Globe of invulnerability and dispel magic
Hong Ooi
The description for globe of invulnerability says that it excludes all
spells and spell-like effects whose targets are within the globe.
It also says that the globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic
(but not an area one).
Does this mean that a dispel magic targeted on the caster can bring down
the globe? This would seem to contradict the first clause above. Or does it
mean that the dispel has to be targeted on the globe itself?
--
Hong Ooi | "Does *anyone* at WOTC bother to
ho...@zipworld.com.au | _think_ when making housecat stats?"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- MSB
Sydney, Australia |
Geoff Watson
"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:5n8rlvga45j7lohv1...@4ax.com...
> Another question, which makes it two in two days. Whoo-hoo!
>
> The description for globe of invulnerability says that it excludes all
> spells and spell-like effects whose targets are within the globe.
>
> It also says that the globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic
> (but not an area one).
>
> Does this mean that a dispel magic targeted on the caster can bring down
> the globe? This would seem to contradict the first clause above. Or does
it
> mean that the dispel has to be targeted on the globe itself?
>
Geoff.
Hong Ooi
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>
Following on from that, would a Spellcraft check be required to identify
the spell? DC by the book is 20 + spell level to identify a spell already
in place and in effect (23 in this case).
Varl
> Another question, which makes it two in two days. Whoo-hoo!
>
> The description for globe of invulnerability says that it excludes all
> spells and spell-like effects whose targets are within the globe.
>
> It also says that the globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic
> (but not an area one).
>
> Does this mean that a dispel magic targeted on the caster can bring down
> the globe? This would seem to contradict the first clause above. Or does it
> mean that the dispel has to be targeted on the globe itself?
The Dispel can't get through to the caster with it up.
Target the globe itself to be able to target the caster.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for
good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
Bradd W. Szonye
> Following on from that, would a Spellcraft check be required to
> identify the spell? DC by the book is 20 + spell level to identify a
> spell already in place and in effect (23 in this case).
Hm, good point. I think that DC is too high. Compare charm person (your
friend acts a little funny, DC 21) and globe (a huge, shimmering ball of
magical weirdness, DC 23?). While it might be difficult to identify the
globe with certainty, I think most players would get the hint after
"shimmering globe, and my spells don't seem to work inside."
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Eyebyte
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbls2mj.5...@szonye.com...
IMO, this is the critical failure of 3E 3.5. Since everything now comes down
to a DC check, it is no longer you thinking, it is you rolling a die and
your character knowing it or not knowing it based on the result. Though
there is a long running problem with players using metagame knowledge that
always comes up in DnD, 3/3.5 has tried to use the DC to determine
everything. I particularly dislike this mechanic for the Charisma based
skills. While I applaud the effort to make personality count (After all, it
might be the most important attribute in REAL society), it is still just a
die roll. Good roll players who come up with full personas for their
characters, make eloquent speaches, and devise clever tricks must simply
roll a DC to see if it works or not...just as the dolt player who
contributes nothing might succeed with a brilliant bluff with a die roll
Did 3.0 turn role-playing into roll playing once and for all?
Sorry for being off topic, but I needed a minor rant. In response to the
question, a DC of 23 spellcraft would successfully determine the globe.
Would DMs out there tell the players a different spell if they rolled
differently? like Oh, you rolled a 22, OK, you determine that the bad guy
has a resist elements spell on?
Rich
Bradd W. Szonye
> IMO, this is the critical failure of 3E 3.5. Since everything now
> comes down to a DC check, it is no longer you thinking, it is you
> rolling a die and your character knowing it or not knowing it based on
> the result.
The thinking part comes in when you make strategic and tactical choices.
D&D3 removes the need for most microtactical choices, which makes it
much easier to play a character with skills different from your own, and
that's a *good* thing.
Kershek
ho...@zipworld.com.au says...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:53:43 +1000, "Geoff Watson" <geoff...@ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:5n8rlvga45j7lohv1...@4ax.com...
> >> Another question, which makes it two in two days. Whoo-hoo!
> >>
> >> The description for globe of invulnerability says that it excludes all
> >> spells and spell-like effects whose targets are within the globe.
> >>
> >> It also says that the globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic
> >> (but not an area one).
> >>
> >> Does this mean that a dispel magic targeted on the caster can bring down
> >> the globe? This would seem to contradict the first clause above. Or does
> >it
> >> mean that the dispel has to be targeted on the globe itself?
> >>
> >Targetted on the globe itself.
> >
>
> Following on from that, would a Spellcraft check be required to identify
> the spell? DC by the book is 20 + spell level to identify a spell already
> in place and in effect (23 in this case).
Well, dispel magic doesn't require knowing the spell it's dispelling, but
it does require a target. Therefore, one of three things can be done: 1)
if the magical effect is visible, then it can be targetted, 2) if the
magical effect is invisible, you need to see its aura through detect magic
or similar means, or 3) if all else fails, use a spellcraft check to be
able to target the magical source. Since spell level is irrelevant, I
would say it's a straight DC 20 spellcraft check to pinpoint the source.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>IMO, this is the critical failure of 3E 3.5. Since everything now comes down
>to a DC check, it is no longer you thinking, it is you rolling a die and
>your character knowing it or not knowing it based on the result. Though
>there is a long running problem with players using metagame knowledge that
>always comes up in DnD, 3/3.5 has tried to use the DC to determine
>everything. I particularly dislike this mechanic for the Charisma based
>skills. While I applaud the effort to make personality count (After all, it
>might be the most important attribute in REAL society), it is still just a
>die roll. Good roll players who come up with full personas for their
>characters, make eloquent speaches, and devise clever tricks must simply
>roll a DC to see if it works or not...just as the dolt player who
>contributes nothing might succeed with a brilliant bluff with a die roll
And what about the player who is brilliant but socially inept? Why
should he be focred to play a socially inept character because he
can't make up brilliant speeches, and doesn't have the oratorial
skills to sway the group? The wimp who can't manage a single pressup
and who can be relied upon to fumble the simplest throw is allowed to
play a Str20+, Dex18 fighter, so why is Mr. Unsocial not allowed to
play a great orator?
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"A pessimist is simply an optimist with a sense of history."
Michael Scott Brown
> > globe with certainty, I think most players would get the hint after
> > "shimmering globe, and my spells don't seem to work inside."
>
> IMO, this is the critical failure of 3E 3.5. Since everything now comes
down
> to a DC check, it is no longer you thinking, it is you rolling a die and
> your character knowing it or not knowing it based on the result.
Bah. This mechanic is the fallback if the characters *don't* recognize
a thing from experience.
-Michael
Geoffrey Brent
> IMO, this is the critical failure of 3E 3.5. Since everything now comes down
> to a DC check, it is no longer you thinking, it is you rolling a die and
> your character knowing it or not knowing it based on the result. Though
> there is a long running problem with players using metagame knowledge that
> always comes up in DnD, 3/3.5 has tried to use the DC to determine
> everything. I particularly dislike this mechanic for the Charisma based
> skills. While I applaud the effort to make personality count (After all, it
> might be the most important attribute in REAL society), it is still just a
> die roll. Good roll players who come up with full personas for their
> characters, make eloquent speaches, and devise clever tricks must simply
> roll a DC to see if it works or not...just as the dolt player who
> contributes nothing might succeed with a brilliant bluff with a die roll
I've never encountered a GM in D&D or any other system who relied solely
on dice rolls to handle interpersonal interaction. In practice, most GMs
I've played with resolve this stuff by diceless roleplaying more often
than not, and only pull out the rules when it benefits the game - e.g.
when character and player skills are grossly mismatched, or when you
don't want to spend three days roleplaying the minutiae of a business deal.
Even then, there are any number of ways the GM can combine dice and
roleplaying. You can roleplay before rolling (give players a bonus to
skill checks if they come up with a good approach), or after (players
who make a good roll get a hint on how to approach negotiations). Or
both. Any RPG compromises between the player's abilities and the
character's, and just where you set that compromise depends on the
individual group.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I've never encountered a GM in D&D or any other system who relied
> solely on dice rolls to handle interpersonal interaction. In practice,
> most GMs I've played with resolve this stuff by diceless roleplaying
> more often than not, and only pull out the rules when it benefits the
> game - e.g. when character and player skills are grossly mismatched,
> or when you don't want to spend three days roleplaying the minutiae of
> a business deal.
I strongly dislike the "play it out" method of resolution, because it
hurts ordinary players who want to run super-diplomats. I also dislike
the "play it or roll it, your choice" approach, because charismatic
players can abuse it from the other direction -- they effectively get
free ranks in Diplomacy.
> Even then, there are any number of ways the GM can combine dice and
> roleplaying. You can roleplay before rolling (give players a bonus to
> skill checks if they come up with a good approach), or after (players
> who make a good roll get a hint on how to approach negotiations). Or
> both.
I personally like the second approach. Specifically, I like to have the
player explain his overall attitude and strategy, roll the dice based on
that, and then play out the results based on the skill check.
Geoffrey Brent
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>
>>I've never encountered a GM in D&D or any other system who relied
>>solely on dice rolls to handle interpersonal interaction. In practice,
>>most GMs I've played with resolve this stuff by diceless roleplaying
>>more often than not, and only pull out the rules when it benefits the
>>game - e.g. when character and player skills are grossly mismatched,
>>or when you don't want to spend three days roleplaying the minutiae of
>>a business deal.
>
>
> I strongly dislike the "play it out" method of resolution, because it
> hurts ordinary players who want to run super-diplomats.
True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player and
character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt, I'll
require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I will from
the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a high-Cha character.
IMHO, part of GMing is being sensitive to what interests the players. If
somebody maxes out their Diplomacy skill, I'll take that as a sign that
they're interested in using that part of the skill system, and so I'll
use those rules (including rolling for social tasks) more often than I
otherwise would. If players don't show any interest in Diplomacy skills,
I'll usually just roleplay it.
> I also dislike
> the "play it or roll it, your choice" approach, because charismatic
> players can abuse it from the other direction -- they effectively get
> free ranks in Diplomacy.
OTOH, "Play it or roll it, GM's choice" can be used to fix things up
here - a less-competent player gets the option for a roll where a
more-competent one doesn't. Last session in our Ravenloft game,
aforementioned Ratboy - playing a Wis 17 character - ended up paying
most of his savings to get a Cure Light Wounds at the local temple,
there being no healer in the party.
I allowed him a Wis roll to remember that in the previous session, they
had SAVED THE LIFE of one of the other townsfolk, and then seen her CAST
A HEALING SPELL ON HERSELF, and let him think about that for a bit. If
it had been my wife, I wouldn't have given her the roll. (The reason he
was wounded in the first place was another low-Wis decision: while the
other two PCs spent the night in an inn, he decided to save a couple of
SP by sleeping outside under a bush. Mmm, Ravenloft.)
For the most part, I default to 'play it out' and use dice as an
exception-handler where that default isn't satisfactory. Super-diplomat
PCs being one of those exceptions.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I strongly dislike the "play it out" method of resolution, because it
>> hurts ordinary players who want to run super-diplomats.
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player and
> character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt, I'll
> require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I will
> from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a high-Cha
> character.
That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
> IMHO, part of GMing is being sensitive to what interests the players.
> If somebody maxes out their Diplomacy skill, I'll take that as a sign
> that they're interested in using that part of the skill system, and so
> I'll use those rules (including rolling for social tasks) more often
> than I otherwise would. If players don't show any interest in
> Diplomacy skills, I'll usually just roleplay it.
That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
"charismatic players win more" situation.
>> I also dislike the "play it or roll it, your choice" approach,
>> because charismatic players can abuse it from the other direction --
>> they effectively get free ranks in Diplomacy.
> OTOH, "Play it or roll it, GM's choice" can be used to fix things up
> here - a less-competent player gets the option for a roll where a
> more-competent one doesn't.
That's exactly what I'm complaining about, though, unless you faithfully
include very charismatic players in the "less competent" group whenever
they forget to tone down the charm. And few DMs do that, because that
same charisma tends to blind them to the problem.
That's why I feel that using the same system for everyone is the only
fair way to handle this.
> For the most part, I default to 'play it out' and use dice as an
> exception-handler where that default isn't satisfactory.
> Super-diplomat PCs being one of those exceptions.
Problem is that the default often *seems* satisfactory in cases where it
really isn't. Players get grumpy when their smooth-talking friend gets
away with "free Diplomacy," but they rarely speak up about it (probably
because they expect the DM to side with the smooth talker yet again).
Gary Johnson
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>>> I strongly dislike the "play it out" method of resolution, because it
>>> hurts ordinary players who want to run super-diplomats.
>> True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player and
>> character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt, I'll
>> require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I will
>> from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a high-Cha
>> character.
> That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
I agree. It also opens up the scope for "free skill points", by which I
mean players designing characters with Charisma as a dump stat and no
skill points in interaction skills but who still expect to get the same
benefits from their in-character acting as players who design characters
that have high Charisma and invest significantly in interaction skills.
>> IMHO, part of GMing is being sensitive to what interests the players.
>> If somebody maxes out their Diplomacy skill, I'll take that as a sign
>> that they're interested in using that part of the skill system, and so
>> I'll use those rules (including rolling for social tasks) more often
>> than I otherwise would. If players don't show any interest in
>> Diplomacy skills, I'll usually just roleplay it.
> That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
> "charismatic players win more" situation.
I'm also not convinced that players designing their characters for optimum
effectiveness will max out their Diplomacy skill if they know the GM will
just let them act out interactions. This problem can be exacerbated if the
GM regularly needs interactions to go a certain way (e.g., the GM is using
a linear module): why allocate character resources to being good in a
skill when the GM will usually let you have the benefits of successful
skill checks without dice rolls?
>>> I also dislike the "play it or roll it, your choice" approach,
>>> because charismatic players can abuse it from the other direction --
>>> they effectively get free ranks in Diplomacy.
>> OTOH, "Play it or roll it, GM's choice" can be used to fix things up
>> here - a less-competent player gets the option for a roll where a
>> more-competent one doesn't.
> That's exactly what I'm complaining about, though, unless you faithfully
> include very charismatic players in the "less competent" group whenever
> they forget to tone down the charm. And few DMs do that, because that
> same charisma tends to blind them to the problem.
This is one reason why I tend to design socially effective player
characters. Not that I'm necessarily charismatic myself. :-) However, I am
a loud player who talks reasonably often in-character, which means I tend
to dominate the social interactions that are acted out in my gaming
groups. IMO, it's fairer to other players if I allocate my character's
resources to make my character good at the things I tend to take control
of during play, such as character interactions and negotiations. This way,
I don't "double-dip" as much.
<remainder snipped>
Cheers,
Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/xmen/start.htm
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm
Deric Bernier
Gary Johnson wrote:
I solved that problem in the game I run, actually I solved it way playing
Cyberpunk 2020 a few years back when that was all I played. It's a completely
skill based system and we would run into this problem quite a lot. My
solution was that you would succeed or fail at any given task by rolling the
dice, for roleplaying it out I would award extra xp (ip in CP2020 terms). It
gave everyone, even people who weren't very talented in certain areas, or
uncomfortable trying to play them out a little extra incentive to do so. It
was pretty well recieved and we continue to use it to this day.
Actually its amazing how much we have brought over from my CP2020 house rules.
D
Geoffrey Brent
>>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>>>I strongly dislike the "play it out" method of resolution, because it
>>>hurts ordinary players who want to run super-diplomats.
>
>
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>
>>True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player and
>>character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt, I'll
>>require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I will
>>from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a high-Cha
>>character.
>
>
> That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
Any aspect of play can be ruined by a DM who can't keep their biases
under control. Even if we eliminated social interaction altogether (the
holy grail of every gamer ;-) there'd still be many other judgement
calls, all vulnerable to DM bias. I just don't see this one as being
more fragile than the norm.
I know my wife, and I know my stepson; it's really not that hard to
judge whether a given ploy is better than their usual standard.
>>IMHO, part of GMing is being sensitive to what interests the players.
>>If somebody maxes out their Diplomacy skill, I'll take that as a sign
>>that they're interested in using that part of the skill system, and so
>>I'll use those rules (including rolling for social tasks) more often
>>than I otherwise would. If players don't show any interest in
>>Diplomacy skills, I'll usually just roleplay it.
>
>
> That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
> "charismatic players win more" situation.
Maybe I've just been lucky in this, but I've never had much trouble with
that - most of the charismatic players have been willing and able to
roleplay a low-charisma character, when they play one. Often they treat
it as a challenge they set themselves.
One of the things affecting my stance on this, BTW, is the memory of a
LARPer who wandered around wearing a badge which read "I have 5 dots in
Charisma and six in Appearance, I look like your ideal partner" (roughly
equivalent to 18s and 20s in D&D terms) and expecting everybody to
worship her while she acted like a bratty child.
I'm quite willing to allow characters who are more socially adept than
their players, and to have the rules reflect this in some way, but I
don't want to turn social interactions into a free ride.
> That's why I feel that using the same system for everyone is the only
> fair way to handle this.
Still not completely bias-free, because a GM's decisions on how frequent
and how important social checks are going to be can favour or
short-change diplomatic characters. I'll certainly concede that it's the
*most* fair way to handle it.
But while fairness is a very important part of the game, it's not the
only thing that counts. The improvement in fairness has to be balanced
against possible detraction from other things. In my eyes, that
improvement is not a large one, and the negative effects can be
significant. So my way suits my preferences better, even though it's not
as fair as yours.
> Problem is that the default often *seems* satisfactory in cases where it
> really isn't. Players get grumpy when their smooth-talking friend gets
> away with "free Diplomacy," but they rarely speak up about it (probably
> because they expect the DM to side with the smooth talker yet again).
True, but it can go wrong the other way too. Sometimes somebody
roleplays a negotiation with an NPC, and it's consistent with what the
characters are capable of, and the negotiation is interesting in
itself... and then the dice basically tell you that it didn't happen.
That's equally unsatisfying.
Also depends on what you consider to be "free diplomacy". IMHO, if
somebody makes an effort to think about the NPC they're talking to and
tailor their approach to the circumstances etc etc, they may not have
paid points for it, but neither is it entirely "free".
Relying entirely on the player's social skills is undesirable for
reasons that you've already covered, but IMHO relying solely on
character stats is also undesirable because it fosters laziness. I
prefer to find some middle ground.
Geoffrey Brent
>>>True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player and
>>>character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt, I'll
>>>require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I will
>>>from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a high-Cha
>>>character.
>
>
>>That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
>
>
> I agree. It also opens up the scope for "free skill points", by which I
> mean players designing characters with Charisma as a dump stat and no
> skill points in interaction skills but who still expect to get the same
> benefits from their in-character acting as players who design characters
> that have high Charisma and invest significantly in interaction skills.
How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
set the bar lower for a character with high Cha. (To which, for clarity,
I should have added "and/or skill points in Bluff".) The character's
investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how likely they are
to succeed here.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>>> True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player
>>>> and character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt,
>>>> I'll require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I
>>>> will from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a
>>>> high-Cha character.
Bradd wrote:
>>> That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
> Gary Johnson wrote:
>> I agree. It also opens up the scope for "free skill points" ....
> How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
> set the bar lower for a character with high Cha .... The character's
> investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how likely they
> are to succeed here.
That works reasonably well for the uncharismatic player with a talented
PC, but it works very poorly for the opposite case: the charismatic
player who puts a dump stat into Cha and no social skill point. Suppose
that a really glib player drops a 3 into his PC's Charisma. How high do
you "set the bar" for that? Do you arbitrarily make him fail at almost
all social interactions? Do you forget and let the player's glibness
sway your decisions? Either way, it's unfair. In the former case, you're
not even giving the player a chance, and in the latter case, you're
effectively giving his PC free Charisma and skill points.
There is a simple way to keep this fair: Ignore the quality of the
player's acting and persuasive skills and use the D&D mechanics instead.
Roll the result and let the players act it out as well as they care to.
If you like, award XP or brownie points for good portrayals of the
results. But going on gut feel and ad hoc adjustments based on the
acting fosters unfairness, envy, and accusations of favoritism IME.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
>> "charismatic players win more" situation.
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> Maybe I've just been lucky in this, but I've never had much trouble
> with that - most of the charismatic players have been willing and able
> to roleplay a low-charisma character, when they play one. Often they
> treat it as a challenge they set themselves.
Based on my experiences with this, I'd guess that these players still
effectively get free skill points. I could be wrong, but I've yet to
meet a DM who can ignore player charisma while still using a subjective
social-skills mechanic.
> I'm quite willing to allow characters who are more socially adept than
> their players, and to have the rules reflect this in some way, but I
> don't want to turn social interactions into a free ride.
It's *not* a free ride. You spend ability scores, skill points, feats,
and magic items to get it. It's not a free ride any more than a high
Strength, high BAB, and a magic weapon are a free ride. The only "free
ride" is the bonus some players get for having good real-life social or
acting skills -- a bonus that he paid nothing for in-game.
Compare it to combat skill. Player tactical skill makes a big
difference, but microtactical skill does not. A real-life klutz can play
a monk just as well as a blackbelt can. The same should be true for
social skills, IMO. A good tactical approach to a social situation
should help, but real-life social and acting skills should not.
Otherwise, you get a situation where charismatic players get free
bonuses.
>> That's why I feel that using the same system for everyone is the only
>> fair way to handle this.
> Still not completely bias-free, because a GM's decisions on how
> frequent and how important social checks are going to be can favour or
> short-change diplomatic characters.
Not if you apply the same rules consistently to all players. Follow the
rules given in the game. Make one check for initial reactions. Make
another check according to the rules for each skill: One Diplomacy check
for each negotiation. One Bluff check for each lie.
> I'll certainly concede that it's the *most* fair way to handle it.
OK.
> But while fairness is a very important part of the game, it's not the
> only thing that counts. The improvement in fairness has to be balanced
> against possible detraction from other things. In my eyes, that
> improvement is not a large one, and the negative effects can be
> significant.
What negative effects?
> Sometimes somebody roleplays a negotiation with an NPC, and it's
> consistent with what the characters are capable of, and the
> negotiation is interesting in itself... and then the dice basically
> tell you that it didn't happen. That's equally unsatisfying.
Then roll the dice *before* you act it out, so that you know how to
role-play it! Again, this is no different from combat. You don't say,
"You slice his head clean off!" before rolling the dice to see whether
that's actually possible.
