D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[payn]

So what would be a good system to deal with something like a PC and and NPC having opposed goals and they both go to the king (also an NPC) looking to get the king on their side? The GM can't really argue with himself, so leaving it as a purely roleplaying thing won't work 9unless you enlist another player to temporarily fill one of the NPC roles).

Traditionally, I'd set the table. Who knows the king better or has the upper hand to start? Find the modifiers, roll the skills and check to see who beats who. Proceed from there.

In the case the PC loses, they are going to have to find another solution. That or find more evidence or something that can shift the result in their favor. There is no lets keep talking and roll again in that moment. I might, run it as a skill challenge and the entire party gets a chance to make their case and impact the king, but that's usually like 1-3X a campaign kind of thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I said people have repeatedly said they would not follow such a rule.

Link?

I've seen people say there isn't such a rule. I have seen people say they wouldn't like such a rule. I have seen people say the DM shouldn't enforce that in the absence of a rule. I've seen people say they wouldn't play at a table that used such a rule. I've even seen people say they wouldn't play a game that had such a rule.

But I haven't seen people say they wouldn't follow the rule if it existed.

I mean I would have more an issue with them taking an action on my turn... but okay I am not understanding this anology... maybe they have the 'can use a spell inplace of a reaction' ability and are in melee and this is just a cool fluff way to do it?? I'm not really understanding the idea, the problem, or where you are going with this in a thread about social combat.

Um...it's called "holding your action", it doesn't happen on your turn it happens on their turn, and it's codified in the 5e rules.

If you don't understand the broad point I was making up DM-improvised rules then I'm not sure I can explain it more clearly.

Okay... if a new book came out and had a subclass of rogue or a called out non magical monster that had a

and a DM tried to use it how would you react (no right or wrong answer to this)

Not my favorite game design but at least it's a codified rule and not DM whim.

 

[Celebrim]

Neither of these hold up to close analysis, imho.

Ok... do you intend to provide that at some point?

The former can be addressed simply by codifying this stuff and making it relatively weak.

What does that sentence even mean? Can you provide an example of relatively weak compulsion?

The latter relies on it not being codified, and doesn't actually have anything to do with "social compulsion", but rather a lack of trust in the DM and DM fiat. That's not unreasonable, but it's easy to address by codification.

No it's not. I wrote a three page essay just in this thread on why it is not easy to address by codification. If you would care to refute that with an equal level of close analysis, I'm all for it, but claiming that there exists some codification of a social system that doesn't heavily rely on DM fiat requires some actual counter examples.

This isn't unprecedented. Many other RPGs do it. Including D&D-like RPGs.

Do you know how many RPG rules sets I read through in the early '00's looking for this very thing? It doesn't exist. The example of how broken Exalted is introduced earlier is a good example of that.

A rules engine capable of codifying human social interaction to the degree that it would conform to expectations in a casually realistic manner would be also passing the Turing test. That's the level of complexity required. Asserting that "many other RPGs do it" without naming a single one when the problem is currently beyond human understanding just feels like you don't understand the problem.

If you look at any system that is trying hard here to fairly model things, it's going offer GMs broad guidelines for setting difficulty and stakes or for matching difficulty to stakes according to circumstance which are so broad that they override fortune in the test completely. And guidelines for GMs setting difficulty like that are going to amount to GM fiat. They might be GM fiat that can be reasonably justified, like assigning a value for the preexisting closeness, affection and trust of the relationship in a way that can be justified, but they will still ultimately depend on GM fiat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If the explanation for the reaction is "Magic caused it"... usually the players seemed okay with the result.

the 4E era about the 'Come And Get It' power...

This is what I was referring to above when I said it would be dependent on whether players were willing to "play along" with the story logic.

again it comes down to a key word... the same exact wording of come and get it on a eldritch knight in 5e would be fine as you said

"Magic caused it"... usually the players seemed okay with the result.

is what drives me nuts... "magic can do this, but no one could ever imagine someone doing it"
grifters and con men just do not exists in some peoples fantasy life.

 

[payn]

I’m curious how people have seen or would like to see Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws used in this manner.

The standard rules treat them solely as an optional roleplaying guide that when invoked by a player, may earn them Inspiration at the GM’s discretion.

As described, the rules are pretty minimal and rather toothless. They can be ignored entirely by the player. This is an odd design decision, I’d say, and seems especially poor for a Flaw. Why have a Flaw that can just be ignored?

I feel like it’s a missed opportunity for there not to be some more heft to this part of the game. Like if a Flaw is relevant in a scene, perhaps the character has Disadvantage on associated rolls… something like that. Still minimal, but not entirely voluntary in the moment on the player’s part (though hard to see it as totally involuntary since the player is the one to choose their Flaw).

I think there’s room there for some meaningful game play, which I don’t think replaces roleplay in any way but rather makes it an active part of play.

I’m curious if folks have attempted or would like to attempt to incorporate the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws in a more meaningful way.

I really dislike BIFTs because they are specific, instead of general like alignment. They make caricatures of PCs instead of well rounded characters. The impact has been minimal because there is no teeth to BIFTs, so its easy to ignore. My guess as to its limited mechanical impact is to stop the complaints of PCs being screwed by their flaws. Or, I suppose, playing up for every advantage possible in play. Also, to insulate player agency from the mechanics, which has been a major topic in this discussion.

