D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Chaosmancer]

I have tried a number of social systems in other games, including "social combat". Not once have I seen such systems improve roleplaying...not once.

In theory, such systems allow players to socialize in ways they aren't comfortable normally, just as a weak person can play a super strong barbarian, the socially awkward person can play the smooth talking con-artist. But in reality, I find such systems just hold back good role-players rather than prop up weak ones.

So while the theory seems reasonable to me, it just doesn't seem to work in play. When it comes to social mechanics, less truly is more.

I think this is a problem of trying to use the system for every single time you would talk to anyone.

You don't actually need to use the combat system to punch out a guy at the bar, you don't even use the combat system to punch a door.

Again, if you were to create this kind of system, you need to only use it for dramatic moments of tension. And you don't use it to improve role-playing, that's not the point. You use it to get down into detail and make success and failure feel like it rides on more than just a single roll.

I'll turn back to my example. The single roll failed, and the party was not satisified. They could have turned around and left, with minimal consequences. Instead, they entered a social combat which allowed them the chance to use multiple rolls to attempt to bull through the situation, but also carried far greater consequences for failure. It seems to me that this is the power of such a system, the chance for the players to dig in and say "double or nothing" because this is their big moment.

 

[Umbran]

I dont play fate/fudge but is it like how in WoD and the old west end games d6 system everything was just a skill check? do they have some way to tack your health?

For broad definitions of "skill" and "health" yes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Again, I think thinking about this in terms of roleplay misses the power of such a system.

Let us say you have a player who doesn't want to roll the dice, but they want to convince the King's Court to side with them in a battle. So they talk. And they talk, and they talk. And they aren't convincing anyone but they insist on continuing to talk and argue and talk and argue... How do you resolve this?

Right now, we could resolve this by giving the player a single check. But that not only continues to prevent the other players from participating, but the player might take that single check to apply only to a single argument, then try a new argument to get a new check.

A social combat system says "Okay, you are going to get to argue your heart out, but if your Social Hit Points reach zero, you get so disgusted with these cowards that you storm out of the room and you stop arguing with them." Now the player has multiple actions, and not only that, they can see progress being incrementally made as they argue, but additionally there is a hard stopping point. Once you lose, you are done. You are not going to continue. And that is a POWERFUL tool in the toolbox , IMO

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've watched FATE played by one of it's creator, and it gives vastly more power to the GM to arbitrate outcomes arbitrarily than is generally expected of D&D.

do youu know if this is online somewhere?

 

[Reynard]

Magic can do things that cannot normally be done. That's why. Your human wizard can't fly. Unless he uses magic. Same with changing form. Controlling minds. And so on.

Not since I was a kid and hadn't learned self-control. Once I hit adulthood, words can no longer do that to me. Even if they could, it still wouldn't equate to the kind of mind control being discussed in this thread. Making a stranger angry is far different from making him go do your shopping for you.

Sure. I stopped arguing and left. When I'm too tired to argue with someone, I announce it and then just stop talking to that person. I don't cave in.

Yes and no. It really depends on whether it can be a teachable moment for that person and/or what the consequences will be. If it's simply going to be a bit of a waste of time or other really benign consequence and I can tie it back to making it a teachable moment, then sure.

No stranger has ever been able to get me to do even that much, though. I don't get smitten by random women who can then talk me into a teachable moment like that.

Right. It can't happen to my character.

Notwithstanding people of superhuman emotional control, my point was that you don't need magic to change someone's mind or behavior.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let us say you have a player who doesn't want to roll the dice, but they want to convince the King's Court to side with them in a battle. So they talk. And they talk, and they talk. And they aren't convincing anyone but they insist on continuing to talk and argue and talk and argue... How do you resolve this?

Right now, we could resolve this by giving the player a single check. But that not only continues to prevent the other players from participating, but the player might take that single check to apply only to a single argument, then try a new argument to get a new check.

so in another thread (the one that this spun out of) I brought up that I match my players energy, so things they put effort into become important and things they don't become side notes and fall out of importance. One way I do this is if someone wants to talk and give a great argument I let them, and if they just say (an old joke we have) "I diplomancy them" I let that in too... However someone in the thread found a way to 'game the system' that no one has tried in my experience.

the 'game' of the system was pretend to NOT be interested in something (doesn't even need to be social but finding something, convincing someone, climbing something...anything really) to initiate my 'okay we can roll and move on' and if they don't like the roll, THEN go back and describe in more detail trying to get an auto pass by doing the right thing or at least a second roll for there now more detailed attempt.

this reminds me of that idea

So they talk. And they talk, and they talk. And they aren't convincing anyone but they insist on continuing to talk and argue and talk and argue... How do you resolve this?

TBH if we are having fun I might let him keep talking... but with my group, someone would be like "Can we get a long hook to pull him off stage now?"

 

[Celebrim]

do youu know if this is online somewhere?

Yes, on Wheaton's youtube channel last I looked.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Notwithstanding people of superhuman emotional control, my point was that you don't need magic to change someone's mind or behavior.

I don't know sometimes on internet discussions about games it seems like you would need magic just to get us to agree on anything...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, on Wheaton's youtube channel last I looked.

thank you (I assume will wheaton from star trek)

 

[Reynard]

I don't know sometimes on internet discussions about games it seems like you would need magic just to get us to agree on anything...

Like demonstrable facts of human psychology, apparently.