Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Levitator 06-01-07, 02:33 PM	Hi everyone! I posted this over at Enworld and got some great positive encouragement, so I thought I would risk the heat and post it here as well. It's not a full system, but more of a concept with some rough work finished. I need helping with the mathematics of it as I'm not as intimitate with the mathematical part of D&D as many others here are. A while back there were a couple of really interesting threads on how to make social interaction using skills work more like ombat with multiple rolls to simulate the ebb and flow of real dialog. My players love D&D, but they don't speak in character or anything like that. They prefer to use their skills to emulate their character's ability to interact and then summarize based on the numbers. It works OK, but they want something more than a single roll in many cases. I've been playing around with an idea, and I wanted to get some feedback on it. The bonuses are just numbers I threw together that "felt" kinda good, so I'm totally open to making it mathematically more accurate. Here is what I have come up with so far: Advanced Interactive Skill Resolution In an effort to make complex and opposed skill checks more interactive, I have tried to create a system that mirrors the combat system, so that multiple rolls can demonstrate the ebb and flow of negotiations, buying/selling, bullying, etc. The situation will dictate what type of interaction will be taking place. Once that is established, the players can choose how they want to handle the situation by choosing a skill to resolve. The skills that can be used are Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. The similarities to combat are; Interaction Points (IP), which work like Hit Points, Initiative (using CHA mod. instead of DEX mod.), and rounds (which are loose and not set to a specific length of time, but more to represent a segment of the interaction). The reason that modifiers are given for specific encounters is to give the edge to those who use those type of skills for those situations. Otherwise, players can just choose the highest skill they have and use it all the time. I’m hopeful that this system encourages the strategic placement of skill points so that skills, especially interactive skills, are used more often in gameplay. How It Works 1. DM Declares what kind of interaction is taking place 2. Players determine their IP, which = Character Level + CHA. modifier + Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate and Sense Motive ranks. 3. Players roll initiative which = 1d20+CHA modifier. 4. Winner of initiative declares method of interaction (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, or Sense Motive) 5. Both sides roll 1d20 and add modifiers (skill modifiers plus special modifiers listed below 6. Loser of the opposed roll deducts the difference from opposed rolls from their IP total. 7. Repeat until one side reaches 0 IP points. Negotiation * Players begin with a number of IP (Interaction Points) = Character Level + CHA * The initiator can choose to use Appraise (in a buy/sell scenario), Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, or Sense Motive. The defender can then use any one of the same to “defend” themselves. * If players are in a Negotiation, bonuses are as such: Appraise=0, Bluff=+1, Diplomacy=+1, Gather Information=+1, Intimidate=-1, Sense Motive=+1 * Once initiative is established, both sides roll d20 to resolve 1 rd. The loser of the round deducts the difference in the opposed totals from their NP total. * When a player reaches 0 NP points, they have lost the negotiation. Haggling * Haggling focuses on opposed Appraisal checks, and works the same way as Negotiation. * While Appraisal is the primary skill for haggling, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive can also be used. The bonuses are as follows: Appraisal=+4, Bluff=+2, Gather Information=+2, Initimidate=-2, and Sense Motive=+0. Bluffing/Lying * While the Bluff skill is normally opposed by Sense Motive, in this system, other skills can be used as well. * Bonuses are as follows: Appraisal=-4, Bluff=+4, Diplomacy=0, Gather Information=+2, Intimidate=+2, Sense Motive=+4 Diplomacy * Diplomacy is normally opposed by Diplomacy, but other skills can also be used. * Bonuses are as follows: Appraisal=-4, Bluff=0, Diplomacy=+4, Gather Information=+2, Intimidate=-2, Sense Motive=0 Intimidate * Intimidate is normally opposed by target’s level check, but this system favors using skills instead. * Bonuses are as follows: Appraisal=-4, Bluff=+2, Diplomacy=+2, Gather Information=-2, Intimidate=+4, Sense Motive=0 Sense Motive/Gather Information * Sense motive is usually opposed by Bluff, but can be used in other ways in this system. Sense motive is the idea of someone asking probing questions to get a sense of where someone is coming from. This could also be used as a 1-on-1 version of Gather Information. * Bonuses are as follows: Appraisal=-4, Bluff=+2, Diplomacy=+2, Gather