Quote from: Omnifray;420447Eloquent players have characters who persuade far better.

Players who are better at statistical probabilities and tactics have characters who fight far better.

And the big deal is?

It doesn't need to be that way?

Quote from: boulet;420421There is this subjective aspect of the process that puzzles me: in the end it's still the GM who decide if the IC speech is good enough to change the mind of the NPC. So what exact impact should a success/fail on the roll have? If in the end we're still observing that eloquent players persuade way better than others then I'm not sure what's the benefit compared to Pundit's "roleplay it and fuck social mechanics".

Quote from: Benoist;420441I agree.

Bottom line: fucking role play your characters and accept the consequences, people.

I don't think being unable to pin down the exact impact means that making any kind of roll is pointless. It's a judgment call, rather than a mathematically precise process, but that's what having a GM is all about.

Let's say I'm running Runequest and one of the PCs is trying to convince a couple of bands of Vikings to join his war party on a raid.

• He approaches the first band of Vikings, and I ask what he says, and I call for an Orate roll. The PC makes his speech, I mentally rate it a "B Plus," and he's rolled just enough to make a successful skill roll. I rule band #1 joins the expedition.


• He moves on to band #2, makes basically the same speech, and slightly fails the roll. I rule that captain #2 declines - maybe he sensed a faltering in the PC's confidence, or maybe just didn't like the cut of his jib.


• When he talks to the captain of band #3, the player thinks maybe he'd better step up his game, so in addition to what he's already laid out, he adds in the idea to the speech that it would be well to join along with captain #1, as when they return with the spoils, captain #2 will have been shown a coal-chewer and will regret the glory he lost the chance at claiming. I figure that's enough to give the speech more of an "A Minus," and when the PC rolls about the same as for #2, barely missing a success, but I rule the improved speech puts him over the top, and have the captain say "At the battle's end, I think the glory will prove more mine than yours, but I can't pass up the chance to show up my rival. But next time, less bluster, it wears on my patience."

I would qualify this by saying if I'm using a skill system I'm usually going to be judging the content of the speech more than the player's acting ability - the PC providing the 'plan' and the roll the 'execution." It's less about if I, as the GM, am actually persuaded, as whether I think the NPC would probably be persuaded by the argument made. The "probably" gives ground for a skill roll.

I think it's not entirely different from still calling for an animal handling roll even if I'm adding an ad hoc modification to the roll because the PC is giving a horse an apple to help make friends with it, or still calling for a balance roll even if the roll is easier because the PC has decided to use his staff as a balancing pole. I am not going to be a fan of rules systems that exactingly define how much bonus giving an apple to a horse or improvising a balance pole give, so it's as much a judgment call on my part as the "bonus" the player's speech affords. Often I will not call for rolls in all kinds of gaming situations where the approach the player lays out seems sure to work (or impossible) but in many situations I feel throwing in an element of chance can make the game more interesting.

To differing degrees what the player lays out can be the "english" on a roll, or, for example, as some might do for social situations, have the speech be, effectively, the main "roll" and have the literal roll provide the "english." It could convey the "je ne sais quois" of a particularly magnetic character, or you could look at the roll as largely reflecting the NPC's mood or undefined personal prejudices.

I don't think there is anything wrong with eliminating rolls for social skills (or for anything, for that matter - Amber plays just fine with good players), but just because there isn't an infallible "charismometer" giving a reading to plug into some kind of formula, doesn't mean that social skill rolls are any more 'pure GM fiat' than any other roll. They're just another factor the GM uses to make a ruling.

Quote from: Omnifray;420454Excessive intervention of game in dialogue. Total negation of actual immersive roleplay.

Depends how you approach it really. ANY use of random resolution mech. is going to break immersion so why use them at all IF that is the goal?

Maybe you have "persuasion" tactics (mod. by charisma etc.) which are RPed and you have "Def. tact." that are RPed (well or not) Each char./NPC has a matrix of interactions and resolve (which could go up or down accordingly) is effected thereby.

Check out the Dying Earth RP system,it uses something similar to great immersive/emmulative effect.It's a neat system  because it can be used without any random mech. by stating in the 1st person or for those without RPing skill in the 3rd person or whatever...

or...you could just role-play it....

