The Politics Skill.

[Magian]

>From: Carl Cramér <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>

>
>The problem with this approach is that the characters will inevitably end
>up
>in situations where they look foolish/inadequate because they lack a
>certain
>skill that the DM introduced. "What, no one of you bought this new Skiing
>skill I told you about". This lets the DM look smug, but is no fun for the
>players. Especially since many of these skills will only be used very
>rarely.

I personally would take the stance of Kenneth on this example and say it
would prove to be an evolutionary process that either the DM grows up and
becomes a better DM or the players will get a new DM that makes better
skills and learns from his mistakes.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 00:11, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>
> The NPC classes are one of the worst aspects of 3E in my opinion.

As both Gary and John mentioned, the solution is to beef up the NPC classes
to make them PC worthy. IMO, an NPC class should be viable non-adventuring
class. Commoner and Warrior are sensible alternatives for NPC`s whose names
we aren`t intended to really get to know. They appear in the credits as
peasant #5 and guard #2.

Just so that it`s not the squeaky wheels getting all the oil:
NPC classes are, and have always been, a complete waste of space IMO.
(if you role-play) The focus on "character class" for "detail",
"background", and "development" is only useful in automation not
role-playing.

There have always been those players (who many call munchkins) who want
to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class, (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and
who play with "rules" that make such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****.
As the creator said, "such persons should play another game".

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:59 PM


> There have always been those players (who many call munchkins) who want
> to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class, (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and
> who play with "rules" that make such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****.
> As the creator said, "such persons should play another game".

This is all well and good, except that the NPC classes were each inferior to
PC classes, so this must be anti-munckinism.

> (if you role-play) The focus on "character class" for "detail",
> "background", and "development" is only useful in automation not
> role-playing.

That depends on how you think of class. If you expect that because you
write "fighter" on your character sheet you know him like a brother, then I
agree, class will prove disappointing. If you view class as a set of skills
possed as a cluster, its actually pretty useful. When you build an NPC and
ask yourself what order classes were taken in and why, its actually a good
springboard for thinking about the character.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Kenneth says:

> That depends on how you think of class. If you expect that
> because you write "fighter" on your character sheet you know
> him like a brother, then I agree, class will prove
> disappointing. If you view class as a set of skills possed
> as a cluster, its actually pretty useful. When you build an
> NPC and ask yourself what order classes were taken in and
> why, its actually a good springboard for thinking about the character.

I like to do this by thinking of `class` as `profession`. I find it
helps if you think of it as something your PC does not something that
they are. As Tyler Durden says: "You are not your job" ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Peter says:

> Just so that it`s not the squeaky wheels getting all the oil:
> NPC classes are, and have always been, a complete waste of
> space IMO. (if you role-play) The focus on "character class"
> for "detail", "background", and "development" is only useful
> in automation not role-playing.
>
> There have always been those players (who many call
> munchkins) who want to play (i) a monster, (ii) a NPC class,
> (iii) a god, (iv) etc --- and who play with "rules" that make
> such viable PCs. It`s all a big *****. As the creator said,
> "such persons should play another game".

Are you saying that NPC classes are over-powered?

Are we even looking at the same game?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Paul says:

> Rhetoric seems agreeable at the moment. Now how about
> different levels of this? Diplomatic rhetoric is between
> factions regardless of political level (system, state,
> individual) it simply means foreign relations between domains
> or oranizations. Religious rhetoric(dogma) specifically for
> the clerical. Military rhetoric for military operations and
> commands. Political rhetoric for a factions appearance to the
> outsiders. Haggling rhetoric for markets. et cetera.

I would happily create a Knowledge (Rhetoric) skill in my campaign.
Learned speakers would possess it to augment (via a synergy bonus) their
natural talent with theory and knowledge of the classic orators.

I am also of the opinion (or rather, Kenneth persuaded me to be of
it...) that knowledge of a community or locality or profession is of
assistance in persuading people of that community, locality, or
profession. If you have a lot of Knowledge (Arcana) you might be able to
speak more clearly to wizards and so forth, Knowledge (Religion) means
you can incorporate religious themes and homilies that appeal to the
clergy, Profession (Soldier) or Knowledge (Warfare) might make you sound
more appealing when orating to military types, Innuendo or Knowledge
(Streets) might be of use when talking to the lower classes or trying to
sway the members of a thieves guild, Knowledge (Local) can make you
sound like a local yourself and that always helps in addressing the
masses. Any of these skills could contribute synergy modifiers to a
Perform (Oratory) check in the right circumstances.

