D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Lanefan]

but somehow social interaction doesn't need to be mechanically structured? even though there's still the same divide between player and character as all the rest of the game, social interaction gets to work different simply just because it's easier to perform at the table?

Yep.

Except substitute "can be performed at the table at all" for "easier to perform at the table".

The other option is to have binding social mechanics, but then (IMO valid) issues arise around player agency over their characters when those mechanics get turned against them. And no, having the mechanics only work in one direction is a complete non-starter: if a PC can do it to an NPC then for in-setting consistency the same is and must be possible in reverse.

So, the answer is no social mechanics.

 

[Aldarc]

The other option is to have binding social mechanics, but then (IMO valid) issues arise around player agency over their characters when those mechanics get turned against them. And no, having the mechanics only work in one direction is a complete non-starter: if a PC can do it to an NPC then for in-setting consistency the same is and must be possible in reverse.

This presumes that a NPC can use Diplomacy/Persuasion against the PC. I know that your idiomatic preference is complete symmetry between PCs and NPCs, but this is something of a self-inflicted problem of your preference for PC/NPC symmetry clashing with social mechanics that is not shared by other games or even social mechanics. So this may be a complete non-starter for you, but not everyone (if not most people) will share you peculiar aesthetic preferences.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yep.

Except substitute "can be performed at the table at all" for "easier to perform at the table".

The other option is to have binding social mechanics, but then (IMO valid) issues arise around player agency over their characters when those mechanics get turned against them. And no, having the mechanics only work in one direction is a complete non-starter: if a PC can do it to an NPC then for in-setting consistency the same is and must be possible in reverse.

So, the answer is no social mechanics.

does that mean i get to climb the cliff without making any athletics checks by claiming it's my player agency over my character's actions to be able to do so? how dare you tell me my character can't climb that cliff they totally could!

i don't see why there's one standard for social situations to be able to completely sidestep following any mechanics for it's resolution and another standard for exploration and combat.

 

[Oofta]

It's incredible how often people overrate their own abilities.

That said, while you may have such incredible talents in that area, not everyone does. Should their high Charisma character with Persuasion be at a disadvantage just because the player lacks your distinguished pedigree in smooth-talking to others? My partner is autistic, and trying to find the right thing to say for roleplaying is the opposite of fun for them. I know that @Lanefan doesn't give a crap about what my partner feels in this situation. They told me before that my partner should just "practice." But what do you think?


Dread is a roleplaying game played with Jenga.

To be clear, I am fine if you prefer freeform roleplaying. What I dislike is when social mechanics in other roleplaying games are snubbed as "rollplay" in a derogatory way to suggest that they are not true, pure, or proper roleplaying.

Did I say anything about rollplay? That people have to be eloquent or that how you state things matters? I assume you've talked to people, perhaps tried to convince someone or even deceived someone with a little white lie. That means you understand the basics. Very, very few people understand melee combat, none of them know how spells would affect it.

As far as someone that's autistic, that's why I would never push, never force people to speak in character. As long as they can get across what their PC is saying it's all good. If I had someone autistic at the table I'd probably be more likely to guide their responses if it was okay with them.

One system is not better than another. But there is no comparison between freeplay social interaction and freeplay combat.

 

[Aldarc]

Did I say anything about rollplay?

Guess what? I was addressing Crimson Longinus.

That people have to be eloquent or that how you state things matters? I assume you've talked to people, perhaps tried to convince someone or even deceived someone with a little white lie. That means you understand the basics. Very, very few people understand melee combat, none of them know how spells would affect it.

As far as someone that's autistic, that's why I would never push, never force people to speak in character. As long as they can get across what their PC is saying it's all good. If I had someone autistic at the table I'd probably be more likely to guide their responses if it was okay with them.

One system is not better than another. But there is no comparison between freeplay social interaction and freeplay combat.

I do appreciate the bold. So thank you for at least being that sympathetic. I will also share that my partner likes having social mechanics because it often gives them cues and formalizes the social process in a way that they often find clear. I mentioned Stonetop and Avatar Legends before. The fact that these social moves often divulge pertinent information is a big boon for them.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the way 4e explained it was pretty elegant, IMO. Gods do not "grant" their power, like some kind of continuous, revocable loan. They bestow a mote of their power...permanently. Investiture is a completed transaction. That mote of power can then be nurtured, intensified, grown--but it cannot be recalled. Not anymore, after the gods were (more or less) banned from entering the mortal world. A new ritual can be conducted to take the power back, but you have to actually have the person there, and the deity's agents must perform the ritual themselves (it wouldn't be useful if just any old person could do it.) This is why churches have to be really, really careful about who they grant investiture to! Your "faithful" can betray you and yet still wield the power they were given.

That sounds to me like the game is trying to bake in a lot of setting information in order to make these elements work as intended.

Hard to square that with a homebrew cosmology where the deities are way more hands-on in mortal affairs.

 

[FrogReaver]

does that mean i get to climb the cliff without making any athletics checks

Maybe.

by claiming it's my player agency over my character's actions to be able to do so?

Players don’t decide if what they attempted called for a check, whether that’s cliff climbing or social, but you know this…

i don't see why there's one standard for social situations and another for exploration and combat.

to the extent there are 2 different standards (not something I’m convinced of), but to the extent that’s true, it’s already been explained. We all have experience with social, while many of us don’t have any or very limited experience climbing cliffs.

 

[Maxperson]

Disagree. Create Food and Water actively hinders survival as a playstyle by rendering a significant aspect of that playstyle (food-water management) forever moot.

That's simply impossible. I can in fact engage survival as a playstyle without food scarcity even being present. I can have an abundance of food sitting outside town forever, and still include survival as the primary focus of the campaign. You can argue that it doesn't aid(and I disagree), but you can't say that it hinders, because it doesn't at all hinder.

CF+W aids succeeding in play in the survival playstyle, but that's in no way the same thing as aiding the playstyle as a thing in itself.

Not true. A tool in surviving is an aid to the style. The style includes both sides, player and DM. The style not DM only and everything that can help a player hinders the style. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Maxperson]

Semantics strikes again!

We all agree on the nuts and bolts of what’s happening. We don’t agree on how to classify it or frame it. Especially when some of that framing is done in the absolute worst light imaginable.

But, poor lighting makes it harder to survive.

 

[Lanefan]

I consider almost any difference superior to "divine Big Brother surveillance."

This one's almost too easy: if you don't want divine Big Brother surveillance then don't play a divine-casting class.

Problem solved.