log in or register to remove this ad

 

All Characters Should be Good at Talking to NPCs

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
While I view having more well rounded characters who can participate in more types of scenes as a good thing what I like even more are having niches within a given type of encounter so we can have more diverse and interesting sorts of social encounters and sorts of exploration encounters where players have to work together to be effective just like they have to in combat.

Even more important to me when it comes to social scenes (which most of the games I run tend to heavily skew to) is keeping the focus on the fiction. A well designed fiction first social influence system like we get in Hillfolk, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chronicles of Darkness, and Exalted Third Edition amongst others keeps the focus on the fiction and prevents us from ignoring salient bits of the fiction in order to get the result we want. Often I find that when we just play out conversations at the table it can be easy to filter out important details when they are inconvenient. A good social influence system can help keep the focus on the fiction and prevent us from getting too caught up in our conceptions of who these characters are. It can also really help situations that should be tense not fall prey to our natural agreeableness.

That last bit can be a big problem for me. Not so much for some other people I bet.
I think this really gets to an important point -- when we're freeform roleplaying a social situation, it's very easy to elide or gloss over difficulties in the situation, especially if we're keenly aware that pressing those things and complicating the situation can lead to opprobrium from other players ("man, why'd you bring that up?"). A system where things are clearly established and have to be addressed can be very preferable if the goal is to actually inhabit the situation the PCs find themselves in. Way too often I've had a freefrom RP encounter end up not addressing a point because the play just moved past it with how we were "yes, and"ing each other. Sure, a dedicated GM can probably handle this, but this is putting the entire load on the GM to manage and push the situation, rather than the responsibility of all of the players, and actually engenders the "get the teacher on a tangent" approach where distraction from a problem is solid play rather than addressing it.

There's also the issue that, quite often, social encounters are confrontational and/or heated between PCs and NPCs. This is hard to do and maintain the atmosphere of a friendly gaming table. If I allow myself to connect to the character, then I should be feeling angry/frustrated/scared/etc and this makes it very hard to not have it bleed into the play at the table. Freeform RP has very little in the way of firebreaks or safeguards here outside the social contract to not go too far. This is another area where system can step in and provide a structure so that I can connect with my character but it's not directed at the table at another player -- it more contained within the boundaries of the system because it's the system that's mediating the resolution, not Bob.

You can get into all of these things with freeform RP, and it can work out wonderfully, but it's going to be very uncommon and require a very good set of table understanding and social contract rules to enable it, alongside some rather special players/GM. When done this way, I'm sure the payoff is great. But, I'm not in that situation, despite playing with friends and people I like and respect, and having tons of experience. I find that I get closer to this when I'm using a system that enables it, and provides the feedback/firebreaks as necessary to keep it all in the game and off the table. I've never once become frustrated with another player during a Blades game because I'm not competing with them for resolutions by playacting and being stymied by an immovable position -- instead, we all try our thing and find out what happens next through the mechanics.

Now, I still love my freeform RP, but I don't play games where I'm really trying to connect to a character or drive hard on character traits when I'm doing so -- I'm having a good time with friends playing pretend elves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
This, though, is the contention -- can you actually inhabit the mind of a character? You're asserting it's possible, and I'm saying it's not.
Not much common ground there, eh. :)
What happens is that we get to a point where we may feel this way, but this isn't the same thing at all, and shouldn't be used to say that playacting with the goal of inhabiting the mind of your character as unattainable ideal is the best way to deal with social encounters.
Well, is there a better way that doesn't rely on game mechanics? If not, then it's the best we've got even if it isn't perfect.
Let's break this down a bit. Let's say I have a character that has a flaw where they will steal things. If I'm using your method, then I, as the player, must consciously choose to engage in this flaw, and will always be doing so with regard to the players around me. Any association of my character's desires to steal are only mirrored in myself if I actually share that desire -- there's no separation of the character and me at this point. This isn't inhabitation, though, because I don't actually change and become my character, but rather, my character is now just a reflection of me and how I think. When I choose to have my character steal, it's still a choice, and I'm probably weighing the choice against the risks in might engender in the game, whether or not I'll face social opprobrium from the other players for doing so, and so forth. The choice to engage this flaw is never one that originates or is based within the character, even if I'm rationalizing it as such. The engagement with the character here is performative.
Reading between the lines here a bit, you seem to be trying to get at the idea that if my character steals in the game and I'm inhabiting my character then I'm going to steal at the table. Is that right? If yes, then may I point out that part of the point of inhabiting one's character is to leave one's real self behind for a few moments and - in some cases - to think and act in ways that one's real self would not.

