Balancing social skills and role playing

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Again' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Good question. Is he using a NND, or entangle, where defences don't matter? Equally good question: does the glib-tongued one get nowhere and fail to help the team because he lacks the skills needed to close the deal?

In both cases, the answer is ... who can say?

We're going well wide of the mark here and off into irrelevancy. The point to be made is that we do get a decent result.

And really, if the glib tongued character gains a bonus - as long as it's more or less commensurate with that obtained by the tactical genius in combat - well, all to the good, I say. I'm certainly not interested in a game where the player has no effect on how his character performs and where playing the character well or cleverly reaps no reward.

 

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)' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Submit away! You're free to do so, just as I am free to disagree .... which I do. Some combats are resolved in less than 4 attacks. Others take longer. Some social interactions take less than 4 rolls. Others take longer. Your assertion is completely meaningless without context. In the last campaign, we had a series of crucial social interactions that ran out over 5 full evening gaming sessions, with dozens of rolls (and much roleplaying). There was no combat at all in those 5 sessions. Does that means the combat-oriented players are somehow being cheated? Certainly they didn't seem to think so. And that was actually not atypical: the game tended to feature long periods of discussion and intrigue punctuated by spasms of violence, more frequently than long periods of violence punctuated by brief spasms of discussion.

 

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' date=' but that more penalties are applicable.[/quote']

 

Yes, I know. That's why I listed them separately: extended tasks tend to be more difficult (because if they were really easy, they generally would not be extended) but the two things are not the same (and hence listed the way I did)

 

If we assume the characters can either work their way up to the President through a network of contacts' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Prezacktly! The "work your way up the chain of command" approach requires more rolls (and from a purely metagame perspective, more rolls means more chances to fail, thus placing a premium on high skill rolls) but is ultimately more likely to yield a positive result than "Teleport in and make your pitch in the 20 seconds before security arrives en masse". And this kind of approach both requires and rewards the player who has invested plenty in social skills. It's also a very common scenario: I can't count the number of times - in my games and others - where the PCs have needed to convince an authority figure of something, or get a message to someone important. It's also a good example of the kind of interaction we were discussing where there is both ample space for roleplay and for situational bonuses (it's probably easer to get a meeting with the president about "a potential alien invasion" if you have - say - an alien spaceship as evidence, than if you have nothing except a story about sodomised cows). Collecting the things that give you that situational bonus generates more plot, providing for more skill rolls (maybe including combat skills ) etc, etc.

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about and it happens so naturally in most hero system games that it's almost invisible to the gamers involved: the very model of an ideal rules approach.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

What Hugh was pointing out that you confused earlier was that a glib player probably getsmore bonuses than a glib character - surely not a good thing.

 

Prezacktly! The "work your way up the chain of command" approach requires more rolls (and from a purely metagame perspective' date=' more rolls means more chances to fail, thus placing a premium on high skill rolls) but is ultimately more likely to yield a positive result than "Teleport in and make your pitch in the 20 seconds before security arrives [i']en masse[/i]".

 

And I think what Hugh was pointing out was that combat is (mechanics-wise) two dimensional while social interaction has only one dimension...

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

If we assume the characters can either work their way up to the President through a network of contacts' date=' 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.[/quote']

I would bet the Oval office is protected agaisnt teleports and the Secret Service has weapons that do (Killing)damage against Superhumans, even once with Desolidification or Brick Powers.

 

Also while it get's you in fast, it makes all the later rolls way harder. Beaming unanounced anywhere isn't the best way to make friends.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I tell you what: I'm not as consistent as any of you, or as I pretend to be.

 

I'm a sh*t GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

What Hugh was pointing out that you confused earlier was that a glib player probably getsmore bonuses than a glib character - surely not a good thing.

 

Yup - if the glib player can get bonuses that render the glib character irrelevant, why did the character spend points on social skills. Now, Markdoc also mentions

 

it's probably easer to get a meeting with the president about "a potential alien invasion" if you have - say - an alien spaceship as evidence, than if you have nothing except a story about sodomised cows

 

Absolutely - and it's easier to hit and damage your target if he's surprised out of combat, you co-ordinate attacks, he's entangled, etc. Those are in-game bonuses, quite different from the player who's a good speaker getting bonuses for his character, who is not, based on his own social skills.

