Alright, I finally got another bee in my bonnet. Therefore another rambling post emerges.
So I'm playing in a system that abstracts much of the game. It's a homebrew based on the white wolf system. It's been altered to fit his own needs so I am unaware of how it originally was 'supposed' to work. Regardless it's not about what's behind the facade to me, it's about the camera side of the set.
Regardless, my intent was to play a captain of a ship. Therefore I chose to spend 8 points of my 16ish background points buying a ship (5pts) and a crew (3pts.) Then, seeing myself as a son in a prominent merchant family, I gave myself resources 3 (3pts) to represent my wealthiness. (5 being the ceo of a successful international company in modern terms. and 3 being the max to buy at character creation.) (for the record all advantages like this range from 1-5pts 5 being amazing.) Other players spent these points on enchanted weapons, big guns, powerful spells, amped up defenses and magical pets.
Unfortunately, this plays out rather poorly in functionality. The flying ship so far has only managed to give us the advantage of not having to get over a town wall once. The pet another player has (for 5 or less points) has scouted out various locations, tracked down enemies inconspicuously, killed several minions and has a psychic bond with its owner. I have a flying boat that occasionally makes an appearance. Oh and that crew of 4 people? They are slightly better skilled than a janitor, demand pay before going into any kind of fight, and sap all the cash I get periodically from my resources. Meaning, I have absolutely ZERO spending money except what we get from adventures. The alchemist's dog never gives him shit when they get to payday... Never mind the fact I probably wouldn't be allowed to even USE the ship without the crew.
And here we arrive at the core problem that has arisen. Here I am purchasing an advantage for myself, and devoting half my character to making it work from creation, only leaving me with absolutely NO cash, little unrelated skills and a bunch of documents detailing things that will rarely come into play. All the early bookkeeping coming to naught. As a player this is frustrating. It is just like getting a letter in the mail saying I won a million dollars, so long as I just send them my credit card information and get drawn out of a list of 1000 other entries... I've bought this advantage, now I have to pay for it until the one day it may become useful.
That isn't so say that once anything is bought it should not have upkeep at all. However, it's utility should be equivalent to it's cost. In Dungeons and dragons, the greatest upkeep for a starting adventurer, is likely the sustenance of self, and perhaps a horse. At level one this maintenance can be restrictive. However, owning a horse should not bankrupt the player. Especially considering the degree of benefit granted. Currently one could look at my character as thusly, to get my 'horse' I sacrificed all my money aside from bonuses indefinitely, a couple weapon proficiencies and some movement speed. Reasonable cost for reasonable benefit is almost the essence of balancing in these games, and I basically payed an arm and a leg for a leg.
Would I be in charge of the game, I would make the assumption that by owning the background advantage, you also own the means to support it (ala Rogue Trader.) I'll keep playing this game with this setup, because regardless of my unrest, I'm going to make it work, or lose the ship and the crew while trying, and gain a net bonus of cash.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
On the Subject of Subjectivity
I was going to go into an all caps rage on why 3rd edition skills are no worse than any other, but time cools my temper if not others. Especially after some thought. I've concluded this for now.
Subjectivity is one of the most useful and painful parts of role playing games. When a person in a undefined setting tells you that there is a clock, you gain an image of what that means to you. Perhaps you see a sun dial, perhaps a grandfather clock, or even perhaps a digital or building sized clock. Even within these definitions, should someone say it is a sun dial there are still variations, is it a great stone block in the ground that supports it? Is the sun dial stone itself? Is it one with just posts or an ornate bronze one with carefully embossed numbers? This is the nature of subjectivity within describing a concrete object. The fortunate thing for us is that all of the above clocks tell time, furthermore, should you decide to say it's a sun dial, we are now informed how it does it's job as well.
The real problem is that in role playing games we are constantly barraged with subjective responses to abstracts, imaginary constructs and even new laws of physics or logic. Magic cannot be seen in the real world, aside from movie magic versions implanted within us or magicians, it is practically an unknown. More effort is required to define it for the players in a 'tangible' and definite way. More effort is required to make it predictable. For instance, if I were to tell you a mage just caused fire to appear and harm you, in DnD there are a plethora of possibilities for this cause, also you all probably came up with a variety of forms for this to occur. Burning hands with it's fire erupting from fingers outstretched, Fireball with a small bead of energy erupting into a circular wave of destruction, or perhaps flaming arrows? Here in each instance we hearken back to the things we know. Is it pure happenstance the spells that persist throughout the editions are the ones that practically spell out their appearance in their name? I doubt it.
