Holy hijack Batman!!
Thanks for the er....umm...yeah, ideas.
I plan on "shooting my players in the face" more often....yeah.
Full Version: Negotiating
I kind of prefer roleplaying mundane or nonessential negotiations or other social interactions, but even then, I think the GM needs to look at the character's stats, not the player's ability. Someone eloquent in real life, who is playing someone with a Charisma of 1, should not be able to fast-talk his way through everything. That's poor roleplaying. And when it matters, the dice need to come out.
I think the GM should tailor his descriptions and NPC reactions to the PC. Someone from a corporate enclave will be bewildered in the barrens, while a barrens ganger will be noting gang markers, whether the squatters are still out or have gone for cover, possible ambush sites, etc. Similarly, that ganger in a corporate high-rise probably won't notice the security systems that the corporate guy will be assuming are there.
If someone has low social skills, then people will tend to interupt him, roll their eyes at him, flinch from him, and give him disbelieving glances. Someone with high social skills, on the other hand, can make people laugh at a crass joke that would be offensive coming from someone else. People will gather around him, nod at him, smile at him, etc.
Roleplaying can enhance action scenes, decking, and social interactions, but I don't expect a player to be able to turn it on at will. I think it's perfectly acceptable to say "Um, my face tries to convince them we're the night janitors." If he can roleplay it out, then he should get the same bonus Karma anyone else gets for good roleplaying.
While I don't favor the "pure roleplaying" approach, I have also seen a lot of ludicrous examples in various threads from people who let the dice rule everything. I let social skills affect how I describe things to the players, but I hate taking control of PCs away from the players. Things like "Sorry, but your huge troll is too scared of the little ganger to hit him - he rolled a 15 for the intimidation open test." or "No, you agree to let the face be the sniper, even though you know he doesn't have a rifles skill. His negotiation skill is way better than yours."
Some people need to realize that social skills let you affect other people's attitudes to a limited degree - they aren't mind control. They don't make people do things wildly out of character for them. You might be able to fast-talk your way past a ganger, but he won't give you the keys to his bike just because you rolled high. Similarly, Johnson's won't go above what they are authorized to, even if they are so charmed that they want to. So how would I handle the above examples? I might tell the troll that the ganger makes him flinch back a step. I might tell the sniper that if he didn't know the face was unskilled, he would have been bamboozled.
I think the GM should tailor his descriptions and NPC reactions to the PC. Someone from a corporate enclave will be bewildered in the barrens, while a barrens ganger will be noting gang markers, whether the squatters are still out or have gone for cover, possible ambush sites, etc. Similarly, that ganger in a corporate high-rise probably won't notice the security systems that the corporate guy will be assuming are there.
If someone has low social skills, then people will tend to interupt him, roll their eyes at him, flinch from him, and give him disbelieving glances. Someone with high social skills, on the other hand, can make people laugh at a crass joke that would be offensive coming from someone else. People will gather around him, nod at him, smile at him, etc.
Roleplaying can enhance action scenes, decking, and social interactions, but I don't expect a player to be able to turn it on at will. I think it's perfectly acceptable to say "Um, my face tries to convince them we're the night janitors." If he can roleplay it out, then he should get the same bonus Karma anyone else gets for good roleplaying.
While I don't favor the "pure roleplaying" approach, I have also seen a lot of ludicrous examples in various threads from people who let the dice rule everything. I let social skills affect how I describe things to the players, but I hate taking control of PCs away from the players. Things like "Sorry, but your huge troll is too scared of the little ganger to hit him - he rolled a 15 for the intimidation open test." or "No, you agree to let the face be the sniper, even though you know he doesn't have a rifles skill. His negotiation skill is way better than yours."
Some people need to realize that social skills let you affect other people's attitudes to a limited degree - they aren't mind control. They don't make people do things wildly out of character for them. You might be able to fast-talk your way past a ganger, but he won't give you the keys to his bike just because you rolled high. Similarly, Johnson's won't go above what they are authorized to, even if they are so charmed that they want to. So how would I handle the above examples? I might tell the troll that the ganger makes him flinch back a step. I might tell the sniper that if he didn't know the face was unskilled, he would have been bamboozled.
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) | ||
Awww, ya mean you never watched "The A-Team"? |
Heh. The theme is on my ringtones.
Of course, it always depends on the players. If the players want more freeform, I largely ignore stats.
But USUALLY, in my game, it works like this:
Player A has a low charisma character, but is high charisma IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff and I will ask him how that fits in with his character. If it doesn't, I will not award him karma for good roleplaying and/or he will fail even if his reasoning is good. You didn't make your character charismatic. Just because you can lift a file cabinet IRL doesn't mean you can do it with your character. The same applies to your character.
Player B has high charisma in character, but is not so speedy IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff. I will purposely ignore a certain number of slips or lead the conversation (the guard will pick up on little cues and points he would've missed otherwise). The character has excellent 'luck' with people; what he tries to talk about just happens to be what they're interested in. If the player is really struggling, I drop little hints, depending on the role (just like I do with any intelligence-linked skill).
I use stats to limit PCs in certain ways or give them hints in others. It still doesn't necessarily require dice, but I think it does encourage roleplaying and doesn't invalidate that karma spent.
But USUALLY, in my game, it works like this:
Player A has a low charisma character, but is high charisma IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff and I will ask him how that fits in with his character. If it doesn't, I will not award him karma for good roleplaying and/or he will fail even if his reasoning is good. You didn't make your character charismatic. Just because you can lift a file cabinet IRL doesn't mean you can do it with your character. The same applies to your character.
Player B has high charisma in character, but is not so speedy IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff. I will purposely ignore a certain number of slips or lead the conversation (the guard will pick up on little cues and points he would've missed otherwise). The character has excellent 'luck' with people; what he tries to talk about just happens to be what they're interested in. If the player is really struggling, I drop little hints, depending on the role (just like I do with any intelligence-linked skill).
