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

I'm A Banana said:

Yellow flag is very sensible here!

I'd argue that the line between "jerk mercenary character" and "jerk player" is a more of a scale.

A social mechanic that values character performance should allow for flaws with an impact on the game. If the flaw is just handwaved away, it's not really respecting the player's choices, here. So we do need, generally speaking, to be OK with negative character traits having a negative impact, just as we're OK with having a low DEX score have a negative impact. Nuanced characters have flaws, and those flaws impact the stories those characters are in. There's gotta be space for making good trouble with them.

At same time, a good social mechanic would be able to encourage players to play flawed characters without flanderizing them, without constantly spotlight-stealing.

Which is why I pointed out group checks - that's a way to let one character suck without necessarily ruining the experience for everyone. Not everyone needs to be persuasive in order to persuade in general. A given PC can be weak in that area without ruining the experience.

Another aspect is that of parity. Though D&D doesn't highlight this much right now, you could imagine a world where a CHA dump stat was, like a DEX dump stat, just something you kind of build around. The low DEX character might take heavy armor and a shield and be fine. The low CHA character might take Intimidation and be fine.

Click to expand...

Definitely. I think the nuance may be in what does that negative impact look like?

Obviously the thing we’ve all seen or GMed where the “jerk mercenary” causes an immediate and sharp veer toward hostility in a social scene that interferes with another player’s fun - that’s not what we want.

If player characters were meant to be designed perfectly parallel to enemy combatants wouldn’t they theoretically only require one massive combat per long rest to exhaust both sides resources (or maybe 3-4 battles against the one group accounting for 2-3 short rests on both sides?) rather than the 6-8 battles of attrition for the party against different encounters as is what currently is the template? Would enemy combatants not be designed with exactly the same species-class-background character creation used for PCs?

Lanefan said:

Not at all, mon ami; not until and unless we're able to swing swords and cast spells at each other across the table and thus no longer need to abstract combat.

We don't, however, need to abstract in-character socializing, speaking, arguing, persuading, etc. as the players can - unlike combat - do that talking for real.

Click to expand...

I challenge you to perform a major criminal trial at the table.

Crimson Longinus said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think a table needs to have an agreement over player/character agency, period. This is independent of the underlying system mechanics.

Are players okay with Charm effects, mind control, or spiritual possession being used on PCs? Are players okay with Persuasion skills used on PCs to similar result? There are tables where those things are okay, and tables where they aren't, or conditions under which it is okay - it is a very personal thing.

Reynard said:

I challenge you to perform a major criminal trial at the table.

Click to expand...

Did one in 2e. It was fun. It also involved contract and admiralty law and issues of jurisdiction. And curses and terribleness. It was Ravenloft.

I was part way through one in 5e when I was running a conversion of Trial of the Beast and the campaign stopped for COVID. I think the module had some mechanics (Pathfinder 1e) for it but I don’t remember thinking they would be useful for my style of DMing.

Reynard said:

I challenge you to perform a major criminal trial at the table.

Click to expand...

Or a major trade or treaty negotiation in which the diplomats outnumber the PCs. Or how about navigating the complex courtly dynamics of a masked ball, in which you are trying to determine who is about to steal the crown jewels...

And do so in such a way that the result is not effectively just DM fiat.

CreamCloud0 said:

I might go with having a list of ‘standard social actions’ that basically everyone can perform but classes or backgrounds and the like provide other options or build ontop of what you can do with them, playing a rogue lets you appraise what would be an appropriate bribe by making an insight check as a precursor to actually taking the bribe action.

Click to expand...

Oh please don't. Whenever you give players a list of options, they will default to those options. That kills every creativity and thinking in character.
There is already the problem that players see their skill list as Buttons they can press instead of thinking what their character would do.

Also this automatic "I can see into the soul of people and can discern their weakness-insight-checks" are the horror.
At my table I will never allow "I look at the guard, make an insight check to see what he is bribeable with and than use the bribe action accordingly".

