Abstraction - Interesting Combat, Boring RP

[Grinner]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Saph]

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]

...bolded for contrast

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

What exactly was the point you were trying to make

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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) 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

[Anxe]

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]

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]

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]

One of Oracle_Hunter's Maxims of RPGs (SnM) 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

Duly noted.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I have never believed that a system can influence a group's roleplaying. A genre might, though.

There are a few to the contrary.

Spoiler

Show

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

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

[navar100]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

[Oracle_Hunter]

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

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

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]

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

Combat and decapitations, for instance....

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 ), even different genres.

[dsmiles]

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]

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]

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]

Man, I must have a lot of time on my hand

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

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]

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. 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]

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]

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.