And what about new physics? What do you see in a bag of holding? How does it appear? Like a fish eye lens as light is forced to bend into a strange space? Or like a window into a room? How does it appear when the objects 'shift' to the top for easy acquisition? What does a sphere that annihilates everything look like? A black hole? Is there a swirl of air around it and a great sucking wind pulling towards it as the very air is pulled in? What is your reasoning that there isn't? Or that a ten foot pole held by characters is the only thing annihilated when they poke it, but when they touch it through gloves the entire person is? These subjective instances can result in conflicts. The conflicts can result in a feeling of inconsistency, dissatisfaction or even arguments that effect those who had no such conflict.
But the most problematic subjective thing in my opinion is the subjective nature of the abstracts. Believe it or not the numbers and statistics of the game are perhaps the worst of all. Let us bring to the fore the greatest offender, base statistics. This is a pain in the ass. Even within themselves there is a real problem with setting an agreed interpretation, but when extending into their derivative statistics things get worse. At first you have to name the buggers, strength, vitality, stamina, vigor, constitution, toughness... Many of these get used together in the same system! What makes toughness different than stamina? Furthermore, how does strength not effect constitution or depend on it? Imagine for a moment a person with an outstanding strength and miniscule constitution. How do they maintain said strength or even get it in the first place? There are stories of body builders with such strength they break their own bones! (And probably lose their strength after and are horribly deformed...) How could a sickly person have that strength? Intelligence and Wisdom? Where does one end and the other begin? They are all abstracts, subjective and all around messy.
But the game itself is centered around these subjective abstracts, and for all their mess, they are what make the game playable, both statistically and creatively. You can interpret those differences to make a genius who is absent minded (although memory is constantly put under intelligence yet somehow low wisdom causes this.) Or a glass cannon of melee, dishing out tons of melee or thrown damage, but unable to take a hit. You can set up skill challenges for someone strong or fast or smart or just plain tough. But, the naming isn't all that makes them subjective, establishing the effects and power level is highly subjective. What is average? What can an average person do? Who is average? If all the people in the fantasy world are above average compared to earth humans at something, is the average for their world or ours? Once we've established a baseline stat, how much variance is there between increments?
This comes up a lot. "This stat is above average! *I* can lift that, why can't my character?" or, "But you're at an 8 in intelligence! You would NEVER know that!" It's subjective, and conflicts will arise time and time again. But when extrapolated into the derived skills we come across an even more interesting and problematic situation.
Let us continue on with the idea of Dungeon and Dragon's idea of third edition skills in mind. John Doe has a baseline stat of 10 int. This is established as an average person's ability. Orc McGee has a 6, this is established as a mentally disabled level of intelligence, halving it would put him on par with animals. Both John Doe and Orc McGee are presented with the problem of building a crude stone wall. Orc McGee is given a few tools, and John Doe is given nothing. Following the system's logic of bonuses and penalties, Orc McGee gets a penalty of -2 for being dumb as the rocks he's using, and because John Doe is without tools, he gets the EXACT SAME penalty. But not being given some tools (which perhaps he could improvise for piling rocks strategically) he is reduced to the skill level of a mentally disabled person. Hell, if you give them both tools and throw some cold weather at John Doe it does the same thing.
This sounds like I would say this is a bad system. Arguably I would say it isn't by it's very nature, but due to subjective preconceptions we've established, we have concluded that it is. For instance, by looking into the system further we can get some more interesting information. Being a d20 system means that if one assumes that there is a chance for success with or without bonuses or penalties, being mentally disabled only reduces the chance of success by TEN PERCENT. Hell, assuming that we don't use common sense, the town cow has a 30% chance to have common knowledge about literature with their hefty penalty of -4. Thus subjective and abstract numbers can create conflicts. Things like this are where 'rules lawyers' start really moving and can really get into conflict with, or take advantage of 'role players'.
If skills sound bad, we can further extend the problem into the GM's territory. A GM who is too uncertain to take a stand can get into real trouble and put themselves right in the frying pan. If the monster has an intelligence of 6 would it really do that? Or even, what is the percentage chance that a mentally disabled person should have to build a rock wall? The rules book gives numbers, but often the rules book has an agenda and bends the rules to a subjective direction good for them and not necessarily you. For instance, following the earlier DnD reference, it shows a strong preference for specialization. The rogue is the trap master, but you better max out your spot and search or you're in trouble! Trap DCs can extend pretty high, many of the starting level traps having DCs of 20 and above! If you go into the game with an average wisdom and no skill in spot or search, you only have a 5% chance of preventing some serious hurt! Furthermore, if you want to learn a skill, you only can take skill points at half rate if your class isn't oriented towards that skill! You want to analyze a spell? Most classes cant even guess what that wizard is going to cast, even if they watched them cast it ten times in a row in the stock rules. If you put one rank into the skill and have an average intelligence, you only have a 30% chance of succeeding on even the most feeble and basic of spells. In fact, if you read into the core books to get their intent, the idea is that every character gets their moment to shine. This means that every other character is shit out of luck if they want to try. The agenda is specialization. Know your role and do it WAY better than everyone else. This can cause problems when the GM is not aware of this agenda.
Some games, such as Savage Worlds, offer the opportunity to succeed at skills while being the least optimal build possible for doing so! I could be the weakest most pathetic person on the field and have a chance to kill a giant monster in one blow! It's highly improbable, but it's there. The system's agenda is more about telling a story. You take your character, give them some vices and strengths and thrust them into a world with some generic abilities. The intent being that you will follow the path you want your story to go, and it will give you a chance to have your sickly tremor ridden character get the clinching shot and save the day. Because it makes a great story. The system is also ridden with exploits and inconsistencies that don't interfere with telling a great story, but might hurt a gritty realistic game.
Sure! Each system has it's strength! You probably knew that right? But each system's strengths are based on it's subjectivity as well as the actual system. Dungeons and Dragons could make all the skills MUCH more accessible for everyone with just a few changes. Hell in fourth edition they already have! They granted a bonus of half your level to all skills and have you just get a static bonus to all your skills you specialize in. You could easily plug that right into third edition and still play the game. You could also reduce the DCs for all skills, or automatically give successes for 'common knowledge'. A creative, thoughtful or at the least flexible GM could push the subjective bonuses, base skills, DCs and everything very far in any direction they want, making 18s in stats 'average' or setting all the DCs lower. It all depends on if you want to make the game harder or easier on your players.
If anything, the selection of the system you favor, should probably be the limits of bending the subjective portions of the game, rather than the stock game itself. Of coarse, by altering it too far from the base game, you begin to challenge the subjective views of your players, and therein lies more conflict. Perhaps that's part of the draw in me building my own system, and investigating new ones. A clean slate of preconceptions, any number of possibilities, seeing the visions and agendas of different game makers.
Subjectivity is one of the most useful and painful parts of role playing games. When a person in a undefined setting tells you that there is a clock, you gain an image of what that means to you. Perhaps you see a sun dial, perhaps a grandfather clock, or even perhaps a digital or building sized clock. Even within these definitions, should someone say it is a sun dial there are still variations, is it a great stone block in the ground that supports it? Is the sun dial stone itself? Is it one with just posts or an ornate bronze one with carefully embossed numbers? This is the nature of subjectivity within describing a concrete object. The fortunate thing for us is that all of the above clocks tell time, furthermore, should you decide to say it's a sun dial, we are now informed how it does it's job as well.
The real problem is that in role playing games we are constantly barraged with subjective responses to abstracts, imaginary constructs and even new laws of physics or logic. Magic cannot be seen in the real world, aside from movie magic versions implanted within us or magicians, it is practically an unknown. More effort is required to define it for the players in a 'tangible' and definite way. More effort is required to make it predictable. For instance, if I were to tell you a mage just caused fire to appear and harm you, in DnD there are a plethora of possibilities for this cause, also you all probably came up with a variety of forms for this to occur. Burning hands with it's fire erupting from fingers outstretched, Fireball with a small bead of energy erupting into a circular wave of destruction, or perhaps flaming arrows? Here in each instance we hearken back to the things we know. Is it pure happenstance the spells that persist throughout the editions are the ones that practically spell out their appearance in their name? I doubt it.
And what about new physics? What do you see in a bag of holding? How does it appear? Like a fish eye lens as light is forced to bend into a strange space? Or like a window into a room? How does it appear when the objects 'shift' to the top for easy acquisition? What does a sphere that annihilates everything look like? A black hole? Is there a swirl of air around it and a great sucking wind pulling towards it as the very air is pulled in? What is your reasoning that there isn't? Or that a ten foot pole held by characters is the only thing annihilated when they poke it, but when they touch it through gloves the entire person is? These subjective instances can result in conflicts. The conflicts can result in a feeling of inconsistency, dissatisfaction or even arguments that effect those who had no such conflict.
But the most problematic subjective thing in my opinion is the subjective nature of the abstracts. Believe it or not the numbers and statistics of the game are perhaps the worst of all. Let us bring to the fore the greatest offender, base statistics. This is a pain in the ass. Even within themselves there is a real problem with setting an agreed interpretation, but when extending into their derivative statistics things get worse. At first you have to name the buggers, strength, vitality, stamina, vigor, constitution, toughness... Many of these get used together in the same system! What makes toughness different than stamina? Furthermore, how does strength not effect constitution or depend on it? Imagine for a moment a person with an outstanding strength and miniscule constitution. How do they maintain said strength or even get it in the first place? There are stories of body builders with such strength they break their own bones! (And probably lose their strength after and are horribly deformed...) How could a sickly person have that strength? Intelligence and Wisdom? Where does one end and the other begin? They are all abstracts, subjective and all around messy.
