Better Social Mechanics

[KidSnide]

I think what you have there is a puzzle system. You have to guess or attempt to figure out where the guy's weaknesses and strengths are and then "push the buttons" to overcome them. How do you determine what the NPC's strengths and weaknesses are? That strikes me as the most important thing in this system. (Aside from pre-play character building.) Though on second thought the modifiers (+/- 2) might mean that sort of information gathering is rather pointless.

The skill challenge variant discussed upthread is designed to address nearly all of these issues. +/- 2 modifiers are replaced by +/- 15, +/- 10, and +/- 5 modifiers, and a substantial part of the challenge is figuring out the NPC's strengths and weaknesses, either through reasoning or through Insight/History/Streetwise/etc checks.

How do you determine what a successful action means? Especially if no one is going to describe what sort of interaction just took place.

At what point do you call for a roll? How do the players trigger one? How does the DM judge that a roll is called for? Especially if you don't want anyone to have to describe what actions they are taking.

Is there any way for the NPCs to "push back" against the PCs?

I view a successful role as the NPC accepting that the PC made a good point, but not being convinced yet. (I tend to nod and say something explicit like "That's a good point.")

I let the PCs talk (either role-playing what they say or just describing the type of argument they make) and call for a role when they are done. I give a small modifier (usually +/-2, occasionally higher) for good role-playing, but mostly I pay attention to whether they have used the evidence that is key in the conversation or played on a NPC weakness.

After everyone has a turn (either gathering info or making a persuasion role), I have the NPC push back against one specific PC, usually forcing a role on a topic the PCs would prefer to avoid.

Is there a way for the DM to judge what an appropriate modifier is? Actually, more to the point, is there a way for the players to judge what an appropriate modifier is? That way they will have some sort of way to judge which action is better than another (ie. meaningful choice).

The players know that a core point or major weakness is worth a +10 modifier, with a +5 modifier for a supporting point or minor weakness and a +15 or +20 for a killer point / auto-success. That usually means that it's always worth making an argument if you think you have a good point, but only the most persuasive characters should try prevaricating with nothing.

Still, it's a good point. I'm not sure the players get as much information as they should. Maybe a good roll for info gathering should tell you how good a point it is?

-KS

 

[IronWolf]

I readily admit I am one of the people relatively happy with the D&D skill system. I attribute a lot of that because I treat them as guidelines and do not feel tied to them to the degree it seems some do. So, keeping in mind my perspective...

Your system sounds very similar to things we already have as tools and easily fits within the framework of the existing skill system.

Browbeat = Intimidate
Deceive = Bluff
Reason = Diplomacy
Seduction = Diplomacy, Bluff, Charisma check?

So taking Inspector Javert from your example, as long as a GM I know a little bit about his motivations, probably just a line or to I can immediately adjust on the fly for any myriad of circumstances that could arise. All without needing to add more mechanics and categories to the mix.

Come at him with an emotional plea? Well my one-liner background mentions he is cool and calculating, so their would be a negative modifier to someone coming up to use something like seduction. But if someone comes up and tries to bluff via authority? That just might warrant a positive modifier.

The same seems to go for the further examples in the Added Complexity section. These are all things (racism, affinity to jewelry, etc, etc) that seem like they would be a small note for the character. These characteristics would affect modifiers similar to above - still within the current skill framework.

If you have a player that plays a charismatic character but is a bit of an introvert himself, then you can still drop hints for them to help see how to resolve the interaction. Still without needing to categorize all the actions.

So I guess I am not sure how one can't accomplish what you have described within the existing skill resolution framework?

 

[LostSoul]

Still, it's a good point. I'm not sure the players get as much information as they should. Maybe a good roll for info gathering should tell you how good a point it is?

I think there's a trap you could fall into here. Roll to gather information --> information tells you what to do --> you do it with a nice modifier. It looks like an optimal solution that doesn't leave much space for players to make decisions.

If you have the roll to gather information return 1) information in game-world terms and/or 2) information only about the specific request, I think that would work. 1) means the players have to make decisions about how to use the information they've gained; 2) means that they have to make decisions about what kind of information they want to go looking for.

I think the definitions you use for your modifiers are good, though. It seems you have made sure that the modifiers are clearly defined, transparent to the players, easy to understand, and applied consistently. The PCs might fear a powerful lord who has a reputation for being a hardass, but if they have a minor weakness or supporting point in their favour they can make an informed decision about whether or not it's a good idea to request a favour from him.

