Anatomy of a Failed Design: Role Protection.

[Maxus]

No one's advocating going on auto-pilot, but they do have a point: Social skills do let someone who's not much of a talker, play someone who can occasionally persuade people of things. And while roleplaying is expected, playing a game in person means you have to verbally describe what you're doing, and that will trip someone up. I'm kind enough to give them a way out.

Heck, I'm not an eloquent speaker myself; I can either construct something elegant, or I can just say what's running through my head. I can think an entire idea or concept in an instant, but have trouble lining up a sentence in my head word-by-word. I do much better with writing, where I can line my thoughts up and nip and tuck here and there.

[Anguirus]

Right but social skills allow an un-charismatic, dull person play a witty charismatic character in a way that they could not were the rules not present. If a weak person can play a strong character, a dumb person can play a smart character, a clumsy person can play a dexterous character, a frail person can play a hardy character and an unwise person can play a wise character then you should let an un-charismatic person fulfill their fantasies too, right?

As a roleplaying game, we have to accept that roleplaying is part of the game and is a skill that will help you possibly win the game. We can give them things to help them out, like give them skills that give them information that helps with social challenges, but I think the game loses a lot if you just give people an "I win" button that takes away the need to roleplay.

And while a dumb person can play a smart character, it doesn't always mean that their character is going to act like a smart person. Obviously, since a dumb PC is in the driver's seat, their character is going to still do stupid things, even if he has 20 intelligence.

If you want a game where characters just go on autopilot and simulate out according to their abilities, then that's not even a game I'm interested in. When I play an RPG, I want to be able to make decisions for my character, and I want to control him. Yes, this does mean that my decisions would probably be less wise than my character with 18 wisdom, but fuck what's the fun in just sitting back and letting the game play itself? If I wanted that, I'd just read a book or watch a movie. I don't want to just say "what does my character think I should do?" everytime I come to a decision, even if my character is smarter than I am.

I came to play a game, and that means I as a player want decisions that challenge me.

Totally valid and defensible position. I'm not even really in favor of using stats and skills like that but the ability to play a character that is better than you are is a virtue of such a system. It comes with inherint faults and, for you and many others, the trade off is too great. That doesn't mean that the virtue isn't there. Personally, I really like the cooperative dynamic of a good rpg and, were I to play a character that was wiser, smarter or more charismatic than me, I would maintain control of my character insofar as the way that he affects the narrative and default to others on how he might do that. So, I would decide who my sweet talking bard chooses to sweet talk and why and then work with the DM and other players to figure out exactly what he might be saying. This gets even easier with intelligence and wisdom because you can simply ask "would my character know -whatever-". Finally, as a DM I will often prompt a player if I feel that they are doing something unwise or ignorant. A friendly "You are aware that -whatever-" is usually helpful.

[Crissa]

I came to play a game, and that means I as a player want decisions that challenge me.

Which makes me wonder why you'd prefer a system in which the guy at your table who bench presses every day gets to have a character who is just stronger than you (because they have a special ability!).

Or are you intending we shouldn't have randomness in our games at all, and determine who wins battles by playing a 9x9 Go board instead of rolling dice?

Because these two are totally what you're saying.

-Crissa

[Username17]

So what's the solution to making strikers suck less ass? Increase their bonus damage to 1d8/1d10 per tier? Adding a stat bonus to damage? Throwing rocks at the 4e devs?

Striker isn't a role, that's your problem.

Pretty much, yeah. We've seen Noob Crusher spinning in hilarious circles trying to explain how "protecting allies" is different from "providing defensive support" in the Defender/Leader question. It's sad really. But the question of the Striker is frankly even sadder. I'm seriously surprised that a 4e fanboi would go there.

Here's the official definition of "Striker" in case anyone forgot:

Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack.

OK, first of all we note that if any other character has more offense than any striker, that the role is busted. But secondly, we note that what they do is just what everyone else does - try to get rid of enemies and try to attack enemies of their choice. Presumably at the cost of some other aspect of the character such as multi-target attacks (tell that to the Warlock and Ranger) or stunlocks (tell that to the Rogue).