But the game itself is centered around these subjective abstracts, and for all their mess, they are what make the game playable, both statistically and creatively. You can interpret those differences to make a genius who is absent minded (although memory is constantly put under intelligence yet somehow low wisdom causes this.) Or a glass cannon of melee, dishing out tons of melee or thrown damage, but unable to take a hit. You can set up skill challenges for someone strong or fast or smart or just plain tough. But, the naming isn't all that makes them subjective, establishing the effects and power level is highly subjective. What is average? What can an average person do? Who is average? If all the people in the fantasy world are above average compared to earth humans at something, is the average for their world or ours? Once we've established a baseline stat, how much variance is there between increments?
This comes up a lot. "This stat is above average! *I* can lift that, why can't my character?" or, "But you're at an 8 in intelligence! You would NEVER know that!" It's subjective, and conflicts will arise time and time again. But when extrapolated into the derived skills we come across an even more interesting and problematic situation.
Let us continue on with the idea of Dungeon and Dragon's idea of third edition skills in mind. John Doe has a baseline stat of 10 int. This is established as an average person's ability. Orc McGee has a 6, this is established as a mentally disabled level of intelligence, halving it would put him on par with animals. Both John Doe and Orc McGee are presented with the problem of building a crude stone wall. Orc McGee is given a few tools, and John Doe is given nothing. Following the system's logic of bonuses and penalties, Orc McGee gets a penalty of -2 for being dumb as the rocks he's using, and because John Doe is without tools, he gets the EXACT SAME penalty. But not being given some tools (which perhaps he could improvise for piling rocks strategically) he is reduced to the skill level of a mentally disabled person. Hell, if you give them both tools and throw some cold weather at John Doe it does the same thing.
This sounds like I would say this is a bad system. Arguably I would say it isn't by it's very nature, but due to subjective preconceptions we've established, we have concluded that it is. For instance, by looking into the system further we can get some more interesting information. Being a d20 system means that if one assumes that there is a chance for success with or without bonuses or penalties, being mentally disabled only reduces the chance of success by TEN PERCENT. Hell, assuming that we don't use common sense, the town cow has a 30% chance to have common knowledge about literature with their hefty penalty of -4. Thus subjective and abstract numbers can create conflicts. Things like this are where 'rules lawyers' start really moving and can really get into conflict with, or take advantage of 'role players'.
If skills sound bad, we can further extend the problem into the GM's territory. A GM who is too uncertain to take a stand can get into real trouble and put themselves right in the frying pan. If the monster has an intelligence of 6 would it really do that? Or even, what is the percentage chance that a mentally disabled person should have to build a rock wall? The rules book gives numbers, but often the rules book has an agenda and bends the rules to a subjective direction good for them and not necessarily you. For instance, following the earlier DnD reference, it shows a strong preference for specialization. The rogue is the trap master, but you better max out your spot and search or you're in trouble! Trap DCs can extend pretty high, many of the starting level traps having DCs of 20 and above! If you go into the game with an average wisdom and no skill in spot or search, you only have a 5% chance of preventing some serious hurt! Furthermore, if you want to learn a skill, you only can take skill points at half rate if your class isn't oriented towards that skill! You want to analyze a spell? Most classes cant even guess what that wizard is going to cast, even if they watched them cast it ten times in a row in the stock rules. If you put one rank into the skill and have an average intelligence, you only have a 30% chance of succeeding on even the most feeble and basic of spells. In fact, if you read into the core books to get their intent, the idea is that every character gets their moment to shine. This means that every other character is shit out of luck if they want to try. The agenda is specialization. Know your role and do it WAY better than everyone else. This can cause problems when the GM is not aware of this agenda.
Some games, such as Savage Worlds, offer the opportunity to succeed at skills while being the least optimal build possible for doing so! I could be the weakest most pathetic person on the field and have a chance to kill a giant monster in one blow! It's highly improbable, but it's there. The system's agenda is more about telling a story. You take your character, give them some vices and strengths and thrust them into a world with some generic abilities. The intent being that you will follow the path you want your story to go, and it will give you a chance to have your sickly tremor ridden character get the clinching shot and save the day. Because it makes a great story. The system is also ridden with exploits and inconsistencies that don't interfere with telling a great story, but might hurt a gritty realistic game.
