A post in another thread (which was off-topic for that thread, so I've started a new thread for this) got me thinking about what I think is a misconception about roleplaying games and mechanics.  So I'll reproduce the quote below (without attribution, because who said it doesn't matter.  It's the content of the post I want to respond to):

QuoteEarlier editions of D&D didn't focus more on roleplaying than 3e, just because 3e potentially let you min/max. They just had less options or ways to distinguish Fighter A from Fighter B, other than stat rolls.

Now, I'm going to agree with the first sentence unreservedly.  I will do so primarily because I don't think game mechanics determine the level to which any particular group can focus on roleplaying.  That is determined by the group of players, their talents, desires, and interests.  People can successfully roleplay in GURPS or Rolemaster, so I don't think crunchy mechanics and roleplaying focus are related at all.

I will however strongly disagree with the second sentence.  Not only is it wrong, but it betrays a fundamental (and frequent) misunderstanding of the nature of roleplaying.  While the focus on roleplaying is not determined by mechanics, the ease of roleplaying can be affected by mechanics.  And that is where this evaluation is flat wrong.  Roleplaying was far easier in earlier editions (please note the term "easier", because it applies to arguments that DMs can just change the game to whatever they want in any edition... because some editions are easier to change than others).

I think part of the problem is that folks tend to define "roleplaying" in different ways.  To attenuate this somewhat, I want to explicitly address two of those possible definitions.  Those two definitions would be:

• Roleplaying is the player directing his character's actions as if the character was a real person in the setting, with concerns, personalities, and capabilities different from that of the player.
• Roleplaying is the player constructing a character within the game that closely fits some overall personality, traits, abilities, and attitudes that the player conceives of beforehand.

If you read carefully, many people who argue about "roleplaying" are actually arguing one of these two definitions (or a definition reasonably close to one of these two).  Now, people who use the first definition will likely disagree with people who use the second.  I'm going to demonstrate that both of these definitions are more easily obtained by AD&D (or B/X) as compared to 3rd or 5th edition.

Let's start with the first definition.  One of the primary complaints against earlier editions is that they lack the ability to allow characters to behave in manners they might want to because of a lack of mechanics.  This is false.  First, early editions didn't lack mechanics for resolving character actions; they lacked formal rules to do so for every conceivable situation.  The mechanics were there, and far more flexible than in later editions.  The basic task resolution in earlier editions of D&D were (roughly), "Use the rules written in the game to adjudicate character actions when possible.  When the players attempt something that does not have a specific rule, determine how probable the action is to succeed and roll dice to determine success or failure."  There are multiple examples of this advice in the DMGs of early versions of D&D.  While you can argue that this is not a "rule", it 100% is a mechanic.  This offers tremendous opportunities for the DM to tailor the probabilities and results to the declared actions.  What if an action is highly likely to succeed, with only small chances of catastrophic failure or dramatic success.  You could simulate that with a linear probability (like 1d6 with a 1 as failure and a 6 as dramatic success), or you could use dice to get a bell curve (3d6) if that results in a better approximation of the character's chances.  This flexibility increases the actions of a character that can be easily simulated at the table.  Which means that it is easier to have your character act in whatever way you declare (the first of the two definitions above).

