D&D 5E [+] How can 5e best handle role playing outside of combat?

[Tales and Chronicles]

I mean with a few rules from the DMG, I guess I can have a semi-robust sets of rules for roleplaying social encounters, if that is something people care for:

• Loyalty Score
• Reaction roll
• Piety or Faction score
• Plot Points (I would make Inspiration be usable to recover Plot points)
• Inspiration and Background features
• Background/Personality proficiency

 

[Krachek]

After five editions and 50 years of try out, those who can’t should simply give up.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The title is pretty self explanatory. The thread is prompted by a poster in the Survivor Edition Thread who said it couldn’t.

I guess I would follow that up with a few supplementary questions.

• What can it do outside of combat?
• How would you maximize the opportunity?
• What optional rules would you use?

It’s + thread folks.

5e can handle OOC roleplay just as well as most other systems, provided that 1) people are okay with a tautological difficulty scale* ('An easy task has a DC of 10.''Okay, what's an easy task?' 'One which would necessitate a 10 DC'), and 2) be willing to let people argue and negotiate why X ought to be able to/good at Y.
*This drives some people to absolute distraction, but I think it is unavoidable unless D&D wants to solidly land on exactly how realistic/cinematic it actually is, which is something in which I don't see them having a vested interest.

Taking in to acount every RPG out there sure, 5e isn't great in resolving conflict outside of combat. Social interaction and exploration don't receive that much atention. BUT that has always been true in D&D. I think for D&D 5e is fine in that aspect. I could be done better, but the poster on the survivor thread seems to be just trying to hate on 5e because their choice didn't win the game...

5e is pretty much on the same plane as late 1e-2e AD&D or late BECMI -- it has a bit of a (tacked-on feeling) skill system, a social system that leaves some people unhappy, and a general interact-with-the-world system which mostly focuses on objective empirical qualities (distance one can jump, weight one can lift, encumbrance and gp value of expendables like torches and rations). 3e and 4e had more expansive systems (and while each has a lot going for it, there were always enough complaints about each one when the edition was the current one that I understand why they retreated from such) and I think the shift back from that makes 5e seem more bare-bones in comparison to D&D as a whole than it actually is. Also I think the disappointment with the overland travel portion of the OOC exploration pillar (mostly how one background and a few spells can obviate a lot of the challenges) has spread into other portions of the discussion.

Many systems have mechanics that give the players as much ability to affect the outcome of a social situation as a fireball does to affect the outcome of a combat encounter. This is wholly in addition to, along side of, or outside of the player's ability to roleplay by having their character act as though they were a different person than they are or to suspend disbelief about an imaginary world or act out as an actor or voice actor a given character.

Indeed, many systems don't call them "encounters" at all. They call them "scenes" like you do in a movie, because every scene -- combat or otherwise -- is intended to move the story forward.

Many games have actual mechanics described and detailed in the book that give the players scene level control or even overall narrative control. Some systems are wholly collaborative storytelling and the game master doesn't prepare a storyline at all. It's up to the players to determine, drive, or alter the story, and they can do so directly from their character sheet as easily as in D&D a Rogue can pick a lock, a Wizard can cast a spell, or a Fighter can dispatch a goblin.

These are not generic resolution systems like 5e D&D's skills. They're deep mechanics with more narrow focus and more potent control. One recent example I can think of is from a Blades in the Dark video from Zee Bashew. In it, a PC playing a thief has to get past a guard. The player expends a resource, and says that the NPC recognized the PC as a former cellmate from a prison, and the NPC agrees to let the PC pass freely. The PC has now changed an NPC's backstory and contributed to the world and narrative.

It is good that you have discovered narrative or storygames, as you clearly enjoy them. As further suggestions, I might suggest Fate, or any of the Powered by the Apocalypse games. I'm going to point out that you haven't really given much in the way of explanation for how these types of games are generally better at the OPs requirement than non-narrative/storygames (particularly if we include in the discussion games other than D&D, such as GURPS, which do have lots of (specific) out-of-combat mechanics.

 

[Fenris-77]

There's a big difference between 'can it handle roleplaying X' versus 'does it have mechanical heft in terms of X'. The answer to the first is 'of course', while the answer to the second is 'not really'.

 

[tetrasodium]

Many systems have mechanics that give the players as much ability to affect the outcome of a social situation as a fireball does to affect the outcome of a combat encounter. This is wholly in addition to, along side of, or outside of the player's ability to roleplay by having their character act as though they were a different person than they are or to suspend disbelief about an imaginary world or act out as an actor or voice actor a given character.

