Conversation Skills in an Action Game
By Christopher Magoun, Adventure in the World of Bostonia!
Conversation,
persuasion, oratory and seduction can pose special problems to new and
experienced GMs alike. These charisma-based skills are often treated
differently than physical skills. When a PC tries to use a physical skill, the
GM assigns a difficulty based on the situation at hand, and the player rolls
against his skill. A successful roll means the player succeeds at the task. A
failed roll means the character fails the task. Of course, it is not
necessarily this simple. Depending on the magnitude of the success or failure
and the situation, partial failures and successes may occur with their results
determined by the creativity and cruelty of the GM. Many intelligence-based
skills work in the same way; a die-roll determines the success of the task.
The
reason for this is simple. You cannot role-play most physical skills. When the
PCs, fleeing a ravenous band of goblins, comes to a chasm and needs to leap to
safety, the GM cannot very well ask that the players get up from the gaming
table, drive to a convenient ditch and perform the jump to determine the fate
of their characters. It’s unfair to ask players to be as strong, fast and agile
as their characters... and all that ditch digging can be inconvenient.
Intelligence skills have the same issues. It is hard to have a player figure
out a complicated magical formula when he is struggling through calculus.
Oddly
enough, we gamers have a bit of a double standard when it comes to
charisma-based skills. When the PCs are trying to persuade the NPC to give them
information, the GM generally does not leave the resolution of the situation up
to a skill roll. Instead, he will play the part of the NPC and the players will
talk for their characters. Based on the real-life conversation, the GM will
determine how the NPC reacts and if the PCs get their information.
This
"double-standard" exists because role-playing games are nothing more
that exercises in imagination and conversation. Thus, it makes sense that any
aspect of the game that involves talking would be played out and not just
diced. This is the "role" part of the role-playing and the
conversations that characters and NPCs (i.e. GMs and players) have give the
game flavor and are an important part (some think the MOST important part) of
RPGs.
However,
this attitude toward charisma-based skills can create a few unwanted
situations. For one thing, though a weak player can play a strong character,
and in most situations, a player of average intelligence can role-play a
brilliant mage, or scientist, a person with below-average people skills will
have a difficult time playing the smooth-talking con man, or the diplomat. This
is because, unlike his mage and fighter companions, the con man's player
actually has to DO his skills, instead of just rolling for success. He has to
talk to the NPCs and be convincing. If the player does not have the
conversation skills, he will not be as successful as his character's skill
level would indicate.
Many
GMs mix role-playing with die-based resolution. When a charisma skill is used,
the player role-plays the situation for a while and then the GM adjusts his
skill roll accordingly. This gives the below-average talker the ability to
succeed at conversation skills due to his character's skill, while preserving
the role-playing aspect of the game. However, what happens when the player
gives a great speech and still blows the roll... or flubs the speech, but
critically succeeds on the roll? What about the situation where PCs determine
that they are getting nowhere with a particular NPC and in desperation point
out that their character has the conversation skill at such-and-such a level
and can they make a skill roll? These situations are unsatisfying and can feel
contrived.
I
suggest a simple change to conversation-based skills. When one of these skills
is used, the GM should determine a difficulty and make a skill roll
immediately. The GM should not use the results of this skill roll to determine
the success or failure of the attempt. Instead, take the skill roll and base
the tone of the conversation and the initial reaction of the NPC on that roll.
A successful skill roll means the NPC is favorably disposed to the PC, or is
caught off-guard by the character, and might have useful information. A failed
roll mean the NPC is wary, has no information, or is downright hostile. After
this initial roll, the player's role-playing skills will determine the outcome
of the encounter.
For
example, PCs are skulking about the city at night. A guard comes upon them and
the group's confidence man uses his fast talk skill to convince the watchman
that the group is breaking town curfew to innocently look for the lost kitten
of a friend. The GM decides on a difficulty of the skill roll (based on the
experience and intelligence of the guard or any other factors the GM wishes to
include) and the player rolls.
If
the player succeeds in the skill roll, then the conversation begins with the
guard favorably disposed to the party and their story. Perhaps he is a green
recruit, or gullible. Perhaps he is taken with a female member of the group and
if she does the talking, he is bound to believe her story. Perhaps he stopped
in a local pub and is noticeably drunk. If the PCs notice and threaten to tell
his superiors, he may let them go just to get away from them. Perhaps he will
give the PCs a hard time, but is open to graft. In any case, the successful
roll does not necessarily mean that the encounter is successful. Instead, it
means the GM needs to provide the players with a NPC who will believe a
credible story, or has some hook which will allow a successful resolution.
A
failed roll means just the opposite. The guard is suspicious. Perhaps there
have been some crimes in the neighborhood and the guard is on the lookout for
any after-hours activity. Perhaps the PC looks like a perpetrator of a similar
crime, or has a feature (or is of a race or ethnicity) that the guard does not
like. Perhaps he is just experienced and has heard this story before. In any
case, the encounter should be difficult and only the best role-playing (and in
this case, fast talking) will get the guard off the PCs’ backs.
This
approach to conversation skills has a couple advantages. First, it uses both
the game mechanics and role-playing equally. A character with a high skill will
have an easier time using his charisma-based skills even if the player is not
good at the skill. This is because successful skill rolls bring about easier
role-playing situations. On the other hand, role-playing is still
required to bring about a solution to the encounter and good role-playing is
rewarded with successful outcomes to failed skill rolls.
Second,
this approach gives the GM a guideline as to how tough he should be on PC
confidence men. How easily should the NPC give in? How gullible should this
person be? If the NPC is one that has been written and developed, then these
questions are easy to answer. However, in the case of our guard, the GM has
probably not prepared any information on this NPC’s personality and so the
skill roll provides a good guide to how this person should behave toward the
PCs.
Third, a good GM can have a great deal of fun with this system.
A bit of quick thinking can lead to many interesting and humorous situations.
Let’s get back to the guard example. On a particularly bad failure, the PCs
give their story and the guard, so overtaken with sympathy, offers to travel
with them and help find their kitten. This could lead to a wonderful subplot
where the PCs have to find a way to ditch the guard, or get their skulking done
in spite of him.
Another possibility is that the guard recognizes one of
the PCs and, based on his reputation and position, either arrests him on the
spot, or causes trouble for him later. Critical successes could lead to
improbable good fortune such as a kitten strolling out of the bushes just as
PCs finish their story, or the guard in question being an old friend of one of
the PCs.
