LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
TLDR: It's good, very gamist, but if that's what you're looking for you'll be pretty happy with it.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 137 replies.
I disagree. A botched argument with the king’s vizier can get you killed just as fast as picking the wrong door in a dungeon, but D&D doesn’t want those kinds of conflicts in it’s game, so they don’t support them in the rules. Again, not saying that’s a bad thing, but it does limit the stories a little more than I’d like.
As for non-combat stuff, Yeah, that’s sorta what I’m saying. Look, the combat in D&D is fun. That’s why we play it, right? Well, with the right rules system, settling arguments/debate/interrogation via the mechanics can be fun too! You shy away at tiered diplomacy checks because they sound like more of a hassle than fun, and you’d be right. I’m saying throw out the entire skills system of D&D and give it some kind of “social conflict” rules similar to the conflict rules for fighting. Wouldn’t it be cool to have tactics in an argument?
As for your “The reason you don't want too many 'rules' in social situations is because anything that tells you how a character needs to act is basically mind control.” I have 2 things to say about that:
1: Doesn’t hold water because you ALWAYS agree at the table what happens to your character. It’s part of the social contract of the gaming table. Every time you cast a spell or pick a lock or WHATEVER, you’re only actually doing it because everyone at the table AGREES that you do. How would fear effects work if you weren’t allowed to lose control of your character? What if you just said “no, my character doesn’t run.” The game would fall apart very quickly. The same thing can be true for social arguments too. There has to be *stakes* for an argument or it’s not interesting. If you lose a fight, you die or are captured or whatever. If you lose an argument, your perspective changes, you don’t get what you want, whatever, but if you have to abide by the stakes of the argument the plot gets advanced. And *that’s* the cool part.
2: It bothers me that people think arguments, diplomacy, bluff, etc, need to be played out by the player. I’m a terribly liar. If I played a silver tongued trickster bard and the majority of my cleverness relied on me the player, how would that be fair? I’d effectively neuter the character (lol, more so than a bard is already neutered). Do you expect players to be as strong or good with the sword/bow as their characters are? Of course not! Why should social combat be any different? The rules are meant to abstract events down to a level where the plot can advance because these characters can do awesome things. That includes speaking as well as calling down magical hellfire.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.