| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:06 am Post subject: How do you use Intimidation in your game? |
 |
|
I created a new thread in case people wanted to continue the question of intimidation, automatic intimidation, and different types of intimidation: PC vs NPC, NPC vs PC, NPC vs NPC, and PC vs PC.
The orginal thread was here - look at the last couple of pages.
Last edited by Bren on Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is my response to Whill's post which was here
| Whill wrote: | I never roll Intimidation for Gamemaster Characters. So Vader, being an GC, would never have Intimidation rolled for him. The same can be said for Command and Persuasion too.
PCs can't be game mechanically commanded, intimidated or persuaded at all. It is up to the players of the PCs to roleplay reactions they feel are appropriate. If someone (CG or another PC) tells a PC to do something, it is up to the player if his PC follows that order or not. I don't make players roll Willpower to see if they persevere over the fear caused by CG Intimidation. A player decides if his PC is intimidated or not and how he reacts. Likewise, a player decides if his PC is persuaded or not.
I also think it is pointless to roll for GCs to interact with other CGs. I, the GM, am the roleplayer of all the GCs, so I just decide who intimidates who and who persuades who and who follows whose orders. So, in the example I keep reading about, Vader could walk into a room and intimidate however many CGs I say he does, and the GC group reacts how I say they do, with little regard to anyone's skill dice. Now I might still give an Intimidation skill die value to a CG, but that would really be not much more than a reminder for myself how intimidating I want to roleplay and describe the CG.
In my interpretation of the game, those interactions skills are actually only for PCs to use on GCs. PCs can't use them on each other because they roleplay them out, and I just roleplay all CG-to-CG interaction. You don't want to let game mechanics become a substitution for roleplaying.
As far as the other interactions skills, I just apply a similar logic to how they are handled in each situation.
I would still roll Bargain for a CG as an opposed action to a player rolling Bargain for his PC when they are haggling over a price, but I would not roll Bargain for two GCs against each other. I just decide on the outcome of the haggling. And the rolls determine the final price, but a player still has free will to decide if his PC completes the transaction or not, and I roleplay the GCs' decisions to accept the final haggled price or not.
I do roll for multiple GCs at a gambling table if there is even one PC, because this an a group opposed roll situation. But a table of only GCs gambling against each other with a PC just observing the game, I'm not going to bother to roll anyone's Gambling skill. The story (GM) just decides who wins.
Sometimes if a CG tells a PC something and the player of the PC is skeptical of what is being said, I may then allow the player to roll his PC's Perception or Con to attempt to sense the motive of the CG to see if they see any tells or have any intuitions that the CG may be lying to his PC or not. In that case I may make a Con roll for the GC if he is lying (and just roll dice behind my screen for effect anyway if he is not), but if the PC gets no impression he is being mislead, the player still has the freedom to roleplay his PC to not believe what he was told.
I use to have a sign hanging on the front of my GM screen that was intended to just be a simple reminder for the players, "Role, not roll." |
There are four possible types of intimidation.
(1) PC vs NPC
(2) NPC vs NPC
(3) NPC vs PC
(4) PC vs PC
Let's look at them one by one.
(1) PC vs NPC - I agree with you that this skill gets rolled out.
(2) NPC vs NPC - What you suggest Whill presumes the GM has a preference about who is or is not intimidated amongst the NPCs. Sometimes I do because it advances the story in an interesting or plot related direction or because it seems more consistent to character, but often I don't have a preference. In that case, since I don't know how the encounter should play out, I prefer to let the dice decide NPC vs NPC intimidation rather than trying mentally play out opposed Strassberg method acting scenes in my head to find out what happens. This may be a difference between letting a story evolve rather than intentionally guiding it in a particular direction.
(3) NPC vs PC - while I agree that generally don't want to control the PC's actions. I may want to provide a consequence to a failed roll. I also want to allow the game to differentiate a bit between a high willpower character and a low willpower character. Generally I do this by having a failed willpower roll provide a bonus to the intimidating character's skills or penalty to the target's skills. The player then knows that he is, say -2D in this encounter, but it is still his choice how to act. He may still decide not to back down, but it is now a more difficult decision for the player (just like it would be for the character). I should note that I have often had a player request to make a willpower roll vs. the NPC's intimidation roll because the player wanted to know how frightened his character was.
