D&D 5E Would you like to see a complex social interaction module early in 5E?

[Minigiant]

I know some groups just do a simple roll to see the effect or change of a situation based on the social interaction. Other groups don't even roll and roleplay all of the conversation and body movement.

But I wonder how many would be interested in a more complex social interaction game as a module in the first group of books of D&D next. Something more than one or two players rolls once or twice to see if they get a favorable or unfavorable result from the DM.

One thing that sort of bugged me was although you can easily go long periods of the session in the third pillar, you can easily feel like you are doing the interaction and not the character you are playing. Of course, I can put my characters motivations, prejudices, and personalty into the talking, but it is easy to feel disconnected from the character or have this aspect be disconnected from the rest of the game. It is easier to yell at your character for failing because of his bad accuracy or chattering armor than his stubbornness unless you actively enforce it unlike the other pillars.

Also the sense of drama can be lost as there are fewer factors to worry about. With combat and exploration, there also the sense of danger, the progression of the scene's numbers, and higher amount of involvement.

So would you like to see a more robust social interaction system at the start? How would you prefer to see it? Like complex skill rolls or skill challenges with just a lot of rolls against DCs? Or something closer to Skill combat with Social HPs and different social attacks? Or a more resource trading system where characters spend resources to raise their chances at the roll?

 

[jadrax]

I would not use such a thing.

I have no problem with other groups who want such a thing. If there is enough demand for it, they should get it, but personally I don't care.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well the problem with the interaction phase is always that it is the most human-based of the three pillars, in the sense that it's all about the characters not the environment, and about verbal/social interaction not physical interaction. Thus for many people it doesn't even need basic rules, let alone a whole module... Even if they do that, it's a big question how to make it actually useful and not adding more restrictions to your freedom of play instead.

 

[Gold Roger]

Yeah, put me in the camp that doesn't care for it.

I prefer my social interaction to be the most free weeling part of D&D with as little rolls as possible. I'm even thinking about turning diplomacy into more of a knowledge skill than an interaction skill. So you roll for the proper court behavior, how to adress the high priest and to gauge the current disposition of others to you and each other.

Social interaction for me is a place for players to excert narrative control and shoot out crazy ideas to characterise their PC, so what I want to see are more abilities that are like some of the background traits: If you want this to happen, it happens. I'm not holding my breath for it, but it's easy to do without rules support.

So I'm obviously not very inclined to see a module that goes directly opposite to that. I'm not against doing such a module, but unless I see massive demand for it, I don't think it's important enough to include early in DDNs livecircle, because other modules take priority in my mind.

 

[Dragoslav]

4e had utility powers that were geared more towards the social interaction pillar than combat: For example, "once per encounter, when you roll a diplomacy check, roll twice and take the higher result" or "once per encounter, roll arcana when you would roll diplomacy."

I think this was a great idea, but in practice -- in my experience, at least -- no one ever takes these powers, because you're sacrificing potential combat improvement for a relatively minor boost to your social effectiveness, which in itself doesn't come up as often as having to be effective in combat or exploration.

I think it would have been a good idea to give characters "social feats," maybe fewer of them (like, once every five levels) so they don't have to decide between combat effectiveness and social effectiveness.

EDIT: As for a "more complex social system," I don't really know what that would entail. Could someone elaborate on what that could be?

 

[SkidAce]

There's no option for chocolate pudding!

(I kid..I kid)

I chose "Yes, but for other people" because I don't think we want anything more than reaction checks, diplomacy, bluff, simple stuff that are "indicators" of the way the interaction should go.

Not a complex system with rules and/or feats etc...this could actually in some cases stifle or limit the directions that the interaction could go in.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

For me, the key here is "early in D&D Next". I'm not at all opposed to the idea, and might be interested in using such a system, but I think it's an excellent example of something that should be an add-on module for the base game.

The idea of heavy mechanics for social interaction is going to be pretty divisive -- some will insist that it's a terrible idea, some will really like it -- and it's clearly not something that's necessary for the basic orcs and pies version of the game.

Still, I'm not saying I wouldn't read/buy/want that sort of system to have in my arsenal for times when it's the sort of game I'd like to run. I'd love to see it, but let's get the core stuff out first.

