Games like Empire of the Petal Throne, Bushido and others have setting where etiquette is very important. Even in historical European based games etiquette should matter, in my opinion. The courtiers of the royals live and die by "proper" etiquette.
What is the best method for representing this for a character (without the player having to actually know highly detailed etiquette) that you have seen?
... or am I wrong and etiquette should not be a factor in games?
=
If the character has a relevant skill, GM should assume they're being etiquetteful unless the player says otherwise. There are so many tiny rules of etiquette that it's not worth bogging down the game talk with it.
If they don't have the etiquette skill, assume they're being uncouth, and maybe ask for rolls to try and be etiquetteful.
If a character's supposed to know something the player clearly doesn't, I give them the "dialog box" treatment: "this thing you said you're doing is a major breach in protocol. Are you sure you're going to do this?"
I will do this twice, maybe thrice for the more absent-minded types. After this, they're on their own.
The Gm is the filter for the world. In both directions, You explain and describe the world to the players and when the players describe their actions you translate that back into the world.
I treat the skill use for etiquette just I would for perception or heavy lifting etc.
If the player has it I interpret what they tell me in light of the skill they have. So if they are strong they say I want to pick up X they can if not they can't.
If the player has Charisma or etiquette then they know what they need to do in a social situation.
If they are about to do something or say something wrong I let them know it is if they have the right level of skill, be it trying to lift something or how to introduce themselves to the king.
Social skills operate just like combat skills only we have more rules for combat.
Quote from: Ladybird;804374If the character has a relevant skill, GM should assume they're being etiquetteful unless the player says otherwise. There are so many tiny rules of etiquette that it's not worth bogging down the game talk with it.
If they don't have the etiquette skill, assume they're being uncouth, and maybe ask for rolls to try and be etiquetteful.
How many games have a specific skill for Etiquette?
If the character can't be assumed to have this skill due to background, what do you roll against?
Quote from: The Butcher;804377If a character's supposed to know something the player clearly doesn't, I give them the "dialog box" treatment: "this thing you said you're doing is a major breach in protocol. Are you sure you're going to do this?"
I will do this twice, maybe thrice for the more absent-minded types. After this, they're on their own.
What about a game where the player's are not from the current culture or environment? Such as, washed ashore or brought into court without experience in dealing with others there.
=
Quote from: Greentongue;804397How many games have a specific skill for Etiquette?
If the character can't be assumed to have this skill due to background, what do you roll against?
Many games have a skill that could be vaguely appropriate, like Streetwise or (Location) Lore, if they don't have an outright etiquette skill. If the system doesn't have that, and they're natives, I'd just assume they follow the relevant rules of etiquette unless they say otherwise; if foreigners, then forget it, they fail. Again, proper rules of etiquette are so complicated that you can't just pick them up on the fly, you need to be specifically taught over a period of time.
Basic Etiquette is a Level one skill in Guildschool
Sub skills are Gesture, Message, courtly manners, dining, heraldry, leisure sport under it.
Third Level skills are social hunting, lawn bowl, lawn tennis under Leisure sport, and International manners under Courtly Manners.
All of these have appropriate attribute modifiers. Only 10% of games played have really gotten into these, the other social skills get used a lot more. We do describe a slight amount, and there are cross overs with other skills like some of the history skills and artist skills.
Quote from: The Butcher;804377If a character's supposed to know something the player clearly doesn't, I give them the "dialog box" treatment: "this thing you said you're doing is a major breach in protocol. Are you sure you're going to do this?"
I will do this twice, maybe thrice for the more absent-minded types. After this, they're on their own.
this seems like the best way to do it
Quote from: The Butcher;804377If a character's supposed to know something the player clearly doesn't, I give them the "dialog box" treatment: "this thing you said you're doing is a major breach in protocol. Are you sure you're going to do this?"
I will do this twice, maybe thrice for the more absent-minded types. After this, they're on their own.
Do you tell them what proper etiquette in that situation would be? Because all "are you sure you're going to do this" tells me is it might not be the right thing to do. It tells me damn all about what the appropriate thing to do or say might be.
Quote from: Greentongue;804397How many games have a specific skill for Etiquette?