Play out enough of the scene to determine the characters' overall
tactics. Then make the check. If the PC makes the check, then gloss over
any gaffes in the player's portrayal. React in the most favorable way to
his attempt. If he fails the check, then resist his attempt, jump on his
mistakes, etc.
> Also depends on what you consider to be "free diplomacy". IMHO, if
> somebody makes an effort to think about the NPC they're talking to and
> tailor their approach to the circumstances etc etc, they may not have
> paid points for it, but neither is it entirely "free".
That's tactics, and it should grant a circumstance bonus to the check.
Just be sure that you're rewarding the strategic elements and not the
player's acting ability.
> Relying entirely on the player's social skills is undesirable for
> reasons that you've already covered, but IMHO relying solely on
> character stats is also undesirable because it fosters laziness.
If players are lazy about acting out the results of a check, maybe it's
because they're not all that interested in acting. If so, then rewarding
the good actors by making their characters more successful will only
exaggerate feelings of envy and favoritism.
> I prefer to find some middle ground.
Then award circumstance bonuses for making a good effort (in the form of
social strategy and tactics, *not* acting ability). But don't wing it,
because that's an almost-certain way to introduce favoritism toward the
more charismatic players.
Gary Johnson
> Gary Johnson wrote:
>> Bradd Szonye wrote:
>>>That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
>>
>> I agree. It also opens up the scope for "free skill points", by which I
>> mean players designing characters with Charisma as a dump stat and no
>> skill points in interaction skills but who still expect to get the same
>> benefits from their in-character acting as players who design
>> characters that have high Charisma and invest significantly in
>> interaction skills.
>
> How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
> set the bar lower for a character with high Cha. (To which, for clarity,
> I should have added "and/or skill points in Bluff".) The character's
> investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how likely they are
> to succeed here.
To use the starting PCs for my current game as an example: Marcus and
Jonyn had Charisma 10; Eadric and Ulfgar had Charisma 8. Nobody invested
skill points in interaction skills. Marcus and Jonyn had a +5% chance of
success in an interaction skill check.
How should a GM go about "setting the bar lower" for Marcus and Jonyn in
this case? In this case, it was further complicated by the fact that
Marcus and Eadric have socially dominant players, while Jonyn and Ulfgar
do not.
IMO, the only equitable way to manage this situation was to do what I did
and insist that rolling interaction skill checks was required whenever the
outcome of the interaction was in doubt (that is, when the outcome of the
interaction was both open-ended and important). This led to Marcus' player
investing skill points in interaction skills and Eadric's player changing
his perception of how forceful and intimidating Eadric was when talking.
I don't think it would have been particularly fair on the new player,
whose character allocated a signficant number of skill points to
interaction skills (that is, maxing out Bluff and Intimidation), if I had
allowed Eadric's player to use his personal social skills to get the
benefits of, for example, successful intimidation checks when the
character had an Intimidation skill of -1. However, YMMV, and I'm
genuinely interested in learning how a different GM would have handled a
similar situation.
Paul Grogan
Well, if you want a trip to the UK, you can meet me, since I do
exactly that.
This whole conversation is one of my 'hot topics', where I go on and
on for hours, sometimes to people who dont know what an RPG is. :)
However, I consider myself in the minority, as I know so many people
disagree.
First of all, lets get something straight. What is role-playing?
To me, role-playing is easily defined. Doing and possibly saying what
your character would do, not what you would do. Thats it. Nothing in
there about having to put on an accent and say "In sooth" or whatever.
I think this has been a misunderstanding ever since RPG's began,
especially with D&D. Even GM's now say that a good adventure should
have a good mix of combat, exploration, problem solving and
role-playing.
The common misconception is that when you interact with other PC's or
NPC's, this is the only 'role-playing' part of the session. Total BS.
You are playing a paladin, and you are in combat, you move your figure
to protect the prisoners who are trying to escape, putting yourself at
risk (dont slate me on the example, I just thought of it). Why do you
do that? Because that is what your character would have done, you are
role-playing.
Apologies if I'm coming across as a know-it-all, but its late here,
and I'm trying to put things short and simple. And also, it still
suprises me how many players with 20 years experience think that they
only need to role-play when interacting with NPC's.
Anyway, back to the point, whatever that was.
Because I have played with a wide variety of gamers, some who have
more charisma themselves than others (note, players, not characters),
I have seen that with most GM's, the players with the good
communication skills always get treated nicely by the NPC's. Some
GM's just ignore Charisma, except for the in-game bonuses like on
turning checks and stuff.
Some groups 'act out' entire conversations, and its usually down to
the players ability to negotiate, rather than the characters. This is
unfair on the players who have less natural skills themselves.
Now, most GM's I know do use the skills, now that D&D 3.0 actually has
skills to cover things like bluff, diplomacy etc. But, if the player
talks nicely or says the right things, they give them a bonus.
Again, I think this is unfair. Why should 2 players whose characters
have the same charisma, and the same ranks in diplomacy be treated
differently because one of the players is better at talking.
So, in our group, we make the rolls. First, each character makes an
initial charisma check for the NPC to see what his initial reaction
is. This method has actually brought some interesting situations up,
since we roll the dice and then explain it. OK, so the Elf with a cha
bonus of +2 rolled a '1', so I quickly come up with a reason why the
NPC doesnt like him much, maybe his father was killed by an elf, who
knows.
Just putting NPC reactions down to the GM leans towards a somewhat
boring, run of the mill thing (which is ok with some people).
So, anyway, thats the initial reaction done. It is irrelevant what
the player does. Even if the player says "Good afternoon my fine
gentleman, what a lovely shop you have here, we would like to purchase
some of your finest arrows", he aint gonna get a bonus. Why? Because
what the character says is determined by the characters ability to
interact with people, not the players.
So, when it comes to diplomacy / bluff / whatever, we just roll.
Then, sometimes we act out the conversation for fun, but using the
results of the dice to guide the conversation.
An example. The players are offered a job and will be paid 1000gp.
One player says that he will use his diplomacy skill to get a better
price. So, we roll.
If the player gets really low I will then go into character and say
"Do you not know where you are? This is the city of Hinterway, you do
not barter in the city of Hinterway. The price is final, take it or
leave it, but make your decision soon, or else I will find someone
else"
etc. etc. you get the idea.
Even if the player then says something like "Oh, erm, I'll be nice to
him and tell him how nice his beard is", it isnt going to get a bonus,
because thats what the charisma and the diplomacy skill of the
character is for.
Thanks to anyone who managed to read this far. And again, apologies if
I came across too harsh, I'm just letting you know the way I do
things. I see myself as a very fair and unbiased GM. I make very few
decisions myself. Over the last 12 months I've run two weekly D&D
sessions and its been the best gaming experience I've had. The amount
of interesting little bits of information and flavour that we have had
because we roll a lot of dice and then come up with a reason why has
been really good.
Paul
Geoffrey Brent
>>How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
>>set the bar lower for a character with high Cha. (To which, for clarity,
>>I should have added "and/or skill points in Bluff".) The character's
>>investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how likely they are
>>to succeed here.
>
>
> To use the starting PCs for my current game as an example: Marcus and
> Jonyn had Charisma 10; Eadric and Ulfgar had Charisma 8. Nobody invested
> skill points in interaction skills. Marcus and Jonyn had a +5% chance of
> success in an interaction skill check.
>
> How should a GM go about "setting the bar lower" for Marcus and Jonyn in
> this case? In this case, it was further complicated by the fact that
> Marcus and Eadric have socially dominant players, while Jonyn and Ulfgar
> do not.
Just to re-establish context here, since it has a way of being
forgotten: I mentioned several ways in which roleplaying social
interaction can be integrated with character stats. This bit of the
discussion refers to a diceless method, but I'm *not* claiming this is
the only way to do it or that it's appropriate for every situation. With
that out of the way...
First off, if I was working solely from these character stats, I'd
suspect that these players *don't* see social stats as a big part of the
game. For the most part, players tend to allocate points towards the
things that interest them. Maybe these guys like social interaction, but
want to roleplay it rather than rolling; maybe it doesn't particularly
interest them.
In the latter case, pretty much any method will work as long as it's not
too intrusive and time-consuming. In the former, rolling might work
*against* what the players want to do.
But let's assume that I was wrong: these players *do* want their social
stats to have an effect on the game. Let's say they're all trying to
bluff their way past the same guard at the city gates, one by one, and
I've decided an average character has just less than a 50-50 chance of
success - about equivalent to DC 12, if we were using dice.
Eadric is a special case here, since he's "playing down". That might be
a deliberate decision - he might *enjoy* the challenge of playing a
tactless character. If so, he's not going to be too bothered when he
fails social tasks, since that's something he sees as an interesting
part of the character. But I'll take the harder case, and assume he just
took Cha 8 because it freed up a few points for other things. So:
Jonyn: low-Cha player (relatively speaking), 10 Cha character.
Marcus: high-Cha player, 10 Cha character.
Ulfgar: low-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
Eadric: high-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
They're in character, I'm in character as the guard.
Jonyn steps up. "Er, hello, I'm here with a message for the, um, King."
Taken on its own, it's not very convincing. But I know Jonyn's player
well enough to know this is slightly above average *for him*, and I
translate that into a slightly above-average performance for the
character. (Perhaps the character doesn't um and er as much as his
player, perhaps he has a more confident tone of voice). Can an
average-charisma person, on a good performance, talk his way past the
guard? I've already decided this isn't too hard a task, so yes.
(Parallel: a Cha 10 character rolls a 12.)
Marcus' turn. "Stand aside, guard, I've an important message for the
King and it cannot be delayed." Marcus' *player* is more convincing than
Jonyn's, but by the player's standards this is a pretty average
performance. This translates to an average performance for a Cha 10
character. Even though Marcus' *player* performed better than Jonyn's
player, the character did worse - maybe his tone was unconvincing, or he
couldn't meet the guard's eyes. The guard is unimpressed, and makes him
wait. (Parallel: a Cha 10 character rolls a 10 or 11.)
Ulfgar's turn. The player does about as well as Jonyn's player did. This
is slightly above average for Ulfgar's player, translating into slightly
above average for a Cha 8 character. Not quite enough to make it.
(Parallel: a Cha 8 character rolls a 12, adjusted to 11.)
Eadric's turn. (Assuming we're relying on me to adjust the difficulty
for him, rather than him 'playing down'). The player is going to have to
be *really* impressive for success here. Partly because he has a Cha 8
character, and partly because I know the player is good at that sort of
thing.
In practice, a 2-point Charisma difference won't translate to exactly a
5% difference in success chance when done that way, but I don't think it
has to to be workable. Note that this *does* require a reasonably good
knowledge of the players' capabilities; without that, I'd be more
inclined to use dice.
> IMO, the only equitable way to manage this situation was to do what I did
> and insist that rolling interaction skill checks was required whenever the
> outcome of the interaction was in doubt (that is, when the outcome of the
> interaction was both open-ended and important).
See my response to Bradd - while rolling skill checks is more equitable,
the difference isn't enough (under my tastes) to make up for the negatives.
> I don't think it would have been particularly fair on the new player,
> whose character allocated a signficant number of skill points to
> interaction skills (that is, maxing out Bluff and Intimidation), if I had
> allowed Eadric's player to use his personal social skills to get the
> benefits of, for example, successful intimidation checks when the
> character had an Intimidation skill of -1.
This new character changes things. At that point my assumption that
players aren't interested in the social task system is no longer
applicable, and I'm much more likely to use dice at this point. I'm not
suggesting that the diceless method is best (or even workable) for all
possible groups, just presenting it as one option on the menu.
Now, I have a question for you... Suppose the party defeat their foe,
and find some treasure. It doesn't divide up evenly, so they have to
negotiate about who gets what.
In-character, New Player _should_ get the better deal, since his
character has better social skills than Eadric. How do you represent
that? Or do you allow player strengths to trump character strengths here?
Geoffrey Brent
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>>I'm quite willing to allow characters who are more socially adept than
>>their players, and to have the rules reflect this in some way, but I
>>don't want to turn social interactions into a free ride.
>
>
> It's *not* a free ride. You spend ability scores, skill points, feats,
> and magic items to get it. It's not a free ride any more than a high
> Strength, high BAB, and a magic weapon are a free ride. The only "free
> ride" is the bonus some players get for having good real-life social or
> acting skills -- a bonus that he paid nothing for in-game.
Two different sorts of free ride. One is where you get something without
spending any *points* (gold, etc etc) to get it. The other is where you
get something without any *effort* on the player's behalf. I was talking
about the latter. IMHO, if you want to be Beautiful Queen of the Fey,
spending points on social stats is only part of the equation - you
should also be making a certain amount of effort to play that character.
> Compare it to combat skill. Player tactical skill makes a big
> difference, but microtactical skill does not. A real-life klutz can play
> a monk just as well as a blackbelt can. The same should be true for
> social skills, IMO.
In your game, you are undoubtedly right. However, that is *not* a
universal preference. Some gamers like their own microtactical skill to
affect combat, which is why things like GURPS and boffer combat exist.
Equally, some gamers like their microtactical skill to affect social
challenges.
My contention here is that on the latter point, D&D is flexible enough
to allow players the choice - and not just an "either/or" choice, but
shading in between where both player and character skill influence
things, because some people like it that way.
> A good tactical approach to a social situation
> should help, but real-life social and acting skills should not.
> Otherwise, you get a situation where charismatic players get free
> bonuses.
But picking the right tactical approach to a social situation *is* a
social skill. To say that characters should get bonuses for *that* sort
of player social skill, but not for player's social microtactics, is
fine as an individual preference but seems rather arbitrary as a
universal rule.
When you say "should" and "should not" here, is there an implied "in my
game", or is this intended as a general rule?
>>>That's why I feel that using the same system for everyone is the only
>>>fair way to handle this.
>
>
>>Still not completely bias-free, because a GM's decisions on how
>>frequent and how important social checks are going to be can favour or
>>short-change diplomatic characters.
>
> Not if you apply the same rules consistently to all players. Follow the
> rules given in the game. Make one check for initial reactions. Make
> another check according to the rules for each skill: One Diplomacy check
> for each negotiation. One Bluff check for each lie.
Hypothetical party contains a socially-adept bard, a wizard who
concentrates on item creation feats and has the money and XP to use
them, and a druid who concentrates on survival and animal skills. I can
throw them into a socially-oriented adventure where important
negotiations abound, or a wilderness adventure where the party don't
encounter another human or demi-human for weeks on end and the major
threat is being eaten by dire bears. Or I can give them some downtime.
The choice between those options is a GM judgement call with a very
obvious potential to favour one character over another. Even if you play
every challenge entirely by the book, you're still picking the
challenges, and therein lies the opportunity for favouritism.
See also my question for Gary: how do you make intra-party negotiations
depend on character stats rather than player strengths? If you don't,
isn't that inconsistent with the approach to other negotiations?
>>But while fairness is a very important part of the game, it's not the
>>only thing that counts. The improvement in fairness has to be balanced
>>against possible detraction from other things. In my eyes, that
>>improvement is not a large one, and the negative effects can be
>>significant.
>
>
> What negative effects?
Fostering an attitude of "it doesn't matter *what* I say here, the only
things that matter are the stats on my sheet and the luck of the dice".
Which can very easily lead to players not bothering to roleplay at all.
In some games this may not be a negative; in mine, it is.
>>Sometimes somebody roleplays a negotiation with an NPC, and it's
>>consistent with what the characters are capable of, and the
>>negotiation is interesting in itself... and then the dice basically
>>tell you that it didn't happen. That's equally unsatisfying.
>
>
> Then roll the dice *before* you act it out, so that you know how to
> role-play it!
No more satisfying, since the negotiation is still pointless. Some
people enjoy watching scripted wrestling matches, but I'm not one of them.
>>Relying entirely on the player's social skills is undesirable for
>>reasons that you've already covered, but IMHO relying solely on
>>character stats is also undesirable because it fosters laziness.
>
>
> If players are lazy about acting out the results of a check, maybe it's
> because they're not all that interested in acting. If so, then rewarding
> the good actors by making their characters more successful will only
> exaggerate feelings of envy and favoritism.
If they're not interested in acting, I agree, dice are the way to go.
But it's quite possible to be interested in acting and *still* get
frustrated by knowing that no matter how well or how badly you act, it
won't make a lick of difference, because the outcome has already been
rolled.
>>I prefer to find some middle ground.
>
>
> Then award circumstance bonuses for making a good effort (in the form of
> social strategy and tactics, *not* acting ability).
Why do you think I should treat player acting ability differently from
tactical-level player social skills here?
Preferably, without relying on drawing parallels to the combat system,
since those parallels rely on the assumption that players want equal
levels of player-skill involvement in both - something that is not
always the case.
> But don't wing it,
> because that's an almost-certain way to introduce favoritism toward the
> more charismatic players.
IMHO, players should be able to trust their GM to keep favouritism under
control. If they don't, then the game is in trouble already, because
judgement calls are an inescapable part of D&D.
Geoffrey Brent
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>>How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
>>set the bar lower for a character with high Cha .... The character's
>>investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how likely they
>>are to succeed here.
>
>
> That works reasonably well for the uncharismatic player with a talented
> PC, but it works very poorly for the opposite case: the charismatic
> player who puts a dump stat into Cha and no social skill point. Suppose
> that a really glib player drops a 3 into his PC's Charisma. How high do
> you "set the bar" for that? Do you arbitrarily make him fail at almost
> all social interactions?
Fail at almost all social interactions, yes. That's what Cha 3 *means*.
Arbitrarily, no. If the player manages a performance that's superb *by
their standards*, I treat that in much the same way you might treat a
Cha 3 character who rolled a 20 on their skill check, modified down to
16. If the performance is average by their standards, I treat it about
the same way you might treat a roll of 10, modified down to 6. (Which,
for some very simple tasks, may still be adequate.)
Bradd W. Szonye
>> How should a GM go about "setting the bar lower" for Marcus and Jonyn in
>> this case? In this case, it was further complicated by the fact that
>> Marcus and Eadric have socially dominant players, while Jonyn and Ulfgar
>> do not.
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> Just to re-establish context here, since it has a way of being
> forgotten: I mentioned several ways in which roleplaying social
> interaction can be integrated with character stats.
OK. I see some of them as being unfair and therefore inferior.
> This bit of the discussion refers to a diceless method, but I'm *not*
> claiming this is the only way to do it or that it's appropriate for
> every situation.
And I think that method is generally *inferior*. It isn't just diceless;
it's also divorced from the character's abilities in a subjective way.
> First off, if I was working solely from these character stats, I'd
> suspect that these players *don't* see social stats as a big part of
> the game.
Or maybe they just didn't feel like playing diplomats this time. Or
maybe they know that the stats are irrelevant, given the way the DM runs
the game. Or maybe they're hoping that they can get by on player skill,
effectively getting character skill for free.
> For the most part, players tend to allocate points towards the things
> that interest them.
I'm interested in combat skill, but I don't always play a fighter. In
D&D, you can't be good at everything. I like both fighters and wizards,
but I can't easily play a character who's good at both.
> Maybe these guys like social interaction, but want to roleplay it
> rather than rolling ....
Why do you present the two as mutually exclusive? How is it better
"roleplaying" to persuade the DM at the player level, regardless of the
character's skills? That's not role-playing. That's arguing with your
DM.
> maybe it doesn't particularly interest them.
Again, compare that to melee combat. Maybe that doesn't particularly
interest them. How would you resolve combat in that case? Would you just
wing it? Would you judge things ad hoc, based on the players' real-life
knowledge of combat skill? That makes no sense.
> In the latter case, pretty much any method will work as long as it's
> not too intrusive and time-consuming.
D&D skill checks are not intrusive or time-consuming. You can even
ignore social skill checks entirely if you like. If the PCs never try to
lie or influence NPC attitudes, just use the default attitudes. No mess,
no fuss.
> In the former, rolling might work *against* what the players want to do.
How? You describe your character (using skill points, in D&D). You
determine the result. You role-play your character's abilities and the
result of the check as best you can. Voila! You have role-playing.
You seem to have fallen into the trap that "role-playing" means "I use
my own social skills instead of my character's, and I use them to
persuade the DM instead of persuading the NPCs." That's bullshit.
> Let's say they're all trying to bluff their way past the same guard at
> the city gates, one by one, and I've decided an average character has
> just less than a 50-50 chance of success - about equivalent to DC 12,
> if we were using dice ....
>
> Jonyn: low-Cha player (relatively speaking), 10 Cha character.
> Marcus: high-Cha player, 10 Cha character.
> Ulfgar: low-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
> Eadric: high-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
>
> They're in character, I'm in character as the guard.
>
> Jonyn steps up. "Er, hello, I'm here with a message for the, um,
> King." Taken on its own, it's not very convincing. But I know Jonyn's
> player well enough to know this is slightly above average *for him*,
> and I translate that into a slightly above-average performance for the
> character .... (Parallel: a Cha 10 character rolls a 12.)
This is exactly the kind of subjective assessment I object to. Who are
you to judge how convincing he is relative to his "average" performance?
> Marcus' turn. "Stand aside, guard, I've an important message for the
> King and it cannot be delayed." Marcus' *player* is more convincing
> than Jonyn's, but by the player's standards this is a pretty average
> performance. This translates to an average performance for a Cha 10
> character .... (Parallel: a Cha 10 character rolls a 10 or 11.)
This is complete bullshit, and it leads to exactly the kind of "negative
consequences" you claim to dislike. What if this player is having a bad
day, and he's just not up to his usual ability? What if he's deliberatly
trying to play down to his character's level of ability (which is what
roleplaying is *really* about)?
If I were Marcus, I'd be pissed. I'm trying to play my character as
designed, and you've just told me that I fail. If I ask why, all you can
say is, "Well, it was only an average performance for you." At that
point, I tell you to fuck off, because you're just making shit up
according to your whims.
> Eadric's turn. (Assuming we're relying on me to adjust the difficulty
> for him, rather than him 'playing down'). The player is going to have
> to be *really* impressive for success here.
So if Eadric is sick, or if he actually tries to play down to his
character's actual ability, he has absolutely no chance to succeed.
That's utter bullshit. This is exactly why subjective means of resolving
social skills are fatally flawed. A player has a bad day, and he's
screwed. Meanwhile, the player with no social skills gets a major
handicap. At the player level, the player who *seems* skillful loses,
while the one who seems clueless wins.
That comes across as pure favoritism, pity, whatever you call it, and
it *discourages* roleplaying. That's because the charismatic players
can't play their actual characters without getting screwed, and the
uncharismatic players can't play their actual characters, period.
