Make everyone decent at the social minigame or get rid of it

[Grek]

It is the other way around, Moxie is the tohit.

[mean_liar]

Default skill bonuses are NOT related specifically to attributes.

You do not NEED attributes to have default difficulties and bonuses for untrained skill checks.

Making that mistake is a simple case of just not realizing there is anything in the world different to D&D 3.X and the various systems that do it that way largely just because for a while it was fashionable.

All that attributes as default skills give you... is all the problems people already mentioned. My Barbarian and someone elses god damn Sorcerer have both never ever been in a city or interacted with civilization yet the sorcerer gets a +6 better "Gather Information/Street Wise" type skill check than me ? Just because? Fuck that shit.

No if you recognize attributes themselves as a bad thing then attributes as "default skills" are also A BAD THING for the exact same reasons.

You're assuming too much, and assuming that whatever system you're using is inherently based on DnD - specifically for your strawman example of Charisma.

Frankly, you're going to need a default for whatever isn't on the sheet; either the task has a definite pre-defined category of skill that covers what you're attempting (and therefore might as well be an attribute), or you don't have a pre-defined skill and you just make it up on the spot.

At some point you're going to stop adding new skills. Some folks will think your list is too long and is overly exhaustive; others will think it too short and reductive. Attributes are a shorthand way to generate some expectations of what default values you have without piecing together your entire concept.

Really, the game and its interaction with its genre should determine attributes and their role more than anything. Should Attractiveness really be split from Allure? Does Agility need to be separated from Manual Dexterity? Does performing that split, or replacing them each with a litany of skills add to the gaming experience or is it designer wankery?

I can tell you in a Street Fighter game you're going to have different expectations than if you were playing a street-level Shadowrun game, and to simply say that, "attributes have no place in a good design" is assuming a level of sophistication in the game that may not add to its playability or verisimilitude.

Based on what you wrote it seems to me that your main complaint isn't about attributes, its about how attributes and skills relate in DnD with regard to class capabilities.

[PhoneLobster]

Attributes are a shorthand way to generate some expectations of what default values you have without piecing together your entire concept.

No they aren't you chump. they actually DO piece together your entire concept, in very large often unrelated chunks. That's the problem you seem to have missed the entire point of the thread.

Based on what you wrote it seems to me that your main complaint isn't about attributes, its about how attributes and skills relate in DnD with regard to class capabilities.

No. You wrote, in a conversation complaining largely about how attributes like charisma hurt the d20 barbarian, that using attributes as default skills, is a good thing.

The entire complaint that started it was because some asshole somewhere designed d20 with attributes that acted as large contributors to and defaults for various sets of skills, and how that punishes a wide range of character concepts often for no freaking good reason.

Saying "Yes that is what it does isn't it great!" is NOT really addressing the problem. Saying "Well if you make the genre design choice that you WANT to punish those guys in those ways that isn't a problem." is also largely dishonest and stupid.

[mean_liar]

PhoneLobster - your tone is lousy and makes productive conversation difficult.

Attributes are a shorthand way to generate some expectations of what default values you have without piecing together your entire concept.

No they aren't you chump. they actually DO piece together your entire concept, in very large often unrelated chunks. That's the problem you seem to have missed the entire point of the thread.

They actually don't piece your entire concept together. That's a system-dependent thing.

For example, an attribute system with a generous allotment of skill points and broad skill categories actually has few defaults, but those defaults could be there, design-wise, to prevent having an exhaustive skill list.

In such an example, you don't have your character solely defined by their attributes. I'd expand that and say that you can have similar situations depending on the resolution mechanism employed and how skill points are bought.

You didn't really respond to that from my previous post, but if you're just going to throw out a blanket statement that ignores it in favor of making an insult then please don't bother.

I am interested in what you think about the tension between granularity and defaulting. At some point you're going to either need a skill for everything or broad default categories... and how those default categories relate to attributes is worth exploring if you're going to assume that all attribute systems are junk.

To expand on that, since you attempted to respond to that point but missed it. You had made a blanket statement that attribute systems are lousy. I thought that was an overly reductive thing to say and pointed out you were missing a lot of nuance. Then you called me a chump?

