howandwhy99 said:
When talking with an NPC, my PC has a 50% chance of changing his attitude. Straight up or down. Maybe he has a +5% or +10% bonus because of Charisma, but any wider differentiation than that and all of a sudden roleplaying becomes suboptimal for every other player except the ones with specialized "social combat" characters.
How can roleplaying become suboptimal? It's still encouraged. Roleplaying isn't the same as solving problems with non-violence.
The thing is, though, that a fighter without diplomacy and cha 8 should not be able to talk someone out of attacking them with sweet words. Rules for social combat would prevent that (or make it quite hard), but a good DM would do that, anyway. Because playing a character with no social skills whatsoever and expecting to diplomace your way through life all the time is bad roleplaying, since your actions don't reflect the character you created.
Violent combat is one aspect of play. Would you play a character that was demonstrably weaker in all violent combat?
Yes, of course.
Why sit on the sidelines just because you boosted "social combat" over violent? It makes the game less fun to play at certain times rather than always fun to play what ever the situation.
No, because I get to shine whenever we're not busy slaughtering things with sword and spell. As long as the campaign isn't a meat grinder, there should be plenty of situations that cover this. I might not be as effective with weapons or magic, but I compensate for that by getting the party out of trouble, and getting some advantages for them.
I'm not denying others their preference. Keep it an option. Do not make it core. They aren't. I'm saying, "we've never needed social combat rules before. Why do we need them now?"
So you're saying "my way of playing is right. If you want to play your way, buy an extra book"?
D&D should evolve. It should get away from its image of "wargame with a thin veneer or roleplaying" and the rules should reflect that. If D&D had proper rules to resolve diplomatic conflicts, like so many other games have, I think a lot of people who didn't want to play would consider playing it
Of course, the option has always existed. In 3e, one of the Penumbra books had an extraordinarily detailed social combat system. I personally find it extraordinarily limiting to have to think of every next phrase and argument under an arbitrary framework. I don't find any false form of speaking particularly edifying or enjoyable. Reality works just fine.
Reality doesn't work at all. Because you're not your character. Just as characters don't have the same martial prowess or agility as you (well, most of the time), they should not have the same social graces as you (again, most of the time). Unless you build the character that way. No one's forcing a weak guy to lift something heavy to make a strength check, or letting them shoot archery targets to make a ranged attack roll, or let players that happen to be very strong or good archers geting away with lifting stones with a weak character or sharpshooting with a clumsy one, shy people shouldn't be penalised for their shyness, and people with glib tongues shouldn't be able to get away with Cha 6 skill-less orcs that regularly get 50% discounts in shops.
And no one's putting words into your mouth. The rules just interpret them. Translate them from you into your character.
I agree with you above on this. I'm saying, you don't need rules on how to speak to NPCs either. The 3 skills 3e uses are completely arbitrary to that system. A straight 50/50 is all that is required. A DM rules on the rest.
Why not do the same with combat? Just roll a simple die. If you roll high, you hit. Or better yet, put up a dart board. Put little numbers representing ACs on the board and you have to hit at least the enemy's AC. Guess what? Clumsy people will get better at... playing darts!
No one needs to play a fighter ever again! Just play wizard, Str, Dex, and BAB lost their meaning.
But wait: Wizards need to be able to shoot fire from their finger tips. Maybe with a flamethrower? Just a bottle of deodorant and a lighter will do the trick. You'll have to hit a moving target with that.
Finally, we can throw out all those expensive rulebooks.
Seriously: A slanted system that has rules for some things, but not for others, isn't a good thing. If the rules for social interaction are lacking, the game will never lose its reputation as a wargame.
Or do you believe games can have built into them judgment of a player's roleplaying?
No. But we're not talking roleplaying. Talking isn't roleplaying. Playing a role is roleplaying. Pretty obvious if you look at the word.
I'm not saying that whatever the player says should be completely ignored. I'm saying that his character's abilities should be taken into account, both to allow those who're not as good at talking as their characters (and sooner or later, that will be nearly all of us, when the cha score goes beyond 20 and the diplomacy ranks beyond 10 or so), and to discourage power gaming ("I'm in the debating club, so I'll be a good diplomat, nevermind that Krusk the Barbarian has Cha 6 and no ranks in diplomacy. Look at my shiny Str 20 at fist level!!")
The "Character's" abilities should be taken into consideration a great deal less than they have been. That's my choice. I've been pushing for 4e to be modularly optional for a while now.
If you think that, D&D isn't really for you. D&D isn't rules-light or rules-free. Never will be.
