Bards in a D&D sense are utter shite...

Quote from: S'mon;1080080My main gripe is it gives rise to "shove the Bard to the front" mentality - "face" encounters are seen as silo'd to the "Face" character, rather than the socially appropriate character taking the lead. So instead of the Fighter giving the rousing pre-battle speech to the army, the Wizard consulting with the Arcane Academy, the Cleric meeting with the temple, or the Rogue doing underworld stuff, the group sends in the Bard. This was a huge issue in 3e due to the ungodly skill bonuses (the Fighter might have -1 Diplomacy to the Bard's +20) - it is less so in 5e but I still see some of this mentality, especially from veteran players.

I agree, and I think this is partly a problem of social ability definitions. What is the point of having high Charisma and Diplomacy, if it doesn't make one the best to succeed in social encounters? I tend to think that the social sphere shouldn't be a separate niche. Don't have Diplomacy be a single general skill, but rather fold in appropriate social skills with other skills.

Quote from: Chris24601;1080130The Bard in this case is NOT a face character. They are a studied caster whose default casting (barring PC specific choices) leans towards more subtle adjustments, enchantments and illusions than the raw blasting of wizards or divine channeling of clerics (though their choice of spell secrets can lean them in either of those directions, particularly those who go into the college of lore). They are skilled because the study of magic requires study of the world and its nature; it is not for the academically lax. Those who reach the level of casting spells are doctors of the arts and sciences (college of valor and swords are the ones who got in on a sports scholarship, but take advantage of the opportunity to get a proper degree... those who wash out are just fighters or rogues).

I think you're misinterpreting the substance of the complaint. The complaint isn't that the bard lacks knowledge - i.e. "just a pretty face". It's just as much a problem if the bard really is a thoroughly-trained and knowledgable expert, who is well-spoken on many different topics from fighting to magic. The problem is that the bard really is both expert and well-spoken, so it makes sense for them to take the lead in talking to others.

The problem is having other players sit on the sidelines while the bard takes the lead.

Quote from: jhkim;1080135I think you're misinterpreting the substance of the complaint.

I think you're misinterpreting Chris - he was presenting his own ideas, not default D&D assumptions.

For my current game I have everyone roll best 3 of 5d6 in order for stats, most stats are +2 or +3 after racial mods, no CHA 8 (or STR 8 or INT dump statting. The game is working much better like this! And most PCs are well able to do social stuff.

So, I am trying to break down this:

One part of the problem seems to me a gamemastering problem: giving adequate circumstantial modifiers to members of different classes in appropriate situations.

The other part seems to be a game design problem: on the one hand, the party's "face" needs to have a significantly higher chance of succeeding than average PCs, taking into account his/her specialization. He needs to shine. On the other hand, the other players should be able to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and not be relegated to the back-bench. That's a fine balance to strike, especially if there is varying degrees of specialization - but it's possible.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080162So, I am trying to break down this:

One part of the problem seems to me a gamemastering problem: giving adequate circumstantial modifiers to members of different classes in appropriate situations.

The other part seems to be a game design problem: on the one hand, the party's "face" needs to have a significantly higher chance of succeeding than average PCs, taking into account his/her specialization. He needs to shine. On the other hand, the other players should be able to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and not be relegated to the back-bench. That's a fine balance to strike, especially if there is varying degrees of specialization - but it's possible.

Or even better, don't reduce to "party face", and then it will be much easier for the GM to adjudicate, and the players will have more incentive to participate.  If you've got a "party face", that's a symptom, not the problem itself.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1080184Or even better, don't reduce to "party face", and then it will be much easier for the GM to adjudicate, and the players will have more incentive to participate.  If you've got a "party face", that's a symptom, not the problem itself.

I agree. I prefer not having "social encounters" be something any one PC is optimised for.

Okay, I don't understand that part. Players are bound to specialize in any activity that might be relevant enough for quest success. Clearly, persuading/fast-talking NPCs is a relevant activity, therefore there is bound to be players that want to specialize in it. Furthermore, we can observe that there are specialists for all kinds of other relevant activities: combat, healing, buffing, stealth, knowledge, etc.

Why would you treat interpersonal skills any different? Granted, it's an activity, just like combat, where you'd want everyone to be able to chime in - except for builds that are deliberately incompetent by design. But I think it's kinda alright to have a dedicated combat specialist in your party - for as long as the gap to average party members doesn't get too big.

So why not the same for social encounters?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080217So why not the same for social encounters?

Because the process of play is done by talking. The part of that that is PC-NPC interation shouldn't be locked off from some players. [even though there is still Pc-PC and palyer-palyer space for talkng]. The combat specialist does not usually fight to the excluion of others being in the combat. [When would that occur - an encounter settled by a one-on-one duel?]

Quote from: S'mon;1080211I agree. I prefer not having "social encounters" be something any one PC is optimised for.

But you have some optimized for other functions.  Cleric for healing, Rogues for skills, wizard for combat...  What's wrong with something designed for interaction with NPCs?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080222But you have some optimized for other functions.  Cleric for healing, Rogues for skills, wizard for combat...  What's wrong with something designed for interaction with NPCs?