Separation of self and character within one's own mind is important.
Now, to contrast this approach, you can have a mechanical system that can engage the same thing. Here, a mechanical trigger would set off the character's flaw and thefts. There's quite a few ways to do this, so you can select for preference, but, to me, they all pretty much end up doing the same thing, whether metacurrency driven or check driven -- they force a new state onto the character. Here, as a player, your job isn't to choose for your character to engage their flaw (although you can usually still do this), but rather to accept that your character isn't you and has made this choice and then go with it. This puts the choice-making for the character sometimes out of your hands -- you aren't directing your character as a perfect representation of your wants and desires, but rather as an actual other person who does things that you might not.
Here again it seems you're approaching this from a perspective of the player and character not being separated, only now you're asking the mechanics to justify the non-separation.
I've found that making the effort to realize that this is a different person I get to observe can actually improve my emotional connection to the character, meaning I'm feeling what this character is nominally feeling in that moment. This is also a very valid way to approach roleplaying a character, and can create surprising social encounters for everyone involved.

And, of course, you can mix the two -- choosing to engage character when you want and how you want with mechanical inputs coming in as well.
Indeed; and this is often what ends up happening.
As others have said, the 3.x social skills are rather poorly put together, with hardcoded results baked in that do not at all reference the current fiction. There's a reason diplomancer as a term was invented. However, I always find it strange when people complain about skills that do this but are 100% perfectly fine with Charm Person and similar spells doing even more work. The usually deployed excuse of "it's magic" rings very hollow to me -- it's a circular justification that magic can such things because it's magic.
The "it's magic" explanation doesn't ring hollow to me; in that most of the point of magic is to achieve results that cannot usually be achieved otherwise within the setting's reality (or, in many cases, our own reality). So here, Charm Person is doing exactly that: achieving a result* that would very likely otherwise not be achieved within the setting's reality; or not without considerable effort.

* - admittedly in a more subtle manner than some examples, and then only on a failed save. Casting, say, a Fly spell on a Human achieves a much more obvious beyond-reality result when viewed from either the setting's reality or our own.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
More to the point: a social encounter should not default to some characters not talking to NPCs for fear of a failed skill roll, which I've seen happen on multiple occasions.
The simple answer, as I already noted upthread, is to do away with those skill rolls completely.

You can't fail a roll - or succeed on a roll - if there's no roll to be made; thus making the whole thing much less binary. Yes it takes longer at the table to resolve a social encounter if you have to talk it all out rather than just roll some dice, but so what?
Either they shy away from conversing, or they push the "party face" to socialize in their stead. An unfortunate product of gameplay.
More an unfortunate product of game mechanics being allowed to get in the way of roleplay, I think.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Not much common ground there, eh. :)

Well, is there a better way that doesn't rely on game mechanics? If not, then it's the best we've got even if it isn't perfect.
Why are you tossing mechanics? This is circular argumentation -- the best way is to disregard mechanics, unless there's another way that disregards mechanics. You haven't done anything to establish that freeform RP is in any way superior aside from assertion.
Reading between the lines here a bit, you seem to be trying to get at the idea that if my character steals in the game and I'm inhabiting my character then I'm going to steal at the table. Is that right? If yes, then may I point out that part of the point of inhabiting one's character is to leave one's real self behind for a few moments and - in some cases - to think and act in ways that one's real self would not.
You should recalibrate your between the lines reader app as this is entirely wrong. The point was that for you to be aligned with your character here, you'd have to want to steal as yourself for the character to do so. This kind of freeform RP is one directional -- you push on the game, the game doesn't ever push back. So, to have your character steal, and for you to be inhabiting the character, the only way that can effectively happen is to want to steal yourself. Which is quite silly, generally, or, if not, disturbing. So, there's no real way to engage this flaw and inhabit the character if it's entirely up to you when to activate the play of this flaw. As I said, it one-directional: you push this into play, play never pushes it back onto your character.

