The other day, I popped into the Pathfinder forums, mostly because I was curious after reading the thread about it here. I ended up reading a thread on "balance" both in and out of combat. The general opinion seemed to be that balance in combat was more important than non-combat balance, although in my opinion this is mostly because D&D/Pathfinder has so many more rules for combat.
But it got me thinking: starting from a given set of rules - whatever set of rules that may be - how do you ensure that the actual game play in your campaign is balanced. The rules may have their quirks and oddities, your players have their preferences, and you have certain themes or emphases in your campaign - so how does balance translate from the "theoretical" balance of game design to the reality of game play on a particular night in a specific adventure in your individual campaign/group?
The goal of game play balance, as I see it, is to make sure that all players are having fun. Rules can impact this - for example, if you have a game like D&D where combat is highly tactical and can take some time, it isn't much fun to sit around watching when your character doesn't have tactical options. (This is why D&D 4e spends a lot of time designing "roles" for each class that are largely focused around combat, because it is clearly the most time-consuming part of the game.)
But game rules aren't the end of the story, either. Different characters may have different non-combat roles too, and this can really affect the way the game ends up progressing. For example, if you have just one character who is the "Face" guy (social skills, charisma, whatever) then a lot of the non-combat scenes will be dominated by that character. This pits the players against each other in a subtle way. The Face player wants to spend more time on the non-combat scenes that showcase his character, but the combat specialist player has nothing to do in those scenes. She wants to spend time on the combat scenes where her character shines.
This is why I think that non-combat balance is just as important as combat balance in the rules. If the combat is balanced and the non-combat is not, then the game will be skewed towards combat just because that is the part of the game that everyone can share and enjoy. But just as D&D 4e evaluated the combat roles to ensure that every class had something to do, you'd need to evaluate the non-combat roles and ensure that every player has something to do.
But what are the non-combat roles? Which ones need rules support and which ones don't? How do you tweak your character creation or campaign design to ensure that players come up with characters that are "balanced" in the sense of having both combat and non-combat roles to play, taking into account the needs of your particular players and campaign setting?
I don't really have much thought about this, but it seems to be an important facet both of GM skills and campaign design, as well as potentially needing some house rules tweaks.
The problem with trying to balance non-combat is that people can (and often will) act independently of their Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Gather Information, Appraise, etc. skill checks, ability checks, and in general anything mechanical or not tied to interaction. It doesn't matter if one character has 18 Cha and 12 ranks in almost every skill of importance while another has 10 Cha and happens to be a better fighter; if the fighter's player is better at problem solving or speaking, the character that is supposed to fit the "face" role may not end up that way. For this reason you might say that systems devoid of many non-combat mechanics are superior (though this comes with its own problems if your players and GM aren't just).
The best thing I think you could do with D&D is give each class and race different options for non-combat interaction. Maybe wizards get advantages to interacting with other spellcasters, clerics get bonuses to interaction with particularly pious individuals, those who can demonstrate strong melee capability are better at dealing with guards and soldiers, etc. Classes such as the bard would be the exception, as since they're a jack-of-all-trades they could potentially deal well with anyone.
As to the question for specific campaigns, you can kind of tell what your players want by observing them and looking at their character. And sometimes I just go right out and ask, "what kinds of things do you want more or less of?" So you've got a player that likes politics, and one that likes combat, and one that likes puzzles. I try to make sure each has his or her chance to shine.
As for game systems and social "encounters," I tend to believe rules light is better if the situation is likely to be roleplayed (for example I don't play out every situation of a gather info check, but a specific conversation I would). The Burning Wheel had an interesting mechanic for social combat that I think can work (I adapted something similar when working on Echoes of Dreams).
QuoteBut what are the non-combat roles? Which ones need rules support and which ones don't? How do you tweak your character creation or campaign design to ensure that players come up with characters that are "balanced" in the sense of having both combat and non-combat roles to play, taking into account the needs of your particular players and campaign setting?
Rigidly defining out-of-combat roles is both difficult and dangerous. You don't want to straight-jacket this kind of thing, usually. I mean you may have the face, the thief, the scholar, the thug and so forth, but these are just archetypes; not everyone fits one and some fit several. The key is to make sure that a character can be something in combat and out of combat. That's one of the problems with 3.X classes, is that often the skill system doesn't let the fighter really be anything out of combat (too few points, near necessity of low-to-mid Int, few good class skills, etc.).
This reminds me of a past discussion on a similar topic (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?41243.post), though it is certainly more in-depth.
I'd prefer to ratchet down the rigidity of role definitions, in-combat and otherwise. The pidgeonholing of combat roles based on character class has always been a point of dissatisfaction with me, in all class-based game systems. I have no desire whatsoever to extend that system into non-combat interactions as well, or even to impose many rules-based restrictions on them at all. (We'll see how well that actually works out in practice.)
As for this:
QuoteThis pits the players against each other in a subtle way. The Face player wants to spend more time on the non-combat scenes that showcase his character, but the combat specialist player has nothing to do in those scenes. She wants to spend time on the combat scenes where her character shines.
I honestly think that if you are having this problem, the players are to blame. If your group contains one person who wants to do nothing but non-combat scenes and another player who wants to do nothing but battles, you need either to give them both a talk about sharing the spotlight, or to break your gaming group in half and run a different style of game with each group.
