Jump to content



Photo

How to dissuade metagaming every check?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 jivjov

jivjov

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:56 AM

My players have sort of a habit of backpedaling on plans once they find out what kind of check it will involve. Like, I'll tell my face character "Well, that's really more of a Coerce type of situation since there's a clear threat involved and you're not BS him". Sometimes they'll try to flavor it a different way to justify using Deception or Charm or whatever instead, and I usually will let it slide, but sometimes its just "Oh I don't want to try that after all" or turning to another player "hey, your Coerce is way better, you take over the conversation", which feels a little metagame-y to me. 

I don't want to be the jerk GM who says "You said it, now you're stuck with it" (especially since one of the players is very very new to tabletop gaming in general), but I also don't want to encourage the behavior of always shunting responsibility for a check onto the sole person with the best stat or skill to handle it.

In the process of typing this post, I had one idea I'll throw out there...adding setback dice to social checks when mid-conversation the primary PC doing the talking switches to someone else, since they're diluting they're own stance/case/argument if they're letting someone else do the talking.


  • bradknowles likes this

#2 Krieger22

Krieger22

    Member

  • Members
  • 700 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:51 AM

I don't want to be the jerk GM who says "You said it, now you're stuck with it" (especially since one of the players is very very new to tabletop gaming in general), but I also don't want to encourage the behavior of always shunting responsibility for a check onto the sole person with the best stat or skill to handle it.
 

This isn't being a jerk GM, this is being a GM, period. There is no difference between this situation and one in combat where a character with a low Ranged (light) skill says to the party's sharpshooter, "here, I suck at this, you take my action instead of me". The character on the spot is the character who makes the check. If a player insists on having his character being the one to enter into social situations without having any social skills, that's entirely on him. And with just a little creative thought on the GM's part a failed skill check can lead to even more exciting and interesting situations than a successful one.


  • shlominus, whafrog, Jamwes and 3 others like this

#3 Amanal

Amanal

    Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:36 AM

There are a few epesoides of Order 66 that are worth tracking down. The ones where Jay Little talks about forming the dice pool and getting player buy in. Look 'em up and have a listen. Jay has such a good handle on the game you'd recon he wrote the rules.

 

So if the players suggest a Charm roll and they were being less than charming throw in a black dice or two and adjust the roll based on the roleplay. Make the difficulty harder?

 

Again in the Order 66, just reciently Chris and Phil spoke to allowing players to take the skill they felt applicable and maybe making the roll harder based on the skill chosen. In this instance you can coerce your own players somewhat. Oh, you want a charm test, well that would be hard 3 purple dice, however, if you want to coerce them that would be just a normal test.


  • copperbell, Veruca, whafrog and 3 others like this

#4 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,596 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:57 AM

Oh, you want a charm test, well that would be hard 3 purple dice, however, if you want to coerce them that would be just a normal test.


This is a really good point, and I use this a lot. In my NPC descriptions I will sometimes state that a person is, say, more likely to succumb to a Charm attempt than Coercion. Coercion might make them stubborn and uncooperative, making the difficulty PPPP, whereas Charm is only PP, and flattery adds a Boost die. Of course this isn't revealed right away, they need to discover it through roleplay, but by now my players know that getting something out of people takes a little finesse.

As for switching after knowing the dice pool, I'd definitely throw setback dice around just as discouragement.
  • shlominus, progressions, Jegergryte and 3 others like this

#5 progressions

progressions

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,574 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:59 AM

I was also going to mention Jay Little's approach. He pushes the purple dice forward as he's describing the approach they're taking, so the PC can see "oh that's how difficult it will be if I try that."

 

To be honest though, jivjov, I'm not sure I see what you're describing as that much of a problem. If the PCs are going back and forth continually to the point where it gets tedious, then at a certain point I just say "Somebody must do something, what are you going to do?" or else I just have the NPCs take an action because the PCs have been either standing there or discussing things amongst themselves.