 

[KidSnide]

I think there's a trap you could fall into here. Roll to gather information --> information tells you what to do --> you do it with a nice modifier. It looks like an optimal solution that doesn't leave much space for players to make decisions.

If you have the roll to gather information return 1) information in game-world terms and/or 2) information only about the specific request, I think that would work. 1) means the players have to make decisions about how to use the information they've gained; 2) means that they have to make decisions about what kind of information they want to go looking for.

A good point. I've only run this from the DM side, so I don't think I have a real sense of how it is to play. All I can say is that it seems better than the skill challenge material I tried before this system. I think my players mostly think it's fair.

The only time I can think of when it didn't work right was when a player thought she was making a good point (rolled an 8 with a +10 diplomacy bonus, with a +10 "good point" modifier, she should have had a success), but it turned out that the person she was trying to persuade was operating under a mistaken impression that she didn't correct that nullified the point. The player doubted the system until I pointed out how it reflected the in-game situation of which she was unaware.

I think the definitions you use for your modifiers are good, though. It seems you have made sure that the modifiers are clearly defined, transparent to the players, easy to understand, and applied consistently. The PCs might fear a powerful lord who has a reputation for being a hardass, but if they have a minor weakness or supporting point in their favour they can make an informed decision about whether or not it's a good idea to request a favour from him.

It's also worth noting that I work under a system where obstacles have a level (to determine the magnitude of the challenge) and a difficulty (based on what you're trying to do). So, climbing basic stone wall (a level 6 wall) with a rope is an easy level 6 DC, while convincing the Grand Caliph (level 18) to go to war might be a hard level 18 DC.

That structure gives players a rough sense of what's possible (if they're familiar with the DC chart).

-KS

 

[delericho]

The same seems to go for the further examples in the Added Complexity section. These are all things (racism, affinity to jewelry, etc, etc) that seem like they would be a small note for the character. These characteristics would affect modifiers similar to above - still within the current skill framework.

So I guess I am not sure how one can't accomplish what you have described within the existing skill resolution framework?

There's nothing that can't be done using the current framework - all I'm using is standard skills and the "DM's helper" +/-2 modifiers.

However, this isn't being done in the current framework. By and large, the 'face' PC will be Trained in (or have max) ranks in all the skills, and adventures typically give a fixed DC for interations. So, no matter what they actually do, they're effectively making the same roll against the same DC.

This just suggests a quick and easy way to annotate the NPC stat block to add a bit more flavour - suddenly, what works well with one NPC doesn't work with another.

 

[delericho]

I think what you have there is a puzzle system. You have to guess or attempt to figure out where the guy's weaknesses and strengths are and then "push the buttons" to overcome them. How do you determine what the NPC's strengths and weaknesses are?

Ideally, for significant NPCs, the PCs will have the opportunity to find out about the character ahead of time. Which they can do via the normal means - by looking at what she says, what she does, and what other characters say about her.

Obviously, they won't be able to research every minor NPC in this way, and the players may not care to do this at all. In which case, when interacting with the NPC they'll have to take their best guess. I not sure that's a problem anyway - IRL, when I'm talking with someone new I kind of have to wing it!

How do you determine what a successful action means? Especially if no one is going to describe what sort of interaction just took place.

In truth, whether the interaction is described or not, having the system try to specify this is almost meaningless - it will inevitably be hugely specific to the circumstances. Broadly, though, if you browbeat, the NPC backs down. If you deceive, the NPC believes the lie. If you reason, the NPC accepts your argument. And if you seduce, you make a friend (at least temporarily). Beyond that... hard to say.

I would also refer to the PHB at this point - one of my purposes was to avoid adding lots of new complexity and new mechanics, so the effects of a successful roll would be essentially as described for the existing skills.

This also applies to the following:

At what point do you call for a roll? How do the players trigger one? How does the DM judge that a roll is called for?

The same as when you would call for Diplomacy/Intimidate rolls now - after the player declares his action.

Is there any way for the NPCs to "push back" against the PCs?

There's no such mechanism currently. As in the current system, there may be complications added in the form of opposed skill rolls, a Skill Challenge, or whatever.

Is there a way for the DM to judge what an appropriate modifier is?

For the four basic categories (Browbeat, Deceive, Reason, Seduce), I would recommend +2/-2, giving an NPC one positive and one negative response in most cases.

