Recently I was listening to Ellen J. Langer’s book Mindfulness,  when right in the introduction she talked about a condition called mindlessness. Briefly put, it’s the “the lights are on but nobody’s home” syndrome, where we aren’t paying attention to what is going on around us and respond to stimulus is in an unthinking manner.

For example, the author described an experiment which involved a subject requesting the use of a Photocopier machine at the library. The subject would go up to someone using the machine and tried to persuade that person to let him use the machine to zap one copy. For one test, the subject asked, “Excuse me, may I use the photocopier machine I am in a hurry”. For test B, the request was phrased as “Excuse me, may I use the photocopier because I want to zap something”.

Interestingly, the experiment showed that (in a nutshell), people respond to both requests, without noticing that in test B, the explanation is rather nonsensical – the subject didn’t give a good reason why he would need to use the photocopier now. The author suggests that unless we are paying attention, our mind would “auto-complete” sentences if its structure is correct.

Another experiment involved a memo that was passed about in an office. It was written, “Please return this memo to room #02-02″. If you think about it, this is  rather strange memo – why would you write a memo, put it on someone desk only to request him to pass it back to you? Despite this, almost everyone who got the memo comply with the instruction.

Futility Closet has this story where a man managed to take over an entire city hall just by appearing up in a captain’s uniform.

These examples fit well into what the skill Fast Talk seems to be. You hinge on that people would not pay attention to your full sentence and make assumptions about your motives and credibility base on how you answer or talk to them. If you want to role-play as fast-talking, devious rogue, those are the examples you should follow!

That happened some time ago I ran a game after a long break. The system was Dragon Warriors, and the scenario ran was the first adventure from the Sleeping Gods book “The King Under the Forest.” The group was new, and I was having a hard time getting them to play in-character.

(It doesn’t help that one of the players was a longtime D&D player and he was looking at the bestiary while playing. None of my usual players would bother looking up any references while gaming.)

Something bothered about me about the whole experience. To cut the long story short, in the end I figure that the players were using their abilities score and skills to determine their course of actions. Not that it is a bad thing, and not that they did it all the time. Here’s an example to put it in perspective. One of the players tried to pick a fight with an inn-keeper. Before the fight broke out, some of the villagers brought the militia back. The players’ final decision to back off? They discuss stats, the probabilities of them winning the fight and how many villagers and village guards they could take on.

Now I guess there’s a lot of reasons why things went this way and how I could handle it. I just put the incident one side, and went on with the game, trying to take it easy. After all, there was a long hiatus after my last game, and this was my first time with a whole new group.

The game ended, and I discussed with one of the players over dinner, asking why he did the things he do. It turned out that he understood in-character playing (he does it while playing on an online text-based game), but not while in a pen and paper role-playing game. His reason was that it took him a longer time to think how to describe his actions in “real life”, while online he could edit his input.

That never occurred to me, honestly.

He went on to explain when in a RPG, he see it as a game. His next action is based on what will improve his character, and whether his stats could support that action. He compared it to Oblivion – your next action is what give your character the most improvement.

Our discussion went on for a while, with me explaining how I see the game as a way to presenting stories, using the game mechanics to “cooperatively tell the story” and him explaining his tactical point of view.

At the end of dinner, I summarized my long-winded explanation in one sentence as this “I guess what I am trying to say is I rather my players to make their decisions in context of the story, not in the game mechanics.”

Usually playing in-character (at a pen and paper session, at least) is to think as your character would, act as your character would, in reaction to the situation. This is all well and good, but it is taxing, and some players, like my friend, find it hard to do at a table-top setting. Instead of that, maybe I could try to encourage the player to act “in-style” with the story. I am not suggesting railroading, but rather that the players’ actions fit the mood, theme, atmosphere and the situation.

Or put it this way, if you pick a fight with an innkeeper, it would be because he has insulted your honor or you want to mug someone up to end up in the jail (for whatever purposes) or you want to be evil. Not because you find to kill him, gain some XP and loot his body…and because your fighting abilities way outclass his.

