RPGnet Columns
10-17-2003, 11:33 PM
Post originally by David Clark at 2003-10-17 22:33:42
Converted from Phorums BB System
I've never found that treating social interactions as rolled skill tests really interfered with the opportunity to roleplay the situation and have that roleplaying be meaningful to the outcome. Compare a bit of social discourse to the staple of a gaming session, the dramatic battle. Joe wants his fighter, Mac, to attack the goblin warlord. For the purposes of the comparison, let's look at three possible approaches.
1) Joe doesn't really want to embellish much on his actions. He really doesn't know anything about fighting styles, so he simply declars that Mac attacks the warlord. If he's feeling dramatic, he might throw in "with a mighty warcry". Joe rolls, compares his result to the standard difficulty, and the GM describes the outcome.
2) Joe doesn't know much about fighting, but he watches lots of bad tv adventure dramas. He describes how Mac backflips over the warlord, striking him with a reversed jab of his sword, and lands in a heroic pose. While it sounds impressive, it's kinda silly, and the GM isn't running a very cinematically styled game. Still, he figures he ought to let Joe try, so Joe rolls, and compares his result to a a much higher threshold of difficulty than he needed in the first example. If he still succeeds, he's managed to strike the warlord with a rather flashy move. Otherwise, he tried something rather goofy and failed. If Mac has been designed as a really talented swordsman, he might just succeed, even though he'd have probably done better with a more conventional tactic.
3) Joe has read a bit about duelling, and wants to try and put that to use. He states that Mac feigns a few desperate parries to encourage the warlord to drop his defensive stance. It's a bit tricky, as it involves some set up, but after two successful parry rolls, he's ready to go. Joe rolls, and compares his result to a difficulty which the GM has lowered to represent the advantage he has bought himself. Whether Mac is a good swordsman or not doesn't really change the fact that the strategy was a decent one. His skill will determine whether or not he's good enough to pull it off.
These same techniques can be applied to a social skill. Let's say Mac is trying to smooth-talk a sentry into letting him pass.
1) Joe isn't terribly good at lying, and knows it. He figures his chances are best if he lets Mac do all the work, so he simply tells the GM that Mac is going to try and bluff his way past. Joe rolls the bluff, the GM compares the result to a standard difficulty, and describes the results. On a successful roll, perhaps Joe could come up with what his excuse was, or if he's at a loss, the GM could supply it.
2) Joe decides to role-play his way through it, but really is a little dim. "I'm here to visit my sick Aunt Betsie" he says, as Mac tries to walk past in clanking chainmail, wiping the blood from his glaive-guisarme. It's a pathetic lie, and much like the comparable combat tactic, unlikely to be succesful. Still, it might work, especially if the guard is really dumb, or Mac is very believable. Joe rolls, but must achieve a far greater success than he would have if he hadn't tried for the embellishment.
3) Joe's still going the roleplaying route, but he's a smooth talker this time. He proceeds to describe how Mac tells the sentry an entirely convincing story of how he's on an errand for the king, which could prove embarrasing if it gets out, and he needs to slip by unnoticed. It's a good lie. Joe rolls and this time doesn't need as big margin of success. He might still fail if Mac is a crap liar, his rolls is to low, and he doesn't make it; perhaps he pauses at the wrong moment ("Excuse me, but I need to get through, and quietly. You see, I'm on urgent business for...umm..the king.")
No matter what the skill being tested, this approach will work. If the player's not really interested in the details of how his character accomplishes a task, just do the roll. That's what mechanics are for, to handle the fiddly bits quickly and efficiently. If he wants to embellish and describe, by all means let him. Don't judge the performance or idea as "good" or "bad", that will be determined by the dice. Instead, establish if it's harder or easier. It's going to be easier to seduce a refined aristocrat with some tasteful cleavage and a bit of witty but demure banter than it would be to do so by demonstrating your astounding flexibility at his dinner party. Keep genre in mind too. The aforementioned backflip-stab manoeuvre might be extremely feasible in a high flying kung-fu opera game, and the king's errand ploy could be entirely too dull to suit a comedic parody.
