Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8315122" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Well, that'll vary by taste and expectation, I think. I personally like when there are at least some social mechanics that come into play. D&D does have a few, but they're almost always cushioned by the label of "magic" or some similar explanation. I like when social interactions can be engaged in a similarly tactical way as combat or any other game element.I know what you mean here, but there are also plenty of folks who don't allow plenty of things. "No drow PCs for the love of Gygax!!!!" and "Dragonborn over my dead body!!!!" and "Core rulebooks only!!!!" and "I"m GM and it's my game, you either play this way or buh-bye" and other similar sentiments are very common. And of course, most other games similarly encourage making the game your own. This is why I said earlier this seems more an RPG quality than a D&D one.Okay, so without changing the rules, let's say I want to run a campaign that will have literally zero combat. If a fight ever breaks out, it's resolved with like one roll and you add your level, and the GM sets a DC. If you pass, you win, if you don't you lose and the GM narrates what happens on a loss. But the focus of the game is going to be courtly intrigue. Subterfuge and espionage and doublecrosses and secret meetings and all of that are going to be the kinds of events and actions that drive the game. From what you're telling me, without changing the rules, D&D is just as suited to this kind of game as it is to a more standard heroic fantasy adventure game? D&D can handle this change because it's so flexible? To me, a game that's so flexible wouldn't wind up ignoring 90% of its rules due to a change like this. Nor would it be as dull as the resulting game would likely be.I wouldn't really agree.In combat, I can do all kinds of things. There are a ton of actions described in the rules for me to do.In a social encounters, generally there is one process. A DC is set by the DM, a check is made, and success or failure is determined by the DM.Barring a high level of familiarity and player facing details shared by the DM, a player in D&D has no real idea of how likely it could be that he could, say, make an NPC angry enough to attack him. It's entirely up to the DM if that is even possible, and then if it is, what the chances are by establishing DC, and so on. So the idea "anything is possible, it all depends on what you want to try and do....you can try anything!!!" is true in theory, and so I get your point, in practice it's usually far from the case. And as a result, social actions like that and the role they play are diminished.</blockquote>

Verification