I think there is more payoff in this than flowery languages, props or dramatic gestures.

Being Nagged at while Being the Hero

One of the annoying things about older Bioware’s game, and Dragon Age, is the Approval System. Your companions will make comments, pass remarks and usually, second-guess what you are doing. Kreia from Knights of the Old Republic (though to be fair, it is an Obsidian Entertainment game) is like a nagging old grand-mother. Morrigan is a sarcastic whinner. You can’t seem to persuade anyone to change their point of view in Dragon Ages. You are stuck with their personality, ego and out-look. Even when you manage to talk them to your side (if the game allows it), you always feel you are the universe’s errand boy. Having to save the world while endure the naggings of your party members!

Mass Effect 1 and 2 let Shephard influences, changes and reprimands his squad members, and this has no consequences on stats, special skills or what-not! (In Mass Effect 2, there are pivotal moments where you may lose loyalty, but you can prevent it – have your cake and eat it too). Not just that, the developers arrange it to be done in a manner where you feel good about yourself. Breaking off the fight between a stuck-up biotic and a psychotic biotic-murderer is more satisfying than persuading baby-wuss Allistar to try to become the King.

What’s the point here? How are we GMs treating our players at social negotiations and interactions with NPCs. Maybe giving them a little bit more respect, and oomph, for their attempts in persuade and social skill attempts could mean more than just rewards or XP. In Mass Effect, the outcome of a persuade or intimidate, and its execution, is what tempts pople to click them. Because they got a chance to be good (or evil), and being stylish while doing i t,at the same time too!

The Nobody Hero

One more difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect, a really subtle one, is how the main PC is being treated. In Dragon Age, mostly wherever you go, you are given scant respect (remember, even your own party members boss you around). It gets really annoying at times when “I know the Darkspawns are coming, and you are a Grey Warden, but still….I am going to make life difficult for you!” is being repeated again and again. Even after some accomplishment (say Redcliffe), there is no reaction from the NPCs on your deeds.

In Mass Effect, Shephard got a fan-boy, gets discount at shops for just who he is and heck, even have an entire alien civilisation (or two, depending on how you count) looking for him. You got a sense that you are playing a “somebody”, a mover and shaker of things.

Will it be more enjoyable for the players if their PCs get some respect like Shephard? Even disdain will be fine too, but sometimes plain indifference can suck away morale. How many times have GMs introduced powerful wizards who run the PCs around like errand boys, where the street vendors must be persuaded to give a discount and there is seemingly an over-supply of adventurers willing to explore ruins and dungeons and risk their lives at it?

When the new Lord of the Rings RPG was first announced, and a thread at RPG.NET started on it, some posters express dislike over the “rags to heroes” formula. They wish to play someone who is respected, have an reputation and could immediately do mighty deeds without grinding through rat-infested dungeons. Someone like Elrond’s sons, Glorfindel, one of Aragorn’s rangers, or some such. This gives a perspective on what sometimes player want besides XP and gold pieces. The chance to be someone great.

This, at least, is the effect that Mass Effect has on my GMing.

Table Chatter vs. Just Chattering

I used to have the idea “Well, if you just want to talk, hang out at the local Starbucks!” but after some years of playing board games, I realize that the chatter one have at a game is different from one have at coffee. When we are at a game we just don’t talk about ourselves. We talk about the situation at home. It reminds us of a scene from a movie, or some other games. Now and then someone drops a joke and we all laugh. And Mouse Guard reminds me that those are periods to enjoy too.

Thinking back, there was one incident that stands out, and I still got the chuckles when I think about it. In a homebew science-fic game (which might remind one as a classless D20 modern), I break out a grid map and some water-soluble marker to draw the walls, obstacles and terrain. One of the gamers is an artist and he insisted on adding ‘decals’ to the map – blood splutters, bullet holes and such. The one that makes me break into a smile even now is the scene began with the group smashing their car through the walls of a building to break up a group of camping enemies, and the artist drew the crashed car on the map (and pools of blood), despite my protests. But it was fun. Everyone laughed. The immersion was broken for a while but this is the sort of tales you would want to tell other game-masters (like now!).

