It's a good deal harder in social situations than in combat though.
During combat, the opponents aim to kill you. They will try to exploit weak links and gang on weaker party members because that's tactically sound. In most social situations, the objective is not to demolish the opposing side (unless you are in a court or similar).
NPCs interacting with you will have all the reasons to talk with the party's face, because he will seem more reasonable and agreeable than the rest of the group.
The rest of the group even has the chance to politely exit the room if needed - and if it's for the best, they probably will.
All in all, I think forcing the interaction on other party members only works in very specific cases. Generally, the other side will want you to "lose", which is not the basis for most meaningful social interactions: in most cases, they just want to win, and the interaction is there to compromise so that both the players and the other party can "win". If you wish for the other to lose, there's not much talking to do.
This is why I think the DM "rules" need to include better advice for DMs on running non-combat encounters: even though non-combat situations don't necessarily feel like "us vs. them," I think that it's easier to run mechanics-wise if the DM has that attitude, because really, it is the Party Vs. The NPC. They're using powers (skill checks) targeting certain defenses (skill DCs) to obtain a result. This result can be win-win for the characters involved even if the die rolls are made as if it was a life-or-death combat encounter.
This seems like it should be simple. Death usually happens in combat. I'd say "almost always happens in combat" but someone would have a lovely anecdote about a high lethality game he ran for 15 years without a single fight. Anyway, if a player loses a character in combat, even if he is totally in love with wonderful, roleplay-inducing non-combat customization, he'll think twice about those choices next time and maybe grab Toughness instead.
Except that what more typically happens is he blames his dice or a mean DM or at best says "I'm a role player not a power gamer and I refuse to bow to practicality," and leaves the group in frustration rather than fixing the problem. Designers, don't let your players make stupid decisions, they won't thank you for it.
Yeah, I really don't see the drawback of having everyone get non-combat resources.
For example, even if the assassin doesn't want to choose any social skills/abilities that make him even a little like the party face, he could have a network of spies and contacts, or access to smuggled goods, or better exploration/non-combat movement options, or hidden safe-houses, or better stealth, or disguises, or other abilities drawn from a generic non-assassin-ish pool.
The fighter could gain armies, keeps, land, and the status that comes with them. He could be owed favors and wield influence at court. He could have a stable of exotic flying mounts (credit to the Morm for that one) or a ship or even a fleet at high levels. If we actually have a system for wealth, power, influence, favors, and information, the game would be richer and deeper than if we're expected to just make all that stuff up or ignore it and choose more combat feats.
This is why I think the DM "rules" need to include better advice for DMs on running non-combat encounters: even though non-combat situations don't necessarily feel like "us vs. them," I think that it's easier to run mechanics-wise if the DM has that attitude, because really, it is the Party Vs. The NPC. They're using powers (skill checks) targeting certain defenses (skill DCs) to obtain a result. This result can be win-win for the characters involved even if the die rolls are made as if it was a life-or-death combat encounter.
Well said. I'd also like to add that skill/social challenges have another avenue of play not usually available in combat: role-playing. When a combat is started most actions revolve around the dice roles and 'mechanics' of the situation.
In any social/skill encounter there is a lot more active role-playing going on (usually) and often a well-played social encounter won't even require a roll to resolve. This makes social encounters a nice change-up pitch to battles. You can still roll your dice, but you don't have to.
When a demon is charging you, you usually 'must' roll your d20 to escape alive. When he's chatting with you, you might be able to save your skin through role-playing and wit alone.
I don't think you need separate pools, because it forces everyone to play a generalist character instead of a specialist. Instead, I think every class needs to have a baseline level of usefulness in each pillar, and then players are free to customize as they want as the character gains levels. So even if, for example, I focus exclusively on combat options for the first 10 levels, my character will still be competent at interaction and exploration.
