RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There you go, Jiggy. It pops up again.
Alright, let's take a look. First, let's have a reminder of the "it" that you're saying is popping up again:
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that "explain the general tack you are taking and what kind of points you bring up" was too high of a requirement. Can you link an example?
Okay, so what you're now saying has "popped up again" is someone saying that explaining the goal/angle of your Diplomacy check is too high of a requirement.
Looking at the posts preceding yours, I see:
To me both are acceptable.
Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.
Is that what you're referring to? Because I read "to me both are acceptable" as being very different from "details are too high of a requirement". Interpreting the former as meaning the latter sounds more like a witch-hunt than a plain reading of what someone's trying to communicate.
As for it "popping up again", "again" requires that it popped up before. Your wall of text fails to communicate any such examples. Within the text you copy/pasted are segments of text that actually contradict what you're trying to claim, and with no clear marking of who's saying what, I can't tell who's claiming or refuting which points or if someone's clarifying their own stance or whatever else. Even if linking and quotes are outside your skillset, you'd have been better off saying "[PERSON] posted such a thing about halfway down page 2" or something like that.
As soon as you successfully communicate an example, I'd be happy to take a look and revise my own position accordingly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game. Why cant it be so for those other things? Why cant we find a way to do this? It really bugs me, because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not, and yet so many people have these invisible walls that have to intersect with people's real abilities. It's frustrating.
Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.
Hear hear, Williamoak!
I can act. I can story-tell. I GM, and play everybody. But I can't tell you how to: pick a lock; deploy your troops or siege equipment; technical details and such. Nor should I have to. My Character has in-world knowledge and abilities that I don't. Any GM that expects me to is not the GM for me.
One of my Players is naturally a Face. But I still base the result of his attempts at Bluff or Diplomacy on his roll. I no longer adjust his roll up or down based on "how well he rp'd the interaction" as there are others at the table who don't have the same knack and I don't want to penalize them for that. He's still free to rp the hell out of it if he wants, and he does because he loves that kind of thing. But the determining factor is going to be his mechanics: what has he invested in his character's Skills, and what was his roll.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If the first is acceptable you are kinda by default saying that requiring any more is unreasonable.
I dunno, wraithstrike's comment sure seemed to read as merely saying what he personally is okay with, not trying to argue about whether anyone else should do the same. Remember, what you originally said was "argue the point". Saying that he's personally okay with something is not the same kind of thing at all.
And if you can't see that in those examples, then you are just willfully trying not to see it.
You posted an unintelligible wall of text. Claiming that not being able to parse it indicates "willfully trying not to see it" is pretty unreasonable. Did you even look at your own post and see what it looks like? Are you simply not aware of how unreadable it is? Or did you do that on purpose, creating a situation where you could keep me from being able to respond but you'd still be able to claim you did your due diligence and the problem was me? Honestly, the latter is the first thing that jumped to my mind when I saw that post, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and make a good faith effort to have a dialogue with you. Was trusting you a mistake, or do you genuinely want to communicate?
I'm trying to give you room to present your thoughts so I can give them fair responses, but if you're going to blame readers for your own lazy communication, then maybe your thoughts don't deserve that attention. Any time you want to try communicating better, I'd be happy to respond. Until then, there's really nothing else to be said. Which is a shame, because I was pretty interested in pursuing that line of discussion to get a more complete picture of the community involved in this discussion.
See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.
Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.
Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.
Why cant it be so for those other things?Because if you take away talking and imagination, it's just a dice game. ;P
As my other post stated, I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me.
There's a reason it doesn't add up. You invented it.
You'll note that instead of inventing this point, that he wants to remove talking and imagination, I asked him. He doesn't.
This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.
It's the rules of a role-playing game. That requires role-playing.I am too lazy to add this to the meme thread, but people making things up is pet peeve of mine. Stop it. "I really like it, and I wish things were this way", is NOT a rule.
It might be the basis/intent of a RP'ing game that you RP, but it is not a rule anymore than having fun is a rule because it is a game. Yeah you should have fun, but it is not a rule.
Well, you're not going to draw me too far back into this pissing contest, wraithstrike, but let me get your position straight:
Because it's not an explicitly-stated rule (but instead a self-evidently implied one), role-playing is not required in a role-playing game.
Is that correct?
And the Role-Playing GAME is also a game. Games by their nature, hve rules as to how they operate. To just willy nilly decide things is magical story time.
I find it funny how a lot of people like to focus on the Role-play part of Role playing game but seem to forget the Game portion of it...
And the Role-Playing GAME is also a game. Games by their nature, hve rules as to how they operate. To just willy nilly decide things is magical story time.I find it funny how a lot of people like to focus on the Role-play part of Role playing game but seem to forget the Game portion of it...
Cops and robbers is a game where you just willy nilly decide things, I believe.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's o Role Playing Game, because of this, we ask players to roleplay their social skills. In my tables, i ask them to roleplay everything, knowledge skills, spellcasting, sword swings, so long the table is in the mood for it, or the player is in the mood for it. There is always a player who wants to roleplay the social interactions, others don't want to do it.
When this happens, i ask the player to roll and say the general idea of what their character wants. (Try to convince the baron to confess his son's fate, for example). And ask him to say how, more or less his character will try this (Subtlety, trying to circle subject, or direct to the point). He rolls and i create some sort of saying that might do the job, and ask the player to repeat in game, or just says that his character said it (if his approval).
I have a player like you, he made a rogue with high diplomacy and bluff, but he himself don't like to elaborate.
Firstly, he complained about his character having high diplomacy, but failing to use it, because other players jump in the talking first. I started to do this, the players who like to put on an argument tried to convince me if the argument is useful on the situation or not, if it is, a ask them to roll diplomacy to give a +2 to the roll of the rogue (Who, ingame, would do the final arguments, using some help of his friends). If i think their arguments aren't good enough, i ask the rogue player to roll sense motive, and say to him why the arguments of his friends fail/lack, and ask him a diplomacy roll. If he succeed i give to him the right argument line, who does the argument (some other player in the table, the argument came from a table consensus, etc) but this final argument is given ingame by the face character (he who was chosen to do the roll). That way i prevent your sad case in my table.
He's still free to rp the hell out of it if he wants, and he does because he loves that kind of thing. But the determining factor is going to be his mechanics: what has he invested in his character's Skills, and what was his roll.
Someone upthread (I think Jiggy, but could be mistaken,) pointed out how everyone seems to be arguing the extremes in order to make their point, which seems to be what you're doing as well.
So first, a question. You state that this individual is free to RP a social encounter, and does so because he likes it. What if the player did not like to do so? Is he also free to not RP a social encounter?
Secondly, I think most people arguing are far closer in agreement than they realize. I don't see many people suggesting that a player with excellent social skills can use his or her real life social skills in place of the character's social skills.
If a character is trying to change the opinion of an NPC, or influence them to do something, it is going to require a skill roll of some type. If the player's speech is so convincing that there's no way the NPC would refuse, the GM may omit the roll. This is essentially the same as saying that the bonus granted by the speech is so high that failure is impossible, thus making the roll pointless.
While granting such a large bonus to a speech should be rare, I can definitely see times when it is appropriate. If it is the optics that are the problem, i.e. the other players feel like the player in question is circumventing the rules with a good speech, then the GM could still require a roll.
Personally, the bonus I would grant to a speech has more to do with the content of the speech rather than how it is delivered. If a player states that they want to convince the king to give them ownership of a fort on the west side of the province, points out several reasons why such a suggestion makes sense and is beneficial to the king, that is worth a bonus.
Simply saying nice things or flattering the king isn't worth a bonus (unless the king is susceptible to flattery and the PC knows that from experience.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?
I explain my style of DMing up front. I tend not to use dice rolls for social interactions unless it is an offscreen abstraction or second person roleplaying and I expect a character concept of talker to actually first person talk to NPCs in character. Character concept and narrative is more important to me for social interactions than mechanics. I have no desire to roleplay out interactions based upon die results contrary to how roleplayed interactions have actually gone. These are my play style preferences so that's how I run games.
I will, and have, worked with people who are uncomfortable roleplaying a face but want to stretch and try it out. The guy who played a face in my last game normally plays tanks, rolls dice and shouts "beer!", but he wanted to try a face for the first time. His kitsune bard had a lot of first person interactions that were fun for both of us and garnered useful plot information for him to bring to the rest of the party. It went well, he interacted in character with fey and tavern types and kid NPCs and his fellow PCs but was cowed when dealing with Baba Yaga directly, which was not inappropriate in-character to his concept. I also had some second person face activities we didn't want to roleplay out such as diplomacy information gathering which could be handled with dice mechanics or fiat.
My advice would be to work with such a player to enable them to meet their goal of playing a face by assuring them you want it to be fun and structuring some first person interactions specifically to give them their spotlight time and some opportunities for them to do some face interactions second person as well.
I would suggest going more with fiat and results based on narrative feel of how things are going than on rolling for mechanics to decide how things result. I would prefer to have such a player succeed based on a situation set up for him to succeed in a fun way than on his character level and his ability to maximize relevant stats and mechanics. Diplomacy skills in Pathfinder are generally static DCs so a low level face is significantly less likely to succeed at his role based solely on level of play, and you want them to feel they are actually a face and not someone constantly failing to be a face.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is perhaps a bigger divide still than a few above posts seem to realize. I don't think that _any_ bonus based on delivery skills is appropriate. Success or failure should be based on dice roll, skill points invested, and factual content. And other players should probably also be able to contribute ideas to content, though player controlling PC speaking makes final decisions. This last part may reasonably vary from group to group, though.
One other point I want to make is that those who are shy enough may not have the experience to even know what is good content in diplomacy attempts. This is part of why I suggest allowing other players to contribute ideas. It also makes sense because it mimics in the real world the whole team talking before 'the face' starts the conversation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify the above, I'm not ruling out other mechanical bonuses or penalties. For instance, a ranger character may get a +1 to intimidate a favored enemy and -1 to diplomacy with a favored enemy. DC may change based on a party's alignment and past actions. However, I am still of the opinion that a role playing game is about pretending to be something within the structure of the game's mechanics. The mechanics are the structure, and the talking and other role playing is just the flesh over that structure. Think of the skeleton of an animal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is perhaps a bigger divide still than a few above posts seem to realize. I don't think that _any_ bonus based on delivery skills is appropriate. Success or failure should be based on dice roll, skill points invested, and factual content.
I concur.
I used to grant bonuses (or negatives) based on the PLAYER'S approach and skill. But realized I was almost always only giving them to this player, and so the others didn't feel free to attempt it. So I now allow the mechanics to determine the success or failure, as per the rules, and no differently from most (I'd say "any" but someone will nitpick that) other skills or rolls in the game. As the OP mentions, social skills are treated differently from combat skills and I now find that absurd.
I came to this viewpoint also due to a game where I was playing a thief in a hi-tech futuristic world. The GM wanted me to tell him HOW I was disabling the electronic security system. I told him, "I don't know, but my character does." That wasn't good enough for him, so my character was useless. Not fun.
This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.I thought this battle was more about what constitutes role-playing. While we do all seem closer on this point than we originally thought, there does seem to be some disagreement as to what qualifies as bare-bones acceptable. Perhaps I'm in error.
The above is not meant to challenge your point, with which I agree.
I think that can be a reasonable discussion. I just also think that the starting point for that discussion is not "you want to eliminate talking and imagination".
I think you and I, and several others, have come to a good understanding. There are a couple hold outs though who persist in their attempts to make this a right vs. wrong thread. They're disruptive to the conversation, but not really disruptive enough to warrant flagging (or have their posts deleted).
I just wish we (proverbial) could get past that for this thread (and probably a few others).
|
|
Let's see if I can sum this up accurately. (always a good way to make sure everyone is communicating is to see if you can accurately reflect back what others are saying)
The middle position that most agree to is that requiring a statement of the approach/ facts listed is ok. This statement, plus a dice roll, plus stat modifiers, plus other GM modifiers (for some including a small bonus for good presentation) is the 'default' or 'by the rulebook' method of determining diplomacy success. Some GMs may use their authority to alter this.
On one extreme, I think I hear some saying that they prefer to use that GM authority to make a substantial change and entirely remove the dice and just make the resolution about story telling/ presentation skills/ role playing.
On the other extreme, some of us are saying that we prefer that the GM not include presentation bonuses. We also remind others that some have either a medical condition or a natural personality that makes playing as the other extreme wants very difficult if not impossible.
Those on the extremes may decide that they would rather not play with GMs from the other extreme, but I don't think anyone is saying that they are not glad that everyone seems to be able to find a rule variation they enjoy playing with.
Does everyone agree this is a reasonable summary?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You posted an unintelligible wall of text. Claiming that not being able to parse it indicates "willfully trying not to see it" is pretty unreasonable.
Now, now, Jiggy. Try to keep up. Now listen very carefully. Your argument may depend on what I'm about to tell you.
It is my opinion that jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre. Je espère que vous êtes attentif. Je vais maintenant me répéter pour vous assurer que vous l'obtenez. Il est de mon avis que le jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you do not heed my words, I will have no choice but to disregard you as yet another completely inattentive yokel. Clearly you have no interest in a fair and balanced discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.
Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.
Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.
Why cant it be so for those other things?Because if you take away talking and imagination, it's just a dice game. ;P
As my other post stated, I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me.
There's a reason it doesn't add up. You invented it.
You'll note that instead of inventing this point, that he wants to remove talking and imagination, I asked him. He doesn't.
This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.
I invented nothing except the internet, my honest ferrous friend. I used the terms "talking and imagination" as a fairly simple abstraction to illustrate a particular type of argument (hence my clarification that I don't dislike the basic premise).
The argument goes as follows: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay."
The intention was to illustrate the fallacy in that argument. I apologize if my simplistic language led to a miscommunication.
I think you and I, and several others, have come to a good understanding. There are a couple hold outs though who persist in their attempts to make this a right vs. wrong thread. They're disruptive to the conversation, but not really disruptive enough to warrant flagging (or have their posts deleted).
Please see re:
"I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me."I'm trying to prevent this from being the black-and-white issue some people paint it as. It's not as simple as "I'm not physically capable of x, therefore I shouldn't have to mentally y."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You posted an unintelligible wall of text. Claiming that not being able to parse it indicates "willfully trying not to see it" is pretty unreasonable.Now, now, Jiggy. Try to keep up. Now listen very carefully. Your argument may depend on what I'm about to tell you.
It is my opinion that jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre. Je espère que vous êtes attentif. Je vais maintenant me répéter pour vous assurer que vous l'obtenez. Il est de mon avis que le jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre.
Your favorite character is a fey demonic drizzt ripoff?
Seriously?
Let's see if I can sum this up accurately. (always a good way to make sure everyone is communicating is to see if you can accurately reflect back what others are saying)
The middle position that most agree to is that requiring a statement of the approach/ facts listed is ok. This statement, plus a dice roll, plus stat modifiers, plus other GM modifiers (for some including a small bonus for good presentation) is the 'default' or 'by the rulebook' method of determining diplomacy success. Some GMs may use their authority to alter this.
On one extreme, I think I hear some saying that they prefer to use that GM authority to make a substantial change and entirely remove the dice and just make the resolution about story telling/ presentation skills/ role playing.
On the other extreme, some of us are saying that we prefer that the GM not include presentation bonuses. We also remind others that some have either a medical condition or a natural personality that makes playing as the other extreme wants very difficult if not impossible.
Those on the extremes may decide that they would rather not play with GMs from the other extreme, but I don't think anyone is saying that they are not glad that everyone seems to be able to find a rule variation they enjoy playing with.
Does everyone agree this is a reasonable summary?
I like your summary. I presents the various alternatives well. I try to stick in the middle (in my own games anyway), while most of the GMs I've dealt with have been of the "no-roll" bent, while being someone who most definitly does not have the natural personality to play face roles well. Which is why I was looking for alternatives.
Oh, and kudos to Voadam to explaining their DM style up front. I've written up a little docuemnt to do the same, as I've noticed differing expectations of gameplay (between player and GM) seem to be a common sticking point.
You posted an unintelligible wall of text. Claiming that not being able to parse it indicates "willfully trying not to see it" is pretty unreasonable.Now, now, Jiggy. Try to keep up. Now listen very carefully. Your argument may depend on what I'm about to tell you.
It is my opinion that jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre. Je espère que vous êtes attentif. Je vais maintenant me répéter pour vous assurer que vous l'obtenez. Il est de mon avis que le jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre.
Your favorite character is a fey demonic drizzt ripoff?
Seriously?
You dare use Google Translate on my posts?!
I don't have to answer questions from you!
You posted an unintelligible wall of text. Claiming that not being able to parse it indicates "willfully trying not to see it" is pretty unreasonable.Now, now, Jiggy. Try to keep up. Now listen very carefully. Your argument may depend on what I'm about to tell you.
It is my opinion that jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre. Je espère que vous êtes attentif. Je vais maintenant me répéter pour vous assurer que vous l'obtenez. Il est de mon avis que le jeu de rôle est une bonne chose. Roleplaying est important et doit être fait à plusieurs reprises. Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres. Il est à moitié démon et vient d'un royaume des fées magique. Les gens qui ne peuvent pas roleplay devraient être jetés dans la fosse du désespoir et nourris à yeth chiens, peut-être pas dans cet ordre.
Your favorite character is a fey demonic drizzt ripoff?
Seriously?
You dare use Google Translate on my posts?!
I don't have to answer questions from you!
Part of it is easily guessable without using google translate so long as you have the vaguest understanding of how French works.
"Mon personnage de jeu de rôle favori est un drow avec deux cimeterres" reads like "My favorite person to role play is a drow with two scimitars". I wouldn't have guessed the "My drizzt is different - he is a demon fairy" bit, though. Classy addition.
I invented nothing except the internet, my honest ferrous friend. I used the terms "talking and imagination" as a fairly simple abstraction to illustrate a particular type of argument (hence my clarification that I don't dislike the basic premise).
The argument goes as follows: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay."
The intention was to illustrate the fallacy in that argument. I apologize if my simplistic language led to a miscommunication.
I'm a bit bugged because I feel misrepresented, so I will quickly chime in (hopefully not to my regret).
I think there is a disconnect here Kobold Cleaver, because we are seeing things very differently. You state the argument: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay." as erroneous.However, the argument I'm trying to make is: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize with others ."
I am perfectly capable, and willing, to roleplay. I know for some it's hard, if not impossible (and I take that into account).
If we take take the argument from another side: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to have knowledge concerning the universe the PCs evolve in ."
Now, I'm sure most folks would agree that to use personal knowledge, about a pre-determined world, is illegitimate (most would call it metagaming). I have played much in Golarion & the Warhammer world, both as player and GM. I could easily use that knowledge, which is a distinct ability I (the player) posses, that my PC doesnt.
Now, I understand that the ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize is treated as "separate" from skills such as Knowledge & Combat. And I think I have an inkling as to why. But I dont appreciate that natural ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize (as a player rather than a PC) isnt considered on the same level as metagaming. And the line must be rather fine, because I'm pretty sure most folks would consider "bribing" the GM illegitimate as well.
Anyway, I hope this clears up my position. I expect it will only create more arguments.
P.S.: And if you want to get me, you'll have to use another language other than french or spanish. Bande de petits discrets bilingues.
P.S.: And if you want to get me, you'll have to use another language other than french or spanish. Bande de petits discrets bilingues.
If he wants to get people, he will have to use a language that isn't handled by google translate or any other easily accessable translation website. Readers don't even need to understand the language - they can just use Google's "Detect Language" feature and select English as the output.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The argument goes as follows: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay."
The intention was to illustrate the fallacy in that argument.
You state the argument: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay." as erroneous.
However, the argument I'm trying to make is: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize with others ."
I had a very similar thought when I saw Kobold Cleaver's comment. It suggests an underlying (and in my opinion, erroneous) correlation between "roleplaying" and "talking in first-person".
I wonder how much differently these discussions would go if nobody was allowed to use the word "roleplay".
See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.
Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.
Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.
Why cant it be so for those other things?Because if you take away talking and imagination, it's just a dice game. ;P
As my other post stated, I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me.
There's a reason it doesn't add up. You invented it.
You'll note that instead of inventing this point, that he wants to remove talking and imagination, I asked him. He doesn't.
This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.
I invented nothing except the internet, my honest ferrous friend. I used the terms "talking and imagination" as a fairly simple abstraction to illustrate a particular type of argument (hence my clarification that I don't dislike the basic premise).
The argument goes as follows: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay."
The intention was to illustrate the fallacy in that argument. I apologize if my simplistic language led to a miscommunication.
I think you and I, and several others, have come to a good understanding. There...
Except the fallacy is an invention on your part. I'm not sure how to make this clear to you.
I completely understand what you're trying to say. I get it.
The thing is it has nothing to do with what williamoak said. So I don't get the point of saying it. Maybe you don't understand his point? That would make sense. If you aren't understanding what he's saying, it would be perfectly logical for you to base your posts on that misunderstanding.
If you want to double down on the concept that he's trying to eliminate talking and imagination, feel free. I'm going to stop responding, because it will be clear to me that you don't actually want to discuss this with us, but rather have a discussion with the people you've invented and for us to watch you do it.
I invented nothing except the internet, my honest ferrous friend. I used the terms "talking and imagination" as a fairly simple abstraction to illustrate a particular type of argument (hence my clarification that I don't dislike the basic premise).
The argument goes as follows: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay."
The intention was to illustrate the fallacy in that argument. I apologize if my simplistic language led to a miscommunication.
I'm a bit bugged because I feel misrepresented, so I will quickly chime in (hopefully not to my regret).
I think there is a disconnect here Kobold Cleaver, because we are seeing things very differently. You state the argument: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay." as erroneous.
However, the argument I'm trying to make is: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize with others ."
I am perfectly capable, and willing, to roleplay. I know for some it's hard, if not impossible (and I take that into account).
My apologies. I've once again fallen into the trap of overly broad terms. By "roleplay", I'm referring to the "improv" style of roleplaying that this thread is about. :P
Now, I understand that the ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize is treated as "separate" from skills such as Knowledge & Combat. And I think I have an inkling as to why. But I dont appreciate that natural ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize (as a player rather than a PC) isnt considered on the same level as metagaming. And the line must be rather fine, because I'm pretty sure most folks would consider "bribing" the GM illegitimate as well.
Oh, I agree. Overall, while I give bonuses for good acting (because I like to reward people who are clearly invested), I give bonuses for good notions, too, even if they aren't able to "act" them out. I mean, the game gives very tangible rewards for players who understand good tactical prioritization in combat—I don't see why the roleplaying half has to be different.
Penalizing someone for not being quick on the draw is really jerky. I say this as someone who is not quick on the draw and often struggles just to know what to say.
P.S.: And if you want to get me, you'll have to use another language other than french or spanish. Bande de petits discrets bilingues.
Que? Mi Google pagina esta cerrado ahora, entonce por favor no—uh, I mean, I don't feel like speaking French right now. Yeah, that's the ticket.
If he wants to get people, he will have to use a language that isn't handled by google translate or any other easily accessable translation website. Readers don't even need to understand the language - they can just use Google's "Detect Language" feature and select English as the output.
I get the sense you're taking Kobold Cleaver too seriously again. This is extremely dangerous and tends to end in INT checks. They're kind of like SAN checks, but...well, you know.
I wonder how much differently these discussions would go if nobody was allowed to use the word "roleplay".
The "underscore" makes a comeback!
Except the fallacy is an invention on your part. I'm not sure how to make this clear to you.
I completely understand what you're trying to say. I get it.
The thing is it has nothing to do with what williamoak said.
See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.
Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.
This is the crux of my point. Do you see where the terms "talking and imagination" came into play? They are there to illustrate the point of the game, not what he is saying he doesn't want to do. I never meant to say he didn't want to do talking and imagination—just that this is what the game is about, to contrast it with a hypothetical game that is about physical fighting and push-ups.
As a mental game, D&D has different expectations from an athletic game, and so different activities are expected. That's all. No invention. No strawmen. It's purely a response to a simple quote.
I'm a bit bugged because I feel misrepresented, so I will quickly chime in (hopefully not to my regret).
I think there is a disconnect here Kobold Cleaver, because we are seeing things very differently. You state the argument: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay." as erroneous.
However, the argument I'm trying to make is: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize with others ."
I am perfectly capable, and willing, to roleplay. I know for some it's hard, if not impossible (and I take that into account).If we take take the argument from another side: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to have knowledge concerning the universe the PCs evolve in ."
Now, I'm sure most folks would agree that to use personal knowledge, about a pre-determined world, is illegitimate (most would call it metagaming). I have played much in Golarion & the Warhammer world, both as player and GM. I could easily use that knowledge, which is a distinct ability I (the player) posses, that my PC doesnt.
Now, I understand that the ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize is treated as "separate" from skills such as Knowledge & Combat. And I think I have an inkling as to why. But I dont appreciate that natural ability to convince/seduce/diplomatize (as a player rather than a PC) isnt considered on the same level as metagaming. And the line must be rather fine, because I'm pretty sure most folks would consider "bribing" the GM illegitimate as well.
Anyway, I hope this clears up my position. I expect it will only create more arguments.
Why is using knowledge of the world the characters are in illegitimate in your view? The characters exist in that world and presumably have some knowledge of it. The player having some knowledge of the world and demonstrating that knowledge in character adds to the versimilitude of a character being from there.
And for the record I think most of the skill sections of the game are terrible, social and knowledge ones both included and not separate in that assessment. I try to keep skills as mechanics oriented as I can in my games (bluff allows feints, sense motive defends against feints, perception versus stealth, etc.)
Oh, I agree. Overall, while I give bonuses for good acting (because I like to reward people who are clearly invested), I give bonuses for good notions, too, even if they aren't able to "act" them out. I mean, the game gives very tangible rewards for players who understand good tactical prioritization in combat—I don't see why the roleplaying half has to be different.Penalizing someone for not being quick on the draw is really jerky. I say this as someone who is not quick on the draw and often struggles just to know what to say.
You see, I feel that I am being punished for not being "quick on the draw" (or even having a proper deck of cards) when it comes to the right words to say. Which is why I dislike the "full-improv" (IE, without dice) style.
Anyway, cant say anything more that I haven't said a dozen times already. There is a difficulty in communication here that we cant quite cross in text I believe.
I've started working more seriously on a notion of a more "tactical" social conflict system. Unfortunately, all of the "charismatic" people I know are oblivious as to the nature of their charisma/convincingness, so it's hard to get a baseline. Maybe I should find professional debaters; they might (at least) have a vocabulary to start with for "verbal conflict". It may not have the complexities of social conflict, but it could be a good start.
Why is using knowledge of the world the characters are in illegitimate in your view?
Well, that's what's roughly referred to as metagaming. I know the weaknesses of a red dragon, green dragon, any dragon really. I know their strengths. But my character, without any ranks in knowledge (arcana), should not (according to the rules of the game).
And even if we go in non-statblock things (like "general knowledge") it's hard to draw the line. A peasant from Cheliax probably doesnt know anything much about Tien Xia; but I do. So I have to separate my knowledge from that that could be held by the character (which could change, assuming I took some ranks in Knowledge (geography)).
And I know using that knowledge bugs GMs everywhere, because you arent "playing" your character. And I understand it as well, since it can be hard to draw the line between in & out of character knowledge.
And yeah, skill systems are problematic. Most systems are so combat oriented I get the impression that nobody has taken the time to think about a system not built around combat as the primary mechanic. (Which is something I am trying, and failing, to do).
This is the crux of my point. Do you see where the terms "talking and imagination" came into play? They are there to illustrate the point of the game, not what he is saying he doesn't want to do. I never meant to say he didn't want to do talking and imagination—just that this is what the game is about, to contrast it with a hypothetical game that is about physical fighting and push-ups.
As a mental game, D&D has different expectations from an athletic game, and so different activities are expected. That's all. No invention. No strawmen. It's purely a response to a simple quote.
Gonna tone it down.
Here's my point of view...
1. Either you're being a jerk and trying to a prove a point
or
2. You don't understand this enough to actually contribute, because you're stuck debating basic concepts that everyone already agrees on.
No one disputes that the game involves talking and imagination. We're discussing methods on how to best utilize and incorporate said talking and imagination, even if someone isn't personally skilled at talking in real life or isn't confident at sharing their imagination.
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?I explain my style of DMing up front. I tend not to use dice rolls for social interactions unless it is an offscreen abstraction or second person roleplaying and I expect a character concept of talker to actually first person talk to NPCs in character. Character concept and narrative is more important to me for social interactions than mechanics. I have no desire to roleplay out interactions based upon die results contrary to how roleplayed interactions have actually gone. These are my play style preferences so that's how I run games.
I will, and have, worked with people who are uncomfortable roleplaying a face but want to stretch and try it out. The guy who played a face in my last game normally plays tanks, rolls dice and shouts "beer!", but he wanted to try a face for the first time. His kitsune bard had a lot of first person interactions that were fun for both of us and garnered useful plot information for him to bring to the rest of the party. It went well, he interacted in character with fey and tavern types and kid NPCs and his fellow PCs but was cowed when dealing with Baba Yaga directly, which was not inappropriate in-character to his concept. I also had some second person face activities we didn't want to roleplay out such as diplomacy information gathering which could be handled with dice mechanics or fiat.
My advice would be to work with such a player to enable them to meet their goal of playing a face by assuring them you want it to be fun and structuring some first person interactions specifically to give them their spotlight time and some opportunities for them to do some face interactions second person as well.
I would suggest going more with fiat and...
An interesting read, role over the roll for sure. Clearly you are annoyed when the dice argue with what seemed to actually happen or make sense. I can see there being a lot of opposition to this, but I've played in games without any mechanics for social interaction - it was all speaking, questioning, persuading and sussing out in person. It was quite good and a challenge to a player like myself used to declaring and rolling. Good fun, with a real potential to get better at it quickly (and I am not an extrovert).
Oh, I agree. Overall, while I give bonuses for good acting (because I like to reward people who are clearly invested), I give bonuses for good notions, too, even if they aren't able to "act" them out. I mean, the game gives very tangible rewards for players who understand good tactical prioritization in combat—I don't see why the roleplaying half has to be different.Penalizing someone for not being quick on the draw is really jerky. I say this as someone who is not quick on the draw and often struggles just to know what to say.
You see, I feel that I am being punished for not being "quick on the draw" (or even having a proper deck of cards) when it comes to the right words to say. Which is why I dislike the "full-improv" (IE, without dice) style.
Anyway, cant say anything more that I haven't said a dozen times already. There is a difficulty in communication here that we cant quite cross in text I believe.
I don't see any communicative difficulties. I completely agree with you! :)
Gonna tone it down.
Here's my point of view...
1. Either you're being a jerk and trying to a prove a point
or
2. You don't understand this enough to actually contribute, because you're stuck debating basic concepts that everyone already agrees on.
I'm actually stuck "defending" myself from your accusations. I'd love to be done as soon as you stop positing that I either "don't understand" or am "being a jerk".
Actually, I think I am done. I think williamoak understands me, and I don't really think you exactly care what I was trying to say anymore as long as I drop it. :P
EDIT: This comes off as a bit more aggressive than I'd intended it. I just don't think there's anything to be gained from continuing to try to explain myself. I was addressing an argument that has been used and continues to be used (check out some of James Jacobs's posts on riddles, for instance). I can tell, though, that every time I try to clarify you roll your eyes just a little bit higher, so I'm just gonna quit bugging you.
Success or failure should be based on dice roll, skill points invested, and factual content.
Can you give an example of how factual content affects success or failure of a roll?
I think I'd impose a penalty if someone bluffed, "Yeah, we're here with the Goblin Brigade" when the Bandit Union has no "Goblin Brigade". I'm pretty sure that's what Redelia means.
And yeah, skill systems are problematic. Most systems are so combat oriented I get the impression that nobody has taken the time to think about a system not built around combat as the primary mechanic. (Which is something I am trying, and failing, to do).
Check out Dynasties and Demagogues by Atlas Games. It has some in-depth social mechanics for d20.
Also Love and War for their take on chivalry with a system for battles of courtly wit.
They also have one on Crime and Punishment for mechanics on doing investigations.
Atlas does good stuff.
Alternatively check out Lorefinder by Pelgrane Press for a mashup of Pathfinder rules with Gumshoe investigation mechanics.
If your playstyle preference is for dice roll d20 mechanics, there are a bunch out there.
I'm gonna say this again: Isn't Paizo currently working on Ultimate Intrigue, which will contain rules for "verbal sparring" and the sort?
It's o Role Playing Game, because of this, we ask players to roleplay their social skills. In my tables, i ask them to roleplay everything, knowledge skills, spellcasting, sword swings, so long the table is in the mood for it, or the player is in the mood for it. There is always a player who wants to roleplay the social interactions, others don't want to do it.
When this happens, i ask the player to roll and say the general idea of what their character wants. (Try to convince the baron to confess his son's fate, for example). And ask him to say how, more or less his character will try this (Subtlety, trying to circle subject, or direct to the point). He rolls and i create some sort of saying that might do the job, and ask the player to repeat in game, or just says that his character said it (if his approval).
I have a player like you, he made a rogue with high diplomacy and bluff, but he himself don't like to elaborate.
Firstly, he complained about his character having high diplomacy, but failing to use it, because other players jump in the talking first. I started to do this, the players who like to put on an argument tried to convince me if the argument is useful on the situation or not, if it is, a ask them to roll diplomacy to give a +2 to the roll of the rogue (Who, ingame, would do the final arguments, using some help of his friends). If i think their arguments aren't good enough, i ask the rogue player to roll sense motive, and say to him why the arguments of his friends fail/lack, and ask him a diplomacy roll. If he succeed i give to him the right argument line, who does the argument (some other player in the table, the argument came from a table consensus, etc) but this final argument is given ingame by the face character (he who was chosen to do the roll). That way i prevent your sad case in my table.
I´m quoting this because it looks like most useful post related to OP on this thread, and it seems to be looked over by several derailing arguments. We do it this way, also. I´m the face guy ingame, but there are other players quicker of tongue and/or mind that usually start the conversations. They give the Aid Another, I roll the main check.
I think I'd impose a penalty if someone bluffed, "Yeah, we're here with the Goblin Brigade" when the Bandit Union has no "Goblin Brigade". I'm pretty sure that's what Redelia means.
Assuming that is the case, that would seem to imply that the PC has to provide certain words as part of the bluff attempt, correct? That would seem to rule out the "I bluff him," roll skill check, style of play.
I guess what I am trying to get at for the people who say the delivery of the speech should have no impact on the success or failure of the check - how do you handle players who aren't able/willing to role play the skill check?
Is it that all of your players love to role play, and you don't have to worry about encouraging/enforcing role play because all of your players just do it naturally? If so, please tell me how you found these amazing people.
If not, then how do you handle the player that wants to say "I bluff him" or "I use diplomacy on him" without any accompanying role play?
As someone who started with Basic D&D, where there were no persuasion skills (or really skills at all), I've found that players role play less now than they did before. I think the system often encourages this - a mechanic for bluffing someone means (to some) that you no longer need to try to actually bluff the NPC, you just roll a skill check.
Maybe the answer is some people aren't interested in that aspect (or a variety of other aspects) of role playing, or maybe they don't consider skills checks to be role playing, or maybe they just have amazing players that role play all the time regardless of any incentives to do so.
But without knowing the answer to the above, its difficult to understand why one player who takes the initiative to really engage in the game and come up with a great speech/lie/threat shouldn't be rewarded in some way versus a player who doesn't even attempt to do so.
"how do you handle players who aren't able/willing to role play the skill check?"
Not wanting to be immensely confrontational, but if players aren't willing to roleplay, what are they doing in a roleplaying game?
Speaking of my own games (only), no one needs to be a graduate from an acting school. So I wonder, is anyone actually currently playing with players that don't participate in the roleplaying aspect even a little?
"Bluff check... diplomacy check... Initiative is 16, my attack is +6 for 1d10+5 damage". zzzzzt zzzzzzzt! Do the robot.
Oh, I agree. Overall, while I give bonuses for good acting (because I like to reward people who are clearly invested), I give bonuses for good notions, too, even if they aren't able to "act" them out. I mean, the game gives very tangible rewards for players who understand good tactical prioritization in combat—I don't see why the roleplaying half has to be different.Penalizing someone for not being quick on the draw is really jerky. I say this as someone who is not quick on the draw and often struggles just to know what to say.
You see, I feel that I am being punished for not being "quick on the draw" (or even having a proper deck of cards) when it comes to the right words to say. Which is why I dislike the "full-improv" (IE, without dice) style.
Anyway, cant say anything more that I haven't said a dozen times already. There is a difficulty in communication here that we cant quite cross in text I believe.
I don't see any communicative difficulties. I completely agree with you! :)
Gonna tone it down.
Here's my point of view...
1. Either you're being a jerk and trying to a prove a point
or
2. You don't understand this enough to actually contribute, because you're stuck debating basic concepts that everyone already agrees on.
I'm actually stuck "defending" myself from your accusations. I'd love to be done as soon as you stop positing that I either "don't understand" or am "being a jerk".
Actually, I think I am done. I think williamoak understands me, and I don't really think you exactly care what I was trying to say anymore as long as I drop it. :P
EDIT: This comes off as a bit more aggressive than I'd intended it. I just don't think there's anything to be gained from continuing to try to explain myself. I was addressing an argument that has been used and continues to be used (check out some of James Jacobs's posts on riddles, for instance). I can tell, though, that every time I...
