> Players _WILL_ attempt to cheat (aka: use a spell to "solve") social encounters. This is just part of the game, and part of the fun. Are you, the dungeon master, ready to offer them a proper game of wits and preparation?
> This is far more tactical, and even story-driven, than rolling a d6 and saying "my dice was higher than yours therefore I win".
Yes and no. You can offer the players a tactical game of spells, but to the extent that you folow the standard rules this is inherently an abstract puzzle, not really any more attached to the story than rolling a die. Some players enjoy puzzling out a magic system, but many do not. And to the extent that you make it depend on story-relevant artifacts, the rules framework isn't really helping you set things up.
How do the players "win" or "solve" the puzzle? Either they make the sensible, competent, mainstream move - which is fine, but not really narratively relevant and not worth spending a lot of time on - or they find a loophole in your magic system (or in the border between your magic system and common sense), which will almost certainly be against narrative and genre, and you'll have to either allow it or disallow it and either one is pretty unsatisfying - or they notice specifics of the story you've been foreshadowing - something you can do just as well without a standard mechanical magic system. (Yes, if you're very skilled then maybe you can work with the logic-puzzle approach and create an artifact which interacts in a novel way with some standard spell, and the player spots a way to use that that you intended. But more likely they spot a different, more powerful interaction than the one you meant for them to, and then we're back to finding a loophole in the magic system).
> With skill, you can setup good stories more easily through these interactions.
Maybe. In my experience even in genre fiction the best stories aren't, and shouldn't, really be about the magic or the tactics - they're about the deep human themes, trust, betrayal, arrogance and all that Shakespearean stuff. Gandalf fighting the Balrog isn't about him realising that Moria stone was carved by the dwarves and would be vulnerable to magic, it's about him realising that this enemy is undefeatable and sacrificing himself for the sake of his fellows.
The best and most satisfying way for a player to "win" or "solve" a scenario, IME, is a) for them to notice setting or character details that they can exploit (maybe the younger prince is jealous of the elder? Maybe the chancellor is obeying the tenets of a less-popular faith that a party member has ties to?) or b) them to come up with something creative that I hadn't thought of but that is still genre-appropriate and sufficiently "realistic". And I don't think a detailed mechanics system helps a lot with either of those, because at the end of the day either the detailed mechanics system gives you an answer that lines up with common sense or it gives you one that doesn't, and either way it's not helping much.
Through fun, ultimately. Maybe its fun if they don't win.
So they try something, they fail. Its just a social encounter, now the King's guard is distrustful of them and the story continues. No biggie, I can handle that as a dungeon master.
Win or lose, the story continues. The importance is that the players have agency in the process, as well as knowing the limits of their own powers and capabilities.
> The best and most satisfying way for a player to "win" or "solve" a scenario, IME, is a) for them to notice setting or character details that they can exploit (maybe the younger prince is jealous of the elder? Maybe the chancellor is obeying the tenets of a less-popular faith that a party member has ties to?) or b) them to come up with something creative that I hadn't thought of but that is still genre-appropriate and sufficiently "realistic". And I don't think a detailed mechanics system helps a lot with either of those, because at the end of the day either the detailed mechanics system gives you an answer that lines up with common sense or it gives you one that doesn't, and either way it's not helping much.
Or they could just... ya know... beat me (the Dungeon Master / chief antagonist) in the game. Or defeat the foes that I've laid out before them.
Generally speaking, social encounters shouldn't be high risk. The high-risk actions in my experience should be combat. If the players die, they know trouble will happen as the bad guys move forward and wreck the kingdom or whatever.
> Maybe. In my experience even in genre fiction the best stories aren't, and shouldn't, really be about the magic or the tactics - they're about the deep human themes, trust, betrayal, arrogance and all that Shakespearean stuff. Gandalf fighting the Balrog isn't about him realising that Moria stone was carved by the dwarves and would be vulnerable to magic, it's about him realising that this enemy is undefeatable and sacrificing himself for the sake of his fellows.
I don't need a story to play Axis and Allies.
> The importance is that the players have agency in the process, as well as knowing the limits of their own powers and capabilities.
