Quick fixes to improve 4e playability

[RandomCasualty2]

The correct solution's a tiered (e.g. wish) economy, not smashing verisimilitude by trying to ban work, craft and mining.

The problem with a tiered economy is that it just ends up turning into a railroad game even worse than trying to limit money making opportunities. I mean, if you're going to say "Yeah you can do that, but it's worthless to you." then you might as well just say "no" in the first place.

And the wish economy still has lots of problems like the fact that item crafters can still craft infinitely with infinite gold, just people who want to buy items get hosed. So it's great for casters, but kicks fighters in the balls.

I don't really feel like a tiered economy helps much, because it's going to be impossible to segregate everything. I mean even in the wish economy, you can still hire and infinite number of mercenaries if you want. And having thousands of archers armed with +1 bows (also infinite in the wish economy) is going to be about as deadly as the mob of peasants in 4E.

Once again you're taking cheap labor and equipping them with cheap weapons, it's just that now you're playing wish economy cheap instead of standard economy cheap. But the fact remains that you've still got effectively infinite guys to throw around. I just don't see how it has improved the situation much. In fact, it likely makes the situation worse.

Basically the only difference is that now whenever the fighter wants something you've built in an economy that tells him to go fuck himself, while the wizard gets to item craft to his heart's delight.

[Bigode]

The problem with a tiered economy is that it just ends up turning into a railroad game even worse than trying to limit money making opportunities. I mean, if you're going to say "Yeah you can do that, but it's worthless to you." then you might as well just say "no" in the first place.

No. Saying the profitting stuff exists and works makes the setting make sense. And PCs will figure "I won't do it, it doesn't really pay" eventually, and exactly that will explain why they're actually adventurers. You see, two problems solved.

And the wish economy still has lots of problems like the fact that item crafters can still craft infinitely with infinite gold, just people who want to buy items get hosed. So it's great for casters, but kicks fighters in the balls.

Except fighters are crafters. And I personally would have everyone be.

I don't really feel like a tiered economy helps much, because it's going to be impossible to segregate everything. I mean even in the wish economy, you can still hire and infinite number of mercenaries if you want. And having thousands of archers armed with +1 bows (also infinite in the wish economy) is going to be about as deadly as the mob of peasants in 4E.

And Frank's always talked about auto-hit 20s being an ass idea (I use exploding 20s personally).

Once again you're taking cheap labor and equipping them with cheap weapons, it's just that now you're playing wish economy cheap instead of standard economy cheap. But the fact remains that you've still got effectively infinite guys to throw around. I just don't see how it has improved the situation much. In fact, it likely makes the situation worse.

Yeah, let's see the peasant army kill an actual (i.e. 3.x) white dragon.

Basically the only difference is that now whenever the fighter wants something you've built in an economy that tells him to go fuck himself, while the wizard gets to item craft to his heart's delight.

See above. And yeah, I know what I said about everyone crafting and 20s are my thoughts, but might that figure into the Tomes being unfinished work, because they do figure into the authors' personal opinions.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The hybrid approach I was talking about splits this up to where the face-to-face roleplaying represents what is said and the die roll represents how well it is said. You don't have to swing a sword in person to demonstrate your character's skill in combat, so you shouldn't have to be silver-tongued in person to play a character who is that way in the game world.

It's the same age old argument of challenging players versus challenging characters. If you just say that roleplaying is a skill that people need to know to be good at social encounters I don't really see a problem.

But then I tend to be one of those player challenge DMs. I will commonly give my PCs riddles and puzzles that the players have to solve, not the characters. While certain abilities may help them do so, they can't just say "I make an intelligence check to get the right answer."

That's just boring in my mind. And the same is true of "I make a diplomacy check so I can win the scene."

That's just not the sort of gaming I enjoy, and most of my players would agree.

So do you make your players fence with you to resolve melee combats? Pull out a flamethrower to see if a player's character can withstand a red dragon's breath? Of course not, because that would be unethical even if you can get your hands on a flamethrower. So when you talk about "challenging players instead of characters," you're really saying that *some* things should challenge the player while other things are free to simply challenge the character. Given that RPGs are all about playing "let's pretend," I don't see this as a good approach to generic fantasy gaming.

Basically, we both agree that most social challenges shouldn't be solved by just a die roll, but we have different reasons for that belief. For example, I would allow the riddle to be solved by an Int check if the players, after racking their brains for a while, can't come up with the answer (or at least give the party wizard and his ungodly Int a chance). Fantasy gaming also allows people to play characters who are smarter than they are, and that's cool.

