D&D 5E Social Challenges & Political Conflicts

[Ralif Redhammer]

The Dresden Files RPG actually has a great social conflict system, complete with “Social Hit Points.”

In my current campaign, I tried to bring social elements into it. I treated them like skill challenges, with a hearty bit of role-playing thrown in. I used the Renown mechanic for the stakes, so that you could lose or gain Renown depending on the results.

Unfortunately, more often than not, my group seems to just try to solve these challenges with brute force instead.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was thinking of something along these lines the other day, while trying to go to sleep. More or less, I realized something: Conflict, in D&D, is inherently characterized in terms of physical stats. What if we turned that around? What if the physical stats only had ancillary or special-case application to conflict, while Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom provided the central heft?

From there, I began to wonder. What stat would make most sense as a mental equivalent of HP? I often hear Wisdom described as such, but to be honest I feel like Charisma is the better choice. It represents force of personality; a low-Cha character is better-represented as meek, or possibly solitary, someone who is easily swayed to the ideas of others. Then, to avoid the "god stat" problem that (IMO) is so well-known in regular D&D, pick one of the other stats to be your mental equivalent of AC, and the last stat is your mental "initiative." Again, personally, I feel Wisdom is the better choice for the "mental AC" (you easily catch flawed arguments, and know many "practical-thinking" techniques), and Intelligence is perfect for "mental initiative" (it's specifically about how quickly you process information and how well you retain it afterward).

To distinguish mental conflict from physical, we could call the mental equivalent of HP "resilience points," RP (yes, the pun is intended; if you don't like it, you can use "determination points," DP, instead). I like calling the mental equivalent of initiative "acumen," though other names might be better. And mental AC could be, say, "wit class/WC" (not so fond of that one, would welcome suggestions).

Then, each class could have some particular thing that it's good at; you could perhaps even make a whole mechanical angle, an "argument class" or whatever (trying to avoid the...well, rather political-sounding "social class" ) that would provide your mechanics for such "mental" conflicts. Some could be deep and incisive question-askers like Socrates (effectively "damage-dealers"--they don't hold a position themselves, and thus may be easily forced away, but they can really HURT another perosn's position), some could be highly difficult to convince, etc. Although my thinking is heavily influenced by roles (because I find that kind of design elegant), you could totally do other stuff with it too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was thinking of something along these lines the other day, while trying to go to sleep. More or less, I realized something: Conflict, in D&D, is inherently characterized in terms of physical stats. What if we turned that around? What if the physical stats only had ancillary or special-case application to conflict, while Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom provided the central heft?

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

From there, I began to wonder. What stat would make most sense as a mental equivalent of HP?

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

pick one of the other stats to be your mental equivalent of AC, and the last stat is your mental "initiative."

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

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

To distinguish mental conflict from physical, we could call the mental equivalent of HP "resilience points," RP (yes, the pun is intended).

Sometimes the use of a pun is justified.

I like calling the mental equivalent of initiative "acumen," though other names might be better. And mental AC could be, say, "wit class/WC" (not so fond of that one, would welcome suggestions).

Then, each class could have some particular thing that it's good at; you could perhaps even make a whole mechanical angle...

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Courtney Campbell wrote a very interesting system for social interactions in On the Non-Player Character. (Review) (Preview) The PDF is a bit pricey, but there's a 5e reference sheet available here that gives you the general idea.

Sweet. The reference sheet looks promising. I have a few quibbles (Seduction doesn't look right to me) but they'll be easily rectified. Just bought a copy, will report back to this thread when I've read and digested it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Okay, here's my thoughts on Courtney Campbell's product:

1.) It is excellent and inspiring. I will certainly use it in my games, though naturally I will tweak it. It is exactly what I want to make 5E more than just a combat simulator--it provides a framework which empowers players to act along multiple dimensions without requiring personal social skill at the activities being described. I had forgotten until now how much I missed AD&D Reaction Rolls.

2.) I especially loved the "What are they doing right now?" tables for monsters. I've struggled to come up with good openings, especially for random encounters. "The hobgoblins are scattered around the cave, sharpening their weapons. One of them looks up at you. How do you approach them? (Hostile/neutral/friendly stance?)"

