4E information

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by PhoneLobster »

Catharz wrote:Here's how I envision it.

OK, I don't really like the look of that.

First problem it was a bit hard to follow. You seem to have piles of different sources of bonuses and penalties that are rather vague in nature. Social checks will quickly devolve into a complex equation of how many tiny stacking modifiers the party can contrive to negotiate with the GM in a situation that is still remarkably informal and unpredictable.

And I was dead serious when I tried to spin off here with my statement about designing social combat with the over all goal of social defeat as a requirement of making a simple yet engaging social combat system.

By means of basing your social combat around nebulous goals like "proposing a roughly neutral position", telling a single lie, learning a single fact, gaining a single favour etc... there are demanding complexities and complications that flumoxed me repeatedly.

Just think of the different (small) actions that may be the goal of any given social check here.

Tell a lie
Convince a target to lie to others
Tell a subjective truth
Tell an objective truth
Solicit an item
Solicit a service
Convince the target to accept an item
Convince the target to accept a service
Borrow an item from the target
Gain access to an area
Get released from an area
Get forgiven for a crime/offensive act
Learn a subjective fact
Learn an objective fact
Determine if the target is hiding facts knowingly
Determine if the target is hiding facts unknowingly
Get a target target to go out and try and learn a fact for you
Get a target to introduce you to contacts
Convince a target to hide facts knowingly
Convince a target to hide facts unknowingly
Convince a target that someone is their friend
Convince a target that someone is their enemy
Convince a target to attack something
Convince a target NOT to attack something

And really you can go on all day. And every single one of those actions needs to be rated subjectively by the GM as to how hard or easy it is in specific variable contexts with additional specific variable modifiers (which probably has an even longer list of potential items).

And you still haven't asked yourself some very basic questions about the function of the system yet. Like can previously successful social actions make later social actions more or less successful? If so do friendly social actions stack with hostile ones or not? (and related implications)

No. You are effectively presenting the social alternative to a combat system where instead of having fixed available sword swinging or axe swinging attack actions characters have a single "every attack ever" action that can be modified by "stuff" and have the effect of "any attack goal you can describe" for a difficulty of "whatever the GM feels like".

You need a significantly higher level of abstraction and formalization to make a functional system.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
shau
Knight-Baron
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by shau »

The problem with having a really involved social system, or any sort of skill system, is that there is generally speaking just one guy doing it. If it is just one roll, it is not such a big deal. If it is eighteen roles then everyone but the party face wanders off to play with the wii. One of the bigger problems I had with shadowrun was the hacking stuff taking too long and forcing everyone else to be a spectator.
CalibronXXX
Knight-Baron
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by CalibronXXX »

When it comes to Tome classes, or playable WOTC classes, everyone can easily afford to be good at one or more social things.

PhoneLobster, this really doesn't seem all that hard to me. Is assigning appropriate bonuses or penalties really harder than just arbitrarily deciding what the NPC thinks?

Tell a lie-handled by a single bluff versus sense motive roll like usual

Convince a target to lie to others-If the target isn't in the habit of lying then you'd get a penalty, if the target has a decent chance of being put into some level of jeopardy that would also be a penalty, and if you try to get the target to lie to someone he likes, is afraid of or otherwise would specifically want to not lie to that's also penalty; if the target likes to lie, or would like to deceive this individual then that's a bonus. You could, of course, also get more bonuses by offering bribes or exerting authority, or you could negate some of the penalties by convincing the target that the lie is actually true with a bluff check.

Tell a subjective truth-just communicating information isn't social combat. You can make an argument to convince them that this subjective truth is correct, that would be social combat, but they could convince you that this subjective truth is actually incorrect at the same time; whoever breaks down the others Resolve first would win and convince the other. A debate.

Tell an objective truth-just communicating information isn't social combat.

Solicit an item-This one is easy, you get a penalty for trying to get something for nothing, but besides that you just roll. However, the target could try to convince you to give him something in return, or to go away, at the same time. That's social combat.

Solicit a service-See above.

