INTRODUCTION
A primer is something that prepares you for a new idea. This might be a long one! So far, this document is over 3.2k words. I'm almost as verbose as the Angry GM. In my experience with roleplaying games and conversations about them, people seem to think that speech mechanics are necessary and important, or for some reason, FUN? I want to suggest to you that speech checks were not always a part of roleplaying games. Think about that, and DON'T make any assumptions about the regularity or depth of roleplaying before speech mechanics were added. Don't assume roleplaying was somehow less prevalent or serious in the before times. In D&D at least, speech skills were added to the game with the publication of 3rd edition, 25 years into D&D's existence. Players got along fine before that. Charisma represented one's aptitude for leadership and was primarily used to determine how many followers you could lead. It did not represent your appearance or how charming you were.
If you wanted to have a conversation with an NPC, you had a conversation; either that, or you described what you would say and how you would say it, and the GM would describe how the NPC responded. In a no-stakes or low-stakes conversation, the GM roleplayed his NPC, and if the PC made a fair proposal, there would be no need for the NPC to reject it. In a conversation where there were stakes, (something significant to gain or lose), then it was up to the player's creativity to convince the NPC that it was in their best interest to help the PC. I'll teach you how to do this later on.
COMPLAINTS
Here's my first complaint about speech mechanics: SPEECH MECHANICS are for video games. Why's that? Because game mechanics are necessary ONLY for simulating actions we cannot do ourselves, and video games as a medium have a few more limitations. In a live roleplaying game with people, we cannot hit each other with swords, so we have a mechanic for that. We can however, persuade, intimidate, and deceived each other at the table. Therefore, speech is an unnecessary thing to mechanize. In general, I believe unnecessary mechanics make a game system needlessly complicated which means it's harder to learn, harder to play, harder to run, and harder to prepare a game for.
For all I know, Charisma checks might have started in video games, which have limitations. If I could prove conclusively that Charisma rolls began with say Fallout 1 for example, I would use that as evidence to make this case and argue that you'd be using tools that were given to computers for the purposes of handling human interactions, but you're not a 90s Mac or PC and you don't need to use those tools. To reiterate, rules are for simulating actions that we cannot do, but we can have conversations at the table, and we can use our judgement about whether to create a character who is a poor speaker or better, and to play our characters accordingly.
There are games that do not mechanize speech (for example, GURPS and Cogent Roleplay don't have a personality stat, all versions of D&D that I can see prior to 3e use Charisma for reaction, loyalty, and hiring rolls, that's it). These are some other games I've heard of that supposedly don't use speech rolls, but I haven't verified myself: Troika, Cypher System, Into the Odd, Mausritter, Electric Bastionland, Principia Apocrypha, and Cairn. Cairn in fact in a section called Principles for Players, under a subsection called Agency, states your stats do not define your character, they are tools. In other words, stats should NOT define your character to the extent that it affects your agency. I've heard Realms of Peril has a charisma stat but is loose about when / how to use it. Knave has a charisma stat, but I hear Knave 2e might not. I've heard Dungeon World (powered by the apocalypse) might just be RP over Mechanics enough to disregard the stat. RuneQuest (one word), Fate, Numenera? I know for a fact that Lamentations of the Flame Princes (LotFP for teh win!) explicitly states Charisma does not represent your beauty, appeal, or personality, and that the player must portray their character! This is way James E Raggi IV is the goat.
Here's my second complaint. In my experience, speech mechanics discourage player engagement. I have played low-charisma characters in types of games which emphasized dice rolls for speech. Essentially, I played characters not suited for an entire aspect of the game based on the rules of the game. Therefore, the rules of the game actively discourage me from trying to have conversations with non-player characters and from engaging with the setting. Even if the GM set the difficulty of a charisma check to easy, rules as written, that meant a 50/50 chance to fail to get what I wanted whenever I talk to anyone. I think it's fair to say that most players expect moderate difficulties instead of easy ones, which usually means a 75% chance to fail with no speech skill bonuses! This creates some disconnect in my mind where I could just plain make a damn good argument, then the GM calls for a roll (because the rules say so), I fail, then the GM has to come up with some arbitrary and unsatisfying reason why my argument was rejected, and it feels contrived. It feels like a badly written scene in a movie. I find it unsatisfying and immersion breaking. It doesn't FEEL FAIR. Most importantly, and this might get a little meta, if I the PLAYER use my own communication skills, it's not fun to roll a die for the CHARACTER'S communication skills. It feels punishing.
