Diplomacy - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mcnathan_dup Jun 02, 2009 14:48:01	So I saw something over at http://elevenfootpole.blogspot.com about running diplomacy like combat and thought I'd post over to here and see what people thought. Check out the article (the June 2nd one) and post back here with any thoughts.
#2 darkerdreams Jun 02, 2009 16:39:56	It's an interesting idea, and one that gets touched on now and again. The last really fleshed out version of a "social combat" system I've seen was the formal debate rules in Requiem for Rome (a Vampire the Requiem/World of Darkness supplement from White Wolf). Obviously that's incompatible with 4e D&D, and it has some flaws of its own, but it might be an interesting system to look at for ideas.
#3 darkerdreams Jun 10, 2009 11:17:20	Yes, I'm a huge dork that takes stuff like this as a personal challenge. Show Show These rules try to bring social encounters into line with other encounter types in D&D4e. The conceit that one should narrate before using dice is strange, given that every other aspect of the game assumes that you will role dice to discover the outcome then narrate to that outcome. In what's probably the simplest answer to ever be ignored, these rules switch the order of social play so it falls in line with the rest of the game. If a player succeeds at a roll, and then manages to role-play that success particularly well, you might grant the +2 often given for good role-play to their next roll in the encounter. Similarly, if they completely fumble the role-play for their success, choosing not to role-play their success, or play what's clearly a success when they rolled a failure, their next social role in the encounter should suffer a -2. In many cases these rules can’t help but feel “bolted on.” Much like Psionics in previous editions of D&D, they are thoroughly outside the basic conceptions within the core rules and thus much space that could have served them has been given over to more direct effects. For that reason, if a campaign chooses to use these rules, it might be advisable to replace ongoing effects like Dominated from powers with ongoing Resolve damage.
#4 darkerdreams Jun 19, 2009 9:28:29	really, no one else has any thoughts, either regarding the OP or what I posted?
#5 slobo777a Jun 19, 2009 11:42:09	Interesting reading, and I agree with a lot of the article, but I don't think that "Diplomatic combat" can be easily floated off into a separate system. A while ago, I read an excellent book "Interactive Storytelling", focussed on storys vs games in a computer game environment. It gives some good reasons why doing this is hard. A lot of it rings true in the D&D environment too. I hope this link works: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/1568812213/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page
#6 darkerdreams Jun 19, 2009 12:00:14	I read through the few pages that were available for open reading, would you care to summarize some of the salient points from the book (and the support for them)?
#7 slobo777a Jun 20, 2009 14:31:29	I read through the few pages that were available for open reading, would you care to summarize some of the salient points from the book (and the support for them)? There isn't a 100% match between the book's subject and the "Diplomacy Rules" in this thread. But there is a strong match in my mind between "a set of game rules for social interaction" and "combining stories and games on a computer". The book's main thrust was the discrepancy between how stories "work" (with a lot of focus on the Heroes Quest and other well-known analysis of stories, narrators and readers/listeners), and how games work, and how there is unresolved tension between the two. To me, the big difficulties are: The huge impact of context on type and suitability of social interactions (eg where various characters are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs can make a big difference to what is appropriate) Social interactions have a long-term history that can hang on specific minor details of what has been done and said (or withheld) in the past. Many good stories hang on a single bit of knowledge. Social networks include rumours and second-hand knowledge passed around between agents, and this has as much or more influence that what a character does or says directly. Personality has a strong influence on response to approaches, to the extent that the menu of end results can be completely different. Some people are effectively unbribable or untorturable due to their personality or beliefs, which is very different to the fact they are equally "killable" from taking damage (the amount might vary, but the end result is inevitable). Different nationalities and sub-cultures - same as personalities. None of these are completely insurmountable. For instance you can use a system of "Renown" to deal with social networks. But the number and complexity of all these variables makes it a tough call. In comparison, a set of rules for bashing each other until one or other person falls over is quite simple.
#8 darkerdreams Jun 20, 2009 17:10:46	The book's main thrust was the discrepancy between how stories "work" (with a lot of focus on the Heroes Quest and other well-known analysis of stories, narrators and readers/listeners), and how games work, and how there is unresolved tension between the two. I think that's a fair statement, though the division between treating the issue as one of game simulation versus narration strikes me as an unnecessary dichotomy. We'll come back to that, though. Honestly, I find much of what you give for examples lend themselves more to the use of simulation. As a DM I can't remember every social nuance or bit of information that might be relevant, and I can generate every rumor- accurate or inaccurate. The possession of key information or varying stations alters the context, much as environmental factors or the possession of equipment provide bonuses and penalties in a physical combat. This seems like it rather strongly makes a case that abstraction of many of the niggling details might be a good way to go, especially in a game where so much of what is arguably the focus of the system (combat) is already abstracted. I have to take some issue with the statement that "bashing each other until one or other person falls over" is simpler, however. The varying approaches through D&D editions to the variable environmental conditions one can encounter simply with a town (jump on a table- high ground, shoot from a balcony- ranged, raining- cuts visibility, jumping to a chandler... pushing an enemy over an adjacent ally...) And that's once you accept the conceit that each person has a 5' area that they're doing various footwork, feints, and other actions in all of which are abstracted away. In this point it comes down to what is important to track versus what we can ignore for the simulation, simply adding it back in as fluff.
