This example is the problem with the 3e/3.5 system. If the skills system is going to be similar to Star Wars Saga (a pretty decent one at that), then the above, while still being possible, will be highly unlikely. Now, said 4th level character will get +5 to bluff for being trained in the skill, say another +5 for having the skill emphasis feat (or whatever it's called), +2 (1/2 your character level), and let's say a +4 due to high charisma = +16 for bluff or deception or whatever it will be called. Now, said stupid 20th level fighter will have +10 added to his Sense Motive (1/2 his character level), and let's say he's a little wise having a 14 wisdom, granting a +2 modifier = +12 to sense motive. While it's still possible for said 4th level character to outsmart the dumb 20th level fighter, it's not as likely. From my stand point, and you may not agree, this makes a good of sense.
I like the Star Wars Saga skill system, as it has a mechanic to reflect something that occurs in real life...the inadvertant acquisition of useless trivia knowledge.
A very good point indeed. I agree fully (I just recently found out about the adding 1/2 lvl thing). And the fact that you get more of a choice of your skills in every class is kinda cool to help with that. I still think I'm going to grudgingly pick over 4th ed and adapt it to 3.5. I'm ok with the skills for the most part, especially the picking some your skills thing, just not sold on some of the other ideas, races/classes mostly. Why isn't there elf wizards, and dwarf druids? That was the best thing about 3rd vs. 2nd, now they are back to restriction rules. Can you guess my first house rule if I was to play 4th?
I'm still in the mind set that most of the time, social battle with dice comes down to players who don't ever want anything to work against them -- ever. I have a very inexperienced group right now, and have a hard time dealing with them using OOG knowledge and they force me to revert to dice rolls to keep them in check when it comes to me wanting to bluff there characters, or often times even reason with them as to why they have to pay full price to this merchant who is more stubborn (higher diplomacy and profession) than the last merchant. Tell them something is over book value, and watch out. Now that merchants will be classless (if I'm understanding the rumors right) and the players get bonuses the higher levels they go, you can see where this could be a problem in my case. House rule 2, NPC nobodies still have lvls...and lots of HPs (I've had too many merchants die and stores burglarized).
It's things like that when I'd rather be in control of my story because I'm the one telling it, and not even leaving to chance that my players could get something for less when I have a legitimate storyline reason for making social encounters the way I want them. Perhaps I want them to see the shady merchant down in the back alley for a flavorful plot line, that won't happen if they start throwing out rules as to why they can argue down the price, and the dumb fighter can win them.
Why couldn't they make the social engagement rules optional, or suggestive guidelines so we old timers could avoid the rule lawyers. My bad knees make it hard to dodge them a-holes these days.
It is a mark of a good gamer when you can let something potentially bad happen to your character for the sake of storyline and good roleplaying. Once gave a dwarf pointy ears for making fun of elves, he didn't even bother to roll a WILL, just laughed and added it to the description of his character. Then griped and moaned in character every game after. I wish I could rolled an intimidate to make him stop whining. Even though I won by concession, my sanity was the loser on that exchange.
Well, while there is physics involved in both, you're not supposed to be rolling the die in such a way that you're trying to load the outcome. Die rolling is a means to achieve randomness, where as in football, it's a result of player skill.
If you knew and took into account every single factor down to the smallest detail, neither the ballgame nor the die roll would be "random". But the point that I was making before was that "random" isn't bad for a game system if the possible results are all acceptable within context.
Well, the main difference is that most social systems cause you to lose out on options as opposed to getting options. See in combat or any physical test for that matter, the goals are simple and the situation is hard to describe. Regardless of how awesome a DM storyteller you are, it's going to be hard to offer the PCs any real description that's going to give them meaningful RP choices in a combat. It ends up boiling down to "I swing my sword at him." Now, you may choose to attack low or attack the guy's head or whatever, but there's no easy way to adjudicate that from a no rules standpoint. You either end up giving your PCs are a no-brainer decision "You see an opening in his lower defenses." "Ok, I attack his right leg." Or an arbitrary guessing game between DM and PC that amounts to rock/paper/scissors, which is no better than rolling a dice.
