Something about the incorporation of some of these rules for the game - specifically, in reference to players ever using them. Players may not. It should be noted, however, that these are rules that I myself intend to follow with regards to NPCs. That means, even if they are of no use to the player, they will help codify the behavior of the people acting and making agreements around the players.
What does it mean when an NPC says someone is their friend or their ally? What does it mean when an NPC says either to a friend? What are the limits of what an NPC will do for someone when first meeting them?
For example, let's suppose the character does not have a schmooze ability, but does meet someone on the road and wishes to ask for directions. What then?
It means that, at best, the stranger should be considered a threat at all times; unwilling to help beyond perhaps giving directions (which might be a charisma check just to get that) and unwilling to give even their name. It makes a clear line between who is trustworthy and who isn't.
I will probably provide some rules later on for things like friends made through circumstance rather than schmoozing. I obviously need rules for enemies - but for the time being, that can wait. I'm sure the subject is likely to come up again and an answer present itself.
I am pleased to hear another DM who thinks it makes sense to apply rules to NPC interactions. So often, it seems, DMs I've asked about this have been very resistant. It's funny that the combat rules apply to everyone equally*, but any player-NPC interactions rules somehow don't. It makes me immediately think of the potential for automation of a certain level of NPC interaction. I could imagine a kind of "circuit design," reading a bunch of outcomes of NPC interactions and providing an outcome for a larger entity, say, a branch of government.
ReplyDelete*Although of course (invincible "DMPC" anyone?)