I disagree with a statement by Josh

[SneeR]

If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that.  Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design.  It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.

Yeah, no. The thing you have never seen, in a type of game you have never played, does not act as you assume.

Please provide an example of a social mechanic that you have seen work as you would deem successful, provide an example of how it would be used in a specific situation (i.e. tell what rolls are made using what stats to what effect, etc.), explain the effects of successful use, and explain why it is better than D&D.

Because I think it sounds very much as if a social character could say "Give me your stuff" to the fighter, roll, and be happily given his stuff.

If you want to say that D&D has no way to affect PCs, this is incorrect. You can use Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff on allies. If they fail the requisite checks, their attitudes toward you changes appropriately for the set time, and each attitude has specific effects on interaction ranging from "I won't kill you now" to "Please use me master! Have my stuff!"

[X-Codes]

If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that.  Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design.  It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.

Yeah, no. The thing you have never seen, in a type of game you have never played, does not act as you assume.

That's not how I'm assuming it acts, that's how you're telling me it acts.

[BG_Josh]

Please provide an example of a social mechanic that you have seen work as you would deem successful, provide an example of how it would be used in a specific situation (i.e. tell what rolls are made using what stats to what effect, etc.), explain the effects of successful use, and explain why it is better than D&D.

Because I think it sounds very much as if a social character could say "Give me your stuff" to the fighter, roll, and be happily given his stuff.

If you want to say that D&D has no way to affect PCs, this is incorrect. You can use Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff on allies. If they fail the requisite checks, their attitudes toward you changes appropriately for the set time, and each attitude has specific effects on interaction ranging from "I won't kill you now" to "Please use me master! Have my stuff!"

First off it's not *better* than DnD.  It is different.  And if it is what you want, you will like it more.

Example 1: In Apocalypse World if you want another PC to do something you use the appropriate move(this is vastly simplified) and if you succeed they have the option of doing the thing.  And if they do it they get experience(except in AW experience is really good) and If they don't do it they have to make another roll that might end up with other consequences.

So generally you want the other players to ask so you can say yes and get xp, and a number of other reasons too complex to explain.  And you also have to see character generation to see how characters relate to each other, but that's a taste

Example 2: In Burning Wheel you have DoW.    In BW characters are driven not by an adventure created by the GM but off of the Beliefs, Instincts and Traits chosen by the players.  So in accomplishing these goals you may have another character with you.  An example that came up in a game I played was most of the group wanted to kill the badguy and one player did not.  So we had a duel of wits and decided to kill him.  Why was that important?  It got the issue out of the way right off and we never had to revisit it.  Absolutely priceless for group unity.

In a DoW you all have to agree on stakes, so you cant make someone risk what they don't want to.  The biggest thing it does in PvP is formalize interactions and cut down on inter-player conflict.  Also in most ways the power imbalance is much bigger than DnD.  The "Fighter" can demolish the other characters physically and has a very strong bargaining chip for that talent.

[X-Codes]

I had a feeling that might have been what you were talking about.  You could have saved a lot of grief by explaining what it was you were talking about in your first post, instead of just going with the whole "I'm right, you're wrong because of some screwed up twist I'm putting on the English language" angle.

What you meant to say in that first post isn't something along the lines of the PCs influencing each other, but rather something more like "mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs."  Then you could cite a specific example like Apocalypse World where a large portion of character advancement comes from player characters interacting with one another.

[Basket Burner]

The thing about it is that Josh is right to a point, but he's doing such a bad job about it he might as well be wrong.

I could play Brawl with a few friends of mine. While the activity of spending time with my friends would be enjoyable, the act of playing Brawl would not because I am considerably better than them at the game so I'd be bored due to the lack of challenge and they'd be frustrated due to inability to beat me. Instead we do something we can all enjoy, because that's more fun.

There's nothing objectively wrong with Brawl. I quite like it. But it isn't a good fit for that situation.

What Josh is not conveying properly is that there are systems that are objectively flawed, and you're better off playing a system that is not objectively flawed. Just what that is depends on your desires, but it won't be something made by White Wolf because all of their stuff is irredeemably borked.

