D&D General On Social Mechanics of Various Sorts

[Professor Murder]

The challenge for me is when to just go with the stats. I have had plenty of players who are quite comfortable speaking in character and can be convincing as a player but their character's dump stat is charisma. I have also had players who are keen to play say a Bard or Sorcerer but find speaking up intimidating. In a tabletop rpg, all physical actions are abstract rolls of the dice, based typically on character stats. It doesnt matter how good the player is swinging a sword. But social ability that a player does or does not have weighs heavily on a social game. So you have to be mindful. Don't reward players with an an unearned character ability just because the player themselves has it. Same issue with smart players who play dumb characters yet figure everything out.

 

[iserith]

The game's rules will tell the DM when to call for a roll. In D&D 5e, for example, that's the same for a physical action or a social one: When the outcome is uncertain and when there's also a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those criteria are not present, then there's no roll. The DM just narrates the outcome.

 

[payn]

I want to clarify that I am talking about more than just "persuasion checks" here: faction rules, romance mechanics, honor and reputation, "social combat" and so on. The social pillar of the game is actually pretty broad, but I feel like mechanics to support it are often underutilized.

I think its important that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I was in a game once that had romance rules and basically they were driven by the Charisma stat. Most players had dumped Cha so they didnt stand a chance against the bard or sorc. If characters are intended to work against one another, mechanically there needs to be versatility or these mechanics systems become one dimensional. Then you end up with the "only X PC talks to NPCs" dynamic.

 

[ART!]

Heh, at this point, I am just grateful to even have a section of the character sheet with "Bonds".

For Bonds, I feel it is important to distinguish between persons, places, and things. It might be, the place like childhood home relates to persons, like parents. A thing might be a sentimental heirloom. But the relationship to each is different.



Thinking out loud, it is probably ok to gain ones proficiency bonus for any skill checks relating to a Bond. Skills that relate to or test ones bonded relationship are heightened.

There could be other kinds of doable mechanics too.

I've probably mentioned it on the forums before, but the next time I run a D&D game, I've got a mind to assign dice to each Personality Trait, like the Proficiency Die variant rule. The dice might vary in size, with a d4, d6, and d8 to assign...although d8 is a lot so maybe just a couple d4s and one or two d6s. Roll the die when the action being taken relates strongly to that personality trait. Obviously, that's a system that might quickly get abused.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The challenge for me is when to just go with the stats. I have had plenty of players who are quite comfortable speaking in character and can be convincing as a player but their character's dump stat is charisma. I have also had players who are keen to play say a Bard or Sorcerer but find speaking up intimidating. In a tabletop rpg, all physical actions are abstract rolls of the dice, based typically on character stats. It doesnt matter how good the player is swinging a sword. But social ability that a player does or does not have weighs heavily on a social game. So you have to be mindful. Don't reward players with an an unearned character ability just because the player themselves has it. Same issue with smart players who play dumb characters yet figure everything out.

What I tell my players is that they choose what their character says, but if a check is called for the dice influence how they expressed themselves. A person can make the same request any number of ways. Rudely, passive-aggressively, politely, etc.

 

[Reynard]

The game's rules will tell the DM when to call for a roll. In D&D 5e, for example, that's the same for a physical action or a social one: When the outcome is uncertain and when there's also a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those criteria are not present, then there's no roll. The DM just narrates the outcome.

Sure, but the social pillar hardly has the same granularity of specific rules as combat, or even exploration. There is a lot more weight on the GM to make rulings unsupported by the system in most versions of D&D, 5E especially.

 

[iserith]

Sure, but the social pillar hardly has the same granularity of specific rules as combat, or even exploration. There is a lot more weight on the GM to make rulings unsupported by the system in most versions of D&D, 5E especially.

The social interaction rules in the DMG are pretty specific, but nobody ever seems to know about or use those...

 

[Yaarel]

I've probably mentioned it on the forums before, but the next time I run a D&D game, I've got a mind to assign dice to each Personality Trait, like the Proficiency Die variant rule. The dice might vary in size, with a d4, d6, and d8 to assign...although d8 is a lot so maybe just a couple d4s and one or two d6s. Roll the die when the action being taken relates strongly to that personality trait. Obviously, that's a system that might quickly get abused.

You mean?
• Proficiency +2 ≈ 1d4

At a higher tier:
• Proficiency +3 ≈ 1d6

As far as I can tell, that should balance mechanically.



By "abuse", I am guessing you mean players will overuse their Personality Trait as an explanation to gain Proficiency of skills that the character otherwise lacks? That might get annoying, but I dont think it would break the gaming mechanics.

(For me, Alignment, Ideal, Flaw, etcetera are all "personality traits", so I refer to the "Personality Trait" as a "Quirk".)

If overuse becomes too interferesome, maybe restrict the use of the Quirk for a Proficiency Bonus to a number of times equal to ones Proficiency per long rest.

If a player character has both a proficiency and a relevant Quirk, perhaps that allows an advantage?



Maybe a hostile opponent can deny a player character a Proficiency, by exploiting a Flaw, provoking one to get frustrated and exasperated?

 

[overgeeked]

Sure, but the social pillar hardly has the same granularity of specific rules as combat, or even exploration. There is a lot more weight on the GM to make rulings unsupported by the system in most versions of D&D, 5E especially.

Which is a weird thing to say when there's more rules about social interaction in 5E than any other edition of D&D. At best the older editions has morale and reaction roles. But that's it. DMG, p244 has a page-and-a-half on social interactions. I think that might be more than several (most...all) other editions combined.

 

[iserith]

Which is a weird thing to say when there's more rules about social interaction in 5E than any other edition of D&D. At best the older editions has morale and reaction roles. But that's it. DMG, p244 has a page-and-a-half on social interactions. I think that might be more than several other editions combined.

Arguably D&D 3e and 4e had a lot as well. For 4e it was mostly handled in skill challenges, if the interaction was complex enough. 4e also had codified combat uses for Intimidation.