D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[Mallus]

But if you are not playing the role the you are not role playing.

We're using very different definitions of role-playing.

You're using it to mean something like 'the act of staying in character' where I'm using the term to describe the act of controlling an avatar inside a game space. You might as well say I'm defining role-playing, in this context, as 'the act of participating in a role-playing game'.

I did not say that great dramatic scenes are equated to crap role playing. I said that it is crap role playing if it isn't being the character.

Yes, I got that. And my point was that any role-playing that lead to a great scene is, by definition, good. Because a 'great scene' is a more desired end than some notion of character fidelity.

Obviously you don't care about being in a certain character.

It would be more accurate to say that I consider 'staying in character' to be one priority out of many. And I say this as someone who's come very close to playing entire sessions in character (in full-throated funny voice, to boot).

But you are not roleplaying.

Says you.

Honestly, suggesting that they not be fun is an absurd misrepresentation of my point.

You did seem to indicate that 'good roleplaying' didn't have anything to do the fun involved in doing it (the 'great dramatic scene' you brought up), that it was all about keeping to your definded role.

 

[buzz]

You might as well say I'm defining role-playing, in this context, as 'the act of participating in a role-playing game'.

That's pretty much how I define it. Which is why I'm always confused when gamers and/or texts talk about "encouraging roleplaying" or "using roleplaying instead of..." I am playing a roleplaying game, ergo, I am roleplaying.

 

[Glyfair]

We're using very different definitions of role-playing.

That has always been a weakness for using two different terms for things commonly discussed together (even worse than the multiple meanings of "level"). We really need a new term. Something like "role assumption" or "character immersion."

 

[apoptosis]

I'd give the same advice about BW that people often give about GURPS: BW is like a cow; you cannot eat the whole thing at once. Just take the cuts you need.* The BW book itself advises this as well. If you ever play in one of Luke Crane's BW demos at GenCon or elsewhere, you'll notice that he does not bust out the detailed conflict rules all that often, especially with large groups. Once you've got them under your belt, though, they're really fun. I think so at least. Still, I know that it doesn't appeal to everyone.

SotC I cannot recommend enough. Funnest RPG evar!

* Original GURPS version of this was coined by Dr. Rotwang! on RPG.net, iirc.

I agree about Burning Wheel that you have to slowly get into it. The issue with my group is that they are not big on learning a bunch of new rules (even slowly). They like rules-lite games. My feeling on BW that it is an incredible game but unlike many games where only the GM really has to know the rules, that BW really loses out if all the players are not in on the rules. The rules are so set to drive the drama, rewards etc. and that to really get the BW experience everyone must understand the rules and how to use them.

I must try SotC heard great things about it.

 

[Mallus]

We really need a new term. Something like "role assumption" or "character immersion."

Agreed. And then we need to decide whether it's a means to an end or an end itself

 

[buzz]

My feeling on BW that it is an incredible game but unlike many games where only the GM really has to know the rules, that BW really loses out if all the players are not in on the rules. The rules are so set to drive the drama, rewards etc. and that to really get the BW experience everyone must understand the rules and how to use them.

I'd totally agree with this.

We really need a new term. Something like "role assumption" or "character immersion."

You could use the existing terminology for stances, maybe. Actor stance is basically the decision-based-on-immersion method. Or simply say "in-character resolution," i.e., "we act it out and resolution is based on what we end up saying."

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I prefer to accommodate players. I'm not so interested in telling them what to play --outside of the few broad parameters. Besides, it's interesting to watch the 'wrong' characters stumble around like bulls in an enchanted china shop.

Once again, I agree with you. And I will assume the player thinks it's interesting to watch his character stumble around like a bull in an enchanted china shop, as you put it. I will also assume that it was the reason he made the choices he made at character creation. That being the case, why ignore this particular facet of the character?

In all seriousness, why? How does that make the game more enjoyable? Again, I'm out to entertain my players, not teach them the consequences of wanting to play the game with the character of their choosing. Hence, I seek to accommodate, and after that, encourage participation during actual play.

For exactly the same reason I put above. It's not like my players don't know what's coming up ahead; I'm very upfront about it. If they ask for advice, I give it to them. If, in spite of knowing they'll need social skills (or swimming skills, or Undead-hunting skills, or multiple languages, or lockpicking), they decide they won't get them, then it's a conscious choice they've made, and I won't pave over that because of some design goal that all players should be equally effective in all situations. And even if I decided I had to, I'd tailor the encounter so there is something they can do with the abilities they do have...

To clarify, I'm only talking about ignoring a character's flaws on occasion, and specifically with regard to player participation in planning or social encounters. I wouldn't let someone do it all the time.

Ah, I seem to have misunderstood that; when you said that your campaign was mostly intrigue/social maneuvering, I read the implication that charismatic players with brute characters were being suave all the time. Since it isn't like that, then I retract most of my objections.

It's simpler to just acknowledge that the character is as smooth as Cary Grant on occasion. I'm a huge fan of simple.

What exactly are you doing playing 3.5e, then?

I can think of a number of reasons why not, the simplest being that the player didn't have a firm idea of their characters personality at the start of the game. Or they did, and then decided to change it. Or that even though they enjoying playing a certain type of character most of the time, sometimes they like to break out of that (consistency being the 2 hit die hobgoblin of little minds and all that...).