Convince the target to accept an item-If the item was good then the target had no misgivings they could just decide to accept. Otherwise you have to convince them, though you'd get a bonus on your roll for giving a good deal. You'd get a bigger bonus proportionate to how much the target wanted the item; and again the target could try to convince you to go away.

Convince the target to accept a service-See above.

Borrow an item from the target-Just a lower, or negated, penalty than soliciting an item.

Gain access to an area-This is almost exactly like trying to convince someone to lie for you.

Get released from an area-Depending on the situation the penalty could be huge or piddling, but it's still just like getting into a place.

Get forgiven for a crime/offensive act-forgiven as in getting charges or whatnot dropped is exactly like soliciting an item or service.

Learn a subjective fact-Knowledge Skills and Gather Information. But if you mean convince a specific person to answer a question or tell you what they know about a subject then it's just like soliciting an item or service.

Learn an objective fact-See above.

Determine if the target is hiding facts knowingly-Sense motive versus their bluff, just the one roll.

Determine if the target is hiding facts unknowingly-You couldn't. Unless you got them to the point where they were willing to go over everything on the subject in detail and answer any specific question you asked; then you'd use your deductive skills to put the pieces together.

Get a target target to go out and try and learn a fact for you-Just like getting someone to lie.

Get a target to introduce you to contacts-A mix between getting someone to lie and soliciting a service. They might get in trouble/don't want to do it, and they're giving up something valuable. Apply bonuses and penalties as appropriate.

Convince a target to hide facts knowingly-This isn't just the same as getting someone to lie, it is getting someone to lie.

Convince a target to hide facts unknowingly-You'd give them incomplete information, there's really nothing else you can do here. Possibly bluff them into thinking that something they witnessed didn't happen or was different from what they saw.

Convince a target that someone is their friend-Almost exactly like convincing someone of a subjective truth, but you can get bonuses by doing nice things for them and what not.

Convince a target that someone is their enemy-See above, but this one is likely to be helped by bluff checks.

Convince a target to attack something-This is exactly like getting someone to lie, only generally more difficult.

Convince a target NOT to attack something-See above.

The reason we don't know what the modifiers for these situations are right off the bat is not because my idea is shit, but because the system is not at all fleshed out yet. If you'd like to help run the numbers that'd be great, but as of now you're just complaining that a car with no engine doesn't shift gears smoothly.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by PhoneLobster »

wrote:The reason we don't know what the modifiers for these situations are right off the bat is not because my idea is shit, but because the system is not at all fleshed out yet.

Well, I wasn't going to use those words per say, but since you mention it it IS because the idea is shit.

Your list of penalties and bonuses for those actions has the following problems.

1) That was not a complete list, for any "do anything" system there is never a complete list.

2) It doesn't include any, or any sufficient, situational, progressive, cooperative or contextual modifiers.

3) Everyone on the planet, including me disagrees with your interpretations of what those actions mean and the penalties involved. I for instance regard all the actions I listed as clearly distinct but YOU apparently don't. That's because its some very subjective ground being covered there. And you are describing a system that by its very nature opens itself wide to subjective disagreement.

4) That incomplete list is still massively long and complex and not only do I disagree with your reasoning on many points I'm not even sure I FOLLOW your reasoning on many of the points. Its already too complex and its not even "fleshed out".

5) And this is the big one so pay attention.
wrote:Is assigning appropriate bonuses or penalties really harder than just arbitrarily deciding what the NPC thinks?

Yes its harder because its exactly the same only you are arbitrarily expressing your opinion in the form of what from my subjective perspective may as well be random numbers.

Its not just a fleshing out issue its also an abstraction issue. You need the system to be more formal AND more abstract, to avoid the distinct (and accurate) sense that your social mechanic is just you pulling opinions on NPC behaviour and social interaction in general out of thin air.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
CalibronXXX
Knight-Baron
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by CalibronXXX »

And do you have anything constructive to add? At all? Because usable suggestions would certainly be welcome.

