Eyestabber
Arcane
As much as I love going into details of everything combat related in most RPGs, lately I've been thinking about the other interaction most RPGs will also include, the "non-combat" ones. The way I see it, there are two main groups of "non-combat" interactions that play out in pretty much every single RPG ever made: 1) social interactions and 2) sensory interactions. You could also include "lore/intellect-based interactions" (eg: repair), but those tend to be VERY setting-specific and are not the topic of this thread.
I don't see much of a reason to talk about those INT based skills because I don't usually have a problem with the way they're implemented. INT means CHARNAME is a smart guy, smart guy knows things that are useful...it works well enough, IMO. This thread is mostly about pointing out idiotic implementations of social/sensory interactions, analyzing what went wrong and how to properly implement them.
1. Stats, do they matter?
Charisma and perception are featured in pretty much every single RPG, even when they are not explicitly implemented as independent stats. If you don`t have a CHA stat in a given RPG, you can bet another stat is doing its job in addition to its own. Examples: Will in Underrail, Cunning in DAO, Wisdom (Perception) in D&D and so on. Some games might implement these stats as skills, which usually results in a heavily abstracted, "gamey" feel.
But again, DO THEY MATTER? My answer is: it depends on what the RPG in question is about. A combat centered RPG can do without Charisma IMO. Which is why I don't think Underrail suffers much from its half-assed implementation of social interactions. The game really isn't about talking your way out of everything, so it makes sense that CHA would take a backseat. HOWEVER, things start to look ugly when a game either: a) implements CHA as an afterthought, while also adding as many "social skillz" as possible bearing no relation to the alleged "key-stat", thus rendering it pointless. Biggest example: Wasteland 2; or b) promises "rich interactions with da NPCs" without assigning any stats/skills to said interactions, which ends up rewarding the player for doing nothing. Eg: KCD.
So, to sum it up: if a game promises a "diplomat archetype" of sorts, then CHA is non-negotiable. If a game promises "lots of mysteries and hidden secrets" then PER is non-negotiable. HOWEVER, I don't think it's a sacrilege to roll these stats into another stat IF the game doesn't really focus on the interactions they are supposed to govern and/or ANOTHER somewhat similar interaction is simply way more relevant (eg: Wisdom).
2. Which number should be checked and how? (pure stat check X pure skill check X some mixture of both)
Just as important as deciding which stats and skills a game should have is establishing the rules on how they're supposed to be checked. That's where a LOT of games fuck things up badly and you end up with garbage like Wasteland 2 allowing the player to dumpstat CHA while also "silver-tonguing" his way through the entire game. If the stat got REMOVED from the game it would actually become LESS nonsensical.
But what's the "proper way"™ to go about it? The way I see it, stats are the "hard", immutable part of a person's development that doesn't really change after reaching adulthood. Skills OTOH can be picked up and learned and, as a rule, people who studied a given skill longer will be better at it. With that said, I can start by saying I think pure skill checks should be restricted to INT-based skills. Any attempt to isolate social interactions from the CHA stat are IMO, pretty idiotic. Same goes with sensory interactions: you can't determine that noise was a silenced gunshot if you can't hear it in the first place.
So, as a RULE I think Stat+skill is the best option. Furthermore, I think CHA should apply a permanent bonus/penalty to its related skills while PER should actually be part of a two-phase check. This will make more sense once I go over the most common interactions found in RPGs.
3. Staple social interactions in RPGs: how should they be handled?
As I already stated, I think the CHA stat should have a global effect on every single social interaction the player attempts. That will result in a situation where learning the skill is still important, BUT the "beautiful people" will ALWAYS have it easier. Just like in real life. Barter, Perform, Persuade and Bluff are obvious cases of "skill + stat" check. However, I think it's worth it to go over some specific situations.
3.1 Intimidation
Low level Paladin passes his [Intimidation] check against poor dindu nuffin Shaman
Jokes aside, most RPGs have an idiotic implementation of intimidation. First of all, IT'S NOT A FUCKING SKILL. It's not something you can practice every day with the people tied up in your basement and suddenly walk up to some high profile person and make him/her start literally shaking. It simply doesn't work like that and it boggles my mind how most people see nothing wrong with the "intimidation skill".
