buzz said:
My model for approaching this discussion is Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel. In that game and others, as I understand them, there is no issue of meta- vs. in-game.
My terminology. I mean that as a task-based game, D&D considers everything in terms of "I do this. Now, I do this. Now, I do that." It's "at ground level" for the most part. Everything happens in the same kind of sequential order as it would be if you were making an avatar do it in a video game. Other games that are more outcome-based gloss over stuff. The outcome is what's important, so you get mechanics like Let it Ride, where a single success on a stealth roll covers an entire scene worth of sneaking past guards. But then you're removing yourself from the avatar-based interaction and turning the sneaking into a "cut scene,"* to continue the video game metaphor. The content of the cut scene depends on the die roll, not on the success or failure of specific actions. So in that sense the die roll is a meta-game mechanic that determines which cut scene follows, while a series of tasks that succeed or fail builds a scene in-game, without the cut scene taking over the action.
* The cut scene might look like, "Okay, your sneak roll succeeds. You sneak into the enemy base, past a couple of guard posts, keeping to the shadows along the way. Timing your movements, you manage to slip in through a door while a guard was looking the other way. You're now in the inner courtyard. What do you do?"
If the player's intent is to have their PC betray an NPC, you don't bother playing out the negotiation... you play out the
betrayal scheme. I.e., you're not dicing to resolve whether the NPC agrees to a deal the PC will later break, you're dicing to resolve whether the PC pulls off the double-cross. The stakes involve whether the NPC figures out what your PC is going to do.
Otherwise, you've sort of got the equivalent of playing out a combat, seeing your PC get killed, and then saying, "Crud! Okay, my PC doesn't do that. Instead of fighting the orcs, he goes to the tavern."
This is drifting the thread, though, so I apologize.
I like Burning Wheel, and the Duel of Wits. This isn't Burning Wheel, though. This sort of thing might not actually be appropriate for D&D at its most basic, for reasons I mention in my previous post. I don't see any reason why the game couldn't be set up with multiple options for social encounters, ranging from D&D's task-based system to BW's outcome-based system. I don't suppose it would take
that much room in the DMG to add in some options along those lines. I know that I'll be rewiring the social encounters system in 4E to suit my own tastes. Since I'll be teaching the new system to my group anyway, I might as well teach them a social encounter mechanic that I like if the default is underwhelming.
Edit:
And actually, your last example there is a bit off the mark. More like, the Duel of Wits system feels like it would interface with D&D like this:
Players: "I wager my life against killing these orcs and getting their treasure."
*die rolling*
DM: You succeed. You get the treasure and the orcs are dead.
Players: Um, yay?
A bit oversimplified, but it points out that D&D is a task-based game, not an outcome-based game. Besides, in real life you can decide to cheat if you think you'll get away with it, and I don't see anything wrong with D&D simulating that in the terms I laid out above.