If a person actually wanted to deceive a crowd then an additional Bluff
check might be required to convince them, after the initial Perform
(Oratory) check. If a person merely wanted to spice up the speech with
some half-truths and `creativity` then Bluff might contribute a synergy
bonus as well.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Paul says:

> I don`t like the idea of cannons in Birthright, even netbooks.
>
> ;-)

*unleashes a broadside*

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Paul says:

> That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards
> politics whether it be system, state, or individual. They
> all play a part in politics as we well know. However as a
> skill itself I think we could measure it at the individual
> level since after all it is the individual using the skill.
> Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the
> individual must still rely upon his skill in order to "spin"
> things his way. The audience are individuals also regardless
> of the level of state they are privilage to they have minds
> subject to ideas. Thus on the drive of this topic for the
> spin skill I would say that it should be placed on the
> individual level since that is what makes up governments.

I am not sure what you mean by "individual level" here. I assume that by
"spin" you are all meaning, basically, lies. In my opinion the Bluff
skill does an excellent job at representing an ability to lie
convincingly to both individuals and crowds.

I must say that I am a bit disturbed that people seem to agree that
politics is all "spin", that is to say, lies. I would think that having
Knowledge (Politics) would help an unscrupulous person know which lies
to tell, but at the same time tell a more ethical person which issues a
population considered to be of primary importance. I don`t think that
politics is an inherently deceptive discipline.

> As for the definition of politics being the struggle for
> power I would like to take a different approach, please bare
> with me. Like Marx once said, Religion is the opiate of the
> masses. I happen to agree with this in the sense that the
> masses tend to use religion as an opiate instead of a way to
> evolve themselves. Therefore politics like religion is
> defined by how the
> individual(s) use it. (again more of my philosophical banter)

I am rather lost on this point. Not confused by the references, but by
their applicabilityn perhaps.

> Back on track, I do think that a skill used for dimplomatic,
> persuation, and such things as performance (as has been
> mentioned) take away from opportunities to roleplay things
> out even if it gets repetitous. I find on the domain(state)
> level of roleplaying things like that are the lifeblood of
> the roleplaying between factions and a persons own
> imagination and devotion to the game should be what measure
> the success not a rating system on paper and a roll of the
> die. Then again rules are always fun to make up in hopes
> they imitate reality.

I agree. I did not suggest that PCs would now simply roll the die
instead of roleplaying a speech. I would use such a skill to provided
bonuses to the Action Checks on actions like Agitate and so forth. Good
roleplaying would augment the die roll, or even wholly supercede it if
it was impressive enough. Having a skill is a good saftey net since it
aids in envisioning the character and it means that people who might not
be excellent rhetoricists themselves can still roleplay them.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 08:28 PM 7/3/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>>That all depends on what level of analysis you take towards politics
>>whether it be system, state, or individual. They all play a part in
>>politics as we well know. However as a skill itself I think we could
>>measure it at the individual level since after all it is the individual
>>using the skill. Regardless of what level the skill is being used at the
>>individual must still rely upon his skill in order to "spin" things his
>>way. The audience are individuals also regardless of the level of state
>>they are privilage to they have minds subject to ideas. Thus on the
>>drive of this topic for the spin skill I would say that it should be
>>placed on the individual level since that is what makes up governments.
>
>I am not sure what you mean by "individual level" here. I assume that by
>"spin" you are all meaning, basically, lies. In my opinion the Bluff skill
>does an excellent job at representing an ability to lie convincingly to
>both individuals and crowds.
>
>I must say that I am a bit disturbed that people seem to agree that
>politics is all "spin", that is to say, lies. I would think that having
>Knowledge (Politics) would help an unscrupulous person know which lies to
>tell, but at the same time tell a more ethical person which issues a
>population considered to be of primary importance. I don`t think that
>politics is an inherently deceptive discipline.

For the purposes of this discussion I would draw a distinction between
politics--as in the interaction of human beings at the national
administrative level--and government--as in the methods/process
of national administration. I`m really just interested in a new 3e skill
for D&D here, not a philosophical discussion about the nature of political
life. It`s debatable whether one can really separate those two things, but
for the purpose of developing a skill, I think we can.

