D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[GrimCo]

So do people who want to gameify social situations feel that the rules on DMG pages 244 and 245 are not sufficient?

Rules in DMG are pretty barebones, but they are usable. Slightly better than nothing.

I think 5e already occupies a middle position in this. it has social skills and ways to use them, it just expects you to actually engage with the NPCs and have some actual arguments. I think focusing even more on the rules would harm the roleplay.

How would it harm the role play? If you don't want to use rules, you can ignore them. It is lot easier to just don't use rules than to create new rules. FE There are rules for encumbrance, but we mostly ignore them. Same for tracking ammunition. Our ability to ignore it and just presume we can carry what we have isn't hindered by the rules, but it helps people that like to play with tracking that kind of stuff.

I played quite a bit Exalted. In the second edition it had extensive social combat mechanics. They were quite involved. They also allowed the demigod characters of the game to convince people of things that it was sometimes really hard to conceptualise as any way possible in the real life. But the player had spent their points on these skills and powers, so it would have been unfair to deny them.

With super socially focused characters we just kinda gave up on the roleplay.

Player: "I convince him on the thing."
Me: "How?"
Player: "I have no idea. I can't imagine how anyone could ever convince a person this way. But the rules say that I easily can."
Me: "Fair enough, roll your bucket of dice."

And even worse. The rules would allow the NPCs do the same to the PC. I never used social skills and powers on PCs that way, as to me it would just feel wrong to rob the player agency that way, but by RAW that's how it should have worked.

Cause sometimes characters can do things players just cant. Some characters are just so good at bullshiting they could sell sand in Sahara. If player decided to heavily invest in those abilities for their characters and system supports it, why not just let them do it. And if it's two way street, it's kind of presumed that players know enough about the system they play with so they can expect to be sometimes be on the receiving end.

I don't want this. I don't want any of this. I want to have real conversations where people play their characters and make real arguments in-character. We might roll the dice at the end, but it is mostly just real conversation, and the DC of the check will be based on how likely I feel the NPC is to be convinced by the PCs argument, so what you say matters.

And I think a lot of people who are new to D&D want this too. Critical Role has been one of the biggest influences to people to get to into the game. It is all about people immersing in their characters and talking in-character. It is wise for D&D to focus their support on this type of play. And you don't need to be a professional actor to do this. But presumably anyone who is playing this game in the first place can speak, so they can say what their character says or at least paraphrase it.

And if you don't want it, it cool. But those kind of robust rules don't hinder your ability to play the game the way you and your group like it. On the other hand, absence of those rules do hinder the ability of others to play the game they like it.

Making real argument in character is more of a player skill than character skill. Good professional communicators could essentially dump all social skills and be better at social interactions than someone who invested heavily into social skills and attributes but are shy, bad communicators or just don't really like that part of game very much.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Reasoning (and I've already said this too): if it can be done at the table by the players, doesn't it just make sense to do it that way? The ability to roleplay is what sets these games apart from any other games or sports out there (though theatre sports veer close) so let's embrace that rather than try to downplay it.

The thing is, none of the rest of the game really NEEDS MECHANICS either, we could just freeform roleplay it all til the cows come home if we really wanted, combat can just be an opportunity to describe how we kill those monsters and bandits in the most elaborate and cinematic ways(my swordsman kicks the bandit to the ground and leaps forward plunging their blade into their heart), exploration we can just describe how we solve the problems we encountered with what tools we had, and that'd all be even better opportunity to roleplay our characters, but no, we have mechanics and we use them, because that's the game.

The social part of the game isn't so special that it deserves to be exempt from the mechanics of all the rest of the game is run on just because it's possible to perform at table-level, needing to make persuasion and insight and intimidation and any other checks doesn't prevent you from roleplaying, it might prevent you from succeeding at those attemps as often as you'd like but HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT from when the dice gave you a 4 on that athletics check to make that jump or you fail a lockpicking attempt.

 

[Minigiant]

Good! So how do you propose one defends their preferences without being accused of that?

You display your preferences without deriding others preferences?

 

[Hussar]

So do people who want to gameify social situations feel that the rules on DMG pages 244 and 245 are not sufficient?

Yes.

 

[Minigiant]

So do people who want to gameify social situations feel that the rules on DMG pages 244 and 245 are not sufficient?

I think 5e already occupies a middle position in this. it has social skills and ways to use them, it just expects you to actually engage with the NPCs and have some actual arguments. I think focusing even more on the rules would harm the roleplay.