I use stats to limit PCs in certain ways or give them hints in others. It still doesn't necessarily require dice, but I think it does encourage roleplaying and doesn't invalidate that karma spent.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| Of course, it always depends on the players. If the players want more freeform, I largely ignore stats. But USUALLY, in my game, it works like this: Player A has a low charisma character, but is high charisma IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff and I will ask him how that fits in with his character. If it doesn't, I will not award him karma for good roleplaying and/or he will fail even if his reasoning is good. You didn't make your character charismatic. Just because you can lift a file cabinet IRL doesn't mean you can do it with your character. The same applies to your character. Player B has high charisma in character, but is not so speedy IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff. I will purposely ignore a certain number of slips or lead the conversation (the guard will pick up on little cues and points he would've missed otherwise). The character has excellent 'luck' with people; what he tries to talk about just happens to be what they're interested in. If the player is really struggling, I drop little hints, depending on the role (just like I do with any intelligence-linked skill). I use stats to limit PCs in certain ways or give them hints in others. It still doesn't necessarily require dice, but I think it does encourage roleplaying and doesn't invalidate that karma spent. |
Unless my players are being paricularly clever, I usually just let the dice decide (with some bonus or penalty). We roleplay, but we don't usually let "the roleplay" replace dice for things like this.
However, roleplay does factor alot in how we award bonuses, penalties and karma.
Two sets of limitations, then -- and I'm talking specifically about CH-linked skills, here, although parts of this could extrapolate to other skills as well. (Love the "grenade" example given earlier 
)
The first, for the player to play their PC at not a higher level than the stats allow.
The second, for the player to be able to play their PC at as high a level as the stats allow.
In both cases, the numbers step in and identify both when a player is overplaying their PC (getting more intangible benefits than the stats would indicate); and underplaying that PC (simply lacking the ability to roleplay the kinds of benefits the stats would indicate). The happiest balance is when the stats come close to what the player themself is capable of ... but that's not usually the case, or even always desirable. As someone said earlier, a major reason for many to play Shadowrun is escapism -- and that requires temporarily becoming someone you're not, someone with skills or aptitude or sheer gift way beyond yours.
However, I'd suggest that one of the major reasons CH gets the shaft in so many of these discussions is because we so frequently do seem to take for granted an "invisible" social skill at least equal to our own ... even in the street samurai with a CH and Etiquette of one. In all things social, we default most easily to being ourselves: and because it's what we're used to, in most cases we never see it.
Yet in strict rules terms it's still bounded by a quantitative value (call it CH 2 or 3, for average; 4 for a more leadership type). No problem defaulting to our own expectations, here -- if we're prepared to pay the appropriate bps for our PCs.
)The first, for the player to play their PC at not a higher level than the stats allow.
The second, for the player to be able to play their PC at as high a level as the stats allow.
In both cases, the numbers step in and identify both when a player is overplaying their PC (getting more intangible benefits than the stats would indicate); and underplaying that PC (simply lacking the ability to roleplay the kinds of benefits the stats would indicate). The happiest balance is when the stats come close to what the player themself is capable of ... but that's not usually the case, or even always desirable. As someone said earlier, a major reason for many to play Shadowrun is escapism -- and that requires temporarily becoming someone you're not, someone with skills or aptitude or sheer gift way beyond yours.
However, I'd suggest that one of the major reasons CH gets the shaft in so many of these discussions is because we so frequently do seem to take for granted an "invisible" social skill at least equal to our own ... even in the street samurai with a CH and Etiquette of one. In all things social, we default most easily to being ourselves: and because it's what we're used to, in most cases we never see it.
Yet in strict rules terms it's still bounded by a quantitative value (call it CH 2 or 3, for average; 4 for a more leadership type). No problem defaulting to our own expectations, here -- if we're prepared to pay the appropriate bps for our PCs.
Geez, I always thought I was a big push-the-role-in-roleplaying guy. This is heavy.
When you say that a player has to role play a social situation well in order for his character to be successful, you're confronting him instead of encouraging him, it'll probably take away from the fun.
Last Monday, the team's face was hangin out when a former client showed up loaded on tequila and began to spout off to her friends about all the cool/dangerous/illegal things the runner had done, within earshot of about 2 dozen people.
player's response: "(character voice) Hey I just.... oh well that's... You know I... it's just that....oh fuckit! (picks up a handful of dice, switch to normal voice.) I tell everyone she's lying."
his character had a charisma 7 and fast talk 5. The player is kind of a mouse. I wasn't gonna penalize him for that.
When you say that a player has to role play a social situation well in order for his character to be successful, you're confronting him instead of encouraging him, it'll probably take away from the fun.
Last Monday, the team's face was hangin out when a former client showed up loaded on tequila and began to spout off to her friends about all the cool/dangerous/illegal things the runner had done, within earshot of about 2 dozen people.
player's response: "(character voice) Hey I just.... oh well that's... You know I... it's just that....oh fuckit! (picks up a handful of dice, switch to normal voice.) I tell everyone she's lying."
his character had a charisma 7 and fast talk 5. The player is kind of a mouse. I wasn't gonna penalize him for that.
Dog, that's about how we do it.
I let the players get as far as they feel comfortable and at somepoint let them or me introduce the dice. If they'd done a lion's share of RP, then the roll is less impactful (but I don't let them know) than if they just roll right off the bat.
I let the players get as far as they feel comfortable and at somepoint let them or me introduce the dice. If they'd done a lion's share of RP, then the roll is less impactful (but I don't let them know) than if they just roll right off the bat.
I would like to take a moment to point out that I never suggested ignoring the character's limitations when moving towards pure roleplaying/freeforming social situations. After all, if you're ignoring the character's limitations, you don't exactly have a role left to play. If the player is generally charismatic and maintains his level of charisma while playing character that is a social troll, that s just as bad as a sociallt insular player trying to throw dice at everything that comes his or her way. Neither player is in character, and neither is roleplaying well at all, and the GM should be good enough to take note of this.