So it isn't just that they have blatantly failed to defend the Striker role. They failed to do that the moment that an Orb-Wizard could drop a Cloud of Daggers to auto-kill one or more minions or a Hammer Brother could lay in enough damage to put him on the top of that question. It's that the definition of the striker role is simply "slightly higher numbers at the expense of being less interesting." If they did defend the Striker Role that would be bad, because the Striker role's definition sucks.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

This gets even easier with intelligence and wisdom because you can simply ask "would my character know -whatever-".

Yeah generally I like to have character abilities in such cases to be information gathering, as opposed to actual decision making. So having a good social character might be able to pick up various information from talking to people like "You sense the king may not trust the duke much." or "You saw the king's interest increase alot when money was mentioned."

There are some times in fact when you need to call on character knowledge, but when it comes to decision making, I try to keep the character out of it as much as possible and go right to the player.

Which makes me wonder why you'd prefer a system in which the guy at your table who bench presses every day gets to have a character who is just stronger than you (because they have a special ability!).

Or are you intending we shouldn't have randomness in our games at all, and determine who wins battles by playing a 9x9 Go board instead of rolling dice?

Because these two are totally what you're saying.

No, it's really not. You're making a strawman.

D&D isn't a physical game, so having strength doesn't necessarily equate to strength. If it were a LARP, then having physical ability would help, and indeed in most LARPs, it does.

And while we don't use Go to resolve combats, there is a combat system, and by being good at that combat system, you become more apt to win combats. There is a minigame that you as a player (not a character) can master. Being good at that minigame isn't a character skill, it's a player skill.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's that the definition of the striker role is simply "slightly higher numbers at the expense of being less interesting." If they did defend the Striker Role that would be bad, because the Striker role's definition sucks.

Even more puzzling is the fact that they can't do the numbers right.

Every 'striker' right now should have multiple attacks. They already opened that bottle with the ranger and outright smashed it by giving the ranger minor-action encounter attack powers. But for some stupid-ass reason they don't. They clearly didn't learn their goddamn lesson at all and released two new striker classes, the barbarian and the avenger, whom have one-hit super-high damage and free rerolls respectively.

But you know what? These dumbasses failed to realize that having an extra attack is precisely the same thing as having more accuracy and damage! This is an inexcusable design philosophy for a d20 system because it's quite possible to push these characters off of the RNG. For example, while a really unoptimal ranger might be about even in damage with an avenger, when their Warlord buddy goes 'fuck it' and pops a Lead the Attack on the frost dragon, the ranger gets much more benefit than the avenger. Shit the fuck?!

I mean, really, let's take a look at the warlord. Warlords get more attacks than anyone at higher levels with the exception of really cheesed-out fighters or rangers. Hail of Steel can easily squeeze out 5-6 attacks as an encounter power... and it's not even the best one of it's level! If you pop a Victory Surge, that's easily an extra 10 to 12 attacks over the course of an encounter. Rush of Battle, another 10 to 12 goddamn extra attacks.

Except for Dual Strike, Twin Strike, and certain applications of Tide of Iron melee basic attacks don't do all that less damage than 'real' powers. So the fact that warlords throw them out without even caring is fucking shit. Two Bravura warlords in your party will throw out more attacks--and therefore more damage--than having two of any other striker with the exception of the ranger. And I'd still want Battle Captains over them! You know, in much the same way you'd rather have 6 hours of great sex rather than 5 hours of great sex.

The Striker role is fucking fucked up and shouldn't exist. Rangers seriously outdamage every other non-PMC/half-elf striker by a longshot, avengers become a lot stronger when they ignore all of their powers and look for ways to steal powers off of other folks' lists, rogues and warlocks are much more powerful when they give up on damage and go for stunlocks, and classes like fighters and warlords do way more damage than strikers who are supposedly specced for it.

[Draco_Argentum]

I note that Noobcrusher ignored Parthenon's calm, well written post in order to waste time talking about Roy's jabs.

[Roy]

I note that Noobcrusher ignored Parthenon's calm, well written post in order to waste time talking about Roy's jabs.

Course he did. He also ignored MS. Flailing Dumbfuck is Flailing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know what I love? When I point out that there are no defenders currently published that can really handle more than one or two monsters and that the best tactic for monsters right now is to swarm past the tank and gangbang the weakest member of the team... and I get a bullass response that the DM shouldn't be always playing monsters as this hyper-efficient attack team and that if the DM ROLEplayed and not ROLLplayed things would be balanced.