But wait, there's more! Before you start preparing a defense of speech rolls and preparing an explanation that speech rolls somehow do not discourage player participation, or that it encourages player participation, I submit for your consideration a hypothetical game table with one high-charisma character and a bunch of low-charisma characters. Yes, one player at the table makes a character who has a stat that says they're better at talking, even if the player is average or below average. Shy players will immediately stand back and let the high charisma character do all the talking, as well as players who are only here to kick ass and chew gum or hang out with their kids. And all players who are strategically minded will rationalize that one character has a better talking stat, and in a decision that might count as a form of metagaming, they will stand back and let that character do all the talking. This also diacourages Roleplay and engagement. This isn't all players, but many players. In fact, most players will recognize that when you create a character, you either commit to a high speech character, or you neglect the skill because most games encourage optimizing and min-maxing. So, you have some high stats and some low stats to allocate somewhere, might as well stick the high stats where you want to excel at, and then dump the low stats elsewhere. Mid-stats do what?
What do you think of alignment in D&D? I think charisma is just another roleplay restriction like alignment. You have no choice but to have alignment and you have no choice but to have charisma. The game designers of modern D&D use this roleplay restriction (the charisma ability and its skills) to balance social interaction with the other aspects of the game, namely combat and exploration, and these aspects of the game don't need to be balanced against each other. Gaming doesn't need to be this way. In my experience with D&D, no one enforces alignment. Most players self-regulate their alignment if they use it. Most new RPGs I've read don't use anything resembling alignment. I do not think social interaction is an aspect of the game that needs balancing! Roleplay your character. Treat social interaction like a puzzle and solve it with your own creativity.
Why do D&D 5e and other games with speech mechanics (so many games these days!) get applauded as well-designed games? To me, speech mechanics are a glaring weakness in a game's design. Do these game designers not recognize that players are actively disincentivized by their own games from playing the game? If it's a roleplaying (spelled r o l e) game, why are we using rollplaying (spelled r o l l) instead? Why is it important for there to be a line item on the character sheet that describes my character's ability to engage in conversation as well as rules for when and how to use it? Why isn't this something that is left up to the skill of the player, and the logic of the scene, characters, and story being told at the game? I would rather play a game where my character sheet and in essence the rules of the game don't effectively BENCH me for an entire aspect of the game, thank you very much. I do not see how this mechanic improves the game, and I think it's definitely not necessary.
Here's two games that are a bit more freeform and rules lite. Neither have alignment, either at all or as it is conventionally understood. Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game (BFRPG) is a game that is based on D&D Basic from the 70's and 80's. In BFRPG, in the section where the game breaks down the six classic abilities, it tells you when you apply your charisma bonus or penalty, and it lists only three things: Reaction Rolls, Number of Followers, Loyalty. Rules as written, BFRPG has no charisma checks or even ability checks. Lamentation of the Flame Princes (LotFP) is another game based on D&D Basic. In LotFP, it explicitly states what charisma does not represent, and it explicitly tells you that the player must portray the character.
Before I move on for good, I'll remind you all in case you forgot that Skyrim has no personality stat! Speech gets you discounts at stores. Queue Darth Vadar's theme Imperial March for your Daedric Armor-clad beefcake on his way to get a hot deal! Praise Todd, it just works!
HOW TO TALK TO PEOPLE
OK, so as promised, here's how you do speech in games. First, the only mechanic you need is a roll to randomly determine the starting disposition of a randomly generated NPC, modified by the PCs reputation or something, with room for the Game Master to veto the need for a roll in the right circumstances. Established NPCs with an established relationship with the player characters do not need a die roll as they have their previous experience with the PCs to inform their opinion. Older D&D called this roll a Reaction Roll, and it was a 2d6 roll which meant it had a bell curve distribution that favored average results (like a neutral reaction) over extreme results (like immediately hostile or immediately friendly). I speculate that this was intended to simulate what it would be like to meet someone random in real life. People tend to not have a strong opinion of complete strangers.