Honestly I think we're coming at this from completely different angles. You seem to think it's possible to have satisfactory mechanical system for social that covers all the bases and will never require input once the process has been initiated. Such a system would either be so abstract as to be exactly like the utterly unsatisfying current rules for social interaction, or be so complex as to give a math major a migraine. I think your proposition is dead on the floor because it's far too extreme on either end to be satisfying for what is generally wanted, and apparently you hate my idea because it requires some amount of input at various stages of the process.

So until you have something constructive to say there's no reason for this conversation to continue.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by PhoneLobster »

Like I keep saying, abstract and formalize.

A social system that handles every lie differently based on the specific lie, target, prep work, and context is like a combat system that handles every sword swing differently based on the angle of the sword, the arc of the swing, and the body part it was swung at.

You are creating a system designed to be bogged down in the minutia.

You need to think bigger and broader. An action in an RPG that is playable is something that achieves a lot and does it in a simple and transparent manner. It also does not require multiple sources of complex cumulative (and possibly not predetermined) modifiers.

And THAT is why I suggest that social attacks should never be specific lies, specific manipulations, specific statements, etc... but rather broader actions. Just as the complexities of all the ways you can swing a sword are abstracted down to a "Sword attack action" so too should the complexities of all the different ways you can lie to someone be abstracted down to a "lie attack action".

And the lie itself, the amateur drama/writing skills of the players involved, it has no impact on the mechanical resolution.

I don't let someone's totally cool and logical description of how extra deadly their arrow attack is because they shoot their target right through the jugular mechanically impact the resolution of a standard arrow attack. And I frown on any system that thinks it can objectively measure the coolness and logic of such subjective material in a fair and playable manner. No instead they sayI shoot him through the jugular and resolve the arrow attack as normal for its normal ABSTRACT hit point damage or whatever.

Similarly you SAY you are telling an especially cunning lie because you know that your target has a desire to believe the king's taxes are unfair but you resolve your lie attack as normal for its ABSTRACT social hit point damage, or whatever.

And the conclusion I reached about the system needing to be a fight to the social death instead of a fight to get that guy over there to believe my name is really "Ben Dover".

That is important as well. A system which concerns itself too much with minute details like telling a single little lie or soliciting a single tiny favour is a system that is by its nature is either significantly WEAKER in its effects than the regular combat system OR significantly more complex and difficult to resolve than the combat system. Or even worse, both at once.

If Ms Miggins needs to get past the guards and her player has the choice between a 10 minute combat that gets her past (and lets her loot weapons, money and secret treasure maps) or a 50 minute social combat that just lets her get past.

Well, guess which action Ms Miggins is pushed towards by the system.

Even if the social combat took the same (or even a little bit less) to resolve it still gives out a poorer reward for the investment of player time.

Winning the social combat needs to be just as good as killing them, otherwise a stupid single roll Bluff vs Anti Bluff IS the correct mechanical answer because it reflects a more proper degree of reward to investment.

No, the problem with the d20 diplomacy skill is not the degree to which it makes its victims your bitch (it may not even go far enough). Its the WAY it goes about doing it.

Also, I don't think I caught anywhere in your proposal what the risks and costs of engaging someone in social combat might be.

I mean from proposed methodology its simple, if Ms Miggins breaks out the Lies or Threats or Seduction then the guards break out their own Lies or Threats or Seduction, and the loser is confused/threatened/seduced into defeat and potentially looted of their stuff and sent home to sit in the corner wearing the dunces cap.

If Ms Miggins breaks out the "do me a little favour and let me past attack" what is the risk? The cost? What is the proper response from the guards? Depending on the different specific narrow social actions she can attempt will there be specific subjective risks and costs beyond the penalties and bonuses to the rolls? If she fails to get past will she also potentially walk away a victim of a similarly narrow social action like being convinced that the captain of the guard is called "Kissame Ars"?

There. Those seem like important constructive points. Now go and construct something.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
CalibronXXX
Knight-Baron
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by CalibronXXX »

Those are indeed some very good points. I'll have to think about that before I can figure out how best to implement them.

