D&D 5E (+) Social Mechanics Optional Modules

[doctorbadwolf]

So, I’m curious what social mechanics modules folks would add to the game, if they could.

Rules:

You can’t change the extant rules, you can only add to them.

No crapping on other people’s ideas.

No arguing about whether optional social mechanics are even a good idea at all.

So, what ya got?

I have some ideas for porting some of the conflict rules of my game to D&D to model tense social scenarios where turns and distinct stances and moves feel good, and I’m working on investigation and relationship rules, but I want to see some other ideas first! (And I prefer to make my own ideas just another post in the thread)

 

[JEB]

Hmm, your first rule eliminates the immediate two options I would suggest - either replacing social skills with "social combat" in parallel with physical combat, or remodeling physical combat to resemble social skills (victory through high skill checks). I have my own homebrew system I've been fiddling with on and off for years that kind of tries to do both, but it's very hard to get it right. (Sounds like you're considering something along the same lines.)

If we're sticking with only adding things... perhaps some kind of "social HP" (extrapolated from Wisdom instead of Con?) that can be depleted by various social attacks (either based on existing social skills or new ones, like insults or public humiliation or the like), and once it's depleted your morale or spirit or whatever is broken. "Healing" that HP could come from compliments, others defending you against bullies, etc.

There's probably room to add "social maneuvers" akin to combat maneuvers as well, associated with various social skills. Could connect to the previous.

 

[Minigiant]

I use a dialect and fluency level rule.

Characters associate a number 1-5 to all their languages associated to their fluency.
Any language, you have between 2-4 has a dialect or accent.

You need fluency level 1 to say greets and communicate basic info. You speak Hulk speak in the language.
You need fluency level 2 to say greetings, communicate basic info, and talk about your occupation (adventurer).
You need fluency level 3 to say greetings, communicate basic info, talk about your occupation (adventurer), or talk about your background.
You need fluency level 4 to hold a conversation in most setting.
You need fluency level 5 to hold an advanced or technical conversation in most settings.

 

[Eltab]

The 3e sourcebook Power of Faerun had a chapter on politicians / public approval which might have mechanics that would help (afb and do not remember). The chapter on merchants had rules for making / losing money running a business that could be adapted to the goal "persuade a group" instead of "make money".

 

[DEFCON 1]

I created a small and relatively minor set of game rules for my Theros campaign regarding philosophical Debate. They pretty much follow the conventions of standard D&D combat (and take into account some of the changes in the Skill list I made for this campaign.) I have yet to actually playtest or use these rules (the group will probably be in a situation where they need to make argument soon) so I have no idea if they ultimately will be useful... but like combat and Skill Challenges, having a gameside ruleset for the players might help them and me aim for a goal and know if/when it gets reached when conversing in character.

Debate

• Debates are social combats between two philosophers or politicians.
• To start a debate, initiative is rolled, a 1d20 + INT, WIS or CHA modifier (player’s choice).
• Each participant has a Social Attack, a Social Armor Class, and Social Hit Points.
• Social Attacks are roleplayed and then a check is made by rolling INT (Rhetoric) against their opponent’s Social AC.
• A person’s Social Armor Class is equal to 10 + WIS (Insight) modifier.
• A person has a number of Social Hit Points equal to their CHA (Presence) modifier.
• A successful argument (social attack beats the target’s social AC) causes one point of social hit point damage.
• When a participant in an argument loses all social hit points they have been defeated in the argument.

 

[Larnievc]

I came up with a really simple system. If you want to manipulate the tax officer to not charge you ‘adventuring’ tax you need to get three successes. You can try any skill with any ability once. DM (me) sets the DC based on what I think is appropriate. If you try something stupid or take too many roles to get three successes you fail.

Very similar to 4ed skill challenges but I could never be bothered to write them out.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you are proficient in a creature's language and make a DC 15 Intelligence (language) check to show fluency, you gain advantage on Charisma-based ability checks with that creature.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I generally use the Audience system of AiME. It works in 3 steps.

0) The DM determines or roll the initial Attitude of the NPC toward the group, using the DMG rules.

1) One player makes Presentation, meaning they open the discussion by presenting their group and asking what they require of the NPC. Its a DC 15 Charisma check and the player can add its PB if they share a language with the NPC. A success improves the reaction of the NPC toward the group by 1 step. A failed check by more than 5 means the party in in Askance, meaning the rolls in the next steps are make with Disadvantage. A failed by more than 10 means the Attitude of the NPC is lowered by 1 step!

