Before I start, I want to say I used to hate rolling dice in gaming. I avoided it like the plague (and still do for the most part) unless it was absolutely necessary. I used to hate social rolls especially as they seemed to really contribute nothing to the gaming experience. We just talked it out. Why roll after all? Given the power of the new dice we have found they really help to add complexity to a social encounter, contributing subtle nuances that were otherwise not there before or in any other conventional system IMO. I know for some of you, you may already know this, but I do hope that it may enrich your play experiences and give you some valuable insight in these mechanics and how to implement them in play.

I'll break it down to various situations, and then explain how the dice can be used to impact these situations:

1. GM Decision problems: Obviously, if a social situation is planned, the GM secretly knows if they want it to succeed or fail. But there can be a numbe of social events the GM does not have planned for and events that come up that they may not have foreseen. A GM has to choose on the fly between do the players succeed at the social check or not? Such as when the players grab a guard and put a knife to their throat to get information or they ask a bartender or stranger a random question? Sure, a GM can figure this on the fly, but using these dice become they are a great intermediary to determine the effectiveness of the player's influence.

2. Power of a player's influence: When trying to influence a crowd or a group of people, it can be very hard to determine if the player's convinced everyone to be on board. For example, lets say the PC's are trying to stop a Witch from being burned at the stake and trying to convince a crowd and Witch Hunter not to do so. How do you know if all those dozens of people are on their side or not? In this case, the dice are your friend.

3. Furthermore, even if all the conditions are in their favor or are working against them (i.e. the GM secretly knows if the player succeeded or not) through the dice we can gauge how far did they succeeded or failed and what other new information/story can be gleaned from the player's influence. This can contribute a great deal of dynamics to the story and may even up the ante for both the player and GM.

4. Unforeseen outcomes: Though many rolls can give the players information, it is a bit limiting to assume the only important thing to the player and the story is if they player recovers a piece of information or influences someone in a particular way. There are thousands of other possibilities that can occur from looking something up in a book, or talking with a bartender, or writing a letter to a Duke. Sure, sometimes the story dictates that's all that's really important so why bother rolling in the first place? Does the player achieve x or not. But if you take a step back and see all the other possibilities that can be generated from a simple check to look something up in a book, then you find there is a large breadth of narrative options at a players and GM's disposal.

So here's how the dice come into play with these scenarios:

1. Obviously, in point one, the dice can simply tell if a player succeeds or fails to convince the target. The truly interesting effect though is the extent at which the player succeeds.

Successes: Succeeding obviously tells if they do what they were trying to do. More successes add more information. For example, lets say the players go to pump the bartender for info. After talking for a while, a check is made and it generates a success. Well the bartender would know a little information, but not much, each success adding more information.

Boons: Add additional beneficial side effects. Maybe the bartender after learning the PC's are here to help out give them drinks for free. More boons, maybe a room for free as long as they are in town. Even more, maybe he knows someone who could help them out. Even more boons, maybe he's part of a secret group who are working to do exactly what the PC's are doing. The extent is up to the GM.

Banes: Banes could mean he has some of the information wrong. It could mean he doesn't trust the player and gives some misinformation. It could be that the bartender "doesn't like their kind and asks them to leave. Even more banes and maybe he's working for the people the PC's are trying to stop and will report them.

2. If the players are trying to convince a group of people, it can be very important to know who is on board or not. Such as if they are trying to convince a king in front of his council to support them. The dice can help.

Successes: One success could mean the king supports them, but no one else. More successes can tell how many other member's of his council are swayed.

Boons: Can give beneficial effects such as if the players succeed, maybe the king will provide horses, more boons and more people are on their side could offer up their support as well (such as armor, weapons, a guide, etc).

Banes: Banes could have the adverse effect. Sure, maybe they swayed the crowd, but there is a decenter amongst the ranks who now will work to try to stop the party or carry some grudge against them. Maybe the group is fractured and as they argue, they will give the PC's only a certain amount of time to prove their worth, etc.

3. So what if the GM already knows the player succeeds or fails - either because, for the sake of the story it's rigged for or against the PC's or if PC has absolutely done a stunning or dreadful job roleplaying. Here, the dice can be used to navigate.

Successes: Since they have already succeeded or failed, the dice can give additional insight. If they already succeeded, did it necessarily effect everyone and everything? For instance, in convincing a king and his court. If the king is convinced, is the court? The successes/boons/banes can give that information as stated above. Lets say the player drafts a letter. It's a good letter and the dice don't really determine if the letter is drafted or not, it's the quality of the letter that has been drafted that is now called into question. Boons and banes here, as stated above, can add additional information such as the person who receives the letter is heavily swayed or is not.

4. The unforeseen is an interesting aspect. Where as boons/banes will give direct information, the boons/banes can be used to generate unforeseen events.

Boons: Example 1: Library Research. Lets say a player looks up a history of an area in the library to see if it had a history of chaos. Success not only gives the information, but boons will determine all sorts of additional information that can be gleaned. Either about the history itself or maybe they find a spell stuck in a book that could help them. Maybe they find someone else in the library looking up the same information, a chance encounter that gleans an ally. Example 2: They capture a guard and try to pump him for information. Maybe the guard has an important set of keys on him or isn't actually a guard, but an influential noble.

Banes: Example 1: Maybe while researching, they find the information but are put under some type of effect from the research. Maybe someone notices them doing the research and reports them. Example 2: Maybe the guard gives up the information, but is actually leading them to a trap. Maybe the guard is actually a friend they once knew!

The only other idea I need to say about all of this are guidelines of when to use these rules:

Critical Points: Obviously, you don't want the rolls to replace role-play. Nor do we want our group to boil down to walk up to bartenders and say, "I ask him for x information" then roll some dice. You also don't want to ruin great scenes where they walk before a king to convince him to help them and have that play out as, "I convince the king." Then roll the dice. The dice are used to help facilitate, translate, and communicate subtleties and information not replace role-play. This is why checks should be made at Critical Points of a conversation, when it finally gets down to the wire of what the player's want versus the opposition (even if it's just a library shelf). Roll when it becomes time to decide, at the climax of the conversation or when the dice can help lead the conversation toward new dynamics of a scene (such as the player's are trying to convince the king, and part of the council opposing the player's speaks up).

Use to Enrich: Use these mechanisms to enrich roleplay/story rather than detract or replace the norm. For instance a scene researching something in the library can be very flat, but the dice can add new details (such as discovering an ally/being noticed) rather than deter from the narrative. Characters such as bartenders can be made more memorable and more important if they have more of a dynamic roll in the story rather than a static, story-mechanical issue. Create more story from these mechanics and never to take away from what's being already done from the group.

Do not overuse: Obviously, this is always the case. Use them when appropriate, ignore at other times.

Well, that's everything in brief, but I hope this shines some light on this debate. Your thoughts? Your opinions? Your ideas? Discuss away.

Happy Gaming,

Commoner

Great post! Lots of good stuff there.

One thing though:

I used to hate social rolls especially as they seemed to really contribute nothing to the gaming experience. We just talked it out. Why roll after all?

Well, to me, to biggest reason to 'roll it out' rather than always 'talk it out' is because not every player is as good as social interaction as their character. I mean, you dont require the player to be big and hulking strong to be able to swing a huge axe. You dont require the player to be manually dexterous enough to actually pick a lock, do you? So why is it always required for the player to possess ample charm/cunning/leadership to have his character succeed in a social encounter?

To me, FRP, is about doing things that you can't necessarily do yourself...whether it be fighting, or casting spells, charming the princess at court, or convincing the Baron to not convict your friends of treason. And that means that the characters have to have the ability to do things that the players may not be able to do.

That said, I believe players should at least be able to articulate what they desire to happen and what their character is trying to do to accomplish that, but not necessarily in great detail (anymore than I would require a player to describe exactly how they were picking a lock).

