[L5R] who asks for skill checks and what we did after

[Storn]

This weekend I was playing in a Legends of the Five Rings game.  It was a 2 parter, the 1st part was a solo for my charcter.  The 2nd parter was adding M as player.  Reffed by B.

B is a medieval history professor who picked L5R many years ago because it WASN'T like his day job.  Waaay before I or M showed up in the game, B had been playing this campaign in a rotating GM fashion with 2 other GMs.  They had divvied up Rokugan, and since this was a scattered group, it is once every 6 months kinda thing.  These three GMs have crafted an amazing creation and the cooperation and the compitition to surprise each other is truly wonderful.  B lives somewhat closer to M and myself, so the L5R campaign has been more frequent in the last couple of years.

M is an avid martial artist, lover of martial arts movies and came to the game with a built in understanding of the genre.

and I am Storn.  Since I've have painted dozens upon dozens of L5R cards, I too, had gleaned a skewed understanding of the world.


Now.  Before the game had started I had been reading Ron's thread on d20 and who asks for skill checks question came up.  Here:  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19889.0

I mentioned this prior to play to B as being interesting.  I had told B, that as a player and GM that I used to prefer just roleplaying it out... making a persuasive argument for social skill checks.  NOt really using Persuasion from Hero.... or Fast Talk or Intimidate from d20 or other games.  But B had slowly changed my mine on the subject, as he uses tons of social skill checks in the context of L5R.  At first, this irked me.  But as time went on in the L5R game, I grew to appreciate it.  It gave social skills equal, if not greater weight, than combat prowess.

Now a scene comes up that involves M, whereas my character is sitting on info and I want to keep sitting on it.  But NPCs are chattering away and unknowingly to the NPCs and M (but not to B!), getting dangerously close to illiciting a reaction from my character.  I asked for a skill check to "remain impassive"... which keyed M into "Storn knows a lot more about the situation than the PC is demonstrating.".  Now, my PC is rapidly becoming a courtier.  M's PC is a overly large (a social disad in L5r), extremely sharp warrior.  Sharp as in not much gets by him.  Canny, but his social skills are almost inept.  Its a great push-pull with the character.

My skill roll is WAAAAY beyond poor M's character to match.  I win the contest and remain impassive.  But I then broke out of character and looked at M and said... "Oh, I want YOU to know that I have more info.... perhaps a later scene will coax it out."  Which I, in that moment, felt was important.  So it wasn't about nyah-nyah, I won the skil check and you didn't.  It was about, hey, together we might craft a scene where my fears about remaining loyal by keeping the secret can be softened... and the secret can come out at the table.

I spoke to M last night, brought up that scene... and he was very accepting and gracious about it.  Didn't feel like he had "lost", but that acknowledgement by me that I had more info helped avoid a competitive tone between the two of us.

So, in conclusion, I think players asking for a Skill check occasionally can be really interesting.

Sidebar:  Something interesting came out of that scene between M and I in our phone conversation (which actually started about other things besides gaming, it wasn't the purpose of the phone call... it came at the end).  M is becoming an avid wargamer, playing Confrontation these days.  He is also the newest player in the L5R campaign, which has hundreds of NPCs and conspiracies and plots that would make a Harkonian dizzy.  He built his Moto Todoichi as this uber heavy cavalry dude. 

B thought that "Flag" was that M was interested in the combat side of L5R.  And indeed, crafted a story around a pretty narly small unit confrontation for that evening.  And purposefully was avoiding doing a lot of the social stuff that surrounds my character.

What M and I worked out is that, yes, M is interested in combat.  But he is also very interested in playing up that he is not slick, not socially adept...but he is astute.  So he WANTS those social scenes and WANTS to attempt social skill checks, precisely because he will fail many of them.  Then, he can either choose to raise those skills, slowly growing into a more political role... or not, playing off the miscues and a assumptions of the NPCs.

I thought that was very interesting. 

[Valamir]

Two things of special interest to me in this thread.