If the character can't be assumed to have this skill due to background, what do you roll against?
Shadowrun has it (or earlier editions have it). Street, Corporate, Media, and a couple others.
Quote from: The Butcher;804377If a character's supposed to know something the player clearly doesn't, I give them the "dialog box" treatment: "this thing you said you're doing is a major breach in protocol. Are you sure you're going to do this?"
I will do this twice, maybe thrice for the more absent-minded types. After this, they're on their own.
The trouble with that is the player likely doesn't actually know what you expect. After all, not only don't they know the right etiquette, they can't read your mind to know what etiquette you expect, since you probably don't know the proper etiquette either, you just have an idea of what that etiquette is.
My method is simple. A minor breech of etiquette, we lop of the player's hand (determined randomly or chosen by the GM). For major breeches of etiquette, immediate castration. Everyone is nice and polite now.
I see Etiquette (and Streetwise) skills as gatekeepers.
Failing them mean your character do not look the part or you make yourself such a fool that people in place turn their attention towards your char. Successful roll means you get close to someone you want to see without a problem.
For instance, in one of my games a player decided to show off everyone (especially her mother) that she is a adult noble lady. Thus she tried to meet a suitable man to be her accessory in a major party. This meeting went pretty much poorly (player decisions and few poor rolls) but she is VIP (her mother buys tons of high tech weaponry to kingdom and his parents are arms dealers) so he agrees to go out with her (against his better judgement).
Later in the actual party she blunders her rolls again (player had really bad luck with her rolls) so she ends up looking desperate rather than daring. He leaves her at earliest possible moment and she endures evening of uncomfortable embarrassment and public humiliation while her mother looks at her as if she was going to have a fit. There is no access to princess or queen so she has to endure humiliation of being with petty nobles.
Another player on the other hand did everything right, came up with a discussion with prince and finally met queen (all require good decisions and several rolls). This gave her chance to push forwards her noble family closer to queen's ring of accepted official friends.
Summa summarum: in my game Etiquette is door opener, not deal maker.
Quote from: Greentongue;804397What about a game where the player's are not from the current culture or environment? Such as, washed ashore or brought into court without experience in dealing with others there.
This is why my favorite way to play exotic settings is with PCs as foreigners, like EPT's "barbarians fresh off the boat", or Portuguese soldiers, merchants and missionaries in Tokugawa Japan.
I only "prompt" the players if their course of action betrays ignorance of some social rule their characters would be expected to know.
Quote from: Bren;804451Do you tell them what proper etiquette in that situation would be? Because all "are you sure you're going to do this" tells me is it might not be the right thing to do. It tells me damn all about what the appropriate thing to do or say might be.
I usually do.
Quote from: JeremyR;804456The trouble with that is the player likely doesn't actually know what you expect. After all, not only don't they know the right etiquette, they can't read your mind to know what etiquette you expect, since you probably don't know the proper etiquette either, you just have an idea of what that etiquette is.
See above. :)
Immersion is harder in settings removed from our own, relatable cultural norms. Of course some leeway is necessary; not all players would know the intricacies of behavior at a High Medieval Western European court either.
My goal as a GM is to facilitate immersion in a fun manner. Navigating the surprises of an exotic culture is supposed to be part of the fun, too. This is best done from a newcomer/ignorant perspective, but if people want to play a samurai in Tokugawa Japan, who can blame them? Are you going to demand a syllabus on 16th-Century Japanese etiquette?
Letting your player roll a native and not giving him any pointers on his or her character's parent culture is a big ol' fuck you. I'm generally considered a hardass player skill GM at our group, and I think doing otherwise is bullshit.
Getting your players to immerse in an alien culture can be tricky, but very rewarding.
There is probably no "best way", as every way depends on the partocular system being used.
In RQ/BRP/Legend systems, you have a skill (Etiquette/Courtesy/Culture/whatever), which indicates your level of proficiency. Now, depending on the amount of skill, a PC might be expected to roughly know etiquette, know etiquette really well or know everything about etiquette. The GM might ask a beginner to roll at every possible chance of failure, but might only ask a master to roll when a challenging situation occurs.
