Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9253429" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I'm clipping the rest, because it fundamentally misunderstands what I meant by the non-reciprocal nature of the resolution.In your scenario, you continue to posit that the PCs act upon the NPCs. Sure! Why not!But the difference is that in physical combat, PCs act upon the NPCs, and NPCs have the reciprocal ability to act upon the PCs.That is the salient difference I was outlining. If you want an advanced method of "social combat" (which is something other games do have), then you have to have a reciprocal ability- that NPCs can act upon the PCs. That social resolution cannot just be about whether your attempts fail, but also whether others can influence your character.Without that reciprocity, then ... yes, social mechanics will always necessarily be different. And asking why they are different should be met with the usual response- it is self-evident. If you don't like that they are different, then you have to be willing to sacrifice a core tenet for many of the people that play D&D.That doesn't make it good or bad, but there are many wonderful games that do provide for this- but they aren't D&D, and there is likely a reason that D&D has adopted this particular model, and why people like it.</blockquote>