The Gaming Den

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1197093902[/unixtime]]

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

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

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

I rest my case.

If they had STDs, was married, had a jealous boyfriend, or had mental problems, then I would.
When I am going to have sex, I plan ahead and look at the big picture.

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1197093594[/unixtime]]
The truth of the matter is, none of us really knows anything about the other people on the boards. (With a few exceptions. I've met fbmf on several occasions, and talked to him on the phone a couple of times. I'm pretty sure what he represents on the boards is accurate.)

And THAT is why I judge Frank and Voss by what I read on these boards; it is all that I know of them.

Captain_Bleach at [unixtime wrote:1197095834[/unixtime]]

If they had STDs, was married, had a jealous boyfriend, or had mental problems, then I would.
When I am going to have sex, I plan ahead and look at the big picture.

You didn't read my post. I said "Someone you found sufficient". Someone with those issues aren't people you find sufficient, therefore they are excluded from the decision.

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1197093902[/unixtime]]In Crissa's defense, I betcha there isn't one person on the boards right now who couldn't use a good lay.

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

I rest my case.

Just enough time and energy to get to and go through with secks? Nope.

Truth be told I'm a virgin, at 21, and I'm remaining abstinent until marriage. I was hoping to find a suitable girl in college, but I've mentioned, in another thread, why that hasn't worked out. In March, when my courses are over, I think I'll join E-Harmony and try to find a mate via teh interbutts.

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1197093902[/unixtime]]
In Crissa's defense, I betcha there isn't one person on the boards right now who couldn't use a good lay.

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

I rest my case.

I'm sorry Count.
But...
Sometimes I get too much sex, lately.
Serious.
I can't keep up with my girlfriend's libido these days.
Three times in one night... eh.. It hurts, sometimes.
I think it's the cold air in winter and lack of sun. Not quite seasonal depression, but sure as fuck hits my energy levels.

I can do it in the summer like that, no prob, but I loathe to admit maybe it's the fact that I'm.. well.. just not a teenager any more.

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1197081193[/unixtime]]It just so happens to be my Unbirthday today!

This sounds damn creepy coming from a 4chaner.

I don't know what unbirthing is, but if it's a 4chan thing I'm probably better off not knowing.

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1197080048[/unixtime]]
Base it solely on a dice roll, and it isn't role-playing anymore. Its just another dice roll, to get you past a challenge. Strip it down, and it isn't even about getting past a guard. Its *just* another dice roll to get you past arbitrary obstacle number 5. You could design a computer program to do that shit for you. IF RNDM + [diplo mod] < 20, go back and find a new route into city. Remaining choices- make sneak check, make attack roll.
SNEAK/ATTACK/FLEE?

You can dress it up and call it role-playing, but you can just it easily turn it into a game of craps. Or whatever the fucking things was by Wizards. Dragon dice.

I agree with you Voss. Just reducing all social interactions to a dice roll really sucks the soul out of the game. There can be a point where you roll dice to supplement social skills, but it shouldn't be all the time, and the opportunity needs to present itself.

Also, what's up with Crissa? That seemed like a completely unprovoked outburst out of her.

And Sigma, stop being an ass. The last thing the Count wants to hear is all your (likely made up) sexual exploits to make him feel even worse. Stop stroking your epeen.

Just reducing ... to a dice roll really sucks the soul out of the game.

So there should be some time when I get to beat the crap out of you because rolling dice sucks the soul out of combat?

WTF.

-Crissa

Luckily, I've had no trouble getting nookie, real or virtual. Now what I have had trouble with is pounding some sense into this argument.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1197113076[/unixtime]]So there should be some time when I get to beat the crap out of you because rolling dice sucks the soul out of the game?

WTF.

No, because it's not a game of live action combat. It is a roleplaying game.

Having a die roll to replace the roleplaying is like having a dice roll in chess to replace the strategy of thinking of a move. Part of the intrinsic value of the game comes from roleplaying, and rolling a dice is not roleplaying.

Then what is the game for?

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1197113497[/unixtime]]Then what is the game for?

I don't follow the question. What do you mean?

A roleplaying game is a means to arbitrate a story within agreed-upon rules.

...the game resolves disputes about the story, and that disputes about whether a man gets hit with an arrow or not is no more or less of a dispute than whether a dumb troll would accept a pile of fish in lieu of combat.
And thus that regardless of whether you are having a problem determining whether a sword finds its mark or whether your bribe can get the corrupt guards on your side, there's still a dispute going on. And that's what the game system is there to resolve.