Indeed, many systems don't call them "encounters" at all. They call them "scenes" like you do in a movie, because every scene -- combat or otherwise -- is intended to move the story forward.

Many games have actual mechanics described and detailed in the book that give the players scene level control or even overall narrative control. Some systems are wholly collaborative storytelling and the game master doesn't prepare a storyline at all. It's up to the players to determine, drive, or alter the story, and they can do so directly from their character sheet as easily as in D&D a Rogue can pick a lock, a Wizard can cast a spell, or a Fighter can dispatch a goblin.

These are not generic resolution systems like 5e D&D's skills. They're deep mechanics with more narrow focus and more potent control. One recent example I can think of is from a Blades in the Dark video from Zee Bashew. In it, a PC playing a thief has to get past a guard. The player expends a resource, and says that the NPC recognized the PC as a former cellmate from a prison, and the NPC agrees to let the PC pass freely. The PC has now changed an NPC's backstory and contributed to the world and narrative.

I think that bacon bits hits on the critical distinction here. Lacking those kind of mechanics though it's not really d&d handling anything with roleplaying outside of combat so much as the gm. A skilled GM thst can handle the out of combat roleplaying for d &d will ime usually eo even better with it when using a system that takes some of the load with mechanics of their own.

 

[Umbran]

I dunno man, role playing is just improv acting. Does it really need rules?

This argument is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - role playing is just improv acting, and thus doesn't need rules. And since it doesn't have rules, it remains improv acting.

First, we can limit this disucssion to character social interaction, as many will crawl down the hole of "but I'm totally role playing in combat", as if this was the meaningful bit. Character social interaction is not "just improv acting" in all games. Imagine a game in which it wasn't just improv acting. Imagine a game where there's as much clear tactical depth to social rules as to combat rules.

 

[Ixal]

Sure, you can do out of combat role play while using D&D, but it would be exactly the same as if you were freeforming altogether because the D&D system doesn't help you at all with it.

Characters in D&D are basically just combat parameters. The only real thing you have for anything besides combat is a proficiency bonus which is the same for everyone and tool proficiency which is very limited. You don't really have that many options to make a character which is specifically good at a non combat thing because thats not what D&D is interested in.

Other RPG system on the other hand, while still having combat as something that gets a lot of screentime and rules, have more ways for characters to do things outside combat and have the rules support them with. You can make characters who are very good with some things other than combats like being a mechanic or diplomat and their ability there is not directly linked to their combat power. Maybe they are even bad at combat, something newer version of D&D wants to prevent at all cost.

Even D&D itself was already better in that regard with the 3/3.5E skill system which allowed people to specialize in certain not combat related tasks (although they were still linked to combat power in the end).
Sadly D&D has devolved since then and 5E is back to everyone being pure combat stats and a single proficiency bonus for everything else not combat.

Compare that to, for example, Traveller or Shadowrun. They are by no means storyteller or rules light system, and especially Shadowrun can be played quite combat heavy, but you can equally have skilled hackers who are close to useless in a firefight or non violent doctors. And they still are viable in the game because their specialication in hacking or medicine has a meaningful effect instead of houseruling that they are good at their profession because the game system has no way to reflect that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This argument is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - role playing is just improv acting, and thus doesn't need rules. And since it doesn't have rules, it remains improv acting.

First, we can limit this disucssion to character social interaction, as many will crawl down the hole of "but I'm totally role playing in combat", as if this was the meaningful bit. Character social interaction is not "just improv acting" in all games. Imagine a game in which it wasn't just improv acting. Imagine a game where there's as much clear tactical depth to social rules as to combat rules.

Yes, I've played such games. Having to think rules and engage with mechanics when you're trying to act a natural conversation and immerse to it is distracting. I really prefer no or minimal rules for social situations.

Rules for fighting trolls exist, because we cannot act that in my living room,* we however can act a social situation just fine.

(*Well, we probably could, I even have real swords, but it would be dangerous and messy.)

 

[Fenris-77]

D&D does have mechanics for non-combat RPing - skills and ability checks - so it's not as though there are no mechanics present, just not the kind of granular mechanics and resolution that you see in the combat rules.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I've played such games. Having to think rules and engage with mechanics when you're trying to act a natural conversation and immerse to it is distracting. I really prefer no or minimal rules for social situations.

Okay. Fine. Then don't use them.

Now, are you going to spend significant time telling others they should not have them? In a "+" thread?