Balancing social skills and role playing

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I could draw a happy face or a frowny face, but I couldn't match the anatomical accuracy of, say, Order of the Stick. And if I crack everyone at the table up and as a result wreck the tension of a time-sensitive in-game mission, and distract everyone from the game, I don't see that as automatically a good thing.

 

That said, however, it's hard for a couple of paragraphs to capture the nuances of any system at the table. We can point to "worst cases", but the real proof is in the actual gaming. My bias, however, would not be to single out specific behaviours. If a character drawing is good, a character backstory, or an evocative description, should carry similar merit. If we're rewarding being funny, what about rewarding good singing for a Bard character, or a good oratory for a more serious character, or even a well-told in-character campfire tale?

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Can I take a punt at the other issue arising here: the immersion effect' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Computer games are sterile. This is what makes them inferior to tabletop.

 

Personally' date=' 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...).[/quote']

 

The hardest thing for me to remember is that my squeaky voice isn't that womanly.

 

All my dwarves are Scottish... which is a bit Sean Connery.

 

All my infernals are Adam Sandler as a Mexican goat.

 

In every game I run, no matter what, there is an impossibly old Chinese merchant that sells cursed items for bits of DNA.

 

All my antiheroes sound like Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: "Poster-child for a prophylactic."

 

I think' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Less is more. More is better.

 

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Do you know where I can score some xp?

 

I think computer rpgs screw this up.

 

I personally like leveling slowly so that I can really get into what I am before things start to change on me.

 

It is perfectly possible to play a character whose character sheet NEVER changes and enjoy the experience throughout' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I would play in a game without xp.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I could draw a happy face or a frowny face' date=' but I couldn't match the anatomical accuracy of, say, Order of the Stick. [/quote']

 

Can you make your own personalized character sheet?

 

Some people go crazy all over character sheets... drawing swords, ivy, heraldry... etc..

 

Some people make whole galleries of portraits of characters you've never heard of.

 

I like to bring a few empty DC-animated template sheets & a pack of colored* pencils.

 

And if I crack everyone at the table up and as a result wreck the tension of a time-sensitive in-game mission' date=' and distract everyone from the game, I don't see that as automatically a good thing. [/quote']

 

One word, "Party Tension Meter Goes: Up."

 

That said' date=' however, it's hard for a couple of paragraphs to capture the nuances of any system at the table. We can point to "worst cases", but the real proof is in the actual gaming. [/quote']

 

I'm just plucking moments out of my gaming experiences. Pretty much everything I ever liked about playing in other people's games I've incorporated into my own game. I'm not a famous actor & I don't paint photo-realistically.

 

I'm not just down with having a good time. In-game progress imho is one of the best ways for players to get a chance to identify with their characters: through making choices & overcoming obstacles.

 

My bias' date=' however, would not be to single out specific behaviours. If a character drawing is good, a character backstory, or an evocative description, should carry similar merit. If we're rewarding being funny, what about rewarding good singing for a Bard character, or a good oratory for a more serious character, or even a well-told in-character campfire tale?[/quote']

 

Okay. In my pursuit to live in Consequence Free Land, I admit it bothers me that there should be consequences for taking any action: good or bad. Do nothing & nothing happens & it is a shame. Do something & it is worse.

 

I'm not talking about slippery slopes. Pure 'play' demands that nobody gets hurt as a result of doing anything.

 

What if someone stays in character the whole night, and you hardly noticed?

 

What if, all night long, there is no combat [other than perhaps Presence Attacks], and everyone had a great time?

 

 

 

*yes, this is the pc term for this type of pencil. I mean no offense, whatsoever, to anything essential to anybody by using this word. Despite the fact that I am not actually a colored pencil, I do have a little bit a graphite in my right hand where I was stabbed with a compass by Damian in the 3rd grade. I think he stole my bike, too.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Can you make your own personalized character sheet?

 

Some people go crazy all over character sheets... drawing swords, ivy, heraldry... etc..

