Social Skills, starting to bug me.

[S'mon]

And that can be handled by consistently applying reaction and social skill checks where that 8 CHA applies.


As a player, this is where I prefer the GM to use the mechanics. I don't want him making my PC totally suck, because he has an exagerated opinion of how skeevy my PC is when he sees an 8 CHA.

Whereas technically, I should only fail a little more frequently than an average CHA PC (9-10).

CHA 8 is as much below average as CHA 12 is above average. I treat that 4 point gap as a noticeable difference - in 3e terms the CHA 12 is 'twice as charismatic' - but yes it should not be exaggerated.

 

[S'mon]

However unless there are no skills at all, by placing personal interactions in a "no skill" zone you are de facto making speech an unskilled item, where metagaming the referee is more important than the actual attributes of the character.

More importantly, it relies far more on a metagame between the gm and the player, where the gm has all the power in the negotiation. It's no longer a matter of what the character says, but what the player says. Which I think is an unfair situation if there are abstract rules for other things the character can do.

Unless that's what the stakes have been set up for ahead of time. I can see such a situation occurring on a high stakes negotiation in games such as FATE.

However, that social encounter is being decided based on the capability of the character vs. the NPC moderated by the referee, notbased on the capability of the player to directly please the referee.

Friendship and trust is irrelevant in this case. The example is bringing up the point that systemless social resolution is actually a metagame negotiation between a supplicant player and a all-powerful referee. Such systems are inherently more prone to corruption than rules-based systems. I personally prefer systems that put more power in the hands of the players.

I've never been impressed by claims that rules mechanics protect the players from the big bad GM. Here's a secret for you: in a traditional RPG like D&D, the GM is still all-powerful, no matter how many mechanics are in play. The GM sets the target DCs for skill resolution. The GM decides what monsters are encountered, and what their stats are. A GM can set an unfairly high DC for a Diplomacy check just as easily as he can unfairly decide that your wonderful speech failed without rolling. If you don't trust your GM to arbitrate fairly then your game is going to suck, no matter how many or how few mechanical task resolution systems are in play.

Rules are not a defense against bad GMing.

 

[Mallus]

If you're unable to perform ritual magic ala Bonewitz in the game, then obviously you shouldn't be playing a magic-user.

Isaac Bonewits? Holder of a BA in Magic from Berkeley? I own his gaming supplement!

However unless there are no skills at all, by placing personal interactions in a "no skill" zone you are de facto making speech an unskilled item, where metagaming the referee is more important than the actual attributes of the character.

I prefer to call this kind of metagaming with the referee "playing the game".

More importantly, it relies far more on a metagame between the gm and the player, where the gm has all the power in the negotiation.

Two things:

One: the problem with the term "metagaming" is that it accurately describes what is actually happening when we play RPGs. The negotiation between GM and players *is* the core mechanic, the ur-mechanic, of every traditional RPG (regardless of how and to what extent said negotiations are arbitrated by the formal rule set).

This kind of "metagaming" is as integral to RPGs as hitting a small ball with a racket is to tennis.

Two: stating the GM has all the power in the negotiation is demonstrably false, or rather, it makes the erroneous assumption that the rules are the only way to address the power balance between players and GM.

This, obviously, ignores all the informal ways this can be addressed, ie by players and GM building a relationship based on trust/respect, where the players willingly consent to the GM rulings, and the GM, in turn, agrees to not be a prick.

Even if the GM does stray into prick-hood, the players aren't powerless. They can also call the GM a prick and leave, or, possibly even find other, less drastic ways of negotiating a compromise, like reasonable people.

It's no longer a matter of what the character says, but what the player says.

The character is fiction, the player is a real person playing a real game (which kinda resembles fiction, in places).

Which I think is an unfair situation if there are abstract rules for other things the character can do.

If it's all about the character, what does the player contribute to the game? If RPG play isn't, at some level, about the player overcoming/solving/beating challenges, then where is the game?

Unless that's what the stakes have been set up for ahead of time. I can see such a situation occurring on a high stakes negotiation in games such as FATE.

Or Burning Wheel. Or Dogs in the Vineyard. I know there are games with clever stake-setting mechanics. That's one way to handle things... I'm not disputing that.

However, that social encounter is being decided based on the capability of the character vs. the NPC moderated by the referee, not based on the capability of the player to directly please the referee.

Not all GM-based rulings in social encounter amounts to players trying to "please the referee". That's just (mildly) inflammatory hoo-ha. It's also a bit of an insult to every referee who puts time and effort into creating good NPC with personalities and motivations for the PCs to converse and negotiate with, who run free-form social encounters that are more than just the PCs dancing, trained monkey-like, for the DMs entertainment.

Friendship and trust is irrelevant in this case.

If you think trust is irrelevant in a gaming group, I can see why you have problems with what I've been posting.