I am more convinced than ever that we are definitely coming at this from different angles. My original proposal was made to address those who were unsatisfied with social interaction being a die roll followed by description. I do realize, and did realize from the start, that my original proposal was not properly balanced and was relatively unwieldy, though not so bad in that aspect IMO. When I have the time I'll see what I can do to develop a satisfactory social combat system that is abstract and formalized similar to physical combat. I'm not giving up on my original proposal, I believe both ideas have merit and when they are fleshed out I think the difference between which is "better" will rely on game and group.

Thank you very much for your input.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by PhoneLobster »

Since there was a late breaking new edition in your last post while I was typing.

Calibron wrote:You seem to think it's possible to have satisfactory mechanical system for social that covers all the bases and will never require input once the process has been initiated.

If you haven't got a system that resembles that description at least as much as contemporary RPG combat systems do then you don't have a social system at all, just more junk making the tea party confusing and clunky.

Calibron wrote:Such a system would either be so abstract as to be exactly like the utterly unsatisfying current rules for social interaction,

There is really a LOT of room for variety in the realm of what is "abstract". Its one of the great things about being abstract.

And think about it for a second how massively abstracted standard RPG combat systems are, and how much they vary between systems.

Those massively abstract and variable combat systems are almost uniformly more satisfying than ANY rules set for social encounters.

We have much to learn from them.
Calibron wrote: I think your proposition is dead on the floor because it's far too extreme on either end to be satisfying for what is generally wanted,

Ask yourself what is really wanted in a social combat system.

In a combat system people aren't too fussed if the mechanics gloss over details like stabbing someone up their nostril as long as with sufficient stabbing the guy dies and they can SAY they stabbed him up the nostril, and they also get to win. And take his stuff. And sword up the nose guy can't stab them back anymore.

Similarly I don't think people are too fussed if mechanics gloss over Ms Miggins letting some horny city guard rummage inside her blouse if he lets her past. They will be quite happy if they can just make "Seduce" attacks against the guy until eventually they can say that, and get to win. And take his stuff, and don't have to worry about him using Threaten attacks on her anymore.

Heck abstraction like that is good because plenty of players DON'T want to hear about Fourth Class Security Guard Stanley Tweedle feeling up Ms Miggins in detail, plenty of players are happy just knowing Ms Miggins is using an abstract Seduce action and that when she wins she wins and nothing more needs to be said about it.

Calibron wrote:and apparently you hate my idea because it requires some amount of input at various stages of the process.

Since I've looked at it before and realized exactly what sort of volumes and qualities of input that entails. Yes. I do.

And also since you managed another post while I was typing...

OK then, er, no problem, whatever. Its one of my favourite topics so I'll go on endlessly about it any time.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Re: 4E information

Post by JonSetanta »

Don't mind PhoneLobster's pessimism, it doesn't need to be complex at all. His list is bullshit, sorry to say, and we only need to cover vagaries rather than a laundry list of possibilities.
Of course it's an abstraction... this is an RPG.

Anyways, I'll help with what I can, Calibron.

I was thinking of having a series of ratings or ranks for specific social contexts related to groups of behaviors, such as "friendly", "hostile", "kinky", "dominating" and so on.
When the successes roll in (using whatever number system we develop) the appropriate rating in a single situation rises or lowers in accordance.

These social ratings would affect other actions, checks, saves, rolls, etc. as specified by each type. The range could be from -5 to +5, just to sling a number out there.
Friendly +3, for instance, would then give you +3 to checks to get what you want. As long as you don't "mess up" with that specific person or environment, the rating would not change (except with time, when involving groups... the masses move on)
Blunders reduce the rating, negatives mean hostile and prevent you from getting what you want.

For an example of sugaring up the mayor, Diplomacy checks would start "attacking" his professional demeanor and tearing down that those barriers of unfamiliarity.
Bribes would work as a little bonus to your "attack"; check + whatever bonus. ~ Mayor becomes Friendly +1 regarding all further interactions with you.
You make a joke about the local Bard troupe, in an attempt to become "chummy"; turns out the info you gathered earlier was wrong, he happens to like this troupe: Friendly = 0.
But then you tell a tale of how you helped some farmers on the way to his office; he's an altruistic guy and it means a lot to him.... Friendly +2.

