Mechanical Musings
Recent comments elsewhere have got me thinking a little bit about my bias against social skills in RPGs. I tend to feel they should serve as guidelines, particularly for interaction with NPCs, rather than a form of "combat." I've heard the argument (repeatedly) that if the rules suppose lopping off someone's head merely by rolling dice, they should just as readily cover changing someone's opinion. While I see the rationale there, it's never sat well with me. Why can't I just accept that?
Why indeed.
First, there's a matter of interaction and immersion. That's a matter of play style that differs between people, though. See... they rules need to cover how my mercenary swordsman can slay a dragon because there's absolutely no way to simulate that in reality. Duels between characters? I'd rather see that on paper too, 'cause I don't want anyone hurt. Asking someone a question? THAT I would rather have done by "speaking" (or typing online) in the character's voice with, perhaps, a die roll to gauge reaction if there is doubt. If I (as a player) can say "my character tells the opposing warlord to stand down and surrender," then I roll dice to see if I succeed, this feels to me like a failure to roleplay on two points. 1) I'm not even trying to play out my own character's attempts to convince, perhaps with the argument that my character is more pursuasive than I - at least I could try. 2) It bases an outcome solely on stats/rolls which is probably not appropriate - if someone has bothered to gather an army and march to war, they probably have reasons deep enough that no one person is going to talk them out of it.
Second, there are often greater rewards and fewer repurcussions in my experience. I reference FurryFaire a lot. Well, if a character there decides to gut someone else, the odds are quite good they'll have to deal with the law enforcement officers of the land. The greatest gain is probably killing your target, but at the risk of your own character's life in return. Socially? Well, if you can change someone's point of view with good stats and a die roll you can actually turn an enemy into an ally (greater than killing them) and if you fail, no one's going to arrest you for talking to the person (essentially no risk). This is a good part of why I don't buy the "fairness" (ie. characters can fight physically in the rules, they should be able to do so socially) argument - it isn't fair. Even magical manipulation can, if proven, be punished.
Lastly, I have my own personal feelings that run pretty deep. I suppose I'm a product of this society, believing pretty strongly in personal freedom. My characters are mine. Each one is a part of me. With few exceptions, I really would rather have them die or be maimed than be forced to play them in some way that is not them. I'd rather lose something created of a facet of myself and move past it than have it twist in my gut because someone else is pulling the strings. So yeah, when I see rules that allow direct manipulation of what my characters do or think, I have some qualms about it. I see MUCK rules against certain forms of roleplay/scenes, yet mind control is almost never on the list and yet that is far, far more intimate and potentially hurtful to me than anything else that could be done to my characters.
And that, it seems, is where I'm coming from.
Why indeed.
First, there's a matter of interaction and immersion. That's a matter of play style that differs between people, though. See... they rules need to cover how my mercenary swordsman can slay a dragon because there's absolutely no way to simulate that in reality. Duels between characters? I'd rather see that on paper too, 'cause I don't want anyone hurt. Asking someone a question? THAT I would rather have done by "speaking" (or typing online) in the character's voice with, perhaps, a die roll to gauge reaction if there is doubt. If I (as a player) can say "my character tells the opposing warlord to stand down and surrender," then I roll dice to see if I succeed, this feels to me like a failure to roleplay on two points. 1) I'm not even trying to play out my own character's attempts to convince, perhaps with the argument that my character is more pursuasive than I - at least I could try. 2) It bases an outcome solely on stats/rolls which is probably not appropriate - if someone has bothered to gather an army and march to war, they probably have reasons deep enough that no one person is going to talk them out of it.
Second, there are often greater rewards and fewer repurcussions in my experience. I reference FurryFaire a lot. Well, if a character there decides to gut someone else, the odds are quite good they'll have to deal with the law enforcement officers of the land. The greatest gain is probably killing your target, but at the risk of your own character's life in return. Socially? Well, if you can change someone's point of view with good stats and a die roll you can actually turn an enemy into an ally (greater than killing them) and if you fail, no one's going to arrest you for talking to the person (essentially no risk). This is a good part of why I don't buy the "fairness" (ie. characters can fight physically in the rules, they should be able to do so socially) argument - it isn't fair. Even magical manipulation can, if proven, be punished.
Lastly, I have my own personal feelings that run pretty deep. I suppose I'm a product of this society, believing pretty strongly in personal freedom. My characters are mine. Each one is a part of me. With few exceptions, I really would rather have them die or be maimed than be forced to play them in some way that is not them. I'd rather lose something created of a facet of myself and move past it than have it twist in my gut because someone else is pulling the strings. So yeah, when I see rules that allow direct manipulation of what my characters do or think, I have some qualms about it. I see MUCK rules against certain forms of roleplay/scenes, yet mind control is almost never on the list and yet that is far, far more intimate and potentially hurtful to me than anything else that could be done to my characters.
And that, it seems, is where I'm coming from.
Comments
Post a Comment