Quote from: WickedTrollThe problem with trying to balance non-combat is that people can (and often will) act independently of their Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Gather Information, Appraise, etc. skill checks, ability checks, and in general anything mechanical or not tied to interaction. It doesn't matter if one character has 18 Cha and 12 ranks in almost every skill of importance while another has 10 Cha and happens to be a better fighter; if the fighter's player is better at problem solving or speaking, the character that is supposed to fit the "face" role may not end up that way. For this reason you might say that systems devoid of many non-combat mechanics are superior (though this comes with its own problems if your players and GM aren't just).
Which only happens if you're stuck with a "free-form" DM who lets get people away with solving social encounters purely through "roleplaying". Imho, the only way of solving a social encounter should be the same as for solving a combat encounter: the dice. After all, you wouldn't let the player of a scholarly wizard get away beating some orcs up because the
player had the black belt in Tae-Kwon-Do or something, would you?
I'm not objecting to allow players to describe what their characters
try to achieve. However, the outcome of their actions should
only be decided by their diplomacy/socialize/whatyoucallit skill checks - and not by how good they got their point across to the DM.
Finally, no matter how well the players explain their characters' talking and acting, they should
never get any sort of bonus for it to their skill checks. Or do you grant a bonus to attack rolls because the player describes in detail how he would break through the enemy's defenses and slip his weapon under his shield and stab him in the guts? In my opinion, these bonuses are already taken into account by synergy and circumstance bonuses.
Yes, this does mean that (in DnD) pretty much every class but bards, clerics, and probably sorcerers, druids, and monks utterly SUCK at social interaction. I have no problem with that.
Quote from: WickedTrollThe best thing I think you could do with D&D is give each class and race different options for non-combat interaction. Maybe wizards get advantages to interacting with other spellcasters, clerics get bonuses to interaction with particularly pious individuals, those who can demonstrate strong melee capability are better at dealing with guards and soldiers, etc. Classes such as the bard would be the exception, as since they're a jack-of-all-trades they could potentially deal well with anyone.
I'm not so sure about that. While it's basically a good idea, why should Bob the knight from the northern kingdom be able to deal better with Sandro the dervish from the southern calimphate just because they belong both to the fighter class? The mechanical problem is that if the bonus is too small it won't ever matter, but if the bonus is too big it will create rediculous situations where the quiet, dull, egocentric fighter suddenly becomes the most well-spoken and respected individual of the party based purely on the coincidence that the opposition also was trained in beating up stuff.
I strongly dislike free form D&D RP; the skills are there for a reason. What I do do is allow players to discuss strategy out of character; the group figures out what they're going to do in a social situation, and they have the face character roll it.
But there's no reason for a fighter, for instance, to have nothing to do out of combat. In one game I ran, I actually had a couple of strength based challenges (a heavy beam fell on a lady the party was trying to rescue from a burning house, and only the fighter had the strength required to lift and unstick it through strength checks). Fighters can also have intimidate.
Really, it all comes down to "do your players make characters or stats". In a character oriented game, all players will find something to do out of combat, and their out of combat failings will actually be part of the character.
In combat balance matters most to me, as that's when a character stealing the show feels the worse.
Quote from: Ra-TielImho, the only way of solving a social encounter should be the same as for solving a combat encounter: the dice.
Finally, no matter how well the players explain their characters' talking and acting, they should never get any sort of bonus for it to their skill checks. Or do you grant a bonus to attack rolls because the player describes in detail how he would break through the enemy's defenses and slip his weapon under his shield and stab him in the guts? [/quote]
Yes! :D
I think that if the description is vivid and exciting and helps add to the sense of creating a shared story, rather than simply "I stab the Orc"... yes, it does deserve a bonus. :D
Quote from: Ra-TielImho, the only way of solving a social encounter should be the same as for solving a combat encounter: the dice.
After all, you wouldn't let the player of a scholarly wizard get away beating some orcs up because the
player had the black belt in Tae-Kwon-Do or something, would you?[/quote]I'm not objecting to allow players to describe what their characters
try to achieve. However, the outcome of their actions should
only be decided by their diplomacy/socialize/whatyoucallit skill checks - and not by how good they got their point across to the DM.[/quote]player[/i] can think of any specific jokes that would break the ice with an angry half-orc is irrelevant, even though no dice were rolled.
QuoteOr do you grant a bonus to attack rolls because the player describes in detail how he would break through the enemy's defenses and slip his weapon under his shield and stab him in the guts?
All the time; whenever a player describes something that sounds like flanking, I place his miniature in flank and grant him the normal +2 bonus to attack rolls. Similar statements hold when the player describes an action that involves taking cover, provoking an attack of opportunity, moving to higher ground, making clever use of terrain, etcetera. A character's numerical bonuses are no substitute for the tactical thinking of the character's player.
I'm with Meeps on everything he just said.
Also, for me, a player knowing or not knowing tae kwon do is not an appropriate analogy (actually the trouble with argument by analogy is saying that something is like something else really means it's not the same as that thing; no analogy is really going to be that perfect). We're talking about roleplaying versus something we physically can't or won't act out (fighting orcs). It's why I prefer games with NO mental stats, given the choice. Your character is as smart (charming, clever, whatever) as you choose to play him or her (which is not always to your full potential, but never exceeds that potential).
Complaining that players that are not clever or are anti-social shouldn't be at a disadvantage in a mental, social game is like me complaining I should be allowed to play pro sports even though I'm a lightweight and not very coordinated. See ;) argument by analogy is better for amusement than real points. More to the point, these are player skills that do improve as one plays more and thinks more.