 

SHOULD I? How does a cluttered character sheet obscuring the basic information needed to play the character add to the game? I don't find it a plus when the GM is looking for a specific attribute to make a hidden roll, and has to spend 5 minutes poring over a custom sheet that's got all sorts of crap obscuring the useful information.

 

Some people make whole galleries of portraits of characters you've never heard of.

 

Good for them. I don't find that adds a lot to the game either. "Here, Mr. DM, go through these mug shots and tell us which one looks like that NPC. We'll just sit quietly and wait!"

 

I'm not just down with having a good time. In-game progress imho is one of the best ways for players to get a chance to identify with their characters: through making choices & overcoming obstacles.

 

I find very little in-game progress, choices and overcoming of obstacles takes place when two players are engaged in dueling stand up comedy. I'm not sure where your specific comments come from, though. I think we can make choices and overcome obstacles without rewarding funny stories, great oratories, good singing or well-told campfire tales. Did the character contribute to overcoming obstacles, or did the player just crack jokes and talk in a funny accent? I'd rather see the former get a bonus than the latter. That bonus doesn't need to be xp - it could be the in-game benefits of overcoming obstacles - whether a reward, xp for the scenario, the gratitude of an important NPC or just the satisfaction of a job well done. And I think rewarding certain behaviours, with xp or with anything else, can result in those behaviours detracting from the game, rather than enhancing it.

 

What if someone stays in character the whole night' date=' and you hardly noticed? [/quote']

 

Well, if his character is a very serious introvert, then he wasn't going to be funny and dramatic by staying in character, so he wasn't getting any bonuses regardless, was he?

 

What if' date=' all night long, there is no combat [other than perhaps Presence Attacks'], and everyone had a great time?

 

Then we have received the reward we actually SHOULD be looking for from gaming - everyone had a great time.

 

My own what if's:

 

What if we didn't award any xp for 5 years, for any reason whatsoever, because everyone has a great time playing their existing characters?

 

What if those two players who want the bonus xp, keep cracking wise all night to the detriment of anyone trying to make choices or face the obstacles of the game? I came to play, not watch Warrior and Wizard's Stand Up Comedy Show. Maybe players who disrupt the game and make immersion more difficult should not be rewarded for that.

 

And what if everyone is having such a great time with the standup comedy, character pictures, or what have you, that we don't actually play the game? If EVERYONE is having a great time, great - the game will still be there. But if half the players are having a blast while the other half are wondering why they bothered to show up, that is a problem.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

How does a cluttered character sheet obscuring the basic information needed to play the character add to the game?

 

Pushing one of my buttons here.

 

Customised character sheets to me are almost a necessity and, as GM, I usually produce a customised character sheet for every game I run as the ones that game companies produce are invariably dull and boring and usually convey nothing of the context and genre that the player is supposed to find himself in.

 

Obviously there is no point in a sheet that is confusing but that is what design is all about!

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

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.

 

I can draw pretty well*, although I struggle to colour things for some reason. Mind you this is something that comes with practice, and by 'practice', I mean, 'not paying attention properly in lectures at university' and by 'lectures' I mean 'periods of time when I was in the bar with a vague feeling, easily dismissed, that I should be somewhere else'.

 

However, you don't need to draw. Go trawl the internet, and get a picture of someone. Get paint.net** or some other drawing programme. Change stuff if you feel the need and add various different effects from the programme. Wham, bam, thank you Picasso.

 

Attached, hopefully, is a picture of me (that is the camera in my upraised hand) mucked about with in paint.net for 5 minutes to make me look less grey and wrinkly and to turn me into the superhero 'Radius', or indeed any superhero, villain or weirdo whose name begins with 'R'.

 

 

*Well enough to give a reasonable idea of what I am trying to convey to most observers, anyway

 

**pant.net is an excellent, free drawing programme. There are others.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I am with both Hugh and Doc on the character sheet point. Custom character sheets can be amazing tools for creating an instant feel for the character, but not everyone who is artistic enough to give it a go is also up to the proper organisation and presentation of information.

