Why D&D?

[Stevethulhu]

They are though. the Silent generation, the lost generation, the Baby Boomers or (Me Generation), etc...

All generations have a name. Gen Xwas adopted as it is because it sounds good enough on it's own. Basically, a generation in this sense is a definitive cohort of people born within certain times that will all grow up and share similar formative experiences. This can change the length of a generation, but usually doesn't. The World wars, for example, did alter the length of the Lost and Silent generations, If I recal right, mostly due to the rapid changes happening worldwide.

Only Milennials seem to have a name in the UK. And nobody can agree on when that classification starts.

It seems to me that it's a bit of marketing bollocks, not an actual classification scheme.

 

[Séadna]

Basically, a generation in this sense is a definitive cohort of people born within certain times that will all grow up and share similar formative experiences

I think that's it though, the formative experiences in other countries are very different, e.g. Spain. So a generation will be marked off when Franco's era ends.

Although another part of it is simply the language barrier. The countries that have somewhat started to use "Millennial" are all Anglophone. Although some Anglophone countries use them all.

 

[TJS]

We use them all in Australia same as US.

 

[Faylar]

I's not for marketing, its for demographics. the same as your census is. These generations are common for the western world, but other cultures may have their own based off those cultural events. Like I said its for cohorts. This by nature cant include everyone worldwide, but groups. In most of the western world it is the Me generation, In Canada, Australia, and the US (that I know of) it is the Baby Boomers.

This is not just a fly by night thing,its well researched. If I can quickly state that Person x is a rural american Millenial male -registered democrat, you have a general idea of that person and where they fall in needs and party leanings. This allows you to then provide funding and facilities for people in that area by the demographics they share. Like I said, its more for census than marketing. However, just like Census, this information can be used for marketing too.

 

[Faylar]

I think that's it though, the formative experiences in other countries are very different, e.g. Spain. So a generation will be marked off when Franco's era ends.

Although another part of it is simply the language barrier. The countries that have somewhat started to use "Millennial" are all Anglophone. Although some Anglophone countries use them all.

True, but with the case of major events like WW2, ALL Europeans and westerners in general were affected. So post ww2 you had a major famine, a population boom, and a general shift towards socialism. So that pretty much sets the general experiences of the people born in that time in the western world alike.

Edit: You are right though. This will also change generations on a local level. If you had a period of rebellion and independence, you would probably start a new generation from the reformation date onward, as an example.

It's why it is imprecise to everyone, but also not just a garbage thing people bandy around. There is a purpose for generations and there are usually definitions for regions and cohorts. These may differ from one country to another, which then causes a lot of the confusion like (when did it start).

For example, did you know tha there is a micro generation of millenials and Genx born on the cusp in the states simply because of the advent of digital technology? Both are still Gen x or Y, but they are also this micro one (Which I cant recal the name of right now) because they grew into the digital age where they have experiences with both analog and digital devices because they were both used at about equal amounts.

 

[Séadna]

True, but with the case of major events like WW2, ALL Europeans and westerners in general were affected. So post ww2 you had a major famine, a population boom, and a general shift towards socialism. So that pretty much sets the general experiences of the people born in that time in the western world alike.

First I would say I've seen enough sociology papers use those labels in a predictive context for America that they're clearly not empty.

I also agree that most European countries have a post-WWII generation marked off in some special way.

However I'd note some don't. We were neutral in WWII and had no boom following since it had little impact.

Also the actual states of various countries were very different after WWII so the defining generational traits as a result are quite different. In many countries 1950-1990 is often not subdivided further.

 

[Faylar]

First I would say I've seen enough sociology papers use those labels in a predictive context for America that they're clearly not empty.

I also agree that most European countries have a post-WWII generation marked off in some special way.

However I'd note some don't. We were neutral in WWII and had no boom following since it had little impact.

Also the actual states of various countries were very different after WWII so the defining generational traits as a result are quite different. In many countries 1950-1990 is often not subdivided further.

Indeed. Im not a sociologist and dont understand all the nuances myself. I just found this whole topic fascinating and tried to learn more about it. The stuff I said here was mostly from memory.
Where is "we" btw country wise?

 

[Séadna]

Indeed. Im not a sociologist and dont understand all the nuances myself. I just found this whole topic fascinating and tried to learn more about it. The stuff I said here was mostly from memory.
Where is "we" btw country wise?