BTW, Charisma, if properly represented, might be an exception; that is because charisma represents a subtle (originally divine) presence, your ability to influence people and how much they notice you. A player already has the GMs attention (hopefully), so his charisma is irrelevant.
But then, my style is not for everyone. Some people prefer to roll dice for everything. That's their prerogative. I say all this only because some posters seem to give the impression (whether intended or not) that they think those that prefer to roleplay social encounters without dice are wrong. Some of the most fun times I've had roleplaying have been sitting outside with a couple of players and doing social encounters. We didn't even have dice with us (hell we sometimes did this while walking to the store for food). But we had fun. Were we roleplaying wrong?
Screw balance. As long as no one power breaks the game (most powers you can preempt somehow if you know ahead of time what they are) and no one character gets completely shafted, there need be no more fine-tuning than that.
The fine-tuning in combat isn't because "there's more rules for it." It's because, presumably, people *die* at the end of it. I know it's an easy thing to forget, but... yeah... dying and feeling you didn't get a fair chance 'cause the rules shafted you just sucks. Not making nice with the baron when he catches you breaking into his library? Just not as high-stakes.
Quote from: sparkletwistI do agree with this general line of thinking, though. You've got stats, why not use them. :)
However, I do like the idea of being descriptive, getting into character, and other parts of the fun that "roleplaying" entails, so actually:
As said, I don't have a problem with players describing their characters' actions in detail. However, I
do have a problem with players trying that to squeeze some additional bonus/benefit out of the DM that way. ;)
Quote from: sparkletwistYes! :D
I think that if the description is vivid and exciting and helps add to the sense of creating a shared story, rather than simply "I stab the Orc"... yes, it does deserve a bonus. :D
I must side with the Kap'n on this one and disagree. Especially in combat everyone should adhere to the mechanical side of the game as closely as possible to not give balance a kick to the balls. Why should a character that is slightly less martial as yours (eg, a bard with 3/4 BAB compared to a fighter with 1/1 BAB) get a bonus just because the
player thought of some nifty combat stunt because of the
player's real-life knowledge?
Quote from: Epic MeepoInteresting. I have the exact opposite play style: I use dice as little as possible.
Nothing wrong with that. ;)
Quote from: Epic MeepoIf dice are only rolled during combat encounters, trap encounters, and occasional encounters specifically designed to depend on skill checks, non-combat balance is almost automatic. Players just work together to solve problems through critical thinking.
But why should a social encounter be that different from a skill encounter or combat encounter? If you let players "bypass" the rules regarding social encounters, do you allow them the same leeway with combats? If you allow a player to bypass a difficult social situation accompanied with tough diplomacy/sense motive/bluff checks by using some of his real-life skill with words, would you allow them to bypass a hard combat by using some of his real-life skill with martial arts and/or archaic weapons?
Quote from: Epic MeepoIf I have a player who insists on having his scholarly wizard character perform feats of martial prowess simply because he has a black belt, I ask him to find a group more appropriate to his playing style; I expect my players to describe only character-appropriate actions.
It's not that different, really. It's the same phenomenon (player using real-life abilities to bypass mechanical challenges in-game), only applied to combat instead to social encounters. I really cannot see why
a) "player using his personal social experience describing/having a conversation in-game to avoid social skill checks"
is that different from
b) "player using his personal martial experience describing his maneuvers in-game to avoid combat skill checks".
:P
Quote from: Epic MeepoHow well a player gets his point across has nothing to do with it; unless it's an encounter explicitly intended to be a combat or a skill challenge, a player with a good Diplomacy check bonus should be allowed to just declare things like, "I'll defuse the situation by making a few jokes that endear me to the angry half-orc." Whether of not the player can think of any specific jokes that would break the ice with an angry half-orc is irrelevant, even though no dice were rolled.
Which is exactly my point. A player's actual real-life abilities should have to do ZERO with his character's abilities. Why should a player who has a great way with words be able to get away with automatically "solving" social encounters without checks while playing a "dumb" character, while a not-so-eloquent player is forced to rely on his character's skills and thus incurs the chance of failure?
Quote from: Epic MeepoAll the time; whenever a player describes something that sounds like flanking, I place his miniature in flank and grant him the normal +2 bonus to attack rolls. Similar statements hold when the player describes an action that involves taking cover, provoking an attack of opportunity, moving to higher ground, making clever use of terrain, etcetera. A character's numerical bonuses are no substitute for the tactical thinking of the character's player.
I don't have a problem with that, as that is just "mapping" the player's descriptions to appropriate in-game mechanics. However, in the past I've had encounters with DMs who thought that giving additional bonuses above and beyond that to players who described more or less insane and/or impossible (but K.E.W.L. (tm)) stunts and maneuvers was ok. In my experience, this happened exceptionally often with WoD and Exalted DMs.
Quote from: Ra-TielEspecially in combat everyone should adhere to the mechanical side of the game as closely as possible to not give balance a kick to the balls. Why should a character that is slightly less martial as yours (eg, a bard with 3/4 BAB compared to a fighter with 1/1 BAB) get a bonus just because the player thought of some nifty combat stunt because of the player's real-life knowledge?
specific[/b] things. A character shouldn't get a bonus to climb out of a pit because the player is an excellent climber; a character shouldn't get a bonus talking his way out of a situation because the player is good at talking his way out of things either. However, I am fully in favor of the notion of roleplaying as a cooperatively created story, and I like the idea of giving characters a bonus if the players can be descriptive and imaginative, and add to the overall flow of the narrative, rather than just acting like they're giving input to a text adventure from the 80s. TAKE ROCK. THROW ROCK AT ORC. TAKE GOLD. :D
I think we have, as LC mentioned, been down this road a few times before. I remember one thread about the misuse of charisma and dimplomacy skills, in particular.
Also, Snakefing was speaking about campaign design and balance. My setting deals with the social side very heavily, so the role-playing is very important.
One of the major point was that most systems place a much stronger emphasis on combat resolution systems versus non-combat resolutions systems. I have agred with Beeblebrox on thie idea that combat is more dangerous and thus deserves a lot of attention and a lot of time devoted to it. But this does not mean you can then compare other things to how you adjudicate combat.
[blockquote=Ra-tiel]I must side with the Kap'n on this one and disagree. Especially in combat everyone should adhere to the mechanical side of the game as closely as possible to not give balance a kick to the balls. Why should a character that is slightly less martial as yours (eg, a bard with 3/4 BAB compared to a fighter with 1/1 BAB) get a bonus just because the player thought of some nifty combat stunt because of the player's real-life knowledge?
But why should a social encounter be that different from a skill encounter or combat encounter? If you let players "bypass" the rules regarding social encounters, do you allow them the same leeway with combats? If you allow a player to bypass a difficult social situation accompanied with tough diplomacy/sense motive/bluff checks by using some of his real-life skill with words, would you allow them to bypass a hard combat by using some of his real-life skill with martial arts and/or archaic weapons?
[/blockquote]
As long as the the Bard can have a 1/1 BAB for a social skill and the fighter can have a 3/4 BAB in social skill, then I have no problem with the above statement.
If the combat systems and the social systems work similarly and the bard has social hit point advantages, similar amounts of social skill advantages, social armor advantages, the amount of magical items found that affect social situations and combat situations roughly equal,and the amounts of experience given out are roughly equal, then they should be treated the exact same. If those game balance requirements are not really met by the system being used, then perhaps you have to treat them differently. If Combat is treated differently (read that as preferenctially, if you prefer) than other parts of the game, than you can't really compare other parts of the game to combat.
I'm not going to give some PC an advantage in combat due to his knowledge of archaic weapons, because most FRP rulesets have rules to cover that everything to do with combat and archaic weapons. The rules already cover that. But if I have a scene in a ballroom late at night with a large crowd and a lot of social conseqence on the line, and a PC is asked to dance, and his skill on the dancefloor will betray a lot to the onlookers, and the rule system in question has little or nothing about dancing in their ruleset (and courtly manners or diplomacy is NOT dancing), then, yeah, I'd expect a GM in that situaltion to give an advantage to a Player who knows something about it becasue the rules don't cover that.
And treating a social situation the same as a combat system has got to go both ways. If the system weights the usefulness of both and goes into them both with a lot of detail, and lets players really specialize and thrive in both, then treat them the same. Otherwise, I consider them apples and oranges.
I'm also not going to lie to any of you and tell you combat resolution doesn't take up more tiem than anything else in my system, but we've tried very hard (with over 22 social-type skills available) to have some interesting balance for the players that want to improve their social skills.
edit addendum in red if you've already read this post. . .
Well, I try and approach the issue before gaming begins. My gaming style and emphasis as a GM leans far more to "righteous role playing" than "hack and slash, power up, then hack and slash in a more spectacular (and/or graphic) manner. It's certainly not for everyone. (I find this more pronounced with younger players these days seeking to recreate in a table-top game their experience of play in what passes as "RPGs" in computer gaming. Sadly, those who have only this experience to draw upon often have no concept of what the term "role-playing" actually refers to.)
Because of this I place strong initial emphasis on character concept and backstory. I have prospective players present one or two character concepts, expanding slightly on race and class with a very brief, skeletal synopsis of personal history/motivation, e.g. Jethro grew up in a tiny fishing village at the edge of the bayou and when an aging wizard who had decided the village was a good place for him to "disappear" noticed he might have some knack for the art he jumped at the chance to learn because he realized that it meant he would never have to go hungry again. (When he later found a +1 trident, while he couldn't comprehend why anyone would pour that much magic into a fishin' stick, he loved how good it was at spearing catfish. No way in hell would he consider trading it for say, a +5 Dancing Vorpal Dagger of Indescribable Unnecessary Violence, Grievous Bodily Harm and Ridiculous Overkill unless of course said dagger also possessed to power "Locate Food and Drink." Really. Jethro was an absolute blast to play.)
Anyway, once the basic concept is clarified, then we sit down to "roll up" the character and work together to create someone who fits the concept well. The Character Sheet then is essentially used in game as a Cliff Notes easy reference for mechanical details of the story the player will be telling about this character through the course of the game. Before play then I encourage the player to flesh out the character's backstory as much as they can (some are better at this then others) not only to clarify initial motives and desires they hope to fulfill through adventuring, but also to pin down what the character does and doesn't know about the world as a result of personal experience to date that isn't necessarily covered by skills or other specific mechanics. Jethro for instance knew about swampy environments, handling small, simple (oared and poled) water craft, fishing, the behaviors of fish and how to cook them. When confronting a new situation, where he could perceive a clear analogy to his experience he could then come up with original responses and would act upon the ideas (which might in actuality be anywhere from extremely apt to completely non-applicable.)