#9 slobo777a Jun 21, 2009 15:34:40	Honestly, I find much of what you give for examples lend themselves more to the use of simulation. As a DM I can't remember every social nuance or bit of information that might be relevant, and I can generate every rumor- accurate or inaccurate. The possession of key information or varying stations alters the context, much as environmental factors or the possession of equipment provide bonuses and penalties in a physical combat. This seems like it rather strongly makes a case that abstraction of many of the niggling details might be a good way to go, especially in a game where so much of what is arguably the focus of the system (combat) is already abstracted. I have to take some issue with the statement that "bashing each other until one or other person falls over" is simpler, however. The varying approaches through D&D editions to the variable environmental conditions one can encounter simply with a town (jump on a table- high ground, shoot from a balcony- ranged, raining- cuts visibility, jumping to a chandler... pushing an enemy over an adjacent ally...) And that's once you accept the conceit that each person has a 5' area that they're doing various footwork, feints, and other actions in all of which are abstracted away. In this point it comes down to what is important to track versus what we can ignore for the simulation, simply adding it back in as fluff. . . . the difference is in number of starting and end states. In a physical combat, you can represent the whole state of the character between "life and death" as hit points plus roughly a dozen conditions. Ignore all the powers, skills, stats, the battleboard, they are just tools to move the core value around between those two story-influencing states with a few bells and whistles. The actual skills used, where the character is on the battleboard, and who hit who with what don't make any difference to the story progression. It is who survives and who doesn't that has an effect. The rest is fun to play, but doesn't change the "shape" of the story. Influencing another character to do something that they would not otherwise in a way that affects a story branch has many more dimensions. Improtantly, there are more results that influence the story likely than "Carry on as before", and "The result the PC would like". They will be very specific to the situation, and not at all easy to abstract. Also, the character skills and relevent abilities vary depending on the situation, making suspect to model an "action distance" equivalent to hit points for altering a character's attitude, even if you had rules for establishing what this distance was depending on context. Finally, and it's a biggy, if there are rules for influencing character behaviour, you have to decide whether or not they apply to the PCs: * Any rule that applies to the PC risks taking away player control of the character. Player's don't generally respond well to DM instructions on what the character does - a few might roleplay being charmed or succumbing to an obvious (IC) illusion reasonably well, but it's a rare part of the game, and a tough RP challenge even then. * Any rule that doesn't apply to the PC allows the player to use social "attacks" to solve situations with relative impunity - the end result is either in the player's favour, or has to be resolved in a different part of the game system - a second chance to achieve the character's goals, and asymmetric - imagine if only PCs could use stealth skills for instance, and were immune to any such attempts from NPCs
#10 darkerdreams Jun 21, 2009 22:43:58	Finally, and it's a biggy, if there are rules for influencing character behaviour, you have to decide whether or not they apply to the PCs: * Any rule that applies to the PC risks taking away player control of the character. Player's don't generally respond well to DM instructions on what the character does - a few might roleplay being charmed or succumbing to an obvious (IC) illusion reasonably well, but it's a rare part of the game, and a tough RP challenge even then. This argument has bothered me for a while. Any reasonably written set of rules is going to be less invasive to "character choice" than death or unconsciousness. Limitation of character choice is the name of the game and is, in fact, what separates games with resolution mechanics from cops'n'robbers. Mechanical resolution is the way you avoid "Bang, you're dead- no I'm not," scenario which is the abyss we all discovered when we were 8 that lays at the bottom of unfettered "player choice." Now, overruling player's control shouldn't be easy... But neither is killing a character- and you'll note (if you looked at what I wrote) that's exactly what I modeled it off of. * ...a second chance to achieve the character's goals... You'll note from what I said above I feel most of this is a moot issue. I actually specifically address the piece quoted in the introduction to the proposed system above. . . . the difference is in number of starting and end states. In a physical combat, you can represent the whole state of the character between "life and death" as hit points plus roughly a dozen conditions. Ignore all the powers, skills, stats, the battleboard, they are just tools to move the core value around between those two story-influencing states with a few bells and whistles. The actual skills used, where the character is on the battleboard, and who hit who with what don't make any difference to the story progression. It is who survives and who doesn't that has an effect. The rest is fun to play, but doesn't change the "shape" of the story. I have to fundamentally disagree here. Who shot who first, whether someone (on either side) participated or hid, what powers and resistances were demonstrated all relate to tactics in future encounters as much as what state the "living" toggle for orc 3 and PC 1 are in. Influencing another character to do something that they would not otherwise in a way that affects a story branch has many more dimensions. Possibly. Then again, if you're so weak willed that your foes are going to constantly intimidate (or persuade) you into doing things against your party's better interests it should effect the story- just like being a the weak link in combat changes how your party treats you. Improtantly, there are more results that influence the story likely than "Carry on as before", and "The result the PC would like". They will be very specific to the situation, and not at all easy to abstract. It depends on the scope of the situation. In combat, or the heat of a short term situation, it is exactly that simple. In a more long term situation there should be more to it (of course, are you sure you're using the right game if you want a much more nuanced socio-political situation?). You'll notice that the rules above don't take into account those larger-scale situations, they stick to the sort of high-intensity low-time encounters that the rest of 4th ed does. Of course, it isn't really fair to ignore the fact there's a difference between needing to kill vs drive off a group of enemies. Now, how to create those graduated effects in less