Because everyone knows that animals like, say, lionesses always target the biggest, beefiest prey animal in the herd to the exclusion of the others.

[Roy]

And if a goddamned CAT can do it, then everything else can.

[Crissa]

RC, it's a combat system with dice. Little numbers on them? Go has no random engine in it.

-Crissa

Now, a Striker, instead of doing more damage, might have abilities which make them able to ignore either various types of tags or a number of tags which would reduce their choice of targets. Like some way to ignore a paladin's mark, or abilities to move across the battlefield with little hindrance. That would be a role.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Having 'more mobility' is not a role nor should it be a function of a role, since every mnobility power published so far for offensive purposes has been inferior to just having a ranged weapon.

[Psychic Robot]

You kind of have to gloss over that, Lago. Everything in 4e is inferior to archer + horse.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, it's a combat system with dice. Little numbers on them? Go has no random engine in it.

That's true, but the randomness in that case serves a purpose. Namely, that purpose is to make it so that people with lower bonuses can even hit people with higher bonuses. But the randomness isn't supposed to be the prime feature of tactical combat, there's supposed to be tactics that you use to really give you an edge. That was one flaw with 4E, is that tactics didn't matter enough. Nobody really cares what power you use or what you do. Just roll your fucking dice and see what happens.

And that's basically what social skills turn roleplaying scenes into. Fuck you and whatever you want to say, just roll the damn dice, because that's what matters.

[Kaelik]

RC, it's a combat system with dice. Little numbers on them? Go has no random engine in it.

That's true, but the randomness in that case serves a purpose. Namely, that purpose is to make it so that people with lower bonuses can even hit people with higher bonuses. But the randomness isn't supposed to be the prime feature of tactical combat, there's supposed to be tactics that you use to really give you an edge. That was one flaw with 4E, is that tactics didn't matter enough. Nobody really cares what power you use or what you do. Just roll your fucking dice and see what happens.

And that's basically what social skills turn roleplaying scenes into. Fuck you and whatever you want to say, just roll the damn dice, because that's what matters.

RC, stop smoking crack. Your claim is that because the social mechanics presented in D&D are bad, if not Rped, then therefore all social mechanics are terrible and all RPing of social situations is good and we should just say stuff.

You are wrong.

A social system could be made that provides diverse options and allows you to figure out a tactically sound approach. Alternatively, you could place an emphasis on "present your argument to the X" and then use dice to determine whether or not he accepts premises that he didn't agree with before, making arguments easier for people smart enough to argue from mostly his premises, or for people who push their diplo up. (Though it should never be auto success of 95%, it should ideally be an actual RNG.)

Notice both these support smart players being good at social situations, that's because I don't think you should reward charismatic bastards in D&D social situations, just like you shouldn't reward strong bastards in D&D fights. Also, "charismatic" usually means good at appealing to emotion, aka fucking loser who is wrong.

[RandomCasualty2]

A social system could be made that provides diverse options and allows you to figure out a tactically sound approach.

Maybe. But I've yet to see one that isn't just: "play chess or something else unrelated to talking and then magically the other guy agrees with you."

The social system also has to adequately model actions and go well hand in hand with the actual dialogue. And thus far I haven't really seen a system.

I don't just want some obscure system, I want one that's going to model NPC motivations and social stats to actually simulate a social scenario. And it better damn well work on PCs as well as NPCs.

[Username17]

Maybe. But I've yet to see one that isn't just: "play chess or something else unrelated to talking and then magically the other guy agrees with you."

RC, it's a fucking game. The choices you make about your character's sword swinging are unrelated to the actual process of hitting a motherfucker with a sword. Then magically you hit and do damage. What is your fucking problem with this setup?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, it's a fucking game. The choices you make about your character's sword swinging are unrelated to the actual process of hitting a motherfucker with a sword. Then magically you hit and do damage. What is your fucking problem with this setup?

Because combat simulates an ongoing combat. People get hit by swords, people get knocked down, people die. And this happens in a specific order and you get a mental picture of what's going on.

Social chess on the other hand is a disconnect from the actual social situation going on. You aren't picturing clever oratories and such, in fact you're not even really sure what's going on, because it's not based on real words or anything that we can visualize. It's just that when social chess ends, suddenly the guy says "I agree with you." We still aren't sure what argument you made that convinced him, we may just know that you did a "misdirection" social argument action followed by an "appeal to reason" and it worked even if that makes no sense in the given social situation.