Since I emphasize XP awards based on appropriately and effectively role playing the characters (you don't necessarily have to kill or even fight the monsters to prevail in an encounter and doing so when not forced to might even be out of character,) good backstory then establishes good parameters for what a character can and can't think of doing before a player ever considers declaring an inappropriate option that the player understands. Jethro again, needed to learn not to parry with the trident as if it were a staff, and it was a long time before it would ever occur to him that it might be possible to attempt disarming someone with it.
N.B., I allow changes to the mechanical construction up to the first level increase (I start at E.L. 2 to permit some adjusted races and initial multi-classing. Khurorkh always begin w/2 classes, 1 spiritual, the other "practical," though some individuals may choose to only develop one of them significantly as adults.) Personally, when I play a new character, I've found that no concept ever survives first contact intact, i.e., I may find myself playing someone I initially thought would be short-tempered and intimidating in an unexpectedly courteous and diplomatic fashion when the occasion actually arises and wish to alter skill allocation to reflect that. I generally need 2 to 3 sessions to really know and understand a character - final draft of full backstory is usually accomplished at this point.
I think that role-playing is further promoted in that I encourage players to come up with unusual, unexpected concepts and think outside the common archetypes. (I likewise try to do so with standard setting elements: LG orkhs; mushroom tripping, oversexed communist dwarves that weep loudly and copiously while killing and are greedy for personal affection and the regard of their peers instead of gold, but don't actually contradict the "official" description beyond a couple of details.) Career military halflings, (granted he was an intelligence officer and rogue - is that redundant?) amnesiac wizards who have forgotten that they are actually conniving, power hungry, evil bastards hated by all and actually more powerful than they realize, and rich swashbuckling city dandies who really want to be rangers have all shown up it the table. Since I winnow out crunch-junkie munchkins in advance I can also afford to be more generous than many in character creation and later in level advancement mechanics. Since they aren't going to abuse it (and may well spend skill points/feats on more fluff oriented options in keeping with the character) this helps to ensure that they can actually play the character mechanically as they are imagining in concept.
As for non-combat roles, the above can serve as a starting point to see how a well-rounded character (in the writer's sense) built essentially for combat can still play effectively in other situations. Even your basic semi-literate infantry jar-head actually knows a lot about a lot of things besides marching and shooting and frequently engages in a wide variety of social interactions quite successfully. Once a player has a good, comprehensive "perceptual reality filter" in place for the character they can play them effectively in any situation they encounter - and may well have more fun playing the non-combat stuff. Even if Simper Fifi (hey, no one gave Rosy Greer crap over his name or doing needle-point either,) can only express himself in a monosyllabic vocabulary, he may actually think a great deal about religion and still be quite capable of carrying on a rather deep and relatively perceptive conversation with a cleric of another religion regarding their comparative theological and cosmological perspectives; just not a particularly scholarly conversation. A low INT score doesn't mean developmentally disabled and low WIS doesn't prevent someone from developing considered and reasonable opinions and convictions.
Good role-playing = good XP, but doesn't necessarily mean success at what is being attempted. Skills and other factors still come into play in making that final determination. The most reasonable and well articulated persuasion can utterly fail to sway a listener in the slightest, while poorly considered and nearly unintelligible arguments may still win over the receptive (see Bush, George Jr.). Hence the skill check. While it can be easy to put a check on over-playing a character's abilities, it's a little tougher to augment one under-played of necessity. So to use another's example, yes I think it quite reasonable for the bard to simply state "I make some jokes that would endear me to the half-orc," and then roll. The basic idea and action are very much in character and role-played to the best of the player's ability. It meets the requirements; the emphasis on "righteous roleplaying" is simply a matter of making the game enjoyable - if the player can actually think of some good jokes then this is encouraged to help make the game more fun. It should not detract from the overall enjoyment. (Few want to spend time actually playing out ever single little interaction word-by-word in real-time.)
To address a couple other specifics mentioned in the thread: attempting potentially absurd though cool and original (generically speaking:) tactics, if appropriately in character is worth XP, especially since they will probably result in a penalty on the die-roll. If you want them to enhance the probability of success, play Paranoia or better yet, HoL (and definitely make use of the "Buttery Wholesomeness" expansion). Attempting to augment a check through articulate verbosity only succeeds if the description (no matter how exquisitely lurid) actually suggests a valid circumstance bonus which the character would be capable of recognizing and taking advantage of.
In terms of campaign design, I'm with L.V.V., the Nice, in that Panisadore is being designed very much with an emphasis on cultural, social, political and religious aspects of the setting. (Okay, they are the setting. . .) Crunch is only a consideration in terms of ensuring that classes, races, abilities, etc. can fit and offer satisfying expressions of the above.
For the record, freeform is a horrible way to go, and I do think it should be done with dice. But there should be some situations where even those who are poor at the task can at least lend two cents. :/
Quote from: sparkletwistD&D is a narrative game, not an adversarial one. So, why does balance really matter? :)
Sorry, but I must really disagree. In my mind, DnD is first a game, and second a narrative game. And in a game I expect everyone to have the same chances. If you say that balance doesn't matter, you may have fun playing a 20 point-buy fighter in a party with 50 point-buy clerics, druids, and wizards. Well, I would rather not.
If other characters can do your schtick better than you can, it very quickly becomes very boring.