In many games I played in the past, characters with average Charisma-type stats would still lead and still do most of the talking even though there were characters with much higher Charisma-type stats and/or appropriate skills who just sat on the sidelines due the personalities of the individual players. This is where I think the dice should come into play. I'd still give the average character a chance of course, but the idea would be to at least draw the player of the other character out into trying since technically they should have a much better chance of succeeding.

It's definitely a fine line to walk between 'role-playing' and 'roll-playing', but I believe you have to have the players acting on what their characters can do, not necessarily always on what the players can do in social situations.

YMMV

I do somewhat agree with what you're saying. I have had gamers in the past who wanted to be really social, but weren't in real life. It is another great function of social rolls that it allows those people to interface with social gaming.

But I feel it is also up to the GM to scale things back to match the limitations of his player. Not every player can give a triumphant speech, but a general frame and let the dice move it forward is always useful.

I also believe Charisma is the worst stat ever created in the history of gaming for the exact point you stated. Judging social ability, when so much of social ability of a character depends on the player's execution of the character, has always seemed silly to me. I'd rather have seen some other term used, such as Influence, rather than something that is based on personality. I also don't understand someone having a high stat when they, themselves, are not or will not engage in that aspect of the game (by their own limitations or what not). I used to have this gamer who loved to play super-fighters, that were all tough and mean, but they hated combat. I just didn't get it.

You've got to balance the good with the bad and I have always felt players need to play toward their strengths as well as what they want or can conceive. When I was much younger, I had a gamer who always wanted to play a Paladin. But they never wanted to protect the innocent, never wanted to fight evil, always tried to manipulate and control the players around them. God knows why he wanted to play a Paladin, and since I was 11 at the time I did not know how to manage it, but that guy, in retrospect, had no business playing a Paladin at all. Again, he liked what it looked like on paper, but refused or simply could not play it. I really think gamers just need to be aware what their limits are when creating characters. I also ran across a gamer who loved the idea of playing evil, but when he sat down to play, he was a beacon of good, always willing to help out, etc.

I am sure this response may upset a lot of people, but I am an ex professional theater director and so I guess I apply the same rules to gaming. Some actors can't be a certain character, no matter how "cool" they think it would be to play that part. Because, if you are going to create this super-social character, then you should be ready and capable of playing it (at least on some level).

Of course, my last disclaimer is, this is simply a perception on gaming. There are many types of gaming groups and gamers. There is no wrong fun, and definitely enjoy the games you enjoy playing and running. Figuring out how to compensate for these types of situations is just up to the GM and the group's play-style.

Some great suggestions here. I've only GMed WFRP once (been a player for a few sessions though) and I noticed that while you can come up with these kind of nuanced results while writing on a forum, inspiration doesn't strike as true when I'm in the game and trying to make it move foreward. Unless I allmost force myself or have a sudden good idea, the rolls just boil down to "you succeeded" and "you failed".

If I was to write an adventure (and I very well might) I'd include quite a few lists like the ones you wrote in the OP with extra effects that could be triggered through boons, banes comets and stars. For any major encounter or test I'd jot down some extra effects, in addition I'd jot down a few random ones that could tie into the adventure in some way which I could sprinkle in if the players decided to do something unexpected.

Ralzar said:

Glad you like them.

Maybe you should try writing some ideas down ahead before you play. Just when they come to you. It's a great way to add this sort of flavor. Another way I sometimes manage it, is I take a non-deliberate rally step to debate what benefit or penalty I'm going to give the players based on the roll. It doesn't happen all that often, but players take a certain glee in the fact that they stumped the GM or failed heinously that I have to way the options for a moment. It adds something to the game IMO.