What does this accomplish that you can't do more fairly with skill checks?
> See my response to Bradd - while rolling skill checks is more
> equitable, the difference isn't enough (under my tastes) to make up
> for the negatives.
What negatives? You roll the check, and the players play it out the best
they can. The portrayals may not match the results exactly, but that
happens in your system too! See your own example: The player with the
*better* portrayal loses while the *worse* player wins!
And the whole claim that dice cause laziness is bullshit too. If you
want good roleplaying, then reward it with praise or (if necessary) with
brownie points. If you want the players to think about social strategy,
then give them circumstance modifiers for *strategy*. But "translating"
a player's charisma like you do is blatantly unfair.
Sorry for the harsh words, but the crap you're describing above would
drive me out of a game group. If the player's *really* don't care about
social skills, then get rid of the biased "translation" system. It only
adds counterintuitive bias to an already subjective system, which makes
the weirdness and the potential for favoritism even worse.
>> I don't think it would have been particularly fair on the new player,
>> whose character allocated a signficant number of skill points to
>> interaction skills ....
> This new character changes things. At that point my assumption that
> players aren't interested in the social task system is no longer
> applicable, and I'm much more likely to use dice at this point.
You should've been doing it from the beginning, instead of applying a
bizarre system biased in two directions.
> I'm not suggesting that the diceless method is best (or even workable)
> for all possible groups, just presenting it as one option on the menu.
I'd go much further and call it blatantly unfair and prone to severe
conflicts between players. It might work tolerably well in a group that
really doesn't care about that stuff, but you can get better results,
for the same amount of work, by rolling the skill checks from the
beginning.
> Now, I have a question for you... Suppose the party defeat their foe,
> and find some treasure. It doesn't divide up evenly, so they have to
> negotiate about who gets what. In-character, New Player _should_ get
> the better deal, since his character has better social skills than
> Eadric.
Why? Social skill checks aren't mind control (at least not until epic
levels), and characters are not required to use them to their fullest.
If Eadric's player chooses to call for a negotiation (Diplomacy) check
to get a better cut, he can. If he wins an opposed check, he has an
advantage in the negotiation. The rules don't get more specific than
that.
I think a negotiation check would make the most sense in situations
where the players would be inclined to flip a coin over the result.
Instead of flipping, roll Diplomacy checks. (I'll need to remember this
the next time it comes up in our games.)
Eadric's player might not want to do that, though. He was to work with
these people long-term, and being greedy might cause resentment even
though he can out-negotiate in the short term. Therefore, he might not
want to haggle over every treasure pile.
> How do you represent that? Or do you allow player strengths to trump
> character strengths here?
Personally, I prefer to leave these decisions up to the players, since
they're the ones who need to work together. The results can sometimes be
unfair or otherwise cause group cohesion problems, and then I get
involved, but usually I try to stay out of it as DM.
Gary Johnson
> Gary Johnson wrote:
>>>How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
>>>set the bar lower for a character with high Cha. (To which, for
>>>clarity, I should have added "and/or skill points in Bluff".) The
>>>character's investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how
>>>likely they are to succeed here.
>>
>> To use the starting PCs for my current game as an example: Marcus and
>> Jonyn had Charisma 10; Eadric and Ulfgar had Charisma 8. Nobody
>> invested skill points in interaction skills. Marcus and Jonyn had a +5%
>> chance of success in an interaction skill check.
>>
>> How should a GM go about "setting the bar lower" for Marcus and Jonyn
>> in this case? In this case, it was further complicated by the fact that
>> Marcus and Eadric have socially dominant players, while Jonyn and
>> Ulfgar do not.
>
> Just to re-establish context here, since it has a way of being
> forgotten: I mentioned several ways in which roleplaying social
> interaction can be integrated with character stats. This bit of the
> discussion refers to a diceless method, but I'm *not* claiming this is
> the only way to do it or that it's appropriate for every situation. With
> that out of the way...
Disclaimer noted. :-)
> First off, if I was working solely from these character stats, I'd
> suspect that these players *don't* see social stats as a big part of the
> game. For the most part, players tend to allocate points towards the
> things that interest them. Maybe these guys like social interaction, but
> want to roleplay it rather than rolling; maybe it doesn't particularly
> interest them.
Because rolling isn't roleplaying ... :-) Personally, I'd phrase your
point along the lines of, "Maybe the players like social interaction, but
want personal skills to be a better reflection of character competence
than character design.
What I think is more likely to be the case is that the players didn't see
social interaction as a major area of risk, so they focussed on developing
character competencies in other areas where they did perceive risk, like
combat. After all, they did design two fighters, a rogue and a hunter
(ranger variant).
> In the latter case, pretty much any method will work as long as it's not
> too intrusive and time-consuming. In the former, rolling might work
> *against* what the players want to do.
> But let's assume that I was wrong: these players *do* want their social
> stats to have an effect on the game.
Or that the other participant in the game, the GM, wants social statistics
to matter in some circumstances. :-)
> Let's say they're all trying to bluff their way past the same guard at
> the city gates, one by one, and I've decided an average character has
> just less than a 50-50 chance of success - about equivalent to DC 12, if
> we were using dice.
> Eadric is a special case here, since he's "playing down".
So is Marcus' player: why is Eadric particularly noteworthy?
> That might be a deliberate decision - he might *enjoy* the challenge of
> playing a tactless character.
Minor objection: low Charisma does not equal tactlessness. However, I
figure you're just using this as a shorthand for how Eadric will act in
the example below, and not as the generic explanation for low Charisma.
> If so, he's not going to be too bothered when he fails social tasks,
> since that's something he sees as an interesting part of the character.
> But I'll take the harder case, and assume he just took Cha 8 because it
> freed up a few points for other things. So:
> Jonyn: low-Cha player (relatively speaking), 10 Cha character.
> Marcus: high-Cha player, 10 Cha character.
> Ulfgar: low-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
> Eadric: high-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
> They're in character, I'm in character as the guard.
> Jonyn steps up. "Er, hello, I'm here with a message for the, um, King."
> Taken on its own, it's not very convincing. But I know Jonyn's player
> well enough to know this is slightly above average *for him*, and I
> translate that into a slightly above-average performance for the
> character.
Eww. Sorry, this wouldn't work for me at all: IMO, the GM isn't there to
analyse the player's acting performances. Also, your examples have
conflated "socially dominant player" with "good at acting player".
<other examples snipped>
>> IMO, the only equitable way to manage this situation was to do what I
>> did and insist that rolling interaction skill checks was required
>> whenever the outcome of the interaction was in doubt (that is, when the
>> outcome of the interaction was both open-ended and important).
> See my response to Bradd - while rolling skill checks is more equitable,
> the difference isn't enough (under my tastes) to make up for the
> negatives.
Then I guess YMV. Nothing the matter with that.
>> I don't think it would have been particularly fair on the new player,
>> whose character allocated a signficant number of skill points to
>> interaction skills (that is, maxing out Bluff and Intimidation), if I
>> had allowed Eadric's player to use his personal social skills to get
>> the benefits of, for example, successful intimidation checks when the
>> character had an Intimidation skill of -1.
> This new character changes things. At that point my assumption
One suggestion: why does this have to be an assumption? Much of the
ambiguity in how to handle character social interactions can be avoided,
IMO, if the gaming group negotiates up-front how they prefer to handle
social activity.
> that players aren't interested in the social task system is no longer
> applicable, and I'm much more likely to use dice at this point. I'm not
> suggesting that the diceless method is best (or even workable) for all
> possible groups, just presenting it as one option on the menu.
> Now, I have a question for you... Suppose the party defeat their foe,
> and find some treasure. It doesn't divide up evenly, so they have to
> negotiate about who gets what.
THere's already some assumptions here about the gaming group's social
contract. For example, IMC the characters are on retainer for a noble who
collects antiquities, so the characters always have equipment that matches
the DMG standard allocation for character wealth, plus the players get to
choose what that equipment should be. The answer to this question has to
be, what did the gaming group decide out of play would be the way their
characters distribute treasure in play?
> In-character, New Player _should_ get the better deal, since his
> character has better social skills than Eadric. How do you represent
> that? Or do you allow player strengths to trump character strengths
> here?
No, I allow the gaming group's social contract to determine what should
happen here. What it leads to IMC is that the dwarf's greed is actually a
distinguishing character feature, rather than being par for the course
among all adventurers. The model I proposed to my players and they
accepted may not work for other groups, who have their own social contract
about how to handle the distribution of treasure.
Geoffrey Brent
>>suspect that these players *don't* see social stats as a big part of
>>the game.
>
>
> Or maybe they just didn't feel like playing diplomats this time. Or
> maybe they know that the stats are irrelevant, given the way the DM runs
> the game. Or maybe they're hoping that they can get by on player skill,
> effectively getting character skill for free.
Hence, "if I was working solely from these character stats". IRL, I'm
likely to have more information.
If they "know" the stats are irrelevant then they're mistaken, and if
they're hoping to get by on player skill they are also mistaken.
>>For the most part, players tend to allocate points towards the things
>>that interest them.
>
>
> I'm interested in combat skill, but I don't always play a fighter. In
> D&D, you can't be good at everything. I like both fighters and wizards,
> but I can't easily play a character who's good at both.
And when I say "For the most part, players tend to...", that's the bit
that flags that sentence as a *generalisation*. I'm not claiming it as a
cast-iron rule; I fully acknowledge that there are exceptions and that
it's good to gather more information where it's available.
>>Maybe these guys like social interaction, but want to roleplay it
>>rather than rolling ....
>
>
> Why do you present the two as mutually exclusive?
I don't. In fact, if you look at earlier posts in this thread, you will
see me mentioning the option of roleplaying *and* rolling.
When I say "Maybe the guys like X..." I am presenting *one possible
scenario*. I am not making a statement as to the impossibility of others.
When I present a generalisation, that's not a universal rule. When I
present an example, that also is not a universal rule.
> How is it better
> "roleplaying" to persuade the DM at the player level, regardless of the
> character's skills? That's not role-playing. That's arguing with your
> DM.
Big distinction.
Player, in character: "Ho, sir guard! I'm the King's emissary, stand aside!"
GM, in character as guard: "Aye, your lordship!"/"Pull the other one!"
You keep pulling out this "regardless of the character's skills", but it
does NOT apply to the method we're discussing here.
> Again, compare that to melee combat. Maybe that doesn't particularly
> interest them. How would you resolve combat in that case? Would you just
> wing it?
In some cases, this works very well. In the combat-heavy game my wife
runs, our characters had just wiped out the warriors from a tribe of
ogres (using normal combat rules), and come across the hiding place of
the noncombatants - about two dozen of them.
Players, after brief discussion: "Okay, let's kill them all."
GM: "Well, they'll fight back, but they're not going to pose any serious
threat to you... Everybody roll a D20, tell me what you get. Neil, you
rolled a 1? OK, one of the ogresses hits you for [rolls dice] six points
before you get her. You've massacred the entire tribe."
Normally we enjoy combat in that game, but this would've been a
time-consuming and not very interesting combat, and it was getting late.
So the GM ad-libbed it, and we got on with something more interesting.
Another game which I co-GM with a friend is effectively "systemless
D&D". The rules serve as a rough guide to what is and isn't possible -
mind flayers can eat your brain, wizards can cast fireballs - but the
resolution system is "Does it make sense? Do the GMs think it would be
fun for this to succeed? Then it does." We used dice precisely once,
because it was a useful way to generate a little tension. It's
arbitrary, it's ad-hoc, it's unfair, we make a point of being capricious
in that game.
And the players keep begging for more. We've had to turn several people
away, because it's become too popular. I'm not asking you to like that
style of play, just to acknowledge that some like it very much indeed.
If you doubt me, have a look at 'Paranoia' - while it does have a
system, 'fairness' has *nothing* to do with it.
> Would you judge things ad hoc, based on the players' real-life
> knowledge of combat skill? That makes no sense.
You're relying heavily on the combat/social parallel here, and assuming
that it's universally desirable to have the same type of representation
in both.
>>Let's say they're all trying to bluff their way past the same guard at
>>the city gates, one by one, and I've decided an average character has
>>just less than a 50-50 chance of success - about equivalent to DC 12,
>>if we were using dice ....
>>
>>Jonyn: low-Cha player (relatively speaking), 10 Cha character.
>>Marcus: high-Cha player, 10 Cha character.
>>Ulfgar: low-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
>>Eadric: high-Cha player, 8 Cha character.
>>
>>They're in character, I'm in character as the guard.
>>
>>Jonyn steps up. "Er, hello, I'm here with a message for the, um,
>>King." Taken on its own, it's not very convincing. But I know Jonyn's
>>player well enough to know this is slightly above average *for him*,
>>and I translate that into a slightly above-average performance for the
>>character .... (Parallel: a Cha 10 character rolls a 12.)
>
>
> This is exactly the kind of subjective assessment I object to. Who are
> you to judge how convincing he is relative to his "average" performance?
Somebody who knows this guy, and has a reasonable familiarity with how
good he is at handling social situations. Gary's example - to which this
is my response - pretty much *assumes* that the GM has that knowledge.
Sure, it's a subjective assessment. So are questions like "Would the
orcs think to try smoking the PCs out? Would the troll run away?" You
can represent these as Int checks, or Will saves, but deciding when to
roll and what the DC should be still makes for subjectivity.
'Subjective' is not synonymous with 'arbitrary', and neither are
synonymous with 'wrong'.
>>Marcus' turn. "Stand aside, guard, I've an important message for the
>>King and it cannot be delayed." Marcus' *player* is more convincing
>>than Jonyn's, but by the player's standards this is a pretty average
>>performance. This translates to an average performance for a Cha 10
>>character .... (Parallel: a Cha 10 character rolls a 10 or 11.)
>
>
> This is complete bullshit, and it leads to exactly the kind of "negative
> consequences" you claim to dislike. What if this player is having a bad
> day, and he's just not up to his usual ability?
Much the same as if we're rolling for it, and he rolls badly. On any
task that needs a resolution system, you have a chance of success and a
chance of failure, and sometimes you're going to screw up.
> What if he's deliberatly
> trying to play down to his character's level of ability (which is what
> roleplaying is *really* about)?
A possibility that I'd specifically mentioned earlier. I explained why,
IMHO, this was an easier case to deal with. I noted that I'd be
discussing the harder case in which players *don't* take the
responsibility for playing down, and the comments on "Marcus' turn" are
in *that* context.
For the umpteenth time, I am not claiming that this is a method that
works for all players in all possible contexts. I made it clear that I
was discussing this in one particular context - where the GM *knows*
that some of his players are more socially adept than others, and where
the players don't want to take the responsibility of pulling their punches.
>>Eadric's turn. (Assuming we're relying on me to adjust the difficulty
>>for him, rather than him 'playing down'). The player is going to have
>>to be *really* impressive for success here.
>
>
> So if Eadric is sick, or if he actually tries to play down to his
> character's actual ability, he has absolutely no chance to succeed.
Allow me to requote the context, preceding this bit, that you snipped:
"Eadric is a special case here, since he's "playing down". That might be
a deliberate decision - he might *enjoy* the challenge of playing a
tactless character. If so, he's not going to be too bothered when he
fails social tasks, since that's something he sees as an interesting
part of the character. But I'll take the harder case, and assume he just
took Cha 8 because it freed up a few points for other things."
I had already made it clear that this example DID NOT COVER AND WAS NOT
INTENDED TO COVER the case in which Eadric is deliberately "playing down".
> That's utter bullshit. This is exactly why subjective means of resolving
> social skills are fatally flawed. A player has a bad day, and he's
> screwed.
As he would when he has a bad run on the dice.
> Meanwhile, the player with no social skills gets a major
> handicap. At the player level, the player who *seems* skillful loses,
> while the one who seems clueless wins.
Sometimes - just as when the player who seems more skillful rolls badly,
or their character has bad social stats. However, more often than not
the better performance wins, because the better performance is more
likely to be above-average for the player.
> Sorry for the harsh words, but the crap you're describing above would
> drive me out of a game group.
I'm not trying to come up with a system that works for you. You have
your preferences, you've found a system that works well with those
preferences, your problem is solved.
But the post that sparked this sub-thread makes it clear that your
system does *not* work well for all gamers. The poster made it clear
that he didn't like a system that relied purely on dice, so I offered up
a couple that don't.
>>Now, I have a question for you... Suppose the party defeat their foe,
>>and find some treasure. It doesn't divide up evenly, so they have to
>>negotiate about who gets what. In-character, New Player _should_ get
>>the better deal, since his character has better social skills than
>>Eadric.
>
>
> Why? Social skill checks aren't mind control (at least not until epic
> levels), and characters are not required to use them to their fullest.
> If Eadric's player chooses to call for a negotiation (Diplomacy) check
> to get a better cut, he can. If he wins an opposed check, he has an
> advantage in the negotiation. The rules don't get more specific than
> that.
ISTR the rules specifically mentioning that skill checks *cannot* be
used to dictate PC reactions, and that players always have freedom of
choice over how their characters react (unless under effects such as
charm that go beyond the skill section). I'll see if I can dig this one
up tonight.
Thraka
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> > True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player and
> > character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt, I'll
> > require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I will
> > from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a high-Cha
> > character.
>
> That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
IMO, a game without DM bias is a CRPG. ;)
> > IMHO, part of GMing is being sensitive to what interests the players.
> > If somebody maxes out their Diplomacy skill, I'll take that as a sign
> > that they're interested in using that part of the skill system, and so
> > I'll use those rules (including rolling for social tasks) more often
> > than I otherwise would. If players don't show any interest in
> > Diplomacy skills, I'll usually just roleplay it.
>
> That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
> "charismatic players win more" situation.
Nah, not necessarily. Let the charismatic players help the non charismatic
ones figure out what to say, especially if the character has the skills the
player doesn't. I often use input from other players to represent really
high stats. If the wizard is trying to solve a problem, his 18 intelligence
justifies letting his player get advice from the table. Same with
diplomatic stuff. Works for us, anyway.
> > OTOH, "Play it or roll it, GM's choice" can be used to fix things up
> > here - a less-competent player gets the option for a roll where a
> > more-competent one doesn't.
>
> That's exactly what I'm complaining about, though, unless you faithfully
> include very charismatic players in the "less competent" group whenever
> they forget to tone down the charm. And few DMs do that, because that
> same charisma tends to blind them to the problem.
>
> That's why I feel that using the same system for everyone is the only
> fair way to handle this.
Bear in mind, 'fair' is not necessarily the goal. If you're more gamist, it
might be; if you're more freestyle, 'interesting and engaging' beats 'fair',
unless its the sort of unfair where someone gets screwed over hard.
> > For the most part, I default to 'play it out' and use dice as an
> > exception-handler where that default isn't satisfactory.
> > Super-diplomat PCs being one of those exceptions.
>
> Problem is that the default often *seems* satisfactory in cases where it
> really isn't. Players get grumpy when their smooth-talking friend gets
> away with "free Diplomacy," but they rarely speak up about it (probably
> because they expect the DM to side with the smooth talker yet again).
It needn't be that way, though; depends on your group. As I note above,
letting the group work together on things where the character with high
diplomacy works, at least for my group.
Thraka
Thraka
news:2fe26b0d.03091...@posting.google.com...
> Again, I think this is unfair. Why should 2 players whose characters
> have the same charisma, and the same ranks in diplomacy be treated
> differently because one of the players is better at talking.
Two fighters of equal level and stats, and access to equipment, are to do
battle. One player chooses, as part of his kit, a bow, and the other does
not, granting him a significant advantage while his opponant closes. One
player uses his feats to great effect, knocking his opponant to the ground,
while the other player uses his feats foolishly.
Now take with wizards in a spell duel. They could have equal access to all
spells, but the players choose the ones the wizard will have. Again, it's
application of player skill. If one wizard has nothing but detect magic,
and one wizard stocks up on damage spells, then you can easily guess who
will die, even though they are both technically equal.
Why would you suggest that, in the particular case of _non combat
interaction_, player skill should not be a factor? I submit that here, of
all places, it _should_ be a factor. Character statistics are lifeless.
They are potential, nothing more. The _player_ breathes life into the
statistics. I see no reason why player choices in non-violent interactions
should be somehow less useful than player choices made in combat.
Thraka
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Why would you suggest that, in the particular case of _non combat
>interaction_, player skill should not be a factor? I submit that here, of
>all places, it _should_ be a factor. Character statistics are lifeless.
>They are potential, nothing more. The _player_ breathes life into the
>statistics. I see no reason why player choices in non-violent interactions
>should be somehow less useful than player choices made in combat.
All your examples are tactical, and I don't think anyone has an issue
with player's applying tactical skill to interaction by choosing the
right skill to use, and the right apporach (being polite to the king,
but avoiding flattery as they've asked around and been told he doesn't
like it, etc.). It's having the players play out their actual
conversations that I have an issue with - that's where it's equivalent
to having the players get their swords out and actually fight out an
encounter.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Nah, not necessarily. Let the charismatic players help the non charismatic
>ones figure out what to say, especially if the character has the skills the
>player doesn't. I often use input from other players to represent really
>high stats. If the wizard is trying to solve a problem, his 18 intelligence
>justifies letting his player get advice from the table. Same with
>diplomatic stuff. Works for us, anyway.
Egahds. In the group I GM that would merely give the party's munchkin
and general "I know best" guy license to manipulate the other players
to his own ends. At least as we do things now he's not able to to
freely do this while other people's PCs are doing the talking.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> That works reasonably well for the uncharismatic player with a
>> talented PC, but it works very poorly for the opposite case: the
>> charismatic player who puts a dump stat into Cha and no social skill
>> point. Suppose that a really glib player drops a 3 into his PC's
>> Charisma. How high do you "set the bar" for that? Do you arbitrarily
>> make him fail at almost all social interactions?
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> Fail at almost all social interactions, yes. That's what Cha 3 *means*.
>
> Arbitrarily, no. If the player manages a performance that's superb *by
> their standards*, I treat that in much the same way you might treat a
> Cha 3 character who rolled a 20 on their skill check, modified down to
> 16 ....
What do you mean by a "superb" performance? Was the player very
persuasive, or did he do a great job of acting like a boor? I'm guessing
the former, because it doesn't make much sense to translate acting
ability into a Diplomacy check.
I object to this method for two reasons:
1. I don't believe that microtactics should affect game outcomes. This
is a poor example of gaming -- they're no abstraction at all, just
arguing with the DM.
2. A player running a Charisma 3 character shouldn't be using his full
real-world charisma to persuade you. He should be trying to play his
character. This is a poor example of role-playing too.
Bad role-playing and bad gaming makes for a bad RPG. Seriously, how does
this crap relate to gaming at all? It's just players and DMs arguing
over a hypothetical solution, with absolutely no fair way to resolve it.
You're just making up results out of thin air and a thin rationalization
that you're taking the player's "average" ability into account. That's
bullshit -- you're taking a real effort made by players, running them
through some biased and arbitrary mental filters, and coming up with the
result that *you* think makes sense. It doesn't get any more unfair than
that.
Bradd W. Szonye
> All your examples are tactical, and I don't think anyone has an issue
> with player's applying tactical skill to interaction by choosing the
> players play out their actual conversations that I have an issue with
> - that's where it's equivalent to having the players get their swords
> out and actually fight out an encounter.
What I object to are the notions that meta-game persuasion is
"roleplaying" and that role-playing is at odds with randomized outcomes.
While randomizers are at odds with the use of *player* social skills,
relying on your meta-game social skills is *not* roleplaying.
Justisaur
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> >>>> True, but it's possible to adjust the bar depending on the player
> >>>> and character. For instance, if we're playing out a Bluff attempt,
> >>>> I'll require a much more convincing performance from my wife than I
> >>>> will from the eleven-year-old - especially if he's playing a
> >>>> high-Cha character.
>
> Bradd wrote:
> >>> That doesn't really help, IMO. It just adds DM bias into the mix.
>
> > Gary Johnson wrote:
> >> I agree. It also opens up the scope for "free skill points" ....
>
> > How so? I specifically mentioned above that in this situation I would
> > set the bar lower for a character with high Cha .... The character's
> > investment in social stats _does_ have an impact on how likely they
> > are to succeed here.
>
> That works reasonably well for the uncharismatic player with a talented
> PC, but it works very poorly for the opposite case: the charismatic
> player who puts a dump stat into Cha and no social skill point. Suppose
> that a really glib player drops a 3 into his PC's Charisma. How high do
> you "set the bar" for that? Do you arbitrarily make him fail at almost
> all social interactions? Do you forget and let the player's glibness
> sway your decisions? Either way, it's unfair. In the former case, you're
> not even giving the player a chance, and in the latter case, you're
> effectively giving his PC free Charisma and skill points.
>
I've tried this and it works fairly well. I've got a fairly charismatic
player, (well maybe a 12-14, but that's saying a lot for a player) and
he's playing a low cha half orc. Basicly I have him role-play whatever
he wants, and roll it. There was one unimportant conversation he had
which seemed to be going o.k. I had him roll diplomacy. He rolled a 1
(-1 after modifiers). We both decided that the person he was talking to
just took everything he was saying the wrong way. He as well
re-emphasised the parts that could be taken the wrong way, and his
character basicly started a fight.
> There is a simple way to keep this fair: Ignore the quality of the
> player's acting and persuasive skills and use the D&D mechanics instead.
> Roll the result and let the players act it out as well as they care to.
> If you like, award XP or brownie points for good portrayals of the
> results. But going on gut feel and ad hoc adjustments based on the
> acting fosters unfairness, envy, and accusations of favoritism IME.
Not really. You can take a circumstance bonus depending on thier
"acting" (either -2 or +2, or nothing) which may affect an outcome.
I've actually had more problems in my last campain going strictly off
the diplomacy chart, as one of the PCs had a very high charisma and
pumped all his skill he could into diplomacy. The relsult was comical
and totally unballanced, as everyone he met he tried to influence became
his best friend, the bad guys repented etc. I decided that was
definately not the way to go.
One skill to rule them all...
--
- Justisaur -
check http://justisaur.tripod.com/well.htm for my encounter generator,
xp calculator, and other usefull documents.
Justisaur
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
> >> "charismatic players win more" situation.
>
Let me put this in a different light. Is a player who is good with
numbers and systems rewarded for taking advantage of the system over
someone who isn't? Yes they are. Is a player who is good at
"selectively" remembering rules rewarded in play (i.e. a rules lawyer) -
Yes they are.
Justisaur
Are you suggesting they should meta-game conversations? player says "My
charcater tries to convince the guard to let me by. As he knows the
guards are supposed to let by people with messages for the king, he
tries to convince the guard he has a message for the king."
That's as dull and lifeless as playing a computer game.
Paul Grogan
> spending points on social stats is only part of the equation - you
> should also be making a certain amount of effort to play that character.
> IMHO, if you want to be Beautiful Queen of the Fey, spending points on social stats is only part of the equation - you should also be making a certain amount of effort to play that character.
OK, now what if the player simply cannot actually act like that
character, but still wants to play it. I call it the Princess Leia
situation, where the most uncharismatic, smelly, nerdy, geeky, will
never get a job or a girlfriend in his like and has the social skills
of a hamster wants to play Princess Leia. Sorry if I offended anyone
:)
Most of us can act a little bit, most of us can pretend to be nice,
and most of us enjoy making a bit of effort in that respect. But
forcing a player to make an effort, even if it makes them feel
uncomfortable is IMO wrong.
Let the players play the game that they want to play, forcing them to
play that you want to play doesnt suit people.
In my game, I've been known to ask "Ok, do you want to act this bit
out for a few minutes or not?". Some of my players like getting into
character and acting it out, and some of them dont want to do any of
that at all, and with some it depends if they've had a hard day at
work. And they are still good role-players because they do what their
character would do (see my previous post).
Paul
Matthew Miller
> OK, now what if the player simply cannot actually act like that
> character, but still wants to play it. I call it the Princess Leia
> situation, where the most uncharismatic, smelly, nerdy, geeky, will
> never get a job or a girlfriend in his like and has the social skills
> of a hamster wants to play Princess Leia. Sorry if I offended anyone
The exact same situation comes up with the other mental stats, although
it's less fun to admit. Sure, we're all famous for having low social
skills, so the low-Cha situation is easy to talk about. But c'mon, how
many of us *really* have an Int or Wis of 20?
(Opening the cheap-shots window wide open, I know....)
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Bradd W. Szonye
>> It's having the players play out their actual conversations that I
>> have an issue with - that's where it's equivalent to having the
>> players get their swords out and actually fight out an encounter.
Justisaur <rpil...@rcsis.com> wrote:
> Are you suggesting they should meta-game conversations? player says
> "My charcater tries to convince the guard to let me by. As he knows
> the guards are supposed to let by people with messages for the king,
> he tries to convince the guard he has a message for the king."
That's not meta-gaming! That's abstract, but it's still role-playing.
Meta-gaming would be playing out the scene and hoping that your own
social skills will convince the DM instead of checking your character's
skills.
It's a fucked-up world when people believe that meta-game persuasion is
"role-playing" and therefore preferable to actual role-playing. What is
it with you people who think that it's not role-playing unless you act
it out in detail? What's worse is that your method actually encourages
meta-gaming of the player social skills variety. Then we get DMs like
Geoffrey Brent who add yet *another* level of meta-gaming in a futile
attempt to counteract the use of player social skills.
It's disgusting to me, that you all keep switching the labels on
"role-playing" and "meta-gaming," and then use that to prove that
rolling dice is boring or unrewarding because it discourages "RP."
Randomizers and stats discourage *metagaming*, not RP. If dice are
getting in the way of your RP, then you're either deeply immersive, or
you've gotten RP and metagaming mixed up.
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
> Paul Grogan <pa...@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> OK, now what if the player simply cannot actually act like
>> that character, but still wants to play it. I call it the
>> Princess Leia situation, where the most uncharismatic, smelly,
>> nerdy, geeky, will never get a job or a girlfriend in his like
>> and has the social skills of a hamster wants to play Princess
>> Leia. Sorry if I offended anyone
>
> The exact same situation comes up with the other mental stats,
> although it's less fun to admit. Sure, we're all famous for
> having low social skills, so the low-Cha situation is easy to
> talk about. But c'mon, how many of us *really* have an Int or
> Wis of 20?
>
> (Opening the cheap-shots window wide open, I know....)
In Living Room Games _Earthdawn_, they renamed Wisdom "Willpower"
and Intelligence "Perception". It's was a good move, I think.
The intelligence and wisdom of a character will spring unbidden
from the mind of his or her player, no matter what the Int and
Wis stat says. As it is in 3E, you have to mentally rename them,
without actually changing the score sheet.
--
Neil Cerutti
Bradd W. Szonye
> In Living Room Games _Earthdawn_, they renamed Wisdom "Willpower" and
> Intelligence "Perception". It's was a good move, I think.
It's a good move if you want the players to use their own wisdom and
intelligence when role-playing. It's a bad move if players want to run
characters much smarter than themselves.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I could be wrong, but I've yet to meet a DM who can ignore player
>> charisma while still using a subjective social-skills mechanic.
Paul Grogan <pa...@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, if you want a trip to the UK, you can meet me, since I do
> exactly that.
Based on the rest of your article, you don't use a *subjective*
mechanic, you use an objective, randomized mechanic that seeks to
eliminate meta-game influences. I was talking about subjective social
resolution, where the players use their meta-game social skills to
influence the DM, and the DM uses meta-game filters to try to eliminate
that influence. This latter approach introduces at least two opposed
biases which do *not* effectively cancel each other in my experience.
Instead, they only aggravate the problem.
Matthew Miller
> In Living Room Games _Earthdawn_, they renamed Wisdom "Willpower"
> and Intelligence "Perception". It's was a good move, I think.
> The intelligence and wisdom of a character will spring unbidden
> from the mind of his or her player, no matter what the Int and
> Wis stat says. As it is in 3E, you have to mentally rename them,
> without actually changing the score sheet.
Although in 3E, Wisdom is Perception, as Ron will be glad to tell you.
Neil Cerutti
Szonye wrote:
> Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In Living Room Games _Earthdawn_, they renamed Wisdom
>> "Willpower" and Intelligence "Perception". It's was a good
>> move, I think.
>
> It's a good move if you want the players to use their own
> wisdom and intelligence when role-playing.
Yes, that would be good. ;-]
> It's a bad move if players want to run characters much smarter
> than themselves.
There are useful ways that a character nominally much smarter
than the player can be modeled in the game, but the player's RL
intelligence and wisdom are likely to pooch the whole thing
now and then.
To stray OT a bit, _Earthdawn_'s Perception gets used for
Knowledge based skills. So it's not a perfect system either.
--
Neil Cerutti
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> I'm quite willing to allow characters who are more socially adept
>>> than their players, and to have the rules reflect this in some way,
>>> but I don't want to turn social interactions into a free ride.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> It's *not* a free ride. You spend ability scores, skill points,
>> feats, and magic items to get it. It's not a free ride any more than
>> a high Strength, high BAB, and a magic weapon are a free ride ....
> Two different sorts of free ride. One is where you get something
> without spending any *points* (gold, etc etc) to get it. The other is
> where you get something without any *effort* on the player's behalf.
Why is effort important? Do you require players to put in a special
effort to make sure that their magic missiles work properly? To make
sure that their swords hit the mark?
Also, I think you're being unfairly prejudiced against introverts.
Playing a super-diplomat is very stressful and difficult for an
introvert, even if his DM *doesn't* require him to play it up. Doesn't
that effort count?
>> Compare it to combat skill. Player tactical skill makes a big
>> difference, but microtactical skill does not. A real-life klutz can
>> play a monk just as well as a blackbelt can. The same should be true
>> for social skills, IMO.
> In your game, you are undoubtedly right. However, that is *not* a
> universal preference. Some gamers like their own microtactical skill
> to affect combat, which is why things like GURPS and boffer combat
> exist.
These people prefer detail, even when it interferes with role-playing.
And it does interfere with RP, because that detail makes it difficult to
separate player skill and character skill. It reduces the range of
characters that you can successfully play.
These people typically call it a desire for "realism," but more detail
isn't actually more realistic. It's just less abstract.
> Equally, some gamers like their microtactical skill to affect social
> challenges.
And these people typically call it a desire for "role-playing" rather
than "roll-playing." But again, this isn't really better RP; it's less
abstract, that's all. What really irks me is that reducing abstraction
makes RP *harder*, and yet people talk about this as if it's *better*
for RP. That's bullshit. This has nothing at all to do with role-playing
and everything to do with level of detail.
Microtactical social skills are *bad* for roleplaying. I wish the detail
freaks would realize that it's detail they're after, rather than
co-opting other terms like "realism" and "role-playing," insisting that
their way is "more realistic" or "better for role-playing," because
that's bullshit.
If you prefer detail to abstraction, that's fine, but quit mislabeling
it as something else. Every time you incorrectly refer to "detailed
social interaction" as "good role-playing," you're implicitly putting
down my preferred style of role-playing.
>> A good tactical approach to a social situation should help, but
>> real-life social and acting skills should not. Otherwise, you get a
>> situation where charismatic players get free bonuses.
> But picking the right tactical approach to a social situation *is* a
> social skill. To say that characters should get bonuses for *that*
> sort of player social skill, but not for player's social microtactics,
> is fine as an individual preference but seems rather arbitrary as a
> universal rule.
It's not arbitrary at all. It's based on two principles:
1. The more detail you include in resolution, the more you break the
firewall between player and character. At the micro-tactical level,
the firewall is almost non-existent. That's bad for RP.
2. As you progress from strategy to tactics to microtactics, you add
time pressure. With less time to think, it's harder to differentiate
player and character. This is especially bad for real-time social
skills (i.e., persuading your DM), because there's no time to think
at all. This is a tremendous amount of pressure for an introverted
player.
Real-time social resolution based on quality of performance is
inherently unfair to introverted players.
> When you say "should" and "should not" here, is there an implied "in
> my game", or is this intended as a general rule?
As a general rule. There are exceptions, but since real-time social
resolution is so unfair to introverted player, I consider it one of the
*examples* of why the rule should exist, not an exception to it.
> Hypothetical party contains a socially-adept bard, a wizard who
> concentrates on item creation feats and has the money and XP to use
> them, and a druid who concentrates on survival and animal skills. I
> can throw them into a socially-oriented adventure where important
> negotiations abound, or a wilderness adventure where the party don't
> encounter another human or demi-human for weeks on end and the major
> threat is being eaten by dire bears. Or I can give them some downtime.
Yes, that's a problem, but the bias here goes even deeper than you
realize. It starts when the DM *throws them into* situations. In a sane
group, the DM can't force the bard to keep playing in the wilderness for
weeks at a time. The solutions to this kind of bias range from "Hey,
guys, this is no fun for my character; can we wrap up this quest?" to
"My bard is useless here; he's leaving to group," to "You're a prick,
and I refuse to play in your railroaded game anymore."
> The choice between those options is a GM judgement call ....
Part of your mistake is assuming that those options are the *DM's*
judgment call.
>> What negative effects?
> Fostering an attitude of "it doesn't matter *what* I say here, the
> only things that matter are the stats on my sheet and the luck of the
> dice".
But it does matter. The details shouldn't matter (because that's unfair
to introverts), but the character's approach to the situation does
matter. You're being unfair to introverts, and you're being unfair to
players who prefer abstraction over real-time detail.
> Which can very easily lead to players not bothering to roleplay at
> all. In some games this may not be a negative; in mine, it is.
There's a lot more to roleplaying than real-time social interaction.
Indeed, I'd say that most real-time social stuff is more metagaming than
roleplaying. I think you're confusing the two, and favoring the one
which is inherently unfair.
> If they're not interested in acting, I agree, dice are the way to go.
> But it's quite possible to be interested in acting and *still* get
> frustrated by knowing that no matter how well or how badly you act, it
> won't make a lick of difference, because the outcome has already been
> rolled.
Then give brownie points or even just praise for good acting/RP. It
doesn't need to make a difference in the *game* world, and I feel that
it *shouldn't*, because doing that is blatantly unfair.
>> Then award circumstance bonuses for making a good effort (in the form
>> of social strategy and tactics, *not* acting ability).
> Why do you think I should treat player acting ability differently from
> tactical-level player social skills here?
Because good acting (plus a little praise, if necessary) is its own
reward. Good acting should not make your character more successful, and
neither should player persuasiveness. That's a blatant screw-job for
introverted players.
> IMHO, players should be able to trust their GM to keep favouritism
> under control. If they don't, then the game is in trouble already,
> because judgement calls are an inescapable part of D&D.
They should be, but they can't, especially not if the DM is basing his
decisions on subjective assessments of how the *player* portrays his
character in real-time. Again, that's just a blatant screw-job for the
introverts.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Let me put this in a different light. Is a player who is good with
> numbers and systems rewarded for taking advantage of the system over
> someone who isn't? Yes they are.
There are very, very few situations where good math skills make a
difference during play. Mostly, they matter during character design and
planning. How is that difference important? You're not under time
pressure, and you can easily solicit advice from other players.
Compare that to social resolution based on real-time portrayals. Most
players who want this find coaching unacceptable (for the same reason
that they find dice rolls unacceptable), and the time pressure just
makes it more difficult. Merely trying to be persuasive is very
difficult for introverts, and adding that kind of time pressure just
makes it worse. While a DM could try to compensate for that, the stress
alone could discourage introverts from playing this. It's a major
screw-job.
And that's even before you consider other problems like gender
differences in communication, personal issues between the DM and certain
players, and so on. Decent DMs try to be fair, but they can't totally
ignore personal biases in communication, and that can cause major
problems. I've got one player who just plain irritates me during social
interactions, because of the way he plays charismatic PCs. I could not
possibly resolve his social interactions fairly; I must use dice.
> Is a player who is good at "selectively" remembering rules rewarded in
> play (i.e. a rules lawyer) - Yes they are.
Not if the DM is a better rules lawyer than he is.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>The description for globe of invulnerability says that it excludes all
>spells and spell-like effects whose targets are within the globe.
>
>It also says that the globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic
>(but not an area one).
>
>Does this mean that a dispel magic targeted on the caster can bring down
>the globe? This would seem to contradict the first clause above. Or does it
>mean that the dispel has to be targeted on the globe itself?
The description makes it perfectly clear.
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one plane at a time.
Deric Bernier
Justisaur wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> >
> > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > >> That's reasonable, I suppose, although this still sets up the
> > >> "charismatic players win more" situation.
>
> >
>
> Let me put this in a different light. Is a player who is good with
> numbers and systems rewarded for taking advantage of the system over
> someone who isn't? Yes they are. Is a player who is good at
> "selectively" remembering rules rewarded in play (i.e. a rules lawyer) -
> Yes they are.
As are the map maker, the note taker, the guys whose turn it is to bring
snacky treats. Extra incentive for roleplaying is great, but the die roll
should still be the first arbiter.
My girlfriend for instance is very shy, she is just learning the game and
hasn't yet become comfortable enough with either the group or the game to
try active roll playing. I have known many people in the same situation.
Providing an extra boost in xp to dring her out of her shell and make her
more interactive in the group is a good way to do that, but the die roll to
determine degrees of success or failure is still the deciding factor.
I personally have days where I don't feel quite up to par and don't want to
try giving my character an accent or whatnot, other days I am in the zone
and the personality of the character rolls off the tongue and mind.
D
Mister Sharkey
Bradd said:
> Real-time social resolution based on quality of performance is
> inherently unfair to introverted players.
It seems to me that there are several different things going on here.
One is whether the DM treats players "fairly" when they try to use
their characters' social skills (which may differ from their own RL
social skills). Bradd seems to feel very strongly about this. Perhaps
he often games with RL-low-social-skill guys who have a hard time
acting out their characters. Also, fairness seems to be high on
Bradd's priority list for what's "fun" in a game.
Another, which I myself place more importance on, is trying to
encourage players to act their character more, because I think it's
more fun that way. I agree with Justisaur's earlier comment in that I
too prefer players to act out their dialogue with NPCs, rather than
say flat things like, "I ask the guard if we can pass, because we're
on an urgent mission."
I play closer to Geoffrey's style; sometimes I have players roll first
to see if they succeed on a Diplomacy / Fast Talk / whatever roll,
then based on their die roll, have them act it out accordingly. To me,
it doesn't matter if their attempt is lame, as long as they give it a
try! I know that some of my players are bad at acting their
characters; I don't want to penalize them for it, but at the same time
I would like them to improve.
Bradd said:
> Then give brownie points or even just praise for good acting/RP. It
> doesn't need to make a difference in the *game* world, and I feel that
> it *shouldn't*, because doing that is blatantly unfair. [...]
> Because good acting (plus a little praise, if necessary) is its own
> reward. Good acting should not make your character more successful, and
> neither should player persuasiveness. That's a blatant screw-job for
> introverted players.
Geoffrey said:
> > IMHO, players should be able to trust their GM to keep favouritism
> > under control. If they don't, then the game is in trouble already,
> > because judgement calls are an inescapable part of D&D.
Aha: TRUST! Here's what seems the crux of the problem: some groups
trust their DMs to be fair more than others. Bradd's doesn't and
Geoffrey's does. This isn't reconcilable by arguments here on Usenet,
because it's a local difference.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Are you suggesting they should meta-game conversations? player says "My
>charcater tries to convince the guard to let me by. As he knows the
>guards are supposed to let by people with messages for the king, he
>tries to convince the guard he has a message for the king."
No, he could say that, a skill check is made, and then the results are
played out. This is the same as when a character attacks or casts a
spell - the attack is declared, the attack roll is made (and damage,
etc.) then the results are described or played out.
Rupert Boleyn
>In Living Room Games _Earthdawn_, they renamed Wisdom "Willpower"
>and Intelligence "Perception". It's was a good move, I think.
>The intelligence and wisdom of a character will spring unbidden
>from the mind of his or her player, no matter what the Int and
>Wis stat says. As it is in 3E, you have to mentally rename them,
>without actually changing the score sheet.
Don't you mean "In FASA's game _Earthdawn_, now published by Living
Room Games..."?
Rupert Boleyn
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Also, I think you're being unfairly prejudiced against introverts.
>Playing a super-diplomat is very stressful and difficult for an
>introvert, even if his DM *doesn't* require him to play it up. Doesn't
>that effort count?
No kidding. I'm currently playing an outgoing, friendly, party-loving,
highly diplomatic cleric, and it's hard and tiring. I think the only
reason it works at all is because I'm one of the high-status members
of our rpg group (when we're roleplaying), and I can trade that into
diplomaticlly gained influence. However this isn't an ideal way of
protraying a charismatic and influential character.
>They should be, but they can't, especially not if the DM is basing his
>decisions on subjective assessments of how the *player* portrays his
>character in real-time. Again, that's just a blatant screw-job for the
>introverts.
I'm currently GMing a game in which the player of the party leader,
and suppsedly diplomat, simply will not engage in in-character
convesation unless he's pushed really hard, and when he does invaribly
comes out with blunt, rube, or downright insulting conversation. I
think it would be vastly unfair for me to require him to actually play
out his PC's interactions IC because, aside from anything else, then I
can't actually tell if his character is intending to be rude or not.
It works much better for me to ask him what his intended approcah is,
and maybe for a bit of detail. This keeps the player from putting his
foot in it, and he can give the detail in an abstracted third person
"Abelard says that he'd like..." which he's a lot more comfortable
with. If we didn't use skill checks and abstract resolution this
player would be unable to play any character with a Diplomacy or Bluff
skill, or any character with a charisma above maybe 10.
Geoffrey Brent
> I'm currently GMing a game in which the player of the party leader,
> and suppsedly diplomat, simply will not engage in in-character
> convesation unless he's pushed really hard, and when he does invaribly
> comes out with blunt, rube, or downright insulting conversation. I
> think it would be vastly unfair for me to require him to actually play
> out his PC's interactions IC because, aside from anything else, then I
> can't actually tell if his character is intending to be rude or not.
> It works much better for me to ask him what his intended approcah is,
> and maybe for a bit of detail. This keeps the player from putting his
> foot in it, and he can give the detail in an abstracted third person
> "Abelard says that he'd like..." which he's a lot more comfortable
> with. If we didn't use skill checks and abstract resolution this
> player would be unable to play any character with a Diplomacy or Bluff
> skill, or any character with a charisma above maybe 10.
Like I said, I'm *not* advocating that the methods I suggested will work
for all players. For some people, skill checks by-the-book are
absolutely the best way to do things. But this thread started because
somebody *wanted* people roleplaying interaction, not just skill checks
BTB, and thought D&D 3.5 prevented that from happening. The options I
presented were intended for him, and others who feel that way; I wasn't
trying to push them on anybody who already has a system they're happy
with. It sounds like skill checks are the most enjoyable way to deal
with this player; I know players for whom they're not.
Gary Johnson
My other messages in my subthreads mustn't be inflammatory enough, so I've
moved across to join this subthread. Hi, all. :-)
>>>I'm quite willing to allow characters who are more socially adept than
>>>their players, and to have the rules reflect this in some way, but I
>>>don't want to turn social interactions into a free ride.
>>
>> It's *not* a free ride. You spend ability scores, skill points, feats,
>> and magic items to get it. It's not a free ride any more than a high
>> Strength, high BAB, and a magic weapon are a free ride. The only "free
>> ride" is the bonus some players get for having good real-life social or
>> acting skills -- a bonus that he paid nothing for in-game.
> Two different sorts of free ride. One is where you get something without
> spending any *points* (gold, etc etc) to get it. The other is where you
> get something without any *effort* on the player's behalf. I was talking
> about the latter. IMHO, if you want to be Beautiful Queen of the Fey,
> spending points on social stats is only part of the equation - you
> should also be making a certain amount of effort to play that character.
This may provide a useful opportunity to clarify parts of the "bigger
picture" issue: what do you mean by "play"? I'm guessing that you mean,
"act out in character", which I (for example) consider only a part of
"playing a character". For example, I consider character design an
important part of "playing the character"; likewise, dice-based
resolution.
>> Compare it to combat skill. Player tactical skill makes a big
>> difference, but microtactical skill does not. A real-life klutz can
>> play a monk just as well as a blackbelt can. The same should be true
>> for social skills, IMO.
> In your game, you are undoubtedly right. However, that is *not* a
> universal preference. Some gamers like their own microtactical skill to
> affect combat, which is why things like GURPS and boffer combat exist.
> Equally, some gamers like their microtactical skill to affect social
> challenges.
Which raises in my mind the question, "why use a game system like D&D that
*doesn't* support microtactics?" To paraphrase a quote I once read on the
internet, "A good GM and good players can take any game system and have a
fun, exciting game. You can hammer nails with a spanner, too."
> My contention here is that on the latter point, D&D is flexible enough
> to allow players the choice - and not just an "either/or" choice, but
> shading in between where both player and character skill influence
> things, because some people like it that way.
<shrug> Fair enough: see paraphrased quote above. Mileage varies. :-)
>> A good tactical approach to a social situation
>> should help, but real-life social and acting skills should not.
>> Otherwise, you get a situation where charismatic players get free
>> bonuses.
> But picking the right tactical approach to a social situation *is* a
> social skill. To say that characters should get bonuses for *that* sort
> of player social skill, but not for player's social microtactics, is
> fine as an individual preference but seems rather arbitrary as a
> universal rule.
<shrug> IMO, D&D's level of abstraction takes effect at a level high than
microtactics. The game mechanics aren't designed to robustly manage
microtactics: users like myself (and I suspect Bradd) see little value in
"undermining" the game mechanics in this way.
> When you say "should" and "should not" here, is there an implied "in my
> game", or is this intended as a general rule?
Disclaimer: I am not the person originally asked this question.
I suspect the answer to this depends on each individual's views on how to
obtain "fairness" in the setting of a gaming group, and the extent to
which "fairness" is derived from objectivity (pejorative descriptor: rules
lawyer-ing) or subjectivity (pejorative descriptors: nepotism and bias).
Each gaming group is a distinct entity, so I don't see how there can be a
general rule for all groups. However, IME most gaming groups contain a mix
of personality types with different preferences, so the underlying need to
negotiate compromises when differences emerge is a general rule.
>>>>That's why I feel that using the same system for everyone is the only
>>>>fair way to handle this.
>>
>>>Still not completely bias-free, because a GM's decisions on how
>>>frequent and how important social checks are going to be can favour or
>>>short-change diplomatic characters.
>>
>> Not if you apply the same rules consistently to all players. Follow the
>> rules given in the game. Make one check for initial reactions. Make
>> another check according to the rules for each skill: One Diplomacy
>> check for each negotiation. One Bluff check for each lie.
> Hypothetical party contains a socially-adept bard, a wizard who
> concentrates on item creation feats and has the money and XP to use
> them, and a druid who concentrates on survival and animal skills. I can
> throw them into a socially-oriented adventure where important
> negotiations abound, or a wilderness adventure where the party don't
> encounter another human or demi-human for weeks on end and the major
> threat is being eaten by dire bears. Or I can give them some downtime.
Or you can ask the players to help you as GM work out how to give them
challenging adventures that give them all spotlight time and the capacity
to make a meaningful difference. Really, a gaming group where the
characters are that mixed needs to talk through what they want to happen
in the game and how it can come about: it's not particularly fair, IMO,
to leave all that work to the GM by default.
> The choice between those options is a GM judgement call with a very
> obvious potential to favour one character over another. Even if you play
> every challenge entirely by the book, you're still picking the
> challenges, and therein lies the opportunity for favouritism.
> See also my question for Gary: how do you make intra-party negotiations
> depend on character stats rather than player strengths? If you don't,
> isn't that inconsistent with the approach to other negotiations?
Only if you believe that *every* negotiation requires resolution. For
example, I believe interactions where there is a significant risk or
challenge requires resolution, but not every interaction. Player
frequently use skill checks in other interactions to determine how they
are going, but I don't require them to do so.
>>>But while fairness is a very important part of the game, it's not the
>>>only thing that counts. The improvement in fairness has to be balanced
>>>against possible detraction from other things. In my eyes, that
>>>improvement is not a large one, and the negative effects can be
>>>significant.
>>
>> What negative effects?
>
> Fostering an attitude of "it doesn't matter *what* I say here, the only
> things that matter are the stats on my sheet and the luck of the dice".
> Which can very easily lead to players not bothering to roleplay at all.
> In some games this may not be a negative; in mine, it is.
I'm guessing by roleplay you mean, "act out in character"? Maybe a
different game system with a narrativist emphasis and minimalist
mechanical definitions of characters would help foster a different
attitude in the gaming group?
>>>Sometimes somebody roleplays a negotiation with an NPC, and it's
>>>consistent with what the characters are capable of, and the
>>>negotiation is interesting in itself... and then the dice basically
>>>tell you that it didn't happen. That's equally unsatisfying.
>>
>> Then roll the dice *before* you act it out, so that you know how to
>> role-play it!
>
> No more satisfying, since the negotiation is still pointless. Some
> people enjoy watching scripted wrestling matches, but I'm not one of
> them.
Hmm. It seems to me that maybe what you want are social mechanics that
include the same abstract yet incremental steps you get in D&D when you
play through a combat. (You don't consider D&D combat "scripted", right?)
Maybe something like Lace & Steel's witty repartee resolution system? It
uses the same (card-based) resolution system as combat, and includes
incremental damage and resource allocation.
<snip>
>> Then award circumstance bonuses for making a good effort (in the form
>> of social strategy and tactics, *not* acting ability).
> Why do you think I should treat player acting ability differently from
> tactical-level player social skills here?
Because they're different things? For example, my ability to portray a
grumpy person is distinct from my personal negotiation skills. Why assume
that my acting ability is more important in creating social dominance than
my social skills?
> Preferably, without relying on drawing parallels to the combat system,
> since those parallels rely on the assumption that players want equal
> levels of player-skill involvement in both - something that is not
> always the case.
Hope the above example is a starting-point.
<remainder snipped>
Cheers,
Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/xmen/start.htm
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm
Geoffrey Brent
> Geoffrey said:
>
>>>IMHO, players should be able to trust their GM to keep favouritism
>>>under control. If they don't, then the game is in trouble already,
>>>because judgement calls are an inescapable part of D&D.
>
>
> Aha: TRUST! Here's what seems the crux of the problem: some groups
> trust their DMs to be fair more than others. Bradd's doesn't and
> Geoffrey's does.
That's... sort of right (for mine) and sort of wrong. Trust is the key
for me, but the importance of 'fair' varies from one group to another.
In my Ravenloft game I do pay attention to fairness (although it's not
the only factor). This is partly because one of the players is at that
Difficult Age where being treated fairly by adults is a big issue, and
even a perception of unfairness would spoil the game for him.
In Turtle Soup (the 'systemless D&D' game I mentioned earlier - it's a
bit like _Titanic_, but with more drow) fairness doesn't get a look in.
The players *know* awful stuff can happen to their characters by GM
fiat, and it does. What's important here is that they trust us to keep
it *fun*. Your character might get clubbed unconscious by the Orcish
Philosophical Society, but if that happens it's because the GMs have
something interesting in mind that will make it worthwhile for the player.
Needless to say, this style of play only works with a group who don't
equate character success with player success.
So the key for me is not "trust the GM to be fair", but "trust the GM to
make it fun for the players". Sometimes 'fair' contributes to 'fun',
sometimes it's not an important part of the mix.
Paul Grogan
Everybody has their own gaming style, and as long as people are having
fun and enjoying it, it shouldn't matter.
As you will see from my previous post, I'm with Bradd on this one,
100%. Our games are full of good role-players, who role-play their
characters very well. Our games are not dull in the slightest. I
always get a rush and sense the excitement in certain situations and
I've had players go home and not be able to sleep the session has been
that good.
They are also in no way lifeless, completely the opposite I would say.
Just because some of my players do not want to 'act out' and talk 'in
character' doesn't mean that our games are dull and lifeless.
I still believe this is old-skool thinking from the early days of
role-playing where there was no diplomacy or bluff skill or whatever.
In them days, it was usually 100% down to what the player said. Now
the game has skills to cover these things, and to be honest, I
probably wouldn't have started playing D&D if it didnt have a decent
skills system.
Geoffrey Brent
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>>Two different sorts of free ride. One is where you get something
>>without spending any *points* (gold, etc etc) to get it. The other is
>>where you get something without any *effort* on the player's behalf.
>
>
> Why is effort important? Do you require players to put in a special
> effort to make sure that their magic missiles work properly? To make
> sure that their swords hit the mark?
Again, the "social should parallel combat" furphy.
Look through the books, count up the number of pages devoted to social
systems, then compare to the page count for combat systems. If you want
a game that treats social and combat challenges the same way, you're
playing the wrong one.
I've already made the point about half a dozen times that there's no
good reason to assume the same level of simulation should be used for
combat as for social challenges, since both are matters of personal
preference and those two preferences are *not* 100% correlated. Arguing
that any given method of social resolution is wrong because it doesn't
use the exact same level of abstraction as the combat system makes about
as much sense as the cretins who argue that D&D's magic system is wrong
because it doesn't work the same way as the GURPS magic system.
> Also, I think you're being unfairly prejudiced against introverts.
> Playing a super-diplomat is very stressful and difficult for an
> introvert, even if his DM *doesn't* require him to play it up. Doesn't
> that effort count?
Off-Usenet, I *am* an introvert (or at least, was; I've become less so
over the last couple of years). I've played characters who were much
more outgoing than I am, and it really wasn't that difficult or
stressful - there's a big difference between sharing a fictional
character with the world and sharing yourself. So this is not an issue
for *all* introverts.
For some, it is. And here we get to another recurring fallacy. You keep
throwing up examples of players for whom the methods I suggest wouldn't
work, and that's *irrelevant*. They are not intended to work for all
players and all preferences under all circumstances. There is _no_
single method that will do that. Maybe an analogy will demonstrate how
this discussion looks to me:
Eyebite: I don't like Toolkit 3.5, it doesn't have anything for pulling
nails.
GB: Well, there's a bit on the hammer you could use...
BS: Why would you use a hammer? Hammers *suck* for unscrewing bolts.
GB: We're not talking about bolts. We're talking about nails. Eyebite
wanted something for pulling nails.
BS: You shouldn't be using nails. Bolts are much better. I like joining
pieces of steel, and I can't comprehend of a reason why anybody would
want to nail one thing to another, therefore using nails is just *wrong*.
Eyebite wanted something to satisfy his preferences. I suggested some
things towards that end. That they don't satisfy *your* preferences is
irrelevant. If you look at his post, you'll see that your method is
*not* to his taste.
> And these people typically call it a desire for "role-playing" rather
> than "roll-playing." But again, this isn't really better RP; it's less
> abstract, that's all. What really irks me is that reducing abstraction
> makes RP *harder*,
That's not a hard-and-fast rule. Too little abstraction, and there's no
distinction between player and character. Too much abstraction, and
there's no connection. IME, roleplaying works best when you have
distinction *and* connection, which means striking a balance between the
two. IMG, the ideal balance point is not in the same place as IYG.
Extreme #1: Do you know how to defuse an atomic bomb? No? Then neither
does your character.
Extreme #2: "I want to come up with a Cunning Plan to overthrow the
King." "OK, make a Diplomacy roll." [roll roll roll] "You did it! You're
now King!"
> 1. The more detail you include in resolution, the more you break the
> firewall between player and character. At the micro-tactical level,
> the firewall is almost non-existent. That's bad for RP.
Different players have different ability to firewall. I know plenty of
players who are quite capable of firewalling at that level. I've had no
trouble saying things at a microtactical level that I knew would get my
character *killed*, because he was a tactless and headstrong character.
And indeed he got killed. I'd do it again, and I know plenty of players
who would do exactly the same thing.
As I said elsewhere, it depends very much on whether players equate
character success with player success. If they don't, then picking
microtactics appropriate to the character can *add* to RP.
> 2. As you progress from strategy to tactics to microtactics, you add
> time pressure. With less time to think, it's harder to differentiate
> player and character. This is especially bad for real-time social
> skills (i.e., persuading your DM), because there's no time to think
> at all. This is a tremendous amount of pressure for an introverted
> player.
And if this is a problem, a good GM can very easily flex.
GM, playing the town watch: "Oi! What are you doing nosing around the
jeweller's shop?"
Player: "Um..." [thinks for ten seconds] "I'm his cousin, come to stay
with him. You can ask him yourself - tell them, George!" [points over
the guard's shoulder and flees.]
The GM doesn't have to treat "thinking time" as if it was part of the
in-character dialogue.
>>Hypothetical party contains a socially-adept bard, a wizard who
>>concentrates on item creation feats and has the money and XP to use
>>them, and a druid who concentrates on survival and animal skills. I
>>can throw them into a socially-oriented adventure where important
>>negotiations abound, or a wilderness adventure where the party don't
>>encounter another human or demi-human for weeks on end and the major
>>threat is being eaten by dire bears. Or I can give them some downtime.
>
>
> Yes, that's a problem, but the bias here goes even deeper than you
> realize. It starts when the DM *throws them into* situations. In a sane
> group, the DM can't force the bard to keep playing in the wilderness for
> weeks at a time. The solutions to this kind of bias range from "Hey,
> guys, this is no fun for my character; can we wrap up this quest?" to
> "My bard is useless here; he's leaving to group," to "You're a prick,
> and I refuse to play in your railroaded game anymore."
Note that much the same solutions - talking to the GM about the problem,
with the option of leaving the group - can be applied to other instances
of GM bias too.
>>The choice between those options is a GM judgement call ....
>
>
> Part of your mistake is assuming that those options are the *DM's*
> judgment call.
It was an *example*, and since I write the example I get to declare that
they *are* the GM's call in this case.
When the GM makes *all* the choices on where to go, that's railroading,
but there are times when it's appropriate for the GM to make the
decision. When the PCs fail their navigation roll, it's the GM who
decides where they end up.
>>>What negative effects?
>
>
>>Fostering an attitude of "it doesn't matter *what* I say here, the
>>only things that matter are the stats on my sheet and the luck of the
>>dice".
>
>
> But it does matter. The details shouldn't matter (because that's unfair
> to introverts), but the character's approach to the situation does
> matter. You're being unfair to introverts, and you're being unfair to
> players who prefer abstraction over real-time detail.
Bradd, you strike me as a bright guy, but you have an ongoing problem
with context. If players preferred to abstract social tasks rather than
go into detail, I WOULD NOT BE USING A DETAILED SYSTEM. I have made it
clear already, more than once, that the methods I suggested were for
groups who *didn't* want that level of abstraction in social tasks.
We seem to be back to "hammers suck, because you can't use them to
unscrew bolts" again.
>>If they're not interested in acting, I agree, dice are the way to go.
>>But it's quite possible to be interested in acting and *still* get
>>frustrated by knowing that no matter how well or how badly you act, it
>>won't make a lick of difference, because the outcome has already been
>>rolled.
>
>
> Then give brownie points or even just praise for good acting/RP. It
> doesn't need to make a difference in the *game* world, and I feel that
> it *shouldn't*, because doing that is blatantly unfair.
I'm starting to get a little weirded by your focus on 'fair' here.
You've previously indicated that you tolerate player cheating, as long
as it's subtle. I see that as *much* more unfair than anything I've been
talking about. It favours those players who have no qualms about
cheating, and are good at covering it up, over the ones who do.
There was, IIRC, an "as long as nobody gets hurt" caveat - but I can
equally well apply that to my method. If you can tell when people are
being hurt by your method, and adjust accordingly, give me credit for
being able to do the same.
Geoffrey Brent
>>IMHO, if you want to be Beautiful Queen of the Fey,
>>spending points on social stats is only part of the equation - you
>>should also be making a certain amount of effort to play that character.
>
>
>
> OK, now what if the player simply cannot actually act like that
> character, but still wants to play it. I call it the Princess Leia
> situation, where the most uncharismatic, smelly, nerdy, geeky, will
> never get a job or a girlfriend in his like and has the social skills
> of a hamster wants to play Princess Leia. Sorry if I offended anyone
> :)
If the player really *can't* act, I'm willing to cut them some slack.
IME that's rarely been a problem; more often, lack of acting has been
because people can't be bothered to act.
Sometimes that's because they're simply not interested in it, in which
case a dice-based method is as good a way as any to get past the Boring
Bits and on to the combat, or whatever they're playing for. But
sometimes it's because the system leaves them feeling that there's no
point to acting.
> Let the players play the game that they want to play, forcing them to
> play that you want to play doesnt suit people.
I see it as a compromise - the GM has feelings too, and the game has
more chance of success if the GM likes the style of play - but I agree
that the system should be tailored to the group.
> In my game, I've been known to ask "Ok, do you want to act this bit
> out for a few minutes or not?".
Which is pretty much what I do, but on a different timescale: before I
start a game I make sure I know the players' preferences, and as we go I
keep an eye on things to make sure it's still working for them. If it
isn't, I'll consider changing to something more workable.
Geoffrey Brent
> I object to this method for two reasons:
>
> 1. I don't believe that microtactics should affect game outcomes. This
> is a poor example of gaming -- they're no abstraction at all, just
> arguing with the DM.
>
> 2. A player running a Charisma 3 character shouldn't be using his full
> real-world charisma to persuade you. He should be trying to play his
> character. This is a poor example of role-playing too.
For the umpteenth time, I have already said that the player 'playing
down' would be my preferred scenario, and that the method you're
attacking here is specifically for those situations where the player
ISN'T willing or able to 'play down'.
In my ideal world, high-Cha players with low-Cha characters *do* take
responsibility for 'playing down' (ditto Int and Wis), the acting is its
own reward, and the methods I've been talking about aren't necessary.
That, also, I have already said.
I've corrected you on this already, and you persist in missing it. If
you can't keep the underlying assumptions of the example in mind,
despite my having stated those assumptions and reminded you of them
already, then this discussion is simply going to frustrate both of us.
Until such time as you're willing to keep track of the context in which
suggestions are presented, I think we'll both be better off if I bow out
of these exchanges at this point, bar giving that rules cite I promised
yesterday.
Geoffrey Brent
> All your examples are tactical, and I don't think anyone has an issue
> with player's applying tactical skill to interaction by choosing the
> right skill to use, and the right apporach (being polite to the king,
> but avoiding flattery as they've asked around and been told he doesn't
> like it, etc.). It's having the players play out their actual
> conversations that I have an issue with - that's where it's equivalent
> to having the players get their swords out and actually fight out an
> encounter.
And there are games out there where people do exactly that. 'D&D' is
defined much more by its combat system than by its diplomacy rules, so a
game with variant diplomacy rules is variant D&D while a game that uses
boffer combat can't really be called D&D any more.
But don't let that obscure the fact that some people *do* like fighting
out encounters, and some people *do* like playing out conversations. D&D
can't really accommodate the former, but it can accommodate the latter.
Ultimately, as long as nobody gets hurt (which means making sure the GM
and players have compatible tastes in gaming), there's no wrong way to
have fun.
