Community

Apr 4, 2012 -- 6:17AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 1:26PM, wrecan wrote:

This can work, and is very similar to a system I proposed more than two years ago, but only if this is a NPC that you've spent time working on.  But what happens when the party tries to negotiate with some random peddler you meet on the street.  We can't expect DMs to come up with motivation for every NPC in the universe in the chance that the party engages them in conversation.  At most, you might resurrect the Random Personae for NPCs from the original AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

Your Unbloodied Heroes articles were a font of inspiration, so I'm not surprised it came out similar to your ideas. As for quick interactions, well, the point is that those are not encounters at all. You don't really need rules to handle a quick and dirty Diplomacy check with a peddler. Also, I totally agree on random tables for quick inspiration, very helpful if you're in a rush, or need to improvise.
This system is supposed to be a way to handle meaningful social interactions, "social encounters" if you wish. They don't really work for trivial stuff, much in the same way 4E combat system is an overkill for quick and dirty three orcs encounters.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 1:56PM, Kigan wrote:

While I think this is a great idea, I don't particularly see the need for it. I've always DMed 3.5 kinda this way. Sure, the Diplomacy check exists, but a lot of people out there seem to neglect the part about circomstance bonuses being completly in the DM's hand.

This system is thought to be for rookies more than for experienced DMs: most DMs learn to do stuff like this with timew anyway. Heck, I know I learned to do this, otherwise I wouldn't post it! However, there is another aspect apart from good DM guidelines: this system offers mechanical interactions with the rest of the game. Having social skills and social abilities / class features interact with this social system works pretty well IMO. Special abilities that influence behavior, Bargain Values, even motivations: these are mechanics that interact with the social part of the game in a more meaningful way than "Diplomacy check, dude!" or "Just charm him." The social system in the OP has various degrees of interaction with possible social abilities, and will give a reason to invent social abilities which have a greater degree of complexity.
For instance, you could have a feat that allows you to strike bargains more easily, trading an objective for an objective that has a Bargain Value of 1 less: a good mechanical representation of being good at bargaining. That same concept would probably be represented by a +2 to Diplomacy in previous editions (possibly stacking up to ridiculous modifiers). Having a social system (a good one, at least) allows for a greater depth in social abilities, much like having a combat system allows for a greater depth in combat abilities.
Of course, this needs to be modular. If you like to fight without attachments, you should be able to do so; if you like to have social situations without rules in the way, you should be able to do so.

(Also, this allows for greater balance in social interactions and allows greater inter-class parity while still providing different implementations of that parity even in the social part of the game. But that's something only I probably care about... ._.)

Apr 3, 2012 -- 2:17PM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

@TM I think most of your dislike for skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate has to do with using them by themselves (there are some trivial cases or use of Diplomacy as a knowledge where this can be appropriate). In general if you're working on an NPC there should be an SC involved. That way there is back and forth and nothing is trivial or absolute.

My hatred for Diplomacy / Intimidate rules is born from the fact that they are stupid ugly mechanics nobody really thought twice about. I mean, really. They are stupid mechanics, period. Also, I don't really like the implementation of Skill Challenges, but if you look at this system closely you'll notice it is, in part, a skill challenge. Or at least has parts of a Skill Challenge (the best ones IMO).  

I'm leery of 'niche' systems though. I think the strength of the SC system (at least as it is now in the Rules Compendium version which is MUCH better than the original DMG1 version) is that it is very generalized. Even when your situation doesn't match precisely with anything specific you can use an SC. Lots of different things can easily feed into it.

I also think that social skills DO work reasonably well in a framework like that. They indicate more the character's "MO" (modus operandi) than anything else. It isn't like you can be much trained in lying, but you can be a guy that bluffs a lot and does it effectively. In other words social skill 'training' is more about how the PCs mind works than any specific knowledge he has. This works OK with 4e since you rarely gain new skills, though you can.

The thing with niche specialized systems is that they carry their own rules that create a different 'language' that one part of the game speaks which then creates impediments when different things start to mix together. For instance your system is going to have a harder time dealing with a combined combat and negotiation system than SCs do (which use very much base line conflict mechanics). IMHO this is a real strength of 4e that is not apparently often appreciated much. IMHO the best approach would be providing an SC type system that is a bit more elaborated, so it can provide a set of more specific guidelines and mechanical options to the DM that are tweaked for a social situation (and some for others as well). This would be basically going a bit beyond the example SCs in the 4e rules, which tried to do that as weak suggestions (which were often bad unfortunately).

I DM NPCs more dynamically.  I had a player that kept getting stuck and would ask, "what should I say" or "I don't know which is the right choice", and I would tell them to just saying something or just make a choice.  Whatever the PCs do is right, because the game goes forward.  Having to game motivations and objectives seems limiting.  Whatever the PCs say is usually where the story goes.  If they come with some awful idea to solve the problem, I rework the problem so their idea could solve it.  I changed direction in a campaign because the players liked the goofy voice I gave an NPC. 

