D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Reynard]

Well, I disagree, I happen to like it very much. Though, instead of turning this into an alignment thread lets focus on social mechanics.

Lets take BIFTs, alignment, or any other type of personality character system. How do folks see them working in a social combat system?

If you could discover any of the BIFTs of your opponent, and utilize them, giving advantage on a check works for me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the same kind of applies here. Like, if the players have a very specific way to exploit the specific NPC's fears, then maybe having them inflict Frighten or whatever is absolutely fine. We've all probably had a bunch of Orcs or Goblins or the like flee from the PCs pulling some kind of scam that they were outnumbered or an army was coming up or something (assisted by illusion magic sometimes, but not always - I once had PCs pull it off with pots, a trumpet and a lot of shouting).

Yeah, I can see that, but I'd still let the player decide.

I mean, I feel like a lot of the argument for mechanical compulsion of PCs comes down to an underlying distrust that the players will ever choose to roleplay something non-optimal for their character. Even if that's true, what's the point of trying to force them to roleplay in a way they don't want? Maybe just play with different people?

 

[payn]

If you could discover any of the BIFTs of your opponent, and utilize them, giving advantage on a check works for me.

I can see that. How do you sniff them out? I can see this creating a lot of lone wolf hyper protective of their BIFTs so they dont get worked by the system players. How do you avoid that?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can see that. How do you sniff them out? I can see this creating a lot of lone wolf hyper protective of their BIFTs so they dont get worked by the system players. How do you avoid that?

This is what I use Insight for. Not lie detection.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, I can see that, but I'd still let the player decide.

I mean, I feel like a lot of the argument for mechanical compulsion of PCs comes down to an underlying distrust that the players will ever choose to roleplay something non-optimal for their character. Even if that's true, what's the point of trying to force them to roleplay in a way they don't want? Maybe just play with different people?

I mean, a lot of other RPGs just let you mechanically inflict mental conditions on PCs, without any distrust that the player won't RP it, and also without the need for the play to "okay" it. It does tend to be codified though, albeit usually more simplistically than D&D.

 

[Reynard]

I can see that. How do you sniff them out? I can see this creating a lot of lone wolf hyper protective of their BIFTs so they dont get worked by the system players. How do you avoid that?

I suppose it would be part of the "investigation" phase of the adventure/campaign/whatever. if the opponent in the social combat is a rival guild member, for example, and you want to find out how to get under their skin, you need to talk to their associates. It isn't much different in finding out the weakness of an enemy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Isn't there disposition of the NPC toward the PC in there somewhere, or am I conflating editions in my head again?

Yeah, 244-245 of DMG. It's one of those DMG optional things, and basically just adds some structure around what is otherwise improvised. It starts with "You set the DC" so it's still basically DM fiat.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, a lot of other RPGs just let you mechanically inflict mental conditions on PCs, without any distrust that the player won't RP it, and also without the need for the play to "okay" it. It does tend to be codified though, albeit usually more simplistically than D&D.

Sure. Insanity in CoC. Shadow and Shadow Madness in TOR.

And, like you say, codified. Not an improvised use of skills.

It's this sense that these effects must be implemented mechanically, even when the game doesn't include them, that strikes me as distrust of players.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's this sense that these effects must be implemented mechanically, even when the game doesn't include them, that strikes me as distrust of players.

I think that's going too far to a fairly silly degree. You could say exactly the same about stuff like applying Incapacitate and Prone to the guys buried under the rocks, rather than honor-system expecting them to RP being buried under rocks.

The other issue is, D&D 5E has a ton of stuff that keys off conditions - like Prone gives people Advantage to hit you in melee, Disadvantage at range.

That's why implement it mechanically - because the system interacts with mechanics. The issue with 5E is there's only one obviously-mental Condition (unlike a lot of RPGs) - Frightened.

EDIT - I guess Stunned and Charmed could also work, but man is Stunned a BRUTAL condition that I'm horrified even when it's applied legit magic so would be cautious about throwing around. And Charmed seems explicitly magical in the naming.

EDIT EDIT - I will say the best way to do this is BRIBERY, naked bribery! I.e. if a player is asked to RP some sort of negative mental condition, they are bribed with some kind of token (like a less-sucky version of Inspiration, maybe). I know some RPGs do it exactly this way. That's extremely effective and makes everyone feel good about it, and produces a fun game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

EDIT EDIT - I will say the best way to do this is BRIBERY, naked bribery! I.e. if a player is asked to RP some sort of negative mental condition, they are bribed with some kind of token (like a less-sucky version of Inspiration, maybe). I know some RPGs do it exactly this way. That's extremely effective and makes everyone feel good about it, and produces a fun game.

Yeah, exactly. This is a solution I totally agree with.

It's (to completely abuse a mathematical term) topologically equivalent to what I was suggesting before, that players "bid" a loss condition before engaging in social combat: "I will try persuade the NPC of X, and if I lose I will agree to do Y."