A Meaningful Social System - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

A Meaningful Social System

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
P1NBACK
Dec 01, 2009 15:21:32 Has anyone developed one for 4th Edition?
#2
ah_maclimeszero
Dec 01, 2009 15:48:22 Gonna have to give a little more detail about what you want, there.

As I interpret it, you mean a system for dicating reactions and interactions between PCs and NPCs, to which I respond: "Use Diplomacy, Bluff, and Insight checks where relevant. Roleplay out everything else."

I could simply be misunderstanding what you are looking for, however.
#3
P1NBACK
Dec 01, 2009 17:29:40 I'm looking for a system to specifically address Social Encounters involving more than a simple skill check. After all, that doesn't really create a memorable, suspenseful encounter does it?

Player: I want to convince the king to let us have access to the forbidden forest.
GM: Okay, roll a Diplomacy check.
Player: *rattle of dice* 30.
GM: *checking notes on king's passive insight* Okay, you succeed. You ask the king if he'll grant you access. He says yes.

I'm looking for something a little more thorough - something that replicates a series of quips - back and forths - and creates a memorable scene.

Skill Challenges are one example of this, but in my humble opinion, one that doesn't necessarily succeed in creating an engaging, memorable encounter.
#4
ah_maclimeszero
Dec 01, 2009 17:37:57 Hm. That's the sort of thing I usually force my players to roleplay out.
#5
P1NBACK
Dec 01, 2009 17:58:20 So you just "DM fiat" the reactions of the NPCs?
#6
Tony_Vargas
Dec 01, 2009 18:13:21
IMHO the best way of doing this has always been to mix RP and mechanics. There are two ways to go about it.

1) RP 1st, modify the roll(s). In 4e, that'd be run a skill challenge, where everyone RPs the interaction, whenever the RP suggests to you an apropriate skill check you call for it, and react accordingly. So if a PC says something diplomatic, you call for diplomacy. If he hints at the dire consequences of lack of cooperation, call for intimidate. If he passes false information or fast-talks, try bluff, etc...   In the end, you'll get so many success before 2 failures or not, and resolve accordingly. The advantage of this is that it gives the PCs incentive to RP enthusiastically to get positive modifiers. The downsides are that a) it gives them incentive to RP inapropriately - to play thier half-orc as suddenly urbane or whatever - to get a bonus and b) beautifully RPd persuasion can come crashing down at the roll of a 1, and you have to have the NPC respond to the die roll.

2) Roll, and RP the result. Again, in 4e this is a skill challenge. But, the Players call out the skill they want to try, make a roll, RP based on the result - high roll, try to do well, bad roll RP your character screwing up in a way that fits him. The advantage is that you don't have good RP modeling bad rolls or vice-versa, but the disadvantage is you also have rolls 'dictating' the RP, which some abhor.   You also have less incentive for good RP - though you could always let it decide dramatic 'close' rolls.