Now let's look at 3e and 5e.  The first thing to note is that both games have a unified mechanic to resolve player actions.  Players roll 1d20, add modifiers, and succeed if they roll over a target number.  Now, this approach does not specifically exclude a DM deciding to make a player roll dice to produce a bell curve to determine success, but doing so will require acting against the stated rules most of the time.  This is not "easier" (and likely to spawn player objections).  The second thing to note is that both games provide rules for many more actions than in earlier games.  While this might seem to increase player choice, it actually significantly decreases it.  Let's take Feats, for example.  A player must spend resources (a "choice" when leveling in 3e, an attribute raise foregone in 5e) either during leveling or character creation to gain the abilities described within the Feat.  Now, in some cases, a Feat may not grant characters abilities that they don't already have (just make the likelihood of success higher).  But in other cases, the Feat grants an ability the the character is assumed not to have unless the Feat is purchased.  Let's look at a simplified version of the Feat "Cleave."  In general, Cleave allows a character to attack one target and, on a successful hit, swing through that target to attempt to hit another.  Without this feat it is assumed by the game that you can't do that.  If you are going to argue otherwise, you'll need to explain a) why someone would bother to take the feat if they can already do it, and b) if you invent a ruling on the spot that allows someone without Cleave to do so (maybe only less successfully than with the Feat), how your solution isn't the same as in the earlier editions, only with added complexity (by having the Feat to override)?  So, assuming you would agree that you cannot Cleave without the Feat (something I'd bet 95% of DMs and players of later editions would agree with), you have just restricted the possible choices a character can make, simply by having a mechanic like Feats, and thereby made roleplaying (under the first definition) harder.  When you think about it, could any combatant attempt to line up two targets and swing through both?  Sure.  Why should that be gatekept behind a mechanic?  In earlier editions of D&D I am just as able to Cleave as I am in 3rd or 5th.  The difference is that there is no fundamental structure standing between me and the attempt.  It's actually easier!  I declare that I'm going to try to sweep and hit multiple targets.  The DM might say that I need to hit an AC 3 better than normal for each, and I do half damage to the second, or some-such.  He will make a ruling that fits the circumstance.  Now the circumstance might be such that the attempt has little or no chance of succeeding.  But that's actually a higher chance to do so than there is for someone in 3e without Cleave! (who always has zero chance).

There are other examples, but this is representative enough to demonstrate my assertion.  Mechanics can make it easier or harder for players to direct their characters in the game world.  By standardizing the processes of task resolution, a game might become easier to learn or run (5e for sure fits this), but it does so at the expense of making any action not delineated in the rules harder (or impossible) to attempt.  So this falls afoul of the first definition of roleplaying above.  It's easier to roleplay (as defined) with rulings, not rules.

Now, as to the second definition, a similar logic applies.  A character who is not constructed to have Cleave or some other Feat is (assumed) precluded from doing those things.  What if I only have enough character resources to buy one skill, Persuasion or Acrobatics?  Basically, the delineated rules mean that I cannot execute my vision of a character that is both persuasive and can perform great feats of acrobatics!  In AD&D, your character could attempt anything, not gatekept behind mechanics in most circumstances (this was one of the first arguments against the thief class; by giving the thief percentages for climbing walls, it discouraged other characters from attempting to do so).  While classes did have very hard limits on some actions or behaviors (blunt weapons for clerics, no swords for wizards, etc.), I would argue that 3e and 5e are even more restrictive in class abilities, because so many are parceled out within classes.  So I think it is far easier to achieve your vision of a character in earlier editions.

Now, I want to address three additional concerns.  The first is the role of the DM in adjudication.  The fact that a poor DM may overly restrict character actions is not an argument against the mechanics of D&D, any more than having a horrible first girlfriend is an indication that love doesn't exist and isn't worth pursuing.  The issue here is one of DM education (see tenbones thread about this... I think he's on the right track).  So, quite frankly, the "Mother may I?" complaint is bullshit.

Secondly, the question arises as to when a character should "match" your vision for them.  Earlier editions on D&D really were expeditions in zero to hero.  Most of us (at least in my experience) didn't create a "vision" of a character's capabilities beforehand.  We rolled to see what they could do (stats), decided on their attitudes, beliefs, and personalities, and let the character grow through play.  At least part of the problem I think is due to Gen Z/Millennial cultural changes, where they want to create characters who are self-inserts or power-fantasies.  This seems to be the root of the "I can't make the character I want" stuff.  I might agree if we are talking about a superhero game.  But D&D did not originally have that expectation, and that new expectation has done nothing to improve RPGs.  Though DMs still did work with players to achieve unusual characters.  I mean, the original tables had people playing Balrogs (an oft cited, but also oft mis-applied example), so they most certainly could recognize a character concept easier than the formalized process in 5e!

