Why D&D?

[Dumarest]

Hey guys I am legit interested if they can deliver the swashbuckling/courtly intrigue package with easy rules for casual/newer players. I'm at work right now so I can't paw thru the rules, can you give me the highlights?

You could skim this to see what you think:

Let's Read "Flashing Blades" from Fantasy Games Unlimited

Since a handful of people here at the RPG Pub expressed their interest, I'm going to do a read-through of the Flashing Blades role-playing game, which for my money stands as one of the all-time classics of the hobby. But before I do the proper read-through, here's a bit of background and...

www.rpgpub.com

I put chapter headings in bold to make it easier to find specific topics.

 

[Arminius]

Brock Savage likewise for 7th Sea. It came out probably when my RPG interest was at lowest ebb, and for various other reasons I shied away from it.

EDIT: Unfortunately I can't tell you much about L&S--it's another game that I skipped over, for dumb reasons.

 

[Arminius]

So, the thing about D&D's structure is that levels are kind of baked into the political aspect of the game. You have tenth level lords ruling the lands because if they weren't tenth level, somebody who was would roll them off the throne. To my mind, earlier versions of D&D would work better for Game of Thrones because there's been a lot of power creep over the years. A tenth level fighter is equal to ten men and can be brought down. A tenth level wizard might be able to kill a couple hundred men but will flee or die in the end.

I think rather than adding a new class I'd add political classes that can be paired with another class. Schemer, Leader, and Handler maybe which would level up with the main class and provide specific advantages. The schemer gets secret allies, the leader gets the support of the people, and the handler gets open alliances. Your level adds to loyalty and resists having your supporters being undermined by schemers.

That's a nice idea--much better than having people single-class as courtiers or whatever.

 

[Lessa]

D&D has had social skills for 20 years. You’re obviously looking for more than that, so what, exactly?

How does it work between PCs ?

One of the most important things I would see for GoT game is a sound PvP (soft or hard) experience.

 

[CRKrueger]

This.

Other mechanics that would fit GoT: managing fiefs/domains/family, personal loves/passions, personality traits, favors and debts, rivalries and friendships, betrayal and cooperation, social-focused stats/atributes, etc.

Also, as important as what to have is what NOT to have. Pendragon is such a great design not because it shoves a ton of social stuff over some previous combat-centric engine, it's a great design because it throws away all those combat-centric stuff and build a sound framework focused on it's premise. Otherwise you end up with the Planescape Torment case (thanks dbm ) which makes the player question "WTF is all this combat stuff cluttering the game, if the main gameplay loop has nothing to do with it?".

Every blood soaked page of the Song of Ice and Fire series would beg to differ with your claim of combat being unneeded.

So you want ranks and mechanics for Rivalries and Friendships?
Mechanised betrayal?
A system for Favors and Debts? Really?

Let’s face it, you want a bunch of narrative 3rd person mechanics to talk about and deal with your character as a third person in place of Roleplaying as the character, and for some reason, you never want to admit it as such.

Yeah, D&D’s not a Narrative Shitshow, get over it already and stop proselytizing that the Only True Way to Roleplay is by spending half your time not Roleplaying.

 

[David Johansen]

No, I want the ability to quantify relationships that matter in the game and not just be batted about by the whims and biases of the DM. I want to be able to rely on my allies and court new ones in a meaningful way that actually gives me some control over things. That's not narrativist at all. If politics is the main thrust of the game I want game mechanics for politics damnit!

 

[Lessa]

Every blood soaked page of the Song of Ice and Fire series would beg to differ with your claim of combat being unneeded.

I never said that in relation to GoT, but to Planescape Torment. GoT asks for sound combat mechanics (though no to the extent of "everything being built in relation to combat and dungeon delving" that D&D does).

 

[dbm]

D&D has had social skills for 20 years. You’re obviously looking for more than that, so what, exactly?

They are pretty weak in 3.x, very binary. I actually liked skill challenges in 4e and thought it was a shame they rowed back in 5e.