I just assume that a relatively competent PC knows what to say/do without having to roll every time entering a throneroom.
Quote from: soltakss;804521There is probably no "best way", as every way depends on the partocular system being used.
- ... -
The GM might ask a beginner to roll at every possible chance of failure, but might only ask a master to roll when a challenging situation occurs.
I just assume that a relatively competent PC knows what to say/do without having to roll every time entering a throneroom.
So, the frequency of rolling is the indication of how good with etiquette a character is? The player doesn't have to study a syllabus just to play a character that is "a fish out of water"? I think that is effective, thanks.
=
L5R has a skill called Etiquette. One of its uses is explicitly meta-game: if a player does or says something that would be a faux pas, the GM is encouraged to ask for a roll to see if the character knows what the player doesn't. On a success, you just tell them, and see if they want to go ahead.
I don't know about "best," but its a solution I've been content with in that setting.
In settings closer to home, I'm willing to just translate PC actions mentally into appropriate behaviors rather than playing gotcha. (Unless they're trying to be rude, in which case all bets are off.) Its an application of the general principle of "assume competence" for PCs. Unless you set out to play slapstick, PCs should be able to do everything a normal person can do, not less.
Quote from: Saladman;804630In settings closer to home, I'm willing to just translate PC actions mentally into appropriate behaviors rather than playing gotcha. (Unless they're trying to be rude, in which case all bets are off.) Its an application of the general principle of "assume competence" for PCs. Unless you set out to play slapstick, PCs should be able to do everything a normal person can do, not less.
My concern is with playing where the PC doesn't know what is right and is just struggling not to do anything horrible. While it may be "gamey" I don't think many people actually want to learn elaborate codes of conduct to run or play in a "foreign" setting. May explain why there are so few of them.
=
A big fat It Depends.
EVERY culture and subculture has etiquette rules, and pretty exacting ones. (One of the etiquette columnist Miss Manners' most piquant retorts to a writer, who claimed that no one paid attention to any such things nowadays, was to suggest that the three young men shot to death just that morning in her city for wearing the wrong gang's colors in the wrong neighborhood might have had something to say to that.)
But beyond "Make your Savoir-Faire roll and I'll give you a shot at not having said that colossally stupid thing to the Princess," the determining factor is simply this: how important is rigid etiquette to your setting, and how much do you want to highlight it? For Tekumel, for feudal Japan, I submit that the rigid, non-Western codes are a feature of the settings, not bugs, and that I'd play them up. If you have a bunch of players who can't be bothered, then those aren't the settings I'd run for them. (Or, alternately, find a bunch of players willing to play to the RP level you prefer.)
I feel there should be a "consideration ladder" where you start at the bottom rung and work your way up. Each rung determines modifiers to a potential roll (depending on game). Frankly, I base more of it on the actual "facts" of the rungs and the Player's portrayal (even if that is just a summary).
Bottom Rung: Social Status (appearance): The first thing people do is size you up based on your clothes, accouterments, and grooming. Do you appear to be of a status equal, below or above the person or persons you are engaging?
Next Rung: Social Status (known): If someone recognizes you as a person of a particular status, despite your appearance, then you generally can assume any benefits of status. Of course, the opposite could be true (a baron slumming as a bandit lord who is recognized by the bandits as an actual baron...).
Next Rung: Entourage (present company): Who you travel with can greatly influence how you appear. Unless you have a good explanation of any status disparity.
Next Rung: Entourage (known): Who you're known to travel with or spend time with can influence a person's perception of you. This could be as simple as walking out of a brothel when the baron wanders by...
Next Rung: Reputation (renown): The deeds you are known for can increase your sway with the "well to do" people or make you look like a dandy to the "rough and tumble" crowd.
Next Rung: Reputation (infamy): The horrible deeds you are known for can decrease your sway with "well to do" people and possibly increase it with the "not so nice" sorts.
Next Rung: The Approach (or The Plan): This one is important. The portrayal or description of such. What is the actor's attitude? What will they say? Are they considerate or aggressive? Does their behavior reflect their (perceived) status?
