D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[RFisher]

The idea that social mechanics "get in the way" or eliminate roleplaying is wrong. Period. It really shouldn't even be an issue of debate.

They don't necessarily get in the way.

Games that use them have been around for practically a decade now. Plenty of people in this thread and elsewhere have played them and can give concrete examples of play that, if anything, feature more "roleplaying" than games that don't feature these mechanics.*

For some groups, they inspire more roleplaying.

By including these sorts of mechanics, D&D4e is simply catching up to current RPG design.

This is where I start having a problem with these conversations. Yes, I've used interpersonal mechanics & enjoyed it. But I also enjoy the other way. Neither is, to me, clearly superior. This isn't an issue of "catching up" because a game isn't left behind if it doesn't include any specific rule. Any specific feature doesn't make a game better than another game. It only makes it different. It only makes it better for a specific group for a specific campaign.

There is no need for D&D to adapt something just because lots of other games have it. Indeed, these days I'd rather systems go further in emphasizing what makes each unique. That's one of the things I'll be asking myself about 4e once it's here: Is this game different enough from the other games on my shelf to justify buying it? Is it clear to me when I would choose this game for a campaign rather than another?

Yeah, and that is exactly what happens when mechanics exist.

The player's selections control the mechanics, not the other way around.

In my experience, more often than not, mechanics get more in the way of a player expressing their character concept more than they reinforce strengths & weaknesses.

Or, to put it another way: I don't really disagree with what you're saying. I'm just saying that I've never found mechanics that do this in a satisfying way & that, when I play without mechanics for this stuff, things don't break the way I might have feared they would.

As I said before, really great groups can overcome this.

I disagree. It's the groups that "can't overcome it" that are the exception. Usually due to one or more immature people at the table, & it's usually not that long before those people either mature or move on.

That small select group also tends to be the ones far and way most able to recognize rules they can set aside to make the game best for themselves. So having the rules does no harm to the small portion of great players who don't want them and lacking the rules does some harm to most everyone else. This includes a lot of players who may think they hate the idea but would be quite amazed how much some basic guidelines would support their immersion and fun.

I don't know. I think there are plenty of groups for whom setting aside those rules--at least some of the time--would be good, but just like...

This includes a lot of players who may think they hate the idea but would be quite amazed how much some basic guidelines would support their immersion and fun.

...they don't realize it.

So having the rules does no harm to the small portion of great players who don't want them and lacking the rules does some harm to most everyone else.

The thing is--& this is where I think a lot of systems have...not done as well as they could--the lack of these rules needs to be filled with a good explaination of the alternative.

Because the game is saying to you, out loud, that there is explicit support for running and resolving them. The issue of whether DM Larry will let you talk your way through encounters like DM Alicia does becomes essentially moot. You can just point to the rulebook and know that, hey, this is an option and we've got mechanics to cover it.

Except that DM Larry & DM Alicia have different interpretations of those mechanics. DM Bob & DM Mary use the mechanics, but each with different house rules. DM Moe & DM Sue have substituted alternate systems for these mechanics. DM Joe just avoids those situations by any means necessary because he isn't comfortable with those mechanics. & DM Anna has just struck them, but she's still working out the changes she needs to make to other subsystems because of the class abilities, feats, skills, & spells that tied into these mechanics.

While I may like interpersonal mechanics, I can't seriously say that I believe they create any sort of consistency from DM to DM. (Or that I even find such consistency necessary.) That's been a fool's errand, IMHO, since Gary used it as a justification for AD&D.

I just wanted to say that I always find your posts about how 1st ed and its predecessors/contemporaries can be played very illuminating.

Thank you.

What social mechanics will do, however, is mean that the very same skills that make a player good at succeeding at combat challenges also make her/him good at social challenges.

That's a very good point!

Like characters, my players have different strengths & weaknesses as well as different tastes. When adopting social mechanics (or anything else) I need to be asking myself if this shifts more of the game towards one player's strengths at the expense of the other players. Is it going to de-emphasize an aspect of the game that is what one of the players enjoys most?

I do have a tendency to want to handle different things is a consistant way, but an eclectic mix of mechanics & styles perhaps does a better job of making the game more fun for everyone in my group.