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)

"Alternate Form (Su): A gold dragon can assume any animal or humanoid form of Medium size or smaller as a standard action three times per day. This ability functions as a polymorph spell cast on itself at its caster level, except that the dragon does not regain hit points for changing form and can only assume the form of an animal or humanoid. The dragon can remain in its animal or humanoid form until it chooses to assume a new one or return to its natural form." --Quantumboost 20:04, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Because that is taught to ever serf in the kingdom from the time they are... oh, wait, IT ISN'T! Unless the target of persuasion is a very gullible dragon hunter, the right response is, at best, the commoner rolls his eyes before asking the crazy guy to get off his porch.--Teh Storm 21:56, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Legends of shapeshifting dragons are probably pretty common (I can see a lot of romance style fairy tales), but it's something that's possible. Yet, in real life, the vast majority of people believe complete and utter bullshit that contradicts all known facts, just because someone told them so. Why do you want games to be unrealistic in such a way to screw over skill users, and buff up casters more? Karrius 22:01, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. You may sound convincing, but the best you can hope for is some checking over to see if it's true, like asking you to transform to something else or something. Otherwise, you're gonna get your ass kicked out of the king's halls or the village. Really, the times I've had to convince my players that because they have studied psychology and sociology it doesn't mean that their characters also know it... Or the fact that most villagers/commoners/these-poor-nameless-guys know nothing about magic except that it's scary... Which is why this system sucks. Too bad for us, but hopefully you'll land on a good DM who's gonna get you through without too much.--Soulblazer 87 22:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

When you refuse to acknowledge the points of other people, and just restate your premise over and over, just more incoherently each time, you're failing your charisma check. Karrius 22:08, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make the average Charisma score on this site 6 for posters?--Teh Storm 22:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

My Charisma is even less. I blame it on lack of real-life social interaction and random bouts of insanity, includinng two alternate personalities. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and safe at night? *Insert maniacal laugh here*--Soulblazer 87 22:13, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

from the comments of outside observers, experimentation, and a skill/talent ratio system I judge my self by, Storms Charisma is 15-16. Oh, by this same system I am 1 Fighter/2 Rogue.Teh Storm 22:23, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it's your Intelligence that's so low then. --Foxwarrior 22:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

IQ 127, with a spatial IQ of 164. So... 16-17 Intelligence, 10-12 Wisdom. Constitution appears to have been my dump stat.--Teh Storm 07:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. A 16 Intelligence is almost epic to us normal humans, unless you claim to be level 20 already,which I doubt. Your Wis score is acceptable however. Most people's scores are around 10-14 really. Two stats at 16 is about as common as me running for american presidency. Not gonna happen in a long time.--Soulblazer 87 07:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Remember the stat bell curve from AD&D? If you compare that bell curve with the IQ average bell curve, my IQ lines up well with the rare end of 15+. This really is a fun way to do Intelligence stat finding. Constitution limits suck to discover, however...--Teh Storm 07:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but as I said; I go with reality not rules. Rules are there to help maintain reality and continuity, not alter it.--Soulblazer 87 07:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Not really. No, I'm serious. D&D is primarily a gamist game. Just look at HP. A character at 1 HP fights no worse than a character at 100 HP. A level 10 barbarian will survive a fall from orbit. And more. I can give a ton of examples. D&D is a gamist game. If you want to go ahead and try to make it look like a simulationist one, that's nice, but it's not what the game was designed for, and does horribly at it. However, I highly recommend the Silhouette system if you want a PnP RP system that has a simulationist mindset. --Ghostwheel 09:23, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. Point is, so far it's worked for me. Anyway, I've said my peace, I've made my peace, so any further talk is more than likely to be recycling of old points, made again and again in an attempt for each other to transform their opinions into a warhammer and bash them over each other's heads to force compliance. Each to his own really. If it works, it ain't broken, if it ain't broken it doesn't need fixing.--Soulblazer 87 09:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Poker

Something that may work for social checks and also for things like chases. May work for skills, though those are so differing as far as modifiers go that it wouldn't work for them.

• Each person rolls 1d6. DC starts at 10. People start bidding on higher DCs. They can pass, raise, or fold.
• Repeat the 1d6 twice more, having the bidding phase at the end of each. People can continue increasing the DC.
• In the end, everyone adds their modifier. If you succeed you get a success. If you failed you get a failure. If you folded you get a very reduced failure. The last bidder's success or failure is magnified, and if everyone else dropped and the conflict ended on the first or second round of bidding the success is also reduced.

Do over until someone has X successes or Y failures. Might be adapted to chases and the like. If not using ability score mods, may want to increase the variable (d10s? d20s?) Perhaps have the ability score required this time be random (d6, 1 = str, 2 = dex, etc?) Or go down the list. Or have it be decided by each person going around the table. Needs more thought. --Ghostwheel 19:47, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this works well. You're not raising because you think you have a better hand than someone else, or to try to bluff them out of the running, but to make it harder for everyone to succeed because that pushes some people out. And that leads to some straightforward strategies where you try to get as many of your side to victory as possible. If you outnumber your foes, you shouldn't ever raise and just rely on probability to get more successes than they do. If you don't outnumber your foes, you should just raise as much as possible the first two times (if there even is a limit on raising) and then fold so that they get more failures than you in the same period. If it's one on one, then the strategy is slightly more involved, but this doesn't get you anything over a regular opposed check so I'm not going to get into it. - TarkisFlux 20:53, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of any ways to fix this problem? I'd like to consider it a little more before making a final decision to scrap it completely. What's the difference in poker that makes these strategies different? Is there any way to emulate it with dice rolls? Also, that wouldn't quite work since if someone raises then they can't fold, which means they're stuck with having to make a DC they can't make, and thus are going to have big failures coming their way. Everyone else folds and laughs as the single character fails their roll spectacularly--and since they were the last bidder, they take the biggest failure. --Ghostwheel 21:36, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're stuck being "in" if everyone else folds, that mitigates it slightly depending on the relative value of big and little failures. It just changes the number of people you need on each side before suicide is a viable win strategy. If big failures are worth 3 times as much as little failures, suicide ties you with them when they outnumber you by 2, and you just win if there are more of them than that because they fail more than you do per round.

But sure, let's look at how this compares to poker. In poker, you can't lose if everyone else folds, so a viable strategy is to trick other people into quitting. In poker you don't bid to make things harder, you bid to make your potential winnings bigger. None of these are true in your proposal. You bid to make the game harder to try to drive other people out, but everyone always has exactly the same amount wagered. And even if you do drive everyone out, you could still wind up losing bigger than anyone who folded.

If you want to make this work like poker, ditch the variable DC bit. Highest total roll takes all. Bidding needs to have a cost aside from "now everyone else might fold on you", and I suggest you bid successes. Folding just means the last guy on the table takes the pot, but they do so because they're putting their own successes at risk to bluff you out of yours. When someone collects enough successes to "win", they win, and everyone else suffers a loss in proportion to the amount of successes they lost in the match. I'm not sure how useful that would actually be in a game, but it's poker like in that setup. - TarkisFlux 22:37, October 14, 2010 (UTC)