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

[Steely_Dan]

*snip*

 

[ComradeGnull]

I think the problem here is the poll decided to exclude the middle option of 'I don't want it, but I don't mind it being in for others'.

If you don't actually want the rules, your only real legitimate way of expressing it in this poll is voting No, or taking the lemon curry option and posting about it here.

The 'early in Next' is a tricky for me as well. I don't mind other people having it, but I certainly don't want WoTC prioritizing it above other modules that do interest me. That's partially just selfishness, and partially because my (obviously ad hoc and subjective) impression is that there are a number of other areas (tactical combat, 'gritty' play, alternative magic and healing, 4e and OSR emulation, etc.) that are of more interest that the wider community is more interested in- e.g., I don't particularly care about providing something that works like the 4e AEDU system, but I think there is a substantial body of people that do, and I'd like to see them get their fix before moving into areas that the game has not really focused on before.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think the problem here is the poll decided to exclude the middle option of 'I don't want it, but I don't mind it being in for others'.

If you don't actually want the rules, your only real legitimate way of expressing it in this poll is voting No, or taking the lemon curry option and posting about it here.

I thought that the "Yes but for other people" option is essentially the same as your "I don't want it, but I don't mind it being in for others" option. That is, you want it in the game for other people, but not for your own use. Just my take, though. As always, play what you like

Raping, is never good.

I have no idea what you mean here. Can you please be more clear on what you're trying to say?

 

[Steely_Dan]

I have no idea what you mean here. Can you please be more clear on what you're trying to say?

Sorry, I've been drinking, this was intended for a Forgotten Realms thread.

 

[Minigiant]

The 'early in Next' is a tricky for me as well. I don't mind other people having it, but I certainly don't want WoTC prioritizing it above other modules that do interest me. That's partially just selfishness, and partially because my (obviously ad hoc and subjective) impression is that there are a number of other areas (tactical combat, 'gritty' play, alternative magic and healing, 4e and OSR emulation, etc.) that are of more interest that the wider community is more interested in- e.g., I don't particularly care about providing something that works like the 4e AEDU system, but I think there is a substantial body of people that do, and I'd like to see them get their fix before moving into areas that the game has not really focused on before.

But does it make sense to release the game and have little to no social modules with it? Especially if you are claiming to build the game around all 3 pillars?

 

[Holy Bovine]

The "No" vote, being listed after "Yes, but for other people" should be read as "No, screw everyone else, I'm the only one that matters"

And I'm not surprised that it's currently 3-1 over the "Yes but" option...

And no, I likely wouldn't use such a rule, but I'm not bitter enough to begrudge those that would.

How about we not ascribe motives to others that are unjustified? Naw that ain't D&D!

 

[Sadrik]

For me this is a simple thing. I don't want to see a complex system on anything. That said I want a robust basic task resolution system that can be applied to many situations including social interaction. The idea of multiple successes in a task is very simple and can be applied to many situations. A very complex locking mechanism may require multiple successes. Convincing a king to loan you troops, may require multiple successes. Simple and requires no more than the addition of allowing multiple successes.

 

[ComradeGnull]

But does it make sense to release the game and have little to no social modules with it? Especially if you are claiming to build the game around all 3 pillars?

I think if there were no advanced social module, 5e would launch with a social interaction system that was already as good or better than the ones that we had in previous versions of D&D. My priority, personally, is to have something that can provide what was already good about past editions of D&D and then build out from there.

D&D, frankly, has never been real big on modeling interactions through rules. Early editions only had the Bard's 'adjust reaction' ability, paired with player skill and maybe some Cha checks. Later editions added explicit social skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Personally, player skill + skill checks is sufficient for my needs and I don't see that as being a weak or non-existent option.

I'm also not certain what a more complex resolution system that was based on PC skill rather than player skill would look like, precisely. I've seen some examples of Burning Wheel (I think) type systems where each NPC/PC has social traits that have ratings that work like detailed social skills. Is that the sort of thing we're talking about, or something like the 2e psionics system where social interactions are like a specialized form of combat?

 

[pemerton]

I get that different people play the game for different reasons, but if you replace social interaction with die rolls, what kind of game are you playing?

this is just another thing to turn a ROLE-playing game into a ROLL-playing game. The role-playing is what makes these games. I can't imagine most people would want to simply roll some dice instead of actually role-playing out an encounter.

I'm wondering if either of you has much familiarity with complex social interaction mechanics?

The well-designed ones work so that it is impossible to resolve an action without knowing what is happening in the fiction. Just as, in D&D, it is impossible to resolve an attack in melee combat without knowing (at least roughly) where the attacker is and where his/her target is.

The point of the dice rolls isn't to replace the roleplaying. It's to set up a structure whereby the consequences of choices are adjudicated independently of the immediate desires of either players or GM. Much like the dice rolls in combat.

I want a mechanical system that only works when you're RPing.

This is key (although perhaps we have slightly different conceptions of RPing). What I have in mind is - the system should work only when the player explains what his/her PC is doing in the fiction (eg what sort of thing s/he is saying to the NPC, with what goal in mind). Whether this is in 1st person or 3rd, and whether it is florid or prosaic, I personally care less about - 1st person and florid can be fun, but some of my best social encounter experiences have had plenty of prosaic 3rd person in there also.

If your game consists of "I stand before the assembled armies and give an inspiring speech. I rolled a 14, plus 7 is 21! My DC was only 18." you may still be playing a role-playing game, but you're not actualy role-playing.

That's not complex social interaction mechanics. That's the rather poor 3E Diplomacy skill mechanics.

The analogue of this for combat would be "I engage the orcs and fight well. My attack roll is 14, +7 BAB, for a a total of 21!" I've never encountered anyone who would call that a complex combat mechanic. In fact, that would be a good combat mechanic only for a game in which combat didn't matter, and the point of the combat mechanics was to quickly pass over the fighting to get onto the good stuff. Likewise the 3E Diplomacy mechanics are only good for a game in which social doesn't matter, and the idea is to pass over social encounters to get onto the good stuff.

it basically removes the power from the DM. With stuff like this, the DM turns more into a rules referee than the Game Master. I would much rather role-play out the encounter and have the DM tell me what happens than to roll some dice and have the DM look at a chart and tell me "Ok, you succeeded."

GM fiat is one way to go. I don't want it for social for the same reason I don't want it for combat - namely, I want the players to have a degree of agency, and I want the GM to be able to run his/her encounters hard without a conflict of interest between pushing hard and choosing what the resolution is.

 

[pemerton]

I don't particularly care about providing something that works like the 4e AEDU system, but I think there is a substantial body of people that do, and I'd like to see them get their fix before moving into areas that the game has not really focused on before.

I think if there were no advanced social module, 5e would launch with a social interaction system that was already as good or better than the ones that we had in previous versions of D&D.

<snip>

D&D, frankly, has never been real big on modeling interactions through rules.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with 4e, but it has a complex social interaction mechanic - namely, the skill challenge. The advice on how to use the mechanic is a bit wanting, but the mechanic itself is reasonably robust (which is not to object to [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and others who want something richer and more overtly multi-dimensional).

If 5e doesn't have something at least as robust as skill challenges, then it is going backwards. And at present there is nothing worthwhile in the playtest. So, for example, even if I wanted to do something interesting with the medusa, there are no mechanics to support that.

But does it make sense to release the game and have little to no social modules with it? Especially if you are claiming to build the game around all 3 pillars?

I've been wondering this for a whilen now.