And again, your willingness to throw out an entire mechanical framework because of the most extreme example given still mystifies me.

It's more than just the extreme example. Even something more mundane like being able to talk down a merchant to 50% price. I'm not sure if that's an ability I even want in my game, because it's incredibly potent and has no inherent risk, so you can try it anytime you want.

My point was that you could use that mechanical framework and just add a provision that certain "ridiculous" things don't happen even if you beat an absurd DC. Whether your idea of "ridiculous" is trading castles for string or negotiating *really* deep discounts doesn't invalidate the point.

Furthermore, I'm not sure trading a castle for string is a good example of a pure diplomacy check. Presumably, such an attempt would also involve a Bluff check to convince the target that the string is more valuable than it appears (like, perhaps that it's actually a piece of a legendary hero's bowstring).

You're talking about an elaborate scam here that's going to take way more than just a few checks. If you're going to give an entire castle for a piece of string, you're going to want more than someone's word on it. You are going to want your wizards (or at least a reputable wizard) to check it out and make sure that this magic string actually has real power. NOw if the PCs can get a great ruse going to fool all those things, then sure maybe they can do it. But a bluff check and a diplomacy check alone? Not a chance.

So we both agree that it's more than a diplomacy check. I'm fine with that.

[RandomCasualty2]

So do you make your players fence with you to resolve melee combats?

No but I do make them come up with their own tactics in combat. I don't let them make an intelligence check to figure out the best spell to cast for instance. Obviously D&D is a game of mental but not physical challenges. Combat can be an engaging mental challenge for the player because of the tactics involved.

My point was that you could use that mechanical framework and just add a provision that certain "ridiculous" things don't happen even if you beat an absurd DC. Whether your idea of "ridiculous" is trading castles for string or negotiating *really* deep discounts doesn't invalidate the point.

Which is basically what 4E does. You get out of a social encounter whatever the DM deems reasonable, and the DC is whatever the DM deems reasonable.

[virgil]

Which is magic teaparty land, where the player has little input, only being able to do what the DM has decided upon ahead of time unless he can brown-nose properly to the DM's preferred RP-style.

Things can work better, but that's the same territory as benevolent dictatorships, highly dependent on the person in power.

Frankly, that's about as bad as 3E.

Functional guidelines for social capability need to be given, and one needs to be aware that people "who could sell sand to an Arab" can potentially exist at a certain mythical level, otherwise we wouldn't have phrases like that. And 3E most certainly contains that level of power, as almost all Greek heroes can fit in the pre-10th level range.

[RandomCasualty2]

Which is magic teaparty land, where the player has little input, only being able to do what the DM has decided upon ahead of time unless he can brown-nose properly to the DM's preferred RP-style.

Yeah absolutely it is.

But I still prefer it to 3E where NPCs are mindless drones without motivations or personalities.

Functional guidelines for social capability need to be given, and one needs to be aware that people "who could sell sand to an Arab" can potentially exist at a certain mythical level, otherwise we wouldn't have phrases like that. And 3E most certainly contains that level of power, as almost all Greek heroes can fit in the pre-10th level range.

Well people can exist that sell sand to stupid Arabs. But you shouldn't ever get to the point where you're diplomatically raping people of your relative power level. Cause while the average peasant is a moron and should be able to be exploited and tricked by a skilled negotiator, the guy running the magic item shop or the king is certainly not, and they should be pretty much strong enough to resist that sort of trickery unless it's very well pulled off.

So you can sell your magic beanstalk beans to Farmer Bill and he may give you his prized horse for them, but the King is just too smart to fall for that ruse.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

So do you make your players fence with you to resolve melee combats?

No but I do make them come up with their own tactics in combat. I don't let them make an intelligence check to figure out the best spell to cast for instance. Obviously D&D is a game of mental but not physical challenges. Combat can be an engaging mental challenge for the player because of the tactics involved.

So in my hybrid method of running social encounters, the face-to-face roleplay is the equivalent of combat tactics and the social skill is the equivalent of the player's sword or offensive spell. The kind of combat you've described (the way anybody would run combat) contains both player-challenging and character-challenging components. Why should other aspects of the game challenge only the player?

My point was that you could use that mechanical framework and just add a provision that certain "ridiculous" things don't happen even if you beat an absurd DC. Whether your idea of "ridiculous" is trading castles for string or negotiating *really* deep discounts doesn't invalidate the point.