What he also isn't conveying is that everything has a cost of entry. In this case, that means both the literal cost of rulebooks, and the time cost of learning the system. In tabletop this cost is almost universally high because the nature of book publishing means you don't get a lot of talent, and do get a lot of trap options that must be parsed and categorized in order to avoid being sucker punched by the game. And what that means is that people don't have the resources to learn a bunch of systems. It can also sometimes mean people are stuck with bad systems. Sure, you're better off getting it right the first time or at most the second but learning a meta no one plays in is a waste of everyone's time.

[Solo]

What Josh is not conveying properly is that there are systems that are objectively flawed, and you're better off playing a system that is not objectively flawed.

Before anyone comes in with some argument about how there is no objective right and wrong, please take a moment to remember FATAL.

[BG_Josh]

I had a feeling that might have been what you were talking about.  You could have saved a lot of grief by explaining what it was you were talking about in your first post, instead of just going with the whole "I'm right, you're wrong because of some screwed up twist I'm putting on the English language" angle.

What you meant to say in that first post isn't something along the lines of the PCs influencing each other, but rather something more like "mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs."  Then you could cite a specific example like Apocalypse World where a large portion of character advancement comes from player characters interacting with one another.

Fist off "mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs" is to broad, we we actually just refering to the talking and influencing bits.  We "call mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs" using talking, "social mechanics".

And my point was the opposite, I was *not* making a twist of language I was going after the deeper meaning. 

[BG_Josh]

The thing about it is that Josh is right to a point, but he's doing such a bad job about it he might as well be wrong.

I could play Brawl with a few friends of mine. While the activity of spending time with my friends would be enjoyable, the act of playing Brawl would not because I am considerably better than them at the game so I'd be bored due to the lack of challenge and they'd be frustrated due to inability to beat me. Instead we do something we can all enjoy, because that's more fun.

There's nothing objectively wrong with Brawl. I quite like it. But it isn't a good fit for that situation.

What Josh is not conveying properly is that there are systems that are objectively flawed, and you're better off playing a system that is not objectively flawed. Just what that is depends on your desires, but it won't be something made by White Wolf because all of their stuff is irredeemably borked.

What he also isn't conveying is that everything has a cost of entry. In this case, that means both the literal cost of rulebooks, and the time cost of learning the system. In tabletop this cost is almost universally high because the nature of book publishing means you don't get a lot of talent, and do get a lot of trap options that must be parsed and categorized in order to avoid being sucker punched by the game. And what that means is that people don't have the resources to learn a bunch of systems. It can also sometimes mean people are stuck with bad systems. Sure, you're better off getting it right the first time or at most the second but learning a meta no one plays in is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes, except for two things.  On addition one mistake.

In addition to games being objectively bad, some games are objectively good.

Also RPG's are cheap.  Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high. 

You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale.   BW is $25.  DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play.  Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics.  So don't use DnD as a measure.

In learning time DnD is also a huge outlier, the way most people learn it (they read the whole book). 

I could go on, and on.  But the point is: RPG's are cheap in money(yes there are a huge number of shitty expensive RPG's, but don't buy those)

BUT they are expensive in time and planning, compare to even board games.  So that is typically our biggest concern.

other than that, yes.

[SneeR]

How do people learn most RPGs besides reading the whole book if no one is familiar with it at the table?

[BG_Josh]

How do people learn most RPGs besides reading the whole book if no one is familiar with it at the table?

*if* no one is familiar one person has to learn it like that.  The best way to learn a game is from someone who already knows it.

[zugschef]

How do people learn most RPGs besides reading the whole book if no one is familiar with it at the table?

*if* no one is familiar one person has to learn it like that.  The best way to learn a game is from someone who already knows it.

that and while playing.

[Basket Burner]

Also RPG's are cheap.  Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high. 

You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale.   BW is $25.  DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play.  Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics.  So don't use DnD as a measure.

The fuck? A computer game is at most 50, 60 dollars and you're done. Tabletop systems range from around a hundred to a thousand or more. Assuming you don't pirate them of course, but I don't think that's what you meant. Cheap? Maybe if you only buy tiny parts of the system, but then you're stuck with a buggy and imbalanced system as they never get those things right in core, mostly so they can sell more books later. This is also per person, unless you want the clunkiness of passing books around.

There are many positive aspects to tabletop gaming but monetary cost of entry isn't one of them.

In learning time DnD is also a huge outlier, the way most people learn it (they read the whole book). 

