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
(Originally Posted September 21, 2016)
Well said. As a d100 GM in the main, that being a system where you MIGHT have 30pts to dump into a "diplomacy" type skill, I've never permitted players to just roll and see if they succeed. They roleplay their pitch to the NPC, then I tell them to go ahead. It has to be done that way because the substance of the conversation between PC and NPC can then inform exactly how the success/fail of the roll pans out.
ReplyDeleteMy hardback copy of Lion and Dragon arrived the other day. It's a handsome thing and the magic section is great. Thumbs up from me.
Awesome! please post a review, even if it's only a couple of sentences, wherever it was you bought it! I really appreciate it.
DeleteI have added my (positive!) thoughts on RPGNow...
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteIt's the old problem of in intelligent, competent person being able to pretend/act/portray that they are unintelligent or incompetent much more easily than an unintelligent incompetent person can do the reverse. Only ego or pride might stand as an obstacle to the former, while the latter might lack anything more than a most basic frame of reference. In game terms, it may seem that the results are all that matter, but in good role playing, how and why the results were achieved play a larger, more important part. So, all too many people see a genius as merely someone who just knows more about more subjects, much like "The Professor" from Gilligan's Island, or Mr Spock from Star Trek. Similarly, a popular or charismatic person, from a results standpoint, is just someone who other people like and agree with more. The how and why of it gets ignored or downplayed. But good role playing is all about the hows and whys. Leaving it up to a simple roll of the dice will still make it a game, just not a role playing one.
ReplyDelete