Why A Party Face Is A Bad Idea

[Michele]

Originally Posted by scc

The key difference between those specializations and the social specialization is that everyone has something to do once a fight breaks out, once talky time starts, that isn't the case.

Note that healing, scouting sneakily in a dark cave, spotting and disarming a trap are not combat, either, and again in all of these cases it's better if the specialized guy does it.

That said, I also disagree that when it's time to talk, only one person has something to do. Twice, when Hitler met with the rulers of Czechoslovakia, the Prime Minister or the President, a couple of German generals were present. Why not the German Foreign Minister, as a talky sidekick? Because we know from Hitler himself that their role, with their uniforms, their malevolent stares, and their "brutal" appearance, was to intimidate - silently! - the Czechoslovakians, reminding them of the German war machine. Hitler did the talking, the generals did not. Yet Hitler himself deemed that their presence was useful.

That trick is entirely possible to roleplay with GURPS. There's even a Perk for wordless Intimidation! In any case, that skill also provides bonuses that brutal barbarians could well use to boost their score, even if they probably only have a low basic level in Intimidation.

It's only an example of how friends of the talker could simultaneously provide collateral incentives. As the GM, I'd ask the players of those PCs to roll against their relevant skill, such as Intimidation, Acting, Carousing, Sex Appeal etc.

[Refplace]

It just seems to me to be how things are setup. For example my current party consists of...

• Primary Face Diplomacy 20, Attractive, Voice Charisma 3
• Leader Handsome, Charisma, Leadership
• Mage Transcendent Appearance
• Slammer Intimidation with some perks
• Spearfighter Attractive, Savior-Faire (High Society)

Were all martial artists in a Wuxia/Xianxia campaign and I think everyone has some reaction bonuses with the Face and Leaders being the best generally but our slammer has a very high Intimidation skill.
So in town most get a chance to do something.

[borithan]

Originally Posted by scc

Party face, for those of you unaware, is a term from D&D, dating back to at least the 3rd ed era, where due to the fact that all talky skills keyed off a single attribute, CHA, that most classes didn't get much use out of, along with the way skill points where handed out, most parties would a single member, most likely a rouge, bard, or sorcerer, to be the party face and invest in the needed skills. What this means is that anytime the party needs to do talky stuff, this one party member gets the spotlight.

Does it really come from D&D? I thought the idea of a "face", was a "real world" term, ie the person who meets people to iron out a deal? And while I realise 3.5 D&D did kind of encourage this kind of behaviour because of the absurd level of specialisation needed to make someone competent at a skill, it kind of has similarities to the older idea of the "Party leader", the character who would be presumed to be the prime person interacting for the group, I presume to make it simpler for the GM! However, I think the likely identity of the character might have changed from "This is the fighter, who as he is a active forceful man of action would be the leader" to "This is the bard/Sorcerer/Paladin, cos their CHA is high, and so it makes sense he is the one who invested points in social skills. The big dumb fighter is back their making grumpy faces and the occasional incomprehensible grunt."

Originally Posted by Michele

First thing, in old-school dungeoning specialization was the main thrust of character classes. You have one brute-force frontline fighter, one magic user, one healer, one trap disarmer, one stealthy specialist, one archer etc. There is some overlap, in a way similar to a secondary MOS, but not much. All of that is not so different from having one social-skills specialist.

Of course in really old school games, there was no mechanical aspect of social encounters. It was entirely down to how you played it out. Does make things hard for people who struggle to think of good things to say, but want to play a "social" character, but also avoids the inconsistencies of "well, you just insulted that man to his face, but rolled really high on your social check, so he actually really likes you" or "Well, that seems like an entirely reasonable offer, and you presented it well, but that critical failure means he wants you dead." Obviously you can have these things play a part even in a mechanical system but then again, you may be punishing player ability unfairly, and you might get complaints about players not getting the benefit of character abilities they have invested in. In some ways, the "this scene happens entirely off camera, and is resolved by a dice roll" is possibly the fairest, but only really works for a game like DF where you are expected to spend most of your time battling monsters and exploring.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Failing a defense isn't worse than not defending.

This is one of the issues I have with some players in one of my groups. They actively won't do skill rolls because they are bad at them, so they either don't see the point even trying, or they are worried about failure making it worse. Unfortunately all came through 3.x D&D, which I feel has taught some really bad habits for games that some of them haven't yet unlearned. I guess it does require GMs to be careful when to require a roll, and maybe the rule be to try and request a roll as much as possible not "When the results are of dramatic significance" but when "Doing nothing would be worse."

The other one I find irritating is: Player x explains what the Party should say or do, is then asked to make a roll, but then says "Wait, x should make the roll, he's the social character". I don't mind it so much for physical feats, I think because you could see it as asking "Would you be able to jimmy that lock/climb that wall?", but in social interactions it either feels like 1) one player playing another's or 2) someone going up to a relevant NPC and then going "Actually, wait, can you hold on a second, I would rather you spoke to this other person." Worse still is when someone is about to do something and then someone else goes "wait, get the bard to do it, he's better at it."

[Michele]

Originally Posted by borithan

The other one I find irritating is: Player x explains what the Party should say or do, is then asked to make a roll, but then says "Wait, x should make the roll, he's the social character". I don't mind it so much for physical feats, I think because you could see it as asking "Would you be able to jimmy that lock/climb that wall?", but in social interactions it either feels like 1) one player playing another's or 2) someone going up to a relevant NPC and then going "Actually, wait, can you hold on a second, I would rather you spoke to this other person." Worse still is when someone is about to do something and then someone else goes "wait, get the bard to do it, he's better at it."

Well, that would depend. Are the PCs alone and planning the meeting? If so, then yes, X can suggest a course of action and also add that it should be attempted by Y's character; and even Z can make that proposal.
Or are the PCs in front of the important NPC, already? Then the rule is, if you say it, your PC says it. At least over here.

If experienced player X seems to make a habit of telling newbie Y what his character should do, again it's up to the GM to prevent that. He might do so after the session, through a private word with X. Or even in game: "While you huddle around your table, wondering how you should present the idea to the knight, he suddenly stands, and strides across the tavern. He comes at your table and says: 'Good folks, you keep looking at me. Is there anything you want from me?'. What do you do?"

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by borithan

Does it really come from D&D? I thought the idea of a "face", was a "real world" term,

To my knowledge it's an A-Team term and was the kickname of the character played by Dirk Benedict.

<shrug> The A-Team may have gotten it soemwhere else but that was the first time I heard the term used.

[Varyon]

Personally, I think it's fine for a player to come up with an action/statement/whatever for another's character, but treat it as the first player making a suggestion - it's entirely up to the player of the actual character what he/she does. Someone who lacks any sort of tact or similar may well want to have a character who is a master diplomat, but unless the GM doesn't apply bonuses or penalties for the strength of a statement and just has the character roll against skill, said player is effectively working at a penalty due to being unlikely to say anything that would generate a bonus (and may well often generate an outright penalty); having someone who is IRL markedly more diplomatic advising them works just fine, even if his/her own character is only barely sapient.

As for the original topic (and the closest tangents), yeah, certain activities can be difficult to get everyone involved. Face activities are one of the worst offenders, as often many of the players are completely uninterested, and trying to get them to participate and pay attention can easily result in their character causing a disaster largely out of player boredom. It's also one of the places where the player's ability with the relevant skill(s) tends to matter the most - see the comment about bonuses and penalties, above (and I've had cases where wording things well meant the GM didn't even call for a roll... which was good considering my character most certainly wasn't a diplomat). Requiring all the characters to have some social skills and having them contribute - with the Face character leading - can probably help alleviate it somewhat.

For other activities, another option might be to allow the party to tag along so they can help in other ways, basically sharing the specialist's skill (honestly, this could probably help with Face activities as well). For example, the stealthy character could move forward into the enemy camp with his own stealthiness, then observe the sentries and wave the rest of the party over to his location when there's a gap that will let them pass undetected (or if he makes such a gap with a stealthy takedown or two). The other characters can assist with their own skills - observing the enemy, assisting in takedowns (particularly for ranged combatants), etc - even if the spotlight is largely on the sneaky guy. In many cases, the character sneaking in initially and then waving in the rest could be done with a single roll against Stealth (optionally penalized based on number of characters); a low-MoF Failure could mean one (or more) of the less-sneaky characters being discovered during the trip over, giving those who are still hidden a chance to silence the sentry undetected.