constrained environments is a fair question. My instinct is to turn to the rules for other longer-term effects in the game. The absence of many such effects presents a problem. The few that exist include the disease/poison rules or rituals, either of which might present options. The closest actual example might be the skill contest rules, potentially modified to create "grades of success" (a concept 4e doesn't seem overly fond of). Mapping a new course is always an option,but addressing it is certainly more interesting than simply waiving it away as impossibly complex. Any type of encounter can be rendered more complex than absolutely necessary for the needed resolution (just look at, say, rolemaster...) Also, the character skills and relevent abilities vary depending on the situation, making suspect to model an "action distance" equivalent to hit points for altering a character's attitude, even if you had rules for establishing what this distance was depending on context. Character skills and abilities don't actually change based on the situation. The situation changes, but using the HP model you still have ways to include variations through shifts in defenses, temp hit points, healing, and other effects. On the other hand, there are still people who find the "action distance" model of hit points suspect... It's all a matter of how much abstraction you're willing to accept.
#11 slobo777a Jun 22, 2009 8:42:24	We're basically disagreeing because we are looking at different levels of the story. I think that I am concerned about the impact on the strategic, story-affecting impact, which is where typically the DM and players place the results of any non-trivial social interaction. I think you are taking my responses as referring to the details of the implementation - yes I missed it earlier, because it was all hidden under a single spoiler button - my bad! :embarrass Kudos to you for all that work! Now I have read through your rules, I can see a use for them in resolving some types of argument between PC and NPC. It might work very nicely as an abstract for a courtroom plotline in fact, or other pieces of plot where there are constraints forcing characters into an in-depth social interaction with a limited number of results - agreeing payment with a noble attempting to renege on his side of a bargain. However, I cannot see how they could be extended to deal with any conversation that affects plot progression differently to combat results. Maybe that's more my expectations about the scope of the work. To be clear when I say the setup is complex and difficult, compared to combat I am referring to "story level". Physical combats in D&D are usually slices of gameplay wozen into a story, with the plot of that story pretty much independent of the combats other than most of the combats need to be worked through to get to another piece of the story. This is true even if you "roleplay during combat" or have plot-driving clues feeding in and out of combat. In my top-level overview of how combat affects the storyline (as opposed to details) . . . Input: Hostile groups have chosen, or are forced, to settle differences of action by physical force. That pretty much covers all starting positions going into a combat. Importantly the nature of the difference is of no relevence to resolving the combat. Output: One or other group wins the combat, allowing them to complete a new action, or continue as before. In other words, the results of an individual combat have a simple forking structure. Generally this is in favour of the player's plot line, but the possibility of the alternate fork, the players' characters are defeated, is why the combat rules are there in the first place. Again, the nature of the original difference is usually of no relevence to the plot items that are closed, or now open up. The combat purely serves as a branch point. Exceptions to this are rare, and are dealt with in an ad-hoc manner. Here are the variations I can think of that are relevent in a top-level plot view: A) Most likely, none. One set of opponents are all destroyed or defeated in such a way that they do not contribute to the plot or affect adjoining encounters. Usually this is the monsters. Dead monsters do not contribute further to plot lines. The D&D rules and most pre-written adventures assume this is the expected result. B) Monster Escapees Escapees complicate the plot in that they can interact with and inform other encounters. Logically the story has to account for actions of escapees, unless they are forced to flee in a way that writes them out of the story (which is just Case A re-fluffed). C) Monster Captives Captives complicate the story because they can continue to influence the story line, perhaps in ways that have not been forseen. The players may be able to gain story-line affecting information from a captive. A situation with captives could feed in as the input to game mechanics for social resolution. Captives that are set free are effectively Escapees. D) Player Escapees If the players are defeated, it can radically affect the plotline. Pre-built adentures often allow for some leeway by effectively allowing re-tries to many single encounters. Other options are "game over", or a re-work of the plot at various levels (depends if we have a campaign play where the defeated characters find something else to do, or a module, where the DM will have to muddle through a re-try with some modified encounters). E) Player Captives If the DM has bothered making PCs captive, then this is nearly always a plot device that can affect the story. There is usually no help for this scenario in pre-built adventures, because minor details such as which characters are captured can have a huge impact on the story line. My main argument for seeing the whole "game rules for diplomacy" as a difficult problem, is that I cannot envisage such a general top-level view for it in similar terms, that would apply to uses of diplomacy to argue with a guard to allow access to a castle, to persuade a bad guy to switch sides, to quiet an unruly mob, to bribe an official, or importantly to manage whether or not a combat (or other) encounter is started when groups meet. I think that is because the details of how the result is achieved feed forward into the rest of the plot, because all "combatants" are still alive, they will still have conflicting goals needing resolution, and they will remember the encounter. In those situations, I would not use a rule system like that presented, but would do what I have always done: imagine a "likely scenario" based on what I can think of as DM, then adjust it to be better or worse depending on a few ad-hoc Diplomacy skill checks, driven by what the player tells me the character is attempting. I could see it working in well constrained circumstances - a law court, an argument at a formal meal, getting a bargain in a market etc etc. In those cases, the end results branch relatively cleanly, you cannot easily change tack (e.g. suddenly attempt a seduction, or switch from friendly argument to waving a sword in a threatening manner), there are well-defined start and end positions that feed cleanly back into the plot, and I think the house rules as suggested could be very useful.
