More Aspects of Social Roleplaying

[LordVreeg]

I'm at work, so I hope this makes some sense.  However, I AM sober and that is not normally the case for many of my posts.  Perhaps some sort of balance will be found.

I've been reading quite a few posts about gameplay and game design.  And Ruminating about rule one of Vreeg, that 'system matching the setting, or don't bother' thing.
And seperately, been reading some notes from a few other long-term campaigns, and some comments from some that never seem to get anywhere.  
I would not be completely honest if I also did not mention that this includes analysis of my own 2 live groups.  I am starting to believe that a Player's investiture in a setting is somewhat affected by the relationships their character creates with the NPC world, maybe as much as with other PCs.

So where this brings me is a 2 part question.
What PC social interactions have been memorable enough in your games that you believe they actually might have added significanlty to the PLayer's enjoyment of the game, and what type of game mechanics do you employ to oversee/affect this?
[spoiler=and really]this is where it brings me now.  I am very interested to see who can see places this may help or where it has affected their games in the past.[/spoiler]


 

[Matt Larkin (author)]

The games I most enjoyed playing in were the ones where my PC developed a deep relationship with an NPC or another PC. Occasionally these were romantic relations, but often they were just deep conversations which in turn added depth not only to the NPC, but to my own character.

Of course, you have to have a GM/other player willing to play ball with deep conversations that don't involve dice.

[Lmns Crn]

In a long running (2+ years) 3rd Edition D&D game conducted weekly over IRC, my character gradually fell in love with another PC. Surprisingly, after at first shutting him down gently, she slowly grew to love him in return. It was a fantastic and moving example of character development, memorable to all who participated.

I am not at all convinced that game mechanics had anything to do with it, and I don't think it increased my investiture in the setting where this took place (Forgotten Realms.)

As I consider the question further, I am unsure that there is much that can be done, using game mechanics alone, to encourage players to form meaningful social interactions with NPCs and with other PCs. Mechanics are a powerful tool, to be sure, but also a limited one. If you are the person running the game, you have other options at your disposal which may be more effective.

The GM/Storyteller/Narrator/Whatever of a game has great flexibility to adjust the pacing, tone, and goals of the game, and to color what the players experience with detail. It's easy to imagine ways to use these parameters to inhibit social interaction, but promoting such interaction is much more difficult, because it really must come from the players themselves. It's like planting a seed: you cannot force a seed to germinate, but you can arrange favorable conditions so that if a seed does happen to sprout, it is nourished, encouraged, and provided with an opportunity to thrive.

Interactions with NPCs are a function of the GM's style and skill and the players' receptiveness, I am convinced, moreso than of the setting or world where the game is taking place. In the Forgotten Realms game I mentioned previously, we all had wonderful, complex flavors of hate for a recurring antagonist, a truly amazing NPC. But I'm not going to give credit to the setting because that character was well-written.

Subtle, subtle are the tools you need for this. Put down the sledgehammer of mechanics, and take up the nuanced scalpels of characterization, attention to detail, tone of voice, and the lighting and sound in your living room.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=Phoenix trenchant]The games I most enjoyed playing in were the ones where my PC developed a deep relationship with an NPC or another PC. Occasionally these were romantic relations, but often they were just deep conversations which in turn added depth not only to the NPC, but to my own character.

Of course, you have to have a GM/other player willing to play ball with deep conversations that don't involve dice. [/blockquote]  SO we do have a mentionof romance here,  GOod.  I was going to go there eventually.  I see early agreement about the games enjoyablility being enhanced by the relationships.

[blockquote=LC]In a long running (2+ years) 3rd Edition D&D game conducted weekly over IRC, my character gradually fell in love with another PC. Surprisingly, after at first shutting him down gently, she slowly grew to love him in return. It was a fantastic and moving example of character development, memorable to all who participated.

I am not at all convinced that game mechanics had anything to do with it, and I don't think it increased my investiture in the setting where this took place (Forgotten Realms.) [/blockquote]

Hmm.  More love.  I find it even more important after hearing how you describe it.  And obviously, this also describes the talent of the DM and Players being more important than any set of mechanics, which I heartily agree with.