You guys just decided that 'roleplaying' has nothing to do with the 'game'. No dice, no stats, nothing in the game apparently has to do with the roleplaying. The game itself is apparently meaningless in that definition to the roleplaying.

If roleplaying is something you do when playing a game (any game... Chess, Warcraft, rock paper scissors...) - that's great. But it does not make that particular game a roleplaying game.

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1197113806[/unixtime]]A roleplaying game is a means to arbitrate a story within agreed-upon rules.

You just decided that 'roleplaying' has nothing to do with the 'game'. No dice, no stats, nothing in the game apparently has to do with the roleplaying. The game itself is apparently meaningless in that definition to the roleplaying.

Well no, it's not meaningless. Basically an RPG is Cowboys and Indians with means of adjudicating the age old "Bang! Bang! You're dead!", "No I'm not!" situation.

So naturally we want to resolve situations where two points of view clash. Do you dodge the orc's attack or does it hit you? And you need that to tell stories. This makes the game more fun because it's not just a DM arbitrarily deciding who wins and you feel like you have more control over the game.

The roleplaying end of it is about playing out what your character would say or do. You take your character's motivations to be your own and play his actions accordingly. The NPCs react to you based on their own personalities and motivations. This is the very core of roleplaying.

To add all-powerful social skills basically says to people that they no longer act based on your character's motivations, but rather according to some arbitrary dice roll. It's like them coming to a fork in the dungeon path and you don't let them choose left or right, you flip a coin to do it.

If roleplaying is something you do when playing a game - that's great. But it does not make that particular game a roleplaying game.

This I absolutely agree with.

If roleplaying is to be part of the game, then well, roleplaying has to be part of the game. Your roleplaying decisions have to impact what happens to you. That means that your actual roleplaying has to matter. Your character's words, what he says, what he does, they have to matter. The roleplaying has to be part of the game. It has to influence your success or failure.

Otherwise, it turns more into improv acting with a die determining who "wins" the scene. It becomes merely a dice game that you happen to roleplay to, instead of a true RPG.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1197113242[/unixtime]]Having a die roll to replace the roleplaying is like having a dice roll in chess to replace the strategy of thinking of a move. Part of the intrinsic value of the game comes from roleplaying, and rolling a dice is not roleplaying.

No.

(See how we can express an opinion without yelling at each other? Not that I'm not thinking a string of explicitives right at the moment. In fact I am really tempted to just write them all down but this way is so much more ... evil. Anyway it's time to move on to the explanation.)

Chess is a deterministic game. Every action has a precise and specific outcome. If the move is legal the move is successful. There is no die because the probability of success is 100%.

Social interacton is not deterministic. If I want to get into the city after the gates are closed it is not a guarenteed thing. So then who determined if I can get into the city?

The answer is the die. Dice doesn't not stop role playing any more than dice stops the use of good tactics in combat. This is not a game of American Idol and you are not being graded based on your role playing performance. The purpose of the role playing is that of fun; it is a wrapper around the action to allow the immersion experience.

Role playing occurs as equally well at the combat level as that of the social interaction level. Your character's actions are determined for the most part by you (unless someone just charmed your character's ass but that's a different thing) and in turn is determined by what you think your character's motivations are. The die, not how well you describe the action determines the result. Role Play and Roll Play are two sides of the same game coin.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1197132534[/unixtime]]
If I want to get into the city after the gates are closed it is not a guarenteed thing. So then who determined if I can get into the city?

The answer is the die. Dice doesn't not stop role playing any more than dice stops the use of good tactics in combat. This is not a game of American Idol and you are not being graded based on your role playing performance. The purpose of the role playing is that of fun; it is a wrapper around the action to allow the immersion experience.

See this is divorcing the game from the roleplaying. At this point, you're getting closer to just playing Magic Tea Party with dice. Part of it being a roleplaying game is that the roleplaying has to be part of the game. So yeah, you are graded on your roleplaying, just like you're graded on your strategy in a strategy game.

As far as having fun, I personally find it dreadfully dull to reduce social encounters to a die roll. I feel like I have more power in the game when I get to choose tactics, instead of "you try to convince the guard to let you in, don't bother talking, just roll"... well you know, that fucking blows goats. As a player, I don't really get a choice here, I'm totally at the whim of the dice.

I'd rather have my character get to make a convincing bluff or argument or whatever to explain why he should be let in. Even if it doesn't work at least I'm having more fun and at least given the illusion that my fate is in my hands, instead of just rolling an unattached die roll and then explaining it with improv acting. Because by then, I don't even want to explain it. Fuck that man. I like to determine my fate with choices. The moment the DM just ignores what I say to an NPC and tells me to roll some shit, I pretty much tune out. No point even talking if you're not a rogue. Yep, just wait for the battles, because that's the only time you ever get to make decisions that matter.