David
Converted from Phorums BB System
I've never found that treating social interactions as rolled skill tests really interfered with the opportunity to roleplay the situation and have that roleplaying be meaningful to the outcome. Compare a bit of social discourse to the staple of a gaming session, the dramatic battle. Joe wants his fighter, Mac, to attack the goblin warlord. For the purposes of the comparison, let's look at three possible approaches.
1) Joe doesn't really want to embellish much on his actions. He really doesn't know anything about fighting styles, so he simply declars that Mac attacks the warlord. If he's feeling dramatic, he might throw in "with a mighty warcry". Joe rolls, compares his result to the standard difficulty, and the GM describes the outcome.
2) Joe doesn't know much about fighting, but he watches lots of bad tv adventure dramas. He describes how Mac backflips over the warlord, striking him with a reversed jab of his sword, and lands in a heroic pose. While it sounds impressive, it's kinda silly, and the GM isn't running a very cinematically styled game. Still, he figures he ought to let Joe try, so Joe rolls, and compares his result to a a much higher threshold of difficulty than he needed in the first example. If he still succeeds, he's managed to strike the warlord with a rather flashy move. Otherwise, he tried something rather goofy and failed. If Mac has been designed as a really talented swordsman, he might just succeed, even though he'd have probably done better with a more conventional tactic.
3) Joe has read a bit about duelling, and wants to try and put that to use. He states that Mac feigns a few desperate parries to encourage the warlord to drop his defensive stance. It's a bit tricky, as it involves some set up, but after two successful parry rolls, he's ready to go. Joe rolls, and compares his result to a difficulty which the GM has lowered to represent the advantage he has bought himself. Whether Mac is a good swordsman or not doesn't really change the fact that the strategy was a decent one. His skill will determine whether or not he's good enough to pull it off.
These same techniques can be applied to a social skill. Let's say Mac is trying to smooth-talk a sentry into letting him pass.
1) Joe isn't terribly good at lying, and knows it. He figures his chances are best if he lets Mac do all the work, so he simply tells the GM that Mac is going to try and bluff his way past. Joe rolls the bluff, the GM compares the result to a standard difficulty, and describes the results. On a successful roll, perhaps Joe could come up with what his excuse was, or if he's at a loss, the GM could supply it.
2) Joe decides to role-play his way through it, but really is a little dim. "I'm here to visit my sick Aunt Betsie" he says, as Mac tries to walk past in clanking chainmail, wiping the blood from his glaive-guisarme. It's a pathetic lie, and much like the comparable combat tactic, unlikely to be succesful. Still, it might work, especially if the guard is really dumb, or Mac is very believable. Joe rolls, but must achieve a far greater success than he would have if he hadn't tried for the embellishment.
3) Joe's still going the roleplaying route, but he's a smooth talker this time. He proceeds to describe how Mac tells the sentry an entirely convincing story of how he's on an errand for the king, which could prove embarrasing if it gets out, and he needs to slip by unnoticed. It's a good lie. Joe rolls and this time doesn't need as big margin of success. He might still fail if Mac is a crap liar, his rolls is to low, and he doesn't make it; perhaps he pauses at the wrong moment ("Excuse me, but I need to get through, and quietly. You see, I'm on urgent business for...umm..the king.")
No matter what the skill being tested, this approach will work. If the player's not really interested in the details of how his character accomplishes a task, just do the roll. That's what mechanics are for, to handle the fiddly bits quickly and efficiently. If he wants to embellish and describe, by all means let him. Don't judge the performance or idea as "good" or "bad", that will be determined by the dice. Instead, establish if it's harder or easier. It's going to be easier to seduce a refined aristocrat with some tasteful cleavage and a bit of witty but demure banter than it would be to do so by demonstrating your astounding flexibility at his dinner party. Keep genre in mind too. The aforementioned backflip-stab manoeuvre might be extremely feasible in a high flying kung-fu opera game, and the king's errand ploy could be entirely too dull to suit a comedic parody.
David