For Diplomacy and Intimidate.  First, I hope Next gives Intimidate to Strength -I know, I know, I've made the arguments myself but it's just a rule and not real life.  That'll give the melee fighters the roleplaying mechanics, imo, they need.  Leave Diplomacy to the charismatic.

Personally, we roll first and then roleplay.  I don't want a player to describe how he is gonna threaten to torture an NPC, hoping to be gruesome enough to convince me of success.  I'd rather he roll an Intimidate check and then know how he did so he can roleplay it out.  It's funny to roleplay failure, especially failure at being a tough guy.  And if he's successful, it doesn't matter how he threatens the NPC in question because whatever he says is right so he can roleplay his character and not the DMs fears.  4e's +2 to good roleplaying is as-backwards, imo. 

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:02AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:42AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

I'm leery of 'niche' systems though. I think the strength of the SC system (at least as it is now in the Rules Compendium version which is MUCH better than the original DMG1 version) is that it is very generalized. Even when your situation doesn't match precisely with anything specific you can use an SC. Lots of different things can easily feed into it.

I disagree on the notion that this is a niche system. It is no more niche than a combat system, and I don't think you'll argue that a combat system is "niche". This system handles well virtually all meaningful social interactions: that's a huge part of the game. Part of the problems I have with skill challenges is that they try to encompasse too many different things at once without having good guidelines for any of those. They are much like a freeform RPG in that sense, or one of those RPGs where everything is a skill check. It can work, but I expect something more from a good system.

The thing with niche specialized systems is that they carry their own rules that create a different 'language' that one part of the game speaks which then creates impediments when different things start to mix together. For instance your system is going to have a harder time dealing with a combined combat and negotiation system than SCs do (which use very much base line conflict mechanics). IMHO this is a real strength of 4e that is not apparently often appreciated much. IMHO the best approach would be providing an SC type system that is a bit more elaborated, so it can provide a set of more specific guidelines and mechanical options to the DM that are tweaked for a social situation (and some for others as well). This would be basically going a bit beyond the example SCs in the 4e rules, which tried to do that as weak suggestions (which were often bad unfortunately).

One of the strengths of having a system dedicated to social interactions is exactly creating that vocabulary, that language that one part of the game speaks. While too many subsystems can be a mess and get out of control quickly (3e I'm looking at you) and you hardly need new rules for everything, I believe rules for the major parts of the game are in fact needed. I wouldn't be happy without a good combat system, and I'm not happy without a good social system.

I won't hide that I don't like skill challenges very much. I like 4E's skill system in general, but I don't like skill challenges. They seem disjointed and not organic, they require a LOT of work to produce good results and they tend to be unsatisfying. Plus, aid another. I like the fact that you can't solve or lose a situation with one die roll (which is part of the above system), I like the fact that you can try various things to succeed and aren't confined in a small box of one appropriate skill check (which is part of the above system) but that's pretty much it. 

As for the combined combat and negotiation, this would work pretty well in fact with the above system. Let's take 4E combat system as a reference; you can mix the two easily. Describe motivations and objectives of relevant NPCs; then, add additional objectives the PCs can trade based on the combat, or decide that some actions / events influence the behavior of NPCs. Appealing to a motivation is a standard action in this context, so the PCs can decide whether to attack or try to reason with the NPCs. They blend together quite well. 

I think combat and SC systems are more similar than you give them credit for. 'The devil is in the details' as the old saying goes. The SC and combat systems are each very simple elaborations on the basic core mechanic. There are minor differences, but IN GENERAL they aren't really big issues and the important thing is most of the differences are 'organic', they reflect actual differences in the situation in game.

Where integrating the two things can break down is where for instance progress is measured, or how bonuses work. Bonuses in SC and combat work pretty much the same. It isn't an issue for instance to translate a combat bonus into a skill bonus or vice versa. Most things that provide bonuses will work in both subsystems.

I'd say you may run into issues with OTHER subsystems as well vs the social interaction system. Again, the parallels between a physically oriented SC and a socially oriented one are small and things can translate easily.

Maybe more importan IMHO is that with the 4e SC system you aren't forced to categorize it as one specific subtype. In fact this is the most important key to SC success. You really SHOULD combine different elements into one SC. In your system I can't easily have a "gather information" SC that involves some combination of scouting, socializing, and casting rituals. This is what I call 'framing' and is a real key thing with making good SCs IME. With a properly framed SC ALL the PCs can contribute to overall success but each in very different ways. If you force me to make the above example into 3 different 'encounters' using 3 different subsystems then I can't do that easily. I don't really like having subsystems that force me into different niches for each one for this reason.