Sure; my point was: what is it that makes the difference between the players winning or losing? If it's about whether they spotted (narratively relevant) connections, understood things, had good ideas, that's interesting. If it's about whether they had a clever leap of genre-appropriate logic, that's interesting. If it's about whether they solved an abstract logic puzzle, that's less interesting; if it's about whether they out-argue you or browbeat you that's deeply uninteresting. But distinguishing between "came up with a clever way to use the detailed abstract magic system" and "came up with some bullshit" is, if anything, harder than distinguishing between "came up with a clever piece of imaginative improv" and "came up with some bullshit"; better for a powergamer to come up with something stylish and genre-appropriate that benefits them than for them to find some bizarre spell interaction that does something absurd that benefits them.
(If it's about whether they rolled higher or lower that's not really interesting, but it's quick and avoids interrupting the flow, so that's fine for a low-stakes moment. Certainly making one roll for a narratively unimportant encounter is better than making dozens).
> Generally speaking, social encounters shouldn't be high risk. The high-risk actions in my experience should be combat.
Why? D&D pushes you towards doing it that way, but it's not narratively satisfying. Making a lot of dice rolls can give a certain kind of player the illusion that they had agency in winning or losing (particularly important if you want them to accept the death of their character), but in reality it all averages out and who wins a given combat is largely a question of what everyone's stats look like going into it. (Or you allow the players to come up with tactics that you consider clever enough to give them advantages - but then we're back to you having to judge whether they've come up with something good or some bullshit).
> I don't need a story to play Axis and Allies, Chess, Go, or a myriad of other games though. When playing an adversarial game with my friends, its not about story. Its about combat and adversaries.
Right - but roleplaying and adversarial games go poorly together. If a game is adversarial then players have to do mechanically optimal things (and, as you say, will look for every excuse to give their characters a mechanical advantage) rather than the narratively interesting things. Why should a player to try to act in-character when it can only disadvantage them?
Because D&D is a combat board game.
If you want to play roleplaying, try Dread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dread_(role-playing_game)
> Making a lot of dice rolls can give a certain kind of player the illusion that they had agency in winning or losing (particularly important if you want them to accept the death of their character), but in reality it all averages out and who wins a given combat is largely a question of what everyone's stats look like going into it. (Or you allow the players to come up with tactics that you consider clever enough to give them advantages - but then we're back to you having to judge whether they've come up with something good or some bullshit).
That's like saying Chess or Backgammon isn't satisfying because you're just moving pieces around or rolling dice.
People can love the game itself. Positioning, selection of spells, cooperation with allies. Etc. etc. D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder is a good game at its core.
The same cannot be said of all systems of combat. (IE: World of Darkness). World of Darkness's dice seem more like a randomization element. But then again, this is a roleplaying game, rather than a rollplaying game.
----------
All the "roleplayer" wants is a random element. Someone to have randomly decided to have been the winner / loser, and then to roleplay the new situation. From this perspective, D&D is counterproductive.
So don't play D&D. Play the myriad of other, roleplay heavy games (like Dread, World of Darkness, Changeling, Vampire, etc. etc.). They're perfectly good games.
---------
> but it's not narratively satisfying
Don't turn D&D into something it isn't. If you're not satisfied by the combat of D&D, then do not play it. There are plenty of other games that have far better focus on the roleplaying aspect of this genre.
EDIT: Moods shift. Sometimes I feel like combat. I use D&D / Pathfinder / etc. etc. for that. Maybe Ikusa or Axis and Allies as well.
Sometimes I feel like roleplaying. I pull out World of Darkness instead
--------
Like, if the 400-pages of spell-interactions and obscure flanking rules is counterproductive to your enjoyment of the game... maybe don't choose that system? But I've derived plenty of enjoyment from these systems (3.5, Pathfinder, etc. etc.) so I can say its worthwhile... if you're into it. But don't force yourself to like it if you're not into it...
I enjoy playing Mordenheim-style small squad miniatures combat games (and that's what D&D is at its heart) on occasion. But I've never found a game that can succeed at being both a competitive game and a roleplaying game at the same time (not just RPG-style games, I had this problem with Android the board game too). One can't be a servant of two masters.
> So don't play D&D. Play the myriad of other, roleplay heavy games (like Dread, World of Darkness, Changeling, Vampire, etc. etc.). They're perfectly good games.
Right. You seemed to originally be claiming that having a less mechanically detailed, more roleplay-oriented system inherently made games less balanced and more unfair. "Lemme bullshit my own powers to be better than everyone else's, so that I'm the star of this show" is a problem in fully freeform systems, but you don't need a detailed combat system to resolve it; light systems where conflict is a simple roll (even WoD is a bit heavy for my tastes personally) handle fair conflict resolution just fine. (And I'd argue that they end up being fairer than mechanically heavy systems where the powergamers with min-maxed builds have an advantage over players who just picked a build that felt fun).
If your players are anything like my players, they'll cast Dominate Person on the King's Council. I'll have to note with them that the King's Council are elite and therefore expected to have Mind Blank, offering them immunity to their attempts.
They can work with persuasion, but if they are under the effect of Glibness, the King's Wizard would be able to see Glibness as an aura. The King's Paladin may use Zone of Truth to counteract the effects of Glibness, or maybe point out Glibness as "cheating" in the King's Court.
(Mind Blank doesn't help vs Glibness. Glibness simply makes the party's Bard's lies more believable. Its not an actual enchantment upon the King's Court, but instead a "buff" given to the Bard. So additional levels of security for the King's Guard are needed.)
As such, the battle of spells, trust, and other such interactions becomes a game. How well have the players prepared for the social encounter? Are they trying to use spells to "cheat"? How are the king's guards, Wizards, and Clerics trying to prevent the cheating?
Should I let the players get away with cheating? Well, I don't decide. I let the dice decide. As well as the rules that the game are around.
------------
Maybe the party is able to successfully hide the Glibness through some means. If they thought through their attempts to +40 Bluff check to convince the King's court of their intentions, I will grant them the +40 bluff check.
But if their Glibness / attempts at cheating are discovered, I'll grant a heavy penalty (-15) to their interactions for the rest of court.
-------
Players _WILL_ attempt to cheat (aka: use a spell to "solve") social encounters. This is just part of the game, and part of the fun. Are you, the dungeon master, ready to offer them a proper game of wits and preparation?
> OK so why bother having specific named spells with specific mechanics? Just say that guy's a level 7 wizard so his spell has strength 7+d6, my guy's a level 3 wizard so my spell has strength 3+d6, we make our rolls and the explanation of what happens (he bewitches my mate to make him insane and I try to dispel it) is purely flavour? That's no less objective, no less easy to be fair about (in fact it gives me far fewer avenues to try and bullshit you), but it doesn't require us to go memorize a textbook's worth of spell names and interactions.
Notice the above interactions. Glibness, despite level 3, avoids the Mind Blank preparation. Mind Blank does protect vs the more direct forms of enchantment (ex: Suggestion, Dominate Person, Geass), but it isn't a complete defense for the King's guard.
Of course, maybe the King's Dragon simply casts Anti-magic field and negates all magical preparations for the encountrer.
Note that Artifacts (aka: items from god) are immune vs mortal magic, and are one able to avoid the effects of Anti-magic field. This is where the DM has an opportunity to override the rules of the system and provide a story. (You can, at any time, "win the bullshit" fest by declaring an item a special artifact).
But you want to ensure that if you ever do declare a god-level artifact in play, that the players "saw it coming" to an extent (foreshadowing), or otherwise works in your story.
This is far more tactical, and even story-driven, than rolling a d6 and saying "my dice was higher than yours therefore I win".
---------
A skilled DM will also do this when its story-appropriate. I would _NEVER_ have an Orc-King's court pull these shenanigans (outside of maybe one Half-Orc Cleric who the players would be familiar with). But the opposite problem may happen, the Orc-King, upon losing an argument to skill alone, may claim the adventurers were cheating at the argument/debate through magic and it'd be up to the players to prove (to a non-magical being) that they were in fact, not using magic.
Etc. etc.
With skill, you can setup good stories more easily through these interactions.