D&D General Rethinking Charisma

[payn]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I go the opposite direction:

• Stop trying to turn social interaction into combat. Roleplay it out. If the DM can't decide if something would work, by all means ask for a roll.
• Treat Charisma as less about mundane glibness, attractiveness, etc., and more of quasi-mystical/magical "force of personality".

In a recent thread on this topic, a couple of people said something to the effect of "why is social interaction a special case?" Meaning: we resolve everything else with mechanics, why should social interaction be different?

But, again, I think it is (or should be) the other way around: combat is the special case that is resolved by mechanics. Everything else should be roleplayed/narrated, with the goal of rolling dice only as a last resort to resolve real uncertainty.

For me, I think its the wanting some guidance or significance to being a social character. Just role playing it has no certainty at all. It just becomes a game of impress the GM or hope the GM wants to role play social situations at all. Folks that are comfortable with ambiguity, or worked through together how that free form RP plays out, might have achieved some trust and/or consistency in this area. I think a lot of folks would like some mechanical guidelines in this area. To bad we never got any modules they talked about in Next becasue a social mechanics one would be great, IMO.

In fact, I'm going to go start a thread on this topic...

I eagerly await that thread. I think we had a pretty good discussion so far, and this is a topic I could talk for days on.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I go the opposite direction:

• Stop trying to turn social interaction into combat. Roleplay it out. If the DM can't decide if something would work, by all means ask for a roll.
• Treat Charisma as less about mundane glibness, attractiveness, etc., and more of quasi-mystical/magical "force of personality".

In a recent thread on this topic, a couple of people said something to the effect of "why is social interaction a special case?" Meaning: we resolve everything else with mechanics, why should social interaction be different?

But, again, I think it is (or should be) the other way around: combat is the special case that is resolved by mechanics. Everything else should be roleplayed/narrated, with the goal of rolling dice only as a last resort to resolve real uncertainty.

In fact, I'm going to go start a thread on this topic...

Since combat is the main point of D&D, anything non-combat is the special case. This is pretty obvious given how absolutely underbaked everything in the system is except for combat. No thought has been spared on how skills should work.

But I agree that everything should be redesigned such that everything is equally controlled by rules.

Either abstract combat to the abstraction level of skills, or make skills as detailed as combat.

Anything less isn't even trying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Since combat is the main point of D&D, anything non-combat is the special case. This is pretty obvious given how absolutely underbaked everything in the system is except for combat. No thought has been spared on how skills should work.

But I agree that everything should be redesigned such that everything is equally controlled by rules.

Either abstract combat to the abstraction level of skills, or make skills as detailed as combat.

Anything less isn't even trying.

Making every other facet of the game as intricate as combat would basically grind the game to a halt... plus take away that which makes D&D combat different. The tactical combat loses its luster when its used to represent every single other thing in the game as well.

As far as abstracting combat further down to the level of skills... I mean that's pretty much how a lot of other RPGs operate. So one could try and edit the game down to that if they really wanted to. However, at that point the game kind of fundamentally ceases to be Dungeons & Dragons, as D&D is an adaption and evolution of a tactical miniatures combat game... and one and a half of the three main core rulebooks are written and designed to support that tactical combat game. So removing it and inserting just a series of skill checks pretty much destroys the essence of what D&D is.

At the end of the day... the game is what the game is-- intricately designed tactical combat mechanics and a much more free-form exploration and social game. And if someone wants all three pillars to run mechanically the same way... they really will not ever get it with D&D (without a crap-ton of modifications they have to make or find from others in either direction.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Since combat is the main point of D&D, anything non-combat is the special case.

Hmm. I'm not sure what I think of, "Everything except X is a special case." Especially when all those special cases are similar.

It reminds me of the Onion article captioned something like, "Poll: majority now considers itself 'alternative'."

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Hmm. I'm not sure what I think of, "Everything except X is a special case." Especially when all those special cases are similar.

It reminds me of the Onion article captioned something like, "Poll: majority now considers itself 'alternative'."

I see what you're getting at, but frankly I think combat has to be important given the focus it gets in the rulebook. There's a class called the Fighter, right? You wouldn't have a fighter as a class in a system that wasn't designed around combat? Combat has more pages in the rulebook than basically anything else.