(4) PC vs PC - similar to my example above, I have had players want to match intimidations or intimidation vs willpower to find out who scares whom. This gets used less often, but does still occur. If a roll is desired, it can be run like (3) abovel.
I know this system may not be for everyone. For some it is too controlling of the PCs actions in case (3) and (4). For others, it doesn't allow the GM to guide the story as much as he or she might like. But we have used this type of resolution across multiple games systems over the last 20 years. So for our group, it seems to work well.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And I guess I should clarify that GC (and my dislexic typo CG) = NPC. I try to not to use the D&D term for gamemaster character but it seems NPC is a very common designation to gamers in general. Whatever, I just wanted to clarify what I meant by GC (and CG) = the characters controlled by the GM.
| Bren wrote: | There are four possible types of intimidation.
(1) PC vs NPC
(2) NPC vs NPC
(3) NPC vs PC
(4) PC vs PC |
Thanks for breaking it down more clearly than I did.
| Bren wrote: | | NPC vs NPC - What you suggest Whill presumes the GM has a preference about who is or is not intimidated amongst the NPCs. |
I suggest and presume nothing. I was merely stating my own personal preference as a GM. Sorry that wasn't more clear.
| Bren wrote: | | This may be a difference between letting a story evolve rather than intentionally guiding it in a particular direction. |
I have to admit I do tend to intentionally guide the story in a particular direction at any given moment. I feel that player choices for PC actions bring in plenty of randomness to allow the story to evolve. When the players take the story in a different dierection than I had in mind, sometimes I steer things back on course and other times I just go with the flow of the story. However, when the story changes, I usually still just roleplay GC interactions. I guess I am sometimes like a GPS navigator that continually recalculates when a driver takes an unexpected turn. 8)
| Bren wrote: | | I should note that I have often had a player request to make a willpower roll vs. the NPC's intimidation roll because the player wanted to know how frightened his character was. |
I have never had this happen, but if a player actually wanted to let skill values and randomness determine how his PC is effected by GC interaction, then I supposed I could go with that.
| Bren wrote: | | PC vs PC - similar to my example above, I have had players want to match intimidations or intimidation vs willpower to find out who scares whom. This gets used less often, but does still occur. |
I've never had this happen either, but if both players mutually agreed to the "rules" of the interaction than I don't see why they couldn't do this. The concept still seems a little wacky to me though.
But to each his own! Thanks for sharing these experiences from your game, Bren.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | And I guess I should clarify that GC (and my dislexic typo CG) = NPC... |
Your abbreviations were clear from context. I just tend to use PC and NPC. They are short and most players know what they mean.
| Quote: | | Thanks for breaking it down more clearly than I did. |
Well, you know me and logical cases. 
| Quote: | | Bren wrote: | | NPC vs NPC - What you suggest Whill presumes the GM has a preference about who is or is not intimidated amongst the NPCs. |
I suggest and presume nothing. I was merely stating my own personal preference as a GM. Sorry that wasn't more clear. |
It was clear it was your preference. But that preference only makes sense if the GM has a desired direction for the story. If the GM truly has no preference in story direction, then how does the GM decide who wins the contest without using the respective skills?
That's all I meant by preference. Sometimes I want to steer the story, sometimes I don't. It sounds as if you are generally somewhat more directionally intentional as a GM and hence prefer to steer the story rather than randomly deciding based on opposed skill rolls.
| Quote: | | Bren wrote: | | I should note that I have often had a player request to make a willpower roll vs. the NPC's intimidation roll because the player wanted to know how frightened his character was. |
I have never had this happen, but if a player actually wanted to let skill values and randomness determine how his PC is effected by GC interaction, then I supposed I could go with that.
| Bren wrote: | | PC vs PC - similar to my example above, I have had players want to match intimidations or intimidation vs willpower to find out who scares whom. This gets used less often, but does still occur. |
I've never had this happen either, but if both players mutually agreed to the "rules" of the interaction than I don't see why they couldn't do this. The concept still seems a little wacky to me though.