3.) I don't love the 5E cheat sheet. I think I will leave the results on 2d6, if I can work out a way to integrate Charisma/etc. checks. The reason: the results of social interactions are often phrased in terms of their effects on future interactions within the same encounter, but a d20 is so flat relative to 2d6 that you don't get a proper bell curve effect, and so the results don't compound properly--on a bell curve, the value of +2 is relatively consistent no matter where you are on the curve, so the effect of something like "you offered me food" is relatively smooth and comprehensible and combines multiplicatively with other effects like "you also chatted with me for a while and now I'm in a good mood." On a d20, on the other hand, the variance is too high and the optimal strategy might be "cut to the chase and make multiple Demands before your luck runs out." I will consider using the 5E cheat sheet modifiers, but rolling the Charisma checks on 2d10 or 3d6 instead of 1d20, in order to provide a proper bell curve.

4.) The product is excellent for social combat, and has some good terminology (monsters vs. NPCs vs. agents) that I can steal for larger plots, and also some good advice RE: arguments and gating. But I'll have to do some more work separately if I want to model political struggles like the ones going on in my game right now, and I'll probably wind up doing some kind of Status Points-based thing instead. This is a product for small-scale encounters, it's not designed for large-scale or long-term effects.

5.) Did I mention how much I love this product? It makes me realize anew how shallow 5E's social pillar is, while also reminding me of ways to fix that. I look forward to using it at the table, even though making Charisma useful in social interactions as well as combat will make bardlocks even more overpowered than they already are.

 

[nomotog]

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.

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 hate you now too.

Unexpected allies: If your in a scene, where you have no friends, you can pick one other person who is also friendless. Your friends now you each take a string on each other.

Duel: You can challenge someone to a duel of honor. If they decline, then they aren't viewed as honorable by anyone who knows about it. If you fight and win, you get a string on them. If you lose the duel, then they get a string on you.

Spy net: You can pull a string you have on someone in order learn all they know about a subject.

Patsy: When you have a string on someone, you can pull that string in order to get them to admit to a crime. Doing this brakes the string.

Spell share: When you have a strong on another wizard, the you can cast spells from their spell book.

Thumb wiggling: When someone has a string on you, you gain an advantage on stealth and deception skill checks when used on them.

Animal empathy: You can gain strings on animals.

Posy: You can pull a string in order to gain a copy of string they have on someone else.

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

That is what I have for now anyway. I am still brainstorming it though. It's kind of easy to think of actions and abilities that would give strings, but hard to think of benefits from strings. I think the system needs a generalized benefit.

I am trying to think what the different classes can do. Like levrage is a rouges ability. Duel is a warrior or paladin like ability.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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." All of this is completely fine for a game in which building a treehouse is worth only sixty seconds of player attention before you go on with the important work of killing monsters and taking their loot, and arguably that's all D&D ever was or ever was designed for. 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.

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. 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.

 

[Ristamar]

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." All of this is completely fine for a game in which building a treehouse is worth only sixty seconds of player attention before you go on with the important work of killing monsters and taking their loot, and arguably that's all D&D ever was or ever was designed for. 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.

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. 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.

I assumed the Arms & Armor passage under the Selling Treasure section of the PHB involved selling obviously used/secondhand (albeit undamaged) goods. Selling newly crafted arms and armor designed to the tastes and needs of the local clientele would fetch normal prices, IMO, unless the smith is forced (by law or otherwise) to deal his wares through a merchant guild or some other consortium.

Aside from some basic guidelines, I'm glad there are not established rules for economic, political, and social conflict and interactions. They're left to the DM to either ignore, hand wave, or engage to his table's preference. Many years ago I would have agreed with you, but after years of 3.x, I realized that level of granularity made the game a chore. The core D&D rules were never meant to be a pseudo medieval Western European simulation engine.

 

[discosoc]

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."

 

[iserith]

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."

In a game where the DM judges your stated goal and approach to be a success, failure, or to have an uncertain outcome (and only then do you roll), asking to roll isn't the best choice no matter if you're speaking in-character or not.