Thirdly, I want to address the final part of the quoted statement, that 1e fighters were all alike, whereas 3e or 5e fighters are more distinguishable.  Not only has this not been my experience, but also it is belied by the mechanics of the games themselves.  To define a character by the rules-options that are picked for them is very narrow.  It doesn't fit either of the definitions of roleplaying above, both of which include things like personality, attitudes, and behaviors.  To argue that your fighter is different than mine because yours can "Cleave" is difference at a trivial level.  My fighter in 1e can do anything; it's what he chooses to do that defines him.  Once you've built a fighter designed to be good at cleaving, can you build the same thing using different mechanics for cleave in 5e (hint: nope, not by the rules).  One of the reasons for this is that many of our characters in early editions were partly defined by the magic items we wielded.  When your fighter found a Hammer of Thunderbolts, he dropped whatever he was using and embraced it.  In 5e, if you've "specced" up a Great Weapon Fighter, then you'll feel cheated when the DM gifts you that hammer.  How stupid is that?  Later editions have managed to homogenize magic items!

Third edition was even worse.  It had pretty clear assumptions that characters would gain specific amounts of treasure, and that said magical treasure would be such that it fit what players were built for (Pathfinder is the epitome of this, where DMs are suggested to get lists of stuff the players want from the players... and if I remember correctly 4e had something like that, too).  Everyone who played 3e or 3.5e has heard of the "magic Christmas Tree" effect, where players need magic items in all of their different slots just to keep up with the monster challenge.  Now, I'm sure some people will argue that that's not the way they played, but that's what's in the rules!  And it's usually harder to change the rules (and the balance within them) than it is to make a ruling that is consistent with the game world and its expectations.

And that's my point.  The rules mechanics of later editions of D&D have made it harder to have your character behave in the way you want and made it harder to express that character in play.  The lack of rules has never been an obstacle... except for those people who deliberately want it to be.  And that's their fault, not D&D's...

Great post!  I agree with everything in it.  I want to address what I'm sure is going to be one of the objections to it:  Direct character creation rules and the wider rules are not the same thing, and they serve different purposes for both the GM and the players.

As an example, consider trying to distinguish weapons more than every weapon does 1d6 damage and does not otherwise have any rules differences.  A GM with some experience and study in ancient or medieval history or perhaps some sparring experience, is going to naturally take into account things like daggers are very handy when you are hunched in a small tunnel, while spears are handy when dealing with something you'd rather keep at a bit of a distance--among other differences.  A GM that doesn't have that experience would like some rules to simulate that.  That could be the Weapon vs Armor factors or some kind of optional/house rules for weapon length or any number of things.  Point being, that to the extent that such rules address some gap in the GM's understanding, and then allow said GM to make rulings from there, the rules will be more useful than not (for that GM). 

All of that is distinct from character creation rules that aim to encourage the players to use different weapons so as to have a party with varied weapons, and thus create the illusion that there is a difference in the weapons themselves.  3E feats are the obvious example as you explained, but there are others.  Even the stratifying of magic types and all the rules that lead to the Christmas tree effect are in service to that illusion. 

The first type may or may not help or hinder roleplaying.  It would depend on the participants, what they bring to the game, and where they prefer some help from the game.  With a strong dose of personal preferences involved, too.  It's easier to roleplay when the game rules aren't grating against your sensibilities and distracting you, though you have to meet the game halfway.  The second type is only useful to someone heavily invested in that illusion.  I would argue that such people might claim your second definition of roleplay, "Roleplaying is the player constructing a character within the game that closely fits some overall personality, traits, abilities, and attitudes that the player conceives of beforehand.", but they don't really mean it.  What they mean instead is start with that definition and then extend it to include, "and the system forces the other participants to recognize and acknowledge my character conception."