When I was discussing genre expectations, it wasn't to point out that certain concepts should be necessarily limiting - it was that in some games you don't care about having a high degree of simulationism. To go back to the example I used, in Shadowrun or another gritty game you probably want to distinguish between, say, physical running speed and your hand-eye coordination. However, in a game like Street Fighter you really don't care about most things other than beating the crap out of people and an exhaustive skill list doesn't add to the game: you just want to roll some dice, come up with an appropriate description for the results and move on.

The more simulationist the game, I imagine that you'd want more and more skills. The more fast-paced, I would assume the opposite. There's nothing inherently wrong about attributes in a resolution system, but they need to jive with the genre expectations. Being completely unable to effectively make a charming Fighter in DnD is a good example of a bad design, but that bad example doesn't prove that all attribute systems are inherently flawed.

...


I think even within DnD you actually could have a workable system without much effort. I see a few basic problems with it:

1) There aren't enough skill points to go around. An INT 6 orc will never learn to swim, climb or jump effectively?

2) The skill choices are too restricted. Not being able to ever effectively play a charming Fighter is a pointless restriction.

3) The concept of giving certain roles an advantage over others isn't inherently bad, but in DnD its made bad by the obviating of the physical skills by magic in addition to the 2 points above. Spider Climb, Water Breathing, Jump and similar spells, not to mention Fly, make being physically proficient pointless.

[PhoneLobster]

but if you're just going to throw out a blanket statement that ignores it in favor of making an insult then please don't bother.

Sorry but your entire waffling post about nothing indicates that that is the only real possible response. I used the word "chump" because I was in a good mood and refrained from swearing at you repeatedly and calling you an idiot for making a shallow, largely irrelevant and entirely stupid argument about attributes, which you continue to do.

Also you keep thinking I declared that all attribute systems are junk. Because you are an idiot. I did not do so, I simply pointed out that you are not actually making a defense against the criticism leveled against them by Lago. YOU ARE JUST SENSELESSLY WAFFLING.

simulationist

And that word right there indicates to me a pretty good explanation for why your posts are irrelevant valueless inane waffle. You show signs that you may well ascribe to some very silly RPG design philosophies when that word starts popping up.

I think even within DnD you actually could have a workable system without much effort. I see a few basic problems with it:

1) There aren't enough skill points to go around. An INT 6 orc will never learn to swim, climb or jump effectively?

2) The skill choices are too restricted. Not being able to ever effectively play a charming Fighter is a pointless restriction.

3) The concept of giving certain roles an advantage over others isn't inherently bad, but in DnD its made bad by the obviating of the physical skills by magic in addition to the 2 points above. Spider Climb, Water Breathing, Jump and similar spells, not to mention Fly, make being physically proficient pointless.

You continue to entirely miss the point.

Almost none of that is the problem that makes Charisma a dump stat and fighters crap at social skills.

Skill defaulting and the use of attributes as a broad contributor to varied skills, and indeed varied anything is what causes it.

That and some generously screwed up "combat for social" trade offs.

So anyway, you could fix every one of the basic "problems" you perceive with a magical perfect Technicolor "simulationist genre" wand and you know what?

Lago's Barbarian STILL has to keep his mouth shut at negotiations. Because he STILL gets harshly penalized in social skills by various aspects of his career path, he still can't have good Charisma, he still doesn't get any useful social powers or maneuvers while sorcerers and wizards and clerics and junk DO just get those things in addition to being as effective or more so than the barbarian is in combat and everything else besides.

You are sitting there wanking over attributes as a default for untrained skill actions, a genuinely marginal issue at best, and I don't care jack which way you fall on it, you haven't actually "Made Everyone Good at the Social Minigame or Gotten Rid of It" regardless of whether you roll diplomacy and intimidation together, change their attribute, separate them out into more detailed skills, or divorce them entirely from charisma.

You are mostly just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, and it I for one find it annoying.

[mean_liar]

Ah. I see.

It's the Gaming Den. It's assumed that DnD is not a great system. I thought we had moved past that and I was attempting to expand the bounds of discussion.