 

 

I've had cases where a player who's good at Charm said he wanted to lie to an NPC using Charm, and I had to tell him, "that's Deception, not Charm", but if he had wanted to try to Charm the NPC by telling him something different, he could have tried that.

 

In most cases I try to have two or more possible skills that can solve a specific challenge I've created (either use Mechanics or Skullduggery, Computers or Education, etc), possibly with different difficulties.

 

If you're not in structured time, then it's not necessarily a case of "It is Sasha's turn now, she must act."

 

If the players themselves are dithering, just have the NPCs take some action. "Well if you're not going to say anything, we're going to start shooting/walk away/etc."

 

But I don't see anything wrong with, for example, Han going to Charm somebody but then letting Chewbacca take over when it's time to Coerce them.


  • awayputurwpn, derroehre, kaosoe and 4 others like this

EOTE Styles and Dice Symbols for Obsidian Portal

Our group's EOTE Obsidian Portal: Explorers on the Edge


#6 themensch

themensch

    Member

  • Members
  • 488 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 11:29 AM

We're all there to have fun - I'll generally let my players backpedal a little bit if:

 

  1. it makes sense in the flow of the story
  2. the action the player is taking is out of character for the character
  3. the character would know some piece of information the player doesn't.

 

There's always a little metagaming going on at the table, seems like it's human nature.  If your players are being obstinate about it, it's time for a break and a talk.  Surely your friends at the table can see how disruptive this behavior is, and as your friends, you can work it out.  

 

All that aside, I see no problem mixing up skills and characteristics if it makes sense to the story.  


  • awayputurwpn, Doc, the Weasel, progressions and 4 others like this

#7 GM Stark

GM Stark

    Member

  • Members
  • 107 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 11:48 AM

One point here is that we are mostly talking about social skills. While the difficulty is often set as an opposed roll against the NPC's appropriate skill, such as Discipline against Coerce and Deception, or Cool against Charm, the GM can use Boost and Setback dice, increase or decrease the difficulty, or even upgrade or downgrade the difficulty. Depending on situations. I use these in some cases to encourage players/characters who normally do not engage in the social interactions to role play it out. 

 

An example: the PCs were looking for information about a lost ship, and went to an asteroid mining facility where it made regular stops. They found a pilot who regularly flew escort missions for the ship they were looking for. The Scholar in the group normally did the talking, and gave his honest pitch about how they are seeking the ship for its historical significance, and not just it's value in credits. This was a charm check, he was being honest and wanted the old pilot to like them. Still, the pilot was skeptical because of all the treasure hunters who came asking him. Eventually he commented that he had seen the group arrive at the base, which happened to be on the outer orbit of an asteroid field. "That was some flying!"  That was when they changed, and although the team's smuggler hadn't put much into charm or Presence (he's a Gand so had only a 1 in the characteristic) he was able to talk with the old timer "pilot to pilot" and earned his trust. 

 

Similarly, you might need something from a retired soldier or merc. I would give this guy an ability called "Jaded." The old soldier has no time for flattery and resists Charm using his (impressively high) Discipline skill. However, another military type character could actually win him over with impressive smack talk using Coercion.

"I could beat the information out of you with a gaffi stick. I just happen to have one that I wrestled from a Tusken."

"I'd like to see you try it, son. You wouldn't even get close, but I like your style. Tell me, did the Tusken make that awful honking noise when you hit him?"


  • progressions, whafrog, Amanal and 2 others like this

#8 jivjov

jivjov

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:11 PM

To be honest though, jivjov, I'm not sure I see what you're describing as that much of a problem. If the PCs are going back and forth continually to the point where it gets tedious, then at a certain point I just say "Somebody must do something, what are you going to do?" or else I just have the NPCs take an action because the PCs have been either standing there or discussing things amongst themselves.

 

The specific part I see as a problem is the players going "Oh, the Charm is a Diff 3, hey other-player, you should take over for this check" and just kinda breaking narrative flow.


