D&D 5E Social Challenges & Political Conflicts

Tony Vargas

Legend
Think about how 5E would approach the scenario if the players said, "We want to build a treehouse!" You've basically got three options that fit within the 5E idiom and PHB/DMG guidelines: either just say, "Okay, you build a treehouse"; or say, "Okay, but it costs 100 gp for materials and two weeks for construction", pulling the numbers out of your hat; or rule that it's some kind of ability check, "Okay, but you have to make a DC 15 Intelligence check or it will fall down."
Or, none of you have artisan tools, you can't do it. Or, you start to build a treehouse when the trent you tried to build it on attacks by surprise... ;P

Except, that's not how I remember AD&D, so I'm fairly confident that it should be possible to spend 40+% of your time on things besides murderhoboism in D&D, without resorting to "Mother May I?" and DM fiat for 40% of the time. Player agency requires consistency, which means it should have rules support.
We all had different experiences back in the day. I do seem to remember a lot of time just prowling through dungeons, trying to find that unique combination of questions and action declarations that would result in the characters finding some treasure and/or monsters without being instantly killed, teleported to another plane, waking up chained to a wall, transformed into something the DM found hilarious at the moment, eaten by a/the chest/floor/wall/ceiling/door/stalagmite/stalagtite/stump-with-a-rabbit-sitting-on-it/whatever...

...that's probably not what you meant by 'things besides....'

For example, by PHB rules it's impossible for a blacksmith to make a profit. He spends 50% of the selling price on materials to make his stuff, and he gets free living expenses while he makes it, then he sells the stuff for 50% of the selling price. That's fine as a quick-and-dirty PHB option, but it's not appropriate for a game wherein players are actually interested in commerce, as well as Fireballs.
If I hadn't actually seen a couple of players become engrossed in building up a settlement as if they were playing D&D:Civilization, in an actual game, I'd say something about never having seen anyone play like that. As it was, they did take care of most of their civilization stuff away from the table, via a wiki, actually.

the synergistic potential to have a game of mercantilism and Fireballs in which you adventure to dangerous places with valuable cargoes and make a ton of money, not because you took that money off the bodies of dead monsters, but because you're the only one who can survive the journey through the Straits of Therdan and all the sahuagin that infest it. That game should be within the D&D idiom, but 5E doesn't currently support it.
Maybe not to the levels of specific rules, but it's certainly open to it, depending on how you frame the campaign. The last two eds had wealth/level guidelines that might've given the DM more to work with as far as whether that ton of money should be metric, long or short, and be more copper or gold, while 5e works whether the party gets rich or stays poor. Either way, the DM decides on the setting, situation, risks and potential rewards if the players go looking for such possibilities. Worked in any ed, though, in all likelihood, without some sort of added Social and/or Exploration/Travel systems, it's still going to be a bunch of planning, followed by a bunch of random encounters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jackdaw

First Post
Not a big fan of social combat rules. I think it discourages players from speaking in character, and encourages them to just say "I'm going to roll persuasion to see if he'll tell me who the thief is."


I'm there with you. I've seen social combat/interaction rules become a fallback for players who want to keep the entire experience at arm's length, for various reasons. Sometimes the DM just sucks at presenting NPCs or socially volatile situations that feel (relatively) realistic. Players can't engage with a flat narrative, so they just game the numbers. Sometimes the DM has a punitive streak, which makes interactions feel like traps rather than negotiations. Sometimes the NPC/scene can be so engaging that it feels threatening to players who might be naturally shy in similar real life situations.

Regardless, I think it's an experience the DM and players should explore through RP. The rules simulate combat because we can't (or shouldn't) punch and stab each other at the table to see where the story goes. All the "rules" necessary for social combat already exist in the minds of socialized adults. They just need to trust each other to explore it.

That said, I'm going to pick up Courtney Campbell’s book. It sounds like it has a lot of great ideas, even if I disagree with the premise.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I had this thought /many/ years ago, in a completely different context (characters going on an adventure in a shared dream: their 'dream selves' had physical stats based on their mental stats).

CHA stood in for STR
WIS for CON
INT for DEX

Very interesting. Sounds like a fun addition to a campaign!

I'd go with WIS. It could replace your CONmod to hps, for instance.

Yeah...I guess my problem is that I see a really weird disconnect between the way the stats are described. Charisma is your "force of personality," which I equate with how "strong" your sense of self is. You win people over by enduring the stuff they fling at you, and then coming back still at full strength. Which sounds like HP to me--not offense.