 

And I think what Hugh was pointing out was that combat is (mechanics-wise) two dimensional while social interaction has only one dimension...

 

Yup - having succeeded in the roll to persuade SuperTough RockGuy to release the Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief, so we're past the guard - success! Having succeeded in hitting SuperTough RockGuy, I still need to roll enough damage to get past his defenses, and many more rolls are likely needed for the team to KO him and release the Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief. What was more useful, a +3 bonus to Persuade, or a +3 bonus to OCV? Only one removed SuperTough RockGuy as an impediment to our rescue of the Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief.

 

I would bet the Oval office is protected agaisnt teleports and the Secret Service has weapons that do (Killing)damage against Superhumans' date=' even once with Desolidification or Brick Powers.[/quote']

 

That's funny - it isn't in most comics I've read or Supers movies I've seen. Do you have source material examples where the President is so well protected that he is unthreatened by a Supers team and, in fact, it is the Superteam which is likely to be wiped out?

 

Also while it get's you in fast' date=' it makes all the later rolls way harder. Beaming unanounced anywhere isn't the best way to make friends.[/quote']

 

Exactly - it changes both the difficulty (to your detriment) and speed of access (to your benefit). In other words, the two don't move in lockstep.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

That's funny - it isn't in most comics I've read or Supers movies I've seen. Do you have source material examples where the President is so well protected that he is unthreatened by a Supers team and' date=' in fact, it is the Superteam which is likely to be wiped out?[/quote']

We do talk about a Champions Universe or something similar here, right?

Where Supers are somewhat abundant and known for decades, as well as tech to counter them. And the president is just about the most important being on the planet (at least for most comics perspective). So he propably has superpowered bodyguards.

Even just getting a targetting lock on the area can be a problme (there is a large secured area around him).

 

Exactly - it changes both the difficulty (to your detriment) and speed of access (to your benefit). In other words' date=' the two don't move in lockstep.[/quote']

What has Lockstep to do with Social Interactions?

[phoenix240]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

For those interested in social resolution rules the Intrigue system from the A Song of Ice and Fire rpg looks like it would be pretty easy to port into Hero System.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

What Hugh was pointing out that you confused earlier was that a glib player probably getsmore bonuses than a glib character - surely not a good thing.

 

Not just good, it's an ideal thing, as far as I am concerned! I give out both bonuses and penalties to combat and skill use, precisely because I want to promote good play, not quash it. But the important point is the the glib character - even without those bonuses is still better at social interaction (and usually much, much better): essentially he gets what he paid for.

 

And I think what Hugh was pointing out was that combat is (mechanics-wise) two dimensional while social interaction has only one dimension...

 

Doc

 

If that's what he's pointing out, then, fair enough, he's welcome to his opinion. I, for one, respectfully disagree.*

 

cheers, Mark

 

*Edit: perhaps that brief comment requires expansion.

The way I see it, the skill rules may look one-dimensional because they take up less space. But that's a very - if you excuse me saying - a very one-dimensional take on things. The powers section (note: not combat - much of the powers section is for non-combat powers) is much larger, but it does not necessarily means that it's more "dimensional". When it comes to skills, the ability to use complimentary skills and to create new skills as broad or detailed as you like gives you a huge degree of flexibility. I can't actually think of a case in the last 20 years of skill-intensive/social interaction intensive gaming where we have needed something in the skill toolkit that we didn't have - with the possible exception of broader skill modifiers. And that's using RAW. In all the years I have been playing, I have added precisely 2 house rules (one of which is now an official rule in 6E: the "proficiency" rule) so I guess I have only one house rule now to skills. I've tinkered far more with powers.

So yes, I reject the idea that the skill section is somehow "lesser". It gets at least as much use - if not more - in my games, and works very well, indeed. There's a lot more to rules than simply word count.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

For those interested in social resolution rules the Intrigue system from the A Song of Ice and Fire rpg looks like it would be pretty easy to port into Hero System.

