Results 121 to 150 of 211
-
2014-07-25, 04:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-07-25, 05:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Enköping, Sweden
- Gender
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
OF COURSE they should be different. Seriously. That's the POINT of determining your character's traits and skills.
Also, of course, the DM / GM / ST should block min-maxed characters that are too extreme, alternatively play up what they have sacrificed.
You must have had a really bad experience with a DM / GM at some point. Seriously, I have NEVER noticed a newbie player being at a disadvantage. The game as such might be SLOWER, to allow for explanations and whatever. Also, note that players normally aren't competing against each other anyway.
So... um... not sure how to respond to this. It really seems you DO think only charismatic people should have the right to play RPGs.Last edited by Avilan the Grey; 2014-07-25 at 05:17 PM.
Blizzard Battletag: UnderDog#21677
Shepard: "Wrex! Do we have mawsign?"
Wrex: "Shepard, we have mawsign the likes of which even Reapers have never seen!"
-
2014-07-25, 05:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
I'm not aware of very many systems where you can change what you TRIED after you rolled the dice; In fact, I can't actually name ANY, unless you count games with full scene resolution, where this rule is already sortof prebaked in.
I Minmax for social skills, I've created characters that are built for that. If you were familiar with D&D, instead of deriding you'd realize that one of the most broken builds (and one of the earliest to come online) is focused entirely on diplomacy and being good at it.
Bad systems, in your opinion. I enjoy complexity of systems, it's fun for me. I can understand that it wouldn't be fun for everybody, but it's fun for me.
Well it depends, on how skills resolution is handled. Typically people are rewarded for being socially adept in almost all games. In the example of not giving real estate moguls bonus money in Monopoly we've ignored the fact that they'd be better at monopoly. The same as a military veteran could be better at W40K (Don't quote me on that I'm not familiar enough with the game to know if that's true or not.) But it is impossible to create a game that does not use real world skills to some degree.
Also, you will observe that in none of the other games you cite are the players attempting to pretend to be someone else. Which is really the point here - the player isn't the one performing this action, which is why their skill should not be relevant.
I think WoD has a much more focused social skills system. There are also other games that involve complex mechanical systems that are not D&D, it is a little bit disingenuous to imply that D&D is the worst offender or even the most focused on mechanical optimization, I promise it's not.
Not all games have tradeoffs. Sometimes some options are simply better. Or options are randomly decided as in Older D&D or Rolemaster. Now if the game has character customization to that degree then there could be tradeoffs.
But you could have a certain number of social feats or whatever, that you couldn't spend on other things, you don't necessarily have to have tradeoffs between social ability and combat ability. In fact in D&D (3.5 and Pathfinder) the majority of social ability comes from skills, and spending points on social skills generally does not jeopardize your combat potential since there are very few skills that can be used in combat.
Well some people enjoy system mastery. Furthermore I posit that there is no such thing as a game that does not reward you for being good at the game. Provide me with one example of a game that can be played as well by somebody whose never played it and somebody who has.Last edited by Airk; 2014-07-25 at 05:24 PM.
-
2014-07-25, 05:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Yeah, that doesn't happen. "I've made a social ninja who can convince everyone of everything, and all this means is that I'm weak in melee combat!" never then leads to that character getting swarmed by a million spiders, it instead leads to them plinking away with a bow from half a mile away. Any downsides are minimized - that's literally the point of minmaxing.
Conversely, the newbie, who spent a week just making their character without any help, shows up and is of little use, because the role she chose is overshadowed by said minmaxer, or really, by anyone else with more system mastery than her.
They're not competing against each other in-character, no, but they're usually trying to all get equal importance and effectiveness. Having the disadvantage of "I'm new" typically means that unless someone else makes your character for you, you're gonna end up being upstaged by everyone else in every other field.
And if they had someone else make their character, welp, now you're saying system mastery isn't important after all!
