D&D General Social Pillar Mechanics: Where do you stand?

[Crimson Longinus]

Except that it isn't symmetrical. Combatants exist for (usually) no more than one combat. Hence why it is patently foolish to (for example) use 1:1 identical Vancian spellcasting design for NPCs. The one NPC gets an entire day's worth of Vancian spells; the PCs don't.

There has been inconsistence how the enemy stat blocks have been written in that regard, but that really isn't that relevant.

Combat is inherently asymmetrical, because the goals of the two sides ("win this one combat" vs "survive indefinitely") are radically different. Just like real-life asymmetrical warfare.

It is symmetrical in the sense that the mechanics work pretty much the same for both sides.

 

[Reynard]

If we have a symmetrical system like combat, and PCs can convince NPCs of things, then the NPCs can also convince PCs of things.

This is a nonsequitur. there is nothing inherent in the play of D&D that says this must be so.

 

[Stalker0]

I've turned a full 180 on my use of social mechanics.

I used to be a big proponent of them. The idea of "this will let a shy person play a smooth talker" and "if I can stat play a high strength guy why can't I do the same for charisma" were important things to me, and so I've tried my share of various mechanics.

And what I found....time and time again....is that the more I add mechanics to the roleplay....the less roleplay I got. I have often noted that players get into two mindsets. There is the free flowing, creative mode where its talking and let it fly. And then there is mechanic mode, once the dice are grabbed or a mechanic is mentioned, people tend to focus on that mechanic and what it says they can do...rather than think about what they want to do.

I've seen it many times repeated over different groups I've run. So at the end of the day....the solution was worse than the problem. In trying to help weaker roleplayers get a chance to roleplay more..... I wound up having my entire table roleplay less.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, the idea that social conflict resolution should "change your mind" is an artifact of the incredibly and woefully simplistic and reductive approach to social interaction currently used in D&D. That's not what social conflict resolution ought to be.

Social conflict resolution is "getting what you want by means of social interactions", rather like physical conflict resolution (aka "combat," in D&D) is getting what you want by means of violent physical interactions.

Does the orc "change your mind" with a sword? No. So, we don't need the Evil Viceroy to change the PC's minds in a social conflict. What we need is for the Viceroy to be able to get what he wants through social interaction.

What does that mean? Well, for an orc on a battlefield, getting what he wants means removing the PC from the battle - in D&D, by reducing them to zero hit points. So, in a social conflict, the Viceroy needs to remove the PC from the field of social battle - make it so nobody will listen to them or take them seriously. If the Viceroy can successfully make the PCs look like fools, liars, agents of a foreign power, or simply woefully misinformed vagabonds, then nobody will pay attention to their pleas. The Viceroy has to reduce the PC's social cache to nothing, so they cannot change the situation by social interaction.

But social situations where the intent is to change someone's mind do exist. Like that is hardly controversial. So this system cannot be used for such situations? What happens then?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is a nonsequitur. there is nothing inherent in the play of D&D that says this must be so.

It was an "if statement" and it was consistent with itself. But which part of this you would not want in the social combat system?

 

[Voadam]

There is a bit of misunderstanding. I am talking about a system where the attack roll and the intimidatevroll are analogous, leading to something like hit point loss leading to something like defeating your enemy. I am also talking about feats, maneuvers, spells and abilities that are designed for social combat.

Again, I don't own it but I believe Doctors & Daleks integrates cleverness and quips into their 5e hp system so you can out think opponents into submission through cleverness and there is an incentive to make witty jokes in tense situations as a tactical maneuver to defeat opponents.

So not a separate parallel social combat, but integrating social into 5e combat.

So if you want clever witty characters like the Doctor and the Master to be always defeating foes mechanically without lifting a finger directly it is an option.

 

[Reynard]

But social situations where the intent is to change someone's mind do exist. Like that is hardly controversial. So this system cannot be used for such situations? What happens then?

Maybe it would help if you gave a specific example.

 

[payn]

I've turned a full 180 on my use of social mechanics.

I used to be a big proponent of them. The idea of "this will let a shy person play a smooth talker" and "if I can stat play a high strength guy why can't I do the same for charisma" were important things to me, and so I've tried my share of various mechanics.

And what I found....time and time again....is that the more I add mechanics to the roleplay....the less roleplay I got. I have often noted that players get into two mindsets. There is the free flowing, creative mode where its talking and let it fly. And then there is mechanic mode, once the dice are grabbed or a mechanic is mentioned, people tend to focus on that mechanic and what it says they can do...rather than think about what they want to do.

I've seen it many times repeated over different groups I've run. So at the end of the day....the solution was worse than the problem. In trying to help weaker roleplayers get a chance to roleplay more..... I wound up having my entire table roleplay less.

There is definitely a trick to the execution in my experience. However, some players gonna stick to old habits no matter what.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe it would help if you gave a specific example.

Think about the scene with the Emperor, Luke and Darth Vader in the Return of the Jedi. It is about the the Emperor and Vader trying to convince Luke to join the dark side, whilst Luke tries to convince Vader to return to the light.

 

[Reynard]

Think about the scene with the Emperor, Luke and Darth Vader in the Return of the Jedi. It is about the the Emperor and Vader trying to convince Luke to join the dark side, whilst Luke tries to convince Vader to return to the light.

See, I just would not make Luke's failure mean "Luke joins the dark side" in that scene. That scene is entirely about Luke trying to convince Vader to reject the emperor. Luke won that battle. Had it gone the other way, Luke would have had to fight them both.

In other words: no matter the type of conflict, never set untenable stakes.