Quote from: sparkletwistIf the narrative is more exciting and interesting with the nifty combat stunt, doesn't that improve the game more? I will say that if the combat is PC vs PC, then keeping things strictly balanced might be more important. (It still might not, it depends on what the players are expecting out of it) Still, usually the players are working together against a common enemy.
I'm not saying that the game cannot be narrative. I am saying that no matter how narrative it becomes, the game's mechanics and rules should be and stay the final arbiter of what goes and what does not. So, in my games you shouldn't expect any bonuses above and beyond what the rules already allow for a character (+2 from using a mw toolkit, or +2 from flanking). Definitively not, however, a +4 bonus because someone described a "really cool" attack move. :-|
Quote from: sparkletwistThese two stances may appear contradictory at first, so I'll explain a bit more: in the first case, I'm talking about making sure the character's skill is independent of the player's in specific things. A character shouldn't get a bonus to climb out of a pit because the player is an excellent climber; a character shouldn't get a bonus talking his way out of a situation because the player is good at talking his way out of things either.
True. And my stance isn't that different from that. ;)
Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, I am fully in favor of the notion of roleplaying as a cooperatively created story, and I like the idea of giving characters a bonus if the players can be descriptive and imaginative, and add to the overall flow of the narrative, rather than just acting like they're giving input to a text adventure from the 80s.
If the bonus is at most +2/-2 ("favorable conditions") I guess I could see a point to it. However, anything that goes further is way out of what I would accept. :)
Quote from: sparkletwistTAKE ROCK. THROW ROCK AT ORC. TAKE GOLD. :D
Wrong. Dead wrong. That reads: "USE stone WITH orc". :P :D
Quote from: LordVreegAs long as the the Bard can have a 1/1 BAB for a social skill and the fighter can have a 3/4 BAB in social skill, then I have no problem with the above statement.
But what if the system is not the way you describe? As far as DnD is concerned, the bard is at 3/4 combat BAB with a 1/1 social BAB, while the fighter is at 1/1 combat BAB and like 1/100 social BAB. :?:
Quote from: LordVreegIf the combat systems and the social systems work similarly and the bard has social hit point advantages, similar amounts of social skill advantages, social armor advantages, the amount of magical items found that affect social situations and combat situations roughly equal,and the amounts of experience given out are roughly equal, then they should be treated the exact same. If those game balance requirements are not really met by the system being used, then perhaps you have to treat them differently.
There was a very interesting approach once on the WotC forums for handling social interactions. It revolved around making a character's social skills into virtual HP reserves and the Cha mod into something like an attack bonus. Skill checks were made in turn, with each party reducing the opposition's HPs until one of them was down to 0, which caused them to lose this skill contest. It was very interesting, but a bit cumbersome to implement. However, I really liked the basic idea, to make social interactions (which to be honest DnD utterly sucks at) more similar to combat interactions (which are handled quite well in DnD).
Quote from: LordVreegIf Combat is treated differently (read that as preferenctially, if you prefer) than other parts of the game, than you can't really compare other parts of the game to combat.
But there still should be some sort of mechanics related to that. Why should the character's social ability be the
only thing that is not covered by mechanics? This would break the basic idea behind roleplaying games: that you can be someone/-thing you're not in real-life. Why should the wizard be able to throw around fireballs and summon demons when the player has ZERO knowledge about mythology and mysticism, why should the fighter be able to swing his greatsword all day long when the player couldn't pick up a dagger without cutting himself? But the bard (or "party face") requires his player have real ability and social competence?
Quote from: LordVreeg[...] But if I have a scene in a ballroom late at night with a large crowd and a lot of social conseqence on the line, and a PC is asked to dance, and his skill on the dancefloor will betray a lot to the onlookers, and the rule system in question has little or nothing about dancing in their ruleset (and courtly manners or diplomacy is NOT dancing), then, yeah, I'd expect a GM in that situaltion to give an advantage to a Player who knows something about it becasue the rules don't cover that.
I see your point. And what about combat situations that are not covered by the rules (like throwing a grappled target, or cutting of extremities)? Do you handwave that as a DM, too, or do you tell the player "sorry pal, but the rules don't allow/cover that; please take a different action"?
Also, I do think that "dancing" could be covered by diplomacy. It's just a way of applying an appropriate abstraction layer as to what skills represent and what they do not. And after all, the DM could always substitute a DEX or CHA check for things that don't have an appropriate skill associated with them (like the
good olde days (tm) ;) ).
Also, I like the approach from the Star Wars rpg very much ("Heroic Skills"). Just because someone has 0 ranks in climb does not mean he couldn't climb over a fence, just like 0 ranks in diplomacy don't mean that you couldn't barter for a better price at the market. It's just that in "heroic" situations you won't get anywhere with your "non-heroic" abilities.
Quote from: LordVreegAnd treating a social situation the same as a combat system has got to go both ways. If the system weights the usefulness of both and goes into them both with a lot of detail, and lets players really specialize and thrive in both, then treat them the same. Otherwise, I consider them apples and oranges.
Not really. They both belong to the same game, they both are decisive elements the characters (and players) are exposed to, and they both influenece the outcome of the campaign/story arc. I agree that it would be perfect for a system to handle both things with the same degree of detail, but that's just wishing for the best. We have to settle with the imperfections of the systems used and go with it, or try to modify and house-rule the mechanics we consider lacking.