 

It might be - but you will note that on the player boards the words "boring" and "frustrating" get a solid workout, plus there are a fair few comments from players saying they simply walk away from social interactions and accept the political fallout. I'm not sure it's a good idea to introduce a new system that (based on my own prior experience) some players would hate and most would dislike.

 

cheers, Mark

[phoenix240]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

It might be - but you will note that on the player boards the words "boring" and "frustrating" get a solid workout, plus there are a fair few comments from players saying they simply walk away from social interactions and accept the political fallout. I'm not sure it's a good idea to introduce a new system that (based on my own prior experience) some players would hate and most would dislike.

 

cheers, Mark

 

The words "boring" and "frustrating" have been used a great deal when talking about Hero System too. The Intrigue system has gotten allot of praise, IME, often referred to as one of the best parts of the game. Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. But I wouldn't recommend a system I didn't find worthwhile. My group finds these rules useful and fun, others might not particularly if you don't like Social "combat" rules in an of themselves. Some groups want such rules though and find Hero's current system lacking. I think they can judge if Intrigue would work better for them.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Not just good' date=' it's an [u']ideal [/u]thing, as far as I am concerned! I give out both bonuses and penalties to combat and skill use, precisely because I want to promote good play, not quash it. But the important point is the the glib character - even without those bonuses is still better at social interaction (and usually much, much better): essentially he gets what he paid for.

 

My anecdotal evidence (I presume similar to us all) would say that all things being equal, the glib character is better. However, a glib player (I am my own evidence here) can find himself avoiding having to roll dice by working the GM and ensuring that the dice when they are rolled go closer to my strengths than weaknesses. I have accomplished great things on the basis of glib performance as a player. Other players with more socially proficient characters are often less successful as they rely on the dice for everything.

 

It is an issue for some - I am not being a better player of the system, I am being a better player of the GM and that is not something others can compete with.

 

If that's what he's pointing out, then, fair enough, he's welcome to his opinion. I, for one, respectfully disagree.*

 

cheers, Mark

 

*Edit: perhaps that brief comment requires expansion.

The way I see it, the skill rules may look one-dimensional because they take up less space. But that's a very - if you excuse me saying - a very one-dimensional take on things. The powers section (note: not combat - much of the powers section is for non-combat powers) is much larger, but it does not necessarily means that it's more "dimensional". When it comes to skills, the ability to use complimentary skills and to create new skills as broad or detailed as you like gives you a huge degree of flexibility. I can't actually think of a case in the last 20 years of skill-intensive/social interaction intensive gaming where we have needed something in the skill toolkit that we didn't have - with the possible exception of broader skill modifiers. And that's using RAW. In all the years I have been playing, I have added precisely 2 house rules (one of which is now an official rule in 6E: the "proficiency" rule) so I guess I have only one house rule now to skills. I've tinkered far more with powers.

 

So yes, I reject the idea that the skill section is somehow "lesser". It gets at least as much use - if not more - in my games, and works very well, indeed. There's a lot more to rules than simply word count.

 

I am not sure that Hugh said that the Skills section was lesser than the powers section. I think what he pointed out was that the mechanics for combat have two dimensions to them - whether you succeed in hitting and whether that has any effect on the opponent. In skills that is all rolled up into one mechanism - regardless of how broad you make that in play. There is no equivalent to defences, STUN and BODY in social interaction and I am not sure that a direct analogue would be useful. However, I agree that it is a one dimensional mechanism and as such thinner in gameplay than combat.

 

Doc

[Vondy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

The question becomes, is your gaming a science or an art? Creating balanced systems for everything is great gaming science. But, in my experience, it usu. restricts choices, or imposes a strange rules-based decision making psychology that doesn't necessarily reflect good role-playing from a character perspective, or simply hampers and slows down the gaming experience. In other words, its horrible in terms of gaming as an art form.