[Hide]

Well, I understand what you mean, yet I haven't suffered from having a face in the party. On the contrary, once we had a party of heroes that had a lot of “anti-face traits” (chummy, delusions, overconfidence, chauvinistic, disturbing voice, megalomania, low IQ, etc.).

In retrospective, perhaps the GM wanted a “realistic atmosphere Sword and Sorcery game”, but the characters were too flashy to bear with. A normal conversation with NPCs was unlikely.

Anyways, the party was “forced” to choose a spokesman (the less “broken” of the characters), and we managed to get over most of the important matters like this. This picture was kind of comical, something like “give me a minute to check with my party, we’ll speak in private right here, before talking back to you”.

I don't think a party face is bad. In my opinion, “face skills” are tools to moderate conversations, so to say. For example, non-face players may have better social skills or cunning than the guy playing the face character; a non-face character might be asking the right questions in a conversation, but acquiring the right answers is the job of the face character (with the skills). On the other hand, a face player might conceive great ideas in other situations, but the ones turning the tables will be the explorers, the fighters, and so on.

The GM is the guy that controls the spotlight. He should warn the players about traits that may lead to monopolization before starting the campaign, but he also is in charge of providing situations that focus on each player as the game-session goes on.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by scc

....I've realized that in DF, which copies D&D pretty much to a T....

By DF I'm assuming you mean GURPS Dungeon Fantasy and not Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game. As others have said, the issue of PCs not having anything to do is largely the GM's responsibility. Right now I'm preparing to GM a mini-adventure that's focused almost entirely on one PC. So I'm adding things to involve the other PCs.

One possible solution is giving opportunities for a PC to shine by assisting the others. For example, in one of our campaigns there's PC who's a mediocre fighter--but is a very talented entertainer and talker. During battle, that PC is often a very useful distraction.

Another possible solution is to have situations where a PC being incompetent is part of the fun. For example, one of the PCs in one of our games likes to talk and tries to negotiate--but is Clueless, Easy to Read, Callous, etc. Another PC who has Diplomacy listens carefully to everything that PC says--and often interrupts them--so they can try to fix it.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by scc

Some thoughts of mine crystallized recently, and well the thread title came to me. Let me explain.

Party face, for those of you unaware, is a term from D&D, dating back to at least the 3rd ed era, where due to the fact that all talky skills keyed off a single attribute, CHA, that most classes didn't get much use out of, along with the way skill points where handed out, most parties would a single member, most likely a rouge, bard, or sorcerer, to be the party face and invest in the needed skills. What this means is that anytime the party needs to do talky stuff, this one party member gets the spotlight.

Now this is a single point of failure, which is bad enough, but I've realized that in DF, which copies D&D pretty much to a T, follows an cycle of start in town for talky stuff, move to dungeon for fighty stuff, then back to town for more talky, and I wouldn't be surprised if many other genre's are apt to follow a somewhat similar pattern. The problem with this is that the non-talky characters don't have much to do in town, meaning they'll want to leave town and get to the dungeon quickly, where everyone has stuff to do!

Yeah. My group started having this problem a while back. We decided to go through the various "realms" of adventuring (social engineering, combat, investigation, etc) and divide them up into methodologies and have everyone have their own methodology for engaging with each one with the skills and tools that support it. Then when it gets to the talky bits the party has 3-4 different types of faces who can go about it in different ways, and end up taking turns based on what's needed, or coordinating together. In theory we do the same thing with investigation and combat. It has worked the best in combat, and second best in investigation.

In reality not all of our players are equally good at social engineering irl, though, and that had a large impact on who was good at talking with NPCs whose loyalty was unsure (just knowing what questions to ask and how to not give the ball away is a big deal, and extra hard if you've got Oblivious [-5] irl!)

[AlexanderHowl]

A really good face can negate the need for combat in the majority of cases and may even recruit potential opponents to join them. In one game, we have a face with a +15 reaction, and she found it quite easy to convince sapient enemies to turn around or, in a few cases, to lend a hand in exchange for a share of the loot. It is often a lot better to have a 30' giant join your party instead of fighting your party, especially given the lethality of combat in GURPS.