Information=+4, Intimidate=-2, Sense Motive=+4. Example: a 3rd level sorcerer is thought to have seen casting a spell in public by a 1st level guard. The guard comes up to question him. The sorcerer actually did cast a spell, so the DM decides that the interaction is a Bluff Interaction. The sorcerer has: 18 IP (15 CHA + 3rd Level) Bluff=9, Diplomacy=5, Gather Information=3, Intimidate=5, Sense Motive=3 The guard has: 11 IP (10 CHA + 1st level) Bluff=0, Diplomacy=0, Gather Information=0, Intimidate=2, Sense Motive=3 They roll initiative Sorcerer gets 20 (roll 17+3 CHA mod.) Guard gets 4 (roll 4 + 0 CHA mod.) Sorcerer Bluffs by hurriedly asking the guard for directions = 27 (rolls 14 + 9 Bluff + 4 for using Bluff) Guard tries using Sense Motive because the Sorcerer is acting suspicious = 23 (rolls 16 + 3 Sense Motive + 4 for using Sense Motive) Guard takes 4 to IP, now at 7 DM describes it that guard begins to give directions, catches himself and asks if the sorcerer had anything to do with the big flash he just saw DM decides that guard is angry for Sorcerer changing subject and uses Intimidate to get answers = 9 (rolls a 6 + 3 for other modifiers) Sorcerer claims that he just stumbled out of the tavern and didn’t see anything (Bluff) = 20 (rolls a 7 + 13 for other modifiers) Guard takes 11 IP, now at -4 Guard apologizes for the questioning and gladly gives the wizard instructions to the Inn. I'm sure I'm missing things but I wanted to at least get a start on some kind of a system and flesh it out with the help of more experienced gamers who understand the math of D&D better than I. The idea is that we can use the totals of each round to determine kind of how the conversation is going and use descriptions that emulate the numbers, rather than have to act out complex situations in character. I've played around with it with a couple of low-level PC's and it's kind of interesting how things work out.
Clearly_Toughpick 06-04-07, 01:22 PM	I think I see what you're doing here in trying to make interactions as exciting as combat. Besides which, I love any new rules that require playing around with numbers and weighing probabilities. So I broadly agree with your proposal. I have the following comments: 1. I like Interaction Points, and think they should equal Cha score + Effective Character Level (ECL). 2. I like your idea for a separate interaction initiative, and the person with initiative deciding which kind of check make (though the latter happens by the RAW). 3. I think you can use the opposed checks in the RAW without adding further modifiers for using the right/ wrong skills. I've worked through your example on this basis (have edited your text - hope that's not bad netiquette): They roll initiative Sorcerer gets 20 (roll 17+3 CHA mod.) Guard gets 4 (roll 4 + 0 CHA mod.) Round 1 Sorcerer Bluffs by hurriedly asking the guard for directions = 23 (rolls 14 + 9 Bluff) Guard must use Sense Motive in response to a Bluff = 19 (rolls 16 + 3 Sense Motive) Guard takes 4 to IP, now at 7 DM describes it that guard begins to give directions, catches himself and asks if the sorcerer had anything to do with the big flash he just saw DM decides that guard is angry for Sorcerer changing subject and uses Intimidate to get answers = 9 (rolls a 6 + 3 for other modifiers) Sorcerer makes modified level check as in RAW = 10 (rolls a 7 + 3 for level + 0 Wis modifier) Guard takes 1 IP, now at 6 Round 2 Sorcer claims that he just stumbled out of the tavern and didn’t see anything (Bluff) = 16 (rolls a 7 + 9 for Bluff); guard's opposed check is Sense motive = 23 (rolls a 20 + 3 for Sense motive) Sorcerer takes 7 IP, now at 11 And so on... with Guard choosing the next action 4. I like the idea of using the difference in the checks to wear down the losing side's IPs. What exactly happens at the end of the interaction though? I assume that it depends on the stated intentions of the PCs/ NPCs, and that those stated intentions will modify the opposed rolls. So in your example, the sorcerer just wanted to distract the guard by getting him to think of something else, so no modifier to his roll; had he tried to distract the guard by shifting suspicion to some other person, I would argue that would be harder to do so the sorcerer would take a -2 penalty on his rolls. That's me done. Clearly
