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

[M_Natas]

That seems to be the core 5e thing of DM discretion to give advantage or disadvantage if it feels right/to taste.

PC: "I jump out and swing around on the chandelier gaining momentum for my swing!"

DM1: "Ok roll your attack."

DM1a: "Cool, take advantage on that attack!"

DM1b: "That sounds awkward and tough to time right to actually do, it is still possible though, take disadvantage on the attack."

I would adjudicate it the follwing:
You wanna swing around the chandelier? Okay, give me an dex (acrobatics) check to see how well you do. With a ... 10+ you gain advantage, with a 15+ a hit will count as critical. With a 5 to 9 you gain disadvantage on the attack and with a 4 or less you will be knocked prone and have 0 movement left this round.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah. Then we have nothing further to discuss about it. The 5MWD is pretty clearly a degenerate solution in my book. It is an artifact of bad game design, producing behavior that is both unrealistic and less fun for most people involved.

The 5-minute workday might be less fun for those who want all action all the time, but in no possible way is it unrealistic behavior.

And it's not even a product of bad game design. It doesn't matter what the game's design is*, it's realistic to expect characters who put themselves into dangerous situations to try to mitigate that danger whenever and however possible; and one way of doing so is to make sure everyone's at full resources (as defined in the game/setting) before entering any battle, because it's best to assume the worst-case scenario where your opponents will also be at full pop.

* - assuming any sort of ongoing resource-attrition model; if everyone gets reset to full after every battle that's different, and IMO far FAR more unrealistic than characters trying to rest whenever they can and thus stop the attrition before it becomes a problem for them.

 

[Lanefan]

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

We've done both criminal and civil trials (though probably nowhere near in perfect reflection of any modern "legal" system) on numerous occasions in our games; sometimes serious, sometimes not so much. Most of these are trials held within the party but some have involved local/regional/royal authorities as judges etc.

Sometimes it was PCs trying (or suing) other PCs. Other times it was PCs being tried by NPCs. I can remember once when PCs put an NPC to trial.

And the only times dice ever came out were the few occsaions when the trials degenerated into violence.

 

[Lanefan]

I would adjudicate it the follwing:
You wanna swing around the chandelier? Okay, give me an dex (acrobatics) check to see how well you do. With a ... 10+ you gain advantage, with a 15+ a hit will count as critical. With a 5 to 9 you gain disadvantage on the attack and with a 4 or less you will be knocked prone and have 0 movement left this round.

I'd say more like no bonus to crit range; on 15+ you gain advantage, 8-14 you attack as normal, 2-7 you've given yourself disadvantage, and on a 1 you blow it completely. But we agree on the general idea.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The 5-minute workday might be less fun for those who want all action all the time, but in no possible way is it unrealistic behavior.

Taking an 8-hour rest every few hours is completely unrealistic, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue otherwise.

And it's not even a product of bad game design.

I mean, when the developers (Crawford in particular) have practically shouted from the rooftops that this is precisely the opposite of the intent for their design, I would say that a game that still encourages it has bad design.

The intent--with every WotC edition--is that Wizards etc. are supposed to stretch their spellcasting across numerous combats each day, rationing it out carefully. 5th edition in particular has been explicitly designed around this being assumed to be true. If every Wizard etc. is unloading every spell in their arsenal every single combat, they are dramatically more powerful than the designers intended them to be--and conversely, classes and subclasses designed to produce steady performance over a long time, or smaller bursts of power across multiple short rests per day, are (by Crawford's own words) being comparatively shortchanged.

And the math isn't hard to demonstrate. Competing against, say, three 3rd level spell slots, it's simply not possible for the Battle Master's 5d8 damage dice to keep up with one 3rd-level slot, let alone the rest of the Wizard's kit. The Champion fairs even worse; even if this is an inordinately long combat, say 8 rounds (which would be ridiculously long in 5e), and the Champion blows both uses of Action Surge, and never runs out of targets, they're getting a grand total of 8x2+2 = 18 attacks. Or...approximately one extra crit.