But to each his own! Thanks for sharing these experiences from your game, Bren. |
Most of my players, and all the core players, are familiar with the opposed traits rolls of Pendragon and the Sanity rolls of Call of Cthulhu so they are used to having the dice decide how their PC may feel about something. Since it is Star Wars, they still get to decide how the character acts when intimidated, but failing the roll has game consequences.
In addition, I recall particularly stubborn playes from the early days of D&D who would insist that, their character POV was "I'm not afraid" when their character was threatened. The phrase actually became a bit of an in group joke that acknowledged the fact that the player is sometimes immune to the fear, exhaustiion, and pain that their character experiences. My GM preference is to use intimidation, for example, to provide an in game penalty that may encourage the player to have their character act intimidated ( or make it more likely that they get their a$$ kicked if they ignore what the character should be feeling and sensing.) Of course I may just be worse at describing the NPCs as scary then you are. That's certainly possible.
Another random roll mechanic we use is that players often roll a few dice to see if their character actually likes or dislikes some new food or drink. Absent a preexisting character background connection, random rolls seem as good a way as any to decide who likes Mandolorean Narcolethe and who does not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our only use for the Intimidation is when a PC tries to intimidate an NPC (or GMC).
What Id like is more specific rules about situational bonuses. If a Jedi PC with an anger management problem (3 DSPs) and also clearly combat oriented tries to intimidate (threaten) an NPC to give up some information 'or else', what modifiers would that be in your games?
Are the examples cumulative?
In this case then:
+5 threatening with physical violence and armed.
+10 Obviously more powerful.
(perhaps) +15 Target is at the mercy of the Jedi.
Given the fact that they dont rule each other out they could be cumulative if all situations apply. However, given that most intimidation attempts will be successful as most PCs are threatening with violence and are mostly armed. Most of the time they are also more powerful. The target may not always be at the mercy of the PCs though.
BTW: Intimidation is a Perception skill in our games.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I use modifiers from p. 77 (basically the same as you listed, but overpowering advantage = 16+). I would not make those modifiers cumulative.
I allow target's to resist with either willpower or intimidation there choice. Opposing with willpower is per the rules. Unless there is a clear winner, opposing with intimidation is likely to escalate to violence as the next step.
I use a table similar to the damage table for effect. So merely exceding a character's opposed rule doesn't mean you get the result you may want, it just means you are more intimidating than the target is resisting. The effect the "attacker" is looking for determines how much he needs to exceed the target's opposing roll. I also factor in how willing/unwilling the target is to do what is asked and how willing the target is to endure potential damage or pain.
| Quote: | | If a Jedi PC with an anger management problem (3 DSPs) and also clearly combat oriented tries to intimidate (threaten) an NPC to give up some information 'or else', what modifiers would that be in your games? |
It's pretty situational. Does the NPC know that the Jedi's reputation and that she has an anger management problem? If not, I don't think I would give a bonus.
Does the Jedi choose to use a Dark Side bonus or are they trying to attone or resist channeling or harnessing their anger? If resisting, no bonus.
What does the Jedi do while threatening the target? For example, in the Watchman when Rorschach breaks the guys finger in the bar, that should add a bonus to further intimidation.
I'd possibly increase the advantage by a level for a Jedi with a known reputation for lethal or painful violence. Otherwise, the Jedi may have to actually do something - either getting physical or somehow using the force in a threatening manner. E.g. use TK to crush a metal drinking goblet into a ball of metal than tell the target - "tell me what I want to know or your trachea is next" is a lot more threatening than just "tell me what what I want to know or else." Unless the target has a clear reason to believe the intimadator will really hurt him, I'd lower the advantage one level.
In our campaign, my Jedi has dressed up as a Dark Sider and pretended to be an Inquisitor. I think the GM gave him a bonus to his intimidation vs. the Imperial bureaucrats he was questionning. He didn't actually do anything physical to them, though he did use telekinesis to make his cloak flap as if in a wind while indoors. It added to the creepy factor and helped sell that he was an evil force user (bonus to Con roll). I'm guessing that probably gave me a good advantage, by combining apparent force user with inquisitor. But I would probably need to do somethiing like the cup thing or something similar to get a decisive advantage.