EDIT:
Legends of the Wulin. You roll your dice pool first, then declare what you want to do with it. It actually works really well, and I wish more games used that order of operations.Last edited by Cronocke; 2014-07-25 at 05:30 PM.
-
2014-07-25, 05:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
D&D has luck rules, certain games have edge rules that allow you to shift after you've rolled. Generally this sort of thing tends to be wrapped up in luck or edge or hero point rules. So it's prevalent in the systems that has those rules.
3.5 is the version I was speaking of, that's the one that has Diplomacy as one of the most powerful tricks in the game.
Not necessarily, maybe I like aspects of the system enough that having to change other aspects is worth it to me. To be fair I very rarely houserule things in any of the systems I use. But some people really enjoy that particular creative aspect.
Knowing economic theory does help when playing monopoly, you can understand what risks are worth it and which risks are not. I'm not saying it's broadly true that being a military vet helps with strategy games. But what I'm saying is that is impossible to create a game that is completely separate from your real life skills unless it is entirely random (and then still luck plays a factor, if you believe in that sort of thing).
But their skills are relevant, you're just trading social skills for computational mathematics, or the ability to socialize for the ability to argue persistently enough, or be annoying enough that other people relent. There is no game that has no aspect of skill. And you can't become your character, some games have a deeper level of immersion and others have less. And you can't use one brush and claim to get all of them
It's an example of how a certain style works, and is by far the most popular game, or was at one time, and is therefore worth discussing. But I'd say that there are as many examples of games that introduce complicated min-maxing at a level far more intense than D&D as there are freeform games.
So you want a game where I have no choices and cannot control any aspect of my character? That seems impossible, and with all due respect, I'd hate that. So basically you want a game where there is no player agency. The only way to avoid "better options" is to have no options at all.
Furthermore, even in FATE systems where one has aspects, certain aspects will be more useful depending on personal social skills (the ability to effectively argue that something is in any given situation useful) and cleverness (the ability to grasp unorthodox usefulness for thing. System mastery isn't just character creation, it's the whole system.
True, but sucking at swimming is actually negligible, in 3.5 or Pathfinder at least. And it's a worthwhile tradeoff depending on your game, social skills could be more or less useful than swimming or jumping or even equally useful.
Dungeon World definitely DEFINITELY involves system mastery as it contains non-random aspects and there is a possibility of losing. Although it might be less system mastery at this point you're quibbling between Vegas rules solitaire and standard rules solitaire. The only way that there could be zero system mastery present is if what you do has no effect on the game. Slots for example has zero system master involved. Even collaborative storytelling has system mastery, in that the person who can edge their way in, and come up with things that better fit the group will be regaled more and enjoyed. There is no way outside of total randomness to remove skill from the game.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-07-25, 06:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
I realize we don't really want the discussion to center around D&D, but this seems like a significant hole in your knowledge of D&D that may help explain why so many people coming from D&D are resisting these other roll-to-resolve types of systems. I'll explain this in detail for sake of clarity, not to argue that all social resolution systems are anywhere as bad as this one.
In D&D, the Diplomacy skill has flat, fixed DCs for achieving particular changes in behavioral state in an NPC, regardless of the details of the NPC. Convincing Baldric the Beggar to become fanatical to your cause is exactly the same difficulty as convincing Pelor or Ao to become fanatical to your cause (it can depend only on how they initially regard you). The behavioral states are defined with respect to what the NPC will or will not do, and so are relatively clear and can be exploited if a player doesn't overreach. For example, Helpful is defined as 'Will take risks to help you; protect, back up, heal, aid'. If you push that to try to get the king to give you a castle, the DM can shut it down saying 'it doesn't say that they'll give away their own possessions', but if you use it to get someone to stop attacking you then its pretty hard to argue that the DM is still actually using the rules of Diplomacy if the person doesn't actually stop attacking you.
