|
Post by malifer on Jul 2, 2013 3:50:43 GMT -8
The way I use bennies, and this was mentioned by others here, is that any benny spent by a PC goes to the GM. I start with none, but they now know every 'woops, re-do!' will give the enemy an edge later. That's twisted. I like it.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 2, 2013 4:00:03 GMT -8
The way I use bennies, and this was mentioned by others here, is that any benny spent by a PC goes to the GM. I start with none, but they now know every 'woops, re-do!' will give the enemy an edge later. Does this pendulum also swing the other way? EDIT: I assume not as that would probably cause combat to get a bit long? - 'I soak.', 'Oh yeah? I soak!'
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jul 2, 2013 4:14:03 GMT -8
Also, the Cleric kissing the Paladin? I thought you were playing Dungeon World, not Monsterhearts. Yeah that was something the players came up with. I just "Yes and"-ed it. It was very action movie-esque, I gave a soft move that the Witch had started casting a spell and the players wanted to stop her. I said okay "What do you do?" And I know you don't hate Savage Worlds enough to start burning books stores or beating nerds to death with a mountain of unnecessary but awesome setting books. But fear not everyone wants to play Dungeon World again, and I pimped out the Monster of the Week as another possibility. Previous to this game though the best game I ran was a Savage Worlds Ghostbusters one-shot to teach the rules. So a request to bring that back was pretty cool. But they are very different animals, sometimes it's easier to have a prepped game where as the GM you can sit back and watch the players "play". GMing AW games I think would get very exhausting. It's almost like your the "anti-player". I know that is not a term the creators would want anywhere near the core rules, but what I mean is you have to constantly be thinking one step ahead because you are essentially doing your prep as you play. But both games have proven equally fun for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 5:58:21 GMT -8
The way I use bennies, and this was mentioned by others here, is that any benny spent by a PC goes to the GM. I start with none, but they now know every 'woops, re-do!' will give the enemy an edge later. Does this pendulum also swing the other way? EDIT: I assume not as that would probably cause combat to get a bit long? - 'I soak.', 'Oh yeah? I soak!' Nope. And, I can say that in all honesty, they do fret when deciding just how worth it is the spend. They even remind each other: "are you crazy?! You re-roll that now, and HE gets bennies for later! Save it for a critical moment."
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 2, 2013 8:10:37 GMT -8
Social shit and player agency - I prefer to use a graduated approach. If RP passes then, most times, no dice are rolled . . . If its touch and go then roll the dice to get a final result. Sometimes, for expedience, the dice get rolled first . . . ie: to resolve an interaction that is not part of the main plot and not really significant which side trekking into would just unnecessarily slow down play with no benefits - a way of hand waving stuff while remaining impartial thru use of a randomiser. I'd never let another player try skill based social combat on another player no matter the reason . . . The PC's are a cut above average the exception to the rule with world mechanics because they are controlled by players. To that end the most charismatic mother fucker will meet his or her match when encountering a PC . . . The players agency is what makes the PC's heroic. If a player wants to social combat another player because all his arguments have failed - tough shit suck it up and find a compromise. It's usually an unwillingness to compromise that causes players to attempt this sort of bullcrap in the first place, the group thinks - for whatever reason- the players preferred course of action blows chunks so that player try's 'to force a win'. Even if the other players reasons are meta gamey for refusing to cooperate the PC's are still the heroes, still the exception and, as such, they are capable of acting uncharacteristically . . . Breaking the mould and 'thinking outside the box'. That's why they are controlled by players. Do you let every NPC dictate the player/PC's response by virtue of die roll and skill checks? No? Then why should a player be able to do it to another player? Unless its magic or psionics or some power of some sort . . . But that's different as that's basically mind control. The player retains agency because s/he know his/her PC wouldn't do that excepting for the interference of these forces malevolent and/or benign. Aaron
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jul 2, 2013 8:46:10 GMT -8