Which is basically what 4E does. You get out of a social encounter whatever the DM deems reasonable, and the DC is whatever the DM deems reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There's a difference between having the DM put reasonable limits on a mechanical system and replacing any kind of system with "whatever the DM deems reasonable."

[virgil]

Oh, raping people of your level shouldn't exist at any level conflict, be it combat/social/etc, I agree. Once you're at the level where you can kill them without trying, then you should be able to buy their homes in exchange for...*turns around with a pair of scissors*...TWO pieces of dirty string!

As for the king being too smart for such, you fail to consider the noticeable amount of source material where kings are readily fooled into all sorts of things.

[Draco_Argentum]

If the king is a gimp you can bet the country is run from behind the scenes by someone who isn't. Either that or the king will get booted soon. I'm cool with the PCs doing that.

[RandomCasualty2]

Oh, raping people of your level shouldn't exist at any level conflict, be it combat/social/etc, I agree. Once you're at the level where you can kill them without trying, then you should be able to buy their homes in exchange for...*turns around with a pair of scissors*...TWO pieces of dirty string!

As for the king being too smart for such, you fail to consider the noticeable amount of source material where kings are readily fooled into all sorts of things.

No I don't fail to see it, I just say that those kings aren't really D&D king material. If you're a D&D king, you've got to be pretty hardcore.

[Voss]

Or surround yourself with people who are hardcore and loyal, or hardcore and using you. Neither is exactly rare in D&D land. Daddy could have been hardcore, and slapped some up and coming adventurers with a geas to protect the crown prince.

Heirs that suck is such a consistently huge part of history, myth and fantasy that it shouldn't just be tossed out because of a failure of imagination.

[RandomCasualty2]

Heirs that suck is such a consistently huge part of history, myth and fantasy that it shouldn't just be tossed out because of a failure of imagination.

I'm not saying toss is out. I'm just saying that it's the exception not the rule. An exception that the DM specifically has to write into the adventure by making the king low level.

The idea that one king might be vulnerable is fine. The idea that you can do it to every king is bad for the game.

Pretty much NPCs should have some kind of "gullible idiot" tag that you can put on them if you want them to be vulnerable to this sort of stupidity.

[JonSetanta]

Heirs that suck is such a consistently huge part of history, myth and fantasy that it shouldn't just be tossed out because of a failure of imagination.

A great example is the whiny, musical prince in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
Talk about a disappointment in the family line.

[Voss]

Heirs that suck is such a consistently huge part of history, myth and fantasy that it shouldn't just be tossed out because of a failure of imagination.

I'm not saying toss is out. I'm just saying that it's the exception not the rule.

Actually, no it isn't. Most rulers are mediocre. The competent ones are rare, and extremely effective ones even more so. Incompetent butt-monkeys are a dime a dozen.

[RandomCasualty2]

Actually, no it isn't. Most rulers are mediocre. The competent ones are rare, and extremely effective ones even more so. Incompetent butt-monkeys are a dime a dozen.

In real life, yeah. But not so much in Fantasy.

If you've got a sorcerer king or a warrior king or what not, he tends to be pretty awesome. Generally when there is a shit king, he's already being manipulated by someone.

And even some of the shitty kings like Denethor in Lord of the Rings, is still pretty bull headed and tough to convince, he's just pretty much insane. horrible ruler, but you're going to have difficulty convincing him of anything. I mean Gandalf couldn't even convince him that Faramir was still alive. So just because you're a ruler doesn't mean you're automatically easy to manipulate.

More often than not, many kings become absorbed with their own awesomeness and are difficult to convince that they're wrong. It's usually a staple of fantasy that stupid kings tend to be stupid AND stubborn.

The only real foolish ruler that I can think of is the emperor's new clothes, but that's less of a real story and more just a parable to teach people to be skeptical towards people lying to you.

[virgil]

A large number of stories involve rulers being fairly readily manipulated, it's a trope even.

If your players are going to be movers and shakers of any note, then they're going to be able to manipulate a portion of the already established power; unless you decide to cockblock them by having the world filled with lots of powerful people, in which case it's going to be safe long enough for the characters to take some extended downtime and earn 10x minimum wage for awhile for a boost in gear.

[RandomCasualty2]

A large number of stories involve rulers being fairly readily manipulated, it's a trope even.

Sure but that takes time to earn his trust. I mean it wasn't like Wormtongue just randomly walked up to the king and started convincing him of things.

The main problem isn't so much that people want to influence important people, but more so that they expect to do it instantly. If you spend weeks or months earning the king's trust, then sure, maybe you can manipulate him. But some random guy off the street? Very doubtful. It's more the speed at which diplomacy works that makes it so unrealistic, and the fact that ir requires no prior history or good reasoning at all.

