I'm currently playing a face in our PnP campaign, and I was wondering how everyone else handles the balance between the actual social skills of the player playing the face, and the charisma of the character in question. I'm not an uncharismatic guy, but the character I'm playing is far more convincing and suave than I will ever hope to be.
It seemed like in last night's session the GM handled things a little more through RP than I would have liked, my character ended up getting into a fight that he perhaps wouldn't have, but he was able to handle the fight alright and the end turned into a good RP moment. I'm sure there are groups out there that handle things almost entirely through rolls and others that do mostly RP, but I'm just looking for some perspectives.
Full Version: Playing a Face...
What we do at times is ask the player to describe what he does or what his character says and then add die modifiers to his roll.
Generally +/- 1 or 2 die
This can cause problems with the socially inept player running a Face. One time the GM asked the group how many of you would feel insulted by those statements, if you were a poor street urchin. When over half the group raised their hands without hesitation he gave a -6 die penalty.
Generally +/- 1 or 2 die
This can cause problems with the socially inept player running a Face. One time the GM asked the group how many of you would feel insulted by those statements, if you were a poor street urchin. When over half the group raised their hands without hesitation he gave a -6 die penalty.
Times like these I enjoy the homemade "Common Sense" quality. Sometimes, you really just should know better 
GM's even good ones often fall into the trap of making a player RP his conversations with little or no input by the dice. What you need to do is speak to the GM privatly and ask him not to do this. Explain to him that you want to play the really charismatic, dashing guy who can fast talk his way out of just about anything. Explain to him that you are happy to make a best effort RP but when it comes down to it, the dice should do the talking.
If he balks, ask him if he would actually make you shoot someone with a gun instead of rolling dice, or lift a heavy object.
If he balks, ask him if he would actually make you shoot someone with a gun instead of rolling dice, or lift a heavy object.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| GM's even good ones often fall into the trap of making a player RP his conversations with little or no input by the dice. What you need to do is speak to the GM privatly and ask him not to do this. Explain to him that you want to play the really charismatic, dashing guy who can fast talk his way out of just about anything. Explain to him that you are happy to make a best effort RP but when it comes down to it, the dice should do the talking. If he balks, ask him if he would actually make you shoot someone with a gun instead of rolling dice, or lift a heavy object. |
Except for the slight problem that this is a ROLE playing game and not a ROLL playing game. Social exchanges can go both ways. I've had GMs give me extra dice for being particularlly smooth in my dealings.
| QUOTE (X-Kalibur) | ||
Except for the slight problem that this is a ROLE playing game and not a ROLL playing game. Social exchanges can go both ways. I've had GMs give me extra dice for being particularlly smooth in my dealings. |
Either extreme is bad. Making the PC come up with suave and smooth things is over the line. But so is the PC going up to the guard rolling some dice and getting past the door with out ever coming up with any idea of what is said.
Oh shut upfor heavens sake. It's a role playing game who's rules are administered by dice. All the above words are equally important. ROLE PLAYING GAME. It's a game. It is unfair to ask a player to actually perform any of the tasks his character is capable of. It is actually META GAMING to do so. Just because a person cannot play a convincing Don Juan, even if the dice say's he can, doesn't mean he should be penalized for it.
I am not saying he shouldn't try to act out something, just don't screw him becasue you don't like what he saide, when his 10 hits says you would.
I am not saying he shouldn't try to act out something, just don't screw him becasue you don't like what he saide, when his 10 hits says you would.
Let the dice determine how you said it then. I can walk up to my roommate and call her a whore. Depending on how I said, she will either hit me or laugh.
Always difficult to adjudicate, though I try to err on the side of caution using the character's skills at least as a gauge, means, I try to put the 'roleplaying performance' into context with the character's actual skills.
Even if the Charisma 1 Logic 1 Troll Sammy player has tons of good arguments, it won't do him any good, while the shy player of the Charisma 6 Influence 4 Elf Face will be met with a lot more benevolence in this regard.
Bye
Thanee
Even if the Charisma 1 Logic 1 Troll Sammy player has tons of good arguments, it won't do him any good, while the shy player of the Charisma 6 Influence 4 Elf Face will be met with a lot more benevolence in this regard.
Bye
Thanee
The dice determine the outcome. You tell the GM what you want the outcome to be, you roll the dice, he decides if the outcome that happened is close to what you wanted depending on the hits. That's it. Everything else is between the GM and the player. If the player wants to come up with a dramatic monologue fine, if not fine.
Nobody makes me field strip a MGL12 when I make an armorer check on it (even if I probably could) or explain how to do a slide-turn in a Westwind 2000. I just say I do it. Picking on people who want to play faces is just elitism crap.