I am really enjoying the ‘dramatic task’ rules in SWADE. Multiple steps to resolution, enough framework to give some meaning to player choices without being cumbersome. Wrinkles thrown in based on your initiative card.

It’s a nice balance without making things into ‘social combat’ etc. And there are a few other sub systems, for chases and mass combat, which stops things becoming homogenous (a pitfall my group has found Fate to fall into).

 

[Brock Savage]

I think rather than adding a new class I'd add political classes that can be paired with another class. Schemer, Leader, and Handler maybe which would level up with the main class and provide specific advantages. The schemer gets secret allies, the leader gets the support of the people, and the handler gets open alliances. Your level adds to loyalty and resists having your supporters being undermined by schemers.

Dude good idea I am stealing it. I could take those "political classes" and make them into 5e backgrounds with a little bit of work.

 

[Lessa]

Every blood soaked page of the Song of Ice and Fire series would beg to differ with your claim of combat being unneeded.

So you want ranks and mechanics for Rivalries and Friendships?
Mechanised betrayal?
A system for Favors and Debts? Really?

Let’s face it, you want a bunch of narrative 3rd person mechanics to talk about and deal with your character as a third person in place of Roleplaying as the character, and for some reason, you never want to admit it as such.

Yeah, D&D’s not a Narrative Shitshow, get over it already and stop proselytizing that the Only True Way to Roleplay is by spending half your time not Roleplaying.

You with your OOC mechanics... XD

 

[T. Foster]

I did it too. Played LotFP last month in an investigative campaign (see Witchburner module, its cool). But is it the best tool for the job, IMO? Nope. Ive played it for other qualities (its relatively fast engine and all players were familiar). If I really wanted to focus on investigation and social interaction, I would probably be better with some version of Gumshoe or BRP/CoC or GURPS, etc.

That's the point. No one is arguing you can't play X in Y, whatever those genres or games are. What we are arguing is that games come with built-in premises and tools to achieve that by default. And D&D does not come with the premise or tools to achieve GoT by default. Whatever you do to make that work, the credit is on you, not the engine anymore.

But D&D (specifically AD&D 1E + Unearthed Arcana, but I imagine most other/later include comparable stuff) does include some mechanical elements that are relevant to "GOT mode" play - each PC makes rolls for their social class, birth order, and legitimacy, and there's a knight class (the cavalier) that's only open to characters of sufficiently high class (lower-class characters have to be fighters, rangers, or barbarians instead) that grants a bunch of special combat perks but also requires the character both to declare fealty to a lord and uphold a rigorous code of behavior - only wear the best available armor, eschew missile weapons and trickery for frontal combat, maintain a retinue of followers, always grant hospitality to other cavaliers, accept duels from other cavaliers, etc. - at risk of losing XP or even losing their class altogether and becoming a regular fighter without all the cool perks.

I've enhanced that in my house rules by attaching a reaction adjustment to social class - so people react more favorably to others of their same social class and less favorably to people of different social classes in both directions (i.e. low-class individuals get a reaction bonus with other low-class individuals and a penalty with high class people, but high class individuals also get a reaction penalty with low class people). Yeah, I added it, but another one of the strengths of D&D is that it's amenable to modular house-ruling - and that modular house-rule additions in areas of particular interest is expected as part of an ongoing campaign.

With all of this, you've got plenty of raw materials for GOT-style courtly intrigue and skullduggery to be added as an element in a D&D campaign. Probably not to base an entire campaign around it, but to have it as one recognizable element in the particular campaign stew. It's going to be higher-magic than actual Westeros (there will be more magic-users and demi-humans running around) and once they leave the court and are in the wilderness or dungeon play will shift to different modes, but "GOT-ish" elements like knightly conflict between duty and honor, rigid codes vs flexible (but "unfair") opportunism, class differences and envy, and so on, are all supported within the D&D system either as-is or with minor house-rule additions, to the point that a player who wants "GOT-style" elements in the game alongside the dungeon crawling and wilderness trekking and plane-hopping can have them.