The_Levitator 06-04-07, 02:35 PM	Thanks for the great feedback! I really like your approach to this. I'm not a mathematician, so I definitely appreciate the help. Right now, I've just been using the results to help me envision the interaction and give an appropriate description based on the numbers. It would be great if the system was more refined with more objective results. But I guess I relate it to combat. When someone takes damage, as a DM I get the liberty of describing the action with my own imagination. I was imagining this to work much the same way. I'd like to dig deeper into your ideas. 1. What do you think of also incorporating relevant skill points into the IP total? I was thinking that this would give a better edge to characters who are more highly skilled in different types of interactions. It would make the numbers bigger, but I think they would be relative to each other if we used the opposed roll difference. 2. The initiative idea was to follow the combat protocol more closely. The other thing I was thinking was that in many situations, going first can give you an advantage in steering the interaction in the direction you are trying to take. 3. That was my initial idea. My only fear was that someone with only a single high score in a relevant skill would just use the same skill over and over again (like a fighter with a high Intimidate skill). I thought that maybe modifiers might encourage using different skills to win the interaction. For example, if the party is in a very delicate diplomatic situation, it seems that using Intimidate as a tactic would botch things from the other side's perspective. I also thought that it might encourage characters to put a little more focus on social skills instead of the usuals (spot, hide, search, etc.). I'm pretty generous with skill points (4 bonus skill points at character generation, and 1 extra skill point/level from RAW) If I were to keep some kind of modifiers, do you have any suggestions on making them more mechanically sound? Or did I get lucky by assigning them by "feel"? :) 4. I envision the end game like you do. For every interaction, each side has an agenda or idealized outcome. In a buy/sell interaction, the buyer is trying to get the lowest price and the seller is trying to get the most profit. I really like the idea of using modifiers based on the method of interaction! I'm just wondering if there is an objective way to establish those modifiers, or if it would just be DM's judgement. I really do appreciate the great insight and I really believe that this could be a great system for a casual gaming group. My group is very serious and dedicated to gaming (most of us near 25+ years of RP'ing), but when it comes to "roleplaying", my group is more of a descriptive-style roleplaying group rather than a dialog-style group. They would rather explain how their character is going to handle a situation and use their skill checks to determine the outcome rather than speak "in character" and roleplay the situation out. We used the existing system in-game yesterday and it worked really well. The group really liked the idea of playing situations out like combat to help them envision it. They are more of a tactical group so they handle interactions much in the way they handle combat. I really like the way your ideas streamline things. My goal is to refine this into a very usable but flexible system. And your ideas have definitely helped me move it in the right direction! :D
Arcade 06-05-07, 09:38 AM	This is pretty neat. Here's my thoughts. It might be nice to see some more differentiation between the skills than circumstantial bonuses. For instance, if you're trying to bluff, you might want to put a 3 round limit on it, or not allow it anymore if you fail for two consecutive rounds. This would represent a person who can't make their story convincing enough at the outset to be regarded very suspiciously afterward. The guard might not be able to get the sorcerer to admit to the flash of light, but he would be suspicious enough to detain him for further questioning, follow him, or call for his superiors. That's the risk with bluff. Bluff, by definition in the rules, is only supposed to provide a short term distraction. Diplomacy would be a much slower action, taking multiple rounds for a single roll, but you can speed it up by taking a penalty. The advantage to diplomacy is in cases where you don't need to rush, you can keep using it indefinitely until your IP runs out. Intimidate can be used quickly at any time. The downside is that your target will become more hostile toward you immediately, making other forms of communication more difficult. The bonus is that it doesn't matter how hostile they were to begin with, you can always try and intimidate. One last point is that the goals and attitude of the opposing party should come into play. It may be next to impossible to negotiate with your arch-nemesis, but trying to get the same result out of a baron you just helped would be much easier. On the other hand, intimidate would be the exact opposite. In addition to dice modifiers in these circumstances, the results should be different as well. Intimidate, successful or not, will cause the opponent's feelings to go down a step or two (from friendly to neutral or even unfriendly), which is why it is always useful against hostile because they can't hate you any worse than they already do. Diplomacy should take minuses when used on unfriendly or hostile and bonuses on friendly or helpful. Bluff should move the reaction down only on a failed check. Check this diplomacy variant (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html)out for ideas of these types of modifiers. Those are just my thoughts. I like what I see so far so keep it up.
