How to run a KUP game #9 - Boundaries between role-play and game mechanics
I have already written about the substitution of character’s skills instead of player’s skills for the Presence and Reasoning stats in a previous post. In this context, I do not want to go back over the choice made, nor explain the rationale, but rather make the necessary clarifications regarding this game design decision at the point where there may be potential criticism.
Since it has been established that these two character’s skills are replaced by the player’s skills, the GM cannot require the players to perform ARCs on these stats: there are no requirements at the mechanics level, for all quantitative variables are missing. For example, if the characters must solve a puzzle, no checks are possible, but the players are asked to solve it. The same applies to situations where the characters have to manage a social relationship with an NPC (whether friendly or hostile).
It is possible for the game to stall because the players are unable to find a solution (to a puzzle, or to achieve something from an NPC): in these cases, the GM needs to assess the situation, bearing in mind that no mechanics are applicable. As an extreme measure, the GM may consider helping the characters with more information to work out the unresolved problem.
In connection with this topic, it is useful to remember all the other aspects of the game where role-play is more important than mechanics in the strict sense:
Handling of SOM: it is obvious that this stat has a mechanical consequence only in extreme cases (panic or exaltation), but the GM must explain to the players that intermediate states and evolution should also influence somehow the game. For example, a character with a base score of 8 (well above average!) who experiences a series of events that bring the score down to 4 should show clear signs of this (negative) evolution: the player must understand that, even without the precise underlying mechanics, his character must also be interpreted in the light of his updated SOM. Role-play is the way to show this: if the player does not understand the importance of role-play in this context, the GM should intervene to try to adapt behavior to the situation, even if there are no precise mechanics to apply.
Reaction management: similarly to the previous point, reaction is a feature that needs to be managed through role-playing rather than through the mere application of mechanics. In this sense, the player's role-play must be fostered by the GM's game-mastering skills (this seems trivial however it’d no longer be taken for granted given the trend of new RPGs). Surprise is more effective when it comes from the player's behavior in response to the situation rather than the result of a dice roll: since such a mechanic cannot completely be replaced, the GM must try to convey this approach to the players whenever it is useful, to show that the game benefits in terms of quality (as well as fluidity). A recent example: a character is riding a mount; he encounters an NPC who has a trained bear; the context (which I will omit for the sake of simplicity) prompts the character to get off the mount (an optimal choice for his objectives); the NPC releases the bear and orders it to attack the character; in this context, as the GM, I decide that there is no need for a reaction roll, because in the character's eyes there are no elements that could put him in a position to be surprised (it was clear to him that this would be the most likely option); at the same time, I inform the player, without making any rolls, that the mount (which is a few meters behind the character) is recoiling because it is intimidated by the bear's charge; the player disagrees, believing that a battle mount is not subject to this type of reaction; I pause the game to work out with the player the misunderstanding, and while his explanation is plausible, I clarify that his expectation would have been correct if he had stayed on the mount, however a battle mount without a rider does not behave in the same way. In effect, the flow of the game has been interrupted, but for good reason: the player would have been disappointed by the GM's decision without a clarifying discussion of the event.
Morality handing: I have reintroduced the topic of Morality, even though this is one of the topics I have written the most about in the past. The only thing I want to stress out is the importance of the player’s definition of PC Morality, the correct allocation in terms of the quadrant, and the alignment with the GM so that the GM knows how the player intends to play according to his definition. This last case differs from the previous ones in that, whereas in the first two cases the role-play is needed to off set the partial absence of mechanics, in this case the role-play determines the mechanics (another good reason to outline the importance of this feature in the game).
Action resolution: although this part is covered by complete and precise game mechanics, it is possible to have situations where role-play will take precedence over mechanics. Written by the same hand that wrote the rules, this may seem like nonsense, but if we consider that the in-game play (and thus the fun of it) is the only fixed point of any reasoning, it is possible to find compromises. This concept is valid when, at the mechanics level, a character who does not know an ES cannot attempt to carry out an action (the rulebook provides with a fixed malus of -4, but this is not an effective choice): if a situation leads a player to face an action without having knowledge of the relevant ES, the GM can accept to consider the result of the action without applying this game mechanics. Circumstances must allow this (i.e. it is implausible that this could happen if the threshold is, for instance, Complex or higher), and in general the GM is in charge to judge between the benefits of simply applying an action resolution check and a successful game of pure interpretation.