Is that what you are looking for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
I have to admit I do tend to intentionally guide the story in a particular direction at any given moment. I feel that player choices for PC actions bring in plenty of randomness to allow the story to evolve. When the players take the story in a different dierection than I had in mind, |
The only time i could see Rolling out NPC versus NPC actions, is when say the party HAS an npc with them, and is tryng to do something against another npc (against the party). Say the rebels have just rescued a downed intel agent, and are walking through border control at facility X. The NPC border agent would do (lets say) con versus a player rolling the downed rebel agent's con.
| Whill wrote: |
| Bren wrote: | | I should note that I have often had a player request to make a willpower roll vs. the NPC's intimidation roll because the player wanted to know how frightened his character was. |
I have never had this happen, but if a player actually wanted to let skill values and randomness determine how his PC is effected by GC interaction, then I supposed I could go with that. |
In one of our sparks modules, an NPC bounty hunter interrups the party cause they are chasing the same "Mark" and he uses his 10d intimidation against the party to get them to back down. Any who roll less than him in will v intim are at -2d for the rest of the encounter.
Personally i would like a tiered approach, so the better the intim over willpower, the more effective it is.
Say
Intimidation beats willpower by
0-5 = opponent auto loses action for first round of combat (can only go defensive, no attacks)
6-10 = -1d from all actions
11-15 = -2d from all actions
16-20 = -3d from all actions
21-25 = -4d from all actions
26-30 = -5d from all actions
31+ can't act period.
| Whill wrote: |
I've never had this happen either, but if both players mutually agreed to the "rules" of the interaction than I don't see why they couldn't do this. The concept still seems a little wacky to me though.
But to each his own! Thanks for sharing these experiences from your game, Bren. |
I have had PC vs PC on bargain, con, persuasion, Command, Intim/will.. Some prefer doing that. Others hate it. Prefering to RP it out.
Personally i feel if they can be 'commanded' together (coordinated) by a die roll, so too could they be intimidated/conned.
| Quote: | What Id like is more specific rules about situational bonuses. If a Jedi PC with an anger management problem (3 DSPs) and also clearly combat oriented tries to intimidate (threaten) an NPC to give up some information 'or else', what modifiers would that be in your games?
Are the examples cumulative?
In this case then:
+5 threatening with physical violence and armed.
+10 Obviously more powerful.
(perhaps) +15 Target is at the mercy of the Jedi. |
Just go by the same ones Con has/forgery uses..
The R&E book lists this under intimidation.
| Code: | Modifiers:
+5 or more to intimidator's roll: Intimidator is threatening
target with physical violence (and is either armed or has
superior strength).
+10 or more to intimidator's roll: Intimidator is obviously
much more powerful.
+15 or more to intimidator's roll: Target is totally at the
mercy of intimidator.
+5 or more to the difficulty: Target has the advantage.
+10 or more to the difficulty: Target is in a position of
greater strength.
+15 or more to the difficulty: Target cannot conceive of
danger from intimidator.
"And now, Your Highness, we will discuss the location of
your hidden Rebel base."
— Darth Vader |
| Quote: | ModifierGuidelines
+1-5 Character has only a slight advantage.
+6-10 Character has a good advantage.
+11-15 Character has a decisive advantage.
+16+ Character has an overpowering
advantage. |
From the Gming section, page 75
| Quote: | | In our campaign, my Jedi has dressed up as a Dark Sider and pretended to be an Inquisitor. I think the GM gave him a bonus to his intimidation vs. the Imperial bureaucrats he was questionning. He didn't actually do anything physical to them, though he did use telekinesis to make his cloak flap as if in a wind while indoors. It added to the creepy factor and helped sell that he was an evil force user (bonus to Con roll). I'm guessing that probably gave me a good advantage, by combining apparent force user with inquisitor. But I would probably need to do somethiing like the cup thing or something similar to get a decisive advantage. |
Did he ever encounter any true inquisitors when plauing that game? Would have been fun to watch!