Turning someone completely hostile and out for your blood into someone Helpful is DC 50. If you want to do it in a single action, its DC 60. Which can be achieved, via min-maxing, by a Lv3 or so character. The method to doing so is a lot more complex than just 'putting all your points in Diplomacy' as it requires exploiting synergies, classes that let you give bonuses to arbitrary skills, spells, magic items, etc. The result is that at Lv3 you can have a character who basically can walk into any place in the game universe and immediately be best buds with everyone there.
If you can push it further, you can create the Fanatical status, which is defined as 'Will give their life to serve you; fight to the death against overwhelming odds'. The number is a bit higher here if you want to go straight to Fanatical from Helpful in one round (DC 160), so it 'comes online' later. However, someone who is already Helpful, say from a previous check, is only DC 50 to raise to Fanatical.
So the Lv3 best-buds-with-everyone character can also make almost anyone willing to sacrifice their life in his cause. (Edit: Mind-affecting immunity does block Fanatical, but not Helpful, so you can't get Pelor to throw himself in front of a train for you, but its still very broad).
This is why people min-max social skills in D&D.Last edited by NichG; 2014-07-25 at 06:37 PM.
-
2014-07-25, 08:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
That's not the same thing though; Even spending "luck" or "edge" or whatever only changes the outcome of the roll. You can't say "Okay, I'm going to try to climb the wall.' and then spend some points and end up sneaking past the guards instead. The Declare Intent > Roll (> Modify Roll)> Play out results is present in the vast majority of games; Apparently Legends of Wulin does it differently, but that's the only one I know of.
Not necessarily, maybe I like aspects of the system enough that having to change other aspects is worth it to me. To be fair I very rarely houserule things in any of the systems I use. But some people really enjoy that particular creative aspect.
Knowing economic theory does help when playing monopoly, you can understand what risks are worth it and which risks are not.
But their skills are relevant, you're just trading social skills for computational mathematics, or the ability to socialize for the ability to argue persistently enough, or be annoying enough that other people relent. There is no game that has no aspect of skill.
And you can't become your character, some games have a deeper level of immersion and others have less. And you can't use one brush and claim to get all of them
It's an example of how a certain style works, and is by far the most popular game, or was at one time, and is therefore worth discussing. But I'd say that there are as many examples of games that introduce complicated min-maxing at a level far more intense than D&D as there are freeform games.
So you want a game where I have no choices and cannot control any aspect of my character? That seems impossible, and with all due respect, I'd hate that. So basically you want a game where there is no player agency. The only way to avoid "better options" is to have no options at all.
Furthermore, even in FATE systems where one has aspects, certain aspects will be more useful depending on personal social skills (the ability to effectively argue that something is in any given situation useful) and cleverness (the ability to grasp unorthodox usefulness for thing. System mastery isn't just character creation, it's the whole system.
True, but sucking at swimming is actually negligible, in 3.5 or Pathfinder at least. And it's a worthwhile tradeoff depending on your game, social skills could be more or less useful than swimming or jumping or even equally useful.
Dungeon World definitely DEFINITELY involves system mastery as it contains non-random aspects and there is a possibility of losing. Although it might be less system mastery at this point you're quibbling between Vegas rules solitaire and standard rules solitaire. The only way that there could be zero system mastery present is if what you do has no effect on the game. Slots for example has zero system master involved. Even collaborative storytelling has system mastery, in that the person who can edge their way in, and come up with things that better fit the group will be regaled more and enjoyed. There is no way outside of total randomness to remove skill from the game.
Edit: Re D&D diplomacy - you're right, I remember reading about that and thinking it was the dumbest thing imaginable. Another reason to not play that game, I guess.Last edited by Airk; 2014-07-25 at 08:42 PM.
-
2014-07-25, 09:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Well normally the luck type things allow you to retract things that you'd have done. Like premonitions or whatnot.
Maybe, or maybe not. Some people have fixer-upper cars, some people have fixer upper houses. But they don't want new ones, they love the old ones, and the fixing is part of the fun for them, that's part of why they love the things.