Now, social situations on the other hand are a bit different. You can slip subtle clues into the speech and such and set up social puzzles so that your characters can make meaningful decisions that aren't pitifully obvious or turn into blatant guessing games. It may require some detective work in terms of the PCs of course, but it's possible. Because your options matter. Unlike in combat, it doesn't all boil down to "I swing a sword at my foe." You have numerous approaches.
Lets say you feel that the Duke is a traitor to the king and want to uncover his treachery. Here are some choices you've got:
Pose as mercenaries asking to be hired for the Duke's fighting regimen, and subtly try to extract clues as to his plans.
Claim you're rebels to the king and want his help in overthrowing the king.
Go to the duke bringing word of a possible rebellion forming against the king to gauge his reactions.
Directly confront him on the matter.
Subtly infer that you might be against the king, seeing if you can draw information out without putting yourself at risk.
Have a female PC try to seduce the duke and posssibly get information out of him.
Merely eavesdrop the Duke's conversations with others to try to glean information before making your approach.
The list goes on and on, and I could keep out listing things right there.
I think you're underestimating the complexity of human social interactions and overestimating the complexity of the goals that they might be used to achieve. There are whole fields of study on the subject, and they're still half voodoo. As for clues and puzzles, those bypass the PCs and go straight to the players. Also, if they catch the clues, you're just giving the game away, and if they don't catch the clues, the PCs have no chance.
All of those things you listed can be done in a game with social systems. However, other than "Directly confront him", none of those options would use the Duel of Wits. They might, however, lead to a Duel of Wits.
And all those options are going to have real story advantages and drawbacks that are going to matter on not just how well you did at what you're trying but also what you did. Now the stakes system is about as close to what I've seen as trying to emulate all of these, but the problem is that in creating the stakes you effectively give out information to your PCs.
If your stakes are "If I win, the duke drops the ball and gives out some slip into his plans and if I lose, the duke has me thrown in the dungeon.", the PCs tend to know that the duke is a traitor simply from the stakes. Which sucks for a political intrigue game where you should constantly be guessing what the duke's real motives are.
This isn't inherently a bad thing. Just because the players know doesn't mean that the PCs do. The players are the "audience" as well as the actors, and much like the audience in a movie, they can know who the bad guy is and that just makes things all the more tense. And just because the players know doesn't mean that the PCs can do anything about it.
Still, if you want the kind of play where the players don't know, then the stakes can simply be "the king gives us a solid hint to the truth vs. the king throws us in the dungeon".
Yeah, I can see that. And a part of me agrees, but I constantly find myself wondering, why have a system at all? I mean, basically the only reason you're able to start a social conflict at all is because the DM gave you the green light, so if your request is reasonable, why not just okay it from the start?
Intellectual acknowledgement is all that I can ask. Can't make you like it. But the answer is the same as "Why have combat?" or "Why have traps?" They're only there if the DM gives you the green light and introduces it as an option.
Maybe I don't fully understand. I got the impression that you could just deny the DoW and not even care. Like if PCs went up to a guard and offered him stakes of "If I win, you let me through, if I lose, we leave." The guard could just decline it and he basically doesn't let you through, so the guard hasn't lost anything. Maybe I'm missing something there, but that's the way I interpreted it.
That could happen. The guard doesn't have to care. That's kind of boring, though, and the DM's job is to make things interesting. Of course the PCs can give the guard somethting to lose, be it a bribe he might not get, or a beating he might get, or threats to his family that might happen. The guard can still just refuse, but then he must not care about his family much. And that's ok.
Also what happens if two sides want to get in a DoW but neither can agree to common stakes? Who is considered the loser there? It seems almost like you could run into Cops and Robbers style stakes setting.
"If I win, I get all his money and items, and if I lose, he gets this piece of string." "Screw that. How about if he wins, he get all your money and if you win, you get that rusty dagger on his belt."
