Balancing social skills and role playing

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

If they can't Block, they can certainly Dodge or DFC as suggested to avoid the haymaker. It's no easier to avoid the haymaker than any other attack, other than the extra time freed up to Abort.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I wonder how many of us, as GM's, would take it if a player were a student of military history and tactics, and therefore constantly critiqued the horrible tactics, and completely unrealistic impact various issues were permitted to have on the results of a skirmish, battle or war in our campaigns.

 

[As an aside, the interaction discussion reminds me of the Black Hands strip where Newt skillfully role plays out the part of seducer, and throws Nitro horribly off his game - probably not reflective of the skills of the characters, but of the strengths and weaknesses of the players. I didn't come to an RPG to play myself.]

 

To the first part...I've met so many armchair generals who critique every little aspect of battle in RPGs I wondered if it was an organized plot.

 

as to the second bit I left, I agree 100%.

[Ice9]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Fair enough, hastily thought up example is hastily though up. I have a better example I normally use, but it's for D&D and doesn't translate exactly.

I'll come up with a more complete one if people want me to, but the point is simply that:

 

1) In HERO (or any RPG with tactical combat) there are better and worse moves to make in combat.

2) A savvy player will make the better moves (even wolves use flanking, so it's not like the character needs to be a genius either), and thus perform more effectively. Some players are just bad at (or don't care about) tactics, even once they learn the game, and so they'll end up making worse moves and being less effective.

Short of playing their character for them, nobody can really change this.

3) The character's INT, Tactics skill, and background have pretty much no effect on this.

 

Result: Combat is not entirely about the character's skills and abilities. The tactical ability of the player has a significant effect.

Opinion: Therefore, it's not unreasonable for the player's choices to have a significant effect in other areas, such as social situations.

[Vondy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Unless the player is willing to have the GM literally tell them where to go and who to attack' date=' that Tactics 20- has no real effect in phase-by-phase combat.[/quote']

 

I've found Tactics works best if its not employed as "what should I do?" Rather, its best employed as "what shouldn't I do?" (AKA is this plan idiotic?) or "what will the other guy do?" It gives it utility without turning it into a GM gimme skill.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Traditional tabletop RPGs are traditionally third-person modelling and scripting exercises. Or' date=' even when you use "I," it is delivered in first person [i']meta-description[/i]... "I tell them X," or "I walk in, hessian boots clicking on deck plates, cape swirling around my angles, helm under my arm..."

 

War gaming' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Where did this come from? I've never seen anyone use the sort of character-centric / driven prose or description I used as an example in a war game. The point was' date=' a traditional tabletop RPG is not "drama club." It is about character and narrative, but its traditionally a step removed from the live action approach. That doesn't render it a war-game or tactical exercise. Not everyone who games is an actor or orator, or feels comfortable giving a live performance. That doesn't mean they aren't into playing their characters and telling a good story. Its just that what they do is more like what the writers and directors do before the actors get in front of the camera. Calling what they do "war gaming" isn't accurate.[/quote']

 

There are specific levels of artistic & theatrical immersion that I attempt to reach with tabletop rpgs.

 

0) Describing characters. [bonus points for drawing a picture]

 

This is where you draw the line between traditional tabletops RPG & "drama club".

 

1) Talking in character. [bonus points for using a good accent]

2) Standing up & acting out parts. [bonus points for being funny]

 

3) Music & mood lighting are mostly the host's responsibility.

4) Props [e.g., Tarot cards, maps, passports... etc.] are largely the GM's responsibility. Player puppets rock.

 

Beyond that...

 

5) Costumes

6) Locations

 

... I reserve for whole-body-action-type LARP.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

There are specific levels of artistic & theatrical immersion that I attempt to reach with tabletop rpgs. 0) Describing characters. [bonus points for drawing a picture]This is where you draw the line between traditional tabletops RPG & "drama club".1) Talking in character. [bonus points for using a good accent]2) Standing up & acting out parts. [bonus points for being funny]3) Music & mood lighting are mostly the host's responsibility.4) Props [e.g.' date= Tarot cards, maps, passports... etc.] are largely the GM's responsibility. Player puppets rock. Beyond that...5) Costumes6) Locations ... I reserve for whole-body-action-type LARP.

2,5, and 6 go beyond most RPG groups in my experience and some would claim that borders on LARPing. And bonus points for a good accent? Really? That is one of the most unfair ways to give bonuses I've ever heard. A large portion of RPG players would simply be screwed if playing with you because they would always get less XP than the guy who is good at accents.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

2' date='5, and 6 go beyond most RPG groups in my experience and some would claim that borders on LARPing.[/quote']

 

Standing up & acting out parts is my holy grail of tabletop. imho, a great thing has been achieved when this happens.

