D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Celebrim]

I disagree with this. We know from both real life personal experience as well as many scientific studies that people succumb to pressure and persuasion. That's just how people work.

In specific cases. Not in the general case. Where as, in the general case you will always succumb to your wounds if you get enough of them.

 

[payn]

I disagree with this. We know from both real life personal experience as well as many scientific studies that people succumb to pressure and persuasion. That's just how people work.

This, but also, folks seem to forget not all these social situations are 1 on 1. The character might not be moved from their original position, but everyone else in the room might now be thinking differently.

 

[Reynard]

In specific cases. Not in the general case. Where as, in the general case you will always succumb to your wounds if you get enough of them.

People acquiesce under social pressure. That's no more "unrealistic" that ending a physical battle in defeat.

 

[toucanbuzz]

How do you feel about "social combat" in D&D?

Personally, I feel it's a bad idea to reduce incentive for players to talk by adding lots of die rolls to the social aspect of the game. There's always been a core to D&D wherein players, even shy ones, find a forum to speak in the guise of their assumed persona, and it wasn't until 3E that the idea of rolling dice for this became a thing.

I'm of a strong opinion 3E hindered that roleplay aspect of the game by turning social interaction with NPCs into a mini-game with d20 rolls and exploits by skill-stacking, to the point we got the phrase "I make a Persuasion check." If we aggravate that by increasing the mini-game with more rules, it risks decreasing player incentive to fully engage in their persona by constraining them with those very rules. Even worse, it may lead players to further "game the system" and exploit rules rather than speak.

I know some would point out not all gamers are fond of talking, but it's a rewarding part of the game that gets more fun with time, especially if the DM plays out those social interactions with as few dice as possible.

 

[Celebrim]

People acquiesce under social pressure. That's no more "unrealistic" that ending a physical battle in defeat.

Sure. In the abstract, I agree with you. It can happen. But that is only specific cases. In the general case of social pressure, acquiescing is by no mean a likely result.

I'm never going to change my mind about anything as a result of "social pressure" on EnWorld. You might get there through reasoned debate until I come around to your point of view, but the important hominid parts of social pressure don't exist on EnWorld to force that outcome. I'm literally never going to feel the necessary emotions the way that someone might in a room of known, trusted and respected people browbeating them.

And most of the time what happens there is fake acquiescence. The person pretends to acquiesce in order to escape the situation but with no actual feelings changed and often with lost respect for the formerly trusted and respected persons (which maybe should count as defeat of the attackers?) and then intention to simply deceive those parties in the future. And that's at most. Other times the person cloaks themselves in stubbornness and anger and takes on the whole room tooth and nail and refuses to yield anything. I've seen both.

 

[Medic]

Does seduction really work more reliably when eight people attack the target compared to one?

I mean, look, if eight people are trying to seduce me-

People acquiesce under social pressure. That's no more "unrealistic" that ending a physical battle in defeat.

Yes, the human mind is pliant. You can employ gaslighting and layered deceptions to significantly augment the behavior of a sapient being. But you need only look as far as this website to see that there exist recalcitrant individuals that will dig their heels into the muddy earth of discourse and refuse to cede their position even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[payn]

Sure. In the abstract, I agree with you. It can happen. But that is only specific cases. In the general case of social pressure, acquiescing is by no mean a likely result.

I'm never going to change my mind about anything as a result of "social pressure" on EnWorld. You might get there through reasoned debate until I come around to your point of view, but the important hominid parts of social pressure don't exist on EnWorld to force that outcome. I'm literally never going to feel the necessary emotions the way that someone might in a room of known, trusted and respected people browbeating them.

And most of the time what happens there is fake acquiescence. The person pretends to acquiesce in order to escape the situation but with no actual feelings changed and often with lost respect for the formerly trusted and respected persons (which maybe should count as defeat of the attackers?) and then intention to simply deceive those parties in the future. And that's at most. Other times the person cloaks themselves in stubbornness and anger and takes on the whole room tooth and nail and refuses to yield anything. I've seen both.

When a police officer threatens you, you'll likely acquiesce. When a doctor is telling you about your physical condition, you'll likely acquiesce. When your boss tells you to do something, you'll likely acquiesce. When your significant other wants something that you really dont, you'll likely acquiesce. Likely being the key term that you wont protest the situation, but there will be points that you just cant let it go.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t mind games that have more social mechanics than D&D. I think it really depends on the game and the genre and the goals of play.

For D&D, I’m generally fine with how the rules work. I like the idea of learning an NOCs Trait, Bond, Ideal, or Flaw in order to leverage things. I wouldn’t mind more area for impact to PCs in this area, but it’d likely take some severe changes to make that happen.

I certainly don’t mind when dice are involved. I’m not sure I understand the idea people have mentioned of “replacing roleplaying with dice rolls” as that’s generally not my experience. Usually, there’s still roleplaying that happens as the players put forth their ideas. What the dice tend to provide is a neutral means of determining the outcome.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why? Why in the context of a game in which we are ostensibly inhabiting the physical, mystical, cultural and social actions and consequences of an alternate personality, why is "social" special?

“Social” isn’t special. If you want to explain how losing a social conflict results in physical consequences, I’m all ears.

My character’s mind, on the other hand, is mine and mine alone. I’ll no more let the GM tell me that I find an NPC persuasive than I will allow them to tell me I find the orc’s max damage crit roll intimidating.

Now, it’s true that combat typically has physical results, and social interactions have mental results. But it’s not the social interaction that’s special.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I disagree with this. We know from both real life personal experience as well as many scientific studies that people succumb to pressure and persuasion. That's just how people work.

I think he meant that in-game you can be as obstinate as you want.