If both sides are unreasonable it seems like it could be rather difficult.
It entirely depends on the circumstances. If one side wants to fight (or whatever the consequence) and the other doesn't, than the one that doesn't want to fight loses. If neither side wants to go to war, then they both lose. It's entirely contextual, and even "loss" is a relative term, since there technically wasn't a contest.
As for a stakes deadlock, the DM's job is to keep things moving. He can moderate things to get to an agreement. If that doesn't happen, then that means any DoW wouldn't work anyway, so there's just no DoW.
Well, because a lot of times you may want to argue with random schmucks. The fighter trying to raise an army to defend the village, the cleric looking for converts and the like. A lot of times in social situations, it's the random schmucks you care about influencing. You intimidate the random bandits into leaving without a fight for instance.
The problem is that so many social situations don't have anything to gain on one side.
Seduction: If the seducer wins he/she gets sex and some favors, if he loses, both sides just walk away with nothing.
Bluff: If you win, you convince someone of something, if you lose, you may lose credibility, but the other guy doesn't really gain anything.
Intimidate: Same deal. You choose between getting scared off or being unaffected. Why would you agree to that at all?
Begging for free equipment, healing, whatever: Again nothing to be gained, best thing that happens is that you just refuse the request.
Trying to resolve a misunderstanding: Paladin rushes around and finds your band of adventurers, thinking you're evil mercs under the service of the lich, he attacks. You try to convince him otherwise. If you win, he doesn't attack you and he doesnt' have to live with the guilt of attacking you. If he wins the DoW, he actually loses, in that he's slaughtering innocents.
Bribery: If you win the DoW against the bribe, you don't take it, but you're no better off than you were.
Now the problem is that all these things are important things to resolve. DoW works well it seems for opposed things in front of a crowd, but for the kind of social situations that come up all the time in D&D. It's not so great.
Well, if those "schmucks" are important to the character's goals, they aren't really all that "random". But either way, a straight skill roll would cover it. And it would cover all of those situations. And none of those are proper DoWs anyway, with the exception of the paladin and the beggar, and unless the beggar has something to offer (even just "leave you alone") there wouldn't be a point to a DoW.
Well presumably the guard lets some people in, so the goal is tricking the guard, and the guard is trying not to be tricked. If I'm trying to sneak illegal drugs by US customs, the customs guy cares what I'm saying, because it's his job to analyze my story and see if he should let me in or not. He doesn't necessarily want to just have me arrested without reason.
The thing is that he doesn't really know in this case that he's engaging in a DoW. It's where I said that you may actually give up information by announcing stakes or announcing there is a DoW, since for the most part.
DoW isn't about "tricking" anybody. It's about convincing, or at least "out-arguing" somebody. That's an important distinction. Otherwise it's probably just a Bluff roll (or the equivelent).
Well giving him the bribe when he won the DoW seems really stupid. "I'll give you this 100 gp, and you let me through." Somehow the guard ends up with the gold and the PCs are walking away from the castle wondering what happened. That doesn't even make any sense from a storytelling point of view.
Now I mean, I guess it could be where the bartender just pockets your bribe and then doens't tell you anything, but would he have to even do a DoW to do that? Couldn't he just take the bribe and decide not to let you in? Or does the system prevent him from doing that?
The bartender can do what he wants, but if he loses a DoW, he has to do what he said, whatever that may be. As for the guard, the stakes could be "We give you 100gp and you let us through" vs. "You give me that 100gp and leave and I won't have the watch bust heads for bribing an officer". If it didn't make sense to begin with, the players shouldn't have agreed to those stakes.
Ok I suppose that can work. Though at this point, it's just kind of an arbitrary DM decision as to what roll means what.
Sure. The rules are pretty clear as a rule, but the DM is still the DM. That's his job. Remember, the rules aren't meant to stop the DM from being a jerk, they just keep him from hiding it.
See I want a social system that takes this stuff into account, because that's cool if you as PCs have to find out what makes an NPC tick so to speak and the way you can manipulate him.
