Some people have criticized my past blog entries where I argued that the best RPGs (like old-school D&D) are superior at handling actual roleplay because they DON'T have any 'social mechanics' and just make you actually play it out.
The common complaint is "RPGs should be fair to players though; it isn't a competition; and if a player has a PC who should be able to do well at diplomacy or something like that, but the player himself is not very good at speaking or putting together arguments, isn't it only fair that the GM give him a bonus??"
This isn't really about being in "competition", but it sounds like they're saying that if you're a really good roleplayer and come up with good ideas, you should roll with just your normal bonuses; but if the guy next to you is a moron who always thinks up dumb ideas or can't roleplay worth a damn, he should get a Special Snowflake bonus so his feelings aren't hurt.
Is that not going to create a sense of 'unfair competition' from the people who do not get that bonus?
Doesn't that look like favoritism?
As far as your character failing to do things he should be able to do: the question would be WHY do you feel your character "should be able" to do those things? In an OSR game you don't have 30 points to dump in Diplomacy so you can wave it around like a Mind-Control Superpower to avoid having to actually come up with ideas or roleplay, so that's out.
Do you feel he "should be able" because he has a high Charisma? Well, if he has a high charisma that's factored into his bonus. Players who have a high CHA AND come up with decent ideas, roleplay well, and make a good argument will obviously do better than people with a high CHA who always think up dumb ideas and/or don't roleplay their character and/or can't string together two words. But having a high CHA still means statistically, you'll do better than you otherwise would on account of your PC being likable even if you aren't capable of playing him as such.
Or do you feel he "should be able" because your mommy told you that you were special and everyone deserves a participation trophy for showing up? Because in that case, you're just Demanding to Win, you might as well think you "should be able" to find a +10 Holy Avenger sword in the next dungeon room. It's a nice thought, but you in no way deserve it and it's not going to happen at my table. Especially since your demand inherently invalidates the talent or hard work of other players at the table; who will get to see you being a socially inept doofus with shitty ideas who never actually portrays his character, and still end up doing just as well as the people who come up with all the actually good ideas.
It will make the world seem less emulative, it will ruin people's immersion, and it's a way to run a game that won't end up being fun for anyone.
If I have a player who feels they 'should be able' to do well in social situations, but doesn't, I'll try to encourage them to actually play out their character, to get more confidence in public speaking, or to think a bit harder about the ideas they're coming up with and develop some logic skills to think if its a good idea or a bad one.
If they refuse to do those things but want to be awesome anyways, then they're not really going to fit in with my games.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Brigham Anniversary Pipe + Image Latakia
I would do it like this. Those who aren't adept at Roleplaying the scene roll as normal, but when there's a well-thought out plan, have at least a decent attempt at RPing, or is just a good idea. Then the Roll gets my take on expertise: A result of 2 through 9 count as Taking 10. (Or maybe the plan reduces the DC a couple points, or re-rolling on Nat 1s.) That encourages "Flavor Play" and rewarding those who do more than just show up, while keeping the playing field standard for those who "just can't talk that good." Eventually, the wallflower would see the brass ring of "a slight advantage if you as much as talk it through" and start reaching for it.
ReplyDeleteReward Merit. If that fails, at least Reward Effort. Nothing makes another Participation Trophy Case faster than making someone who is trying his heart out feel that he's just wasting his time and energy because he's not measuring up.
I would disagree with this post, in my fantasy,my PC is much less full of social anxiety than me. Your characters are not you, and if you say they are ,unfortunately you are in agreement with the outrage brigade who can't tell the difference either.My imagination trumps game mechanics, even OSR ones. My characters could sell the Brooklyn bridge to a dragon because I say so. My character is a good public speaker,although I'm not because he isn't me.
ReplyDeleteIs this ability to sell the Brooklyn Bridge reflected in having a 17 or 18 Charisma? In a game with any kind of structured rules, things don't happen just because you say so.
DeleteOtherwise, I agree with you. Your character's abilities are reflected in their mechanics, not in your ability to be eloquent at the game table. If a 98-pound weakling can play a fighter with super strength, a socially awkward person should be able to play a smooth-talker. However, a player who can also figure out the NPC's buttons and push them accordingly should get an additional bonus to the roll, just like the strong fighter's player gets a bonus if he manages to get the high ground on his opponent.