And that leads us to why people get attached to such mechanics even when those mechanics get in the way of their goal, and do believe that roleplay is dependent on those mechancis.  Maintaining the illusion is paramount.  Despite all the things that have been said pro and con for simulation, I think it is true that most gamers want at least some small degree of simulation in the game.  It can be practically a fig leaf in many cases.  Pare is down to the minimum for that group, and they are happy.  Shave off one thin layer past that point, and they no longer are.  (This is also, BTW, one of the reasons that 4E provoked such a negative reaction.  Whatever else it did or didn't do, it blatantly stripped away all the simulation facade.)  Or to use the example from AD&D, it's not necessary that wizards be restricted in their weapons and armor for the wizard to work, but it is necessary that the wizard have some kind of in game restriction that makes them less capable in certain ways outside of magic, because that ties the magic to the simulated world in a concrete way. 

All of which is leading around to there are better and worse ways to design and develop mechanics, when it comes to helping or hurting the capacity of any given group to roleplay.  Consider a rule that short weapons have -2 to hit when fighting characters using long weapons (e.g. dagger vs spear), until they close, when it flips to the long weapon having -2 to hit.  That may or may not be a good rule for other reasons (helpful details, roughly simulating something that people can grasp, too fiddly in many cases, -2 wrong amount for the modifier, etc.).  It is mostly neutral on roleplay.  It might provide some small hook for certain decisions and actions that would help some people with the portrayal, but not enough to include for that alone. 

Once you understand D&D 3.X is actually a miniatures skirmish game with "roleplaying" bits tacked on, it makes a lot more sense. It's basically what Chainmail was in a lot of ways, which is amusing to me.

RE: roleplaying, anecdotal but still true, when we played BECMI then AD&D over many summers when I was a kid, once we got out of hack-n-slash mode it was all RP all the time. I saw a devolution specifically when I started playing 3.X because everyone was concerned with mechanics to the point that the game was lost in the shuffle. The players cared what was most advantageous to combat situations; everything else was pushed aside. In my first real 3.X game (one year long campaign) I played a bard and was continually told how I was "doing it wrong" because I kept spending skill points on stuff like languages instead of Use Device. Surely using magic devices in combat was waaaaaay more important than being able to speak to a wide variety of people/monsters. Further, the DM took everything so literally and mechanically that doing ANYTHING that could be interpreted positively for the PCs that wasn't "quite legal" was instantly deemed to be a failure. 100% unlike AD&D where the DM would let us do anything, especially if it was cool.

There's no difference in ease.  But I noticed as a DM a strong shift from 2nd to 3rd as far as what players put their attention on.  It shifted from playing to more and more on mechanics.  The more rules that were added seemed to restrict thought and imagination. 

This is preference I think. For me the big thing that made 3E more difficult in terms of RP was the use of social skills. If you read the rules as written they aren't as much of an interference as they often became in play (but that was the problem, people used them more like buttons than the way they were written). Also a lot of this stuff could have been better handled and been less of an issue for my style of RP if it had been treated more as ad hoc modifiers to your reaction adjustment in certain conditions. But the skill system was clearly very popular with a lot of people. I just personally noticed it was one of the things that changed the feel of play for me when I went back and ran stuff using the core 2E books (it had NWPs as optional rules but the core ones were a lot less intrusive IMO)

QuoteSo I'll reproduce the quote below (without attribution, because who said it doesn't matter.  It's the content of the post I want to respond to):

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 13, 2023, 11:22:51 PM*snip gigantic wall of text*

I actually agree with your first "definition" of role-playing, and disagree that anyone even uses the second one. Role-playing (RP hereon out) IS playing a character different from yourself as if they're a real person in the game world. There is no other definition of RP, only variations of that one.

Whether the system allows you to model your character to closely fit your conception of them is secondary. But yes, "[w]hile the focus on roleplaying is not determined by mechanics, the ease of roleplaying can be affected by mechanics". And being able to model your character mechanically according to how you envision them is one of the ways that mechanics can ease RP--by expanding upon the specific types of characters you're able to accurately portray. <--the actual argument that people on the other side of this discussion actually make.

