D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[EzekielRaiden]

neither one says anything about removing the attributes or rolls against a DC.

They do not want some rules that remove the need to do more than engage with those rules and roll a dice, where the player can say nothing at all about how they persuade an NPC, they just say 'I use skill X' and then make a successful check thanks to the char's high CHA

You literally clipped out the part where Lanefan explicitly said they advocate removal of the skill rules. That was literally, explicitly said.

The only alteration I made to any of the quotes above was removing the first paragraph of the first quote from Overgeeked, because it was about a completely unrelated topic. Every single other quote is perfectly verbatim, the entire post. Don't selectively quote at me and pretend like this is something other than what it is. There's a reason I quoted whole posts (with the one exception, which still quoted the whole paragraph without any alteration) here.

Edit: And Lanefan explicitly says that the stats should only exist to inform RP. Not to be a reason why a player can describe, rather than performing the skill herself. In fact, again in the parts you cut out, Lanefan explicitly says that social behaviors absolutely MUST be played out, because they're (allegedly) unique in being something IRL people can do. Thus, IRL people should have to actually be personally persuasive, to actually roleplay it out themselves. Even though, for a pretty solid chunk of humanity, that is effectively or actually impossible.

 

[mamba]

You literally clipped out the part where Lanefan explicitly said they advocate removal of the skill rules. That was literally, explicitly said.

The only alteration I made to any of the quotes above was removing the first paragraph of the first quote from Overgeeked, because it was about a completely unrelated topic. Every single other quote is perfectly verbatim, the entire post. Don't selectively quote at me and pretend like this is something other than what it is. There's a reason I quoted whole posts (with the one exception, which still quoted the whole paragraph without any alteration) here.

how do you think 'stats inform your roleplay' when there are no rules at all? There still is a roll against a DC at a minimum, there just are no 'social combat' rules that abstract the whole thing into 'use skill X, roll a die'

As I said, if they really mean 'make the most persuasive argument you can, and then the DM decides if it was a success, no rolls, no consideration for CHA', then I am with you, but that is not how I read it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

how do you think 'stats inform your roleplay' when there are no rules at all? There still is a roll against a DC at a minimum, there just are no 'social combat' rules that abstract the whole thing into 'use skill X, roll a die'

No skill rules. That's what they have said. Repeatedly and explicitly. I don't care that "there still is a roll against a DC at a minimum." And neither of them has brought up "social combat" in relation to this. (Lanefan did, separately, say they say no to that; but it has never been connected to this. This is purely about demanding, about forcing, roleplay.)

But I do advocate for removal of social skill rules.

Why? Because roleplaying social interactions are the one aspect of the game that doesn't need to be abstracted by the rules or game system: we can do these interactions in real life at the table.

Bolded for emphasis. Lanefan explicitly wants players to be forced to actually, personally roleplay, because (allegedly) this is uniquely something players can actually do. Even though plenty of other things (jumping, swimming, climbing, fighting) are all perfectly possible actions IRL as well.

Social abilities and skills shouldn’t be in the game. That’s what roleplaying is for.

No need to even bold here. This is the whole text, and both sentences explicitly say it. Explicitly saying that social skills AND abilities shouldn't be in the game--because that's what roleplaying is for. Like...it's literally the exact words of the statement. The later "clarifications" do not change that, at all. The only thing that got added is that Overgeeked allows for players to describe actions in third person. It still must be actively played out, by the player, in real time--they just don't have to use dialogue to do it, they can use narration if they want. They must still personally narrate.

And, again, not one person here is saying that players should be able to just make a fiat declaration of using a roll--of ANY kind, not just social rolls. There must be a reason for why you attempt something. With no reason, there can be no roll. Every edition of D&D has required this, usually explicitly. Since that is how every edition has actually worked, they must be asking for more than just that. The repeated and explicit requirement of actually playing through the action--whether in first or third person--is clearly that "more" they are asking for.

 

[mamba]

No skill rules. That's what they have said. Repeatedly and explicitly.

they also have said you do not need to roleplay it, you can just say what your argument is. They have also said that attributes inform the result, which if this were purely a matter of roleplay would be impossible. That would be a contradiction to what you interpreted, so as far as I can tell, you ignored that. I resolved it by saying they want no system that makes any actual argument the player has to make obsolete and reduces it all to 'say nothing about how you do it, simply use a skill and roll a die'.