Sure! Each system has it's strength! You probably knew that right? But each system's strengths are based on it's subjectivity as well as the actual system. Dungeons and Dragons could make all the skills MUCH more accessible for everyone with just a few changes. Hell in fourth edition they already have! They granted a bonus of half your level to all skills and have you just get a static bonus to all your skills you specialize in. You could easily plug that right into third edition and still play the game. You could also reduce the DCs for all skills, or automatically give successes for 'common knowledge'. A creative, thoughtful or at the least flexible GM could push the subjective bonuses, base skills, DCs and everything very far in any direction they want, making 18s in stats 'average' or setting all the DCs lower. It all depends on if you want to make the game harder or easier on your players.
If anything, the selection of the system you favor, should probably be the limits of bending the subjective portions of the game, rather than the stock game itself. Of coarse, by altering it too far from the base game, you begin to challenge the subjective views of your players, and therein lies more conflict. Perhaps that's part of the draw in me building my own system, and investigating new ones. A clean slate of preconceptions, any number of possibilities, seeing the visions and agendas of different game makers.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Pay to Succeed
So it struck me while catching up on some blog reading Here the concept of consistency in numbers. Currently every system I read requires a random roll be used in most situations. I understand the use of this, I understand why and where its coming from. But while reading the inspiration struck and thus I begin my stream of consciousness idea vomit.
What if it wasn't random. What if the player would know that as a brute he could bench press 300lbs every time as opposed to asking himself how much he was going to be able to bench press today... Or this encounter... Yes, perhaps there is some luck involved in things, but you either know it or you don't, you don't spontaneously gain knowledge. You can either lift it or you can't, waiting 5 minutes wont help. What if stepping into the arena, 17 strength always got you the same result every time.
Highly trained with his sword every basic attack dealt the same damage. There were no rolls. Every attack had the same degree of accuracy and would or would not hit against the opponent with the same degree of ability in dodging and absorbing hits.
The solution of coarse to this would be boring and pre-determined battles. Of coarse it doesn't end there. Now lets add currency. From here, the player then must invest to improve their abilities and overcome challenges they cannot overcome.
Throwing a shield up sacrifices durability to gain absorption. Taking a penalty to attack to spend more focus on defense grants a bonus to dodge. Spending fatigue energy grants a bonus to damage. Taking time to aim or set up an attack gives a bonus to attack. And finally, to bring the game back into the game, all these investments are gambles. When you add to your strength to put that extra oomph in for lifting, you get 1dX bonus to your strength for lifting. You don't get a static number because extra effort is uncertain, you DO get a benefit, that is sure, how much is not.
Some of this has been done before, for instance, 4th edition DnD implemented a passive perception to roll against to simplify sneaking up on someone. But this cuts out both ends. Imagine sneaking up on an opponent, you have a base sneak skill, you're trained, you know the penalties for sneaking through that terrain at that light level, you don't know they're skilled, but they're elves they get a bonus to listening. So since you're concerned, you put a little more time in, moving slowly to get an extra +1d6. Moving along slowly, ever so slowly, you roll, was it enough? You don't even need dice for many things. Pass or fail.
This reduces a lot of dice. Just add up the modifiers, and it reduces the questions of how a person could fail so horribly and be so skilled. And increase the threat of the incoming knight in plate mail...
But this works for combat and physical things, but what about social? How can this be implemented in that arena? What about social currency, favors and bribes? What about sacrificing reputation or time? The same could be said for crafting, and other long skill checks. It would require the system be built around it, or some severe balancing, but I think it could work.
What if it wasn't random. What if the player would know that as a brute he could bench press 300lbs every time as opposed to asking himself how much he was going to be able to bench press today... Or this encounter... Yes, perhaps there is some luck involved in things, but you either know it or you don't, you don't spontaneously gain knowledge. You can either lift it or you can't, waiting 5 minutes wont help. What if stepping into the arena, 17 strength always got you the same result every time.
Highly trained with his sword every basic attack dealt the same damage. There were no rolls. Every attack had the same degree of accuracy and would or would not hit against the opponent with the same degree of ability in dodging and absorbing hits.
The solution of coarse to this would be boring and pre-determined battles. Of coarse it doesn't end there. Now lets add currency. From here, the player then must invest to improve their abilities and overcome challenges they cannot overcome.
Throwing a shield up sacrifices durability to gain absorption. Taking a penalty to attack to spend more focus on defense grants a bonus to dodge. Spending fatigue energy grants a bonus to damage. Taking time to aim or set up an attack gives a bonus to attack. And finally, to bring the game back into the game, all these investments are gambles. When you add to your strength to put that extra oomph in for lifting, you get 1dX bonus to your strength for lifting. You don't get a static number because extra effort is uncertain, you DO get a benefit, that is sure, how much is not.
