Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
This has got me thinking about a parallel: PvP. Certainly inter-party strife is realistic. Certainly it exists in the legends and fiction that inspire the game. Certainly it adds...let's call it "depth and complexity"...to RPGs.
And yet...I think 1982 was the last time I wanted PvP in my D&D.
So I've adopted the trick I learned from @iserith, which is that when a player attacks another player you don't roll dice. Instead, the target of the attack narrates the result. Which is really pretty much identical to what I'm saying should happen when a social skill "is used" (that makes my skin crawl when talking about 5e) on a PC.
And it's because I put non-magical mental manipulation of PCs in the exact same bucket as PvP. The "not really something I want part of my D&D experience bucket."
But a lot of people think PvP, even if only unilaterally desired, is a great part of the game. Just like a lot of people (apparently) think more powerful non-magical mental manipulation would be a great part of the game.
Since I'm not one of them, I should probably bow out of the thread now.
And yet...I think 1982 was the last time I wanted PvP in my D&D.
So I've adopted the trick I learned from @iserith, which is that when a player attacks another player you don't roll dice. Instead, the target of the attack narrates the result. Which is really pretty much identical to what I'm saying should happen when a social skill "is used" (that makes my skin crawl when talking about 5e) on a PC.
And it's because I put non-magical mental manipulation of PCs in the exact same bucket as PvP. The "not really something I want part of my D&D experience bucket."
But a lot of people think PvP, even if only unilaterally desired, is a great part of the game. Just like a lot of people (apparently) think more powerful non-magical mental manipulation would be a great part of the game.
Since I'm not one of them, I should probably bow out of the thread now.