Advanced Interactive Skill Resolution

[thelevitator]

This isn't MT related, so I figured this would be a good spot for it. I run a casual gaming group, meaning they don't speak "in character" so much as just describe how their characters are handling social situations. To make it more exciting than single rolls, I've been working on an Advanced Interactive Skill Resolution System. It's still very rough, but with a little help from folks on both the EnWorld and WotC forums, it's starting to take shape. I wanted to post it here and get some feedback on it.


Advanced Interactive Skill Resolution

In an effort to make complex and opposed skill checks more interactive, I have tried to create a system that emulates the combat system, so that multiple rolls can demonstrate the ebb and flow of negotiations, buying/selling, bullying, etc. The situation will dictate what type of interaction will be taking place. Once that is established, the players can choose how they want to handle the situation by choosing a skill to resolve. The skills that can be used are Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. The similarities to combat are; Interaction Points (IP), which work like Hit Points, Initiative (using CHA mod. instead of DEX mod.), and rounds (which are loose and not set to a specific length of time, but more to represent a segment of the interaction). The reason that modifiers are given for specific encounters is to give the edge to those who use those types of skills for those situations. Otherwise, players can just choose the highest skill they have and use it all the time. I’m hopeful that this system encourages the strategic placement of skill points so that skills, especially interactive skills, are used more often in game play.

How It Works

Players determine their IP, which = Character Level + CHA. modifier + (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive) totals.
1. DM declares the type of Interaction.
2. DM determines attitudes and applies modifiers
3. Players roll initiative which = 1d20+CHA modifier.
4. Winner of initiative declares method of interaction (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, or Sense Motive)
5. Loser of initiative declares reaction by choosing their method of interaction (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, or Sense Motive)
6. Both sides roll 1d20 (opposed roll) and add modifiers (skill modifiers plus special modifiers listed below)
7. Loser of the opposed roll deducts the difference from opposed rolls from their IP total.
8. Repeat until one side reaches 0 IP points.


Types of Interactions

For each interaction, the DM will declare they “type” of interaction that is taking place. The characters will then choose their method of handling that type of interaction.

Negotiation

This is one of the most complex Interactions. Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage, and/or attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests. It is usually regarded as a form of alternative dispute resolution.

Haggling/Bargaining

Haggling/Bargaining is a type of negotiation in which the buyer and seller of a good or service dispute the price which will be paid and the exact nature of the transaction that will take place, and eventually come to an agreement.

Bluffing/Lying

Anytime a character needs to lie gain an advantage in an Interaction falls into this category.

Diplomacy

A system of formal, regularized communication that allows 2 opposed sides to peacefully conduct their business with each other.
Intimidate
Intimidation is the act of making others do what one wants through fear.

Sense Motive/Gather Information

In order to streamline things a bit, Sense Motive and Gather Information have been combined to cover situations where a character is trying to ask questions, read body language, interpret answers, etc. to try and discern the heart of someone’s intent.

Modifiers

As social interactions can be very complex, modifiers have been created in an attempt to simulate this. Certain types of interactions happen very quickly, while more complex interactions take longer. While rounds are not set to a specific amount of time, the actual number of rounds in an interaction is still relevant.

Round Modifiers

Bluff – If Bluff Interaction goes beyond 2 rounds, the following skill modifiers are included for specific skill usage: Bluff/-2

Diplomacy – If a Diplomacy Interaction goes beyond 6 rounds, the following skill modifiers are included for specific skills used thereafter. Diplomacy/-2

Negotiation – If a Negotiation Interaction goes beyond 6 rounds, the following skill modifiers are included for specific skill usage: Diplomacy/-2
Haggling/Bargaining – If a Haggling/Bargaining Interaction goes beyond 3 rounds, the following skill modifiers are included for specific skill usage: Appraise/-2

Intimidate – If an Intimidate Interaction goes beyond 2 rounds, the following skill modifiers are included for specific skill usage: Intimidate/-2

Sense Motive/Gather Information – If a Sense Motive/Gather Information Interaction goes beyond 3 rounds, the following skill modifiers are included for specific skill usage: Sense Motive/-2, Gather Information/-2


Attitude Modifiers

Attitude modifiers are very important to the outcome of the Interaction. Below are the base modifiers.

