Talk:Simplified Social Interaction (3.5e Variant Rule)

"Skill" Challenge

I'm thinking about implementing a more complex skill challenge-type version of this now that we have fairly standardized DCs (one where the math actually WORKS), but I'd like to first discuss design goals if anyone's free. (Here or on the channel.) --Ghostwheel 12:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Design goals - sure. I like those, and would be willing to kick them around even though I don't intend to use the larger system here. If one of your goals is to make challenges somewhat challenging and avoid the auto-success/fail paradigm that most of 4e sits in, the first thing to keep in mind though is that as long as you're just tracking successes and failures your numbers will be defined more by iterative probability than anything else. The more successes you require the smaller the gap between very likely success and very likely failure. If you don't want that, I think you'd have better luck modeling it on combat, where you're actually competing to get some number of successes before another side gets some number of successes and a failure doesn't hurt you at all (except that it's not a success for you and they might get one). Since you're just doing this in a social context and not a broader skill context it's probably even reasonable to have an opposing side trying to convince you of something. - TarkisFlux 14:42, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Right; more rolls means skewing the curve towards whatever way it's leaning more. Which means for harder rolls we want to allow more losses before you bottom out, and for easier ones more wins than losses before you succeed. Furthermore, simply "missing" could mean that the opposite side has "won" in a certain way--no need to get it more complicated than that, methinks. It's rarely (never?) going to end in a stalemate, which means that it's fine if losses count as the other side "winning" or w/e we want to call it.

So. Math. Math is good, right? No system runs well without math, and if you have the math right then you have the world at your fingertips. Or w/e. I discussed it with my tabletop group, and the general consensus was that skill challenges should be slightly easier (5-10%?) to succeed at than straight social checks. I mentioned that this would make players want to always go for the skill challenge, and was otls that that's a good thing. Thoughts? So far as it's been, the social interaction system has been a huge hit with the DM. Except he has us rolling lots of rolls, and the first is often a big loss which puts things less in our favor. Which means I need to pump out a working skill challenge system hopefully by this coming Sunday.

So math. Should we make the number of times to succeed on a check static? Since anyone can use any ability score, there won't be an incentive for just the face to participate, which means we can have a set number, and double the number of successes needed before losses in order to succeed if a group gets too big. How's that sound for a start when designing the system? We can figure out the exact math & numbers afterwards.

So let's say you have a group of four people, and you need 15 rolls total (arbitrary, ignore actual number). All four roll three times each over the course of the conversation (or should they even need to? should we allow people to pass? or just not participate from the start? but the whole point is to get people involved, so that might be a good thing. not sure. thoughts?), and three of them roll a fourth time to round out the 15 rolls. Thoughts thus far? When you get a chance I'd like to talk about the actual number-math on IRC, but that can wait until we finalize the "how it'll work exactly" bit.

Another idea that comes to mind is that we can add interesting results in "degrees". Get X% more wins than losses and you win an extra prize! Or whatever.

Something else might be having 3 rounds of actions... go! Everyone gets 3 turns to convince. A pitfall is that there's no reason not to bring the whole family to try to convince the people. Which is bad. It also means that we need to give a percentage, and change the exact number of successes needed according to the number of people. Which can be done, but then a DM is forced to do the math on his own if we don't give the results for 2, 3, and 5 people parties and tell DMs to go extrapolate from that. Which is a pain. So I don't think that works too well. --Ghostwheel 10:36, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Scaling DC's

There are several things I dislike about 4e, but the one I find the most detestable is the concept of DC's that simply scale with the user's level. If you've got a caster of above-average strength (for a normal person) who sometimes impresses villagers by competing in arm-wrestling contests, they shouldn't become worse and worse at it simply because their muscles aren't getting bigger. Can't the DC scale with some measure of the level or value of the people being influenced? Please? --Foxwarrior 09:18, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just use the level thingy according to the level of the person you're trying to influence. So a level 15 individuals might require a DC 25 check to convince. --Ghostwheel 11:21, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not Enough

Nice enough variant, but not one I'd use. Why? Because I've done away with these rolls completely. The skill remains there to show how good a character is at it, which helps me say 'you can't do that because you don't freaking know how' when players try to metagame, or in this case roleplay an ability their character doesn't have. More than a few cases I've banhammered an idiot mage who, while carrying a Gandalf staff and robes while covered head to toe with mystical runes, tried to convince a villager that he wasn't in fact a mage (which was true actually; he was a psion). So, I say; 'yes, you succeed the roll and are very convincing; he still doesn't buy it'. Simple and effective. The variant still is good when a character does thing regularly and wants to show off his skill (except when the wizzie tries throwing knives; don't let him get them!).--Soulblazer 87 18:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

To each their own; I prefer to keep some of the mechanical aspects in my games, rather than simply handwaving the majority of the mechanics and having what goes happen be completely by DM fiat. --Ghostwheel 19:30, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

The point is; when the bard goes 'look I'm a gold dragon, really', then at some point it has to stop. Regardless of how high bluff or diplomacy is, saying something that directly contradicts all evidence to the contrary... Well, at best you can hope for someone to re-check stuff, but not much more. Like going up to the Emperor, winking lecherously at his daughter and then saying 'yo doode, gimme a quest' or something. I can accept a player not knowing every social interaction, but at least they have to put forth the effort and not rely on cold hard numbers.--Soulblazer 87 19:37, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that the commoners are ignorant enough that they don't realize how easy it is for the bard to really be a gold dragon? Commoners should really be less stupid than that. --Foxwarrior 19:39, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

A bard claiming to be gold dragon doesn't necessarily contradict facts. Compare this to some of the outright RETARDED shit that people believe in real life. Even the majority, at times. People are stupid as fuck, and that's pretty much a fact. Karrius 19:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)