Design Decisions: Persuade/Bluff/Intimitade

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               FP, I agree if it's done the way you describe it. But with modules like yours I know beforehand that it it's very likely my PC will need these skills. Besides, the Auren trilogy is specifically created for wizards and sorcerers, so even if I'm required to spend a lot of skill points in Bluff etc., I know my sorcerer won't have any disadvantages because the game was designed with that in mind.

I think problems arise when you want to make your module enjoyable for as many different classes as possible and incorporate many different playstyles but then give only these three options to successfully master a critical situation, as if that would cater to all kinds of characters: the bluffers, the persuaders and the intimidaters. Actually it only caters to one kind of player though, the one who anticipated the need of sacrificing points to the social skills. And if you set the DC too high, some classes are at a serious disadvantage.

So it's a good idea to offer alternatives for PCs who are challenged in this regard and don't make players feel punished for choosing different skills than the ones you think they should have chosen (but never told them). Spells as alternatives for casters are pretty cool as part of that designing strategy.

And btw, Almraiven rocks! <3>

               
            

[Legacy_Dallo]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

In my opinion Persuade, Bluff and Intimidate are basically the same skills in different disguises.

Absolutely agree.  It's much better in Dragon Age, where mostly this stuff is handled by a single skill.

So I feel there's an imbalance in the relation of how accessible Persuade/Bluff/Intimitade are to all PCs on the one hand and the nearly monopolistc importance of these skills for a satisfactory storytelling and roleplay experience on the other hand.

I know that a lot of people disagree but I usually find the deployment of these skills in *traditional* roleplay in NwN to be a bit cheesy and/or plastic, and their apparent requirement by many players really cuts down a modder's options.  Story-driven modules with an emphasis on combat, for example, which seems to be most folks fave type of module, are particularly problematic for both designer and player.  A player can be provided items to help, perhaps, but that seems a bit contrived.  The higher the character level in a story-driven hack/slash, the worse the problem becomes.

I absolutely disagree that such checks should have a low DC.  Why bother having them if it's going to be so artificial?  However, you might also ask why have them at all, particularly in a combat-oriented module, if players are almost certain to have chosen combat/stealth-requisite skills at level ups for entirely pragmatic reasons (ie survival).

Btw, the module the OP is talking about is my own, Caereena - Krakona Rising...  '>

There's a very difficult persuade/bluff/intimidate check at a certain point in the module.  I tended not to use these checks often, at least not overtly, primarily because of the type of module it is and my general aversion to them anyway, believing that real story delivery doesn't actually require them, that they're largely artificial anyway.  However, in this particular instance, without spoilers, there is a bad guy, a particularly ruthless one, who has a confidence problem regarding something, and that the situation might be exploited if the PC is sharp-tongued enough.  Money or spell solutions simply won't cut it.  Given the nature of the bad dude the check had to be very high, and given the nature of the mod success was obviously going to be difficult for the majority of players.  I attempted to write it in that success was a very long shot, and the the scenario made that abundantly clear also, but obviously when there is a chance of success, especially when the stakes are a matter of life and death for someone, then it's reasonable for players to expect a realistic chance of siad success.

It was a very tough design scenario, precisely because of the skill mechanics in NwN/DnD... 

I think problems arise when you want to make your module enjoyable for
as many different classes as possible and incorporate many different
playstyles but then give only these three options to successfully master
a critical situation, as if that would cater to all kinds of
characters: the bluffers, the persuaders and the intimidaters. Actually
it only caters to one kind of player though, the one who anticipated the
need of sacrificing points to the social skills. And if you set the DC
too high, some classes are at a serious disadvantage.

Yep, you're right.  It was a very fair critique of the particular scenario in CKR.  To be truthful, in the end I came down on the side of general story flow ie I was happy enough for players to fail the check, and the innocent to suffer the consequences, if perhaps it steeled the players resolve against one particular side of the general conflict.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               Interesting topic, Olivier.