Political oriented plots take a long time to set up.

[Voss]

Actually, no it isn't. Most rulers are mediocre. The competent ones are rare, and extremely effective ones even more so. Incompetent butt-monkeys are a dime a dozen.

In real life, yeah. But not so much in Fantasy.

You need to stop saying things that illustrate how wrong you are.

For your one example, heres 3 off the top of my head.

Eddings, Elenium- 6 weak kings, 1 strong queen, 2 weak religious leaders
Jordan, Wheel of not-ending-till-the-author-drops-dead. Kings and queens literally used as puppets by the magic types. They also manipulate the living hell out of each other. (Both rulers and magic types)
Martin- The Who's Who of Weak Rulers.

[MartinHarper]

One problem with Diplomacy in both editions: in real life there are people with something like a -20 to Sense Motive, because they're just that clueless. Diplomacy too.

Quick fix (since it's that thread):

Skill Blur [Flaw]
You gain -10 to a skill of your choice. In addition, you no longer add half your level as a bonus to it.
Special: if you ever complain about having to roll a check against this skill, you lose the flaw and its associated feat at your next extended rest.

[RiotGearEpsilon]

That is a truly hilarious flaw.

[RandomCasualty2]

Eddings, Elenium- 6 weak kings, 1 strong queen, 2 weak religious leaders
Jordan, Wheel of not-ending-till-the-author-drops-dead. Kings and queens literally used as puppets by the magic types. They also manipulate the living hell out of each other. (Both rulers and magic types)
Martin- The Who's Who of Weak Rulers.

Haven't read any of those so I can't really say.

Still I doubt any of those guys would trade a castle for a piece of string to some random guy that walked off the street.

[virgil]

Assuming that the system was made so that it didn't happen at 5th level and scaled better so it wouldn't work so well on his peers, this would be the kind of character that legends are made, as the man with The Voice.

Someone so persuasive that he can convince the Penitent Templars to desecrate their altars and begin a reign of terror in his name, someone of such charisma that even in the guise of a leper he can make the Lord of the Roaming Dune give up his fortune for a handful of sand brought before him (and no actual powers attributed to such sand). A man whose reputation precedes him, and those of his peers (even if not themselves persuasive) can tell his nature and know not to let him speak for more than a handful of seconds.

I couldn't allow him to debate with you Superman. Entering a conversation with a level nine intelligence is more dangerous than any death trap. My calculations were that he could have talked you into suicide within fourteen minutes.

[Kaelik]

Eddings, Elenium- 6 weak kings, 1 strong queen, 2 weak religious leaders
Jordan, Wheel of not-ending-till-the-author-drops-dead. Kings and queens literally used as puppets by the magic types. They also manipulate the living hell out of each other. (Both rulers and magic types)
Martin- The Who's Who of Weak Rulers.

Haven't read any of those so I can't really say.

Still I doubt any of those guys would trade a castle for a piece of string to some random guy that walked off the street.

Actually in Song of Ice and Fire, the first Lannister literally traded absolutely nothing for lordship of a castle and the surrounding gold mines.

And then of course there are the current rulers.

Wheel of Endless Time has had more then a few thrones traded for promises of future gains, or just handed to a stranger.

[RandomCasualty2]

Assuming that the system was made so that it didn't happen at 5th level and scaled better so it wouldn't work so well on his peers, this would be the kind of character that legends are made, as the man with The Voice.

Someone so persuasive that he can convince the Penitent Templars to desecrate their altars and begin a reign of terror in his name, someone of such charisma that even in the guise of a leper he can make the Lord of the Roaming Dune give up his fortune for a handful of sand brought before him (and no actual powers attributed to such sand). A man whose reputation precedes him, and those of his peers (even if not themselves persuasive) can tell his nature and know not to let him speak for more than a handful of seconds.

The main problem here is that this guy isn't a team player. Once you're that powerful, basically your social ability is no longer a support function, but is basically running the entire show.

The rest of the party basically just sits around watching his awesomeness while he rules the world.

Also, I believe that if such a PC can exist, an NPC should exist too. So there should be some guy who can do that thing to the PCs as well.

Neither of these seem particularly fun, I really wonder if the diplomancer is even a character concept that should be made viable in the first place. He just doesn't seem conducive to a good game, not as a villain and not as a PC.

[ubernoob]

Diplomacy doesn;t work on PCs.