Related to this is the issue of how often you gain resources. I doubt characters will gain a new feature for all three pillars at every level. (If that is to be the case, ignore the rest of this paragraph.) More likely, if the pillars are in separate pools you will get a different one each level. For example, perhaps at level 2 you get a combat feature, interaction at level 3, and exploration at level 4. You might even be able to pick the order. But this still forces everyone to be a generalist. The combat focused player has to spend 2/3 of his resources on things that he really isn't very interested in, and the same goes for people only interested in exploration or interaction. Making a balanced character should certainly be an option, and you shouldn't feel like you are punished for doing so. But it should also be an option to make a specialist.
Lastly, regarding the all to frequent argument that putting everything in one pool results in players only taking combat options: to me this says that one of two things (or both) is happening: 1) The player in question prefers combat options to everything else. He might not dislike exploration and interaction, but feels that being good at combat is the most important thing. 2) The DM puts a big emphasis on combat. If there isn't a lot of interaction/exploration, of course players will feel a need to specialize in combat.
Here is a real-life example of this. In my campaign, I put roughly equal emphasis on all three pillars. As a result, there are some players who have split up their character resources in order to be as effective as possible at all three. Other players instead focus on the pillar that they enjoy the most. But the nice thing is that everyone has a nice baseline level of competence within each pillar. So whether the group is exploring, interacting, or fighting, everyone feels like they can participate in an effective manner.
1) It does not in fact force anyone to be a generalist. What it does is force everyone to have 3 specialties instead of one. These are two very different things. Having something to contribute in all three pillars does not mean that one character can do everything, because there are times when diplomacy is more useful than intimidate and vice versa, when neither are as helpful as a well placed knowledge role, and when really the best way to do things is tap into your contacts network. There are times when stealth is needed, when someone needs to lift a heavy portcullis, and when someone needs to disarm a magical ward. True, it denies people the choice to focus exclusively on one pillar, but giving players that choice forces the DM to either bore them/let them screw the party when the other two pillars come up, or to force everyone else to ignore those other pillars.
2) there is no such thing as a "baseline level of competence" in each pillar. Anyone who tells you different is lying to himself. An example will illustrate. Suppose you have a three member party, each of which specializes in one pillar but all have this mythical "baseline competence." The party then finds itself in a social situation. The DM now has three choices: 1) use low DCs so that everyone can contribute. The smart party lets the social specialist to dominate the encounter while everyone else clams up, because he can't fail. The non-meta-gamer party has everyone contribute, but they take a mechanical knock for not playing the "smart way" and all excitement is taken away from the social specialist's rolls. 2) use high DCs so you can actually challenge the social specialist. The smart party is even more encouraged to clam up, because the alternative is to automatically fail all challenges. 3) Use high DCs in the specialist's sphere, and lower DCs in other areas (say, high diplomacy for the specialist rogue and lower insight for the cleric). Congratulations, you've solved the problem by completely invalidating your player's choices, putting everyone on a treadmill that automatically scales to their bonuses so that all roles are reduced to coin flips. Even if only one player specializes and the other two make generalists, unless the generalists are as good within the specialist's pillar as the specialist he still crowds them out in exactly the same way (though to a slightly lesser degree).
You get a similar problem if the disparities are not math based (bonus size) but option based. Suppose the wizard's arcana bonus is similar to the rogue's diplomacy, because the rogue's expenditures on social bonuses don't give him "+2 diplomacy" or even "1/day, reroll a failed diplomacy check" (which is basically just a +4 bonus) but rather "you have contacts all over town that you can tap for information or favors." Tap your rumor mill and you discover that the duke has been acting strange lately. Oops, you've just invalidated the thing the cleric could have contributed. Inevitably you're going to end up crowding out your friends, and leaving them with nothing to meaningfully contribute in that sphere (and thus boring them while you're pillar is in play and boring yourself when there's is). But apparently, we have to let players bore themselves and each other in the name of character customization.
The fact that you're willing to put up with these drawbacks, or perhaps even that you as DM haven't noticed them, doesn't mean they aren't problems that we don't have to deal with.