1) How did it feel in the overall flow of the game for you to break the fourth wall and cue M in on your meta intentions for your skill check?  I have a belief that with sufficient practice, familiarity, and trust among players, that that sort of popping up to orchestrate things at a meta level before slipping back into character mode is not only not disruptive to playing one's character but ultimately enhances the experience.

2) I find it very interesting how easily flags can be completely misinterpreted when there isn't overt discussion on what the flag means.  Did you create characters jointly for this campaign?  What M's character created in the presence of you and the GM with lots of back and forth and "yeah that would cool"s and the like...thereby getting everybody on the same page as to what exactly the flags were and weren't.  If not, do you think that that would have been helpful at making sure the GM (and just as importantly, you) understood what M's true desire for the character was?

[Bankuei]

Hi,

1) What edition of L5R are you guys playing with?
2) How does a GM prep & run for your group? (prescripted plot with or without branching options/adaptable on the fly/etc.)

I know for 1st & 3rd edition there wasn't really any text about what happens in a session, so groups end up borrowing their understanding from other games, which drastically changes how much input a player is allowed to have and how (including the skill use/request stuff).

Chris

[Storn]

I have a belief that with sufficient practice, familiarity, and trust among players, that that sort of popping up to orchestrate things at a meta level before slipping back into character mode is not only not disruptive to playing one's character but ultimately enhances the experience.

Agreed.  It was seamless this time.  But this is something that I've done before in other games with these players.  Most often as the GM, like breaking and saying 'hey, I have nothing more for this scene, we can continue...but I don't have anything to add"   or sometimes making sure that "this scene is color.  If it sparks something, great.  But you aren't missing a clue if we move to another scene."

We went right on playing after the metagame break.

Did you create characters jointly for this campaign? 

No.  I wasn't around when M's Moto Todaichi was created.  I knew that M's entry PC was going to be "Unicorn" as B's end of Rokugan and my established character and another local Player, R, were very involved with Unicorn Clan going's on. But that was all I knew.  This was due more to logistics than any desire or agenda on all our parts.  In fact, R had the first character outside of the 3 co-GMs.  I was 2nd.  M is 3rd.  We were all staggered in our creation.

The interesting thing is that my first PC I made for this game, I eventually rejected before play.  Making up my current Mirumoto Tsuntake from the first experience.  The first character didn't have good hooks, drive etc.  Tsuntake has "Seeks Truth behind History and Myth" and "Obligation: Unicorn" despite being a Dragon (mum was a Unicorn).  That "Seeks Truth..." bit was a slight, cheap, almost toss-off disad... since raised!... because it has been a great mighty engine driving drama and conflict.  This almost reporter-like philosophy has made Tsuntake one of my favorite PCs of all time.

My original PC is now a minor NPC... which is fun.  As he has become a prankster known for his cartooning and lampooning of important issues and personalities... which is kinda poking fun of me too!

1) What edition of L5R are you guys playing with?

For this thread, I'm not sure it matters.  I was really trying to talk about how a player asking for a skill check seemed to work in our case.  But for the record, we are playing 2.7, mostly 3rd Ed and a couple of combat tweaks (our game is very low magic, and the high magic emphasis and high combat emphasis played with the already established tone) surviving from 2nd ed.

2) How does a GM prep & run for your group? (prescripted plot with or without branching options/adaptable on the fly/etc.)quote]

I would consider B a high prep GM.  He really spends time carefully crafting NPCs, one of his great strengths.

I know for certain (cause we talked about afterwards) were that a couple of scenes were cribbed from Challenge, Focus, Strike (think Hook, Line, Sinker) online sources.  That fit perfectly with the backdrop of a Unicorn/Lion all out war.  Each CFS was about 3-5 paragraphs that he modified to fit our particular characters and situations.  But the backdrop of the Unicorn/Lion war and our parts in it, is pretty much original stuff.

Despite the high prep, B is fairly flexible.  I've thrown him a few curves and he has always responded extremely well to what I've done.  I'm a very proactive character in this game and very invested.  As you can probably tell.

[Bankuei]

Hi Storn,

I asked about the edition issue because 3rd attempts to create a social skill matrix whereas the other two editions did not... which may have contributed to the desire to use social skill rolls more often.  Here's a question though- it sounds like the skill requests are pc vs. pc- has anyone made requests for rolls vs. npcs?

Chris

[Storn]

Hi Storn,

I asked about the edition issue because 3rd attempts to create a social skill matrix whereas the other two editions did not... which may have contributed to the desire to use social skill rolls more often.  Here's a question though- it sounds like the skill requests are pc vs. pc- has anyone made requests for rolls vs. npcs?

Chris

Ooops, my above post quoted my answer after the quote.  duh.

Let's see.  3rd ed vs. 2nd ed.  I haven't noticed an increase for social rolls from B.  They have always been there several in either edition.  But I've played in 3rd only twice.  Before that, I probably was in 10 eps in 2nd ed...something like that.

I must admit that I do not have 3rd ed.  It was just a bit pricy and at the time it came out, I was a bit strapped. 

And there were several rolls asked by B of PC v. NPC interaction.  As he tends to ask for quite a few.  I suspect that it is his own particular tendency, regardless of system.  But it was his GMing that got me thinking about it, and it coincided with some threads here on the Forge. 

I focused on the Playver v. Player social skill call from me as it seemed out of the norm.  Yet, between the three of us, a very comfortable thing and easily handled.  One of my concerns about the Forge is that we often focus on the disconnects at the table.  For once, I could remember a GOOD event at the table and wanted to share how it seemed to work for us.

[Storn]

I just jumped back to the conversation in Spell/Swords/ D&D that I linked to up at the top.  And I just remembered a scene that NO dice rolls were asked for. 

The situation was this.  My Dragon, Tsuntake, was in charge of a Unicorn scout unit.  We are sent to retrieve another scouting unit of Otaku battle maidens, a role that they are not super suited for.... as they are heavy cav.  This was into Lion territory and it is during wartime.

We find one of the battle maidens on the brink of death, but in true bushido fashion, she lives long enough to report.  Now, my character is aware of a banned Lion technique for killing horses, considered very dishonorable.  He had found in a previous adventure, "forbidden Lion Histories".  It seems that the Lion have put together a special unit who's purpose in this war is to do precisely that.  This unit ambushed the Otaku patrol.  Our dying battle maiden asks me to take revenge.  And so I swear... very Rokugan thing to do.

We track the Lion unit down.  There are 6 of them.  4 of us.   Now, I'm uncomfortable ambushing them from stealthy positions.  I, too, have been pressed into a service I'm not quite suited for skill-wise (but had the status for) by the pressures of war.  My subordinates, both NPCs and M, had no problem attacking from ambush... as in war, the rules of engagment relax a little.  But part of this was I WANTED the Lion unit to know who was exacting revenge.

So I had my people, mounted, below the ridge, while I went up to the ridge and shouted, startling the Lion Unit.  I called them dogs, who I was, who I served...blah... blah... blah.  Boasting is very much part of Rokugan, although I have a tough time of it.  But I was filled with enough righteous indignation that I reallly wanted to rub the Lion's noses in it.

Here's the thing.  NO DIE ROLLS WERE MADE. 

Now, I wasn't trying to incite them into a fury (although all 6 of them initially came running at me after names and titles were exchanged).  I just wanted them to know that Tsuntake in the service of Shinjo Shiro wanted their lives.  B correctly interperted that from me... I never said "I just want them to know" or asked for actual, specific reaction; "I want them rattled and at a disadvantage".  He somehow knew that I wasn't seeking an edge through Intimidate or similar social skill.   Nope.  I just wanted to make the statement.

Statement was made.  B responded, especially with their commander, who had some personality (he was arrogant Lion).

Once combat started, of course, die rolling begain.  For the record, I barely survived, but killed the commander.  My troops mericilessly rode rings around them in typical Mongol style, firing arrows from horseback at close range, killing all of them.  It was brutal.  It was very satisfying, I must say.

Conclusion:  This is where RPGs become art.  Sometimes the GM asks for die rolls, Rarely, the Players ask for die rolls... and sometimes... no die rolls are necessary.  How we as designers weave this into systems or explain in the text of RPGs seems like a titanic task.  This is such an organic process within a group... I'm not sure how one can create a foundation that makes sense to every group... and that is what rules in RPGs seem to be to me... a foundation to build the stories upon in a gamelike fashion.