> > Back on track, I do think that a skill used for dimplomatic,
> > persuation, and such things as performance (as has been
> > mentioned) take away from opportunities to roleplay things
> > out even if it gets repetitous. I find on the domain(state)
> > level of roleplaying things like that are the lifeblood of
> > the roleplaying between factions and a persons own
> > imagination and devotion to the game should be what measure
> > the success not a rating system on paper and a roll of the
> > die. Then again rules are always fun to make up in hopes
> > they imitate reality.
>
>I agree. I did not suggest that PCs would now simply roll the die instead
>of roleplaying a speech. I would use such a skill to provided bonuses to
>the Action Checks on actions like Agitate and so forth. Good roleplaying
>would augment the die roll, or even wholly supercede it if it was
>impressive enough. Having a skill is a good saftey net since it aids in
>envisioning the character and it means that people who might not be
>excellent rhetoricists themselves can still roleplay them.

When it comes to interaction skills, I always go with good role-playing
over a die roll. If players role-play out an interaction in a way that
convinces me in my role as the NPC then they get their way. I use die
rolls on those occasions where I (as the NPC) am not really sure which way
I would go, or on occasions in which the PC really should have superior
powers of interaction than the player and I want to cut `em a break. It`s
always a bit of a judgement call. Oh, and recently a had a player roll
when attempting what is categorized as a Tempt: Seduction check among my
changes to the skill system. I was perfectly happy to go ahead and roll
play that one....

In any case, when it comes to this Politics/Rhetoric skill I`m thinking now
that I`ll just have to make it a subskill of Bluff or Influence (the skill
I use for Diplomacy) rather than its own skill. I just can`t come up with
an adventure level effect for it, let alone a game mechanic with which to
handle that effect, so I`m going to leave it at that unless lightning
strikes or something....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Gary says:

> For the purposes of this discussion I would draw a
> distinction between politics--as in the interaction of human
> beings at the national administrative level--and
> government--as in the methods/process of national
> administration. I`m really just interested in a new 3e skill
> for D&D here, not a philosophical discussion about the nature
> of political life. It`s debatable whether one can really
> separate those two things, but for the purpose of developing
> a skill, I think we can.

I can`t say that philosophy was foremost in my mind either, but if it
aids in getting a skill "right" I don`t see a problem myself.

I am curious as to whhich of the two concepts you mentioned above you
are seeking to represent with your new skill. If it is politics (which
you have defined as "...the interaction of human beings at the national
administrative level...") then surely we have pre-existing skills to
govern interpersonal actions, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Innuendo,
Intimidate, and Sense Motive. In my opinion the concept that you have
described as government ("...the methods/process of national
administration.") and the theory of the former would be a more fitting
basis for a "political" skill. It is not, I assume, by accident that
certain universities call their Political Science/Studies departments
`Government` instead.

In my opinion it is not so much a case of having to separate them, as it
is that they have already been seperated for us.

> When it comes to interaction skills, I always go with good
> role-playing over a die roll. If players role-play out an
> interaction in a way that convinces me in my role as the NPC
> then they get their way. I use die rolls on those occasions
> where I (as the NPC) am not really sure which way I would go,
> or on occasions in which the PC really should have superior
> powers of interaction than the player and I want to cut `em a
> break. It`s always a bit of a judgement call. Oh, and
> recently a had a player roll when attempting what is
> categorized as a Tempt: Seduction check among my changes to
> the skill system. I was perfectly happy to go ahead and roll
> play that one....

I agree entirely. However, I expect that some people on this list prefer
to roll. I`d like my suggestions to cater to these people as well as
those with whom I seem to frequently agree :)

> In any case, when it comes to this Politics/Rhetoric skill
> I`m thinking now that I`ll just have to make it a subskill of
> Bluff or Influence (the skill I use for Diplomacy) rather
> than its own skill. I just can`t come up with an adventure
> level effect for it, let alone a game mechanic with which to
> handle that effect, so I`m going to leave it at that unless
> lightning strikes or something....

Mine will remain a knowledge I think, or rather, two Knowledges
(Politics, and Rhetoric).

I hope you`ll let us know if you do have any inspiration though :)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.