An old vexata questio indeed

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2004-07-02 04:18:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

<< The difference is clear. In combat, detailed rules enable a player to better express the actions of her character; they enhance the roleplay (yes, combat is just as much "roleplay" as any other situation). In social situations, rules tend to limit a player's expression of his character within the scene. >>

Ok, let's think about neither combat or social situations. Let's think about driving a car. Why don't we interpret driving a car? After all, when we are children (at least a good deal of us) we love to do it. We sit in the car and start simulating we are handling the gear. We even 'role-play' the car ("wrumm, wrumm!"). Why do we drop it latter in our lives? Some times we do in a moment of excitment, say, when we're following a car race. But in most cases there are things we don't interpret. If we want to role play them se use different devices that we call symbols. Wargames are simbolic representations of war. Rpgs have both interpretation and symbolic components.

Now, why do we - we roleplayers - think that social situations have to be dealt with interpretation and that symbolism is not enough? Your take is that symbolism is not the best way to allow the player to feel his character (that's how I interpret what you write above).

My take is a little different. People prefer interpretation over symbolist (and vice versa) depending on their experience of the situation and how it relates with the what's happening when they are roleplaying.

When people are roleplaying we have several persons around a table verbaly interacting. Real combat, realy driving a car, jumping over a cliff, picpocketing, are things that are not done around a table through verbal interaction. Because of that we are more comfortable by playing them through symbols. Interpretation these actions is too contrieved and is obviously artificial.

Now, social interaction is something we often do around a table through verbal interaction. Roleplaying is actually an instance of the set of social situations we can think about. Because of that in this type of game situations intepretation seems more natural to the players than resorting to symbolic representation.

<< we may not allow the NPC to give the PC even a minimal amount of respect until the PC has proven himself with a successful charm or etiquette roll. We may allow the player to deliver a convincing, eloquent speech, only to have him suffer the indignity of a failed diplomacy roll >>

The problem is because we fail to have a clear focus on what's the purpose of an action resolution system, specially when we consider social situations. We also loose the issue is about the characters, it is not about the players (the player says "I delivered a convincing, eloquent speech" but this 'I' is him, the player, not the character, yet the speech is to be understood as being the action of the character).

Suppose a group where interpretation is not allowed. Even in the case of social interaction the players resort to symbolic representation. No first-person speechs. Is it possible? Definitely. Is it roleplaying? Certainly. It highlights an important aspect of action resolution, even if applied to social situations: It is there to decide the outcome of the situation in a fair manner that is faithful to the description of the characters. Relying exclusively in the eloquence of the players does not live up to that standard.

If we drop completely interpretation we are left with an action resolution system for social situations that will be very similar to a combat action resolution system. This should always be our departing point. Yet, players may love the interpretation. How to couple it with symbolic action resolution? There is simply no fool proof solution to the problem because we are dealing with two different sets of issues that don't blend well.

Sergio

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Walt C at 2004-07-02 06:03:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sergio,

Thanks for the comments!

Your comments sound very similar to points I made in my first article "the Art of Seduction." The fairest solution is always to test the character and not the player.

I drew a distinction in this article because there are many players who enjoy acting. These players often (or should) model characters based on what they want to act out (within reason). The question is how to use the action resolution system to accommodate their desire for acting. I've found that getting the necessary rolls out of the way first eases that process. If I (as the GM) know that the PC pulled off an incredible charm roll, then I'll make the NPC respond favorably, no matter how charming the player actually acts.

In the end, you have to use what works for you and your players.

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by -it- at 2004-07-02 06:49:39
Converted from Phorums BB System


I think the roll should come after the roleplaying. Otherwise characters will think its sufficient to roll diplomacy and then talk about their actions in the 3rd person... "so I tell the orcs to chill out".

If they know that roleplaying will give a worthwile bonus to a subsequent roll then even the brute will act out a growl when he intimidates people because he knows it's good for a +5 or something on his roll.

Your solution follows the logic, if the roll is no good don't bother roleplaying - the situational luck of the draw has defeated you... and the cahracter would know this right off the bat. Using your examples would the chracter be allowed a new roll if he found his hat or magically removed the mud from his clothes? By rolling before you are deciding the result without taking the roleplaying into considerations.

Result = Roll + Skill + Roleplay

If a player expects to get tangible game advantage by using a social skill (diplomacy, bluff, subterfuge, intimidate, leadership, etc...) then he should also expect to roleplay out his actions when using those skills. A DM who decides the results of a social encounter, whether by prejudice or die, before a character has had a chance to run through his speal - shouldn't have social skills in his game... He should pick up hack master or 2nd Ed ADnD.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Walt C at 2004-07-02 08:49:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks for the comments!

I once had a long discussion over the question of whether it was fair to give bonuses for good or bad roleplay. The other participant in my discussion was a self-admittedly poor roleplayer (it was difficult for him to act in-character). He made some sound arguments. To touch on a few:

1. Assume a character has a charm skill of 6 (on a scale of 1-10) but his player regularly chokes while trying to roleplay. Assume another character has a charm skill of 3, but his player has a velvet tongue. Is it fair for the second character to regularly beat the first in social situations because one player is better at roleplaying than the other?