Planning and Perceptions: BEFORE the approach, it's probably a good idea to make an etiquette roll to determine any gotchas (if that's important) and even better to "read" the person or crowd you are about to interact with. Drumming up pertinent details like a birthday, recent victory, favorite food, or darker passions can help relax a person or crowd and make them more amicable or improve their demeanor.
In 5e you might allow a proficiency bonus to a CHA check if a background applies to the current social situation for an "etiquette" roll. You could also grant advantage or disadvantage for each rung until a "net" is determined. Of course a perception check can be made to "read" a person or crowd and then grant ad/disad on the next roll.
Quote from: The Butcher;804377If a character's supposed to know something the player clearly doesn't, I give them the "dialog box" treatment: "this thing you said you're doing is a major breach in protocol. Are you sure you're going to do this?"
That's what I do as well. Skill is as much as not screwing up in an absurd way as accomplishing something.
But that doesn't stop some people.
About 25+ years ago I ran a short lived Bushido game - sort of a horror / mystery version where an official is sent to investigate the strange disappearance of some rather mighty samurai in an area where there really wasn't a lot of battle going on.
One of the PCs of lower rank kept saying really disrespectful stuff to another PC and some NPCs. So a samurai PC killed him. The player of the dead character whined a lot, but I had warned him.
Quote from: trechriron;804684I feel there should be a "consideration ladder" where you start at the bottom rung and work your way up.
The categories are interesting, but why do you refer to it as a ladder? Does the order have particular significance?
Quote from: Bren;804698The categories are interesting, but why do you refer to it as a ladder? Does the order have particular significance?
Yes. It starts at the appearance level, then sort of an "internal" assessment (of the person or persons) followed finally by the actual engagement.
Quote from: trechriron;804711Yes. It starts at the appearance level, then sort of an "internal" assessment (of the person or persons) followed finally by the actual engagement.
That helps. If you feel motivated, an example would be cool.
Do you use the ladder only as a GM tool or do you also share the ladder with the players? I could see where sharing it would help remind players that they might want to have their PCs try to get information for most of the various levels rather than jumping straight to a face-to-face discussion.
trechriron
Excellent idea! More details are welcome as it sounds very useful for non-violent encounters.
=
I will work up an example and post it here soon. I have a couple irons in the fire, but it's a good exercise for my GM-brain. :-)
The real answer is that "etiquette" should be determined by Social Class.
It's still true even in our society to this day, it's what they used to call "breeding". It's actually a whole set of instruction-by-osmosis from childhood that a person has based on the social class they are born into, which are different if you're born into the working poor, the bourgeoisie, or the aristocracy.
So in most cases, NO roll should be needed at all. If a character is from a certain background they will already KNOW how to behave in a given situation; if they are not, they cannot know (but may know how to be appropriately deferential, as that's an inherent training people from the lower classes receive). Something like Charisma modifiers can determine how effectively they perform or if they are less or more attentive to social conventions and expectations.
But as for "knowing what to do"? The ONLY time I could see an etiquette "skill" being required would be if you were talking about someone who specifically had researched the subject in order to study it academically (someone working in some finishing school or the likes; or a scholar from one culture who had studied the proper manners of another culture for anthropological or diplomatic purposes) or if you had some rogue who had been training in order to know how to falsely impersonate a member of a different social class than their own (in which case, you might as well just use Disguise or Acting or whatever, because that's what it is).
Quote from: RPGPundit;805325The real answer is that "etiquette" should be determined by Social Class.
I have not observed that social behavior results in a simple binary "is appropriate" or "is not inappropriate" result. Even people raised in the same social class and circle will vary in their ability (and willingness) to act appropriately within their class.
In addition, an RPG is frequently more entertaining if there is enough social mobility allowed (beyond that of the occassional Remington Steele-like rogue with pretensions to a higher social station) so that PCs can interact with higher or lower social classes than that in which they started. In which case some skill representing knowledge of interacting appropriately with another class makes sense.
Quote from: Ladybird;804374If the character has a relevant skill, GM should assume they're being etiquetteful unless the player says otherwise. There are so many tiny rules of etiquette that it's not worth bogging down the game talk with it.
Quote from: Greentongue;804678My concern is with playing where the PC doesn't know what is right and is just struggling not to do anything horrible. While it may be "gamey" I don't think many people actually want to learn elaborate codes of conduct to run or play in a "foreign" setting. May explain why there are so few of them.