My take is they want a roll against a DC, but you cannot just say 'I persuade / intimidate the NPC' and then roll. You have to say how you do it, e.g. 'I offer X to the NPC' or 'I threaten the NPC with Y' and then you make your roll, with the DC somewhat adjusted for what you said you offer / threaten

The later "clarifications" do not change that

clarifications always change things. They do not change what you wrote initially, but they clarify what you meant by it...

I guess we have to leave it at this until they chime in on whose interpretation is correct.

 

[Lanefan]

You literally clipped out the part where Lanefan explicitly said they advocate removal of the skill rules. That was literally, explicitly said.

Yes it was, and I'll stand by it.

Edit: And Lanefan explicitly says that the stats should only exist to inform RP.

Not quite.

The INT-WIS-CHA stats should inform roleplay when the "social pillar" is in play. However, those stats also have other functions where things need to be abstracted: saving throw modifiers, spellcasting bonuses, character-side memory/knowledge checks, and so forth.

Not to be a reason why a player can describe, rather than performing the skill herself. In fact, again in the parts you cut out, Lanefan explicitly says that social behaviors absolutely MUST be played out, because they're (allegedly) unique in being something IRL people can do. Thus, IRL people should have to actually be personally persuasive, to actually roleplay it out themselves. Even though, for a pretty solid chunk of humanity, that is effectively or actually impossible.

IME most people - even the not-so-outspoken ones - get it more than close enough for rock'n'roll.

That said, I see the spotlight not so much as something to be shared or parceled out but as, ideally, something everyone wants and is willing to proactively take, like dogs with a bone.

And yeah, the way I see the game might not be for everyone. So be it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No one here--literally not one person--is advocating for the idea that players can just declare "I persuade!" with zero preamble. Nobody. Not one person. Yet that is the straw-man that both Overgeeked and Lanefan punch down to justify their claim that social skill rules should be deleted with prejudice.

To me it rather seems that Vaalingrade does:

What's at issue is that people are forcing others to come up with the actual rousing speech they deliver as their ultra charismatic character and demanding they come up with a convincing argument as made by the character they're playing that could be way more capable than they are.

Because if expecting that the player actually provides the content of the argument their character is making is too much to ask, then I have hard time seeing how else it could work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me it rather seems that Vaalingrade does:



Because if expecting that the player actually provides the content of the argument their character is making is too much to ask, then I have hard time seeing how else it could work.

I think you're ignoring the "convincing" part. It's pretty clear from context that they're speaking of someone actually being asked to be very charismatic, clever, compelling, etc. in real life, hence words like "actual rousing speech," "ultra charismatic character," "way more capable than they are." Etc.

Because if you look at literally any of the other examples in that very sentence, it's quite obvious they're comparing a not-very-socially-adroit IRL person to their, potentially, far more socially-skilled character.

To be blunt? You're very clearly cherry-picking.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you're ignoring the "convincing" part. It's pretty clear from context that they're speaking of someone actually being asked to be very charismatic, clever, compelling, etc. in real life, hence words like "actual rousing speech," "ultra charismatic character," "way more capable than they are." Etc.

Because if you look at literally any of the other examples in that very sentence, it's quite obvious they're comparing a not-very-socially-adroit IRL person to their, potentially, far more socially-skilled character.

To be blunt? You're very clearly cherry-picking.

I don't think so.

(* However, I try to judge DCs more based on what was said rather than how it was said.)

That does... not fix the problem. Do you know any socially awkward people? They don't know what to say half the time and that's half the problem.

The socially skilled players just get a free boost that others can never match or get recompense for.

They literally seem to object the player having to fill in the content of what their character is saying. Vaalingrade can elaborate if they didn't actually meant that, I am just going by what I read.

 

[jasper]

Or they use the safe space of the game to learn and test out their social skills.

Looks at his toxic jr high and high school years and games. HAa haaA. That is a good idea. But reality says no.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

As to social skills etc: In my campaigns no matter what system there is usually a heavy focus on roleplaying and the social pillar. And my players must always talk, argue and be clever if they want to fool a guard or squeeze info from a tightlipped bureaucrat. Investing in social skills gives a bonus in my adjudication, but it's the spoken word and fast improv that matter.

One of the reasons for that is that I am a communications dude by profession and simply love slinging words and improvise on my feet, and I expect my players to share that joy. Just rolling for persuasion and moving on is a playstyle I simply cannot do.

That also means that some people won't enjoy my GM:ing and that's fine, there are other tables to join.