[blockquote=LC]Subtle, subtle are the tools you need for this. Put down the sledgehammer of mechanics, and take up the nuanced scalpels of characterization, attention to detail, tone of voice, and the lighting and sound in your living room.[/blockquote]  I disagree.  Not with what you are saying, as I am in complete harmony with the importance you place on the tools you mention, and further, I find these mishandled often.  I think that you can run a relationship with strong, vibrant relationship interactions that players find completely rewarding with almost any ruleset, especially if done the way you describe.
But I see mechanics as a lens that the players look upon our creations.  And much in the same way that PC's use the rules on magic to cast spells and the rules of combat to fight, and in that use, will come to see these interactions through the lens of the rules, they will in the same way see the social interactions though the rules in place governing them if the gm has such tools in place.  And the presence of these rules defines the focus of the game, to some degree.  Games (not just roleplaying ones, but all games)are defined by their rules, and if the weight of the rules are based on combat and spellcasting, then to some degree (and obviously...not completely) that is what the game is about.
If you place advantages and disadvantages, skills and abilities, and the other rules of roleplaying into the social arena, the PC's will use them and play the game.

So my point of contention is that I feel that a good DM should use those clever and subtle instruments you mention, but that the rules can provide an unseen magnifying affect to the relationship part of the game.  And that you are eschewing a potent and useful tool.

[Lmns Crn]

Perhaps I have simply never experienced a situation in which these types of desirable interactions were fostered and facilitated by the mechanics. Perhaps I have had bad luck in that arena, or perhaps I have simply been playing with the wrong sets of rules.

I know your own Guildschool system has quite a suite of social mechanics, so I am curious to hear about your own experiences with this topic. For my part, I hope to begin running games in Spirit of the Century or other permutations of FATE very soon; perhaps this system will afford me the type of agreeable lens you describe.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Yeah, I completely overlooked the second part of the question. I don't know about mechanics facilitating that. I tend to agree with LC, that, if possible, I have never seen such a thing.

I think social mechanics can add a mechanic for debate resolution (ala "Social Combat" in the Burning Wheel, very cool). But since much of the appeal of the interaction I was speaking of was really just a couple of players sitting around on a bench and talking in character after the regular  game time was over...I don't know. I think the appeal was the deep conversations themselves, and any mechanic imposed would have limited it.

And yeah, on romance, only a handful of players felt real comfortable (or at least inclined to initiate it). Maybe mechanics would have made others more comfortable with that. But one fear with that becomes the comical parody where a bunch of geeks sit around a roll dice to ask if they can seduce the lusty wench.

[Lmns Crn]

Part of the reason the romance worked, Phoenix, was that it was an IRC game. In many ways, we found that IRC (as opposed to tabletop playing) helps you abandon yourself and get immersed in the character you're playing, perhaps because you're not looking into the faces of the other players, but rather, interacting directly with their characters.

[beejazz]

I tend to stress both investigations and NPC motivations in game. Frequently it's important for players to learn things NPCs know or manipulate them by way of their motivations in order to succeed.

I had a poor sap being manipulated a villain who promised to bring a woman back to life that he was in love with. I should add that it was unrequited. Also that the poor sap was the rich guy backing the villain's plan by hiring minions. Players got into a fight with all the minions and the poor sap happened to be there... My players actually kidnapped him in the ensuing chaos. Took me completely by surprise; it was awesome.

As for mechanics, I have a few opinions on the matter...

1) Less is more, when it comes to these things. I use the standard d20 rules, but with the houserule "you need a good excuse to use them." That is to say, I have no obligation to allow a player to roll a bluff check for an utterly implausible lie, no matter what his modifier may be. My players broke into a person's private library once. Gigantic manor, walled and with a guarded gate, and they broke down the door to get in... and when they got caught one player tried to claim that they were from the church and collecting donations. GM fiat based on common sense says no.

So to clarify, apply as many rules as you want, but the GM should always always always have veto.

2) Circumstances should modify the difficulty. This part should be obvious, but it isn't always. D20 Bluff is good in this respect. Intimidate is sort of passable. Diplomacy is really really broken. How competent a character is should factor in, but what a character says and does should be the main thing... at least if you want to encourage characters to really roleplay in the manner you describe.

3) There should be many many many cases where roleplaying is the way to solve problems. Firstly, this is a matter of adventure design (or GM advice, as the case may be). This means that players should interact frequently enough with friendly, neutral, or in some way mercantile NPCs. Be friendly with the guy at the shop and he'll hook you up with a discount or direct you to someone who sells the item he doesn't stock or not rip you off when he buys the little idol you found in the dungeon. Secondly, this is a matter of mechanics, specifically combat mechanics. There should be circumstances where players are forced to negotiate with enemies by virtue of overwhelming force. Again, this assumes fights against NPCs or intelligent monsters.

To recap, GM style and adventure design are bigger factors than mechanics, but a few things can be done with the mechanics to facilitate this style.
1)GM veto to enforce common sense.
2)Focus on what is said when determining difficulty more than on skill mods.
3)Design adventures so that players want friendly or useful NPCs alive.
4)Make fights dangerous.