And I think the best way to handle this is through a social system, because dropping hints as a DM and relying on the players to pick up on it is a metagame challenge, not a PC challenge. It's the same as using a riddling contest or making them solve a puzzle to progress through a dungeon. It's very hard to make it an interesting character challenge without requiring them to use player knowledge (or going the other way and having it resolved by a simple Intelligence/Knowledge check).
In the Felton example, Milady realized the significance of two words ("Your Mass") and had to put that together with her knowledge of religious groups in England immediately in order to create the necessary opening. You'd need some very canny players to pick up and capitalize on that in the crucial moment in the "play it out" model, and it's anti-climactic in the "just roll" model using 3.5 rules because it just boils down to a Sense Motive roll that gives you a circumstance bonus to your Bluff check, so the ideal situation would be to have a social system that makes finding and exploiting those openings interesting, without relying heavily on player (as opposed to character) abilities.
And I think the best way to handle this is through a social system, because dropping hints as a DM and relying on the players to pick up on it is a metagame challenge, not a PC challenge. It's the same as using a riddling contest or making them solve a puzzle to progress through a dungeon. It's very hard to make it an interesting character challenge without requiring them to use player knowledge (or going the other way and having it resolved by a simple Intelligence/Knowledge check).
I dont' see a problem with that. I like to challenge my players and get them involved in the story. There will always be player skill required and player decisions. That's the whole point of a game. It's not a role-playing simulation, it's a role-playing game. Games are all about making choices.
You'd need some very canny players to pick up and capitalize on that in the crucial moment in the "play it out" model, and it's anti-climactic in the "just roll" model using 3.5 rules because it just boils down to a Sense Motive roll that gives you a circumstance bonus to your Bluff check, so the ideal situation would be to have a social system that makes finding and exploiting those openings interesting, without relying heavily on player (as opposed to character) abilities.
Really, I like having PCs be able to solve the puzzle with player ability. It keeps them interested in the game when they know they have to do something. Otherwise social situations are pretty boring where you just listen to the NPC talk and can't really learn anything.
As for clues and puzzles, those bypass the PCs and go straight to the players. Also, if they catch the clues, you're just giving the game away, and if they don't catch the clues, the PCs have no chance.
Well, yes, if they detect the clues, they do better. Player choice matters and the players stay interested in what NPCs are saying.
All of those things you listed can be done in a game with social systems. However, other than "Directly confront him", none of those options would use the Duel of Wits. They might, however, lead to a Duel of Wits.
I guess I'm not really seeing why the social system is that great if it can't handle all those situations.
This isn't inherently a bad thing. Just because the players know doesn't mean that the PCs do. The players are the "audience" as well as the actors, and much like the audience in a movie, they can know who the bad guy is and that just makes things all the more tense. And just because the players know doesn't mean that the PCs can do anything about it.
Well, it sorta sucks to constantly force players to try to pretend like they don't know stuff, because it's still a game and players are trying to "win". Now some role-players are good enough such that they can let their metagame knowledge not get in the way. Others on the otherhand just can't do that and there's no easy way to prevent it, aside from the DM telling them "you can't do that."
And that sorta sucks, because now the PCs can't even get hunches or anything, because you suspect the hunch is metagame knowledge based. It's a lot more fluid when you just trick the players as well as the characters, that way players are free to make decisions based on their entire knowledge base. Otherwise, they know the right decision, they're just relying on getting sufficient evidence to be able to allow the DM to let them make that decision.
Intellectual acknowledgement is all that I can ask. Can't make you like it. But the answer is the same as "Why have combat?" or "Why have traps?" They're only there if the DM gives you the green light and introduces it as an option.
Well no, I mean sooner or later you'll encounter some kind of NPC and combat is always an option. It may be a particularly bad option, but it's still there. Anytime you go see the Duke or buy a drink at a local tavernkeeper, there's always the option of sticking your sword into the barkeep. There's big consequences, but you can easily do that and the DM can't tell you that your character can't.
