What you do vs what you roll
May 4, 2016 23:30:30 GMT -8
Post by zoomfarg on May 4, 2016 23:30:30 GMT -8
I find this topic pretty interesting, though not just as it relates to investigation.
When I play games, I want to play characters that can do stuff that I cannot, stuff that I don't know how to do, where my IRL qualifications are entirely lacking.
Examples:
I don't know how to be a surgeon, but I want to play one (IRL qualifications: high school A&P, the occasional hospital drama, and wikipedia).
I don't know how to hack, but I want to play a droid slicer (IRL qualifications: I wrote a super simple Flash script in high school, and I can use computers competently in the 21st century).
I'm not a detective, but I'd sure like to find a clue in this scene... (IRL qualifications: a very dark time when I binge watched more than half of criminal minds).
To me, it seems that the more accessible something is in every day life, the more it can rely on role play and less on just a roll. For example, most people engage in social situations in life--or consume media in which others do--so we can role play social situations. Many people have seen detective/procedural investigation shows, so we can role play that pretty easily to.
Speaking of investigation specifically, I usually have characters make a roll to "investigate" a scene. I give them the details/clues that I think are important, according to their degree of success. Then, if players ask questions or take actions for which I have not prepared responses ("I look under his boot"), I try to improvise a logical response based on their roll (mediocre roll: they're muddy; great roll: you notice a spot of red mud that seems the same hue as what you found in the graveyard...).
I feel that this approach offers me/my group two main benefits:
1. They're rewarded for role playing with extra information (according to their roll)
2. A character without Sherlock stats can't Sherlock a scene if Sherlock is playing him.
Another way to reward the player for role playing of investigation is XP, which doesn't immediately affect the die roll at hand.
When I play games, I want to play characters that can do stuff that I cannot, stuff that I don't know how to do, where my IRL qualifications are entirely lacking.
Examples:
I don't know how to be a surgeon, but I want to play one (IRL qualifications: high school A&P, the occasional hospital drama, and wikipedia).
I don't know how to hack, but I want to play a droid slicer (IRL qualifications: I wrote a super simple Flash script in high school, and I can use computers competently in the 21st century).
I'm not a detective, but I'd sure like to find a clue in this scene... (IRL qualifications: a very dark time when I binge watched more than half of criminal minds).
To me, it seems that the more accessible something is in every day life, the more it can rely on role play and less on just a roll. For example, most people engage in social situations in life--or consume media in which others do--so we can role play social situations. Many people have seen detective/procedural investigation shows, so we can role play that pretty easily to.
Speaking of investigation specifically, I usually have characters make a roll to "investigate" a scene. I give them the details/clues that I think are important, according to their degree of success. Then, if players ask questions or take actions for which I have not prepared responses ("I look under his boot"), I try to improvise a logical response based on their roll (mediocre roll: they're muddy; great roll: you notice a spot of red mud that seems the same hue as what you found in the graveyard...).
I feel that this approach offers me/my group two main benefits:
1. They're rewarded for role playing with extra information (according to their roll)
2. A character without Sherlock stats can't Sherlock a scene if Sherlock is playing him.
Another way to reward the player for role playing of investigation is XP, which doesn't immediately affect the die roll at hand.