Did Anyone Else Try Out "A Song of Ice and Fire?"

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree. It's strange to me that people think that only a character's physical capabilities should be represented by traits, while a character's social/mental capabilities should be represented by the player's social/mental capabilities. That actually strikes me as not roleplaying in social/mental situations, since you're now relying on your social/mental capabilities and not your character's (aka the role that you are playing). That's why I use social/mental mechanics just as much as any other kind, as I don't care how silver-tongued Jeff is when he's playing Krunk the Socially Inept.

Again I must agree. The role-playing comes in describing your character's use of social skills/abilities, and/or outright speaking for them (correctly and in-character). I remember having this debate at age 14 in 1992, when one of my players had come up with a homebrew RPG and was VERY KEEN on the fact that it had no mental/personality mechanics at all and claimed this "promoted roleplaying". I remember being quite sure that I was of the opposite opinion, that rather it crushed roleplaying (and gave him, a skilled fast-talker and very bright guy), something of an unfair advantage over other players.

 

[The Little Raven]

Again I must agree.

HOLY FRAKKING HELL! WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH RUIN EXPLORER?!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

HOLY FRAKKING HELL! WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH RUIN EXPLORER?!

Well, I'm sure I'll find something to argue with soon

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I think a lot of it comes down to whether you want a RPG to just "fill in the blanks for you" between roleplaying scenes, or if you want the game to come into play during roleplaying scenes.

It's not like excluding mechanics *guarantees* good roleplaying, right? It's certainly possible to have boring scenes that go "I do X", "No, that fails" without dice rolls as it is with them.

I think the richness of description and, well "roleplaying" during a scene, and how much mechanics are involved in the scene, are two different axes. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

In a lot of games with social mechanics, the rules have different effects for when someone's trying to bolster their own argument vs. tearing down their opponent's argument. In other words, there's different maneuvers you can make. Since these represent actually things you might say, you could always do the roleplaying first and then use the mechanics after, choosing maneuvers based on the stuff you were saying in your dialog. Think of it as something else you can use in addition to GM fiat, maybe?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hell, I say if you're doing only a minimum of role-playing during combat, you're doing it wrong. I'm of the opinion that game mechanics and roleplay can coexist happily. (Disclaimer: Blah blah blah, just my personal taste, etc. etc.)

Yes, I am coming around this, too. But there's always a nagging doubt, that at some point, someone looks at how and what I play and says "You call yourself a role-player? You're just a power-gamer compensating for a supressed superiority complex in real life. You should be ashamed of your bad role-playing! You're just pretending to be pretending to be an elf!". Oh, well, maybe that's unlikely to happen.

Personally, I find it very important to role-playing games that the player characters ability enter into anything done meaningful in game. I am, after all, still playing a game. I am not just here for the story-telling. That's only one part of it.

 

[GreatLemur]

Yes, I am coming around this, too. But there's always a nagging doubt, that at some point, someone looks at how and what I play and says "You call yourself a role-player? You're just a power-gamer compensating for a supressed superiority complex in real life. You should be ashamed of your bad role-playing!". Oh, well, maybe that's unlikely to happen.

Personally, I find it very important to role-playing games that the player characters ability enter into anything done meaningful in game. I am, after all, still playing a game. I am not just here for the story-telling. That's only one part of it.

See, I'm running Spirit of the Century right now, so I'm all immersed in the idea that the mechanical and roleplaying components of a character can be deeply intertwined, or even one and the same. When one PC decides to shoot an unarmed Nazi because he's got the aspect "I Hate Nazzys" written on his character sheet, and then also gets a bonus to that attack because of the very same aspect . . . man, I can't even see the line between the game and storytelling parts of the whole experience, anymore.

 

[CleverNickName]

Roleplay vs. Rollplay arguments aside, I just don't like how Diplomacy works under the d20 rules system. Battles are resolved through multiple rounds of attacks and tactics, defensive maneuvers, and lots of interesting powers...yet delicate diplomatic matters are decided on a single d20 roll?

Player: I attempt to persuade the king to send reinforcements to my clanhold, to help them fight the advancing orc horde.