I have had in 2 games where as a pc, one of our party force users DID use intim, the gm gave him +3 to the total per DSP.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | It sounds as if you are generally somewhat more directionally intentional as a GM and hence prefer to steer the story rather than randomly deciding based on opposed skill rolls. |
That is a correct deduction about me as an individual GM.
| Bren wrote: | | What you suggest Whill presumes the GM has a preference about who is or is not intimidated amongst the NPCs. |
| Whill wrote: | | I suggest and presume nothing. I was merely stating my own personal preference as a GM. Sorry that wasn't more clear. |
| Bren wrote: | | It was clear it was your preference. But that preference only makes sense if the GM has a desired direction for the story. |
Not to split wookiee-hairs here, but you're still confusingly leaping from the specific to the general mid-comment. I presume nothing about myself. I was not suggesting anything about GMs in general. I was only speaking about myself. There is no conditional aspect you can apply to my statement about myself (no "if"). I am the GM in my statement about my own preference.
I don't want people to get the impression from your replies to my posts that I was arguing that other GMs should be like me or that my way is the correct way. I was not speaking about GMs in general, although your reply to my preference was. I was speaking specifically about myself only in those statements.
| Bren wrote: | | ...If the GM truly has no preference in story direction, then how does the GM decide who wins the contest without using the respective skills? |
For clarity, I think a better way to say that right after a reply about one specific GM (Whill) would be to say, "...For the other GMs out there that truly have no preference in story direction, then how do those GM decide who wins the contest without using the respective skills?" Fair enough? Thanks.
| Bren wrote: | | In addition, I recall particularly stubborn playes from the early days of D&D who would insist that, their character POV was "I'm not afraid" when their character was threatened. The phrase actually became a bit of an in group joke that acknowledged the fact that the player is sometimes immune to the fear, exhaustiion, and pain that their character experiences. My GM preference is to use intimidation, for example, to provide an in game penalty that may encourage the player to have their character act intimidated ( or make it more likely that they get their a$$ kicked if they ignore what the character should be feeling and sensing.) Of course I may just be worse at describing the NPCs as scary then you are. That's certainly possible. |
That player immunity to fear you describe is sadly a valid point. There are some players out there that do not ever play their PC as being afraid (in situations the PC realistically should be afraid) because it is just a game and the no one is really being threatened. I call those gamers bad roleplayers. "Why act afraid to even die when I can just make a new character, right?" My first response to those situations (and really any bad roleplaying situations) is to first try to address it real person to real person out-of-game, instead of introducing in-game mechanics to MAKE the PC be effected "realistically" (the penalties to all actions, etc.). I talk about it with the players on a game break or off-session. I'm clear in my expectations, but I'd give the player a chance to give me some rational explanations for the character's actions (or lack of reactions). If the roleplaying issue can't be settled or improved then I just don't ask the player to come back (thanksfully that has been very rare). It's a roleplaying game. I love rolling dice, but I am very resistent to the idea of using game mechanics in siutations that I feel roleplaying should suffice.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Intimidation is a Perception skill in our games. |
Mine too. And Willpower is also a Perception skill in my game.
| Bren wrote: | | Another random roll mechanic we use is that players often roll a few dice to see if their character actually likes or dislikes some new food or drink. Absent a preexisting character background connection, random rolls seem as good a way as any to decide who likes Mandolorean Narcolethe and who does not. |
Wow. I'm trying to think of any adventure I've ever ran where whether someone like the taste of any certain foods or not was actually an important detail to even have in the story! But yeah, I guess random dice rolls are as good a way as any if you really wanted to have that.
| Bren wrote: | | In our campaign, my Jedi has dressed up as a Dark Sider and pretended to be an Inquisitor. I think the GM gave him a bonus to his intimidation vs. the Imperial bureaucrats he was questionning. He didn't actually do anything physical to them, though he did use telekinesis to make his cloak flap as if in a wind while indoors. It added to the creepy factor and helped sell that he was an evil force user (bonus to Con roll). I'm guessing that probably gave me a good advantage, by combining apparent force user with inquisitor. But I would probably need to do somethiing like the cup thing or something similar to get a decisive advantage. |
Clever! Of course I would think that would only work so many times before the Imps would figure out that your PC was not really an Inquisitor and perhaps send out a real Inquisitor to track down the false one.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
| Bren wrote: | | Another random roll mechanic we use is that players often roll a few dice to see if their character actually likes or dislikes some new food or drink. Absent a preexisting character background connection, random rolls seem as good a way as any to decide who likes Mandolorean Narcolethe and who does not. |
Wow. I'm trying to think of any adventure I've ever ran where whether someone like the taste of any certain foods or not was actually an important detail to even have in the story! But yeah, I guess random dice rolls are as good a way as any if you really wanted to have that.
|
Really? I find details like that just as important as the color of the evil end-boss' pants. No matter what universe the setting is in.
