Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7622374" data-attributes="member: 4937">A lot of people don't.You'll note, I don't either.   What I actually believe is something much more controversial.I think "I try to intimidate the guard" replaces actual roleplaying, and that social mechanics are a problem only to the extent that they encourage these anti-cinematic social propositions.   If your RP/social encounter tends to replace conversation with rules propositions, that is what the problem is, and not that there is an underlying system for guiding the GM on how to adjudicate social interaction.Like I said, my position is more extreme than that.  I do think one is more wrong than right, and that while you are correct that social rules do not in themselves create the problem, to the extent that they encourage the table to bypass actual roleplaying, I think they are diminishing the enjoyment of the game.   That said, I can't objectively prove that a more immersive more cinematic game is one that is better, and if you are like, "Those aren't even important aesthetics of play.", then OK.  But I don't believe anything is gained by ignoring those aesthetics of play, and indeed, they are one of the most essential aesthetics of play.  If you ignore them, you might as well play a cRPG, but I'll note that even cRPG's try to create something like a cinematic transcript of social interaction and that you'd miss that if it was gone.In theory I agree with you, though achieving the goal of having a whole party equally engaged by social interaction at the same time is more challenging that you make it seem here - especially if what we are not doing is IC conversation (and it's hard enough even if conversation).  All of gaming boils down to two things - choices and rolls.  The problem with anything boiled down to some dice rolls is that means it had no meaningful choices.  A combat that lacks meaningful choices of tactics, positioning, weapons and so forth is I think rather boring and greatly to be avoided if at all possible.  And if it can't be avoided, then it should be resolved quickly.  I judge social systems by the same standards.  If there really aren't a lot of meaningful choices of approach, then keep the resolution simple.  A conversational approach at least involves a night infinite number of choices to make.  Even if all those choices come down to just a plus or minus 1-3 modifier on a die roll, according to how well the GM thinks you made the case, that's at least something.   A more complex scenario, so that you get a -5 modifier if you engage in flattery (because the Duke hates sycophants) but a +5 modifier if you appeal to his honor (or vica versa) and the PC's must figure out from what they know of the Duke what sort of approach to use, or else realize that because the Duke is a compulsive gambler that they could get the Duke to make some sort of wager and stake the outcome on a contest, or else that they could persuade the sympathetic Duchess (DC 15 rather than DC 25) more easily than the Duke provided they could get an audience, and the Duke in turn is easily persuaded by the Duchess (50% chance), and so forth just requires planning out the scenario with the detail you'd otherwise lavish on a dungeon.</blockquote>

Verification