Intimidation is all about CONTEXT. If some dude puts a gun in your head, well...you're very likely to comply but it has NOTHING to do with the guy's "personality" and it's also pretty unlikely that he mastered the art of pointing a gun to someone's head. The gun is the deciding factor, everything else is irrelevant. Take the gun out of the guy's hand and suddenly all his awesome powers of intimidation are fucking GONE.
With that said, I think intimidation should, in most scenarios, be a simple stat check or a skill check. Here's an example:
- NPC victim is walking out for a ciggy break. CHARNAME seizes the opportunity to make NPC talk about plot-macguffin. The following options are presented to the player:
[Strength] Lift him up by the neck and make him talk.
[Dexterity] Slash the air with a knife, less than an inch away from his neck to scare him shitless.
[Bluff] Explain how you're gonna murder his entire family for shits and giggles if he doesn't talk.
See what I mean? There is an intimidation check, but no intimidation skill. AoD did something cool and unique with its [Bodycount] check, an idea which I sincerely hope they will carry over to their next game. However, I think this solution is very setting-related and situational stat checks might be a more reliable/generic alternative.
Oh, and whoever decided intimidation should be CHA based in D&D is a fucking idiot.
3.2 Avoiding a scam
Codexer reaction to the latest Kickstarter by super awesome has-been RPG developer that made one good game 20 years ago
Avoiding lies and false promises is just as important as being able to make your own bullshit stick. This "passive" or "defensive" element of social interactions is very difficult to implement for a variety of reasons. In AoD you have the Streetwise skill, D&D has Sense Motive and AFAIK most games don't even bother with it. However, I feel like not including a "social-defense" leads to the nonsensical situation where everyone is straight and honest and the art of deception is esoteric knowledge known only by the player.
So now we go back to question number 2: how do we deal with skepticism? Is it a skill? A stat? A dialogue option that everyone should always have, no mater what? Eh...I think PER is key here, as PER usually isn't just about how good your eyes and ears are, but also how good your "instincts" are. This defensive interaction actually is, IMO, something that can be learned and improved upon, so skill is also an acceptable solution.
My verdict: skill, with the occasional stat influence.
3.3 Negotiating
"Wow, these blankets are awesome mista! I sure hope they don't have smallpox or something, lel"
Complex negotiations are among the best opportunities for an RPG to implement a chain of stat/skill checks capable of separating the REAL diplomats from the overly-talky thugs. It would be interesting to set a distinction between simple sweet talking (which should be ruled by CHA) and trying to reason and appeal to the NPC's sense of self interest (which should be ruled by INT).
I know the waters are murky and all the TV ads we see seem to prove that bigger tits make ANY argument more convincing, BUUUT propaganda does NOT appeal to the rational aspect of individuals. So, I would like to see an RPG establishing this distinction by having some NPCs that are more susceptible to flattery/asking nicely while other NPCs are more rational and easier to persuade via 200 IQ arguments instead.
And let's not forget the role 3.2 can play in a negotiation. Suppose the NPC promises something he can't possibly deliver, a successful PER + Streetwise check should give you the option to call him out on his BS.
All in all, I think situations like negotiating a peace deal between two warring factions are a rich but mostly unexplored kind of interaction that I hope more developers figure out it's worth implementing.
3.4 Seduction
Heroic Warrior flashes his Rod of Harpy Slaying +15 , immediately triggering lustful feelings in a large area
The likelihood of seduction ever being properly implemented in an RPG and actually adding value to it are close to zero, but since this interaction does show up quite often, I think I need to address it. First of all, unless you believe in retarded PUA hogwash, Seduction is NOT a fucking skill. It's a stat check, plain and simple. MAYBE you could have some situational bonuses/penalties, but this isn't supposed to be anything other than a CHA check.
On the slim chance that someone out there is making a spy RPG with some James Bond "romance" like sequences, my advice is simple: make it a CHA check, don't overcomplicate things and DON'T make a fucking skill dedicated to slaying pussy/getting dicked (even worse).
