds like an awful scenario.
Each action should have its own effect. Not some abstract "success" that means you are somehow closer to succeeding.It should create its own value.
And even if it can be done right, in the right circumstances, by a good DM, if the professional writers creating modules can't make them work, why should you expect your average DM to be able to put them together competently?
For them to even begin to function properly, every roll you make must make sense and be adequately described. Otherwise its rolling dice in vacuum with a vague idea that it is helping... somehow...
And nobody has yet explained how being 1 roll away from both success and failure makes any sense in a social encounter?

Pinnacle
2012-03-22, 02:38 PM
After all, some players can role play walking up to the elf kind and give a speech and say all the right things and be quite dramatic. While other players can't. Even if the player has a 'high charisma' character, the player can't play that. So it's unfair that the good role-player would 'get' everything.

When did making speeches and roleplaying become the same thing, again?

Roleplaying involves playing the role of another person, with different skills than my own (and typically better, since most of the games I play involve larger-than-life heroes).
Why does the fact that my character is not me matter when he's casting spells or fighting a dragon, but we're suddenly the same person when we're talking to somebody?
As a roleplayer I describe my character's actions. In a conversation, that might involve spelling out word-for-word what he says (particularly if it's a relatively short one), but it doesn't have to.
And my own ability to deceive, to perceive deception, to inspire, to intimidate, to convince--that's not relevant one way or the other.
Describing how I do it? That's useful. Pointing out that my character is using these facts and making this argument that we know will have an impact on the queen while also being rude because he's becoming impatient with her? Those are relevant and impact good game mechanics (circumstance bonuses). They can also impact the narrative--the queen grudgingly accepts that he's right, but she's not happy about it because she doesn't like him.

I don't see how your great roleplayer's characters all turning into thrilling inspirational speechmakers the moment being a thrilling inspirational speechmaker benefits her character makes her a great roleplayer.

huttj509
2012-03-22, 02:41 PM
And nobody has yet explained how being 1 roll away from both success and failure makes any sense in a social encounter?

You've never encountered a situation where someone was on the edge of a decision, and a single comment could either convince them or make them walk away?

Where you're pursuing a cutpurse through a market town, suffering setbacks (dang fruitcart, and those glaziers walking around were just an anachronism) and successes (spotted the thief ducking through an alley, knew the city well enough to manage a shortcut vaulting the wall that was there), the rogue is almost gone to ground, but you think you have one last trick up your sleeve.

Fording a river, most made it across, but you're barely hanging onto the rope, your hands are getting numb, and you don't know how much longer you can hold on. If you can manage it for just a little longer you can be pulled to safety. If not...well, got any ideas?

The idea behind skill checks was to provide a target line. In combat, HP provides a line as to when the guy falls down, finally. In skill checks, the DC provides a line as to HOW convincing you need to be. HOW tough is the climb. How sneaky are you.

Skill challenges provide a target line for MULTIPLE skills. You're trying to convince the King, and make a decent argument, but not scene-ending one way or the other. HOW convincing was it? How much does it push the king towards or away from accepting your proposal? Default? 1 success. If the argument was flimsy at best it might just provide a bonus to your next roll (supporting skills, for example). If you have something more convincing, give it 2 successes, the target line still remains the same.

And there's also the possibility of "I win" actions. If you give the guard a bag of gold, he's probably not gonna take it then say "ok, what else ya got?" If you've tracked down an ancient map Elminster's been looking for, and when seeking his help offer the map in exchange, yeah, that'd bypass the skill challenge. Both of those examples are from DnD design podcasts, BTW. They've recognized that the idea of skill challenges does not really come through well in the books or modules, and answered a number of questions about them in mailbag podcasts.

If it's someone's first success and they need 5, you don't describe it as "The King's thoroughly impressed by your argument, and is almost ready to send his full armies wherever you ask." The same as if it's the first hit someone takes you don't describe it as "the arrow rips through your shoulder, leaving a gaping wound that's quickly staining your armor red with blood."

You tailor the scene to the successes, reflecting how close or far people are from victory/defeat.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 02:56 PM
You tailor the scene to the successes, reflecting how close or far people are from victory/defeat.

Yes, that's what I meant to say! Thanks for the concise explanation. :-)

Mystify
2012-03-22, 02:59 PM
You've never encountered a situation where someone was on the edge of a decision, and a single comment could either convince them or make them walk away?

Where you're pursuing a cutpurse through a market town, suffering setbacks (dang fruitcart, and those glaziers walking around were just an anachronism) and successes (spotted the thief ducking through an alley, knew the city well enough to manage a shortcut vaulting the wall that was there), the rogue is almost gone to ground, but you think you have one last trick up your sleeve.

Fording a river, most made it across, but you're barely hanging onto the rope, your hands are getting numb, and you don't know how much longer you can hold on. If you can manage it for just a little longer you can be pulled to safety. If not...well, got any ideas?

The idea behind skill checks was to provide a target line. In combat, HP provides a line as to when the guy falls down, finally. In skill checks, the DC provides a line as to HOW convincing you need to be. HOW tough is the climb. How sneaky are you.

Skill challenges provide a target line for MULTIPLE skills. You're trying to convince the King, and make a decent argument, but not scene-ending one way or the other. HOW convincing was it? How much does it push the king towards or away from accepting your proposal? Default? 1 success. If the argument was flimsy at best it might just provide a bonus to your next roll (supporting skills, for example). If you have something more convincing, give it 2 successes, the target line still remains the same.

And there's also the possibility of "I win" actions. If you give the guard a bag of gold, he's probably not gonna take it then say "ok, what else ya got?" If you've tracked down an ancient map Elminster's been looking for, and when seeking his help offer the map in exchange, yeah, that'd bypass the skill challenge. Both of those examples are from DnD design podcasts, BTW. They've recognized that the idea of skill challenges does not really come through well in the books or modules, and answered a number of questions about them in mailbag podcasts.

If it's someone's first success and they need 5, you don't describe it as "The King's thoroughly impressed by your argument, and is almost ready to send his full armies wherever you ask." The same as if it's the first hit someone takes you don't describe it as "the arrow rips through your shoulder, leaving a gaping wound that's quickly staining your armor red with blood."

You tailor the scene to the successes, reflecting how close or far people are from victory/defeat.