DM: Make a Diplomacy check.

Player: *rolls a two* Crap!

I wouldn't use the "intrigue" sytem for every social situation, like haggling over the price of a room at the inn or duping the castle guards. But it would be a wonderful way to add depth and suspense to situations of great importance. In other words, I don't want a total replacement for the way Diplomacy works...just something I can use for special occasions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Roleplay vs. Rollplay arguments aside, I just don't like how Diplomacy works under the d20 rules system. Battles are resolved through multiple rounds of attacks and tactics, defensive maneuvers, and lots of interesting powers...yet delicate diplomatic matters are decided on a single d20 roll?

Player: I attempt to persuade the king to send reinforcements to my clanhold, to help them fight the advancing orc horde.

DM: Make a Diplomacy check.

Player: *rolls a two* Crap!

I wouldn't use the "intrigue" sytem for every social situation, like haggling over the price of a room at the inn or duping the castle guards. But it would be a wonderful way to add depth and suspense to situations of great importance. In other words, I don't want a total replacement for the way Diplomacy works...just something I can use for special occasions.

Yes, the Diplomacy skill was a little... substandard. It was nice for a Bard or a Warlock to "diplomancy" any kind of target with a single roll, but it's ultimiately unsatisfying.

4E has introduced skill challenges, but they work less well in 3E due to the unpredictable rank and total skill modifier distribution. I wonder if it would be easier to slap on a "social combat" system, but I think it still faces the same problems...

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, the Diplomacy skill was a little... substandard. It was nice for a Bard or a Warlock to "diplomancy" any kind of target with a single roll, but it's ultimiately unsatisfying.

4E has introduced skill challenges, but they work less well in 3E due to the unpredictable rank and total skill modifier distribution. I wonder if it would be easier to slap on a "social combat" system, but I think it still faces the same problems...

This is sort of what I'm working on.

I create a special house rule, and give it a snappy name like "arbitration." Any time that a situation would require a Diplomacy check (or Bluff, or Intimidate), the player or the DM may decide to use Arbitration rules instead. So if a major story element hinges on the outcome, or if a character stands to gain or lose a great deal from the result of the check, the DM/player doesn't have to rely on the luck of one single dice throw.

Arbitration would work sort of like combat. A character's Diplomacy (or Bluff, or Intimidate) bonus is treated like an "attack roll," and his Resolve ("armor class") would be equal to his/her chances to avoid a bluff. A person's Composure ("hit points") would be equal to 10 + 1/2 character level + Cha modifier, or something along those lines.

To begin, each side writes out the purpose of the Arbitration...what exactly he/she hopes to accomplish, to some degree of detail. Then, initiative is rolled. Each "round" of Arbitration takes 1 hour.

The "attacker" chooses a tactic from a list, similar to the way a fighter would choose a weapon. Offering gold, for example, might grant a +2 to Diplomacy, but only deal 1d4 damage to a person's Composure. Threatening a member of his family might strike at -4, but would deal 1d12 damage if successful. That sort of thing. (I won't go overboard here; I would create about a half-dozen things to use as benchmarks, and leave it up to the DM and players to create more based on the situation.)

A Diplomacy (or Intimidate, or Bluff) check is made against the target's Resolve. If it "hits," the opponent loses Composure. Other tactics would help "heal" lost Composure...consulting with a comittee, or making a public statement to regain lost favor, making a particular skill check, etc. (Again, I wouldn't go overboard here...just a few examples and guidelines, and then leave it up to the DM and players.)

Ultimately, one side of the discussion will wear down the other's Composure to zero or less. This means that one side has won the debate, and accomplishes the stated purpose.

A system like this would quickly get dull if it is used for every Diplomacy check. But when used in moderation, I think it would be a great enhancement to my games.

Thoughts?

 

[Princesskeyblade]

Nowhere had that FRPGD stuff around here.

Otherwise, I surely would've tried it out by now. I'm definitely going to see what it's like when the PDF gets released for free though, as promised.

Any word on when they are releasing the PDF?

I thought it was today, but there was nothing there.