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

[Amra]

Some thoughts on a D&D "fix" for the Charisma/social minigame problem...

I honestly believe that part of the trouble is that the system is trying to define Charisma as a single all-encompassing attribute, whereas we all know that it just isn't so.

"Charisma" is a moveable feast. In a situation involving grizzled army commanders or harem girls, Conan's huge muscles, battle scars and piercing ice-blue stare all carry a lot of weight... but at a conclave of academics discussing the magical significane of ancient texts, the Cimmerian's animal magnetism cuts about as much ice as a soap hacksaw.

Everyone finds different things attractive. Guys and gals alike might go for geeks, or jocks, or either, depending on the circumstances. Balletic grace, physical power, incisive intellect, effortless manners, snappy dressing; all of these things can be appealing to different people in different contexts. "Charisma" as a quality separate to these things - despite people's tendency to say stuff like "there's just something about him/her" - is just bullshit.

Trouble is, it's hard to ditch a stat from a six-stat system when there are so many different mechanics hanging from each one (Con aside, but that's another argument).

Another issue, as discussed, is that skills like Bluff, Sense Motive and Diplomacy are all but unavailable to the classes that most need something to do that isn't "swinging a sword". Now, I'm not saying that what anything I'm about to suggest is the best option, just that it might be better than what we've got right now, and won't require gutting D&D to do it.

And yes, I'm aware that I'm introducing a slightly-more-formalised version of Magic Teaparty, but so long as the DM is setting the DC's and allocating arbitrary bonuses or penalties, that's pretty much what you'll always end up with.

1) Diplomacy becomes "Influence" and is the universal social skill; it's what you use when you want to persuade someone of a course of action by any means. Bluff is no longer part of the social minigame; it retains its combat uses only and becomes a Dex-based skill. Possibly Sense Motive should go too. Maybe even Gather Information, not sure.

2) Everyone gets Influence as a class skill, or everyone has the same base score in Influence; maybe 4 at 1st level and then 1 rank per level thereafter.

3) Diplomacy (Influence) is not tied to Charisma any longer. Every character decides what their version of Influence is based on: Str, Int, Wis or Chr. Also, throw away any notion of a character's physical attractiveness being affected in the slightest by an ability score or having any bearing on the social minigame.

4) In a social encounter, the DM decides which flavours of Influence will help and which will hinder. Some situations could equally be influenced by any ability, others only by one or two. If your Influence score is based upon one of the key attributes for the encounter, you get to add your ability bonus to the roll. If not, not. And that's it.

Exhorting the crowd to follow you to defend the walls will probably allow a Str or Chr-based check. Persuading the court to let the beggar go is likely Int or Wis. The point is that *anyone* can try, it's just that characters with some primary attributes are better than others in certain situations.

4b) A variant on this idea with more granularity is a sort of paper/scissors/stone approach. For each encounter, given abilities will help (add your ability modifier to the roll), have no effect (no ability modifier) or hinder (subtract your ability modifier from your check result; and no using negative modifiers for double subtraction). Thus, in situations where their primary stats have no bearing on the situation, two characters of equal level have an equal likelihood of contributing to the social minigame. If one character has an Influence type that can contribute and the other character has one that could potentially hinder, the gulf could be vast.

Depending on circumstances, every character should be able to contribute, on average, about the same to the social minigame. The king may well respect strength of arm as much or more than the wisdom of greybeards or the winning personality of a born performer. This just crossed my mind as a potential cheap-and-cheerful step in that direction.

Thoughts?

[mean_liar]

So after multiple questions from multiple people, PL finally articulates the strange gibbering in his head, pushing words onto the screen in an exaggerated pantomime of actual thought. Congratulations! You're communicating! The next step is to communicate effectively, but I can tell that's going to take some time.

If every participant of the social minigame has to be equally skilled in it, then there is no charming person? Like, every character is the same then?

The barbarian with scars = the strange wizard = the smooth-talking rake for all social scenarios? Because the extension of this is that every minigame - combat, sneaking, legwork, etc - should be equal to all participants... so then what differentiates characters?

I think you'd find that the real problem you're hitting is in implementation more than design. You want the characters to have different skill sets and not be identical in meaningful ways, but to give every character a chance to shine: that's best done by the GM more than game design, as pointed out by Fuchs and others.

[Orion]

Mean Liar -- the Grizzled Barbarian isn't supposed to fight any better than the shiny paladin. Therefore, balance demands that the shiny paladin doesn't talk better than the barbarian.

If you *must* have one character better at all social tasks than another, either you have a game which is a balanced mix of combat and socializing, in which you specialize in one or the other, or socializing is such a small part of your game that being good at it is balanced out by being good at tracking or something.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Mean Liar -- the Grizzled Barbarian isn't supposed to fight any better than the shiny paladin. Therefore, balance demands that the shiny paladin doesn't talk better than the barbarian.