Nobody makes me field strip a MGL12 when I make an armorer check on it (even if I probably could) or explain how to do a slide-turn in a Westwind 2000. I just say I do it. Picking on people who want to play faces is just elitism crap.
IMG, the dice decide, ultimately. If the character has good social skills then the character should do well, and if the character has poor social skills then people should dislike the character. All of this has nothing to do with the skills (or lack thereof) of the player.
That said, there's also a RPing section, where the player can talk and tell me what kind of approaches they're taking, but the bottom line is they can't do worse than modify the dice roll by about +/- 2. Positive modifiers are for good strategies, bad (but earnest attempts) strategies get no modifier (since the character would know better), and negative modifiers are for when I feel like the player isn't trying.
YMMV
edit: I should also note that I don't necessarily enforce this for every roll. If the situation is, Player: "I want to get some information from the bartender about Bob." if this is a big, important part of the plot, then I'll use the above guidelines and maybe ask him about his strategy. If it's a side thing then we just throw dice and move on, I don't penalize them for "not trying" if we're just not going to make a big deal out of the interation anyway.
That said, there's also a RPing section, where the player can talk and tell me what kind of approaches they're taking, but the bottom line is they can't do worse than modify the dice roll by about +/- 2. Positive modifiers are for good strategies, bad (but earnest attempts) strategies get no modifier (since the character would know better), and negative modifiers are for when I feel like the player isn't trying.
YMMV
edit: I should also note that I don't necessarily enforce this for every roll. If the situation is, Player: "I want to get some information from the bartender about Bob." if this is a big, important part of the plot, then I'll use the above guidelines and maybe ask him about his strategy. If it's a side thing then we just throw dice and move on, I don't penalize them for "not trying" if we're just not going to make a big deal out of the interation anyway.
And we apply negative modifiers to characters Infiltration skills who insist that their character wonder into a Fancy Dress Party dressed as a Ganger, Street Bum, or Underpaid Wage Slave.
If your arguing with your fellow team-mates while driving your vehicle your not going to be doing tricks as well.
If your arguing with your fellow team-mates while driving your vehicle your not going to be doing tricks as well.
People who are socially inept probably shouldn't play faces. People who have no musical or theatre backgrounds probably shouldn't play bards (in the game that shall not be mentioned). People who aren't good at poetry probably should take it as a knowledge skill. People who aren't old enough to drink (or who don't drink regularly) probably shouldn't take liquor or wine as a knowledge skill. The list goes on. I wouldn't call it elistist, I would just call it trying not to destroy the feel of the game.
One of my favorite examples is one player took knowledge Poetry (Haiku). She rolls her dice and depending on success writes out either a good or bad haiku.
For social skills 2 people can say the exact same thing to someone and have it taken completely different ways. The problem is that generally you have to say what you want before you roll to see how convincing it was. This puts the onus on the player to come up with something that could go over well or be completely shot down.
I agree that giving someone a -8 is a tad extreme based entirely on what they said (as if there aren't enough social modifiers already in place) but if you said something completely and solely insulting, for the purpose of doing anything but insulting them... not to mention sometimes success just shouldn't be possible.
My group has honestly gone thru entire exchanges without rolling until we got to sticky spots. It's fun and stops the game from breaking down as often (as rolling will generally do)
One of my favorite examples is one player took knowledge Poetry (Haiku). She rolls her dice and depending on success writes out either a good or bad haiku.
For social skills 2 people can say the exact same thing to someone and have it taken completely different ways. The problem is that generally you have to say what you want before you roll to see how convincing it was. This puts the onus on the player to come up with something that could go over well or be completely shot down.
I agree that giving someone a -8 is a tad extreme based entirely on what they said (as if there aren't enough social modifiers already in place) but if you said something completely and solely insulting, for the purpose of doing anything but insulting them... not to mention sometimes success just shouldn't be possible.
My group has honestly gone thru entire exchanges without rolling until we got to sticky spots. It's fun and stops the game from breaking down as often (as rolling will generally do)
I agree that people who are socially inept shouldn't play faces, but I'm certain that not a single person I've met would call me that. It's just that I've made a character that is far more charismatic than anyone I know, really. Still, I know very little about guns and that doesn't really impede my ability to play a character who uses them.
It's a tough line to tread, and really I need to tell the GM that I want to make rolls for more things rather that just let them get RPed out. I do love the flow of RP though, and so sometimes I don't want to blurt out "I want to roll for this!" in the middle of a good conversation, but at the same time I actually want to have my character's skills have as much impact as a street samurai who is really talented with an SMG.
Also, should a character's social skills impact interactions between PCs? My brother's character insulted my character and then I insulted him back, several times, and then he got mad at me and as a result his character no longer likes mine. I attempted to tell him that he probably wouldn't dislike my character as a result of the conversation and interactions, but he was having none of it.
It's a tough line to tread, and really I need to tell the GM that I want to make rolls for more things rather that just let them get RPed out. I do love the flow of RP though, and so sometimes I don't want to blurt out "I want to roll for this!" in the middle of a good conversation, but at the same time I actually want to have my character's skills have as much impact as a street samurai who is really talented with an SMG.
Also, should a character's social skills impact interactions between PCs? My brother's character insulted my character and then I insulted him back, several times, and then he got mad at me and as a result his character no longer likes mine. I attempted to tell him that he probably wouldn't dislike my character as a result of the conversation and interactions, but he was having none of it.
I think if you can't fire an MK-19 with an Expert rating in a combat situation you shouldn't be allowed to play a Street Samurai.
I disagree entirely. His character has every reason to not like yours. Sometimes no amount of rolls or pointing at stats will change outcomes, nor should they. Just because your character is likeable doesn't mean that you can insult people with no negative impact.
You'll have to win him back the old fashioned way... go buy him a round at the pub
You'll have to win him back the old fashioned way... go buy him a round at the pub
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| I think if you can't fire an MK-19 with an Expert rating in a combat situation you shouldn't be allowed to play a Street Samurai. |
I've seen actual players break down somewhat in combat situations in games and make poor decisions they normally wouldn't. I'd agree to some extent that characters lacking the ability to make sound tactical decisions probably shouldn't play a street sam or combat adept. It's just asking for trouble if you don't know the importance of suppressing fire or a well place grenade. Will get the group killed just as easily as someone insulting the Oyabun for the local Yaks.
| QUOTE (Unarmed) |
| Also, should a character's social skills impact interactions between PCs? |
Impact? Maybe.
Flavor? Sure.
Determine? Absolutely not.
It's his character, and if he doesn't want his character to like your character then neither you nor the GM can throw dice at him and force him to.
There's no way that I can force his character to like mine, no, but it feels like he's not taking my character's social skills into account when making his decision. That's fine, I'll just work harder to get back on his good side, but he is my brother and it kinda feels like he just decided to make his character dislike mine to make life harder for me. 
People need to apply a bit more subtlety to social skills. Ever known anyone who seemed to be really popular but you didn't like them yourself? Either because they seemed shallow, or pushy or because you were jealous? Just because someone has a high charisma score, it doesn't mean your character (or anyone else) is going to like that person. Likewise, no NPC is obliged to like your character either. And some things cannot be achieved with social rolls. Maybe the woman you are rolling all your successes against is happily married or doesn't find you attractive or is always going to feel upset by someone who acts as though she's there for him to sleep with. Now I'd let a character roll the dice to see if he finds someone, but people have their own personalities and aren't puppets according to a few dice rolls.
And the Charisma attribute need not mean likability. It's force of personality and ability to influence people too. That might be charm, but it could be intimidation or pushiness.
For the most part, I like people to role-play interactions. I'll gloss over somethings, such as negotiation with a Johnson, with a few dice rolls, but meaningful interaction is normally role-played and if a player can't manage to role-play a socially aware character, then they shouldn't create one. The more common problem I find, is people playing above their intelligence or charisma.
I prefer giving the benefit to players whenever possible while using the character attributes as a guide.
e.g. Player is witty, but character has poor social stats, I limit results of player wit by the character stats.
Player is not witty, but character is, regardless of amusing statements, results are determined by character stats.
Thus socially adept player is limited by character stats, and player with socially adept character gains advantage.
Generally take this approach with all skills, Player and Character skills often are no match at all.
e.g. Player is witty, but character has poor social stats, I limit results of player wit by the character stats.
Player is not witty, but character is, regardless of amusing statements, results are determined by character stats.
Thus socially adept player is limited by character stats, and player with socially adept character gains advantage.
Generally take this approach with all skills, Player and Character skills often are no match at all.
...I tend to agree with X-Kalibur and Unarmed. While a player may not have a full understanding of specific weapons this shouldn't necessarily preclude him or her from being a Sammy. On the other hand, playing a face is different in that it is a character type which is more centred around Role Playing.
In a previous campaign I was GM for, there was a player who's character was a mage who was also effectively the team's face (high Charisma elf with social skills). This player ran the character with an extremely abrasive personality to the point of openly insulting the NPCs the PC was supposed to be negotiating with at times. In one instance this character's behaviour more likely should have resulted in an NPC's bodyguard pile-driving the the PC into the floor.
Now, were I to just have gone with the dice rolls and forgo the impact of the character's personality, it would have made no sense. We may just as well be playing a board game then.