As for the rest of your ramble and run-on paragraphs, I'm not even gonna attempt to address everything, cuz there's so much shit there to unpack I'd never end and I have better things to do with my life. But Cleave doesn't even work the way you say it does.

Cleave grants you a bonus attack against an adjacent opponent if you drop your current target (killed/incapacitated or knocked down). This isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of allowing someone to swing through a target to hit another one at a penalty (or increased opponent AC, whatever). If the GM allows it, you could do both: take a multi-target swing at a penalty, AND get a bonus attack against an adjacent target if you drop either target. Even if the player doesn't use your combat option (which I have no problem with and would use in my own game if it came up), the PC still gets a free attack without penalty against an adjacent opponent if they drop their current one.

OR, we could just give Cleave some other benefit (like say, a reduced penalty/enemy AC bonus when trying your combat option), since we're making shit up and changing the way the feat works anyways. The feat only becomes superflous when you redefine how it actually works to fit your argument. Otherwise it works fine, or could be made to work fine if you actually adapt it to work with your option, instead of purposefully make it useless compared to just using your combat option, and building what many here like to call a StRaWmAn.

Most of the rest of your argument is some variation of trying to justify how old D&D makes it "better" by not including any explicit rules at all to handle things, and forcing the GM to wing it through fiat. How 1 in 1d6 or whatever task resolution used in old D&D is somehow superior to 1d20+Mod (Stat+Skill+Misc.). And how later editions of D&D actually restrict you (somehow) by having more things explicitly defined. Cuz that somehow precludes or makes it harder for the GM to come up with their own rulings, or for players to try stuff without falling back on their defined abilities.

Don't have enough points to get two skills you want? Old D&D did it better by giving you NO skills. Don't get your Great Weapon Fighter benefits when using that magic hammer you just found? Old D&D did it better by giving you NO Great Weapon Fighter benefits.

And if your DM doesn't wanna let you try some weird shit not defined in the rules while playing old D&D that's not an argument against the mechanics of D&D (or lack of), cuz "the "Mother may I?" complaint is bullshit" (according to you). So old D&D does it better by not including explicit rules, even if your DM doesn't allow shit not explicitly defined in the rules that is explicitly defined in later editions (or other games).

Also Gen Z and Millennials, cuz apparently this wasn't an issue for the entire history of D&D. And only became an issue because "snowflakes" and "power-fantasies" or whatever.

Interesting analysis. I tend to agree.

On the one hand, feats, abilities etc., imply that such actions are not otherwise permitted. This is a case of the exception proves the rule. The rule is "No, you can't" and the exception is the feat, special ability, or whatever.

Can feats and stuff coexist with a Rule 0 (anything goes per the GM)? Sure, but now we're slicing the meat pretty thin. If the feat does X and Y, then ad lib player action can only fairly do X or Y. Otherwise the feat is pointless.

On the other hand, the blank slate of "you can try anything" can be intimidating and can cause choice paralysis, particularly with new players. If this weren't the case, there'd only be one RPG and it's only rule would be: n chance in M for everything.

DCC's mighty deeds are a good example. DCC gives warriors the ability to declare a mighty deed of arms (i.e., use your imagination). If the roll is good enough, the deed happens with GM discretion of course. And sure enough, someone published a supplement with dozens of mighty deeds. Still, mighty deeds are uncommon in the DCC games I've taken part in. Often the player has trouble coming up with a deed, even with the supplement right on the table. Most player just say "I attack." So, if you put a few feats on the character sheet, they might instead give it some thought and say "I cleave".