Going by the D&D philosophy, the grizzled barbarian is supposed to be better at hunting, sneaking, and noticing things than the shiny paladin. I'm not sating that's good, but it is the supposed division of labor.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Heroic fantasy doesn't value the barbarian's skillset as much as the paladin's, though.

Honestly, which part of Aragorn's character was more important--his relationship with the elves and undead skull mountain armies or his Indian Tracking abilities?

[mean_liar]

Mean Liar -- the Grizzled Barbarian isn't supposed to fight any better than the shiny paladin. Therefore, balance demands that the shiny paladin doesn't talk better than the barbarian.

In theory there's supposed to be more than 2 dimensions to the game, though. It shouldn't just be Combat or Socializing; at the least most fantasy tropes would require a Traveling dimension.

In DnD you have to deal with the fact that magic makes almost every dimension of the game trivial, with the exception of the Social one. Limiting the discussion to DnD then, yes, there's a point to be made there about limited characters.

But the more salient point is that a good game should have more than simply two non-trivial dimensions of interaction with the wider world, and the game should support differing degrees of competency in those varying dimensions.

There's nothing wrong about a character that's inherently limited in some situations so long as they enjoy an advantage in others.

One easy DnD stopgap is to hand out 4+1/lvl skill points for Professions and utilize them the way Amra details Influence. Profession: barbarian warrior is perfectly acceptable and should cover just about every social interaction you would imagine Conan undertaking: intimidating patricians, picking up prostitutes, etc. Profession: engaging scholar could allow a low-CHA wizard to speak at length about his studies and have it interest librarians and the like. Profession: carouser could cover Perform, Bluff and Diplomacy (and maybe Gather Information and Sense Motive) within the context of drinking, singing and making jokes over drinks.

It's a handwave but it at least provides numbers: you can use the Profession as any other skill so long as its relevant to the trope.

[RandomCasualty2]

Heroic fantasy doesn't value the barbarian's skillset as much as the paladin's, though.

Honestly, which part of Aragorn's character was more important--his relationship with the elves and undead skull mountain armies or his Indian Tracking abilities?

Well the issue isn't heroic fantasy so much as spotlight issues. Tracking someone isn't even a scene, it's just a die roll and then a description from the DM. In a movie, it's pretty much just a montage.

Talking to NPCs, especially important NPCs, is actually a scene.

[PhoneLobster]

One easy DnD stopgap is to hand out 4+1/lvl skill points for Professions and utilize them the way Amra details Influence.

So an incredibly vague system where everyone just has "generic social skill" and it is the same damn number as everyone else's "generic social skill"since it just runs off "best attribute and max ranks" just like everyone else's?

Didn't someone trash that five seconds ago as being a kind of crap system?

Why yes they did.

Oh but you say "NO WAIT!" the "generic social skill" though vague is situationally more or less! Just like, well any other vague single roll "do anything" generic arbitrary skill check ever. And really with your broad examples it's a bit of a rich claim to say that anyone ever objectively knows what skills will apply with what value in what situation.

And even if you DID arbitrarily enforce massive variations between players encounter by encounter. Well, handing around the title of "Party Face" isn't fixing the mini game. Your plan requires removing the social mini game to try and make that work (which you apparently aren't) but either way you are preventing any character from actually being reliably better at that phase (which you say some characters apparently should be so you are crossing your own wires here).

Hell, and if my social skill identity is "What big teeth I have drunken barbarian bimbo" and some other guy's is "Smooth talking charismatic con man" he somehow isn't the party face instead of me in basically every negotiation ever?

All that isn't a mini game. It's not even an especially great single roll quick event system.

It hasn't removed the social mini game and by god it hasn't fixed dick.

[mean_liar]

Do you actually enjoy any games you play, PL?


...


To actually answer your insight, yes, it actually is very close to what you suggested. It's more fleshed-out mostly because it provides a method to determine if you're hitting DCs or not, but it is similar.

The difference is that your suggestion was really a litany of insults without any attempt at implementation, along with the belief that DnD was basically fucked no matter what.

You think it hasn't "fixed dick" because Ogg the Troll and Horatio the Poet are not yet on equal social footing. I don't think that many would believe that they should be and that's ultimately an opinion. You haven't done much to sell the idea why your opinion is more valid and that might be useful since otherwise you just come off like a massive douche, though I think we all note your belief that it is.

See? This is how adults converse. We exchange ideas and then stuff magically happens.

"SHITCOCK STUPID BASTARD DOGFUCKER CAN'T DESIGN FOR DICKCHEESE EVERYTHING IS UNSALVAGEABLE FUCKED" generally doesn't do much that's productive despite its cathartic properties, and generally makes your peers think you're an idiot. Unless its ironic, then its cool.