Table Chattering being Part of the Game Experience

A friend once asked me, “Why do you still play board games when you are so into computer games?”. I play Lord of the Rings Online as my multi-player fix, and offline there is Dragon Age, Torchlight, Knights of the Old Republic Series, Majesty 2 and many other games to keep me entertained. However, board games give me interaction with other people, it’s smaller in scale and the time spent is more personal. Likewise, there are jokes, taunts, moment of suspense and in some ways, it is more fun. Truth to be told though, if it is some form of competitive board game where you are not supposed tot alk,  I think I would give it a wide berth.

Likewise, the gist of group RPGs, meeting face to face, is the interaction too. There are value to online play, but one thing that makes role-playing fun is being able to be with people, make jokes, seeing them entertained (as the GM), being entertained (by the plans of the players) and trading jests. Indeed, sometime game-mastering can be a thankless job, but when the group makes up with it for friendly table-chatter, it is in a sense its own type of reward.

I think back to my last Nobilis game, and it was then I realize that fun and engaging table chatter (about the game, not about any donkey topics) is a common ground for a fufiling session. I was playing a rules-lite, wing it on the fly game. Next to me was a group of people playing Pathfinder. All I had was a hand-drawn sketch of the area, with torn cardboard cards to represent position. The other group was going out with the tactical battle-mat, miniatures and GM-screen. I used my judgement to decide damage. They rolled dice. Yet we both share one thing – the players and GM both engage in table chatter. Players speculate the worst; the GMs grinned. The GMs pulled an unexpected twist, the players groaned in unison. It doesn’t matter what rule-sets, winging it, RPGA or what-not. If you are not having fun at the table, you are not having a good game.

So what about Role-Playing?

A lingering question is ‘So, what about being in-character and atmosphere?’. Is that a lofty ideal? Is it fun? I think there is no point in making the players miserable if making them to RP is hard, or they are just not in the mood. Likewise, like a well-placed exclamation mark or an underline, in-character role-playing may be best saved for the parts where it is important. At any rate, I guess if the in-character speech is suitable, I will let table chatter pass.

If the players are not allowed to engage in OOC table chatter about the game, what are they going to do their downtime, anyway?

Roleplaying

Not all Social Conflicts Should be Scaled

That said, sometimes a one-roll social roll should be used when suitable. Just as it could get tedious to have 10 rolls to climb up a 10m wall, having to roll so many times just to get a discount, or to persuade a guard to look the other way is overkill. This disclaimer being made, let’s move on to…

How to get a stubborn ox to move

Weapons of the Gods introduces a system of relationships into social conflicts. A character has relationships with other characters and factions, and each type of relationship has ways of improving and degrading. For example, in Chinese culture honouring one’s parents is important, so if a character’s parents is drawn into a social conflict, it becomes more complicated. The character may stands his ground to ignore what his elderly grey mother wants, but their relationship will suffer, which may have other consequences. A simple example would be if an inn-keeper’s grandmother is around, and you need to stay at the inn despite it being full, you can try to appeal to his grandmother’s sympathy so that the grandmother would convince the innkeeper to go beyond the call of duty (and the lure of gold). This can be easily slapped into existing games as a modifier, stunt or an Aspect.

Weapons of the Gods’ social mechanics introduce many type of relationships. Father and son, siblings, friends, lieges and vassals and so on. Such a system could be adapted to other games. Dwarves, for example, could place emphasis on their clan (take a Babylon 5 example – how Delenn managed to convince her clan that she is allowed to marry a non-Minbari); if you get his clan to pressure a Dwarven smith to produce the weapons for your armies, he is more likely to comply.

