Quote from: RPGPundit;674824Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

incorrect, my friend.

The addition of social skills does not preclude within-setting logic, it merely increases said logic.  A good GM is still a good one, a bad one is still bad.  Your description of the issue is merely a retelling of any bad GM system where the rules are applied poorly.

You can say that 'caring about social RP' is going to make it all better, but the example we are working with in the public debate between our two protagonists is aided and better structured when you have the social dynamics in the rules, and without them you are relying on GM fiat when you don't have to.

Hey, I'm not saying a good GM can't do make a good game with fiat, but in a social heavy game, as in a game with any area of particular interest, some level of system supporting that area of the game is merely a tool for the GM and players to make the game better.

Quote from: Bill;674894The interesting detail I take from this is that social skills in an rpg can be too simplistic.

The thief with diplomacy is a good example.

'streetwise' and 'courtier' really are different and not one 'diplomacy' skill.

A farmer turned soldier fighter with Intimidate skill might be an inspiring commander.

A wizard with Intimidate might be riding on the fearsome reputation of dark sorcery for his Intimidate.

So I can see a ton of thematic issues; but it depends how one customizes a skill to the particular character.

Social Skills are about 3/4 of the way down.

Quote from: LordVreeg;674923Social Skills are about 3/4 of the way down.

Looks like a very specific list of skills. Looks clear what each one is for.

Have you had any issues with there being 'too many skills' ?

Does your ssytem have 'related skills' or 'unskilled use of some skills' ?

Quote from: LordVreeg;674911incorrect, my friend.

The addition of social skills does not preclude within-setting logic, it merely increases said logic.  A good GM is still a good one, a bad one is still bad.  Your description of the issue is merely a retelling of any bad GM system where the rules are applied poorly.

You can say that 'caring about social RP' is going to make it all better, but the example we are working with in the public debate between our two protagonists is aided and better structured when you have the social dynamics in the rules, and without them you are relying on GM fiat when you don't have to.

Hey, I'm not saying a good GM can't do make a good game with fiat, but in a social heavy game, as in a game with any area of particular interest, some level of system supporting that area of the game is merely a tool for the GM and players to make the game better.

I'd say it's a bit like with Combat mechanics actually - I can imagine CoC without combat chapter, with combat by fiat (You need that many PCs to defeat a Shoggoth, etc etc).

And of course if the thief has 12 ranks in Diplomacy or 90% Persuade, he's no longer an illiterate low - class thief. He's at the very least, an illiterate Blackadder - cunning low class thief!

Quote from: Bill;674936Looks like a very specific list of skills. Looks clear what each one is for.

Have you had any issues with there being 'too many skills' ?

Does your ssytem have 'related skills' or 'unskilled use of some skills' ?

I do go for very extended campaigns.  As we spoke about before, my two live groups gave been going since 2003 and 1995, respectively.
SO I like that there is still a lot of room from growth.

No one ever complains of their being too many.  The way the mechanics work, after a while, since we keep track of levels in each skill, it takes a lot of experience to move a skil up and it makes more sense to go learn a sub skill of it or another skill.

all the skills are set up into trees, and there is a both a base skill amount that comes from attributes that is the unskilled usage portion, and sub skills do recieve a bonus from the parent skills.

"Skills--Sub Skills and Dropdowns


One of the issues that cropped up in using a skill based system ws the interrelated nature of skills and knowledge bases, and of difficult, esoteric skills.  One of the weaknesses found in other systems was the lack of depth and relatedness of skills.  Adjudication has always and will always be the highest law, but many skills are related, and most systems don't deal with this well.  And creating a system that allowed for basic and advanced skills, with a basic knowledge giving a small amount of the skill in the more advanced, was quite a trick.  But in practice, it has worked well and kept people coming back for over twenty five years.

 

 
Subskills
 

Skills in Celtricia are based on a tree system, in that 'Basic Trap Skill' has sub skills of 'Find Trap, remove Trap, and 'Set Trap'. 'Avoid Trap is a sub skill of 'remove trap', etc.