 

I think the standard 'Hero' character sheet is fine, in fact, in some ways too fancy in that all you really need on a character sheet is build information and important numbers and it is good to know exactly where to go to find them, but I also think a play sheet, which holds only the information needed to play (and NOT, for example build numbers or breakdowns) PLUS a bit of evocative artwork and/or colour can be a great way to get players to play the character and not the numbers. The GM should have a character sheet for each player, the players should have a play sheet for each character.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Originally Posted by Mister E

What if someone stays in character the whole night, and you hardly noticed?

 

Well' date=' if his character is a very serious introvert, then he wasn't going to be funny and dramatic by staying in character, so he wasn't getting any bonuses regardless, was he?[/quote']

 

If the character is a serious introvert then he arguably should get bonuses for not joining in

 

Serious point though: I don't care. I have had players who are all over the game and others who only say one word in 100, and so long as everyone is happy enough and wants to come next week, it is a win.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

You are a real superhero.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

You are a real superhero.

 

Then the world is doomed

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Pushing one of my buttons here.

 

Customised character sheets to me are almost a necessity and, as GM, I usually produce a customised character sheet for every game I run as the ones that game companies produce are invariably dull and boring and usually convey nothing of the context and genre that the player is supposed to find himself in.

 

Obviously there is no point in a sheet that is confusing but that is what design is all about!

 

The key difference in your comment, at least to me, has been bolded for emphasis. The result in your game will be a consistent character sheet in the campaign. You won't spend 15 minutes hunting over Cluttered Carl's character sheet looking for his PER roll, which is cleverly in 2 point font as part of an underline. You designed the sheet, you know where the PER roll is and it will be where you expect it to be.

 

And you won't be giving out bonus xp for the guy who builds his OWN custom character sheet for that game, will you?

 

If the character is a serious introvert then he arguably should get bonuses for not joining in

 

If extra xp is awarded for playing in character, he should. He's playing his personality, and likely his complications, just as well as the Overconfident Extroverted character who is always in everyone's face.

 

Serious point though: I don't care. I have had players who are all over the game and others who only say one word in 100' date=' and so long as everyone is happy enough and wants to come next week, it is a win.[/quote']

 

No disagreement here either. My test for any variant rule is whether it would contribute to, or detract from, that enjoyment. If a couple of players consistently derail the game with their stand up comedy antics, and the result is that their characters get bonuses and gradually creep up the power curve as compared to the other characters, will the whole group be enjoying the game, eager to show up next week, or will those players who came to play their characters get fed up with wasting their time watching amateur comedians?

[Orion]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I would play in a game without xp.

 

This is my default GM style. I want the players to design the character they want to play now, not a character that will eventually turn into what they want. Don't make a 350 point character and assume you'll use the next 50 xp to get to where you want to be - make the 400 point character you want now. If I do give out xp, I don't give the players much latitude in how they spend it. Just because the mentalist zapped you a couple times today doesn't mean you get to buy more ego defense. If it isn't written down in the character concept, or part of the ongoing storyline, it isn't allowed.

 

Unless specifically requested by the players, I'll won't do a low level campaign in any genre - I always start off at mid or high level. I'm also as likely to want the characters to be competent but not heroic, middle-aged, and already starting the downhill slide on their physical characteristics. Now I know many players want the progression of power, and crave getting xp every session, but that's not the type of player I want given a choice.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I always GM that the PC's Role Playing adds unknown Bonuses to their Social Skill Roll and the NPC's Reaction Rolls.

 

JMTC

 

QM

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

And you won't be giving out bonus xp for the guy who builds his OWN custom character sheet for that game' date=' will you?[/quote']

 

if it is better than mine and free to use for everyone else I might give bonus chocolate!

 

 

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

if it is better than mine and free to use for everyone else I might give bonus chocolate!