The game is very specifically designed for players to NOT play this way, and becomes broken and distorted when players DO play that way. Hence, in the specific context of 5e, it is bad design. It conflicts with the explicit statements of intent from its designers; it conflicts with the explicit assumptions that went into designing the classes; and it leads to less enjoyable experiences for everyone except those who play full casters, something the 5e devs (back during the Next playtest) admitted was a problem with 3e's design that needed to be addressed (which is why spellcasters have fewer spell slots, don't gain more from high stats, have to manage Concentration, and generally have few to no "fail one save and durably suck" spells.)

It's bad design.

* - assuming any sort of ongoing resource-attrition model; if everyone gets reset to full after every battle that's different, and IMO far FAR more unrealistic than characters trying to rest whenever they can and thus stop the attrition before it becomes a problem for them.

What on earth are you talking about? There is no "ongoing resource-attrition" model. At all. That's the whole point. When the full-caster players are capable of blowing through every spell slot they possess in every single fight, there is no resource attrition. That's the second most important part of doing the 5MWD in the first place! It removes resource attrition. (The most important part, of course, is that it massively inflates caster power, while simultaneously robbing non-caster power.)

Like, you're somehow trying to make a distinction between "5MWD" and "getting to rest after every encounter." Those two things are the same thing. Hesperus is Phosphorus. That's why it's called the "5 minute workday." You engage in one combat--which will never be even 5 minutes, because ten rounds is sixty seconds--and then you immediately take a full long rest. Engage in one combat, immediately take a full long rest. Lather, rinse, repeat. (Of course, this is technically against the rules; it would instead be the players staying in camp and doing nothing for 15.9 hours and then long-resting, lather, rinse, repeat.)

 

[Lanefan]

Taking an 8-hour rest every few hours is completely unrealistic, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue otherwise.


I mean, when the developers (Crawford in particular) have practically shouted from the rooftops that this is precisely the opposite of the intent for their design, I would say that a game that still encourages it has bad design.

The intent--with every WotC edition--is that Wizards etc. are supposed to stretch their spellcasting across numerous combats each day, rationing it out carefully.

Intent is one thing, result is another.

I don't really give a flip about intent.

What on earth are you talking about? There is no "ongoing resource-attrition" model. At all. That's the whole point. When the full-caster players are capable of blowing through every spell slot they possess in every single fight, there is no resource attrition.

Except you just finished saying 5e is supposedly designed around a 6-8 combat day. Sounds like an attrition-based model to me.

That's the second most important part of doing the 5MWD in the first place! It removes resource attrition. (The most important part, of course, is that it massively inflates caster power, while simultaneously robbing non-caster power.)

That's only because 5e gives you back all your hit points overnight. If hit points were also a long-term attrit-able resource a la 1e-2e then everyone would want to rest up, not just the casters.

Like, you're somehow trying to make a distinction between "5MWD" and "getting to rest after every encounter." Those two things are the same thing.

Not so much, mostly because of the "day" part of 5MWD. A party that adventures on a one-combat-per-day model has to worry about going through minor resources like food, where to hide and rest, and what the enemies are doing in the meantime. A typical adventure done this way could easily take a month or two in game time, and lots can happen in a month or two in a living breathing setting.

That's vastly different than being able to storm through the whole place in one day before the enemies can react because you get fully reloaded after every encounter.

Hesperus is Phosphorus. That's why it's called the "5 minute workday." You engage in one combat--which will never be even 5 minutes, because ten rounds is sixty seconds--and then you immediately take a full long rest. Engage in one combat, immediately take a full long rest. Lather, rinse, repeat. (Of course, this is technically against the rules; it would instead be the players staying in camp and doing nothing for 15.9 hours and then long-resting, lather, rinse, repeat.)