The example is bringing up the point that systemless social resolution is actually a metagame negotiation between a supplicant player and a all-powerful referee. Such systems are inherently more prone to corruption than rules-based systems.

"Supplicant players"? "All-powerful referee"? "Corruption?"

Oy vey. Can't you see how using language like this is i) unhelpful, ii) inaccurate, iii) excludes the ample evidence that non-mechanical social encounters work for some people (and have for the duration of the hobby). We can meaningfully discuss pros and cons, but when you start using words like "corruption", you come across like a writer of agitprop (and as for corruption... my friends are I must posses hobbit-grade abilities to resist the corrosive effects of power, because we've born the One Ring of DM Authority for decades without succumbing to it's effect).

Again, why do you think system is the only, or even the preferred, way, to address power negotiations at the table?

 

[billd91]

how much does in-game success depends on character ability, and how much comes from player ability?

I think most should come from the PC. He is, after all, the one with the stats, powers, skills and so forth; he is the one in the campaign world. As pointed out, it's probably 99% of his successes based on those powers and physical skills, for obvious reasons.

I think this depends on what counts as in-game success. If you're looking at what you do when the DM adjudicates the attempt, the instant of decision should take the PC's stats into account. Could be a die roll with the stat's mods, could be a fiat decision based on the stat.

But no matter how good a stat is, if the player can't figure out how to use it right, their ability to succeed will be hampered. So while in the micro-level, the stat needs to be important, at the macro level I think the player's ability has (and should have) a huge impact on the PC's in-game success rate.

 

[Janx]

But no matter how good a stat is, if the player can't figure out how to use it right, their ability to succeed will be hampered. So while in the micro-level, the stat needs to be important, at the macro level I think the player's ability has (and should have) a huge impact on the PC's in-game success rate.

true.

The player chooses to move 5' to flank his enemy, to rush foolishly through threatened squares and suffer AoOs, to refuse to kneel in the throne room because "his 1st level PC bows to no man", to tell a blatantly obvious lie while trying to bluff the gate guard and so on.

The mechanics still apply to implement the consequences of player choices, be it taking more damage, or having worse DCs to overcome for a skill check.

If a player can make stupid choices at hurt the attempt, the player can also make smart choices that aid it.

 

[rogueattorney]

Certainly.

But a player who roleplays a Cha 8 character with zero social skills or other abilities like a silver-tongued smooth-talker is - in my view - not really roleplaying the character, but operating on a metagame level.

While not the same, it is similar in a way to reading the adventure (as a player) and solving all the puzzles because you know how to.

Obviously, there is a disparity here (especially with social abilties) between the portrayal of characters and solving challenges.

Bye
Thanee

Slight tangent here:

One thing I've noticed in cross-edition discussion is a radically different idea of what a "low" attribute score is and what its significance is.

In older editions, an 8 in an attribute score is slightly below average. So, in charisma terms, that's not someone with "no social skills." That's someone who might be a bit awkward from time to time, but generally makes his way through life without too many social disasters.

Sorry. End tangent.

 

[The Shaman]

In a game like AD&D, there's nothing preventing a CHA 8 PC from being a smooth talker. A CHA 8 of grants no reaction bonus or penalty (however the PC can't have many loyal henchmen). How the PC comes across depends entirely on what the player says in character. This is the very heart of soul of role-playing, as far as I'm concerned. Role-playing is what you do in character during live play.

I've never been impressed by claims that rules mechanics protect the players from the big bad GM. Here's a secret for you: in a traditional RPG like D&D, the GM is still all-powerful, no matter how many mechanics are in play. The GM sets the target DCs for skill resolution. The GM decides what monsters are encountered, and what their stats are. A GM can set an unfairly high DC for a Diplomacy check just as easily as he can unfairly decide that your wonderful speech failed without rolling. If you don't trust your GM to arbitrate fairly then your game is going to suck, no matter how many or how few mechanical task resolution systems are in play.

Rules are not a defense against bad GMing.

Not all GM-based rulings in social encounter amounts to players trying to "please the referee". That's just (mildly) inflammatory hoo-ha. It's also a bit of an insult to every referee who puts time and effort into creating good NPC with personalities and motivations for the PCs to converse and negotiate with, who run free-form social encounters that are more than just the PCs dancing, trained monkey-like, for the DMs entertainment.

"Supplicant players"? "All-powerful referee"? "Corruption?"

Oy vey. Can't you see how using language like this is i) unhelpful, ii) inaccurate, iii) excludes the ample evidence that non-mechanical social encounters work for some people (and have for the duration of the hobby). We can meaningfully discuss pros and cons, but when you start using words like "corruption", you come across like a writer of agitprop (and as for corruption... my friends are I must posses hobbit-grade abilities to resist the corrosive effects of power, because we've born the One Ring of DM Authority for decades without succumbing to it's effect).