 

Which is great, but not the point that was suggested, which was "Can you make your own personalized character sheet?" Your point seems more directed at a character sheet which is standard for the specific game/campaign than for each player to build their own unique character sheet.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Which is great' date=' but not the point that was suggested, which was "Can you make your own personalized character sheet?" Your point seems more directed at a character sheet which is standard for the specific game/campaign than for each player to build their own unique character sheet.[/quote']

 

To be honest, I would be fine with personalised character sheets. In fact the depth of player investment in the game that represents would make me feel warm and fuzzy!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

This is my default GM style. I want the players to design the character they want to play now, not a character that will eventually turn into what they want. Don't make a 350 point character and assume you'll use the next 50 xp to get to where you want to be - make the 400 point character you want now. If I do give out xp, I don't give the players much latitude in how they spend it. Just because the mentalist zapped you a couple times today doesn't mean you get to buy more ego defense. If it isn't written down in the character concept, or part of the ongoing storyline, it isn't allowed.

 

Unless specifically requested by the players, I'll won't do a low level campaign in any genre - I always start off at mid or high level. I'm also as likely to want the characters to be competent but not heroic, middle-aged, and already starting the downhill slide on their physical characteristics. Now I know many players want the progression of power, and crave getting xp every session, but that's not the type of player I want given a choice.

 

this was the consensus among my old HERO group as well. Start with the character you want, and only spend XP when it feels character appropriate. Lots of minor radiation accident style power ups in between campaigns (Viking warrior spends his accumulated XP to learn Rune Magic, f'rex), along with the occasional "Training Montage" was the usual result.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

This is my default GM style. I want the players to design the character they want to play now, not a character that will eventually turn into what they want. Don't make a 350 point character and assume you'll use the next 50 xp to get to where you want to be - make the 400 point character you want now. If I do give out xp, I don't give the players much latitude in how they spend it. Just because the mentalist zapped you a couple times today doesn't mean you get to buy more ego defense. If it isn't written down in the character concept, or part of the ongoing storyline, it isn't allowed.

 

Unless specifically requested by the players, I'll won't do a low level campaign in any genre - I always start off at mid or high level. I'm also as likely to want the characters to be competent but not heroic, middle-aged, and already starting the downhill slide on their physical characteristics. Now I know many players want the progression of power, and crave getting xp every session, but that's not the type of player I want given a choice.

 

As a matter of interest, how long do your games last? I can see the appeal, whilst at the same time, I'm not sure I'd like to play exactly the same character for a hundred game sessions on end ... (and that's not hyperbole: I've been playing my current character for about 70 game sessions, and my last campaign ran about 150-200)

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

As far as custom character sheets, sure, knock yourself out. I usually draw pictures of my characters, and often of all the other characters in the party, too (as an amusing aside, in the campaign we are playing this afternoon, the other players bought miniatures that matched how they visualised their characters, and I drew pictures that matched (in pose and clothing) the miniatures). Immersion is good, IMO. But I'd never give XP for that: it's something outside the game entirely. The other points about amateur dramatics and so on, likewise: it's Out-of-Game. I don't give XP for OOG stuff, whether speeches or endless strings of monty python jokes - that's just part of the shared gaming experience (and is as often annoying/anti-immersion as amusing).

 

Indeed, I rarely (very, very, rarely) give XP for amusing or dramatic acting inside the game: that kind of behaviour gets bonuses in-game. A dramatic speech or clever use of a critical bit of information may get you one-shot bonuses in social interaction exactly the way surprising a foe in combat or clever use of the environment gets you one-shot bonuses in combat.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Indeed' date=' I rarely (very, very, rarely) give XP for amusing or dramatic acting [b']inside[/b] the game: that kind of behaviour gets bonuses in-game. A dramatic speech or clever use of a critical bit of information may get you one-shot bonuses in social interaction exactly the way surprising a foe in combat or clever use of the environment gets you one-shot bonuses in combat.

