I don't think that I did a good job of representing my opinion in the Stats vs Roleplaying post I did a while back. Now, I happen to be of the school of writing that says that if you were not understood, it's your fault that you did not convey your message properly. As such, I want to use an example to show that certain gameplay/roleplay systems will help to let players roleplay characters that are different from them in terms of personal ability, while others don't facilitate it as well.
The example I will use is of a person with average social skills playing a character with a high diplomacy check. The specific situation is that the character wants to get an NPC to help the party. So, this is between the DM and the player. I will give six different systems, describe them, then give pros and cons to each.
The six systems I will describe are...
- Conversation > Result
- Conversation > Roll > Result
- Conversation > Apply Bonuses > Roll > Result
- Roll > Result > Description of Conversation
- Roll > Conversation > Result
- Roll > Hint > Conversation > Result
1. Conversation > Result
In this method, the player and the dungeon master have an in-character conversation. Based purely on this conversation, the dungeon master decides if the NPC will agree to help or not.
Pros- The player has complete control over what his character thinks and says.
- The result is perfectly congruous with the roleplay.
- Relatively quick, no checking stats or figuring out target numbers.
- Roleplaying takes place
Cons- Skill points put into diplomacy are wasted.
- Character is only as charismatic as his player.
- Relevant information is not accessible to the player that would be to the character.
- You may not be able to roleplay a smooth talking character if you can't think of the right thing to say.
As a result, any character can be a smooth-talker as long as the player behind them is, or they get good counsel from their fellow players.
2. Conversation > Roll > Result
Much like the last method, this involves a conversation between the player and the dungeon master. This time, however, the actual result of this conversation is the result of a roll. For an example of how this might work out, let me illustrate.
Player:“Hello sir, we've been stranded on this island.”
DM:“Oh really?”
Player:“Yes, we were in a shipwreck not but a few days ago. Could you help us find our way to town?”
*ROLL*
10 or higher: “Certainly, I was heading out to the forest, but it's nothing that can't wait.”
5-10: “Well, I have some business to attend to. I'm a hunter, you see, so I can't head back until I have something to show for my work. But if I happen across you on my way back, I'll be sure to lend a hand.”
5 or less: “Look, I have my own problems to worry about. I don't have time to help every sorry sap I come across in the forest.”
Pros- The player has complete control over what his character thinks and says.
- A player can have the results of a suave character.
- Skill and stat points matter.
- Roleplaying takes place.
Cons- The result may be incongruous with the roleplay.
- Relevant information that would be accessible to the character is not available to the player.
- The suaveness of the character may only show in the result, not the roleplay itself.
Between this method and the last, there is a tradeoff between believability in the reactions to the character and the value of skill points. In this particular example, the result from rolling a low number doesn't seem appropriate for what the conversation held up to that point. It may just as easily go the other way, where the conversation would clearly be offensive, but ends up with a positive result.
This method is often applied when the character has no clear objective in mind for the conversation he has started. When an opportunity to make a diplomacy check is found, this is applied retroactively.
3. Conversation > Apply Bonuses > Roll > Result
This falls somewhere between the two methods above. A bonus, say +2 or -2, will be given to the roll as a result of the conversation. This is to push the result more towards the expectation from the conversation.
Pros- The player has complete control over what his character thinks and says.
- A player can (generally) have the results of a suave character.
- Skill and stat points are not meaningless.
- Roleplaying takes place.
- The result is likely to be congruous with the roleplay.
Cons- The result may still be incongruous with the roleplay.
- Relevant information is not accessible to the player.
- A player may be able to emulate a character with a high diplomacy score through skilled conversation.
- The dungeon master has to decide what constitutes a bonus.
- May hurt a players feelings to tell him that he doesn't get a bonus, or even gets a penalty for what he chose to say.
- Makes it more difficult, to play a suave character than method 2.
This is just a compromise between methods one and two. I don't believe that it really answers the problems of either.
4. Roll > Result > Description of Conversation
Here, no conversation takes place. Instead, a diplomacy roll is made, if a target number is hit, then the check is a success. Then, the Dungeon Master recounts the conversation to the players, by describing what each person says. Here's an example of how such an exchange might go.