I think some of your problems with conversational skill checks stem from the fact that while the value of most skills and abilities are built-in to the game engine itself, that of these skills is not. Whether these skills have any value at all (and if so, how much) depends solely on the discretion of the module builder. So it is not surprising that many builders either do not bother with them at all, being focused on other things, or implement them in a perfunctory manner that does not have a lot of thought behind it.

As for problems like having two few skill points to divide among too many skills, or the conflicts between RP and "power" considerations in building a character, these come down to defects in either the D&D rules or NWN's implementation of them, which I certainly agree could have been better. If I were writing a ruleset from scratch I imagine I would do something like have a single "speechcraft" skill, have it modified by different attributes depending on the context in which it was used (e.g. strength for intimidation, charisma for persuasion), and have the same skill usable both in conversation and in combat as a version of  the "Taunt" skill...but writing a ruleset from scratch is not something most authors are going to find very practical. Even if they did I would question the desirabililty of routinely doing so in SP modules (PWs might be a different story), since I think it would be a bit much to expect players to learn a new ruleset for every module they download. And of course though other rulesets might be better in particular respects, no set of rules is going to be perfect: fixing one problem is likely to cause another. There are always trade-offs.

Speaking of trade-offs, though I also very much enjoy quests where there are multiple solutions allowing any type of character to get a satisfactory result, albeit in different ways, I am not sure all quests should be like that. If there is never any downside to not having a particular skill, than that skill is basically useless and there is really no reason for a player to bother with it at all. To me at least, it would considerably detract from the role-playing experience if playing radically different types of character made no important difference to anything that happened in a module.

Anyway, to answer your question about how I as a mod author handle this (techniques which for all I know could well use improvement):

-As much as possible, I try to create a RP-friendly environment where almost any skill or talent a player chooses to develop will at least occasionally have some use. This means that I provide numerous conversational skill checks of all three types, and in addition to any benefits specific to the particular check, I always provide some XP to the player simply for succeeding at them, to make them more rewarding and meaningful (there aren't any real alternatives to combat if combat is the only way to get XP).

-I include skill checks of varying difficulty, easy ones that anyone can succeed at with a good roll (and at which those who have made a significant investment in the skill are almost certain to succeed), medium ones where anyone who has made a significant investment has a decent chance at success, and difficult ones where only someone who has maxed out the skill, or close to that, will have a good chance at success. This I hope provides advantages both to players who make only a moderate investment in the skill (as for example when it is being developed as a cross-class one) as well as those who have made a maximal investment.

-For the most part, nothing that crucial hinges on success at these checks, just a little extra gold or whatnot. However, I do think that players who have made sacrifices to other skills in order to maximize their skill at conversation deserve an occasional reward for their dedication to role-playing their character in this way. So every now and then I will include a side-quest in which it is very difficult or even impossible to get a completely satisfactory outcome without having such skills (naturally this is only suitable, if at all, for optional sidequests, not something crucial to the main plot of the game).
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

                @ Dallo
"Btw, the module the OP is talking about is my own, Caereena - Krakona Rising...  "
How in Hell did you find out about it! 

Some comments by Dallo, FP, and others here, all authors I actually played the modules from, make something quite clear: If the module is good, that means the author is not bad, and the way he is going to handle that "social" skills situation should walk along that same "smart" path than the module itself.
It's all about the way the module is written. And I'm not talking about the pen, but the brain.

Great modules tend to be great in every compartment.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Dallo]

               

jmlzemaggo wrote...How in Hell did you find out about it! 

Hehe  '>  Nothing psionic, I assure you.  Olivier posted a comment on the mod's boards.

If the module is good, that means the author is not bad, and the way he is going to handle that "social" skills situation should walk along that same "smart" path than the module itself.

Well, sometimes you can have a very good thought, and I think that the scenario in CKR which led the OP to start this thread is actually a pretty cool idea, however sometimes these good ideas can be poorly implemented, for whatever reason.  In this case, even though a skill check was necessary in my view, there hadn't been too many, if any, similar checks in the mod to that point.  Suddenly it pops up, is a very difficult one, and the vast majority of players would be absolutely unprepared for it, have no chance of success without cheating.  In a sense I broke one of my primary design philosophies ie always give the player what's required for victory, even if you hide it, disguise it somehow, make them work for it.

