Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 2383660" data-attributes="member: 12329">In essence, you're agreeing with my original point.  I believe that all the social systems and skills for D&D should be ripped out of the game and it should only concern itself with combat and physical action.  In recent posts, I've been defending what a social system should look like if it's included in a game, but my original point was that D&D does social conflict extremely poorly and should drop the pretense that characters should try to solve social problems with die rolls (i.e. Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.).  On the tangential point of whether or not a game should have an elaborate rule system for social conflict, however, I think the social conflict rule system must be as robust as every other conflict resolution system in the game.  If it isn't (as is the case in D&D), then the game is unfocused and is probably including the social conflict system as a nod to tradition rather than as a solid design decision.  If a player wants to have a character who is unswayed by the rhetoric of the dictator, then he should have the stats for it, just as he should have the stats to match the vision of an indestructible warrior.Then why does the character have a Charisma stat at all?  Character stats model the character's abilities.  A character with low Charisma and no social skills is a terrible people person who probably can't convince anyone of anything they don't already believe.  It's not about how a player character RESPONDS, since that implies that there is no opposing force in the situation.  I'm not suggesting that a character should have to roll to see if he likes someone he just met at a cocktail party.  But if the cocktail guest is TRYING to get the character to like him (i.e. there is an active attempt to influence the character), then the character should absolutely have to roll to resist the charms (no pun intended) of the cocktail guest.Further, a Charm Person spell IS like Diplomacy.  Charm Person pushes an NPC's attitude to friendly in one fell swoop.  Diplomacy just requires one minute per attempt and a variety of rolls to push up an NPC's attitude towards the PC.  They both do exactly the same thing, just in different amounts of time.  It makes sense that someone with lots of ranks in Diplomacy is like someone who can cast endless Charm Person spells.  Both Charm Person and Diplomacy are opposed rolls.  If you allow NPCs spellcasters to cast Charm Person on your PCs, then you should allow Diplomatic NPCs to have a similar effect on PCs.  It's consistent.Thanks for the assist!  I'm a big fan of Heroquest as well, where this argument I'm putting forward is handled very well.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The player decided what class, race, skills, and feats to play.  If he or she was concerned that a silver-tongued NPC might influence her actions, she could have played a character who was able to resist that stuff.  A character who plays a fighter decided that her character is going to be vulnerable to Will-based saves.  A character who plays a wizard decided that his character is going to have very few hit points.  In any dice-based game, players can only manage risks, not prevent them.  If there are skills in the game that allow a character to be influenced by an NPC (like Bluff or Diplomacy) then characters must abide by those rules.  The system that you're suggesting is much more prone to DM-dictated influence.  In the system you're suggesting, the DM is deciding when a roll is needed and when it isn't and therefore when dice are going to be allowed to determine the course of the game..  The DM is deciding how charismatic or smart a character is, not the dice or the player.  The system you're suggesting is ripe for inconsistency as DMs apply an ever-shifting rule standard in social conflicts.  None of this is to say that players shouldn't speak in-character to NPCs and to each other.  I'm only saying that whenever a player is trying to actively influence an NPC with Charisma, there should be die-rolling.  The same goes for NPCs actively influencing PCs, just like monsters actively trying to bite PCs need to roll (and the PCs need to suffer the results of that roll).  Anything less is inconsistent.Why can't it promote good roleplaying?"Curse that silver-tongued devil!  He assured us that there would be enough riches in this tomb to retire with.  Instead, we've unleashed a demon from it slumber!  As soon as we destroy that demon, I'm going to make that bastard pay!""You lied to me, Piratecat (why not? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )!  I thought we were friends, but you were always in it for yourself.  That money didn't go to the orphanage, but to your lavish country estate.  I swear by the gods that you will pay for your deception!"That kind of thing strikes me as good roleplaying fodder.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification