GrimCo
Hero
Last time i checked contested/opposed roles are still a thing. Problem with D&D in particular is lack of "social" combat. While 90% of the rules and PC ablities are centered around physical combat, social aspect is like an after thought.
Yes, 4e and 5e go for different rules for bulding PCs and NPCs. But in 3.x, NPCs and PCs were built using same mechanics. NPCs had regular class levels, class abilities and skills. When it came to social combat, it was mostly opposed roll and gentleman agreement that you play according to dice result. If NPC bluffs, you roll sense motive. If you win, you know he is lying, if he wins, you think he is telling the truth. "i still don't trust him" is just bad sportsmanship imho. We always played that in contested situations, dice rolls determines the outcome and treated skill vs skill same as attack vs save. To move away from D&D, VtM (at least Revised) and VtR use same rules for both PC and NPC creation. Contested rolls are norm. And if you lose social roll, there are mechanics to enforce outcome. If NPC Elder succeds on it's intimidation check, you are intimidated. Try to act tough and ST can call Beast check (Courage, Self Control) and you don't wanna go into Frenzy or Rotschrek. There is "no you don't" mechanic, Willpower. But willpower is resource both sides can use and it's limited in how much you have it and how much you can use.
I played in campaign based on GoT. DM removed all social skills from the game. No bluff, no intimidate, no sense motive, no diplomacy. It was all done trough role play. If DM wants to bluff or intimidate - he needs to roleplay it convincingly enough to player and vice versa. It's not for everyone, it's mentally taxing, and requires lots of trust and mutual respect among the group ( and acting like adults).
I also played with group where people don't bother to roleplay social encounters. Lot's of times, the don't even bother to describe what and how they try to do. It's more like " I roll Diplomacy to try convincing Ork warboss to let us trough". That's it. They declare what skill they use, DM sets DC, they roll. Same with opposed rolls. Players lose on sense motive, they accept that NPC is telling the truth and go on with the game.
Those 2 are two extreme ends in a game where social pillar is mostly non existent outside few spells and abilities. Can we all agree that when it comes to "social combat" and mechanics around it, D&D is bad at it trough all editions and it's mostly up to DM/players to figure out something that works at their table?
Yes, 4e and 5e go for different rules for bulding PCs and NPCs. But in 3.x, NPCs and PCs were built using same mechanics. NPCs had regular class levels, class abilities and skills. When it came to social combat, it was mostly opposed roll and gentleman agreement that you play according to dice result. If NPC bluffs, you roll sense motive. If you win, you know he is lying, if he wins, you think he is telling the truth. "i still don't trust him" is just bad sportsmanship imho. We always played that in contested situations, dice rolls determines the outcome and treated skill vs skill same as attack vs save. To move away from D&D, VtM (at least Revised) and VtR use same rules for both PC and NPC creation. Contested rolls are norm. And if you lose social roll, there are mechanics to enforce outcome. If NPC Elder succeds on it's intimidation check, you are intimidated. Try to act tough and ST can call Beast check (Courage, Self Control) and you don't wanna go into Frenzy or Rotschrek. There is "no you don't" mechanic, Willpower. But willpower is resource both sides can use and it's limited in how much you have it and how much you can use.
I played in campaign based on GoT. DM removed all social skills from the game. No bluff, no intimidate, no sense motive, no diplomacy. It was all done trough role play. If DM wants to bluff or intimidate - he needs to roleplay it convincingly enough to player and vice versa. It's not for everyone, it's mentally taxing, and requires lots of trust and mutual respect among the group ( and acting like adults).
I also played with group where people don't bother to roleplay social encounters. Lot's of times, the don't even bother to describe what and how they try to do. It's more like " I roll Diplomacy to try convincing Ork warboss to let us trough". That's it. They declare what skill they use, DM sets DC, they roll. Same with opposed rolls. Players lose on sense motive, they accept that NPC is telling the truth and go on with the game.
Those 2 are two extreme ends in a game where social pillar is mostly non existent outside few spells and abilities. Can we all agree that when it comes to "social combat" and mechanics around it, D&D is bad at it trough all editions and it's mostly up to DM/players to figure out something that works at their table?
