Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-17, 12:42 PM
QUESTION: What are appropriate ways to model a Bluff v. Insight mechanic in regards to PvP interaction?
BACKGROUND
A pair of my friends are trying out GMing for the first time and have chosen a homebrewed-but-tested system for their game. The base system ("Pantheon") was originally designed to be heavily PvP and ran mostly on DM Fiat; you would roll a Skill and the DM would interpret the result as having a particular in-game effect. This was true for all Skills - even things like "Convince" which could be used to force a PC to agree to do something. Due to the way the original system was set up, it was possible for highly specialized Charisma ("CHA") characters to basically play everyone else's characters for them. This was not fun for the other Players, and so the GMs (and nosy usual-DM me :smalltongue:) went to change it for their game.
I've always believed that Social Skills should not be used against other PCs; IMHO intra-party RP is the essence of the concept of the RPG - it should not be mitigated or substituted by abstract mechanics. As such, I usually bar the use of Social Skills against other PCs - but then again, I rarely run PvP games.
For this revised Pantheon System ("Gotham Knights") the co-GMs decided to limit by fiat the usage of Social Skills between Players - they told everyone that was the rule, and so it was. Now, by and large this fiat has worked out OK but in our first session we ran into a classic Social Skill problem: the GMs knew that Party Faction A was lying to Party Faction B - how do you treat it?
At the time, the GMs decided to start making secret Bluff v. Insight rolls. Ironically, Party Faction A did not think they were lying to Party Faction B and did not inform the GMs that they intended to lie to us; nor, for that matter, did Party Faction B consider that they might be lied to. In the end, Party Faction B ended up doing very well on its Insight rolls and detected the lying - but as Party Faction A did not think it was lying, this became very messy, very quickly.
In the end, everything turned out OK, but it got several of us thinking.
Brief Discusssion
After the events described in Background, some ideas regarding how Bluff/Insight should be modeled in the future were expressed:
(1) Players in Control
Players need to call for rolls if they're going to be made. If someone intends to lie, they should roll and pass the number to the GM. If someone wants to detect lies, they need to announce they are doing so.
(2) Characters are not Players
Whenever there is a need for a roll, the GMs need to roll it. When a Character lies, they need to make a Bluff check; when a lie is being told, Characters need an Insight check to detect them.
(3) No Rolling
Intra-party communication is the domain of pure RP. Lies, like any speech, need to be interacted with by the Players through their Characters.
There are pro's and con's for each approach, but my main concern is two-fold:
- As the system involves hidden information to some extent and skill mechanics dominate, there should be some systemic way to deal with detecting this hidden information.
- A strictly Player-activated Bluff v. Insight mechanic will make Player - not Character - abilities dominate in this arena. More importantly, unless making Bluff and Insight checks are both costly, the game will get bogged down by constant opposed checks.
I don't have much experience in running/creating this style of game, but I believe that this sort of conflict is going to pop up in pretty much every game there is. Lying (in game) to other party members is going to trigger party-destructive behavior more often than Diplomacy - people who are naturally bad at detecting lies will be far more distrustful of known skilled liars after being burned a few times; this can poison any hope of party unity, even in non-conflicted situations.
Thoughts? Examples of resolution mechanics in other systems you've found particularly helpful? Critiques of the framing of the issue?
BACKGROUND
A pair of my friends are trying out GMing for the first time and have chosen a homebrewed-but-tested system for their game. The base system ("Pantheon") was originally designed to be heavily PvP and ran mostly on DM Fiat; you would roll a Skill and the DM would interpret the result as having a particular in-game effect. This was true for all Skills - even things like "Convince" which could be used to force a PC to agree to do something. Due to the way the original system was set up, it was possible for highly specialized Charisma ("CHA") characters to basically play everyone else's characters for them. This was not fun for the other Players, and so the GMs (and nosy usual-DM me :smalltongue:) went to change it for their game.
I've always believed that Social Skills should not be used against other PCs; IMHO intra-party RP is the essence of the concept of the RPG - it should not be mitigated or substituted by abstract mechanics. As such, I usually bar the use of Social Skills against other PCs - but then again, I rarely run PvP games.
For this revised Pantheon System ("Gotham Knights") the co-GMs decided to limit by fiat the usage of Social Skills between Players - they told everyone that was the rule, and so it was. Now, by and large this fiat has worked out OK but in our first session we ran into a classic Social Skill problem: the GMs knew that Party Faction A was lying to Party Faction B - how do you treat it?
At the time, the GMs decided to start making secret Bluff v. Insight rolls. Ironically, Party Faction A did not think they were lying to Party Faction B and did not inform the GMs that they intended to lie to us; nor, for that matter, did Party Faction B consider that they might be lied to. In the end, Party Faction B ended up doing very well on its Insight rolls and detected the lying - but as Party Faction A did not think it was lying, this became very messy, very quickly.
In the end, everything turned out OK, but it got several of us thinking.
Brief Discusssion
After the events described in Background, some ideas regarding how Bluff/Insight should be modeled in the future were expressed:
(1) Players in Control
Players need to call for rolls if they're going to be made. If someone intends to lie, they should roll and pass the number to the GM. If someone wants to detect lies, they need to announce they are doing so.
(2) Characters are not Players
Whenever there is a need for a roll, the GMs need to roll it. When a Character lies, they need to make a Bluff check; when a lie is being told, Characters need an Insight check to detect them.
(3) No Rolling
Intra-party communication is the domain of pure RP. Lies, like any speech, need to be interacted with by the Players through their Characters.
There are pro's and con's for each approach, but my main concern is two-fold:
- As the system involves hidden information to some extent and skill mechanics dominate, there should be some systemic way to deal with detecting this hidden information.
- A strictly Player-activated Bluff v. Insight mechanic will make Player - not Character - abilities dominate in this arena. More importantly, unless making Bluff and Insight checks are both costly, the game will get bogged down by constant opposed checks.
I don't have much experience in running/creating this style of game, but I believe that this sort of conflict is going to pop up in pretty much every game there is. Lying (in game) to other party members is going to trigger party-destructive behavior more often than Diplomacy - people who are naturally bad at detecting lies will be far more distrustful of known skilled liars after being burned a few times; this can poison any hope of party unity, even in non-conflicted situations.
Thoughts? Examples of resolution mechanics in other systems you've found particularly helpful? Critiques of the framing of the issue?