 

[Horwath]

personally, I prefer 3d6 for ability rolls.

it a social or exploration "encounter" there is few rolls, sometimes even only one.
I like it to be more consistent but still have a chance to fail and keeps competence of a character relevant.

d20 is OKish for combat as it gets rolled 40-50 times or more per battle, so it somewhat evens out. More or less.

We did try to replace d20 with d12+4(same 10,5 average) and it worked also great.
still using only one die, so advantage/disadvantage works almost the same, there is more crits flying around, but everyone loves those so that is another bonus.
And character competence or incompetence is more important.

 

[Stormonu]

Bring back Comliness? (2E's Skills & Powers used the divided abilities of Charisma, Leadership and Appearance)

I like the idea of a Seduction and Leadership skill. D&D skill system strikes me as lackluster and I really want to see skills far more intergrated and of importance. I hate the "everyone gets a participation prize" way 5E skills are set up. Let the experts be experts and not just with a high bonus, but unlocking special actions they can do that will leave other's jaws on the floor.

I'm one that would actually like a robust "social combat" subsystem, especially if it can integrate with combat seamlessly. The Paladin ordering enemies to "put down your weapons!" and being able to force enemies to actually do so would be nice. So would the smart-mouthed rogue with his put-downs disheartening foes until they just give up or leave themselves open to a killing attack - something that doesn't require the casting of vicious mockery, but does something similar with the use of a skill. That sort of thing.

 

[Horwath]

Since combat is the main point of D&D, anything non-combat is the special case. This is pretty obvious given how absolutely underbaked everything in the system is except for combat. No thought has been spared on how skills should work.

that is because essentially, D&D is a wargame and at some point we decided that it would be cool if those figurines on the table have some personality.

But I agree that everything should be redesigned such that everything is equally controlled by rules.

Either abstract combat to the abstraction level of skills, or make skills as detailed as combat.

Anything less isn't even trying.

I believe that ALL classes should be 1st balanced around combat only.
or 95% of the class.

then you add separate pool of resources where you can pick more skills, more expertise, more tools. more languages, skill mastery, better/extra usage for skill checks.

and all get the same amount of those at a given level.

maybe rogues, rangers and bards can give up 5% of their combat power towards extra "skills".

 

[PvtTommyAtkins]

that is because essentially, D&D is a wargame and at some point we decided that it would be cool if those figurines on the table have some personality.

And I think that point is the crux of my consternation. Now don't get me wrong I like the fact that with the iterative editions there is a lot more to do then just crawl through a dungeon and fight, but that has been and I imagine always will be the backbone of Dungeons and Dragons.

With social interaction the pendulum seems to be at either extreme at the tables I've sat at. Either roleplaying is king and it is player ability, rather than character ability (no roles). Or someone with no social skills diverting everything to a dice roll.
I mean, I guess I could say the same think for intelligence- does the player solve a riddle, or do they just roll die because their character would figure it out.

I guess I'm looking for that sweet spot in the middle. And from the wide range of responses so far (thank you all by the way) is the answer is "it depends" which just circles me around to my original conundrum of having a less than ideal mechanic for social interaction.

 

[Horwath]

And I think that point is the crux of my consternation. Now don't get me wrong I like the fact that with the iterative editions there is a lot more to do then just crawl through a dungeon and fight, but that has been and I imagine always will be the backbone of Dungeons and Dragons.

With social interaction the pendulum seems to be at either extreme at the tables I've sat at. Either roleplaying is king and it is player ability, rather than character ability (no roles). Or someone with no social skills diverting everything to a dice roll.
I mean, I guess I could say the same think for intelligence- does the player solve a riddle, or do they just roll die because their character would figure it out.

I guess I'm looking for that sweet spot in the middle. And from the wide range of responses so far (thank you all by the way) is the answer is "it depends" which just circles me around to my original conundrum of having a less than ideal mechanic for social interaction.

we had one scene at the table, friend wanted to intimidate the captive after battle and said he intimidates him.

DM asks, OK what do you say to him, friend picks up d20 and rolls and says "24".

you said "24" to him?
we all had a laugh, but in the end, intimidate succeeded because of a roll of 24.

Guess, he said 24 in a very convincing and intimidating manner.
Or the captive just thought abut Jack Bauer and wet his pants.