Hostile: Bluff -4, Gather Information -4, Intimidate -4
Unfriendly: Bluff -2, Gather Information -2, Intimidate -2
Indifferent: none
Friendly: Bluff +2, Diplomacy +2, Gather Information +2,
Helpful: Bluff +4, Diplomacy +4, Gather Information +4


A Simple Example

A 3rd level Sorcerer casts a Light spell on a stone for someone outside a tavern. A city guardsman notices the flash of light and goes to investigate, because casting any kind of magic in this city means dungeon time.

The Sorcerer: IP= 11 (3rd level, 16 CHA, Sense Motive 1 rank)
The Guard: IP= 4 (1st level, 10 CHA, Intimidate 3 ranks)

1. DM determines that the Guard is Indifferent, just checking something out, so no modifiers. DM determines that this is a Gather Information Interaction, as the guard is coming over to investigate the flash

2. Characters roll Initiative. Sor. gets 9 (6+3), and Guard gets 12 (12+0)
3. Guard declares that he is asking the sorcerer what is going on, so he's using his Gather Information skill. Sorcerer decides to change the subject by hurriedly asking for directions to an inn (bluff).
4. Opposed rolls. Guard gets a 10 and the Sorcerer gets a 12 (roll 9+3 CHA bonus to Bluff)
5. Guard loses 2 IP points, reducing him to 4 total.
6. DM describes that the guard is momentarily caught off guard and begins to give directions, then catches himself and returns to questioning. DM determines that the guard is irritated at sorcerer for changing subject and is now unfriendly
7. It's now the sorcerer's turn, and since he was somewhat successful with the distraction, he continues to bluff saying that he just stumbled out of the tavern and didn't see anything. The guard is going to use Intimidate to get the answers he seeks.
8. Opposed Rolls. Sorcerer gets 21 (20+3-2). Guard gets 15 (12 +3 intimidate). Guard loses 6 IP which puts him at -4.
9. DM description: The guard looks at the sorcerer as if he is getting irritated, but the sorcerer keeps his cool and calmly explains that he just stepped out of the bar and didn't see anything. He assures the guard that if he had, not only would he have cooperated, he would have reported it. The guard, now totally confused, apologizes to the sorcerer for all the questioning and gives the sorcerer directions to the inn.

This is an example I play-tested out with one of my players. I definitely want to do a ton more testing with different types of characters at different levels and really see how it works in action.






I know this is only the start of things, but I'm trying to create a system that emulates combat and allows for a bit more drama in non-combat situations where the outcome is determined by the skill of the characters, not necessarily the players. I'm trying to keep it streamlined so that it doesn't become too complicated (heck, maybe it's too complicated already!).

I have a lot of respect for the members of this forum so let it rip, good and bad!

[dorpond]

A Simple Example

A 3rd level Sorcerer casts a Light spell on a stone for someone outside a tavern. A city guardsman notices the flash of light and goes to investigate, because casting any kind of magic in this city means dungeon time.

The Sorcerer: IP= 11 (3rd level, 16 CHA, Sense Motive 1 rank)
The Guard: IP= 4 (1st level, 10 CHA, Intimidate 3 ranks)

I love the whole concept! I am a bit confused though with the above quote. Is the sorcerer incorrect? I think it should be 7, right?

[edit] I love this idea though. I find that conversation being the most difficult to calculate in a dice perspective during game. D&D just doesn't cover this area enough. I like this and will fiddle with it in my spare time.

[thelevitator]

I love the whole concept! I am a bit confused though with the above quote. Is the sorcerer incorrect? I think it should be 7, right?

