On Behavioral Realism

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that 5e D&D (i) doesn't have a clear system for extended PC vs PC social contest, and (ii) is ambigous over whether the outcome of a successful skill check is you did that well or you got what you wanted (roughtly task vs conflict resolution, without wanting to hang too much on tha parituclar terminology), and (iii) doesn't have a system for incorporating emotional/relationship components into a check.

I'm sure these things could be sorted out at a particular table, but I don't think they're there in the basic presentation of the rules. I think that makes it harder to get things going, or make some things obvious.

To elaborate on those thoughts a bit more: in D&D, if - during the course of the PC vs PC rivalry - one of the PCs suddenly escalates to violence, the whole arena of conflict is changed and there's no straightforward way to have the social conflict feed through into the new situation. Eg there's no obvious mechanic for the other PC to cow/shame the escalating PC into stepping down. I would generalise this point by saying - outside of some magical effects, and 4e skill challenges - D&D doesn't make it easy to establish finality in a scene simply via social interaction.

I also think that Prince Valiant "has everything named and described in a way that promotes a certain type of play" but I don't think that that is a separate thing bur rather is related to the features I've been describing above in this post.

All of this is before we get to the default XP-and-gp reward framework of D&D. Because, by default, social interactions tend not to yield either of these that also tends to make the seem secondary in play. 4e again is an exception, and you could easily drift 5e away from the default (though I don't think "milestone levelling" would necessarily help in this respect), but it is another feature of the game that differs from those systems that (as I've experienced them) tend to give the OP more fo what he's looking for out of the box.,

To finish, none of this is meant as a critique of D&D. It's meant as an attempt to reflect on how one might want to tweak/drift to get what one wants. If you - @doctorbadwolf - already have it then my thoughts are unncessary. But @Reynard did seem to be looking for some thoughts. (I hesitate to call it advice because I don't know 5e well enough. Maybe goal-oriented musings?)

I think perhaps my 4e experience makes the Tools 5e very quietly has more obvious to me than to many others.

So, one way to resolve shaming a rival into stepping down because their escalation is unbecoming, is simply to use skill checks in combat. It’s generally an action, but I’d allow it as part of taking the Dodge Action, if you wanted to take a defensive stance while shaming the offender into putting his damned sword away and acting like a knight.

Intimidation seems like a good fit, but I’d also allow persuasion or even Insight paired with Charisma.

As for letting relationship impact checks, there are many ways in the 5e rules to do that, they just aren’t explicitly called out (I really want a D&D setting book that is focused on romantic fantasy, that would have stuff like relationships, group morale, etc, with a more detailed and up front presentation).

*Advantage and Disadvantage obviously is the simplest way to model the impact of a relationship on a roll.

*Morale can be renamed to Fellowship, or Hope, or any number of other things, from the DMG

*Loyalty from the DMG or the crew quality score from Ghosts can represent a relationship score

A homebrew idea for such a thing, to add an emphasis on such things.

Create an additional ability score that is not generated at CharGen, but instead varies with contacts. Call it your Fellowship Score. You can have anywhere from a -3 to a +3 in Fellowship, and you have a score for each Relationship. You also have a Faith Score, which is the same thing, but for Factions.

When a check is related to a Relationship or a Faction (maybe call them a Loyalty?), you use your Fellowship or Faith score instead of another Ability Score and add a relevant proficiency mod.

as for rewards, I find it pretty easy to just...not use the standard reward structure.

 

[pemerton]

@doctorbadwolf - I think @Reynard should look closely at your post to see what ideas he could take from it!

 

[Ovinomancer]

/snip



"Metagame" has several definitions, the one usually referred to when talking about ttrpgs is not the one you are using. The one most commonly referred to when talking about other tt games is not really what you are referring to either, as it usually refers to things that actually don't relate to the game being played directly. In social deduction games for instance, like The Resistance, trying to determine who the spy's are isn't considered "the metagame", it's the game. Whereas "metagame" refers to when one considers how they acted in past games, or outside of the game entirely. Like in Poker where the "metagame" is when you take in things you know about the player based on things outside of the game/hand being played. Or in a game with alliances like Cosmic Encounter it's the metagame when you choose to trust someone based on how they acted in past games.

You can say that all those things are the metagame, even though that's not how it's usually used, and basically say that many games are 90% metagame, but I don't think it's helpful.

Yes, I'm aware that there's a specific, narrow use of metagame in RPGs, however it's still a subset of the general use of metagame, which is the game about the game. The usual RPG usage is specifically using knowledge from outside the game's reference to play the game, or, playing a game outside the game by using that knowledge to excel at the base game. I generally use the broad definition because it does encompass the narrower ones, but recognize that others might only be using the narrow definition in a given argument. I apologize if I wasn't clear I was using the general definition of metagame.

I agree that The Resistance has, as part of the game, discerning motives from other players. It operationalizes this in the rules, though, but providing rules that allow one to determine that information. Poker does not. Cosmic Encounters, as you note, does not provide any rules for trust. Those are, indeed, the metagames of those games -- the game that exists about the game.

Well, we aren't disagreeing by much here. What I was saying is that it doesn't neccesarily lead to it. I would almost agree with you on "usually", not long ago I definitely would have.

I thought as much, and am happy to have reached at least a cool agreement.

 

[Reynard]

@doctorbadwolf - I think @Reynard should look closely at your post to see what ideas he could take from it!

While that looks like an interesting system to articulate relationships, it is well beyond the scope of my initial request. My goal wasn't to codify role playing or to createa social conflict resolution system, but rather just inject a little bit of behavioral realism between dungeon delves.

 

[Fenris-77]

My goal wasn't to codify role playing or to createa social conflict resolution system, but rather just inject a little bit of behavioral realism between dungeon delves.

I feel like this is something players either do or don't do left to their own devices. If your players aren't doing it, the easiest way to try and course correct is probably to provide consequences for their choices. If they want to sleep rough and look like vagabonds, then have people treat them like vagabonds (for example). They'll probably get the message.

 

[chaochou]

My goal wasn't to codify role playing or to create a social conflict resolution system, but rather just inject a little bit of behavioral realism between dungeon delves.

So in a world of implausibly controllable magic, impossible monsters and improbable locales, whose conception of 'realism' are you proposing to use?

 

[Reynard]

So in a world of implausibly controllable magic, impossible monsters and improbable locales, whose conception of 'realism' are you proposing to use?

I think we've covered this but in short: people are complex and I like it when the PCs show a little bit of that complexity.

 

[chaochou]

I think we've covered this but in short: people are complex and I like it when the PCs show a little bit of that complexity.

So you want the players to change the portrayal of their characters to something which you like better, according to your conception of 'realism'.

 

[Reynard]

So you want the players to change the portrayal of their characters to something which you like better, according to your conception of 'realism'.

You have either skipped most of the thread, in which we discuss this is much more detail -- in that case I invite you to go back and review that discussion -- or you have read the thread and are being disingenuous in your question. In the latter case I'm not really interested in playing the game where you to get me to admit I have preferences. Of course I do.

 

[Maxperson]

So in a world of implausibly controllable magic, impossible monsters and improbable locales, whose conception of 'realism' are you proposing to use?

This fallacy again? Realism doesn't go away just because you introduce fantasy elements into it. A human in a mundane world and a human wizard in a fantasy world are still.................human, and will act.............human.

When you introduce a fantasy element, you are explicitly stretching or diminishing realism for that one element, not for everything.