DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Sure, and I never said they were. So... what?There's more than one RP technique in the world, and not all of them are the antithesis of using dice, that is a narrow view and seems like an excluded middle kind of argument.
Because the stakes are higher--life or death--continuing to have a PC and not. SC aren't that intense IMO so I don't think they need it.Why would anyone complicate the rather straightforward process of resolving a fight by a single set of opposed rolls by using the apparatus of attack rolls, damage rolls, initiative, combat rounds, etc?
And FWIW, a while ago a person posted about a way to streamline combat with a system so it could be resolved in just a few rolls, and that was something I helped them with. So, if that is what someone wants to do, they certainly can. Just like I said someone can certainly do SC with several rolls, but since they aren't really as significant, it makes little sense to me to complicate it.
You might think so, but I disagree. We can leave it at that.I posted an example on the first page of this thread, of the resolution of a social challenge in 4e D&D using a skill challenge. I think it illustrates why it is more interesting to have the scenario actually unfold via an extended sequence of play.
No, there are other reasons why is shows the SC mechanics are pointless, in general.Well, if the GM decides that an NPC won't die, because "the adventure" requires that NPC to be alive, then there is no need for the combat mechanics. I don't think that shows that, in general, combat mechanics are pointless.

No worries... There is a difference between railroading (giving players no options) and directing them (to work towards the adventure I've created that they want to play). Now, I've had players completely bypass adventures due to their choices, and that's fine, too. I can always use the adventure later at a different location or in a different game.I really hate to do this, at the risk of Godwinning the thread, but, how is this not railroading?
LOL I'm not quite that heavy-handed.The results of the player's actions - attempting to get a ride to Port Royal (thank you for that btw, I'd NEVER remember the actual proper noun place) are determined, not by the in-game reality, but by the meta-level of the DM's wants and needs. The DM needs the player to walk, so, regardless of anything else, they will walk. No NPC will help them, and they won't even be able to make a check to change that. Or, conversely, the DM needs the player to stop in Haxel, so, again regardless of the players's role playing, they will only get to Haxel.

Since the DM creates the world and everything in it, so I'm not sure how you don't have that level of responsibility. You decided the NPC was there, didn't you? You decided what DCs to set, right? So, how is that any different from deciding the NPCs won't help -- they are too busy with their own lives or whatever.As a DM, I am really uncomfortable inserting myself into the fiction like this. I do consider that to be far too heavy handed and makes me extremely visible to the players. And, frankly, I don't WANT that level of responsibility over the game. I want to be surprised. So, if the players convince someone to take them to Port Royal, then, well, that's what happens. What I, or the adventure I wrote, want does not matter one whit.
It's no different than choosing which city to begin an adventure in, what NPCs to present to the PCs, or any other number of things DMs decides.As a player, I would be extremely frustrated as well. It's pretty obvious that the DM is road blocking here and forcing results, again, not because of anything the player's did, but, because the DM wants a certain outcome and will simply manipulate the game and, IMO, abuse his authority as DM, to ensure that a specific result will happen.
And that's cool, too. I've met plenty of players and other DMs whose games I know I wouldn't enjoy, either. It is one of the beauties of D&D, that one game can produce so much variety.To me, @D&D_Reborn's three examples that I quoted are 100% the reason as a player and a DM that I want social mechanics. It makes the game far more transparent and allows the game to flow far more organically with everyone's input being taken into account, rather than just the DM feeding the story to the players. OTOH, I've absolutely played with players who 100% would adore @D&D_Reborn's approach. So, there's nothing wrong with it and it's certainly something that players will enjoy.
Just not me.
