forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I just read the Encounter section of the core book and was curious to know any tricks on how to balance role-play and rolling in regards to social interactions as the LM. What have you learned or tried and seen done well? I would obviously have players who aren't quick to narrate roll to determine their success...but what about players who role play really well and give convincing speeches and dialogue? What of those who try to give convincing dialogue but aren't as dynamic, creative, or spontaneous?

kdresser wrote:I just read the Encounter section of the core book and was curious to know any tricks on how to balance role-play and rolling in regards to social interactions as the LM. What have you learned or tried and seen done well? I would obviously have players who aren't quick to narrate roll to determine their success...but what about players who role play really well and give convincing speeches and dialogue? What of those who try to give convincing dialogue but aren't as dynamic, creative, or spontaneous?

Slippery slope, in my opinion. A lot of people disagree with me on this, but I don't give glib, quick-witted players any bonuses when they use social skills, regardless of system, any more than I give athletic players bonuses on their physical skills. Leave the acting skills purely for the entertainment of the table and keep them out of the mechanics.

The "bonuses" are built into the system with bonus dice (from Preliminary rolls) as well as traits, not in the quality of the delivery or even the probability of the tactics.

The thing I like about this system is that the player doesn't have to persuade the LM. Let's say you've got THREE whole bonus dice. That basically gives the player the opportunity to narrate something totally outlandish ("so crazy it has to work") and then roll all those dice. "Ok, I'm going to try to Persuade the gate guard that he must be the long-lost cousin that I've come to visit." If you succeed at the roll, you've persuaded the guard. There's no LM saying, "Um...I think it would be a TN 22" or whatever.

Of course, you have to trust everybody at the table to contribute to the fiction, not try to derail it. So this doesn't work with all tables & age groups.

Generally my players RP after the roll of the dice and the result is known; that way they can, for example, make rousing and empassioned speeches if they rolled well and, alternately, stilted and poorly worded outbursts if they roll badly. Discussions before any rolls are made are the player informing me what their character is trying to do and what is at stake.

I've played/GM'd this way for years and never had a problem with the roll of the dice not matching the RP of my players*.

* EDIT: And this method works just as well for 'acting' out their character's or simply describing how good/bad the character's actions are if a player doesn't like to take part in 'amateur thespian' style RPing or is playing a character better at something than they are (eg, more articulate).

kdresser wrote:What of those who try to give convincing dialogue but aren't as dynamic, creative, or spontaneous?

A widespread misconception in RPG circles is that the word role-play in the phrase role-playing game means acting. That is not its origin. The word refers to your taking on the role of a character. YOU are the character. YOU make his or her decisions. Whether you're capable of spouting "Forsooth, verily, m'lord" or can only manage "umm... 'kayyy..." is irrelevant. You can just as easily declare your speech indirectly ("I ask him if he knows of any good inns in the neighborhood") and you're still role-playing.

Players call for tasks to move encounters along in The One Ring, and the process of declaring a task is spelled out in great detail on pages 139–142 of the main rule book. Study this section carefully, and don't think, "Yeah, yeah, I know how to make a roll." The given procedure has been designed to answer your very question.

At the beginning, the player must state his intent: he must describe the task, declare a skill to accomplish it, and explain the general goal of the task. A player might not be so precise, so the Loremaster should interpret whatever the player says into these things. But the player basically "narrates" what he WANTS to happen at this point. If he wants to make a speech, this is a point at which he can do it, but speeches are just one way to describe a task.

Once the roll is done, the consequences happen. When the roll is a success, the PLAYER narrates what happened. On an ordinary success, the player can only narrate what he originally described in the intention phase. Since he may have already described what would happen in enough detail, sometimes it is enough to say, "I succeeded," and move on. This is also another time he can make a speech, if he likes to do that, as part of his narration. On a great or extraordinary success, the player is at liberty to decide on even better consequences than what he tried to get, subject to the approval of the Loremaster. As with the intentions phase, a player might not be interested in doing any narration himself, so the Loremaster might do it for him.