There may be a scholar who refused to translate a tome. Money don’t move him; he doesn’t need anything. However, he may have a rivalry with another scholar in the same town, and by dropping hints that you would go over to him may move things to your favour. Or he may have a mentor – you can go to the mentor, invoke an old favour (assuming he does owe you one) and add pressure on the scholar. However, relationships doesn’t work for you all the time. The scholar’s religious affiliation may prohibit him to touch a forbidden tome (perhaps you need to convince his religious leaders that reading a pagan tome is ‘for the greater good’). He may have promised his romantic love a trip and does not want to spend the time. Including all these factors would make social conflict more than just a single roll.

Upping the Stakes

Tapping into a NPC’s relationships with his friends, families and enemies to get him to act the way you want can be overkilled if all you want is to have a sword at 25% discount (or even just to get him to give it away for free). The suggestion is to only involve those factors for plot significant arcs, and for something to be significant, it must be something worth fighting for.  In the above example, it is assumed that the tome contains a powerful ritual to bind a demon. One can easily up the stake more. Examples include: persuading an entire village to flee before a band of goblin invaders come (in real life many won’t leave their homes despite impending disasters), getting an alliance of small city states to send armies against a threat, or even asking another nation into an alliance.

By extending the scale of the conflict, you get to involve more players. One player could be on a diplomatic mission to secure an army, while the other will try to get an informant to part with information about the foe. Each of them influence each other. Succeed at securing an army, and the informant may be cowed into giving the information. Get the information first, and the allies may be more willing to send out their warriors. Other acts would sway things in your favour. Sneaking into the enemy’s camp, and returning with one of their leaders’ head could become a forceful factor in a negotiation!  This allows combat characters to lend aid in a social conflict, be it his impressive battle records, history of being fair to others, his religious affiliation, providing some piece of obscure lore or even defeating the other party’s champion in a duel. In Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang debated with the scholars and sages of the Kingdom of Wu prior to the Battle of Chibi. He then incited Zhou Yu by saying that Cao Cao desired his wife (which didn’t happen in history).

An Example of a Large Scale Social Conflict

The political arena is often the best stage for a large scale social conflict, though a war with shifting allegiances is one too. This example contains massive spoiler from the Chinese manhua The Ravages of Time (mentioned earlier and elsewhere in my blog). Though the storyline is that of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the comic changes the details significantly. The situation is thus: Cao Cao has met defeat at the hand of Zhang Xiu and is surrounded. Meanwhile, to exploit his weakness, numerous foes begin to march on Cao Cao’s base, Xuchang and those includes Liu Biao, Lu Bu and Yuan Shu, plus Liu Yong, a scion of the Han Imperial Family (no, not Liu Bei; he was recently defeated by Lu Bu, got his ass kicked to the small city elsewhere in Xuzhou).

With Cao Cao isolated at Danyang, defeated by Zhang Xiu, and four armies approaching, what is he to do?  Troops have been stationed south to fight off Liu Biao, and an assassin finished off Liu Yong, but there’s still Lu Bu (who is smarter than how the original novel protrayed him) and Yuan Shu. One of Cao Cao’s best advisors, Xun Yun, managed to get them to fight each other. But how?

Sometimes ago, when Lu Bu was defeated by Li Si and other (shortly after killing Dong Zhou), he fled to Chenliu, and tried to take Puyang from Cao Cao, and failed. He then sought refuge from Liu Bei. Liu Bei kindly gave him a small city to dwell in, Xiaopei. However, when Liu Bei was away once fighting Yuan Shu (by the Emperor’s decreed, which was of course manipulated by Cao Cao), a group of bandits and displaced soliders invaded Xuzhou. Now, it was Zhang Fei who secretly liased with them (he’s not stupid in the comics too), as to lure Lu Bu to attack and be ambushed. However, Lu Bu knew of it and his advisor Chen Gong, paid another large sum of money to buy those brigands over, and in the end it was Lu Bu who succeeded in kicking Zhang Fei out from the city (but it’s more complex than that). Finally, Lu Bu absorbed those brigands as part of his army.