This naturally puts limitations on players, because that timid, socially insular player is probably going to have trouble playing up to a more charismatic/demanding character than, say, a good actor would. But I don't believe that that that timid, socially insular player is stuck being so, and if it's demanding, so be it. Before Kagetenshi and co have another fit, note that this is by no means an indictment of all games everywhere that do not conform this construction of roleplaying. It is specifically suited to a game run with a heavy emphasis on roleplaying, and it demands both a GM and a group of players both able and (in my opinion, more importantly) willing to engage a game at this level. It is not escapist, and if you play games because you want escapism, this would obviously be inappropriate. But escapism exists more or less uniformly in all media, and it is something of a constant. Moreover, if you play games casually just for fun (which is different from escapism), it is still inappropriate, and I'm not saying you need to change.
This naturally puts limitations on players, because that timid, socially insular player is probably going to have trouble playing up to a more charismatic/demanding character than, say, a good actor would. But I don't believe that that that timid, socially insular player is stuck being so, and if it's demanding, so be it. Before Kagetenshi and co have another fit, note that this is by no means an indictment of all games everywhere that do not conform this construction of roleplaying. It is specifically suited to a game run with a heavy emphasis on roleplaying, and it demands both a GM and a group of players both able and (in my opinion, more importantly) willing to engage a game at this level. It is not escapist, and if you play games because you want escapism, this would obviously be inappropriate. But escapism exists more or less uniformly in all media, and it is something of a constant. Moreover, if you play games casually just for fun (which is different from escapism), it is still inappropriate, and I'm not saying you need to change.
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| his character had a charisma 7 and fast talk 5. The player is kind of a mouse. I wasn't gonna penalize him for that. |
Perhaps to summarize, in my game, I damn well would.
I'm most comfortable with using a combination of real life skills + the game stats.
So even if the gamer has great social skills (hahaha!) they'd still need to invest skill points to make thier will manifest on the world.
If you need a system for doing a combination I'd say have the PC roll an extra 1-2 die or subtract -1 to -2 from TNs for circumstances in which they convincingly roleplay the negotiation etc. Conversely subtract a die or add to the TN if the player couldn't fast-talk his mom into lending him her car.
Ostensibly this would encourage those will some decent social skills to specialize in Face characters while those with no social skills would likely move towards archetypes that actually fit thier personalities rather than some idealized version of themselves.
So even if the gamer has great social skills (hahaha!) they'd still need to invest skill points to make thier will manifest on the world.
If you need a system for doing a combination I'd say have the PC roll an extra 1-2 die or subtract -1 to -2 from TNs for circumstances in which they convincingly roleplay the negotiation etc. Conversely subtract a die or add to the TN if the player couldn't fast-talk his mom into lending him her car.
Ostensibly this would encourage those will some decent social skills to specialize in Face characters while those with no social skills would likely move towards archetypes that actually fit thier personalities rather than some idealized version of themselves.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) | ||
Perhaps to summarize, in my game, I damn well would. |
If I ever play in any of your games. I will purchase 0 social skills, have a charisma of one (unless I play to be a magician where some hard limits are based off it), and will simply talk and walk my way through whatever I happen to need to (or at least not be penalized for failing to be able to) while having bountiful amounts of extra points for other stats.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||||
If I ever play in any of your games. I will purchase 0 social skills, have a charisma of one (unless I play to be a magician where some hard limits are based off it), and will simply talk and walk my way through whatever I happen to need to (or at least not be penalized for failing to be able to) while having bountiful amounts of extra points for other stats. |
Perhaps you're illiterate. Reread my fucking post and note that bad roleplaying encompasses ignoring the limitations of the character to your own benefit.
| QUOTE (Arethusa @ Mar 18 2005, 06:32 PM) |
| Lots of waffle |
Arethusa, since when has Shadowrun been a "Live Action" game. That is a game where you MUST HAVE the combat skills to be a fighter. I generally play a mage, wear no armour, but because I have a minimal martial arts background I routinely trounce armoured fighters. This is not SR.
SR is a RPG. A Role Playing Game where the players sit about and use a combination of "role playing" and probability producing artifacts (ie. dice). Players use their role play skills to GUIDE the characters and dice are used to determine their actual INTERACTION success/failure with the GM's fantasy construct.
If you put any fucking penalty on a low RL charisma player and abuse their character skills because of the PLAYER'S skills you are playing Live Action and should put all your SR material in a nice big box and post it to someone who plays the game properly.
When I was a kid at daycare, some guy used to come in with painted, metal figures and he would Roleplay with the older kids and they would have a great time just talking in character. I assume it was D&D, since at that time (1980) seemed to be alive and well. I never saw any dice, paper or pencils, but I know they had a good time.
Play however you can as long as you and your group have fun. I like the rules and dice more than pure RP, but striking a nice balance seems to be where my group lies.
Play however you can as long as you and your group have fun. I like the rules and dice more than pure RP, but striking a nice balance seems to be where my group lies.
Grinder,
That's my point, play fairly within the rules of the game. Sure, don't award good RP karma to a low RL CHA/INT player and thus hinder they character development, but don't set arbitary limitations on the character's skills when they are being used. IF EVERYBODY at game inception agrees to LARPing social skills, fine, but there is no excuse to swear and flame people who play the game by the rules as they are stated in canon.
I personally feel that it is bad GMing to limit a character by the limitations of the player.
Edited: To make clear I am not having a pop at Grinder, but I am upset by Arethusa. Oh, and the odd spelling mistake.
That's my point, play fairly within the rules of the game. Sure, don't award good RP karma to a low RL CHA/INT player and thus hinder they character development, but don't set arbitary limitations on the character's skills when they are being used. IF EVERYBODY at game inception agrees to LARPing social skills, fine, but there is no excuse to swear and flame people who play the game by the rules as they are stated in canon.
I personally feel that it is bad GMing to limit a character by the limitations of the player.
Edited: To make clear I am not having a pop at Grinder, but I am upset by Arethusa. Oh, and the odd spelling mistake.
Wow. So, like, if a player ever talks in character, it's suddenly a LARP? Neat. I never knew that.
Botch, how do you reconcile it when a very bright player comes up with a brilliant plan, but does so with an Int 1 Troll (with no skills near appropriate to the situation)? What happens when that retarded Troll with the eloquent and intelligent player tries to fast talk his way past a bouncer, by speaking out a logical argument against the bouncer keeping their guns, out loud and IRL, and claiming it's in character?
