Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389913In Forge terminology, "Fortune" (i.e. die roll) in the Middle" and "Fortune at the beginning" (I think) is about whether you choose an action and roll to see if it works, or if you roll dice and that defines the action. Compare "I'm going to try to cut his head off, so I roll at -8" and "I get a critical hit, so I cut his head off" - e.g. its whether your choosing an exact action and adjust your roll with bonuses/ penalties, or whether what you chose to do is determined by the die roll.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I was getting at.  In strictly mechanical terms, whether that is random or not isn't as relevant to me as to how this affects the 'narrative flow', if you will, in this case.  Claiming an action then determining success makes for a very different feel than rolling for success, then determining the action.

Which isn't to say I am trying to avoid a discussion of random vs non-random.  But the topic I am thinking about at the moment is in regards to when the determinant mechanic is applied.

This thread is now the longest in the history of the RPGsite, followed by this one (not coincidentally an epic clusterfuck of its own).

Quote from: Pierce Inveraritya) Pathfinder is dead as a doornail;

Such a fun thread.

Also, where did everybody go?

Quote from: beejazz;389960Also, where did everybody go?

Pundit took them to "the basement"...

Quote from: StormBringer;389917Yeah, that is pretty much what I was getting at.  In strictly mechanical terms, whether that is random or not isn't as relevant to me as to how this affects the 'narrative flow', if you will, in this case.  Claiming an action then determining success makes for a very different feel than rolling for success, then determining the action.

Which isn't to say I am trying to avoid a discussion of random vs non-random.  But the topic I am thinking about at the moment is in regards to when the determinant mechanic is applied.

Are you looking at comparing: (a) a degree of difficulty applied to the chance of success and a bianry outcome, fail or succeed vs. (b) a degree of success approach where your chance of succes is fairly fixed and your degree of success is how well you do.  Examples (a) I aim for the head -8 to the roll, if I make the roll a hit extra damage if I fail it's a miss versus; (b) I succeed by 8, so the damage I do is extra, narrated by the GM as a hit to the head, but if  you succeed by less than 8 you still hit, just not so well.  Case (a) typically has seperate damage dice, case (b) may have variable damage dice or damage multipliers based on degree of success.

I don't think that damage rolls or soak rolls (essentially the same thing but with a different person rolling the dice) have a whole lot of bearing on the degree to which you are making choices in-character. I don't think to-hit rolls or even critical threat confirmation rolls do either.

Every attack with your crossbow is one where you are trying to kill your opponent. You are leading the shot and focusing on the target and adjusting for range and wind and everything - and you're trying to get a quarrel to go point first into a vital portion of your target. But that's the extent of the choice you are making. You're trying to get the pointy end into the other man, and then you pull the trigger. Whether it hits and how damaging it ends up being if it does will be a result of all kinds of factors - many of which are totally out of your control.

It's different for something like Diplomancy, where the success or failure of the speech is entirely dependent upon what your character says and how they say it. So I sympathize with people who want to roll their social tests before making their soliloquies or want to abolish social rolls altogether. Those positions make sense to me. But the act of shooting a crossbow is always that you are going to choose to hit the target in as vital a region as is available and then launch your projectile. Always. And then your actual character will then watch the bolt arc through the air to make contact or not and then see the target collapse or not. Rolling to-hit (or dodge) and then rolling damage (or soak) is extremely natural, because essentially that's the actual experience of the crossbowman in the world.

-Frank

I would say that one justification for social rolls is that it isn't always just dependent upon your character, and there are external factors to consider.

If speaking well and saying the "right" thing for the situation was it, then Obama's ratings wouldn't be dropping all the time.  The man can speak well, and he says a lot of good things, but the external factors surrounding him add uncertainty to what the audience's response will be to a given speech.  

Just like firing a bolt, social ability is based on skill, and you can be an extremely good marksman, but sometimes you're just not able to hit the bullseye.  Your ability can also vary day to day with your own moods and emotions.

Good thing crossbowmen don't have an entire cable news network dedicated to their extermination.

Couldn't help it.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389968Rolling to-hit (or dodge) and then rolling damage (or soak) is extremely natural, because essentially that's the actual experience of the crossbowman in the world.

-Frank

Essentially.