 

The tabletop RPG experience is neither drama club, nor war-gaming. Its a meta-level in between. Its a balancing act. The more rules you impose, and the more mechanics, the more it becomes like a computer simulation instead of a collectively told tale. In my opinion, tabletop RPGs are group storytelling exercises. The rules should be mean, lean, and facilitate that in a quick orderly fashion. They should allow the group to focus on the art of role-playing.

 

A gazillion sub-systems for every imaginable thing is for people who have no art. But, then some of my favorite gaming experiences came from those old school games people vetch about for being vague or "incomplete." Its the people at the table who make the game fun. Systems can help or hamper - depending on how well fashioned they are - AND how discreet they are in terms of forming player thinking.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

The more rules you impose' date=' and the more mechanics, the more it becomes like a computer simulation instead of a collectively told tale. In my opinion, tabletop RPGs are group storytelling exercises. The rules should be mean, lean, and facilitate that in a quick orderly fashion. They should allow the group to focus on the art of role-playing. [/quote']

 

I realise that this could sound like a volte face from my position, but I will continue anyhow!

 

Markdoc has pointed to the extensive skill lists as the enrichment of the social interactivity rules of the system. I am a proponent of the system facilitating social characters to outdo their more socially inept players in the same way the system allows combat characters to outdo their pugilistically inferior players.

 

However, I feel like the expansion of the skill system took away from the game rather than added to it and required huge amounts of skills to be added to the character sheet to make it a working proposition. I think I would far prefer a broader brush on the skills and more detailed mechanic on how to use them...

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

We do talk about a Champions Universe or something similar here, right?

Where Supers are somewhat abundant and known for decades, as well as tech to counter them. And the president is just about the most important being on the planet (at least for most comics perspective). So he propably has superpowered bodyguards.

 

Supers are somewhat abundant and known for decades in the Marvel and DC Universes, though not so much in the movie universes where they always seem secreted away and/or just starting out. The president is not presented with superpowered bodyguards or supertech in those universes, the oldest around and the staples of the genre, are they? By the way, I note you have moved from "tech that is dangerous to Supers" to "superpowered bodyguards". Which one are you asserting to be the norm in the genre? Or do you feel both are common genre tropes.

 

I again come back to "where are your in-genre examples?". We certainly talk about the CU. It is deeply influenced by the Marvel and DC Universes. In all its iterations, I don't recall seeing the president cited as having super powered bodyguards or arming the Secret Service with Supertech. Nor do I recall seeing the Guardsman armor used in the Vault for some time, or its replacement tech, worn by the Secret Service as well.

 

What has Lockstep to do with Social Interactions?

 

English vernacular commonly uses the term to refer to two or more elements that always move in closely connected fashion, just like the soldiers in your Wiki definition always move in the same direction at the same speed.

 

Not just good' date=' it's an [u']ideal [/u]thing, as far as I am concerned! I give out both bonuses and penalties to combat and skill use, precisely because I want to promote good play, not quash it.

 

Now we come to the definition of "good play". Is it "good play" to dramatically introduce that alien spacecraft in the course of trying to persuade the President to take, or authorize, action related to these aliens? Absolutely - that's great use of in-game in-character tools.

 

Is it "good play" that the 8 PRE, no social skills investment character is played as highly articulate, making a powerful and dramatic speech, because his player is glib, a great speaker and has a flair for the dramatic? I suggest this is the opposite of good role playing - the character is being played counter to his actual writeup. It's no different from discarding psychological limitations/complications when they become inconvenient. Like, say, going to the President demonstrating great respect to try to get military assistance when your character is "Vastly Overconfident" and "Disdainful of Government and Authority"

 

But the important point is the the glib character - even without those bonuses is still better at social interaction (and usually much' date=' much better): essentially he gets what he paid for.[/quote']

 

Therein lies the key - the glib character with a socially inept player should be clearly better than the glib player with a socially inept character. Just like a combat-focused character with a couch potato player will perform better in combat than a character with limited combat ability run by a weapons and martial arts expert.