Exactly. That's the point. And while they're doing so the enemies could be moving against them, or setting ambushes, or laying traps and defenses, or even bugging out completely. The one thing those enemies almost certanly won't do is just sit still and wait to be slaughtered. And most often it's that uncertainty about what the enemy might do that forces parties to choose between pressing on or stopping to rest; I want that choice to matter, and I want to leave it up to the players/PCs.

 

[M_Natas]

Okay, let's concentrate back on the Social Pillar of the game and not the Ressource Attrition Combat Strategic game play .

I think what this discussion needs are more concrete examples of actual play.

So let's take my game from last sunday.

There was a social challenge:

RETIRED PIRATE TRYING TO TRICK PARTY WIZARD

The session Prior the Party plundered the ruins of the thieves guild (which they had blown up some sessions before) and came across a ledger of secrets about the inhabitants of the city they are currently in, which the Thieves Guild Boss collected.

Secrets like one of the guards has a gambling problem, the gnome shop owner who is right now improving the Ship of the Party has a drug problem etc.pp.

One of the secrets was, that one of the fish sellers on the market was a former pirate.

And the Party was actually looking into finding out where a certain pirate base could be in the asteroid field (it is a spelljammer campaign).

So the party wizard went to the fish seller (while the other characters were preparing for the next quest) to speak to him and maybe see if he knows where this certain pirate base could be (called Skullhaven).

So the player character and the "Pirate" just talked a bit, the wizard let it know subtily that he knows that he was a pirate. The pirate of course denies such things, but let it slip, that he maybe know what asteroid they are talking about - doesn't the wizard maybe want to but some night scavver meat? Just 5 Gold. After overpaying for the fish, he tells the wizard he knows about the asteroid, even visited once, as an honest trader of course, but wouldn't advice anybody to go there. The place is cursed. But if the PCs has a map, he could show where it is ... the PC doesn't have a map? He could organise one for a small fee of 50 Gold. The PC should come back in the evening.

That all took place in like 2 to 3 minutes. Me writing this down took probably longer than the actual play time between Wizard and Pirate.
There were also no Rolls involved so far.
So the Party thinks, that maybe they can buy a Map of the asteroid field someplace else, so they decide to go to a shop later, want to buy a map, but the last map was just sold, for 1 Gold, to the pirate ...

So a little pissed about the pirate, they decide to visit a tavern run by a retired adventurer the party saved at the beginning of the campaign and behold, that one has a Map, too and gives them to the party for free, because, you know, life debt and friendship.

But in the evening they still decide to visit the pirate - because they still want to find the location of the pirate base - so they still feint interest in buying the map, but want to see it first, so the pirate shows them the map, they can see, that the map they have is similiar to the pirates map, remember the location of the base and leave the pirate without buying the new map.

Like, all played out at the table.
The whole thing was fun, the Wizard nearly being tricked to overpay for the map, but at the end the party tricking the pirate ...

And all of that with only maybe one or two insight checks to see if somebody shows signs of deception.

I don't see how this could have been improved by adding more mechanics to it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's vastly different than being able to storm through the whole place in one day before the enemies can react because you get fully reloaded after every encounter.

But it does. Repeatedly.

Because the kind of time pressure you indirectly referred to above is implausible to maintain over more than an adventure or two. Making it so two days is the difference between absolute victory and stunning defeat, but two hours is absolutely not a problem at all ever, is simply not realistic.

But I'm done discussing this with you. You treat whatever you like as sacrosanct (whether or not it's in the rules), and then blow off anything you don't like as irrelevant frippery. There's no point continuing the conversation further.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

RETIRED PIRATE TRYING TO TRICK PARTY WIZARD

The session Prior the Party plundered the ruins of the thieves guild (which they had blown up some sessions before) and came across a ledger of secrets about the inhabitants of the city they are currently in, which the Thieves Guild Boss collected.

Secrets like one of the guards has a gambling problem, the gnome shop owner who is right now improving the Ship of the Party has a drug problem etc.pp.