[Bankuei]

Hi Storn,

How we as designers weave this into systems or explain in the text of RPGs seems like a titanic task

I think that's a little exaggeration :)  I'd say how designers weave that together is how we get a functional game that does what it's supposed to- tell you how to play it.  Have you read Ron's article on D&D?  It's very important to understanding what's going on with the D&D thread and the issue there.  Everyone's come up with their own take on the fuzziness of "When we use the dice" because a lot of games have historically left that -key- element absent.  Compare, for instance, to Dogs in the Vineyards' very clear, "Say yes or roll the dice".  Other games also have similarly clear rules for how the dice get used.

Anyway- 1st & 2nd edition have always had social skills, but for the most part the use of them has been a pretty "figure it out yourself" kind of thing.  Third Edition gives specific skills to use against specific other skills, and it's a rather kludgy way (you have to look up those details in each of the skills' descriptions, and 3rd is generally ramble-y in it's writing style).

For once, I could remember a GOOD event at the table and wanted to share how it seemed to work for us.

Ouch!  I hope you manage to get good sessions and even campaigns in the future!

Chris

[Storn]

Ouch!  I hope you manage to get good sessions and even campaigns in the future!

I think you misinterperted my statement.  It was a good session in a very good campaign.  Which is my point.  It is harder to talk about when stuff goes well... because it doesn't stick in the mind like when stuff goes badly.

I think that's a little exaggeration :)  I'd say how designers weave that together is how we get a functional game that does what it's supposed to- tell you how to play it.  Have you read Ron's article on D&D?  It's very important to understanding what's going on with the D&D thread and the issue there.  Everyone's come up with their own take on the fuzziness of "When we use the dice" because a lot of games have historically left that -key- element absent.  Compare, for instance, to Dogs in the Vineyards' very clear, "Say yes or roll the dice".  Other games also have similarly clear rules for how the dice get used.

But Ron's article is NOT in d20 Dungeon Master's Guide.  It probably should be.  Hence, my statement 'this crap ain't easy on designers!"

And just saying "Say yes or roll the dice" is not for everyone or for every system.  Sure, its nice and neat and encapsulated... and an overall philosophy of dice meets RPG that I wholeheartedly agree with.  But going back to the "who asks for a skill check"... the GM says "yes".  Player says "No.  I want a skil check" is viable reaction as far as I know.

But more importantly, there are plenty of functional games with very disfunctional systems (Champions anyone?).  There are plenty of REALLY great systems that give tons of foundation to the game session and it still ends in a blah session or disfunctional group.

Tell me how to play it... and I'm IMMEDIATELY going to judge that for myself... and tweak it if necessary to my personality and MY group.  Dogs in the Vineyard looks awesome, I would love to play... but its not appropriate to everyone or all groups.  I think that is evident. 

Since roleplaying is totally an odd type of social structure play into story... a system cannot tell anyone HOW to play correctly.  It can only give guidelines, guideposts and suggestions.

d20 is the most popular, well known RPG out there.  And I think a lot of problems are precisely because d20 has a type of gameplay/story foundation that many players are not suited for.  And certainly better guidelines would go a long way in helping... but they are always going to be suggestions and not actual; here is the CORRECT way to roleplay.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

I'm not saying there is any -one way- to roleplay, or that "Say yes..." fits everyone.  I gave Dogs as an example of complete rules.   And, when you're armed with complete rules, you can then make a better guess about whether it's going to fit you or not, whereas with incomplete rules, you have to play trial and error and hope that the game that these people are playing is close to the game you want to be playing.

Chris

[Storn]

Hi,

I'm not saying there is any -one way- to roleplay, or that "Say yes..." fits everyone.  I gave Dogs as an example of complete rules.   And, when you're armed with complete rules, you can then make a better guess about whether it's going to fit you or not, whereas with incomplete rules, you have to play trial and error and hope that the game that these people are playing is close to the game you want to be playing.

Chris

AGreed.