 

The way I see it, the skill rules may look one-dimensional because they take up less space. But that's a very - if you excuse me saying - a very one-dimensional take on things. The powers section (note: not combat - much of the powers section is for non-combat powers) is much larger, but it does not necessarily means that it's more "dimensional". When it comes to skills, the ability to use complimentary skills and to create new skills as broad or detailed as you like gives you a huge degree of flexibility. I can't actually think of a case in the last 20 years of skill-intensive/social interaction intensive gaming where we have needed something in the skill toolkit that we didn't have - with the possible exception of broader skill modifiers. And that's using RAW. In all the years I have been playing, I have added precisely 2 house rules (one of which is now an official rule in 6E: the "proficiency" rule) so I guess I have only one house rule now to skills. I've tinkered far more with powers.

 

So yes, I reject the idea that the skill section is somehow "lesser". It gets at least as much use - if not more - in my games, and works very well, indeed. There's a lot more to rules than simply word count.

 

I don't call it "lesser". You have chosen that word, and I respectfully submit you are not seeing the point. That probably attributes more to my writing than your reading.

 

Regardless of how rich we may consider the skill system to be, a character who is trying to persuade, say, the secretary to let him in to see her boss (or to persuade that boss to back the heroes financially, give them access to his secret tech project, or what have you) will ultimately make a 3d6 roll to determine whether the result is agreement, or refusal. A bonus to that roll can be determinative of success or failure. You mention a +1 to +3 bonus. If that +3 bonus moves the character from 8- (a tick over 25% chance of success) to 11- (a 62.5% chance of success), that is a huge bonus. And, if it causes the roll to succeed, then that one bonus has decided this challenge.

 

If Social Butterfly is granted a similar +3 bonus to OCV in combat, which moves him to the same 11- chance to hit, he hits once. He still, as Doc points out, needs to roll damage, which is probably lower than Combat Wombat's, get STUN and BOD past the target's defenses and bring him below 0 STUN, or into negative BOD, to win the combat. Getting past that armed bodyguard requires a lot more activity than getting past that secretary, even when we have already succeeded at all the predecessor challenges to determine that is the person we need to get past to advance our strategy. So that one OCV bonus is a lot less meaningful than that interaction skill bonus.

 

I question whether such a bonus is appropriate merely because the player himself is a good orator. Any of the characters can present the alien tech, or buy the secretary flowers, or offer to burn the negatives if the target agrees to co-operate. The social butterfly can add those bonuses, and it makes sense for the party Face to make that pitch - he starts with the highest bonus and these in-game adders will result in a higher chance of success for him than for the socially inept Combat Wombat. Similarly, if we have found a more powerful weapon that we expect to need to get past the threats of this scenario, it probably goes to Combat Wombat, as he'll make better use of it than Social Butterfly will.

 

But if Combat Wombat can get that +3 bonus because his player makes a dramatic and impassioned speech - a player skill, not a character skill - then his base 11- is better than Face's 13-. That is player skill overriding character skill.

 

My anecdotal evidence (I presume similar to us all) would say that all things being equal' date=' the glib character is better. However, a glib player (I am my own evidence here) can find himself avoiding having to roll dice by working the GM and ensuring that the dice when they are rolled go closer to my strengths than weaknesses. I have accomplished great things on the basis of glib performance as a player. Other players with more socially proficient characters are often less successful as they rely on the dice for everything.[/quote']

 

And that, to me, would be the frustration. Social Butterfly presented the GM with a character whose schtick is social interaction. If Combat Wombat gets to be better at social interaction because the player is glib, and better at combat because the character spent his points there, how is that fair to Social Butterfly's character? Markdoc presents his game as one where the superior social skills will still win out. I believe him. But the same is not true in many other games, and that is a legitimate problem.

 

A gazillion sub-systems for every imaginable thing is for people who have no art. But' date=' then some of my favorite gaming experiences came from those old school games people vetch about for being vague or "incomplete." Its the people at the table who make the game fun. Systems can help or hamper - depending on how well fashioned they are - AND how [u']discreet [/u]they are in terms of forming player thinking.