In this case, you determine the success, and the narrative flows from that.  It would be rather odd to have a whole narrative before the shot, then determine if you hit or not.  It would be even more odd to have that narrative assist in determining the bonus or penalty to that shot, as in Feng Shui.

Of course, that is where context comes in.  What works very well in Feng Shui would be a very odd fit for AD&D, although neither of those mechanics is particularly disassociated.

Quote from: Peregrin;389971I would say that one justification for social rolls is that it isn't always just dependent upon your character, and there are external factors to consider.

But you could easily make those external factors into penalties or bonuses, and you would not be breaking immersion; at least not to a large degree if the referee kept those behind the screen and modified the roll secretly.

Quote from: RandallS;389898D&D 4e may be the most talked about game with this issue, but there are many more of them. It's one of the main problems I have with "story-games", for example.

Are there non-"storygame" examples?

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;389983But you could easily make those external factors into penalties or bonuses, and you would not be breaking immersion; at least not to a large degree if the referee kept those behind the screen and modified the roll secretly.

Exactly how it should be done; but Peregrin's point still stands, that as much as some people might not like social rolls or variants on them, the logic is the same.  An attempt to use a skill on an external object, and the external's condition/situation adjusts it.  Bow skill at dodging person looking for cover with armor, or diplomacy at thinking listener who might have counterskills or pre-existing bias.  
I actually give my PC's minor bonuses for RP when they use social skills, which certainly gets them going, and we actually roll in the middle of the skill use...which can be funny when they amp up a success or try to reduce the issue of suckitude...
Very IC.  

I think, on last nights online game, one newer character could not roll under a 72% all night.  I think he bufu'd his social cc 5 times, his bluff dropdown once, his economics dropdown twice, and his haggling dropdown twice.
Man, he was in flop-sweat RP mode half the night.  Despite having a lot of +20% and +15% bonuses.
But I blather.

Quote from: LordVreeg;390019Exactly how it should be done; but Peregrin's point still stands, that as much as some people might not like social rolls or variants on them, the logic is the same.  An attempt to use a skill on an external object, and the external's condition/situation adjusts it.  Bow skill at dodging person looking for cover with armor, or diplomacy at thinking listener who might have counterskills or pre-existing bias.  
I actually give my PC's minor bonuses for RP when they use social skills, which certainly gets them going, and we actually roll in the middle of the skill use...which can be funny when they amp up a success or try to reduce the issue of suckitude...
Very IC.

The way I handle social skills is similar: Players tell me what their character is saying, and I set the DC based on that (and, as you said, external circumstances).

Quote from: beejazz;390028The way I handle social skills is similar: Players tell me what their character is saying, and I set the DC based on that (and, as you said, external circumstances).

That's actually the way I try and handle it as GM, for the most part. It doesn't always survive contact with the players though - in one game I DM, there's what's [more or less] a dwarf with 6 Charisma, and he's normally roleplayed by the player, quite well, as being really abrasive. I wouldn't normally apply extra penalties on his Diplomacy roll for being hostile or contemptuous in casual conversion with NPCs; his -2 for Charisma already assumes this. Not being a jerk is actually out of character for him.

Going the other way though, I play a character in another game with an 8 Cha who is reasonably diplomatic (has actual ranks in diplomacy) and personable but is also really badly scarred. So I'm free to be as eloquent as I like in character (and possibly get situational mods for this), but still get a Charisma penalty on rolls as NPCs are distracted, horrified, or what-have-you.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;390040That's actually the way I try and handle it as GM, for the most part. It doesn't always survive contact with the players though - in one game I DM, there's what's [more or less] a dwarf with 6 Charisma, and he's normally roleplayed by the player, quite well, as being really abrasive. I wouldn't normally apply extra penalties on his Diplomacy roll for being hostile or contemptuous in casual conversion with NPCs; his -2 for Charisma already assumes this. Not being a jerk is actually out of character for him.

I tend to set DCs based on what's being said more than how, assuming that the characters stats are a measure of how personable they are. So a believable lie is still believable when an ugly angry guy tells it (so the DC is determined by that), and the 6 cha takes care of the "ugly angry" part.

On the other hand, if the ugly angry went out of character and started to use flattery to tell his believable lie, I don't think I'd change anything for it. He's an ugly angry suddenly being flattering? It's just as off-putting, if not more so.