Strategy or role-playing game?

[Jim Hague]

There's a lot of different ways to roleplay, two of the more prominent being

1) Playing a role through social interaction. The character says what the player says and the world changes as a result. This is fun for a lot of people.

2) Playing a role by making decisions. You make decisions for your character and the world changes as a result. Also fun for a lot of people.

Side A in this discussion likes approach #2 and not #1. They'd rather abstract the result of the social interaction into a summarizing roll and then either roleplay it or not as convenient.

Side B like #1 and #2.

Side A claims side B is wrong, unfair, elitist, cheating, and not real roleplayers.

Side B claims side A is simplistic, inept, and not real roleplayers.

How about we instead recognize that people have different play preferences and that the preferences are legitimate if they're having fun games playing their way. If I play differently than you that doesn't mean either one of us is wrong.

Despite this being an internet message board, it _is_ possible to have a discussion of various play style without name-calling or being judgemental. I'm interested in further discussion of this issue, so I'd rather not see the thread shut down due to name-calling.

Against my better judgement...

No. Wrong. You're oversimplifying the stances. Allow me to explain.

I fully realize that there are different play styles and degrees of roleplaying. My contention previously is that dispensing with the mechanical fallback of social mechanics leaves far too much room for GMs, good and bad, to either make a mistake or cheat their players out of a satisfying experience...for that matter, such problems can end up with the GM not having a satisfying experience.

Social skills, when appropriate, are the great leveller in roleplay - you can have someone who's an excellent player, with a kickass concept, who never slows the game down with rules arguments...but is a poor 'roleplayer'. They just don't grasp the improvisation or the threatrical side of the game. Are these people, who can't 'act' to save their lives, to be penalized by not having the fallback of the mechanics? What about the tyrolean player, who, again, is very excited to be there, wants to participate...and is left floundering by the wayside when the GM pays more attention to the forceful, charismatic player?

Should pure mechanics rule the day? Hardly. If anything, I'm very much in agreement with Henry in his stance - mechanics come in where appropriate. Allowing 'pure' (player-driven without regard to mechanics or character statistics) roleplay to drive the social aspect is, IME, asking...no, begging, for trouble.

As for the 'elitist' stance? Well, as I said, I appreciate the honesty displayed, but I find the attitude repugnant, even if I agree with other ideas that poster's had.

 

[The Shaman]

And I didn't miss your statement about character abilities affecting play at all - I focused on your clear intent to convey that you're going to favor some players over others, seemingly regardless of the character's abilities in the matter.

Actually, if that's your take, then you completely missed the point of the statement.

First, recognizing that some players are cleverer than others is not the same as giving them preferential treatment - in fact, I would say that clever players are least likely to need preferential treatment.

Second, you've taken my point about character abilities and interpreted it as the opposite of how those abilities are incorporated into adjudicating the game. What I expect from the players, and what I teach new players, is to 'sell' their character abilities through roleplay - that doesn't mean I penalize players who aren't as intimidating as their characters' ten ranks in Intimidate would suggest they are. You really missed the whole point of that.

No, actually it is not role-playing. It is railroading. You have determined, ahead of time, how this character will react, and no amount of actual skill will change his mind. As usual, hostile reactions to the use of game mechanics appear to be little more than a shield for a railroading DM to hide behind.

Where did I say that the characters would never change their minds? What I have created is a baseline for each character - a dwarf-hating wizard, a venal mercenary - with which to guide their roleplaying interactions with the adventurers.

Do players never change their characters' minds? Then why assume the GM's characters wouldn't either?

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be advocating one standard for roleplaying by players and another by GMs. If that's what you're peddling, I ain't buyin'.

Then why bring it up? Bringing a non-sequitur concerning how the game is not designed doesn't seem to be helping your argument.

I'm making the point that roleplaying for GMs should not be hamstrung, as you seem to be suggesting it should.

And doing so essentially amounts to railroading. NPCs will act a certain way, regardless of the character they deal with. If the glib bard negotiates, it seems to make no difference when compared to the same player bringing his gruff dwarven fighter, or surly half-orc barbarian, so long as the player behvaes the same. Basically, your players aren't role-playing then, they are just playing themselves in funny suits.

As I noted in an earlier post, you're selectively ignoring the fact that I've already indicated that I do take character abilities into account.

 

[Jim Hague]

Actually, if that's your take, then you completely missed the point of the statement.

First, recognizing that some players are cleverer than others is not the same as giving them preferential treatment - in fact, I would say that clever players are least likely to need preferential treatment.

Second, you've taken my point about character abilities and interpreted it as the opposite of how those abilities are incorporated into adjudicating the game. What I expect from the players, and what I teach new players, is to 'sell' their character abilities through roleplay - that doesn't mean I penalize players who aren't as intimidating as their characters' ten ranks in Intimidate would suggest they are. You really missed the whole point of that.Where did I say that the characters would never change their minds? What I have created is a baseline for each character - a dwarf-hating wizard, a venal mercenary - with which to guide their roleplaying interactions with the adventurers.

Honestly, that's how it comes across - but given the signal to noise ration that's present in the thread, I can see how I might have misinterpreted, and your point about the more talented players is well taken, even though it doesn't match my experiences.

However, your 'baseline' comment intrigues me - you seem to be taking the 'pure roleplaying' stance on social skills, but I'd think one of the best ways to influence that baseline, within reason, would be a roleplayed scene backed by the power of the die roll, with appropriate modifiers.