Okay, let’s return to how Xun Yun managed to get Lu Bu and Yuan Shu to fight each other. Xun Yun arrived on a diplmatic mission to Xuzhou and confered on him the General of the Left. He hinted that the people of Xuzhou loved Liu Bei, and Lu Bu’s rule may not be welcomed (working on Lu Bu’s relationship with his citizens), then confer a title which make his occupation of Xuzhou official (hence improving relationship with Cao Cao). At the same time, Xun Yun’s nephew, Xun You, went to meet Yuan Shu and said Lu Bu was coming to attack him. The latter, of course, did not believe – after all, weren’t they going after Cao Cao?

So here’s the final move in this social conflict. Xun Yun was the one who ultimately arranged the brigands to invade Xu Zhou, and joined Lu Bu. On his orders, the brigands took up Lu Bu’s banners and impersonated as his soldiers, attacked Yuan Shu. With this, Yuan Shu believed Xun You, and fought with Lu Bu, leaving Cao Cao safe. Liu Biao, seeing that he was alone in the whole affair, called off the attack. If you could, try to imagine the whole situation as a map with each character/faction as a circle, with lines linked to each other. That could be akin to a tactical map for physical combat.

Hopefully this will give more ideas for social conflicts; next time, I will try to come up with some Fate 3.0 mechanics and rules to formalize this.

This got me wondering though. Who is responsible for building effective characters. This question, however, can be broken down. What do you mean by effective? And in what situation?

Effectiveness in which Situation?

Let define the situation first. Obviously, let start with the most common conflict, and sometimes the only one which matter to a goody number of players – combat. Of course, with the advent of MMOs, where the only type of conflicts is combat (social conflicts are usually govern by the person’s skills not the character’s stats), some players transiting from computer-based MMos to table-top may only concentrate on combat-effective builds.

This leads to a classification of skills such as ‘combat’ and ‘utility’. In fact, this term probably starts with World of Warcraft (which I have never played), appeared in Lord of the Rings Online (which I do play) and I suppose many others, then finally into D&D 4th Edition. Whether table-top RPGs should rely heavily on elements from more rigid form of computer RPGs is another article and a debate-worth topic itself, so we leave that for another time.

Of course, on a table-top session, there are other situations where a character can be considered effective. Fate 3.0 in Spirit of the Century brings in some formal rules for social conflicts, as does Weapons of the God. Then there is also survival situation, such as wilderness survival, traps detection. Featuring less in fantasy games, but more in horror (especially Call of Cthlhu) are knowledge situation, where scholarship, history, lore and ancient languages plays a big part in escaping with just your live or being devoured by an ancient evil of awfulness. Another rare species of conflict is mass warfare, and the game which feature it most recently is A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying.

I believe D&D 4th edition tried its best to have the best of both worlds for every class – powers and such addresses many combat situations, while the skills system address that of survival, social and knowledge. So in this case, the game rules have taken upon itself to create effective characters.

Leaving it to the Skill Systems

Many games are not class-based, and the burden of enforcing effective characters lie in the hand of skills. Many of those games employ some mechanisms to ensure that characters are effective.  Unknown Armies introduces default skills and bring the player’s attention to them. A Song of Ice and Fire Role-Playing have templates, and in highlighted section points out some skills which would influence the player’s effectiveness….in combat.

Is it all about Combat?

In the beginning of this article, we see there are many type of situations characters can run into during table-top play. Yet something is quite amiss here when more than half of a game’s material is devoted to combat. Usually, combat is the most exciting part of the game; however, as proven by some other computer games (such as Phoenix Wright), social and legal conflicts are be just as intense.

