Community

DGunther wrote:

It's pointless for me to continue championing a more free formed method, or DM fiat or story railroading method (as you seem to view it as), compared to a more statistically mechanical method, roll of the die or CRPG-follow the script (the view I see it as), social encounter resolution. Both methods have their pros and cons. Neither is better than the other, just different.

I use all of these methods situationally, actually. It's not that hard to intuitively decide whether a given situation should be:

* Entirely decided by what you say

* Influenced by whether or not you have a higher modifier, but still heavily influenced by what you say

*A D20 roll with your modifier added

*A D10 roll with no modifiers.

For example:

You're invited to a fancy party in Sharn but have lost your invitation. You approach the Warforged doorman and attempt to convince him you're suppose to be there. Your strange, human social skills are completely lost on him, and only the players words affect the situation. The player shows him her I.D. papers which clearly indicate she is reputable, and the Warforged let's her in.

Once inside, she encounters the ambassador from Aundair the group had met earlier and engages him in a rather public political debate. This is an important conversation, so her modifiers are taken into account but what is primarily considered are the players words. The player proves a good match for the DM, yet the ambassador has a much better modifier and they both agree he should talk her into contradicting herself.

She's actually a spy, and later on someone who is suspicious confronts her. She tries to explain away the inconsistencies and rolls a 14 on her bluff check and adds +13 for a total of 27. The suspicious man rolls a 19 but has only a +5 sense motive modifier, for a total of 24. She lies quite convincingly, not giving away any telltale sings of it. He still has reason to be suspicious, but begins to doubt his theory due to her great perceived sincerity.

Later on she's asked to make a speech, but neither the players nor the DM really want to act it out, so she simply rolls a D20 and adds per perform (oratory) modifier. The DM also has her roll a knowledge (nobility and royalty) check. She gets a 31 on the first and a 23 on the second. The DM decides her speech was brilliant and she was able to weave her political knowledge into it nicely, gaining the respect of many of the guests.

On the way out she runs into a Duke from the country and two of his bodyguards. One of his men knew her previous identity, so the DM decides to roll a D10 with a 20% chance that that particular bodyguard was with the Duke today. The result was a 4, so the guards did not recognize her.

I suppose it's possible the first and second methods to unfairly penalize players who themselves have poor social skills, but it hasn't been an issue so far and serves to really draw people into the story. If one of my players expresses frustration with it then I suppose I'll have to reconsider.

You pointedly accuse the dice of adding an undesired "randomness" to adjudication, yet the use of dice somehow imposes a "static" quality to the story?

Leaving adjudication strictly to numbers comes across as being computer logic. CRPGs have a programmed script with a limited number of choices that a player may direct their character. Everything in a CRPG, other than the art and overall story, comes down to numbers, a stastical calculation.

In what way are randomly determined numbers scripted? If anything, it is the DM fiat/story-railroading method that is scripted. You would have me believe that you champion a free-form technique, but you adhere to more script than anyone who relies on dice to determine the direction of their story.

The 'scripting' that I am supposed to be doing as a DM is based upon the decisions and actions player's in my game make with their characters. The 'scripting' changes or adjusts with every character decision and action. So much, that I have had hole campaigns that I actually sat down and outlined, were scrapped because of character action and decision. The dice don't determine the direction of the story, to an extent, yes I as a DM have some influence the direction of the story will take, only in that I adjudicate how the actions and decisions the player's make with their characters have immediate or long-term consequences based upon the setting being in which the game is set. Quite honestly, my player's control the direction of the story more so than I do. A pre-prepped adventure doesn't allow for completely stepping outside of the story, just like a CRPG.

Weighted chaos defines my game, whereas yours is propelled by desired outcome. Anything is possible/impossible with numerical adjudication, which contrasts with DM whim adjudication since DM whim adjudication is just that; adjudication subject to the whims of a single-someone playing god.

If chaos is weighted, then it is not really chaos. As for running a game with a desired outcome - absolutely, that my players have an enjoyable evening trying to overcome obstacles. The DMs key responsibility is to run a game that is fun and challenging for their players. Adjudication is next in importance. Mind you, this is how I was introduced to the game almost 20 years ago by DMs who had played a lot longer than I. IF that is 'playing god', then I'm guilty, as are the players who've DMed for me. Like I said in a previous post, using the roll of the die style is no better or worse than on the fly. They're just different styles of gaming. Apparently, the former is more what newer gamers (those that began gaming around the time of the goofy
2e Player's Option revamp) are looking to experience.

After having gone back over my own stated perspective here in this forum, admittedly, there are a lot of holes. Essentially, what this comes down to for me, with a rumored social combat system or whatever it's supposed to be, the worst thing that can be added to the game are social BABs to beat down WILL defense, feats for social armor classes, and everything else that goes along with a social combat system. I guess then, the fear, or witch hunt for me, is having every social situation come down to die rolling the way combat does. If that is direction the game is going, something I can't say with any kind of certainty, then the game has been reduced to resemble more of a hard logic CRPG.

Another individual asked how are the social skills determining outcomes in social encounters? Although I haven't spoken to support this (quite the contrary in fact), they don't. They're just meant to bump reactions one way or another. My concern is stated above.

DGunther wrote:

I agree. However, I've been running into more and more strictly by the PHB rules players, less open to houserules. I try to run a game suited to what my players want. However, I'm not fond fo the rules oriented player I've been experiencing recently. Combats need to be set up with miniatures. Everything has to have a DC. Feels like no imagination is involved. I don't like it one bit, bu that's what the player's want. I used to enjoy running the game. Now it's become work.

That because there wasn't a clear common field with your players
You wanted to play a game... they prefer another game... Actually those game are both called D&D, but they're different.
I've seen a lot of people falling in this mistake. BEFORE you start a campaing you have to CLARIFY why and how you want to play; wich rules, how many power in the DM hands and so on
If there isn't a common field BEFORE starting someone will be sad... or pheraps upset

sparrowhawk4 wrote:

Thank you for finally responding, if albeit, briefly. I think what alot of people are saying is that you seem to remove anything like the social skills from the encounter, going strickly on what the PLAYER is saying and doing, and not taking into the mechanical abilities of the CHARACTER. This is currently represented by the skill checks that influance reactions, etc... And yes, they require dice. Do you use these skill checks(such as for diplomacy to change a NPC's attitude) or do you solely go with what the PLAYER does?

I keep skill checks to a minimum. I don't remove the social skills from the encounter, I remove a lot of the die rolling. I keep an at a glance sheet with key information about the PCs - HP, TAB, Saves, AC, Attributes, and Skill Ranks. In social encounters, the skill total is taken into account, and applied to an acted out conversation. This isn't done for every social encounter. There are some instances, generally similar to the example someone gave about giving a speech, that a roll of the die is made to determine how well or poorly the listeners are swayed by the message of the speech. Other than that, there is not much in the way of die rolling. Yes, it is a bit more controlling and less random than using the die, I've found it lends itself to a more fluid game. I guess a more direct way to answer your question, I use a combination of character skill and player input together in order to handle social encounters in order to minimize die rolling. I've found this especially useful when skills start getting into the 10 or more ranks area. The long-time players (people I've gamed with since I started gaming) passionately enjoy this method, while newer gamers I DM for prefer to see more die rolling, no matter how many times I explain how I run. I will always run a game that suits the desires of my players, because ultimately I want them to enjoy themselves and want to keep coming back for more.