The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Doug McCrae]

The roleplaying and storytelling aspect of rpgs can definitely be improved. By techniques, tools, methods, ideas. But not by rules.

 

[Ariosto]

GM: If (d+b) > (t+p), then R1, else R2.
Player: ???
GM: Let's see; you're trained in Bluff? Then you've got a 50% chance of success.
Player: At what?
GM: At winning the encounter.
Player: Which involves what?
GM: Getting some guy to think you have some thing.
Player: Who's the guy, and what's the thing?
GM: The guy is Sir Gavin, and the thing is a prize falcon.
Player: And how are we going to do this?
GM: By rolling dice.
Player: Yes, but ... never mind. Why are we doing this?
GM: To set up the next hour-long combat scenario!

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Again I wonder whether in attempting to attract non-combat-minded possible-gamers a game (D&D or not) needs rules for that non-combat stuff or just needs to present the non-combat stuff that can be done without rules much more strongly.

 

[Ariosto]

Player: So, this is just a handful of rolls -- that really could be boiled down to just one if we were not trying for carpal tunnel syndrome. How come the combat's got to take an hour?

GM: Because that involves all sorts of important considerations such as initiative, range, area of effect, movement, terrain, action types, conditions, specific powers, weapons, armor, fortitude, reflexes, willpower, hit points, action points, healing surges ...

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I'm thinking that there should be some way to measure success vs. failure, and some kind of reward system. The more I think about it, White Wolf's Background system might be a place to start. For example:

Influence is a measure of one's capability of getting other people to do your bidding. There are seven types of influence:

Economic: Wealth and resources.
Political: Military and organizational power.
Popular: The will and interest of the people.
Romantic: The ability to influence individuals.
Ecclesiastical: Church and clerical power.
Academic: Credibility and knowledge.
Eldritch: Favor of supernatural beings.

Each influence is split into two Fames and one Infamy. For example, for Economic influence:
Credit is the ability to tap the wealth of others legitimately for your own expenditures. A PC with a high Credit might find a wealthy patron willing to cover the cost of better armor and weaponry.
Resource is control over businesses, factories, farms, or other means of production. A PC with a high Resource might be able to provide the food for an army.
Notoriety is an Infamy associated with being well-known for procuring items and services... well... without paying for them.

In each case, the Influences represent power. Instead of adventuring to the point that you have the money, you could, say, ingratiate yourself with people in high places who then give you gifts that you've always wanted. Gaining Influence becomes as valuable as gaining GP or XP.

 

[Ariosto]

Economic: We've got $ (or £ or ¥ or € or ₫ or whatever suits ya).
Political: We've got the above, plus votes in the legislature, oaths of fealty, lances in a host, castles, etc..
Popular: This is of necessity pretty abstract. "Dude, that dude was an American Idol finalist!" "Really? I can't stand that tripe."
Romantic: Depends on the individual being romanced, eh? "Maybe you're not perfect -- but you're perfect for me!"
Ecclesiastical, Academic, Eldritch: As with all the above, particulars matter.

I'm not knocking the whole concept out of hand; Resources and Popularity are handy tools in Marvel Super Heroes. I'm just a bit skeptical about the premise that more gamer gadgetry to the end of avoiding concrete referents, specific relationships, and vivid interactions is the way to go in increasing appeal to non-gamers.

Basically, the way "gamers" divide things into "fluff" and "crunch" is probably bass-ackwards to most folks not already steeped in the subculture.

 

[FireLance]

I'm thinking that there should be some way to measure success vs. failure, and some kind of reward system. The more I think about it, White Wolf's Background system might be a place to start. For example:

Influence is a measure of one's capability of getting other people to do your bidding. There are seven types of influence:

Economic: Wealth and resources.
Political: Military and organizational power.
Popular: The will and interest of the people.
Romantic: The ability to influence individuals.
Ecclesiastical: Church and clerical power.
Academic: Credibility and knowledge.
Eldritch: Favor of supernatural beings.

Nice! I think this would be a good framework to build my earlier idea of "30 levels of social rewards" around.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The roleplaying and storytelling aspect of rpgs can definitely be improved. By techniques, tools, methods, ideas. But not by rules.

GM: Let's see; you're trained in Bluff? Then you've got a 50% chance of success.
Player: At what?
GM: At winning the encounter.
Player: Which involves what?
GM: Getting some guy to think you have some thing.
Player: Who's the guy, and what's the thing?
GM: The guy is Sir Gavin, and the thing is a prize falcon.
Player: And how are we going to do this?
GM: By rolling dice.

Strawman arguments and tautologies aren't really presenting much of a case against rules for role playing challenges, honestly.