3) there's more to the "all resources to combat" thing than player/dm preference. Supposing you have a choice between the linguist feat and weapon specialization. You really like RPing, but the fact is it's rare that you're going to need to speak primordial even in an RP heavy game, but a +1 to hit is useful all the time in combat even if combat is only 1/3 of the game. Even skill focus, in a 1:1:1 game, any given skill is going to come up a lot less often than an attack roll (less than 1/3 as often, in fact, given that it's +1 vs +3). Then there's the fact that failure in a social situation typically results in at worst a failed quest, more likely just a longer road to its end, while failure in combat typically results in character death. Are you beginning to see why optimizers only take combat feats, even when they like RPing in an RP heavy game?
4) True, the player that is "only interested in combat" doesn't have to "waste" 2/3 of his resources on the other pillars. But provided each pillar gets enough resources, the fact that you also get resources to spend on things you don't care about is irrelevant. Would you seriously tell me that the game would be made worse by a rule that said, "for each 5 levels you achieve, you gain the ability to choose a new adjective to tack on to the end of your character's name"? Maybe not better, but it can't hurt. Even a player who prefers combat should be encouraged to participate when the party is exploring or socializing, and he is well within his rights if he really doesn't want to go get a slice of pizza instead even if we hand him a bunch of resources. In exchange for asking him to spend 2 seconds picking some resources he doesn't have to use, you give those of us who like the other two pillars but feel bound to take the mechanically superior options the chance, and to gain the benefit of increased participation by players who otherwise had an excuse to clam up. So I ask again, where is the downside?
Lastly, regarding the all to frequent argument that putting everything in one pool results in players only taking combat options: to me this says that one of two things (or both) is happening: 1) The player in question prefers combat options to everything else. He might not dislike exploration and interaction, but feels that being good at combat is the most important thing. 2) The DM puts a big emphasis on combat. If there isn't a lot of interaction/exploration, of course players will feel a need to specialize in combat.
I think it is more complicated than this, Ari. It goes back to a disparity in the three pillars themselves, how they are represented in the rules, and how most DMs deal with them.
Socialization and Exploration have never been too tightly involved with the rules. There are rules, but they're no where near as in depth as the combat rules, not in any edition. As a result, even when there are rules for a specific situation, they tend to be circumventable and manipulatable by a savvy or creative player. A good Diplomacy skill is nice, sure, but if you find the right things to say to an NPC, you act polite, maybe buy him a drink, a lot of DMs will either give you a bonus or mentally lower the DC. Sometimes you can get out of rolling altogether. Or you can try to sub in a different skill, like tricking him with Bluff. Perception/Search are all well and good, but taking a few moments and "manually" searching likely hiding spots goes a long way. If there's something under the bed and you say you roll Search, you're on your own, but if you mention checking under the bed, the DM will probably just give it to you. Part of this is the vagueness of the rules but a lot of it also comes from the DM. DMs often want to emphasize and encourage creative solutions and interactions like this, so they reward this sort of behavior heavily. It succeeds in emphasizing the pillar, but often makes the mechanics within it much less important.
In combat, though, mechanics are much more intertwined with the action. You wouldn't roll to see if each patron in the bar got a good first impression of you, but you roll for every attack. Creativity and roleplaying are encouraged and often rewarded in combat, but nearly four decades of substantial rules imbalance has left many DMs on guard, so to speak, against giving you too much of a bonus. You might come up with something cool and find the DM giving you a bonus to hit, or to damage, or letting you add a cool effect, but you'll practically never be able to take down a foe without using the mechanics at all.
Then there's the disparity in the pillars themselves. Socialization and Exploration(especially exploration) are very broad areas of play. You might spend a feat on Stealth, and thus invest in Exploration, but that Stealth isn't likely to help you when you're tracking the foes through the woods, scaling the cliff wall and disarming the traps in the dungeon. You can have a significant chunk of Exploration or Socialization time without a particular skill coming up, and it can happen easily. Combat, on the other hand, is relatively tightly focused. You're going to be fighting. If I take a feat, say, to increase my Sneak Attack damage, I can be relatively certain it's going to come up not just every fight, but multiple times per fight. We might spend three hours on Exploration and then have a single, five round combat that takes twenty minutes, and I could end up using Stealth once and Sneak Attack five times.
Picking all combat isn't necessarily a bad choice, even when the DM tries to focus on other areas. It would take a campaign very much skewed toward another pillar to make that one more valuable than Combat.
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.
Lastly, regarding the all to frequent argument that putting everything in one pool results in players only taking combat options: to me this says that one of two things (or both) is happening: 1) The player in question prefers combat options to everything else. He might not dislike exploration and interaction, but feels that being good at combat is the most important thing. 2) The DM puts a big emphasis on combat. If there isn't a lot of interaction/exploration, of course players will feel a need to specialize in combat.
I think it is more complicated than this, Ari. It goes back to a disparity in the three pillars themselves, how they are represented in the rules, and how most DMs deal with them.
Socialization and Exploration have never been too tightly involved with the rules. There are rules, but they're no where near as in depth as the combat rules, not in any edition. As a result, even when there are rules for a specific situation, they tend to be circumventable and manipulatable by a savvy or creative player. A good Diplomacy skill is nice, sure, but if you find the right things to say to an NPC, you act polite, maybe buy him a drink, a lot of DMs will either give you a bonus or mentally lower the DC. Sometimes you can get out of rolling altogether. Or you can try to sub in a different skill, like tricking him with Bluff. Perception/Search are all well and good, but taking a few moments and "manually" searching likely hiding spots goes a long way. If there's something under the bed and you say you roll Search, you're on your own, but if you mention checking under the bed, the DM will probably just give it to you. Part of this is the vagueness of the rules but a lot of it also comes from the DM. DMs often want to emphasize and encourage creative solutions and interactions like this, so they reward this sort of behavior heavily. It succeeds in emphasizing the pillar, but often makes the mechanics within it much less important.
In combat, though, mechanics are much more intertwined with the action. You wouldn't roll to see if each patron in the bar got a good first impression of you, but you roll for every attack. Creativity and roleplaying are encouraged and often rewarded in combat, but nearly four decades of substantial rules imbalance has left many DMs on guard, so to speak, against giving you too much of a bonus. You might come up with something cool and find the DM giving you a bonus to hit, or to damage, or letting you add a cool effect, but you'll practically never be able to take down a foe without using the mechanics at all.
Then there's the disparity in the pillars themselves. Socialization and Exploration(especially exploration) are very broad areas of play. You might spend a feat on Stealth, and thus invest in Exploration, but that Stealth isn't likely to help you when you're tracking the foes through the woods, scaling the cliff wall and disarming the traps in the dungeon. You can have a significant chunk of Exploration or Socialization time without a particular skill coming up, and it can happen easily. Combat, on the other hand, is relatively tightly focused. You're going to be fighting. If I take a feat, say, to increase my Sneak Attack damage, I can be relatively certain it's going to come up not just every fight, but multiple times per fight. We might spend three hours on Exploration and then have a single, five round combat that takes twenty minutes, and I could end up using Stealth once and Sneak Attack five times.
Picking all combat isn't necessarily a bad choice, even when the DM tries to focus on other areas. It would take a campaign very much skewed toward another pillar to make that one more valuable than Combat.
Excellent post, Pashalik__Mons. I agree with all the points you made.
The one thing I'd like to add is that I've noticed a trend with 4e to de-emphasize the exploration/social mechanics of the game. True, you don't 'need' mechanics to resolve these kinds of things, but it's nice to have them. It, unfortunately, comes across that the game was designed for combat rather than exploration and social encounters.
