Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Composer99" data-source="post: 8324728" data-attributes="member: 7030042">Main topic:I think the goal should be that all players should be able, if they wish, to meaningfully contribute to social interaction with NPCs. Not necessarily every single instance of social interaction, but rather when taken as a whole.I think reducing it to being good at talking to NPCs is probably going too far. It strengthens the idea that social interaction writ large is a niche that the party face fills completely and that the turnip-personality character (let's call them Gruff Turnip) is not meant or allowed to take part.With that in mind, having different niches for social interaction, and making sure as a DM/GM/what-have-you to encourage different player characters to fill those niches, is a good way (at least IMO) to broaden the scope of social interaction. Others have already touched on this idea: the introverted nerd who opens up when discussing a topic about which they are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, the gregarious charmer, the hulking bad-cop muscle, the empathetic listener, the charlatan, that sort of thing.So, you want to have different ways that characters can contribute to social interaction, not necessarily always in equal measure. You want to encourage the players to choose social niches that fit their characters. (Gruff Turnip could almost certainly be menacing, for instance. Or if you need someone in an interaction to be abrasive, offensive, or annoying, then Gruff is the right tool for the job.) And then you want to make a point of having situations come up in the game that reward characters from different niches contributing in social interaction.The other thing you can do - again, as others have already touched on - is have different NPCs react differently to different player characters. The simple townsfolk are going to find the loquacious wizard boring and hard to understand, preferring perhaps the plain-spoken fighter (or maybe even Gruff Turnip, who at least has the decency to look you in the eyes and give you a firm handshake before insulting you), while of course Sage McSmartypants will have the opposite reaction.Now, the character who has invested in social skills is a good all-round social generalist, and absolutely shines in the niches that their character best fits, but everyone else still has ways to contribute meaningfully to social interaction - if they wish. Even Gruff Turnip.[HR][/HR]Tangent (spoilered because tangential):[SPOILER="Magic!"]This whole line of complaint about charm/domination magic makes no sense. In fact, it makes so little sense it is nonsense. It is just as much "because"-style circular reasoning as what you are complaining about.Magic in most TTRPGs isn't just extending nonmagical things. Or, put another way, you just aren't "do[ing] something towards" a magical effect "without magic". Magic, more often than not, breaks fundamental rules of reality. You just aren't replicating fireball when you use alchemist's fire. Alchemist's fire is a fueled chemical reaction. Fireball is "<a href="https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html" target="_blank">manipulat[ing] thermodynamic differentials with your fingers</a>". Constructing a glider/artificial wings is manipulating known forces to stay airborne. The fly spell is telling those forces to shut up and sit in the corner. Hiding or using camouflage is about staying out of other creatures' line of sight or being mistaken for something else. Becoming invisible magically entails letting light just... pass through you unobstructed (despite your own eyes still receiving light in sufficient quantity to see by).Why do werewolves or vampires have only particular weaknesses (varying from system to system)? There's no sensible reason for these phenomena that you can extend logically or reasonably from nonmagical principles. If you transform, say, a human into a toad, where does all their extra body mass go? There's no sensible nonmagical phenomenon that you can work from. How do dragons exhale fire, much less lightning or sleep gas? There's no good reason - it's just magic. (Although that one <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Dragon_(2004_film)" target="_blank">faux documentary</a> tried its best, bless it.)Many (most?) varieties of magic in TTRPGS require overlooking physical or biological impossibilities. They are by nature inherently unreasonable. You can't sensibly justify them through any means other than "it's magic" because there is no other justification.Suffice to say, there is no sense in complaining about the circular nature of magic, because its very impossibility precludes any other nature.[/SPOILER]</blockquote>

Verification