It entirely depends on the circumstances. If one side wants to fight (or whatever the consequence) and the other doesn't, than the one that doesn't want to fight loses.
But they don't. I mean not really. The guard who ignores your attempt to get in instead of starting a DoW doesn't lose. He's just basically doing his job.
Well, if those "schmucks" are important to the character's goals, they aren't really all that "random". But either way, a straight skill roll would cover it. And it would cover all of those situations. And none of those are proper DoWs anyway, with the exception of the paladin and the beggar, and unless the beggar has something to offer (even just "leave you alone") there wouldn't be a point to a DoW.
I guess I feel that DoW is too limiting then, since most of the situations I care about in D&D aren't DoWs. So the actual social system isn't DoW, it's just making skill rolls to bluff/seduce/etc. DoW is some random thing that happens in select circumstances.
DoW isn't about "tricking" anybody. It's about convincing, or at least "out-arguing" somebody. That's an important distinction. Otherwise it's probably just a Bluff roll (or the equivelent).
A bluff is about convincing people. That's the whole point. You're convincing them you're telling the truth.
Well, it sorta sucks to constantly force players to try to pretend like they don't know stuff, because it's still a game and players are trying to "win". Now some role-players are good enough such that they can let their metagame knowledge not get in the way. Others on the otherhand just can't do that and there's no easy way to prevent it, aside from the DM telling them "you can't do that."
And that sorta sucks, because now the PCs can't even get hunches or anything, because you suspect the hunch is metagame knowledge based. It's a lot more fluid when you just trick the players as well as the characters, that way players are free to make decisions based on their entire knowledge base. Otherwise, they know the right decision, they're just relying on getting sufficient evidence to be able to allow the DM to let them make that decision.
I totally agree. I find myself doing it a lot when I'm the only experienced player in a party. I hate to do it, but sometimes I get so dang frustrated when I'm trying to play a backseat character and the players with little game knowledge, but a 16+INT just sit there with their mouth agape doing nothing.
Archtyrant Terevoth wrote:
Well no, I mean sooner or later you'll encounter some kind of NPC and combat is always an option. It may be a particularly bad option, but it's still there. Anytime you go see the Duke or buy a drink at a local tavernkeeper, there's always the option of sticking your sword into the barkeep. There's big consequences, but you can easily do that and the DM can't tell you that your character can't.
Situations like that is why I love the alignment system and don't feel it should ever be taken out. I don't let just anyone play evil characters because I don't want to sit there while they run around town killing all the 1/2 HD inhabitents. It's nice to look at that good aligned character and ask the player, "are you SURE that is what you are doing?"
Well, yes, if they detect the clues, they do better. Player choice matters and the players stay interested in what NPCs are saying.
It's not really about "player choice", though. Either the player picks up on the DM's clues, or he doesn't, and the character isn't really involved. But that's neither here nor there, and is a perfectly valid play style for those that like that sort of thing.
I guess I'm not really seeing why the social system is that great if it can't handle all those situations.
That's like saying that the combat system isn't so great because it doesn't cover sneaking into the castle and stabbing the guy in the throat while he sleeps, or pretending to be his friend and then leading him into an ambush, or other such things. Those things you listed are clever tactics and preparation, but most of them aren't actually a conflict, or at least not a social conflict. Instead they'd be clever uses of disguise, bluff, acting, seduction, perception, etc that would give the character some kind of advantage. Unless the target character knows that he's "in a conflict", there's no need for the elaborate conflict mechanics. There'd be no reason for him to "fight back".
Well, it sorta sucks to constantly force players to try to pretend like they don't know stuff, because it's still a game and players are trying to "win". Now some role-players are good enough such that they can let their metagame knowledge not get in the way. Others on the otherhand just can't do that and there's no easy way to prevent it, aside from the DM telling them "you can't do that."
And that sorta sucks, because now the PCs can't even get hunches or anything, because you suspect the hunch is metagame knowledge based. It's a lot more fluid when you just trick the players as well as the characters, that way players are free to make decisions based on their entire knowledge base. Otherwise, they know the right decision, they're just relying on getting sufficient evidence to be able to allow the DM to let them make that decision.