#12 darkerdreams Jun 22, 2009 13:06:07	We're basically disagreeing because we are looking at different levels of the story. I think that I am concerned about the impact on the strategic, story-affecting impact, which is where typically the DM and players place the results of any non-trivial social interaction. actually, I think the problem is that I'm limiting my scope to the strategic, encounter level, effects while you're focusing on the larger storyline-altering effects. I agree that those larger effects are certainly harder to accommodate, but we'll come back to that. I think you are taking my responses as referring to the details of the implementation - yes I missed it earlier, because it was all hidden under a single spoiler button - my bad! :embarrass Kudos to you for all that work! Thank you. I was actually wondering if you had missed that, because I felt there was a disconnect in that I felt I had addressed things which you seemed to still see as unresolved if not unresolvable. Now I have read through your rules, I can see a use for them in resolving some types of argument between PC and NPC. It might work very nicely as an abstract for a courtroom plotline in fact, or other pieces of plot where there are constraints forcing characters into an in-depth social interaction with a limited number of results - agreeing payment with a noble attempting to renege on his side of a bargain. However, I cannot see how they could be extended to deal with any conversation that affects plot progression differently to combat results. Ironically, you're now extending the usefulness you see in them past what I'd imagined. We'll come back to some of the situations I'd seen them as being useful for below, but a courtroom was entirely outside the scope I'd envisioned. Ill have to contemplate that. Hostile groups have chosen, or are forced, to settle differences of action by physical force. That pretty much covers all starting positions going into a combat. Importantly the nature of the difference is of no relevence to resolving the combat. ... In other words, the results of an individual combat have a simple forking structure. Generally this is in favour of the player's plot line, but the possibility of the alternate fork, the players' characters are defeated, is why the combat rules are there in the first place. Again, the nature of the original difference is usually of no relevence to the plot items that are closed, or now open up. The combat purely serves as a branch point. Exceptions to this are rare, and are dealt with in an ad-hoc manner. I actually agree on the forking nature of combat, I just disagree that it's unique to combat and doesn't apply equally to social encounters. Similarly I disagree that the reason for hostilities in unimportant- but again we're talking the difference between strategic (within the enounter) versus storyline. Hostilities due to misunderstanding (a standard for elf v human or human v human conflicts in fantasy) are vastly different than a racial or blood vendetta (elves v orcs, dwarves v giants, good v evil, predatory monster v 'prey'). Anything short of the high-stakes irredeemablity of the later provides fertile ground for not just the variant encounter ends you describe, but provide differing logistical (story-arc) concerns. Come to that, even the irredeemable force can create large-scale battlefield scenarios which are, strictly speaking, beyond the scope of the basic combat system. My main argument for seeing the whole "game rules for diplomacy" as a difficult problem, is that I cannot envisage such a general top-level view for it in similar terms, that would apply to uses of diplomacy to argue with a guard to allow access to a castle, to persuade a bad guy to switch sides, to quiet an unruly mob, to bribe an official, or importantly to manage whether or not a combat (or other) encounter is started when groups meet. Ironically, these were exactly the sorts of scenarios I figured the above system would be perfect for. Momentary interactions, lasting a few minutes at most (the same scale as combat). [List] [] diplomacy vs guard; basic attack- soft words. Either improving his attitude until he's helpful or break him, and being dominated he'll do whatever you want. alternately, intimidate will get you to dominated faster, though he's not going to like you at all. [] bad guy switching sides- again, soft words for a short long term conversion, using the Rally skill action if you break him in the process. Intimidate or bluff can also get you there if you just need a short-term ally. [] quiet unruly mob- the only burst I've currently got is Sew Confusion, though this isn't a limiter if there's a clear leader or the mob is treated as one creature. Otherwise, you'd need class or feat powers which I haven't even looked at. [] bribe official- a bribe would fall under an equipment bonus to a diplomacy (or possibly bluff) action. [] determine combat or other-ness of an encounter; give the opponents an attitude of "neutral." They won't attack unless shifted to hostile (if attacked or sufficiently attitude shifted otherwise). I see there are a couple holes around the attitude stuff I should fill (noting that a physically attacked NPC will generally shift attitude down, for example). but I maintain this isn't I think that is because the details of how the result is achieved feed forward into the rest of the plot, because all "combatants" are still alive, they will still have conflicting goals needing resolution, and they will remember the encounter. Their goals may not remain opposed. does the guard care what the adventurers do 10 days later? Big enemies are going to be a little different, but they should be harder to manipulate anyway. In those situations, I would not use a rule system like that presented, but would do what I have always done: imagine a "likely scenario" based on what I can think of as DM, then adjust it to be better or worse depending on a few ad-hoc Diplomacy skill checks, driven by what the player tells me the character is attempting. In many ways, this is what I'm trying to do, except that I'm trying to make some standard baseline rules rather than making every* situation a fresh new thing that needs sorted out from scratch. I could see it working in well constrained circumstances - a law court, an argument at a formal meal, getting a bargain in a market etc etc. In those cases, the end results branch relatively cleanly, you cannot easily change tack (e.g. suddenly attempt a seduction, or switch from friendly argument to waving a sword in a threatening manner), there are well-defined start and end positions that feed cleanly back into the plot, and I think the house rules as suggested could be very useful. I'm not sure I agree with all of this, I'll have to consider it for a bit.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