 

[robertsconley]

You were replying to silva but I will have you my take on this. I want a game to have mechanical support for the stuff that will matter, and I want my games to be about more than just combat.

You said that before. This doesn't advance the debate. What specifically you need that is more?

So my reply to both Kreuger and Robert would be that I want to game to give me something to work with to decide if a player succeeds.

Interest as I just finishing up a section on the mechanic available in OD&D one can use to make a ruling.

They are in no particular order, attributes, class, level, hit points, armor class, to hit roll, and saving throw.

Now if you have something specific then I can tell you specifically how I would use the above to craft a ruling consistent with the setting and how OD&D works. I can do the same with Hero System, GURPS, Fantasy Age, and Harnmaster if you like.

Assumption gaps are inevitable when you have a complete vacuum of mechanical support for a type of activity. And, if that activity will matter in the game this is a clear sign of a poor system.

Mechanics are the not the only way to handle assumption gaps. I been running setting with detailed social interactions for a lot of years with many different system with varying degrees of complexity.

My view is that one of the referee's responsibility to communicate the assumptions of a setting. If game mechanics are the most effective for you then great. But they are not the only or preferred way. This is no "best" way. There is only the way that works for you and your group. I don't need game mechanics to give my group the knowledge or sense that they are adventuring in Westeroes, Middle Earth, Harn, or my own Majestic Wilderlands. I am very familiar with all these settings having read everything there is for three of them and the author of the last one.

I translate that knowledge into a campaign and my players through a variety of mechanics. Some through mechanics, some through handouts, some through conversation, but mostly by coaching in-game. More at the beginning when they know the least, less as the campaign progress as they grow comfortable and experienced in the setting.

Now I can teach you how I do this as I have done for others and then you can cherry pick what works for you. Or you just keep saying mechanics, mechanics, mechanics and ignore what I have to say.

Mother may I
I am address as this is one of the few specific issue you raised. The key to avoiding "Mother may I" In any setting is not to assume as a referee that the player know anything in particular. You need to pay attention as you interact with the players and if they display a lack of knowledge that hindering their enjoyment then you need to act as a coach. Point out the alternative and why they work the way they do. Allow players at first to reconsider their decisions until they gain a better feel of how the setting works.

This is especially important for setting with a very specific feel like Middle Earth, or Westeroes, or Tekumel. The consequence of not doing this is that the players will become passive. Only doing things when prompted to or when they are lead along.

Mechanics, Mechanics, Mechanics
The consequence of relying on mechanics is that the setting becomes defined by the mechanics. And again there is no RPG that can encompass within 256 pages all the possibilities inherent in a setting like Middle Earth or Westeros. So solely relying on mechanics means on average you going to be using a game that more detail requiring more time to learn out of your hobby time. It means various minor aspects of the setting won't be covered due to the limits of books. And it limits the players to only the things the author opt to decide are important.

For a one-off campaign that can and often does work. But for a setting that used over and over, relying solely on mechanics is insufficient even with a system as wide ranging as GURPS or the Hero System.

 

[robertsconley]

The Charisma stat in isolation is a weak tool, though. How persuasive is a CHA 16 versus CHA 12? There is a reason that CHA was considered a dump-stat by many people for a long time.

I would say that means the character with CHA 16 is better than 98% of other people at dealing with their fellow human beings compared to a CHA 12 character who is only better than 74% of other people at dealing with their fellow human beings.

 

[CRKrueger]

They are pretty weak in 3.x, very binary. I actually liked skill challenges in 4e and thought it was a shame they rowed back in 5e.

I am really enjoying the ‘dramatic task’ rules in SWADE. Multiple steps to resolution, enough framework to give some meaning to player choices without being cumbersome. Wrinkles thrown in based on your initiative card.

It’s a nice balance without making things into ‘social combat’ etc. And there are a few other sub systems, for chases and mass combat, which stops things becoming homogenous (a pitfall my group has found Fate to fall into).

So you’re basically looking for a purpose-built RPG for GoT, with multiple minigames for distinct aspects of play. In that case, there’s nothing specific about D&D that fails, other than not having these subsystems, because no game has all of them, or you would have just said that game by now.

 

[dbm]

I would say that means the character with CHA 16 is better than 98% of other people at dealing with their fellow human beings compared to a CHA 12 character who is only better than 74% of other people at dealing with their fellow human beings.

And how would you use that to decide if they are more persuasive of the king than their rival? Numbers in isolation are pretty meaningless.

 

[Lessa]

I would say that means the character with CHA 16 is better than 98% of other people at dealing with their fellow human beings compared to a CHA 12 character who is only better than 74% of other people at dealing with their fellow human beings.

How do those characters interact, how it works if they try to win an argument, or convince, each other? And what are the effects or consequences for each according to the system?

 

[CRKrueger]

You with your OOC mechanics... XD

Which is typical of your level of argument in this thread.

 

[dbm]

So you’re basically looking for a purpose-built RPG for GoT, with multiple minigames for distinct aspects of play. In that case, there’s nothing specific about D&D that fails, other than not having these subsystems, because no game has all of them, or you would have just said that game by now.

The start of this tangent was: does other media rising in popularity help or hinder the dominance of D&D as a game? My point was that other media emphasises stuff that D&D doesn’t address well and hence people wanting to run a game like GoT are less likely to find D&D a satisfying answer to that. Nothing more.

 

[CRKrueger]

The start of this tangent was: does other media rising in popularity help or hinder the dominance of D&D as a game? My point was that other media emphasises stuff that D&D doesn’t address well and hence people wanting to run a game like GoT are less likely to find D&D a satisfying answer to that. Nothing more.

Doesn’t address well...through mechanics.

That assumes people want or need a meaty Social Conflict system that is more than Roleplaying and a skill roll with advantage/disadvantage.

For many, all they would need is a GM to custom-tailor some classes and off they go.

 

[T. Foster]

And how would you use that to decide if they are more persuasive of the king than their rival? Numbers in isolation are pretty meaningless.

They both roll d%. In addition to whatever situational or ad-hoc modifiers the DM feels are appropriate the Cha 12 character adds 0 and the Cha 16 character adds +25%. The higher total is more persuasive to the king, and the magnitude of the difference determines if the king takes immediate action or allows the debate to continue (i.e. another roll). That's a very, very simple and straightforward extrapolation from the existing Reaction Roll mechanic in the game. Sure the literal text in the books says to make reaction rolls when you encounter monsters on an adventure, not when you're trying to convince a king, but if someone can't (or stubbornly won't) connect the dots here, there are probably bigger issues at hand.

 

[Black Vulmea]

The Charisma stat in isolation is a weak tool, though. How persuasive is a CHA 16 versus CHA 12?

A character with CHA 16 in 1e has a 20% bonus to loyalty and a 25% bonus to reaction, while the CHA 12 character has no bonuses.

There is a reason that CHA was considered a dump-stat by many people for a long time.

When I taught some new players a couple years back, after I explained what each of the character stats represented, five of the six put their second-highest stat into Charisma.

If you're using D&D as an arena simulator, then Charisma could conceivably be used as a dump stat, as long as you don't have any non-player character men-at-arms to lead, but anyone who actually uses reactions, morale, and loyalty, per the rules as written, knows better.

 

[Lessa]

Doesn’t address well...through mechanics.

That assumes people want or need a meaty Social Conflict system that is more than Roleplaying and a skill roll with advantage/disadvantage.

For many, all they would need is a GM to custom-tailor some classes and off they go.

The sad truth (for us enthusiasts) is that the average player is like the emphasized part, not really caring much about rulesets or editions or whatever. Just get some GM for us to have some casual fun and that's it.

Which makes the whole discussion here kinda moot and a wasting of time.

 

[Séadna]

Never played 2E and didn't know it existed until just now.

It's a completely different system. Basically you roll and the first success (at least one is virtually guaranteed) means you complete your intended action and subsequent successes are spent either buying off "harm" (so lowering HP damage from various sources) or taking opportunities (e.g. you grab the sword above the captain).

I found it very abstract and hard to play because you roll to determine the entire form of a scene rather than an action. For example you're in a burning room and the Evil Count has escaped out the window with the bishop's documents. You then roll and get five successes say. One is spent to show that you survive, two to cancel the harm the fire does to you, one to reach the window quickly and one to have the Count accidentally tear his cloak to and leave some evidence behind.

I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Dumarest]

Which makes the whole discussion here kinda moot and a wasting of time.

Since when has that stopped us?

​

 

[robertsconley]

And how would you use that to decide if they are more persuasive of the king than their rival? Numbers in isolation are pretty meaningless.

Historically there been several methods ranging from rolling 1d20 low, to multiplying the attribute by 5 and rolling percentage.

The one I happened to use it the one I developed myself. None of these are found in the rules as published but it didn't stop early referee including myself from using the stat when the player was trying to convince the king versus a rival.

What I do specifically is give a +2 stat bonus for CHA 16 and a +1 Stat bonus for CHA 15. I have the player roleplay their interaction between the king and rival (if present) with me roleplaying the two NPCs.

If the general thrust of what the player says is clearly in the king's interest compared to rival. Then I have the players roll 1d20. If they roll 1 then it just not their day and I roleplay the king accordingly. Because in life shit happens. Even then those the consquences won't be severe. Likely if the plan the player outlined is good the king just blows him and the rival off.

Otherwise the players will succeed in convincing the king.

If on the other hand the players is clearly inferior to that of their rival. Then they fail to convince the king.

However if it is not clear then I will have the players roll 1d20 four times looking for a 15 or better. With CHA 16 they get +2 to their roll. I roll for the rival four times also looking for a 15 or better. But the rival with a CHA 12 has a +1 bonus. I count up the number of successes and rule accordingly.

The rolls when they occur are to see how effective a specific conversation was. The roll is the range, the midpoint is set by the player's roleplaying. So bad rolls on a well thought out speech it not as bad as a bad roll on a poorly constructed speech.

Social situations are fluid and nuanced, and I treat them accordingly. It works because I treat the setting as a place and try to bring to life verbally and with miniatures as if it was a virtual reality. As a result it plays out naturally like if you were there as a character. I learned how to present only those details that are relevant based on the circumstance and more importantly what the players are interested in. This keeps it from overwhelming the limitations of voice and miniatures.

Finally while good acting while roleplaying is appreciated it is not required. I am looking for what being said to make sense for the circumstance. Something that many more hobbyist can do as opposed to being a good actor.

 

[robertsconley]

How do those characters interact,

I would look you in the eye, and with one funny voice roleplay the king and with another funny voice roleplay the rival. During this there may come a point you and I will roll and the conversation picks up from that point based on that outcome. We may never roll if what you are saying is nonsense for the circumstance, or what you are saying is clearly the right thing for the circumstances. And if after the first couple of session I haven't won your trust as to how I adjudicate and roleplay then perhaps my campaign is not the place for you.

how it works if they try to win an argument, or convince, each other?

As I said above, I have the player roll when the outcome is uncertain. Sometimes I make a roll for myself. For OD&D I used the 4d20 technique I outlined above. I opted not use the reaction table as it is too random nor the mechanic allowed players to make characters that are better at locution.

And what are the effects or consequences for each according to the system?

The consequence are the same, the detail different as each system have different attribute and secondary abilities that are relevant to social interaction. For Hero System and GURPs I still used the same procedure as I outlined in this and previous post but when rolls occur I use their respective reaction tables and modifiers. Which unlike OD&D's take I find suitable for what I want.

 

[Brock Savage]

It's a completely different system... I wouldn't recommend it.

Yea thanks for the heads up before I wasted money on it. 1E isn't a perfect system by any means and some of the lore is silly but the rules do a good job of genre emulation.

Finally while good acting while roleplaying is appreciated it is not required. I am looking for what being said to make sense for the circumstance. Something that many more hobbyist can do as opposed to being a good actor.

Dude, I wish more GMs thought like this. I try to be cool with players, especially those who lean towards introversion, by listening to what they say and not how they say it, if that makes sense.

 

[Lessa]

I would look you in the eye, and with one funny voice roleplay the king and with another funny voice roleplay the rival. During this there may come a point you and I will roll and the conversation picks up from that point based on that outcome. We may never roll if what you are saying is nonsense for the circumstance, or what you are saying is clearly the right thing for the circumstances. And if after the first couple of session I haven't won your trust as to how I adjudicate and roleplay then perhaps my campaign is not the place for you.

Sorry I havent expressed myself well. Lemme reprhase it:

What happens when 2 players are trying to persuade one another of a course of action? How does the system handles that?

 

[Brock Savage]

What happens when 2 players are trying to persuade one another of a course of action? How does the system handles that?

Wait what? Why would I need a system to manage roleplay between two players?

 

[robertsconley]

Dude, I wish more GMs thought like this. I try to be cool with players, especially those who lean towards introversion, by listening to what they say and not how they say it, if that makes sense.

Makes a lot of sense. While I been consistent with this it was highlighted for me when I had a kid who stammered playing in a game-store campaign. Because I do this like this he had a good time. There was a session where he saved the day by convincing the bad guy to spare the party when things went south one time. In RL it took a bit longer for him to compose what he wanted to say but it worked out great.

 

[Lessa]

Wait what? Why would I need a system to manage roleplay between two players?

Because if I have a charismatic and persuasive PC I want a fair adjudication of the system to his capabilities, even if I'm poor at persuasion in real life.

Or are you saying systems should only intervene on martial matters / when I want to punch other PC in the face?

Edit: yours is a very typical thinking by D&D players BTW. I wonder why is that. By its logic, one can be weak in real life but strong in the fiction. But when its the case for a person who is bad at communicating in real life and want to be a fluent communicator in the fiction, he cant? I find this amusing.

 

[Vargold]

So, the thing about D&D's structure is that levels are kind of baked into the political aspect of the game. You have tenth level lords ruling the lands because if they weren't tenth level, somebody who was would roll them off the throne. To my mind, earlier versions of D&D would work better for Game of Thrones because there's been a lot of power creep over the years. A tenth level fighter is equal to ten men and can be brought down. A tenth level wizard might be able to kill a couple hundred men but will flee or die in the end.

I think rather than adding a new class I'd add political classes that can be paired with another class. Schemer, Leader, and Handler maybe which would level up with the main class and provide specific advantages. The schemer gets secret allies, the leader gets the support of the people, and the handler gets open alliances. Your level adds to loyalty and resists having your supporters being undermined by schemers.

Actually, the 4E "lazy warlord" build handled this close to perfectly: you manipulated people with the power of your INT.

 

[Vargold]

The start of this tangent was: does other media rising in popularity help or hinder the dominance of D&D as a game? My point was that other media emphasises stuff that D&D doesn’t address well and hence people wanting to run a game like GoT are less likely to find D&D a satisfying answer to that. Nothing more.

Yes, but even that tangent came up in the context of suggesting possible threats to D&D's dominance (on the assumption that fantasy as a genre is drifting away from the tropes that most strongly inform D&D). And I don't see this happening, thanks to D&D's long-established cultivation of adequacy and kitchen-sinking.

 

[robertsconley]

What happens when 2 players are trying to persuade one another of a course of action? How does the system handles that?

It doesn't, the players decides. If they want to make some reaction rolls after roleplaying with each other I will coach them through it but it up to them to decide how their character react.

Roleplaying Mind Control
The general issues is what happen when the players are forced to roleplay in a particular way. Where this comes up often in fantasy setting is with spells like Charm Person. But it also comes up with mechanics like CoC's insanity, AiME sanity, Pendragon's Passions.

But rule is the same for all of these situations including the one outlined above. Players are expected to be mature enough to roleplay accordingly. If they don't then there will come a point where they are not invited anymore.

It is been my experience that it is rare that a player has an issue with this and not have other issues that make my campaign a bad fit for their leisure time.

Also because of my LARP experience, I find tabletop RPGs mechanics governing how player roleplay singularly useless. I used to be very biased in favor of first person roleplaying. But after a couple of year of playing LARPs, I came to realize that it not an ideal. Many have fun and are fun to play with even when their roleplaying amounts to no more than being themself with the abilities of the character. That forcing them to be some kind of actor is a detriment to having fun.

So if you want to do funny voice and roleplay a different personality great! And I will referee along with it happily. I also good with the alternative, I only insist that you act as if you are actually there as your character.

 

[Lessa]

Another point worth considering is: do RPGs really explore the kind of stuff that appeals in novels and series like GoT? I think not. I think RPGs mostly address the very superficial elements of those works and thats it. Take cyberpunk for example: its famous novels are about themes of personal redemption and struggle, while most RPGs are basically vehicles for tactical skirmishers with cool guns, where anything "personal" is sidelined. Same goes for 90% of fantasy gaming, no one wants to explre the themes seen in the Silmarillion or LotR, people want to kill orks and take their stuff (and buy more shiny swords).

 

[CRKrueger]

Another point worth considering is: do RPGs really explore the kind of stuff that appeals in novels and series like GoT? I think not. I think RPGs mostly address the very superficial elements of those works and thats it. Take cyberpunk for example: its famous novels are about themes of personal redemption and struggle, while most RPGs are basically vehicles for tactical skirmishers with cool guns, where anything "personal" is sidelined. Same goes for 90% of fantasy gaming, no one wants to explre the themes seen in the Silmarillion or LotR, people want to kill orks and take their stuff (and buy more shiny swords).

How do you mechanize personal redemption and struggle? The player is going to feel that about the character and act accordingly...or not, regardless of what mechanics you use.

 

[Brock Savage]

Because if I have a charismatic and persuasive PC I want a fair adjudication of the system to his capabilities, even if I'm poor at persuasion in real life.

Or are you saying systems should only intervene on martial matters / when I want to punch other PC in the face?

Edit: yours is a very typical thinking by D&D players BTW. I wonder why is that. By its logic, one can be weak in real life but strong in the fiction. But when its the case for a person who is bad at communicating in real life and want to be a fluent communicator in the fiction, he cant? I find this amusing.

I don't like taking control of the character out of a player's hands. It goes against my core GM philosophy of trust and fairness. Even if a player is temporarily charmed, mind controlled etc I trust the player to act accordingly. Vast majority of players go along with this to the best of their ability and problems are rare.

In the same sense, I would not let the dice rule on an argument between players. Again, I would advise the players to consider the circumstances in their decisions e.g. if one of the participants had kingly presence and charisma I might mention something but the decision is still the player's to make.

 

[Lessa]

It doesn't, the players decides.

So if a player wants to make a persuasive PC at your table, his persuasion ability as a character is the same as his person in real life?

In other words, pure GM fiat.

Is that the kind of social support you find appropriate for a game of interpersonal drama, be it GoT or whatever?

 

[TristramEvans]

You can do that with any game or system. If we're taking this path, the original assertion "D&D could do GoT" becomes moot, because I can do that with coin-flipping + a list of NPCs and their agendas. Voila, GoT.

I'm sure Prince Valiant would work just fine for GoT

 

[Lessa]

I don't like taking control of the character out of a player's hands.

Neither do I. None of the games I know with good social conflict do that.

edit: and none of those cited by dbm when the argument started do that either.