4. Staple sensory interactions in RPGs: how should they be handled?
"Sensory interactions" refer to situations where the player character might see/hear/notice something a regular person wouldn't. As hinted earlier, I'm partial to a two-phase system: stat -> skill. First we check whether or not CHARNAME's eyes/ears actually did their job and THEN we check CHARNAME's ability to figure out what that noise/image actually mean.
I do NOT believe a simple PER check is enough because it denies the importance of training and experience. IRL example: my parents have a pretty decent knowledge of birds and how they sing and can usually tell what bird is singing just by hearing it. I obviously can't, despite the fact that my hearing is WAY better than that of the old folks. Which makes me very bad at guessing birds by their song, but very good a hearing a phone ringing on the other side of the house. One of these noises has a very low bar of knowledge, so base stat is all that matters.
To sum it up: PER stat -> spot/listen skill as a rule. Now let's go over some interesting cases:
4.1 Traps
That's a pretty tough [Streetwise] check
Perception obviously comes to mind here as the character needs to actually see the trap in order to avoid it. However, most traps follow certain patterns that can be learned so a skill is also acceptable. So, to keep it short: Stat + skill if the game has a PER stat and traps are commonplace, PER only if traps are rare, skill only if traps are common, but PER isn't its own thing. It's all fine, IMO.
4.2 Lore
9/10 RPG developers don't get this important piece of LORE, tho.
Lore is usually skill only, but I can think of many situations where either a PER or an INT check alongside it would make sense. Eg:
- Awesum magicool sword has an inscription in ancient elven language. A PER check to actually notice the inscription before the lore check would make sense.
- Orc warriors across the field have Evil Diety's symbol on their shields. Lore [Religion] check, but ONLY AFTER you pass a PER check to actually notice the damn thing several meters away from you.
- Door locked by Ancient Nerds requires a password. Lore check tells the player that Ancient Nerds loved math and the password is a math problem, but INT check is required to actually figure out the answer.
5. Conclusion
If you made it this far, I thank you for reading my ramblings. Non-combat interactions are never my favorite part of an RPG, as I prefer to murder everything and take all the phat l00t, BUT I still dislike half-assed implementations of these interactions. Hopefully we'll have more games where discovering hidden things and getting NPCs to side with you will actually be rewards to proper character building and development instead of the shitty "everyone gets a trophy" implementation so commonplace in most RPGs.
I don't see much of a reason to talk about those INT based skills because I don't usually have a problem with the way they're implemented. INT means CHARNAME is a smart guy, smart guy knows things that are useful...it works well enough, IMO. This thread is mostly about pointing out idiotic implementations of social/sensory interactions, analyzing what went wrong and how to properly implement them.
1. Stats, do they matter?
Charisma and perception are featured in pretty much every single RPG, even when they are not explicitly implemented as independent stats. If you don`t have a CHA stat in a given RPG, you can bet another stat is doing its job in addition to its own. Examples: Will in Underrail, Cunning in DAO, Wisdom (Perception) in D&D and so on. Some games might implement these stats as skills, which usually results in a heavily abstracted, "gamey" feel.
But again, DO THEY MATTER? My answer is: it depends on what the RPG in question is about. A combat centered RPG can do without Charisma IMO. Which is why I don't think Underrail suffers much from its half-assed implementation of social interactions. The game really isn't about talking your way out of everything, so it makes sense that CHA would take a backseat. HOWEVER, things start to look ugly when a game either: a) implements CHA as an afterthought, while also adding as many "social skillz" as possible bearing no relation to the alleged "key-stat", thus rendering it pointless. Biggest example: Wasteland 2; or b) promises "rich interactions with da NPCs" without assigning any stats/skills to said interactions, which ends up rewarding the player for doing nothing. Eg: KCD.
So, to sum it up: if a game promises a "diplomat archetype" of sorts, then CHA is non-negotiable. If a game promises "lots of mysteries and hidden secrets" then PER is non-negotiable. HOWEVER, I don't think it's a sacrilege to roll these stats into another stat IF the game doesn't really focus on the interactions they are supposed to govern and/or ANOTHER somewhat similar interaction is simply way more relevant (eg: Wisdom).
