Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[ExploderWizard]

There's no actual interaction, just imaginary interaction. You are not your character, and the DM is not the NPC. You play their roles, but if that play is not informed by the game mechanics, why have the game mechanics at all?

Thus we have reaction rolls. You don't need reaction rolls if you use only the interaction itself.

Reaction rolls, being what they are, serve as a starting point before any interaction really begins.

 

[Fifth Element]

Reaction rolls, being what they are, serve as a starting point before any interaction really begins.

If that's the case, then why are they modified by Charisma?

 

[B.T.]

Gygax was a powergamer.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If that's the case, then why are they modified by Charisma?

Heh. Ever see the cantina scene in Star Wars? The ruffians didn't like the cut of Luke's jib and started being belligerent before there was any response from Luke. He got a bad reaction roll.

The negative CHA modifier can represent anything from always saying the wrong thing, to just having a look about you that makes others want to backhand you across the face just on general principle.

The point is, using charisma as a dump stat will have penalties associated with it that cannot be completely negated by a smooth talking player.

 

[tlantl]

The point is, using charisma as a dump stat will have penalties associated with it that cannot be completely negated by a smooth talking player.

Or you could go so far as to say they should never be negated by a smooth talking player.

Furthermore, that player might have to suffer the loss of experience garnered for role playing

 

[pemerton]

Not just attributes, skills and such.

Anyone who thinks that a die roll can serve as a substitute for actual interaction.

Make the scope of the mechanics as wide as you want. I still join the chorus wanting to know who is calling for the die roll to serve as a substitute for actual interaction. Point where that has been advocated.

As I originally asked, and as CJ reiterates - who is asking for dice rolls and/or other mechanics to serve as substitutes for actual interaction and playing the game?

The answer, as far as I know, is no one - the only D&D mechanic I'm aware of that plays in that fashion is the 3E Diplomacy rules, and I don't see anyone here asking for the reinstatement of those rules.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The answer, as far as I know, is no one - the only D&D mechanic I'm aware of that plays in that fashion is the 3E Diplomacy rules, and I don't see anyone here asking for the reinstatement of those rules.

Even the 3E Diplomacy rules aren't that bad, unless the group has completely failed to engage their brains before driving. Heck, even the 3E Insight and Use Rope skills aren't that bad, giving any kind of effort--and if ever there was a roll to discourage participation, it was Use Rope as a skill.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Or you could go so far as to say they should never be negated by a smooth talking player.

The reaction roll serves as an initial determination for how the PC is first regarded. This can be positively or negatively influenced by the player's actions in some situations. Even so, a reaction penalty still has to be considered. After all, someone with a reaction bonus could take steps to improve the odds of a good reaction even further ( weapons sheathed,peaceful gestures, etc.)

As I originally asked, and as CJ reiterates - who is asking for dice rolls and/or other mechanics to serve as substitutes for actual interaction and playing the game?

As long as meaningful situations can be resolved by player input, in some situations without the clatter of dice then no one.

 

[pemerton]

As long as meaningful situations can be resolved by player input, in some situations without the clatter of dice then no one.

I don't quite get how "the clatter of dice" is at odds with "player input". Players have input into combat resolution - they decide who and how to attack, for instance - but there is also the clatter of dice - attack, damage and saving throw rolls being the main ones.

There are a number of options for non-combat resolution systems that prioritise player input and still involve dice rolling. The most generic way of describing those structures is probably this: the GM describes the situation/context, the player then describes what his/her PC is doing or saying (this may be first or third person, depending on individual preferences and table expectations), dice are then rolled, and the GM then narrates the consequences of the PC's action using the result of the roll(s) to establish the parameters of that narration (eg if the check is a failure, the GM's narration has to give some account, in the fiction, of the PC not getting what the player wanted him/her to get).

Burning Wheel probably gives the clearest statement of this sort of action resolution mechanic, in its "intent and task" rules.

Even the 3E Diplomacy rules aren't that bad, unless the group has completely failed to engage their brains before driving.

Happy to be corrected on that - in this case I'm speaking from reading the text, not from implementing it in play.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Happy to be corrected on that - in this case I'm speaking from reading the text, not from implementing it in play.

Oh, you could play it that way. It's merely that it would be akin to playing Basic D&D this way:

DM: There are six monsters in the room.
PC1: How do they look?
DM: They have claws and teeth and maybe some kind of weapon, and they are running at you. Roll initiative...

PC2: I swing my weapon and do 5 points of damage to one of them.
PC3: Well, I'll cast one of my spells and do, let's see, 4 points of damage.

You could run an encounter with goblins that way in Basic and be within the letter of the rules, but I don't think many people would consider that even acknowledging that the rules had a spirit.