 

[Reynard]

I really dislike BIFTs because they are specific, instead of general like alignment. They make caricatures of PCs instead of well rounded characters. The impact has been minimal because there is no teeth to BIFTs, so its easy to ignore. My guess as to its limited mechanical impact is to stop the complaints of PCs being screwed by their flaws. Or, I suppose, playing up for every advantage possible in play. Also, to insulate player agency from the mechanics, which has been a major topic in this discussion.

Emphasis mine.
I feel like that is a very strange take. The whole point of that system was to round out characters by giving them multiple things that define their motivations.

 

[Celebrim]

So what would be a good system to deal with something like a PC and and NPC having opposed goals and they both go to the king (also an NPC) looking to get the king on their side? The GM can't really argue with himself, so leaving it as a purely roleplaying thing won't work unless you enlist another player to temporarily fill one of the NPC roles).

"The GM can't really argue with himself"? Really?

One of the most famous sessions I ever ran was the ceasefire period during the Battle of Starmantle in which, with the city 2/3rds taken by the rebel army and the Queen's forces backed basically into her castle, the lesser lords and burgomasters sought audience with the PC leader of the rebellion in order to come to some sort of understanding with the potential new leaders of the country. This "meet and greet" was actually a pretext for resolving the question, "Who is going to be the new monarch if you win?" Twenty-one NPCs in my hands (more than that if you count NPC leaders of the rebellion), arguing with each other and the party, with the PC leader trying to persuade them to support his cause.

Absolutely you can argue with yourself. You just need a lot of prep work to do it convincingly.

I tell you one thing you don't do - leave something that important to opposed rolls between the PC and NPC. That's just anti-climatic as heck.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Link?

I've seen people say there isn't such a rule. I have seen people say they wouldn't like such a rule. I have seen people say the DM shouldn't enforce that in the absence of a rule. I've seen people say they wouldn't play at a table that used such a rule. I've even seen people say they wouldn't play a game that had such a rule.

But I haven't seen people say they wouldn't follow the rule if it existed.

I mean you just rerphrased it but showed it yourself..

I've seen people say they wouldn't play at a table that used such a rule.

and

I've even seen people say they wouldn't play a game that had such a rule.

Um...it's called "holding your action", it doesn't happen on your turn it happens on their turn, and it's codified in the 5e rules.

but you use your reaction AFTER the action is my understanding... not to interrupt the action you react to. Maybe you could find some wording in there "I react to the bow being drawn not fired" but I'm not sure how a DM would react to that.

If you don't understand the broad point I was making up DM-improvised rules then I'm not sure I can explain it more clearly.

okay then I don't get it

Not my favorite game design but at least it's a codified rule and not DM whim.

so again... if it was a rule you would be okay with it because it was an official rule (even if not your choice for it TO be such)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What does that sentence even mean? Can you provide an example of relatively weak compulsion

Like Dazzling Display above - it applies Shaken, which is a relatively weak compulsion - Conditions – d20PFSRD

But I'd use relatively weak more broadly - both meaning "applying weaker conditions" and "having lower DCs". I.e. where a Wizard might have INT mod + Prof bonus + 8 DC, the "social" one might only go Stat mod + Prof bonus (if applicable) + 4 DC or something.

No it's not. I wrote a three page essay just in this thread on why it is not easy to address by codification. If you would care to refute that with an equal level of close analysis, I'm all for it, but claiming that there exists some codification of a social system that doesn't heavily rely on DM fiat requires some actual counter examples.

I'm sorry, but nothing you've written so far is particularly compelling re: ruling this out entirely, and the mere fact that there's a lot of it doesn't give it any weight at all, otherwise the sort of 5000-word megaposts I used to drop would have to be accepted as super-compelling and not "TLDR" as people tended to respond lol.

Do you know how many RPG rules sets I read through in the early '00's looking for this very thing? It doesn't exist. The example of how broken Exalted is introduced earlier is a good example of that.

I don't even know what you're talking about here - this is a confusingly odd claim. WoD, loads of PtbA and FitD stuff, Spire/Heart, and others have this sort of thing. Pathfinder 1E (and I believe 2E) has tons of Feats and so on that allow the codified infliction of conditions via social skills - Dazzling Display and Cornugon Smash come immediately to mind.

And you asserting Exalted is "broken" doesn't mean Exalted actually is "broken" (though if we're talking 2E I definitely agree that edition was nothing but a mess). Maybe the issue is that it was the early 2000s? Almost all the examples I can think of are post-2008, except WoD.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really dislike BIFTs because they are specific, instead of general like alignment. They make caricatures of PCs instead of well rounded characters.

yeah this is why we stopped using alignment (and never used the traits flaws ect) there is this super small list that are supposed to perfectly grab all of human experience

The impact has been minimal because there is no teeth to BIFTs, so its easy to ignore. My guess as to its limited mechanical impact is to stop the complaints of PCs being screwed by their flaws. Or, I suppose, playing up for every advantage possible in play. Also, to insulate player agency from the mechanics, which has been a major topic in this discussion.

this reminds me of an issue with old world of darkness (another game that like D&D I still play) where players would pour over flaws that gave the most amount of pts for the least in game effect.