As Im wont to do I found myself mining the depths of the internet for ancient internet discussions about RPGs, and I ended up going down a rabbit hole of a topic regarding social mechanics and how GMs tend to use them alongside improv.
Naturally, theres a lot of contention over improv being more important than the roll, but also in the other direction where really good improv gets wasted by bad luck.
What just occurred to me though, is what if you swap who does the rolling? Ie, make the person who rolls in a conversation be the person listening rather than the one talking?
How I see it working is the player whose looking to convince an NPC of something would make their plea, using improv to sell it. Based on this, the GM has the NPC make whats essentially a saving throw, perhaps with penalties added in based on the improv (and/or something from a relevant Skill), and that is how the interaction resolves.
The single biggest advantage I see, for me, is that its probably the best way to connect a player's improv with their character Stats. Neither would be optimal alone, but neither of them would take away from the other at the same time.
It also achieves something Ive observed works to mitigate the sting of failure by positioning the resolution on something the opposition does to resist them, rather than the player making a crummy roll.
Their saving throw is basically a check to see if they've rationalized themselves away from being convinced, and so them succeeding shouldn't feel as jarring as it would if it was the player doing it.
Plus, because the player has a hand in setting the difficulty of the save, it also makes it worthwhile to try for any bonus you can get. Even if you're not up for active roleplaying, and would rather go descriptive, you can still really stick it to the NPC if you're clever, and investing your character build towards this end is just as worthwhile.
Now, I've only just had this all pop into my head, but it does seem like a really viable approach, and I wouldn't be surprised if it exists somewhere (though I can't remember ever reading a system that positioned these mechanics like this).
So thoughts?
Naturally, theres a lot of contention over improv being more important than the roll, but also in the other direction where really good improv gets wasted by bad luck.
What just occurred to me though, is what if you swap who does the rolling? Ie, make the person who rolls in a conversation be the person listening rather than the one talking?
How I see it working is the player whose looking to convince an NPC of something would make their plea, using improv to sell it. Based on this, the GM has the NPC make whats essentially a saving throw, perhaps with penalties added in based on the improv (and/or something from a relevant Skill), and that is how the interaction resolves.
The single biggest advantage I see, for me, is that its probably the best way to connect a player's improv with their character Stats. Neither would be optimal alone, but neither of them would take away from the other at the same time.
It also achieves something Ive observed works to mitigate the sting of failure by positioning the resolution on something the opposition does to resist them, rather than the player making a crummy roll.
Their saving throw is basically a check to see if they've rationalized themselves away from being convinced, and so them succeeding shouldn't feel as jarring as it would if it was the player doing it.
Plus, because the player has a hand in setting the difficulty of the save, it also makes it worthwhile to try for any bonus you can get. Even if you're not up for active roleplaying, and would rather go descriptive, you can still really stick it to the NPC if you're clever, and investing your character build towards this end is just as worthwhile.
Now, I've only just had this all pop into my head, but it does seem like a really viable approach, and I wouldn't be surprised if it exists somewhere (though I can't remember ever reading a system that positioned these mechanics like this).
So thoughts?