 

Simply put, however, I consider it unfair to place several subsystems before the players, allow them to spend points to become as skilled as they wish in the various subsystems, with the obvious tradeoffs required for limited resources, then discard one or more of those subsystems when actually playing, such that the character who focused on those subsystems I actually use to resolve challenges gets the value for his investment of character resources, while the character who invested heavily in those subsystems I discarded gets lesser or no benefit.

 

To me, a GM who says "I am not going to resolve social interaction through skill rolls, but through role playing, so characters should not purchase interaction skills and modifiers" is far superior than the one who will let the characters spend points on those skills, but not permit them to have an impact in-game. Your comments sound more like the decision of which systems to include, presumably communicated to the players so they can design characters accordingly, rather than letting the players spend points on abilities you have decided will rarely, if ever, be allowed to work in the game. I have no disagreement with that approach.

 

If I am socially inept, and all social interaction will be resolved by role playing, I will build a Combat Wombat and save my Social Butterfly concept for a game where he will be allowed to benefit from the mechanics he purchased. However, please don't tout the game as one where you can play "any character you can imagine". I can imagine playing a suave, sophisticated superspy seductress, but since my player skills aren't up to that, and I can't buy effective abilities with points, I can't successfully play that character in this game.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

See, I do not see the issue the way Hugh does.

 

A singular bonus for the glib player of +1-3 (whose character has an 8-) is far outweighed by the Face character's 12-15- roll, with multiple complimentary skills for bonuses, for direct skill bonuses purchased for the character, for situational bonuses that their particular build allows them access to, etc. It is outweighed in any given roll and even more so when you look at it over time.

 

 

 

 

Hm. Question. Let's say we have an entire party, none of whom has any significant social skills. Heck, let's say that for some reason they don't even have Everyman social skills.

 

They want to persuade the local magistrate of something- to let them off with a warning, to send a letter to the local baron saying that something needs additional investigation, whatever. They want something from him.

 

 

How would you (any of you), resolve this as a GM, versus the group that does have the appropriate social Skills/abilities? Is the difference going to be that, for the non-social party (no pun intended), the magistrate will make them do him a favor (sidequest) in return, whereas the Social Party has the option of skipping that (if they wish) if they do well in their social interaction efforts?

[Ice9]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Therein lies the key - the glib character with a socially inept player should be clearly better than the glib player with a socially inept character. Just like a combat-focused character with a couch potato player will perform better in combat than a character with limited combat ability run by a weapons and martial arts expert.

I think this is a bit of a red herring. The player's abilities do have an effect on combat, it's just their skill at tactics and familiarity with the game rules that apply, not their physical fitness. Saying that "player ability means physical fitness" in combat is like saying that "player ability means physical attractiveness" is social situations. And by that standard, ruling that a good speech by the player grants auto-victory would still be "character ability" because the player's appearance didn't count.

 

So I would rephrase the statement as "Just like a combat-focused character with a distracted newbie player will perform better in combat than a character with limited combat ability run by a veteran player who likes wargaming." which is not as self-evidently true.

Now there could be a legitimate question on "how much effect should the player's tactics have in combat", and it does vary from game to game, but I think the answer is at least "more than zero."

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Is the difference going to be that' date=' for the non-social party (no pun intended), the magistrate will make them do him a favor (sidequest) in return, whereas the Social Party has the option of skipping that (if they wish) if they do well in their social interaction efforts?[/quote']

 

Well, the Social Party with the Well-Connected Skill Enhancers (i.e., the table of naturally non-glib players w/ the party of artificially social PCs) will get two Favors for the price of one.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

My anecdotal evidence (I presume similar to us all) would say that all things being equal' date=' the glib character is better. However, a glib player (I am my own evidence here) can find himself avoiding having to roll dice by working the GM and ensuring that the dice when they are rolled go closer to my strengths than weaknesses. I have accomplished great things on the basis of glib performance as a player. Other players with more socially proficient characters are often less successful as they rely on the dice for everything.[/quote']

 

That's certainly not been my experience - the "face man" in the last game had skills in the 15- to 16- category, which is pretty damn good - but not a huge investment in points.