2. Which number should be checked and how? (pure stat check X pure skill check X some mixture of both)
Just as important as deciding which stats and skills a game should have is establishing the rules on how they're supposed to be checked. That's where a LOT of games fuck things up badly and you end up with garbage like Wasteland 2 allowing the player to dumpstat CHA while also "silver-tonguing" his way through the entire game. If the stat got REMOVED from the game it would actually become LESS nonsensical.
But what's the "proper way"™ to go about it? The way I see it, stats are the "hard", immutable part of a person's development that doesn't really change after reaching adulthood. Skills OTOH can be picked up and learned and, as a rule, people who studied a given skill longer will be better at it. With that said, I can start by saying I think pure skill checks should be restricted to INT-based skills. Any attempt to isolate social interactions from the CHA stat are IMO, pretty idiotic. Same goes with sensory interactions: you can't determine that noise was a silenced gunshot if you can't hear it in the first place.
So, as a RULE I think Stat+skill is the best option. Furthermore, I think CHA should apply a permanent bonus/penalty to its related skills while PER should actually be part of a two-phase check. This will make more sense once I go over the most common interactions found in RPGs.
3. Staple social interactions in RPGs: how should they be handled?
As I already stated, I think the CHA stat should have a global effect on every single social interaction the player attempts. That will result in a situation where learning the skill is still important, BUT the "beautiful people" will ALWAYS have it easier. Just like in real life. Barter, Perform, Persuade and Bluff are obvious cases of "skill + stat" check. However, I think it's worth it to go over some specific situations.
3.1 Intimidation
Low level Paladin passes his [Intimidation] check against poor dindu nuffin Shaman
Jokes aside, most RPGs have an idiotic implementation of intimidation. First of all, IT'S NOT A FUCKING SKILL. It's not something you can practice every day with the people tied up in your basement and suddenly walk up to some high profile person and make him/her start literally shaking. It simply doesn't work like that and it boggles my mind how most people see nothing wrong with the "intimidation skill".
Intimidation is all about CONTEXT. If some dude puts a gun in your head, well...you're very likely to comply but it has NOTHING to do with the guy's "personality" and it's also pretty unlikely that he mastered the art of pointing a gun to someone's head. The gun is the deciding factor, everything else is irrelevant. Take the gun out of the guy's hand and suddenly all his awesome powers of intimidation are fucking GONE.
With that said, I think intimidation should, in most scenarios, be a simple stat check or a skill check. Here's an example:
- NPC victim is walking out for a ciggy break. CHARNAME seizes the opportunity to make NPC talk about plot-macguffin. The following options are presented to the player:
[Strength] Lift him up by the neck and make him talk.
[Dexterity] Slash the air with a knife, less than an inch away from his neck to scare him shitless.
[Bluff] Explain how you're gonna murder his entire family for shits and giggles if he doesn't talk.
See what I mean? There is an intimidation check, but no intimidation skill. AoD did something cool and unique with its [Bodycount] check, an idea which I sincerely hope they will carry over to their next game. However, I think this solution is very setting-related and situational stat checks might be a more reliable/generic alternative.
Oh, and whoever decided intimidation should be CHA based in D&D is a fucking idiot.
3.2 Avoiding a scam
Codexer reaction to the latest Kickstarter by super awesome has-been RPG developer that made one good game 20 years ago
Avoiding lies and false promises is just as important as being able to make your own bullshit stick. This "passive" or "defensive" element of social interactions is very difficult to implement for a variety of reasons. In AoD you have the Streetwise skill, D&D has Sense Motive and AFAIK most games don't even bother with it. However, I feel like not including a "social-defense" leads to the nonsensical situation where everyone is straight and honest and the art of deception is esoteric knowledge known only by the player.
So now we go back to question number 2: how do we deal with skepticism? Is it a skill? A stat? A dialogue option that everyone should always have, no mater what? Eh...I think PER is key here, as PER usually isn't just about how good your eyes and ears are, but also how good your "instincts" are. This defensive interaction actually is, IMO, something that can be learned and improved upon, so skill is also an acceptable solution.
My verdict: skill, with the occasional stat influence.
