I get what you're trying to say, but for me at least, making and/or levelling up a character is not done during the session, and thus does not compete for time acting in character.
I don't think you do. I wasn't talking about leveling, but describing the types of Player/DM interactions I am guessing alien270 has around his table. It is obviously more important to him, or others at his table, that someone has a +19 at Diplomacy than the story element that the Paladin is the most logical choice to talk to the High Priest. At my table, the logical story choice wins, not the logical mechanical choice. Thus my earlier attempt at humor that, "People who are too focused on mechanics are often too focused on mechanics."
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
I get what you're trying to say, but for me at least, making and/or levelling up a character is not done during the session, and thus does not compete for time acting in character.
I don't think you do. I wasn't talking about leveling, but describing the types of Player/DM interactions I am guessing alien270 has around his table. It is obviously more important to him, or others at his table, that someone has a +19 at Diplomacy than the story element that the Paladin is the most logical choice to talk to the High Priest. At my table, the logical story choice wins, not the logical mechanical choice. Thus my earlier attempt at humor that, "People who are too focused on mechanics are often too focused on mechanics."
This just makes me think you don't quite get what Alien was talking about. The fact that the logical story choice and the logical mechanical choice are even at odds rather seemed to be his whole complaint. Which one wins at your table isn't really the point.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
This just makes me think you don't quite get what Alien was talking about. The fact that the logical story choice and the logical mechanical choice are even at odds rather seemed to be his whole complaint. Which one wins at your table isn't really the point.
And that is his problem. The rest of us realize that the mechanics aren't he be all and end all of how the game works. This kind of thing happens in real life all the time. A person who needs to be influenced isn't always swayed by the most attractive peroson, or the most glib. They bring biases to any discussion and sometimes the most unlikely person sways them. This doesn't need mechanics to express. It simply happens.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
If someone wants to give up and throw a temper tantrum because bob the con man s better at talking to people than captain slasher that is more on them than the system. Not everyone is going to be equal at every task in any system
This is the key right here.
This is partially correct. Some people should be better at talking than others, it's only natural as part of their archetype. However, socialization is a broad area, and there's space for more than just talking. Explore different mechanics and different spaces so that every class can hold its own in socialization, even without everyone being good at talking. Much like everyone is good at fighting while nobody is good at the same things in 4E.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
After years of non-existent or narrow and rigid or minimalist skill systems, it's easier for people to read "good at X" as exactly one thing. Early on, good at social stuff meant high Charisma and nothing else. Later skills came in, so good at social stuff meant good numbers in a handful of areas (Bluff, diplomacy etc). If social mechanics boil down to 1 number or 4 numbers on a character sheet, that's what many groups will use. Good DMs still emphasize roleplay in this system, but how much and in what ways is completely up in the air.
What I want and what I think a few other people are looking for is more options than just skills and more rules guidance for DMs. For example, there could be a social feat called "Defender of the faith" that gives the PC the ability to get an NPC of his faith to grant a small favor (DM's determination) once per adventure (off the top of my head - could be better worded/balanced). Maybe a decent bonus to social skills when interacting with NPCs of that faith would be good to include too. A simple bonus doesn't do the job though, since it could be overshadowed very easily. Something like this would let the PC be built more for combat than socializing but still have a role in interactions with his patron faith.
It would also be important for feats like this not to have to compete with combat stuff. Even if Expertise feats are gone, I doubt that the game will lack compelling choices for combat feats. Anything that makes your character more likely to not die is going to be given more weight by a lot of players, detracting from feats that add personality. Separate resource pools fix this.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
And that is his problem. The rest of us realize that the mechanics aren't he be all and end all of how the game works. This kind of thing happens in real life all the time. A person who needs to be influenced isn't always swayed by the most attractive peroson, or the most glib. They bring biases to any discussion and sometimes the most unlikely person sways them. This doesn't need mechanics to express. It simply happens.
I think something you're ignoring is that +14 has a value, in game, beyond 'I'm the best socializer of the party' - it represents that the Bard has devoted his time and magic to diplomacy, and when you arbitrarily state "The priest ignores you", he'll try again - with magic. So, now we've got a +5 bonus, and a magical compliance for the priest to listen. If you choose to have him fail to listen again, then you have to explain why this priest is powerful enough to ignore the PC's magic. And if that's the case, why he isn't bloody taking care of the problem himself.
It becomes the fallacy of Forgotten Realms, where the PCs are doing all of the mundane jobs that everyone else is too busy, or lazy, to take care of. In this specific example, you've railroaded the party into letting the Paladin speak for them. The innate problem is now he can only listen to the paladin, and will be insanely impartial to the party, ignoring any concerns or questions. If he does listen to the party fairly, then you have to explain why he refused to listen to the bard in the first place, and rest assured, any reason you give will be called out by the party. If the reason is "He distrusts arcane magic." and the party is a Bard, Wizard, Warlord, Assassin and Paladin, then the only a third of the party gets to participate, and you get to explain why he's willing to discuss any of this in front of the other two. If any of them use magical equipment, he may feel that even that is too much, asking the party to discard them, or to not bring them into his presence.
It may be overthinking it a bit much, but if he ignores the Bard because you want to 'facilitate roleplay, and not roll-play', you have to provide reasons why the Bard's time spent in diplomacy doesn't matter. And you'll have to do it often and frequently to the point that the player will feel that they were wasted choices, because you're marginalizing them in order to get players to roleplay more. It seems the easiest way is to just remove skills and rely on player narrative to determine the success of any skill. But then you run into new problems (How do you adjudicate jumping over a pit, or climbing a rough cliff face by narrative alone?)
It seems the easiest way is to just remove skills and rely on player narrative to determine the success of any skill. But then you run into new problems (How do you adjudicate jumping over a pit, or climbing a rough cliff face by narrative alone?)
I was with you up to here. The point of identifying exploration and socilaization as separate pillars is so a DM can say "Dont' put any mechanical effort into socialization. I dont' roll dice for this. We're just going to roleplay." While another DM could as easily say "No matter how persuasive you individually are, my NPCs will only react to your statements based on what the dice say. So if you want your character to be persuausive be sure to load up on Charisma and train in the social Skills."
As long as the DM is up front about which ruleset he uses, it should not be a problem.
It seems the easiest way is to just remove skills and rely on player narrative to determine the success of any skill. But then you run into new problems (How do you adjudicate jumping over a pit, or climbing a rough cliff face by narrative alone?)
I was with you up to here. The point of identifying exploration and socilaization as separate pillars is so a DM can say "Dont' put any mechanical effort into socialization. I dont' roll dice for this. We're just going to roleplay." While another DM could as easily say "No matter how persuasive you individually are, my NPCs will only react to your statements based on what the dice say. So if you want your character to be persuausive be sure to load up on Charisma and train in the social Skills."
As long as the DM is up front about which ruleset he uses, it should not be a problem.
It was mostly hyperbole, as I've always seen Social Skill checks in conjunction with individual persuasion - either using it to guide what is said, or applying penalities or bonuses to the roll. But I see how the pillars work. The climbing/pit scenarios are exploration and not socialization, and thus, could still be relegated to rolls to determine success, even if you're ignoring mechanical aspects of the socialization pillar.
I interpreted the answer differently than you did I guess. My understanding was that everyone would be good enough to participate in the general 3 categories, yeah on a sneaky sneaky mission the guy in plate might fail, but he might be able to do other exploration tasks like climb, move obstacles etc. But just that through customization people could emphasize one of the categories a bit more than their class normally does. If someone wants to give up and throw a temper tantrum because bob the con man s better at talking to people than captain slasher that is more on them than the system. Not everyone is going to be equal at every task in any system, I kind of suspect in 4e your mage had the knowledge skills down pat compared to the barbarian. And mr slasher can participate in the conversation of mr con man even if it is just to loom menacingly, look out for ambushes, make sure it is kept private etc. But it could also be him being involved in the conversation and helping toward the end result just not wracking up the same total effect as the con man.
The problem is that as soon as the system caters to hyper-specialization, "good enough" doesn't mean much. The Fighter will never be called on to talk to people because talking to people falls under the purview of "Charisma" (or more narrowly, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.). I'd rather do away with one single "talking to people" mechanic and have the option for using different skills (or even different abilities entirely) depending on the situation. A Fighter using his Str score to awe a potential patron into entrusting him with a mission. A Paladin using his knowledge of Religion (or his Wisdom) to make references that the head priest will respond favorably to. Intimidate having a flexible ability (I can flex my muscles and show that I'm capable of tearing your head off, or I can convince you that I'm sick and twisted enough to tear your head off using Cha). A History or Knowledge check to recall a song or verse associated with a noble, which you can sing to really impress him.
Yes, I'm fully aware that all of this can be done with existing editions of D&D, but it's technically not RAW. What players and DMs do when they invoke these specialized tasks is essentially tweaking the system to suit their own needs (in other words, improvising a better system than what the developers published). Not everyone will know to do this, though. My experience has been really varied because I game with multiple groups, and DMs are often rotated. But I'm not only concerned about my own table, but also new gaming groups that will expand the hobby. I'd rather have those groups introduced to the hobby with a system that's already flexible and actively facilitates that the mechanics match the roleplay as much as possible (i.e. they're flexible) as opposed to one that says "social interaction uses the Charisma ability, a bonus to Diplomacy makes you better at convincing people to do things, etc."
For this to work, players need to be encouraged to diversify their skillsets and everyone needs to have a chance to contribute. I don't want the Fighter to be "competent" at Diplomacy when the Bard is going to be chosen to use it anyways; I want the Fighter to be able to show up the Bard if talking to a general or other martial-type by using his own specialized knowledge of battle tactics, training, and weaponry even if he isn't normally very suave. Different NPCs should respond to different things, and the mechanics should support that.
In any case, say his CHA is only 10 (since he'll want to pay lip service to Con as a tertiary state, and possibly Int/Dex to round out his defenses). I picked Paladins because they've traditionally been a really MAD class. He didn't train Diplomacy (or any other social skills), and didn't take any OoC feats.
Using 4E as a baseline (because I'm less familiar with the specifics of 3.5, not having the books in front of me right now, and 5E has no public mechanics yet) the Bard probably has a CHA modifier that's +4 higher than the Straladin's, add another +5 for skill training, add +3 for skill focus (this guy's emphasizing OoC, remember), and another +5 if he pops Words of Friendship. And since he's focused, let's throw in another +2 from an item, background, theme, or whatever. The Bard has a +14 advantage over our Straladin, and that increases to +19 if Words of Friendship is popped. Even if the DM were savvy enough (new DMs might not be) to use a Hard DC for the Bard and an easy DC for the Straladin, the Bard's still more likely to succeed.
Oh, and 4E doesn't have a specific design goal to facilitate OoC specialization. Obviously it can happen (as the above example makes blatantly obvious), but it's not good design, and it's something that it seems 5E is striving for. Having combat and OoC pools as separate resources is much more elegant.
Even paladins who chose STR/WIS as primary and secondary key attributes still have CHA as tertiary. I never leave tertiary attributes without at least a +1 modifier and I think anyone who give a paladin a 10 in CHA is asking for the kind of heartache you describe.
You are being blinded by mechanics. Use Page 42. If it makes most sense for the paladin to negotiate with the high priest write in a condition that ensures the paladin makes the best choice. Maybe the priest doesn't trust non-religous people, and simply won't negotiate with the bard no matter what he says. Role playing should trump a stack of bonuses every time.
As I explained in my previous post, a Straladin with Wis secondary needs to consider Cha (for some class abilities maybe), Dex/Int (for Reflex/Initiative), and Con (for survivablity; Lay on Hands won't do much if you don't have the surges to spare!). Plenty of players will choose Con and/or Dex/Int over Cha.
Again, I'm not necessarily saying that I need help letting RP guide mechanics, I just think it definitely should NOT be up to individual groups to "figure that out." The mechanics fall into the background in a good system, and that'll never happen when the mechanics and roleplay are at odds.
I get what you're trying to say, but for me at least, making and/or levelling up a character is not done during the session, and thus does not compete for time acting in character.
I don't think you do. I wasn't talking about leveling, but describing the types of Player/DM interactions I am guessing alien270 has around his table. It is obviously more important to him, or others at his table, that someone has a +19 at Diplomacy than the story element that the Paladin is the most logical choice to talk to the High Priest. At my table, the logical story choice wins, not the logical mechanical choice. Thus my earlier attempt at humor that, "People who are too focused on mechanics are often too focused on mechanics."
This just makes me think you don't quite get what Alien was talking about. The fact that the logical story choice and the logical mechanical choice are even at odds rather seemed to be his whole complaint. Which one wins at your table isn't really the point.
Bingo. If it wasn't already obvious based on my response above
The problem is that as soon as the system caters to hyper-specialization, "good enough" doesn't mean much. The Fighter will never be called on to talk to people because talking to people falls under the purview of "Charisma" (or more narrowly, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.). I'd rather do away with one single "talking to people" mechanic and have the option for using different skills (or even different abilities entirely) depending on the situation. A Fighter using his Str score to awe a potential patron into entrusting him with a mission. A Paladin using his knowledge of Religion (or his Wisdom) to make references that the head priest will respond favorably to. Intimidate having a flexible ability (I can flex my muscles and show that I'm capable of tearing your head off, or I can convince you that I'm sick and twisted enough to tear your head off using Cha). A History or Knowledge check to recall a song or verse associated with a noble, which you can sing to really impress him.
For this to work, players need to be encouraged to diversify their skillsets and everyone needs to have a chance to contribute. I don't want the Fighter to be "competent" at Diplomacy when the Bard is going to be chosen to use it anyways; I want the Fighter to be able to show up the Bard if talking to a general or other martial-type by using his own specialized knowledge of battle tactics, training, and weaponry even if he isn't normally very suave. Different NPCs should respond to different things, and the mechanics should support that.
I agree with this; it would be very cool if they built this sort of thing into the system from the start. From this point of view, the bard is the diplomatic master not because he is always the best in every situation but because he is always at least competant in every situation. In other words, he is always the second best. The fighter will be better at dealing with guards or other warriors, the wizard with other arcanists, the priest with other devout worshippers, etc, but the bard knows that he can get along pretty well with all those types AND do well with anyone else they might come across. This is similar to my view on how the wizard's magic should be handled. It can't both be able to do everything and be more powerful than other options. It can either be more powerful at a small area of expertise (just like any other class), or be decent at everything.