Far too much of what people can learn is based on layers of previous knowledge.  While we understand that skill trees are still a very crude approximation of the way people learn and that the additive and cross-dicliplined nature of actrual learning is still not well represented, having skills as prerequisite skills seems a good game mechanic to enforce the nature of easy vs. hard skills while still maintaining some verimilitude.

 

So most 'skill trees' have a base skill and sub skills, and these sub skills can have 4-5 levels in some cases in very esoteric cases.  In game terms, the 'parent skill' of a sub skill must always remain one level of ability ahead of the sub skill.  So in order to reach the first level of ability in a sub skill, you must have reached level 2 in the parent skill.  This means that to reach level 1 in a sub skill of a sub skill, you must be level 3 in the base skill, level 2 in the middle skill, before level 1 can be reached in the 'sub of the sub'.

 

 

Dropdown
 

Now, since you understand that skills have sub skills, how do sub skills affect the game?

A Dropdown skill is one that the character can use because it is a sub skill of a skill they already have an ability in.  Every skill has an entry for a dropdown % amount.  This represents the amount of the parent skill that is passed onto the sub skill, both as the ability before the skill is learned, and as a bonus once that skill is actually learned.  

 

The basic Trap skill has a 1.0 dropdown for Remove trap, Set trap, and find trap, which means that 100% of the skill amount is dropped down as an ability in those skills. SO why would anyone bother to learn the find trap skill?

Because Basic skills have lousy amounts gained per level. 'Basic Trap, for example has an average attribute/unlearned base of 5% with 1-4 gained per level. This means that a thief-type who does not learn the sub skills may be fifth level in Basic Trap, but it will only give an average of 17.5% skill in the sub trap abilities, which is pretty lousy. (that 17.5 it gives to the subskills is called the 'dropdown').

 

Find Traps, the sub skill, has an average attribute base of 10% with a 2-7 gain per level. So the amount gained per level is higher, though the scope is narrower. The same thief-type from before, with a second level skill in 'Find Trap' added to his fifth level 'basic trap' skill dropdown, will have a 36.5% Find Traps skill.

 

Behind the curtain, understand that characters are supposed to use sub skills.  The above example is a good one, as the only use of the Basic Trap skill is to give the sub skills/dropdowns.  But as a mechanism, it gives a generalized ability that goes up in very small amounts, whereas if a character decided to also specialize in the sub skill and learn it, their ability in that more narrow channel improves much faster.

More esoteric and difficult skills have very small dropdowns, to simulate how difficult they are to learn and how much effort must be spent to really learn them.

So the dropdown replicates a more realistic approach, in that this allows characters to understand some of languages that are related (dropdowns) of a larger language they know, it allows basic alchemists to try to identify poisons (dropdown skill), even with their general alchemy understanding, it allows characters with the basic defense skill knowing how to make the most of their armor (the Protection Bonus dropdown), without being expert in that skill.  In short, the base skill/dropdown mechanism allows for characters to have a generalized knowledge in an ability and a chance of applying it to a specific skill, without giving them too much ability in that specific skill."

Quote from: LordVreeg;675144I do go for very extended campaigns.  As we spoke about before, my two live groups gave been going since 2003 and 1995, respectively.
SO I like that there is still a lot of room from growth.

No one ever complains of their being too many.  The way the mechanics work, after a while, since we keep track of levels in each skill, it takes a lot of experience to move a skil up and it makes more sense to go learn a sub skill of it or another skill.

all the skills are set up into trees, and there is a both a base skill amount that comes from attributes that is the unskilled usage portion, and sub skills do recieve a bonus from the parent skills.

"Skills--Sub Skills and Dropdowns


One of the issues that cropped up in using a skill based system ws the interrelated nature of skills and knowledge bases, and of difficult, esoteric skills.  One of the weaknesses found in other systems was the lack of depth and relatedness of skills.  Adjudication has always and will always be the highest law, but many skills are related, and most systems don't deal with this well.  And creating a system that allowed for basic and advanced skills, with a basic knowledge giving a small amount of the skill in the more advanced, was quite a trick.  But in practice, it has worked well and kept people coming back for over twenty five years.