Meanwhile, the only place Wisdom is related to how mentally strong you are, from what I can tell, is that you use it for saves against "charms" and "illusions." But the illusions part is perceiving, not absorbing--and since 5e broke open saves to apply to any stat, Charisma has definitely picked up some of them. (Plus, in 4e, Charisma worked just as well as Wisdom did for improving your Will defense.)

As DEX adds to both physically, I could see INT doing both.

That's exactly what I want to avoid. I really, really, really dislike the existence of "god stats" that do basically everything. A stat that controls speed, defense, avoidance, and potentially offense is, IMO, a bad idea. Spread the goods around. *Force* people to decide what they're going to lack--or to decide that they want to be decent at everything but never powerful with anything.

What about offense, your 'mental punch' or whatever: per above, I've used CHA. It's how you influence others.

See, I was specifically avoiding the selection of a particular mental stat for offense. While I really dislike the idea of having a "god stat," I really like the idea that there are meaningfully different ways to "socially attack" an opponent. Charisma is for sapping a person's Resilience Points by showing how cool/awesome/exciting/empowering your idea or position is--overwhelming the other person's self, in a certain sense, which I DO think is like Strength. Intelligence is for employing prodigious memory and lightning-fast calculation, running circles around your enemy or entrapping them in a logical snare, and in that sense it is like Dexterity. Wisdom...is a bit harder, but if I had to pick a description for it, I'd call it being the careful, studious "attacker" who waits for their opponents to make a mistake or leave an opening, which in its own way is also like Dexterity.

Sometimes the use of a pun is justified.

I'm glad you think so. :)

The obvious place to look is skills. I'd also think Background would matter a lot in social challenges, where you come from makes a big difference.

I suppose that's an option, yeah. Seems like it might be a bit constraining though. And gives two classes (Bard and Rogue) an enormous advantage.
 

Player agency requires consistency, which means it should have rules support.

I don't get this. There's no "rules support" for diplomacy in Diplomacy; are you suggesting that means the players have no agency? I don't mean this as threadcrapping -- I'd just like to understand.

Regardless, I think it's an experience the DM and players should explore through RP. The rules simulate combat because we can't (or shouldn't) punch and stab each other at the table to see where the story goes. All the "rules" necessary for social combat already exist in the minds of socialized adults. They just need to trust each other to explore it.

I get this, and agree with it. To follow the analogy, if I want treehouse-building to figure prominently in the game, I want to be able to create a design, figure out where I'm going to build it, purchase (or otherwise acquire) supplies, procure labor, if necessary, and then actually build the treehouse. At any point in this process, there can be obstacles, complications and challenges that make things interesting. I don't see what rolling dice against "crafting hit points" would add to it, or why I need rules to have agency. I personally don't think either the social or exploration pillars need any rules that aren't already there.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Regardless, I think it's an experience the DM and players should explore through RP. The rules simulate combat because we can't (or shouldn't) punch and stab each other at the table to see where the story goes. All the "rules" necessary for social combat already exist in the minds of socialized adults. They just need to trust each other to explore it.
I disagree. TT RPGs give players the chance to play characters who are not like themselves.

You /can/ make combat a test of player rather than character ability, there are LARPs that do just that, resolve combat via players going at eachother with padded weapons. There's no difference between that an 'just RPing' the social pillar.

Very interesting. Sounds like a fun addition to a campaign!
It was pretty awesome back in the day, with a party of all spell-casters and multi-classed casters, with reason to have OK-to-high mental stats. I would never have used those mechanics in 4e, with it's overblown laser-focus on primary stats, and inevitable dump stats (dream-selves would have been just like physical selves, but with the occasional dream-power swap - "Hey, I can fly!" "Ha, in your dreams" "Exactly! wooohooo!"), but with the right 5e party, I might very well trot it out again.

Yeah...I guess my problem is that I see a really weird disconnect between the way the stats are described. Charisma is your "force of personality," which I equate with how "strong" your sense of self is. You win people over by enduring the stuff they fling at you, and then coming back still at full strength. Which sounds like HP to me--not offense.
None taken, I guess I just take 'force' and 'strong' more literally . ;)

Meanwhile, the only place Wisdom is related to how mentally strong you are, from what I can tell, is that you use it for saves against "charms" and "illusions."
The almighty WIS save, yes. I'd also tend to just picture calm, wise Clerics, Druids, & Monks as being 'mentally strong.'