If we have a social system it should go hand in hand with actual dialogue.

[Username17]

You aren't picturing clever oratories and such, in fact you're not even really sure what's going on, because it's not based on real words or anything that we can visualize. It's just that when social chess ends, suddenly the guy says "I agree with you." We still aren't sure what argument you made that convinced him, we may just know that you did a "misdirection" social argument action followed by an "appeal to reason" and it worked even if that makes no sense in the given social situation.

You aren't picturing clever parries and such, in fact you're not even really sure what's going on, because it's not based on real swords or anything that we can visualize. It's just that when combat chess ends, suddenly the guy says "I surrender." We still aren't sure what attack you made that defeated him, we may just know that you did a "charge" martial combat action followed by a "power attack" and it worked even if that makes no sense in the given combat situation.

There, I fixed it for you. Now STFU. Your special pleading argument is laughable. If you can translate arbitrary choices in a combat minigame to a dynamic story then you can do the same thing for arbitrary choices in a social minigame. Or any other minigame that your game recognizes.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

There, I fixed it for you. Now STFU. Your special pleading argument is laughable. If you can translate arbitrary choices in a combat minigame to a dynamic story then you can do the same thing for arbitrary choices in a social minigame. Or any other minigame that your game recognizes.

Ok then... let me see you actually do it.

Thus far I see a lot of people talking out their ass about the fact that social mechanics can be made to work, yet I have yet to actually see it. Without it turning into some random bullshit that has nothing to do with talking and is instead just playing chess.

And I want a system that's going to allow for gradual victories. So you can convince the king to pay you more for a quest, but you can't convince him to hand over his kingdom for nothing.

[Roy]

[TarkisFlux]

Wait RC, you want mechanics that have to do with actual real talking and points being made and don't reduce to just playing chess, but you don't take issue with combat completely ignoring the finer points of an actual fight and does reduce to just a game of chess? Is the social mini-game really that privileged in your eyes? Srsly?

This is as close as I can get to meeting your goal, it just requires me to leave the system tossed around in the rest of the thread behind: Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. Let's see... You can use it as a straight chess game + required speaking (it's in the rules that you must speak the part of the move you're using). If you don't like that, it includes rules for making a free-form argument, where what you say determines which social move you have used against your opponent, and thus what dice you roll to determine effect. The setup includes a system where people can't be forced to accept initial terms that they find objectionable and the results determination pretty much ensure that the winning party will have to compromise at the end, not getting everything they wanted.

I think that pretty much covers what you wanted to see, with the talking and the mechanics and the gradual victories. My largely ignored attempt to port it to d20 from it's original dice pool setup can be found in IMOI here if you want to see it applied in a different context.

[Kaelik]

Thus far I see a lot of people talking out their ass about the fact that combat mechanics can be made to work, yet I have yet to actually see it. Without it turning into some random bullshit that has nothing to do with fighting and is instead just playing chess.

And I want a system that's going to allow for different challenge levels. So you can beat the ogre, but you can't kill the epic dragon.

We can do this all day. The fact of the matter is that the fighting system doesn't reward being strong or dexterous, it rewards being smart. And a good social system isn't going to reward whomever can fast talk the DM the best, it's going to reward the smart person who uses the 'mechanics' of logical patterns to convince someone else.

No RC, you don't get to be a better speaker then the person playing the bard just because he's an ostracized nerd and you are both smart and charismatic. (Obviously those adjectives only refer to you in a hypothetical, sense. Though you may actually be really charismatic, it might explain why you think forcefully restating the same bullshit is going to change anyone's mind.)

[koz]

RC, for all your whining about how things don't work, I have yet to see one ounce of design work from you. Until I do, I will not take a single thing you say with a single ounce of credibility, because unlike people who are actually trying to fix things, all you can do is whine about how other people are Doing It Wrong(TM).

Basically, put up or shut up, because I, for one, am sick of hearing your unfounded bullshit. If you think it can be done better, DO IT YOUR-FUCKING-SELF.

[Roy]

What I want to know, is why the fucking fuckity fuck is RC being a 4.Failtard?