OK but then you should also consider ditching the combat mecanics. After all, there's no reason a player knows nothing about bows, fencing or tactics should do well in this domain just because his character is a high STR Fighter.
DeleteIf you want to play Amber instead of D&D, just play Amber.
I agree. By RPGPundit's logic, LARPs are superior to tabletop RPGs at handling everything because they make you play it *all* out in some form or other.
DeleteNailed it. In RPGs a big part of the fun is playing someone *other* than yourself. It's not a public speaking training ground.
DeleteGood for RPGPundit that he only games with method actors and other elite roleplayers, I guess. Shame he had to call out everyone else as being tied to mommy's apron strings.
An RPG is made for roleplaying. Combat is abstracted not because it's more important, but because it's LESS important.
DeleteElitists like to claim that old-school D&D is "just a wargame" because it has not roleplaying social rules.
In fact, the addition of social rules just makes roleplaying into a 'wargame'.
Rules for social interaction have existed in D&D since the Reaction Table. Your choice of going à la Amber with this matter is valid but so would be the choice of approaching it as yet another wargame.
DeleteDe gustibus and so on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou can't equate role playing rules with combat rules. The reason we need a system of rules to resolve combat is because we can't actually hit each other with swords during the game.
DeleteWe can, however, talk to each other. You don't need rules for something that you're already doing.
If you want to convince that dragon to help you, then convince that dragon to help you. Converting that conversation into a die roll robs the players of the experience of negotiating with that dragon.
The Reaction Table is just a tool to help DMs decide which way to go in the case they aren't completely 100% convinced. It's not a mechanic which dictates interaction.
You do realize that you can do both, right? You could easily have the conversation and then have the die roll, modified by how well the players figured out (or didn't) how to appeal to the dragon.
DeleteAnd honestly, I think there's a conflation of terms that don't necessarily mean the same thing. Roleplaying doesn't mean "social interaction." Roleplaying is the assumption of a role. The essence of roleplaying is understanding how your character would react to a situation, not being able to deliver a theatrical-quality performance at the game table. Roleplaying, for the player, is an internal process, not an external one. Nothing about how the character affects the external (game) world should be exclusively dependent on the character's ability to do something in real life because forcing you to be yourself in the context of the game takes away from your assumption of the role.
"An RPG is made for roleplaying. Combat is abstracted not because it's more important, but because it's LESS important."
DeleteOf course. I forgot that the way you figure out what a game's really about is to look at what it *doesn't* have rules for. That's why wargames have extensive rules for social interaction and no rules for combat. Oh, wait a minute....
The problem with this entry is not about the arguments. All of them could be valid in an advisory context.
DeleteThe problem is that it is phrased in a context of 'and all those with smaller dicks than me have no dicks at all'.
The only point worth discussing here is how bad the smell of spunk in the room is. The obvious point *not* worth discussing is that the talk is about wanking and who is the biggest wanker.
Anders, I partially agree with the original post. I don't like the way D&D 3.x and Pathfinder handle Diplomacy, which by RAW allows you to roll a die and potentially make a hostile guard your loyal servant. I do feel that how the player describes how they handle the situation should modify the chance of success, and I'm open to the idea of really stupid approaches automatically failing. I just disagree with the idea that there should never be social mechanics of any sort in RPGs.
DeleteOh man. Someone's having BadWrongFun at the table now.
ReplyDeleteTime to go diceless. Systemless is the real OSR.
Are you fine with NPCs selling your character the Brooklyn Bridge whether you want them to or not? If so, why not?
ReplyDeleteWhy not a good roll gives you more collaboration with the GM on what would be effective in the game world?
ReplyDeleteSome of the people who advise how to GM suggest that players should really get what they want. Put a few obstacles in their way by all means, but don't stop them. I have never been sure that this is a good idea. If they are going to get what they want anyway, why have skills and dice It is possible to fail and keep failing. In old school games, this seemed to to be more of the way things are. Games are about competition and it should be remembered that sometimes people fail. That said, if you fail at one thing, then maybe you need to try another. Frontal assault is not always going to win and it is wrong for a GM to ease up on people when they choose suicide by cop per dragon.
ReplyDeleteWell said. One of the dumbest ideas in the hobby is this notion that "something should always happen" when a PC tries to do something. In the real world there's tons of times when you try to accomplish something and nothing happens.