2. Do you reward the attempt to roleplay or the result of roleplay? For example, do you give a flat bonus to anyone who roleplays a scene, or do you modify it based on their performance? If the latter, what scale would you use? Should you scale differently for "poor" roleplaying players than "good" roleplaying players?

3. Should a player who assumes he is poor at roleplaying be forced to jack his character's social skills up to compensate? Should a good roleplayer be allowed to get away with low social skills just because he can compensate with good roleplay? Why should a skill of 4 be treated differently based on the player using it?

There are no simple answers. Use what works for you and your group. In my games, I feel the fairest thing to do is make the players roll first. I usually roll my dice in the open, but I don't make my players aware of modifiers. If the player doesn't like to roleplay, he has the assurance that he is being rated by his roll. Dramatic players can compare the two dice rolls (theirs and mine) and roleplay the result.

Yes, a dramatic player who rolled poorly on his Bluff and saw my high resistance roll is probably not going to spend the next 15 minutes trying to convince the NPC. But by the same token, he won't feel as cheated as if he roleplayed his heart out and still lost the dice roll.

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Grop at 2004-07-02 09:11:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

The solution my friends and I generally use is to remove every social skills from the original set of rules; therefore every social situation is solved by the GM's judgement, which is generally fair for good roleplay, and a bit too easy for poor roleplay.

Of course this is an awkward solution, but who cares ? Of course when designing you need to address this issue more seriously.

GPB

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Shoggoth at 2004-07-02 13:05:09
Converted from Phorums BB System

I personally prefer the roll first method for the reasons you quote Walt. I enjoy roleplaying in character, but I'm not a very smooth talker. That means that when I play a glib character with alot of charisma, I won't be able to to what my character "should" be able to do, and if I'm graded on a scale of personal performance then it won't be fun for me. I think there are two major points that support this:

1) Skill rolls exist in a game to allow CHARACTERS to do what PLAYERS cannot. I've never fired a gun, but I've played plenty of gun savvy characters. Just because everyone is assumed to be able to socialize (quite wrongly, in my opinion--half the reason alot of people get into this hobby is because they aren't good at socialilizing outside of structured environments) doesn't mean that they can, and the skill roll exists for that purpose.

2) I believe that every player should metagame to the extent that they are perceptive to the enjoyment of their fellow gamers while playing. If everyone else is upset by PKing, then don't PK. Likewise, if you are the talkative bard in a group of people itching to get into the dungeon/manse/castle and accomplish a "tangible" goal, then you shouldn't go into 15 minute soliloquies; everyone else will be bored to tears.

3) I think this is the most important point. If you are approaching the game from a narrativist point of view, and you expect alot of socialization and realtime roleplaying in your game, how is it less fun to roleplay a FAILED Interrogation roll? So your character failed--don't complain, roleplay the failure out and have a good time with it. Stumble over your lines, intentionally reveal sensitive information, then try to get out of the situation. I'd always gotten the impression that "roleplayers" weren't in the game to win, they were there to "roleplay". So roleplay.

Shoggoth

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Shoggoth at 2004-07-02 13:07:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

That would be two, er, THREE, THREE chief weapons!

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jethrow at 2004-07-06 06:22:56
Converted from Phorums BB System

I was going to write an independent post on this article then I read this reply... and felt I did not have to since -it- has hit the nail right on the head and said the things I wanted to. So I'll just add to what -it- said.
But let me say first that Walt C has written a great article, especially as it has prompted some great responses. I think successful games often have a combination of a good GM, and a player group which is either happy with the style of the GM or which the GM understands and has catered his/her game to. I run two long-running games, a Twilight: 2000 campaign using Gunmaster (Harmaster)rules, and a Harn multiverse campaign also using Harnmaster and Gunmaster. This would probably be considered a rules-heavy (and combat-heavy) system, but when push comes to shove I apply combat rules in the same way I apply rules for other actions. I try to reward good ideas on strategy and tactics in combat with favourable modifiers on combat rolls, and negative modifiers for stupid ideas. If a person role plays an interaction with an NPC, they may attract positive or negative modifiers to rolls concerning interactive skills depending on their choice of approach and/or quality of role playing.
I should point out however that if there is an applicable skill it should always be rolled against, even if role playing could be used in the interaction without a roll, as that is what skils are for. This also negates grievances that players who are not pro-combat may have where they might feel that choosing to develop skills other than combat skills is a waste of time.
The players in my Twilight game were on the whole not gung ho or military minded in real life before the campaign started, but I suspect they could now have a pretty good crack at forming plans for modern combat (in real life) if suddenly pressed to do so. I'm not taking anything away from real combat veterans (much respect to them) and the fright and horror of being in a gun battle, but if you have worked through a variety of realistic modern combat scenarios over many years, at least you will be able to formulate some kind of plan (unrealistic or otherwise). I wonder if my rambling is coherent enough that my point is getting across?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Chris Geisel at 2004-07-07 13:55:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

To play devil's advocate, while it seems patently unfair that a smooth-talking player should be able to compensate for a socially inept character, it's hardly ever remarked on when a player with a character who 'on paper' should be a combat monster, fails to maximize his abilities through inexperience with the rules, forgetfulness, or just plain bad moves.

Strange, enit?