To set the record straight, all my games have social skills, like Convince, Leadership,  Intimidation, and the like. These skills can be used to establish a relationship, but do nothing to maintain it, nor do they define it. I had no idea that was what we were talking about. I think I'm getting confused again, and had better back out. It's not smart to keep going when you don't know what you're actually talking about, especially if you think you know what's going on...

-clash

I don't think thats what was ever being talked about, Clash.

Geez. nearly every game with a skill system has rules for diplomacy or something similar. Even the oldest RPG of all has a charisma stat and a very clear exampe about a character with a high charisma might able to talk his way out of being eaten by a witch or something (Did I recall that right? basic D&D).

Quote from: flyingmiceI had no idea that was what we were talking about. I think I'm getting confused again, and had better back out. It's not smart to keep going when you don't know what you're actually talking about, especially if you think you know what's going on...


-clash

Welcome to my world. Drinks will be served shortly.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWelcome to my world. Drinks will be served shortly.

Regards,
David R

I'll have a Balmore, two fingers, neat.



And thanks, AM, but people were posting about such things all of a sudden, and I didn't get the memo...

-clash

Quote from: David RFor a believer in the " Speak English Motherfucker !" school of thought, I should have practised more of said philosophy in my original post. Somewhere in Australia JimBob is shakin' his head.

Your original post was quite clear in its questions, but it wasn't focused. If you begin a post with, "since Poster X is a drongo, and thinks silly things about Y, I thought I would ask people about Z," then naturally some of the people are going to blather on about Poster X and ideas Y. Only mention X and Y if you want to talk about them; if you just want to talk about Z, only mention Z.

Rules for relationships can be good.

Quote from: balzacqit's really just a game-mechanical way of listing a resource. "Ally: wife" and "Ally: soulless zombie" are functionally exactly equivalent.

In game mechanics terms, yes. I would hope they're not the same in play

Quote from: JimBobOzRules for relationships can be good.

Maybe. But I was..am..also interested in the role "relationships" play in peoples games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmiceTo set the record straight, all my games have social skills, like Convince, Leadership,  Intimidation, and the like. These skills can be used to establish a relationship, but do nothing to maintain it, nor do they define it.

I think that's all you really need for mechanics dealing with realtionships.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games?

(Now I'm going to define 'relationships' here as they apply to PC=NPC interaction. PC=PC is ALWAYS important in any game I've ever run or played in.)

Depends on the game system for the most part. If you have a group of people who are always on the move, then you don't get a chance to really 'tie down' a lot of NPC relationships. But the ones that you DO, mean that much more.
Though there will always be those that they maintain no matter how far they wander.

In a game where the PCs will be in the same area for a middling to long amount of time, the number rises and their import increases. (They become more useful and it' becomes more dangerous to let them turn sour)

All in all I'd say any relationship my Players deem worthy of maintaining or pursuing will be treated seriously (as will all the ones where they pissed people off)

Quote from: David R2. Do these relationships get in the way of the "action"?

Not that I've ever seen. Sometimes they are responsible for action that would otherwise have never occurred "Attack Bob the Slaughterer's castle? Not for a million GP! We'd never last two seconds in there, forget it." 'Well he kidnaped Joe from the Eazy Hearth Tavern/Coffee Shop...... and he killed Joe's dog when he did it.....' "What? He took Joe AND killed Mr. Wuggles? I loved that dog...... Son of A BITCH. MUST. PAY!!!!"

Only if you're spending too much time on relationships that session could it be a problem (once in a while it's ok, but not every session). At that point, it's time management that's a problem, not the relationship itself. Hell, I've seen shopping trips for gear that held up 'the action'. No one wants to watch other players haggle over every freaking item they buy. FFS torches are 1cp each, don't haggle on the price of a dozen...... cheap bastards.....

Quote from: David R3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Only in as far as what flyingmice said. It's all up to the PCs from there. For the record though, I do like to establish a few 'background' npcs when players create characters. After creation, it's up to the Players to establish and maintain relationships. I don't depend on die rolls.

Quote from: David RMaybe. But I was..am..also interested in the role "relationships" play in peoples games.

I already talked about that. I said that relationships play a role in the game if the rules and GM encourage them, and/or the players are keen on them; not so much if they don't.

The role of relationships in my games is to make the action meaningful. It's one thing to lop a guy's head off with an axe, it's another thing to lop his head off, and then find out the person he was about to rape is your daughter. It makes the head-lopping more meaningful

Fights have tension, persuasion attempts have the players wracking their brains to figure out what they want to achieve, and so on. Relationships and personality stuff give it all depth, make it fulfilling as well as fun.

Just take everything JimBobOz is saying in this thread and think it's me.  It'll save me time and be much more clearly stated.

Quote from: GunslingerJust take everything JimBobOz is saying in this thread and think it's me.  It'll save me time and be much more clearly stated.

Plagarist!

Hey, Jim Bob! You haven't spoken up yet! You ought to listen to this Gunslinger character! He knows what he's talking about!