DeleteI like to play characters with a low WIS and/or CHA so they are easier for a duffer like me to play properly.
ReplyDeleteI demand that my players describe their actions just as it would look in a normal fight, and if they can't do it, then I will throw them out of my game. Obviously they can't play roleplaying games.
ReplyDeleteD&D isn't a "Combat Interpreting Game", it's a "ROLE PLAYING Game".
DeleteIf I suck at shooting but want to play a sniper in an RPG, by your standards pundit I will always fail, because I lack the necessary real life skills. But what this post seems to miss is the fact that rpg's are games of imagination. The PC sniper in this example, if he possesses the skills that the player lacks should not be handicapped bacause I can't hit the broad side of a barn in real life.
ReplyDeleteSomeone brought up wargames; sarcastically claiming that wargames must be about social interaction because there are no rules for it.
ReplyDeleteObviously not, but what wargames ARE about is strategic decisions. In a wargame you roll dice to see how many hits you have on an enemy unit. But you don't roll dice to see where you, as a commander, will move your units. You decide it. There's no rules for leading your forces, which IS the point of a wargame.
Everyone seems to be focused on the social/combat dichotomy, but what about all the other systems that have few or no rules? Players and characters are going to have differing levels of intelligence, constitution, and dexterity as well. Should a player be required to hold down the same alcohol and poisons as their character? Must they solve the same puzzles, even if their character is the smarter of the pair? So they need to steal the GM's dice to prove that their character is deft at slight of hand? And what about wisdom?
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to be focused on the social/combat dichotomy, but what about all the other systems that have few or no rules? Players and characters are going to have differing levels of intelligence, constitution, and dexterity as well. Should a player be required to hold down the same alcohol and poisons as their character? Must they solve the same puzzles, even if their character is the smarter of the pair? So they need to steal the GM's dice to prove that their character is deft at slight of hand? And what about wisdom?
ReplyDeleteNo, to most of your examples, because again, we're talking about Roleplaying Games, not "stealing stuff games" or "drinking poison games".
DeleteAs for Wisdom, it's an interesting thing to bring up, because there's really no viable way (at least, not without removing EVERY LAST TRACE of roleplaying or player choice from the equation) where you could adequately substitute the Wiseness you think the PC should have for the wisdom you as a player actually do have. Just like with CHA, the WIS stat/bonus could be used to mitigate enormous fuckups you might make from being less wise than your character's stats suggest, but there's no way to make up for a dumb player running a supposedly wise character unless you automate it completely.
And that's what complex 'social mechanics/combat' rules try to do with charisma. You've inadvertently served my argument.
As I said in G+, roleplaying isn't just the thing you do between combats. You're playing the role of your character the entire time you're at the table. And as you say, unless you "automate it completely," it's difficult to separate player abilities from character ones. That's why we have attributes and dice! And if you're going to use that to figure out resolution only part of the time, it completely devalues parts of the character mechanically. Player has a good idea and the character is dumb? Let then roll under INT to see if their character thinks of it. Character is a smooth talker but the player isn't? Have then explain what they attempt to do and how, and let the dice decide if they succeed or not. Character is smarter than the player? Roll to see if they figure out the puzzle, even if the player doesn't (or give additional hints, or partially complete it, etc.).
DeleteThe whole reason we have these rule systems is to avoid the game becoming nothing more than make-believe. It provides a structured framework for task resolution that abstracts away the reality that we, as players and GMs, can't do the things our characters can. In the rare instance that we are more able than our avatars in some way, I have a really hard time with providing a mechanical benefit for that, since it's antithetical to the rest of the game.
Combat is not the best example as to why this is not that great of an idea. Look to other, stat-based events in-game. Do we demand our players demonstrate the ability to dead lift XXX pounds of weight in order to bend bars/lift-gates? Of course not, they are 99% dorks with little to no upper body strength. Do they solve the puzzle, or is the in-world, in-game puzzle for the wizard with the high IQ? I came up in early 80's where the players were smart and solved all the problems, often regardless of the numbers attached to the character sheet. That is just as disingenuous as forcing someone to roleplay or else.
ReplyDeleteIt depends. I'm in favor of favoritism, in certain cases. RPGs don't have to be all or nothing; neither do they have to adhere to a single style, format, or procedure. Take everything into account - effort, skill, scores, dice, and story. At the end of the day, players try and the GM decides... right or wrong.
ReplyDelete