Likewise, how does your group handle it when one of your players just says "Uhh, like, my guy fast talks...the...uhh, the bouncer. To get him to let us in. And keep our guns. And grenades. Yeah. He just says...uhm...y'know...Here, I'll roll." Does the GM make up the argument, counter argument, etc, all by himself? Should the player get any sort of penalty for being so vague and relying solely on a die roll? If another character is trying to fast talk a different bouncer at a different door, and plays it out with more detail and finesse, should he get a bonus to the roll? Bonus karma at the end of the game? Neither?
I'm just curious. There's a fine line between metagaming and role playing in some games -- games where the players have skills the characters don't, and vice versa -- and I'm wondering where different gaming groups draw that line.
Botch, how do you reconcile it when a very bright player comes up with a brilliant plan, but does so with an Int 1 Troll (with no skills near appropriate to the situation)? What happens when that retarded Troll with the eloquent and intelligent player tries to fast talk his way past a bouncer, by speaking out a logical argument against the bouncer keeping their guns, out loud and IRL, and claiming it's in character?
Likewise, how does your group handle it when one of your players just says "Uhh, like, my guy fast talks...the...uhh, the bouncer. To get him to let us in. And keep our guns. And grenades. Yeah. He just says...uhm...y'know...Here, I'll roll." Does the GM make up the argument, counter argument, etc, all by himself? Should the player get any sort of penalty for being so vague and relying solely on a die roll? If another character is trying to fast talk a different bouncer at a different door, and plays it out with more detail and finesse, should he get a bonus to the roll? Bonus karma at the end of the game? Neither?
I'm just curious. There's a fine line between metagaming and role playing in some games -- games where the players have skills the characters don't, and vice versa -- and I'm wondering where different gaming groups draw that line.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Wow. So, like, if a player ever talks in character, it's suddenly a LARP? Neat. I never knew that. Botch, how do you reconcile it when a very bright player comes up with a brilliant plan, but does so with an Int 1 Troll (with no skills near appropriate to the situation)? What happens when that retarded Troll with the eloquent and intelligent player tries to fast talk his way past a bouncer, by speaking out a logical argument against the bouncer keeping their guns, out loud and IRL, and claiming it's in character? Likewise, how does your group handle it when one of your players just says "Uhh, like, my guy fast talks...the...uhh, the bouncer. To get him to let us in. And keep our guns. And grenades. Yeah. He just says...uhm...y'know...Here, I'll roll." Does the GM make up the argument, counter argument, etc, all by himself? Should the player get any sort of penalty for being so vague and relying solely on a die roll? If another character is trying to fast talk a different bouncer at a different door, and plays it out with more detail and finesse, should he get a bonus to the roll? Bonus karma at the end of the game? Neither? I'm just curious. There's a fine line between metagaming and role playing in some games -- games where the players have skills the characters don't, and vice versa -- and I'm wondering where different gaming groups draw that line. |
Whammo! I think you've just compacted every game night in one post, LOL.
It's tricky, we constantly always play with the idea of "How can my Int 1 PC come up with that kind of plan?" It's kind of like the players get the benefit of their own wits as well as the extra wits (aka dice rolls) of their character as well. Lets them dig themselves out of a hole with the dice if the Player isn't smart enough (or skilled in it for real) to come up with the idea or concept they'd know nothing about.
I cut them some slack, but try and not let them rule the roost.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) | ||||||
Perhaps you're illiterate. Reread my fucking post and note that bad roleplaying encompasses ignoring the limitations of the character to your own benefit. |
Thats just great. Don't give my my measly in-character RP bonus for when I happen to be schmoozing the town. I'll go, hit up some fixers for guns and ammo, and weapons I should never have in the first place. Then when the bouncer says "Hey Trog, I need to check your pockets." I get the good rp for shooting him in the face with the nice big shiny guns I just got. The bouncer interaction was in character, the fixers wasn't. Balacnes out.
There is no reason social skills should be any different than other ones. "I punch him." Is a lot worse than "I feint a few punches, fake a straight right then nail him with a left hook to the liver." Likewise, "I fast talk them" is a lot worse than "We've been sent as replacements due to numerous complaints about the quality of the current work shift. We're here to evaluate and calculate how the current shift can be replace to be more efficient. Please move out of our way."
Should I get out of character penalties, but succeed in a unarmed combat roll because I beat you boxing? No.
Why then should I get out of character penalties, but be allowed to do quantum physics with an int 1 character? Simply because I can do them on a piece of paper in front of you? No.
So, just because I can phrase things elegantly, why should I think be allowed to sweet talk a guard away, or demolish a fixer in negotiations, with the cha 1 guy who just crawled out of the sewer?
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Wow. So, like, if a player ever talks in character, it's suddenly a LARP? Neat. I never knew that. Botch, how do you reconcile it when a very bright player comes up with a brilliant plan, but does so with an Int 1 Troll (with no skills near appropriate to the situation)? What happens when that retarded Troll with the eloquent and intelligent player tries to fast talk his way past a bouncer, by speaking out a logical argument against the bouncer keeping their guns, out loud and IRL, and claiming it's in character? Likewise, how does your group handle it when one of your players just says "Uhh, like, my guy fast talks...the...uhh, the bouncer. To get him to let us in. And keep our guns. And grenades. Yeah. He just says...uhm...y'know...Here, I'll roll." Does the GM make up the argument, counter argument, etc, all by himself? Should the player get any sort of penalty for being so vague and relying solely on a die roll? If another character is trying to fast talk a different bouncer at a different door, and plays it out with more detail and finesse, should he get a bonus to the roll? Bonus karma at the end of the game? Neither? I'm just curious. There's a fine line between metagaming and role playing in some games -- games where the players have skills the characters don't, and vice versa -- and I'm wondering where different gaming groups draw that line. |
First, I seriously have to ask if you are an idiot or if English is not your first language after reading the first paragraph, only after reading through the entire post I can reply pleasantly. My point is, if you ever deliberately or continuely hinder a character's skills because of player skill levels you are playing LARP.