 

I am not sure that Hugh said that the Skills section was lesser than the powers section. I think what he pointed out was that the mechanics for combat have two dimensions to them - whether you succeed in hitting and whether that has any effect on the opponent. In skills that is all rolled up into one mechanism - regardless of how broad you make that in play. There is no equivalent to defences' date=' STUN and BODY in social interaction and I am not sure that a direct analogue would be useful. However, I agree that it is a one dimensional mechanism and as such thinner in gameplay than combat.[/quote']

 

Ah, I see. In that case, I misunderstood: my bad. I'm not sure that I agree that's it's " thinner" in play though: I think combat is an extremely poor analogy for social interaction, so that it doesn't bother me that they use different mechanics.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

See, I do not see the issue the way Hugh does.

 

A singular bonus for the glib player of +1-3 (whose character has an 8-) is far outweighed by the Face character's 12-15- roll, with multiple complimentary skills for bonuses, for direct skill bonuses purchased for the character, for situational bonuses that their particular build allows them access to, etc. It is outweighed in any given roll and even more so when you look at it over time.

 

See, this has been my experience (especially since +3 is at the extreme end for bonuses: +1 is more usual, +2 reserved for more unusual actions. +3 is something reserved for those actions or statements that make everyone go "You did what, now?").

 

This whole discussion, from my point of view is sliding down the well greased chute it always does, into highly theoretical examples designed to show that under certain unusual circumstances, you might sometimes get a result that could from some perspectives, be considered to be unfair.

 

Doc Democracy's point of view about playing the GM to avoid making rolls altogether, I think is a more valid one ... which of course isn't going to be addressed by any rules system, since it's an attempt to slide around the rules entirely. We've probably all seen examples of that, and I confess to being occasionally guilty myself That's nothing to do with social interaction, or skill use, of course, since it's also possible to do with combat!

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

The words "boring" and "frustrating" have been used a great deal when talking about Hero System too. The Intrigue system has gotten allot of praise' date=' IME, often referred to as one of the best parts of the game. Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. But I wouldn't recommend a system I didn't find worthwhile. My group finds these rules useful and fun, others might not particularly if you don't like Social "combat" rules in an of themselves. Some groups want such rules though and find Hero's current system lacking. I think they can judge if Intrigue would work better for them.[/quote']

 

Fair points. My own experience with games that use social combat has been so overwhelmingly negative, that I admit to a bias against them

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Ah' date=' I see. In that case, I misunderstood: my bad. I'm not sure that I agree that's it's " thinner" in play though: I think combat is an extremely poor analogy for social interaction, so that it doesn't bother me that they use different mechanics.[/quote']

 

I don't disagree with them using different mechanics per se. However, if the mechanics are different (and they are), then the same bonus has a different value, does it not? IOW, a +1 to +3 OCV bonus has a very different weight in the outcome of combat than a +1 to +3 skill bonus has on the result of an interaction-resolved challenge.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

we all had streetwise

 

how else was a hero to find trouble

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I don't disagree with them using different mechanics per se. However' date=' if the mechanics are different (and they are), then the same bonus has a different value, does it not? IOW, a +1 to +3 OCV bonus has a very different weight in the outcome of combat than a +1 to +3 skill bonus has on the result of an interaction-resolved challenge.[/quote']

 

Uh, no, not necessarily. Two things can be different, and yet still have the same effect in-game. Context is crucial in determining effectiveness. As a simple example, a +3 skill bonus is worth far more to someone who has 11-, than someone who has 15- , except of course, when it's not. If the task at hand is routine, it's worth nothing to either person. If the task is insanely difficult, it's worth little to the 11- guy (who goes from almost no chance to almost no chance) but is crucial to the 15- guy (who goes from probably fail to almost certain success) and if it's merely a difficult task, it's worth more to 11- guy, for obvious reasons.