On an unsuccessful roll, the LOREMASTER narrates the failure.

So in summary, forget about giving bonuses to players who can give good speeches; that's not what role-playing is about, that's acting. Reward good ideas, not good speeches. During encounters, when players want to affect the attitude of a Loremaster character, they need to call for tasks, and they get to declare their intentions first, then narrate their successes afterward, or the Loremaster gets to narrate their failures afterward.

Rich H wrote:Generally my players RP after the roll of the dice and the result is known; that way they can, for example, make rousing and empassioned speeches if they rolled well and, alternately, stilted and poorly worded outbursts if they roll badly. Discussions before any rolls are made are the player informing me what their character is trying to do and what is at stake.

I've played/GM'd this way for years and never had a problem with the roll of the dice not matching the RP of my players*.

* EDIT: And this method works just as well for 'acting' out their character's or simply describing how good/bad the character's actions are if a player doesn't like to take part in 'amateur thespian' style RPing or is playing a character better at something than they are (eg, more articulate).

Yeah, and this too. I'm a huge believer in "roll then narrate".

Nice post Stormcrow, you related it back to the TOR rules really well. Completely agree with you about what role-playing means as well. And to be honest I much prefer people describing actions rather than acting them out as it allows all of us to imagine the characters far better. Also, I'm sure my players think the same about me; no-one wants to hear Saruman 'speak' in a twanging northern accent!

Agree with Stormcrow as well, although I do often allow players to narrate their own failures. (I also allow traits to be invoked on Eye failures for a first AP...one of the very few house rules I use.)

I can't do voices either, and I always warn players about this ahead of time. I'll talk in the first person for characters sometimes, but don't expect an award-winning performance.

Glorelendil wrote:Agree with Stormcrow as well, although I do often allow players to narrate their own failures.

Just as there's no harm allowing the Loremaster to interpret the player's statements as a declaration of intent, likewise there's no harm allowing the players to narrate their own failures, subject to the Loremaster's approval. The main difference is that on a success the outcome has been put in the players' control and on a failure the outcome has left their control, so it makes sense for more Loremaster intervention on a failure. But if the consequences of failure are obvious, then why not let the players do it?

I agree with Glorelendil and Stormcrow (though I confess that I'm still tempted to lower difficulties if a hero engages with the game world... if they're calling on the ancient ties of their peoples then that should be easier than j. random request). Here's a little bit that I just wrote somewhere else, about Encounters:

zedturtle, elsewhere wrote:Indeed, they should only be used when the heroes are asking for aid... think of the dwarves going to Beorn or the Elf King (a great failed Encounter), or the remaining part of the Fellowship going to King Théoden. They can also be used to model tricky interactions with powerful NPCs that you don't want to be honest with, but can't tell off... think Bilbo and Smaug or Pippin and Denethor.

I think rolls for Encounters are best done one of two ways, and change between the methods depending on the situation and the player. Either the roll represents the NPC's reaction to the hero's statement, or roll first and have the hero narrate the outcome of the dice.

The first method acknowledges that what we say during the game is not "actually" what happens... the heroes are not speaking modern vernacular English and they are truly immersed in the culture and its social expectations. What happens at the table is a reflection of what's happening in the fiction, a story but not "reality" (such as it is). So the player might ask a question in a very courteous manner, but the roll reflects how the character performed that intended action and how the NPC perceived that request. A failure might mean a social blunder on the hero's part, or a sore subject for the NPC, or a missed opportunity by the hero to engage the NPC on the subject.

Fortunately, heroes can always invoke Traits for automatic successes, so you don't have to have a hero constantly blowing it when talking to important people.

The other way... rolling the dice and then narrating... can be fun too, especially with a group that enjoys narrating their own failures. Then the player can tell us a little bit about why King Bard is not receptive to their request and that gets them involved in the fiction as well.