Clearly, you've never played Monopoly with some of the same folks I have, I've had games of monopoly that included selling things back for percentages of rent, and such. Negotiations with alliances and such.
Other than games that are entirely luck, no there aren't.
But for other people it does.
I was speaking of true freeform, as in collaborative storytelling stuff.
Race, Class, Nonweapon Proficiencies (if those are in effect), Weapon Proficiencies. Multi-Classing, Dual-Classing. That seems like an awful lot of customization. Furthermore you are STILL arguing that skill and systems mastery only applies to character creation and not playing the game.
It absolutely is system mastery, it involves learning the phrases that are most likely to convince others. The things that people are most likely to discuss or be convinced by, not all system mastery is knowing the game, sometimes it's knowing what works best in the game.
Exactly as I said.
Knowing that undead cause ability damage is system mastery. Knowing that dungeons are full of traps (when in the real world they aren't) is system mastery. Knowing that dragons are greedy is system mastery. Knowing how to be clever in a particular situation is system mastery.
Edit: Look you clearly are convinced that your preferences are the only acceptable ones, and that's fine. But you should know that there are people with other preferences, and those are also valid. Just because you can't understand why somebody else likes something or why it's fun for them doesn't mean it's not genuinely fun for them.Last edited by AMFV; 2014-07-25 at 09:07 PM.
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-07-25, 11:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Generally speaking, people play RPGs to try something they can't or wouldn't do in real life. If they could do it in real life, they probably WOULD.
Decrying system mastery as if it's some sort of exclusionary thing is a bit silly, since RPGs are usually rife with people more than happy to help you build for whatever you want your character to do. You need not have complete mastery, yourself, merely understand the game well enough to play with the tools others show you how to put together.
-
2014-07-26, 12:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
I'm not going to disagree that this is sometimes the case, but I don't know if I'd be willing to say that it's a general rule. For me roleplaying games aren't about exploring something I'm not, but looking into different aspects of what I am. I expect that you'll find a lot of people, who play the game as escapism as you posit here. But I doubt it is a clear enough majority to state that it is the general case.
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-07-26, 01:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
I admit I never understood the need to role-play to explore facets of myself. I can, again, do that in real life.
-
2014-07-26, 03:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Gender
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
-
2014-07-26, 04:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
You can take risks in RPGs that would be dangerous or foolish in real life. You can also do things which would be horrible to do in real life. That doesn't just mean getting into life or death combats, it can also mean particular forms of social interaction. Plotting a scheme that will get someone to lose their status and become destitute, thereby destroying their life, is a horrible thing to do in real life that can easily backfire as well. In a tabletop RPG, its an interesting thought exercise.
Last edited by NichG; 2014-07-26 at 04:05 AM.
-
2014-07-26, 06:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Does this mean that - should you play a thief-type character - folks should take it as an indication that you're considering committing a crime? Should those you play with be concerned that your interest in playing a necromancer-type might be because you've a particularly grisly hobby pertaining to the local morgue? Do you simply avoid any archetypes that don't mimic your real-world interests? Or, perhaps, do you actually play archetypes you wouldn't consider approaching from the real world?
-
2014-07-26, 08:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Not exactly. For example when I play a thief type character I look for the part of myself that would involve stealing, what would motivate me to steal, what would motivate me to raise the dead. What I would be if I were under different circumstances. I don't know if I would steal or raise the dead in real life, on is literally impossible, and one is unlikely, but exploring that side of me is why I play roleplaying games. Although it's worth noting that it is emotionally and morally exhausting when I play evil characters, since exploring your unpleasant side, can be not pleasant.
But no I don't play any archetype that I don't believe I might under the wrong circumstances or if I was brought up differently. I don't play any archetype I can't understand. So no I don't look for escapism in that way. If I play a necromancer, I'm not saying I'd like to imagine something that could never be. But I'm saying what if I got myself so miserable and so desperate that I would be willing to do that, what would make me that way.