In combat you get choices in what action to take. A fun combat system gives you lots of different exciting choices and decisions to make, where some of those decisions are better than others. A crap combat system is 2nd edition where you roll to hit every round and keep slugging away mindlessly till something dies. If I want to play a game of blind luck, I'll go to a casino and play roulette.

The fun part about RPGs is controlling your own destiny.

Role playing occurs as equally well at the combat level as that of the social interaction level. Your character's actions are determined for the most part by you (unless someone just charmed your character's ass but that's a different thing) and in turn is determined by what you think your character's motivations are. The die, not how well you describe the action determines the result. Role Play and Roll Play are two sides of the same game coin.

No, your actions aren't determined by you. It doesn't matter what the social attacker says or what he does, and it doesn't matter what the social defender may think or what his personality is. It's just a die roll, and it dictates what you have to do. Yep fuck you Mr. paladin, I rolled a natural 20 and fuck your religion. Guess you're fallen now. And you did it "willingly" so you can never get your paladinhood back. So just bend over and take what I'm giving you... and since I rolled a natural 20, you're going to like that too.

It's no longer a roleplaying game, but rather a simulationist dice game played alongside Magic Tea Party.

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1197096363[/unixtime]]

You didn't read my post. I said "Someone you found sufficient". Someone with those issues aren't people you find sufficient, therefore they are excluded from the decision.

Okay, then.
Yes, I would. Good luck for finding one right for you, Count.

Social encounters should be like combats.

As a combatant, you get to make choices: which monster to attack, how to attack it, what weapon to use, etc. etc. etc. You make a lot of choices and then you roll a dice. Rinse, repeat.

Social combat should be the same way. You should make a lot of choices, and then roll the dice. Repeatedly.

Reducing a social encounter to one Diplomacy roll is as unsastifying as reducing a combat to one Attack roll. (Yay! I rolled a 20! We win. Next combat, please.)

Basically, until there are Social HPs to be whittled away, and Social conditions to impose (dazed, panicked, prone, etc.), social encounters will depend on the GM to make them interesting.

The number of ranks in social skills totalled up could determine "social endurance" or whatever the name would be.
Or, function similar to how energy resistance works, reducing damage; a 'social attack' would then deal various types, maybe no more than 4-5, reduced by appropriate skills.

Arming 'social weapons' would be more like gaining info on a person before doing a debate, an insult fest in a public square, or spreading rumors.
They would deal various amounts depending on information quality, size of a crowd/mood, or "viscosity" of social environment to spread rumors, similar to how weapons of better quality and size deal more damage.

The concept of Social HPs was in a Dragon magazine (I swear I've mentioned this before..) and while it did look pretty good, depended upon a fistful of feats to work even decently for an individual.
Taking 2+ of these social-weapon-whatever feats pretty much ruins your character for actual combat, and as such the whole idea was not popular on the forums.

If we or at least someone here can develop social combat rules similar to what Yahzi and I just mentioned, they would have to co-exist with the character, not interrupt builds.

I like the idea of social combat, but I don't think it should work the same way as regular D&D combat. Here's how I envision it.

The basic premise is that at the base-line for people with a stat of 10 and no ranks get to roll 1 d6 when proposing a roughly neutral proposition that the target was not already planning to do and has no particular objections against. For every bonus of plus +4 on your check you get to roll an extra d6 when trying to convince(diplomacy) or "convince"(intimidate) your target to do something. The target number should be something like the targets CR+Cha Mod+Wis Mod+Concentration(not Constitution) Mod.

d6s should be added if the convincer sweetens the deal beyond what would be considered a neutral offer, such as with a bribe, possibly a bluff check, or forged documents when appropriate; d6s should also be added if the target just plain thinks this is a good deal for them. d6s should be removed when trying to convince the target to do things that could be detrimental to them, things they just don't want to do, and things contrary to their nature or habits. The target being Friendly/Unfriendly should add/remove 1d6 to/from the check and the target being Helpful/Hostile should add/remove 3d6 to/from the check.

Bluff and Sense Motive would work the same as they do now, if the bluff check succeeds then you've convinced them of something that you don't think is the truth. The only difference is that if the sense motive check wins then that individual gets a bonus to the DC to convince them equal to the points that the sense motive check exceeded the bluff check when the Bluffer mentions the thing that they lied about.