And that is entirely different from real life and how such things work, so there's no real inhabitation there. And this same applies in lots of other examples. Freeform RP starts with the assumption that the player is the only one who can say what the character does, feels, or says. This is far to perfect, though, and leads to "inhabitation" in this regime to really mean, "things do not upset my understanding of the fiction." I mean, having an uncontrollable urge to steal something that will clearly have very bad repercussions is something that happens in real life, but can never happen to a character with that flaw in a freeform RP session because it can only ever be invoked by the player's direction and it would be bad play to force this onto the character without the player's say so. I struggle to find how this kind of play can be "best" at inhabiting the fiction from the point of view of the character when the character is immune to the fiction in all ways (except for magic, in D&D, or supernatural effects). It's far too one sided.

That said, you can absolutely have a great time with this, especially with good players that riff well and gel well enough to handle PCs occasionally causing bad fallout through player directed actions. It also leads to quite a number of bad play examples -- however, I prefer to focus on good faith play and only mention this because you're putting forth this approach as the best option while ignoring it's downsides.
Separation of self and character within one's own mind is important.
Maybe.
Here again it seems you're approaching this from a perspective of the player and character not being separated, only now you're asking the mechanics to justify the non-separation.
Again, my argument isn't based on a clear separation at all times. I mean, there's an entire movement of RPG play that focuses primarily on causing bleed, or having players experience the emotional state of the PCs at moments during play. @Campbell is very clear this is something he finds desirable. I don't think you can categorically excise this from the argument.
Indeed; and this is often what ends up happening.
Mostly in games you're excluding, and certainly not in any game that's following your advice. I mean, one of the games that clearly does this, to me, is FATE, which pins quite a lot of play on invoking PC tags (or aspects), both by the player and by the GM. When I look to D&D, though, I don't see this at all -- outside of magic spells or supernatural abilities, there is zero way to mechanically enforce anything on the PC with regard to social interactions. You cannot make a character feel, think, or do anything with the game (again, outside of magic). Magic gets the pass because, well, magic, and that's the fullest extent of any explanation anyone's ever been able to provide why magic is special and can do a thing otherwise impossible in any degree. I cannot convince another PC of anything using the mechanics of any D&D edition ever unless I resort to magic, which, quite often, is viewed as PvP and mostly disliked (I know you're just fine with PvP, but you're a minority on this).
The "it's magic" explanation doesn't ring hollow to me; in that most of the point of magic is to achieve results that cannot usually be achieved otherwise within the setting's reality (or, in many cases, our own reality). So here, Charm Person is doing exactly that: achieving a result* that would very likely otherwise not be achieved within the setting's reality; or not without considerable effort.
Pick a magic spell that isn't mentally oriented, and I can do something towards that without magic -- perhaps not at the same scale or effect, but I can try. Fireball? I can use oil and fire, or alchemist's fire. Weaker, less effective, but I can do this. Fly? I can climb to high buildings and construct wings, or ride a griffon. Invisibility? I can try to hide or camouflaged myself. Magic in other areas does do magical things, usually by expanding the scope of the effect. But, I cannot convince an NPC or PC of a thing if they don't want to be convinced outside of Charm Person. Flatly, if the GM says, "this guard will not let anyone unauthorized past," I cannot talk my way past him, no matter what, with freeform RP but I can Charm or Dominate him and do it. My only option is to try a different approach. Thus, "it's magic" doesn't even hold water compared to other magic when it comes to Charm. It's a totally weak argument that sums up to "because."
* - admittedly in a more subtle manner than some examples, and then only on a failed save. Casting, say, a Fly spell on a Human achieves a much more obvious beyond-reality result when viewed from either the setting's reality or our own.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
The simple answer, as I already noted upthread, is to do away with those skill rolls completely.

You can't fail a roll - or succeed on a roll - if there's no roll to be made; thus making the whole thing much less binary. Yes it takes longer at the table to resolve a social encounter if you have to talk it all out rather than just roll some dice, but so what?
Again, you're completely ignoring that you've swapped the mechanic of rolling a die for the mechanic of "Bob says what happens." This isn't better, it's just Bob.
More an unfortunate product of game mechanics being allowed to get in the way of roleplay, I think.
And this is utterly wrongheaded -- many people have expressly explained to you how mechanics can AID roleplaying. Especially when you're trying to roleplay someone that isn't just a version of yourself.
 

The simple answer, as I already noted upthread, is to do away with those skill rolls completely.

You can't fail a roll - or succeed on a roll - if there's no roll to be made; thus making the whole thing much less binary. Yes it takes longer at the table to resolve a social encounter if you have to talk it all out rather than just roll some dice, but so what?
I believe that most social encounters should be handled by roleplay, but that is not the system we're discussing, so that point is moot. 5e has social mechanics, albeit barebones social mechanics, and more thorough mechanics for social encounters are useful for both players and GMs alike. Whereas a total freeform roleplay adjudication of a social encounter works for some groups, other groups find that unsatisfying, and I can see both perspectives. For a dramatic, high stakes social encounter, I can see something like Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits working fantastically for many tables.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I believe that most social encounters should be handled by roleplay, but that is not the system we're discussing, so that point is moot. 5e has social mechanics, albeit barebones social mechanics, and more thorough mechanics for social encounters are useful for both players and GMs alike. Whereas a total freeform roleplay adjudication of a social encounter works for some groups, other groups find that unsatisfying, and I can see both perspectives. For a dramatic, high stakes social encounter, I can see something like Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits working fantastically for many tables.
Here's the problem I have with going with "most encounters should be handled by [freeform] roleplay:" there's no teeth to trying to portray a different person altogether. Ultimately, you're dressing up your own decision making with a funny voice and some mannerisms. And, again, this is hella entertaining, and I enjoy doing it, but it doesn't really get to doing anything authentically as a starting point. It's just a preference, and one that can't be defended well when put forth as a "best" or "better" was to approach social interaction. I mean, I'm pretty good with words, and personable in person (tone doesn't translate here, so either I'm paying attention and sound dry because I'm avoiding it, or my natural light sarcasm bleeds through and I come off abrasive), so I do well with freeform roleplay. I also do funny voices and get into it, so that helps as well. But, ultimately, I'm putting on a show to entertain, not connect with my character, because I'm still me and I'm making choices that are heavily constrained by the social space that I'm in. I push harder with some groups, and very lightly with others, because that's the social space. And none of that has anything to do with who my character is, what my character wants, or what situation my character is in.

Mechanics can put in a firebreak here, so that I can push hard all the time and rely on the mechanics rather than consensus seeking with other players (which is what freeform roleplay does -- you reach a group consensus on what will happen next, usually informally, but definitely negotiated). This actually puts me closer to my character, especially characters that are not like me or that are not particularly likeable. Mechanics here aren't a way to get what I want (most of the games I do this in decidedly lean towards not getting what you want) but rather to provide a framework where pushing hard is always expected and okay.

Finally, on a different note, the social pillar mechanics in 5e are actually much better than people usually note -- there's a whole subsystem about BIFTs and leveraging them and initial dispositions and what those mean. If you lean into this, it works really well, and you can do quite a lot of roleplaying while doing so. You just have to let go of the idea that your special amateur thespian skills are there to get what you want and instead act with what's actually happening in the game. I mean, here's a thought -- why is it better to roleplay in a way that's aimed at what you want to happen rather than roleplay what does happen?
 

Here's the problem I have with going with "most encounters should be handled by [freeform] roleplay:" there's no teeth to trying to portray a different person altogether. Ultimately, you're dressing up your own decision making with a funny voice and some mannerisms. And, again, this is hella entertaining, and I enjoy doing it, but it doesn't really get to doing anything authentically as a starting point. It's just a preference, and one that can't be defended well when put forth as a "best" or "better" was to approach social interaction.
I could not agree more. Your mileage might vary on how this is best handled, but Hillfolk does a fair job with very simple mechanics. I think that gaining and spending inspiration could be ported fairly easily into 5e to handle this.
 


jasper

Rotten DM
1. We are playing out a game not your script.
2...So what are some ways you encourage players to fully participate in the game even if they're not social butterflies?..... Brass knuckles, booze, cattle prods, and tossing them from bridges when the creek is dry.
 

Voadam

Legend
1. We are playing out a game not your script.
2...So what are some ways you encourage players to fully participate in the game even if they're not social butterflies?..... Brass knuckles, booze, cattle prods, and tossing them from bridges when the creek is dry.
Have an NPC interact with them directly with open ended questions or similar interactions.