I'm not sure if that's a good explanation. My personal motivations are complex, but I can say that I don't play archetypes I would never consider, it's not fun for me. And frankly I have nothing against people that do. In fact, when I'm teaching somebody to play usually the first the thing I ask them is if they'd rather play as somebody like them or somebody that's not, it helps to figure what they would enjoy most. From what I would say that's actually the most distinction in deciding what kind of character to play.
Does that help at all? I'm not sure if it was a coherent explanation or not.
And D&D doesn't require it, but any game with mechanics HAS system mastery. Because if choices are meaningful then there must be worse and better choices, and being able to choose the good things is something people are good at figuring out and it is system mastery. And there's nothing wrong with having a system that requires skill, again the only way to have no skill in a game is to have no meaningful choices.
And to be fair I can't understand why people would be able to or want to play something completely different from themselves. I do understand that people enjoy it though, NichG did say it better than I probably could though:
Last edited by AMFV; 2014-07-26 at 08:26 AM.
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-07-28, 12:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
This. I'm playing with a crossbow shooter. Player rolls to hit and asks for the results, I tell them roll for cover and it fails. "The crossbow bolt thunks into the bush, never reaching its target." Later they hit the target and it falls down. "The crossbow bolt sinks into the kobold's neck, and he falls over bleeding."
Actually a lot of us do try to avoid that. We tell the person who's minmaxing to tone it down. We tell the new player you probably don't want to take toughness, maybe try improved initiative? Even in game we try to make things matter. So for example, the player who hasn't really played D&D before but has 18 intelligence gets prodded to make knowledge rolls where appropriate, or has a chokepoint pointed out to them.
I have to say one more thing - some diplomacy rules often make it easier on the DM when the players do something unexpected. They run off wanting a long interaction with random beggar 43 because he must know something about the thieve's guild. They decide that the priest who's just there to provide plots and do some healing is suspicious and trying to get them killed. It's helpful to have some quick and easy rules for how such things go.Hail to the Lord of Death and Destruction!
CATNIP FOR THE CAT GOD! YARN FOR THE YARN THRONE! MILK FOR THE MILK BOWL!
-
2014-07-31, 10:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- off the grid
- Gender
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
One cookie for the first person who links to the Giant's "this old rule - diplomacy" article.
It does a great job of making persuasion/interaction feel responsive without adding unnecessary complexity.
the cookie is waiting. (::)LGBTitP
Avatar by Teutonic Knight.
Universal Decay by Deamoneye Publishing
Dungeons the Dragoning 40k 7.5th edition by Lawful Nice
-
2014-07-31, 10:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
It doesn't have to be completely different, but...well, NichG's explanation reveals a difference in how we look at it, too: I don't consider something I wouldn't do IRL because it's dangerous/immoral/unethical/unpleasant to be "exploring a facet of myself" when I do it in an RPG. The very reason I do it only in an RPG is that I would never do it, myself, IRL. That doesn't mean that everything a character I play does is antithetical or even alien to how I would do things, but the point of an RPG character, to me, is to be doing something primarily that I would or could not do IRL.
Hence, I don't consider it "exploring facets of myself," since what my characters do that are like what I would do is not exploration, while what they do that is not what I would do is not a facet of myself.
Anyway, I value good, deep mechanics for whatever the game is intended to model, because if I'm playing a game, I want to be able to play towards what it's modeling without having that be a talent of mine IRL. If I thought I could do it based on simple improv/acting talent, I'd probably write a story or just run it free-form/as an improv play with buddies. No need for a system, then.
-
2014-07-31, 02:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Correct - or even more generalized, any game will reward certain skills that may be possessed by players. The question is *which* skills do you want to reward, and which do you want to not reward?
That's a very interesting and deep question, with *no right answer*. But the answer that's chosen for a specific game will have a huge impact on who the audience of the game ends up being.
Personally, I prefer games that minimize the "system mastery" type skills (particular in regards to character optimization) but reward skills related to engaging in the fictional world. That's me. Other people will *hate* that type of game, but love system mastery games.
-
2014-07-31, 03:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
-
2014-07-31, 03:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
-
2014-07-31, 08:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
And designers generally need to appeal to both groups. For me, the character is a representation of myself, and I think that's a very different way to look at it.
Well it's worth noting that rewarding system mastery skills and reward engagement aren't necessarily oppositional. I'm not sure if you mean "System Mastery" skills that's all encompassing, that's knowing which choices are mildly better than others, the only to remove it is randomness. Am I to understand that what you want to remove is mathy building decisions based on extensive rulebook study? Because that can be removed, but system mastery is very difficult to.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-07-31, 08:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
-
2014-08-01, 09:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
I don't really agree with this; Even if it's "true" it's not a USEFUL true, because the knowledge/mastery involved in engaging with one fictional world may or may not map in any way to the knowledge involved in engaging in another. Knowing that trolls are susceptable to fire is "system mastery" in some fictional worlds, and false in others. Even in "games like" the first one.
I guess what I'm saying here is that, at some super high level "Being able to figure out how the fictional world works" is a skill, but it's not "system mastery", because it's not specific to any particular system. Using this as a definition of "system mastery" makes the term fundamentally useless.
-
2014-08-01, 11:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Ultimately, what I expect in a system built for a game which is meant to have a lot of social interaction - and to enable you to play characters with varying skills in different aspects of such interactions - is enough depth that my choices in how I build my character impact how he achieves his goals in-game. I'd also like it to be deep enough that I can try different social tactics. And most importantly, I'd like to know that I influenced the NPC or PC with my character's capabilities; I do not want it to be "Segev influenced NichG into agreeing that this NPC would be influenced."
There's a certain element of that, to be sure, but it should be on smaller things. My ability to give a speech should not directly translate to my PC's ability to do the same, any more than my ability to program in Matlab directly translates to my PC's ability to code a neural network.
-
2014-08-01, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
The fictional world is part of the system, is it not? Ability to figure out how to use (at least) part of the system to your best advantage is system mastery, is it not? If the game the GM is running cares not a whit about social skills that are recorded on a player's character sheet, then that player's ability to actually portray accurately the social skills attempted in-character becomes a highly useful skill for that system. If the game the GM is running cares not a whit about how socially adept a given player is, and instead cares only about how much investiture the character has in the social skills as represented on that player's character sheet, then the ability to actually portray those social skills accurately doesn't matter, just as a LARPers ability to convincingly wield a sword, or make serviceable chainmail, doesn't matter in traditional TTRPGs.
Last edited by Amphetryon; 2014-08-01 at 12:52 PM. Reason: clarity
-
2014-08-01, 03:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-08-01, 05:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
Possibly. And somebody else's ability to sweet/fast-talk the GM might convince him to have circumstnaces set up to best take advantage of their mechanical abilities.
Note that in neither case is the character's ability being bypassed by the player's; the player's is just helping him get the most out of the character's stats and powers.
My mechanical optimization skills enable me to ensure I have a character who is mechanically capable in the kind of thing I want him to be doing in the story of the game.
The silver-tongued player is able to get more narrative choices to go his way so that the things his character is built to handle come up often and in advantageous ways.
In both cases, the character's mechanics are ultimately important to actual success of the character.
-
2014-08-01, 05:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2014-08-01, 05:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?
I've no problem with that. I only object to "this game will focus on this aspect of your characters' activities, and as such the mechanics will be 'how well can you, the player, do these activities?'"
This can happen with supposedly-rules-light resolution systems as much as with genuine free-form. To me, a game system's mechanics should have significant depth (which doesn't necessarily imply a lack of simplicity, nor does complexity necessarily imply depth) in the areas where the majority of player character activities are to take place.