=
Pretty much. Memorizing extensive made-up fantasy ettiquette isn'tt something that would appeal to most people. Even memorizing real-world ettiquette for a historical game would be terrible unless that's part of what a given group wants: the fun of historical research followed by playing it out as a game.
So, most of the time, it's best to just subsume ettiquette as part of the reaction rules. Charisma in D&D includes ettiquette, at least in your home culture and among your own social class. Outside this zone, you might give a penalty to the reaction roll unless the player tries to research. In BRP and other skill-based RPGs, there might be an actual Ettiquette or Courtly Manners skill, but I personally would only use it for fish-out-of-water situations.
Quote from: RPGPundit;805325... So in most cases, NO roll should be needed at all ...
I think this depends on what you're going for or even the focus of your game. First, rolling creates "chances" which can lead to unexpected drama. I believe this is an element that drives adventure. It's fun sometimes not being absolutely sure of an outcome. Certainly those of a particular social status are going to be better at navigating those waters. I might represent this a bonus if I still wanted a chance for shenanigans.
Quote from: RPGPundit;805325... But as for "knowing what to do"? The ONLY time I could see an etiquette "skill" being required would be if you were talking about someone who specifically had researched the subject in order to study it academically ...
Which might be a great activity for a group of grifters to research the particular social aspects of a group they are trying to infiltrate. But even a knight who has spent too much time in the field could make a faux pas at court. If you're game involves courtly intrigue or matters of diplomacy, I think Etiquette could play a fun part of that (just as your sword skill plays a fun part of melee).
Quote from: talysman;805352... Memorizing extensive made-up fantasy ettiquette isn'tt (sic) something that would appeal to most people. ...
True. I would rather use "Etiquette Research" as an opportunity to show and tell. Demonstrate some unusual aspect of a culture. George R.R. Martin does this extensively in GoT. In one moment our Kalisi must appear before some council in a city. The style of dress for women of stature is a robe that exposes one breast (which for her is an exotic and somewhat unusual style). She frequently discusses these things with her adviser/hand maiden and worldly knight before holding court with anyone from the strange cities she is "touring". From the gaming perspective, our player sought knowledge of the situation before she embarked on her action. In the future, her Etiquette rolls can benefit from this experience and she is likely to remember this particular custom.
Quote from: talysman;805352... In BRP and other skill-based RPGs, there might be an actual Ettiquette or Courtly Manners skill, but I personally would only use it for fish-out-of-water situations.
I think this misses opportunities for shenanigans. :-) People don't bat 1000. Again, if your game is not focused on social interaction with the same detail as you might focus on combat, then you probably don't have a need for more involved social rules. But having them does give opportunities to players who may not actually be socially adept. It can also introduce interesting outcomes where a mundane one was expected.
Quote from: Bren;805329I have not observed that social behavior results in a simple binary "is appropriate" or "is not inappropriate" result. Even people raised in the same social class and circle will vary in their ability (and willingness) to act appropriately within their class.
Yes, sure, but what I mean to say is that people make the mistake of treating etiquette as a "do I know this" skill. This is probably because in our modern times it seems like no one knows any etiquette; in point of fact this is not true, its just that we associate "etiquette" with old timey "manners" from the Victorian age.
But we have modern "etiquette" all the time. You see it whenever you have someone raised in a minimum-wage or welfare-dependent household having trouble fitting in visiting the family of their "slumming-it" upper middle class girlfriend/boyfriend (among countless other situations). The "fish out of water" syndrome happens because of differences in social class, where people have been taught in early childhood
how you're EXPECTED to act within your class. That code of 'how you're expected to act' is etiquette, and it applies in all kinds of different situations; but your parents can't teach you about situations they don't know, and even in events common to all classes (family get-togethers, for example) the "rules" taught are different from one class to another.
What I'm saying is that a PC raised in a noble household shouldn't need to "roll" anything to know how to act toward ladies at court; he's been taught that ALL HIS LIFE. The GM should instead just tell him what he knows about how he's EXPECTED to act, and then the player should decide whether they want to be scandalous by intentionally ignoring those rules or not. Its never ability, it's willingness.