For each additional level of detail, increase the magnitude of the modifiers by a further 2 - the more the players know about the NPC, the better able they are to interact with her.

Actually, more to the point, is there a way for the players to judge what an appropriate modifier is?

The players generally shouldn't know the specific modifiers - the actual numbers really aren't necessary for making an interesting choice. However, by researching the NPC (if they care to do so, and have the opportunity to do so), they should be able to get a good idea of what she's like, and so be able to make that choice.

 

[KidSnide]

Is there a way for the DM to judge what an appropriate modifier is?

For the four basic categories (Browbeat, Deceive, Reason, Seduce), I would recommend +2/-2, giving an NPC one positive and one negative response in most cases.

For each additional level of detail, increase the magnitude of the modifiers by a further 2 - the more the players know about the NPC, the better able they are to interact with her.

In my experience, a +/-2 modifier is a good guideline when the character's ability is primarily what is at stake, but you want to give a little credit to cleverness or situation. But they just aren't big enough if you want the encounter to focus on the details of this particular NPC or what you're trying to convince that NPC to do.

The good thing about +5, +10 and +15 modifiers is that (1) the modifiers are small enough that playing a character who is good at diplomacy (or another appropriate skill) is a major advance in convincing an NPC and (2) the modifiers are large enough that any player with a good idea and a character with marginal diplomatic ability should go ahead and try the idea. If you've hit on a +10 or +15, using that modifier makes your action a good idea.

I find it very frustrating to be playing a pretty good diplomat (say +11, when your diplo-specialist is at +15), and yet -- mechanics-wise -- it always makes sense to keep your mouth shut and let your partymate speak, regardless of how good your argument is. Whatever the social mechanics are, it should not be optimal for one person to consistently do all the talking.

-KS

 

[BriarMonkey]

For what it's worth, I tend to take a different tack.

I use opposed Diplomacy rolls. If the party is trying to get a beneficial stance from an NPC, I let the PCs make their roll, modified by the current situation. Then I roll the NPC's Diplomacy, modified by what is at stake; the reputation of the PCs; and any other appropriate situational modifiers.

Based on the difference in opposed rolls, I then determine who won or who didn't.

If the difference is minor, then "negotiations" may keep on going - but if they are significant, "negotiations" may end at that point.

It's pretty simple and works well for me.

 

[S'mon]

I've always used "say, then roll" - player talks, GM then decides if a skill roll is called for, and what the DC is, with reference to what the player said, but without reference to the PC's skill mods. This way the PC's skills are a support for the player, but rolls may not always be necessary, or may not work (like the Intimidate auto-fail in the DMG skill challenge).

I think a "+2 good roleplay mod" is far too low. When I'm setting a DC for eg an Intimidate roll I will use at least a 10-point spread, eg when getting NPCs to surrender a typical spread would be from target Will+10 (the DMG default) to Will+0 (PC has put NPC in a bad situation and is making a plausible threat).

Edit: I don't use social skills vs the PCs. This was explicit in 3e but seems to have been dropped in 4e. I talk in-character, using the NPC's skills as a guide to how convincing I am, and the players decide how to react, whether to make an Insight check, etc.

 

[pemerton]

I find it very frustrating to be playing a pretty good diplomat (say +11, when your diplo-specialist is at +15), and yet -- mechanics-wise -- it always makes sense to keep your mouth shut and let your partymate speak, regardless of how good your argument is. Whatever the social mechanics are, it should not be optimal for one person to consistently do all the talking.

As a 4e GM, I don't use big modifiers like the ones you described to deal with this situation. Instead, I use the pressures of the fictional situation to give the +11 player a reason to act.

So for example, I might have the NPC address the +11 PC. If the player ignores this and just let's the diplo-specialist speak, this puts the +11 PC in a potentially undesirable social situation - of being an ineffective cypher.

Or I might have the situation generate stakes in which the +11 PC and the +15 diplo-specialist have different interests, so that the player of the +11 PC has a reason to try and get involved and push things in one direction rather than another. (In my experience, the different interests don't need to be big, PvP issues - it can be as minor as one character wanting to tone down the religious slant to the paladin's diatribe, for example.)

I should add, all of the above presupposes a skill challenge in which more than one roll is required, and in which the outcome of each roll makes a difference to the way that situation unfolds on its way to ultimate resolution of some form or other.

I'm not saying at all that this is superior to your hefty modifier approach. It's just the way I've used the 4e mechanics as they are written to handle the issue that you raise.