"You are a druid, what do you think?"

Give them prompts.

"So they are asking around about the missing art, what are you doing?"

Be mindful of spotlight and inclusion.
 

pemerton

Legend
It's quite possible to imagine my PC making a sword thrust at a NPC, the GM to imagine how that NPC might deflect that thrust with a shield, etc. If the GM has notes that say this person is really good at deflecting thrusts with her shield then in order to kill the NPC with my sword I'd have to persuade the GM that, on this occasion, I've performed a manoeuvre with my sword that even some who's really handy with a shield can't deflect.

I've never tried that, so I'm not quite sure what it would look like, but in principle it doesn't seem impossible.

Resolving social interaction by talking seems to me just the same. I mean, if my PC is trying to persuade the guard to let me pass, I'm not actually trying to persuade a person to let me pass. What I'm trying to do is to persuade the GM that s/he should consider the guard persuaded. And that's no different from persuading the GM that s/he should consider the guard stabbed!
 

CubicsRube

Adventurer
Supporter
A simple thing I do in all RPGs is I consider the character's class or role and what aspects of society they would have access to. A Bard might be best to speak to nobility, but most guard captains wouldn't give them the time of day. A Fighter adventurer they might listen to. Wilderness types would be more receptive to their own than city type of roles etc.
 

Composer99

Explorer
Main topic:

I think the goal should be that all players should be able, if they wish, to meaningfully contribute to social interaction with NPCs. Not necessarily every single instance of social interaction, but rather when taken as a whole.

I think reducing it to being good at talking to NPCs is probably going too far. It strengthens the idea that social interaction writ large is a niche that the party face fills completely and that the turnip-personality character (let's call them Gruff Turnip) is not meant or allowed to take part.

With that in mind, having different niches for social interaction, and making sure as a DM/GM/what-have-you to encourage different player characters to fill those niches, is a good way (at least IMO) to broaden the scope of social interaction. Others have already touched on this idea: the introverted nerd who opens up when discussing a topic about which they are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, the gregarious charmer, the hulking bad-cop muscle, the empathetic listener, the charlatan, that sort of thing.

So, you want to have different ways that characters can contribute to social interaction, not necessarily always in equal measure. You want to encourage the players to choose social niches that fit their characters. (Gruff Turnip could almost certainly be menacing, for instance. Or if you need someone in an interaction to be abrasive, offensive, or annoying, then Gruff is the right tool for the job.) And then you want to make a point of having situations come up in the game that reward characters from different niches contributing in social interaction.

The other thing you can do - again, as others have already touched on - is have different NPCs react differently to different player characters. The simple townsfolk are going to find the loquacious wizard boring and hard to understand, preferring perhaps the plain-spoken fighter (or maybe even Gruff Turnip, who at least has the decency to look you in the eyes and give you a firm handshake before insulting you), while of course Sage McSmartypants will have the opposite reaction.

Now, the character who has invested in social skills is a good all-round social generalist, and absolutely shines in the niches that their character best fits, but everyone else still has ways to contribute meaningfully to social interaction - if they wish. Even Gruff Turnip.




Tangent (spoilered because tangential):

Pick a magic spell that isn't mentally oriented, and I can do something towards that without magic -- perhaps not at the same scale or effect, but I can try. Fireball? I can use oil and fire, or alchemist's fire. Weaker, less effective, but I can do this. Fly? I can climb to high buildings and construct wings, or ride a griffon. Invisibility? I can try to hide or camouflaged myself. Magic in other areas does do magical things, usually by expanding the scope of the effect. But, I cannot convince an NPC or PC of a thing if they don't want to be convinced outside of Charm Person. Flatly, if the GM says, "this guard will not let anyone unauthorized past," I cannot talk my way past him, no matter what, with freeform RP but I can Charm or Dominate him and do it. My only option is to try a different approach. Thus, "it's magic" doesn't even hold water compared to other magic when it comes to Charm. It's a totally weak argument that sums up to "because."

This whole line of complaint about charm/domination magic makes no sense. In fact, it makes so little sense it is nonsense. It is just as much "because"-style circular reasoning as what you are complaining about.

Magic in most TTRPGs isn't just extending nonmagical things. Or, put another way, you just aren't "do[ing] something towards" a magical effect "without magic". Magic, more often than not, breaks fundamental rules of reality. You just aren't replicating fireball when you use alchemist's fire. Alchemist's fire is a fueled chemical reaction. Fireball is "manipulat[ing] thermodynamic differentials with your fingers". Constructing a glider/artificial wings is manipulating known forces to stay airborne. The fly spell is telling those forces to shut up and sit in the corner. Hiding or using camouflage is about staying out of other creatures' line of sight or being mistaken for something else. Becoming invisible magically entails letting light just... pass through you unobstructed (despite your own eyes still receiving light in sufficient quantity to see by).

Why do werewolves or vampires have only particular weaknesses (varying from system to system)? There's no sensible reason for these phenomena that you can extend logically or reasonably from nonmagical principles. If you transform, say, a human into a toad, where does all their extra body mass go? There's no sensible nonmagical phenomenon that you can work from. How do dragons exhale fire, much less lightning or sleep gas? There's no good reason - it's just magic. (Although that one faux documentary tried its best, bless it.)

Many (most?) varieties of magic in TTRPGS require overlooking physical or biological impossibilities. They are by nature inherently unreasonable. You can't sensibly justify them through any means other than "it's magic" because there is no other justification.

Suffice to say, there is no sense in complaining about the circular nature of magic, because its very impossibility precludes any other nature.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
For example if you have skills of intimidate, convince, charm, incite, inspire and command - you could have up to 6 characters filling a social niche.
Other games have had multiple interaction skills, but I'm not honestly convinced they're that great a solution. Adding skills certainly won't help in a game in which some characters are just going to dump their stats anyway so they have more build points/ options to spend on their core competencies.

Which of course gets to the natural question:
If players feel they can't contribute in certain kinds of scenes, maybe they shouldn't dump their ability to do so by focusing their character development elsewhere?
 

CubicsRube

Adventurer
Supporter
Other games have had multiple interaction skills, but I'm not honestly convinced they're that great a solution. Adding skills certainly won't help in a game in which some characters are just going to dump their stats anyway so they have more build points/ options to spend on their core competencies.

Which of course gets to the natural question:
If players feel they can't contribute in certain kinds of scenes, maybe they shouldn't dump their ability to do so by focusing their character development elsewhere?
Player playstyle is always going to trump mechanics and if players don'flt want to engage in the social pillar of the game, theu certainly won't.

But for me i think there needs to be at least a few social skills to allow those that want to engage with NPCs a choice of niche.
 


CubicsRube

Adventurer
Supporter
That sounds a bit simplistic. I mean, we wouldn't say this about playing poker or football. Or about playing Australian rules football compared to American football.
Those aren't comparable. A better comparison would be to a board game where you can't make up rules or judgements as you go along.

However what I mean to say is that you can have all sorts of rules around social interactions in an rpg if you want, but if the player doesn't want to speak to NPCs or engage in that part of the game, they won't.
 

pemerton

Legend
what I mean to say is that you can have all sorts of rules around social interactions in an rpg if you want, but if the player doesn't want to speak to NPCs or engage in that part of the game, they won't.
Well sure, that's true of rules for combat as well; or rules for climbing walls. I don't see that it's special about social interaction.
 

Voadam

Legend
Which of course gets to the natural question:
If players feel they can't contribute in certain kinds of scenes, maybe they shouldn't dump their ability to do so by focusing their character development elsewhere?
Or alternatively, the game system could be designed to not make those trade offs part of the system.

Take GURPS/Man-to-Man, a point buy system for generating combat abilities. Characters can trade off toughness versus strength versus accuracy to have different styles of combat that are roughly balanced for different 100 point buy builds. In Man-to-Man it is just the combat point buy options, In GURPS you expand the things you can spend points on to social skills and abilities or skills for other things like exploration or other non-combat and non-social activities such as knowledges and professional skills and other miscellaneous advantages.

You can go the GURPS route of spend your standard 100 points among the three pillars or focus on being good in one. This leads to lots of opportunities for mediocrity in spreading yourself thin around lots of areas to participate OK in lots of places, or being a good specialist (combatant, face, etc.) who is poor in other areas.

Alternatively you could set it up where you have three separate pools of points so everyone is good at combat in their own style (the D&D 3e on model and the Man-to-Man model) and competent in other areas/pillars too.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top