 

To me, the bolded aspect is key. It should be no easier, or more difficult, to obtain a bonus to succeed with a social skill than it is to obtain a bonus of similar impact in combat. So, if Combat Wombat can make an impassioned oratory from player skills so his "everyman skill + 8 PRE" interaction skills can persuade the king, when Social Butterfly, who invested 50 points in social skills as compared to Combat Wombat, would be hard pressed to persuade the king using his character skills and abilities, then a clever combat trick from Social Butterfly should let him succeed in combat against, say, the King's Champion, a character Combat Wombat, even with his higher OCV, DCV, defenses and DC's, would have been hard pressed to defeat using his 50 extra points of combat abilities.

 

I think this works better in your games than many, Markdoc, based on your prior comments that significant social conflicts are not resolved in a single roll, but in a series of incremental steps towards the ultimate result. Where a single roll resolves persuasion of the king, as compared to the series of rolls required to duel his champion, a bonus on that social skill has a much more substantial impact in determining success or failure. Where that bonus simply gets you the Vizier's respect, which is passed on to the King and gets you one step closer to the audience you need to persuade him, that seems much more comparable to a bonus that enables a single attack to hit or get a bit more damage through.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

To me' date=' the bolded aspect is key. It should be no easier, or more difficult, to obtain a bonus to succeed with a social skill than it is to obtain a bonus of similar impact in combat. So, if Combat Wombat can make an impassioned oratory from player skills so his "everyman skill + 8 PRE" interaction skills can persuade the king, when Social Butterfly, who invested 50 points in social skills as compared to Combat Wombat, would be hard pressed to persuade the king using his character skills and abilities, then a clever combat trick from Social Butterfly should let him succeed in combat against, say, the King's Champion, a character Combat Wombat, even with his higher OCV, DCV, defenses and DC's, would have been hard pressed to defeat using his 50 extra points of combat abilities.[/quote']

 

Uhhhh. No. A one off +1-to +3 isn't going to make a huge impact all by its lonesome. In our last game the party's "face man" (played by a fairly quiet guy with a stutter: by no means a fast-talker) was able to routinely pull off stunts that the the glib-tongued players couldn't, because he had the skills to do so. Likewise, he could never have stood up to the party's combat monster in a fight, even with a clever trick or two in the mix: a +3 for a frightfully clever maneuver isn't going help much when she has two points in speed on him and a DCV 5 better than his best OCV.

 

I think this works better in your games than many' date=' Markdoc, based on your prior comments that significant social conflicts are not resolved in a single roll, but in a series of incremental steps towards the ultimate result. Where a single roll resolves persuasion of the king, as compared to the series of rolls required to duel his champion, a bonus on that social skill has a much more substantial impact in determining success or failure. Where that bonus simply gets you the Vizier's respect, which is passed on to the King and gets you one step closer to the audience you need to persuade him, that seems much more comparable to a bonus that enables a single attack to hit or get a bit more damage through.[/quote']

 

This is not something that I dreamed up: it's not only how the rules are written (many skills, for example, bribery, make explicit reference to multiple skill rolls in a single interaction), but it's plain common sense (and I would hazard to say, basic GM'ing, as well). It's been common to most games I have played in, regardless of system.

 

Seriously, in your game, do a bunch of street level heroes just waltz up to the White House, walk inside and try a persuasion roll on the president? If they want to talk to the pres, they need to make a contact, persuade that contact that they need to talk to the president, talk to his contact, persuade security ... and then (maybe) they get to talk to the president. .... at the very least. Alternatively they can try getting to him via stealth and security systems, or by bust-in-and-punch-their-way-through, but either way, it's going to involve a deal of rolling dice. I simply cannot conceive of letting an interaction like that (or your example, for that matter) pass over in a single roll ... and that's very clearly not how the rules-writers envisaged it either.

