Re: [DL] persuading against the odds

["Ed Greaves" <temporus@hotmail.com>]

Tom,

I hear what you are saying.

Small anecdote:  My roommate and his friends were playing shadowrun.  The 
one player who was extremely eloquent had no skill in persuasion.  He made 
this long well thought out speech, then the one character that did have an 
extremely good persuasion skill, effectively said "Yeah!" so that they could 
get the dice to try to make the roll.  The player for that second character 
had no ability to make the speech in the first place.  The character 
however, should have.

If it's a skill, the players should always get a chance, and setting your 
target number to 167 should reflect the actual difficulty of doing so.  It 
should not be artificially high because you feel that the PLAYER should have 
to be really good at persuading.

Now that said, what I typically believe in doing, is rewarding the player 
for doing a good job at role-playing.  If the PC RPs the persuasion, I might 
give them a bonus (or minus if they do a really BAD job) to their roll.

Another example, from a different RP system.  In our fantasy based RPG, 
deities sometimes take an active role in the world on behalf of worshippers. 
  If you find yourself in a bind, you may make a prayer to your deity, and 
then series of rolls to see the result.  (Which could be anywhere from 
nothing, to the deity showing up and personally lending a hand.)  We refer 
to this game mechanic as making a "god shot".  Anyone can do it just by 
saying that they do so.  IF, you actually role-play out your prayer to the 
deity, you will get a bonus, which increases your chances of some divine 
intervention.

I suggest something similar in this type of a case.  Do not punish the 
player because he personally is not skilled in that particular way.  Instead 
reward those that are.

Another alternative is to reward with a chip those players that pull off 
remarkable role-playing in these situations.  Or forego the roll.

Well, that's just my opinion.

Ed Greaves
temporus@hotmail.com
http://vger.rutgers.edu/~olorin


>Hmm … this has become a peeve of mine, one who's resolution I'm not
>completely clear on what I want to see.  But my current thinking goes like
>this:
>
>You want to ride a horse, you roll some dice.
>
>You want to draw and fire a gun, you roll some dice.
>
>You want to climb a rope carrying a ten-pound sledge in one hand and a
>shotgun in your mouth, then do a dismount Lara Croft would envy, you roll
>some dice.
>
>But you want to smooth-talk your way into an awkward situation, it seems a
>lot of Marshals (refs, game masters, what have you) expect you to come up
>with a compelling argument that you present instantly, eloquently, and
>completely in character.
>
>Now … I'm not an expert gambler, but I might play one in my game.  I'm not 
>a
>fire-and-brimstone minister, but I might play one in my game.  Sometimes I
>play characters that are spiritually or mentally better at something than I
>am (and maybe even, dare I say it, smarter than I am), and I'd like to 
>think
>the dice LET me explore these fantasies without me needing to become that
>character.
>
>I know, it's boring as hell to see someone say "I smooth talk him.  I 
>rolled
>167."  It's exciting to see someone so completely in character that 
>everyone
>wants to throw white chips at his feet.  But … not all the players are this
>compelling, this engaging, this dynamic.  Maybe a successful high die roll
>should let a player sit back a moment and come up with his compelling
>argument.  Maybe he should be able to stumble his way through an 
>explanation,
>and the high die roll should induce the Marshal to think of how this might
>work if the character were saying it a little bit more charmingly.
>
>I don't know.  Like I said, my own personal jury is still out on this one.
>
>Tom Huntington
>The Truth Is Yonder


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com