That's exactly what I want to avoid. I really, really, really dislike the existence of "god stats" that do basically everything. A stat that controls speed, defense, avoidance, and potentially offense is, IMO, a bad idea.
Sure.

I really like the idea that there are meaningfully different ways to "socially attack" an opponent.
Right, the analogy to what I was doing doesn't hold up that far. Back to your original topic:
Charisma is for sapping a person's Resilience Points by showing how cool/awesome/exciting/empowering your idea or position is--overwhelming the other person's self, in a certain sense, which I DO think is like Strength. Intelligence is for employing prodigious memory and lightning-fast calculation, running circles around your enemy or entrapping them in a logical snare, and in that sense it is like Dexterity. Wisdom...is a bit harder, but if I had to pick a description for it, I'd call it being the careful, studious "attacker" who waits for their opponents to make a mistake or leave an opening, which in its own way is also like Dexterity.
Wisdom could include discerning your opponent's agenda and emotional investment clearly, so you know what to threaten or offer or compromise to get the desired response. Intelligence would help in constructing logical arguments and using facts/figures/precedents, while CHA would help with emotional appeals, keeping the opponent's respect, establishing a rapport and so forth.

I suppose that's an option, yeah. Seems like it might be a bit constraining though. And gives two classes (Bard and Rogue) an enormous advantage.
I'd think that was intended in their design. Also, emphasizing Backgrounds might help mitigate that - then again, whatever you ultimately come up with, a player could optimize up a 5e answer to the 3.x 'diplomancer' to take maximum advantage of the system.
 
Last edited:

I don't get this. There's no "rules support" for diplomacy in Diplomacy; are you suggesting that means the players have no agency? I don't mean this as threadcrapping -- I'd just like to understand.

I get this, and agree with it. To follow the analogy, if I want treehouse-building to figure prominently in the game, I want to be able to create a design, figure out where I'm going to build it, purchase (or otherwise acquire) supplies, procure labor, if necessary, and then actually build the treehouse. At any point in this process, there can be obstacles, complications and challenges that make things interesting. I don't see what rolling dice against "crafting hit points" would add to it, or why I need rules to have agency. I personally don't think either the social or exploration pillars need any rules that aren't already there.

Sure, let's talk about Diplomacy. I've only played it once or twice, but I recall a great deal of rules support for diplomacy in the game. Agency, in the sense I'm using it, refers to the ability of a player to act as an effective agent, by having choices and the ability to predict the consequences of those choices. (Rock/scissors/paper is a game without much agency, for example: you make choices but the outcomes are random, to a first approximation.) In diplomacy, alliances and treachery are both possible because you and your allies can predict the short-term results of the orders you issue during the current turn. The clarity of the rules provides a framework for your diplomacy. You know what's at stake (in the short term), you know the possible ways things could go wrong, you know who the players are. You know, for example, that Diplomacy is a game of perfect information, and you know that whoever your allies are, they have at least not betrayed you up to this point--there is no hidden mole in your kingdom who has been sabotaging your war plans, because Diplomacy doesn't allow that kind of thing.

"Crafting hit points" isn't on the table (I find the concept of applying combat terminology to construction as distasteful as you seem to), but the equivalent of Diplomacy is to supply the players with a framework that tells them what is at stake and what they need to get there: here's how much wood costs, and you need to pay property taxes annually, and the house will get termite-eaten or bear-infested if there isn't someone living in it, and by the way you can make it larger or smaller, etc. There's three levels of detail you can play at:

1.) Full verisimiltude based on real-world expert knowledge of the specific problem domain (treehouse construction vs. road construction).
2.) Rough abstractions based on general type of activity (construction vs. politicking).
3.) Handwaving based on whatever is quickest, just to get the activity out of the way before returning to more interesting activities ("okay, you build a treehouse").

#3 needs no rules. Rules for #1 would be redundant and unnecessary except in corner cases (such as inventing a detailed treatment procedure for a disease which does not actually exist in real life). If #1 and #3 cover your interests, great!

Scenario #2 is a bit lacking in 5E at the moment from my perspective. I'm sympathetic to those who, like @Ristamar, are "glad there are not established rules for economic, political, and social conflict and interactions." I even agree that it's a good thing WotC didn't try to create such rules, both because it would waste space in the DMG and because WotC always does a bad job at those kinds of things (see the Mass Combat rules for example). However, unlike Ristamar, I also see potential value in providing rules to my players so that they can act with more agency and predictability (more on this in a second), and whether that means me making up rules myself and creating handouts for the players, or importing rules from other systems, or buying third-party products that I consider to be of high quality, the result is the same: my players will have rules available to them.