Why does combat gets so much treatment, while social conflicts, wilderness survival challenges and so on are resolved in just one roll? Perhaps it’s not the system or classes which should enforce character effectiveness. It’s the GM, after all. But when game materials do not suggest how the GM could craft effective social, survival, exploration, political and intrigue conflicts, how could a GM come to devise one that would encourage players to just dump skill points into skills which they deem to be ‘effective’, such as Weapon Use,  Dodge and most important of all, anything that may influence Initiative?

Granted, there’s nothing wrong with a heavy-combat focus. Most of the dramatics happen there. Yet that’s only one way, a very thoroughly explored road. There are many other avenues  which haven’t been tread on yet, and I think some computer games are ahead of its time.  The ending of one of the Wing Commander games, whether if you win or lose, depends on how you talk through it. If that’s possible in a rigid computer game,  I think even for table-top games, exploring social, political, mass warfare and other form of conflicts are even more worthwhile pursuits.

So how can this be done? I hope to come up with something and when I do, I will share with you guys.

In-Character Excuses to be A Jerk

In one of the Order of the Stick’s earlier strips, Roy (Fighter, MBA, party leader) agonizes over who to relieve him from his night shift. The thief? Oh no, ‘in-character’ she would kill everyone and run away with all the loot. The bard? He’s too loony. The evil-aligned halfling ranger? Bad idea. Roy sighs and decides to take the watch all by himself

There are tales of people being a jerk at the table because of in-character reasons. “I am a thief, so naturally I steal.” they argued. Or “No one stares at Gort the Strong and get away with it!” There was a time when I actually join an evil D&D 3.5 game, being a neutral character and find that attempts to ‘be evil’ can come across childish.

Is there ever a real ’100% in character’ session, I wondered?

Should the GM Enforces In Character Behaviour?

I tried to have a 100% in character session once. About six years ago. When someone made an OOC comment, I stared at him and said softly, “OOC”. If someone attempt to do something that I deemed ‘not suitable to the atmosphere’, I would ask him to consider. Thinking back, I was behaving like a tyrant and I wonder if I was any fun to game with!

The truth is, after being a player in some games myself, being OOC and irreverent of the setting seems to be the package of role-playing. However, as the GM, I am more gratified when characters are in the style of the setting and set the mood. Back in that game I ran, there was this scene where a PC had an encounter with the NPC, talking at the docks. The PC cautioned the NPC about a threat, but the latter disregarded him and just walked off. Then the player just said, “I would just say, ‘You are wrong, this time’, to no one in particular at the docks, to the wide open seas.”

That gave me kicks as a GM. Perhaps I should attend film school instead.

After many long years of fighting a losing battle of irreverent players and OOC joking, I joined in the fun too. I tried all sort of ways. Docking experience points, awarding “Hero Points” for role-playing and the usual. Finally I gave up. I laughed at their jokes, and then say, “Seriously guys.” and go on with the action. I even made some jokes of my own. I had fun too, but somehow I felt that something was missing.

In-Style Roleplaying

I had thought over this subject for a while, and come up with something hypothetical which I am going to try for my next few games. In-Genre roleplaying. I realised that while many RPGs give advice on how to detail a character and much information on the theme and motiff of the setting, there is something lacking in the style of the game?

Consider two different takes on the same setting. The Cthulhu Mythos spawn Call of Cthulhu and Cthulhutech. The wuxia setting gives us both Qin and Weapons of the God, where the latter literally features fighters whose hands are on fire, while the latter is more toned down, such as the Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon movies. It’s like comparing a live action movie to a manga.

The same setting can be protrayed in a different style. The style defines cliches, catch-phrases, reoccuring motiffs and themes. Why not try setting the style with the game with the player? Come to one which is comfortable with all the players. The process begins, I notice, during character creation. One of the players of the Nobilis campagin I am running wished to be affiliated with the Dark; the players leapt on the idea, wishing to play ‘evil’ when I say ‘no’. That is not a style of game which I like. We finally settled on ‘manipulating the cosmos from behind the curtain’ type of game.

