Eclipse: Social Interaction Mechanics

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, Alf. You're bandying about certain terms that probably could be better defined. That is, when you say, "Takes all the fun out of Roleplaying," that seems to either be hyperbole, or perhaps you're talking about first person portrayal of characters. That is, are you saying that having resolution rolls for social stuff reduces the amount of play which involves players directly portraying their characters? Or that such play should form the resolution itself?

In any case, this is very much a matter of play style. Many people agree with you, and many disagree. To put some perspective on it, there are some people who play "Boffer LARP" in which you run around with soft swords, and combat resolution has to do with the actual fights that occur. These people would say that having a combat system with dice "takes all the fun out of" combat in RPGs.

Are these people being extremists?

No, they're merely roleplaying the way that they prefer. And just as some people prefer to "play out" combat, there are those like yourself who prefer to "play out" social interactions. And there are others who prefer to roll for such things.

Now, interestingly, when you roll for such things, that doesn't mean that first person portrayal has to dissappear. In fact, I play games that allow social interaction rolls of all sorts. And there is plenty of first person portrayal anyway.

Just to give an idea of why people like myself and others prefer social interaction mechanics, let's go back to the Boffer LARP example. Let's say you were confined to a wheelchair, but wanted to play a warrior. Very difficult in Boffer LARP, no? Similarly, what if your character is defined as someone who can fast talk his way out of any situation, and you aren't that good? Should you always be limited to playing characters who have no better social abilities than yourself? Seems overly limiting.

Mike

[Thor]

I had a campaign where thieves had a set of skills that included Making someone believe what you said, making someone believe you knew what you were talking about, and a third that was something like make people like you for a few minutes. These go way beyond that and would make a grifters campaign much more interesting. I love the ideas put forth and would love to see more of this type of thing.

We let the dice say how the fight is going because, for the most part, we don't fight; and so we accept the interface. We are not so sanguine when the skill is something we do every day. but the mechanisms allow for more and varried social interactions.

[Mike Holmes]

We let the dice say how the fight is going because, for the most part, we don't fight; and so we accept the interface. We are not so sanguine when the skill is something we do every day. but the mechanisms allow for more and varried social interactions.

I could have predicted that I'd see that argument. It came out just like that in the thread on social conflict in the TROS forum (yep, check it out, it's pertinent).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5276

The counterargument is that this is more or less true for individuals, but just a preference amongst many. Like I say, the Boffer LARPers would beg to differ - they see even inexperienced players who've never fought as viable players. Just as some players would expect a player with a speech impediment to play out the interactions of a Don Juan type character. Other people can see rolling for all of these things.

People should check out Privateer's & Gentlemen. In that game, you don't "play out" anything - there's a chart for everything. It even decides what actions your character takes a lot of the time. It's the other end of the spectrum from "freeform" where the player has to "play out" everything.

All just preference.

I love the thief example, Thor. Fast Talk, Rockford Files notwithstanding, is an unrealistic ability. But it's fun. You really can't expect a player to be able to play his character in such a way as to make it seem plausible. Even if he does it like the movies, it's implausible. So how do you model this? You have a roll. This works in so many places that I can only suggest that people open up to the possibility.

Mike