But if somebody is sitting their, on the border of being convinced or not, and you say something wrong, they don't suddenly latch onto that result that error and become unshakably against it. If they are that close, then they should still be uncertain enough that you could still win them over. Conversely, if you made bunch of good arguments at the beginning and he was almost convinced, then made a bunch of mistakes and bad points that have almost convinced him you are definitely wrong, making one good point is not going to swing him all the way around to being on board. It would make a LOT more sense to have a slider, so failures counteract successes. If failing 4 times right at the beginning is just enough to make them discount you, then why would 4 failures after you have gotten 6 flawless successes also be sufficient to discredit you? They should be much more amiable and closer to agreeing with you at that point, so they should be more tolerant of your mistakes than the random person who just starts spouting nonsense from the beginning.
And that is with diplomacy, where the system makes the most sense, and where having a system is most applicable to start. If the challenge is "get over the castle wall undetected", then the skill challenge is even more ill suited to the task.

huttj509
2012-03-22, 03:20 PM
But if somebody is sitting their, on the border of being convinced or not, and you say something wrong, they don't suddenly latch onto that result that error and become unshakably against it. If they are that close, then they should still be uncertain enough that you could still win them over. Conversely, if you made bunch of good arguments at the beginning and he was almost convinced, then made a bunch of mistakes and bad points that have almost convinced him you are definitely wrong, making one good point is not going to swing him all the way around to being on board. It would make a LOT more sense to have a slider, so failures counteract successes. If failing 4 times right at the beginning is just enough to make them discount you, then why would 4 failures after you have gotten 6 flawless successes also be sufficient to discredit you? They should be much more amiable and closer to agreeing with you at that point, so they should be more tolerant of your mistakes than the random person who just starts spouting nonsense from the beginning.
And that is with diplomacy, where the system makes the most sense, and where having a system is most applicable to start. If the challenge is "get over the castle wall undetected", then the skill challenge is even more ill suited to the task.

I didn't say "convinced or not convinced" I said "convinced or walk away." This is not a "I'm almost convinced," it's more "well, it sounds good but...**** it, not worth the trouble/too good to be true."

I know I've considered purchases where it looks good, but then the salesman says something that makes me realize (truely or falsely) that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about, casting prior comments in a new light, and I decide to walk away and (at best) consider the purchase in a neutral location.

Heck, I've had computer headsets that look great, I'm literally about to walk to the checkout, then I realize the cord's too short for my preferred use (not being able to stand without whiplash is one thing, not being able to sit up straight is another). That one perception check made the difference between purchase and not, regardless of the other factors about comfort/durability.

Why do I bring up purchases? Well, most people I know have made purchasing decisions, possibly major ones. I know nobody who has had to decide whether or not to send a country to war. The former seems more generally relatable to me.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 03:44 PM
I didn't say "convinced or not convinced" I said "convinced or walk away." This is not a "I'm almost convinced," it's more "well, it sounds good but...**** it, not worth the trouble/too good to be true."

I know I've considered purchases where it looks good, but then the salesman says something that makes me realize (truely or falsely) that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about, casting prior comments in a new light, and I decide to walk away and (at best) consider the purchase in a neutral location.

Heck, I've had computer headsets that look great, I'm literally about to walk to the checkout, then I realize the cord's too short for my preferred use (not being able to stand without whiplash is one thing, not being able to sit up straight is another). That one perception check made the difference between purchase and not, regardless of the other factors about comfort/durability.

Why do I bring up purchases? Well, most people I know have made purchasing decisions, possibly major ones. I know nobody who has had to decide whether or not to send a country to war. The former seems more generally relatable to me.
And why is the comment that makes him consider you a tool the 5th one in particular? Its setting arbitrary limits on how the encounter will unfold before it actually does. Why is 7 successes the magic number in this case? Shouldn't the effort required relate to how good individual arguements are, how you fail relate to how badly you botch things, how adept you were at recovering from the error? Even in your example, its not some minor flaw that swings you; you realized major problem that drastically reduced the value of the headset. why is the fifth wrong thing you say arbitrarily a deal-breaker? It becomes "you got too many failures" instead of "you messed up". And even after you realize the cord is too short, what if the sales clerk threw in a free cord extension? You obviously liked the headset enough otherwise.

Greyfeld85
2012-03-22, 03:51 PM
My real issue with 4e that I don't feel is an issue in 3.X is the disparity between in-combat and out-of-combat actions. Every power in 4e is tailored specifically toward combat situations. Even most Utility Powers were only good for combat situations. Then, once you're out of combat, you fall back on your skills, and all your Powers get slipped into your back pocket until combat starts again.

On the other hand, abilities/spells/features from 3.X were always painted with a broader brush. They had effects that weren't based solely on which characters were in the blast radius or whether you were adjacent to an enemy. You could throw a Fireball just as much to burn down a thatch hut as you could to light a group of mooks on fire.

That's really my biggest gripe with 4th Edition. It felt like an MMO, where all abilities are compartmentalized and can only be used in the situations the game (or system in this case) says you can. It takes away a lot of freedom and flexibility.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-22, 04:08 PM
I drop by to comment on the OP and not any discussion that may have developed since. This has most likely already been mentioned, but it bears repeating.

D&D does not impede roleplaying. It even encourages roleplaying.

The true problem the OP has behind their words is that they have not had a satisfactory roleplaying session yet, and they believe the fault lies with the system, which does not do enough to roleplaying. Furthermore, I would even hazard a guess that the OP would even be in favour of a game that forces players to roleplay, if I correctly interpret the subtext in the post.

People cannot be forced to act in the way you'd like them to act, OP. If you are unsatisfied with the way your current group handles roleplay, don't blame the system and don't blame the group. Simply find yourself people to play with that enjoy roleplaying like you do. Trust me, I have heard plenty of people complaining about nobody likes roleplaying like they do. Even if finding someone nearby is difficult, there's always the internet.

Getting frustrated or disappointed that your game doesn't do more to encourage/force roleplaying on its players/DMs is tackling the problem from the worst possible way. That way leads to DMs that get rid of social skills to arbitrarily decide outcomes judging from the player's roleplaying and other similar dark paths.

People do not change their minds because the circumstances around them nudge them in a certain direction. Those who do not have the urge to roleplay in themselves will not be adequate roleplayers even if they have a game that practically bends their arms to do so. Even the very best system will be foiled by someone who has no interest in roleplaying, and that cannot be helped by anybody. It's not in your hands, or anybody else's, to change that. You must simply accept it and move on.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 04:15 PM
If the challenge is "get over the castle wall undetected", then the skill challenge is even more ill suited to the task.

In theory, that's the kind of thing you wouldn't make a Skill Challenge for. A Skill Challenge should be used for a specific task, but one that requires time and - preferably - the effort from the whole party.
Something like: "Ok, guys, let's see if you can trek through the desert and still reach the Pharao's Tomb in fighting condition, or if you'll reach the tomb more dead than alive."



Then, once you're out of combat, you fall back on your skills, and all your Powers get slipped into your back pocket until combat starts again.

But there's a slew of non-combat related Utility powers. Not to mention Rituals, Practices (which should have been a more attractive option), and Skill Powers.


You could throw a Fireball just as much to burn down a thatch hut as you could to light a group of mooks on fire.

But you could do the same with any Fire power in 4th. There's literally nothing in the Power descriptions saying that they can only be used to target enemies. In fact, a target is specifically defined as something that includes inanimate objects.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 04:22 PM
In theory, that's the kind of thing you wouldn't make a Skill Challenge for. A Skill Challenge should be used for a specific task, but one that requires time and - preferably - the effort from the whole party.
Something like: "Ok, guys, let's see if you can trek through the desert and still reach the Pharao's Tomb in fighting condition, or if you'll reach the tomb more dead than alive."

Treking across the desert was actually a skill challenge I ran into recently. It felt rather artificial. Oh, so 3/4 of the party made their endurance checks, so everyone is fine.... How does my allies making the endurance check protect me from the damage? Or conversely, how does my failure mean that they take damage even though they succeeded?