Likewise, unless someone has been specially trained/studying etiquette actively and on purpose, there shouldn't be any way they could possibly know how to act, because etiquette is MEANT to root out 'intruders' to social class. Obviously, if a peasant PC intentionally sets about getting training in how to act, then they may be able to attempt it, but otherwise, generally speaking, people are never taught the REAL secrets of etiquette. Its like the way people in the aspiring middle class used to think it was 'fancy' to raise the pinky finger while drinking tea, while actual upper classes would never ever do that and would immediately recognize it as a sign of ignorance. Or how when a gentleman asked you "how do you do", you never said "good" (much less "bad"), you always only reply "how do you do" right back, neither of you ever actually answering (unless you're dear dear friends). Just learning what spoon to use for what course is not going to save you.
QuoteIn addition, an RPG is frequently more entertaining if there is enough social mobility allowed (beyond that of the occassional Remington Steele-like rogue with pretensions to a higher social station) so that PCs can interact with higher or lower social classes than that in which they started. In which case some skill representing knowledge of interacting appropriately with another class makes sense.
Ah, but in a fantasy society (or any society up to about the mid-20th century) they CAN interact with higher or lower social classes; but NOT as one of them. Instead, lower class people were taught how THEY should behave, as lower class people, in front of their "betters"; and likewise, upper class people were taught the 'proper' way to behave around their 'inferiors'. Not to 'blend in', but to specifically highlight those differences. This too should never ever need to be "rolled for"; a peasant shouldn't ever have the risk of accidentally failing to show proper reverence to a Lord, because it has been unconsciously drilled into them by osmosis their entire lives.
Someone raised in an environment should know how to act.
Someone brand new to an environment should have to learn how to act, unless they were taught beforehand.
So, a farmboy who is suddenly a member of the court, having saved the life of a prince or rescued a princess, would perhaps struggle to fit in. Sure, he would know how to tug his forelock, bow to his superiors and so on, but he would have no idea which cutlery to use, how to dance with the princess or which colour clothes to wear at a royal dinner. That is where a skill comes in useful.
Quote from: RPGPundit;806091Yes, sure, but what I mean to say is that people make the mistake of treating etiquette as a "do I know this" skill.
I understood what you meant. But I disagree. On two points, first that people raised in a culture always know what appropriate behavior for their class actually is. For example, I am reading several Reformation Comedies right now and it is clear that the ability to behave with proper etiquette varies between the characters who are from the same (London Society) social class. In fact even some characters from the country (a different social class) display more appropriate or better etiquette. Two other examples: (1) Captain Blood by Rafael Sabatini (or nearly any Sabatini hero) routinely displays better etiquette (which includes wit and and savoire faire) than those who oppose him. Even when those in opposition are of the same or higher social class. His etiquette is one of the things that set him apart from his men and his enemies. (2) Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmund Rostand, we see Cyrano in the duel in the theatre show his greater wit and etiquette in the way he mocks his opponent for his lack of etiquette and style when insulting Cyrano to provoke a duel. Cynrano displays that sort of wit and clever use of language that was considered the height of etiquette in the Salons of Paris. But this society is one that he was part of due to his skill with words but who the noble challenging him would and should have been due based on his social station.
My second point of disagreement is your idea that having a binary result of the PC always knows how to act within their social class and the PC never knows how to act (very unusual circumstances excepted) outside of their class is more interesting result in an RPG than a range of outcomes in what is known with the probabilities of getting those results adjusted based on class, skill, and circumstances.
Quote from: Bren;806154I understood what you meant. But I disagree. On two points, first that people raised in a culture always know what appropriate behavior for their class actually is. For example, I am reading several Reformation Comedies right now and it is clear that the ability to behave with proper etiquette varies between the characters who are from the same (London Society) social class. In fact even some characters from the country (a different social class) display more appropriate or better etiquette. Two other examples: (1) Captain Blood by Rafael Sabatini (or nearly any Sabatini hero) routinely displays better etiquette (which includes wit and and savoire faire) than those who oppose him. Even when those in opposition are of the same or higher social class. His etiquette is one of the things that set him apart from his men and his enemies. (2) Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmund Rostand, we see Cyrano in the duel in the theatre show his greater wit and etiquette in the way he mocks his opponent for his lack of etiquette and style when insulting Cyrano to provoke a duel. Cynrano displays that sort of wit and clever use of language that was considered the height of etiquette in the Salons of Paris. But this society is one that he was part of due to his skill with words but who the noble challenging him would and should have been due based on his social station.