 

I reserve costumes & locations for LARP, too... though I have been known to throw on a blue wizard's Snuggie® from time to time... at the table.

 

And bonus points for a good accent?

 

Yes.

 

Really?

 

Naw... I was just kidding.

 

No, really: yes. =P

 

That is one of the most unfair ways to give bonuses I've ever heard.

 

It encourages good role playing. It spices the game up. There's nothing wrong with it. It is all good. There is no down side.

 

At the end of the night I give xp for everything I can think of... especially theatrics.

 

A large portion of RPG players would simply be screwed if playing with you because they would always get less XP than the guy who is good at accents.

 

To be fair, I like to pick out particular points where people do well with what skills they have. I award bonus points for making hard in character choices, too.

 

It isn't a competition between players.

 

Robin Williams in character as a paladin: "It's not your fault."

Mr.E the GM: "1,000,000 xp! Thank you for playing in my game, Mr. Williams. It's been an honor." /sniff-sniff

Robin Williams: "That seems like a lot of xp. I only got 500 for killing Tiamat that one time."

Mr.E: "No. Take it. You earned it. I haven't been so moved since... I can't say."

Robin: "But that's way more xp than I can realistically spend."

Mr.E: "You beautiful flower. Look how I have crushed you under the weight of my... my arbitrary numbers. How precious. How fine."

 

Check me out, I'm blathering.

 

If there is one thing I have learned from reading Robert E. Howard, it is that not all people are the same.

 

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I don't consider telling a group of people that they'll get bonus points for doing an accent as encouraging good roleplaying. I wuld consider it penalizing those who simply cannot do an accent to save their life. As you say, not all people are the same.

[Greywind]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Accent has to fit the character. It isn't necessary.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I don't consider telling a group of people that they'll get bonus points for doing an accent as encouraging good roleplaying. I wuld consider it penalizing those who simply cannot do an accent to save their life. As you say' date=' not all people are the same.[/quote']

 

Batman: (croak) "I'm Batman."

GM: "BONUS POINTS!"

[Greywind]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

"Is it 'Batman' or 'The Batman'? I can never remember."

[Ragitsu]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

If you don't want a Skill in your game, then don't integrate it at the start.

 

If you regularly ignore a Skill chosen by a player that has no working knowledge/experience of the Skill, but let described (roleplayed) strategies usually handled by said Skill work with a character (made by another player) that doesn't have the Skill, then don't be surprised if the former player gets pissed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think I miscommunicated there. I'm not saying that Barbarian Bob should have better tactics' date=' or that I would make it the case IMC, I'm saying that he [i']would[/i] be more tactically effective, right now, in the current HERO system rules (and in any other RPG with non-abstract tactical combat rules), if he was played by a somewhat experienced player and Sun Tzu was played by a noob (or just somebody who's bad at tactics).

 

Here's a concrete example:

Barbarian Bob - Shouts out "cowards, none of you could even slow me down!", and delays action. He's standing where only the front-most enemy will reach him. After they attack, he goes for a Haymaker, which they can do nothing about. Highly effective.

Sun Tzu - Moves right into the middle of the foes and attacks one, who hasn't acted yet and successfully blocks. He has accomplished nothing and will now get dogpiled.

 

Unless the player is willing to have the GM literally tell them where to go and who to attack, that Tactics 20- has no real effect in phase-by-phase combat.

 

Good points well made, and true. The thing here is that we have elevated combat to a level where meta-knowledge does make an enormous difference, whereas other skills, as complex and subtle in reality, are dealt with by a single test. Perhaps we ought to reduce combat to a single test as well. I can't see that being popular though

 

For combat we use a huge array of characteristics and rules, for other skills not so much. I can not see any simple solution (other than the one mentioned above) and, even if the GM gives guidance in combat to the new player, they can not keep on doing that as the PC becomes an NPC in combat, which is not fair on anyone. One to ponder...

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Fair enough, hastily thought up example is hastily though up. I have a better example I normally use, but it's for D&D and doesn't translate exactly.

I'll come up with a more complete one if people want me to, but the point is simply that:

 

1) In HERO (or any RPG with tactical combat) there are better and worse moves to make in combat.