And then you make the request. This is where the roleplaying holds more weight, and the numbers less; if the request is outright offensive, Friendly may decrease (possible check).
If successful, Friendly rating stays as it is, and affects all further interactions by providing solid numerical bonuses.

That's all I can think of for now.
In sum, it shouldn't take any longer or shorter in rounds than a Fighter bashing away at a level-appropriate 1v1 challenge using an optimal build.
Hopefully, nearly the same number of rolls with predictable results according to the appropriateness, focus, and variety of social skills your character has, much like certain magic weapons are good for certain tasks and builds.

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by RandomCasualty »

shau at [unixtime wrote:1197170268[/unixtime]]The problem with having a really involved social system, or any sort of skill system, is that there is generally speaking just one guy doing it. If it is just one roll, it is not such a big deal. If it is eighteen roles then everyone but the party face wanders off to play with the wii. One of the bigger problems I had with shadowrun was the hacking stuff taking too long and forcing everyone else to be a spectator.


Yeah, that's another thing I really hate about social skills. Is that they encourage the "Face" role, where one PC does all the talking and the other guys just sit around not having fun.

That sucks in my opinion. It's okay for a rogue to sit there and disarm a trap by his lonesome, but when it's an entire roleplaying scene, which can sometimes take quite a bit of time, having a party face is bullshit.

So yeah, even a well done social combat system would be problematic because people are then playing 3rd edition Shadowrun matrix decking while the rest of the party sits around bored.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by RandomCasualty »

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1197188509[/unixtime]]Don't mind PhoneLobster's pessimism, it doesn't need to be complex at all. His list is bullshit, sorry to say, and we only need to cover vagaries rather than a laundry list of possibilities.


No his list isn't bullshit. In fact it only starts to open up the amount of complexity you'll have to deal with.

Consider just one of his choices:

Borrow an item from the target.

Even this is very vague, and we likely will need to get much granular. Consider all the possible requests under borrowing something.

"Can I bum a cigarette off of you?"
"Can I borrow five dollars?"
"Can I borrow your car for a second?"
"Can you loan me five thousand dollars?"
"Can I borrow your wife for a night of hot sex?"

Yeah, there's going to be a ton of DCs there. You're going to have have to factor in how valuable the item is to the owner, what his relationship is with the person making the request, how trustworthy he feels the person is, and so on. So either it's going to be some crazy complex equation or it's going to be just the DM eyeballing it.

And you really have to write that shit out, because otherwise if you're so vague that the game just turns into "let the DM pick a random DC off the top of his head" then you might as well just let the roleplaying handle it.

Because you've got three choices, either it's completely abstract, where you've got easy, hard, moderate, etc. social DCs. And the DM just assigns a DC arbitrarily. Or you've got a complex system of numbres that you've got to run through. Alternately you've got the D&D system with one static bullshit DC that makes no sense most of the time and breaks the game.

And none of those are as fun as just roleplaying the scene out anyway.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: 4E information

Post by Crissa »

Is combat the same way?

Does BA fight while everyone else sits back and is bored?

-Crissa
Fwib
Knight-Baron
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by Fwib »

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1197093902[/unixtime]]
Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1197079068[/unixtime]]
Wow, and I thought I needed to get laid.


In Crissa's defense, I betcha there isn't one person on the boards right now who couldn't use a good lay.

Seriously, you there. Yes you, the one who's reading my post. If you had the chance to get a lay from someone you found sufficient to lay, and had enough time and energy to do such an act, would you turn them down?

I rest my case.
The quoted post totally needs a way to vote and/or a new thread dedicated just to it.
User avatar
Leress
Prince
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by Leress »

In The Slayers d20 there is a section called Psychological Warfare that deals with fight with words instead of fists.

Psychological attacks
Psychological attacks are carried out as opposed skill checks. The attacking character decides whether he or she hopes to cause confusion, embarrassment, or fear in his or her enemies. The effects desired determines what skills that characters can use.