 

If someone wants to climb over a wall into a backyard, I say "Make a climbing roll". If the player says "I infiltrate their headquarters by climbing up the outside of the nearby skyscraper, shooting a line over to their building and then climb down onto the roof" are you seriously just going to say "OK, make a climbing roll"? Seriously?

 

There is (or should be) no real difference between how we handle physical skills like climbing and social skills like persuasion.

Simple, routine tasks require no rolls

Short (and typically inconsequential) tasks require a single roll

Extended (and typically, difficult) task require multiple rolls.

 

Combat, incidentally tends to work the same way, for all of its options.

If the gnarly heroes group-jump a single minor thug, I'm quite likely to say "Feh. He has no chance and goes down in seconds"

If a fight is indicated but the players greatly outpower their opponents (simple task) it's likely to be resolved in one attack and one damage roll per target anyway.

It's only where a more important point is to be resolved (ie: opponents that pose a challenge) that multiple rolls come back into play.

 

And in all cases, situational and environmental modifiers should come into play.

 

This discussion inevitably ends up where we are now, which can be summed up:

1. "We need more rules for social interaction!"

2. "But we already have rules! And they work really well."

1 "Oh, we ignore those. It's not like we really do much social stuff anyway. We just want a much larger, more cumbersome set of rules to ignore!"

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

There is (or should be) no real difference between how we handle physical skills like climbing and social skills like persuasion.

Simple, routine tasks require no rolls

Short (and typically inconsequential) tasks require a single roll

Extended (and typically, difficult) task require multiple rolls.

Perhaps one problem is, that there are no rules for extended taks. For example, Shadowrun has such a rule. One that requires multiple rolls to be summed up. Most other games I know have one too. But afaik there is nothing like that for hero.

 

One idea that might be worth trying to adapt is the D&D 4E Skill Chalenge. From the introduction page:

The demo Adventure "Keep on the Shadowfell" there are some good examples:

On Page 42 we have a skill Chalange when dealing with the Ghost of a Paladin (includes some basic rules about Skill Chalanges).

We have finishing the game (closing a portal) as a Skill Chanlenge on Page 70. This chalange is happening during the final battle.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

More examples are in "Khybers Harvest":

On Page 4 we have a "Searching for clues"/"gahter information" Chalenge.

On page 9 under "Countermeasures" we have a Trap disabling Chalenge.

On page 18 we have a big one (12 successes needed, 5 primary skills)

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I'm not actually fond of simply arbitrarily splitting things up into multiple rolls for the sake of splitting things up into multiple rolls, however. That's simply inflicting more chances to fail onto the PCs. My point is more that social interaction normally - and naturally - involves more than a single contest, just as most fights involve more than a single punch, and most attempts to break into a heavily defended building and steal something from the safe involve more than one security systems roll.

 

At the same time, that's not necessarily the case.

If She-hulk punches Morten the mild-mannered accountant, that's likely to be a one-punch fight.

If Powergirl suggests to Leisure suit Larry that they go back to his apartment, that's also likely to be a one-roll social encounter.

 

So the number of rolls should be dictated by the circumstances at hand - the number of tasks. The rules actually make this pretty explicit, though I suppose they could make it even plainer. You can always break a task up into smaller tasks. But breaking tasks up into subtasks should be a decision (IMO) made by the players, not the GM.

 

The 4E extended challenge mechanism (and the Robin Laws games where the mechanism first appeared, as far as I know), are only necessary because they have abstracted the game system enormously. That's not really the case in Hero system, where we have a wealth of skills available to choose from. It's a very crunchy system. The "extended challenge" that is presented in the adventure above could (and in my opinion should) simply be roleplayed through. The weakness in the 4E approach is amply illustrated in this first challenge where it makes very little difference if the players score one success, no successes or 6 successes: they get rattled along to the next stage of the adventure regardless, and the only difference is how sceptical the guards are and how many innocent villagers they choose to kill along the way

 

Let's look at the adventure in "hero terms". In the first challenge (the village), the PCs turn up, find their contact has vanished and local people are acting strangely. What are they going to do? At this point, more or less organically, there are multiple opportunities to use skills: deduction, concealment, forensics, conversation, intimidation, persuasion - even tracking, for Pete's sake. These simply do not, naturally, fall into a single skill roll in my mind. I simply cannot conceive of a GM inept enough to set up a scenario like this and then say "OK, make a deduction roll. Made it? Good: you work out your contact has been abducted and taken to this location in the swamp. Right, when you get to the lair ...."