mcnathan_dup

Jun 02, 2009 14:48:01

So I saw something over at http://elevenfootpole.blogspot.com about running diplomacy like combat and thought I'd post over to here and see what people thought. Check out the article (the June 2nd one) and post back here with any thoughts.

darkerdreams

Jun 02, 2009 16:39:56

It's an interesting idea, and one that gets touched on now and again.
The last really fleshed out version of a "social combat" system I've seen was the formal debate rules in Requiem for Rome (a Vampire the Requiem/World of Darkness supplement from White Wolf). Obviously that's incompatible with 4e D&D, and it has some flaws of its own, but it might be an interesting system to look at for ideas.

darkerdreams

Jun 10, 2009 11:17:20

Yes, I'm a huge dork that takes stuff like this as a personal challenge.

Show

These rules try to bring social encounters into line with other encounter types in D&D4e. The conceit that one should narrate before using dice is strange, given that every other aspect of the game assumes that you will role dice to discover the outcome then narrate to that outcome. In what's probably the simplest answer to ever be ignored, these rules switch the order of social play so it falls in line with the rest of the game.
If a player succeeds at a roll, and then manages to role-play that success particularly well, you might grant the +2 often given for good role-play to their next roll in the encounter. Similarly, if they completely fumble the role-play for their success, choosing not to role-play their success, or play what's clearly a success when they rolled a failure, their next social role in the encounter should suffer a -2.
In many cases these rules can’t help but feel “bolted on.” Much like Psionics in previous editions of D&D, they are thoroughly outside the basic conceptions within the core rules and thus much space that could have served them has been given over to more direct effects. For that reason, if a campaign chooses to use these rules, it might be advisable to replace ongoing effects like Dominated from powers with ongoing Resolve damage.

darkerdreams

Jun 19, 2009 9:28:29

really, no one else has any thoughts, either regarding the OP or what I posted?

slobo777a

Jun 19, 2009 11:42:09

Interesting reading, and I agree with a lot of the article, but I don't think that "Diplomatic combat" can be easily floated off into a separate system.

A while ago, I read an excellent book "Interactive Storytelling", focussed on storys vs games in a computer game environment. It gives some good reasons why doing this is hard. A lot of it rings true in the D&D environment too.

I hope this link works:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/1568812213/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page

darkerdreams

Jun 19, 2009 12:00:14

I read through the few pages that were available for open reading, would you care to summarize some of the salient points from the book (and the support for them)?

slobo777a

Jun 20, 2009 14:31:29

I read through the few pages that were available for open reading, would you care to summarize some of the salient points from the book (and the support for them)?

There isn't a 100% match between the book's subject and the "Diplomacy Rules" in this thread. But there is a strong match in my mind between "a set of game rules for social interaction" and "combining stories and games on a computer".

The book's main thrust was the discrepancy between how stories "work" (with a lot of focus on the Heroes Quest and other well-known analysis of stories, narrators and readers/listeners), and how games work, and how there is unresolved tension between the two.

To me, the big difficulties are:

The huge impact of context on type and suitability of social interactions (eg where various characters are on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs can make a big difference to what is appropriate)
Social interactions have a long-term history that can hang on specific minor details of what has been done and said (or withheld) in the past. Many good stories hang on a single bit of knowledge.
Social networks include rumours and second-hand knowledge passed around between agents, and this has as much or more influence that what a character does or says directly.
Personality has a strong influence on response to approaches, to the extent that the menu of end results can be completely different. Some people are effectively unbribable or untorturable due to their personality or beliefs, which is very different to the fact they are equally "killable" from taking damage (the amount might vary, but the end result is inevitable).
Different nationalities and sub-cultures - same as personalities.

None of these are completely insurmountable. For instance you can use a system of "Renown" to deal with social networks. But the number and complexity of all these variables makes it a tough call. In comparison, a set of rules for bashing each other until one or other person falls over is quite simple.

darkerdreams

Jun 20, 2009 17:10:46

The book's main thrust was the discrepancy between how stories "work" (with a lot of focus on the Heroes Quest and other well-known analysis of stories, narrators and readers/listeners), and how games work, and how there is unresolved tension between the two.

I think that's a fair statement, though the division between treating the issue as one of game simulation versus narration strikes me as an unnecessary dichotomy. We'll come back to that, though.

Honestly, I find much of what you give for examples lend themselves more to the use of simulation. As a DM I can't remember every social nuance or bit of information that might be relevant, and I can generate every rumor- accurate or inaccurate. The possession of key information or varying stations alters the context, much as environmental factors or the possession of equipment provide bonuses and penalties in a physical combat. This seems like it rather strongly makes a case that abstraction of many of the niggling details might be a good way to go, especially in a game where so much of what is arguably the focus of the system (combat) is already abstracted.

I have to take some issue with the statement that "bashing each other until one or other person falls over" is simpler, however. The varying approaches through D&D editions to the variable environmental conditions one can encounter simply with a town (jump on a table- high ground, shoot from a balcony- ranged, raining- cuts visibility, jumping to a chandler... pushing an enemy over an adjacent ally...)
And that's once you accept the conceit that each person has a 5' area that they're doing various footwork, feints, and other actions in all of which are abstracted away.

In this point it comes down to what is important to track versus what we can ignore for the simulation, simply adding it back in as fluff.

slobo777a

Jun 21, 2009 15:34:40

Honestly, I find much of what you give for examples lend themselves more to the use of simulation. As a DM I can't remember every social nuance or bit of information that might be relevant, and I can generate every rumor- accurate or inaccurate. The possession of key information or varying stations alters the context, much as environmental factors or the possession of equipment provide bonuses and penalties in a physical combat. This seems like it rather strongly makes a case that abstraction of many of the niggling details might be a good way to go, especially in a game where so much of what is arguably the focus of the system (combat) is already abstracted.

I have to take some issue with the statement that "bashing each other until one or other person falls over" is simpler, however. The varying approaches through D&D editions to the variable environmental conditions one can encounter simply with a town (jump on a table- high ground, shoot from a balcony- ranged, raining- cuts visibility, jumping to a chandler... pushing an enemy over an adjacent ally...)
And that's once you accept the conceit that each person has a 5' area that they're doing various footwork, feints, and other actions in all of which are abstracted away.

In this point it comes down to what is important to track versus what we can ignore for the simulation, simply adding it back in as fluff.

. . . the difference is in number of starting and end states.

In a physical combat, you can represent the whole state of the character between "life and death" as hit points plus roughly a dozen conditions. Ignore all the powers, skills, stats, the battleboard, they are just tools to move the core value around between those two story-influencing states with a few bells and whistles. The actual skills used, where the character is on the battleboard, and who hit who with what don't make any difference to the story progression. It is who survives and who doesn't that has an effect. The rest is fun to play, but doesn't change the "shape" of the story.

Influencing another character to do something that they would not otherwise in a way that affects a story branch has many more dimensions.

Improtantly, there are more results that influence the story likely than "Carry on as before", and "The result the PC would like". They will be very specific to the situation, and not at all easy to abstract.

Also, the character skills and relevent abilities vary depending on the situation, making suspect to model an "action distance" equivalent to hit points for altering a character's attitude, even if you had rules for establishing what this distance was depending on context.

Finally, and it's a biggy, if there are rules for influencing character behaviour, you have to decide whether or not they apply to the PCs:

* Any rule that applies to the PC risks taking away player control of the character. Player's don't generally respond well to DM instructions on what the character does - a few might roleplay being charmed or succumbing to an obvious (IC) illusion reasonably well, but it's a rare part of the game, and a tough RP challenge even then.

* Any rule that doesn't apply to the PC allows the player to use social "attacks" to solve situations with relative impunity - the end result is either in the player's favour, or has to be resolved in a different part of the game system - a second chance to achieve the character's goals, and asymmetric - imagine if only PCs could use stealth skills for instance, and were immune to any such attempts from NPCs

#10

darkerdreams

Jun 21, 2009 22:43:58

Finally, and it's a biggy, if there are rules for influencing character behaviour, you have to decide whether or not they apply to the PCs:

* Any rule that applies to the PC risks taking away player control of the character. Player's don't generally respond well to DM instructions on what the character does - a few might roleplay being charmed or succumbing to an obvious (IC) illusion reasonably well, but it's a rare part of the game, and a tough RP challenge even then.

This argument has bothered me for a while. Any reasonably written set of rules is going to be less invasive to "character choice" than death or unconsciousness. Limitation of character choice is the name of the game and is, in fact, what separates games with resolution mechanics from cops'n'robbers. Mechanical resolution is the way you avoid "Bang, you're dead- no I'm not," scenario which is the abyss we all discovered when we were 8 that lays at the bottom of unfettered "player choice."

Now, overruling player's control shouldn't be easy... But neither is killing a character- and you'll note (if you looked at what I wrote) that's exactly what I modeled it off of.

* ...a second chance to achieve the character's goals...

You'll note from what I said above I feel most of this is a moot issue. I actually specifically address the piece quoted in the introduction to the proposed system above.

. . . the difference is in number of starting and end states.

In a physical combat, you can represent the whole state of the character between "life and death" as hit points plus roughly a dozen conditions. Ignore all the powers, skills, stats, the battleboard, they are just tools to move the core value around between those two story-influencing states with a few bells and whistles. The actual skills used, where the character is on the battleboard, and who hit who with what don't make any difference to the story progression. It is who survives and who doesn't that has an effect. The rest is fun to play, but doesn't change the "shape" of the story.

I have to fundamentally disagree here. Who shot who first, whether someone (on either side) participated or hid, what powers and resistances were demonstrated all relate to tactics in future encounters as much as what state the "living" toggle for orc 3 and PC 1 are in.

Influencing another character to do something that they would not otherwise in a way that affects a story branch has many more dimensions.

Possibly. Then again, if you're so weak willed that your foes are going to constantly intimidate (or persuade) you into doing things against your party's better interests it should effect the story- just like being a the weak link in combat changes how your party treats you.

Improtantly, there are more results that influence the story likely than "Carry on as before", and "The result the PC would like". They will be very specific to the situation, and not at all easy to abstract.

It depends on the scope of the situation. In combat, or the heat of a short term situation, it is exactly that simple.
In a more long term situation there should be more to it (of course, are you sure you're using the right game if you want a much more nuanced socio-political situation?). You'll notice that the rules above don't take into account those larger-scale situations, they stick to the sort of high-intensity low-time encounters that the rest of 4th ed does. Of course, it isn't really fair to ignore the fact there's a difference between needing to kill vs drive off a group of enemies.

Now, how to create those graduated effects in less constrained environments is a fair question. My instinct is to turn to the rules for other longer-term effects in the game. The absence of many such effects presents a problem. The few that exist include the disease/poison rules or rituals, either of which might present options. The closest actual example might be the skill contest rules, potentially modified to create "grades of success" (a concept 4e doesn't seem overly fond of).
Mapping a new course is always an option,but addressing it is certainly more interesting than simply waiving it away as impossibly complex. Any type of encounter can be rendered more complex than absolutely necessary for the needed resolution (just look at, say, rolemaster...)

Also, the character skills and relevent abilities vary depending on the situation, making suspect to model an "action distance" equivalent to hit points for altering a character's attitude, even if you had rules for establishing what this distance was depending on context.

Character skills and abilities don't actually change based on the situation. The situation changes, but using the HP model you still have ways to include variations through shifts in defenses, temp hit points, healing, and other effects.

On the other hand, there are still people who find the "action distance" model of hit points suspect...
It's all a matter of how much abstraction you're willing to accept.

#11

slobo777a

Jun 22, 2009 8:42:24

We're basically disagreeing because we are looking at different levels of the story.

I think that I am concerned about the impact on the strategic, story-affecting impact, which is where typically the DM and players place the results of any non-trivial social interaction.

I think you are taking my responses as referring to the details of the implementation - yes I missed it earlier, because it was all hidden under a single spoiler button - my bad! :embarrass Kudos to you for all that work!

Now I have read through your rules, I can see a use for them in resolving some types of argument between PC and NPC. It might work very nicely as an abstract for a courtroom plotline in fact, or other pieces of plot where there are constraints forcing characters into an in-depth social interaction with a limited number of results - agreeing payment with a noble attempting to renege on his side of a bargain. However, I cannot see how they could be extended to deal with *any* conversation that affects plot progression differently to combat results.

Maybe that's more my expectations about the scope of the work.

To be clear when I say the setup is complex and difficult, compared to combat I am referring to "story level". Physical combats in D&D are usually slices of gameplay wozen into a story, with the plot of that story pretty much independent of the combats other than most of the combats need to be worked through to get to another piece of the story. This is true even if you "roleplay during combat" or have plot-driving clues feeding in and out of combat.

In my top-level overview of how combat affects the storyline (as opposed to details) . . .

Input:

Hostile groups have chosen, or are forced, to settle differences of action by physical force.

That pretty much covers all starting positions going into a combat.

Importantly the nature of the difference is of no relevence to resolving the combat.

Output:

One or other group wins the combat, allowing them to complete a new action, or continue as before.

In other words, the results of an individual combat have a simple forking structure. Generally this is in favour of the player's plot line, but the possibility of the alternate fork, the players' characters are defeated, is why the combat rules are there in the first place.

Again, the nature of the original difference is usually of no relevence to the plot items that are closed, or now open up. The combat purely serves as a branch point. Exceptions to this are rare, and are dealt with in an ad-hoc manner.

Here are the variations I can think of that are relevent in a top-level plot view:

A) Most likely, none. One set of opponents are all destroyed or defeated in such a way that they do not contribute to the plot or affect adjoining encounters. Usually this is the monsters. Dead monsters do not contribute further to plot lines. The D&D rules and most pre-written adventures assume this is the expected result.

B) Monster Escapees Escapees complicate the plot in that they can interact with and inform other encounters. Logically the story has to account for actions of escapees, unless they are forced to flee in a way that writes them out of the story (which is just Case A re-fluffed).

C) Monster Captives Captives complicate the story because they can continue to influence the story line, perhaps in ways that have not been forseen. The players may be able to gain story-line affecting information from a captive. A situation with captives could feed in as the input to game mechanics for social resolution. Captives that are set free are effectively Escapees.

D) Player Escapees If the players are defeated, it can radically affect the plotline. Pre-built adentures often allow for some leeway by effectively allowing re-tries to many single encounters. Other options are "game over", or a re-work of the plot at various levels (depends if we have a campaign play where the defeated characters find something else to do, or a module, where the DM will have to muddle through a re-try with some modified encounters).

E) Player Captives If the DM has bothered making PCs captive, then this is nearly always a plot device that can affect the story. There is usually no help for this scenario in pre-built adventures, because minor details such as which characters are captured can have a huge impact on the story line.

My main argument for seeing the whole "game rules for diplomacy" as a difficult problem, is that I cannot envisage such a general top-level view for it in similar terms, that would apply to uses of diplomacy to argue with a guard to allow access to a castle, to persuade a bad guy to switch sides, to quiet an unruly mob, to bribe an official, or importantly to manage whether or not a combat (or other) encounter is started when groups meet. I think that is because the details of how the result is achieved feed forward into the rest of the plot, because all "combatants" are still alive, they will still have conflicting goals needing resolution, and they will remember the encounter. In those situations, I would not use a rule system like that presented, but would do what I have always done: imagine a "likely scenario" based on what I can think of as DM, then adjust it to be better or worse depending on a few ad-hoc Diplomacy skill checks, driven by what the player tells me the character is attempting.

I could see it working in well constrained circumstances - a law court, an argument at a formal meal, getting a bargain in a market etc etc. In those cases, the end results branch relatively cleanly, you cannot easily change tack (e.g. suddenly attempt a seduction, or switch from friendly argument to waving a sword in a threatening manner), there are well-defined start and end positions that feed cleanly back into the plot, and I think the house rules as suggested could be very useful.

#12

darkerdreams

Jun 22, 2009 13:06:07

We're basically disagreeing because we are looking at different levels of the story.

I think that I am concerned about the impact on the strategic, story-affecting impact, which is where typically the DM and players place the results of any non-trivial social interaction.

actually, I think the problem is that I'm limiting my scope to the strategic, encounter level, effects while you're focusing on the larger storyline-altering effects. I agree that those larger effects are certainly harder to accommodate, but we'll come back to that.

I think you are taking my responses as referring to the details of the implementation - yes I missed it earlier, because it was all hidden under a single spoiler button - my bad! :embarrass Kudos to you for all that work!

Thank you. I was actually wondering if you had missed that, because I felt there was a disconnect in that I felt I had addressed things which you seemed to still see as unresolved if not unresolvable.

Now I have read through your rules, I can see a use for them in resolving some types of argument between PC and NPC. It might work very nicely as an abstract for a courtroom plotline in fact, or other pieces of plot where there are constraints forcing characters into an in-depth social interaction with a limited number of results - agreeing payment with a noble attempting to renege on his side of a bargain. However, I cannot see how they could be extended to deal with *any* conversation that affects plot progression differently to combat results.

Ironically, you're now extending the usefulness you see in them past what I'd imagined. We'll come back to some of the situations I'd seen them as being useful for below, but a courtroom was entirely outside the scope I'd envisioned. Ill have to contemplate that.

Hostile groups have chosen, or are forced, to settle differences of action by physical force.

That pretty much covers all starting positions going into a combat.

Importantly the nature of the difference is of no relevence to resolving the combat.

...

In other words, the results of an individual combat have a simple forking structure. Generally this is in favour of the player's plot line, but the possibility of the alternate fork, the players' characters are defeated, is why the combat rules are there in the first place.

Again, the nature of the original difference is usually of no relevence to the plot items that are closed, or now open up. The combat purely serves as a branch point. Exceptions to this are rare, and are dealt with in an ad-hoc manner.

I actually agree on the forking nature of combat, I just disagree that it's unique to combat and doesn't apply equally to social encounters. Similarly I disagree that the reason for hostilities in unimportant- but again we're talking the difference between strategic (within the enounter) versus storyline. Hostilities due to misunderstanding (a standard for elf v human or human v human conflicts in fantasy) are vastly different than a racial or blood vendetta (elves v orcs, dwarves v giants, good v evil, predatory monster v 'prey'). Anything short of the high-stakes irredeemablity of the later provides fertile ground for not just the variant encounter ends you describe, but provide differing logistical (story-arc) concerns.
Come to that, even the irredeemable force can create large-scale battlefield scenarios which are, strictly speaking, beyond the scope of the basic combat system.

My main argument for seeing the whole "game rules for diplomacy" as a difficult problem, is that I cannot envisage such a general top-level view for it in similar terms, that would apply to uses of diplomacy to argue with a guard to allow access to a castle, to persuade a bad guy to switch sides, to quiet an unruly mob, to bribe an official, or importantly to manage whether or not a combat (or other) encounter is started when groups meet.

Ironically, these were exactly the sorts of scenarios I figured the above system would be perfect for. Momentary interactions, lasting a few minutes at most (the same scale as combat).
[List]
[*] diplomacy vs guard; basic attack- soft words. Either improving his attitude until he's helpful or break him, and being dominated he'll do whatever you want.
alternately, intimidate will get you to dominated faster, though he's not going to like you at all.
[*] bad guy switching sides- again, soft words for a short long term conversion, using the Rally skill action if you break him in the process. Intimidate or bluff can also get you there if you just need a short-term ally.
[*] quiet unruly mob- the only burst I've currently got is Sew Confusion, though this isn't a limiter if there's a clear leader or the mob is treated as one creature. Otherwise, you'd need class or feat powers which I haven't even looked at.
[*] bribe official- a bribe would fall under an equipment bonus to a diplomacy (or possibly bluff) action.
[*] determine combat or other-ness of an encounter; give the opponents an attitude of "neutral." They won't attack unless shifted to hostile (if attacked or sufficiently attitude shifted otherwise).

I see there are a couple holes around the attitude stuff I should fill (noting that a physically attacked NPC will generally shift attitude down, for example). but I maintain this isn't

I think that is because the details of how the result is achieved feed forward into the rest of the plot, because all "combatants" are still alive, they will still have conflicting goals needing resolution, and they will remember the encounter.
Their goals may not remain opposed. does the guard care what the adventurers do 10 days later? Big enemies are going to be a little different, but they should be harder to manipulate anyway.

In those situations, I would not use a rule system like that presented, but would do what I have always done: imagine a "likely scenario" based on what I can think of as DM, then adjust it to be better or worse depending on a few ad-hoc Diplomacy skill checks, driven by what the player tells me the character is attempting.

In many ways, this is what I'm trying to do, except that I'm trying to make some standard baseline rules rather than making *every* situation a fresh new thing that needs sorted out from scratch.

I could see it working in well constrained circumstances - a law court, an argument at a formal meal, getting a bargain in a market etc etc. In those cases, the end results branch relatively cleanly, you cannot easily change tack (e.g. suddenly attempt a seduction, or switch from friendly argument to waving a sword in a threatening manner), there are well-defined start and end positions that feed cleanly back into the plot, and I think the house rules as suggested could be very useful.

I'm not sure I agree with all of this, I'll have to consider it for a bit.