I'd like to see more emphasis in the rules on skills, social, role-playing, and especially exploration. Not because I want them to be resolved more with mechanics. Just because I want them to become a bigger part of the game in general.
When I designed my own RPG I tried as much as possible to shift the focus off of combat and back onto role-playing, creative skill use, and exploration. There are even a number of powers and abilities which aid in such 'role-playing' encounters and (I hope) add more focus to that aspect of the game.
I also respect the DM and player's right to change the game and their characters to suit them. If you want to play a tank--loaded to the teeth--be my guest. However, it's very hard in 4e to play a 'pure skills' character. You almost automatically gain some combat abilities. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be nice if you can trade a bit of 'combat power' for 'role-playing/exploration power'. You can certainly focus on combat with a character build in 4e, what about the other stuff?
Some people might argue you could take all skill feats, bizarre abilities, and what have you. But if you look closely the game encourages you to take the combat-focused powers to 'keep up'. People who play 'skills/creative' characters aren't idiots. They're not going to take a dozen skill feats when it will get them killed. I just wish you could 'evenly' trade off combat abilities for non-combat abilities.
I think it is more complicated than this, Ari. It goes back to a disparity in the three pillars themselves, how they are represented in the rules, and how most DMs deal with them.
I forgot to add this part:
Consequences for failure are another area where the pillars are skewed towards Combat. In Combat, the consequence of failure is often death, as has been mentioned before. However, in the other two pillars, failure can often lead to Combat. Exploration tends to be the main victim of this phenomenon. A common thing I've seen in adventure design is for failure in Exploration to lead to Combat. You don't successdully sneak into the enemy camp, you have to fight the guards. You get lost in the woods, you end up fighting bears. If you fall while climbing a cliff, or fail at properly disarming a trap, you're going to lose HP or Surges, Combat resources. The effect is that oftentimes, taking Combat resouces can blunt the impact of a non-Combat failure.
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.
I think it is more complicated than this, Ari. It goes back to a disparity in the three pillars themselves, how they are represented in the rules, and how most DMs deal with them.
I forgot to add this part:
Consequences for failure are another area where the pillars are skewed towards Combat. In Combat, the consequence of failure is often death, as has been mentioned before. However, in the other two pillars, failure can often lead to Combat. Exploration tends to be the main victim of this phenomenon. A common thing I've seen in adventure design is for failure in Exploration to lead to Combat. You don't successdully sneak into the enemy camp, you have to fight the guards. You get lost in the woods, you end up fighting bears. If you fall while climbing a cliff, or fail at properly disarming a trap, you're going to lose HP or Surges, Combat resources. The effect is that oftentimes, taking Combat resouces can blunt the impact of a non-Combat failure.
True, combat is almost always life and death whilst other pillars are less risky. You can imagine a situation where a social skill ends in death, say a tense Bandit negotiation. But when the pc fail they bust out the combat....
It must also become more acceptable to simply croak when you mess up a non-combat pillar. I couldn't imagine bumping off characters due to any non-combat situation without the PC's gettin' angry.
The essential theme song-
Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat
Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
I don't think you need separate pools, because it forces everyone to play a generalist character instead of a specialist.
Specialists are a PitA. Over-reward and over-price specialization, and the specialist dominates in his speciality and languishes the rest of the time, while the party is bored when the specialist is present and doomed when he's absent, but needed. Frustrating for all involved. There's no room for generalists, who are just untennably bad at everything. So, you're forced to choose your specialization, and largely sit out the game until it comes up.
If specialization is over-rewarded but cheap - that is, you don't have to give up much 'base line' functionality to specialize, then, again, everyone specializes. There's still no room for the generalist, but the absence of a specialist only makes your party severely disadvantged rather than doomed to failure.
If specialization is neither over-rewarded nor too cheap or expensive, then it doesn't make much of a difference, and is hardly worthy of the name.
I would at least seperate them in the development phase of the game, so you can judge how they interact, and later on if it is called for to simplify things, they can start to share common elements.