Dungeon World is obviously VERY different to this, and is a good example of how different systems (particularly modern 'hippy' systems) treat agency differently. It sounds like there is a transfer of power from the dice mechanics to the players written into the system. Having only played Dungeonworld and Monsterhearts I can't say I have a COMPREHENSIVE knowledge of these games but what I took away from the games is they are great ways to help create GMs. The mechanics of * World games by putting much of the creative onus on the players allows them to see how spontaneity, improvisation, and creativity make a game happen. Many ol' school games put the weight of story creation mostly on the GMs shoulders, but these World games provide so many opportunities for players to jump in and describe not only their characters but develop the world in relationship to their characters. I stole the shit outta this for my other games. When we as GMs ask for PC backstory we are doing this. But then the old way was to just start with that backstory get out the scotch and start writing, "tune in next week players to enjoy my masterpiece!' World games require constant creative fuel and improvisational fire from the players to keep the game rolling. I think thats when I started to realize..."I'm fucking working too hard..." There have been numerous posts about "my players don't like this or that...or where should my game go next ?" I took a big suggestion from the World games and just started asking my players: "Why is you're secret arcane sword fighting school secret ? Why does you're familiar know who imprisoned your father ?" Plot elements develop in game and I offer the players a chance to shape them with the understanding that as GM I can keep or throw out what I want; and I mostly keep. Finally, Bennies make d20 mechanics less painful. But players only get them for helping develop the story in between sessions. Nothing to keep track of...lots of player buy in. And one more thing... 18 DAYS UNTIL JACKERCON! "now where did I put those pre-gens..."
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 2, 2013 9:19:34 GMT -8
Dungeon World is obviously VERY different to this, and is a good example of how different systems (particularly modern 'hippy' systems) treat agency differently. It sounds like there is a transfer of power from the dice mechanics to the players written into the system. The real difference is in the primacy of fiction. *World rules don't tell you what your character can do, they just trigger when your character does certain things in the fiction and then feed back into the fiction. Which is the short, abstract version of what hyvemynd very eloquently described a page ago. In D&D you can't take a called shot unless you make up some rules for it, wether the fiction would allow a called shot or not (to pick an example from the episode). In *World games you can do whatever the fiction allows you to and sometimes you'll trigger a move. I always feel tempted to steal terms from linguistics to describe these games: D&D is prescriptive grammar, *World games are descriptive grammar.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jul 2, 2013 17:12:19 GMT -8
See, I'm pretty much on the other side of the spectrum from you Kainguru, so I'm going to respectfully disagree. Oscar Award worthy RPing or not, the game mechanics are going to dictate what happens when people engage in "social combat, just like every other aspect of the game. Stats, skills, and abilities matter in other forms of combat, so why not in social combat as well? The numbers representing your character's social eptitude are there on the character sheet for a reason; to both inform the player's RPing and to have a mechanical effect in the game. I'm not going to allow the misanthropic Ranger with a Charisma score of 6 to fast-talk his way past the Sun Emperor's elite door guards simply because the player RPed well. The character's abilities are what matters here. Not the player's. Again, you don't allow the weakling Bard with a Strength of 5 to automatically hit the master swordsman simply because the player narrated a great combat maneuver. No. You roll the dice and apply modifiers based on the character's abilities and the situation. Maybe you award a small bonus for a great narration (if you're playing that type of game). I like my systems to handle all aspects of a game, whether that's social interaction, combat, or skill use, with the same level of mechanical attention and depth. Which is why I like games like FATE, Ubiquity, and Apocalypse World. The mechanics, and the level of detail in the rules, are largely equal for all aspects of the system. They feel balanced. Contrast that with the current iteration of D&D Next. Combat is incredibly detailed mechanically. The process of how to do something in combat and the possible results of those actions are very clearly laid out. Meanwhile, social interaction mechanics are pretty much just "Make a Charisma check. If you roll high, something good happens. If you roll low, something bad happens." That makes the system feel unbalanced, lopsided, and awkward to me. It also clearly indicates where the focus of the game is; combat. This game is about fighting because look how thick the combat chapter is. Compare that to a hippy game like Monsterhearts. Out of the seven Basic Moves, just one of them is about fighting. And that Move's text is no longer than the others. Even Monster of the Week, which is a game specifically about fighting fucking monsters, has one Basic Move related to combat. One Move. Out of eight. Combat is a part of these games, but it's obviously an equal part. Regarding persuasive skills and "mind control" powers. In my games, player characters don't get special treatment from the rest of the world just because they're the protagonists of the story. They have to follow the same rules that everyone else does, as those rules are, in a sense, the laws of reality for the game world. That includes suggestion, persuasion, and influence. If the player characters encounter the most charming mother fucker in the universe, they don't get to say "I'm not persuaded by him." just because they're PCs. Sorry. Make your resistance roll, chump. You would totally call bullshit on a player who says "No, I don't get hit by that masterclass swordsman's swing because I don't want to." So why is social interaction different?