[PhoneLobster]

Well there wasn't even anything to respond to there, just more rambling idiocy.

Try actually saying something, anything, it might be helpful.

[mean_liar]

SHITCOCK STUPID BASTARD DOGFUCKER CAN'T DESIGN FOR DICKCHEESE EVERYTHING IS UNSALVAGEABLE FUCKED

LORD OF ALL VAGINA

[PhoneLobster]

Repeating your original argument about "broad default attributes" as a magical solution to the social mini game problem isn't really helpful.

Or did you just say something else, I find it hard to tell.

[ckafrica]

Mean Liar you are missing the difference between equal ability vs equal screen time. Assuming are going to make social interactions more than:

player: I'm going to convince the king to let me into the treasury
DM: roll Diplomacy
P: natural 20 woot thats a total of... 69!
DM: --rolls eyes-- sigh, He lets you in

than players with the social card are going to get more screen time than the tracker, because the tracking minigame consists solely of a single roll compared against the DC.

It's not to say that characters need to be absolutely equal in all situations. Barbarian bob should have strong social skill when dealing with warriors and intimidating people. Petee the Poet should stand out when impressing teenage girls and nobility. Roger the rogue shines when gleaning information from lowlifes.

What is ridiculous is when you have sorceror or the bard doing every social engagement because they have the high charisma score.

IS D&D social mechanics unsalvageable? I'd say yes. RC position that you may as well magic tea party the whole thing is probably the best option until someone actually creates a mechanical system that allows each player to participate.

[PhoneLobster]

Barbarian bob should have strong social skill when dealing with warriors and intimidating people. Petee the Poet should stand out when impressing teenage girls and nobility. Roger the rogue shines when gleaning information from lowlifes.

Ideally the variation would be differing roles within the same encounters. Being specialists in slightly different contexts is a minor tweak similar to being a specialist in different contexts of regular combat.

It really can't get too out of hand, or significant, because if it's anything more than a small thing you break your game balance and make encounters regularly unfun for everyone except the guy who hit the specialist jack pot of the day.

So instead you have maybe seductive guy, threatening guy, and lieing guy and they all walk into, whatever, social encounter and start seducing, threatening and lieing. Just like when spell caster, stabby guy and archer all walk into, whatever, combat encounter they each start spell casting, stabbing and shooting.

The ideal situation from my view would be to divorce your social archetype from your combat archetype. It's all the more fun if your Barbarian can be Cunning Lieing barbarian, Seductive Casanova Barbarian, or threatening angry barbarian, or big friendly lug barbarian. But you could easily just tie any single such role to the class if you had to.

But I'd rather he does get something like one of those rather than relegating him to something like "manly mens' man who only shines in social encounters with other manly man men" especially if the next guy gets "influence rich guys and the king" as his specialty.

[ckafrica]

PL: I agree that ultimately it would be best to have these completely divorced. I don't really want the rogue to only be sneaky liar. But hey, I don't like classes that much to begin with.

Before getting a social minigame started you need to decide:
how many different kinds of interactions there are
how many actions can be performed in each of those interactions
how many skills/abilities do we need to have to represent the kinds of actions
what results can be achieved
What happens when you lose

Then when you have those you can decide how people get those abilities.

[PhoneLobster]

I think your list could use some reform or rewording but basically yes, you need to decide what, if anything, the social mini game IS. Once you firmly decide and define the ground it should cover actually implementing that shouldn't be a problem.

As long as you don't bottle out and make a "decision" like "I want it to do anything, or everything, trallalalalala!". Which is largely the problem with most social so called "mechanics".

3.x social mechanics are largely a failure because they didn't ever seriously make ANY of the considerations on that list. From the beginning all they ever did was say "hey, we need a mechanic so that when anything remotely social happens people can roll a dice and pretend it is influencing the game!" and that's basically all they implemented.

And that worked fine for people who treat the social mini game as something just as unimportant, brief, and utterly arbitrary bullshit as a lock picking action. But the problem is that at this point that isn't what a lot of people want from a set of D&D social mechanics anymore.

I know I've answered the questions of what I want a social mini game to be and do, and the results have been great. But I know the answers aren't wildly popular around here because a lot of "real role players" scream in cowardice at the idea of a social mini game that actually meaningfully impacts a characters motivations and actions.

[Fuchs]

Mean Liar you are missing the difference between equal ability vs equal screen time. Assuming are going to make social interactions more than:

player: I'm going to convince the king to let me into the treasury
DM: roll Diplomacy
P: natural 20 woot thats a total of... 69!
DM: --rolls eyes-- sigh, He lets you in

than players with the social card are going to get more screen time than the tracker, because the tracking minigame consists solely of a single roll compared against the DC.

