Sitting in the living room late at knight, after a game, hanging out on Discord and Mastodon…
I just talked to the unwashed mendicant of Vile Cult of Shapes, and then they post wonderful blog post about talking and fighting. Well, the part about talking at the beginning is very short, but I like it very much.
I don’t like long drawn out conversations with NPCs … we act out the first bit of the convo, where I introduce the NPC and say what’s memorable about them. Then I cut to the point and describe the gist of what’s going on in omniscient narrator style. If the players do something cool or interesting I might jump back to first person and act it out, but mostly I want to get to what the game is really about. – Making Combat Meaningful
I run my conversations the same way. Isually it’s two or three exchanges in the first person, then I describe the gist of what they want or why they are refusing what the players want, we talk about the leverage they have and we figure out how it plays out.
If there are no arguments made, we roll a reaction roll. Usually arguments are made by the players, I offer a resolution and when we’re all happy, the game moves on. Perhaps another round of negotiation ensues.
What I’m getting at is that immersion doesn’t happen because we talk like our characters, but because we think about our characters and their goals – all the time.
The longer section of the blog post is about combat.
When you miss, you fail. Something changes. The attack doesn’t just miss, it fails. You lose something. The enemy advances, or re-positions, or you put yourself in a bad position. Another element is added to the combat. It isn’t about tracking squares on a game-board, it’s about tracking an ever unfolding situation. – Making Combat Meaningful
So many great examples.
I think there’s definitely room to improve my game. This is really is one of the best posts I’ve read in a long time.
Ogres are going to hide and jump out to throw big rocks. Goblins are going to skulk, flank, shoot poisoned arrows, and flee at the first sign of trouble. Orcs blitzkrieg suddenly, creating chaos, using hit-and-run tactics, and are most likely to ambush with burning oil and use prisoners as shields. Skeletons hang back and throw stones, and if the players charge they run out of sight and wait to ambush. – Making Combat Meaningful
Such fights are rare in my games, though. This is not how it plays out in a low level dungeon like Stonehell which I’m running right now where there are two wolves here, six goblins there, and eight orcs over yonder. I want to try and make an effort, though. An effort to push harder.
I love how the blog post illustrates the kind of rulings that happen at the table. Announce consequences and ask whether they players agree. If they don’t agree, let them change their mind.
I remember running a fight where ghouls paralyse player characters and when they’re not rescued immediately, they’re dragged into the next cave and eaten while the remaining ghouls cover the retreat. Wow, my players were shocked. I used this combat to illustrate how rulings work at my table.
When I say “the players object and I relent” then this is what is happening at the table: I propose how this is going to fall out and there’s a little moment of silence where players can interject or propose a different ruling until we’re all as happy as can be, and play proceeds. – 2017-04-27 Rulings
I totally feel like I should try harder to make fights shorter, and more terrifying. 😀
#RPG
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
I really like what you said about how conversation works. I didn’t say enough about it, but we handle it the same way. If the players are convincing (rarely), they get what they want. If they’re buffoons or their plan is bad (often) I roll reaction to see how the NPC reacts. Reaction rolls are weighted to be uncertain, and I take this to mean the NPC makes unreasonable demands or tries to complicate the PC’s lives.
I handle convos like I handle combat: pick or push. What will you give up to get what you want?
The party that has what the other wants gets to make the demands. But also my NPCs are cowards, and self serving. Usually they want the PCs to do something that will advance their own agenda, and willing servants are rare, so if the players refuse to back down, or threaten violence, often the NPC will cave (if they’re alone) or retaliate with overwhelming force (if they’re armed).
This is mostly handled in a zoomed out way, but if things ramp up we zoom in and exchange dialogue. But at the end of each exchange I always recap what happened and ask the important question: what do you do?
– vilecultofshapes 2022-03-27 01:02 UTC
---
Summarizing dialogue in the third person is one of my least favorite things in RPG. I’m not talking universally, that everyone needs to obey, I’m just saying for my own preference. I just really like acting it out.
This can sometimes backfire. Like, yesterday the module says “the guy answers **one** question”. That ended up being kind of difficult.
– Sandra 2022-03-28 08:38 UTC