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | In addition, I recall particularly stubborn playes from the early days of D&D who would insist that, their character POV was "I'm not afraid" when their character was threatened. The phrase actually became a bit of an in group joke that acknowledged the fact that the player is sometimes immune to the fear, exhaustiion, and pain that their character experiences. My GM preference is to use intimidation, for example, to provide an in game penalty that may encourage the player to have their character act intimidated ( or make it more likely that they get their a$$ kicked if they ignore what the character should be feeling and sensing.) Of course I may just be worse at describing the NPCs as scary then you are. That's certainly possible. |
That player immunity to fear you describe is sadly a valid point. There are some players out there that do not ever play their PC as being afraid (in situations the PC realistically should be afraid) because it is just a game and the no one is really being threatened. I call those gamers bad roleplayers. "Why act afraid to even die when I can just make a new character, right?" My first response to those situations (and really any bad roleplaying situations) is to first try to address it real person to real person out-of-game, instead of introducing in-game mechanics to MAKE the PC be effected "realistically" (the penalties to all actions, etc.). |
I have over the years, encountered around 8 players like that. So i tried many approaches to get it under control. For some, using it againt them (their character would never flee even against an ancient red dragon when they are 3rd level), or since they seem to show no emotion, they can't benefit from a cloak of bravery spell. For others talking did the trick. Only 1 did i have to say "ok, since you obviously don't know/care to rp, don't bother coming back" to.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Not to split wookiee-hairs here, but you're still confusingly leaping from the specific to the general mid-comment. I presume nothing about myself. I was not suggesting anything about GMs in general. I was only speaking about myself. There is no conditional aspect you can apply to my statement about myself (no "if"). I am the GM in my statement about my own preference. |
Happy to split hairs. The only confusion on my part was in ascribing less certainty on your part about how all interactions other than PC vs NPC should resolve when you GM. So what it seems you are saying is that you as a GM always without exception know exactly which NPCs you want to have win any particular intimidation, persuasion, con, etc. type contest and there is never ambiguity about who might win such a contest. OK. Wow. That is far more directional that I can even conceive of being. Hence my confusion.
| Quote: | | I don't want people to get the impression from your replies to my posts that I was arguing that other GMs should be like me or that my way is the correct way. I was not speaking about GMs in general, although your reply to my preference was. I was speaking specifically about myself only in those statements. |
I apologize if I seemed to be implying you were making a general prescriptive statement about how all GMs should behave. That was not my understanding nor my intent. I was both doubting that you personally always and without an exception know what direction things should go in and also that other GMs would always and without exception have a preferred direction for their story. You have clarified that you (Whill) actually always have a perferred direction for NPC vs. NPC conflict. For those GMs, like me, who are sometimes in some doubt about how a particular NPC vs NPC contest might resolve, I suggest opposed rolls is a simple and valid method.
| Quote: | | Bren wrote: | | ...If the GM truly has no preference in story direction, then how does the GM decide who wins the contest without using the respective skills? |
For clarity, I think a better way to say that right after a reply about one specific GM (Whill) would be to say, "...For the other GMs out there that truly have no preference in story direction, then how do those GM decide who wins the contest without using the respective skills?" Fair enough? Thanks. |
I was assuming you (Whll) were sometimes in doubt about how such a a contest might resolve. You have clarified that is never the case. I accept your correction. Please assume my statements regarding opposed roles are directed to other GMs.
| Quote: | | That player immunity to fear you describe is sadly a valid point. There are some players out there that do not ever play their PC as being afraid (in situations the PC realistically should be afraid) because it is just a game and the no one is really being threatened. I call those gamers bad roleplayers... |
I am loath to ascribe to bad intent (bad roleplaying) what may be a case of ignorance. While it is often true, sometimes it is just that the player may have a diffferent view of the scene or the threat level. I find clarifying the threat level via a game mechanic sometimes gets us both on the same page, as it were and acts as a reminder or a measure of how afraid their character is and thereby avoids me having to have "the talk." Talking about it with the player can be helpful, but it is not always easy to take someone aside for a private chat. Although I agree sometimes that is beneficial and I've used it. Perhaps it is due to my academic and gaming background, but I find quantifying a threat is often helpful in clarifying a threat. You, Whill, may be better than I am at doing that in words rather than numbers.
