Grimhelm said:
I understand that some people need this sort of thing. My only question is why do these people play at all? Wouldn't they get just as much enjoyment from sticking to a game like Runebound? My point is really somewhat off the wall, but I really see no need to accomodate people who can't play the game. It seems to me that this style is indicative of an overall trend to accomodate mediocrity and blandness.
I think an appropriate social game mechanism could be beneficial in that it could help encourage good roleplaying. With an absence of attractive and effective in-game mechanics, you are actively discouraged from role-playing, in favor of making one dice roll and deciding the outcome.
For example, as the rules stand now, if I want to convince somebody of something, the DM determines their initial position toward me (hostile, indifferent, friendly etc.) and sets an accompanying Difficutly Class. Then I roll a D20 to determine whether I overcome that DC or not. There are NO other rules. I don't have to roleplay it out. I don't have to come up with a plan of attack, I just have to roll a D20 in the rules as they are written, add or subtract a few modifiers and that is it. As written and as a default, the rules are the ultimate in mechanics over role-playing.
Now, I think Mark is arguing that we should throw that rule out in favor of just straight role-playing the discussion and the success or failure of your attempt. I say this, the other guy says that, we blah-blah back and forth and I either get what I want or I don't.
The third option, which is what I would like to find or expand on, is a way to make verbal interactions as detailed as combat interactions. Maybe a series of verbal maneuvers that give you different bonuses or negatives to convince someone. These would also give the DM some sense of how effective or ineffective a particular verbal technique would be at convincing someone. And I would definitely want to add bonuses to someone's rolls if they actually role-play out the conversation.
If people knew that coming up with a BIG LIE would get them a bonus of +xx, while trying a COMMON GROUND maneuever would give them a bonus of +yy, they might be willing to try these various conversational gambits as ways to overcome an opponent.
I have an ill-formed example in my mind that I will try to flesh out here in a bit as an example of how this might work. But in short, what if a BIG LIE was the equivalent of a combat Charge, in that it gives you bonuses but left you vulnerable to a counter attack (your opponent sees through your life and tries to catch you up in it?) Or Defensive Fighting became something like PLAYING IT CLOSE, where you just try to hold ground conversationally while fending off your opponent's points, or you and an ally could use the equivalent of conversational Flanking, to wear an opponent down.
Done right, this could be a huge benefit to good role-playing. It would make conversation as mechanically interesting as combat.