Its real simple, as a GM you say "Roleplay your character, your troll is as dumb as fuck, that is a OOC idea, stop it." People can CLAIM whatever they want, it doesn't make it true. If the player cannot adapt their playing style to fit the selected character after out-of-session talk and it is actually adversely affecting the other players enjoyment of the game then the Cow-From-Space™ becomes a viable option.
The second example needs a different tack. First there will be no bonus karma for good ideas, no bonus karma for good roleplaying. Second no in-game positive modifiers can be applied for good ideas or unusual avenues of RPG responses. As a responsible GM I provide feedback on the game sessions to the players, whether this comes from my own observations or those passed to me by individual players. If a player is making an arse of their character this should be passed back to them outside of the game. An inarticulate player may not be the most persuative "face", but it is the duty of the GM to filter the player's response through their character's profile into their fantasyscape. If you want my response to a player who was incapable of any greater response to any situation than that stated I would suggest that they sit back and observe other players for a session to develop their RP skills. If this does not bring resolution, we could try a less communitive/intelligent character, if this doesn't work I'd give them a few pointers on how to get much more fun from a MMORG.
What must never happen is arbitary penalties applied to character interaction because of the player having a lower RL skill.
The third example will be more fun to GM or play alongside. If what they roleplay through is actually of benefit to the character's situation then they get a bonus situational modifier. If the IC roleplaying matches what character actually is, then they get a Good Roleplaying karma bonus as long as it holds up through the session. The thing is, I have, and I am sure you have come across good roleplaying (IC thoughts/actions/conversations) that is at odds of what is actually on the character sheet. Just as I have come across intelligent, charasmatic players who have selected play a face and then just made an arse of themselves in certain situations. Sure they "threw" plenty of "roleplaying dice" by acting out the situation impecably, its just that the result of the IC conversation was a virtual "botch". In that situation the character got penalised in the same way a "bad" die roll would have done.
I had a whole big long point by point reply ready to go, then realized turning this thread into more of a flame war than it already is just wasn't worth the trouble.
The simple truth is neither group in this argument is right, just like neither group is wrong. Some gaming circles are capable of, and enjoy, role playing out their social encounters as a valuable and necessary part of a night's fun of dice-tossing. Some groups couldn't care less about talking in character, and just worry about rolling the dice and making the GM figure out how the fast talking works. Most groups are somewhere in between.
Everyone have fun in their game, and shut up about everyone else's. Amen.
The simple truth is neither group in this argument is right, just like neither group is wrong. Some gaming circles are capable of, and enjoy, role playing out their social encounters as a valuable and necessary part of a night's fun of dice-tossing. Some groups couldn't care less about talking in character, and just worry about rolling the dice and making the GM figure out how the fast talking works. Most groups are somewhere in between.
Everyone have fun in their game, and shut up about everyone else's. Amen.
Personally, I think everybody bar Arethusa is right. Everybody else has acknowledged that player skills and character skills are different and it is dependant upon good GMing of this gray area that makes a good game.
1) Good roleplaying should be rewarded.
2) Die rolling is the definative mechanic of SR. Why else collect and spend karma?
3) Good RPing aides dice rolls.
1) Good roleplaying should be rewarded.
2) Die rolling is the definative mechanic of SR. Why else collect and spend karma?
3) Good RPing aides dice rolls.
If you depend solely on dice rolling, then encounters can easily degrate into metagaming:
Player 1 "I try to gain his trust."
Player 2 "Oh, John, don't forget to offer him a gift."
Player 3 "Food is alwies good, do you have a candy bar?"
Player 1 "I will give him my ration bar, does that give me any bonuses?"
GM "An act of kindness is worth a +X, now roll"
It is much better to go:
Player 1 "I neal down and look at the kid under the car, I hold my hands in plain sight and say 'It's ok, the bad men are gone, we are not going to hurt you. Come one out.' ."
Player 2 "I stay back. oh, wait a minut, 'Sam (player 1's charictor) offer him something.' "
Player 3 " 'Ya Sam, does any one have a candy bar?' "
Player 1 "I take out a ration bar and set it just under the car. 'Come on out kid, we wount hurt you, you must be hungery, Come on, that is it.' "
GM "Ok, Player one roll your negoations add +X."
or at least that is my 2 cents
Player 1 "I try to gain his trust."
Player 2 "Oh, John, don't forget to offer him a gift."
Player 3 "Food is alwies good, do you have a candy bar?"
Player 1 "I will give him my ration bar, does that give me any bonuses?"
GM "An act of kindness is worth a +X, now roll"
It is much better to go:
Player 1 "I neal down and look at the kid under the car, I hold my hands in plain sight and say 'It's ok, the bad men are gone, we are not going to hurt you. Come one out.' ."
Player 2 "I stay back. oh, wait a minut, 'Sam (player 1's charictor) offer him something.' "
Player 3 " 'Ya Sam, does any one have a candy bar?' "
Player 1 "I take out a ration bar and set it just under the car. 'Come on out kid, we wount hurt you, you must be hungery, Come on, that is it.' "
GM "Ok, Player one roll your negoations add +X."
or at least that is my 2 cents
Either method is vailed way to go.
Remember, the vast majority of us are anti-social, emotionally stunted little cave trolls (myself included) and have difficulty in expressing even the most basic forms of empathy at times when confronted by situations in the real world, can you honestly expect us to know to talk that way when the situation calls for it?
If the face person goes withthe second method consistently, I'd reward them for their good roleplaying, same for any character that can play their realm of influence that well, but it's not going to be over the top, 10 karma a session type rewards.
Remember, the vast majority of us are anti-social, emotionally stunted little cave trolls (myself included) and have difficulty in expressing even the most basic forms of empathy at times when confronted by situations in the real world, can you honestly expect us to know to talk that way when the situation calls for it?
If the face person goes withthe second method consistently, I'd reward them for their good roleplaying, same for any character that can play their realm of influence that well, but it's not going to be over the top, 10 karma a session type rewards.
I think calling Arethusa's way of gaming 'wrong' is a bit extreme. If his players have no problem with this style of GMing, then more power to them to play and/or run the game as they all like. It isn't 'wrong', just not quite the same as most groups do things.