Grinner
2012-03-22, 05:49 PM
I drop by to comment on the OP and not any discussion that may have developed since. This has most likely already been mentioned, but it bears repeating.

D&D does not impede roleplaying. It even encourages roleplaying.

The true problem the OP has behind their words is that they have not had a satisfactory roleplaying session yet, and they believe the fault lies with the system, which does not do enough to roleplaying. Furthermore, I would even hazard a guess that the OP would even be in favour of a game that forces players to roleplay, if I correctly interpret the subtext in the post.

People cannot be forced to act in the way you'd like them to act, OP. If you are unsatisfied with the way your current group handles roleplay, don't blame the system and don't blame the group. Simply find yourself people to play with that enjoy roleplaying like you do. Trust me, I have heard plenty of people complaining about nobody likes roleplaying like they do. Even if finding someone nearby is difficult, there's always the internet.

Getting frustrated or disappointed that your game doesn't do more to encourage/force roleplaying on its players/DMs is tackling the problem from the worst possible way. That way leads to DMs that get rid of social skills to arbitrarily decide outcomes judging from the player's roleplaying and other similar dark paths.

People do not change their minds because the circumstances around them nudge them in a certain direction. Those who do not have the urge to roleplay in themselves will not be adequate roleplayers even if they have a game that practically bends their arms to do so. Even the very best system will be foiled by someone who has no interest in roleplaying, and that cannot be helped by anybody. It's not in your hands, or anybody else's, to change that. You must simply accept it and move on.

Well hey now. That's awfully presumptive of you. :smallsigh:

I understand that a roleplaying game is ultimately only as good as the people involved, but I also understand that humans are indolent at heart. Without motivation, there is no cause for change, and at some point, you've got to ask yourself why you want to play the game at all. After all, by name, a roleplaying game is all about stepping outside your shell.

And while I made no specific mention of social skills in the OP, it would be intriguing to see a player have to make a convincing argument themselves, rather than building a character for the task.

In summary, roleplaying should be its own reward. But if it has no mechanical impact on the the game, then what's the point? If the divide between game and person is so great, can you really call it a roleplaying game?

dsmiles
2012-03-22, 05:53 PM
When did making speeches and roleplaying become the same thing, again?
I believe the correct term would be something like "free-form conflict resolution," instead of "roleplaying," here. I use it extensively in my games.

huttj509
2012-03-22, 07:00 PM
And why is the comment that makes him consider you a tool the 5th one in particular? Its setting arbitrary limits on how the encounter will unfold before it actually does. Why is 7 successes the magic number in this case? Shouldn't the effort required relate to how good individual arguements are, how you fail relate to how badly you botch things, how adept you were at recovering from the error? Even in your example, its not some minor flaw that swings you; you realized major problem that drastically reduced the value of the headset. why is the fifth wrong thing you say arbitrarily a deal-breaker? It becomes "you got too many failures" instead of "you messed up". And even after you realize the cord is too short, what if the sales clerk threw in a free cord extension? You obviously liked the headset enough otherwise.

Why does the enemy have 25hp and not 30? Why did he have 1 healing surge and not 2? Why is the cliff 20 feet high and not 30? Why is the DC 18 and not 22? Why does this do 1d8 damage and not 1d10?

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. By choosing where to draw the line you set the parameters of the challenge. By choosing what skills are considered primary skills, and which are secondary (which are likely to have a direct effect on the situation, and which would probably be indirect at best), you set the parameters of the challenge. By choosing what happens if the challenge is passed or failed, you set the parameters of the challenge.

Having parameters for success in mind (even if you decide 'ok, that just overcomes it all,' or 'um, threatening to dismember the King's mother if he doesn't go along is probably an autofail if the intimidate check doesn't score REALLY well') helps avoid the RP equivelent of "I hit you, you're dead" "no you didn't, I'm not" that the combat parameters help avoid.

As to the desert example, if it's just a series of Endurance checks to keep pressing on that'd probably be better individualized (I think Dark Sun did something like that, lose healing surges) than a group skill challenge. If people are using survival checks to find food/shelter, presumably they share it, even if you couldn't find water in a lake, or food in a restaurant.

Edit: I've also seen it recommended to not necessarily tell the players it's a skill challenge. Just describe the progress/setbacks while keeping track, then use the skill challenge results to determine if they suceeded/failed the goal. Take the far above persuasion example. The players might not know how many successes they need, they just know they're trying to convince the King of the correct action, and he's getting more/less swayed by their efforts.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-22, 07:16 PM
The favor aspect of it is really minor, people are focusing on it way too much. Its more likely to come into play within the course of an encounter, where you choose to give in to their demands without counter-bidding. It encourages a give and take within a negotiation.
If Favors are so minor, then why bother carrying them over between encounters? If Favors can't be used to force concessions out of another party, then what good are they?

That's the really problematic part of the system for me -- Favors assume something about the relationships between entities in the world that simply is not true in many settings.

bloodtide
2012-03-22, 07:32 PM
When did making speeches and roleplaying become the same thing, again?

Roleplaying involves playing the role of another person, with different skills than my own.
Why does the fact that my character is not me matter when he's casting spells or fighting a dragon, but we're suddenly the same person when we're talking to somebody?

Your character should not be you. And this is, in fact, a good sign of a bad role-player:they simply play themselves as a character.



As a roleplayer I describe my character's actions. In a conversation, that might involve spelling out word-for-word what he says (particularly if it's a relatively short one), but it doesn't have to.
And my own ability to deceive, to perceive deception, to inspire, to intimidate, to convince--that's not relevant one way or the other.
Describing how I do it? That's useful. Pointing out that my character is using these facts and making this argument that we know will have an impact on the queen while also being rude because he's becoming impatient with her? Those are relevant and impact good game mechanics (circumstance bonuses). They can also impact the narrative--the queen grudgingly accepts that he's right, but she's not happy about it because she doesn't like him.

I don't see how your great roleplayer's characters all turning into thrilling inspirational speechmakers the moment being a thrilling inspirational speechmaker benefits her character makes her a great roleplayer.

A good role-player does not make speeches, the role-play a character. You as a person may not have the charisma to talk to a king or intimidate a ogre, but then you should not be thinking like that. A player role-plays that they can do such a thing, but not for 'real', in the 'fake' construct of the game. So when you do some type of social thing, it's all for fake and show, not for real.

Stubbazubba
2012-03-22, 08:01 PM
Legend's token system is a step in the right direction, but it's still full of holes. Some kind of resource allocation/betting scheme is probably a good system for social encounters. Riffing off the Legend idea, I made a social system where each individual rolls against the defense of each individual in the opposing party (thus it scales regardless of the size of either party), gaining tokens for success. How many tokens was kept a secret as best as possible (Defender announces defense roll, but offense keeps their total a secret), and then bids would be made, attached to demands. The opposing party had to either match a bid in order to refute it's demand, expending both parties' tokens, or accept the demand, which theoretically gives you an advantage in tokens (theoretically because you don't know how many they have). You don't have to accept/refute a demand until after you've rolled diplomacy on your turn, so you can attain the last few needed tokens if you roll well enough. If you don't have the tokens to refute a demand, no matter what it is, you can either walk away, which immediately lowers your standing with them, or accept the demand, and whether or not you choose to actually fulfill it is up to you. I think there were also arbitrary round limits on how long it could go, but it was functional, and turned it into this fun gambling mini-game.

On roleplaying; rolling dice does not mean not roleplaying. Rolling dice just keeps things fair, at least as far as the system is fair in the first place, (lookin' at you, 3e Diplomacy). Relying on the player's actual ability to impress the DM with their roleplaying to achieve success is a bad idea for two reasons, 1) as has been mentioned, the proverbial nerdy kid needs to be able to play Barack Obama as someone with a great deal of Charisma, and 2) your average DM simply cannot be expected to make fair decisions that consistently. It's actually an onus on a DM to try and be arbiter, because often people will take things in-game personally, so the results in game tend to reflect relationships IRL.

Rolling dice eliminates all of that, while at the same time doesn't stop anyone from actually being Barack Obama and giving an amazing speech, or describing in detail swiping their gloved finger across every inch of the 15 sq. ft. room to search for a hidden door. I understand it doesn't go out of its way to reward it, either, but the fact is, left to their own devices, DM's and players will be extremely unfair to each other, intentionally or not, and that is a greater evil than the death of roleplaying. If your group can reliably share an enjoyable play-space that relies only on mutual trust and great roleplaying, then I would say you don't need rules to play. The rest of us appreciate that crutch greatly.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 09:45 PM
Why does the enemy have 25hp and not 30? Why did he have 1 healing surge and not 2? Why is the cliff 20 feet high and not 30? Why is the DC 18 and not 22? Why does this do 1d8 damage and not 1d10?

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. By choosing where to draw the line you set the parameters of the challenge. By choosing what skills are considered primary skills, and which are secondary (which are likely to have a direct effect on the situation, and which would probably be indirect at best), you set the parameters of the challenge. By choosing what happens if the challenge is passed or failed, you set the parameters of the challenge.

Having parameters for success in mind (even if you decide 'ok, that just overcomes it all,' or 'um, threatening to dismember the King's mother if he doesn't go along is probably an autofail if the intimidate check doesn't score REALLY well') helps avoid the RP equivelent of "I hit you, you're dead" "no you didn't, I'm not" that the combat parameters help avoid.

As to the desert example, if it's just a series of Endurance checks to keep pressing on that'd probably be better individualized (I think Dark Sun did something like that, lose healing surges) than a group skill challenge. If people are using survival checks to find food/shelter, presumably they share it, even if you couldn't find water in a lake, or food in a restaurant.

Edit: I've also seen it recommended to not necessarily tell the players it's a skill challenge. Just describe the progress/setbacks while keeping track, then use the skill challenge results to determine if they suceeded/failed the goal. Take the far above persuasion example. The players might not know how many successes they need, they just know they're trying to convince the King of the correct action, and he's getting more/less swayed by their efforts.
But you aren't saying the enemy has 25 hp and not 30, you are saying it takes 5 hits to kill instead of 4.you are removing the variance that occurs based on how well you perform.

Not telling people its a skill challenge means you have to be really good at explaining why they just won or lost the encounter in a way that actually lines up with that they are doing. In many cases, it won't necessarily make sense for the encounter to end when it does- which is part of the problem.
And I would put forth that a DM that is skilled enough to narrate the skill challenge well enough to mask it and have it feel natural would be good enough to run the same scenario without the system and have it work just as well, if not better.


If Favors are so minor, then why bother carrying them over between encounters? If Favors can't be used to force concessions out of another party, then what good are they?

That's the really problematic part of the system for me -- Favors assume something about the relationships between entities in the world that simply is not true in many settings.
If you have repeated dealings with the same party, why shouldn't you be able to carry over the results of your previous dealings with them?The favor example was just one possible emergent behavior if the system. Its not in the rules at all, its an emergent phenomenon that can occur in the right circumstances, and I put it in the context of calling in a favor.
You also have no clue how many tokens they have, so you don't know precisely how many tokens you would need to ensure they can't counter it, or if you even have the advantage. You bid based on how much the result matters, and they decide if they care about not granting it enough to counter.


Legend's token system is a step in the right direction, but it's still full of holes. Some kind of resource allocation/betting scheme is probably a good system for social encounters. Riffing off the Legend idea, I made a social system where each individual rolls against the defense of each individual in the opposing party (thus it scales regardless of the size of either party), gaining tokens for success. How many tokens was kept a secret as best as possible (Defender announces defense roll, but offense keeps their total a secret), and then bids would be made, attached to demands. The opposing party had to either match a bid in order to refute it's demand, expending both parties' tokens, or accept the demand, which theoretically gives you an advantage in tokens (theoretically because you don't know how many they have). You don't have to accept/refute a demand until after you've rolled diplomacy on your turn, so you can attain the last few needed tokens if you roll well enough. If you don't have the tokens to refute a demand, no matter what it is, you can either walk away, which immediately lowers your standing with them, or accept the demand, and whether or not you choose to actually fulfill it is up to you. I think there were also arbitrary round limits on how long it could go, but it was functional, and turned it into this fun gambling mini-game.

There are some minor differences there, but I don't see what is significantly different about it.

The Troubadour
2012-03-22, 10:20 PM
Treking across the desert was actually a skill challenge I ran into recently. It felt rather artificial. Oh, so 3/4 of the party made their endurance checks, so everyone is fine.... How does my allies making the endurance check protect me from the damage? Or conversely, how does my failure mean that they take damage even though they succeeded?

Well, we could explain it as simply the consequence of the group working together to aid and protect each other, and how sometimes you may accidentally get in your companion's way.

But really, that's not how that particular skill challenge should have been run. If I remember it correctly: each PC should make some Endurance rolls (with the possibility of using another relevant skill, like Nature or Survival, at least once), and for each failure, that specific PC would lose a healing surge.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 10:43 PM
Well, we could explain it as simply the consequence of the group working together to aid and protect each other, and how sometimes you may accidentally get in your companion's way.

But really, that's not how that particular skill challenge should have been run. If I remember it correctly: each PC should make some Endurance rolls (with the possibility of using another relevant skill, like Nature or Survival, at least once), and for each failure, that specific PC would lose a healing surge.

Then how is that a skill challenge? That is just endurance checks to not take damage from crossing a desert. It doesn't need to be put in a skill challenge framework at all.

huttj509
2012-03-22, 11:07 PM
Then how is that a skill challenge? That is just endurance checks to not take damage from crossing a desert. It doesn't need to be put in a skill challenge framework at all.

As I understand it, that's the point. It's a situation that ought not have been presented as a skill challenge, though I'll admit to not having the module in question (if it was a module, couldn't quite tell).

That said, a lot of modules have REALLY badly presented skill challenges. Especially since the framework is presented as the whole, and it's easy to forget that there's a certain amount of flexibility expected. No plan survives contact with the players, and that goes doubly so for modules.


But you aren't saying the enemy has 25 hp and not 30, you are saying it takes 5 hits to kill instead of 4.you are removing the variance that occurs based on how well you perform.