Some of this has been done before, for instance, 4th edition DnD implemented a passive perception to roll against to simplify sneaking up on someone. But this cuts out both ends. Imagine sneaking up on an opponent, you have a base sneak skill, you're trained, you know the penalties for sneaking through that terrain at that light level, you don't know they're skilled, but they're elves they get a bonus to listening. So since you're concerned, you put a little more time in, moving slowly to get an extra +1d6. Moving along slowly, ever so slowly, you roll, was it enough? You don't even need dice for many things. Pass or fail.
This reduces a lot of dice. Just add up the modifiers, and it reduces the questions of how a person could fail so horribly and be so skilled. And increase the threat of the incoming knight in plate mail...
But this works for combat and physical things, but what about social? How can this be implemented in that arena? What about social currency, favors and bribes? What about sacrificing reputation or time? The same could be said for crafting, and other long skill checks. It would require the system be built around it, or some severe balancing, but I think it could work.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Diplomacy
Through some advice from someone on writing, I am now going to write about something I know and am feeling a bit passionate about right now. Something that's been on my mind and itching to get out. Diplomacy. For any of you unfamiliar with DnD 3.5, it's a skill the player gets and improves as they level. Specifically it improves the target's impression of the character. I've had some good and bad experience with this in the past, with one specific occurrence bothering the most.
Roughly put the following is my interpretation of diplomacy and how I've conflicted with others, or when I feel it's worked well.
Firstly and most importantly. I see diplomacy when used beyond just improving the reaction of the target to actually negotiate as simply operating to improve the reaction level of the target in regards to a specific request. Which means, it is limited by the same limitations of all reactions. The upper limit being, willing to risk harm to themselves to help the player. This is a very fine distinction and should be carefully noted. The willingness is AT MOST to RISK harm to themselves. This means they will not by default harm themselves. Also, this does not mean they will risk harm without at least using their brain first. If the player tells them to shoot their grandma, they will A: not do it as that would be harming themselves (an extension being things very important to them) and B: would likely ask why and or try to guide their friend to a different alternative.
Furthermore, this does not cover the area of over time interaction. Imagine for a moment a bucket. The amount of water in the bucket is how much the NPC is willing to do for the player. Diplomacy puts water in. However, prejudices, past experiences and reputation can cause another effect. For every negative prejudice, past experience and reputation the Player has for the NPC put sand in the bucket. For every positive take sand out. There's an upper limit to what Diplomacy can sanely do. Furthermore, some personalities and NPCs are just plain stubborn, and won't budge as much to diplomacy. Take experienced and diligent guards, Dwarves (the race not the other kind) and other difficult to impress beings. Those are basically like using a smaller pipe to bring the water to the bucket.
My major conflict I can't get off my mind with diplomacy is this. It was used to persuade a large group of people to begin burning their own city to the ground. If my best friend turned to me and said, "Burn this city to the ground." my first question would be why. My second thought and expressed being would likely be, "No, because I live here." Under my diplomacy interpretation, you cannot get an NPC to actively harm themselves without magic or some extreme situations. Such as implying something very much worse is going to happen if they don't. After this point, I was penalized alignment wise for killing 'innocent' people after ensuring they were not magically motivated. Alignment issues aside, the intent was to penalize me for drawing a conclusion that I found logical, people burning down a city I am to protect while not under magical compulsion are the enemy. Oh well.
However, there have been times that diplomacy has gone well for me. Currently I am in a campaign with a VERY diplomatic character. I think the GM is becoming a bit wary of it, but I think they should approach it from the same perspective. As long as I'm not requesting self harm, and am not tapping the bucket too much, there probably shouldn't be a problem. And so far, I've gotten about the expected responses for most NPCs.
Anyhow, this is really just more a look into my mind on Diplomacy and 'friendly' social skills. There's an upper limit. Anything more than that, well they have spells for that.
Roughly put the following is my interpretation of diplomacy and how I've conflicted with others, or when I feel it's worked well.
Firstly and most importantly. I see diplomacy when used beyond just improving the reaction of the target to actually negotiate as simply operating to improve the reaction level of the target in regards to a specific request. Which means, it is limited by the same limitations of all reactions. The upper limit being, willing to risk harm to themselves to help the player. This is a very fine distinction and should be carefully noted. The willingness is AT MOST to RISK harm to themselves. This means they will not by default harm themselves. Also, this does not mean they will risk harm without at least using their brain first. If the player tells them to shoot their grandma, they will A: not do it as that would be harming themselves (an extension being things very important to them) and B: would likely ask why and or try to guide their friend to a different alternative.