  • bradknowles likes this

#9 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,596 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:22 PM

 

To be honest though, jivjov, I'm not sure I see what you're describing as that much of a problem. If the PCs are going back and forth continually to the point where it gets tedious, then at a certain point I just say "Somebody must do something, what are you going to do?" or else I just have the NPCs take an action because the PCs have been either standing there or discussing things amongst themselves.

 

The specific part I see as a problem is the players going "Oh, the Charm is a Diff 3, hey other-player, you should take over for this check" and just kinda breaking narrative flow.

 

 

Well, I'd certainly penalize them for that.  A couple setback because they're "dithering", and the NPC is just going to take them less seriously.  The NPC might even say "wow, you guys are real pros..."  :)

 

Also, there no problem setting a time limit on decisions they need to make...social encounters can (and often should) be just as structured as combat.  If the players have too much time, that's when they get fiddly about optimizing.


  • GM Stark, Tear44 and bradknowles like this

#10 FuriousGreg

FuriousGreg

    Member

  • Members
  • 634 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:13 PM

One table rule I have is that unless the Player that comes up with an idea specifically has their PC ask another PC to do an action it's their PC thats the one to do it. It takes a few times to get used to but it does lead to fun situations where the least skilled PC tries to do something and the most skilled has to try and fix it. It's also led to the Players beefing up other skills and make more well rounded PCs, well some of them at least...

I also allow Players to use other skills as people have discussed above and adjust the difficulty accordingly, or give different results or information. 


Edited by FuriousGreg, 01 September 2014 - 01:13 PM.

  • whafrog and Tear44 like this

Watch these now. Really, right now. (Oh, there's some naughty language but we're all adults :D here)
http://redlettermedi...phantom-menace/

http://redlettermedi...-of-the-clones/

http://redlettermedi...ge-of-the-sith/


#11 progressions

progressions

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,574 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:15 PM

For me it would depend on the circumstances.

 

I really like the scenarios GM Stark described. In those cases, it depends not just on what the PC's specific skill value is, but WHO the PC is and how they'll relate to the NPC they're trying to communicate with.

 

I still don't really see the problem of realizing you need to Charm someone and stepping aside so the charming member of your group can speak to them.

 

Pilot: "This is the Krayt Fang, trying to make a landing."

 

Starport: "Certainly, the docking fee is 1000 credits."

 

Pilot waves over the party's Politico to the comm.

 

Politico: "This is the special liaison to the Duchess of Tiburnia. I was told by the governor of this system we'd be given the appropriate treatment here. We're already late for the Duchess's audience with the Governor."

 

Politico makes a Deception check, passes with 3 success.

 

Starport: "I beg your pardon, we weren't informed. Please dock at landing bay 37 with our compliments."


  • whafrog, themensch, GM Stark and 2 others like this

EOTE Styles and Dice Symbols for Obsidian Portal

Our group's EOTE Obsidian Portal: Explorers on the Edge


#12 FuriousGreg

FuriousGreg

    Member

  • Members
  • 634 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:57 PM

 

I still don't really see the problem of realizing you need to Charm someone and stepping aside so the charming member of your group can speak to them.

I think it's not the OP's belief, or mine, that it's a problem for one PC thats not as good at something to hand it off to one thats better at it thats the issue. It's that we think it shouldn't be meta-gamed without role-playing that hand off. Think of it like this:

 

Player 1: We tell the Guards we're here to deliver Important Space News™.

GM: Okay, since you're not actually delivering Important Space News™ it's a Deception roll.

Player 1: Well Player 2's PC is better at that, so he can roll.

Player 2: Ya, I'm a Politico so I'll roll.

GM: Okay, you're right in front of the guards, do you ask PC 2 to do this? How?

Player 1: My PC waves his hand to quietly signal for PC2 to take over.

PC1 waves over the party's Politico.

PC2 the Politico: "I'm the Important Space News™ delivery guy to the Duchess of Tiburnia. I was told by the governor of this system we'd be given the appropriate treatment here. We're supposed to get this Important Space News™ to... blah blah"

GM: Well the Guard noticed PC1 was a little uncomfortable telling him what you guys were doing here before he waved you over so I'm going to add a Setback die because it made him a little suspicious...

 

See this example is not only potentially more exciting but also more realistic because people aren't psychic. Basically if the PCs aren't in a situation where they can be seen or overheard by an NPC then I wouldn't bother having them role-play their communication but if the PCs are in an encounter where NPCs can see or hear them then they should have to.


Edited by FuriousGreg, 01 September 2014 - 04:06 PM.

  • awayputurwpn, derroehre, whafrog and 4 others like this

Watch these now. Really, right now. (Oh, there's some naughty language but we're all adults :D here)
http://redlettermedi...phantom-menace/

http://redlettermedi...-of-the-clones/

http://redlettermedi...ge-of-the-sith/


#13 progressions

progressions

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,574 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:27 PM

Totally, that's exactly how I'd do it too.


EOTE Styles and Dice Symbols for Obsidian Portal

Our group's EOTE Obsidian Portal: Explorers on the Edge


#14 Dupre Vanhaus

Dupre Vanhaus

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:47 PM

When I'm running and a party member says they're going to do/say something, I give the skill and difficulty... If they are standing in front of the goons they're trying to convince... at that point as they've already committed...  Sorry, make your choices and take your chances.  The whole point of this game is that things don't always go smooth.  Part of the fun is getting out of the trouble they create.

 

If they are "out of character" trying to determine what kind of roll it would be and they ask, I will tell them what kind of roll, but not the difficulty.  If there is no pressure and they can take their time, then they can discuss briefly... They won't know about difficulty or any set-backs (other than ones added due to threat previously).  Of course, I can always upgrade difficulty too if it is story relevant.  If they have no time, I step up the pace and give them less time or things can be bogged down.


  • whafrog likes this

Rebellion: X(4), E(4), Y(2), A(2), B(2), Z-95 (3), HWK (3), GR-75(1), CR-90(1)

Empire: TIE/F(4), TIE/A(1), TIE/I(2), TIE/B(3), TIE/D(3), TIE/P(4), Firespray(1)

RPGs: Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica


#15 OverMatt

OverMatt

    Member

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 06:00 PM

I would agree with Dupre.

 

 

 

 

Player 1: We tell the Guards we're here to deliver Important Space News™.

GM: Okay, since you're not actually delivering Important Space News™ it's a Deception roll.

 

That would be the end of it.  Player 1 said the line, so Player 1 is the speaker.  Ergo Player 1 makes the Deception roll.

 

If the action in question is a "group effort" of some sort that clearly involves the contributions of multiple PCs, then I would treat it as a cooperative roll using the best attribute and the best skill in the group.

 

But if it's a one-man action, then whoever declares the action is the one who rolls.

 

Also, in my game there is no such thing as "backpedaling" on an action after finding out what the roll will be.  A player won't be told what the roll will be until after he's declared the action, at which point he's already committed.

 

The player declares the action - "I'm doing such and such [Described in whatever narrative terms he chooses]" - and is thereby committed to it.  I then tell him, "Okay, roll skill X at difficulty Y with a setback die for Z, et cetera."  If the player then said, "Oh, that sounds harder than I expected.  Maybe I shouldn't do that after all?" I would simply say, "Too late, time to roll."


Edited by OverMatt, 01 September 2014 - 06:02 PM.


#16 Robin Graves

Robin Graves

    Member

  • Members
  • 752 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 06:29 PM

Once they stated they are doing something they gotta go trough with it, no takebacks.

The best trick is tell your players that if they get to re-do things, then so can you (the GM).

Example:

 

Gm: "when you enter the bridge of the star destroyer you see a giant of a man dressed in black and hear his wheezing mechanical breath. He ignites a red lightsaber."

Player: "cool! Vader! i draw my lightsaber and swing for his head!"

Gm; "vader steps forward and accepts your challenge, foolish jedi!"

*rolls*

Player " a crit! i critted! take that vader! damage roll! another crit! YES! OMG I killed Vader!!!"

Gm: "Oooooh wait, re-do! Darth Vader scoffs at you as he  holds back and force chokes you from 10 feet away."