Also don't think you're in this alone. I encourage my players to interpret rolls. I get the final say and have the right to edit them as I see fit or flat out deny them if it seems too much, but I find my players come up with great ideas on their own. Once everybody gets used to it, it becomes second nature. Some players still don't come up with ideas, but I also let all the players interpret the rolls they make collectively. So Jim can say Bob's boons mean x. Sometimes Bob isn't crazy about it, but if it works for me, it just works. Once you get in the habit, I find these decisions become much easier to make in the future as you start gauging what a one boon, two boon, three boon, etc. means in the context of your games. If some notes would help you get a basic frame of ideas, go for it, even if you don't use them, knowing what you mean by one boon as compared to two is a great place to start. Look at action cards, talent card effects, and you'll get some ideas, then move on how to make them reflect in the narrative.

As always, happy gaming.

Commoner

Another great way to get ideas for pool interpretations is simply to ask the players what they think. You don't have to take their word for it, but I find it usually helps the game, and you also get good feedback on the sorts of things the players want or fear the most, or how they''re viewing the situation.

Commoner, I think you've described perfectly my feelings on how, when and why social rolls should be used (even when you're a fan of role-playing social situations).

You've put in a much better way what I've tried to say in other threads.

The only other thing I do is sometimes ask players to make rolls to give me (and the player) a general impression of how the scene played out. This is useful when the scene is not terribly important, but you need it for pacing, or to fill a gap between more exciting events.

These scenes often feel like they've happened in the past and are being recalled in the present. eg. in downtime if the characters are 'relaxing between adventures' a social roll might determine how much fun they had during that time. Extremely good or bad rolls could trigger unexpected things to occur, in the manner you've described.

Angelic Despot said:

I absolutely agree here and I do use them in a similar manner. Just the other night, my group were sneaking through hostile territory. Sure I could have turned it into a series of encounters, with lots of running and fighting, but I felt it would simply fill dead space when all they needed to do was get through the territory and maybe have one encounter to highlight the moment.

So I called for an observation check (not a sneak). My party are very rogue-centric (with two agents), so by their character's I figure they are pretty sneaky...their only real danger was something they might have missed/not noticed along the way. So I had them make an Observation check. They rolled 3 boons and 1 Success.

So the encounter became totally shaped off of that. The success meant they found something on the road. The boons meant it was beneficial to them. So they have gained an ally to help them along the journey (at least they think they found an ally, but low and behold did they find a link to a major sub-plot that could help them achieve their goals if they successfully resolve it.).

I imagine, if they would have rolled banes. They would have found something, but it would be working against them.

Fail/boons means they would get close to something bad, but have conditions in their favor.

Fail/banes, it would have put them in serious danger.

I like the fact you brought this up though, because not only did it help highlight our,( I think I can say after your response) point of view on these types of checks and also highlighted another fantastic way they can be used in the game.

I know for some, they started reading my thread and said, duh, no brainer. But I feel threads like this always can give inspiration to tell better stories and remind us of tricks we used that worked and suggest the community (and each player) to use them again, as your replied did for me. So thanks a lot for that.

Happy Gaming,

Commoner

Commoner, this is actually a great thread, of the type I would like to see more often in this forum. It sure helps a lot and I think brings a good chance for us to discuss the way we play the game. Actually, I'm trying to write an article about GM process to Liber Fanatica's new edition. I think your ideas will help a lot and I would like you to read the article when I've succeded adding more words to it.

Regarding players playing characters that are good in things the players themselves are not, I do hear and understand your position. At the same time, I get to think that RPG has some differences from theatre (being myself a theatre person, but not a professional one, as I coordinated an experimental theatre laboratory for four years) that gives us the possibility to take fun out of not so theatrical scenes. Sometimes we do get great characters being played by people who untill then didn't show any talent towards that type of character, but I guess you are not talking about that kind of situation. Also, I think it is nmot the case of players actively interpreting their characters in a way that goes far from what we expect such a character would be.

But sometimes we get to give the chance of someone trying to act in ways he or she isn't used to act because of personality issues. We wouldn't get a really eloquent leader out of a timid person right away, but I think a good way to start is to ask the person to say what his character is doing, and how, even if he doesn't feel like acting his character speech, or if he tries but feels he couldn't express it the right way.

I, for instance, do that all the time when I'm describing a character who is really intimidating, but I fail to impress that on my players. So I take a moment out of character to descrieb him a little better, his facial features, his expression, the way his posture is, and sometimes I then go further describing a little of the sensations each character gets from the NPC in question. There was a time or another when I actually said "all of that goes to tell he is very intimidating". But no, I don't think one should simply make that statement after some roll.

It is harder to do when you are dealing with plans of action. Once I heard a friend of mine make a simillar declaration that you made about Charisma, but regarding Intelligence. He was talking about an alternative system that stated that no one could roleplay a higher intelligence than what he actually got for brains, so intelligence should simply be player's responsability, while you could translate to the sheet what your character had for knowledge. I find these types of declaration really interesting as they provoke me to think on how to deal with gameplay, roleplaying and mechanics, and also where we could go with RPG if we are willing to experiment.

But I have a question for you, Commoner! How do you deal with the Chaos Star result in your games? I would much appreciate to see it worked in your examples or others. Last session one of the players in my group (whose character is a Smuggler) rolled the Chaos Star three times during social rolls. It was a rather extended research of options of trade in a not so large town. As he was always getting successful rolls, I simply put that he got options, but the prices were rather high, and the offerers wouldn't low them no way.

I know the rules say that when you don't have some effect for a Chaos Star, it could count as a bane, but I do think it should be taken into consideration when you describe what the rolls implies as some greater influence than just a bane.

Its not so much that you would roll and say 'he is intimidating', but rather roll, and then make him more or less intimidating (no successes, banes: 'He is trying really hard to look intimidating, but you're just not buying it.')

As for your smuggling example. Chaos star might mean that the person doesn't like him, but if he succeeded with chaos stars - he might find a great deal. On goods that have something highly illegal mixed into them (warpstone powder in that dye!) and if there's enough chaos stars ... someone else wants to get their hands on it!

If they fail (bad roll) and have chaos stars, maybe the person doesn't just have a deal for them, but they may not like them, and give them misfortune dice as they tell the other fences and shady characters about 'this guy who just smelled funny. Like a cop or something.'

Hope that helps!

It sure helps, Shinma! It's good inspiration.

As for the "intimidating character", I was thinking more as a personality description than as a dice result effect of a given behaviour.

What I'm trying to suggest is that the dice and the actions are not completely separate. Lets take a look at your 'intimidation' Pedro.

The PCs have stepped on the toes of the Night Syndicate - a shady organization of thugs and thieves. They send 'Vinnie the Knife' to shut them down.

He walks into the half-empty inn right before the PCs are done for the night. And you roll an Intimidation check.

Roll 1: 0 successes, 2 banes.

He's trying to look intimidating and failing. Let the dice inspire you. You don't have to tell the PCs what he got, but just play it out.

"EY YOU LOT!" (the PCs look up). "I'm Vinnie the Knife and I'm here ta tell ya that ..." (2 banes ... stress? Or maybe he forgot what he was supposed to say ... perhaps BECAUSE he's not used to talking and is stressed) "Urm ... 'ang on. *checks his pockets, and pulls out a note* That you lot are supposed to stay away from da Gamblin' Houses!" had he gotten a chaos star or two, maybe he would have tripped. Or the knife he pulls to threaten them with is dainty and ladylike because he lost his REAL knife in an earlier fight.

Now the PCs will probably laugh, stand up and tell him to be off. He gets angry and tries again.

Roll 2: 3 successes. 2 banes. he is intimidating, but something bad happens to him.

"Vinnies face reddens at your laughter, and his beady black eyes narrow. His fist whistles through the air and smashes a chair. 'NOBODY LAUGHS AT ME!' For a second you realize that this man is willing to kill, sleep well after, and he's definitely being serious. 'I'm Night Syndicate!'