In my mind, it goes more like this, with newbies:

Player 1: "We want Sir Gavin to give us his prize falcon."
DM: "Okay, that's a Social Encounter. You need to roll your Social Skill against his Willpower, and beat him four times total. If you miss twice, you can't try and convince him any more. Go ahead and roll your Social Skill, use any of those skill powers you have, and tell me what you say. DC of 17."
Player 1: "My grizzled fighter uses Veiled Threat with my Intimidate skill. 'You don't want to give us the falcon? It'd be a shame if something were to happen to your nice castle here, wouldn't it?' " *roll* "I beat him! With Veiled Threat that means he won't make a counter-argument until after my next roll."
Player 2: "My smooth-tongued bard has Diplomacy, and I'll use Supporting Argument to help Player 4. If I beat him, Player 4 gets a +2 bonus to their roll for this. I know your CHA is lousy, dude. I say 'You know, Player 4's Character here is something of a powerful druid, and your falcon would be well cared for.' " *roll* "Easy as pie. +2, Player 4!"
Player 3: "I've got Diplomacy too, but I'm just going to make a straight check. It's not quite as good as Player 2's Character, I'm just a cleric. I say something like 'Pretty please?' " *roll* "Aw, fark, I missed."
Player 4: "Ech, yeah, my CHA still sucks with that +2....I've got Empathy, but that's really better with beasts...still, it's my highest....okay, rolling Empathy, and I because I'm a druid, can throw on the One of the Pack ability for free once an encounter, so I'll do that. If I win, his DC goes down by 2 the next round. Okay...I say... 'I love falcons just as much as you do!' " *roll* "Heh....well, the dice don't love me, either..."
DM: So, Player 3, he just kind of raises an eyebrow at you, and Player 4, he says 'I am no fanatic, you rapacious thing!' But, Player 1, he's certainly too afraid of what you and your muscles might be able to do to his entire castle to bother upsetting you, and Player 2, he tells you that he believes your intentions are pure, but that 'you shouldn't rely on religious fundamentalists like druids to care for your precious possessions.' He's too cowed to try and argue back, but he's going to use Stubbornness and gain +2 to his DC. DC is now 19. Next round! You've just gotta beat him twice more, but he's being very stubborn...Player 1! Go!"
...etc....

Player input, variety, nonbinary design, unique contributions, set up, rising action, climax, slightly abstract while still letting creativity suffuse the details, but not requiring too many details to work....

It's still pretty mathematical, with it's +2's, but other than rolling a dice, the only way to resolve things is DM fiat, which is not particularly engaging for extended use in a game, so we'll have to take some math and just make it as basic and simple and significant (non-fiddly) as possible.

This is not anathema to roleplaying, but an aid to it, to encourage it, to devote resources to it, and to award things from it, without deviating from D&D's core concept of archetypal heroic fantasy (the druid had to treat the lord like an animal! the fighter was intimidating!), and without relying on arbitrary DM judgment calls or overly simple skill challenge systems that reduce everyone's challenge to "how can I convince the DM my highest skill bonus applies in THIS situation?".

I can see people taking issue with it like I see people taking issue with hit points, but it works for what it does. It's not broken or impossible just because you want it a slightly different way. It's a little more on the abstract side that 4e combat is, while being significantly more concrete than 4e skill challenges, so it approaches that middle ground between overly complex (4e combat) and overly simple (4e skills).

It gives you GAME effects that you can PLAY with rather than relying on player ability, thus enhancing your character's ability to be like your character (rather than like you as a player).

I mean, I'm up for discussion of various methods, pros, and cons, where the line should be, etc, but assuming that rules for RP are absurd or that they cannot be done isn't very useful, especially without actual evidence and experience backing up your claims.

 

[FireLance]

Good post, KM. I'm quite happy with the existing skill challenge framework (if not the RAW implementation, both pre- and post-errata) and would rather work with that as a base than come up with a very specific list of skill powers, but I do see the attraction of that. I personally would find generic skill powers to be more widely applicable, though - e.g. make a skill check and help an ally (grant a bonus, grant a reroll, etc.) as well as gain a success if you succeed, make a skill check and choose to either negate a failure or gain a success if you succeed, use your best skill in place of any other skill, etc.

I would like to make the point that the skill challenge framework doesn't prevent a DM from awarding automatic successes for proposals that he thinks will certainly work, or imposing automatic failures for proposals that he thinks are definitely counter-productive. As in any other aspect of RPGs, dice rolls only come in if the DM either cannot or does not want to dictate the PC's success or failure. All the skill rules do is to suggest what would be the most appropriate modifier and DC to use for the roll.

 

[LostSoul]

KM, my personal problem with your system is that at no time does it require anyone to actually speak in character. The things that are actually said by the characters don't matter, only the dice rolls do.

This is the "iron fence between story and mechanics", right?

Anyways, you can have a rule that says, "Oh yeah, and you have to speak in character", but that's just a patch for the system.

I just finished playing Burning Wheel, and we had a Duel of Wits. It's similar to what you described - a sub-game that resolves social conflicts - and it shares the same flaw. I could have said, "I scripted a Point, I'm rolling Persuasion. I didn't but that's because I didn't want to, not because the rules required it.

It's still pretty mathematical, with it's +2's, but other than rolling a dice, the only way to resolve things is DM fiat, which is not particularly engaging for extended use in a game, so we'll have to take some math and just make it as basic and simple and significant (non-fiddly) as possible.

DM fiat is cool, as long as the DM knows what his job is.

I think that I personally would like a game where you were required to act out/describe your character's actions or words before you could pick up the dice, and what your character is doing or saying is at least as important as your mechanically-expressed skill.