My second point of disagreement is your idea that having a binary result of the PC always knows how to act within their social class and the PC never knows how to act (very unusual circumstances excepted) outside of their class is more interesting result in an RPG than a range of outcomes in what is known with the probabilities of getting those results adjusted based on class, skill, and circumstances.
Binary is always the wrong answer here. One of the first differences between a combat system that is a descendant of the wargaming roots which produces binary answers and most roleplaying/social roles is the importance of a GM who has earned the trust of the players and who can adjudicate the series of rolls that make up such an encounter/situation.
One of my games, the online Collegium game, is 80% social and knowledge rolls, with some other skill rolls mixed in. Very, very granular in terms of the rolls and the results.
Yes, but in these cases, I suspect that what's being dealt with isn't so much etiquette as we think of it in general, or as I am defining it here, but rather he knowledge of fashionable behaviours.
Knowing what's in style can indeed be a "do I know it" kind of skill.
Quote from: RPGPundit;806625Knowing what's in style can indeed be a "do I know it" kind of skill.
"What's in style" can be as simple as "What is the Emperor wearing?".
That can be a knowledge check. Far different from "What is the polite way to answer?" and "How polite must I be to this person?"
=
Quote from: Bren;805329Even people raised in the same social class and circle will vary in their ability (and willingness) to act appropriately within their class.
That is true, however the point may be either to go unnoticed because you are conforming so well to the code of conduct, or somehow extolled for being a true adherent to it.
Social classes of different cultures may not be all that flexible either, and that's where some sort of knowledge roll seems to me to be appropriate - or a bunch of acting rolls.
You can get by in so many situations just by being a good observer.
Quote from: Greentongue;806692"What's in style" can be as simple as "What is the Emperor wearing?".
That can be a knowledge check. Far different from "What is the polite way to answer?" and "How polite must I be to this person?"
=
In the middle-ages, it might not be that simple, because of sumptuary laws.
In later periods, it might not be that simple because often the royal family were not the trendsetters, or at least not the monarch. And how you dressed (particularly in the upper classes) could even say something about your social interests or political allegiances.
Quote from: Greentongue;806692"What's in style" can be as simple as "What is the Emperor wearing?".
That can be a knowledge check. Far different from "What is the polite way to answer?" and "How polite must I be to this person?"
It can also be extremely dangerous.
If you know that the Emperor wears a jaunty little green hat and you get one made and show up in court wearing it then you run the risk of wearing something explicitly reserved for the emperor, you might be seen as showing up the emperor, or mocking him, the little green hat might be out of date now, showing you to be a bumpkin aping your betters.
Of course, someone brought up in the court would probably know that, as might other nobles from the empire, but strangers/foreigners/visitors might not.
As for how to handle etiquette in game:
Depends on my GM understanding of a player's skill. That's why I encourage a dialogue shift between players and my GM self through first, second, & third person voice. This way if they are struggling with remaining in character to attempt something they have an out (and maybe we can leave it to the will of the dice). Just tell me what you want to do, and how you want to do it, and given my knowledge of your PC, your efforts, and the context, I'll tell you how you did.
As for my favorite system so far to handle it? So far AD&D 2e NWP. Seemingly odd choice, but NWP means professional level of a skill. Which means everyone who doesn't have it may attempt it otherwise on their stats (with possible modifiers).
But people with NWP can gloss over quite a bit of rolling until it is actually at their difficulty level. Basically Etiquette is Savoir Faire, for professionals even those who travel far just pick up effortlessly the way on how to do things. They "know how to do" because they are a quick study on nuance.
It's a very loose GM discretion system where extra rolling is avoided. And when rolling is needed it is a basic roll under, so percentile increments are easy to gauge on the fly modifiers.