 

 
Subskills
 

Skills in Celtricia are based on a tree system, in that 'Basic Trap Skill' has sub skills of 'Find Trap, remove Trap, and 'Set Trap'. 'Avoid Trap is a sub skill of 'remove trap', etc.

Far too much of what people can learn is based on layers of previous knowledge.  While we understand that skill trees are still a very crude approximation of the way people learn and that the additive and cross-dicliplined nature of actrual learning is still not well represented, having skills as prerequisite skills seems a good game mechanic to enforce the nature of easy vs. hard skills while still maintaining some verimilitude.

 

So most 'skill trees' have a base skill and sub skills, and these sub skills can have 4-5 levels in some cases in very esoteric cases.  In game terms, the 'parent skill' of a sub skill must always remain one level of ability ahead of the sub skill.  So in order to reach the first level of ability in a sub skill, you must have reached level 2 in the parent skill.  This means that to reach level 1 in a sub skill of a sub skill, you must be level 3 in the base skill, level 2 in the middle skill, before level 1 can be reached in the 'sub of the sub'.

 

 

Dropdown
 

Now, since you understand that skills have sub skills, how do sub skills affect the game?

A Dropdown skill is one that the character can use because it is a sub skill of a skill they already have an ability in.  Every skill has an entry for a dropdown % amount.  This represents the amount of the parent skill that is passed onto the sub skill, both as the ability before the skill is learned, and as a bonus once that skill is actually learned.  

 

The basic Trap skill has a 1.0 dropdown for Remove trap, Set trap, and find trap, which means that 100% of the skill amount is dropped down as an ability in those skills. SO why would anyone bother to learn the find trap skill?

Because Basic skills have lousy amounts gained per level. 'Basic Trap, for example has an average attribute/unlearned base of 5% with 1-4 gained per level. This means that a thief-type who does not learn the sub skills may be fifth level in Basic Trap, but it will only give an average of 17.5% skill in the sub trap abilities, which is pretty lousy. (that 17.5 it gives to the subskills is called the 'dropdown').

 

Find Traps, the sub skill, has an average attribute base of 10% with a 2-7 gain per level. So the amount gained per level is higher, though the scope is narrower. The same thief-type from before, with a second level skill in 'Find Trap' added to his fifth level 'basic trap' skill dropdown, will have a 36.5% Find Traps skill.

 

Behind the curtain, understand that characters are supposed to use sub skills.  The above example is a good one, as the only use of the Basic Trap skill is to give the sub skills/dropdowns.  But as a mechanism, it gives a generalized ability that goes up in very small amounts, whereas if a character decided to also specialize in the sub skill and learn it, their ability in that more narrow channel improves much faster.

More esoteric and difficult skills have very small dropdowns, to simulate how difficult they are to learn and how much effort must be spent to really learn them.

So the dropdown replicates a more realistic approach, in that this allows characters to understand some of languages that are related (dropdowns) of a larger language they know, it allows basic alchemists to try to identify poisons (dropdown skill), even with their general alchemy understanding, it allows characters with the basic defense skill knowing how to make the most of their armor (the Protection Bonus dropdown), without being expert in that skill.  In short, the base skill/dropdown mechanism allows for characters to have a generalized knowledge in an ability and a chance of applying it to a specific skill, without giving them too much ability in that specific skill."

I posted before I realized there were skill trees there. I am sure you put a lot of thought and organization into it.

Mind if I steal your skill list as a reference?
 
Looks very useful.

Quote from: Bill;675215I posted before I realized there were skill trees there. I am sure you put a lot of thought and organization into it.

Mind if I steal your skill list as a reference?
 
Looks very useful.

No stress.
We are still rounding out some pieces not there, but it's 85-90% done.  Thanks for asking.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;674825Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen. The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it.



Look, the quality of the game will always depend on the quality of the players and GM. Acting otherwise, no matter which side of the "rules/no rules" social mechanics divide you are on is moronic.

Well thanks, but in that case you've just conceded the irrelevance of social mechanics.