Well, like I said, that's doable. Of course that actually makes "tricking" the players more important than tricking the PCs, which again bypasses the characters. But trying to "trick" the players isn't necessary for fun, at least not witha well designed system. So what if the players know? Let them get hunches. Let them pull rationalizations out of their backsides as to why they're suddenly so focused on Mr. HiddenBadGuy. A well designed system isn't broken by metagaming. Now the question becomes no "who's the bad guy", but "what do we do about it?" Even if they just up and decide to kill said NPC (and manage to do so), how are they going to explain their actions (which appear to be murderous). How do they feel about playing characters that would murder a person on a "hunch"? What are they going to do now that their NPC relations are afraid of them?
Well no, I mean sooner or later you'll encounter some kind of NPC and combat is always an option. It may be a particularly bad option, but it's still there. Anytime you go see the Duke or buy a drink at a local tavernkeeper, there's always the option of sticking your sword into the barkeep. There's big consequences, but you can easily do that and the DM can't tell you that your character can't.
But the DM knew that. If he didn't want it to be an option, he should have prepared for that by not meeting the characters in person, or by having appropriate precautions prepared, or by not letting the characters/players know who it is that needs killing. Combat is only an option if the DM allows for it.
But they don't. I mean not really. The guard who ignores your attempt to get in instead of starting a DoW doesn't lose. He's just basically doing his job.
Context. If the guard doesn't want to fight 7 armed maniacs, then by not entering a DoW, he "loses" because he's going to have to fight them. If he had DoW-ed them, he might have at least gotten a bribe out of it. If those same 7 maniacs also don't want to draw attention to themselves, then if the guard refuses, then they both "lose". If the guard's duty is his life, and yon 7 maniacs still don't want to create a scene, then said maniacs "lose", because they're going to have to get noisy killing the guard. It's all context. As I say occasionally, the rules don't exist in a vacuum.
I guess I feel that DoW is too limiting then, since most of the situations I care about in D&D aren't DoWs. So the actual social system isn't DoW, it's just making skill rolls to bluff/seduce/etc. DoW is some random thing that happens in select circumstances.
A bluff is about convincing people. That's the whole point. You're convincing them you're telling the truth.
Hm. Duel of Wits is what it is. It's an argument or debate. There's no debate in intimidation or seduction or lying. There's nothing for the target to "counterattack". There's no "fight". The target is essentially just "reacting", making a "save". And even if you believe a lie or become seduced or feeling intimidated, that doesn't force the character to do anything (at least in BW).
That's not to say that DoW can't come into play, though. So he's seduced. Now can you convince him to come up to your place? So he believes your lie, can you convince him to act on it? So he's intimidated. Can you convince him that your threats are worse than the consequences of going along with you?
As for bluffing, there's a couple of ways to look at it. There's falsehood, simply being untruthful convincingly. Either you are or you aren't. There's no argument involved. You are believed or you aren't. A bluff can be used as a tool in a debate/conflict/DoW, but it doesn't require one by itself.
The other way to look at it is as the stakes of a DoW. "You believe me vs. You don't believe me". Of course, then the content of that DoW isn't the lie, but why you should be believed.
And this is, of course, just Burning Wheel. Other games do things differently.
I totally agree. I find myself doing it a lot when I'm the only experienced player in a party. I hate to do it, but sometimes I get so dang frustrated when I'm trying to play a backseat character and the players with little game knowledge, but a 16+INT just sit there with their mouth agape doing nothing.
Yeah, it's actually one reason that I don't like intelligence as a character score. I'd prefer it just be "knowledge" or something, so it reflects how many skills your character knows and helps his spellcasting and such, but it doesn't really factor into his decision making skills. Since this is a game, I always felt the whole point was that the player makes the choices.
Situations like that is why I love the alignment system and don't feel it should ever be taken out. I don't let just anyone play evil characters because I don't want to sit there while they run around town killing all the 1/2 HD inhabitents. It's nice to look at that good aligned character and ask the player, "are you SURE that is what you are doing?"