It's a clear point of what the OP is really on about ie the poorly designed DnD ruleset governing persuade/bluff/intimidate.  Even if I could I wouldn't change the design of the scenario in CKR because it makes perfect sense as is.  However, i could certainly wish to have been able to run an appropriate  check in a convo based on something that also aided combat.  Dragon Age uses things like coercion, a handy general skill, or checks for things like cunning modifier, where cunning is important in myriad other ways, including damage etc.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...
To me at least, it would considerably detract from the role-playing experience if playing radically different types of character made no important difference to anything that happened in a module.

Well, I don't mean there shouldn't be any differences regardless of whether your checks are successful or not. It should definitely make a difference, by all means. I'm just saying both possible outcomes should be worthwhile for the player (if not always for the PC). If it's just about winning or losing, I don't see how that would make a module more interesting and replayable for different types of characters. At least not if you don't cater to other characters' fortes in the same way that you cater to socially skilled characters.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your detailed and insightful comments, Dallo and rogueknight333! And Dallo, since you called yourself out, let me stress that this was the first and only issue I ever had with "Caereena: Krakona Rising" during hours of hours of tremendously enjoying it.
'>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 13 septembre 2010 - 01:18 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Dallo]

               Cheers, mate!



The topic is an interesting one though and begs the question of just how a modder creating a (in particular) higher level, combat-oriented mod should address the issue.  Even if the mod is designed for mid-range characters, say levels 9-15, then the issue is still pertinent.  Should one use attribute checks instead ie charisma, intelligence, strength??
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               I think it's okay to use these skills even in higher level combat-oriented mods but you should offer alternatives to them (see FP's example) or only use them for things of minor importance, that is slightly better rewards but not necessarily more rewarding story outcomes.

Or you could have certain conversation options only show up if a minimum of CHA, INT, STR etc. is found, so that PCs who don't meet the criteria won't even know there was a different way to solve the problem because it's never been an option to them anyway.

Or you could have social skill checks with lower or average DC but only make them available if players find the right path leading to them. So a player would only get the chance to make a (fair) dice roll after he/she roleplayed accordingly and chose convincing conversation options that are in line with the use of the following social skill. The check wouldn't be too hard but in order to get a chance at it, first the player would have to persuade, bluff or intimidate by consistent roleplay.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head...

In general, I'd have preferred a single social skill (after all they're all based on the same stat, CHA, if I'm not mistaken) and the option to use it for persuading, bluffing or intimidating dependent on the situation (a mod author could still use the labels "Persuade", "Bluff" and "Intimidate" but check for one skill only).

Another observation is that "Intimidate" is often used almost exclusively for threatening people with violence while you could also understand it differently. The choice between "Persuade" and "Intimidate" doesn't have to be a moral one, it could just lie in the tone. "Intimidate" could mean that your PC relies on his authority instead of his sympathy, e.g.

[Persuade] Come on, mate, you can tell me. Sharing it with a friend will make you feel better.
[Intimidate] I don't have time to lose! Cut the nonsense and tell me this minute! (without of the 'obligatory' "or I'll beat the *'% out of you!").
'>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 14 septembre 2010 - 12:43 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

                @ Dallo

What I meant by a "good module" isn't necessarily about the story, the thought, the idea, the technics. 
To me the rythm comes first, the music. 
Once you get yourself tuned to the author's song, but a song that belongs to your own discotheque, one that rings your very bell, you'll be playing the module like you play your own piano. But with four hands.
It's more about the way you cook than the recipe. 

Some modules talk to me as a player, some don't, and some do... but only after a good hour of suffering. We get to know each other...If the module talks about you, the author, it's gonna talk to us. If the module you're working on shows you some stuff you didn't even know about yourself, it's gonna hook us real tight... as well as telling you why you spent two years of your life making it...
If you smile while making it, so we will.
That is why I always considered moduling a very courageous act, almost fearless. Not so easy to show his ass in public... And if you're too scared too show all you've got, or even better, what just popped up in your mind, why doing it? Anyway, no one is gonna care for something we all know of already.
Personnally, making modules is one of the most interesting and personal act I ever accomplished.
Today I know why.
I still remember that very second I chose going nuts instead of making something "safe", which wasn't me.

And now I'm finally going silent... 
               
               

               

                     Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 14 septembre 2010 - 02:31 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Dallo]

               

jmlzemaggo wrote...

To me the rythm comes first, the music. 
Once you get yourself tuned to the author's song, but a song that belongs to your own discotheque, one that rings your very bell, you'll be playing the module like you play your own piano. But with four hands.

A reasonable definition of art...   I remember you leaving a very good rating on CKR too.  Glad we harmonized '>

I still remember that very second I chose going nuts instead of making something "safe", which wasn't me.

I hear you, mate, though sometimes the safe route is what your audience needs/wants.  It certainly is good to go nuts though  '>


@ Olivier

It's a pity that The Builders Project is pretty much defunct these days else I'd be leaning on you to whip up a piece for the Design Manual (ie Guide to Building - Part 2), using your own ideas plus the goodies proffered by rogueknight and Fester Pot 
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Dallo, 14 septembre 2010 - 06:56 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               @ Dallo, Skyrmir, RyanDarth & gaoneng 

Caereena - Krakona Rising isn't only a perfect exemple of what I was saying above. It's one of my very very few bedside games, un de mes "jeux de chevet".
One of these very few NWN modules I replay once in a while, when I'm in need of all the NWN power. Being willing to replay a module shows how near it is to you. 
The way your module starts tells already a lot about its ambition and imagination.
That module's got an identity. I know him, sort of speak...
Why? I don't know really, but it's heavy, dense, together. It's almost like a corpse, and a corpse you like.

And, to finally let you go back to your real life, its rythm is excellent. 
Can you explain why a good book is a good one? I can't, not really.
All I know is I can't stop reading it. It belongs to my library, my life.
I'm very serious when it comes to gaming... '>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 14 septembre 2010 - 09:09 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               On Topic for a change!!! :innocent:

Quick one bout that "social skills" situation in CKR: Maybe the hostage has to die. As simple as that. He isn't meant to be saved. As if you play it straight, like one should, and don't reload like a madman like myself... and Olivier '>, the guy dies. It's one of this loss a story has to suffer to be a story.

Okay, okay, , I know... I'm out.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 14 septembre 2010 - 09:40 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

...At least not if you don't cater to other characters' fortes in the same way that you cater to socially skilled characters.

This is actually exactly what I try to do. The downside with this is that while PCs will run into some scenarios perfectly tailored to their talents (I hope), they will have problems with other scenarios because these were designed with a different type of character in mind. You win some, and you lose some (or at least have a harder time).

To clarify further what I was saying here, It obviously won't do to penalize players too much for not being the right sort of character (unless of course the module was specifically designed for a PC with particular talents, and this is made clear in the documentation), but I personally don't object to occasionally doing so (in some manner that is not too severe of course), because it makes it more rewarding when you do turn out to have the right talents for the situation. For example, if I choose to play a PC with a talent for talking his way out of trouble, instead of some uber powerbuild who would never bother with frills like Persuade or Bluff and uses CHA as a dump stat, then it would be nice if I were sometimes rewarded for this, and the obvious way to provide a reward would be precisely in having enhanced role-play opportunities or a more interesting storyline, since by playing such a character I have indicated more interest in such things than in pure power.

That said, there are certainly many ways to mitigate the problems you mention if one thinks it important and is prepared to put the effort in. I quite like your idea about making failure have consequences that are humorous or otherwise interesting for the player, if perhaps still disadvantageous for the character (though I'm not sure how practical it would be to do this for every failure, at least if you use as many skill checks as I do). You have also introduced a valuable distinction here: what is rewarding for the player and what is rewarding for the character are not necessarily going to be one and the same.