If social mechanics need to be governed by emulation to be controllable, to not have them be manipulated into a vehicle for abuse, then you are in exactly the same boat with them as with a game where there are no social mechanics.  At best, they are entirely optional, at worst they're a distraction that only gets in the way.

Quote from: jibbajibba;674840dude eh?

and a guy with 12 points in diplomacy is a seasoned orator, that is what 12 points in diplomacy means just like 12 points in hit stuff with sword means he is good at hitting stuff with a sword.....

Except that for a lot of players it doesn't mean that. It just means "I put 12 points in diplomacy so that I can get away with shit, but I don't want to be one of those pansy-ass debaters. So no, my character is hog-farmer mcgee, an alley-thief from bumtown, but somehow in the court of kings he'll outdo the most skilled of lawyers because he has a lot of points in "hit stuff with words"".

But I guess that's what happens when you treat roleplaying the same as combat. you cheapen roleplaying.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675499Except that for a lot of players it doesn't mean that. It just means "I put 12 points in diplomacy so that I can get away with shit, but I don't want to be one of those pansy-ass debaters. So no, my character is hog-farmer mcgee, an alley-thief from bumtown, but somehow in the court of kings he'll outdo the most skilled of lawyers because he has a lot of points in "hit stuff with words"".

But I guess that's what happens when you treat roleplaying the same as combat. you cheapen roleplaying.

If you take examples that require a bad GM, you end up with games that sound bad.  And when you describe a game vaguely and make up situations that might not even be able to happen, they can also sound bad.

Most games with social skills only allow you to learn them if it makes sense, and the progress is slow.  

It still comes down to using the right ruleset for the type of game you want to play, and if 95% of the rules are based on combat and magic, that's what the game is for, and if the rules are based on diplomacy, intrigue, social knowledge and building relationships, that's what the game does best.  

With the right rules you don't have to make up the chance of a player knowing an obscure custom, or knowing how to dance, or if they know the family of the person they are talking to.  These are examples of the social skills that get used, not your made up version of the Diplomancer that came from D&D trying to use social skills.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675498Well thanks, but in that case you've just conceded the irrelevance of social mechanics.

If social mechanics need to be governed by emulation to be controllable, to not have them be manipulated into a vehicle for abuse, then you are in exactly the same boat with them as with a game where there are no social mechanics.  At best, they are entirely optional, at worst they're a distraction that only gets in the way.

And I could turn around and make the same argument for physical combat. Its just as easy to decide who is the most skilled and then have them describe how they are fighting and have an arbitrator decide who won.

Then nobody could put a bunch of skill points into "swordplay" that don't make sense for the character, nobody could exploit the rules to create characters that don't make sense (A level 1 guy beating an Ogre Mage!).

See, you try to make the argument that you are saying they aren't needed, but the argument you are actually making is that they are BAD. There is kind of a difference here. Not only that, but you are confusing not needed with not preferable.

I don't think any rules are NEEDED, that doesn't mean I don't prefer some rules to exist. In reality we don't NEED any rules. We could play a whole game with descriptions of the characters, describing our actions, and having a GM decide how things go. Now, that might not appeal to most RPG gamers (and I would guess that it wouldn't), but it certainly is POSSIBLE. (and a lot of people do this all the time).

So yes, your argument that they are not needed is true. Unfortunately, you aren't actually MAKING that argument. You are making the argument that adding them is bad. That isn't the same as not needed, and will depend heavily on what the players and GM want in their game rather than some objective truth.

(Also, you were completely, and hilarious disingenuous in your arguments by supposing that your hypothetical no rules social rp game be run by a very competent GM, while having your hypothetical rules social rp game be run by an ignoramus. If you are having to do that to argue your point, maybe you just don't have much of a point.)

Quote from: LordVreeg;675506It still comes down to using the right ruleset for the type of game you want to play, and if 95% of the rules are based on combat and magic, that's what the game is for, and if the rules are based on diplomacy, intrigue, social knowledge and building relationships, that's what the game does best.  

Utter bullshit.  Look at Amber or Lords of Olympus: these games have extensive rules on powers and combat, but no rules at all (and no attributes/abilities to apply mechanically) on social knowledge, relationships, diplomacy or intrigue, and yet that is what they're famously about.