Furthermore, this does not cover the area of over time interaction. Imagine for a moment a bucket. The amount of water in the bucket is how much the NPC is willing to do for the player. Diplomacy puts water in. However, prejudices, past experiences and reputation can cause another effect. For every negative prejudice, past experience and reputation the Player has for the NPC put sand in the bucket. For every positive take sand out. There's an upper limit to what Diplomacy can sanely do. Furthermore, some personalities and NPCs are just plain stubborn, and won't budge as much to diplomacy. Take experienced and diligent guards, Dwarves (the race not the other kind) and other difficult to impress beings. Those are basically like using a smaller pipe to bring the water to the bucket.
My major conflict I can't get off my mind with diplomacy is this. It was used to persuade a large group of people to begin burning their own city to the ground. If my best friend turned to me and said, "Burn this city to the ground." my first question would be why. My second thought and expressed being would likely be, "No, because I live here." Under my diplomacy interpretation, you cannot get an NPC to actively harm themselves without magic or some extreme situations. Such as implying something very much worse is going to happen if they don't. After this point, I was penalized alignment wise for killing 'innocent' people after ensuring they were not magically motivated. Alignment issues aside, the intent was to penalize me for drawing a conclusion that I found logical, people burning down a city I am to protect while not under magical compulsion are the enemy. Oh well.
However, there have been times that diplomacy has gone well for me. Currently I am in a campaign with a VERY diplomatic character. I think the GM is becoming a bit wary of it, but I think they should approach it from the same perspective. As long as I'm not requesting self harm, and am not tapping the bucket too much, there probably shouldn't be a problem. And so far, I've gotten about the expected responses for most NPCs.
Anyhow, this is really just more a look into my mind on Diplomacy and 'friendly' social skills. There's an upper limit. Anything more than that, well they have spells for that.
Monday, June 13, 2011
And So We Begin.
I think that's the line at the beginning of Fable... Anyhoo on topic.
The party has been released into the wild. With the exception of the cleric. He's still fiddling with his character, question asked, but some key answers not given about background and that he's done setting things up. He keeps wanting to change the world as it was given to him. (created for him actually) To hold up the charade and for reasons of balance and parity I'm turning him down on rebuilding the custom god. Well at least he's asking questions, some of the wrong ones after working for a few days to clarify his real intent, but he's asking them, the paladin was not so concerned.
The party and their contributions is thusly.
Wizard
I have inserted a familiar opportunity in the future. It's an abstract loot thought should the environment be convenient. Also he named a town and it's environment over the mountain range that has sprung up for the opening scene. He's also invented a new kind of mushroom unintentionally.
Paladin
Created a new god of knowledge, industry and goodness. Also a plot line to be followed involving a divine mandate.
Fighter
I have inserted a type of armor in the future as loot, same as the familiar. So far he hasn't added much but himself.
Rogue
Hasn't added anything. A very passive player who has posted twice as opposed to the others with at least 10 to 15 times. I've already NPCed them once to forwards the plot, I don't like doing this, but am only using it to do things that only THAT character can do when the party seems interested. I need to carefully phrase everything that comes out of his mouth during NPCing so it doesn't become the voice of GOD.
Cleric
Has added about 20 gods to the human pantheon in insisting he wanted to see a 'list' of the gods and pick from it rather than let me choose one to his liking. I inserted the god I would create for him within the list. He chose it. Other than developing out the pantheon little additional creation. Especially since he isn't in the game world yet. Apparently being out for a week didn't mean he couldn't post so I should have worked to get him into the world. For the record, telling someone that you'll be out of town when it wont change your posting habits is unnecessary.
As a group
The temporary names I gave the players were VERY popular. I'm going to find some way to insert it into the plot.
Current History
-Each character was setting out for an adventure separately before this adventure started.
-They awoke in a fairy circle on the other side of a mountain from their original position, with no knowledge of the time between this and setting out.
-They have headed to a nearby town and have been informed of it's current situation with some room for hooks.
The party has been released into the wild. With the exception of the cleric. He's still fiddling with his character, question asked, but some key answers not given about background and that he's done setting things up. He keeps wanting to change the world as it was given to him. (created for him actually) To hold up the charade and for reasons of balance and parity I'm turning him down on rebuilding the custom god. Well at least he's asking questions, some of the wrong ones after working for a few days to clarify his real intent, but he's asking them, the paladin was not so concerned.
The party and their contributions is thusly.
Wizard
I have inserted a familiar opportunity in the future. It's an abstract loot thought should the environment be convenient. Also he named a town and it's environment over the mountain range that has sprung up for the opening scene. He's also invented a new kind of mushroom unintentionally.