2) A savvy player will make the better moves (even wolves use flanking, so it's not like the character needs to be a genius either), and thus perform more effectively. Some players are just bad at (or don't care about) tactics, even once they learn the game, and so they'll end up making worse moves and being less effective.

Short of playing their character for them, nobody can really change this.

3) The character's INT, Tactics skill, and background have pretty much no effect on this.

 

Result: Combat is not entirely about the character's skills and abilities. The tactical ability of the player has a significant effect.

Opinion: Therefore, it's not unreasonable for the player's choices to have a significant effect in other areas, such as social situations.

For this to be a problem, your player would have to be to stupid to understand that flanking is "good for people flanking, bad for people being flanked". I've never seen or heard of a player who failed to understand 1/2 DCV = bad. Or enemy has +3 on hit roll = bad. He might not have that rule in the back of his head when he makes a bad decision, but here the GM should remind him that "he will propably regret that move in short order". Or it's based on not clearly communicating the danger of a situation*

If he still does it - you can't do more than tell him that there is a wall and they will hit if if they don't stop.

 

*to give a D&D example: A lvl 10 character has an easy time with 10 1st Level guards, but will clearly have problems with 10 5th Level guards. If the GM fails to tell him that mooks scale, he will do decisions that are bad. And it's the GM's fault for nto telling him.

 

If you don't want a Skill in your game, then don't integrate it at the start.

 

If you regularly ignore a Skill chosen by a player that has no working knowledge/experience of the Skill, but let described (roleplayed) strategies usually handled by said Skill work with a character (made by another player) that doesn't have the Skill, then don't be surprised if the former player gets pissed.

Agreed. The GM can and should change the skill list if it does not fit's his game.

But he also has to clearly communicate these changes. If he does not, all problems and bad feelign arising from that are his fault.

 

Players can't read the GM's mind or catch every single subtle clue the GM gives. I am suprised how many people simply fail to give a clear answer to a clear question like "is the current amount of cold enough to trigger my characters succeptibility" with a clear Yes or No.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

There are specific levels of artistic & theatrical immersion that I attempt to reach with tabletop rpgs.

 

0) Describing characters. [bonus points for drawing a picture]

 

So bonus points if you're a good artist, or does a stick figure with a hat count?

 

1) Talking in character. [bonus points for using a good accent]

2) Standing up & acting out parts. [bonus points for being funny]

 

So a funny Batman with a Mexican accent is better role play than a serious Batman whose speech would not give away his identity? What if the player has an accent and designs his character so his own accent is apropriate? So far, we're out of the drama club and into standup comedy.

 

3) Music & mood lighting are mostly the host's responsibility.

4) Props [e.g., Tarot cards, maps, passports... etc.] are largely the GM's responsibility. Player puppets rock.

 

So now he should have a funny accent synched through a sock puppet?

 

5) Costumes

6) Locations

 

... I reserve for whole-body-action-type LARP.

 

I fail to see how the costume is less deserving than the puppet or the accent.

 

I don't consider telling a group of people that they'll get bonus points for doing an accent as encouraging good roleplaying. I wuld consider it penalizing those who simply cannot do an accent to save their life. As you say' date=' not all people are the same.[/quote']

 

Accent has to fit the character. It isn't necessary.

 

Agreed - it motivates role playing only one kind of character. I often run characters with distinctive voices - some players actually dislike that, by the way - so is a Halfling with an Irish accent inherent;y superior to one with a high pitched voice?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

You know, I think the experience thing depends on the gaming group. Some stuff is going to work really well with one gaming group and sink without trace in another. I reckon I would give Mister E the benefit of the doubt in knowing his group and what their capabilities and predilections are and whether certain ways of awarding experience are going to work (be perceived as fair). None of our well established customs are going to work as well with other gaming groups.

 

I reckon we are all now satisfied that his methods might not work in our own groups, that his group possibly veers more to the roleplay than to the game and probably that we should give him a break...no??

 

Mister E - I dont think that your experience awarding rules would work with my group either but I do know that when someone does feel facilitated in injecting character into their character at the table then something fantastic happens - the PC becomes distinct from the player and when that occurs everyone at the table knows it and appreciates it.

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think what Ice9 is saying - and having considered it, I agree - is that playing Hero, especially Hero combat is a skill in itself and one that is only going to be possessed by the player and not by the PC. It is nigh on impossible to correct for this without the GM effectively taking over the character.

 

The problem is not a 'Hero' problem, it is a problem shared by any system with a reasonably complex rule system, but it is exacerbated in Hero because the combat system is very rich, with a lot of options that have direct tactical significance, so you can not help but have the player's tactical acumen (or at least their tactical acumen in using Hero combat) spill over into the game.

