[Dungeon Fantasy] Point total for game with more social play

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'd lean towards taking things out of the advantage pool than the skill list. The advantage pool is much more flexible.

This I could get behind!

The x points in advantages on a template support whatever goofy direction the player wants to take. The hidden assumption is that no choices here will make you less good at the profession, though not all will make you very much better at it. So shifting 5 points from here to social skills won't break anything at all. Also, advantages on your template are explicitly allowed purchases with earned points, so this is quite literally a case of delaying a reward by a few game sessions.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Why would you run a DF campaign at all if social interaction is desireable? I mean, isn't the point of DF to duplicate that game that doesn't bother about social stuff?

Fifth Edition D&D definitely has support for social stuff; the Pathfinder RPG Kingmaker adventure path is more or less what it says on the tin, too.

Speaking personally, I tried once to run a combat-only game that was nothing but go out to Planet X, kill aliens, and take their stuff. (You might recognize this as the basic premise of the forthcoming Mission X stand-alone game.)

This only worked for me for a few sessions, and then I needed more as the GM in terms of challenges. So even when I set out to make "all shooting, all the time," my own campaign couldn't hold my interest.

Anyway: as Sean notes, DF can support a social axis well enough.

Edited to add: Because of my involvement with Nordlond and the Dungeon Fantasy RPG, I was reading all of this in that context despite this being the GURPS forum and not labeled DFRPG. With that in mind, branching into the social is just a choice, leveraging the full weight of GURPS rules. My brain was stuck in Dungeon Fantasy RPG mode!]

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Why would you run a DF campaign at all if social interaction is desireable? I mean, isn't the point of DF to duplicate that game that doesn't bother about social stuff?

Despite beginning to roleplay in the OSR era, most of the groups I knew of always had plenty of social interaction. By the end of middle school, we were already giving hefty XP bonuses for good roleplaying and whatnot.

My DFRPG/GURPS DF campaigns always feature a significant social dimension. Indeed, I got a lovely thank you note from a player in last night's game appreciating the fact that there had been a social encounter at the beginning of the session. (The bulk of the session was spent in a glorious battle with some enraged ankylosauruses.)

So I don't think DF needs to ignore the social aspect of the game.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Despite beginning to roleplay in the OSR era

Most of the hardcore OSR players I know rail against the mechanization of what, to them, is supposed to be a pure player-skill item. The social dimension had little mechanical support because that's what the meat-sack driving the character sheet was for.

I may have known different players, and the plural of anecdote doesn't reach "data" until a sufficient sample size is achieved . . . but "you don't NEED rules for that!" was always the refrain from my OSR buds.

[Kalzazz]

While social isn't my preferred type of character usually when I do play social I enjoy knowing exactly what level of Social I'm bringing to bear and being able to wield that in game

'I have Diplomacy 25, Status 6, Voice, Very Handsome, Charisma 6, and my armor is ornate +3!'

Is just as fabulous as 'I have Rapier 25, ST 19, 2 levels of Striking ST, Weapon Master (Edged Rapier), Extra Attack and a fine balanced silvered Edged Rapier of Penetration!'

Let me at them, I will Diplomate the Tar out of those peeps, the mindwarpers will become our new trade partners!

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Most of the hardcore OSR players I know rail against the mechanization of what, to them, is supposed to be a pure player-skill item. The social dimension had little mechanical support because that's what the meat-sack driving the character sheet was for.

I may have known different players, and the plural of anecdote doesn't reach "data" until a sufficient sample size is achieved . . . but "you don't NEED rules for that!" was always the refrain from my OSR buds.

I've always had mixed feelings about this. I never want the rules to get in the way of those glorious moments of deep immersion in the roleplaying experience. At the same time, it's obviously silly if only actors can play bards and only geniuses can play wizards. I like to find a happy medium, similar to what Kromm described above, where impromptu moments of great roleplaying are encouraged (and provide some benefit), with the mechanics providing guidelines and boundary conditions. If your gaming muse is out to lunch, you can fall back on your skills to get the job done.

Similarly, in my games, unless there is a supernatural element in play, social skills are never a free pass. A high fast talk skill makes it much more likely that you'll talk your way past the guards, but it's never a sure thing.

[phayman53]

Thank you all for your input, I guess I under-appreciated the social skills already on character templates. I guess I was thinking of things like status, more frequent use of wealth, skills like "soldier" and other professional skills, cultural familiarities, rank, etc. I don't have DF 17: Guilds yet, that may have to go higher on my list.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Why would you run a DF campaign at all if social interaction is desireable? I mean, isn't the point of DF to duplicate that game that doesn't bother about social stuff?

I like the combat power level and the kinds of monster slaying in DF, but even when I played that other game, it was almost never just "kill monsters and take their stuff"--the world and motives for adventuring were always more "realistic" (though realistic with magic and monsters, so "fantasy realistic"?).

There is a ton of support for DF on the monster/combat side of things that will help me greatly as a relatively new GM in trying to design and run encounters, but any campaign I run will not be just a series of dungeon crawls where the objective is only "killing the monsters and taking their stuff". Therefore, I was looking for advice on adding more emphasis to social skills in the templates.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dalin

I've always had mixed feelings about this.