Geoffrey Brent
> Nah, not necessarily. Let the charismatic players help the non charismatic
> ones figure out what to say, especially if the character has the skills the
> player doesn't. I often use input from other players to represent really
> high stats. If the wizard is trying to solve a problem, his 18 intelligence
> justifies letting his player get advice from the table. Same with
> diplomatic stuff. Works for us, anyway.
I use this occasionally for intelligence/wisdom-related tasks, though
not often. IME it's more satisfying if the smart players help by nudging
and hinting rather than feeding the answer outright, since this lets the
player come up with the same idea as the character.
> Bear in mind, 'fair' is not necessarily the goal. If you're more gamist, it
> might be; if you're more freestyle, 'interesting and engaging' beats 'fair',
> unless its the sort of unfair where someone gets screwed over hard.
Yeah, I think this is where Bradd and I really differ. I'm a switch; I'm
quite happy to play with gamist groups, but I like freestyle too, and if
I had to choose I'd prefer the latter. I'm having trouble convincing
Bradd that not everybody games for the same goals he does.
Deric Bernier
Paul Grogan wrote:
> I still believe this is old-skool thinking from the early days of
> role-playing where there was no diplomacy or bluff skill or whatever.
> In them days, it was usually 100% down to what the player said. Now
> the game has skills to cover these things, and to be honest, I
> probably wouldn't have started playing D&D if it didnt have a decent
> skills system.
Gotta go with you there, I hated previous editions. A big part of why I
hated them is that the proficiencies meant absolute bupkis. In all the
years I played I never once saw them used in anyway. No matter who was my
gm, or where my group was. Making 3.0/3.5 a skill based system opened up
a world of possibilities for the game. It may not seem like much, but I
can distinctly tell a difference in the way 2nd and 1st editions were
played, and the way we play 3rd edition. MHO the changes were completely
for the better.
D
Geoffrey Brent
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Why? Social skill checks aren't mind control (at least not until epic
>> levels), and characters are not required to use them to their fullest.
>> If Eadric's player chooses to call for a negotiation (Diplomacy) check
>> to get a better cut, he can. If he wins an opposed check, he has an
>> advantage in the negotiation. The rules don't get more specific than
>> that.
>
>
> ISTR the rules specifically mentioning that skill checks *cannot* be
> used to dictate PC reactions, and that players always have freedom of
> choice over how their characters react (unless under effects such as
> charm that go beyond the skill section). I'll see if I can dig this one
> up tonight.
And those rules, emphasis mine:
PHB p. 71, Diplomacy skill description: "You can change the attitudes of
others (*nonplayer characters*) with a successful Diplomacy check; see
the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. (The DMG
has more information on influencing NPCs.) In negotiations, participants
roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage.
Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats
plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.
DMG p. 128, NPC Attitudes: "When a PC is dealing with NPCs, you
determine the NPCs' attitude, and a character may try to use Diplomacy
to influence this attitude... Should it come up, an NPC can use a
Diplomacy or Charisma check to influence another NPC. *However, NPCs can
never influence PC attitudes. The players always make their characters'
decisions.*"
Looking at that more closely, I guess one a legalistic reader might
argue that the PHB's wording only prohibits use of Diplomacy to change
PC attitudes, and not other applications of Diplomacy on PCs. But this
would be rather inconsistent, and "the players always make their
characters' decisions" strongly suggests that a player can refuse a deal
regardless of what dice and character stats might say - under which
circumstances a Diplomacy check between PCs is unenforceable.
Bradd W. Szonye
> ISTR the rules specifically mentioning that skill checks *cannot* be
> used to dictate PC reactions, and that players always have freedom of
>
> PHB p. 71, Diplomacy skill description: "You can change the attitudes
> of others (*nonplayer characters*) with a successful Diplomacy check;
> see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. (The
> DMG has more information on influencing NPCs.) In negotiations,
> participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the
>
> Looking at that more closely, I guess one a legalistic reader might
> argue that the PHB's wording only prohibits use of Diplomacy to change
> PC attitudes, and not other applications of Diplomacy on PCs.
And I would agree with that reader. Diplomacy checks are very useful to
determine who gets the advantage in a negotiation, no matter who the
participants are. Also note that Intimidate checks are not limited to
NPCs. That's not even a problem, because it has short-term effects
nearly identical to the /charm person/ and /cause fear/ spells.
Likewise, there's no NPC-only limit on the Bluff skill, which also works
fine. If a player asks for a Sense Motive check, the DM need tell him
only that the NPC seems to be telling the truth or lying.
> But this would be rather inconsistent ....
I think it would be more inconsistent if players could never lose the
advantage in a negotiation. Diplomacy checks would become a freebie.
> and "the players always make their characters' decisions" strongly
> suggests that a player can refuse a deal regardless of what dice and
> character stats might say ....
Sure. You can always refuse a deal. But a Diplomacy check can set the
terms for the best deal you can get. If you lose the check, you can
cancel the deal, but you *won't* get the best terms.
It wouldn't even be a horrible problem if you imposed the results of
attitude adjustments to PCs. For example, consider what you would or
wouldn't do for a casual friend. A "friendly" reaction result doesn't
force a PC to act in a particular way, just as a /charm person/ spell
isn't mind control.
However, I realize that some players are very touchy about control of
their own characters. Some people would probably be upset by use of the
Intimidate skill on a PC, even though it's no different from failing
your Will save against a /charm person/ spell.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Let the charismatic players help the non charismatic ones figure out
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> I use this occasionally for intelligence/wisdom-related tasks, though
> not often. IME it's more satisfying if the smart players help by
> nudging and hinting rather than feeding the answer outright, since
> this lets the player come up with the same idea as the character.
I agree. Coaching is generally OK, but it can fail miserably in some
groups. Rupert gave an excellent example of a group where it's a bad
idea.
>> Bear in mind, 'fair' is not necessarily the goal. If you're more
>> gamist, it might be; if you're more freestyle, 'interesting and
>> engaging' beats 'fair', unless its the sort of unfair where someone
>> gets screwed over hard.
> Yeah, I think this is where Bradd and I really differ. I'm a switch;
> I'm quite happy to play with gamist groups, but I like freestyle too,
> and if I had to choose I'd prefer the latter. I'm having trouble
> convincing Bradd that not everybody games for the same goals he does.
While "fairness" is usually associated with gamist play, that's not what
I've been talking about in this thread. Playing a charismatic character
is stressful enough for an introverted player *without* the DM expecting
him to "make an effort" or present the best in-character arguments he
can. That's unfair, and it's unfair in a way that has nothing to do with
"gamist" play.
Note that gamists *prefer* the use of player skill to resolve conflicts.
However, that doesn't mean that all kinds of player skill are
appropriate for RPGs. In this case, there are good interpersonal reasons
to avoid real-time, wholly concrete portrayals of social interaction.
Furthermore, I object to the idea that these real-time portrayals are
"roleplaying" while abstract portrayals are not.
Sea Wasp
Just my .25:
I let the dice decide when the player can't act for crap. I let the
player do it, IF they want to, if the player can act, or thinks they can.
BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK at
it, and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my
Diplomacy on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even
if you don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Bradd W. Szonye
>> OK, now what if the player simply cannot actually act like that
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> If the player really *can't* act, I'm willing to cut them some slack.
And that's a horrible attitude. It puts pressure on introverts, who are
*already* under considerable pressure just by trying to play that kind
of character. Apparently you don't realize it, but the style of play
you're advocating is horribly unfair to a large portion of RPG players.
> IME that's rarely been a problem; more often, lack of acting has been
> because people can't be bothered to act.
>
> Sometimes that's because they're simply not interested in it, in which
> case a dice-based method is as good a way as any to get past the
> Boring Bits and on to the combat, or whatever they're playing for. But
> sometimes it's because the system leaves them feeling that there's no
> point to acting.
The point of acting is that it's fun to play a different character!
Seriously, why *should* acting influence the outcome? How could it?
Now some people might reasonably expect their *social* skills (not their
acting skills) to influence the outcome. However, that really isn't
role-playing, is it? Yet advocates of that style always bill it as
better because it's "role-playing, not roll-playing." That's bullshit.
If you really enjoy that kind of thing, I recommend debate club. Some of
them even make their arguments "in character," rather than arguing for
their personal beliefs. It's even appropriate for some RPG groups, but
*only* if all the players want that. A DM should never, ever use that
kind of social resolution by default, and he shouldn't try to cajole
players into accepting it, because the people it's most unfair to are
exactly the same people that can easily be badgered into it.
You have suggested that DMs should use subjective social skill
resolution when the players have no particular interest in social
skills, but that's *exactly* the wrong kind of group to do that with.
For them, abstract social interactions and mechanical resolution are the
fastest and least painful way to handle it.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I personally have days where I don't feel quite up to par and don't
> want to try giving my character an accent or whatnot, other days I am
> in the zone and the personality of the character rolls off the tongue
> and mind.
And subjective social resolution screws over the player who's having a
bad day like that. Geoffrey Brent claims that this is no different from
having a run of bad luck. Ever had a run of bad luck when you're already
having a bad day? It sucks. Well, with a subjective resolution system,
you *always* have your "bad luck" days when you're having a bad day
overall. The system aggravates the problem!
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Real-time social resolution based on quality of performance is
>> inherently unfair to introverted players.
Mister Sharkey <mister_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that there are several different things going on here.
> One is whether the DM treats players "fairly" when they try to use
> their characters' social skills (which may differ from their own RL
> social skills). Bradd seems to feel very strongly about this.
Definitely. And "gamism" has nothing to do with it. Do you have fun when
you feel like you're being treated unfairly? Do you have fun when just
playing your character is stressful, and your DM piles on even more
stress by demanding a better performance from you? Do you have fun when
you're uncomfortable with an activity, and your DM consistently tries to
push you into doing it, giving rewards to the other players who agree
with him but not to you?
> Perhaps he often games with RL-low-social-skill guys who have a hard
> time acting out their characters.
Acting has little to do with it, although I'd also be uncomfortable with
a DM who pushes too hard to "encourage" acting ability. My problem is
with DMs who base social resolution on subjective assessments of how
persuasive the player is relative to his "average."
That causes at least two problems: It's unfair to introverted players,
because it piles more stress onto an inherently stressful activity. It's
also unfair to players who actually try to play their PCs according to
stats! Consider the Cha 18 player with the Cha 3 character. What is the
DM supposed to use for this player's "average"? Should he reward the
player when he's as persuasive as possible, even though that's
inappropriate for the character? Geoffrey's system is entirely
unworkable if the player actually tries to play down to his PC's level
of ability.
> Also, fairness seems to be high on Bradd's priority list for what's
> "fun" in a game.
Definitely. Do you have fun when you feel like you're being treated
unfairly? See above.
> Another, which I myself place more importance on, is trying to
> encourage players to act their character more, because I think it's
> more fun that way.
Note that this *does not work* when the DM bases social resolution on
the player's ability. If you play down to a low charisma, you'll
effectively be penalized twice! You handicap yourself by playing down,
and then the DM adjusts it *further* down because you're not as
persuasive as normal! This kind of ad hoc "handicapping" system is
totally infeasible, because it *does not work* when the players actually
try to portray their characters accurately!
Also, encouraging players to act it out is reasonable, but DMs seriously
need to be careful about how they do the encouraging. If you give major
bonuses to good actors, and you chide the bad actors, you may end up
driving away the bad actors instead of actually encouraging them.
> I agree with Justisaur's earlier comment in that I too prefer players
> to act out their dialogue with NPCs, rather than say flat things like,
> "I ask the guard if we can pass, because we're on an urgent mission."
How is that flat? That's role-playing! Yes, it's abstract, but what's
wrong with that? You too have fallen into the trap of thinking that
detail is better, that abstract role-playing is "flat" (or that it isn't
really role-playing at all). That really pisses me off.
> I play closer to Geoffrey's style; sometimes I have players roll first
> to see if they succeed on a Diplomacy / Fast Talk / whatever roll,
> then based on their die roll, have them act it out accordingly. To me,
> it doesn't matter if their attempt is lame, as long as they give it a
> try! I know that some of my players are bad at acting their
> characters; I don't want to penalize them for it, but at the same time
> I would like them to improve.
Well, this at least is reasonable. However, I still feel that you've
fallen for some serious anti-abstraction propaganda.
> Aha: TRUST! Here's what seems the crux of the problem: some groups
> trust their DMs to be fair more than others. Bradd's doesn't and
> Geoffrey's does.
What does trust have to do with it? The subjective social resolution
that Geoffrey described is a screw-job for players like me, period. It's
a screw-job for *many* players. And yet there are tons of DMs who prefer
to run social interactions like that *by default*, because they've been
fooled into thinking that it's "role-playing, not roll-playing." That's
bullshit.
Groups should *only* play that way if all players sincerely agree to it.
I add sincerely, because the same players who will feel screwed by it
are also prone to having it forced upon them.
> This isn't reconcilable by arguments here on Usenet, because it's a
> local difference.
It's not local. It's a very common attitude that needs to be stamped out.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Why is effort important? Do you require players to put in a special
>> effort to make sure that their magic missiles work properly? To make
>> sure that their swords hit the mark?
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> Again, the "social should parallel combat" furphy. Look through the
> books, count up the number of pages devoted to social systems, then
> compare to the page count for combat systems ....
You're missing the point. D&D is a medium-abstract RPG that emphasizes
tactics and de-emphasizes microtactics. A subjective, detailed social
resolution mechanic like the one you described works against the game
design. Also, I believe that D&D's approach is the *best* way to handle
abstraction, except in specific situations where all players explicitly
agree in advance. It provides the optimal separation of player and
character without eliminating player skill entirely.
> I've already made the point about half a dozen times that there's no
> good reason to assume the same level of simulation should be used for
> combat as for social challenges, since both are matters of personal
> preference and those two preferences are *not* 100% correlated.
Quit using incorrect euphemisms like "simulation" and "role-playing"
when you really mean "detailed" or "concrete." It only confuses issues.
I'm not trying to suggest that social resolution should necessarily work
the same way as combat resolution. Combat is merely another example of a
mechanic that D&D handles with a tactical-level abstraction, and it's a
very good example, because it's easy to explain *why* it uses that level
of abstraction.
I also feel that it's the best default level of abstraction for *all*
RPG mechanics, because it allows for player/character separation without
making player skill irrelevant. It allows people to actually portray
characters different from themselves.
Some players prefer less abstraction, but detailed resolution should
never be the default unless all players agree to it in advance, because
it *does* limit the range of characters you can play well.
>> Also, I think you're being unfairly prejudiced against introverts.
>> Playing a super-diplomat is very stressful and difficult for an
>> introvert, even if his DM *doesn't* require him to play it up.
>> Doesn't that effort count?
> Off-Usenet, I *am* an introvert (or at least, was; I've become less so
> over the last couple of years). I've played characters who were much
> more outgoing than I am, and it really wasn't that difficult or
> stressful ....
Must be nice! I'm not completely introverted either, but many kinds of
social interactions are stressful for me. I've recently learned, from
experience, that playing an outgoing, persuasive character is very
stressful. It gave me exactly the same kind of headachy fatigue that I
get when DMing. I can tolerate it -- for example, I enjoy DMing overall,
even though it exhausts me -- but I'd rather not have additional stress
added by my DM.
I don't think my experience is unusual. There are lots of introverts in
this hobby, and I suspect that many of them have the same problem that I
do. At the very least, I suspect that we're a significant minority --
I've seen at least one (other than me) in every group I've played in.
> For some, it is. And here we get to another recurring fallacy. You
> keep throwing up examples of players for whom the methods I suggest
> wouldn't work, and that's *irrelevant*.
No, it isn't, because you presented subjective social resolution as a
reasonable *default*. You also made the mistake of calling it
"role-playing vs roll-playing," which is bullshit. That shows a clear
prejudice toward detailed social resolution, one that suggests that
anything else isn't really "role-playing." I find that especially
ironic, since the method you described actually *discourages* players
from playing characters less skilled than themselves.
What really bothers me is that your attitude is very common. Too many
DMs feel that detailed, subjective social resolution *is* a reasonable
default, that it *is* better role-playing, and that's bullshit.
>> And these people typically call it a desire for "role-playing" rather
>> than "roll-playing." But again, this isn't really better RP; it's
>> less abstract, that's all. What really irks me is that reducing
>> abstraction makes RP *harder* ....
> That's not a hard-and-fast rule. Too little abstraction, and there's
> no distinction between player and character. Too much abstraction, and
> there's no connection. IME, roleplaying works best when you have
> distinction *and* connection, which means striking a balance between
> the two.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about a tactical level of abstraction.
IME, there are very few players for whom that is too abstract.
Also note that I'm criticizing a specific kind of detailed mechanic, one
that relies on detailed and subjective assessments of player skill. The
method you described is *horrible*, because it cannot possibly work for
a player who actually tries to *portray* a character less charismatic
than himself.
Example: Joe is very charismatic. He's playing, Fred, a Cha 3 fighter
who fancies himself a diplomat. While attempting to bluff a castle
guard, he tries to play down to Fred's level of charisma. He comes up
with a weak bluff which is a little better than what Fred could do, but
not nearly as good as what he could do as Joe, the player.
How do you judge the effectiveness of this bluff? Do you say, "Joe, you
could come up with a better bluff than that! That's the equivalent of a
5 roll, and you fail." No, that would be silly, because Joe is
intentionally sandbagging to portray his character better. You'd be
doubly penalizing him. OK, maybe you should ignore Joe's personal
bluffing skill: "That's a decent bluff, within the range of what Fred
could do. It's a 12 overall, and you succeed." But that's unfair too;
Joe could easily play this system.
And as I said elsewhere, your system screws players who are just having
a bad day. They'll consistently fail because they're having a bad day,
and consistent failure will just make them feel more miserable. It's a
positive feedback loop.
That's why I say that this kind of subjective handicapping is inherently
unfair and anti-roleplaying. You said that "roll-playing" is bad,
because the outcome doesn't always match the portrayal. But in the
method you described, that will *always* happen when players actually
try to run characters different from themselves! In fact, it encourages
them *not* to role-play, because they'll get doubly penalized!
>> Part of your mistake is assuming that [campaign focus is] the *DM's*
>> judgment call.
> It was an *example*, and since I write the example I get to declare
> that they *are* the GM's call in this case.
It's a lousy example, though. It effectively states that players can get
screwed in lots of ways, so we shouldn't worry about them getting
screwed in this particular way. I call shenanigans!
>> But it does matter. The details shouldn't matter (because that's
>> unfair to introverts), but the character's approach to the situation
>> does matter. You're being unfair to introverts, and you're being
>> unfair to players who prefer abstraction over real-time detail.
> Bradd, you strike me as a bright guy, but you have an ongoing problem
> with context. If players preferred to abstract social tasks rather
> than go into detail, I WOULD NOT BE USING A DETAILED SYSTEM.
Then why did you present the detailed, subjective, handicapped system as
a reasonable default?! I got the clear impression that you feel that way
is superior unless somebody complains. That's a self-reinforcing
attitude, since the people it hurts most are also the least likely to
complain.
>> Then give brownie points or even just praise for good acting/RP. It
>> doesn't need to make a difference in the *game* world, and I feel
>> that it *shouldn't*, because doing that is blatantly unfair.
> I'm starting to get a little weirded by your focus on 'fair' here.
Why? Do you have fun when you feel like you're being treated unfairly?
Do you have fun when somebody pressures you into playing in a way that
you don't enjoy, and describes his way as being "role-playing" but
dismisses your preferences as mere "roll-playing"? That kind of attitude
is extremely common, and it effectively silences complaints, because it
convinces people that they're preferred play style is not worthy.
(Worse, it attacks people who are, by nature, less likely to speak up
about their preferences.)
I'm sick of that attitude. I hear that slick condescension all the time
from people who ask, "Well, why don't you just play Risk then?" I see it
in discussions that assume that rolling dice is inferior to acting
because rolling dice is "roll-playing, not role-playing."
> You've previously indicated that you tolerate player cheating, as long
> as it's subtle.
As long as its subtle *and it causes no problems*.
> I see that as *much* more unfair than anything I've been talking
> about. It favours those players who have no qualms about cheating, and
> are good at covering it up, over the ones who do.
And if that's a problem for you, then I won't permit cheating while you
play. And if that's a problem for somebody else, then I'll ask you two
to settle it. End result is probably that one of you will need to leave.
> There was, IIRC, an "as long as nobody gets hurt" caveat - but I can
> equally well apply that to my method. If you can tell when people are
> being hurt by your method, and adjust accordingly, give me credit for
> being able to do the same.
I can't do that, because the people hurt most by your method are
*exactly* the same people who are unlikely to speak up about it. When
the problem creates a bias against reporting the problem, I *can't*
assume that you're able to detect and avoid that problem.
Bradd W. Szonye
> But don't let that obscure the fact that some people *do* like
> fighting out encounters, and some people *do* like playing out
> conversations. D&D can't really accommodate the former, but it can
> accommodate the latter.
No, it can't. As long as the game has character stats for Intelligence,
Wisdom, Charisma, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidation, there will be a
difference between player and character skill in social interactions.
You could deal with that by throwing out all of the social and mental
stats, but that's no different from or easier than throwing out the
entire combat system and replacing it with live-action combat.
If you *don't* eliminate all of those stats, you will have situations
where the character doesn't match the portrayal. You will always have
situations where the game-world outcome doesn't match the players'
impression of the interaction. You feel that this is a drawback, but
"role vs role" is not the cause of the drawback! It's the result of
playing a character different from yourself, and if you eliminate that,
how is it "role-playing"?
Bradd W. Szonye
> Just my .25:
Thanks for the disclaimer! It really does help.
> I let the dice decide when the player can't act for crap. I let the
> player do it, IF they want to, if the player can act, or thinks they
> can.
>
> BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK at it,
> and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my Diplomacy
> on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even if you
> don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
And I feel that acting and role-playing are two related but different
things. Now, I can both understand and sympathize with the desire to
actually act out roles, rather than describing them in the abstract.
However, I would never penalize, shun, pressure, etc. a player who
didn't want to do it. I would definitely not *require* a player to make
the attempt, because I can also sympathize with the player who doesn't
enjoy acting out a role.
I suppose it's OK to insist that all players try to act, if that really
is essential to your own fun. I'm biased against that, however, because
it can cause friction or even resentment that's very hard to pin down.
That's because many of the players who are uncomfortable acting are
*also* players who are uncomfortable sticking up for their beliefs in
front of a group of people.