Oh same here. Just chatting really, I'm no expert. This is mostly from talking to other Europeans. "We" is Ireland.

 

[Nobby-W]

In a lot of ways I feel that I sit in a gap between boomer and gen X. Boomer tropes such as '60s or '70s music or counterculture never really did a lot for me, and I sort of predate many Gen-X isms like '90s TV. I don't really identify with either era.

This may be something to do with my upbrining. I had a pretty academic family but living in a very parochial hick town if a fairly isolated region of a fairly isolated country. In order to get to New Zealand, cultural memes had to reach very mainstream acceptance somewhere else - enough to get attention from NZ's media. In many cases they had to be filtered through Australia first.

New Zealand had very little domestic media industry to speak of until the '80s or '90s. There was no equivalent initiative to the Australian government's deliberate fostering of their media industry in the '60s and '70s. Therefore, it didn't generate a lot of its own culture, and it really only filtered in a subset of international cultural memes, typically with a significant lag induced by need for it to get big enough somewhere else to attract the attention of the local media.

This didn't change until I was an adult, so I grew up in this weird microcosm where we watched a lot of British and American TV, read a lot of my dad's large (shed-ful) science fiction collection and saw a view of the world through strip cartoons. Much of what I learned about British culture came from '70s British TV and Giles cartoons. This did a lot better job of helping me to assimilate into Blighty than one might have expected, although I'm still firmly of the view that the Poms are barking mad[1] - a view that 15 years working in the Square Mile has done nothing in the slightest to dispel.
________
1 - Who knows? Maybe I'm the one that's insane.

 

[TristramEvans]

When I was a teenager,I didn't identify with my Generation at all. I viewed them with a degree of seperation and was frequently frustrated by them.

As an adult, I strongly identify with my generation.

 

[TJS]

In a lot of ways I feel that I sit in a gap between boomer and gen X. Boomer tropes such as '60s or '70s music or counterculture never really did a lot for me, and I sort of predate many Gen-X isms like '90s TV. I don't really identify with either era.

I was 12 in 1990, so, by some of the logic of this thread, 90s TV should have formed some deep impression on my mind.

But the only thing I really remember about it is that it was forgettable.

 

[CRKrueger]

Classic multiplayer game of negotiation that has no rules for negotiation.

The rules for negotiation are in the same book as the rules for bluffing in poker.

 

[dbm]

That’s grand in both cases, but neither is an RPG where the abilities of your character may differ significantly from your own.

 

[CRKrueger]

You're surly as hell lately. Somebody lick your balls the wrong direction?!

On noes, someone disagreed with a narrative Roleplayer...here they come. For fuck’s sake.

 

[TJS]

Personally, I'm not against Social mechanics - they can provide structure and consistency.

But I really don't believe in the idea that they can let a player play a character that is considerably more socially skilled than they are (at least not in a way that you couldn't equally do without such mechanics just by generally describing the general approach you take rather than the specific words - and if you can't think of an approach then you can't use the mechanics without severely compromising the shared fiction anyway).

 

[CRKrueger]

The rules for human interaction in Cortex are ridiculous, depending on how you look at them.
If you‘re looking at them from a character’s view as simulating human interaction, not that great.
If you‘re looking at them from an author’s view as simulating how a particular genre depicts human interaction, they’re perfect.

Look, for all the kumbaya about how we’re all roleplayers, the fact is, there are very fundamental differences in player thought process for varying types of roleplaying, and these are gonna grate. Once someone starts forum-warrioring, like Silva did here, things escalate.

 

[Ladybird]

And, in your experience, is that how most arguments go....there is a clear winner and one person is paralyzed, passes out, or flees?

The argument ends eventually, yeah. Being a game intended to emulate dramas of various kinds, it of course tends towards the dramatic sort of ending, but if I said "okay, I see your point, let's move on" (Pretty much the most mundane way an argument can end) that would be me conceding (In Cortex terms).

But I really don't believe in the idea that they can let a player play a character that is considerably more socially skilled than they are (at least not in a way that you couldn't equally do without such mechanics just by generally describing the general approach you take rather than the specific words - and if you can't think of an approach then you can't use the mechanics without severely compromising the shared fiction anyway).

Yeah, but how often is that presented as a suggestion in rulebooks? Most games and examples of play seem to go on the "I am literally saying the words my character says" style of RP and implicitly suggest rewarding that, rather than the "I am describing the approach my character uses" style. Obviously the player needs to put some effort in - "I'm gonna try and intimidate him, let me roll" isn't good enough - but some games assume a lot, and without guides explaining to GM's "hey there are a couple of approaches players take to roleplaying..." it'll take them a while to learn that both approaches are valid and potentially applicable at their table.

That said, while I'm not much for IC intrigues, I love playing talky characters and consider them the best bit about roleplaying.

 

[CRKrueger]

The argument ends eventually, yeah. Being a game intended to emulate dramas of various kinds, it of course tends towards the dramatic sort of ending, but if I said "okay, I see your point, let's move on" (Pretty much the most mundane way an argument can end) that would be me conceding (In Cortex terms).

Which is important, because in Cortex, the rules don’t tell you HOW a conflict ends, they tell you THAT it ends, and WHO was the winner. It’s up to the players and GM to narrate the outcome in a way that makes sense.

 

[OHT]

I'm reminded of a conversation between Sir Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of The Boys From Brazil. Hoffman spent a couple of weeks sleeping rough to get 'into character' for when he's on the run in the film. Wanting to get some advice from a seasoned (and admired) actor like Olivier, Dustin asks him "How do you get into your character's head? I try to emulate their methods and simulate their environment, yet i don't seem to slip into character on set as well as you do. Any ideas on what i could do differently?"

Olivier deadpans, "Try acting, dear boy."

 

[David Johansen]

IMHO, this is an interesting point... I recall have an argument with a friend in the late 90s about Windows vs Mac. He was adamant that Apple could never unseat Microsoft because Microsoft's position was too deeply entrenched. What neither of us predicted is that cloud, mobile devices and the whole tech services ecosystem would become a thing and that arguing over desktop operating systems was completely moot. Apple DID overtake Microsoft, but not because of their OS.

Is D&D going to be unseated by another RPG. Probably not. But will they lose market share to card games, board games, computer games.... or something else in the hobby that doesn't even exist yet? Maybe... I have no idea what that might, but it's exciting to consider.

Arguing about rpgs on forums?

My 16 year old daughter has a number of friends who play D&D that are also 16 year old girls. That's not how I remember it being in highschool.

 

[dbm]

But I really don't believe in the idea that they can let a player play a character that is considerably more socially skilled than they are (at least not in a way that you couldn't equally do without such mechanics just by generally describing the general approach you take rather than the specific words - and if you can't think of an approach then you can't use the mechanics without severely compromising the shared fiction anyway).

I think there are a few useful things off the back of this point.

First, that is only half the equation. They also help avoid the ‘dump stat’ scenario, where you can blithely put your rubbish roll into Charisma or the equivalent, knowing that you can wax lyrical unencumbered by your stat. Now, you might say that the players needs to play-down to their stat, but what does that mean? Giving the numbers weight addresses this in an objective way.

Second, in terms of a player playing a character much better than they are, this can be an incremental thing. ‘Roleplaying’ to practice a skill has taken off big-time in training contexts. I personally have improved my skills over the course of playing talkie-characters! By giving some latitude as the GM and guidance you can help them really develop those skills and get better at it. Sure, they may start off with ‘my bard convinces the king’ but you can ask them how, tell them they are completely off base if they give you stupid answers, and give them a mechanical bonus if they come up with something really good. Over time, they will get better at it.

The first person / second person thing isn’t necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, either. This is especially relevant where the interpersonal stuff is more performative. For example, singing is really important (and powerful!) in The One Ring, reflecting how it is shown in the books. As it happens, my PC in the game was really good at singing; I can‘t hold more than two notes! But I would describe the kind of song my character was singing, and the subject of it, and that helped all the other players and the GM visualise what was happening.

So, I think you can definitely reign-in a player with mechanics and make these things important rather than stuff to be abused. And with time and practice people will get better at things if we give them some breathing room.

 

[CRKrueger]

I'm reminded of a conversation between Sir Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of The Boys From Brazil. Hoffman spent a couple of weeks sleeping rough to get 'into character' for when he's on the run in the film. Wanting to get some advice from a seasoned (and admired) actor like Olivier, Dustin asks him "How do you get into your character's head? I try to emulate their methods and simulate their environment, yet i don't seem to slip into character on set as well as you do. Any ideas on what i could do differently?"

Olivier deadpans, "Try acting, dear boy."

The thing I like about this quote is that it shows the difference between acting and Roleplaying. People say in-character roleplayers are actors with “funny voices” and whatever other insult they want to add in, but that’s not true.

Acting is external, it’s a performance. You don’t need to think like the character, or get into their headspace, you just have to make OTHER PEOPLE believe you are the character while you recite your lines.

Roleplaying is internal, it’s an exercise in imagination. There are no lines to recite. Thinking as the character and getting into their headspace is how you can react and respond to non-scripted situations.

There’s obviously many schools of acting that teach various internal methods, but really they’re adding Roleplaying to the acting when they start getting into the headspace of the character.

Likewise a Roleplayer who is convincing can aid other players in their Roleplaying, but it’s not required.

 

[Arminius]

That’s grand in both cases, but neither is an RPG where the abilities of your character may differ significantly from your own.

Yes, that’s a point EmperorNorton made earlier, that I wanted to acknowledge. It’s part of a broader problem like dealing with a gap in cleverness when it comes to puzzles and traps, tactical skill when it comes to combat, or gullibility when it comes to interacting with people. It’s very much a matter of taste whether you prefer to be in something like a holodeck or if you want to more fully express a personality different from your own. People also vary in how much they can or will internalize different personality characteristics. My experience it that can happen simply by reinforcement in response to how the person is treated/regarded by the other players and NPCs. Now someone might bring up that this approach can be fragile, or lead to friction over “that’s what my guy would do”. I don’t disagree. However, what I’m used to, and very much enjoy, is people wearing their characters lightly and at the same time, expressing a personality that comes naturally, possibly because it expresses an aspect of their personality.

I’d like to say more about Diplomacy but I have some work to do.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I've always felt like the solution to a character being smarter than the person playing them with puzzles was to have a list of clues about the puzzle in question and the higher they roll on an Int check or whatever, the more clues you give them.

That way it doesn't solve the puzzle itself, the player still has to, but there is an advantage to a character with a high stat in the appropriate place.

 

[TheophilusCarter]

This is tricky stuff. On the one hand, we clearly don't require that players be as Strong or Dextrous or, uh, Constitutional ... as their PCs. On the other hand, the physical stuff is all virtual anyway, whereas the Intellgience / Wisdom / Charisma stuff has a stronger connection between the game world and the folks sitting around the table. To be honest, I'm pretty traditional about this most of the time: I want my players to have fun roleplaying, and I generally let that guide what's happening in-world. But I can also see a player wanting to play a character that is far more Intelligent and Charismatic than they themselves are, and I don't want to punish them for not being able to roleplay as well as the PC can act. I like EmperorNorton 's idea for INT, and would love to hear more suggestions like that for WIS and CHA.

 

[Gabriel]

I've always felt like the solution to a character being smarter than the person playing them with puzzles was to have a list of clues about the puzzle in question and the higher they roll on an Int check or whatever, the more clues you give them.

That way it doesn't solve the puzzle itself, the player still has to, but there is an advantage to a character with a high stat in the appropriate place.

I can't help but think of a section by Wujcik in the Amber RPG. He talks about his dislike for puzzles/riddles. His solution was to simply declare that his character is brilliant when it comes to puzzles/riddles. Whenever the GM presents a puzzle/riddle, he states that he would simply reply back "my character solves it, lickity split."

What I find interesting about this is the implication that his statement of character background should trump not only character stats, but what many people would categorize as "player skill."

I think in the very same book, if not the very same section, he talks at length about an old low-HP Thief character he had and how he would pixelbitch his way through the GM's traps in order to avoid having to engage with the mechanics for detecting or disarming the traps. He clearly saw this as a mandatory player activity that couldn't or at least shouldn't be avoided. It led me to wonder why he didn't simply declare himself "brilliant at traps."

 

[AsenRG]

I've played in so many D&D campaigns that didn't focus on dungeoncrawls for treasure that I genuinely thought that playstyle was dying out until the OSR thing came around. It's pretty easy to shoehorn D&D into soap opera and intrigue campaigns, I have seen it done a million times. At no time did I feel I feel that the lack of "social mechanics" hindered my enjoyment.

Obviously D&D isn't the ideal system for soap opera and intrigue but gets the job done. Personally I prefer the 7th Sea system for courtly intrigue, swashbuckling, romance and all that jazz but selling a new system to casual gamers can be a real hassle.

Yeah, I've tried that. The shoehorning leads to feeling like there's a horn in your shoe and makes the game about as comfortable to run.

My solution to the problem of casual players is to simply tell them to state what they're doing and ask guiding questions if necessary. It's actually easier to sell to most people thaan playing &D in the first place.

I do not disagree that D&D is optimal for a GoT campaign—but as several of us have argued repeatedly, it is more than adequate for such a game.

And that's the fact that speaks to the overall topic of the thread: adequacy is a powerful force in gaming, and it is one of D&D's outstanding traits.

Let's just say that your and mine ideas of "adequate for playing an RPG campaign" might not match.

 

[Faylar]

Personally, I'm not against Social mechanics - they can provide structure and consistency.

But I really don't believe in the idea that they can let a player play a character that is considerably more socially skilled than they are (at least not in a way that you couldn't equally do without such mechanics just by generally describing the general approach you take rather than the specific words - and if you can't think of an approach then you can't use the mechanics without severely compromising the shared fiction anyway).

I have to disagree there. How many people playing fighters can boast the strength or prowess of a fighter? How many can cast spells? Pick Locks?
We role play to be different, we are always playing outside our capacity. Social interactions should be no different.

 

[Voros]

I think we've already seen what it would take - for WoTC to screw up an edition royally, and for someone else to, well, essentially offer D&D.

The problem with Pathfinder is that it offered a version of D&D without universal appeal. Take a repeat of history and give people a version of D&D that's newbie-friendly but offers all the options to satisfy the grognards and them builds up enough customer goodwill so that WoTC never recovers, and I think well have a new king of the castle.

I'd say that another possibility is a game that catches a popular cultural shift, the way D&D benefited tremendously from the shift from sf to fantasy in the popular imagination, or Vampire caught the mainstreaming of goth/punk in the early 90s.

Course the game would also have to have something with the corporate heft of WotC or Hasbro as well, which seems unlikely but you nevet can tell.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I'll disagree, but I think a discussion about what is, and what isn't D&D is a road to nowhere. But I'll say this.... if your definition of D&D is going to be that broad, then sure... you can absolutely do GoT with D&D. If you basically consider Star Wars d20 to be D&D than you can do pretty much ANYTHING with D&D.

 

[Black Vulmea]

How does the GM decide if the NPC lording folds under pressure?

Reaction and morale checks.

Negative reaction, fails morale? Cowed, seething, spiteful.
Neutral reaction, fails morale? Resentful, compliance with the letter of the demands and not one jot more.
Positive reaction, fails morale? A potential ally emerges.

Negative reaction, passes morale? Congratulations, you have a new enemy!
Neutral reaction, passes morale? Disinterested, shows you the door but won't hinder you further.
Positive reaction, passes morale? Willing to negotiate, demands a significant price in exchange.

What else you got?

 

[Brock Savage]

Reaction and morale checks..

This is great! I am stealing it for my own use.

 

[Voros]

Reaction and morale checks.

Negative reaction, fails morale? Cowed, seething, spiteful.
Neutral reaction, fails morale? Resentful, compliance with the letter of the demands and not one jot more.
Positive reaction, fails morale? A potential ally emerges.

Negative reaction, passes morale? Congratulations, you have a new enemy!
Neutral reaction, passes morale? Disinterested, shows you the door but won't hinder you further.
Positive reaction, passes morale? Willing to negotiate, demands a significant price in exchange.

What else you got?

Isn't this pretty much the reaction roll tables in B/X and 5e?

 

[robertsconley]

I have to disagree there. How many people playing fighters can boast the strength or prowess of a fighter? How many can cast spells? Pick Locks?
We role play to be different, we are always playing outside our capacity. Social interactions should be no different.

Unlike combat due to character/creature being what they are. A referee can tailor how they roleplay to the interest and ability of their players. Just as I tailored what I did to accommodate the kid who stammer. This is why a human referee not the mechanics of the game being used is the most critical aspect of a successful roleplaying campaign.

This is no different then a referee not using the full scope of their ability to play the combat mechanics when the NPC character has an experience, intelligence or personality disadvantage that hamper their ability to fight as effectively as the rules allow.

The referee tailors how the game is run in accordance to the interest and ability of their players. Along coaching on anything that is esstential which may include roleplaying as one's character.

 

[robertsconley]

I'll disagree, but I think a discussion about what is, and what isn't D&D is a road to nowhere. But I'll say this.... if your definition of D&D is going to be that broad, then sure... you can absolutely do GoT with D&D. If you basically consider Star Wars d20 to be D&D than you can do pretty much ANYTHING with D&D. with a game that is designed to have a players interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

Congratulations you have gotten a glimpse of why RPGs developed as a new form of gaming.

Keep in mind that the first tabletop roleplaying campaign, Blackmoor, did not have a formal set of rules. Nor where the players were aware of the notes Dave Arneson kept in his binder. For the most part the Blackmoor RPG was a series of ad-hoc rulings, coupled with a handful of aides (charts, tables, and notes). Dave was consistent and thus players picked up on elements of what he did. But he had no rulebooks to hand out until Gygax came long and wrote the first draft of D&D. Even then that draft wasn't quite the way Dave did things with Blackmoor.

Yet from all accounts from dozens of people, Dave was running a campaign that distinct, and different from anything else they were doing at the time. One that was recognizable as the first tabletop roleplaying campaign.

So maybe things like social mechanics, combat wargames are not as crucial as present day hobbyists think they are. This is not saying that they are not useful, nor make running campaign easier. But it does indicate that one can mix, match, and alter things without the campaign falling apart or being true to a specific setting like Westeroes.

 

[Dumarest]

So maybe things like social mechanics, combat wargames are not as crucial as present day hobbyists think they are.

​

 

[T. Foster]

Isn't this pretty much the reaction roll tables in B/X and 5e?

It is (although at least compared to BX 1E AD&D suggests more granular and numerous adjustments to the roll - for alignment, racial preference, and various situational modifiers as well as charisma), which is why we're pushing back on the claim that D&D (any edition) doesn't include/allow/mechanically support this kind of stuff. You have to extrapolate slightly to use something described in terms of encounters on adventures into a different context, but that kind of simple extrapolation is well within the scope and expected use of the D&D rules (at least for the versions I know, but I assume it's the same for the later ones too).

 

[Brock Savage]

Isn't this pretty much the reaction roll tables in B/X and 5e?

It's an elegant combination of reaction and morale to generate more granular results for social situations

 

[Ladybird]

Keep in mind that the first tabletop roleplaying campaign, Blackmoor, did not have a formal set of rules. Nor where the players were aware of the notes Dave Arneson kept in his binder. For the most part the Blackmoor RPG was a series of ad-hoc rulings, coupled with a handful of aides (charts, tables, and notes). Dave was consistent and thus players picked up on elements of what he did. But he had no rulebooks to hand out until Gygax came long and wrote the first draft of D&D. Even then that draft wasn't quite the way Dave did things with Blackmoor.

Yeah, but that was being developed for a group of players coming from an entirely different gaming culture of "trust the GM to make up whatever". That culture doesn't really exist any more, players nowadays have been trained to expect relatively transparent rules and systems that they can understand and work with, GM's have been trained to provide that. Many books give bad GM'ing advice, but newbies aren't going to realise that for a while.

Sure there's people like you explaining that isn't necessarily true, but unless they know how to find your advice, they're not going to be able to learn from it.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Isn't this pretty much the reaction roll tables in B/X and 5e?

It's an elegant combination of reaction and morale to generate more granular results for social situations

As T T. Foster noted, I started doing this using the rules in 1e AD&D for reaction, morale, and loyalty. I never played B/X and only vaguely remember the 5e rules, but if B/X was similar to 'red box,' then as I recall there was a reaction table and a separate morale number as well, which can be used to create that 'elegant granularity' Brock Savage describes.

We used this for our Boot Hill campaign, which is interesting in that BH does not include a 'social stat' like Charisma or the like; instead modifiers for reactions are based on character reputation; the perception of your character is based on what the character does more than who she is. Moreover, in BH morale modifiers are highly situational, so this lent itself to tactical approaches to social manipulation: isolating and ganging up on the mark stacks up morale penalties, frex.

This also rewards strategic thinking: choosing exactly who you want to influence, frex. Rancher Emory Shaw of the Lazy-S is a tower of iron will, unlikely to be bullied, but his son Humphrey is more tractable, more easily intimidated, so you go after the son rather than the father when you want to stash some rustled cattle in a box canyon on the Lazy-S range.

Finally, it's a reminder to be careful with whom your character surrounds herself, lest her cronies make the same sorts of deals behind your character's back.

I'm not against social skills in roleplaying games, but I strongly prefer a couple of simple rules that can be applied in multiple ways rather than pages of 'social combat' rules..