Arethusa method isn't wrong as long as the PCs know going in that social tests are decided by Roleplaying rather than success tests. That way nobody feel like they are getting the shaft when they invest lots of skill points into social skills and not get to use them.
Think of it as x number of active skill points that get to be spent on other skills.
Think of it as x number of active skill points that get to be spent on other skills.
Back in my teenager years I was in a D&D tournament. (Second d&d confession in as many days. Shame on me.) I was randomly selected to play a dumb-ass barbarian, but apparently the real dumb-asses were the strangers whose party I was to join. The adventure scenario (d&d is so linear!) included puzzles to solve, that I didn't find too hard, but the other players apparently did, so I found it a great roleplaying challenge to solve them by accident rather than smarts.
"This riddle is too hard for me guys. I'll take a break while you solve it and lean up against, I dunno.... THE SECOND PILLAR ON THE RIGHT, or something..."
I agree that it is fun to play a character who is less competent in an skill area than you are, but nigh impossible to play one with a higher skill or knowledge area without the aid of game mechanics.
Player: "I try to fix the nuclear reactor before it blows."
GM: "How?"
Player: "How the hell should I know? By rolling my nuclear reactor build/repair skill, that's how!"
Now just change 'fix nuclear reactor' for 'talk troll out of killing me.'
Good actors still need good scripts. Good roleplayers still need good mechanics.
"This riddle is too hard for me guys. I'll take a break while you solve it and lean up against, I dunno.... THE SECOND PILLAR ON THE RIGHT, or something..."
I agree that it is fun to play a character who is less competent in an skill area than you are, but nigh impossible to play one with a higher skill or knowledge area without the aid of game mechanics.
Player: "I try to fix the nuclear reactor before it blows."
GM: "How?"
Player: "How the hell should I know? By rolling my nuclear reactor build/repair skill, that's how!"
Now just change 'fix nuclear reactor' for 'talk troll out of killing me.'
Good actors still need good scripts. Good roleplayers still need good mechanics.
Good writers do good research. It's not really a good comparison to compare roleplaying exclusively to acting.
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| Back in my teenager years I was in a D&D tournament. (Second d&d confession in as many days. Shame on me.) I was randomly selected to play a dumb-ass barbarian, but apparently the real dumb-asses were the strangers whose party I was to join. The adventure scenario (d&d is so linear!) included puzzles to solve, that I didn't find too hard, but the other players apparently did, so I found it a great roleplaying challenge to solve them by accident rather than smarts. "This riddle is too hard for me guys. I'll take a break while you solve it and lean up against, I dunno.... THE SECOND PILLAR ON THE RIGHT, or something..." |
Sounds like the intro of a character to one of my long-running D&D campaigns.
Had a trap set.. solution was nice and obvious, but written in elven. Both other PCs were elves... he wasn't, and didn't know the language. The others weren't talking or doing anything, so he randomly picked something to do.... and set off the fireball trap.
That type of thing is good roleplaying, and deserves a reward. It shouldn't be about doing the right thing, it should be about doing the most appropriate thing for your character. Unfortunately, most people don't think that way.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Good writers do good research. It's not really a good comparison to compare roleplaying exclusively to acting. |
So what's the significant difference then? I can see little differences, but are there items (in your view) that distinctively seperate the two?
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Mar 18 2005, 07:10 PM) | ||
So what's the significant difference then? I can see little differences, but are there items (in your view) that distinctively seperate the two? |
Actors do improvise and do research, yes, but roleplaying is fundamentally different in that it essentially places the responsibility of writing in realtime on the the roleplayer as well. You not only have to stay in character; you have to create that character as you go along. That's not to say one is necessarily more intense or demanding than the other (I really don't want to go there), but my point is that roleplaying demands storytelling— and collaberative storytelling, at that— from the roleplayer, and not only a 'performance.' So, it's a bit of writing, bit of improv acting, etc.
[edit]
As a bit of a disclaimer, I'd like to note that this is something of a gross oversimplification all around, but I think it gets the point across.
Arethusa: You are the GM, yes? Do you ever portray powerful NPCs? I will assume you are extremely exceptional and have mental stats of all 6 irl. Does it limit your games to never have NPCs with superhuman stats? Do you merely keep it low level so that you may accurately portray fixers, Johnsons, fences, etc that can be fooled, charmed, conned, intimidated, etc. by regular people? (Though it may be rare given your exceptional personal stats in this case for arguments sake.) If you are not the GM, please ask him or her and/or answer for him or her to the best of your knowledge.
First off, I'm not playing. This is for a number of reasons, largest being that there's no one to play with, as I go to a community college (and will be for another year before transferring), and community colleges have no community.
But, that said, I'll answer your questions as if I were running that game. Assuming I did have straight 6 stats in real life (and I won't comment on whether I do or not; I'm not saying this was your intent, but that sort of thing almost invariably turns into internet ego masturbation, and for obvious reasons, I'd rather not go there), that by no means strictly limits me to playing characters (or non player characters, for that matter) of equal or lesser ability scores (for argument's sake, let's ignore the fact that ability scores are, overall, necessarily poor representations of real world ability, not to mention fundamentally difficult to accurately apply in reality). My personal abilities, skills, and knowledge factor in, yes— and significantly— but they are not hard ceilings.
To draw a limited analogy back to acting (which is appropriate so long as it's not absolute), there are plenty of actors who have portrayed characters with abilities, skills, and knowledge beyond their own. For example, Russel Crowe, who is by no means stupid, is still not a Nobel laureate and genius mathematician— at least not so far— and yet his portrayal of Nash was excellent. In writing, as well, a writer is not necessarily (nor often) exactly whom or what he or she is writing about. That is not to say limitations don't exist, but I don't believe that those limitations are hard nor to I believe they are necessarily permanent. And, really, I'd say the same would apply to any potential players.
All of this should be tempered by a pretty big caveat, because no matter how seriously I may take a game I may be running and no matter how much I may advocate players and GMs doing research to prepare for games, I am not suggesting that anyone take this to an extreme and spend two years preparing for a character. That's obviously pretty silly from just about any remotely reasonable perspective.