Player: "but but but-"


Edited by Robin Graves, 01 September 2014 - 06:31 PM.


#17 Simon Fix

Simon Fix

    Member

  • Members
  • 238 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 07:04 PM

*SNIP*

 

See this example is not only potentially more exciting but also more realistic because people aren't psychic. Basically if the PCs aren't in a situation where they can be seen or overheard by an NPC then I wouldn't bother having them role-play their communication but if the PCs are in an encounter where NPCs can see or hear them then they should have to.

 

 

This is the perfect way to handle a situation like this.  A hand-off is fine, and I don't mind my players letting whoever is best at something perform the task when it's at hand - after all, why have varying careers if the people who are tops in their skills don't get a chance to shine - but playing it out in-character is important, and can have some interesting story effects.


Edited by Simon Fix, 01 September 2014 - 07:05 PM.

  • progressions, Tear44 and bradknowles like this

There is no signature here.


#18 bradknowles

bradknowles

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:52 PM

See this example is not only potentially more exciting but also more realistic because people aren't psychic. Basically if the PCs aren't in a situation where they can be seen or overheard by an NPC then I wouldn't bother having them role-play their communication but if the PCs are in an encounter where NPCs can see or hear them then they should have to.

 

Player 1: (To player 2) "Uh, sir — As the Special Liaison, do you want to explain things to this guard who is just doing his duty?"


Unless stated otherwise, these are just my personal opinions about how I feel things should work.  Even if I quote chapter and verse of a particular rulebook, only the part that's quoted is likely to actually be official.  Each GM will have to decide for themselves what rules they will use and which ones they won't, and how they will interpret the rules they do use.  That is their right -- and their responsibility.

"A FFG Star Wars Index" by Aahzmandius_Karrde: <http://community.fan...ar-wars-index/> | Github project at <https://github.com/k...rde/ffg_swrpg/>

"Dice Probability Generator" by Litheon: http://community.fan...lity-generator/


#19 OverMatt

OverMatt

    Member

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 11:39 PM



Player 1: (To player 2) "Uh, sir — As the Special Liaison, do you want to explain things to this guard who is just doing his duty?"

 

 

There's nothing wrong with this; but the point is that it shouldn't absolve Player 1 of responsibility.

 

In this case, we're talking about a PC trying to lie to an NPC - a Deception check.  If Player 1 tells the lie and the GM says to roll Deception, it doesn't make sense for Player 1 (the one who told the lie) to be allowed to step aside and pass off the roll to someone else.  He's the liar, so he's the one whose Deception ability needs to be tested.

 

However the following might be permissible in some circumstances:

 

Player 1: I lie to the NPC about our super secret made-up mission. :ph34r:

GM: Okay, roll Deception.

Player 1: I failed.  :wacko:

NPC: "That's nonsense!  Now tell me who you really are before I call the authorities!" :angry:

Player 1: "Now don't be hasty!  Perhaps I didn't explain this correctly...  I'm sure our Special Liaison here can answer all your questions..." :unsure:

Player 2: "Listen, what my incompetent colleague meant to say was..." :D

GM: Alright, Player 2 roll Deception with a significant increase in the difficulty due to the NPC having already heard one unconvincing version of this story.

 

In other words, the approach you describe might, in some cases, justify allowing the second PC to take a second shot after the first has failed (probably with a significant penalty for the prior failure); but it shouldn't prevent the original PC from having to roll himself in the first place.


  • MrDodger and N4n0 like this

#20 FuriousGreg

FuriousGreg

    Member

  • Members
  • 634 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:01 AM

I think from the above examples people seem to get how to handle meta-gaming PC skills and such. It's never as easy as this because meta-gameing is just a part of RPGs but for us it usually works out.


Watch these now. Really, right now. (Oh, there's some naughty language but we're all adults :D here)
http://redlettermedi...phantom-menace/

http://redlettermedi...-of-the-clones/

http://redlettermedi...ge-of-the-sith/





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS