Tips for more RP-centric Encounters?

[Artoriusaurus Rex]

Ok, so, I'm going to be running a campaign very soon, and there is one particular spot that I'd like to deviate heavily from the rules.

Encounters.

This group wants to Roleplay, and there is no greater opportunity to do that than in Encounters. Except, the RAW mostly reduces the conversations and debates of Encounters to die rolls, and that's just not fun for us.


I'm going to have them roll their Introductions, and they can call for Persuade and Insight, but other than that, I'd like Encounters to be played out fully as moments of Roleplay, not Roll-play.



And this doesn't seem a difficult change from the RAW to handle, except that I wanted to ask you guys for some ideas of how to take Tolerance, Success, and Failures into account with so few dice being rolled. And this also will take Weariness out of the equation for the most part, unless someone has an idea on that as well.



In short, how do I translate some of the mechanics of Encounters, like Tolerance and tiered Rewards based on number of successes, into a Roleplay conversation?

[zedturtle]

Ultimately it will be your choice, at your table, but let provide a few things that I've found that worked well.

In my Play-by-Post games, the rolls do not represent how well the hero communicated their message (their post in the conversation does that). Instead, it tells me how the LMC reacted to that delivery. So a bad roll indicates that they found offense somewhere along the way (which in order to explain that offense often requires me to do more roleplaying in the sense of expanding the character and how he or she reacts to certain people or ideas) or were misunderstood or what-not.

In Face-to-Face games, the roll is sometimes made before the roleplay. If a character has gained an Extraordinary Success, that can be fun to roleplay. If a hero has gained a failure with the Eye of Sauron revealed, then that can also be a very fun thing to roleplay (I think one of my players in my Friday game loved every time his hero botched a social roll, because he got to have the guy insert his foot further up his own mouth).

If things are so fast and furious that die-rolling doesn't happen, that might be okay. Remember that it is RAW that Traits can generate basic successes for these sorts of purposes. That either means your players will need to do a lot of talking in order to get those rewards, or you might go for a hybrid approach... let the players roleplay out traits in order to get close to the middle of the results and do a final roll (or set of rolls) to determine the final number of successes.

As far as Tolerance goes, I know that some folks like to use it to represent the urgency of the encounter, not just the amount of failures that a LMC will put up with. A low Tolerance might mean that the LMC will cut off the conversation after just one or two people speak and only those words will be considered for the purposes of rewarding the heroes.

[fast.git]

As far as Tolerance goes, I know that some folks like to use it to represent the urgency of the encounter, not just the amount of failures that a LMC will put up with. A low Tolerance might mean that the LMC will cut off the conversation after just one or two people speak and only those words will be considered for the purposes of rewarding the heroes.

I like this interpretation of Tolerance.

[Wbweather]

In my game (which is run on Fantasy Grounds with voice chat) I try to strike a balance between dice rolls and role playing. Remember that for many players, this is their best chance to earn AP, so I wouldn't avoid dice rolling if it keeps a player with high social skills from gaining AP. What I generally do, is have the player state what they want to attempt. (i.e "I want to use Awe to let him see that we will not be pushed around.") and then I have them roll to see how successful they are. I then have the player role play out the exchange with the NPC. If they fail, they should role play appropriately and the NPC will respond appropriately. If they succeed ( especially with a great success), they should role play that out as well and I will respond with the NPC in kind. The dice rolling never gets in the way. In fact it often gets players who are less likely to role play to come out of their shell a little. Sometimes a persuade is what is needed and the other players will encourage the player with a high score in that skill to attempt a roll (and role play), where otherwise he would be content to sit back and observe.

[Deadmanwalking]

In the game of TOR I've been playing in we usually roleplay fairly organically, then, at certain points, note something like "What should I roll for that?" to the LM, roll, and see how the NPC reacts to what was said.

For example, if you're trying to, say, persuade a recalcitrant ruler to aid you in some cause, you roleplay out doing that, with a logical and rational argument, a stirring emotional appeal, a web of deceit and trickery, copious flattery, or whatever, and then roll an appropriate skill (Persuade, Inspire, Riddle, and maybe Courtesy respectively, for the approaches above), at which point the LM reacts in the person of the ruler. Failures will be misconstrued or ignored while successes get their attention and possibly help convince them.

Doing this after the die roll also works, and adds an ability to play out one's own failures amusingly, but has less incentive to actually roleplay if you feel that's necessary. After all, by making people roleplay first, and not letting them roll unless they at least try a tactic consistent with the right skill, you rather enforce them roleplaying the encounter.

[Stormcrow]

the RAW mostly reduces the conversations and debates of Encounters to die rolls

Nonononono! Don't think that! Go ahead and converse and debate! Enjoy it!

The rules for encounters aren't meant to REPLACE talk and debate; they're only meant to determine whether the Loremaster character reacts well or poorly to what you've said.

For instance, after you've introduced yourselves simply by speaking an introduction, the Loremaster can decide which skill you employed and ask you to roll it. This tells you how well your introduction went over, but WHAT the character says in response still depends on what you said to him.

Use the encounter rules to steer the conversation; don't just roll a bunch of dice in place of a conversation.

[Glorelendil]

If I understand the OP correctly, he would like to determine the outcome of encounters by the 'quality' of the role-playing, instead of the fall of the dice, in order to encourage more role-playing.

I personally would caution against using the quality of performance, as judged by the LM, as a determinant. It is too arbitrary and subjective, and depends too much on the personal abilities of the player. (e.g., how does one use Song in an Encounter?) And, conversely, I would suggest that using the fall of the dice to constrain and drive the story can generate more creative roleplaying than simply making it all free form.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Let's say the heroes approach Beorn and they want something from him. One player decides to use Courtesy, so he launches into elaborate and fanciful praise of Beorn's beard. The player thinks he is being awfully creative and clever, but in reality he's not very talented at extemporaneous speaking, and besides in the LM's personal vision of Beorn's personality this sort of praise wouldn't go over very well, so the LM rules that the attempt is a failure. Is that a fair/good outcome? How is the player supposed to know that praising Beorn's beard won't fly with the LM?

(Conversely, all the above may be true but the LM decides to grant success to reward the player for trying. But if that's the bar then is there any risk of failing Encounters?)

Now let's look at the roll-first, roleplay later approach: the player decides to use Courtesy, and rolls a Great Success. They are far enough into the campaign that the player knows he is now expected to narrate the result, so he launches into his same spiel about Beorn's beard. This isn't exactly what the LM was imagining, but that's ok because it's the players' story too, and the rest of the table has a laugh. When he's done, the LM says that "Beorn frowns and strokes his beard, and says that he normally wouldn't have patience for such frivolity, but he seems pleased and you notice him surreptitiously working out some tangles with his fingers."

Everybody has fun, both the player and the LM got to role-play, and...because the mechanical result was objective... there's neither hard feelings nor a sense of unearned victory.

Think of the dice-rolls as sort of like being given prompts in an improv acting exercise (or drawing cards in a game of Pictionary): instead of getting to narrate any story, you have to narrate a story that fits the constraints you are given. It can be more challenging, but it can also be freeing to not worry about 'performing well enough for the LM' because the only purpose of the performance* is to entertain the table.

Plus, if you narrate first then adjudicate the result, nobody will ever intentionally narrate a failing result. And narrating Sauron fails is one of the best parts of "roll first, roleplay after".

*And just to be clear, by 'performance' and 'narration' I don't necessarily mean 'acting in first person with an accent'. I almost never roleplay that way; I usually just describe in 3rd person. In other words, "Um, I comment on the magnitude and variety of curls in his beard, and...uh...suggest than any 3 dwarves would be proud to share it between them." is just fine.

[Artoriusaurus Rex]

I like what I'm reading so far, but the main thing is that I have at least one player who doesn't really think it's fair if they manage to speak well, only to have that taken away by a bad roll. I can't help but agree, but I suppose that's one more reason to use the "roll first" method.


I guess I'll just have to sell it to the table as prompts for improv.

[Glorelendil]

but the main thing is that I have at least one player who doesn't really think it's fair if they manage to speak well, only to have that taken away by a bad roll.

Maybe you can convince him that the benefit to his "speaking well" is the entertainment of his friends, rather than a mechanical advantage in the game. That way his friends who aren't as glib as he is aren't penalized. And the guy who has hiked the Appalachian Trail won't start asking for automatic Travel successes.

So...yeah, like you said...roll first....

[Wbweather]

One of the benefits of rolling first is that I often find that players encourage the weaker role players to get more involved. My 12 year old son plays with out group. I think he sometimes feels intimidated role playing with a group of older guys who are more knowledgeable about ME and the Tolkien canon. His character has a much higher Awe than anyone else though and as that is often needed in encounters, other players will encourage him to attempt an Awe roll. He often is quite successful but then will say, "I don't know what to say." So people will make suggestions as to what his character might want to say or do in the given situation. Everyone is supportive of his effort and it is helping him to become a stronger role player. If he wasn't needed for the occasional awe roll, he would likely sit back and not participate in the encounters.