But, that said, I'll answer your questions as if I were running that game. Assuming I did have straight 6 stats in real life (and I won't comment on whether I do or not; I'm not saying this was your intent, but that sort of thing almost invariably turns into internet ego masturbation, and for obvious reasons, I'd rather not go there), that by no means strictly limits me to playing characters (or non player characters, for that matter) of equal or lesser ability scores (for argument's sake, let's ignore the fact that ability scores are, overall, necessarily poor representations of real world ability, not to mention fundamentally difficult to accurately apply in reality). My personal abilities, skills, and knowledge factor in, yes— and significantly— but they are not hard ceilings.
To draw a limited analogy back to acting (which is appropriate so long as it's not absolute), there are plenty of actors who have portrayed characters with abilities, skills, and knowledge beyond their own. For example, Russel Crowe, who is by no means stupid, is still not a Nobel laureate and genius mathematician— at least not so far— and yet his portrayal of Nash was excellent. In writing, as well, a writer is not necessarily (nor often) exactly whom or what he or she is writing about. That is not to say limitations don't exist, but I don't believe that those limitations are hard nor to I believe they are necessarily permanent. And, really, I'd say the same would apply to any potential players.
All of this should be tempered by a pretty big caveat, because no matter how seriously I may take a game I may be running and no matter how much I may advocate players and GMs doing research to prepare for games, I am not suggesting that anyone take this to an extreme and spend two years preparing for a character. That's obviously pretty silly from just about any remotely reasonable perspective.
I'm sorry, Arethusa, I still need more. Russel Crowe did not write the lines he performed as Nash. Even assuming he could, authors spend days or even years researching and refining to accurately script geniuses and other great men and women. Since you eschew dice, how can you portray greater men and women than yourself on the fly with the extemporaneous nature of role play?
edited: extemporaneous is a better adjective than spontaneous.
edited: extemporaneous is a better adjective than spontaneous.
| QUOTE |
| Since you eschew dice, how can you portray greater men and women than yourself on the fly with the extemporaneous nature of role play? |
Can I field this one?
Start with this: all writing, theatre, arts of various kinds necessitate some degree of suspension of reality. If we ascribe to the art-science polarity, then roleplaying -- GMing and playing alike -- is an art form. It's an interactive, improvisational, performance art, not a rhapsode-like recitation/recital art of an existing piece. The rules give the structure within which that bit of art is to be created.
Now to the specific question:
(And, honestly, my first inclination was simply to say "easily". Precisely because of that agreed-upon suspension of reality, you aren't expected to give, say, the equivalent of Marc Anthony's speech as "Marc Anthony" would have given it -- Shakespeare bastardisation of history notwithstanding. It's enough to suggest and to approximate: to sketch outlines without filling in the details necessarily to a finished product. After all, if you're negotiating, you aren't aiming to actually sway the players.)
More specifically, I'm pulling on empathy. (However, I'm starting to think, based on lots of rl things I'm seeing around me, that empathy -- the ability to imagine -- or even care -- what another is going through, is generally starting to become a lost ability ... but that's an entirely different debate, and doesn't belong here.) I don't have to be Churchill to imagine myself Churchill -- and from there, to start thinking in somewhat parallel directions. Thinking as another (in psychological frame I mean, not scientific trade skills!) is actually surprisingly easy, once you're willing to step outside your own isolated frame of reference. Preempting the next question (so why don't you lead? or something equivalent -- not strictly relevant to SR but a valid objection) gives two points: no person exists in isolation from their environment (historical and personal); and I'm beginning to think that the ideas any individual comes up with, these days, are seen as far less important than the packaging in which they are presented, the medium control through which they are sold, and the relative desire of the populace to be led.
Basically, I'm imagining myself within the skin of any NPC doing the talking. On the fly, I can usually approximate this very quickly just by knowing the NPC's motivations, both personal and in this particular situation; as well as one or two key details of the NPC's history. Let's face it, the vast, vast majority of persons in this world have lots of individual things that are very important to them individually -- but their concerns and their ability to deal with them are pretty close to universal. For the truly exceptional ones: well, I'd suggest that such major NPCs should never be done on the fly in any case!
But:
Remember, I'm pulling on empathy within the context of a mutually agreed upon suspension of reality! I don't need to have the same package to bring it across. It's like storytelling the Iliad: I don't have to be a god to bring across Homer's sense of what a god is. (There's a Platonic argument buried in here somewhere -- Plato's notion that non-worship-oriented creative arts had a lower quality because by their very nature they could not transcribe what they attempted to bring across exactly -- which is surprisingly relevant within our modern context of wanting everything exactly defined ... and which happens to link in with our modern near-worship of all things technological ... but I'm getting tangentially distracted again.)
To the earlier comparisons between roleplaying, acting/dramatic writing, and storywriting: anyone who's ever tried to convert a gaming session into a story will realise that there's tonnes more work involved in the story -- not because of the research, but because:
(1) real-time feedback-response makes for utterly different structural flow; and
(2) the conventions of anything intended to be written/read are utterly different from those of something to be created and performed simultaneously, to the point where a strict transliteration is frequently difficult if not impossible to read for someone who wasn't there.
(Try transcripting any live interview or round-table discussion sometime -- you'll notice the same kind of thing happening, for similar reasons.)
That, and Russell Crowe's protrayal of Nash wasn't very accurate of both the person that Nash was (one of the major criticisms of the movie) nor his particular condition (which was "softened" for dramatic purposes, and downplayed the role of his non-compliance of his meds). It was a good empathic performance, but one that was structured by context (the script and the story-telling nature of cinema) to make you believe the part.
There are certain situations in roleplaying where you can get away with playing the role versus certain situations where you really do need to do your homework (method acting often encorporates this), have crib notes (a script, for example), or simply bypass the details with a roll of the dice (in the case of roleplaying games). More importantly, it has to be set up for you in terms of the context in order for it to work... in other words, if the GM rewards X behavior vs. Y behavior, simply because it fits in his standard of roleplaying. As impartial as most GMs claim to be, PC roleplaying really is an appeal to an audience of one. This is not to dismiss the personal gratification of such acts, but mechanics-wise, that's what it comes down to.