Kevin Lowe
wrote:
> Just my .25:
>
> I let the dice decide when the player can't act for crap. I let the
> player do it, IF they want to, if the player can act, or thinks they can.
>
> BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK at
> it, and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my
> Diplomacy on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even
> if you don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
I think there's a covert continuum of assumptions here.
At one end we have folks who seem to view their games as a mechanical
simulation of some sort first and foremost. So all characters with +11
to Diplomacy should be equally diplomatic, regardless of the player or
DM's rl diplomacy skills.
At the other end are folks who are doing simulationist improvised
theatre, where the important concerns are giving a good performance and
creating a plausible "what happens next?" based on that performance. So
all characters who do Scene X in Manner Y with Dialogue Z perform
equally well.
In the middle are the Brents and Wasps who want some theatrical effort
and also some dice rolling, who fudge out a compromise between the
result of the improv/simulation and the result of the
mechanics/simulation.
For my mileage it varies with the game. I'm very much in favour of the
improv method in theatrical games, because it creates smooth and
believable scenes. I'm very much in favour of the mechanical method in
games with social mechanics, because I agree that doing otherwise is
just plain unfair. It screws the people who suck at improv.
As someone who has been paid to do improv professionally, I'm well aware
that improv is a learned skill and there's nothing wrong with sucking at
it.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Deric Bernier
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
And for the most part I agree with you, but if some players prefer to use RL
social skills to enhance quality of game and the dice roles, then it works
for the betterment of everyone. Example: a player gives an elaborate
speech to a visiting diplomat who he must ally his forces with those of the
pc's or the orc hordes will run rampant over the town. The PC's speech is
brilliant, touching all the right strings, but his roll is low. Since the
roll always decides the final outcome it means that everyone but the
diplomat saw the wisdom of his words, but maybe the diplomat just didn't
like the guy's attitude, or his demeanor. Or maybe he just didn't like
being told he had to do anything, and therefore withdrew and turned down the
offer.
Flipping that around to a socially introverted player, the same result is
accomplished without the added drama of the situation, no one is hurt, the
game continues to run as smoothly. He may not get the smidgen of extra EX,
but then again I believe that the more effort you put into the game the more
you should be rewarded. But since I truly believe in my heart and from
experience that RPG's are the best tool to improve social skills and
interaction, then providing incentive for everyone to follow suit is not out
of line. That stated there are plenty of other way's in my group for people
to earn a little bonus xp, the aforementioned note-taking, map-keeping, food
contributions, as well as car pooling, character drawing, background writing
etc. as well as in game methods. Coming up with creative ways to avoid a
confrontation, character development through actions (such as a paladin
volunteering his time to rebuild an orphanage, or a ranger disabling traps
in his forest, a cleric tending to his churchly duties). The player doesn't
have to speak in character, but he does have to give his character some type
of personality.
Of course role-playing doesn't just mean social interaction with the npc's,
anyone who feels that way should stop RPG'ing and join a dinner theater
troupe or a live action (shudder) game. In any game I run it extends to all
areas, including combat. I let my players know before the game ever starts
that the more interesting and creative choices they make in resolving any
particular outcome will be awarded more exp. If you simply want to stand
there and roll to hit or whatever that's great, but if you want to describe
your attack in detail I will be more than happy to give you props for going
the extra mile. It may slow things down a bit, but creativity should be
rewarded in a game over just plain dice rolling. Dice rolling is always the
final arbiter, but adding spice is what makes the soup taste good.
My problem as a DM is much worse, the players that don't put anything into
their characters at all tend to bias me against them, I try not to let it
affect me but sometimes that bias slip through. I has one player who
everytime something didn't go his way he would state quite succinctly that
he was gonna leave the party and head to the bar and get drunk, no matter
what the party was doing, and no matter what character he was playing.
After while it really got under my skin. I even tried gearing adventures
around his character, to no evail. Eventually he just wasn't invited into
new campaigns anymore (unanimous decision by the group). The guy is still a
good friend, but gaming with him just wasn't any fun no matter what we
tried.
D
Deric Bernier
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
>
> I suppose it's OK to insist that all players try to act, if that really
> is essential to your own fun. I'm biased against that, however, because
> it can cause friction or even resentment that's very hard to pin down.
> That's because many of the players who are uncomfortable acting are
> *also* players who are uncomfortable sticking up for their beliefs in
> front of a group of people.
> --
Yeah, I agree, I have seen many people drop out of a game because of just
such an issue. My girlfriend is one such individual. She likes the idea of
a game but isn't secure enough to really get into talking in character or
volunteer idea's. She is new to the game and if she were forced to do
anything involving acting out the game she would walk out from frustration
and anxiety. Peer pressure is a bitch, and no on should ever try and exert
peer pressure over anyone they consider a friend, at least not if they want
to keep that friend. Especially not over a game. The game is meant to be
fun for all, regardless of their strengths and weaknesses in social
situations. In fact the main attraction of the game is the chance to be
someone you aren't. For most people this means being able to play someone
powerful who doesn't have to take shit from anyone, for others it means
being able to play someone who is more outgoing and accepted, and for even
others it means being able to be someone for a couple of hours who doesn't
have the weight of the real world hanging on their shoulders.
For all the people that tout "role-playing=acting" I should point out that
nowhere in any book does the game claim to be an acting 101 class, thank
god.
D
Bradd W. Szonye
>> And subjective social resolution screws over the player who's having
>> a bad day like that. Geoffrey Brent claims that this is no different
>> from having a run of bad luck. Ever had a run of bad luck when you're
>> already having a bad day? It sucks. Well, with a subjective
>> resolution system, you *always* have your "bad luck" days when you're
>> having a bad day overall. The system aggravates the problem!
Deric Bernier <dr...@mc2k.com> wrote:
> And for the most part I agree with you, but if some players prefer to
> use RL social skills to enhance quality of game and the dice roles,
> then it works for the betterment of everyone.
In your example, the player's social skills don't change the game-world
outcome. In the system Geoffrey described, they do, and that's the part
that I object to. That kind of thing is inappropriate in a game where
you play a character with social skills different from your own.
> Example: a player gives an elaborate speech to a visiting diplomat
> who he must ally his forces with those of the pc's or the orc hordes
> will run rampant over the town. The PC's speech is brilliant,
> touching all the right strings, but his roll is low. Since the roll
> always decides the final outcome it means that everyone but the
> diplomat saw the wisdom of his words, but maybe the diplomat just
> didn't like the guy's attitude, or his demeanor.
And I think this is exactly the right way to handle "surprising" rolls.
Honestly, I don't know why they're so surprising. Have you ever come up
with a brilliant and well-argued proposal for your boss, and had him
shrug it off? Haven't you ever seen that right here on rgfd? Some gamers
like to believe that a good argument will convince anyone, which is
weird given the amount of counterevidence we see in the newsgroup.
I used to play with a guy who had an "interesting" approach to argument.
When he disagreed with you, he wouldn't present a counterargument. He
wouldn't listen to your argument, no matter how eloquent or convincing.
He simply responded, "He-heh, no. I don't think so," or something
equally insightful.
> Flipping that around to a socially introverted player, the same result
> is accomplished without the added drama of the situation, no one is
> hurt, the game continues to run as smoothly.
Well, some people *do* object to abstract portrayals. These people
should not play in the same group with acting-averse introverts,
especially because it's likely to cause resentment with no obvious
cause.
> He may not get the smidgen of extra EX, but then again I believe that
> the more effort you put into the game the more you should be rewarded.
I agree, but I disagree with the kinds of rewards that most gamers
recommend (like circumstance modifiers and bonus XP). Wayne Shaw is
especially adamant about this; I used to disagree with him, but I've
come around to his side. The more you reward a particular behavior, the
more you encourage envy and resentment in the people who aren't good at
it. Now, ordinarily, you can avoid that by rewarding a wide range of
behaviors and being careful when you notice resentment.
The problem with rewarding acting is that the people you offend are
likely to react in subtle, passive-aggressive ways, because they're
*not good at communicating their feelings*. The exact same thing that
causes resentment also makes it hard to detect and mitigate that
resentment.
Nowadays, I rely on simple praise rather than XP awards and circumstance
bonuses, and even then I'm careful. Meta-game rewards like praise are
the best response to meta-game performance like good acting, IMO.
> But since I truly believe in my heart and from experience that RPG's
> are the best tool to improve social skills and interaction, then
> providing incentive for everyone to follow suit is not out of line.
I disagree. Unless you play with a wide range of people, RPGs are good
at teaching you how to deal with the quirks of a specific group of
people, but I don't think they're particularly effective at improving
social skills in general. It might be helpful in a few extreme cases,
I suppose. I do this as a hobby, and I have no illusions that it is a
life-changing experience.
> Of course role-playing doesn't just mean social interaction with the
> npc's ....
Agreed. I think it's unfortunate that many people limit "role-playing"
to mean live-action conversations with NPCs. There's a lot more to it
than that, and perpetuating the "role-playing vs roll-playing" myth does
nothing but alienate people who have trouble with personal interactions.
> My problem as a DM is much worse, the players that don't put anything
> into their characters at all tend to bias me against them, I try not
> to let it affect me but sometimes that bias slip through.
I generally agree. I have a similar problem with players who make no
effort to fit in with the rest of the group. (Unfortunately, I also
value tension between PCs, and there's a fine line between interesting
tension and simple lack of teamwork. I've crossed that line myself on
occasion, which is probably why my wife likes me better as a DM than as
a player.)
> I has one player who everytime something didn't go his way he would
> state quite succinctly that he was gonna leave the party and head to
> the bar and get drunk, no matter what the party was doing, and no
> matter what character he was playing. After while it really got under
> my skin.
My group has a pretty strict "no blackball" policy. We try to accept all
kinds, and we have an explicit policy that we will turn no player away
(barring extreme cases like abusive or illegal behavior). However, we
won't go out of our way to accommodate marginal behavior, either. In
this case, the likely response would be, "OK, have fun at the bar. We'll
catch up with you later. If you're not having fun with your PC, feel
free to roll up a new one." As DM, I would try to figure out if there's
a deeper reason why he's unhappy, but if it's just sour grapes, I'll let
him make his own bed.
We figure that reasonable players can figure out when they don't fit in
with the group. It may take a while, but they'll either adapt or leave.
Likewise, we will also make an effort to adapt for new players, so long
as they're not obnoxious. If it doesn't work out, that's life.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I suppose it's OK to insist that all players try to act, if that
>> really is essential to your own fun. I'm biased against that,
>> however, because it can cause friction or even resentment that's very
>> hard to pin down. That's because many of the players who are
>> uncomfortable acting are *also* players who are uncomfortable
>> sticking up for their beliefs in front of a group of people.
Deric Bernier <dr...@mc2k.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I agree, I have seen many people drop out of a game because of
> just such an issue.
Then again, some people just shouldn't play together. In such cases,
it's all for the best if one player does drop out. In the long run, it's
probably less stressful than trying to accommodate incompatible desires.
If Wasp needs acting to enjoy the game, he really *shouldn't* play with
people who don't like to act.
One thing that's offended me in this discussion is the subtle prejudice
in some of the arguments. Stuff like implicitly blessing acting by
calling it "role-playing" and sneering at abstract role-playing as mere
"roll-playing." Or using a subjective, performance based resolution
system as a "default." I think that's a poor default, because it
discourages actual role-playing in some common circumstances.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I object to this method for two reasons:
>>
>> 1. I don't believe that microtactics should affect game outcomes. This
>> is a poor example of gaming -- they're no abstraction at all, just
>> arguing with the DM.
>>
>> 2. A player running a Charisma 3 character shouldn't be using his full
>> real-world charisma to persuade you. He should be trying to play his
>> character. This is a poor example of role-playing too.
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> For the umpteenth time, I have already said that the player 'playing
> down' would be my preferred scenario, and that the method you're
> attacking here is specifically for those situations where the player
> ISN'T willing or able to 'play down'.
OK, that's reasonable.
However, you also presented it as a "default" system, and I object to
that. You also implied that abstract role-playing is not "real"
role-playing, by using the biased and inaccurate "role/roll"
terminiology (among other things). Now, maybe you just didn't express
yourself very well, or maybe I misunderstood you. But I can't let stuff
like role/roll go, because it's such a common attitude, and it's
*wrong*. Not just incorrect, but wrong, because it encourages play
styles that IME cause unnecessary stress and conflict that is very
difficult to resolve.
> In my ideal world, high-Cha players with low-Cha characters *do* take
> responsibility for 'playing down' (ditto Int and Wis), the acting is
> its own reward, and the methods I've been talking about aren't
> necessary. That, also, I have already said.
Why, then, did you present it as a reasonable default? Why did you write
in a way that furthers counterproductive myths?
> I've corrected you on this already, and you persist in missing it.
That's because your words say one thing, but your "body language"
implies something different.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Bear in mind, 'fair' is not necessarily the goal. If you're more
> gamist, it might be; if you're more freestyle, 'interesting and
> engaging' beats 'fair', unless its the sort of unfair where someone
> gets screwed over hard.
And that's the kind of unfair I've been talking about.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> There is a simple way to keep this fair: Ignore the quality of the
>> player's acting and persuasive skills and use the D&D mechanics
>> instead. Roll the result and let the players act it out as well as
>> they care to. If you like, award XP or brownie points for good
>> portrayals of the results. But going on gut feel and ad hoc
>> adjustments based on the acting fosters unfairness, envy, and
>> accusations of favoritism IME.
Justisaur <rpil...@rcsis.com> wrote:
> Not really. You can take a circumstance bonus depending on thier
> "acting" (either -2 or +2, or nothing) which may affect an outcome.
Giving out bonuses based on acting or persuasiveness is exactly the kind
of screw-job I've been talking about! This puts uncharismatic and
introverted players at a major disadvantage, and because the player is
uncharismatic, he'll have a hard time expressing his frustration.
I'm in favor of granting bonuses for good conversational *strategy*, so
long as you don't insist upon real-time portrayal of that strategy. Give
the players time to think about how they approach a situation (or for
coaching, if they want it, but note Rupert's caveats about coaching).
> I've actually had more problems in my last campain going strictly off
> the diplomacy chart, as one of the PCs had a very high charisma and
> pumped all his skill he could into diplomacy.
Yes, that's a powerful choice, but keep two things in mind: First,
Diplomacy doesn't work on a foe who's unwilling to listen. Second, you
suffer a major penalty to your Diplomacy checks if you try to do it in a
hurry. Diplomacy normally takes at least a minute; you can try it as a
full-round action, but there's a -10 penalty (assuming that your foe is
willing to listen to you at all). Talking a hostile enemy down, even to
"unfriendly" status, is a DC 30 check (assuming that there are no
circumstance modifiers that would make it even harder).
> The relsult was comical and totally unballanced, as everyone he met he
> tried to influence became his best friend, the bad guys repented etc.
> I decided that was definately not the way to go.
Why would the bad guys repent? Suppose that you have a truly amazing
Diplomacy score. You can easily make DC 60, enough to turn a hostile
enemy to a helpful friend as a full-round action. Now he's your friend,
but Diplomacy is not mind control.
Suppose that there's an ancient red dragon causing trouble. A PC makes
an influence check and convinces the dragon to become a helpful friend.
The dragon will now chat, advise, advocate, protect, backup, heal, and
aid the PC -- but it's still chaotic evil. It's still an ancient and
corrupt dragon. The dragon will help the PC, but will he really want the
dragon's help? Will it stop causing trouble just because a friend asks
him to stop? Do you do everything your friends ask of you?
Here's a good test for what you can and cannot do with Diplomacy. When
the PC makes a request of the friend, ask yourself whether another
player would honor the request. If not, then an NPC probably won't do it
either, not even if the NPC is "helpful."
Also, consider the *trouble* that can arise if you turn an enemy into a
friend. You're supposed to be out defeating the evil overlord. How will
your allies react if they learn that the evil overlord considers you a
trusted friend? Sooner or later, you'll need to actually *defeat* the
villain, and Diplomacy can't help with that (beyond giving you a
surprise attack when you betray your friend).
Bradd W. Szonye
> Like I said, I'm *not* advocating that the methods I suggested will
> work for all players. For some people, skill checks by-the-book are
> absolutely the best way to do things. But this thread started because
> somebody *wanted* people roleplaying interaction, not just skill
> checks BTB, and thought D&D 3.5 prevented that from happening.
And my comments are intended to demonstrate that:
1. The OP may want to reconsider his request, because it has drawbacks,
including some potential problems that most gamers sweep under the
rug (or worse -- many sneer at those problems).
2. What the OP wanted is *not* a reasonable default. Unless you know
exactly what your players want, it's much safer to use the skill
mechanics in the rulebooks. Be especially careful, because the
problems with live-acting-based social resolution are subtle!
Bradd W. Szonye
> This may provide a useful opportunity to clarify parts of the "bigger
> picture" issue: what do you mean by "play"? I'm guessing that you
> mean, "act out in character", which I (for example) consider only a
> part of "playing a character". For example, I consider character
> design an important part of "playing the character"; likewise,
> dice-based resolution.
Agreed.
I think there's some confusion here over different elements of
role-playing and social interaction. Let me try to make the differences
more obvious.
Acting: Player tries to portray the character in real-time.
Persuasiveness: Player tries to influence the DM at the meta-game level.
Role-playing: Player tries to portray the PC, possibly in the abstract.
D&D's social interaction mechanics try to minimize the effects of
persuasiveness. Some players object to that, feeling that it makes
acting pointless. Now that's a reasonable objection *if* all the
players' social skills are substantially similar to their PCs' social
skills, *and* all the players like this kind of microtactical play.
However, IME, that situation is rare. More often, game groups have
introverted players who get stressed out trying to compete on this
level, and some players want PCs who don't have the same social skills
as them. Despite that, many gamers propagate the idea that it's not
really "role-playing" unless their persuasiveness actually makes a
difference in the game world. I think that's a horrible and destructive
myth that marginalizes other styles of play and causes friction which is
hard to pin down (because the uncharismatic players are, by definition,
not good at expressing themselves).
Therefore, I've been arguing passionately that gamers need to give up
this horrible idea that "roll-playing" is bad, that it's not really
"role-playing" unless you act it out. I also argue passionately against
circumstance bonuses for persuasive acting.
I *do* support the idea of circumstance bonuses for social skills, but
only if you keep time pressure and microtactics out of the picture. That
way, you give a fair, equal chance to all players. Charismatic players
have enough advantages in a group activity without giving them *more*
bonuses on top of it all.
Seebs
>player do it, IF they want to, if the player can act, or thinks they can.
> BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK at
>it, and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my
>Diplomacy on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even
>if you don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
Huh.
I let the dice decide when the player can't fight for crap. I let
the player do it, IF they want to, if the player can fight, or
thinks they can.
BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK
at it, and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my
sword on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even
if you don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
No, I don't buy it in either circumstance.
For an introvert to "play the role" of an extravert is hard enough. Thinking
"In character, I should talk to them" is "playing the role".
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Deric Bernier
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
>
> Deric Bernier <dr...@mc2k.com> wrote:
> > Example: a player gives an elaborate speech to a visiting diplomat
> > who he must ally his forces with those of the pc's or the orc hordes
> > will run rampant over the town. The PC's speech is brilliant,
> > touching all the right strings, but his roll is low. Since the roll
> > always decides the final outcome it means that everyone but the
> > diplomat saw the wisdom of his words, but maybe the diplomat just
> > didn't like the guy's attitude, or his demeanor.
>
> And I think this is exactly the right way to handle "surprising" rolls.
> Honestly, I don't know why they're so surprising. Have you ever come up
> with a brilliant and well-argued proposal for your boss, and had him
> shrug it off? Haven't you ever seen that right here on rgfd? Some gamers
> like to believe that a good argument will convince anyone, which is
> weird given the amount of counterevidence we see in the newsgroup.
No shit, all of us are guilty of it, and it should be apparent that
sometimes some people just don't care what you have to say or how well you
say it. It works both ways too. No matter how friendly or amiable you try
and come across, there is always someone who would rather insult and
deride. And since I have yet to see anyone (including myself) admit to
being completely wrong about anything, then the whole point of arguing
becomes somewhat moot. If all of us on this newsgroup, who most certainly
have almost identical interests, can't get along what makes anyone think
that its going to be the case when dealing with NPC's.
>
>
> I used to play with a guy who had an "interesting" approach to argument.
> When he disagreed with you, he wouldn't present a counterargument. He
> wouldn't listen to your argument, no matter how eloquent or convincing.
> He simply responded, "He-heh, no. I don't think so," or something
> equally insightful.
Yeah, we have all known wankers like that. Once I even saw it lead to
blows. The GM was trying to explain to someone that the rules just didn't
work like that, but for each point the player just kept saying "yo mama!"
when the DM finally just snapped and punched the dude out. Of course they
were roommates and had been having other problems as well, this was just the
last straw. I think if he had said anything else it had been fine, but you
don't insult the guy's mother, even in jest.... she really is a great lady.
> I agree, but I disagree with the kinds of rewards that most gamers
> recommend (like circumstance modifiers and bonus XP). Wayne Shaw is
> especially adamant about this; I used to disagree with him, but I've
> come around to his side. The more you reward a particular behavior, the
> more you encourage envy and resentment in the people who aren't good at
> it. Now, ordinarily, you can avoid that by rewarding a wide range of
> behaviors and being careful when you notice resentment.
>
Always a very thin line, but I manage to walk it pretty well so far.
>
> The problem with rewarding acting is that the people you offend are
> likely to react in subtle, passive-aggressive ways, because they're
> *not good at communicating their feelings*. The exact same thing that
> causes resentment also makes it hard to detect and mitigate that
> resentment.
True enough, but since I game only with friends, its never really a problem
in any game I run, even the introverted friends usually open up to me, I am
just that kinda guy.
> Nowadays, I rely on simple praise rather than XP awards and circumstance
> bonuses, and even then I'm careful. Meta-game rewards like praise are
> the best response to meta-game performance like good acting, IMO.
I disagree to a certain point, honestly praise can foster resentment even
faster than giving xp, and it can also represent (at least in the mind of
the player) DM favoritism. I have seen that kill more than one group in my
earlier days of playing. Shit it even applies to real life, if one employee
is constantly getting praised then other employee's will by default get
jealous. Sometimes (just as giving other forms of incentive) the jealousy
can cause people to try harder, but more often it leads to resentment.