One thing that I occasionally do, if I want to include a skill check in a quest too important to simply let the PC fail, is set things up so that he can keep trying the check over and over again until he succeeds. The DC goes down with every new attempt, so he is sure to eventually succeed no matter how poor his rank in the skill, but, on the other hand, the XP reward, and perhaps other benefits, eventually obtained for success also goes down with each failed attempt (which may not be entirely logical, but does make sure both that a skilled PC will be rewarded, even while any PC can ultimately succeed). As for using one skill to represent all three, or providing a synergy bonus, or otherwise implementing what amounts to a customized ruleset, while this is of course perfectly doable, there are a few disadvantages to this. One being what I already mentioned, namely that many players may not want to bother with learning a new set of complicated rules for every module they download, if such things became common. Another is that if you have to design a character specifically for the custom ruleset of a particular module, this creates problems if you want to bring in an imported characrter, or use an imported character from that module to play in others. None of these is a fatal objection of course, just some downsides to balance against the advantages.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               

Dallo wrote...
It's a pity that The Builders Project is pretty much defunct these days else I'd be leaning on you to whip up a piece for the Design Manual (ie Guide to Building - Part 2), using your own ideas plus the goodies proffered by rogueknight and Fester Pot 

Yeah, a real shame about the Builders Project, must have been a lot of fun back in the days. Sadly I came late to the party when all the beginners of yesterday had already become veterans or more or less retired from NWN. I really miss such a self-help group for newbie builders. Granted, nowadays we have lots of helpful guides and there's always this forum but it would be nice if there was something beyond that, too; new builders exchanging ideas and inspiring each other, challenges, that sort of thing. Two years ago I tried to initiate a new guild in the spirit of the Builder's Project but it quickly fell apart again due to some odd quarrels about a common PW project most of the members weren't even involved in... Somehow PWs always lead to fighting, heh. I'm collaborating with two mature and 'professional' PW teams at the moment but actually SP mods have always been my main interest. I'd enjoy mod building challenges like the "Hermit's Chalice" contest as I think it's much more fun to learn the ropes that way instead of all alone on your own. But these days it's hard to find newbie builders who feel the same...
'>

Anyway, going a bit off-topic here....

@rogueknight333
The idea with one single skill for all influencing tactics was more wishful thinking than an actual suggestion. True, for a moment I thought about how to integrate it into NWN, e.g. by using only the Persuade skill (and advice players to concentrate on that one) and then take measures that those classes that don't have it as class skills get according bonuses to the check in order to make up for it. But I don't like such makeshift solutions a lot and I agree with your objections.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 15 septembre 2010 - 12:27 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_taltamir]

               I fully agree with every single point the OP made, those are terrible design decisions.
Moreso, the mod designers followed up on cues from the NWN official modules, and those showed terrible implementation which has cropped up in many other modules.

Beyond what the op said, I have a few extra grievances with that system:
First, many will look at your raw ability scores instead of your skills, even further crippling your build choices.

Second, most will associate persuasion with good, intimidation with evil, and bluffing with chaos. Even if your alignment doesn't shift, the actual roleplaying results will be in the above vein... this makes it even harder for classes, if you want to be "nice" and persuade people, well, play a cleric, monk, or paladin. thats it. Fighters can intimidate but not persuade.

Third, some encounters require that you have multiple of those skills for satisfactory roleplaying resolution. That is, you need to intimidate, bluff, AND persuade... and each individual problem can only be solved in this one particular way (no bribing, no intelligent dialog choices, no nothing...)

Fourth, almost always there is no / reduced reward for solving something via diplomacy... if you fight you gain XP and loot, if you talk you lose out on both. I am not saying that the person you just talk to should reward you directly always, but you should get XP, and maybe killing less people and solving more problems diplomatically can improve the economy in various ways, or maybe you make up for that in other places... point is, it should penalize you

the stupidest thing about it, is that it was a design decision of bioware... in the pen and paper version all 3 were a single skill called diplomacy:
http://www.d20srd.or...s/diplomacy.htm
but bioware decided to split them into 3 seperate skills.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par taltamir, 10 novembre 2010 - 09:26 .