 

We can argue about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but let me recall how we were all rather impressed by Derek's notion of using role play as a tool to describe roll results, rather than as a way to affect those results. It seems to me that the general feeling is that a talented actor in real life should not be able to make a PC built with mediocre social skills more effective than a PC built with excellent social skills.

 

Should the same not apply to combat? If it should, then the only way to do that I can think of would be to reduce the tactical significance of the options available, and make combat no more or less of a skill than Conversation.

 

The other option, I suppose, is to accept that 'knowledge-of-rules' is inevitably going to make a difference, and make non-combat skills MORE systemically tactical and varied, resurrecting the idea of 'social combat' we have kicked around before, whether it mirror the existing combat rules or take off in a new direction.

 

Then, of course it is not just social combat, but scientific 'combat' and acrobatic 'combat' and...well, if they were all unique but interlocking systems, i imagine that the core rule book will need to expand by a volume or two...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Can I take a punt at the other issue arising here: the immersion effect, mentioned by MrE. I like immersion, and I like to have a game where the players and GM are into their roles. I think that can really add to the enjoyment of the game and, ultimately there is no point in having a completely fair and balanced set of rules if they are sterile. Personally, I am good enough to do accents (often, as has been Hugh's experience, to the annoyance of others ) but I do not take the ambiance much beyond that, although I did dress up as John Constantine once to run a Halloween game (well I put on a raincoat and played with matches for 2 hours...).

 

I think, overall, this adds to the game and others enjoy it more and I enjoy it more, because I am there, as GM, to entertain and my reward is that the players have a good time, and if there is a pint in it afterwards, all to the good.

 

The problem is that players do not think that way. Through years of indoctrination they have come to think of such antics as being rewards not in and of themselves, but as ways of getting experience points. I doubt that many are that openly cynical about it, but the thing is they have been told again and again and again, including in Hero, that role play = XP. Once people start thinking in terms of currency, and that is what XP is, it changes their relationship to an experience. What we have been doing is monetarising enjoyment, and eventually that will flow the other way and you will find that, in order to enjoy something, you need to feel that you are being rewarded, even if, as with XP and, indeed with money, the reward is simply a notional and arbitrary counting system.

 

It is perfectly possible to play a character whose character sheet NEVER changes and enjoy the experience throughout, and whilst I appreciate that there is enjoyment in your character 'progressing', we do not need to relate that to player performance, and, in fact, it may be that we would be well advised to disengage player performance and experience entirely, or change how it works. That way those who like to role play do so and those who like to roll play do so and everyone enjoys themselves without worrying about whether they are winning.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think what Ice9 is saying - and having considered it, I agree - is that playing Hero, especially Hero combat is a skill in itself and one that is only going to be possessed by the player and not by the PC. It is nigh on impossible to correct for this without the GM effectively taking over the character.

 

The problem is not a 'Hero' problem, it is a problem shared by any system with a reasonably complex rule system, but it is exacerbated in Hero because the combat system is very rich, with a lot of options that have direct tactical significance, so you can not help but have the player's tactical acumen (or at least their tactical acumen in using Hero combat) spill over into the game.

 

 

One thing that should probally be enforced is combat options that are limited by character conception. Remeber the line in beastry 4th for Orges "Teknik, what's that?" If I have a character concept that's not familiar with combat or tactics, and as a player I start using all the fancy combat manuevers, then as a GM I should say no. (or at least make an INT roll to see if he can think of something like.) On the flip-side, if the character is a combat (ahem) monster, and the character pulls a stunt that's not reasonable then the GM should suggest to the character a better option.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I think what Ice9 is saying - and having considered it' date=' I agree - is that playing Hero, especially Hero combat is a skill in itself and one that is only going to be possessed by the player and not by the PC. It is nigh on impossible to correct for this without the GM effectively taking over the character.[/quote']

Perhaps not taking over. Give him option. Especially give him options you would not take.

In the end all actiosn follow a few basic Ideas: Protection, Disabling, Hindering. MMORPG Combatroles make this very clear:

Healer, Buffer, Debuffer, Tank, Damage Dealer. All Classes/builds fall into one or more of these categories.

 

With P&P Rpg's there are certain specialisations (character with Entangles, Blaster) but in the end everyone can do everything of that using the full set of rules and the environment.

