Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 6060238" data-attributes="member: 23240">A functional game should specify how the social mechanics applies to the PCs. Players either buy in, or not. If they buy in, they won't try to avoid whatever the dice bring. If they don't, it's time to change the system or houserule it until you have a game that the players want to play. Simple as that. That's how I resolve similar issues at the table.Of course, the question stated in the OP becomes meaningful when treated as a game design problem instead of a gamemastering problem. In other words: how should the social system be designed if we want the buy-in from as many players as possible.There are a few ways that generally work - but none that is accepted by every player.One approach is explicit stake negotiation. When a social conflict begins, the GM and the player (or two players, in case of a PC-PC conflict) discuss what will happen in case of a success, and what in case of a failure. The roll is made after both sides agree on the stakes. There is no problem with making players follow the result of a roll, because they already agreed on that before the roll was made. That is the approach I like best.An advantage of explicit stakes is making all rolls meaningful - both risky and rewarding - because few people accept stakes that are obviously biased. On the other hand, some players are pulled out of immersion by a metagame negotiation, and some GMs don't like it because they cannot keep the potential results secred.A more traditional approach is the carrot-and-stick method. The system rewards players when they follow up on results of a social roll, by granting them xp, fate points, willpower or some other resource that the game uses. Or it punishes them for not following the roll by penalizing actions that go against it. For example, a character isn't forced to run away or submit when successfully intimidated, but gets a reward when he does and a penalty when he attacks the offender. This is significantly less metagame than stakes negotiation and still does not force a player to violate their character concept.The last approach I see as functional is removing social rolls entirely and moving the social interactions to the player level. It is simple and immersive, but it significantly weakens many character concepts and leaves a lot to player and GM fiat.</blockquote>

Verification