-clash

Quote from: blakkieCuriously I actually do this in a piecemeal manner. One of my children are autistic so it is faster for him to learn through explicit encompassing rules.  I find it an interesting and enlighting process analysing what we typs do and expect and then figuring out concise rules to explain it.  Extracting the relavent patterns that he doesn't see. [EDIT: I should say the patterns that most people don't think about or notice. They just "know" them, although specifically what each person "knows" differs widely.]

But the rules never quite get it completely right, do they?  A friend's son has Asperger's and have read quite a bit about autism and related issues.  The mother of the young man with Asperger's doesn't quite have that (she has ADD but I don't think she's been diagnosed on the Autism spectrum) but she does have to think her way social situations more deliberately than other people do.  She role-plays with us sometimes and she finds it incredibly frustrating having to deliberately think her way through social dialog with NPCs and other PCs while the rest of us at the table just "do it" fluidly and naturally.  Yes, she's told me so.

And that actually illustrates my point, I think.  I, and most of the rest of the people in the groups I role-pay with, can just role-play through the social stuff better than any rules or deliberate choices could ever do for me.  I don't need rules for that and when I have tried to use them, they just feel like they are getting in the way.

That goes back to something I've been saying for a while.  Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules.  If they players already know how to do something well, then the rules are either (A) going to tell them what they already know or (B) disagree with what they already know which makes the rules either useless or worse than useless.

By the way, I'm happy to hear that you are doing that for son and happy to hear he's doing well enough that you can do that for him.  It sounds like a great things to do.  Good luck with it but be careful about the assumptions you embed in your rules.

Quote from: blakkieAs long as and as detailed as I decided to make it? As always "scope" be your friend! .

In order for me to want to use rules, they need to improve on what I already do.  I think you know what that would mean for the "scope".

Quote from: John MorrowPlayers need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules.  If they players already know how to do something well, then the rules are either (A) going to tell them what they already know or (B) disagree with what they already know which makes the rules either useless or worse than useless.

So if I want rules for social stuff, I must be autistic? If I want rules for personality stuff, I must be a sociopath?

Bollocks. I know how to punch someone in the head, and how to shoot someone or sneak around - did some boxing in the Army, and was in the infantry - that doesn't mean I don't need rules for unarmed combat, for fire combat, or stealth.

We have rules to give structure and consistency in play, and to resolve disagreements about outcomes. In real life, I don't need rules to determine whether I hit someone in the head, or persuade the boss to give me a pay rise - the crack or whoosh of fist, or rustle or silence of cash in my paypacket, will tell me whether I succeeded or not. In an rpg session, absent rules, it goes on GM whim and player argument; with rules, there's some consistency and predictability of results. We don't want everything to be predictable and consistent, which is why we don't have rules for every last little thing. This is just the good old balance between game rules and GM/player judgment.

Not only autistic people want rules for social stuff. Go join the Forge if you want to talk to us like that.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo if I want rules for social stuff, I must be autistic? If I want rules for personality stuff, I must be a sociopath?

No, but clearly you want or need them for something.  What is it?

Quote from: JimBobOzBollocks. I know how to punch someone in the head, and how to shoot someone or sneak around - did some boxing in the Army, and was in the infantry - that doesn't mean I don't need rules for unarmed combat, for fire combat, or stealth.

That's because if you tried demonstrating those skills on your players to resolve actions, you'd be arrested, though some LARPS certainly do go that far and seem to need fewer rules to cover things that the players can just act out.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe have rules to give structure and consistency in play, and to resolve disagreements about outcomes.

I said, "Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules."  If you have disagreements and problems with consistency when you aren't using rules, then you obviously can't do those things as well without the rules, can you?

Quote from: JimBobOzNot only autistic people want rules for social stuff. Go join the Forge if you want to talk to us like that.

Are you reading what I wrote or what you think I wrote?  My group manages to not have problems role-playing through social situations.  Apparently that does cause problems for you and/or your groups.  My group doesn't have a problem, so we don't need rules.  Your group does have a problem, so rules help.  That's pretty much all I said.  If everything is fine, then you don't need rules.  If everything isn't fine, then rules can be a good thing.  But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Applying rules to a situation that's already working well is like turning the key to start the engine when it's already running -- a pointless exercise that only produces lots of nasty grinding noises.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo if I want rules for social stuff, I must be autistic? If I want rules for personality stuff, I must be a sociopath?

Quote from: John MorrowNo, but clearly you want or need them for something. What is it?

For describing the character in a way the player can or will not perform.  Your social skills and personality are not your characters.  I've always played in groups where we each have our own style to describe what our character is doing.  Some people do this through monologue, others do it through narration, and yet others would prefer to just roll the dice and move on.  I need the mechanics to provide the even playing field.  I don't make my players wrestle to resolve combat.  That'd reaaalllly suck with some of the people I've played with.  The mechanics can ease us through situations that are uncomfortable at the table.  Try roleplaying dialogue for love relationships if you don't believe me (though I'm sure some players can, there's always somebody).