Games within Games?

Seraph · August 18, 2011, 11:16:49 PM

How do people here handle games of skill or chance within their campaigns? Do you actually play the game? Do you just make a skill check? Something in between?

I am wondering how someone goes about handling a game of, say, chess in-game. Chess takes a long time to play, and unless your PCs are really good sports, I'm betting they won't want to sit through a whole game of chess, especially if their character is not the one playing.

I'm curious about this in regards to games in general, but in particular in D&D and Pathfinder. Is it a skill check? A series of skill checks? What skills are appropriate?

I have considered Sense Motive, Bluff, Knowledge (History for knowledge of wars, or Nobility for knowledge of warriors, both with an eye to strategy). I have considered adding in a "Tactics" skill, for which this application might be a potential use. What do you guys think?

Xathan · August 18, 2011, 11:39:15 PM

Depends on the game. For poker, each hand is Bluff vs. Sense motive on each side - and if both players (the game I'm currently running only has two players) win the opposed roll, then the winner of that hand is whomever won the opposed rolls by the greatest margin.

For chess, it's simply opposed knowledge (tactics) rolls - or an untrained int check if they don't have tactics. Since we play mutants and masterminds 3rd edition, you can instead roll expertise (chess), which gives you a +5 on your roll.

I like to keep it simple so it doesn't interrupt the flow of game. Anything more complex would slow the game down dramatically and, unless it's narratively important, typically not worth the hassle.

Superfluous Crow · August 19, 2011, 04:24:05 AM

I think it depends a lot on what role that particular game has in the greater story. Is he just appeasing his everpresent ludomania? Or is he playing chess against Death in a nerve-wracking duel where his soul is the prize?
If it's just generic gambling, make it a single roll (or just determine the outcome!). If not, you can escalate it to a full-fledged mental conflict (if your system allows that sort) or let a player make several attempts to bluff, outwit and outluck his opponent as the game draws to an end.
For the latter kind, a fun mini-system might be to have a scale going from -3 to 3, with 3 meaning you win and -3 meaning the opponent wins. For every move (intelligence, bluff, cheat, etc.) you try, you will either go up or down the scale depending on the outcome. Moves like cheat might move you further along the track, but a failure would probably incur some additional consequence (angry dwarf, knife to your throat, the usual).
Also, lot of systems actually have a skill called Gambling or something similar.

Lmns Crn · August 19, 2011, 10:26:42 AM

I used to actually use games within games whenever possible. It never worked that well. It always strikes me as a tawdry gimmick at best, and a pacing-destroying distraction at worst.

When a game like that is less important to what's going on, I breeze past it. When it's more important, I look for an in-system way to handle things, and that sort of solution varies a lot depending on what system you're in. If we're talking Chess vs. Death or some other kind of high stakes battle of wits, FATE does it quite well. Even some very rules-light systems like Lady Blackbird can take it in stride.

Seraph · August 21, 2011, 09:45:07 PM

@SC: I like the -3 to 3 model. It adds the sense of shifting advantage and the possibility of a "comeback" from apparent defeat, without much bogging down the game.

@Xathan: I actually hadn't thought to just make "tactics" another knowledge skill. It makes sense though, as Knowledge is a pretty open-ended skill group, which already has multiple options. Thanks!

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Games within Games?

Seraph

Xathan

Superfluous Crow

Lmns Crn

Seraph