Quote from: LordVreegI'm also not going to lie to any of you and tell you combat resolution doesn't take up more tiem than anything else in my system, but we've tried very hard (with over 22 social-type skills available) to have some interesting balance for the players that want to improve their social skills.
22 social skills? :huh: Now
that is alot for sure. :P
<thread-derailing>
And what skills were that? How much did you go into detail? What situations did you decide to handle with a seperate skill, and which ones did you roll together into one skill? :) (You can also reply with a PM if you want, to not have the thread go too far off-topic.)
</thread-derailing>
I've skipped ahead halfway thru the page.
-------
The biggest problem I've seen with social interaction is that there's usually only one "Face" to the party, while in realitly there are many potential ways anyone can contribute to social encounters:
Connections
"You know who" says "you know what"...
Some character's diplomatic skills may not actually be anything worth noting, but they have connections to a hierarchy that gives their words the weight of their organiztion.
Soldier types, priest types and roylaty are usauly using this.
Diplomancy
What a nice chicken you have. I bet it be a fair trade for this sword.
Thinking with words outside the box, diplomancers manipulate the thinking of others into agreements with the right question at the right time.
This is the primary characteristic of the Nice Guy, and the Vampire Politician.
Disguise
No! You're the imposter!
If you can't build a social standing, steel it!
Biggest Giant
Me Ugo! Me wants muffin!
When people are scared of you 'cause your capable of smashing their house with your face, they're more likely to agree with what you say, or ataleast get out of you're way.
Sex Apeal
I am Sir Lace-a-lot! *glint*
When you're gorgeous enough, you can get away with just anything. Batt you eyes, flex some muscle, or just smile. They'll let you off.
So much going on here, and such limited time to reply...
Quote from: Ra-TielIf other characters can do your schtick better than you can, it very quickly becomes very boring.
play balance[/i] rather than
mechanical balance. Play balance is to ensure that every player has fun. Mechanical balance is about keeping the rule-defined abilities of characters in balance. Play balance is what really matters; mechanical balance is only a tool toward that end.
If a given rule set is unbalanced in certain ways, a skillful GM can compensate for that. But it is better if he doesn't have to.
For example, in the D&D rule set, fighter characters are somewhat gimped when it comes to social skills. Fewer skill points, mechanical advantages to using CHA as a dump stat (and to a lesser extent, INT), and class skill list that provides only the second class social skill Intimidate. Mechanically, this is in balance because the fighter's combat abilities are supposed to be her forte. But if you want to run a campaign that is, say, 60/20/20 social interaction/problem solving/combat, the lack of social skills threatens to leave the fighter's player with precious little to do 60% of the time. 60% boredom is not a good ratio - play balance is out of whack.
So if you are playing this rule set, as GM you need to make some special efforts to compensate for that. There's a number of things you can do. Here are some I can think of or that have come up in this thread:
Create house rules to give the fighter some shot at some social skills, without stealing the thunder from classes that are supposed to shine in these situations.
*Design a campaign setting with various military orders, factions, or whatnot. Then encourage (or require) fighter characters to belong to them - give them their own special social settings where they will have more to do.
*Encourage a play style where all the players have input even if it is only one character that is acting.
On the other hand, if you are running a campaign that slants 50/50 combat/social interaction, then you need to worry equally about both sides of the coin. Combats need to be designed to ensure that non-combat oriented characters can at least participate, even if they won't be entirely as effective, and the social milieu needs to be designed so that more combat-oriented characters are engaged socially. This can be approached from a mechanical standpoint, but also from the standpoint of designing a campaign world or designing encounters that provide options or opportunities even for the non-specialists.
Now we're talking about social skills?
In that case, I'd say that the difficulty of an action varies. The difficulty of convincing an NPC of an implausible lie is higher than the difficulty of convincing an NPC of a plausible lie. I'm not going to fault a player for stuttering or mumbling, but I'm not going to have NPCs believing the sky is purple and that the grass is cotton candy because my PC wanted to bluff his way out of taking blame for breaking into someone's home.
In combat, again, "description" only counts if it changes the actual nature of the action. If the player is fighting on a subway train, he may punch a mook in the face... or he'll run up to the mook, grab the mook's face, and slam the guy's head into one of those vertical poles they've got on the trains so people can stand. In the first instance, that's an aoo and some piddling subdual damage. In the second case, there's the charge and bull rush through an impassable object, dealing a bit of (probably still piddling) lethal damage and knocking the guy prone. Why? 'Cause the guy actually *did* something cool rather than describing something mundane with an unnecessary verbosity.
I'm not going to penalize charisma skills for poor delivery if the statement/action makes some sense, nor am I going to give a mechanical benefit to wordy description like "I flail wildly" or "I use my balogna strike" in combat. Unless they have the balogna strike feat, but that's something else entirely.
As for balance, I maintain that the stricter balance on combat stems from its lethal nature. Dying sucks lotsa times.
Quote from: Ra-TielIf you let players "bypass" the rules regarding social encounters, do you allow them the same leeway with combats?
If you allow a player to bypass a difficult social situation accompanied with tough diplomacy/sense motive/bluff checks by using some of his real-life skill with words, would you allow them to bypass a hard combat by using some of his real-life skill with martial arts and/or archaic weapons?[/quote]Why should a player who has a great way with words be able to get away with automatically "solving" social encounters without checks while playing a "dumb" character, while a not-so-eloquent player is forced to rely on his character's skills and thus incurs the chance of failure?[/quote]I've had encounters with DMs who thought that giving additional bonuses above and beyond that to players who described more or less insane and/or impossible (but K.E.W.L. (tm)) stunts and maneuvers was ok.[/quote]Well, that's just silly. Unless you're playing a Hong Kong action rpg like Feng Shui; then, describing a kewl stunt is a prerequisite for any combat bonus.