Quote from: TristramEvans;420460It doesn't need to be that way?

I'm afraid it really does.

Free naturalistic dialogue is probably the swiftest tool to immersive tabletop roleplay. We're not in costume. We're not doing all the gestures and posing. It's just talk. And talking as your character would talk - that's the best way of standing in his shoes in the tabletop environment.

The ONLY way to remove the player's eloquence from this as a factor is to rule on how the dialogue goes based on dice-rolls or conversational tactics adopted (conversational tactics could be illustrated by snippets of dialogue, or could be abstract). At some point, the dialogue has to be interrupted to give way to a straitjacketed outcome based on a combination of dice-rolls and/or conversational tactics.

If you are NOT willing to straitjacket the outcome at some point, if natural dialogue remains the source, process and outcome (which by the way is key to MAXIMISING immersion), then you cannot exclude the player's eloquence from the process except by self-censorship, but self-censorship as a form of metagame inherently interferes with his immersion.

So there is NO WAY to remove player eloquence from the conversation as any kind of factor without affecting immersion. Of course the ref can try to compensate by always going harder on the eloquent player, but I don't really see the need for that, and anyhow it wouldn't be a perfect tool, it would be very subjective, and you could well find yourself overpenalising or underpenalising the eloquent player signficiantly. His eloquence would still be, directly or indirectly, a factor in the outcome - as would your attempt to compensate for it. Unless you had godlike abilities to compensate for it perfectly.

So player eloquence DOES HAVE to be a factor if you are going to maximise immersion.

Of course, the ref can try to compensate for player eloquence directly. But I think that will tend to be counterproductive as it is a distraction for the GM for no real benefit, detracts from the element of player skill in the game and may inhibit players from revealing how eloquent they are except at key moments. And that last one would inhibit immersion too because it requires metagamey self-restraint in dialogue, and is dishonest.

So all in all, I'm afraid it REALLY DOES HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.

Quote from: skofflox;420464Depends how you approach it really. ANY use of random resolution mech. is going to break immersion so why use them at all IF that is the goal?

I say my model will not negatively impact on player immersion during the actual critical dialogue process which is the main building block of immersion. As the dice-check is done beforehand and secret and its effects do not straitjacket the conversation, its impact on (EDITED to add:- PLAYER) immersion is trivial and no greater than other interventions of the rules in the game generally.

It does impact on GM in-character immersion in a minor way. I consider that a trivial concern.

Quote from: Omnifray;420468I say my model will not negatively impact on player immersion during the actual critical dialogue process which is the main building block of immersion. As the dice-check is done beforehand and secret and its effects do not straitjacket the conversation, its impact on (EDITED to add:- PLAYER) immersion is trivial and no greater than other interventions of the rules in the game generally.

It does impact on GM in-character immersion in a minor way. I consider that a trivial concern.

roger that!
And as a side note to your reply to Tristram etc. ("Straightjacket" comments) most folk do fall into habits and this can be more immersive than having Characters/NPC be able to react in any way the DM thinks is apropos to the dialogue though I think a "good" DM would have this in mind anyway depending on how they invisioned the NPC.
Some people have buttons that can be pushed for good and ill and not all can change those responses in an instance. Depends on the personality/situation of the individual so perhaps having pre-set stat/tact. can actualy be an aide in immersion in those cases!

This is kinda like the old "arguments" surrounding an Intellegence stat.
anywho good stuff Omni!

Quote from: Benoist;420441I agree.

Bottom line: fucking role play your characters and accept the consequences, people.

OK.

Ben, what is the place of having character attributes?  Different games have different effects for them.  But when we design a roleplaying game, often stats effect the succes of things.  One of the improvements of many games is to try to even out the effects of character stats, so that all of them are useful.  To get rid of dump stats.
Some people like AD&D, for example.  In that particular game, being strong helps you hit things or damage them.  My personal ability to hit things can't be used to replace the character attribute of strength.  Nor does my personal health really effect my character's ability to resist poison, lets say, or to take more or less damage.
Even the more cerebral stats, intelligence and wisdom, have in game effects, in terms of how many spells can be cast or memorized.

We allow the governing character stat to have an in-game effect in most circumstances.  And since I am playing a character with a charisma stat (or something that takes it's place, or derived skills therein), having the abilities of my character color interactions in the game world that deal with that stat makes a lot of sense.

And in that vein, I tend to run games that have charisma-based characters/professions.  I saw it was a problem with bardic/charisma based characters in a lot of systems.    And without the ability to have the game to some degree modify the effects of the character's charisma based skills upon the setting, you are stuck with bards, etc being just fighters/thieves.

Skofflox, want to comment on the use of these skills in game?  Does it make PCs more likely to try to use these skills?  Does in increase or decrease RP?

Quote from: Omnifray;420467I'm afraid it really does.

Free naturalistic dialogue is probably the swiftest tool to immersive tabletop roleplay. We're not in costume. We're not doing all the gestures and posing. It's just talk. And talking as your character would talk - that's the best way of standing in his shoes in the tabletop environment.

Without responding to the rest of your post just yet, I'm going to have to challenge this basic assumption. while I agree that in general, IC dialogue is a huge step towards Immersion, I know there are people, myself included, for whom IC dialogue actually removes me from the Immersive experience, for one reason or another. I'm currently involved in 3 games, all of which include a fellow player who is a professional voice actor. His in-character dialogue is amazing, and when he GMs, his NPcs are incredibly entertaining and I definitely envy his ability to control and manipulate his voice.

I, OTOH, have a very hard time with public speaking, even in a game enviornment, and could not affect a believable accent if my life depended on it. In my head, I know how my characters sound. But to try to speak in a mock-variation of my character's voice I find incredibly unrewarding and distracting. For example, in one game I am playing an Irish Catholic nun. At best I will sprinkly my IC comments with a few pseudo-gaelic contractions and Eirean turns-of-phrase, but I am instantly removed from the game in an immersive sense whenever I hear my deep gravelly man-voice stumbling over her dialogue.

OTOH, I have no problem whatsoever listening to the "gist" of what any character or player is saying and in my own head instantly translating that into the voice of the in-game character. Just as I can watch subtitles on a foreign film and interpret from the sentance construction the conceptual understanding that the person is speaking in another language with it's own rules of grammer, syntax and lexicon. I prefer this to roughly-translated English dubbed over the OL.

I don't need a fellow player or myself to speak IC only to maintain Immersion, as my imagination will almost automatically "fill in the blanks" as to what's happening or being said in my mind's eye view of the gameworld. And unless the player speaking is actually talented at voices like my friend, hearing a botched or imperfect ad-hoc speech is more likely than not to disrupt my immersion in the game reality.

I'd say "description" for me can be much more of an aid to immersion than forcing everyone to speak in-character constantly.

Quote from: Cole;420461I don't think being unable to pin down the exact impact means that making any kind of roll is pointless. It's a judgment call, rather than a mathematically precise process, but that's what having a GM is all about.

To be clear, that's exactly what I meant myself. It's not that rolls are completely useless or uncalled for. It's that no matter what, roll or no roll, there is a judgment call being made by the GM, and players have to get used to the idea.

Quote from: Benoist;420481To be clear, that's exactly what I meant myself. It's not that rolls are completely useless or uncalled for. It's that no matter what, roll or no roll, there is a judgment call being made by the GM, and players have to get used to the idea.

Well, all is right with the world again.

Quote from: LordVreeg;420478OK.

Ben, what is the place of having character attributes?

They are a tool for randomization of outcomes. That is, when you're trying to force open a door, walk on a rope, and so on. In other words, they are a tool for the GM to say "OK, there are several possible outcomes to what you're trying to do. Here's how we're going to resolve this and find out the outcome", which in effect takes the form of stat rolls, oppositions, uses of this or that number, whatnot.

But in the end, there's a GM call being made. It's just part of the deal with RPGs, to me.

Quote from: LordVreeg;420482Well, all is right with the world again.

Hehe. There's a reason why diceless role playing doesn't rock my socks so much.

