I've been thinking about role playing of social interaction and its relationship to the mechanics after watching this video by A Fistful of Dice and this reply from Emergent Play. Here's the summary of the problem: mechanics dictate the outcome of a social interaction (intimidate, bluff, diplomacy in Pathfinder), yet these interactions really are better reflected in the role-playing in the game. Can the player role-play intimidate, diplomacy, and bluff, and how does this relate to the outcome and the mechanic?
I'd like to point out that similarly, there is the problem of knowledge / wisdom skills versus the actual knowledge of the player. If the character encounters a riddle, can the player figure out of the riddle and give the solution, or can he/she roll in order to have her character figure it out? Reality Refracted talks a bit about this here.
In the Pathfinder pirates game I GM, we started the adventure using The Wormwood Mutiny. In the Wormwood Mutiny, the PCs are on a ship where there is a struggle for power. Ultimately, there is a mutiny, and the attitudes of all the ship's 23 NPCs toward each of the PCs helps determine the sides for the final battle. Needless to say, the social skills are an important factor. In this case, we chose (as a group) to allow a player to roll for an outcome and add bonuses for the quality of the role playing.
Revisiting this scenario again, I also recall a recent scenario where someone was attempting to intimidate a captured NPC bandit to gain an advantage and wanted to roll for it. The roll was good, but the player tried to skip through the role playing. I stopped them and said that they needed to role play it for the roll to stand, because they needed to flesh out how they intimidated the NPC. In this case, the player was an avid role player and I knew he would run with it. For me, the how was important, because it dictated their new relationship and provided the basis for the storyline to continue.
Looking over the various views presented in the two videos and related comments, I think I stand by my approach. Make the roll for the outcome. Role playing is used for a bonus and to fill in the details. The main reason this works in our group is simple -- not all of my players are avid role players. Some of them are gamers. They talk about their characters in 3rd person, they worry more about the character sheet than the conversation, and their greatest moments are watching the mechanics play out with their new items, feats, skills, and class features. This player aspect is as important to our group as role playing. The roll + bonus mechanic we use strikes a good balance between gaming and role playing. It allows gamers to game and role players to role play.
The other aspect that I want emphasize is that no matter how good the role playing is, the outcome of the dice can result in failure, just like "real life". The PC could have a great bluff skill, the player could give a great performance, and the bluff could still fail. Let me give an example: my player gives a great speech trying to gain entry to the castle, talking about how his younger sister snuck in, and how he must retrieve her or his father will whip him. The character could have a good bluff skill. The dice roll could be a 1 and the bluff could fail. This simply reflects the fact that the guard he bluffed knows the PC's father and that he has no daughter. The circumstance surrounding the failure and its realism is up to the GM to create (perhaps with player help), but the failure stands as a stroke of bad luck for a character with a good skill.
The knowledge / wisdom check is a bit tougher one. As a GM, I always assume that the character knows things that the player doesn't know, and that the player knows things that the character doesn't. Mixing these two things together in game can be a dangerous game (i.e. metagaming), but in specific cases, it can be fun to let the play knowledge lead the way.
In the case of riddles I let the players work at it a bit to see if they can figure it out, and then offer up the option to roll some sort of knowledge (intelligence) or insight (wisdom) check to get information. Similarly, in game, when there is information apparent that a character should know, but that the player doesn't seem to catch, I ask the player to give me an insight check (wisdom roll), and provide information based on that. Players can similarly request these checks based on other skills, like professions.
A good example was in our Monday pirate game. The druid, after hearing the sound of sand running from below deck, went below for a look. I described sand on the floor. I asked for an insight check (straight wisdom roll), and based on the value gave insightful information. In this case, I made mention that there was no real reason for the sand pile to be here, that it was too much to simply be tracked in, and too much for a broken hour glass. I also offered information that there were no cannonballs or black powder on deck, which was odd for a gunnery deck.
The other aspect of social mechanics I enforce in play is that one PC cannot force the action of another PC using a mechanic. For example, there are no intimidate or diplomacy rolls between PCs. In addition, Dominate Person cannot be cast by one PC on another. I do, however, allow the beliefs of PCs to interact. For example, one PC can bluff another PC, and as a GM, I enforce the fact that the character believes something based on the bluff. How they act upon, is still up to the player, thought I try to discourage metagaming.
There is still more in this aspect to discuss, as it goes into the even more gray area of character alignments, but I'll save that for another post.
Comments
Post a Comment