Oops, actually it should be 10. The socerer's IP would be 3 (ECL) + 3 (CHA modifier w/16 CHA) + 4 (total Sense Motive Modifier)

Although, I've been discussing the way you interpreted it with another DM, and only using relevant skill ranks instead of the total skill modifier. If we used that formula, the Sorcerer would indeed have an IP=7. The reason I was thinking of adding the entire skill modifier was to give more IP points.

Another suggestion was to replace the CHA modifier with the actual CHA score. That would give more base points. I kind of like that idea too. This is one area I would definitely like some more input.

For IP points, we have 3 options:

1. CHA mod + ECL + all relevant skill modifiers
2. CHA mod + ECL + all relevant skill ranks
3. CHA + ECL + all relevant skill ranks

The more I look at them, the more I'm liking #3.

Whaddya think, Dorpond?

[dorpond]

I have run through a couple examples and found that this system could be a bit flawed. If I understand this correctly, I add up all my CHR based skills to get my IP total?

Per your quote:
Players determine their IP, which = Character Level + CHA. modifier + (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive) totals.

I created my Bard, Eli Witbaum and made him a level 9. He has loaded every CHR based skill up to the max plus he gets synergy on many of them. So let's say his totals are roughly 16 each - that would give him a total of 80. Now add that to the ECL which is 9 and his CHR mod which is 4 bringing his total IP to 93.

Now compare that to a local NPC who is an expert. He is a level 6 expert with ranks in bluff and sense motive. His totals are 9 for Bluff and 9 for Sense motive bringing it to a 18. Add that to his 6 ECL and his +2 Chr Mod. That give his a total IP of 26 points.

Bard IP = 93
NPC IP = 26

Now, the first roll off the bard rolls a 10 on the dice and adds his 16 for his skill. That is a total opposed check of 26. The NPC rolls a 20 on his dice and adds his skill which is 9 making his opposed check a 29. The NPC wins! The Bard subtracts 3 from his IP. Imagine the conversation going back and forth 10 "rounds" the way it is exatly above where the NPC rolls a natural 20 every time and the Bard rolls a 10. After those 20 rounds of discussion, the Bard only loses 60 IP from his 93 total. That is giving the NPC 20 natural 20's in a row!! THEN the Bard finally rolls a 20 but the NPC rolls a 10. Let's break that down:

Bard: 20+16(skill used)=36
NPC: 10+9(skill used)=19
Difference: 17

Repeat that for roughly 2 rounds, the NPC loses.

Conclusion: At level 9, a Bard (or anyone who puts ranks in Chr skills) will win just about every time. At level 15 it isn't even worth trying to win as an NPC. By my example above, there is no hope for extremes (one side is high, other side is low). With D&D as it is now, the dice can still offer hope for a low rank character to win. The bard might have 12 for a bluff and roll a 2 and lose against an NPC who rolls an 18 and has 1 rank. It gives people a chance. I don't see that chance with your system as it is (if I interpretted it correctly).

How would we fix it? I am not sure but I will think on it over the next week or so.

[thelevitator]

I haven't had time to run any high level characters. What if we went with just ranks in the 5 skills only, not total modifiers? That might level things out a bit, wouldn't it?

I do like the idea that high CHA char. with lots of ranks in the relevant skills would have a distinct advantage over low CHA who don't put many points into those 5 skills, but having it as lopsided as your example with the Bard v.s. Expert is a little much, I agree!

I'm not 100% sure we need to use the skills the=mselves to modify the IP. Maybe the IP bonus from relevant skills should be scaled or something, like 1 pt. for every 3 relevant skill ranks (just off the top of my head)?

[dorpond]

Well I think you would have to have a system that is fair for all the characters; one that does not punish the character that has skill point in one specific area. For example, let us look at a character that has 8 ranks in Bluff only. He loves to lie. He is a very charismatic character though because he has a Chr of 18. His total Bluff score is 12 but he has no other CHR based skill that he dumped ranks into - just a darn good liar.