HOW convincing was it? How much does it push the king towards or away from accepting your proposal? Default? 1 success. If the argument was flimsy at best it might just provide a bonus to your next roll (supporting skills, for example). If you have something more convincing, give it 2 successes, the target line still remains the same.

If you know the player does 5 damage per swing, saying the enemy has 30 hp instead of 25 is the same as saying it takes 6 hits instead of 5.

Like combat, skill challenges are an abstraction, yes. In combat, you may have options to help your chances of hitting, do more damage, etc. In skill challenges you might aid another, use a secondary skill to assist your next primary attempt, maybe even have an option to auto-win or lose. It's less granular than combat is (the 5 damage per swing might be 1d10, so an average of about 5, but can vary a lot), but it exists for the same reason.

The decision of how many success/failures are needed is the same as the decision of how much hp an enemy has. It sets a metric, a goal, because trying to assign a general, more detailed number to "how easy is someone to convince, with what arguments" or "there's been a cave in, can we get out" is even more involved than trying to solidly define HP.

When used badly, skill challenges feel out of place, overly abstractive, and jarring. similarly, when run badly, the round to round system of combat feels quite similar. When run well, it can flow smoothly, and provide a tool for situations that might otherwise come down to a game of "guess the GM's plan," which gets really frustrating. Ok, maybe you were intended to realize that the Sarah mentioned in passing as the duke's cousin was the same waitress you met 3 towns ago, and leverage that information to an easy alliance with the duke, but if you've gone the long way round via successful gather information checks, careful diplomacy, and a midnight stealthy climb to the duke's balcony, without being caught or having your attentions detected (might be perceived as assassins, you know), it should work just as well.

Freeform RP works fine when run well. It's frustrating when done badly.
Structured RP works fine when done well. It's abstract and artificial when done badly.

Mystify
2012-03-22, 11:15 PM
If you know the player does 5 damage per swing, saying the enemy has 30 hp instead of 25 is the same as saying it takes 6 hits instead of 5.

Like combat, skill challenges are an abstraction, yes. In combat, you may have options to help your chances of hitting, do more damage, etc. In skill challenges you might aid another, use a secondary skill to assist your next primary attempt, maybe even have an option to auto-win or lose. It's less granular than combat is (the 5 damage per swing might be 1d10, so an average of about 5, but can vary a lot), but it exists for the same reason.

The decision of how many success/failures are needed is the same as the decision of how much hp an enemy has. It sets a metric, a goal, because trying to assign a general, more detailed number to "how easy is someone to convince, with what arguments" or "there's been a cave in, can we get out" is even more involved than trying to solidly define HP.

When used badly, skill challenges feel out of place, overly abstractive, and jarring. similarly, when run badly, the round to round system of combat feels quite similar. When run well, it can flow smoothly, and provide a tool for situations that might otherwise come down to a game of "guess the GM's plan," which gets really frustrating. Ok, maybe you were intended to realize that the Sarah mentioned in passing as the duke's cousin was the same waitress you met 3 towns ago, and leverage that information to an easy alliance with the duke, but if you've gone the long way round via successful gather information checks, careful diplomacy, and a midnight stealthy climb to the duke's balcony, without being caught or having your attentions detected (might be perceived as assassins, you know), it should work just as well.

Freeform RP works fine when run well. It's frustrating when done badly.
Structured RP works fine when done well. It's abstract and artificial when done badly.
But its assigning an arbitrary goal where none is needed. The results should flow naturally from what you are doing, not because there is an arbitrary number of successes unrelated to what any given skill does.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-23, 12:53 AM
If you have repeated dealings with the same party, why shouldn't you be able to carry over the results of your previous dealings with them?The favor example was just one possible emergent behavior if the system. Its not in the rules at all, its an emergent phenomenon that can occur in the right circumstances, and I put it in the context of calling in a favor.
Wait... I'm confused. Are carryover tokens in the rules or not? If so, can you use accumulated tokens to request a boon in a new encounter? And who has what tokens -- the party or the individuals?

This explanation seems at odds with your previous description of the system. What are tokens and how do they work? :smallconfused:


You also have no clue how many tokens they have, so you don't know precisely how many tokens you would need to ensure they can't counter it, or if you even have the advantage. You bid based on how much the result matters, and they decide if they care about not granting it enough to counter.
So... unless the DM is cheating, you just need to be a better poker player than he is in order to game the system? I'm not sure that's too comforting when faced with a budding Diplomancer.

Anyhoo, it's no better if the DM is a better poker player than the Players since he can maneuver them to blowing their tokens on things the Powerbroker was going to give them anyhow so that he can extract things from the Players. And no, neither the DM nor the Players have to act this way but if either is playing a Powerbroker-type character why aren't they? Don't they understand how to work within their conceit?

N.B. If the answer is "well, tokens really aren't important in the system" then why include them at all, much less as a bankable resource? It introduces another apparent level of complexity to the system which actually is irrelevant to game play. This is like writing hundreds of feats for a game and only having a dozen actually worth taking -- it's inelegant.

Mystify
2012-03-23, 01:01 AM
Wait... I'm confused. Are carryover tokens in the rules or not? If so, can you use accumulated tokens to request a boon in a new encounter? And who has what tokens -- the party or the individuals?

This explanation seems at odds with your previous description of the system. What are tokens and how do they work? :smallconfused:


So... unless the DM is cheating, you just need to be a better poker player than he is in order to game the system? I'm not sure that's too comforting when faced with a budding Diplomancer.

Anyhoo, it's no better if the DM is a better poker player than the Players since he can maneuver them to blowing their tokens on things the Powerbroker was going to give them anyhow so that he can extract things from the Players. And no, neither the DM nor the Players have to act this way but if either is playing a Powerbroker-type character why aren't they? Don't they understand how to work within their conceit?

N.B. If the answer is "well, tokens really aren't important in the system" then why include them at all, much less as a bankable resource? It introduces another apparent level of complexity to the system which actually is irrelevant to game play. This is like writing hundreds of feats for a game and only having a dozen actually worth taking -- it's inelegant.
Tokens are central to the system. Its favors that aren't. The rules are actually kinda vauge on that point, but they seem to suggest that you can carry them over. And yes, you could use them to request a boon. But the other party will have their tokens too, so unless you already had a surplus, you won't be able to make those demands.
I think its better to have some measure of skill determining how things turn out. You have a lot of decisions and tactical maneuverering in combat which can radically alter the outcome. Why should diplomacy be different?
As for being able to screw over the players,the DM can always do that, with or without a system.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-23, 08:02 AM
I think its better to have some measure of skill determining how things turn out. You have a lot of decisions and tactical maneuverering in combat which can radically alter the outcome. Why should diplomacy be different?
Again, this is reasonable for a system that places a premium on social maneuvering but less so for one in which the focus is on looting dungeons and slaying dragons. An aesthetic choice, to be sure, but I always worry when an ancillary mechanism has the potential to dominate a story -- in this case, by forcing Players to make certain choices.

That said, a neat idea for a system. I may steal the idea for a patch on SR3 I'm working on which has more rules for interacting with Contacts and managing your Reputation.