| Quote: | | ...I love rolling dice, but I am very resistent to the idea of using game mechanics in siutations that I feel roleplaying should suffice. |
And I find that sometimes a mechanic helps make clear what the scene is that the character is acting out. In addition, after setting a -2D penalty having a player insist their character will still act unafraid, may lead to a better conversation about why the player feels his character would or must act in a given way despite the risk. Just because I as the GM think the PC should be and act afraid, doesn't mean that I am necessarily correct in my belief. Understand, Whill, here I am not critiquing your GM style, merely remarking on my experience as a GM.
| Quote: | | Bren wrote: | | Another random roll mechanic we use is that players often roll a few dice to see if their character actually likes or dislikes some new food or drink. Absent a preexisting character background connection, random rolls seem as good a way as any to decide who likes Mandolorean Narcolethe and who does not. |
Wow. I'm trying to think of any adventure I've ever ran where whether someone like the taste of any certain foods or not was actually an important detail to even have in the story! But yeah, I guess random dice rolls are as good a way as any if you really wanted to have that. |
Really? Wow, I am again surprised. I have to agree with my friend Random. I find details about food/drink/entertainment preference are very important to most of my players and occassionally make a good plot point. It also helps to make a dinner or feast seem more interesting and real by including taste/smell. Many of our characters have favorite or unfavorite food and drink as well as holo and music genres. Such commonalities are often part of the (often out of game) discussions about what sort of bonding activities characters participate in between sessions and sometimes they are used to explain why particular characters are in the same place and time.
A further example, one of the main reasons my brash young Jedi wanted to be a Jedi in the first place was because of the Thrilling Wonder Talking Books that he listened to/watched as a child. It was also where his original (naive) conception of what a Jedi was came from. And his odd fondness for seedy bars and Mandolorean Narcolethe has acted as the start of several scenarios. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, closer, but again I have failed to make myself completely clear. I do not "always and without an exception" know what direction things should go in. I am "sometimes in doubt about how such a contest might resolve." What I failed to express was, instead of rolling dice for GC interation, I usually just wing it and keep the story flowing. It usually turns out ok.
I think you present some possibly good ideas for GMs in general, and despite my resistance to the idea of dice rolls substituting roleplaying, I will consider if any of these ideas may be applicable to my game in the future.
Regarding the taste of food, I meant it has not been an important enough plot point for us to roll dice for. I try to let minor details of the story that do not significantly impact anything be up to the players. So my players might roleplay their characters to state how much they do or don't enjoy dinner, and other PCs may just eat the food any not say anything. But I leave stuff like that up to the players instead of randomness. If the PC isn't sharing his taste with others, then it is not important for any of the rest of us to know how much the PC liked it. If I think it is in-character for a GC I am playing to exrpess his like or dislike of food to the PCs, I will play the character stating his tastes or describe a reaction on his face, but not roll dice to determine it.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whill, seems like we either look at life differently or we are still slightly miscommunicating.
For me given a choice between things, say A and B, they tend to fall into the following categories:
(1) I need/want A, but not B
(2) I somewhat prefer A, but B would be OK.
(3) I am indifferent between A and B.
(4) I don't need/want either A or B.
(1) and (4) are easy choices for me to make. (3) is a more difficult choice to make. In real life I often prefer to let someone else choose their preference in this case. In gaming I let the relative skills/traits/whatever and the dice decide between them.
(2) as a choice is midway between easy and difficult for me to decide.
Sadly life often isn't a simple choice of (1) or (4). Mostly it seems to be (2) and (3). My gaming tends to be like that too. 
Sounds like at least in gaming you find very little in case (3) and you find it pretty easy to choose in case (2). Correct?