Then he faces a NPC that has 2 points in bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, gather information and sense motive. He isn't really good at much of anything. He has a 18 Chr also bringing him to a 12 (if you were to add up all the 2's for his 5 Chr based skills).

That makes them pretty equal for IP points. Should that be the case? I would have to analyse it futher to see.

Just make sure that when you test, you test for the players that are dedicated Chr people, those who only focus on one and those NPC's that are lower level but might have a decent amount of ranks in many (or the opposite for that matter).

Can get tricky but good play testing is in order at this point I think. Great stuff though! Keep me posted on how it progresses!

[thelevitator]

Excellent Points! Off to test!

[Full Bleed]

A Simple Example

Man, I'd hate to see a "complicated example"!

This all just seems like a ton of rolling and mathematical computation for what seems like a basic "role" playing encounter.

So, out of curiosity, if your player comes up with some particularly clever thing to say or do in situations like this, you basically have to ignore it because his character didn't make his "bluff" or "intimidate" check?

[thelevitator]

A Simple Example

Man, I'd hate to see a "complicated example"!

This all just seems like a ton of rolling and mathematical computation for what seems like a basic "role" playing encounter.

So, out of curiosity, if your player comes up with some particularly clever thing to say or do in situations like this, you basically have to ignore it because his character didn't make his "bluff" or "intimidate" check?

Well in all fairness, it's currently just a concept and not a polished system, so I apologize for the lack of clarity. As far as someone coming up with some particularly clever thing to say, we just don't game that way. Not every table has people speaking as if they are their characters, word for word. The whole idea of the system was to make more complex interactions a little more fun for casual gamers who don't say thee and thou and hithertoo.

We just aren't that strict of a group, so if a player chose to roleplay out a sutuation, we'd just do that. But in fairness to the players who don't want to have to speak in character, we want to have a system that emulates social interaction. My players tend to more describe how their characters are going to handle a situation, not speak in character. I don't think that using a complex skill system is any less "roleplaying" than someone speaking in broken Old English. What is important to us is how the characters handle situations and what strategy and teamwork is used, not the specific words used in conversation.

We've already been using complex skill checks in game and the group really likes it. This is just an attempt by me to allow for strategic social interaction without scripting out every single word. Does that seem like a bad thing?

[dorpond]

So, out of curiosity, if your player comes up with some particularly clever thing to say or do in situations like this, you basically have to ignore it because his character didn't make his "bluff" or "intimidate" check?

Well I have a couple reactions to this question actually.

A) I have some players that are wild role players. They act out the parts and do the unique voice that fits their toon. These players are a joy and make the game very fun and interesting.

B) One the same hand, I also have a player that is very quiet and doesn't talk much. He is actually very shy but he loves the game. He is more of a strategy battle type player.

For the players that are like B, who suck as actors; are quiet; and want to be hack -n- slashers instead of role players, a system like TheLevitator is building could work great.

I know my players that are like example A will often times take their low CHR characters and try to pull off something really charismatic but let's face it, they have an 8 for Chr and they put all their skill points in tumble, use magic device and other combat related skills. So is it fair for me to allow them to pull off things from time to time because they are good actors? It would defeat the fact that they decided to put their 8 in Chr.

So I am all for the stat scores. D&D3.X is built around those scores so if you decide too put all of your skill points towards things that help you fight and survive, then all your acting in the world isn't going to help you compete with the guy in example B who put all his points in Chr skills and just rolls the dice.

So I personally have a system that fits both groups. What I do is still go by the roll of the dice. I still am firm with skill points, however, I do give a +2 synergy bonus for the people that go the extra mile and make the game a lot more interesting and fun by acting. Everybody is aware of that and the quiet types in Group B are cool with that.

Moral of the story: There are in fact tow types of players; those who role play and those who let the dice define their fate. I have both in my group.