So taking this same ground rule further, I will try to decide on a mood and atmosphere with the players. I may have tried to do it this before without consulting the players and enforcing on them. Perhaps a better idea is to discuss about it. “Okay, I want a Bladerunner-feel type of game. In-character speech are cryptic and it’s always raining or something, so feel free to describe the effects the weather have on you. Help me with creating the mood too”. Yes, maybe I am a poor GM when it comes to evoking a mood. Maybe you can do better. So please help me. This is the mood and style we are targetting for. Help to fill in the part which you think is lacking in the descriptions. (Which is why I really like Fate and its Aspects system, but that’s for another time)

Sometimes the GM can’t do all the work, you know. He’s already doing the NPCs, coming up with the plot and details. If the players want atmosphere, they all need to create it together. I know this is like heresy and not something you would find in the GM section, but the atmosphere and mood of the game is not totally up to one individual. The players have a part to play too, and if they know what I want, perhaps the chances of me getting what I want is higher.

At least I hope so.

When What You Say is Judged by the Whole World

Recently I have joined StackOverflow, a site dedicated to programming. There you have a reputation score. Any question and answer you post can be voted up or down. If your answer is voted up as useful, you get a plus to your reputation. Moreso if your answer is accepted; likewise, if your question is up-voted, you get reputation. As your reputation grows, you gain admin access, ability to edit, introduce your own tags and so on.

Suddenly looking through list of unanswered questions, or popping in to help out a newbie, becomes addictive. I suppose this is a trait for some role-playing gamers – advancement, seeing increment in points and reaping in achievements. Then one day I take a step back and examine my action. Why isn’t there social reward in pen and paper role-playing games?

Why I Prefer a +3 Sword  over being a Nobleman

Say what you like, when it comes down to pen and paper games, the main conflict is still combat. Magic, stealth, physical brute force and anything else that can bring down the enemy fast is more important than anything else. Some games recently, such as Weapons of the Gods, the new A Song of Ice and Fire and Artesia, introduces the concept of social rank. For other games, however, being a nobleman means nothing when in the 9th level of the Dungeon of Doom.

While I have my own views on what a social conflict should be like in a pen and paper game, it is understanding why social rewards in current role-playing games is still in its infancy. You need to come up with rules for it. Like it or not, formal rules always give assurance, proves to the player that it is worthwhile the trouble and explicitly states how being the Captain of the Guards help when you need to hunt down cultists in a shadowy forest (even in Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing 2nd, vague rules are given for leadership, and nothing is touched on what you gain if you become a noble).

Of course, there is always GM’s fiat, but that is an informal contract. Some gamers (many indeed) don’t like that, if the threads on the social aspects of Exalted on RPG.NET is anything to go by.

Yes, I like to Mention Fate Again

Fate 3.0 has the Aspect mechanics, and recently it has found its way into a number of upcoming games. Aspects are modifiers that you can tap into for extra help in times of need and they could represent anything from being a princess to having strength that rivals Hercules.

As Spirit of the Century (which uses Fate 3.0) starts the character as pulp fiction heroes, there is little room for advancement in stats and skills. However, there is Aspects. One of the forum posters at RPG.NET makes the suggestion of allowing a group of victorious heroes to put their own Aspects into the world. Suddenly, “Noble prize winner” is an attractive thing to get. You need funding to build your next prototype aircraft? Tap into that aspect and say that your reputation precedes you. You are the “Captain of the Guards”. Well, next time you need to intimidate some goons at a tavern, that’s a handy aspect to tap into, either to awe them by your authority or to psyche yourself by thinking of them as raw recurits.

Really Formal Social Achievements

However, Fate 3.0 walks the line of GM fiat and formal rules. Some people have issues with that. After all, whether an Aspect could do what you want is up to the GM to decide.  For players accustomed to D20 and other high-crunch games where rules are formalised, something more concrete is needed.

