| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Ten_ChimesApr 16, 2009 14:28:40 | So yeah, been in my first 4e game, I love it, DM hated it, because he felt adrift when asking us to do anything noncombat/delve related. And after reading the rules in-depthly, I'd say he's right to feel that way. So I promised him I'd run a game with his setting so that he can maybe enjoy 4e as a player, too. Thing is, I'm for there being politics in my D&D games, and only one of the players could be said to be as devious as I am when it comes to politics, and so also capable of second-guessing the antagonists. Everyone else is -- well, not to say thick, but unlikely to figure things out unless I present them with giant glowy arrows pointing at all the pieces of the puzzle. Now, in 3e, they could give their characters the tools to get those glowy arrows -- skills like Gather Information, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy and the like. In games that I have run in the past, I've been fairly egalitarian about all of the INT, WIS, and CHA contributing in some way to getting the solutions to the puzzles. My players generally know that if they abut a situation that is not all that it seems, it's time to push the bards and rogues to the front of the party so they can suss out what's going on. Problem is, 4e doesn't really encourage that, at all. I have noticed a fairly strong tendency of my players to assume that if something is not on their character sheet, they don't have it. So, I want to take that uncertainty away and fill them with the power that they already have by TELLING THEM that they really are smooth-talking heroes that can talk their way into or out of as many fights as they want. So I'm thinking I need to homebrew some additional rules for social interaction. I'm here telling you this for two reasons: #1, to ask if anyone's done it before, and #2, to ask if anyone has any suggestions for me. If no one has already blazed this trail ahead of me, here's the basic sketch of what I plan to do. I'm thinking that this system should be defined the same way combat is -- insert reference here to how conversation naturally lends itself to all the metaphors that war does. So, what do we need for combat in 4e? Hit points, Defenses, Attacks, and conditions. Hit Points: for this I'm picturing something along the lines your character's innate will, his stubbornness, his conviction. Will is already something in the game system, and stubbornness has a negative connotation, so for now I'm going with Conviction. Conviction will be figured based on Charisma -- in our area, Charisma is your force of personality as well as your 'charisma,' -- the same way Hit Points are figured via CON modifier. Defenses: As they are in the world of hand-to-hand combat, so will they be in the mental realm, too, save for some name changes. I invite suggestions here: what shall I call the mental equivalents of FORT and REF, since I'm thinking WILL will stay the same? I'm thinking FORT's equivalent will be something faith-related -- I have faith in what I know, so your (Insert Name of Hypothetical Social Encounter Attack Power here) fails. REF, on the other hand, will be about elusiveness -- like how politicians have mastered the art of talking for hours without actually saying anything, because they don't want to offend anyone or be held to something they promised years ago. Classes will have natural bonuses to their preferred Defenses, just like in the blood-and-guts fighty part of the game. Attacks: I'm going to come up with a series of Attacks and Utility powers that are appropriate to each class's particularly philosophy. For example, warlocks make pacts, and clearly get a good deal when they do so -- so in the social arena, warlocks are probably hell on wheels when it comes to making contracts and agreements. Fighters, on the other hand, are trained to be inured to the horrors of war and to rely on comrades for strength -- so in the social arena, they have a great set of Defenses, and grinding their Conviction to 0 would take FOR-EVER. I'm still working on how these powers will play out -- the lack of a square map to push people around on takes away the 'sliding/shifting' dimension of hand-to-hand combat, but whatever, I'm sure I'll come up with something. Conditions: I can probably just file the serial numbers off the list already in PH1 and call it good. Need to find a replacement for the movement-related ones, though, obviously. So, there it is, my initial thoughts about rocking out with a social system to go with the new 4e. Anyone have any thoughts/suggestions? |
| #2backstabbistApr 16, 2009 14:40:02 | We run into this kind of thing in Modern a lot. It doesnt matter if the player knows how to start a Leerjet turbine, what is important is that the Character has skills that apply to mechanical and engineering technologies that can probably figure it out. "My army mechanic character has messed with Abrams turbines, that might help him figure it out starting the plane... right?" I just dont see that kind of noncombat char ability/prowess developemnet in 4e either |
| #3daidojitaidoruApr 16, 2009 14:41:18 | Thing is, I'm for there being politics in my D&D games, and only one of the players could be said to be as devious as I am when it comes to politics, and so also capable of second-guessing the antagonists. Everyone else is -- well, not to say thick, but unlikely to figure things out unless I present them with giant glowy arrows pointing at all the pieces of the puzzle. Er. Just as a question how is this different in 4th ED? You still have Gather Info (now streetwise), Sense Motive (Insight) and Diplomacy (er... Diplomacy) in addition to the skill challenge rules which give you good target numbers for those skills based on level. Okay mediocre target numbers for those skills but you can work that issue out I'm sure. Perhaps if you explained you issues with the system better we could find a less drastic set of House Rules to help you. So I'm thinking I need to homebrew some additional rules for social interaction. I'm here telling you this for two reasons: #1, to ask if anyone's done it before, and #2, to ask if anyone has any suggestions for me. If you do want to go through the massive effort to design this system from the ground up power to you man. Just make sure everyone can be useful at any given time. You may want to look over Exalted's social conflict rules (and any other systems that are similar) to see how other designers did it. Check their boards to see what people think about it. You'll need a lot of deisgn ideas so stealing from other systems is a good start. |
| #4famousfoxkingApr 16, 2009 16:02:18 | Now, in 3e, they could give their characters the tools to get those glowy arrows -- skills like Gather Information, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy and the like. In games that I have run in the past, I've been fairly egalitarian about all of the INT, WIS, and CHA contributing in some way to getting the solutions to the puzzles. My players generally know that if they abut a situation that is not all that it seems, it's time to push the bards and rogues to the front of the party so they can suss out what's going on. You realize the skills you've listed there are just Streetwise, Insight and Diplomacy, right? And since 4e lets anyone use a skill, even if they're untrained, you can engineer situations where even mr thicky-barbarian has the opportunity to stumble upon a bit of plot. Problem is, 4e doesn't really encourage that, at all. I have noticed a fairly strong tendency of my players to assume that if something is not on their character sheet, they don't have it. So, I want to take that uncertainty away and fill them with the power that they already have by TELLING THEM that they really are smooth-talking heroes that can talk their way into or out of as many fights as they want. But Streetwise, Insight and Diplomacy are on their character sheets. They should even have scores next to them to tell them how good they are, even if they aren't trained. The skill challenge mechanic lets you run a negotiation, or haggle, or otherwise talk someone into something. Social Combat is already built into the system. Now, there are problems with skill challenges. The difficulties are not engineered as well as they could be; they are, however, a heck of a lot easier to develop than an entirely new social combat system. Here's what I do: for any skill challenge, I come up with the individual tasks that might make up the challenge. For a lot of social challenges, you can rely on Diplomacy, Insight, Streetwise, History, Intimidate, Bluff and a handful of others. Next I look at my characters stats and ask myself "Who has the highest Bluff skill? Who is most likely to USE their Bluff skill in this situation?" Often, they're the same person, but I like to account for my players making sub optimal choices. Next, I decide how difficult I want each task to be. Lying to the Thieves Guild guildmaster to get him to do something? I'm going to say that's a difficult task, so I'll take the highest Bluff skill in my group and add 15 (which is really 13 + 2 for the aid another action I assume someone is going to take). Our Rogue has a total Bluff skill of +11, so I'm going to set the Bluff difficulty at 26. I've decided that the Guildmaster fancies himself equal to nobility, so while lying doesn't work so well, treating him with "noble respect" does. Our Rogue has the highest Diplomacy as well, at +9, but I know from experience that he'd much rather lie, so I also take the Paladin's +7 into account, because I know he's the one most likely to use it. Splitting the difference, I get a +8, and I decide to set a flat difficult of 18 (the Paladin will have to roll an 11, but someone will probably aid another, bringing that down to a 9). I go through the character's skills like that, setting the difficulties for the skills that seem to apply best to the type of interaction I'm building. I try to set at least one skill for every player. Some things I don't set as successes, but as bonuses to other rolls, like a Streetwise success applying to Bluff (the character knows enough to pretend he knows a lot) or History to Diplomacy. Things like that. Finally, I keep the rest of the characters skill scores on hand so I'm prepared if someone tries something crazy ("I dance to distract him!" Okay, I'll make that a difficult Acrobatics roll, so I'll just add 14, 15 or 16 to whatever the characters acrobatics is, and tell him that's his difficulty). Finally, how many successes vs how many failures? The failures, I generally set at N+1 where N = the number of party members. Therefore, everyone theoretically gets one screwup, then it's over. For successes, well, it depends on how long I think things should go on, and how challenging I think the encounter should be. N+2 up to about Nx2 seems to be about reasonable. I like to make everyone have to succeed at least once, and up to twice each. Some, more "utility" skills I decide will count as neither a failure, nor as a success, but will provide bonuses to later checks. Finally, and this is actually the hardest part, I set the stakes. What actually happens if the characters succeed? What happens if they fail? Maybe failure kicks off a combat encounter. Maybe they still get what they came for, but I make some future encounter more difficult. Stealing from the game Donjon, sometimes I let the players tell me what they've discovered, particularly if we're off in the sandbox, coloring outside the lines. |
| #5spellblaydeApr 16, 2009 17:56:13 | You might also consider relegating all role-playing, outside skill challenges, to each role-playing experience equals one combat, and therefore equal xp. For my players, they tend to take about 45mins for an entire encounter, so if the roleplaying might last about that long, I'm giving them the xp for it, letting them act out the scenario. This makes the roleplaying an important part of the game, outside of skill challenges. |