-rg

 

[Minigiant]

Well the problem with the interaction phase is always that it is the most human-based of the three pillars, in the sense that it's all about the characters not the environment, and about verbal/social interaction not physical interaction. Thus for many people it doesn't even need basic rules, let alone a whole module... Even if they do that, it's a big question how to make it actually useful and not adding more restrictions to your freedom of play instead.

This is an issue. It affected my view on what kind of system could be used for complex social interaction. The system should be placed at the end of interaction and not mixed in in between the interaction.

This was the issue with skill challenges. Although it was interesting and made the character's skill more than the player. But it pulled the group out narratively and the simulation because of the RP-Roll-RP-Roll system that forced a necessary amount of roleplayed actions while forming roleplaying the social interaction.

Instead it should use the same order of Base D&D, where you RP, roll, and the DM describes the result. The only difference is that there are multiple rolls at the end that determine the result rather than one.


In my system, you roleplay the interaction right up to where the result is. Then each side is given social hit points equal to the sum of the highest Int, Wis, and Cha. Then each picks a social attack based on what they roleplayed earlier. Then each character takes turns making social attacks or casting social spells against social defenses. A hit deals 1d6 social damage. A side that goes down to 0 SHP has an unfavorable result of the interaction.

EX: Paladin, rogue and wizard attempt to get a deal on a ferry ride from a ship captain and his first mate. The heroes gain SHP from the paladin's Cha and Wis and the wizard's Int for 9 SHP. The sailor have only 4 SHP. The brawny rogue roleplay using his bulk and threatening gestures to intimidate the sailors. The wizard and paladin both try charismatic friendliness. So the sailors both try to stay firm with nice parleying. The DM and Players roleplay up to the captain's decision.

So the rogue uses Intimidate vs Will and the others use Diplomacy vs Diplomacy. They roll in Int order to see who widdles down the others conviction. Because the heroes outnumber the sailors and the paladin was built for Social, the heroes drop the sailors and the sailors give them a 50% discount.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I want it early, while the playtest is still going on (though that could very well be early in the design, late in the playtest). If done well, I would readily use it. I want it early for several reason:

• Such a system is obviously modular, but is required to tie into the rest of the system cleanly. This implies the correct selection of hooks into the core to so tie it.
• It is not an all or nothing proposition. Those hooks might support a handful of modules, include a "default module" that works very simply the way D&D has in the past. (Technically, "just roleplay it" and "roll an ability check which DM adjudicates" are two separate but mechancially simple modules.)
• You need to be able to turn it on or off, and/or of swap out with a simpler module. We do not want unneeded hooks that seemed necessarly but don't end up doing anything. They complicate the design for those that like the more complex modules, and irritate everyone that uses the core. The only way to avoid this is to test a complex module while still in development.
• Such a complex system, being new to D&D, but not other games, is definitely something that needs some playtesting. (Skill challenges barely scrape the surface.)

I'd start with the Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard "Dual of Wits", drop the scripting, and drop the emphasis that the BW family of games puts on "fight for what you believe in" for something more D&D-centered. Probably the first cut would be some strange mix, mechanically, of "Dual of Wits", D&D combat, and early D&D psionic rules. Then after that got beat half to death in testing and refined, a better idea would emerge.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This was the issue with skill challenges. Although it was interesting and made the character's skill more than the player. But it pulled the group out narratively and the simulation because of the RP-Roll-RP-Roll system that forced a necessary amount of roleplayed actions while forming roleplaying the social interaction.

Instead it should use the same order of Base D&D, where you RP, roll, and the DM describes the result. The only difference is that there are multiple rolls at the end that determine the result rather than one.

I would never use this system. If I'm using "fortune at the end", the closest I'd come to something like this is a die pool, rolled all at once. "Fortune at the beginning", then narrate is something I'd use before that. But mainly, where you see "fortune in the middle" as pulling one out of the game, I see a complex system that doesn't drive narration with "fortune in the middle" as needless complexity. If it has no decision points while it happens, and those decision points don't matter a lot, why bother?