The Troubadour
2012-03-23, 11:38 AM
This is like writing hundreds of feats for a game and only having a dozen actually worth taking -- it's inelegant.

Which is one of 4th Edition's main problems, admittedly.

Mystify
2012-03-23, 11:43 AM
Again, this is reasonable for a system that places a premium on social maneuvering but less so for one in which the focus is on looting dungeons and slaying dragons. An aesthetic choice, to be sure, but I always worry when an ancillary mechanism has the potential to dominate a story -- in this case, by forcing Players to make certain choices.

That said, a neat idea for a system. I may steal the idea for a patch on SR3 I'm working on which has more rules for interacting with Contacts and managing your Reputation.
If you ever try to do meaningful diplomacy it would work out just fine. It doesn't need to be some elaborate ordeal where you deal with the same groups dozens of times. If you are just trying to get a single thing from someone, then the system simplifies down immensely. You are basically making opposed checks- indirectly. You make your check against their defense, and they a response check vs. one of your defenses, and if only one wins, they have a chip advantage, and can win the social encounter. The defenses are essentially an extra, automatically trained skill, so the DCs scale appropriately. Though you are well behooved to have a social skill of your own, their are 4 to choose from, and even the lowest skill characters should have plenty of skills to grab one of them. And its not like picking a social skill is just for social encounters; ALL of them have in-combat uses.
Really, even in a dungeon dive, it is more functional than the mess 3.5 has.

huttj509
2012-03-23, 01:19 PM
But its assigning an arbitrary goal where none is needed. The results should flow naturally from what you are doing, not because there is an arbitrary number of successes unrelated to what any given skill does.


HOW convincing was it? How much does it push the king towards or away from accepting your proposal? Default? 1 success. If the argument was flimsy at best it might just provide a bonus to your next roll (supporting skills, for example). If you have something more convincing, give it 2 successes, the target line still remains the same.


If you think a skill works particularly well, have it work better. Lower DC, bonus success.

If you think a skill, and the player's description of how it's supposed to work, is useless to the situation, have it give a bonus to the next main roll AT BEST. The King's probably not gonna be impressed by you bench-pressing a statue unless you have some dang good context to go with it. Nor is gather information likely to help when you're trapped in a cave in.

You may have never encountered people who have difficulty communicating well in a social situation, but want to play characters who can. I have. You may have never encountered DMs who give no clue of if a situation is progressing, so you don't know if you're just trying to guess what answer the DM's looking for. I have (or worse, there is no answer because the DM didn't prepare and instead of on the fly just decided to have nothing work to progress that night...freaking hedge).

If skill challenges add NOTHING to your game, don't use them. They do not inherently make RP boring when implemented.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-23, 05:06 PM
Well hey now. That's awfully presumptive of you. :smallsigh:

Apologies for any misunderstandings, I was aiming for a more "heart to heart" approach, since I've seen a fair amount of people in your position and the only way to get over the frustration and disappointment is to stop blaming the people or the system and start finding similarly-minded people to play with.


I understand that a roleplaying game is ultimately only as good as the people involved, but I also understand that humans are indolent at heart. Without motivation, there is no cause for change, and at some point, you've got to ask yourself why you want to play the game at all. After all, by name, a roleplaying game is all about stepping outside your shell.

No, not really. That's a misconstruction of what roleplaying game means. A roleplaying game does not demand or expect any degree of roleplaying, it merely encourages and enables it. The only game where roleplaying is a necessity is Freeform, and that may not even be a game, strictly speaking, because of its inherent lack of homogeneous, widely-accepted rules. It may be nothing but a glorified improvisation exercise, much like the kind you do in an acting/writing class.


And while I made no specific mention of social skills in the OP, it would be intriguing to see a player have to make a convincing argument themselves, rather than building a character for the task.

I know, it was an example I used of the typical steps DMs who feel the same way as you erroneously take, thinking it will solve their problems. Instead, what you get is A) Rebellious players who begin to roleplay poorly just to spite you, B) Players who make a token effort to roleplay and then complain that it wasn't "good enough" for you, C) Players whose roleplaying improves a bit but they still feel uncomfortable (and are not likely to tell you this directly), or D) Players who genuinely try to roleplay but just don't do it the way you expected, and become disillusioned at the results.

Placing the weight of the decision entirely on your shoulders is a bad idea. One of the reasons why alignment is such a hotly debated topic isn't necessarily solely because it's a very biased and unilateral attempt to codify ethics that ethicists themselves have had trouble with (that's just the main beef with the system), but because there are no "rolls to see if you change alignment" (unless it happens due to a spell that offers a save). It's all in the hands of the DM. He points his finger at your paladin, says "you're Chaotic Evil" and bam, you lose practically all of your class features.

As a general rule, unilateral DM adjudication should be avoided as much as possible to curb the unnecessary discussions and avoid turning the table into an iron-fist dictatorship. There's a reason combat resolution is such a complex issue. Otherwise, we'd have the DM look at the party, look at the encounter he has prepared, say "you win, but the rogue dies" and be done with it.


In summary, roleplaying should be its own reward. But if it has no mechanical impact on the the game, then what's the point? If the divide between game and person is so great, can you really call it a roleplaying game?

"Roleplaying should be its own reward." Precisely. And if you have people who do not find roleplaying rewarding, forcing them to roleplay will not only be unrewarding, it will be actively aggravating.

Secondly, not everyone plays a roleplaying game to roleplay to the same degree you do, or even to roleplay at all. Some people just like rolling dice, casting spells, disabling traps and running encounters. People derive fun from different things and a good game enables and encourages all of them. It's not the game's fault, or the players' fault, if they do not derive enjoyment from the same things you do. It's not a problem with the system and it doesn't make the game any less of a roleplaying game because it doesn't bend the player's arm with mechanics to make sure they roleplay.

A good game is not like a nagging relative, repeatedly insisting or outright forcing you to only use certain tools to build your house. It doesn't take away the hacksaw and says "NO. Use the hammer instead! This is a house! Houses are meant to be built with hammers!" but instead they non-judgementally bring you more and more tools so that you can pick and choose at your leisure which way you want to build your house.

If you have an issue with your co-builders not using hammers enough in this extended metaphor, go build a house with people who do use hammers. Don't blame the tool company because they offered too many non-hammer options and didn't do enough to make sure the builders used hammers. That's just blaming the shop owner because your friends keep buying DVDs instead of books.

Grinner
2012-03-23, 10:12 PM
Apologies for any misunderstandings, I was aiming for a more "heart to heart" approach, since I've seen a fair amount of people in your position and the only way to get over the frustration and disappointment is to stop blaming the people or the system and start finding similarly-minded people to play with.



No, not really. That's a misconstruction of what roleplaying game means. A roleplaying game does not demand or expect any degree of roleplaying, it merely encourages and enables it. The only game where roleplaying is a necessity is Freeform, and that may not even be a game, strictly speaking, because of its inherent lack of homogeneous, widely-accepted rules. It may be nothing but a glorified improvisation exercise, much like the kind you do in an acting/writing class.