We used to have "Clue" parties when I was in high school. I and a bunch of my friends (most of whom did improv comedy, drama club, or theater of some sort) would get together at someone's house, dress up in period costumes, and have a little murder mystery. There were underlying mechanics, but the main outcomes were determined solely by how many people you interacted with and to what degree, rather than your personal ability to solve the mystery or familiarity with the genre. Or take the game of Diplomacy, where it is beneficial to talk to everyone, as many times as possible, over the most important subjects you can think of. The context of the game supports the ability to communicate quickly and effectively, and makes it necessary in order to do anything within the game.
My personal preference, when it comes to RPGs, is to let the mechanics sort out the outcomes, while letting the roleplaying overlay the structure set down by the mechanics. In other words, let the dice fall as they may, and then improvise the scene, rather than improvising the scene to influence the outcome. But some people prefer to let the roleplaying take precedence (like the Clue parties) and others like the set up a context where such roleplaying leads to actions (like Diplomacy or a LARP). The thing about roleplaying games is that it is simply a social construct from which one derives enjoyment (after all, it is a game). So as long as everyone at the table is playing by the same rules, then play however the hell you want (like in Monopoly, where we have a house rule that all "Tax money" can be won by landing on Free Parking).
There are certain situations in roleplaying where you can get away with playing the role versus certain situations where you really do need to do your homework (method acting often encorporates this), have crib notes (a script, for example), or simply bypass the details with a roll of the dice (in the case of roleplaying games). More importantly, it has to be set up for you in terms of the context in order for it to work... in other words, if the GM rewards X behavior vs. Y behavior, simply because it fits in his standard of roleplaying. As impartial as most GMs claim to be, PC roleplaying really is an appeal to an audience of one. This is not to dismiss the personal gratification of such acts, but mechanics-wise, that's what it comes down to.
We used to have "Clue" parties when I was in high school. I and a bunch of my friends (most of whom did improv comedy, drama club, or theater of some sort) would get together at someone's house, dress up in period costumes, and have a little murder mystery. There were underlying mechanics, but the main outcomes were determined solely by how many people you interacted with and to what degree, rather than your personal ability to solve the mystery or familiarity with the genre. Or take the game of Diplomacy, where it is beneficial to talk to everyone, as many times as possible, over the most important subjects you can think of. The context of the game supports the ability to communicate quickly and effectively, and makes it necessary in order to do anything within the game.
My personal preference, when it comes to RPGs, is to let the mechanics sort out the outcomes, while letting the roleplaying overlay the structure set down by the mechanics. In other words, let the dice fall as they may, and then improvise the scene, rather than improvising the scene to influence the outcome. But some people prefer to let the roleplaying take precedence (like the Clue parties) and others like the set up a context where such roleplaying leads to actions (like Diplomacy or a LARP). The thing about roleplaying games is that it is simply a social construct from which one derives enjoyment (after all, it is a game). So as long as everyone at the table is playing by the same rules, then play however the hell you want (like in Monopoly, where we have a house rule that all "Tax money" can be won by landing on Free Parking).
Talia, I see your point. You didn't answer the right question. Arethusa arrives at outcomes of negotiations (in specific) and social interaction (in general) based solely upon role play (no dice). I understand that it is easy to play a great character without being one, but how can you get the results of a great character without being one? I could shout and gesticulate wildly, but I could never lead a devastated European nation to greatness and bring it to the brink of conquering all of Europe. The only way I could get such leadership and charisma results is with the willing participation and "dumbing down" of my fellow players. This is the suspended disbelief you speak of. I have no struggles with role playing.
However, the way Arethusa describes his game, I could have a character with charisma 6 and negotiations 6, but if I couldn't match them with my real life charisma of 3 (2?) and real life negotiations skill of 1 (defaulting?), all my strutting and acting would provide nothing but failure against his NPC of all 4s. He won't dumb down the NPCs to match my feeble personality and feeble skills. The results in his game are limited by player personality and skills. I understand how he and the players he's played with prevent acting above a character's levels when the player is superior to the character, but there is no allowance for enabling a player to play a character who is superior to the player.
I am assuming the players hold the GM to the same standards.
Does this limit Arethusa's portrayal of truly great NPCs? For our example we assumed that Arethusa is all 6s irl. Even if the best of his players is a (for example) 5 charisma irl, Arethusa could never accurately portray an NPC who more than marginally out-charms the PC.
Caveat: I understand that real life has no numbers for attributes. Real people do, however, have various levels of charm and charisma. The numbers assigned in this example are merely examples to help me properly phrase my question as it pertains to characters' numbered attributes.
I have difficulty seeing how this diceless style of playing is not limiting. I would like to know how Arethusa gets around this. I am also tacitly trying to show why most people roll the dice, then act out the scene with a known outcome.
hahnsoo: Yes. You see my point then?
However, the way Arethusa describes his game, I could have a character with charisma 6 and negotiations 6, but if I couldn't match them with my real life charisma of 3 (2?) and real life negotiations skill of 1 (defaulting?), all my strutting and acting would provide nothing but failure against his NPC of all 4s. He won't dumb down the NPCs to match my feeble personality and feeble skills. The results in his game are limited by player personality and skills. I understand how he and the players he's played with prevent acting above a character's levels when the player is superior to the character, but there is no allowance for enabling a player to play a character who is superior to the player.
I am assuming the players hold the GM to the same standards.
Does this limit Arethusa's portrayal of truly great NPCs? For our example we assumed that Arethusa is all 6s irl. Even if the best of his players is a (for example) 5 charisma irl, Arethusa could never accurately portray an NPC who more than marginally out-charms the PC.
Caveat: I understand that real life has no numbers for attributes. Real people do, however, have various levels of charm and charisma. The numbers assigned in this example are merely examples to help me properly phrase my question as it pertains to characters' numbered attributes.
I have difficulty seeing how this diceless style of playing is not limiting. I would like to know how Arethusa gets around this. I am also tacitly trying to show why most people roll the dice, then act out the scene with a known outcome.
hahnsoo: Yes. You see my point then?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.