Nah. The point I was making really was: in either case, roll or no roll, there's a GM judgment call going on, and that's how it should be, IMO.

Quote from: LordVreeg;420478OK.

Ben, what is the place of having character attributes?  Different games have different effects for them.  But when we design a roleplaying game, often stats effect the succes of things.  One of the improvements of many games is to try to even out the effects of character stats, so that all of them are useful.  To get rid of dump stats.
Some people like AD&D, for example.  In that particular game, being strong helps you hit things or damage them.  My personal ability to hit things can't be used to replace the character attribute of strength.  Nor does my personal health really effect my character's ability to resist poison, lets say, or to take more or less damage.
Even the more cerebral stats, intelligence and wisdom, have in game effects, in terms of how many spells can be cast or memorized.

We allow the governing character stat to have an in-game effect in most circumstances.  And since I am playing a character with a charisma stat (or something that takes it's place, or derived skills therein), having the abilities of my character color interactions in the game world that deal with that stat makes a lot of sense.

And in that vein, I tend to run games that have charisma-based characters/professions.  I saw it was a problem with bardic/charisma based characters in a lot of systems.    And without the ability to have the game to some degree modify the effects of the character's charisma based skills upon the setting, you are stuck with bards, etc being just fighters/thieves.

Skofflox, want to comment on the use of these skills in game?  Does it make PCs more likely to try to use these skills?  Does in increase or decrease RP?

You bring up good points here.
Some of this depends on the skill of the player and how "mature" they are (munchkin powergaming etc.).

Some systems leave things at the bare minimum. You are a Warrior. OK so a warrior can do what exactly? well this is a nomadic,plains dwelling horse culture. Well that gives me a bit more,I can build on this. I am playing a witty,dextrous horse culture nomadic warrior specializing in bows...etc.Now fighters are pretty straight up archtypes. This gets more sticky considering Bards etc. which deal with more subtle approaches.

Now me being an old hand at RPG I get a good feel for what I can do from having this background and the setting perameters from the GM/group.  I will stay within the given capabilities/level of the character etc. as I try to build immersion for all concerned.I will push how these things may be used accordingly.
Others may need a bit more. Having lists of Att/skills is a good thing for many systems and facilitates in char. actions. I see no reason this is not the same for "social encounters"  ie "dialogue" scenes (don't forget about the 80% of communication that is transmitted via posture,infliction,facial expression etc.)So...

How much detail (att./skills etc. ) are needed to get an understanding of what your character can/would do is very subgective. I feel that these sorts of things can be a boon in developing a character and to provide impetus to use said skills etc. in an appropriate (in character) way,thereby aiding in the immersion when coupled with minimum reso. mech.

or something like that...

Quote from: boulet;420421There is this subjective aspect of the process that puzzles me: in the end it's still the GM who decide if the IC speech is good enough to change the mind of the NPC. So what exact impact should a success/fail on the roll have?

If you have a problem with a GM's subjective judgments, you have chosen the wrong hobby

I run it like this. There are three ways to do it,

• "Just roll the skill" - whatever the dice say, that's what happens
• "Just talk" - forget the dice, roleplay it, say or do something awesomely cool or stupid, well you wear it
• "Describe more or less what you say, then roll the dice" - what you say gives a bonus, never a malus, otherwise see #1

This lets the players who want to roleplay it out do so, and the ones who can't be bothered just roll the dice. It rewards those who are excellent roleplayers and good talkers, and rewards them even more if they use the system. I've no problem with good roleplayers doing better in a session than poor roleplayers. The poor roleplayers just need to know the game system better and get the skills for their characters.

Plus, not everyone wants to roleplay out every social interaction. "I get the best price I can for the donkeys to carry our gear, then we leave town for the dungeon."

Good point Kyle but I wasn't only talking from the players POV but from the GM trying a new system too. When I read a social interaction mechanic I have an eye for fairness and wonder if deciding malus/bonus will be a tough call.

I like your open approach where players choose what type of resolution works for them. But it can be played, at a meta-level. Example: an eloquent player who didn't make his character socially sharp (to invest all in combat or what not) but knows it doesn't matter because he will push for the "pure talk" resolution all the time.