 

The second challenge (the trap) isn't even an extended challenge strictly speaking: it's just a difficult trap and can be bypassed with a single good jump. In Hero system, you would simply set this up as an area effect power with the ability to be bypassed by a (single) difficult roll. The only reason multiple successes are needed in 4E is because that's one way to measure difficulty. In a hero game, the "extended" part is whether the players picked up on the earlier clue (gaining a bonus) or whether they can bring something else to the table in terms of complementary rolls.

 

The third challenge is simply a way to get the PCs to roll some dice in an attempt to fairly arbitrarily score some successes to avoid taking damage. Pretty much any skill can be used, because what the players actually do is largely unimportant: praying, kicking things or simply reading what's written on the wall are all equally valid and equally useful, actions. Again success, is predetermined. Part of the problem is sloppy writing, but that itself stems in part from the lack of concrete mechanisms for solving non-combat problems: it's an issue with most abstracted rulesets.

 

It's not a problem with Hero.

 

Basically, it's simply untrue to say that we have no rules for extended tasks - we have hundreds of pages of them, and many situations will - by their very nature - be extended tasks. Combat is itself, the very definition of an extended task. So it's really not a problem.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Uhhhh. No. A one off +1-to +3 isn't going to make a huge impact all by its lonesome. In our last game the party's "face man" (played by a fairly quiet guy with a stutter: by no means a fast-talker) was able to routinely pull off stunts that the the glib-tongued players couldn't' date=' because he had the skills to do so. Likewise, he could never have stood up to the party's combat monster in a fight, even with a clever trick or two in the mix: a +3 for a frightfully clever maneuver isn't going help much when she has two points in speed on him and a DCV 5 better than his best OCV.[/quote']

 

Again, if the result is that the glib tongued player still pales before the skilled character, we have a decent result. On the other hand, if a glib tongue translates into routinely getting a bonus of +1 to +3 on social skills, that's essentially 2 skill levels with Interaction skills because the player has a glib tongue. If the player with better combat skills gets +1 to +3 OCV with the same frequency, he's getting a comparable bonus. Or is he? If he has less DC's, but similar CV to the rest of the team, how helpful is an OCV bonus when he can't get through the target's defenses?

 

If they want to talk to the pres' date=' they need to make a contact, persuade that contact that they need to talk to the president, talk to his contact, persuade security ... and then (maybe) they get to talk to the president. .... at the very least.[/quote']

 

So that's four rolls. Let's assume that's not to talk to the President or the King (the social skill equivalent of taking down the master villain), but sufficiently difficult to be a significant challenge - say, defeating a typical one on one opponent in combat. Will the combat be resolved in four rolls? If not, I submit the skill bonus is more meaningful than an equivalent combat bonus.

 

Simple, routine tasks require no rolls

Short (and typically inconsequential) tasks require a single roll

Extended (and typically, difficult) task require multiple rolls.

 

Seems like we're mixing two concepts here. Short/extended deal with how long and involved the task is. Difficulty doesn't necessarily mean more rolls are required, but that more penalties are applicable. If we assume the characters can either work their way up to the President through a network of contacts, each persuaded that the PC's need to see the President as they are encountered, it seems likely the ultimate challenge of persuading the President will be easier than if they Teleport into the Oval Office. The President has, in the former case, already received some persuasion from people he trusted enough, and was sufficiently influenced by, that he agreed to meet the PC's in the first place.