For what it's worth, I agree personally. I like the blend of player skill and character skill that allows you to "game" your paper person as well as you can. If you're Mrugnak the Destroyer, then "Mrugnak smash!" is the best you might be up for, and a wise tactician will limit orders and strategems to suit "Smash? Smash now?"

If you're an acerbic twit (as a character!) then the height of your social roleplaying is knowing when to NOT come into the store with Face Man; if you go in, you're going to smash stuff, start a fight, get tossed out, and run out out of town one spearhead away from the guard.

You should roleplay your paper avatar to the best of your ability, and modern game design mostly supports that.

But I was just noting that one of the (claimed) reasons for no social rules in the OSR era, but plenty of social roleplay, was that 'player skill' was supposed to be pretty important.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

But I was just noting that one of the (claimed) reasons for no social rules in the OSR era, but plenty of social roleplay, was that 'player skill' was supposed to be pretty important.

I'm not a hugely social person, but I have been more eloquent and persuasive in games than I can be in normal life. It feels absolutely great, and I'd never want to stop a player from trying that themselves.

[Kromm]

There is room for both.

My bias as a GM rather than a game designer is toward "skills for everything." That's because I've gamed with too many people who wanted to play characters who were good at X but who were personally terrible at X. I'm not talking about such values of X as literally working magic or killing people. I mean "I want to play a warrior!" from someone who is a pacifist in real life, has never been in a fight, doesn't know the first thing about tactics, and isn't even good at tactics in games; "I want to play a mastermind who figures everything out!" from someone who isn't all that smart; or "I want to play the party's mouthpiece!" from someone who's distinctly lacking in social skills, even actively antisocial.

I always let players try to negotiate the game world on the strength of their wits. But when things are obviously going poorly, I roll against a skill or an attribute. For the wannabe warrior, that might be Tactics or a weapon skill, with success meaning I suggest effective in-game tactics. For the wannabe mastermind, that might be IQ or an IQ-based skill, with success meaning I simply hand out a clue or a solution to an incidental puzzle (never the whole mystery!). And for the wannabe face, I just ignore the words and roll against a social skill.

That said, if the player's approach is obviously a good one, I'll quietly not roll and just let the approach succeed. If that would be too generous, I'll at least give a bonus to the eventual dice roll. The point is that I don't penalize players for their personal flaws. And yes, I'm well aware that I reward them for their personal gifts . . . I refuse to pull a Harrison Bergeron. That's fair because the ungifted are having their flaws overlooked while the gifted are having their gifts recognized – everybody is getting some favor from me.

Originally Posted by phayman53

Thank you all for your input, I guess I under-appreciated the social skills already on character templates. I guess I was thinking of things like status, more frequent use of wealth, skills like "soldier" and other professional skills, cultural familiarities, rank, etc.

The only part of that I'd go "Hmm, I'm not so sure . . ." about is Soldier and Professional Skills. I don't really see those as being linked to more social play. They're "doing stuff" skills without much of a social element, and you'll have to provide tasks to do for those skills to be worth the points. With those, you're talking more about adding a slice-of-life or workaday element to the game, which needn't be social; it's almost a third thing, separate from "adventuring" and "being social."

To provide examples: Broadsword and Shield are for a knight having an adventure; Leadership and Savoir-Faire are for a knight being social; and Soldier is for a knight marching around with dozens of other knights, earning a living as a faceless cog in a war machine. Brawling and swinging a fry pan with Axe/Mace are for an innkeeper having an adventure; Merchant and Streetwise are for an innkeeper being social; and Professional Skill (Bartender) is for earning a living polishing glasses and mopping floors.

Honestly, those should probably just be ways to pay cost of living when not on adventures. That doesn't make them social. They might support more social play by virtue of funding time spent around people in civilization . . . but then, adventuring skills do that, too, if they let you bring back a dragon's hoard to pay all your bills.

Originally Posted by phayman53

I was looking for advice on adding more emphasis to social skills in the templates.

I think you'll probably get what you want if you (1) add all social advantages and disadvantages to every template, and (2) make it mandatory to have some points in social skills, taken from either advantage points or points provided by quirks, if the template doesn't provide enough. That's on the mechanical side. On the non-mechanical side, it's mostly a matter of being open-minded as a GM, as I spoke about earlier in this post.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

For what it's worth, I agree personally. I like the blend of player skill and character skill that allows you to "game" your paper person as well as you can.

Me, too!

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

But I was just noting that one of the (claimed) reasons for no social rules in the OSR era, but plenty of social roleplay, was that 'player skill' was supposed to be pretty important.

Yep . . . which may be why, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we mostly just hacked, slashed, and looted. A few of us had the real-world social skills to do more – but honestly, we were a gang of pre-teen boys who wanted to play with virtual or even real swords, fight demons and undead that came right off heavy-metal album covers, and imagine ourselves as little Conans cavorting with scantily clad Frazetta and Vallejo girls. We didn't roll vs. social skills; we just didn't have social situations at all. Treasure was either gear we could use for fighting or an abstract "gp" stat next to "xp" and "hp," and our social interactions amounted to "gp goes up" or "gp goes down," mostly because we succeeded or failed at some quest for Marquis Mouthpiece the Munificent.