Striking a balance between player description and dice rolls

[Zzarchov]

Hopefully not to derail the thread too much, I made this a seperate post to discuss the individual concepts behind certain mechanics.

In this case speech as a mechanical attributes. Keeping in mind the whole system is designed to be plug and play (and this this isn't essential) I figured I'd give a brief rundown on my views on the matter.

I view roleplaying as all encompassing in the behaviour of the character. Fighting with a sword is part of roleplaying, speaking is roleplaying, choosing not to speak or not to fight is also roleplaying.

Now in one of my long time game groups, a player is a semi-pro Mixed Martial Artist. He can fully describe how he would react and defeat any humanoid opponent in combat. I do not allow him to "Talk his way through conflict"

Thus for another player with a sales background who minored in Psych, I would think it equally unfair to let them "talk their way through a conflict".

Instead I use player descriptions as what they are trying to do, and the die rolls indicate what they actually do. I may try and remain calm to the screaming town guard and explain my story, but perhaps my low intelligece low social skills warrior can't control his temper and flares up. Obviously no one WANTS to get irrational in an arguement, but it happens as sure as no one WANT to fail to dodge the blast of dragons breath, but it still happens.

Thus I allow a crude player with a charming character the chance that his insticts clean up his speech or that it at least comes off as a humourous charming statement, likewise an elequent speech by thog the brain damaged cave dwarf may come out awkward, with missed words, sweating and stuttering and other poor presentation skills.

That isn't to say everything has to be rolled out, I don't make an attack roll be required if a princess slaps a crude ruffian nor a speech mechanic be used to idle small talk.

But if a warrior is trying to take down a twenty tonne flying super-intelligent dinosaur wizard that breathes fire (ie a dragon) with a pointy stick..I require a roll.

And if a bard is trying to convince the emperor that only those of average or above intelligence can see his "fancy new clothes" I will likewise require a roll.

That is just a gaming style preference though.

[Rob Lang]

[Zzarchov]

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

A page about RPG Jargon defines the - If you let the dice do the talking, its not very active, and you're not sure what was said or agreed to. However, if you leave it to the player - its a test of the person's speaking skill, not the character's.

I tend to prefer forgo skills, and let the players handle speaking. After all, short of joining a historical reenactment group, you can't really role-play combat. Even if you plan in character, most combat is "third person" because the GM describes most of the field and area. Speaking is the time you really have that "first person" in the character's shoes experience.

Furthermore, at least some encounters should really be an experience. When two barbarians meet to trade, they should regale their lineage, tell of battles they've been in, and belittle each other as they make claims about who has the right to wield the item in question.

Presumably most people would accept the compromise - let the player speak, and what they say modify the resultant roll.

One thing worth questioning is should there even be a speech skill beyond knowing the language? As anyone who has done a speech in grade school knows - much of public speaking and debate is about gathering and organizing information into key points. It should really be a test of a relevant skill and the characters intelligence. Perhaps a trait/feat like "silver tongued" would add a bonus, but no actual public speaking skill.

For example, rather than using your charisma to get the king's soldiers to help guard the bridge, the roll should be based on the tactics skill - proving how such help is beneficial. Or with a bit of role play, substitute medical knowledge instead - as you scare them into helping by describing in detail all the horrible wounds and tortures that will be inflicted if the bridge were to fall.

[Rob Lang]

[Zzarchov]

In regards to speech skills in general:

I would have to disagree its about organizing information. This being one of my traits, in sales and negotiations, I can assure you there are ALOT of skills people need to learn.

About reading people, about pushing peoples buttons, about what type of benefits comfort different personality types, cultural norms, body language etc. These are things you cant' really roleplay at the table anymore than you can roleplay combat. You can roleplay what words you speak, but thats (in combat terms) equivalent to showing what your arms are doing (while neglecting footwork, the environment and the ability to move your torso)

People get entire doctorates in the subject of what in the end boils down to "convincing people".

That being said, if you enjoy a being rules free for social conflict resolution then thats all that matters. I would just be sure all the players know thats thats the idea before hand.

Im a firm believer that every RPG group needs to have their own slightly different system/homebrew, thats why I tried to make Piecemeal as plug and play as possible.

[Zzarchov]

I was wondering IF I could get a favour from anyone interested in social conflict mechanics.

I put up another update of piecemeal with an experimental alternate set of mechanics for social conflict, one that plays out alot more in the manner one uses for physical conflict.

I was wondering if anyone would weigh in on which one they prefer, why, and what they don't like it in either or?

[crazygreek]

well i just read all of the posts and i would like to have a word even as a new GM with minimal experience

We always see two sides in a game the social and the brutal as i like to call them. Deepening on the game the one is suppressed or nonexistent will the other rules. Well structured games manage to bring them in an equal level and that is always that high that the game fills with complexity or extreme Dice bends.

Why not try to make a game with both brutal and social sides suppressed and simplified so that we can give space to the role playing and the actual interaction take place. Who says that we must role play a different character. Who defines that we cant have our selfs into the game. Us just able to handle a sword or throw fireballs will riding a space bike.

I always like to put my self into the game it makes it more alive and i was able to take calls and many many dice bonus for my role playing much easier. There is no need to make a relaxing night with pizza or in my case souvlaki challenging to our heads and trying to be someone else. Lets face it very few people would let their selfs as they are if they had the power but when you role play you have that power and you can alter your self to fit in instated of making a totally new character up.

Some will say that this is boring i would agree only in the case of an expirienced player (and i consider my self one). If someone find it boring to play an enchansed avatar of him delf then he has problems of self confidence rather than the game lacs of mechanics.

In a nutshel i belive that personality panels are intensionaly created to help you role play but when you are a newbie you dont use them efectivly and they become whaigth on the oposite when you are a pro you find them useless.

[Zzarchov]

If thats the game style you like, all the power to you.

But the riding the space bike or fireballs isn't what some people want to be able to do. I was Infantry, I know and have gamed with people who really do "throw fireballs" and do the equivalent of riding a space bike, and my current group has a MMA semi-pro who really can pummel a handful of orcs with his bare hands.


And some times these people want to be able to read people better (some people are gullible) or be eloquent in their speech, or explain their ideas clearly where in reality they stumble.

Sometimes the "Extra powers" people want are social, not per say magical. I mean who hasnt' wanted to be a king, or a rock star, or the president?