Let's discuss Persuasion. As an FYI, in D&D 3e, this skill was called diplomacy. Diplomacy does not require charm, thought it helps to be respectful. Diplomacy is about two parties finding compromise. Simply put, I want something you have, here's what I have to offer. It's a trade offer. That's it. Two parties who are interested in making a trade try to find an agreement that is mutually beneficial. People who are fair and who are engaging in good-faith diplomacy understand this might mean some compromise. You're not trying to take advantage of the other person. Your goal is to get something out of them, and to make it worth it to them. That encourages them to trade with you again in the future, less they get a bad taste in their mouth or buyer's remorse. Everyone wins. This for that, tit for tat. No, you cannot seduce the dragon. Don't even try. Seduction BTW is IMO a bad player behavior because it ruins the tone of the game, and the mechanics of the game should not support it. Charisma and Persuasion sounds like they could be multipurposed for seduction. Nay. Reject.
Let me ask you this before moving on. If you find any of this primer persuasive, do you think that's charisma or intelligence? I'm not speaking. I'm working out ideas and just trying to make sure they make sense. In that regard, are there any of you who think charisma should be restricted to charming people only and not dull speakers who just make a lot of good points and do it clearly? Are you at least having second thoughts about only using Charisma for speech?
Now for deception. Most people are decent folks who assume that most other people are also decent folks. When someone tells you something that seems plausible, you don't usually doubt it. Let me repeat that for you in case you missed it. If a story is plausible, most people don't doubt it. "My girlfriend left me, my dog died, and I got let go from my job this week." is a plausible lie. All of this misfortune in one week? Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
Now, the important question is what does this person want out of you? We assume that when someone lies, they either want something or they want to avoid something. If this person then asks if you can buy them one drink, that sounds reasonable, and you might not have any objections to the request. If this person asks you to pay for a meal, that's kind of pushing it. If this person asks you to pay for their hotel room, that's a really big ask and you'd have to be really generous to say yes. If this person wants to stay at your place till they get back on their feet, that's also a really big ask and you might even be afraid to say yes or no.
A person might still believe in the lie because it's still a plausible lie, AND at the same time, they can also object to fulfilling the liar's request. Belief in the lie does not mean behavior will be affected by the lie. Some people might suddenly become skeptical, maybe because they're more untrusting or cynical. So, it's possible that they now DOUBT the lie simply because you asked for too much. Even still, when a person suspects you of lying, few people are going to be able to say THEY KNOW YOU'RE LYING. In fact, most people are too nice to accuse you of lying. To catch someone in a lie is not so simple, and accusing someone of lying wrongly is socially embarrassing and might make you feel guilty if the lie turns out to be true, especially if their story is about hardship. Catching someone in a lie usually requires finding details in a story that contradict other details, or details that contradict some other knowledge. You have to interview them. When someone gives you a simple lie, there's not that many details. If a person gives you a detail like "I got fired from my job as a builder from Bob's World Building Company," you now have some very concrete details. Maybe you know Bob from Bob's World Building Company, maybe you work for Bob and you don't know who this person is, or maybe you ARE Bob and you didn't fire anyone lately. Lies, in other words, need to be simple and plausible, and whatever it is you're trying to con someone out of or into needs to be somewhat reasonable or the lie becomes suspicious.
Now for Insight. In D&D 3e, insight was called Sense Motive. It was explicitly used to contest lying, and nothing else. To be clear, it was not an idea roll *spits*. It was not a psychic power that gave you all the answers or gave you certainty that someone was lying. It was not divination magic. As described in my explanation for catching someone in a lie above, you're a reasonable person. If someone's story doesn't pass the smell test, YOU DO NOT NEED TO ROLL. Useless skill! When you talk to an NPC and they tell you a story, if you really want to probe them for more details, just act like you've taken an interest in their story and just ask them questions to get more details out of them. More details mean you're more likely to find something that doesn't fit into place. It's hard for people to remember details they make up, or to keep them straight. And complicated stories are difficult to make up. Interrogations and interviews are ways people can find contradictions in the story.