 

[Storm Raven]

Second, you've taken my point about character abilities and interpreted it as the opposite of how those abilities are incorporated into adjudicating the game. What I expect from the players, and what I teach new players, is to 'sell' their character abilities through roleplay - that doesn't mean I penalize players who aren't as intimidating as their characters' ten ranks in Intimidate would suggest they are. You really missed the whole point of that.Where did I say that the characters would never change their minds? What I have created is a baseline for each character - a dwarf-hating wizard, a venal mercenary - with which to guide their roleplaying interactions with the adventurers.

And this somehow runs counter to the idea that the skills of the character should determine the success of the negotiation? You cannot place modifiers on the negotiations a dwarf-hating wizard would have with a known wizard? How would using social mehcanics to determine the success of what the characters are trying to do obviate your ability to have NPCs with different needs and desires?

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be advocating one standard for roleplaying by players and another by GMs. If that's what you're peddling, I ain't buyin'.I'm making the point that roleplaying for GMs should not be hamstrung, as you seem to be suggesting it should.As I noted in an earlier post, you're selectively ignoring the fact that I've already indicated that I do take character abilities into account.

I'm advocating using the rules for social encounters as designed. These are not that hard to locate, and can be found in the SRD or the Player's Handbook.

And you have completely failed to answer why the player's abilities matter when engaging in social interaction in game, but their physical abilities do not? "Just because" is still not an answer, just as it was not an answer at the begninning of this thread.

 

[The Shaman]

On the other hand, if the abilities WILL make a difference, even if I can't pretend to seduce someone to save my life and there will be a penalty for this, then I'm cool with it, and full speed ahead! Just as long as where I spend my attention isn't wasted.

The character's abilities absolutely make a difference, Henry - I'm not sure why that part of my post keeps being misunderstood or ignored.

I'll usually roll the dice is when a character is attempting something specific with respect to interaction with another character, such as changing a character's attitude (Diplomacy), scaring the wits out of a character (Intimidate), or fooling a character in tight circumstances (Bluff), pretty much by the RAW. I reward a player with a +2 or +4 "GM's friend" for good roleplay along with the skill attempt, and I will tinker with DCs where I think it's appropriate to do so based on the NPC's attitudes, motivations, and so on. In most cases I won't bother with a die roll where the interaction meets the criteria of "socially expected interaction."

With respect to skill checks, a perfunctory attempt at seduction (to use your example) is acceptable, but I do expect the player to give me something beyond, "I'll make a Diplomacy attempt to seduce the princess," and I will tweak the die roll accordingly based on how the player roleplays the attempt. Does this favor glib players? Yes, it does, and yes, I'm okay with that. At the end of the day, what I find most memorable about roleplaying games is the social element, not just between characters but between players. I don't remember dice rolls - I remember funny quips and stirring speeches and fearsome threats, and my style of play hopefully encourages that over investing solely in skill ranks and attribute bonuses.

A player running a wizard who makes poor choices in spell-selection or a fighter with combat feats that don't mesh doesn't get a break - why should a player running a character with high ranks in social skills get a pass on roleplaying? Get better at speaking in character, or play to your other strengths.

With respect to the DCs, the adventurers might find that the DCs go up by ten or fifteen or even twenty when attempting to persuade the aforementioned wizard to enchant a dwarf's axe, or to get the mercenary captain to sit down and talk without first putting an offer of employment on the table. This reflects what is considered "socially acceptable interaction" for these characters, and it shouldn't be as easy to overcome a deeply-ingrained prejudice as it is to ask the character to pass the potatos. In some cases this may put the desired reaction out of reach of the players, no matter their roll - to Storm Raven that's railroading perhaps, but to me it's verisimilitude. If a clever player can come up with an argument that I think the NPC would find compelling, then I'll tweak the DC again - however, rarely will this give a CHA 5 character much of a chance no matter how smartly played by the player, so it balances out.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

 

[The Shaman]

However, your 'baseline' comment intrigues me - you seem to be taking the 'pure roleplaying' stance on social skills, but I'd think one of the best ways to influence that baseline, within reason, would be a roleplayed scene backed by the power of the die roll, with appropriate modifiers.

And if you read my response to Henry, above, that is how I play it. Social interactions are not completely free-form, but they are influenced by roleplaying.

 

[Jim Hague]

And if you read my response to Henry, above, that is how I play it. Social interactions are not completely free-form, but they are influenced by roleplaying.

Ah, good. So it's just signal to noise interfering. Gotcha. Ironically, that's pretty much how I run things; I'm just acutely aware that there are some players who try to take advantage and run roughshod over my newer folks.

As an aside, maybe I'm missing something in my uncaffinated state but 'RAW'? What is this RAW that you speak of?

 

[Voadam]

As an aside, maybe I'm missing something in my uncaffinated state but 'RAW'? What is this RAW that you speak of?

Rules as Written.

 

[Jim Hague]

Rules as Written.

That's a-what I thought.

 

[Storm Raven]

A player running a wizard who makes poor choices in spell-selection or a fighter with combat feats that don't mesh doesn't get a break - why should a player running a character with high ranks in social skills get a pass on roleplaying? Get better at speaking in character, or play to your other strengths.

Because penalizing a player who is not a good role-player for his personal shortcomings when he is playing an eloquent bard is not the same thing. It would be the same thing as penalizing a player who is a fat, couch potato for his personal shortcomings when playing an athletic and strong fighter by reducing his damage bonus. It would be the same thing as penalizing a player who could not cast spells when playing a spell-slinging wizard by refusing to allow him to cast spells. None of the three make any sense at all. Why some people think the first is a great idea is beyond me, I blame the so-called "Golden Age" when D&D was even more tied to its wargame roots than it is now.