I would have to say that RPG is a "narrative game" with adversarial elements in the form of principal antagonists provided by the DM in the course of narrative. (Usually if the DM is the adversary against whom players are trying to "win" something is wrong with the conduct of the game, outside of a few exceptions such as Paranoia where this would indicate the game is being run correctly if not well. . .) I place great emphasis on this actually in defining the very root concept of RPGs prior to any consideration of system and/or setting. The point I will be shortly trying to make regarding topic is that mechanical balance is an essential prerequisite for balance of narrative play - where it is lacking in the system used the DM is forced to rely on other skills to establish it obliquely in game.
In order to explain the statements above I will first presume to declare (what I readily acknowledge to be my pet theory regarding the matter), that RPG's (owe their original immediate and subsequent amazing growth in popularity to the fact that they) are a revival of (an art nearly lost in our culture,) the traditional oral storytellers' circle, in a fashion which further extends and enhances the fundamental basis of it's appeal to an unprecedented degree. It is difficult to distill that basis to a succinct description, the gist of which is a definite "magical" something that is experienced in the course of the art's traditional performance, being received and subsequently carried away in the psyches of the listeners. Those here who have had the opportunity to experience real expression of the tradition will have an intuitive grasp of what I'm referring to (and if you can name or give a concise description of that something, please do). Joseph Campbell referred to the social function and value of this extensively in his work, offering numerous cultural examples. In what is probably it's fullest cultural expression, among Aboriginal Australians absolutely nothing is considered real in this world until it has a story, because it is quite explicitly the act of telling it's story that makes a thing real.
Looking beyond that origin then, while in a traditional storytelling circle there is a single storyteller (at a time) and a group of essentially passive listeners who may often request, "Tell us a story about (insert favorite character here, e.g., Finn McCoul)," in an RPG circle there is no separate audience because, everyone is a storyteller telling the stories of their favorite characters concurrently. As someone mentioned earlier, playing an RPG is cooperative storytelling. The DM is a "story leader" providing a dynamic contextual setting (meta-story) in which the circle of storytellers cooperate as the DM guides them in braiding all of their individual stories into the an extremely synergetic whole by virtue of which the experience of that "something" is increased exponentially. The DM is then responsible for ensuring thatno individual character or story overshadows the others in the meta-story created. In order to do this, the game mechanics of the chosen system are the principal, vital tool by which an appropriate balance of all of the elements composing the whole is maintained. If the tool isn't balanced, the artwork produced through its use will likewise be imbalanced.
The DM must also ensure that no storytellers overshadow the rest in the conduct of the circle.
[blockquote[Snakefing]. . .how does balance translate from the "theoretical" balance of game design to the reality of game play on a particular night in a specific adventure in your individual campaign/group? . . .How do you tweak your character creation or campaign design to ensure that players come up with characters that are "balanced" in the sense of having both combat and non-combat roles to play, taking into account the needs of your particular players and campaign setting?[/blockquote]
I don't think you can really tweak the rules in any way to significantly improve that balance. This is more dependent upon the DM's skills in creating first, a setting in which those non-combat roles can actually matter and second, a dynamic campaign within that setting in which the various specific roles (combat and non-combat) chosen by the players will equally matter to the whole - the story - coupled with skills in leading group dynamics during play - the telling. Some chapters (nights) will certainly highlight some more than others but in a good story this will even out as the various chapters are collected. On the flip side, the meta-story must also be crafted so that no roles which have not been chosen by players are necessary to the plot - just as you don't stuff a party down a wood-chipper without a cleric present (or bard now in a pinch) nor send them to fight an army without a main battle tank (presumably at the head of the column), you likewise simply don't make the successful conclusion of a peace summit a plot requirement if no one has chosen to play a character capable of fulfilling a role suited to accomplishing this.
I don't believe there needs to be balance, as long as the setting is interesting, and full of challenges, some classes, and races might be slighted due to reasons of campaign setup.
If the campaign is all about courtly politics, the half orc barbarian has no place, nor in my mind Should he. If a player wants to play that, I advise them, going in, there's not going to be much for you to do, if you go that route, but if you want to, be my guest.
Likewise, I'm not really pleased of the drift from roleplaying bonus resolution to difficulty (say a CHA check in 1e AD&D, modified by the actually player's speech, to affect the difficulty of the roll) to this kind of table-ized strict accounting of plussed and minuses, all guided by the 3.X rules set as to what modifier when.
It really detracts from the running of the campaign for me, because in the end, a skill check is a rules look-up, not a simple ruling of the moment, and a player can sit back and say "Make a speech? I've got +10 to my skill. Screw that!", and tosses the dice.
A lot got lost along the way to what passes for "Roleplaying These days, a la D&D."
I agree. A vital part of balancing is in how the DM runs things. If this wasn't true then we could all just have computers DM our sessions (which some have attempted with varying degrees of success).
The human mind is for now still an important part of the DnD experience. It is up to the DM to find that necessary balance, which is why the best DMs I find are the ones who can think workable things up on the fly and run with ideas as the game goes.