About predictability and agency: the end goal is for players to be able to put themselves into the game world and consider decisions the way their characters would, by thinking things through. Without rules you have to rely on the DM as a black box oracle. Instead of thinking through the consequences of your action, with rules that you already know from experience, you're obliged to stop and ask the DM, "What would happen if I did this? Is there any way for me to do that?" or else to just declare your action and hope that it works. For short-term goals that might be fine, but I doubt there are many DMs who'd let you just declare a long-term goal like, "I foment a civil war between the kingmen and the republicrats." Instead, they'd probably want you to give specifics about how you go about fomenting such a war, who you talk to, how you influence them, and now you're right back in scenario #1: applying real-world expert knowledge. That might be fine from the player's perspective, but here's my problem with that as a DM: I don't have real-world expert knowledge at fomenting civil wars. Anything I make up will be at least as abstract and error-prone as a scenario #2 solution would be, so I might as well make up gameable rules for politicking that seem roughly plausible and give them to my players (e.g. example DCs for certain tasks and a list of names of people of influence), instead of letting them flail around trying to figure out if their rough idea of secret warmongering matches up with my half-baked imagining of secret warmongering.

TL;DR: Making up or buying gameable rules is a middle ground designed to preserve predictability and agency for the players without requiring them and me to become experts in every field of human endeavor.
 
Last edited:

nomotog

Explorer
I thought a little about this, but don't really have much other then some random ability ideas. The thought with strings is that you get them on different people and can pull them by making a cha check. I you pass the check then they do something beneficial for you, but if you fail then you lose the string.

I'll just quote myself here as I have been thinking about this some more. I could just rip off dungeon world if I actually knew about it. I think I should do it kind of class based.
-----
The fighter, I guess most people see the fighter as the threat man, but that still limits their ability to combat. I am thinking the fighter as a little like a social tank.

Savior: When you save someone from danger (it can be more then just physical danger) you gain a string on them as they feel in debited to you.

Mercy: When you decide not to kill some in violent combat. (Combat where they would have killed you if they could.) You gain a string on them. They literally own their life to you.

Protector: If you have a string with someone, then you are more desperate to protect them form harm. You give them a +2 AC when standing next to them in battle.

Glare: By staring down a person you have a string on, you can convince them to with draw from the arena without a argument.

Something I can't think of a name yet: When you have a string on someone, then you can stop anyone else from pulling strings attached to them.
-----
The rouge kind of plays the same in social circles as they do in the dungeon. They hide around avoiding it until they strike.

Secret Identity: You can have the knowledge to change your identity. When you change you identity, you lose all strings you hold and all attached to you.

Leverage: By stealing something secret or valuable, you gain leverage over someone. You have a string on whoever you took from so long as you keep what you took. They also won't like you much.
----
The ranger is kind of of a loner so they have ways to remove strings.
Wild child: When you spend a week or more out in the woods you lose contact with people. You lose all strings you hold and all strings attached to you.

Animal friendship: When you have a string on an animal, you can pull it in order to make them your animal companion. (You still need to follow the normal rules for creatures you can pick and can only have one.)
-----
The wizard is more about the mind and they like a good colerbration.

Spell share: When you share a string on another wizard, the you can cast spells from their spell book as if it was your own.

Meeting of the minds: If you stud with someone on a topic you are both proficient in, then you each gain a string on the other.

Reasoned argument: When pulling on a string, you make a Int check rather then a cha check.
---
I don't know what to do with the warlock except have their patron get strings on them.
Patron: Every time you gain a level in warlock, your patron get s a string on you. If your patron, gets five strings on you, then they take you mind body and soul. You pulled off to the hells, the far plane or where ever your patron resides. (Then I think you will be able to pass the strings on you to other people, and maybe some powers you use will add a string on you all by themselves.)
----
For the cleric, I picture them being the class you either really want to get strings on you or really don't

faith and community: When you first meet someone who worships the same deity as you, then you each gain a string on each other.