I know, it was an example I used of the typical steps DMs who feel the same way as you erroneously take, thinking it will solve their problems. Instead, what you get is A) Rebellious players who begin to roleplay poorly just to spite you, B) Players who make a token effort to roleplay and then complain that it wasn't "good enough" for you, C) Players whose roleplaying improves a bit but they still feel uncomfortable (and are not likely to tell you this directly), or D) Players who genuinely try to roleplay but just don't do it the way you expected, and become disillusioned at the results.

Placing the weight of the decision entirely on your shoulders is a bad idea. One of the reasons why alignment is such a hotly debated topic isn't necessarily solely because it's a very biased and unilateral attempt to codify ethics that ethicists themselves have had trouble with (that's just the main beef with the system), but because there are no "rolls to see if you change alignment" (unless it happens due to a spell that offers a save). It's all in the hands of the DM. He points his finger at your paladin, says "you're Chaotic Evil" and bam, you lose practically all of your class features.

As a general rule, unilateral DM adjudication should be avoided as much as possible to curb the unnecessary discussions and avoid turning the table into an iron-fist dictatorship. There's a reason combat resolution is such a complex issue. Otherwise, we'd have the DM look at the party, look at the encounter he has prepared, say "you win, but the rogue dies" and be done with it.



"Roleplaying should be its own reward." Precisely. And if you have people who do not find roleplaying rewarding, forcing them to roleplay will not only be unrewarding, it will be actively aggravating.

Secondly, not everyone plays a roleplaying game to roleplay to the same degree you do, or even to roleplay at all. Some people just like rolling dice, casting spells, disabling traps and running encounters. People derive fun from different things and a good game enables and encourages all of them. It's not the game's fault, or the players' fault, if they do not derive enjoyment from the same things you do. It's not a problem with the system and it doesn't make the game any less of a roleplaying game because it doesn't bend the player's arm with mechanics to make sure they roleplay.

A good game is not like a nagging relative, repeatedly insisting or outright forcing you to only use certain tools to build your house. It doesn't take away the hacksaw and says "NO. Use the hammer instead! This is a house! Houses are meant to be built with hammers!" but instead they non-judgementally bring you more and more tools so that you can pick and choose at your leisure which way you want to build your house.

If you have an issue with your co-builders not using hammers enough in this extended metaphor, go build a house with people who do use hammers. Don't blame the tool company because they offered too many non-hammer options and didn't do enough to make sure the builders used hammers. That's just blaming the shop owner because your friends keep buying DVDs instead of books.

You're assuming I'm a regular DM. I'm not. I merely enjoy discussion. :smallwink:

Moving onwards, my greatest fear for heavily regulated RPGs is bit like this scenario:


DM: King - You want my daughter? Why would I hand her to you?
Player: OP Bard - 'Cause you kiss my +32 Diplomacy bonus!

Common sense aside, according to D&D munchkin scripture, a DM may only assign up to a -2 penalty to this argument. Should the player get his way? No. But by RAW, he's likely to get it anyway.

A system of rules is very necessary for any roleplaying game, but for tasks that would otherwise be impractical, like combat.

I should also mention that I disagree with your evaluation of the term "roleplaying game". They're ultimately group activities, and the definition should be unique to each group, according the members' tastes. Unfortunately, when a heavy emphasis is placed on rules over roleplaying, extreme DM/Player conflict can occur. But you're correct, the opposite also holds true with regards to emphasizing roleplaying over rules.

I just feel that the RPG industry, especially Wizards of the Coast, needs to do some soul-searching to find the ideal balance.

Edit: The first few posts in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237230) express my opinion quite well.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-23, 10:12 PM
Really, even in a dungeon dive, it is more functional than the mess 3.5 has.
A coin-flip would have been better than the 3.X system :smalltongue:

Mystify
2012-03-23, 10:18 PM
A coin-flip would have been better than the 3.X system :smalltongue:

Ok, I'll give you that. But the legend system can be as complex or as simply as the situation demands.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-23, 10:53 PM
Common sense aside, according to D&D munchkin scripture, a DM may only assign up to a -2 penalty to this argument. Should the player get his way? No. But by RAW, he's likely to get it anyway.

Why not? Surely you may have a problem with that, but I don't see any. I regularly let my players do just that. They have fun. They enjoy themselves. They get to feel good about the characters they created. It doesn't matter if they made an impassioned speech to the king and a grand gesture to win the daughter's love or if they had a humongous Diplomacy skill. They are playing a game, having fun and working towards their goals. Why shouldn't the hero get the girl?

If you have a problem with that, however, you simply talk to the player OOCly. You say something like "Hey, that's gonna throw a wrench in my plans, mind not wooing the King's daughter? I can offer you a suitable replacement if you want. Thanks, bro."


A system of rules is very necessary for any roleplaying game, but for tasks that would otherwise be impractical, like combat.

I should also mention that I disagree with your evaluation of the term "roleplaying game". They're ultimately group activities, and the definition should be unique to each group, according the members' tastes. Unfortunately, when a heavy emphasis is placed on rules over roleplaying, extreme DM/Player conflict can occur. But you're correct, the opposite also holds true with regards to emphasizing roleplaying over rules.

I just feel that the RPG industry, especially Wizards of the Coast, needs to do some soul-searching to find the ideal balance.

No, not really. The point you're missing is that there is no objective balance. Each table has a different balance between roleplaying and rules, and you need to find people whose balance is closer to yours, not simply complain because the current RPGs aren't balanced to your tastes. Also, they never will be. RPGs try to please as many people as possible (because they want sales, you see), and that means compromising. And compromising inevitably leads to screwing over everyone to mildly benefit most.

Again, you're taking the wrong route here. You're blaming the system for what is fundamentally your problem. The person that must take steps to solve the problem is you, not the game makers. I mean, you don't have to take any steps, you're free to do whatever you want, but I'm just trying to show you that you're knocking on a door that will never open, and you could get to the same room if you just went around the corner and tried the other way.

Grinner
2012-03-23, 11:15 PM
My problem is with the game designers when they build mechanisms into the game that allow players to short-circuit adventures, partially or entirely. But maybe I'm just a pessimist.

If everyone is having fun, then the object of this discussion is immaterial.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-23, 11:51 PM
My problem is with the game designers when they build mechanisms into the game that allow players to short-circuit adventures, partially or entirely. But maybe I'm just a pessimist.

If everyone is having fun, then the object of this discussion is immaterial.

Let's say we do it your way and we have a game with no way to short-circuit those aspects of the game. What happens to the people who dislike, are incapable of, or feel uncomfortable with too much roleplaying? What if their preferred level of roleplaying is inferior to the one you'd prefer, and they'd very much like to get the uncomfortable speaking parts over with so that they can go back to the combat? Under your system, they're screwed. Under the current system, they can have their way and so can you. You are not forced to resort to skills, spells or other shortcuts if you want to RP your way through a problem. It's the hallmark of an unreasonable DM the one that demands a dice roll when you're more comfortable RPing and your mechanics may not be up to snuff (unless that DM gives you a hefty bonus on your roll to compensate). So really, why screw over the other dude when you can already have it your way?