One of the secrets was, that one of the fish sellers on the market was a former pirate.

And the Party was actually looking into finding out where a certain pirate base could be in the asteroid field (it is a spelljammer campaign).

So the party wizard went to the fish seller (while the other characters were preparing for the next quest) to speak to him and maybe see if he knows where this certain pirate base could be (called Skullhaven).

So the player character and the "Pirate" just talked a bit, the wizard let it know subtily that he knows that he was a pirate. The pirate of course denies such things, but let it slip, that he maybe know what asteroid they are talking about - doesn't the wizard maybe want to but some night scavver meat? Just 5 Gold. After overpaying for the fish, he tells the wizard he knows about the asteroid, even visited once, as an honest trader of course, but wouldn't advice anybody to go there. The place is cursed. But if the PCs has a map, he could show where it is ... the PC doesn't have a map? He could organise one for a small fee of 50 Gold. The PC should come back in the evening.

That all took place in like 2 to 3 minutes. Me writing this down took probably longer than the actual play time between Wizard and Pirate.
There were also no Rolls involved so far.

I wouldn't imagine there would be any rolls here. Nothing in this section is even remotely rising to the level of a skill challenge. As you say, I can hardly even see where a roll might squeeze in. Perhaps some kind of Streetwise or Intimidate check? But honestly I don't see any need.

So the Party thinks, that maybe they can buy a Map of the asteroid field someplace else, so they decide to go to a shop later, want to buy a map, but the last map was just sold, for 1 Gold, to the pirate ...

So a little pissed about the pirate, they decide to visit a tavern run by a retired adventurer the party saved at the beginning of the campaign and behold, that one has a Map, too and gives them to the party for free, because, you know, life debt and friendship.

But in the evening they still decide to visit the pirate - because they still want to find the location of the pirate base - so they still feint interest in buying the map, but want to see it first, so the pirate shows them the map, they can see, that the map they have is similiar to the pirates map, remember the location of the base and leave the pirate without buying the new map.

Like, all played out at the table.
The whole thing was fun, the Wizard nearly being tricked to overpay for the map, but at the end the party tricking the pirate ...

And all of that with only maybe one or two insight checks to see if somebody shows signs of deception.

I don't see how this could have been improved by adding more mechanics to it.

Because it wouldn't have.

Has anyone said, "Absolutely every single social interaction, no matter what, needs to become a long, drawn-out, ritualized, formalized affair with all the bells and whistles, every single time"?

Because unless someone has actually argued that, your example has not contributed anything further to the discussion. If nobody is taking that position, you have tilted at a windmill.

I--and as far as I can tell, everyone else--have explicitly recognized that "social pillar mechanics," whatever form they might take, would be "a sometimes food" as I am fond of calling it. I have seen multiple different posters, including myself, call out very specifically that these rules would not be meant for universal use, and would be a bad, wrong, foolish thing to try to shoehorn into absolutely every situation.

For exactly the same reason that you wouldn't pull out a battle map and roll initiative, for example, if the players went hunting with the Lord Mayor, hoping to get him alone so they can test to see if he's a doppelganger. The hunting part, if you had them roll at all, would probably just be a couple basic ranged attack rolls. There's no need for initiative and turn order and tracking line of sight and protection from cover etc., etc., etc. It would just be some simple, straightforward attack rolls.

The existence of situations where it is not beneficial to invoke the entire rules for combat does not mean that combat rules are a pointless waste of time. Likewise, the existence of situations that would not require, nor indeed draw any benefit from, more structured social pillar mechanics does not mean that social pillar mechanics are a pointless waste of time.

 

[Shardstone]

Combat shouldnt have actions. Why get in the way of discussion? Let players describe the combat, for the sake or social skills. And skill checks? Class features? All too fiddly. Best to let the conversation take over here. Let players talk about how they hide instead of rolling dice. And damage? Eh, itll get in the way of conversation. Best to let the player talk about the damage. Oh, and, and, and....


...