So banes could mean he takes a stress as his blood pressure rises (maybe he has a weak heart). If he chaos stars he might take a wound from it as he gasps for breath. Or it could mean he gives away the name of his group and what they want too early in the negotiations.

Basically, you can roll first, and then describe a person and his actions. The toughest badass rolling poorly can be roleplayed as a buffoon and not a threat. And you don't have to tell the PCs 'he got 0 successes'. Simply rolling the dice can tell you what kind of tone and threat you should project, and how you can act. That's the power of the system, and one of my greatest loves of it. Its like improv ... you know your role but the 'roll' determines what sort of spin you should put on it.

shinma said:

Those are great descriptions Shinma and goes a long way to support these kinds of dice-interpretations.

Pedro, when I look at Chaos Stars I usually count them as banes. I feel they are best reserved when you want to add emphasis to a situation. Imagine a group of teenagers who generally break into places and are up to no good tom-foolery (lol, I hate that word). Well for their general mucking around town, stars would count as banes. Then one night they decide to break into an abandoned insane asylum. Lets stay, in my story, I wanted to increase the tension of the scene. Chaos stars in this case might give them a stress for each roll as they explore the place, this gives them an oppressive over-feel to the game, the spookiness now taking an impact on those vital mental stats. Or each star could activate a token moving along a tracker the player's can see. Don't make it obvious, just do it slowly. Of course you know it means at the end the axe-murderer or ghost is about to show up in proper horror movie fashion, but this way they can communicate a specially, unique bad streak of fortune.

So if your smuggler is searching objects and it's really important, if you'd like to take the story in a cursed object direction or a deal "that's too good to be true," I would definitely use it in ways Shinma already explained. In addition, I may highlight it. For instance, the bad object is a deal that's too good to be true. Maybe he'd lure the adventurer into a private room where something bad would happen.

Or if the players were trying to escape with some very important object. Well, all those climb/run checks would mean to me, the object is dropped on a chaos star.

In general, I am careful to overuse it. I use it when it is absolutely necessary for the story and the function of the dice to highlight important moments. So sometimes it counts as a Bane, but at those really important moments, it counts as something more important.

I'd also be happy to look at what you're doing. I'd also be very willing to write a companion piece to your work, maybe a second take on everything you write or my own perspective.

GMing is a delicate art and there just isn't enough literature on it. This system is the best system in the world from a GM stand point (IMO), so I'd be happy to help out. Some of the TOA literature is good, but it simply doesn't go far enough.

So yes, PM it to me after you get more words down.

Oh, and I do agree with your friend. Intelligence is a horrible name for a stat. The better word is Knowledge. I also am not a huge fan of Wisdom either. Both stats are relevant in game mechanics, but it's better to reflect characters in more concrete terms than terms that truly describe the player. Cyberpunk used Cool, which could be a measure of personality and resolve and humanity. It could cover a quiet guy with huge nerves and a guy who is Mr. Charm. I liked it a lot, because it separated the player's role to the statistical role. It's very nit-picky, but I love English and hate to see it be abused. For that matter, I'd change fellowship to Influence. So you might not be the most friendly guy or the best talker in the world, but the world Influence would reflect your overall ability to, well, influence people by charm, intimidation, or simply presence. The rest is left in the hands of the player and the character's choice.

Again, it is nit-picky, but the statistical character should reflect the character played. The word choices cue us in to both, with statistical measures of various aspects of personality. An introvert will never score high on extroverted measures on the Myers-Briggs test. Therefore a person who lacks in Charisma will never really be able to "play" a Charismatic character. But they can play a very Influential character with a high Influence. This prevents a lot of nit-picky gamer BS...but then again, it is all just gamer BS (lol!). That's all there is to it.

shinma, that is a great description, and shows hos well the dices can be used. But once in a while I'm willing to describe a character as an apparently intimidating person, even if in that moment he is not trying to intimidate anyone (and possibly making a fool of himself). That's just it, sometimes I like a free-form roleplaying, letting my players completely free to act as they feel their characters would act in that moment, or rather, as they feel wuold be more fun (thus, feeling intimidated right away, or just ignoring it all).

