Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3319581" data-attributes="member: 6777">Interesting thread.First off, I like social mechanics for reasons Hussar and Wolfwood2 mention above. Whether it's combat or conversation, if it's an important event, you should be rolling the bones. Sure, marshal your resources, pick your tactics, craft a plan, adopt an accent... but, ultimately, we use the mechanics to determine the end result.That said, I think the real issue at the heart of these discussions is this: The social mechanics in D&D aren't very interesting.At the core, they are very simple task resolution, just like swinging a sword. However, with swords, it's never down to just one roll. It's a series of rolls, positioning, and tactics, usually over a series of rounds. Determining the outcome is an entire process.With D&D's social skills, otoh, it's one roll and done. Did your gather information or not? Yes or no. Did you bluff the guard? Yes or no. On top of this, the mechanics don't necessarily provide a solid outcome. Make a stellar Diplomacy check, and the NPC becomes "helpful." Does that mean they actually help you? Not necessarily. The ultimate outcome is still in the DM's hands.And on top of that is the whole issue of how the player's ability as an actor or debater interacts with the mechanic. Since the roll is all-or-nothing, the players are faced with their roleplaying being judged all-or-nothing. IMO, that puts the DM in a tough position. "Do I reward Shelley because she cracks me up?" "Do I penalize Todd because he's shy?"Ergo, I think this is why we see such polarized positions from some people on the subject of social skills, because there is literally no rule preventing the following:Player: "I tell the guard that these aren't the halflings they're looking for. I rolled a 27 on my Bluff."DM: "The guard buys it."There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but I can understand that it doesn't make for the most enjoyable play in every situation. Ergo, I can see why some people would rather opt for dinner theater over using the mechanics.If you've ever had a chance to play with the Duel of Wits mechanics from Burning Wheel (and if you haven't, you should check them out), you'll know that it's possible to make a crucial debate as engaging as a fight to the death... all while leaving plenty of room for roleplaying (What are you asking for? How are you asking? When are you asking? Are you doing so covertly or in an obvious way? What concessions are you willing to make? Etc.)Ergo, I think it's less a matter of whether social mechanics preclude roleplaying or not, and more whether the mechanics provide a compelling reason to use them in place of straight-up "dinner theater." IMO, D&D's social mechanics don't fare too well. My groups rarely, if ever, use them. When they do come into play, it doesn't seem that they actually make much of a difference in our games. It's not a really a conscious decision; barring a player who has twinked his PC's Diplomacy to enable "mind control," they just have so little impact that nobody thinks about them.</blockquote>

Verification