Yes the dice should still determine the final outcome, but it should also be affected by how the characer approaches and speaks to the NPC(s). There are situations when no matter how big the DP is, the character (such as in the case of this PC) has already botched the whole affair with their attitude. First impressions usually are lasting ones.
In a previous campaign I was GM for, there was a player who's character was a mage who was also effectively the team's face (high Charisma elf with social skills). This player ran the character with an extremely abrasive personality to the point of openly insulting the NPCs the PC was supposed to be negotiating with at times. In one instance this character's behaviour more likely should have resulted in an NPC's bodyguard pile-driving the the PC into the floor.
Now, were I to just have gone with the dice rolls and forgo the impact of the character's personality, it would have made no sense. We may just as well be playing a board game then.
Yes the dice should still determine the final outcome, but it should also be affected by how the characer approaches and speaks to the NPC(s). There are situations when no matter how big the DP is, the character (such as in the case of this PC) has already botched the whole affair with their attitude. First impressions usually are lasting ones.
One of the atttractions of role playing is having the opportunity to do things you can't/won't/are too scared to do in real life. Anyone out there want to role play a college student during exams?
The painfully shy player who wants to be a face may be acting out a fantasy. That's great, and a little help from the GM, and some experience in the game, may bring out that wit and charm she didn't know she had.
Of course, the GM could also squash her spirit by saying something like, "What a dorky thing to say! You fragged up royally." Even role playing games can be environments in which the weak get eaten alive.
The painfully shy player who wants to be a face may be acting out a fantasy. That's great, and a little help from the GM, and some experience in the game, may bring out that wit and charm she didn't know she had.
Of course, the GM could also squash her spirit by saying something like, "What a dorky thing to say! You fragged up royally." Even role playing games can be environments in which the weak get eaten alive.
Well okay, everything can be modified by circumstances. If a player is struggling to play a socially adept character and it isn't due to lack of effort, then I'll (as GM) do my best to help and bring the dice into play a bit more. I suppose I was a little stuck in a judgemental mindset and pre-supposing a player that was merely being antisocial. That was bad of me.
So basically Xcalibur what your saying is, that if you (the player) can't do it in real life, then you shouldn't be allowed to do it(or play it) in the game.
What a lousy game that would be. Do you make your troll players go outside and bench press a car to prove they are strong? Heaven forbid they roll dice, of course, it's ROLE playing right? What a bunch of elitist crap. Do you even bring dice to the game?
What a lousy game that would be. Do you make your troll players go outside and bench press a car to prove they are strong? Heaven forbid they roll dice, of course, it's ROLE playing right? What a bunch of elitist crap. Do you even bring dice to the game?
I agree with shadows comments above.
I play Shadowrun as a escape from what I do in real life. Last thing I would want to play is someone that does what I can do in day to day environment.
The dice are in the game mechanics to allow players to play a character that they have no real inkling on how to play them. I am average intelligence, so playing a less than average intelligence is easier than playing someone who is vastly more intelligent than myself.
Now due the many years of Wu Shu I have, should I get a inside advantage due I describe "18 Elbows" or the "7 Kicks", no. If your character has more skill than mine in Unarmed combat should I get "perks" due to my background, no.
To limit ones character to the skills set that one already has some expertise, is "elitist".
If you can get by with out rolling dice, good on ya mate, but when I shoot at someone I want to roll the dice.
This is an old argument, basically it revolves around Role Playing Elitist versus the Non Elitist.
To this is not LARPing nor do I want it get anywhere near that. If you want to make Shadowrun a LARPing game, more power to ya, but do not try and make everyone here play like it was LARPing.
I play Shadowrun as a escape from what I do in real life. Last thing I would want to play is someone that does what I can do in day to day environment.
The dice are in the game mechanics to allow players to play a character that they have no real inkling on how to play them. I am average intelligence, so playing a less than average intelligence is easier than playing someone who is vastly more intelligent than myself.
Now due the many years of Wu Shu I have, should I get a inside advantage due I describe "18 Elbows" or the "7 Kicks", no. If your character has more skill than mine in Unarmed combat should I get "perks" due to my background, no.
To limit ones character to the skills set that one already has some expertise, is "elitist".
If you can get by with out rolling dice, good on ya mate, but when I shoot at someone I want to roll the dice.
This is an old argument, basically it revolves around Role Playing Elitist versus the Non Elitist.
