Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7917441" data-attributes="member: 42582">This reason isn't very important to me. In 4e D&D - a rather tactical game - the fact that all the PCs have combat ability doesn't stop the best wargamer at the table shining in combat.And the system has social skills, but the player still has to understand social dynamics at least to the extent of declaring relevant actions. So a player with more social imagination has more scope to do stuff here.That's not to say that the reason should be irrelevant to everyone, and maybe I'm underestimating how weak some players' social skills are. But for me it's much more about what domains of activity are subject to finality in resolution as opposed to sheer negotiation/consensus/fiat.Here's a gratuitous self-quote from somewhere not too far upthread: That's the reason. I just think, based on a mixture of intuition and experience, that non-social (ie primarily physical/environmental) conflicts are not revealing enough of a character to produce character-driven arcs. The players also need to be able to have their PCs make changes to the social/emotional elements of the fiction.That's not to say it has to be unlimited fiat power. It can be done through skills, rationing, etc. And sometimes it might fail, so the would-be friend becomes an enemy instead. That's part of putting the character at risk.I don't think the mechanics for this need to be very complicated: the 1st ed AD&D reaction system might be enough, if used with a bit of imagination. But I think you need some way for the PC's persona/nature to feed through. That's why, for me personally, Oriental Adventures was so significant as a RPGing experience: PCs' honour, status etc affects reaction rolls and so suddenly what happens in the social sphere isn't just the result of an arbitrary roll but starts to tell us something about the character.</blockquote>

Verification