It my experience that 'going with the flow' leads to a more fun game. You could say my DM'ing philosophy is best summed up by the classic scene in Animal House, where Bluto gives a moving, yet factually incorrect speech invoking the German attack on Pearl Harbor, which is to say, more often than not when confronted with a player's actions don't neatly match up to their characters abilities, I say 'Forget in, he's rolling'.

In all games I've played, the players usually know in advance what kind of character they want to have -- at least, they plan in advance what kinds of roles they'll have in a group, so they don't step on each others' toes. Going into a game without knowing who you're trying to play is usually a recipe for disaster, no matter what the DM does.

As for the player changing their minds about a character, usually the character is scrapped (retired or killed) and a new one made, or it's plain redone (moving around skill points or changing classes), but regardless, the character sheet should reflect the player's vision of their character.

Sometimes the rules have to be scrapped and the DM has to wing it, but in the general case, it's better to have rules for combat than not; it's better to have rules for spellcasting than not; and it's better to have rules for NPC interaction than not. The special cases are special-cased as appropriate.

 

[Mallus]

I will also assume that it was the reason he made the choices he made at character creation. That being the case, why ignore this particular facet of the character?

Because sometimes a player wants to play against (his or her own) type and succeed?

What exactly are you doing playing 3.5e, then?

Your quoting hurt my brain, but to answer the part I could understand, because it's the easiest game to find players for. And partially out of habit. Also because, the system isn't all that important to me. In the end a rule set is just a set of tools. In the case of me and D&D, it's a toolbox full of screwdrivers that I half-cleverly, half-stupidly use to pound nails into wood.

Going into a game without knowing who you're trying to play is usually a recipe for disaster, no matter what the DM does.

In general, yes. But that doesn't mean a player isn't going to sometimes, as Bluto Blutarsky did, 'get on a roll' doing something they just weren't cut out to, and in those cases, I choose to more or less suspend the rules, because negating the players input in situations like those looks like the less enjoyable option.

Sometimes the rules have to be scrapped and the DM has to wing it...

Hey, we agree!

The special cases are special-cased as appropriate.

I like lots of special cases. I'm all about the special.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I did like the diplomacy check as a way of resolving negotiations, but part of me really missed the whole roleplaying dialogue and getting into character.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's just like combat. You're not wordlessly rolling a d20 in combat. You state where you go and what you do. Then you roll the d20 to resolve it, and the result is announced and usually "acted out".

If you're smart, you can get some bonus out of it, like when you try to gain the higher ground, or flank him, or get cover. You can incorporate that into your description of your actions. But of course, the description alone won't determine whether you hit or not, even if you specify that you try to stick the sword into the vulnerable spot below the armpit.

It's the same for social situations: You say what your character is going to say, and then roll your dice to resolve it. If your performance was good (made the effort to talk in character, tried to find his "weak spot", and so on), you're going to get some bonus (DM's discretion, but that's the case most of the time), but the roll, representing your character's abilities rather than your own, will ultimately determine whether you succeed or not.

And remember that not everything needs to be rolled. You can order a beer at the bar without rolling diplomacy, just like you can tie your shoelaces without rolling use rope.

The fact that a socially inept player could roleplay a bard with a +30 Diplomacy modifier didn't really add to the game... now you've got a player that can barely string together a sentance while looking you in the eye trying to negotiate peace between two kingdoms... I don't know if providing the opportunity for a real-life wallflower to play a suave, charismatic courtier is really a great benefit.

You let the clumsy, weak, flabby guys play mighty warriors who can slay dragons and go toe to toe with demons and all that, don't you?

Perhaps another player is really outgoing, but has chosen to play a barbarian... he has to sit by during any social interaction.

He doesn't. He just can't expect to be able to solve (m) any of the more difficult social challenges with that character.

And if he's outgoing and wants to play an outgoing character who solves problems by talking, why does he play a barbarian (probably with low cha and no ranks in diplomacy)?

Many games work fine by rewarding players for their own real-life strengths.

And players should be punished for their own real-life weaknesses?

And what are we going to do about those weight-lifters who play D&D? The black belts and GSG commandos?

Do D&D designers want to punish the social players by not allowing them to use their gifts for conversation unless they make certain choices in character development?

Do you want to punish the not-too-social players, and reward silver-tongued power gamers by ignoring one half of the ability scores and probably more than half of the skills?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think the game should make it fair to as many people as possible:

Whenever possible, make the character's abilities count, with the player making contributions. If the player has strengths in one area, nothing keeps him from letting his character have strengths in that area. Great talker? Get your character high charisma!

The game should also punish those who try to "cheat", by letting their character have weaknesses where they themselves are strong, and then ignoring the charater's abilities in favour of their own. That's bad roleplaying.



Let Str, Dex, Con as well as attack rolls, AC, and HP determine how well someone can deal and take punishment and thus avoid both , for example, frail players to be unable to play tough guys and tough players playing tough characters with low physical stats. Since the game already does that well, we don't have to get rid of things like the "attack roll dart board" or the "hp simulating electro shocker".

Let Social ability be coverned by charisma and social skills so shy people can play a silver-tongued nogotiator, and avoid silver-tongued players playing characters with 6 cha and 20 str at 1st level dominating both on the battlefield on in the court. We can do that by not ignoring skills like diplomacy.

Sure, those who know the game, are decent tacticians and have good math skills will still have some advantage they should not have, but with simpler rules, the "injustice" can be lessened.


Sure, we won't be able to keep people from abusing everything, but that doesn't mean we should let them abuse everything.