Because everybody fights, even when different PCs have different in-combat roles (& D&D has moved away from any non-combat-competent PCs, like the old Thief). Optimised talker results in only one PC talking - only one player is playing the game, while everyone else watches. It's incredibly dumbass design unless social encounters are resolved on the same level as lockpicking, ie by an abstracted die roll.

I don't know if they were so much "the party face" in TSR as much as a professional lore-monger.

Anyone could have good, or even better, CHA. (Though CHA 14 is pretty high threshold indeed.) Anyone could bribe or ingratiate themselves, even to hostiles. Just like anyone could attempt climbing walls or picking locks, it was never isolated off everyone else's table.

But no one else could just *know* stuff because of breadth of experience and professional shared knowledge. Mysterious items identified, heritages expounded upon, song or storytelling woven to incite or soothe reactions... It really was a magical level of social professionalism.

I think it's one of those creeping "best practices" that came about from people trying to niche protect during play, and 'Strategic Players' trying to micro-manage party composition. Not the original intent, but the text was read that way, and play drifted into that direction.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080217Okay, I don't understand that part. Players are bound to specialize in any activity that might be relevant enough for quest success. Clearly, persuading/fast-talking NPCs is a relevant activity, therefore there is bound to be players that want to specialize in it. Furthermore, we can observe that there are specialists for all kinds of other relevant activities: combat, healing, buffing, stealth, knowledge, etc.

Why would you treat interpersonal skills any different? Granted, it's an activity, just like combat, where you'd want everyone to be able to chime in - except for builds that are deliberately incompetent by design. But I think it's kinda alright to have a dedicated combat specialist in your party - for as long as the gap to average party members doesn't get too big.

So why not the same for social encounters?

First, someone specializing in "persuading" is not automatically being the party face--if "persuading" is not so broad as to be the de facto party face thing.  Having a persuasion skill that some characters can specialize in is not an issue.  Having the skill designed such that one person hyper-specializes in it, while no one else bothers, is a problem.

Second, there is a bigger issue with "only one person does it" than there is with "only one type of character can do it".  Having only a cleric be able to heal annoys some players at times, and I'm certainly glad to have more options than that--not least so that the cleric is not required.  But even in the Basic D&D days, if you had a big enough group, multiple clerics were valuable.

Third, ideally, you can easily handle near duplicates in characters mechanically.  An extra fighter or two beyond the first might not be ideal party composition, but all of them can whack things, and there are probably a lot of things to whack.

Fourth, a nasty side effect of a system with a lot of hyper specialization is that frequently it produces situations where if the character does not so specialize, they might as well not bother.  That is, one consequence of a system that encourages a "party face" is that the players may decide to ignore social situations altogether.  Not because they aren't happy to do social situations, but because the character costs are too great to bother, and there is no room to dabble.

Finally, the dedicated combat specialist is OK, as you say as long as the gap is not too large.  Why, because there are still meaningful ways for the rest of the group to contribute.

Of course, depending upon the skill and inclinations of the GM and the exact system used, one can gloss over things like an overly broad persuasion skill by bringing in circumstantial reasons why multiple characters need it.  I do quite a bit of that in my 5E game now, as a necessary side effect of such a broad skill system.  If I nudge the system a little, it will go where I want it.  Whereas, with 3E, I found that I was fighting the system all the time over such issues.  There's no perfect answer here, but there are definitely system choices that are far less than optimal, at least for certain styles.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080222But you have some optimized for other functions.  Cleric for healing, Rogues for skills, wizard for combat...  What's wrong with something designed for interaction with NPCs?

Quote from: S'mon;1080232Because everybody fights, even when different PCs have different in-combat roles (& D&D has moved away from any non-combat-competent PCs, like the old Thief). Optimised talker results in only one PC talking - only one player is playing the game, while everyone else watches. It's incredibly dumbass design unless social encounters are resolved on the same level as lockpicking, ie by an abstracted die roll.

I totally agree with Chris here. There is nothing wrong with someone creating a character for diplomacy/negotiation situations. Or ending up with one die to how the dice happened to fall during chargen.

And news flash S'mon. In real life when someone is negotiating or even just talking to someone else its usually best to not butt in or interrupt unless necessary. Which is also how alot of RPG sessions go. Its how all mine have when I've been a player. And as a player I tend to get elected the group negotiator because they believe Im good at it. And half the time I end up with a good Charisma score by sheer chance. So I will be talking to a NPC and usually at some point one of the players will have their PC interject a quick question or ask for clarification from the NPC. Or have their character make a suggestion to mine to relay along. Other times they sit back and enjoy the show as it were. Same when say the Thief is doing their thing disarming a trap or searching for one. We step back and watch.

Not everything has to be "ALL participation ALL the TIME!"

Being sane people we know that eventually everyone gets their moment in the spotlight. Wether they want it or not.

Quote from: SHARK;1079713Greetings!

I've read where some people have a passionate dislike of Bards, seeing them as feminine and useless idiots, that add little to an adventuring group, and are only worthy as a footnote in the cultural commentary of the campaign as part of the cmpaign's furniture.

Bards are not useless.  If you get enough of them piled up then they make an effective barrier for cover purposes.

Quote from: Shasarak;1080640Bards are not useless.  If you get enough of them piled up then they make an effective barrier for cover purposes.

Hide behind the pile of dead bards!