• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

Play balance and campaign design

Started by snakefing, April 17, 2008, 11:36:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

snakefing

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.
My Wiki

My Unitarian Jihad name is: The Dagger of the Short Path.
And no, I don't understand it.

Hibou

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.
[spoiler=GitHub]https://github.com/threexc[/spoiler]

Matt Larkin (author)

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.).
Latest Release: Echoes of Angels

NEW site mattlarkin.net - author of the Skyfall Era and Relics of Requiem Books
incandescentphoenix.com - publishing, editing, web design

Lmns Crn

This reminds me of a past discussion on a similar topic, 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.
I move quick: I'm gonna try my trick one last time--
you know it's possible to vaguely define my outline
when dust move in the sunshine

Ra-Tiel

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.

Xeviat

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.
Endless Horizons: Action and adventure set in a grand world ripe for exploration.

Proud recipient of the Silver Tortoise Award for extra Krunchyness.

sparkletwist

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



Epic Meepo

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.
The Unfinished World campaign setting
Proud recipient of a Silver Dorito Award.
Unless noted otherwise, this post contains no Open Game Content.
[spoiler=OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a]OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.

11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.

12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.

13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.

15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Modern System Reference Doument Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Walker.

Swords of Our Fathers Copyright 2003, The Game Mechanics.

Mutants & Masterminds Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

Epic Meepoââ,¬â,,¢s forum posts at www.thecbg.org Copyright 2006-2007, E.W. Morton.

Cebexia, Tapestry of the Gods Copyright 2006-2007, the Campaign Builder's Guild.[/spoiler]

Matt Larkin (author)

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?
Latest Release: Echoes of Angels

NEW site mattlarkin.net - author of the Skyfall Era and Relics of Requiem Books
incandescentphoenix.com - publishing, editing, web design

beejazz

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.
Beejazz's Homebrew System
 Beejazz's Homebrew Discussion

QuoteI don't believe in it anyway.
What?
England.
Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?

Ra-Tiel

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.

sparkletwist

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

LordVreeg

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.
VerkonenVreeg, The Nice.Celtricia, World of Factions

Steel Island Online gaming thread
The Collegium Arcana Online Game
Old, evil, twisted, damaged, and afflicted.  Orbis non sufficit.Thread Murderer Extraordinaire, and supposedly pragmatic...\"That is my interpretation. That the same rules designed to reduce the role of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting. And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a \'Fantasy Roleplaying game\' to something else\"-Vreeg

Snargash Moonclaw

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.
In accordance with Prophecy. . .

Have Fun, Play Well,
Amergin O'Kai (Sr./Br. Hand Grenade of Seeing All Sides of the Situation)

I am not Fallen. That was a Power Dive!


I read banned minds.

Hibou

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. :/
[spoiler=GitHub]https://github.com/threexc[/spoiler]