Code: Select all

Psychological attacks[br][br]Skill, Effect[br][br]Bluff, Confusion[br]Diplomacy, Confusion[br]Intimidate, Fear[br]Taunt*, Embarrassment[br][br]*it's a new skill in slayers that is based off of charisma


The character's skill check is opposed by the target's modified level check (1d20+character level or Hit Die+ target's wisdom modifier). The target may substitute his or her Will save bonus if that is better. If the character's skill check result is higher than his or her opponent's, the target becomes distracted (for bluff or diplomacy checks), shaken (for intimidate), or abashed (for taunt).

Every round, the target may attempt another level check ( or Will save) as a free action. The condition imposed (whether confusion, embarrassment, or fear) remains until the character gets a check result equal to or higher than the result of the psychological attack. Each round, the character gains a +2 cumulative bonus on this check, as long as the character making the psychological attack has stopped. It's more difficult to get over embarrassment if you're still actively being teased.

During appropriate situations, such as when the character's friends, allies, or self are in imminent danger or the source of the attack leave, the GM may grant bonuses to the level check or Will save to over come the attack.

Making any type of psychological attack is a standard action.

CONFUSION
A witty, fast-talking character can cause confusion in his or her enemies using bluff or diplomacy skill checks. There are three states of confusion: distracted, befuddled, and addled (from least to most severe)

A distracted character who becomes subject to a new source of confusion becomes befuddled, instead. Similarly, a befuddle character subject to a new confusion will be addled. The character may make a check against each source of confusion each round to attempt to overcome these conditions.

EMBARRASSMENT
Everybody's sensitive about something. Characters may become embarrassed when put in embarrassing situations. There are three states of embarrassment: abashed, flustered, and mortified (from least to most severe)

An abased character who suffers embarrassment again becomes flustered instead. A previously flustered character become mortified. The character may make a check against each source of embarrassment each round to attempt to overcome these conditions. Characters surrounded by detractors may find themselves quickly mortified and forced to flee the situation to recover their dignity.

Embarrassment damage

Sometimes, you don't want to just embarrass someone. You want to make it really hurt! For times like those, it is possible to cause embarrassment damage. The attacking character makes a Taunt check, as normal, with a -4 penalty. If he or she beats the target's modified level check (or Will save), the target suffers nonlethal damage equal to 1d6+attacker's Charisma modifier.

Embarrassment damage recovers more quickly than other forms of damage, even other nonlethal damage. A character recovers a number of points of embarrassment points equal to his or her character level every minute. A character cannot begin recovering this damage until he or she is no longer embarrassed (abashed, flustered, or mortified)

A target who suffers embarrassment damage becomes abashed as usual. He or she may continue to make checks each round to overcome the embarrassment condition imposed, but this does not affect the embarrassment damage he or she has suffered.

FEAR

Even the bravest adventures feel fear. Characters may succumb to fear when they face dangerous opponents and frightening situations, or when an enemy makes an Intimidate check to bully them. There are three states of fear: shaken, frightened, and panicked

FAINTING

Sometimes, it all just becomes too much to handle. When characters are pushed to their limits, embarrassed or frightened as far as they can go, they may pass out. Any time a character makes a check against fear, a roll of a natural 1 causes the character to faint. He or she becomes unconscious for 1d4+1 rounds.

The GM may decide that characters shouldn't faint that often. In this case, he or she can simply declare that a character will only faint if he or she is already panicked (or cowering) and rolls a natural 1 on a check to recover.

Characters may also faint from embarrassment damage. Any time the character takes enough damage to reduce him or her below 0 hit points, the character becomes unconscious, just as he or she would from any other source of damage. Since characters recover from embarrassment damage faster than from other sources of injury, they do not normally stay unconscious for long.