Let's kill the Roleplay Part of RPGs right there. That's more like playing Sims with a worse game engine.

--------‐--------

Of course at my tables I would allow PCs to discern if a guard would accept bribes. But they would have to do actual roleplay for that. They would have to find that out inside the game world. Ask other thieves in the city which guard is bribeable. Actually have a conversation with the guard.
Not just "press insight button to gain information".

When I run social situations in D&D, I always start with the idea that each npc has:

-things they already know
-things they care strongly about
-things they want
-things they don't want
-things they don't care about at all

With that information, it is relatively easy to make rulings when players try to influence an npc. If what they are seeking does not conflict with the npc's motivations, then it is an automatic success. But if there IS a conflict, then we'll need more than just fancy words to convince that npc. In other words: make a roll, possibly with disadvantage.

And yes, sometimes npc's have traits that make it harder to convince them. For example, a young count who always listens to his wife, and follows her direction. In which case, the players should really try to convince the wife and not bother with the young count at all.

Reynard said:

Again, I am advocating for a social combat system that is intended to be used in social situations analogous to combat encounters: things like trials, dealing with courtly intrigue, and convincing powerful factions or individuals to do what you want. There are a number of ways to design the specifics, but in general it means giving players "tactical" choices and including victory conditions -- just like combat.

Click to expand...

But the rules of these social situations are informed by the ingame world and are different for each situation. A trial follows different rules than a courtly intrigue, than an audience by the king, than convincing the mob to not kill the supposed witch.

You can't just have a complex one fit social combat system that would satisfactionary work in all those different situations. Or you would have 20 sub systems and a 200 page book explaining them all called Xanathar's Guide to Social Conduct.

As a DM with the current rules I can all accommodate those different social situations, because the rules let me adjust on the fly or prepare beforehand how to adjudicate them by letting the ingame world and narrative dictate the code of conduct.
In the court of Law defendants and attorneys have their turns presenting their arguments, while the judge can speak whenever.
In an audience with the Queen, the characters are only allowed to speak when invited to speak by the Queen or her chancellor.
During the Mob-Witch-Hunt, characters need to make themselves heard first - they need to get the attention of the crowd before they can make any argument to stop them ...

I mean, if you want a book like Volos Almanach of Courtly Behaviour or something that would me as a DM give advise in how to run all those different situations, I'd be fine with that. Buy I wouldn't really need it, because the Ingame fiction is usually dictating the pace and the course of action.
The game needs to follow the fiction. But any complex social system that is implemented before the fiction will now inform the fiction instead.

Campbell said:

I think in part why I differ from a lot of those who do not want to involve mechanics in social situations is that the sorts of social encounters that see table time in a lot of games I play are not the more convivial convince someone through argumentation or straightforward negotiation. It's intimidation, gas lighting, seduction, pushing someone's buttons so they respond emotionally in a way that backfires against them, swaying the crowd against someone using emotional appeals, selective omissions. Stuff that isn't always the most fun to do to your best friends in the world.

I agree the best mechanic for straight forward negotiation is generally straight forward negotiation. Like I could leverage my physical presence on the GM to mimic my character's efforts to do the same, but that wouldn't be any nicer than punching them in the face to mimic my character doing that to an NPC.

That being said I'm generally much more of a fan of systems that layer over top of existing roleplaying and influence it over social combat type systems. Stuff more like the DMG social influence system no one uses or bonus dice in Sorcerer that provide bonuses to doing what your character has been convinced of and / or penalties when going against it.

Click to expand...

I'm all in favor of DM facing systems that help the DM.keeping track of more complex social encounters/situations.

But they shouldn't be player facing. There shouldn't be a social initiative or a list of 10 actions to take or such things - the characters need to react as characters to the ingame fiction and their decisions and actions should need to be informed by the ingame fiction.