3.3 Negotiating
"Wow, these blankets are awesome mista! I sure hope they don't have smallpox or something, lel"
Complex negotiations are among the best opportunities for an RPG to implement a chain of stat/skill checks capable of separating the REAL diplomats from the overly-talky thugs. It would be interesting to set a distinction between simple sweet talking (which should be ruled by CHA) and trying to reason and appeal to the NPC's sense of self interest (which should be ruled by INT).
I know the waters are murky and all the TV ads we see seem to prove that bigger tits make ANY argument more convincing, BUUUT propaganda does NOT appeal to the rational aspect of individuals. So, I would like to see an RPG establishing this distinction by having some NPCs that are more susceptible to flattery/asking nicely while other NPCs are more rational and easier to persuade via 200 IQ arguments instead.
And let's not forget the role 3.2 can play in a negotiation. Suppose the NPC promises something he can't possibly deliver, a successful PER + Streetwise check should give you the option to call him out on his BS.
All in all, I think situations like negotiating a peace deal between two warring factions are a rich but mostly unexplored kind of interaction that I hope more developers figure out it's worth implementing.
3.4 Seduction
Heroic Warrior flashes his Rod of Harpy Slaying +15 , immediately triggering lustful feelings in a large area
The likelihood of seduction ever being properly implemented in an RPG and actually adding value to it are close to zero, but since this interaction does show up quite often, I think I need to address it. First of all, unless you believe in retarded PUA hogwash, Seduction is NOT a fucking skill. It's a stat check, plain and simple. MAYBE you could have some situational bonuses/penalties, but this isn't supposed to be anything other than a CHA check.
On the slim chance that someone out there is making a spy RPG with some James Bond "romance" like sequences, my advice is simple: make it a CHA check, don't overcomplicate things and DON'T make a fucking skill dedicated to slaying pussy/getting dicked (even worse).
4. Staple sensory interactions in RPGs: how should they be handled?
"Sensory interactions" refer to situations where the player character might see/hear/notice something a regular person wouldn't. As hinted earlier, I'm partial to a two-phase system: stat -> skill. First we check whether or not CHARNAME's eyes/ears actually did their job and THEN we check CHARNAME's ability to figure out what that noise/image actually mean.
I do NOT believe a simple PER check is enough because it denies the importance of training and experience. IRL example: my parents have a pretty decent knowledge of birds and how they sing and can usually tell what bird is singing just by hearing it. I obviously can't, despite the fact that my hearing is WAY better than that of the old folks. Which makes me very bad at guessing birds by their song, but very good a hearing a phone ringing on the other side of the house. One of these noises has a very low bar of knowledge, so base stat is all that matters.
To sum it up: PER stat -> spot/listen skill as a rule. Now let's go over some interesting cases:
4.1 Traps
That's a pretty tough [Streetwise] check
Perception obviously comes to mind here as the character needs to actually see the trap in order to avoid it. However, most traps follow certain patterns that can be learned so a skill is also acceptable. So, to keep it short: Stat + skill if the game has a PER stat and traps are commonplace, PER only if traps are rare, skill only if traps are common, but PER isn't its own thing. It's all fine, IMO.
4.2 Lore
9/10 RPG developers don't get this important piece of LORE, tho.
Lore is usually skill only, but I can think of many situations where either a PER or an INT check alongside it would make sense. Eg:
- Awesum magicool sword has an inscription in ancient elven language. A PER check to actually notice the inscription before the lore check would make sense.
- Orc warriors across the field have Evil Diety's symbol on their shields. Lore [Religion] check, but ONLY AFTER you pass a PER check to actually notice the damn thing several meters away from you.
- Door locked by Ancient Nerds requires a password. Lore check tells the player that Ancient Nerds loved math and the password is a math problem, but INT check is required to actually figure out the answer.
5. Conclusion
If you made it this far, I thank you for reading my ramblings. Non-combat interactions are never my favorite part of an RPG, as I prefer to murder everything and take all the phat l00t, BUT I still dislike half-assed implementations of these interactions. Hopefully we'll have more games where discovering hidden things and getting NPCs to side with you will actually be rewards to proper character building and development instead of the shitty "everyone gets a trophy" implementation so commonplace in most RPGs.
Last edited: