On and Off
Over at One Angry Polack, there's a post that starts off a little influenced by Steven Colbert and goes on to discuss acting vs. role-playing and includes a little rant about in game rules and the like dealing with social interactions. It's not a bad read (the dude's a bit 'dedicated' to his beliefs), and of course, it got me thinking. Not having much of a gaming life right now, mostly I get to think about our most recent campaign at times like this.*
What seems like EONS ago, there was some party strife, and it was settled with the party bard going super Diplomacy check on two of our characters. At the time, we were pissed. "You can't ROLL character interactions! Just PC to NPC!"
I think we were wrong. The bottom line is that in D&D the rules are in place primarily to let players be something they couldn't be in real life. Wendy herself understands (and is rather outspoken about it) that her improv skills aren't up to playing the character she had at the time, but that's what the Diplomacy skill is for (or even a bardic level check with a charisma bonus, or whatever function you wanna use). Especially considering that while we were in our third or fourth session as a group, and consequently the players didn't know much about everyone else's characters, those characters already had at least a hunnerd miles behind them together. There woulda been small talk, they woulda known little things that we, as players, didn't know. Since none of us were playing an anti-social, sit-in-my-cloak-and-sulk character, there's no reason that a skilled bard in the party couldn't have manipulated the hell out of the other characters, despite our player beliefs. That's not necessarily fair to the more combat intensive characters in the group that sacrificed basic social skills to be well versed in violence, manaphysics (just coined that term), and generally brutalizing the populatoin of the world not fortunate enough to have a solid d20 in their corner, but neither is it fair to take said bard and run him through never ending caves of combat with no other place for him to shine.
In most groups, there's an understood "social contract" that keeps players from using their characters to manipulate the other players/characters. However, there's generally also an understood clause in the contract that one or some of the players won't be obstinate and refuse to progress with the game because of a disagreement. On the other two sides of the square, there's probably a clause about not attacking or threatening fellow party members over petty disagreements (ie, not resorting to violence without some serious levels of character to character AND player to player discussion, and certainly not attacking other party members unless all involved understand it is SOLELY a character action), AND ALSO a clause about not pushing a situation or adventure forward at the cost of half the player's fun. In the above example, we all had different assumptions about which of these clauses applied and how far they carried.
(On a side note, I'd bet in every group there's an understood clause that the DM will first and foremost ensure that everyone in the group has a moment or two to shine each game session (possibly averaged over time). In a year and a half of gaming, Nick and I were both pretty even in that we can count on ONE hand (together, combined. not each of us on one hand, BOTH of us on one hand) how many times we did that. That's not to say our games aren't/weren't fun, funny, and a great way to spend an evening. Just that neither one of us tends to consider the character's abilities in adventure planning or what the players like to do. We try, but neither one of us is really that good at considering other people's feelings to begin with. We're not what you'd call cuddly DMs. Our pixies shoot you in the fucking eye with their sleep arrows and still babies. If there's milk, they tip it over or spooge in it. Hence the inherent need of the players to work in their own moment to shine. Considering the other players in our group.......)
Which brings me to the meat of the post. Yeah, that's a lot of grizzle to gnaw through up there, but here's the juicy part that applies the whole thing to gaming in general, and not just a defunct campaign. Here's my idea for dealing with social interaction in D&D, which accomodates the rollers and the rolers (that extra 'l' is pretty important in some circles), and very specifically wraps up at least one of the assumptions misunderstood above. Roll the appropriate social checks ahead of time. Diplomacy vs. diplomacy, charisma vs. willpower, whatever. Just make the opposed rolls. THEN, role-play that part of the game if it's important (obviously, the rolls are enough to see what you pay at an inn or whatever). That's where the situation can go from dull and lifeless to interesting, and a player that's better at improv or acting in character can actually help someone that isn't. It once more puts the conflict into the dice and makes the players cooperate to achieve a goal and have fun, which is what D&D is meant to be about (although most people break the game's paradigm down into killing things and taking there stuff).
A DM that's having problems getting the players into the predetermined RP event can offer up XP bonuses as appropriate (just make sure you're not penalizing someone that's not good at improv for not trying or over-rewarding the thespian in the group that actually works for the Guthrie part time, UNLESS the non-improv player tends to make up the bonus XP in another area, ie tactics or keeping the other players on task). It's a bit of a switch for most game groups I bet, but it might be better than the alternative; being party strife, DM favorites winning out during intraparty conflict, or an alpha player taking the lead in most, if not all, situations that require anything "in character".
*I should amend this statement. Right now, my gaming life does include a semi-regular campaign in the form of Shadowrun (4th ed), and is mostly consumed by BF2 and a sizeable freelance d20 project (which I'd like to get one or two more of, cause I work better uber stressed and compressed, like elephant shit being squeezed into a diamond). When I say gaming life right now, I mean the part of my life that is spent gaming. I much prefer it when the gaming consumes a part of my life outside of gaming.
What I mean by this is that right now, I would leap a leap to shake the Earth if we removed one member of the SR group. Can't stand her. Tried, failed, gave up. I'm playing the campaign to hang with Nick, because I love SR, and because it's the only outlet I have for that right now. I can't say I spend much time outside of the session developing Aardvark much (hell, we just made 7,500 in cold cash, and I still haven't considered spending it). That's not to say I dislike anything about the Friday night session other than the one player and the fact that Nick prolly spends more time than the GM thinking about the campaign, and everyone else is prolly on par with me. I love it. But it doesn't affect my life much.
What seems like EONS ago, there was some party strife, and it was settled with the party bard going super Diplomacy check on two of our characters. At the time, we were pissed. "You can't ROLL character interactions! Just PC to NPC!"
I think we were wrong. The bottom line is that in D&D the rules are in place primarily to let players be something they couldn't be in real life. Wendy herself understands (and is rather outspoken about it) that her improv skills aren't up to playing the character she had at the time, but that's what the Diplomacy skill is for (or even a bardic level check with a charisma bonus, or whatever function you wanna use). Especially considering that while we were in our third or fourth session as a group, and consequently the players didn't know much about everyone else's characters, those characters already had at least a hunnerd miles behind them together. There woulda been small talk, they woulda known little things that we, as players, didn't know. Since none of us were playing an anti-social, sit-in-my-cloak-and-sulk character, there's no reason that a skilled bard in the party couldn't have manipulated the hell out of the other characters, despite our player beliefs. That's not necessarily fair to the more combat intensive characters in the group that sacrificed basic social skills to be well versed in violence, manaphysics (just coined that term), and generally brutalizing the populatoin of the world not fortunate enough to have a solid d20 in their corner, but neither is it fair to take said bard and run him through never ending caves of combat with no other place for him to shine.
In most groups, there's an understood "social contract" that keeps players from using their characters to manipulate the other players/characters. However, there's generally also an understood clause in the contract that one or some of the players won't be obstinate and refuse to progress with the game because of a disagreement. On the other two sides of the square, there's probably a clause about not attacking or threatening fellow party members over petty disagreements (ie, not resorting to violence without some serious levels of character to character AND player to player discussion, and certainly not attacking other party members unless all involved understand it is SOLELY a character action), AND ALSO a clause about not pushing a situation or adventure forward at the cost of half the player's fun. In the above example, we all had different assumptions about which of these clauses applied and how far they carried.
(On a side note, I'd bet in every group there's an understood clause that the DM will first and foremost ensure that everyone in the group has a moment or two to shine each game session (possibly averaged over time). In a year and a half of gaming, Nick and I were both pretty even in that we can count on ONE hand (together, combined. not each of us on one hand, BOTH of us on one hand) how many times we did that. That's not to say our games aren't/weren't fun, funny, and a great way to spend an evening. Just that neither one of us tends to consider the character's abilities in adventure planning or what the players like to do. We try, but neither one of us is really that good at considering other people's feelings to begin with. We're not what you'd call cuddly DMs. Our pixies shoot you in the fucking eye with their sleep arrows and still babies. If there's milk, they tip it over or spooge in it. Hence the inherent need of the players to work in their own moment to shine. Considering the other players in our group.......)
Which brings me to the meat of the post. Yeah, that's a lot of grizzle to gnaw through up there, but here's the juicy part that applies the whole thing to gaming in general, and not just a defunct campaign. Here's my idea for dealing with social interaction in D&D, which accomodates the rollers and the rolers (that extra 'l' is pretty important in some circles), and very specifically wraps up at least one of the assumptions misunderstood above. Roll the appropriate social checks ahead of time. Diplomacy vs. diplomacy, charisma vs. willpower, whatever. Just make the opposed rolls. THEN, role-play that part of the game if it's important (obviously, the rolls are enough to see what you pay at an inn or whatever). That's where the situation can go from dull and lifeless to interesting, and a player that's better at improv or acting in character can actually help someone that isn't. It once more puts the conflict into the dice and makes the players cooperate to achieve a goal and have fun, which is what D&D is meant to be about (although most people break the game's paradigm down into killing things and taking there stuff).
A DM that's having problems getting the players into the predetermined RP event can offer up XP bonuses as appropriate (just make sure you're not penalizing someone that's not good at improv for not trying or over-rewarding the thespian in the group that actually works for the Guthrie part time, UNLESS the non-improv player tends to make up the bonus XP in another area, ie tactics or keeping the other players on task). It's a bit of a switch for most game groups I bet, but it might be better than the alternative; being party strife, DM favorites winning out during intraparty conflict, or an alpha player taking the lead in most, if not all, situations that require anything "in character".
*I should amend this statement. Right now, my gaming life does include a semi-regular campaign in the form of Shadowrun (4th ed), and is mostly consumed by BF2 and a sizeable freelance d20 project (which I'd like to get one or two more of, cause I work better uber stressed and compressed, like elephant shit being squeezed into a diamond). When I say gaming life right now, I mean the part of my life that is spent gaming. I much prefer it when the gaming consumes a part of my life outside of gaming.
What I mean by this is that right now, I would leap a leap to shake the Earth if we removed one member of the SR group. Can't stand her. Tried, failed, gave up. I'm playing the campaign to hang with Nick, because I love SR, and because it's the only outlet I have for that right now. I can't say I spend much time outside of the session developing Aardvark much (hell, we just made 7,500 in cold cash, and I still haven't considered spending it). That's not to say I dislike anything about the Friday night session other than the one player and the fact that Nick prolly spends more time than the GM thinking about the campaign, and everyone else is prolly on par with me. I love it. But it doesn't affect my life much.
posted by Amazing Shafeman at 1:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home