But that's not even how alignment works. It never prevents you from doing anything. If you do evil acts, you just become evil. As always, the only way to prevent evil characters is to just tell the players not to be evil. But you don't really need an alignment system to do that.
Ludanto]It's not really about "player choice", though. Either the player picks up on the DM's clues, or he doesn't, and the character isn't really involved. But that's neither here nor there, and is a perfectly valid play style for those that like that sort of thing.
Well, perception is a part of strategy. In chess, you've got to figure out what your opponent's attack plan is to make a good counter-move. If you can't figure it out, then your choices suffer, but figuring it out is part of skill. The fact that you have to figure things out helps to keep you concentrating on the game.
It's not really about "player choice", though. Either the player picks up on the DM's clues, or he doesn't, and the character isn't really involved. But that's neither here nor there, and is a perfectly valid play style for those that like that sort of thing.[/quote] Well, perception is a part of strategy. In chess, you've got to figure out what your opponent's attack plan is to make a good counter-move. If you can't figure it out, then your choices suffer, but figuring it out is part of skill. The fact that you have to figure things out helps to keep you concentrating on the game.
That's like saying that the combat system isn't so great because it doesn't cover sneaking into the castle and stabbing the guy in the throat while he sleeps, or pretending to be his friend and then leading him into an ambush, or other such things. Those things you listed are clever tactics and preparation, but most of them aren't actually a conflict, or at least not a social conflict. Instead they'd be clever uses of disguise, bluff, acting, seduction, perception, etc that would give the character some kind of advantage. Unless the target character knows that he's "in a conflict", there's no need for the elaborate conflict mechanics. There'd be no reason for him to "fight back".
I've always felt a social system should handle social actions. As a matter of fact, the combat system does handle stabbing someone in their sleep, it's called a Coup de Grace. There's an entire section on helpless defenders. Now there are some weird edge cases where the combat system like if a guy does a flying charge while hanging onto a chandelier.
Now, this is because the combat system handles the most common combat actions people are like to take. A social system, by extension, should handle the most common social actions someone is likely to take.
Well, like I said, that's doable. Of course that actually makes "tricking" the players more important than tricking the PCs, which again bypasses the characters. But trying to "trick" the players isn't necessary for fun, at least not witha well designed system. So what if the players know? Let them get hunches. Let them pull rationalizations out of their backsides as to why they're suddenly so focused on Mr. HiddenBadGuy.
Well, I suppose that bothers me, both as a player and a DM. As a player, if I'm supposed to be tricked, then I want to role-play that out, and using metgame knowledge makes me feel dirty. If I'm a DM, it feels cheesy when players use metagame knowledge to justify their decisions. Almost like they went through the pages of the module and just read them.
A well designed system isn't broken by metagaming. Now the question becomes no "who's the bad guy", but "what do we do about it?" Even if they just up and decide to kill said NPC (and manage to do so), how are they going to explain their actions (which appear to be murderous). How do they feel about playing characters that would murder a person on a "hunch"? What are they going to do now that their NPC relations are afraid of them?
Well, you assume a civilized world, which D&D almost certainly isn't. Like I said, the system may be okay for something like Vampire: the Masquerade, where you can't just run around killing people (at least not other vampires), without serious retribution. But this is D&D, the game where you can pretty much run around stabbing people.
But the DM knew that. If he didn't want it to be an option, he should have prepared for that by not meeting the characters in person, or by having appropriate precautions prepared, or by not letting the characters/players know who it is that needs killing. Combat is only an option if the DM allows for it.
Well, of course, but every group of PCs can throw the DM a curveball now and then when they do something entirely unexpected. The point is that you can't have your NPC stand there and say "Nope. not getting into a fight with you" and then walk away. I mean sure, he can try to escape, but he has to roll initiative and all that.