Some reward is beneficial yes, but whether that reward is praise or EXP or
just a better relationship with a new NPC depends entirely on the attitude
of the group and the individual players.
> > But since I truly believe in my heart and from experience that RPG's
> > are the best tool to improve social skills and interaction, then
> > providing incentive for everyone to follow suit is not out of line.
>
> I disagree. Unless you play with a wide range of people, RPGs are good
> at teaching you how to deal with the quirks of a specific group of
> people, but I don't think they're particularly effective at improving
> social skills in general. It might be helpful in a few extreme cases,
> I suppose. I do this as a hobby, and I have no illusions that it is a
> life-changing experience.
Actually I never thought about it till now, but I do and have played with a
pretty wide range of people. I am pretty open minded about my circle of
friends and the only people I will absolutely not allow in my home are
bigots, thieves, people who do drugs harder than pot or shrooms (no
manufactured drugs), and people with a tendency towards violent behavior.
On the other hand, yes the game is a hobby, but that in no way means it
can't be a life changing experience. Anything I am going to be passionate
enough about to pursue as often as I do gaming is going to be a life
changing experience. I have made true friends because of the game, I have
changed my way of thinking about certain things entirely because of the
game, and my relationships have almost always strengthened immeasurably with
people because of the game. It also has helped me a great deal with
learning to get along with people and to try to see all possible outcomes of
any given decision. I am by no means saying gaming is the most important
thing in my life, but just think about how different your, and many other
peoples lives would be if it weren't for gaming. If we were honest I think
we would have to admit that without gaming many people would never have
found any form of positive social acceptance, especially the more
introverted of us.
> > My problem as a DM is much worse, the players that don't put anything
> > into their characters at all tend to bias me against them, I try not
> > to let it affect me but sometimes that bias slip through.
>
> I generally agree. I have a similar problem with players who make no
> effort to fit in with the rest of the group. (Unfortunately, I also
> value tension between PCs, and there's a fine line between interesting
> tension and simple lack of teamwork. I've crossed that line myself on
> occasion, which is probably why my wife likes me better as a DM than as
> a player.)
I encourage tension as well, in reason, I have yet to see any tool better
able to bring about character definition and relationships. Heck in one of
the best campaigns I have ever been a part of I played a monk (LN leaning
towards good) and another player played a rogue (CN leaning towards evil).
Our characters were almost diametrically opposed personality wise, but when
it came to combat we were pretty much unstoppable. The tension and dialogue
between our characters only strengthened each others personalities to an
almost unheard of level, but unfortunately in the end Evil pushed a little
to hard and our characters ended up fighting to the death. I won, but the
character still feels guilty about it. Man that was one hell of a game.
>
> My group has a pretty strict "no blackball" policy. We try to accept all
> kinds, and we have an explicit policy that we will turn no player away
> (barring extreme cases like abusive or illegal behavior).
In any game I run, I try very hard to keep the no blackball policy as well,
but sometimes due to personal issues it must come into effect. Thankfully I
have only ever had to blackball 4 people. The first was in my first years
of running, and it just came down to I hated his style, I still feel guilty
about it. The second was because he took everything entirely too personal,
to the extreme of threatening violence against people, the third because I
caught him smoking meth in my bathroom, and the fourth simply because he
made it a point to disrupt the game whenever anything at all didn't go his
way.
In another game I joined we enforce a reverse blackball policy, where only
people who are unanimously voted for can even join. But its kind of a
special case. Granted it's elitist of us, but the group is made up of the
best roleplayers in our entire circle of friends. We (except two players)
actively are involved in other campaigns and groups, but feel its nice to
get together with just the top players.
> We figure that reasonable players can figure out when they don't fit in
> with the group. It may take a while, but they'll either adapt or leave.
> Likewise, we will also make an effort to adapt for new players, so long
> as they're not obnoxious. If it doesn't work out, that's life.
Unfortunately some problem players never seem to take the hint, and
eventually must either be confronted or simply ignored in terms of the
game. I wish it were otherwise, but if the player isn't mature enough to
take it, it's better just not to invite him to the next game. And in no way
should an entire group be forced to endure someone whose only goal is to
self gratification at the expense of others. Luckily its a pretty rare
problem to run into someone like that.
D
Bradd W. Szonye
> [Parody of an "act it out" argument:]
>
> BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK
> at it, and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my
> sword on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even
> if you don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
>
> No, I don't buy it in either circumstance.
>
> For an introvert to "play the role" of an extravert is hard enough.
> Thinking "In character, I should talk to them" is "playing the role".
Totally agreed. While this may cause problems for somebody who really
wants players to act out social situations:
1. The correct solution is to warn people in advance that you require
this, so that they can make an informed decision. Dunno whether Wasp
actually does this, but it's totally inappropriate to let this go
unmentioned, hoping that you can "encourage" good performances. To
people who don't like this, that's a very nasty and insidious kind of
peer pressure.
2. Gamers need to IMMEDIATELY STOP assuming that acting it out is a
superior form of role-playing. They need to STOP advocating it as a
default, as something you do until somebody objects. That's because
many of the people who don't enjoy it will *also* have a hard time
coping with all the peer pressure, who will have trouble actually
objecting.
Mister Sharkey
> Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
> > If the player really *can't* act, I'm willing to cut them some slack.
>
> And that's a horrible attitude. It puts pressure on introverts, who are
> *already* under considerable pressure just by trying to play that kind
> of character. Apparently you don't realize it, but the style of play
> you're advocating is horribly unfair to a large portion of RPG players.
Wow, that's the umpteenth time you've said a variation of that
statement, Bradd. It's pretty clear that this is a sore spot with you.
I'm assuming that either you or someone dear to you is one of these
"introverts" whose interests you are so vigorously defending.
What exactly is an "introvert" in your view, by the way? If I am
reading you correctly, it sounds like an "introvert" is someone who is
lousy at speaking, acting a part, pretending to be someone else, using
a "character voice" instead of his normal voice, and thinking on his
feet. Or am I wrong here?
Mister Sharkey
> I let the dice decide when the player can't act for crap. I let the
> player do it, IF they want to, if the player can act, or thinks they can.
> BUT I won't let anyone just roll. You have to TRY. You can SUCK at
> it, and let the dice decide, but you DON'T get to just "use my
> Diplomacy on him". This *IS* a roleplaying game. Play the role. Even
> if you don't do it very well, it's part of the game.
Well said. I do the very same thing.
Player: "OK, I made my Fast Talk roll against the customs agent, can I
get past him now?"
Me: "Hold on. You made the roll, now what do you say to him?"
It *is* part of the game, and sometime the most entertaining thing
about this is getting to hear the player's clearly lame attempt, which
in the game WORKS because he made his roll!
Deric Bernier
Mister Sharkey wrote:
> Wow, that's the umpteenth time you've said a variation of that
> statement, Bradd. It's pretty clear that this is a sore spot with you.
> I'm assuming that either you or someone dear to you is one of these
> "introverts" whose interests you are so vigorously defending.
Well, since an introvert will almost certainly NOT stand up for himself, someone needs to do so. You have a
problem with people watching out for their friends?
> What exactly is an "introvert" in your view, by the way? If I am
> reading you correctly, it sounds like an "introvert" is someone who is
> lousy at speaking,
Lousy no, uncomfortable yes. I have known many introverts who could write excellent speeches and were very
eloquent, but when put in front of a group simply could not get the words to come out.
> acting a part,
You usually won't find an introvert taking part in a school play
> pretending to be someone else,
As appealing as being someone else is to an introvert (or anyone else for that matter) actually doing so and
putting yourself in a position of ridicule from your peers is an introverts worst fear.
> using
> a "character voice" instead of his normal voice,
I am not by and large introverted, but half the time I hate using a character voice, one because its hard to
keep consistent, especially if you are involved in more than one game, and 2 because half the time it just
feels goofy. To an introvert the pressure created by trying to do something like that is quite heavy
indeed. It would be similar to telling the 120lb geek he has to spar with 210lb amatuer boxer because
role-playing dictates it..
> and thinking on his
> feet.
Thinking on their feet is not a problem, and not an issue at hand. The issue at hand is trying to be
theatrical when presenting the solution, a skill not everyone has or wants to emulate in a game other than by
die rolls and simple statements declaring the actions of the character.
D
Seebs
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>2. Gamers need to IMMEDIATELY STOP assuming that acting it out is a
> superior form of role-playing. They need to STOP advocating it as a
> default, as something you do until somebody objects. That's because
> many of the people who don't enjoy it will *also* have a hard time
> coping with all the peer pressure, who will have trouble actually
> objecting.
Yeah. I have some friends who have a hard enough time speaking-in-character,
the last thing they need is to be penalized for trying, or penalized more for
not feeling comfortable with it.
Seebs
Mister Sharkey <mister_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wow, that's the umpteenth time you've said a variation of that
>statement, Bradd. It's pretty clear that this is a sore spot with you.
>I'm assuming that either you or someone dear to you is one of these
>"introverts" whose interests you are so vigorously defending.
I would guess about half my gaming friends are introverts. I used to be
an introvert on tests, but these days I test as extraverted.
>What exactly is an "introvert" in your view, by the way? If I am
>reading you correctly, it sounds like an "introvert" is someone who is
>lousy at speaking, acting a part, pretending to be someone else, using
>a "character voice" instead of his normal voice, and thinking on his
>feet. Or am I wrong here?
You are wrong, and fairly offensive about it. For fuck's sake. It's a
*word*. In English. If you don't know what it means, why not look in
the damn dictionary?
If you need it in single-syllable words, read "introverted" as "shy".
Jane Williams
(Paul Grogan) wrote:
>In my game, I've been known to ask "Ok, do you want to act this bit
>out for a few minutes or not?". Some of my players like getting into
>character and acting it out, and some of them dont want to do any of
>that at all, and with some it depends if they've had a hard day at
>work.
All too true (last night I'd had a hard *week* at work).
The other thing we (Paul's players) do is try to help each other with
the micro-tactics. I.C. acting-out you do yourself, but suggesting
things you could say to the guard can be a joint effort. I can come up
wth sneaky ideas that my paladin would never think of, but some-one
else's thief might, were the player not half-asleep that evening. And
so on.
(And two of us might well try the fighting for real, with steel not
rubber, were it not that he's playing a sorceror and I'm two feet too
tall).
Jane Williams
<g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au> wrote:
>Look through the books, count up the number of pages devoted to social
>systems, then compare to the page count for combat systems. If you want
>a game that treats social and combat challenges the same way, you're
>playing the wrong one.
And if you do, I'd suggest HeroQuest: just out, the version of
HeroWars with the bug fixes and the index. It looks good. But it's
totally unlike any form of D&D, so sliding off-topic.
Arian Hokin
> Thraka <thr...@xenocide.org> wrote:
>
>>Bear in mind, 'fair' is not necessarily the goal. If you're more
>>gamist, it might be; if you're more freestyle, 'interesting and
>>engaging' beats 'fair', unless its the sort of unfair where someone
>>gets screwed over hard.
>
>
> And that's the kind of unfair I've been talking about.
What does "gamist" mean, anyway? It seems to be Something Bad (TM), but
what?
Arian
--
The above address no longer accepts email,
but it makes a very nice spam block. So to reply,
please dispense with the Christmas decorations.
Gary Johnson
<snip>
> What exactly is an "introvert" in your view, by the way? If I am
> reading you correctly, it sounds like an "introvert" is someone who is
> lousy at speaking, acting a part, pretending to be someone else, using
> a "character voice" instead of his normal voice, and thinking on his
> feet. Or am I wrong here?
While I'm not the person you're asking, here's an answer anyway. :-)
Introverts tend to think through an issue and make their own decision
before entering into verbal communication about it. Extroverts enter into
verbal communication and talk through an issue before making their own
decision. That doesn't mean that introverts are bad at acting in
character, or can't be socially dominant. However, what it does mean is
that, when spoken to, an introvert tends to pause and think while an
extrovert tends to talk back and interact.
As a result of frequently having had an extrovert start talking before
they're ready to respond, some introverts are socially conditioned to be
shy and retiring. If they aren't regularly exposed to people who wait for
them to think and respond, when there's a group having a conversation they
maybe don't say very much, or when they're ready to say something the
conversation has moved on. That sort of social conditioning begins very
early in life, so by the time they're a teenager or adult their pattern of
social interaction has been set.
In other words, introverts aren't necessarily the sort of people you've
described above. However, a substantial proportion of them will be.
Furthermore, the great majority of people who conform to the description
you've given will be introverts, not extroverts.
Place one of these shy, retiring introverts, whose natural response to
being asked something or talked to is to pause and be silent while they
think, in a situation where they're supposed to start acting. They may
well just be silent and unresponsive. Alternatively, they may struggle
through with a poor verbal effort. They're trying to put their thoughts in
order, but they're failing to do so because of the twin pressures of
little time and everyone paying attention to them. Improvisation can be
something introverts aren't very good at.
Place an extrovert in the same situation, and you'll probably get a
response straightaway. It may not be a good response, but there's a good
chance that the longer they talk and interact the better they will get.
That's because talking through a scenario to a resolution is one of their
strengths. It's how an extrovert likes to communicate and problem-solve.
The character interaction model that prompted this discussion would
definitely favour extroverts over introverts. It's not surprising to me
that some of the more militant introverts are very strongly opposed to the
model as inequitable. That said, I think the model would work fine if
everyone in the gaming group were extroverts: my impression is that (one
of) Bradd's major objections isn't the model as such but the assumption
that if people didn't like the model, they'd let the DM know. An introvert
who is also a conflict-avoider (and there's lots of them, too) probably
wouldn't do that.
Cheers,
Gary Johnson (an introvert, but not a shy one)
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/xmen/start.htm
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Wow, that's the umpteenth time you've said a variation of that
>> statement, Bradd. It's pretty clear that this is a sore spot with
>> you.
Yes, it is. I'm tired of people assuming that objective mechanics
necessarily interfere with role-playing, especiallly since most of them
seem to be repeating "common wisdom" that isn't actually common or wise.
>> I'm assuming that either you or someone dear to you is one of these
>> "introverts" whose interests you are so vigorously defending.
Deric Bernier <dr...@mc2k.com> wrote:
> Well, since an introvert will almost certainly NOT stand up for
> himself, someone needs to do so. You have a problem with people
> watching out for their friends?
I am an introvert myself, although it may not seem that way on-line.
Like many introverts, I'm capable of expressing myself well, but doing
so is very draining and difficult, especially face-to-face.
>> What exactly is an "introvert" in your view, by the way?
Generally speaking, an extravert takes pleasure in social interactions;
for an extravert, social contact reduces stress. An introvert is just
the opposite; for him, social contact is tiring and often intimidating.
>> If I am reading you correctly, it sounds like an "introvert" is
>> someone who is lousy at speaking ....
> Lousy no, uncomfortable yes. I have known many introverts who could
> write excellent speeches and were very eloquent, but when put in front
> of a group simply could not get the words to come out.
Introversion and extraversion is a matter of degree. Introverts tend to
have poor social skills, since social interaction is tiring for them.
Practice makes perfect, and when you're socially averse, it's hard to
get good practice.
I'm a pretty good public speaker, but it's very costly and stressful for
me. Likewise, I'm a "career DM" even though the DM has the most social
contact during the game. I'm good at it, and I even enjoy it, but after
a session, I'm a wreck. I have a headache, upset stomach, lots of built
up stress and fatigue. That's common among introverts who put themselves
in social situations.
>> acting a part ....
> You usually won't find an introvert taking part in a school play
I was into volunteer theater for a while, actually, but I'm still an
introvert. Mind you, I'm not an extreme introvert!
>> pretending to be someone else,
> As appealing as being someone else is to an introvert (or anyone else
> for that matter) actually doing so and putting yourself in a position
> of ridicule from your peers is an introverts worst fear.
Again, I don't have this problem. I'm very good at acting like an
extravert when I need to. As you can see, I'm not nearly as conflict
averse as most introverts either. However, acting like this has a huge
cost in stress and fatigue for me. I gave up my diplomat PC partly
because it gave me the same headaches that I get from DMing, but it
wasn't nearly as much fun.
If you insist that an introvert plays a part in real-time, he might be
able to handle the performance, but it's likely to suck all the fun out
of it.
>> using a "character voice" instead of his normal voice ....
WTF? Where did you get this one?
>> and thinking on his feet.
> Thinking on their feet is not a problem, and not an issue at hand.
> The issue at hand is trying to be theatrical when presenting the
> solution, a skill not everyone has or wants to emulate in a game other
> than by die rolls and simple statements declaring the actions of the
> character.
Right, but there's more to it than that.
First, just being in a social situation -- a RPG -- is stressful for an
introvert. That alone isn't too bad, though. Add peer pressure to that
("encouraging" him to play the part) adds to the stress and fatigue.
Insisting that he do it in real time heightens the stress a *lot*. And
if you expect him to actually persuade the DM with his own arguments,
you've basically got the introvert's worst nightmare: a highly stressful
social situation, loaded with peer pressure, where you're expected to
persuade somebody while pretending to be somebody else!
Some introverts, like me, can pull that off, but it's not *fun*. It's
hard work, and it's very stressful. I really don't need that from my
hobby! For some reason, gamers really like to pile on the peer pressure,
sneering at people like this ("That's roll-playing, not role-playing!")
and generally making introverts feel like they're doing it wrong. At the
very least, with subtler forms of peer pressure (e.g., XP for acting)
the introvert feels left out because he just *can't* keep up without a
significant emotional cost.
The introvert would have a hard enough time speaking up for himself
ordinarily. But consider what would happen in a typical group if he
does! Would the other players accuse him of sour grapes? Would they tell
him that it gets easier if he would only try? Would they sneer at his
difficulties the way that Mister Sharkey just did?
No matter how good I get at social skills, it will *always* be difficult
for me. It will *always* be stressful. Telling me that it gets better
with practice doesn't help; I already know that it's untrue. Practice
makes perfect, but it doesn't make it *easier*. And this bullshit
attitude that I'm doing it wrong, that it's just "roll-playing," is
simply intolerable.
Arian Hokin
> Mister Sharkey <mister_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>What exactly is an "introvert" in your view, by the way? If I am
>>reading you correctly, it sounds like an "introvert" is someone who is
>>lousy at speaking, acting a part, pretending to be someone else, using
>>a "character voice" instead of his normal voice, and thinking on his
>>feet. Or am I wrong here?
>
>
> While I'm not the person you're asking, here's an answer anyway. :-)
And here's another one. :-)
"Caring for your Introvert - the habits and needs of a little-understood
group" by Jonathan Rauch
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/rauch.htm
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Bear in mind, 'fair' is not necessarily the goal. If you're more
>>> gamist, it might be; if you're more freestyle, 'interesting and
>>> engaging' beats 'fair', unless its the sort of unfair where someone
>>> gets screwed over hard.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> And that's the kind of unfair I've been talking about.
Arian Hokin <ar...@holly.northnet.com.au> wrote:
> What does "gamist" mean, anyway? It seems to be Something Bad (TM),
> but what?
That depends on who you ask. Broadly speaking, "gamist" refers to
decisions made with the goal of improving the "game" elements of an RPG,
like competitiveness, challenge, fairness, etc. It's used in contrast to
other decision-making goals, like "dramatism" (the desire to emphasize
storytelling elements) and "simulationism" (setting fidelity). The names
are a bit counter-intuitive, and some people use them differently.
It's hard to get two "gamists" to agree on what the term includes. Some
reject the notion that balanced challenges are important to RPGs, for
example. Some (like me) feel that fairness is not specific to gamism.
The only universally-accepted element of gamism, AFAIK, is that all
gamists like to encourage the use of player skill. For example, I think
that skill at tactics and character-building are important to the RPG
experience (but I don't like to emphasize microtactics, because I feel
that it's too much at odds with role-playing).
Notice how I'm not a "pure" gamist; nobody is. I also value world
fidelity a great deal, which is why I don't like microtactics; I feel
that they break down the player/character divide too much.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Introverts tend to think through an issue and make their own decision
> before entering into verbal communication about it. Extroverts enter
> into verbal communication and talk through an issue before making
> their own decision.
I've always heard them defined with the "energy" thing: Introverts spend
energy on social contact, and extraverts draw energy from it. That's
just a new-agey way of saying that social contact is stressful for some
people and stress-relieving for others. I'm definitely in the
"stressful" category. An interesting thing about introversion is that
developing good social skills doesn't necessarily make it less
stressful.
Your description sounds more like the "thinker/feeler" split to me,
although I suspect that there's a correlation between that and
introversion/extraversion.
> That doesn't mean that introverts are bad at acting in character, or
> can't be socially dominant. However, what it does mean is that, when
> spoken to, an introvert tends to pause and think while an extrovert
> tends to talk back and interact.
And the interaction is *stressful*.
> Improvisation can be something introverts aren't very good at.
Personally, I'm good at improvisation, even though I'm INXP -- maybe the
judge/perceive axis matters more than the I/E axis.
> The character interaction model that prompted this discussion would
> definitely favour extroverts over introverts.
Definitely.
> It's not surprising to me that some of the more militant introverts
> are very strongly opposed to the model as inequitable.
The unfairness does bother me. But the associated peer pressure bothers
me even more. Somewhere along the line, gamers associated "role-playing"
with "real-time acting." Some even associate it with real-time
persuasion, which is strange, because that's often at *odds* with
playing a role. Anyway, that association has become so strong that many
people sneer at gamers who disagree, and *that* bothers me a lot. It's
an argument that's very difficult to counter, because the victims are
the people who are least able to defend themselves.
I also find it a bit surprising, since so many gamers are
poorly-socialized introverts! I don't know why that is. Do the hobby's
extraverts dominate this issue (assuming that they're right, since the
introverts don't complain)? Do the introverts believe that it's "better"
to be an extravert (which is common, IME), and therefore shun their own
difficulties? I dunno.
> That said, I think the model would work fine if everyone in the gaming
> group were extroverts: my impression is that (one of) Bradd's major
> objections isn't the model as such but the assumption that if people
> didn't like the model, they'd let the DM know.
Yeah, that's part of it. But the part that really gets me steamed is
that there's extreme peer pressure involved, and that only makes it
harder for the introvert.
> An introvert who is also a conflict-avoider (and there's lots of them,
> too) probably wouldn't do that.
Right.
> Gary Johnson (an introvert, but not a shy one)
I'm not shy either, unless there's a telephone involved. But I
frequently lack the energy to deal with other people, especially
strangers.