D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Bill Zebub]

If my character can be persuaded against my desires..."because that is realistic"...then shouldn't my character also flee screaming from just about every single monster encountered? Or perhaps just freeze up and soil his trousers? And then suffer horrible PTSD afterwards? Because that's what we humans would undoubtedly do in those situations?

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of D&D is not to realistically model human psychology, but to have fun killing monsters and taking their stuff.

So, yeah, social combat subsystem. Great idea. But it should be based on what would be fun, not what's realistic.

Or how about this: at least as realistic as the physical combat system.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Whilst I generally like PC and NPC rules working symmetrically, this is an area in which I prefer to make an exception. The inner mental life of NPCs is not nearly as important and inviolable as that of the PCs nor is the GM immersing in the same way than the players.

So I’m perfectly fine with the PCs influencing the NPCs via their social skills, but I really don’t want the same to happen in the reverse. We can still test NPC’s bluff vs the PC’s insight but the success for the NPC doesn’t result the PC automatically believing the NPC but merely the PC being unable to detect any signs of lying.

But it is (or can be) symmetric!

When you declare an action to persuade/intimidate/deceive/seduce/shame an NPC, the person who controls the target (in this case the DM) first determines whether your attempt will automatically succeed or fail. If it's in between...if it's uncertain and there is a consequence to failure...they will call for a dice roll.

If it's the NPC influencing the PC it's the same play loop, but it's the player controling the target.

A more detailed social combat system could work the same way: your character, you determine the odds.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If my character can be persuaded against my desires..."because that is realistic"...then shouldn't my character also flee screaming from just about every single monster encountered? Or perhaps just freeze up and soil his trousers? And then suffer horrible PTSD afterwards? Because that's what we humans would undoubtedly do in those situations?

I see these as the opposite arguments "I want to be more then human" sounds great for d&d but "you can do less then a human" doesn't sound right... people who stand toe to toe with ogers, giants, dragons and gods can't pull a con. People who can take a hit from a giants club 4 times then sit eat a lunch in about the time I get for a lunch break, and be fine... but those people that are that awesome... can't do what the leverage crew does every week.

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of D&D is not to realistically model human psychology, but to have fun killing monsters and taking their stuff.

this also strikes me as weird... limiting D&D to combat only is normally what I hear from people who DON'T like D&D...

So, yeah, social combat subsystem. Great idea. But it should be based on what would be fun, not what's realistic.

I mean there needs to be a balance for sure... I don't want rules that wont be fun.

Or how about this: at least as realistic as the physical combat system.

right so the PCs named NPCs and Powerful Monsters should be able to do anything a normal person can and more

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But it is (or can be) symmetric!

When you declare an action to persuade/intimidate/deceive/seduce/shame an NPC, the person who controls the target (in this case the DM) first determines whether your attempt will automatically succeed or fail. If it's in between...if it's uncertain and there is a consequence to failure...they will call for a dice roll.

If it's the NPC influencing the PC it's the same play loop, but it's the player controling the target.

A more detailed social combat system could work the same way: your character, you determine the odds.

the problem is over and over again we are told in this thread alone "baring some rule my character can NOT be persuaded,inimidated/decieved no matter how good they are at it

 

[Reynard]

If my character can be persuaded against my desires..."because that is realistic"...then shouldn't my character also flee screaming from just about every single monster encountered? Or perhaps just freeze up and soil his trousers? And then suffer horrible PTSD afterwards? Because that's what we humans would undoubtedly do in those situations?

There are games with fear mechanics.

I think the disconnect here is a lot about immersion and inhabiting character -- specifically that people that think immersion and inhabiting character do not want the dice to tell them how to do that. I would make the argument that responding appropriately to a mechanical system that changes your character's mind is just as immersive as without that mechanic, and possibly more. The "say yes" rule of improv applies to those rules. If your goal is to convincingly inhabit your character, then being given the prompt "the way the lady at the end of the bar winks when the bartender puts the drink in front of you gets your blood pumping" means your should accept that as true and act accordingly. In other words: social mechanics don't have to be considered a detriment to "role-playing" and, in fact, can elevate it by providing dynamic, dramatic prompts.

Again, we are assuming consent and safety tools involved in all of this, up to and including the stakes being worked out ahead of time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are games with fear mechanics.

I think the disconnect here is a lot about immersion and inhabiting character -- specifically that people that think immersion and inhabiting character do not want the dice to tell them how to do that. I would make the argument that responding appropriately to a mechanical system that changes your character's mind is just as immersive as without that mechanic, and possibly more. The "say yes" rule of improv applies to those rules. If your goal is to convincingly inhabit your character, then being given the prompt "the way the lady at the end of the bar winks when the bartender puts the drink in front of you gets your blood pumping" means your should accept that as true and act accordingly. In other words: social mechanics don't have to be considered a detriment to "role-playing" and, in fact, can elevate it by providing dynamic, dramatic prompts.

Again, we are assuming consent and safety tools involved in all of this, up to and including the stakes being worked out ahead of time.

Sure. And pure prompt-driven improv is also valid roleplaying.

It’s not the kind of roleplaying I personally want to engage in when pretending to fight monsters, but it’s totally valid.

 

[tetrasodium]

If my character can be persuaded against my desires..."because that is realistic"...then shouldn't my character also flee screaming from just about every single monster encountered? Or perhaps just freeze up and soil his trousers? And then suffer horrible PTSD afterwards? Because that's what we humans would undoubtedly do in those situations?

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of D&D is not to realistically model human psychology, but to have fun killing monsters and taking their stuff.

So, yeah, social combat subsystem. Great idea. But it should be based on what would be fun, not what's realistic.

Or how about this: at least as realistic as the physical combat system.

That's pretty much how a lot of monsters like mummy & others worked prior to 5e. Some monsters are scary even to hardened adventurers, what's the problem with it?

Up bringing does a lot too. People who haven't been exposed to bears might freak out at a black bear in the yard while visiting people on a vacation & seem very upset that their friend is laughing at how a dog chased it up a tree rather than getting said dog & calling the military about the bear. Turn the visit around and the one who was crackling is now in abject terror because a gator is sunning itself twenty feet away from the picnic & the vacationer turned host is more concerned if you want the wing or the thigh from the box of fried chicken but will wisely tell their guest "noo... No that's not a roach it's a palmetto bug leave it alone... Noo seriously.. Oh.. I tried... Too late" before laughing hysterically .

 

[Bill Zebub]

Up bringing does a lot too. People who haven't been exposed to bears might freak out at a black bear in the yard while visiting people on a vacation & seem very upset that their friend is laughing at how a dog chased it up a tree rather than getting said dog & calling the military about the bear.

Just to derail the thread and brag about my puppy, about a month ago, when he was ~3 months old, he treed his first bear.

Who’s a good dog? Yes, YOU are!

 

[Reynard]

That's pretty much how a lot of monsters like mummy & others worked prior to 5e. Some monsters are scary even to hardened adventurers, what's the problem with it?

Up bringing does a lot too. People who haven't been exposed to bears might freak out at a black bear in the yard while visiting people on a vacation & seem very upset that their friend is laughing at how a dog chased it up a tree rather than getting said dog & calling the military about the bear. Turn the visit around and the one who was crackling is now in abject terror because a gator is sunning itself twenty feet away from the picnic & the vacationer turned host is more concerned if you want the wing or the thigh from the box of fried chicken but will wisely tell their guest "noo... No that's not a roach it's a palmetto bug leave it alone... Noo seriously.. Oh.. I tried... Too late" before laughing hysterically .

Having lived in and around Savannah, I got ALL of these references.

 

[Maxperson]

again as I just said to someone else... this only makes sense if you think a character can not ever be tricked or manipulated...

That's not accurate. I will not steal anything. Just won't. No amount of talking, tricking or manipulating can get me to do it. There are things that will fail across the board.