The_Levitator 06-05-07, 12:02 PM	Excellent points! I was just thinking about this last night. While it would be nice to have the system as streamlined as possible, it may be necessary to go into each type of interaction and establish how the length of the interaction may influence the outcome. I was thinking much the same thing in that different types of interactions take different amounts of time, which is why I didn't assign a set time to define a round. But it might be interesting to assign modifiers to each kind of interaction if they start taking "too long" to resolve. One thing that I would personally like from a system like this would be a lot of room for the DM to interpret things. Take Clearly_Toughpick's example of the sorcerer. If the sorcerer is just trying to change the subject and distract the guard, it's a normal roll. But if the sorcerer was going to try and shift the blame onto someone else, the DM could add a +2 modifier to the guards' roll because he rules that it would be more difficult to convince the guard of this as there isn't really anyone else around. I'm going to go through all of the above posts and refine the writeup a bit and playtest it with a couple of my players in solo sessions this week. We'll try low, medium and high level characters in a variety of situations and I'll report back! :D Thanks to everyone for the great ideas!
Clearly_Toughpick 06-11-07, 10:27 AM	Thanks for your positive feedback, The Levitator. I appreciate it. I'd like to dig deeper into your ideas. 1. What do you think of also incorporating relevant skill points into the IP total? I was thinking that this would give a better edge to characters who are more highly skilled in different types of interactions. It would make the numbers bigger, but I think they would be relative to each other if we used the opposed roll difference. 2. The initiative idea was to follow the combat protocol more closely. The other thing I was thinking was that in many situations, going first can give you an advantage in steering the interaction in the direction you are trying to take. 3. That was my initial idea. My only fear was that someone with only a single high score in a relevant skill would just use the same skill over and over again (like a fighter with a high Intimidate skill). I thought that maybe modifiers might encourage using different skills to win the interaction. For example, if the party is in a very delicate diplomatic situation, it seems that using Intimidate as a tactic would botch things from the other side's perspective. I also thought that it might encourage characters to put a little more focus on social skills instead of the usuals (spot, hide, search, etc.). I'm pretty generous with skill points (4 bonus skill points at character generation, and 1 extra skill point/level from RAW) If I were to keep some kind of modifiers, do you have any suggestions on making them more mechanically sound? Or did I get lucky by assigning them by "feel"? :) 4. I envision the end game like you do. For every interaction, each side has an agenda or idealized outcome. In a buy/sell interaction, the buyer is trying to get the lowest price and the seller is trying to get the most profit. I really like the idea of using modifiers based on the method of interaction! I'm just wondering if there is an objective way to establish those modifiers, or if it would just be DM's judgement. Replying to your points in turn... 1. I don't think it's a good idea to include skill points in the IP total. To follow the analogy with combat, that would be like adding your Base attack bonus (BAB) to your hit points: the attack bonus is a check modifier and is used to decide whether you succeed in your aim (did I hit my opponent?); in the same way, your ranks in a skill modify a check to decide whether yo succeed in your aim (did I get my opponent to behave or think the way I want them to?). You would be getting excessive mileage from your ranks in a skill if they then decide how much (psychological/ emotional/ intellectual) damage you can sustain. 2. Agreed. 3. You are worried that someone with only one high score in a social skill will use it again and again. Surely that's part of the territory: it's the player's choice how he spends his skill points and for most of us it's part of the concept of our character's class. Making it easy for everybody to "do" social skills just takes away from the bards and paladins and reduces the incentive to specialise. It also gives less scope for team-work: with your proposed scheme, you'd have fewer opportunities for good cop - bad cop moments with the bard using diplomacy and the fighter using intimidate to work over a captive, or even for one member of the team, say the paly, being the face, whilst everyone else just holds their tongue (and keeps their sword sheathed). You also argue that this approach will encourage players to put more ranks in social skills. I've a feeling it might do the opposite, because players will rely on the circumstance bonuses when they are levelling up and deciding how many points to put into ranks in social skills. So I might think to myself, as my bard levels up to L5, "Shall I put ranks in diplomacy? No because I can rely on a +4 circumstance bonus most of the times that I use it." And surely using the right skill is reward enough in itself. It I want to get the guard off my back then Bluff is the best option: using it brings the reward of success; using the wrong skill brings a life-long enemy, or a night in the cells, or a waste of time and the risk that the same guard will recognise me next time I bump into him - all of which can be problems. 4. Like I said, I don't like the idea of modifying checks based on the method of interaction as each method has its own advantages and risks. I do like the idea of modifying checks based on goals and motives, and how the interaction is perceived by the other party (ie circumstance bonuses). The DM's friend (+/- 2) should be good enough here. Eg the guard is nearly at the end of his shift: -2 to Sense motive check in response to the Sorceror's Bluff; guard is bored and looking to pick an argument: +2 to Sense motive check etc. Cheers CT
Clearly_Toughpick 06-11-07, 12:00 PM	I just wanted to reply to your comments, Arcade... It might be nice to see some more differentiation between the skills than circumstantial bonuses. For instance, if you're trying to bluff, you might want to put a 3 round limit on it, or not allow it anymore if you fail for two consecutive rounds. This would represent a person who can't make their story convincing enough at the outset to be regarded very suspiciously afterward. The guard might not be able to get the sorcerer to admit to the flash of light, but he would be suspicious enough to detain him for further questioning, follow him, or call for his superiors. That's the risk with bluff. Bluff, by definition in the rules, is only supposed to provide a short term distraction. I generally agree that time is an important factor in the use of these social skills, and the fact that it takes merely a full round action to attempt a Bluff, as opposed to at least a minute for Intimidate and Diplomacy strengthens the argument. If a PC bluffs successfully, then I think they should be able to carry on doing it for as long as they can succeed at bluff checks. However, if they fail then future attempts should account for this failure; the amount by which the PC failed should become a penalty on their next attempt, so if the PC fails by 5, then their next check would have a penalty of 5 against it. I've not used this suggestion myself yet, but I think it's definitely worth trying. Intimidate can be used quickly at any time. The downside is that your target will become more hostile toward you immediately, making other forms of communication more difficult. The bonus is that it doesn't matter how hostile they were to begin with, you can always try and intimidate. According to the RAW, intimidate makes the target friendly to you, at least in deed, for as long as you are with them, and for 10-60 minutes thereafter. After that they become unfriendly or hostile to you. One last point is that the goals and attitude of the opposing party should come into play. It may be next to impossible to negotiate with your arch-nemesis, but trying to get the same result out of a baron you just helped would be much easier. On the other hand, intimidate would be the exact opposite. In addition to dice modifiers in these circumstances, the results should be different as well. Intimidate, successful or not, will cause the opponent's feelings to go down a step or two (from friendly to neutral or even unfriendly), which is why it is always useful against hostile because they can't hate you any worse than they already do. Diplomacy should take minuses when used on unfriendly or hostile and bonuses on friendly or helpful. Bluff should move the reaction down only on a failed check. According to the RAW, Diplomacy shouldn't take minuses when used on unfriendly or hostile creatures as it works a little differently to the other social skills: you use diplomacy to try to improve a creature's attitude towards you and the DC to do that depends on their current attitude; moving a hostile creature's attitude to unfriendly has a DC of 20. So I don't think diplomacy should take minuses or bonuses in the way you describe because they're already figured in. There is, however, a different problem in that a high level character who has maxed out in Diplomacy can virtually always talk anyone round to their way of seeing things; this has been covered elsewhere on these boards. Finally, the RAW don't say that a Bluff, be it a success or a failure, changes the target's attitude. However, I agree with you, Arcade, that a failed check should affect the target's attitude. How about saying, "If your Bluff check fails by 5 or more, your target's attitude worsens by a step"? This has the knock-on effect of making follow-up diplomacy that bit harder. Over to you.
Arcade 06-11-07, 03:20 PM	Dont' have much to add to what's already here, but I can respond to your last message. Intimidate makes creatures "friendly" to you in trying to determine what they are willing to do for you, correct. I was more concerned about the after effects. Because creatures are now unfriendly to you after you're done iintimidating them, you can have more negative after effects than a diplomacy skill. Intimidate has a time and a place and using it indiscriminately for all social actions can be hazardous in the long term. In the short term, however, it can be very helpful. You know this already, but I bring it up to help differentiate the different social skills. As for diplomacy against hostile or unfriendly types, you can use diplomacy against people who are against you. But as you pointed out, the DC is much higher. Therefore, using diplomacy is more difficult against foes than it is against friends. In your system, which doesn't use the table in the RAW, I think you want to still have that feel of having a harder time affecting unfriendly people in a social contest, which is why I suggested the modifiers. To put another way, comparing intimidate, bluff, and diplomacy: initimidate- useful equally against everyone, even in combat. However, after initimdate wears off, the target goes does two steps on the reaction chart. bluff- useful equally against everyone, but requires the target to be willing to listen or talk first, even if for a second. A failed check makes it harder to bluff in the future and can move the target one or two steps down on the reaction chart. diplomacy- useful only when lengthier discussions are possible. A failed check has no negative repercussions. Unfriendly and hostile targets are more difficult to persuade, friendly and helpful targets are easier to persuade.