Something something I need a name for this too: When you cast a spell on someone that you have a string on, then it works really well.(Off hand I can't think of a universal metric to improve a spell in 5ed.)
---
For the paladin, I don't know. I think The duel idea works for them (and the fighter.) Also any fighter powers fit them too. I am also thinking maybe just giving them more magical abilities like preventing someone from being able to lie or commit evil when they have a string on them.
----
The Barbarian would be a lot like the ranger, Like they might get wild child too and I ponder maybe an ability that lets then use rages to shake off or ignore strings.
-------
Druid
The druid is a little like the cleric? I see them being a little like the paladin in that their abilities are more supernatural. Like the ability to gain strings on elementals or to summon creatures that they have strings on
------
I see the Bard as the string expert. Maybe they get proficiency in pulling strings, and lots of ways to get and use strings.
---------
I have no idea what to do with the Monk. Like zero.
-----------
I see the Sorcerer as very peacocky. Well the wizard is more about results, the Sorcerer is more flash.

Spell styling: If you cast a spell just for show, then you can gain a string on anyone of lower level then the spell you used. (Assuming they get to see it first hand.)
 

Ristamar

Adventurer
Scenario #2 is a bit lacking in 5E at the moment from my perspective. I'm sympathetic to those who, like @Ristamar, are "glad there are not established rules for economic, political, and social conflict and interactions." I even agree that it's a good thing WotC didn't try to create such rules, both because it would waste space in the DMG and because WotC always does a bad job at those kinds of things (see the Mass Combat rules for example). However, unlike Ristamar, I also see potential value in providing rules to my players so that they can act with more agency and predictability (more on this in a second), and whether that means me making up rules myself and creating handouts for the players, or importing rules from other systems, or buying third-party products that I consider to be of high quality, the result is the same: my players will have rules available to them.

When running an encounter or an adventure with scenarios that require nuance that is lacking within the core rules, there is value in working within a codified system, especially if the players need to understand the framework to competently progress past the challenges presented by the DM. However, I think there's just as much value in quickly tossing that nuance and framework aside when it's no longer applicable. It only needs to serve as a temporary construct.

The 5th edition rules provide the necessary tools for a DM to quickly and easily mold the basic mechanics to create frameworks suitable for most social, political, or combat related challenges with little to no prep. The new rules place far greater value on simplicity and flexibility versus complexity and precision (the bastion of the 3.x rules).

If someone is going to run a game so far outside the core experience of 5e that it requires numerous complex modules or a entire book's worth of optional rules, that is certainly their prerogative. However, before implementing heavy modifications, it'd be practical to determine if the latest flavor of D&D is the best system (or even an adequate system) for the type of game they're trying to run.
 

If someone is going to run a game so far outside the core experience of 5e that it requires numerous complex modules or a entire book's worth of optional rules, that is certainly their prerogative. However, before implementing heavy modifications, it'd be practical to determine if the latest flavor of D&D is the best system (or even an adequate system) for the type of game they're trying to run.

I agree. At the risk of repeating myself,

And GURPS would work fine for a commerce game, but it lacks Fireballs, and the synergistic potential to have a game of mercantilism and Fireballs in which you adventure to dangerous places with valuable cargoes and make a ton of money, not because you took that money off the bodies of dead monsters, but because you're the only one who can survive the journey through the Straits of Therdan and all the sahuagin that infest it. That game should be within the D&D idiom, but 5E doesn't currently support it.

The evaluation was made in this hypothetical scenario that an alternative system like GURPS is not desirable because combat and Fireballs is still a large chunk (60%?) of what the game will be about. Commerce rules would flesh out the other 40%. It would definitely not be a typical 5E game, but speaking as someone who has actually tried to recreate the flavor of D&D magic and Fireball-tossing in other game systems, I claim that it's easier to add commerce rules to 5E when needed than to port D&D magic into GURPS, Shadowrun, MERP, or probably FATE, which are the only systems besides D&D I'm at all familiar with.

Again, remember that I'm not necessarily asking for a WotC book. The Courtney Campbell book mentioned early in this thread is pure gold and is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping this thread would bring to my attention. I'll improvise rules systems as I need them, and I'll always tweak things to my own taste (including the Campbell book), but if someone's done something that I might find useful I have no problem whatsoever asking them to take my money now.
 

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
I think from my point of view, as a player, I don't expect to be able to 100% predict social outcomes, because I do not have complete information. The NPCs true motivations and personalities are typically hidden from me. So as a player, I don't really want a coherent social system: I want a black box where my actions go in and something sufficiently believable that I feel I contributed to comes out.

As a DM, I want an easier system to put in that black box than having to remember or note down every interaction between PCs and NPCs.

So - I don't want a framework that plays as a game, because this black box I have already seems to be doing that job. I want a framework that makes it easier for me as a DM to work the magic inside the black box.
 

Remove ads

Top