But no matter how good a stat is, if the player can't figure out how to use it right, their ability to succeed will be hampered. So while in the micro-level, the stat needs to be important, at the macro level I think the player's ability has (and should have) a huge impact on the PC's in-game success rate.

Since I can't improve on any of these, I'll just add, "Worth repeating."

 

[pemerton]

I've never been impressed by claims that rules mechanics protect the players from the big bad GM. Here's a secret for you: in a traditional RPG like D&D, the GM is still all-powerful, no matter how many mechanics are in play. The GM sets the target DCs for skill resolution.

<snip>

Rules are not a defense against bad GMing.

However, different systems can give better or worse advice to the GM on how to set those difficulty targets, relative to a particular desired play experience. So while systems can't protect from bad GMing, I think they can help produce better GMing.

The worst sort of system I'm familiar with is something like AD&D 2nd ed, which promises a play experience of heroic fantasy, but provides action resolution mechanics and advice that were designed for Gygaxian "skilled play", and then encourages the GM to fiat/override those mechanics in the interests of "story". So far from protecting from bad GMing, or producing good GMing, this is a recipe for encouraging crap GMing. I also suspect that it is bad experiences with precisely these sorts of systems that makes some RPGers prefer what they perceive as the "safe harbour" of social resolution mechanics.

"Supplicant players"? "All-powerful referee"? "Corruption?"

Oy vey. Can't you see how using language like this is i) unhelpful, ii) inaccurate, iii) excludes the ample evidence that non-mechanical social encounters work for some people (and have for the duration of the hobby).

<snip>

Again, why do you think system is the only, or even the preferred, way, to address power negotiations at the table?

If one may comment from the sidelines . . .

In the spinoff "what is roleplaying" thread, a poster gave an example of a recent gaming experience in which (among other things) perception was resolved not by dice rolls, but by the player describing where his/her PC looks, and how intently.

As I said in that thread, this strikes me as obviously being a resolution system, with three steps: (1) the player describes where his/her PC is looking (prefereably in 1st person), and (2) describe how intently his/her PC is looking, then (3) the GM, based on his/her conception of the relevant fictional situation, tells the player what his/her PC sees.

Step (3) means that the GM has a lot of power in this resolution mechanic. The GM is not all-powerful, but clearly the GM has more power than a mechanic whereby (for example) a player is able to make a die roll, or play a Fate token, or whatever, and thereby be entitled to be told by the GM what hidden things become visible. Both systems presuppose the GM's authority over backstory, but the "player describes, GM decides" approach also gives the GM significant authority over plot.

If there are power issues at the table, I don't think that system is a particularly good way to resolve them - I'm from the "social contract trumps system" school - but it is possible for a group which does not have trouble with power issues to nevertheless prefer a resolution system which reduces the GM's authority over plot.

 

[rogueattorney]

The pcs find a room with a bed in it. Under the bed is a gold goblet worth 500 gp that is not visible to the party upon entering the room.

How do I as GM determine whether the pcs find the gold goblet?

Method 1: One of the players says, "My pc looks under the bed."

Method 2: One of the players says, "I'm rolling a perception check, do I find anything?" and then rolls a number on a d20 adjusted by whatever applicable bonus.

Why is one method better than the other? Are they even mutually exclusive? If you generally use method 2, are you going to tell the player who says his pc looks under the bed that he doesn't find anything without rolling the dice?

 

[pemerton]

The pcs find a room with a bed in it. Under the bed is a gold goblet worth 500 gp that is not visible to the party upon entering the room.

How do I as GM determine whether the pcs find the gold goblet?

Method 1: One of the players says, "My pc looks under the bed."

Method 2: One of the players says, "I'm rolling a perception check, do I find anything?" and then rolls a number on a d20 adjusted by whatever applicable bonus.

Why is one method better than the other? Are they even mutually exclusive? If you generally use method 2, are you going to tell the player who says his pc looks under the bed that he doesn't find anything without rolling the dice?

Your example has helped me clarify some thoughts I've been having about my own game.

In method 2, what is rolling the perception check really about? - not in the fiction, but in the actual play of the game at the table.

It's the player using a player resource to, in effect, skip over the situation - instead of having to engage the fiction, the player is saying to the GM "I want you to frame a new situation - one in which my PC sees whatever interesting stuff there is to see in this room."

Now I'm not 100% sure whether it is good or bad to have that sort of mechanic in the game - I personally prefer a game in which the GM has strong authority over framing situations, and the player side of things is about engaging them rather than just skipping over them - but my preferences aren't really relevant here.

Rather, I think we (as a D&D-playing community) still have quite a bit of work to do in thinking about what is actually going on in the various techniques of play that we use.