So there's a sweet spot or bell curve here. As rules/feats/options/stuff increase from zero, ease of role play increases. However, there's a point where it turns back down and, as that stuff keeps increasing, ease of role play decreases. For sake of the question posed by the thread, I would say that 1e and B/X are closer to the sweet spot than 3, 4, and 5e. In my view 2e is closer to the sweet spot, but I only say this because our main group back in the day didn't read all the rules or buy any supplements.

Quote from: Brad on August 14, 2023, 09:49:11 AM
Once you understand D&D 3.X is actually a miniatures skirmish game with "roleplaying" bits tacked on, it makes a lot more sense. It's basically what Chainmail was in a lot of ways, which is amusing to me.

RE: roleplaying, anecdotal but still true, when we played BECMI then AD&D over many summers when I was a kid, once we got out of hack-n-slash mode it was all RP all the time. I saw a devolution specifically when I started playing 3.X because everyone was concerned with mechanics to the point that the game was lost in the shuffle. The players cared what was most advantageous to combat situations; everything else was pushed aside. In my first real 3.X game (one year long campaign) I played a bard and was continually told how I was "doing it wrong" because I kept spending skill points on stuff like languages instead of Use Device. Surely using magic devices in combat was waaaaaay more important than being able to speak to a wide variety of people/monsters. Further, the DM took everything so literally and mechanically that doing ANYTHING that could be interpreted positively for the PCs that wasn't "quite legal" was instantly deemed to be a failure. 100% unlike AD&D where the DM would let us do anything, especially if it was cool.

Funny you should mention Chainmail and 3rd edition at the same time because WOTC did exactly that. They released the new Chainmail game concurrent with 3rd edition. The Chainmail game swiftly died but left behind some great metal minatures.

The funny thing to me, when people complained to the heavens about 4E being too restrictive and video-gamey, it has a page in the DMG where it specifically tells DMs to let the players do free-form actions and attacks, and includes guidance for what kind of damage/DC to apply to a character taking an action that isn't covered in the RAW.  In other editions the DM can always just pull something out of their ass, naturally, but it strikes me as ironic that the edition people pilloried for being the most hidebound was actively including rules for characters doing literally anything.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on August 14, 2023, 12:32:24 PM
This is preference I think. For me the big thing that made 3E more difficult in terms of RP was the use of social skills. If you read the rules as written they aren't as much of an interference as they often became in play (but that was the problem, people used them more like buttons than the way they were written). Also a lot of this stuff could have been better handled and been less of an issue for my style of RP if it had been treated more as ad hoc modifiers to your reaction adjustment in certain conditions. But the skill system was clearly very popular with a lot of people. I just personally noticed it was one of the things that changed the feel of play for me when I went back and ran stuff using the core 2E books (it had NWPs as optional rules but the core ones were a lot less intrusive IMO)

TBH, I think that Social Skills are kind of an edge case, cuz there's no good way to handle them. And the case can be made that (unlike any other skills I can think of) social skills can genuinely replace RP/player creative thinking with a roll. Granted, this is partly the result of people using skills more like a button rather than as written or intended. But if I can't use my social skills to sway a NPC then what's the point of social skills? Why not just get rid of social skills and just RP it out entirely instead?

But if I CAN use social skills to sway an NPC, then skills (or an old school "Reaction roll") end up replacing actual RP with a roll. Granted, there's also potentially a middle way: have players RP their characters AND make them make a skill/reaction roll to determine how good the outcome is. But that's still kind of a cumbersome way to handle it, cuz you're engaging in RP--which can be great, but the player could roll poorly and end up with a lesser outcome despite handling the actual RP excellently. And vice versa.

I still want to like social skills, and think that they're extremely important and even vital skills IRL. But when it comes to actual play, it's kinda difficult to handle them satisfactorily.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 03:11:25 PM
Granted, there's also potentially a middle way: have players RP their characters AND make them make a skill/reaction roll to determine how good the outcome is.

This is what I've always done.  The better try the player makes (I don't judge artistic merit as people have different talent in that area) the better the "roll" bonus I grant. On top of the rule modifiers. Players never roll themselves for this. 