Dungeon Master: “Do you want to talk to him?”
Player: “Yes.”
DM: “Roll for it.”
Play: *Roll* “15.”
DM: “That's a success. You tell the man that you came from Sasserine, and he agrees to help you out, free of charge, because he's from Sasserine too!”
Pros- Result is perfectly congruous with the roll.
- Skill and Stat points have meaning.
- Any player can play a suave character easily.
- Very quick.
- The explanation is tailored to fit the result.
- Character has access to all the information that the DM does.
Cons- No roleplaying takes place.
- Character is not under the player's control.
- Character may say things that are out of character for them as a result of the Dungeon Master putting words in their mouth.
- Very mechanical.
The sheer speed of this method gives it a lot of use. For determining if you get discounts at shops, and other unimportant things, this saves time and energy. More importantly, anyone can play the sort of character they want. Just like how a barbarian is told on his roll if he hit or miss, the James Bond is told whether or wowed the other person or not.
5. Roll > Result > Conversation
In this method, the roll comes first, as before, but the conversation is filled in between the DM and the player. Essentially, the DM tells the player whether they passed or failed, and then the player should fill in what they would say if they made it or not. All-in-all, this method can get very awkward. I won't even go into the pros and cons of it, because it is simply so hard to roleplay properly.
6. Roll (secret) > Hint > Conversation > Result
A modification to method five that makes it usable. Here, the roll determines a pass or fail, but the DM keeps this knowledge secret. They then give a hint to the player, which the player then uses to sculpt their conversation. The result is then revealed, which should fit well with the conversation as it was given. Here is an example to illustrate, because it may be hard to picture.
DM: *Makes a secret roll, determines success, and gives an appropriate hint*
(10+: “Mention you're from Sasserine.” 5-10: “Ask where he's from.” 5 or lower: “Ask if he's a native here.”)
DM: *Gives hint to player*
Player: “Lucky to come across some else in this forest. We're from Sasserine and got shipwrecked, do you think you could help us?”
DM: “Sasserine? My home town was a port city no more than a day's sail from there. We're practically neighbors! Of course I'll help you out.”
Alternatively
Player: “Excuse me, you wouldn't happen to be a native of this island, would you?”
DM: “One of those hair brained monkeys? Of course not! Do I look like one to you? Hardly. Get out of my sight.” (The NPC is a bigot, the player chose just the wrong thing to say to him.)
Pros- The player has some degree of control over what his character says.
- The results fit the roleplay, if the hint is good.
- A player can play a suave character easily.
- Roleplaying takes place.
- The player gets some degree of insight on the conversation.
- Conversations are more dynamic as a result.
- Stats and Skill points have value.
- The character can be roleplayed charismatically.
- The character stays in character, as long as the hint is appropriate.
Cons- Slow.
- Requires the Dungeon Master to form appropriate hints for the situation and character.
- Puts words in the character's mouth, or thoughts in his head.
- Requires cooperation from the player for full effect.
This method makes a serious tradeoff in time, and requires a certain amount of effort from the players to have its full effect. If the player doesn't work with the hint, then the result of the conversation becomes incongruous. Additionally, some players don't want thoughts put in their character's head. Essentially, the hint is telling them what they will say, and then the player only gets to decides how they say it. Still, when time permits, I think this is a superior method.
Conclusion
Alright, time for me to wrap this up. I hope that I have illustrated that certain methods allow us to better roleplay characters with abilities beyond our own. Such methods would allow me to play a suave character, despite my own personality. Additionally, the last method gives the player an important tool, insight. With a little bit of insight, the conversations we have become much more defined. In the example given, the character would have realized that the man looked like he was from around Sasserine, and a good way to relate with someone in a foreign land is to come from the same region. That insight from a high diplomacy is reflected in the hint given, and leads to a believable conversation with fitting results. Without the insight, the conversation is much more vanilla, as in the example in method 2.
With a good system, we can all play just the sorts of characters we want in a fulfilling and fun way.
Recent Comments