I've just discovered a (seemingly, so far) good podcast on gaming called "Fear the Boot".

Listening to the first episode, I came across the following bit of discussion. It made me think of the numerous debates and discussions that we at Dumpshock have in regards to questions regarding when to use the dice and when to rely on roleplaying. More specifically, it made me think of a recent redressing of the question of roleplaying social skills versus rolling the dice, and what effect one should have on the other.

The following bit of the podcast isn't directly related to that question, but to the overall question of "RP vs. Dice". There are two views presented, and a third "middle ground view" (which I won't be including here).

Here are the two main views (slightly edited for print; keep in mind this was spoken, I'll do my best to make it retain their thought processes):

View 1: [A game is a] simulator. You have to stick to the numbers, because the numbers have to be meaningful, and the [characteristics that the] numbers [represent] are ultimately better or worse than the [person running the character]. But at the same time, you have to keep the players involved. Make them play it out, make them talk it out, because if all you're going to do is run the numbers, why even bother having anyone show up when you could just roll the dice yourself? So, keep [the players] involved, but bring [the game] back to the numbers for determining success or failure.

View 2: If [an] action is going to be boring, roll it, get it out of the way, and move on with the game. If it's going to be interesting, (whether it's right or wrong, and the gamemaster has to reign this in, he has to reign in whether it's going to be real or if it's going to screw up the game), role play it out. If there's [a choice] between [role playing] something and rolling it, I would rather [role play] it unless it's going to be boring. I want to keep the game popping, I want to keep it moving, and the more people I can can get into the game, to get them involved with it, the better. Whatever keeps everybody entertained.

The third guy pretty much gives his view that you can combine the two. He gives the option of (paraphrased and assumed in part, because they cut him off and he doesn't go back and complete his thought): If a player does a really good job describing something and it sounds like it would work, then you should give it to him. On the flipside, if he's trying to do something an he totally screws it up, you should give him [the chance to fix it by rolling the dice].

::Conjecture on if he had finished:: Let the dice be a backup to a player's natural ability or inability to play a part of a role.

Listen to this 'cast here to get a more complete feel for the overall path of the discussion being presented: http://media.libsyn.com/media/feartheboot/...heboot_0001.mp3

The discussion in question is in the latter half of the show (sorry, I don't have an exact marker).

Now, they aren't strictly dichotomous, I know. But, I thought it was an interesting way of discussing it that was removed from a specific situation, and I thought doing so might bring some new and interesting ideas to the discussion that might not come up if the case were strictly limited to one test or action.

Thoughts?

i'll try to remember to download this when i get home from work.

Fair warning: in the second podcast, they make their views of SR known, and they aren't pretty. (Granted, it sounds like they also have no experience with any of it.)

Also, I'm personally finding a lot of their views and theories on gaming, well, stupid. Granted, I'm only on the second cast, but it isn't boding well.

?

Sorry, I feel like I'm somehow...missing something, WR.

Are you suggesting that I need a sense of humor?

i thought he meant that if the guys doing the podcast are stupid, then it's worth downloading just to make fun of them...

still haven't downloaded them...

I think he's saying he'll download it because it's funny to hear people who don't understand SR rant about it. At least that's how I feel about it

The way I take it is this -

If we look at combat, on the most basic level you roll your attack number against something else, blah blah blah. However, depending on how you choose and change your shots (shifting combat pool, calling a shot, aiming, using cover, etc.) will statiscally increase or decrease your chances of success, as described by the rules. I would say that saying you're taking aim, or otherwise describing your shot more is roleplaying (granted, many people do it to maximize numeric benefits, but as long as the rules make sense and the numbers accurately represent reality, it still also would be roleplaying in most cases.)

In the case of social combat, the paradigm still stands, it's just that many of the benefits haven't been as well described. Someone who comes up with a deal that benefits both parties is like the person who just found the perfect defensive position. They should get bonuses to their accompanying scores for that. Someone who doesn't care about the socializing is like someone who just says "I shoot the ganger" - he gets to roll, but he isn't maximizing his abilities because he isn't roleplaying.

If the dice are simulating reality, the dice bonuses should be directly affected by how well the character takes advantage of his environment. Sometimes even the best argument falls on deaf ears, however, and the best defensive position falls due to gear failure. That's where the dice come into play.

Ah. Yeah, I could see that.

Honestly though, I was (and still am, I've only listened to the first two casts) hoping that it was good, because I want to find some good gaming related podcasts. If anyone knows of any, please send them my way.

But that aside, back to topic!

Oh, it is good! The question of roleplaying vs. rollplaying, especially in social interactions, comes up all the time. All I shared was my view. Some people disagree. Some people feel that you just roll the dice straight-up and that settles it. Some feel if you have an undeniably good offer (or plan or whatever), you should let it work. No answer is the perfect answer, as it all depends on the group.

Craig and Nezumi have caught t3h corr3ct.

@ WR: Right on.

Interesting point, nezumi. You've hit on an interesting combination there that's inherent in the system. (And I hope I'm understanding you correctly.)

In your example, a player that says "I shoot at the ork" is using a simple (or complex, depending on the weapon I suppose) action to point and shoot at "that ork", and rolls his dice against a standard TN.

A player that says "I slide up to the doorframe, careful to minimize my exposure. I pull up my Predator and take aim at the lead ork, centering my SL reticle on his upper right chest" might be using a simple action to aim, declaring a called shot, and rolling against a TN modified by aiming and called shot.

Here's a following question. In this situation, it seems that it's up to the GM to apply the appropriate rules and modifiers to the test based on what the player is saying. While I think it could work, you might also run into things like that first guy adding on "I take an aim action and a called shot to raise the damage code, and shoot at the ork". In that situation, he isn't roleplaying any more than he was in the initial example, but he's getting the same bonuses and modifiers that the second guy is.

Also, you'll get the GM that doesn't think to apply any rules or modifiers based on RP, because he/she is used to "RP as story, rules as rules", and doesn't think to combine the two.

Same for the social stuff. Some GMs are going to have the ?experience, presence of mind? to take the words used by the player and apply the rules as appropriate. Some are going to take the RP, suggest stuff to the player, and then adjudicate the outcome. Some are going to use the RP to grant bonuses, but run the mechanics as a separate function.

You are understanding me, and that problem is part of the GMs job (IMO). Keep in mind also that karma awards are also oftentimes based on playing the role instead of only playing the rules, which hopefully gives a slight push in the right direction. Also, speaking for myself, I'm not opposed to giving a slight mechanics bonus when an action is described in sufficiently cool detail (kinda like what happens in Exalted with stunts).