What do they have? A considerable amount of GM-advice on how to arbitrate these things and make them spectacular, without ever needing to put a mechanical facade on them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;675840Utter bullshit.  Look at Amber or Lords of Olympus: these games have extensive rules on powers and combat, but no rules at all (and no attributes/abilities to apply mechanically) on social knowledge, relationships, diplomacy or intrigue, and yet that is what they're famously about.

What do they have? A considerable amount of GM-advice on how to arbitrate these things and make them spectacular, without ever needing to put a mechanical facade on them.

RPGPundit

Utter Bullshit. Amber is good at social mechanics because half the book is dedicated to social mechanics.
Amber doesn't have complex rules for combat, the powers are sketched the entire game is light touch rules. In that context Social interaction gets a huge ammount of rule time.

This is how I rule on social interactions. PC starts roleplayign I start role playing. I get PC to make a skill check. I may make an oppsed role for the NPC. Then we continue to role play and I modify my roleplay based on the result of the roll, not on the quality of the roleplay because its my job to foster better roleplay at my table not to judge the quality of others who may be shy, less outgoing or whatever. As Gm I am the only interface to the world the PCs have every they see, hear, touch, sense or feel comes from me. I can easily modify my responses to a social situation based on the NPC personality the skill check and the proposal, but even when the proposal is ludicrous the response of the NPC can still be in keeping.
"Your Highness please give me your duaghter's hand in marriage," (rolls 19 +30 skill for 49 total)
" Haha my boy and well I might you certainly have the gift of the gab, surely one such as your self must come from noble blood, and yet you appear, if it is not  rude of me to say, as though you are covered from head to toe in pig shit."
"Yeah I had to negotiate my way through a farm yard on the way here."
"Well let us get you cleaned up and into some decent clothes and perhaps we can continue this discussion over dinner. Cuthbert could you escourt these spendid fellows to the guest wing and see to it that they are given all comforts.... etc "
That stuff is a piece of piss to do and the reply of the NPC doesn't depend on my interpretation of the role play it depends on the NPCs interpretation of the skill role. I just translate that at the table.

Likewise I can use social skills on the PCs. Because I am the world and all the sensory data that comes from the world to the PCs I can make an NPC seem kind, good, inviting, noble, weak, selfish. I can equally well make an argument that will pursude the PCs or at least present the argument in the best light.
Compare
"The barmaid smiles at you shyly and comes over towards your table. She brushes a stray curl of dark hair out of her face and you can't help but notice that her hip is pressing a little too hard against your shoulder as she pours you a mug of ale. " Barmaid makes seduction roll 17.
To
"The barmaid looks more than a little surly, she attempts to dazzle you with a smile that would turn milk and then stomps over to your table, invades your personal space and pours a mug of ale. " Barmaid makes seduction roll of 7

This is not complex but it does rely on GM experience. As GMs we bring he world to life I think there is room for some mechanical assistance with that process

Quote from: RPGPundit;675840Utter bullshit.  Look at Amber or Lords of Olympus: these games have extensive rules on powers and combat, but no rules at all (and no attributes/abilities to apply mechanically) on social knowledge, relationships, diplomacy or intrigue, and yet that is what they're famously about.

What do they have? A considerable amount of GM-advice on how to arbitrate these things and make them spectacular, without ever needing to put a mechanical facade on them.

RPGPundit

On top of Jibba's good comment about the actualy breakdown of advice on adjudication being what Amber's rules are about, there is also the fact that Amber is actually about a set of books.  whether the system succeed or fail at their attempts at emulation is up for debate, since the Players are looking for play that emulates the Amber novels, no matter how well or poorly the rules are suited for it.  It could be a completely horrible match for intrigue and social interaction games, and that's still the game people would try to play with it, based solely on the players trying to emulate the way characters behaved in the novels.

Quote from: jibbajibba;675856Utter Bullshit. Amber is good at social mechanics because half the book is dedicated to social mechanics.

Clearly your definition of "mechanics" and the rest of the hobby's is a little bit different.

RPGPundit