Paladin
Created a new god of knowledge, industry and goodness. Also a plot line to be followed involving a divine mandate.
Fighter
I have inserted a type of armor in the future as loot, same as the familiar. So far he hasn't added much but himself.
Rogue
Hasn't added anything. A very passive player who has posted twice as opposed to the others with at least 10 to 15 times. I've already NPCed them once to forwards the plot, I don't like doing this, but am only using it to do things that only THAT character can do when the party seems interested. I need to carefully phrase everything that comes out of his mouth during NPCing so it doesn't become the voice of GOD.
Cleric
Has added about 20 gods to the human pantheon in insisting he wanted to see a 'list' of the gods and pick from it rather than let me choose one to his liking. I inserted the god I would create for him within the list. He chose it. Other than developing out the pantheon little additional creation. Especially since he isn't in the game world yet. Apparently being out for a week didn't mean he couldn't post so I should have worked to get him into the world. For the record, telling someone that you'll be out of town when it wont change your posting habits is unnecessary.
As a group
The temporary names I gave the players were VERY popular. I'm going to find some way to insert it into the plot.
Current History
-Each character was setting out for an adventure separately before this adventure started.
-They awoke in a fairy circle on the other side of a mountain from their original position, with no knowledge of the time between this and setting out.
-They have headed to a nearby town and have been informed of it's current situation with some room for hooks.
Monday, June 6, 2011
The Preparation
The pieces are falling into place. The game is hosted, and already three players have joined in.
The first, apparently a power player. Looking to get every edge in, he settled on a fighter after going through a laundry list of disapprovals, from taking an ability that allows him to ignore one projectile every round to wielding two handed weapons in one hand. Tonight I'm going to have to block him by actually tallying how much all his gear costs and shaking my finger at him. I think I'll actually enjoy this one.
The second, sounds like a lady. There's an approach to their typing, the words they say and how they approach things that seems to come through. I may be wrong... Anyhow, she will be playing the dwarven paladin. We shall see how that goes. I have a feeling they will adhere to the provided rules without pushing the borders. I have a feeling they're more interested in their character and events.
The third character will probably be abandoning the game before two weeks is out. The elven rogue. Not too many words, some mispelled, quiet. I would expect after expanding on a thought as much as I did to get more than a 4 word reply. Either they are always very brief in the conversation, or they lack a zeal to get in there. We shall see how it goes.
Beyond this I've already received at least 3 more requests, however I'm feeling more picky. I feel like a dynamic of 3 is the minimum necessary to play, and some of the offers seem less than desirable. A Mary Sue possibly, a person with a pre-written story, someone with the already acquired roles in a party. I think I'll wait till everyone's created their character before I start. Maybe between now and then I'll get some good ones.
The first, apparently a power player. Looking to get every edge in, he settled on a fighter after going through a laundry list of disapprovals, from taking an ability that allows him to ignore one projectile every round to wielding two handed weapons in one hand. Tonight I'm going to have to block him by actually tallying how much all his gear costs and shaking my finger at him. I think I'll actually enjoy this one.
The second, sounds like a lady. There's an approach to their typing, the words they say and how they approach things that seems to come through. I may be wrong... Anyhow, she will be playing the dwarven paladin. We shall see how that goes. I have a feeling they will adhere to the provided rules without pushing the borders. I have a feeling they're more interested in their character and events.
The third character will probably be abandoning the game before two weeks is out. The elven rogue. Not too many words, some mispelled, quiet. I would expect after expanding on a thought as much as I did to get more than a 4 word reply. Either they are always very brief in the conversation, or they lack a zeal to get in there. We shall see how it goes.
Beyond this I've already received at least 3 more requests, however I'm feeling more picky. I feel like a dynamic of 3 is the minimum necessary to play, and some of the offers seem less than desirable. A Mary Sue possibly, a person with a pre-written story, someone with the already acquired roles in a party. I think I'll wait till everyone's created their character before I start. Maybe between now and then I'll get some good ones.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
A Wild Idea
I have a wild idea. Using RPOL an online gaming forum designed for roleplaying online, I'm going to create a game with no planning whatsoever. Only an opening scene and the desires of the players. I will make no maps ahead of time, no plot, no monster research and nothing but planning with the players and their desires. From there, I will craft the world as they push to explore it.
My hope is this will help me grow my creativity and ability to react to situations brought up by players. It also will help keep me from melting down just during the preparation. Finally, I will not be wasting anyones time in person.
Meanwhile, I will still be preparing for real people.
My hope is this will help me grow my creativity and ability to react to situations brought up by players. It also will help keep me from melting down just during the preparation. Finally, I will not be wasting anyones time in person.
Meanwhile, I will still be preparing for real people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