That happens in my group between PCs as well. The three players are playing three brothers, the oldest is a Thug, the middle one is a Smuggler, the youngest is the a Grey Apparendice Wizard. The Thug is always rolling intimidation, focusing it on the Smuggler, and for that moments he gets intimidated. But, on general, the player of the Smuggler character chooses not be intimidated by his younger brother.

Nevertheless, the Aprendice Wizard (who, being someone who deals with magic, could be the "most intimidating" of them in a free-form way) always feels intimidated and even scared by his oldest brother, just because his player feels it is fun.

I could base that no dice rolling, but I'm talking about those situations where you just don't. And, when you start rolling dices, I think your ideas are just perfect. That is: when someone starts trying to do anything. Because this descriptions I'm talking about happend before any action is made or change of disposition is achieved.

commoner, I must confess I lost some of the meaning of your replay, because I lack the cultural input to understand some english. What is BS, for instance?

But I'm very glad you liked my proposition! I just want to write a little bit more of the article, and then I would even like it if you felt you could put words into it yourself, thus making it our article. I'll send you the GoogleDocs link then and you feel free to do as you think is more confortable or appropriate, giving me some feedback and tips, or getting into writing yourself, or writing a different piece... whichever you like will be fine for me.

Cheers!

commoner said:

That reminds me of another idea I had (inspired by the Live Action roleplaying rules of White Wolf / Mind's Eye Theatre for playing Vampire the Masquerade etc).

For every 'pip' of a stat, ask each player to pick a descriptive characteristic, and note in on the character sheet.

Eg. A mercenary with Str 4, Agi 3, To 4, Int 3, Wil 4, Fellowship 3 could have:

Strength: brutal, brawny, fit and powerful

Agility: practiced, fast, supple

Fellowship: brooding, stern, gruff

etc, etc

A dancer with Str 3, Agi 4, To 4, Int 3, Wil 4, Fellowship 3 could have:

Strength: wiry, scrawny and fit

Agility: nible, quick, supple and light

Fellowship: funny, approachable, friendly

Note how the two almost identical stat-lines when 'described' create two very different character images.

Now, these descriptions don't have to have any particular role in the game. They can simply serve to remind players of what sort of character they're playing, but they also help show players how their characters are likely to try to achieve things. So, both characters walk into a bar and start pumping the patrons for information: even if they both roll exactly the same results on their dice roll, the players will likely achieve things in different ways.

The mercenary will likely impress people with his experienced look; people will want to to talk to him (if he rolls well) because he comes across as impressive and strong, and people like showing off to their 'superiors'. The dancer will get people to open up by telling jokes, laughing at their jokes and coming across as a 'nice' person.

Oh, and Shinma; very good examples given on describing roll results!

Pedro Lunaris said:

You're the GM amigo! Sometimes you don't even have to roll, you know how it is supposed to look and feel. And of course, every game is different and needs to be tailored to.

I was just hoping to show how dice pre-rolled can influence your roleplay. Great discussion all!

And AD - good use of descriptors. I've played a ton of larp in my time, but forgotten that it's a good idea for quickly building an index card for an NPC who might be around frequently. Its just good to use some words to describe them frequently (reminds me of the old sagas ex: Grey Eyed Athena) to create epithets that can bring them to life in the PCs minds quickly.

shinma said:

shinma, I think you brought up fantastic ways to do just that, and it goes to show how much the dices are awesome ni this system and how much we can use them mixed with the description. You also helped me a lot to shape what I think is situations in which I'll probably don't make rolls, and that is before any action, or rather, anything that would try to make an effect on the characters. Really, great discussion!

AD, I too enjoyed a lot what you propose! I think I'll give that proposition to my players right away and see how they feel about it!