But there are a lot of designs for social conflict resolution that don't involve the players losing control of their PCs. They just lose control of the situation! (There's no way in the skill challenge rules as written, for example, for a GM to tell a player what his/her PC is doing as a result of a failed skill check.)
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
This suggests that the system is a form of GM fiat. What you describe seems much like the process a fiction author might go through in deciding how a character s/he is writing reacts in some situation.
OK so if the situation develops where a group of PCs would try to persuade a hold-out PC that his viewpoint is wrong... you would not consider a skill challenge for it? Why not?
What about a case where a group of PCs is trying to persuade a hold-out NPC? Skill challenge then? Why?
Fundamentally, what is the difference?
Ahnehnois
First Post
That's a strange term for it. How do the rules represent, for instance, tactical choices? Is there a process for deciding whether your character stands and fights or runs for the hills? Is there a sympathy roll to determine whether you run to your fallen companion to heal him or attack the monster that killed him? It's admittedly a fuzzy distinction, but it seems to me that the rules don't generally address the exercise of free will. Which is pretty much what your average charisma-based check is supposed to be influencing, but not deciding.
You can't use a skill challenge in this situation. Apart from anything else, in the situation you're describing there are players on both sides of the conflict - whereas a skill challenge does not have room for mechanically active opposition. (You can run a skill challenge where the players/PCs are trying to achieve different things - the DMG2 gives an example of how to do this - but the opposition has to be mediated via NPCs upon whom the PCs operate directly.)
The difference is that the NPC doesn't get to make rolls - skill challenges are player-rolled skill checks against fixed DCs - and the NPC's behaviour, backstory etc can be metagamed in order to support the skill challenge resolution.
But even in a system that does, mechanically, permit player-vs-player - eg the Duel of Wits in BW - the losing player isn't forced to change his/her PC's mind. S/he just has to find some way to attack the outcome of the Duel in a collateral fashion (direct reopening of the debate being forbidden by the rules). In the context of BW, I see this as a particular application of Let it Ride.
In the case of PCs, the player chooses. In the case of NPCs/monsters, there used to be morale checks for some of this, I think precisely to take it out of the realm of GM fiat.
But generally in D&D NPC monster tactical decisions are a matter of GM fiat. Apart from anything else, this has been one traditional way for the GM to modulate the difficulty of a combat encounter - by pushing the NPCs/monsters harder or softer.
Your sympathy example seems to be expressed from the point of view of a player playing his/her PC. In D&D, that can be resolved however the player likes (unless a group plays with extremely prescriptive alignment rules). In other games, it might be dictated by a personality mechanic of the sort that Nagol mentioned a few posts upthread.
Suppose one player chooses not to have his/her PC heal another player's fallen PC. The two players can argue it out, not just at the PC-to-PC level but at the metagame level ("Don't be such a bastard!"). But generally the players aren't entitled to use the same sort of metagame-level arguments against the GM, at least in part because the GM's job is, at some level, to be a bastard - to provide adversity.
So I don't find the comparison between player/PC-to-player/PC dynamics, and player/PC-to-GM/NPC dynamics, that helpful.
LostSoul
Adventurer
One of the difficulties of this approach is that there are many NPCs, some of whom are created on the fly. It is asking a lot of the DM to come up with a complex behavioural profile of all NPCs, especially if the DM is attempting to be an impartial arbiter.
That's one of the reasons I employ social mechanics such as Reaction Rolls and Morale Checks; there are others, e.g. using the mechanics to deliver unexpected results. In addition, the relationship between social mechanics and other aspects of the game system, e.g. HP and spells, XP and loot, can provide interesting choices for players.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Why would I need the middle man of a personality mechanic if I've already got the NPC's personality described? Why not make the leap from personality to action directly?
At some level, yes, the GM is going to be an adversary to the players. And at times he'll be an ally. At others, he'll be neutral and non-partisan. Sometimes he'll even be an adversary and an ally at the same time. I'd be concerned that too many mechanistic approaches to dealing with those GM/PC relationship would get in the way of a good RPG.
The way you're describing things, it appears to me like you're advocating guard rails on the GM. Structures to keep him constrained, or from a player's perspective, "fair". My position on this sort of thing is that if you can't trust a GM without guard rails, you can't trust him, period. If you can trust him with the guard rails, he's trustworthy, also period.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I think you've touched on an interesting point. I believe that game systems provide value to specific player choices; balanced games will provide tension between different choices, e.g. should I have my PC stand and fight or run for the hills?
I think this is the real value of reward systems. XP for GP vs. XP for CR vs. XP for Quests are all different ways of assigning a value to player choices. I find how those choices affect future choices, especially the colour of the setting and PCs, very interesting.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
My question for you would be... do you use more elaborate social mechanics beyond reaction rolls and morale checks? Do you feel you need to? If you don't go much beyond those (plus maybe diplomacy, bluff, intimidation skills), you're using a relatively light set of mechanics - much lighter than combat, for example.
Similar Threads