I could go on, and on.  But the point is: RPG's are cheap in money(yes there are a huge number of shitty expensive RPG's, but don't buy those)

BUT they are expensive in time and planning, compare to even board games.  So that is typically our biggest concern.

other than that, yes.

If you aren't even reading the full core book you aren't going to learn anything. If you haven't read all the others as well you're basically wasting your time.

[Prime32]

Also RPG's are cheap.  Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high. 

You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale.   BW is $25.  DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play.  Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics.  So don't use DnD as a measure.

The fuck? A computer game is at most 50, 60 dollars and you're done. Tabletop systems range from around a hundred to a thousand or more. Assuming you don't pirate them of course, but I don't think that's what you meant. Cheap? Maybe if you only buy tiny parts of the system, but then you're stuck with a buggy and imbalanced system as they never get those things right in core, mostly so they can sell more books later. This is also per person, unless you want the clunkiness of passing books around.

There are many positive aspects to tabletop gaming but monetary cost of entry isn't one of them.

It depends on the type of game. In some games you can create basically any character concept using the core rules, and so you don't need splats.

[veekie]

And theres also some where each of the splats is a complete game, plus a core rulebook. Rules-lite(FATE, nWoD, the whole cluster of d6 games) and toolbox(M&M, GURPs) games generally only really require the core as well for basic operation. Most splats for those are for specific sub-games.

D&D isn't everything.

[BG_Josh]

Also RPG's are cheap.  Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high. 

You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale.   BW is $25.  DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play.  Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics.  So don't use DnD as a measure.

The fuck? A computer game is at most 50, 60 dollars and you're done. Tabletop systems range from around a hundred to a thousand or more. Assuming you don't pirate them of course, but I don't think that's what you meant. Cheap? Maybe if you only buy tiny parts of the system, but then you're stuck with a buggy and imbalanced system as they never get those things right in core, mostly so they can sell more books later. This is also per person, unless you want the clunkiness of passing books around.

There are many positive aspects to tabletop gaming but monetary cost of entry isn't one of them.

In learning time DnD is also a huge outlier, the way most people learn it (they read the whole book). 

I could go on, and on.  But the point is: RPG's are cheap in money(yes there are a huge number of shitty expensive RPG's, but don't buy those)

BUT they are expensive in time and planning, compare to even board games.  So that is typically our biggest concern.

other than that, yes.

If you aren't even reading the full core book you aren't going to learn anything. If you haven't read all the others as well you're basically wasting your time.

Ha ha ha.  No.  Feel free to check my numbers.  You mistake "can spend" with "correct amount to spend".
check out the low cost games: misspent youth, apocalypse world and burning wheel. 
At midrange check warhammer fantasy and mouseguard box set.  The cost to spend for all of these is list price.  (Unlike dnd these games do not need special other stuff like maps and minis)

Now remember that an rpg entertains much longer than a computer game.(that affects thecost benefit analasys)

Also, you don't need to read all the rules of most games to play. I can explain that further if you like.

[SneeR]

Josh, please assume that we are idiots and explain to us without asking. Every time you ask, it feels condescending, even if it isn't supposed to, because we need to ask you to give us the cookies because we just weren't intellectually tall enough.

Yes, please explain.

[Basket Burner]

His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that. The only part of it that made sense was the last sentence. But then that isn't true either, because core only = borked isn't D&D exclusive.

[zugschef]

His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that.

signed.

[BG_Josh]

His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that. The only part of it that made sense was the last sentence. But then that isn't true either, because core only = borked isn't D&D exclusive.

Fixed now. I'm on a phone.

And the entire concept of "core" is a DnD thing.  Most games don't have core rule books.  They just have rulebooks. 

[Basket Burner]

His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that. The only part of it that made sense was the last sentence. But then that isn't true either, because core only = borked isn't D&D exclusive.

Fixed now. I'm on a phone.

And the entire concept of "core" is a DnD thing.  Most games don't have core rule books.  They just have rulebooks.

It might not be core, but they have a basic rule book and then they have stuff released later. A rose by any other name...

I'm also assuming correct amount to spend. Since the release now patch later mentality is in full effect, core only anything is never good, so you're looking at the cost of all rulebooks for that system and the time cost to learn them in order to get into it properly. It's just not worth it to maintain more than one meta.