The eternal dilema here is player ability vs character ability. Some players are talented amature thespians, others are tounge-tied (a lot, this a nerd-friendly hobby, afterall), some want to stay true to thier characters, others want to angle for every possible advantage, some want to play characters like themselves, others want to try to assume a very different role. Thus, if you have a disconnect between the abrasive player and the sauve character, you have to resolve it. Some say "just don't let the player have a character he 'can't handle,'" but that's unfair.   We let average-intellegnce players have their wizards cast spells with obtuse arcane components; weedy little guys play big beefy barbarians, clutzs play accrobatic rogues, and so forth.   Player abilities shouldn't dictate PC abilities, so you have to let the mechanics mean something.   OTOH, it's an RPG, and it isn't as much fun if there's no role assumption whatsoever. So, you have to try to strike that balance, and it's hardest when it comes to the non-physical aspects of the character, the social skills and attributes, most particularly.
#7
kroska
Dec 01, 2009 19:57:46 I like your ideas Tony and probably will reference your post later. That definatly gives me more thoughts on how social interaction should be done/tinkered with.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 P1NBACK Dec 01, 2009 15:21:32	Has anyone developed one for 4th Edition?
#2 ah_maclimeszero Dec 01, 2009 15:48:22	Gonna have to give a little more detail about what you want, there. As I interpret it, you mean a system for dicating reactions and interactions between PCs and NPCs, to which I respond: "Use Diplomacy, Bluff, and Insight checks where relevant. Roleplay out everything else." I could simply be misunderstanding what you are looking for, however.
#3 P1NBACK Dec 01, 2009 17:29:40	I'm looking for a system to specifically address Social Encounters involving more than a simple skill check. After all, that doesn't really create a memorable, suspenseful encounter does it? Player: I want to convince the king to let us have access to the forbidden forest. GM: Okay, roll a Diplomacy check. Player: rattle of dice 30. GM: checking notes on king's passive insight Okay, you succeed. You ask the king if he'll grant you access. He says yes. I'm looking for something a little more thorough - something that replicates a series of quips - back and forths - and creates a memorable scene. Skill Challenges are one example of this, but in my humble opinion, one that doesn't necessarily succeed in creating an engaging, memorable encounter.
#4 ah_maclimeszero Dec 01, 2009 17:37:57	Hm. That's the sort of thing I usually force my players to roleplay out.
#5 P1NBACK Dec 01, 2009 17:58:20	So you just "DM fiat" the reactions of the NPCs?
#6 Tony_Vargas Dec 01, 2009 18:13:21	IMHO the best way of doing this has always been to mix RP and mechanics. There are two ways to go about it. 1) RP 1st, modify the roll(s). In 4e, that'd be run a skill challenge, where everyone RPs the interaction, whenever the RP suggests to you an apropriate skill check you call for it, and react accordingly. So if a PC says something diplomatic, you call for diplomacy. If he hints at the dire consequences of lack of cooperation, call for intimidate. If he passes false information or fast-talks, try bluff, etc... In the end, you'll get so many success before 2 failures or not, and resolve accordingly. The advantage of this is that it gives the PCs incentive to RP enthusiastically to get positive modifiers. The downsides are that a) it gives them incentive to RP inapropriately - to play thier half-orc as suddenly urbane or whatever - to get a bonus and b) beautifully RPd persuasion can come crashing down at the roll of a 1, and you have to have the NPC respond to the die roll. 2) Roll, and RP the result. Again, in 4e this is a skill challenge. But, the Players call out the skill they want to try, make a roll, RP based on the result - high roll, try to do well, bad roll RP your character screwing up in a way that fits him. The advantage is that you don't have good RP modeling bad rolls or vice-versa, but the disadvantage is you also have rolls 'dictating' the RP, which some abhor. You also have less incentive for good RP - though you could always let it decide dramatic 'close' rolls. The eternal dilema here is player ability vs character ability. Some players are talented amature thespians, others are tounge-tied (a lot, this a nerd-friendly hobby, afterall), some want to stay true to thier characters, others want to angle for every possible advantage, some want to play characters like themselves, others want to try to assume a very different role. Thus, if you have a disconnect between the abrasive player and the sauve character, you have to resolve it. Some say "just don't let the player have a character he 'can't handle,'" but that's unfair. We let average-intellegnce players have their wizards cast spells with obtuse arcane components; weedy little guys play big beefy barbarians, clutzs play accrobatic rogues, and so forth. Player abilities shouldn't dictate PC abilities, so you have to let the mechanics mean something. OTOH, it's an RPG, and it isn't as much fun if there's no role assumption whatsoever. So, you have to try to strike that balance, and it's hardest when it comes to the non-physical aspects of the character, the social skills and attributes, most particularly.
#7 kroska Dec 01, 2009 19:57:46	I like your ideas Tony and probably will reference your post later. That definatly gives me more thoughts on how social interaction should be done/tinkered with.