Seriously. This is what I wrote, in response to a statement that Attributes systems were inherently poor (I think by ckafrica?):

It's the Defaulting that makes Attributes a convenient idea.

Seriously, if you have ever played the Window system for any length of time you can end up with a laundry list of skills to cover the various nuances to the character.

Now, the Window sucks and I hate it, but that's not the point. The point is that at times, you can accept a bit of zooming out on some issues to keep things tight.

It's pretty clear I'm not talking about DnD at this point and am discussing attributes and defaults and system design.

However, your response was this:

Default skill bonuses are NOT related specifically to attributes.

You do not NEED attributes to have default difficulties and bonuses for untrained skill checks.

Making that mistake is a simple case of just not realizing there is anything in the world different to D&D 3.X and the various systems that do it that way largely just because for a while it was fashionable.

So, I'm clearly not talking about DnD, and I'm clearly talking about how having default anything is somehow related to what most systems call attributes. It's OT for sure but its relevant to the statement that attributes aren't necessary.

You never really address why using attributes as a short-hand for defaulting is inherently bad but your posting seems to indicate its a foregone conclusion. I don't really know why you'd have that conclusion and you don't really spend much effort to detail it out, but it does seem to be the reason why you think being belligerent is an effective communication tool.

Then there's this:

1) There aren't enough skill points to go around. An INT 6 orc will never learn to swim, climb or jump effectively?

2) The skill choices are too restricted. Not being able to ever effectively play a charming Fighter is a pointless restriction.

So anyway, you could fix every one of the basic "problems" you perceive with a magical perfect Technicolor "simulationist genre" wand and you know what?

Lago's Barbarian STILL has to keep his mouth shut at negotiations.

This is a patently bizarre thing to say, since if you give the classes more skill points to spend and expand their options so that, say, every class has Profession, Craft, and at least one social skill, then you actually have addressed the fact that the barbarian doesn't need to keep quiet at negotiations, because now they can take Bluff, or Diplomacy, or Profession: Negotiator, or whatever. By third level they can take 10 for a 15, which is a decent benchmark for basic competence. They don't need to put their skills there but they can; at that point if a character sucks at socializing then that's the player's fault, not the system's.

I don't understand how you could read what I wrote and then have your conclusion.

You completely misunderstood my posts, got angry, and then decided to shit everywhere.

...

FUCK CHUMP GODDAMN ANNOYING STUPID WHAT THE FUCK YOU LIKE GAY NAZIS WUT.

I can't believe you said you'd blow the Pope.

[Username17]

Skill defaulting and the use of attributes as a broad contributor to varied skills, and indeed varied anything is what causes it.

Uh huh. So the "problem" is that different characters are differently good at tertiary tasks? You just lost like almost everyone. Allowing different characters to be differently good at tertiary tasks is like the entire point of having a system more complicated than Munchhausen.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

FUCK CHUMP GODDAMN ANNOYING STUPID WHAT THE FUCK YOU LIKE GAY NAZIS WUT.

I can't believe you said you'd blow the Pope.

Well said.

[RandomCasualty2]

Just having a social stat instantly creates situations where people should keep their mouth shut. Because by having the stat, you're making some people good at it, and some people not good at it. I honestly don't care if that stat happens to be "charisma" or "diplomacy" or a combination of the two.

The moment you make one character's social number bigger than another character, there's really not much incentive for the other characters to talk.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The moment you make one character's social number bigger than another character, there's really not much incentive for the other characters to talk.

There are any number of set-ups where that's not necessarily true. If everyone can try without their failure spilling into other people, that would avoid that problem. Or if you're on a clock and the face doesn't have time to talk to everyone you need to convince, then you give him the most important meeting and send less competent people to less important meetings; sure, they might fail, but it's better odds than not showing up.

[PhoneLobster]

The moment you make one character's social number bigger than another character, there's really not much incentive for the other characters to talk.

Pretty much exactly, but oh no, if you waffle on for ages on end about leaning more toward charisma or more toward diplomacy, that will change everything.

I don't understand how you could read what I wrote and then have your conclusion.

Because you are fucking stupid. Because giving people some extra skill points will NOT make them spend them on diplomacy unless you give them maximum ranks in everything or FORCE everyone to spend maximum ranks in diplomacy.

Because the guy with the low charisma as part of his career path is STILL the guy punished by the system, still the guy less likely to invest skill ranks in the social game and STILL the guy who sits down and shuts the fuck up before he screws the pooch every time the social game starts.

As long as there is some portion of the investment in social skills that can be spent on ANYTHING else, and as long as there is another character who will get more out of making that investment you end up with party face and the silent barbarian. You don't fix that by giving more opportunities for the silent barbarian to dump diplomacy for other options.

Uh huh. So the "problem" is that different characters are differently good at tertiary tasks? You just lost like almost everyone.

Didn't say it was bad Frank, just pointed out that was the way it was. He is claiming that by tweaking the balance of broad attribute contributions, in REALLY inane an minor ways, all these problems, "poof vanish!".

Because he thinks, hey, yeah that is the way it is, but if you make incredibly cosmetic changes, it isn't!

[Lago PARANOIA]

Or if you're on a clock and the face doesn't have time to talk to everyone you need to convince, then you give him the most important meeting and send less competent people to less important meetings; sure, they might fail, but it's better odds than not showing up.

I hate eigen plots and you should, too.

But my objection to the whole thing wasn't a mechanical or participation rejection (though D&D does have this problem), it's a roleplaying objection. While in theory athletics would get your character just as much spotlight as diplomacy, the problem is that in heroic fantasy being good at running around in the fields just isn't as exciting or interesting as manipulating politics. You can't squeeze as many stories out of someone climbing a mountain hardcore as you can with someone navigating the royal courts; an unathletic wizard gets locked out of fewer potential stories than a dumbass barbarian.

[Caedrus]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... ForAquaman

Just saying.

[Ice9]

So wait PL, what exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that every roll for every character of a given level should be the same number? Because that's what it looks like you're saying. After all, skills "make one character's social number bigger than another character" as much as attributes do, and apparently that's bad.

Now personally, that sounds like a piece-of-crap system. Why don't we just flip a coin to see whether you succeed at any given task then? The whole point of a detailed system is that a given character will be better at some tasks than others, and that some characters will be better than others at a given task.


Now my take on how to "fix" the social minigame would be one of two ways, depending on how significant it's supposed to be:

A) Not significant - like a ranger finding tracks. It's resolved in one or two rolls and less than five minutes. Quite possibly only one character is even good at it, which is fine because it's just a minor sidebar. Now you can still have roleplayed-out conversations, but anyone can talk in those, and you still just have the one roll made by one person.

B) Significant - like combat. There should be more than one relevant roll, and different characters are good at different of those rolls. Might be best served by looking at a "social combat" from a larger perspective, where the actual conversation with the target is only one aspect, the others being things like gathering information beforehand, building up support, handling fallout, and so forth.

[PhoneLobster]

Are you saying that every roll for every character of a given level should be the same number?

Now personally, that sounds like a piece-of-crap system.

In the example of the system in D&D that is largely what you have. And having a party face indeed further creates that effect as everyone's number may as well be his number since they just say "I let him talk".

There is frankly a LOT you need to do to fix 3.x's social system.

To make the Barbarian good at social he needs social options that are interesting, useful, and not something he has to pay off by weakening his potential combat power to achieve.

That pretty much requires, well an entirely new social system, a significant increase in discipline in separation of game phases and character building resources, and a whole pile of new abilities to work within that framework.

Putting "Diplomacy" on his class skill list, giving him 2 extra skill ranks level and banning the jump spell no less, is NOT solving the damn problem. And that is basically Mean Liar's genius plan.

A) Not significant

Which is pretty much the "Remove It" option from the title of the thread.

B) Significant - like combat.

Which is basically the "fix it"option where you are basically building a new, larger, more complex, and separate social minigame.

Neither of those options are the "2 extra skill ranks and diplomacy as a class skill" option. Because it's a dumb option.

[RandomCasualty2]

In the example of the system in D&D that is largely what you have. And having a party face indeed further creates that effect as everyone's number may as well be his number since they just say "I let him talk".

There is frankly a LOT you need to do to fix 3.x's social system.

To make the Barbarian good at social he needs social options that are interesting, useful, and not something he has to pay off by weakening his potential combat power to achieve.

That pretty much requires, well an entirely new social system, a significant increase in discipline in separation of game phases and character building resources, and a whole pile of new abilities to work within that framework.

The main reason I advocate just handling all social encounters with magic teaparty. That way every character can contribute.

[Caedrus]

In the example of the system in D&D that is largely what you have. And having a party face indeed further creates that effect as everyone's number may as well be his number since they just say "I let him talk".

There is frankly a LOT you need to do to fix 3.x's social system.

To make the Barbarian good at social he needs social options that are interesting, useful, and not something he has to pay off by weakening his potential combat power to achieve.

That pretty much requires, well an entirely new social system, a significant increase in discipline in separation of game phases and character building resources, and a whole pile of new abilities to work within that framework.

The main reason I advocate just handling all social encounters with magic teaparty. That way every character can contribute.

In that case, though, you've got a situation where the casters have social powers (Ranging from Detect Thoughts to Charm Person) and others just don't. You actually have pseudo-magical teaparty, where you have magical teaparty resolution with rules-established bonus tools that add some spice to the mix. So why can't the Rogue get some of that extra text about the bad guy's motivations with Sense Motive?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Yep. In a D&D context, magic-teapartying social encounters doesn't work because the rules give casters well-defined tools for those encounters. You're back to the old days of OD&D and the colored box editions.

It would be possible to design a whole system with the idea of making all social encounters magic teaparty by not having a Charisma stat or any social skills/spells/powers whatsoever.

[Caedrus]

Yep. In a D&D context, magic-teapartying social encounters doesn't work because the rules give casters well-defined tools for those encounters. You're back to the old days of OD&D and the colored box editions.

It would be possible to design a whole system with the idea of making all social encounters magic teaparty by not having a Charisma stat or any social skills/spells/powers whatsoever.

But then you just can't have stories where people can read minds and crap. Unless you go 4e style and be totally bullshit and go "it only works in combat" or something equally arbitrary.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The other option, which I've seen no system does so far, is to treat the social minigame like combat. Not so much to-hits and damage rolls - though such systems have been proposed - but the idea that if you pick a certain character creation route in the game it will inevitably hand you tools to participate in the subsystem. That is, while people contribute differently, it's still (theoretically) equal. Non-participation in this social system, just like combat, is just not allowed; you only get to choose your special effects and tools.

[Caedrus]

The other option, which I've seen no system does so far, is to treat the social minigame like combat. Not so much to-hits and damage rolls - though such systems have been proposed - but the idea that if you pick a certain character creation route in the game it will inevitably hand you tools to participate in the subsystem. That is, while people contribute differently, it's still (theoretically) equal. Non-participation in this social system, just like combat, is just not allowed; you only get to choose your special effects and tools.

Well, it's all well and good to talk about that, but I've not seen anyone make a working system out of it.

[PhoneLobster]

Well, it's all well and good to talk about that, but I've not seen anyone make a working system out of it.

Are you suggesting a social combat system just plain can't be made?

Suggesting it shouldn't be or that you'd prefer "social encounter lite" or whatever is one thing.

But there is nothing at all stopping anyone from making an engaging abstracted social themed encounter system.

It's just game design, changing the theme of the game you want to design from "hit things" to "make friends" doesn't make designing it impossible.

[CatharzGodfoot]

But there is nothing at all stopping anyone from making an engaging abstracted social themed encounter system.

:$

[Caedrus]

Well, it's all well and good to talk about that, but I've not seen anyone make a working system out of it.

Are you suggesting a social combat system just plain can't be made?

No.

[Fuchs]

A workaround is to tailor social situations so that everyone has something to do, and that there's no character who can do it all. So, at the ubiquotus audience, the bard can take center stage with his ballads about the party's deeds before putting the moves on the evil princess to find out where she put the stolen jewels while the barbarian talks shop with the knights of the guard to try to find some clues, the mage/sage discusses family history with the lineage-obsessed baron that holds the key to the frontier, and the cleric lectures the pious but misguided heir to the crown about the sin of fornicating and producing bastard pretenders to the throne.