One thing that I think was interesting, is all the players who took 'Sense Motive' in my games when I used to run a 3.5 or Pathfinder game.  Sure, I let them roll, or whatever, but I, personally, as a player never needed to.

I can "Sense Motive" in real life...

But yes, I think too many stats made players "play the system" instead of come up with interesting solutions in the environment or be creative.

Quote from: Valatar on August 14, 2023, 02:06:32 PM
The funny thing to me, when people complained to the heavens about 4E being too restrictive and video-gamey, it has a page in the DMG where it specifically tells DMs to let the players do free-form actions and attacks, and includes guidance for what kind of damage/DC to apply to a character taking an action that isn't covered in the RAW.  In other editions the DM can always just pull something out of their ass, naturally, but it strikes me as ironic that the edition people pilloried for being the most hidebound was actively including rules for characters doing literally anything.

As you have stated, those rules existed to provide guidance on damage and DC. All about combat. All that did was provide a button with an unspecified name.

And as the RAW has pronounced:

Thou shalt reduce thy foe's hit points to 0.

Thou may attempt any action but it shall have no effect unless it be in service to reducing thy foe's hit points to 0

Should thou wish to do anything else, please first reduce thy foe's hit points to 0.

The whole damn system was obsessed with DAMAGE.  "I wanna do something cool!"  "Ok come up with whatever you want and I will calculate the damage." "What if I want to do something that doesn't inflict damage?"  " That does not compute."

Quote from: Brad on August 14, 2023, 09:49:11 AM
Once you understand D&D 3.X is actually a miniatures skirmish game with "roleplaying" bits tacked on, it makes a lot more sense. It's basically what Chainmail was in a lot of ways, which is amusing to me.

And IMHO that's what is good about 3e/3.5, sexy minis and tactical thinking. For the roleplaying part there are dozens of RPGs I'd use before D&D (don't burn me at the stake, personal preference,) but a neat tactical fantasy game, with a wide range of pre-painted minis, with roleplaying added in? Yeah, I'll play that.

I played a little 2e back in the day, and it did feel a bit more like an actual RPG than 3e. But really, a lot comes down to DM and player skill and effort.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 03:11:25 PM
TBH, I think that Social Skills are kind of an edge case, cuz there's no good way to handle them. And the case can be made that (unlike any other skills I can think of) social skills can genuinely replace RP/player creative thinking with a roll. Granted, this is partly the result of people using skills more like a button rather than as written or intended. But if I can't use my social skills to sway a NPC then what's the point of social skills? Why not just get rid of social skills and just RP it out entirely instead?

But if I CAN use social skills to sway an NPC, then skills (or an old school "Reaction roll") end up replacing actual RP with a roll. Granted, there's also potentially a middle way: have players RP their characters AND make them make a skill/reaction roll to determine how good the outcome is. But that's still kind of a cumbersome way to handle it, cuz you're engaging in RP--which can be great, but the player could roll poorly and end up with a lesser outcome despite handling the actual RP excellently. And vice versa.

I still want to like social skills, and think that they're extremely important and even vital skills IRL. But when it comes to actual play, it's kinda difficult to handle them satisfactorily.

I think there is actually a good way to handle social skills at the table. The good way just happens to be the way that I do it (heh).

If the game does not have built-in social skills, too bad, the players have to role play. Note that role play does not mean act. They can simply narrate what their dude does. "I intimidate the guard using the knowledge that we discovered about him last night at the brothel" is just as good as "You absolute deviant scum-sack, open this here gate lest we tell thine master about thine disgusting and sinful ways with the lady folk."

If the game does have built-in social skills, then role play (whether acting or narration) will earn the player a bonus to their skill roll and may even dispel of the need for a roll.

It's a social game, so at the very least social skills should be role played. If you don't want to act it out, then just narrate, which everyone should be capable of. Otherwise, don't take social skills. Like who would play a warrior if they hated talking and listening about violence. It's the same deal.