For me most characters' preferences about food, drink, holos, etc. are matters of relative or complete indifference to me. Other than deciding randomly, I don't really see how to decide whether my character prefers Nerf Burgers, Kidroni BBQ'd Krill, Sidroni spicy kebabs, or Noodza.
 How's that decided for you and your players? Or does that question really never come up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fairly correct on 2, but not on 3. There are plenty of things I am indifferent to. Like exactly what PCs order when they go out to eat in an adventure or what foods each PC likes.
| Bren wrote: | | How's that decided for you and your players? Or does that question really never come up? |
I doesn't come up too often. But in general, I empower all my PCs to also be co-GMs, to a point. I give them as much creative freedom in the creation of the story of our adventures as possible. If the PCs go to a local restaurant to eat dinner on a planet none of the PCs have ever vistited, I don't give the players a menu and have them choose what their PCs order. I am indifferent to that detail of the story.
But depending on the tone of the adventure at that moment, I may occassionally let players each imagine a menu and make-up items that are on it to order. So just like a real world waitress or a GM going round the game table getting players to declare PC actions in a combat round, I may go around the table of players and ask them (as the in-universe waitress) what each of the PCs are ordering. Then one-by-one, each player creates an item to exist on the menu, possibly also creating a new dish to exist in our Star Wars universe. And since the PCs would normally choose something they like, they are also creating some food that the PC likes (even if it is something the PC was never known to like before). Sometimes the item names the players create are even humorous (depending on the player). But this is just for fun and not really important enough to the plot of the adventure to roll dice for.
Sometimes they may even ham it up a bit and (in character) say things like, "Bantha Mignon wrapped with Shaak Bacon and glazed with Barbecue Nerf Gravy?! Just the way I like it! I haven't had a Bantha Mingon done right since growing up on Naboo! I'll take that medium well, with a side of Outer Rim Dumplings and a bottle of your Bespin Port, please. And don't skimp on the Nerf Gravy!" (This order was actually described during an adventure, in-character by one of my players several years ago!)
The player told me that his PC loves a good Naboo-style Bantha steak. And as far as the player's reaction to this particular steak after it came, the above player said as the PC, "Really good, but still not as good as Pawpaw used to cook 'em in his ol' barbecue pit." It wasn't important for me to randomly determine if the PC liked it. For the sake of the story, I didn't give a d@mn what each PC ate and if they liked it or not, but it still came up in the adventure and without any dice being rolled. And the players got a little chuckle out of it before they got deeper into the plot of the adventure.
Or it more often than not, it may just go down something like this:
GM: ...You arrive at the Jumpin' Gungan Bar & Grill an hour before the Sullustan blaster gas contact is supposed to show up, and there is an open table in the back that the hostess let's you have. After that long inspection in the starport, you would all be pretty hungry by now...
Player 1: My PC says, "Order whatever you want guys. This one's on me!"
GM [to Player 1]: OK, this meal costs you 50 credits.
GM [to group]: Just as you've finished up your meal and paid for it, an old Sullustan with a red vest walks in the front door, followed closely by a skinny 2 meter tall tan-furred Wookiee wearling nothing but a big army-green backpack. Everyone make a Perception roll... Again, it was not important what they ate or how they liked it. But I'm not critizing GMs and player groups that do things differently, and I think there has been some good suggestions in this thread for GMs in general on how to handle certain things.
I let players create many details in my games that I am indifferent to. I even let them create some more important details such as creating a handful of their PC's own GC underworld contacts. I let players also run supporting CGs, like their PC's droid. And I had one player that I even let roleplay his interaction between his PC and his GC contact. He played both sides of the conversation while the other PCs watched, and I didn't get involved until they they got to the point of haggling over the price of a service (in which I rolled the GC contact's Bargain opposed to the players PC bargain roll).
As the Supreme Being of the my game world, I could have simple said "You didn't like the meal" or "The steak was great but the dumplings were a little too mushy for your liking and the wine was too warm." Or, I could roll dice and rule that randomness decides whether each PC liked the meal or not. Or, I could just let each the player tell say if his PC liked it. Allowing players to be co-creators of my game-world encourages them to have a more vested interest in the adventures and campaigns. So I try to hand over any insignificant details like what PCs eat for dinner and how they liked it, if it comes up in the adventure at all.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