[Michael Silverbane]

So I personally have a system that fits both groups. What I do is still go by the roll of the dice. I still am firm with skill points, however, I do give a +2 synergy bonus for the people that go the extra mile and make the game a lot more interesting and fun by acting. Everybody is aware of that and the quiet types in Group B are cool with that.

I go the opposite route. We roll the dice first, then attempt to act out (or not, in the case of the shy-guy) the results. In order to reward players that do a good job (at anything, but including roleplaying out such a scenario, sicne that's what we're discussing), I give out action points.

Later
silver

[thelevitator]

I go the opposite route. We roll the dice first, then attempt to act out (or not, in the case of the shy-guy) the results. In order to reward players that do a good job (at anything, but including roleplaying out such a scenario, sicne that's what we're discussing), I give out action points.

Later
silver

Brilliant! Something so simple, yet we've never thought to do that. You can bet that we are going to try that approach at our next session. It's not that nobody wants to speak in character, it's just that it's very hard to act under the constraints of your character's abilities. It's easy to start out that way, but then the conversation gets going and people start getting into it and start talking like themselves rather than their character. Silver's approach is a great way to allow "in character" interaction that is based on the character's abilities, and not the player's realy life social skills.


Did I mention, brilliant?

[Michael Silverbane]

Glad you like it. Truth be told, I stole it from someone else. I originally heard of it from Warlord Ralts of ENWorld and other forums. It works pretty well for my current group, but the sort of backwards way that things work to how everyone expects takes a little bit of getting used to.

Later
silver

[Full Bleed]

Heh, I was just giving you a hard time on how "simple" that may have sounded to some of us... (Though to be fair, your post does call it an "advanced" system.)

But I can't say that any of my players are particularly good role players (though I have played with some who were pretty phenominal)... most seem more like the "shy" guy Dorpond mentioned. That is, they are more apt to say what they do, not necessarily jump in character and LARP their way through an encounter.

That said, I think DMs and the Players can usually arrive at some fairly "realistic" results for most role playing encounters without dicing every reaction or action... especially if players are at least trying to play their character (and when they aren't, a gentle reminder is usually all that's needed.)

However, I do think Silverbane's suggestion sounds like a pretty interesting method. Most of the players I play with probably wouldn't like it because they would inevitably be forced to play their characters poorly in instances where they would typically not... and I think they'd resent the loss of character control, but I do think it would make for a very entertaining game never-the-less. I think it would be particularly fantastic for impromptu games or games without well-defined characters. It would be a great way to build "character" quickly and get players involved in role-playing, even if the outcome is rather predetermined.

[thelevitator]

I totally agree with ya Full Bleed. My experience has had a much greater number of players who describe what their characters do than players who speak in character. The big reason I want to streamline the system as much as possible is so that it can be used in a greater number of situations. Right now, we just use it for important social interactions. Getting a room at the inn doesn't need any kind of interaction rolls, but trying to get some information out of the innkeeper about the guy sleeping in Room 3 would. We still just use straightforward checks for mundane interactions. The idea was to make conversations that require more than a sentence or two a little more interesting and dramatic. The ultimate goal for us was also to make really important interactions more dramatic and well, important. That's why we like complex skill checks. The rogue in my group gets excited every time she has to pick a lock, because we use the complex skill check system on anything better than average locks.


I am interested in all feedback, not just the positive, so I really apprecitate the questions you had. I'm mostly interested in finding out if the majority of groups out there could see a use in this kind of system to promote more strategy during complex social interactions. Again, I think I may have painted an inaccurate picture with my first post, in that this would replace all interactions. I'm going to change the text in my system document to explain that part a little better. My intent with this system is to make complex social interactions a little more exciting and encourage strategy on the part of the players in how they will handle those situations.

And I really think this system would work even better with Silver's idea in promoting good roleplaying with groups who aren't chock full of professional actors.