2) The party makes their offer and argue with NPC, trying to leverage their Ideal/Bond/Flaw/Trait. A player can use Insight to deduce one of the NPC I/B/F/T. Each offer by the players add (or remove) a +1 or +2 bonus for the Closing check.

3) At the end of the discussion, one player makes a CHA check, adding all bonus from the previous step. Compare the result to the Conversation chart in the DMG p244. The DC in that chart are replaced instead with the roll of the Closing check.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Skill Challenge for Interaction

After a period of interaction, the character can make an Insight check to figure out what this person is all about. Success suggests Knowledge skills that can be used to add things they favor to the conversation.

Knowledge skills, reputation and past actions can raise or lower the target's opinion of you temporarily, granting a bonus to Persuasion and Deception with that character. Bringing up certain subjects or taking certain opinions can grant instant bonuses and penalties, sometimes even automatic failures as they no longer want to talk to you.

Persuasion and Deception can either convince them to a certain action or permanently change their opinion of you.

Characters can 'pregame' this by doing research or listening to gossip as a replacement for the Insight check.

 

[Manbearcat]

Some thoughts that intersect with 5e's default Social Interaction (Pictionary/Wheel of Fortune esque) mechanics:

(1) Torchbearer has a social hierarchy built into its system called Precedence. This is a scheme 0-7 of relative values for social strata. Your relative value tells you what sort of social conflicts you're able to engage with socially vs other parties.

Something like this could be ported into 5e with Adventurers getting +1 Precedence per Tier (starting at 0). Feats could either (a) improve your Precedence level (along with giving you a + Charisma) or (b) let you ignore Precedence differences with a particular subset on the Precedence hierarchy.

The difference between an Adventurer's Precedence and the NPC's Precedence = +5 DC/-5 DC per difference (or 0 difference if same Precedence).

EDIT - This can also be integrated into Background quite well: you get +1 Precedence with those of the social strata related to your Background.

(2) Conversation occurs organically in the social conflict. However, players have 3 turns at DC 15 (with Precedence differential above) in the course of the conflict to do the following:

* Reveal NPC dramatic need/leverage. This MUST be accomplished in order to move to (3). Without uncovering this, you cannot successfully resolve the social conflict.

* Uncover IBTF. Success on this will grant you Advantage in (3). A failure on this equals some complication to the challenge. The fiction changes and the situation changes. Mechanically, things change in concert with this. Perhaps a 2nd NPC shows up and actively works to end the social conflict early; the player loses 1 of their 3 turns. Perhaps the NPC is opaque and impossible to read. Instead of Advantage on (3), you get Disadvantage because they will surely take the worst reading of whatever you say. Perhaps you've attained leverage but now the NPC's partner arrives on scene and they reveal themselves to be "the pants-wearer." Now you have to learn their dramatic need/leverage in order to procced to (3).

* Subvert Precedence differential. Success is effectively flattening the social order (Precedence) by 1 for this conflict. You've said something or revealed something that knocks the NPC down a peg. Failure here likely means they take offense and their Precedence increases by 1 for any subsequent moves or for (3) (meaning the DC increases by 5).

Regardless, whatever you do, your say what you're doing and then you make your move. For instance, Uncover IBTF might be something like "I notice you've got a stable of the finest race horses. Do you ride yourself or is it beholding the beauty of the horses in full gait that is your passion." <Player then says something like I want to see how deeply she cares about these horses. If this is her great passion in life, that is how I'll get her to help us - looking for leverage> Player rolls Wis Insight DC 15 (NPC has +0 Precedence advantage).

The player has spent 1/3 turns. If successful, they have leverage and they can move to (3). If not, they're going to have to spend further turns on getting leverage. Further, the player can immediately go to (3) once they have leverage if they don't want to risk failure on any of turns 2 and 3 and complicating their situation.

(3) Straight-forward. You've got leverage. Now you make the Charisma (whatever) check to cement the social conflict. Say what you want (using the leverage/dramatic need and any IBTF that you have successfully uncovered) and roll your dice. DC 15 +/- 5 or more for Precedence difference with or without Advantage.

Success equals you get what you want.

Failure equals the NPC either takes offense and now you've got a problem (perhaps you lose 1 Precedence for those in this NPC's strata until you do something to resolve that...perhaps future random encounter tables are now populated by this NPCs cohort...or perhaps they show up as complications in other related social conflicts) or they give you what you want but they want something significant and immediate in return.