When you hit the target number you do one point of damage to their resolve, and do an additional point of damage for every point that you exceed the target number. A target should have a resolve equal to its highest mental attribute(or highest mental attribute modifier if you want shorter social combats)+it's CR.

The numbers may not sync up properly, but I'm sure you crazy kids can hammer out the details.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1197133849[/unixtime]]See this is divorcing the game from the roleplaying. At this point, you're getting closer to just playing Magic Tea Party with dice. Part of it being a roleplaying game is that the roleplaying has to be part of the game. So yeah, you are graded on your roleplaying, just like you're graded on your strategy in a strategy game.

As far as having fun, I personally find it dreadfully dull to reduce social encounters to a die roll. I feel like I have more power in the game when I get to choose tactics, instead of "you try to convince the guard to let you in, don't bother talking, just roll"... well you know, that fucking blows goats. As a player, I don't really get a choice here, I'm totally at the whim of the dice.

I've already said that I do not believe that replacing the social combat with a single roll is a good thing; it is the equivalent to walking up to the monster and wanting a single roll on whether you killed it or not. Likewise any system that has the monotonious boredom of 2E combat is not a good thing either.

What the character does should have a significant impact on the outcome. I still believe there should be some die involved because the best of arguments can sometimes fail and the worst of arguments can sometimes win.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1197133849[/unixtime]]No, your actions aren't determined by you. It doesn't matter what the social attacker says or what he does, and it doesn't matter what the social defender may think or what his personality is. It's just a die roll, and it dictates what you have to do. Yep fuck you Mr. paladin, I rolled a natural 20 and fuck your religion. Guess you're fallen now. And you did it "willingly" so you can never get your paladinhood back. So just bend over and take what I'm giving you... and since I rolled a natural 20, you're going to like that too.

I'm going to first point out that paladins are special because they are paladins. I'm also going to point out that while a natural 20 hits in combat it shouldn't "hit" in social situations. (In fact it doesn't apply to skill checks in the RAW.) On the other hand, P.T. Barnum might insist that he might be able to make people do things that they might not normally do.

You don't have to personally wield a sword to have your character attack a monster. You just have to know the basis of how to use a sword. Likewise if your character is Daniel Webster and you have to argue against the devil you don't have to be as elegant as Webster but you have to know the same tactics he used.

Now there is an important element to the game and that is having fun. A lot of being in character is devoted to making the game fun. One can argue that there needs to be due consideration of that in game terms, but this is really a seperate issue from that of resolving social skills purely by how witty the player's speech is.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1197151783[/unixtime]]
Now there is an important element to the game and that is having fun. A lot of being in character is devoted to making the game fun. One can argue that there needs to be due consideration of that in game terms, but this is really a seperate issue from that of resolving social skills purely by how witty the player's speech is.

As far as fun goes, honestly, I think resolving social skills based on roleplaying is alot more fun than just making a die roll. Like I said, once it turns into a single boring die roll, eh, I'm no longer having fun. It's just too defeatist for my tastes. It basically says, "If you ain't a rogue or bard, don't even bother... because nobody cares what you say."

As far as social combat, it might work if such a system could be ironed out, but there's a problem. The main thing is that in social combat, your foe isn't necessarily the target but rather certain ideas or values. The difficulty isn't universal for one target, it depends on the idea you're challenging. And it's very difficult to write a decent system for that. Since I haven't really seen a good social combat system, I really can't comment on if it would actually work well or not.

Thus far, all the social systems I've seen have made the game less fun than just basing success/failure off of roleplaying.

A good things about the system I just proposed is that what idea you are trying to convey and the person you are trying to convey it to gives, sometimes rather significant, modifiers on the check.

Once that system has been ironed out we can do things like add templates to NPCs based on their personalities that would further modify checks depending on the situation and actions of the players.

Problematic effects like Charms and Compulsions would work better if folded into the social combat.

Rather than acting as SoDs, they would use the same rules as skill checks, but bypass the need to actually communicate and debate, in small amounts.
The gestures are made, the mumbled magic words, and the person's outlook is modified, but not to the point of automatically being a slave!

Charm should work that way, but Compulsion should turn you into a slave(that gets to make will saves to break your control)

Maybe in my system Charms and Compulsions could give you a number of extra d6s equal to the spell level; that way you probably could convince Joe Schmo to do just about anything if you hit him with a Dominate Person, but for an equal CR creature you'll need good social skills to control him and if he's got good mental defenses there are still things you just won't be able to get him to do.

If no one elects to run the numbers for me I'll get around to it sometime next week.