I'm willing to move on as well, as long you stop explaining to us that RPG's require talking and imagination.
So I wonder, is anyone actually currently playing with players that don't participate in the roleplaying aspect even a little?
I have one player who is not a fan of roleplaying. I did a survey before my most recent campaign, and he indicated that his least favorite components of a campaign are role playing and storytelling. He enjoys leveling up his character, he enjoys combat, he enjoys acquiring new gear for his character.
He does not enjoy interacting with NPCs or talking in character with his fellow players. When communicating with his fellow players, he always talks out of character, and doesn't really understand the limitations of what a character should know versus what a player knows. He approaches it more as a board game.
Once in a previous campaign, he actually gave away some magical gear to a brand new PC who had just been introduced to the group. It wasn't because his character was gullible - its because he knows the player of that PC and he was trying to optimize the strength of the party by spreading around the magical gear.
I have three other players who all enjoy role playing to some degree or another. So while I try to introduce content that everyone enjoys, there will naturally be times when one person is having more fun than others due to these preferences.
Now relating this back to skill checks - My players that enjoy role playing may give a good delivery before rolling their diplomacy check, and the person that does not may want to just say "I use diplomacy."
If there is no mechanical difference between those two, I would think the players that work on a good delivery may feel like there is no reason to do so. That could potentially lead to all players simply declaring skills rather than role playing.
If that should happen, then the campaign wouldn't even be fun to me. In my mind, the whole point of playing a TTRPG is for the role playing, otherwise we might as well play a computer game. The computer game is going to have better mechanics, better graphics, and can be saved and played at your convenience.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now relating this back to skill checks - My players that enjoy role playing may give a good delivery before rolling their diplomacy check, and the person that does not may want to just say "I use diplomacy."
If there is no mechanical difference between those two, I would think the players that work on a good delivery may feel like there is no reason to do so. That could potentially lead to all players simply declaring skills rather than role playing.
Only if mechanical advantage was the only reason they were "roleplaying" in the first place. But if you surveyed them and that was something they enjoyed, then either they lied on your survey or they're not going to stop "roleplaying" just because it doesn't give them a leg up on the other guy.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"how do you handle players who aren't able/willing to role play the skill check?"
Not wanting to be immensely confrontational, but if players aren't willing to roleplay, what are they doing in a roleplaying game?
This is why I wish we could have these discussions with a ban on the word "roleplay".
Suppose that Alice thinks of "roleplay" as meaning "speaking in character during social interactions with NPCs", while Bob thinks of "roleplay" as meaning "make the decisions my character would make instead of the decisions I would make, even if not everything is acted out in first-person".
Now suppose that Alice tells Bob, "Roleplaying is the least interesting part of the game to me."
What does she actually mean? She means she doesn't like acting out social scenes with NPCs in the first person.
But what does Bob hear? He thinks she's not interested in making character-based decisions, that her character is merely an avatar of the player, that she's turning the RPG into a board game, and maybe even that she's a shameless metagamer.
So then Bob says, "If you don't want to roleplay, what are you doing in a roleplaying game?"
What does Bob actually mean? He means "If you're not going to make decisions based on what the character would do, why are you playing an RPG?"
But Alice hears, "If you don't want to talk in first person with NPCs, why are you playing an RPG?"
Naturally, this puzzles Alice; partly because there's a lot more to an RPG than social scenes with NPCs, and partly because she's both seen and experienced lots of fun/successful social scenes with NPCs without first-person speech.
Thus, Alice contests the (as she heard it) assertion that the game is all about talking in first person with NPCs...
...You get the idea. People's wildly varying ideas of what "roleplaying" is (most of which are pretty far from the actual word) really do no favors to peripheral discussions (such as of the relationship between roleplaying and Diplomacy checks).
I'm gonna say this again: Isn't Paizo currently working on Ultimate Intrigue, which will contain rules for "verbal sparring" and the sort?
Until you mentioned it KC, I didnt even know it existed. It is quite a while away however.
Check out Dynasties and Demagogues by Atlas Games. It has some in-depth social mechanics for d20.Also Love and War for their take on chivalry with a system for battles of courtly wit.
They also have one on Crime and Punishment for mechanics on doing investigations.
Atlas does good stuff.
Alternatively check out Lorefinder by Pelgrane Press for a mashup of Pathfinder rules with Gumshoe investigation mechanics.
If your playstyle preference is for dice roll d20 mechanics, there are a bunch out there.
Nice finds! I had Dynasties and Demaguoges, but I havent had much time to read it yet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a little confused by the huge controversy.
There really are just 3 approaches to resolving actions:
1- Role play totally decides it. I haven't seen this approach outside of Amber diceless, but it is popular among some groups.
2- A mix of role play and mechanics. This is how the vast majority of groups play. You describe or role play to the best of the players ability and then roll. Depending on the GM or circumstance a bonus may be added for good description or role play; possibly a penalty in the alternative.
3- Just Roll. These are the wargamer types who play RPGs like board games. Nothing wrong with it but it sure isn't what I like.
-=+=-
As for group 2:
This goes for more than just social encounters. A great description or role play of some heroic action during combat can often net you a combat bonus. Many players forget this and simply roll in combat sadly.
As for people who are anti-social in real life trying to be the face character? Yes this means in most groups you will be operating at a skill penalty... and yes it means your best bet is either a) learn to be more social in this social game. b) find a type 3 group. or c) stay away from your weaknesses perhaps playing characters who don't try to be the face... in fact buy down your charisma you probably don't need to role play any differently and you will get free points.