HaroldTheHobbit
Hero
I GM all social stuff so that rolls have some impact, but roleplaying is the major deciding factor. It works at my table.
I GM all social stuff so that rolls have some impact, but roleplaying is the major deciding factor. It works at my table.
When other participants would be bored by the in character roleplay eating a chunk of session.Here are a few questions I’ve been pondering:
- When do you feel social negotiation rules are essential for driving the story forward?
A simple statement of each side, and a roll off, works when it's low stakes. For serious stakes, a formal social conflict system, such as Dune, Burning Wheel or FFG L5R 5 have is more fun. Make your statement, maybe get a mod, make a skill roll, and note that it represents X minutes of agrument.
- Do you think social negotiation should be a constant feature of every roleplaying interaction, or should it be used more sparingly, reserved for moments where it truly matters?
Simple interactions with low stakes and no challenge to anyone's beliefs.
- Are there any exceptions where the system shouldn’t intervene, and players should rely on roleplaying or narrative cues alone?
A given roll requires 1-3 sentences that are suited to the audience to get a bonus on the roll; if they are opposed to the belief, you might get a penalty.I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with this!
Queen Guinevere is special... first off, she's a SHOCKINGLY beautiful woman (App 30 in 4th ed, in a system where normal is 5-18)... but Amor Guinevere is not (usually) the same kind of Amor - it's labeled in 4th ed's text as a "Chaste Amor" - she is so beautiful she inspires you to do great deeds in hopes she even acknowledges you...Sure, if a game is built with it and doesnt have a long tradition of offloading this to fiat like D&D and other RPGs, then its a workable thing.
These things do happen in real life, but it seems a bit gamey to have every character roll for falling in love with the same NPC. That doesnt feel organic at all. I think that all or nothing isnt the dichotomy social negotiation ought to be set in.
i know the dynamic at my table:Agreed. I find it puzzling that these sorts of questions/topics keep coming up. Makes me wonder what the dynamic at their tables is like.
i know the dynamic at my table:
I am playing. a. game.
Games have rules.
I like the rules of a game to include ways to do anything in the game, not just some things.
If I just wanted to "roleplay" it. I'd do improv.
I don't, so I look for games that give me the kind of support I want as a GM.
Or I make games do what I need them to do.
I find it it puzzling that people want rules for some stuff, but not for other stuff. Its almost like its a preference or something, and maybe I shouldn't make innuendo's about other folks fun? huh.
I'm not sure how these two paragraphs relate: the first talks about serious results on a failure, but then the second seems to look at completely different considerations, like pacing and "realism".If you're asking 'when should dice rolls be used in social interactions?' - I think I find they should be used like any other role: when a failure can have serious results.
Do I think a barter session with a shopkeeper needs a dice roll? Generally no - UNLESS the players are trying to absolutely abuse the shopkeep (when it should be a No - because a shopkeep needs to be as proficient in running a business as you'd expect a fighter to be proficient in fighting)