Of course, this would mean that social conflict is another form of viable conflict for the game. The players must be assured that while they are climbing the social ladder, not all their games would take place in the dark depths where being allies with the Guild of the Alchemists means nothing.

(In Fate 3, if you have the Aspect “Ally of the Alchemists”, you can try to use it in a situation, say to naturalise a poison, by saying “Well I am an ally of the Alchemists; so they taught me something about this sort of stuff”. Of course, this requires a Fate Point and the GM to allow the player to do it).

Resolving this problem is going to be lengthy. For OGL D20, the GM may introduces ad hoc feats. “Hero of the Middlelands” feat, for example, may  grant the character +2 to Diplomacy and Information Gathering in the correct region. The “Guard Captain” feat give a bonus to Intimidation and the like. Perhaps GM-designed feats could help. I am looking forward to what other ways this could be done.

Social Conflicts and its Nature

Pen and paper RPGs tends to be personal. One to one combat, spell duels, confronting a devious trap and navigating a dungeon. However, social conflicts are more than just debates, persuasion and bribery. I believe if we enlarge the scope of social conflict, social status becomes more important. I would like to explore this part more in detail.

1. Paradise on High? Settlements being to spring up about the foot of the volcano, where verdant fields and forests have grown because of the fertile volcanic ashes. Some has risked the climb to the top of the mountains, and returned with exciting finds – gigantic fishes, crabs and fruits larger than those found on the ground. There begins an eager expedition to the top, but at least one person is more cautious than most.  He wishes the adventurers to investigate the crater and see if it is indeed aparadise at the top of the volcano. If there are such good hunting there, who (or what) else may be a predator up there?
2. What Dwells in the Deep on High: Settlers on the foot of the volcano and nearby islands have reported sightings of a strange group of creatures. They look serpentine, but humanoid, and are as adept in land and water. Trackers have located webbed footprints leading up to the volcano, and some suspect those new creatures came from the peak. The volcano has cause the ancient tunnels of a serpent-like people to connect to the natural underground caverns in the region, and they have found a way to the peaks of the volcano, where game and food is plentiful. But are they necessary hostile? Can the human settlers and the serpentine race shares the volcano in peace?
3. A Metal of Fire and Ice: An alchemist has predicted that due the extraordinary means which the icy cold lake is formed at the peak of the volcano, there would exist a type of metal alloy which would be stronger than steel and far more flexible at the same time. He managed to convince a rich patron to sponsor an expedition and he was proven right. From the metal found within the lake, he managed to produce weapons of excellent quality. Now the crater at the top has became a slave labor forge and mine, where the rich patron and the alchemist produce weapons, armor and other impediments of war and selling them. A competitor, or someone who stand to gain from their loss, has decided on an extreme way to end this whole affair – to make the volcano erupts again.

1. Garbage Dump. A place where the city dwellers deposit all their wastes, unwanted items and unwanted people as well.
2. Giant Roaches Nest. I don’t think this one needs further elaboration. Home of giant cockroaches!
3. Stacked Standing Stones. Think Stonehenge. Think of those stones stacked like a house of cards.
4. Old Canal Systems. This city used to rely on canals for transportation, but the city has fallen into ruins, but the canal remains, and now acts as roads to reach one part of the ruins to another.
5. Timestopped Crumbling Castle. This is a castle in the process of falling apart, as if an earthquake has struck it, but all its falling pieces have been frozen in time. Let’s hope the adventurers don’t do anything to deactivate the timestop
6. Inside a giant plant where insects have taken up residence and small gnome-like creatures are harvesting ‘seeds’ from within
7. A deserted army camp, filled with zombies soldiers who still believe that they are alive
8. Mangrove with crocodile-infested water, islands which move the currents and the threat of diseases.
9. In an alternate reality where wizards become better fighters and fighters become better wizards
10. A ruined castle with invisible floors and walls. It looks partially ruined but actually it is whole; but would the adventurers care to walk on invisible floors?