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 2, 2013 17:33:43 GMT -8
You would totally call bullshit on a player who says "No, I don't get hit by that masterclass swordsman's swing because I don't want to." So why is social interaction different? Fear the Boot uses the term "the golden box" for this. In most games, the only part of the world that the player has control over is his own character--more specifically, his character's thoughts and beliefs. When the GM tries to dictate a PCs thoughts or reactions, then he's intruding into the golden box. The reasons against doing so have nothing to do with idealized rules interactions; it's part of the implicit social contract of gaming. You're a dick GM if you kick the player out of the driver's seat of his own PC; and using social rolls to finger-puppet him is doing exactly that, however briefly. By your argument, players should be just as able to control other PCs at the table through social rolls. I've had an instance of this in an online Black Crusade game, where one of the players seems to be under the impression that he can use his Command skill to persuade other PCs to help him, despite being a giant, obvious dickbag. Again, the reason to prohibit this has nothing to do with rule mechanics; it's to prevent the game from breaking down socially. If you have a player refusing to respond to genuinely influential NPCs, he's simply metagaming. And the solution to that is to address the problem with the player, rather than trying to dictate his PC's reactions through dice mechanics. You can't create player immersion through social rolls any more than you can create player suspense via sanity rolls in Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 2, 2013 18:57:58 GMT -8
See, I'm pretty much on the other side of the spectrum from you Kainguru, so I'm going to respectfully disagree. Oscar Award worthy RPing or not, the game mechanics are going to dictate what happens when people engage in "social combat, just like every other aspect of the game. Stats, skills, and abilities matter in other forms of combat, so why not in social combat as well? The numbers representing your character's social eptitude are there on the character sheet for a reason; to both inform the player's RPing and to have a mechanical effect in the game. I agree wholeheartedly. Regarding persuasive skills and "mind control" powers. In my games, player characters don't get special treatment from the rest of the world just because they're the protagonists of the story. They have to follow the same rules that everyone else does, as those rules are, in a sense, the laws of reality for the game world. That includes suggestion, persuasion, and influence. If the player characters encounter the most charming mother fucker in the universe, they don't get to say "I'm not persuaded by him." just because they're PCs. Sure they can. They are PC's. The players should have free will at all times. If an NPC is trying to persuade them, he has to do it without a skill roll. if a player is metagaming that is a separate issue that a skill roll won't fix. Also - really, there are plenty of NPC's for the villain to use his l33t mind control skillz on. Why not mind control the PC's mum? Or a trusted patron? I just don't see the need to ever impose these kinds of attacks on players.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jul 2, 2013 20:15:20 GMT -8
Fear the Boot uses the term "the golden box" for this. In most games, the only part of the world that the player has control over is his own character--more specifically, his character's thoughts and beliefs. When the GM tries to dictate a PCs thoughts or reactions, then he's intruding into the golden box. The reasons against doing so have nothing to do with idealized rules interactions; it's part of the implicit social contract of gaming. You're a dick GM if you kick the player out of the driver's seat of his own PC; and using social rolls to finger-puppet him is doing exactly that, however briefly. I like that term. I'm adding Golden Box to my gaming vernacular. And you're totally correct, henryhankovitch. In most games, the players have direct control over only a single element of the game; their characters. It's easy to see the GM, or other players, as being greedy dicks when they intrude on the one thing players have complete agency over. I totally get that. And unfortunately, there are players and GMs out there who will attempt to "finger puppet" other people's characters. I realize that I'm in the minority here, but I have absolutely no problem with players using social skills to influence other player characters. In real life, people often do things that they know they shouldn't do, for various reasons. Cops occasionally don't hand out tickets when drivers throw their clout around. Bouncers let in those extra club goers (violating the fire code) because they're all so damn attractive. We've all had moments where we thought "I really shouldn't let this person do X" but you let them go ahead anyway. Maybe you let them because you they're cute and kind of flirty. Or because they really need help. Or because they just keep bugging the shit out of you, and doing it will shut them up. We've all had moments where, after the fact, we've thought "Well shit. Why did I let that happen?" Why not have that in games? Again, I realize that some people play games intentionally because they are not reality. They want their games to be fantastic, to be an escape from reality, and therefore don't want to deal with situations where they are not in complete control of their characters. I get that. I really do. I however don't need that break from reality, and actually prefer my games to be as realistic (genrally speaking) as possible. That includes loosing my player agency at times. Maybe that's because of all the hippie indie games I play. Especially Monsterhearts. In that game, one of the Basic Moves is attempting to Turn Someone On. The players can, and are mechanically encouraged to, use this move against fellow player characters. If the roll is successful, the target is turned on, irregardless of any and all other factors. The player targeted by the Move can not say "But my PC wouldn't be into that character because of X" including sexual orientation. Saying your character is gay, straight, bi, whatever, doesn't allow you to negate being turned on. If the character attempting to Turn Someone On gets a total of 7 or higher, the target is turned on. End of story. However the game never takes away a player's agency. It is always in the player's hands as to how they react to being turned on. Being turned on does not force a specific response in the targeted character. It dictates how the character feels. If and how the character reacts to those feelings, is totally up to the player in question.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 3, 2013 2:11:41 GMT -8
Yeah but I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about player on player social combat most of the time . . . Why allow them to be limited by their stats all the time? because the stupidest person is capable of sudden insights, the weakest man can sometimes perform feats of strength in duress. Not just fictional events, real life events attest to this. The PC's are PC's not NPC's, again do you make the NPC's roll against the PC's to determine the PC's reaction? if that's the case it's not an RPG anymore it's a glorified boardgame without a board. If PC's are the exception to the general rule, that making them the protagonists in any story, then the Player's agency in RP'ing a low charisma PC can well be seen as the PC, with enormous effort, overcoming his limitations at a crucial moment. By the same token a socially inept Player can get to shine by using the dice and his PC's high charisma to be the social monster he wishes to be Note the qualifiers in my statement - RP, then dice and insignificant shit diced for. I DIDN'T say NO dice at all . . . as often happens people read the first part of a paragraph and respond emotionally ignoring the qualifiers implicit in the writing of a paragraph. So talking to the guard at the city gate to get thru without paying the toll = dice for it. Talking to the guard at city gate because it's crucial you get thru to warn everyone of the approaching doom and you need the guard to step up and prepare to do his job (ie: guarding said gate against threats): lets RP that first - this is the possible moment when the clutz gets to shine - and admit it THIS IS a fictional trope across all genres*. If the player is a really good at RP he'll not just come up with a good argument he'll do it a way that logically off sets his PC's low charisma eg: "want to raise your charisma? carry a bucket full of gold . . ." Aaron *the quiet character stepping up at the last minute to plead the case for everyone. The social inept who suddenly shares his life story of humiliation and pain provoking empathy from the looming bully and removing him as a threat ie: Chunk and Sloth in the Goonies
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 3, 2013 2:25:06 GMT -8
I realize that I'm in the minority here, but I have absolutely no problem with players using social skills to influence other player characters. In real life, people often do things that they know they shouldn't do, for various reasons. Cops occasionally don't hand out tickets when drivers throw their clout around. Bouncers let in those extra club goers (violating the fire code) because they're all so damn attractive. We've all had moments where we thought "I really shouldn't let this person do X" but you let them go ahead anyway. Maybe you let them because you they're cute and kind of flirty. Or because they really need help. Or because they just keep bugging the shit out of you, and doing it will shut them up. We've all had moments where, after the fact, we've thought "Well shit. Why did I let that happen?" Why not have that in games? That's less about interpersonal social skills and more to do with social engineering and personal ethos. The people that do that tend to be the people that can disregard the rules . . . and there is a spectrum. There are people who cannot and will not ever disregard those rules and then there are people, like me, who think they were put there as a challenge - to be deliberately broken if I think I can get away with it. In the middle sit the majority. I hate to say it but your example gives a (first) justification for the oft dismissed alignment system rather than social skills. Especially as you've missed the obvious element in those examples . . . the internal world of the persons concerned . . . it probably has less to do with the other person and more to do with what's going on in their life at that moment eg: the cop has just become a new dad and so is positively predisposed towards one and all. The bouncer is horny and wants to increase his odds of 'pulling for the night' or the club needs money to survive. Isn't it because you find that person 'cute and flirty' less about them being inherently 'cute and flirty': as my hormones are currently in check I might be stood next to you and see the same person as 'vacuous and insipid' Aaron
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jul 3, 2013 4:02:37 GMT -8
You're not wrong Kainguru. The examples I gave do have many more moving parts than simply how charismatic the person in question is. As you said, social engineering, personal ethos, the internal world of the person targeted by the "social attack", and their physiological state among hundreds, if not thousands, of other factors that are all affecting the outcome of this one social interaction. However, unless you're playing a game using a system that is an absolutely perfect simulation of real life, all of those factors are going to have to be simplified. It is both impractical and impossible to model all of the possible factors that are affecting that social interaction. Different systems have different levels of detail, but all of them are vastly simplified when compared to real life. The cop who is also proud new parent, the horny bouncer, the hormones flooding my brain, all of those complex events have to be reduced to a numerical value in the context of the game. So yes. A social skill roll represents much more than simply how charismatic the player character is. Just like the NPC's opposed roll or die modifier represents much more than how persuadable they are. But they have to be that way for games to work.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 3, 2013 4:58:01 GMT -8
Cool. I'm more about throwing boots at player vs player social combat thru a games given mechanics. Unless it's a game that is designed to be precisely about PvP interpersonal confrontation and accepting the consequences of such. But they are the exception that proves the rule . . . Most PvP should be handled at the table face to face if it's problematic. The classic example we are all familiar with from that long ago podcast just, to me anyway, screamed douch bag player who couldn't get his own way . . . he, and we the listeners of his email, could only make assumptions about the reasons and arguments put forward by the other players he was in conflict with. Sorry but the whole one sidedness of it bugged me . . . as such stories change in there retelling to reinforce the bias of the teller (the 6'6" looming relative of a half orc bully from ones youth was probably only 5'6" of unremarkable resemblance). I would like to resurrect that 'bitch baby'(because not getting the answer he wanted from one podcast led to him trolling others in the hopes of a response to back up his point of view) email BUT not from the OP: I want to hear what the original GM and the other Player's have to say about what they think happened in that, now infamous, session . . . their input may render the example the OP presented obsolete or at least a cautionary note that all tales have two sides. Aaron
|
|