Knaight
2012-03-24, 12:13 AM
Let's say we do it your way and we have a game with no way to short-circuit those aspects of the game. What happens to the people who dislike, are incapable of, or feel uncomfortable with too much roleplaying? What if their preferred level of roleplaying is inferior to the one you'd prefer, and they'd very much like to get the uncomfortable speaking parts over with so that they can go back to the combat? Under your system, they're screwed. Under the current system, they can have their way and so can you. You are not forced to resort to skills, spells or other shortcuts if you want to RP your way through a problem. It's the hallmark of an unreasonable DM the one that demands a dice roll when you're more comfortable RPing and your mechanics may not be up to snuff (unless that DM gives you a hefty bonus on your roll to compensate). So really, why screw over the other dude when you can already have it your way?

There is also the matter of events that would just take a very long time to play. If a character is competing with another for the minds of an audience, then not abstracting it would mean literal hour long speeches. Then there's the matter of writing - take characters who are artists, who use their art for political purposes. Are you really going to have your players write out plays that are both a typical tale and a subversive criticism of an in game regime? Do you really want to read something like that if they take you up on it? I think not. For this more extreme end, there needs to be some level of abstraction.

Grinner
2012-03-24, 12:15 AM
Let's say we do it your way and we have a game with no way to short-circuit those aspects of the game. What happens to the people who dislike, are incapable of, or feel uncomfortable with too much roleplaying? What if their preferred level of roleplaying is inferior to the one you'd prefer, and they'd very much like to get the uncomfortable speaking parts over with so that they can go back to the combat? Under your system, they're screwed.

Firstly, you're becoming rather hostile, and you can't honestly expect to convert anyone to your preferred playstyle like that. What we're facing is conflict of ideologies. You seem to prefer dice, and I seem to prefer something more freeform. That's fine.

Now, under my "system", the DM is free to allow a roll to gloss over the uninteresting bits. Under the stock system, he cannot, however, edit out text in the holy Player's Handbook. So, he gets screwed over, distasteful players run amok, and the game breaks down. :smallfrown:

Note that these people should never have been playing together in the first place.


Under the current system, they can have their way and so can you. You are not forced to resort to skills, spells or other shortcuts if you want to RP your way through a problem.

Umm....What? Unless you have a reasonably open-minded group of players, they're going to fall back on skills, spells, and shortcuts, DM be damned. After all, they can according to the PHB.


It's the hallmark of an unreasonable DM the one that demands a dice roll when you're more comfortable RPing and your mechanics may not be up to snuff (unless that DM gives you a hefty bonus on your roll to compensate). So really, why screw over the other dude when you can already have it your way?

Could you rephrase that? I was under the impression you were arguing for the consummate usage of dice?

Edit:
There is also the matter of events that would just take a very long time to play. If a character is competing with another for the minds of an audience, then not abstracting it would mean literal hour long speeches. Then there's the matter of writing - take characters who are artists, who use their art for political purposes. Are you really going to have your players write out plays that are both a typical tale and a subversive criticism of an in game regime? Do you really want to read something like that if they take you up on it? I think not. For this more extreme end, there needs to be some level of abstraction.

Agreed.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-24, 12:26 AM
Firstly, you're becoming rather hostile, and you can't honestly expect to convert anyone to your preferred playstyle like that. What we're facing is conflict of ideologies. You seem to prefer dice, and I seem to prefer something more freeform. That's fine.

I think you're sensing hostility because you're making the wrong assumptions and you think I'm opposing your preferred playstyle. I'm not. I've actually never ran or played in a game that wasn't at least 90% roleplaying. There's one game I've been running for a player for close to two RL years and we haven't had a combat sequence yet. So yeah, you could say I'm on the "heavy roleplaying" side.

What I'm trying to do is save you frustration because the problem does not lie with the system. I can tell you this because I have personal experience that backs it up. We play the same system and yet we do all the roleplaying you talk about. If you gamed with the people I game with, you wouldn't have these problems at all.


Now, under my "system", the DM is free to allow a roll to gloss over the uninteresting bits. Under the stock system, he cannot, however, edit out text in the holy Player's Handbook. So, he gets screwed over, distasteful players run amok, and the game breaks down. :smallfrown:

Note that these people should never have been playing together in the first place.

What? Who says a DM cannot edit out anything they like? If the players agree, any and all rules can be rewritten, removed or added. It's called houseruling.


Umm....What? Unless you have a reasonably open-minded group of players, they're going to fall back on skills, spells, and shortcuts, DM be damned. After all, they can according to the PHB.

Not "open-minded" but "people who are into roleplaying." Both groups may overlap, but they're not the same thing. I've yet to run into a player who wanted to just roll the Diplomacy skill when given the opportunity to flex their creative muscles.


Could you rephrase that? I was under the impression you were arguing for the consummate usage of dice?

No, not at all. I'm arguing for freedom of choice (give everyone the choice to do anything they want, don't force them to do any one particular thing) and trying to help you find the true root of your problem. I have talked to many people who have had the same problem and it all boils down to the same thing.

Grinner
2012-03-24, 12:35 AM
I see the misunderstanding here. I'm assuming the presence of antagonistic players. You're assuming the opposite.

If the group can reach a consensus on how to handle a given situation, then the system is made irrelevant.

But if the group cannot...?

Mystify
2012-03-24, 12:46 AM
I see the misunderstanding here. I'm assuming the presence of antagonistic players. You're assuming the opposite.

If the group can reach a consensus on how to handle a given situation, then the system is made irrelevant.

But if the group cannot...?
Why would you assume antagonistic players? Why would you want to play with them?

Shadowknight12
2012-03-24, 01:01 AM
I see the misunderstanding here. I'm assuming the presence of antagonistic players. You're assuming the opposite.

If the group can reach a consensus on how to handle a given situation, then the system is made irrelevant.

But if the group cannot...?

That's the thing. In these forums, we see a lot of people trying to use the system they're playing to "change" their players/DMs. For one reason or another, they are averse to both having a talk OOCly and getting a new group, so they try to get ideas on how to use the system to encourage the people at the group to be the way they'd prefer they were. It's an understandable desire, but it ultimately leads to more problems.

If your players are antagonistic, change the players.

Grinner
2012-03-24, 05:11 PM
Why would you assume antagonistic players? Why would you want to play with them?

I wouldn't, but it's wise to prepare for the worst. Where humans are involved, conflict becomes an eventuality.

bloodtide
2012-03-24, 06:55 PM
Why would you assume antagonistic players? Why would you want to play with them?

It's not like you always get a choice. One of my top five flaws of D&D is that people assume that your playing the game with your best friends. As if you both save each others lives in Iraq, are best man at each others weddings and are godparents to each others kids....and then sit down and play D&D.

I for example, often game with 'just people'. People I don't even know outside of the game. And a lot of the time they are bad or sneaky or cheating people. I also run games for the local hobby shop, and don't have control over who plays.

Mystify
2012-03-24, 08:47 PM
If the people you game with don't provide a good experience, don't play with them.

Siegel
2012-03-25, 05:23 AM
And still, the characters might not be totally working together even if the players are all okay with each other

aldeayeah
2012-03-26, 10:01 AM
he is simultaneously almost convinced and almost ready to throw us out, depending on our next words?
In the corporate world, that's actually a very realistic situation!