Now for intimidation. By the by, I have a question for you. Do you use intimidation to creep people out? What if you wanted to? Just asking. For reference, if you did something creepy in-character, I think most GMs would just say, "yeah, that's creepy. Good job." We don't need a "creepy" stat. So why do we have an intimidation stat? If you're 7 feet tall and jacked, and you're irate and threatening indiscriminate violence, most people would find that intimidating. If you call for a roll for that, I will pull this game over. I will turn this game around right now! I mean it! Just watch me!
In order to do intimidation, you need something to legitimately threaten someone with. That's it. It's about having leverage over someone. A viable threat. Historically in many cultures, being thought of as a coward was a shameful thing. Some people might even prefer death to being a coward. Even average people might not give into yelling and screaming and threats of violence. So, you would intimidate people in secret rather than openly. That way, they're less likely to put on a pretense of bravery to impress anyone else and in effect they get to maintain their dignity. In addition, other people (witnesses) aren't going to have firsthand knowledge of you going around and openly threatening people, which is generally detrimental to your reputation.
You would NOT roll intimidation to demand a police officer or soldier to get out of your way if it's their job to stand in your way. By the same logic, you would not roll intimidation when threatening an enemy. If, however, you defeated half your enemies in a combat and your side still looked fit, you might shout a demand for their surrender or for them to flee with an offer to spare the rest of them. That's viable because you've demonstrated that you are dangerous to them. The GM would make a roll called a Morale Check in past editions of D&D. This was a roll to randomly determine how random NPCs felt about fighting. But one roll only, no piggybacking or dogpiling. A successful morale check meant the enemy has decided they're not giving up no matter the costs. Morale checks were an ordinary part of ALL combats (except maybe set piece combats). Further, it does not require an action *scoffs* to yell "gtfo losers and we'll spare you!" By the way, add this to the list of complaints; if yours is the type of game that makes GMs and players question whether it's a (major) action, or a minor (aka bonus) action, or a free action to yell a threat at someone, that's the kind of game that can go straight to hell. That's lousy design logic. What kind of world are your rules trying to simulate! Eff you!
To reiterate, intimidation requires having something to threaten someone with (like my ability to threaten you with shame for poor use of the rules and to affect the way you use them as in the end of the last paragraph). If you were in a street gang with a reputation for making violent threats and following up on those threats and getting away with them, then people took you seriously and gave in to your threats or suffered. If you told a city guard that you know a prostitute who could describe his birthmark to his wife, that could be an example of a viable threat if it's true. Were I a PC trying to coerce some behavior out of an NPC, I would also consider simultaneous use of black mail with bribery; Show them the stick, then force the carrot on them. Now they've accepted a bribe, and you can threaten them with that too. Intimidation is about threatening people, and you need something to actually threaten them with before they'll cave. If you have nothing to threaten them with, they'll just be offended and rightfully so, and so a FAILED attempt to intimidate someone, which can be determined WITHOUT ANY DICE, can and should backfire. Congratulations on making an enemy out of someone by being an asshole and nothing more.
CONCLUSION
So that's it! An explanation about why speech mechanics are stupid in a live TTRPG with live people, and how to actually use the so-called skills in real life or in play. So, when would you use speech checks in a game? What if you thought speech checks were fun and cool? Pfft. You don't. You want to use speech checks to SIMPLIFY the game because you either A don't feel like roleplaying every damn thing, and that's fine, just default to yes for all reasonable requests and no for unreasonable requests; or B you suck at talking and want to skip it because it's hard. I believe that part of the value of roleplaying games is that they are tools for teaching and learning, so learn to talk to people here and now, and stop using mechanics for every damn thing! Or maybe you think that speech mechanics somehow give the game some needed structure. With the exception of turn-taking and logical progression, actual conversations tend to be free-form and so mechanics can make a conversation conspicuously inauthentic, and stopping a conversation to roll dice is like pausing a movie! Stop it!
No comments:
Post a Comment