 

Should the same not apply to combat? If it should' date=' then the only way to do that I can think of would be to reduce the tactical significance of the options available, and make combat no more or less of a skill than Conversation.[/quote']

At least for making tatics skill work in Combat, there is a simple rule: Let it affect Combat. I have one or two ideas, but they would derail this thread.

 

I do like the idea of Social Combat Rules. I am not very good at handling such stuff personally and would prefer to just use such a system to solve these kinds of conflcits.

 

Regarding Hugh's post on what Mr. E. said:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_roc. Rule 1.

I am not certain if what he said and how he said it crosses this line, but my gut feeling tells me: It did.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

So bonus points if you're a good artist' date=' or does a stick figure with a hat count? [/quote']

 

I like stick figures. What's with all the hate on stick figures?

 

Kingdom of Loathing, anyone? I once played a sauceror named "Manwitch" for a while after I quit WoW because my warlock build became nerfed to sub-pwnage. Those were dark days. The stick figures helped.

 

Seriously, everyone is an artist. The capacity to create a work of art, in any medium, precedes the potential to create a work of art. At base we are universal beings & everything we do possesses virtually cosmic value. I'm not interested in judging the cultural significance of my friend's imaginary self-portraits in game terms. I'm also not interested in wasting precious game time with a bunch of Romper Room activity.

 

But if a player brings a doodle to the game, that is good stuff, especially if they have never done it before. It elevates everyone's game. Being artful comes with small sense of self-respect that is shared by mere association. Sometimes you just need to experiment.

 

Bonus points all around.

 

So a funny Batman with a Mexican accent is better role play than a serious Batman whose speech would not give away his identity? What if the player has an accent and designs his character so his own accent is apropriate? So far' date=' we're out of the drama club and into standup comedy. [/quote']

 

Most people have their own way of letting you know what is special about their particular amount of extra-participation.

 

If someone cracks up the whole table, I award xp to all the players, even if levity is not the goal of the game.

 

If the players start congratulating each other, generally there's a xp-worthy reason.

 

On that note, I likewise start penalizing everyone's rolls if something a player (or two) does causes out of game tension. It is a fine line to walk, but most of the time you just know which is which.

 

Sometimes I award xp & penalize rolls, at the same time, for no reason, just so everyone knows I mean business.

 

In-game gravity ought to be fun. For an actor, there is no greater honor than to die. It is not always so sweet for PCs, but still, in the spirit of the game itself, players sometimes have a serious meta-game death wish.

 

Other than that, I don't know what to say. =P

 

So now he should have a funny accent synched through a sock puppet?

 

Have it scrawl stick figures of itself.

 

I fail to see how the costume is less deserving than the puppet or the accent.

 

There is a time and place for everything: college.

 

Agreed - it motivates role playing only one kind of character.

 

What, Wookiee smugglers? I don't know how many of those I would allow in one game. Maybe two. Personally I like droids.

 

I often run characters with distinctive voices - some players actually dislike that' date=' by the way - so is a Halfling with an Irish accent inherent;y superior to one with a high pitched voice? [/quote']

 

"Everyone is always after me lucky charms!"

 

I recall playing in a regular (2-3 per week) game that ran for about a year. The GM ruled that Dragon Lance kinder were too much of a force of nature to let anybody but one specific player play.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

....

Regarding Hugh's post on what Mr. E. said:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_roc. Rule 1.

I am not certain if what he said and how he said it crosses this line, but my gut feeling tells me: It did.

 

I don't think so, and I would be surprised if Mister E thought so either. Both are very experienced long term posters on these boards and I'm not getting hostility here, just banter.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I don't think so' date=' and I would be surprised if Mister E thought so either. Both are very experienced long term posters on these boards and I'm not getting hostility here, just banter.[/quote']

 

I don't think so either. What I was concerned about was the possibility of a bit of a dogpile that was not even related to the point of the thread. Hugh's post just happened to be the last of the posts I responded to.

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Seriously' date=' everyone is an artist.[/quote']

Nope.

 

No ability at artistry or desing at all. No ability at acting either. Granted I could learn and understand all the concepts behind it without a doubt, but pratical skill is propably out of the question.

 

I am a bad-ass programmer (propably at 15-, mostly int based), but leave the design of the UI to somebdoy else.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Nope.

 

No ability at artistry or desing at all. No ability at acting either. Granted I could learn and understand all the concepts behind it without a doubt, but pratical skill is propably out of the question.

 

I am a bad-ass programmer (propably at 15-, mostly int based), but leave the design of the UI to somebdoy else.

 

"Everyone is an artist": is not a simple universal that is easily disproved by a single contradiction.