 

If a simple single bonus to a single skill can be wildly variable in effect depending on context, then we're going far, far out into the speculatosphere to try and assert that the bonuses are different in value across the many different situations that arise ... especially since the systems are priced differently to start with.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Uh, no, not necessarily. Two things can be different, and yet still have the same effect in-game. Context is crucial in determining effectiveness. As a simple example, a +3 skill bonus is worth far more to someone who has 11-, than someone who has 15- , except of course, when it's not. If the task at hand is routine, it's worth nothing to either person. If the task is insanely difficult, it's worth little to the 11- guy (who goes from almost no chance to almost no chance) but is crucial to the 15- guy (who goes from probably fail to almost certain success) and if it's merely a difficult task, it's worth more to 11- guy, for obvious reasons.

 

If a simple single bonus to a single skill can be wildly variable in effect depending on context, then we're going far, far out into the speculatosphere to try and assert that the bonuses are different in value across the many different situations that arise ... especially since the systems are priced differently to start with.

 

Taking either character from "likely failure" to "probable success" on a single roll when a single roll will determine whether we succeed or fail at this step of the task is, to me, more significant than taking either character from "likely failure" to "probable success" on a single to hit roll in a single combat, when that single roll still needs to do decent damage to even impact the probable outcome of the battle, much less determine it.

 

However, I do agree that comparing the two is less than straightforward.

 

I note, however, that this +3 bonus takes the 11- guy from "much more likely to fail than the 15- guy" to "almost the same possibility of success as the 15- guy". That seems like a significant chunk of 15- guy's resources being negated simply because of a difference in the players' social skills. Let's remember that we were positing a Face character (so our 15- guy) played by a socially inept player unlikely to ever get a bonus for role playing his character's social interactions, pitted against a character of limited social skills whose player is sufficiently glib, oratorical, theatrical and/or what have you to routinely convince the GM that a +3 bonus is warranted.

 

In other words, the glib player gets the equivalent of +3 levels with interaction skills for player skills, rather than character skills. In most games *, I think those three levels represent a pretty significant character building resource.

 

* And here we come to another "tough to compare" element. If all the players are similarly skilled, such that they generally get similar bonuses, it evens out, so comparing across player groups is more difficult. Further, the manner in which the GM handles these bonuses is also difficult to compare without playing in each group over an extended period. Of course, in a game/group where personal characteristics tend to override character skills, I expect the wallflower has learned not to bother investing points into interaction skills, since he will not shine in this area, no matter how much character resources he invests. Stick to muttering "I stick him with my sword" and shining in combat.

 

Ultimately, however, if PRE 8 Pete has a player who consistently renders Pete's interactions with impassioned and impressive, well worded, articulate speeches, with the expectation this will positively influence the results in game, I have to question whether Pete is being properly role played. If the player wanted a character with such abilities, perhaps he should have built a character whose abilities represent a great, persuasive speaker. I as GM need to translate PlayerSpeak into CharacterSpeak. Maybe that means, despite Player's great speech, Pete stutters and mumbles the same words, to much less effect, given he lacks the player's 18 PRE and oratory levels. Perhaps it indicates Pete should be denied any xp bonus for good role playing, since he is not role playing the character's design.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

There are two 'obvious' ways to reward the 'talented' player: bonuses to skill rolls or bonuses to XP.

 

The first is a problem because it undermines the abilities of the designed character. If you have average social skills built into the character, good role playing should mean that you role play average social skills.

 

The problem with awarding XP is that you are doing the same thing more slowly: the character will progress faster than other players' characters.

 

In either case you are telling the player that it is OK to fill in their character's weaknesses with "role playing"*. I acknowledge that it would be frustrating for players not to get some reward for excellent play, but I'm not sure what it should be, if they are not happy enough with excellent play making for an excellent time.

 

A bonus in a social (or other) skill tends to have more impact than the same sized bonus in combat because combat tends to involve a lot more rolls.

 

You don't give the guy who is good at judo in real life a bonus to his character's Breakfall roll.

 

OK, I'm just making points randomly now, but Hero is not a competition. We don't want to encourage people to play for rewards for their characters, be they instant or long term. Do we?

 

 

 

*Well, not actually role playing, more gamesmanship.