Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7328119" data-attributes="member: 42582">And as (I think) the one who requested the comment - thank you, it was interesting! For what it's worth, I find your analysis pretty plausible, though - as I posted upthread following [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]'s post - I think that there may be subsitutable values of your (2) (eg "Someone's got to do it!") which then feed through, in pretty straightforward ways, into your other points without fundamental effects on them.That sounds right. To me, this illustrates a further aspect of the contrast between classic/Gygaxian play, and "contemporary" play, that I drew in the OP.First, and just to clear some underbrush, it's pretty apparent that - back in those dungeoneering day - Charm Person was much closer to what we would now think of as a Dominate effect. You can see that in examples of play; in discussions of the merits of using Charm Monster to control a troll or an ochre jelly and get it to fight for you; etct.When Charm is run like that in that context, it is strong but not necessarily broken. An ogre (the best you can get with Charm Person) is clearly better than a hired mercenary, but not immeasurably better. And to try and get the ogre charmed you do have to take the risk of being clubbed by it if it makes the save (in AD&D, that chance is about 1 in 3).Likewise, charming a NPC you meet in the dungeon might get you information about the next few rooms, or even a good tip on some juicy treasure; but it is not (either literally or metaphorically) going to give you the keys to the kingdom.But as soon as the scope of gameplay changes into the "living, breathing world" - so that there are 0-level merchants (who fail their saves vs Charm 90% of the time) with inventories in the 1000s of gps; and chamberlains and kings; and intricate plots to disrupt if only you can talk to the right person and learn what s/he knows - then 1st level Charm Person becomes a game breaker! The context in which it was balanced is lost, and so either (i) we get rid of it, or (ii) we radically reimagine the mecanics of how it works.D&D has been doing the latter systematically for about 30 years, although it took 4e and 5e to really square that circle. Which brings me to . . .If Charm Person and its ilk are integrated with generic resolution mechanics (in 5e, it gives advantage on check; in 4e, the Suggestion cantrip allows Arcana in lieu of Diplomacy) then they stop being auto-win buttons.But then the generic resolution mechanics need to support social resolution, and here I think there is no real substitute for some form of robust confilct resolution mechanic (even reaction rolls can be a good start on this), which - in turn - needs limited backstory to work (so the motivations can be narrated in that explain the result of the mechanics).If there is not that limited backstory then magic is apt to dominate again, as the established motivations will be used to block ordinary atempts at social interaction, and only magic with its special pleading - "It's mind control and so can change the NPC's motivations" - will have a chance.Agreed.</blockquote>

Verification