CONDITION SUMMARY

Psychological warfare cover six conditions. These conditions are explained below.

abased
-2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks

addled
Paralyzed with confusion and can take no actions. An addled character takes -2 penalty to AC and loses his or her dex bonus ( if any)

befuddled
A befuddled character can take only partial actions and takes -2 penalty on all attacks rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

distracted
-2 penalty on all attacks rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

Flustered
A flustered character will try to hide from the source of embarrassment as best they can. If unable, the character will attempt to distract attention away from themselves. A flustered character takes -2 penalty on all attacks rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A flustered character can use special abilities, including spells, to hide or flee; indeed, the character must use such means if they are the only way to find relief.

mortified
A mortified character must drop anything he or she holds and do anything possible to hide or flee (along a random path) from the source of their embarrassment. He or she can't take any other actions. In additions, the character takes -2 penalty on all attacks rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a mortified character cowers and does not attack, typically using a total defense action in combat. A mortified character can use special abilities, including spells to hide or flee; indeed, the character must use such means if they are the only way to find relief.


Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
I want him to tongue-punch my box.
]
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Re: 4E information

Post by JonSetanta »

Yeah that's sort of what I meant, Leress. I've been planning some kind of "emotional status effects" variant but it seems to be more complex than I had first assumed...

Conditions like:
Anger
Joy
Despair
Fear
Confusion (is that an emotion? sure feels like it)
Boredom/Fatigue
Lust/Greed


..should all have numeric effects. Spells and interactions increase or decrease corresponding types in steps.

Let's say the Bard tries to instill a crowd with "Emotion: Confusion" to let her Rogue friend steal stuff.
They make a single check, compare to the crowd's stable DC that has been modified by a single DM roll of 1d6 for that particular encounter, event, hour, or day.
Other mods due to size or bias (against race, class, social rank, appearance, etc) apply, but are minor except for the most difficult crowds... these should be handled as "boss battles" as if in combat.
So, if this Bard successul, the crowd gains "Emotion: Confusion +1" regarding the Bard for the duration of the encounter. This would give the Rogue bonuses on deception.
The Bard can retry and stack more Confusion, or play other emotions, but in response the crowd will try their own "attack" or Sense Motive and eventually the crowd will succeed against the Bard.
If so, the ruse is pierced, the Confusion rating drops (a set, or random amount, or maybe reset to 0?) and any number of things can occur, but most likely the crowd will now gain Emotion: Angry +1 or more.

"Angry" would work like Barbarian rage, adding to attack rolls and damage while reducing AC, and possibly penalties to other checks.

Social HPs may or may not be involved, I can't imagine how that would work at this point.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by Draco_Argentum »

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1197208149[/unixtime]]
Because you've got three choices, either it's completely abstract, where you've got easy, hard, moderate, etc. social DCs.


Since a +/-1 on a d20 is hardly noticable thats fine. Broad categories with quite different DCs is simpler and better than adding a laundry list.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by Username17 »

Anyone else remember Starflight's diplomacy system? You sent a message which was Hostile, Obsequious, or whatever. The aliens would interpret it successfully if your communications skill was high enough and would respond appropriately.

One thing that I think is really a possibilty is to give different characters a different bonuses for different types of actions. I have no problem if the team always send Handsome Rob to attempt to seduce people who need seducing. I have no problem if they always send Krusk to attempt to do the threatening or if it's always Gimble who pleads for mercy.

It's problematic if only one character ends up doing all the talking, but you could plausibly split the standard social roles up somewhat. Wizards mostly end up trying to calm people down because that shit is Intelligence based, while Paladins do all the Leading and Seducing because that is Charisma based. Barbarians threaten people because that's Strength based. That kind of thing.

"Tony? Do something terrible."

-Username17
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by Bigode »

Isn't that sorta solved by not going skimpy on class skill lists (as you haven't), or just erasing the concept of cross-class (which I consider)?

P.S.: are you co-author of the Revised Necromancer Handbook too?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: 4E information

Post by Crissa »

Everyone has a BAB. Why not a BSB, Base Social Bonus?

I like it being level-based, pretty much the same for everyone, modified by stats and situational bonuses.

-Crissa
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 4E information

Post by MrWaeseL »

All barbarians suck at diplomacy!
Post Reply