On the other hand, I can imagine (and saw it happen very often) that in the same group, aforementioned "Diplomacy +49" character gets actually less screen time in social situations than the "What's that, diplomacy, is it edible" barbarian, because the barbarian's attempt "to bluff myself in" fails, prompting more social (and maybe action) scenes where he is trying to extract himself from whatever mess he made. That even works with the "let the con man handle this" set ups, as long as said barbarian follows up with "while conny goes to the treasury I try to persuade the kitchen staff to hand us additional food" instead of "I wait until we're done".

[ckafrica]

I know I've answered the questions of what I want a social mini game to be and do, and the results have been great. But I know the answers aren't wildly popular around here because a lot of "real role players" scream in cowardice at the idea of a social mini game that actually meaningfully impacts a characters motivations and actions.

Care to share?

Fuch: Yes that can happen, and depending on the group you have that barbarian might find he got teleported into a tree next time the party goes anywhere. Nobody else truly likes characters/players who sabotage the team. Even for the sake of "role" playing.

If the barbarian goes to the kitchen to try to get free food he will equally annoy the other plays because whereas MR Diplomacy +49 hogged the spotlight for something that helps the whole party, the barbarian is just doing it to get attention.

Which leads us back to the point of trying to sort out the social minigame. We need either ditch it so the barbarian can actually partake in discussion without shouting "tell me your name horsefucker" or we need a different system that allows players to contribute to the mingame in different ways without being left out

[Draco_Argentum]

I know I've answered the questions of what I want a social mini game to be and do, and the results have been great. But I know the answers aren't wildly popular around here because a lot of "real role players" scream in cowardice at the idea of a social mini game that actually meaningfully impacts a characters motivations and actions.

Well I don't like it because its too close to mind control and mind control pisses me off. I wouldn't play in a game with a charm/dominate wizard either.

[Fuchs]

Fuch: Yes that can happen, and depending on the group you have that barbarian might find he got teleported into a tree next time the party goes anywhere. Nobody else truly likes characters/players who sabotage the team. Even for the sake of "role" playing.

If the barbarian goes to the kitchen to try to get free food he will equally annoy the other plays because whereas MR Diplomacy +49 hogged the spotlight for something that helps the whole party, the barbarian is just doing it to get attention.

Well, that depends on your playstyle. I play to have fun, and following the barbarian's attempts to extract himself from the mess he made is often more fun than following a hypersmooth talker steamrolling the king. Some call it sabotage, I call it entertainment. I'd be angered at such "sabotage" if my character's life depended on the outcome, but I haven't had fun in deadly games in years anyway, so I am not looking to get ahead in the most effective way, I am looking out for the wildest and most entertaining ride to wherever chance and fate may lead us.

I also once had to kick a player out because he was not willing to fit in - he was not "sabotaging" the team, as everyone else did, and as the campaign premise of "watch us mess things up in different but entertaining ways" stated, and always clashed with those players who did. It's not a matter of roleplaying or not, it's a matter of what genre and theme you're playing.

[PhoneLobster]

Well I don't like it because its too close to mind control and mind control pisses me off. I wouldn't play in a game with a charm/dominate wizard either.

And at that point I don't think you have anything to contribute to any discussion of remotely useful social mechanics for an RPG.

I mean heck, no mind control voodoo wizards? No charm !? Ever? Go play 4E where they take away all the fun shit then.

[Roy]

I never expected to actually see a game where basic competence is discouraged in favor of hurk durk FIRE impressions.

[Fuchs]

I never expected to actually see a game where basic competence is discouraged in favor of hurk durk FIRE impressions.

Never played Paranoia? Fun is not limited to playing lean mean killing machines.

[Roy]

I never expected to actually see a game where basic competence is discouraged in favor of hurk durk FIRE impressions.

Never played Paranoia? Fun is not limited to playing lean mean killing machines.

...And entire systems where all you can do is try to pull this off, because that is their sole purpose in existence.

[mean_liar]

It's not to say that characters need to be absolutely equal in all situations. Barbarian bob should have strong social skill when dealing with warriors and intimidating people. Petee the Poet should stand out when impressing teenage girls and nobility. Roger the rogue shines when gleaning information from lowlifes.

This actually is what I'm advocating as a stopgap for DnD socializing.

Ideally the variation would be differing roles within the same encounters. Being specialists in slightly different contexts is a minor tweak similar to being a specialist in different contexts of regular combat.

I know I've answered the questions of what I want a social mini game to be and do, and the results have been great. But I know the answers aren't wildly popular around here because a lot of "real role players" scream in cowardice at the idea of a social mini game that actually meaningfully impacts a characters motivations and actions.

Care to share?

Ditto on that.