As for bluffing, there's a couple of ways to look at it. There's falsehood, simply being untruthful convincingly. Either you are or you aren't. There's no argument involved. You are believed or you aren't. A bluff can be used as a tool in a debate/conflict/DoW, but it doesn't require one by itself.
Well I'm going to focus on this one because it's probably the most important.
Just getting someone to believe a lie can pretty much win you a debate if the lie is damning enough. Also no need to convince the king's brother is a traitor when you can just lie about it and get him to believe you with a single roll. Sure, you can't set stakes or anything, but so what? Bluffs are likely to get you what you want more so than anything else, because your target doesn't get a chance to refuse.
So if you tell the guard protecting the gate that you're really an important messenger and that the king is expecting you, he's pretty much going to let you in if he believes you.
I've always felt a social system should handle social actions. As a matter of fact, the combat system does handle stabbing someone in their sleep, it's called a Coup de Grace. There's an entire section on helpless defenders. Now there are some weird edge cases where the combat system like if a guy does a flying charge while hanging onto a chandelier.
Now, this is because the combat system handles the most common combat actions people are like to take. A social system, by extension, should handle the most common social actions someone is likely to take.
Coup de Grace isn't combat anymore than a bluff roll is a debate. You don't even have to be in combat to Coup de Grace somebody, and if it's successful, you won't enter combat at all. You roll and he saves and either he's dead or he's not. If not, then everybody rolls for initiative. BW does handle all social situations, and DoW handles all social conflicts. The clever tactics you describe are just good planning. They aren't social conflicts anymore than a Stealth roll to hide in ambush is a combat.
If it helps, consider that in most systems that have social conflict rules, it tends to permeate the entire system. Just because nobody called for a DoW, doesn't mean there's nothing social going on.
Well, I suppose that bothers me, both as a player and a DM. As a player, if I'm supposed to be tricked, then I want to role-play that out, and using metgame knowledge makes me feel dirty. If I'm a DM, it feels cheesy when players use metagame knowledge to justify their decisions. Almost like they went through the pages of the module and just read them.
Great! Then metagame knowledge won't hurt your game because you and your players won't want to make decsions without an "in-game" reason because you think that's lame. That's how it works.
Well, you assume a civilized world, which D&D almost certainly isn't. Like I said, the system may be okay for something like Vampire: the Masquerade, where you can't just run around killing people (at least not other vampires), without serious retribution. But this is D&D, the game where you can pretty much run around stabbing people.
Even in an "uncivilized" world there are people in charge and people who know people and relationships and dependencies.
Besides, the point still stands. If your players are fine with playing characters that will murder somebody on a "hunch", then they're having fun. Good for them.
Well, of course, but every group of PCs can throw the DM a curveball now and then when they do something entirely unexpected. The point is that you can't have your NPC stand there and say "Nope. not getting into a fight with you" and then walk away. I mean sure, he can try to escape, but he has to roll initiative and all that.
Yes, that's the nature of physicality. In a social situation, you can just hide inside your head and not let anybody in. That's one of the benefits of physical conflict. Social conflict is different. I thought we knew that.
Well I'm going to focus on this one because it's probably the most important.
Just getting someone to believe a lie can pretty much win you a debate if the lie is damning enough. Also no need to convince the king's brother is a traitor when you can just lie about it and get him to believe you with a single roll. Sure, you can't set stakes or anything, but so what? Bluffs are likely to get you what you want more so than anything else, because your target doesn't get a chance to refuse.
So if you tell the guard protecting the gate that you're really an important messenger and that the king is expecting you, he's pretty much going to let you in if he believes you.
A bluff only gets you one thing: the target believes you're speaking truthfully. How he handles that is something else entirely. Just because the king belives you doesn't mean that he has to acknowledge that, or do anything to his brother. It doesn't even mean that he actually believes you, just that he believes you aren't lying. A few minutes of talking to his brother later and he knows he's been duped and will be mighty ****** at you.
And again, this is just one system. You might prefer others.
But the answer is the same as "Why have combat?" or "Why have traps?" They're only there if the DM gives you the green light and introduces it as an option.