To this is not LARPing nor do I want it get anywhere near that. If you want to make Shadowrun a LARPing game, more power to ya, but do not try and make everyone here play like it was LARPing.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...I tend to agree with X-Kalibur and Unarmed. While a player may not have a full understanding of specific weapons this shouldn't necessarily preclude him or her from being a Sammy. On the other hand, playing a face is different in that it is a character type which is more centred around Role Playing. In a previous campaign I was GM for, there was a player who's character was a mage who was also effectively the team's face (high Charisma elf with social skills). This player ran the character with an extremely abrasive personality to the point of openly insulting the NPCs the PC was supposed to be negotiating with at times. |
Remember:
charisma:
1 : a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)
That annoying little pip-squeak with radical views and a very abrasive manner can be very charsmatic and can lead a nation to do things that would stun the entire world.
Charisma is not necessarily 'loved'
I have known some very abrasive and rude people that always seem to have a huge following.
How many of us here know a genuine A-hole, yet said A-hole has a huge group of hanger-ons hoping to win favor (even if often treated just a crappy as Joe stranger).
I don't need to play a slighty over-weight, middle-aged, balding white computer geek... since I am one in real life.
The dashing sauve rich boy turned cruasader, the tough as nails seen it all girl from the street, The dwarf muscleman, all of these things I 'play' since I cant be one in real life.
Until you require the Sammy to put three bursts into three seperate targets with his AK, or the shaman to conjure a spirit (or even go through what is commonly belived to be the 'way' to conjure a spirit by any of the major (ro not so major) folk traditions), then requiring the face to 'smooth' is a very unfair advantage.
Now if he is 'intentionally' abrasive then I would assume his character is. However is the character is shy / awkaward / etc, then brow-beating them for this is just going to make it worse for them.
Rather help them .... While making more 'work' for the GM, step up to the role. It is perfectly acceptable to say: "I move up to the bouncer and use my looks to convince him to let us in the club". If the 'player' is inept a simple description of what they want to do should surfice.
The GM can then step up:
The bouncers eyes looks your over at first dismissing you as beneath the club, your exterior of clothing showing you are not what the club wants. However, as you sway closer the bouncers eyes begin to soften. With a few bats of the eye=lashes and the gentle sway of the hips as your move closer, and the soft sultry voice, you tell the bouncer that sure the clothes are a little understated, but anyone and you mean anyone should look good dress in a one of a kind Nadyia Zure dress, but it takes true style and presonality to look this good in Off the rack clothes.
Bending forward to hide the evidince of your effect the bouncer sweeps the rope barricading the door and waves you in."
It requires both players and GM to make a engaging scene, but ultimately it is the GM who makes it or breaks it. If the player is not adept at what they are trying dont expect them to go into detail on 'how' the do it, rather expect (and tell them) to say what they want to do.
THen if you are comfortable / able: You expand the 'what' they do into the scene. Who knows you might find after seeing your examples and having their modest 'attempts' work that shy awkward social inept clutz might just open up and bloom into a flower.
I think you should have to give an approach to what you are trying to achieve. For example, if I went to ask the bartender for a drink and opened up with "Hey handsome…" then he will react a certain way. Just say he had come out of a bad relationship recently, he might be less receptive to what I say. This is similar to someone saying they are going to try to shoot the driver of the oncoming car. They might not know that that particular vehicle got reinforced glass for the windscreen and so they get a penalty (in this case increased barrier rating).
In both instances they player gives an approach they are going to take and then roll for the outcome. The approach probably won't matter in most cases but if you hit a soft spot for someone or they don't like your metatype then that is going to change the outcome. Just like you might not know about extra armour or previous damage on something you are shooting at.
I guess I am essentially agreeing with what Demon Bob said. You can give a bonus/penalty for an approach but then roll dice for the outcome. Often your character would know better than you.
-Strobe
In both instances they player gives an approach they are going to take and then roll for the outcome. The approach probably won't matter in most cases but if you hit a soft spot for someone or they don't like your metatype then that is going to change the outcome. Just like you might not know about extra armour or previous damage on something you are shooting at.
I guess I am essentially agreeing with what Demon Bob said. You can give a bonus/penalty for an approach but then roll dice for the outcome. Often your character would know better than you.
-Strobe
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| Now if he is 'intentionally' abrasive then I would assume his character is. |
...this was precisely the case. It is as if the character kept boasting "I'm better than all you lowlifes" which even began to rub the other team members (and players) the wrong way. The player in question not only had been involved in SR for some but was also far from shy, inept, or uncomfortable in social settings. In fact, this person was very outspoken and tended to hog much of the spotlight. In this case it was not so much a question of inexperience or ineptitude as it was one of tact.
In the perfect vision of hindsight, maybe some OOC discussion may have helped. However, this is the way this player tended to run every PC, no matter what the archetype. I just didn't see this style working well for a character who is supposed to be the spokesperson for the team when it comes to negotiating job details and payment. There is nothing wrong with playing the "hard sell" but you don't go around openly insulting the J and his bodyguards to their face when you don't feel you are getting what you want.
In the scene you described, the character in question would have found some way to turn the scene into a confrontation rather than impressing the bouncer and possibly even gaining a bit of respect. In that case, it would have been Troll bouncer 1 - PC 0.
The player was fortunate I am not the
I often joke about. In some games I've participated in, you say the wrong thing to the wrong person & the PC ends up "sleepin' wi da fishes" right quick. I agree, a Face doesn't need to be silvery tongued 24/7, but they need to know when to be civil and this character certainly did not.
In the end the actual gaming group broke up mainly due to the player's overbearing style and nature.
| QUOTE |
| What a bunch of elitist crap. |
You've restated your position a number of times. Keep the conversation civil, and please refrain from repeating the same thing three different ways. If you disagree wtih someone else's style, that's fine. But keep the insults off the boards.
And as long as he keeps restating his, I will keep arguing mine. That is how an argument works. Especially one where two people disagree.
Restate then. Find a different example to help express your point.
If you disagree with how someone runs their game, that's fine. But don't say someone else's game or style is crap because you disagree with it.
If you disagree with how someone runs their game, that's fine. But don't say someone else's game or style is crap because you disagree with it.
I said it was elitist crap, not that their game was crap. I said their game was lousy. And it is elitism, and it is generally acknowledged as elitism.
However that being said I think the thread is over anyways. In the future I will find new and exciting ways to restate my arguments.
However that being said I think the thread is over anyways. In the future I will find new and exciting ways to restate my arguments.
I spoke before about my strategy of letting them have some RP description, which can give one or two dice of bonus or penalty, but ultimately the dice decide things.
Then I read WearzManySkins' post about Wu Shu and his example of using descriptions to gain extra dice.
An idea that I've toyed with before (but for whatever reason rarely do) is give the same potential bonus for players who have good, interesting descriptions of what they want their characters to do, in addition to what they say. If someone describes a really cool way to attack some NPC, maybe I should be giving them the same +/-2 dice that I give in social situations. Of course, it doesn't matter whether they actually know Wu Shu or are just making up action movie crap, the important thing is if I reward involvement with a couple extra dice in social situations, I should consider doing the same thing in all situations.
Anyway, just something bouncing around in my head; thought I'd share with the group, maybe take this conversation in a less "colorful" direction.
Then I read WearzManySkins' post about Wu Shu and his example of using descriptions to gain extra dice.
An idea that I've toyed with before (but for whatever reason rarely do) is give the same potential bonus for players who have good, interesting descriptions of what they want their characters to do, in addition to what they say. If someone describes a really cool way to attack some NPC, maybe I should be giving them the same +/-2 dice that I give in social situations. Of course, it doesn't matter whether they actually know Wu Shu or are just making up action movie crap, the important thing is if I reward involvement with a couple extra dice in social situations, I should consider doing the same thing in all situations.
Anyway, just something bouncing around in my head; thought I'd share with the group, maybe take this conversation in a less "colorful" direction.
I ultimately go by the stats/die rolls, but I expect a bit of roleplaying too, and I'll give bonuses or penalties if I think they're appropriate.
I don't like the style where players are just sitting around the table going
"I try to get more money for the job."
"Okay, roll."
"I got three successes."
"Okay, you get an extra 5k."
It's just boring to me. Hell, there's more roleplaying going on when we play board games than I see in games where everyone just sits around talking about stats and die rolls. I know some people enjoy that, it's just not my preference.
I don't like the style where players are just sitting around the table going
"I try to get more money for the job."
"Okay, roll."
"I got three successes."
"Okay, you get an extra 5k."
It's just boring to me. Hell, there's more roleplaying going on when we play board games than I see in games where everyone just sits around talking about stats and die rolls. I know some people enjoy that, it's just not my preference.
...I agree. it should be a good mix of both role and roll play, not just one or the other.
Though Knasser was referring to another discussion, he touched on one of the points of the situation I mentioned...
Though Knasser was referring to another discussion, he touched on one of the points of the situation I mentioned...
| QUOTE |
| ...a player that was merely being antisocial... |
...from that respect I agree with his earlier comment...
| QUOTE |
| ...if a player can't manage to role-play a socially aware character then they shouldn't play one |
...this is where I was coming from. For a player who is just shy or uncomfortable but wants to give it a go, you better believe I will help him or her become more accustomed to the role.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| I spoke before about my strategy of letting them have some RP description, which can give one or two dice of bonus or penalty, but ultimately the dice decide things. Then I read WearzManySkins' post about Wu Shu and his example of using descriptions to gain extra dice. An idea that I've toyed with before (but for whatever reason rarely do) is give the same potential bonus for players who have good, interesting descriptions of what they want their characters to do, in addition to what they say. If someone describes a really cool way to attack some NPC, maybe I should be giving them the same +/-2 dice that I give in social situations. Of course, it doesn't matter whether they actually know Wu Shu or are just making up action movie crap, the important thing is if I reward involvement with a couple extra dice in social situations, I should consider doing the same thing in all situations. Anyway, just something bouncing around in my head; thought I'd share with the group, maybe take this conversation in a less "colorful" direction. |
I'd recommend Exalted if you like that sort of thing. The system is designed around being able to do that and has some very flashy game mechanics. It is also not quite as gritty as Shadowrun so it fits in better.
As for Shadowrun where you are not a god-like superhero who is destined to rule the world I'd shy away from giving dice bonuses and award butt loads of karma to the players who are doing that sort of stuff. Encourages them without making it easier for them to succeed. I think you'll find that once they are encouraged to describe things like that it'll get the brain juices flowing and they'll come up with brilliant ideas that fit within their skills and abilities that makes the run easier anyway.
I go about it another way.
If you are RPing well, I might give a 1 hit discount on the threshold. Afterall, certain approaches are easier if you phrase your request right and a 1 hit discount could well be worth as much as 4 dice. But... you have to have the dice to make the hits in the first place. A 2 hit threshold may well be reduced to 1, but if you do not have the dice to get 1 hit in the first place, too bad.
If you are RPing well, I might give a 1 hit discount on the threshold. Afterall, certain approaches are easier if you phrase your request right and a 1 hit discount could well be worth as much as 4 dice. But... you have to have the dice to make the hits in the first place. A 2 hit threshold may well be reduced to 1, but if you do not have the dice to get 1 hit in the first place, too bad.
I myself am a pretty shy person in real life, I will freely admit this. I'm less so on message boards (yay for the internet anonymity theory!) but I can roleplay a socially aware character quite well. Call it good acting or what have you. Maybe secretly I am a very socially adept person. But for the most part I'm quiet until you get me talking.
What I'm saying is there needs to be some knowledge of the matter at hand before you attempt it. Most people know how a gun "basically" works. (This is just asking for Austere or Raygun to pipe in, heh). Point and shoot. Pretty simple. Getting into things like suppressing fire, overwatch, and the like is more advanced and beneficial if the person using the gun knows about them.
Anyone can play a face, schmoozing isn't even that hard. It's that people simply become socially inept because they think "oooh, I have 18 dice to throw when I get into social encounters, I'm untouchable" and they start saying stupid shit. I don't allow my characters with low logic/int/cha to be really smart/witty/charismatic because that's metagaming me onto my characters. Just like it is metagaming to go "I've got dice coming out my ass for this roll, I can say whatever I want".
If the player just doesn't actually know better, give them a nudge as a GM. There are also social faux pas tests in case they messed up but you want them to have another shot.
You can call it elitist if you like, I call it roleplaying.
What I'm saying is there needs to be some knowledge of the matter at hand before you attempt it. Most people know how a gun "basically" works. (This is just asking for Austere or Raygun to pipe in, heh). Point and shoot. Pretty simple. Getting into things like suppressing fire, overwatch, and the like is more advanced and beneficial if the person using the gun knows about them.
Anyone can play a face, schmoozing isn't even that hard. It's that people simply become socially inept because they think "oooh, I have 18 dice to throw when I get into social encounters, I'm untouchable" and they start saying stupid shit. I don't allow my characters with low logic/int/cha to be really smart/witty/charismatic because that's metagaming me onto my characters. Just like it is metagaming to go "I've got dice coming out my ass for this roll, I can say whatever I want".
If the player just doesn't actually know better, give them a nudge as a GM. There are also social faux pas tests in case they messed up but you want them to have another shot.
You can call it elitist if you like, I call it roleplaying.
| QUOTE (X-Kalibur) |
| Anyone can play a face, schmoozing isn't even that hard. It's that people simply become socially inept because they think "oooh, I have 18 dice to throw when I get into social encounters, I'm untouchable" and they start saying stupid shit. I don't allow my characters with low logic/int/cha to be really smart/witty/charismatic because that's metagaming me onto my characters. Just like it is metagaming to go "I've got dice coming out my ass for this roll, I can say whatever I want". If the player just doesn't actually know better, give them a nudge as a GM. There are also social faux pas tests in case they messed up but you want them to have another shot. You can call it elitist if you like, I call it roleplaying. |
But saying stupid shit with 18 dice makes the listener think that what you say is actually smart/interesting/etc. Saying smart things with few dice means the people around you think you are acting like an ass.
Thats where the roleplaying comes in. If you can insult someone while sounding smooth about it, then you can have it. If you just sound like a jackass though...
| QUOTE (Cheops) |
| I'd recommend Exalted if you like that sort of thing. The system is designed around being able to do that and has some very flashy game mechanics. It is also not quite as gritty as Shadowrun so it fits in better. |
Oh, right, that explains why I don't do that.
Thanks for helping clear that up. I knew there was a reason.
you guys are talking about two different things.
X-Kalibur is talking about people who try to break the game by acting like jerks, in-character, and then depending on die rolls to cover their lack of roleplaying. it's equivalent to a player who says "okay, i'm going to block a katana with my pinky" and then rolls his gigantic unarmed dice pool. assuming the character doesn't posses a cybernetic or magical pinky, this should not be allowed in most games. it's unrealistic to a ridiculous degree. likewise, a player who knowingly acts in ways counter to his character sheet--who makes ridiculous or provocative statements, then expects his large social dice pool to cover his ass--should not be accommodated by the GM.
Shadow is talking about players who genuinely can't act as suave and smooth as their character is. there's nothing wrong with playing a character with abilities you lack. if there were, there wouldn't be much point in playing RPGs at all, since ultimately the only character you'd be able to play would be yourself. a player who can't think of something witty to say when his character needs to defuse a tense situation should not be penalized for that. as much as possible, the GM and the rest of the players should work with what the non-suave player gives them. as long as the player is trying to act in-character, he should be afforded great leeway.
X-Kalibur is talking about people who try to break the game by acting like jerks, in-character, and then depending on die rolls to cover their lack of roleplaying. it's equivalent to a player who says "okay, i'm going to block a katana with my pinky" and then rolls his gigantic unarmed dice pool. assuming the character doesn't posses a cybernetic or magical pinky, this should not be allowed in most games. it's unrealistic to a ridiculous degree. likewise, a player who knowingly acts in ways counter to his character sheet--who makes ridiculous or provocative statements, then expects his large social dice pool to cover his ass--should not be accommodated by the GM.
Shadow is talking about players who genuinely can't act as suave and smooth as their character is. there's nothing wrong with playing a character with abilities you lack. if there were, there wouldn't be much point in playing RPGs at all, since ultimately the only character you'd be able to play would be yourself. a player who can't think of something witty to say when his character needs to defuse a tense situation should not be penalized for that. as much as possible, the GM and the rest of the players should work with what the non-suave player gives them. as long as the player is trying to act in-character, he should be afforded great leeway.
...mfb, well put and thank you
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
No there is a third different things mentioned
From X-Kalibur
"People who are socially inept probably shouldn't play faces. People who have no musical or theatre backgrounds probably shouldn't play bards (in the game that shall not be mentioned). People who aren't good at poetry probably should take it as a knowledge skill. People who aren't old enough to drink (or who don't drink regularly) probably shouldn't take liquor or wine as a knowledge skill. The list goes on. I wouldn't call it elistist, I would just call it trying not to destroy the feel of the game."
This is what my statement was aimed at.
From X-Kalibur
"People who are socially inept probably shouldn't play faces. People who have no musical or theatre backgrounds probably shouldn't play bards (in the game that shall not be mentioned). People who aren't good at poetry probably should take it as a knowledge skill. People who aren't old enough to drink (or who don't drink regularly) probably shouldn't take liquor or wine as a knowledge skill. The list goes on. I wouldn't call it elistist, I would just call it trying not to destroy the feel of the game."
This is what my statement was aimed at.
yeah, that part, he's just plain wrong about.
Note the word probably. It's very important. Do you think mister antisocial (as in antisocial disorder, not socially inept) is going to make a good paladin? Chances are no. I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying it's probably not a good idea because there will be something lacking.
These also tend to be the same people that rely on dice to save their bacon.
These also tend to be the same people that rely on dice to save their bacon.
on the other hand, he might make a very interesting paladin, playing a character who struggles to fulfill the role he's chosen while beset by his own personal demons. yes, people should try to know something about what their characters do, but that doesn't mean limiting the types of characters someone can play--it means that players need to do some research and some thinking, if they're going to play a character outside the realm of their personal experience.
| QUOTE (X-Kalibur) |
| These also tend to be the same people that rely on dice to save their bacon. |
Is it safe to assume that we're only talking about the socially inept, here, and not the minors or the people who are bad at poetry?
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) | ||
Is it safe to assume that we're only talking about the socially inept, here, and not the minors or the people who are bad at poetry? |
Hahaha, no. The people who take weird knowledge skills are probably even worse off when it comes to relying on dice. note to self: make a character that speaks in Iambic Pentameter.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.