I played quite a bit Exalted. In the second edition it had extensive social combat mechanics. They were quite involved. They also allowed the demigod characters of the game to convince people of things that it was sometimes really hard to conceptualise as any way possible in the real life. But the player had spent their points on these skills and powers, so it would have been unfair to deny them.

With super socially focused characters we just kinda gave up on the roleplay.

Player: "I convince him on the thing."
Me: "How?"
Player: "I have no idea. I can't imagine how anyone could ever convince a person this way. But the rules say that I easily can."
Me: "Fair enough, roll your bucket of dice."

And even worse. The rules would allow the NPCs do the same to the PC. I never used social skills and powers on PCs that way, as to me it would just feel wrong to rob the player agency that way, but by RAW that's how it should have worked.

I don't want this. I don't want any of this. I want to have real conversations where people play their characters and make real arguments in-character. We might roll the dice at the end, but it is mostly just real conversation, and the DC of the check will be based on how likely I feel the NPC is to be convinced by the PCs argument, so what you say matters.

And I think a lot of people who are new to D&D want this too. Critical Role has been one of the biggest influences to people to get to into the game. It is all about people immersing in their characters and talking in-character. It is wise for D&D to focus their support on this type of play. And you don't need to be a professional actor to do this. But presumably anyone who is playing this game in the first place can speak, so they can say what their character says or at least paraphrase it.

The questions then become.

If my PC has a Charisma score of 22 via levels and magic items, should I be allowed to attempt to convince an NPC of something even though I can't think of a logical argument.

If NPC Monster has a Charisma score of 22 via design, should the DM be allowed to attempt to convince the party to accept their surrender even through the DM doesn't know a logical argument..

Evil Lich I surrender.
Fighter: why should I accept.
Evil Lich: Because I'm good now.
Cleric: Bull
DM: Roll Insight:
Fighter: 10
Rogue: 15
Wizard: 6
Cleric: 14 GUIDANCE! 17
Evil Lich: 22
Wizard: He's gonna teleport out the jail. I've done it twice.
Rogue: Dang it. Where are all you phylacteries?

 

[GrimCo]

The thing is, none of the rest of the game really NEEDS MECHANICS either, we could just freeform roleplay it all til the cows come home if we really wanted, combat can just be an opportunity to describe how we kill those monsters and bandits in the most elaborate and cinematic ways(my swordsman kicks the bandit to the ground and leaps forward plunging their blade into their heart), exploration we can just describe how we solve the problems we encountered with what tools we had, and that'd all be even better opportunity to roleplay our characters, but no, we have mechanics and we use them, because that's the game.

Funny enough, our group tried system called The Window couple of years ago. It's very, and I mean very, rules light. You barley if ever roll for anything. It's more of a improv acting collaborative storytelling than game really.

Session 1 combat- Detailed cinematic descriptions of combat. Think John Woo's action flicks, but described with words.
Session 10 combat: Player: I draw my gun and shoot the guy. DM: You hit him in the head and he falls dead. Moving on.

The social part of the game isn't so special that it deserves to be exempt from the mechanics of all the rest of the game is run on just because it's possible to perform at table-level, needing to make persuasion and insight and intimidation and any other checks doesn't prevent you from roleplaying, it might prevent you from succeeding at those attemps as often as you'd like but HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT from when the dice gave you a 4 on that athletics check to make that jump or you fail a lockpicking attempt.

Yes. RPGs are still games. Some people really like game part and play it more like open form board games with more freedom to do crazy stuff.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How would it harm the role play? If you don't want to use rules, you can ignore them. It is lot easier to just don't use rules than to create new rules. FE There are rules for encumbrance, but we mostly ignore them. Same for tracking ammunition. Our ability to ignore it and just presume we can carry what we have isn't hindered by the rules, but it helps people that like to play with tracking that kind of stuff.

Cause sometimes characters can do things players just cant. Some characters are just so good at bullshiting they could sell sand in Sahara. If player decided to heavily invest in those abilities for their characters and system supports it, why not just let them do it. And if it's two way street, it's kind of presumed that players know enough about the system they play with so they can expect to be sometimes be on the receiving end.

And if you don't want it, it cool. But those kind of robust rules don't hinder your ability to play the game the way you and your group like it. On the other hand, absence of those rules do hinder the ability of others to play the game they like it.

They do hinder it, because just like in Exalted, it would be unfair to ignore the rules and say that the character cannot do something the rules say they can do.

Making real argument in character is more of a player skill than character skill. Good professional communicators could essentially dump all social skills and be better at social interactions than someone who invested heavily into social skills and attributes but are shy, bad communicators or just don't really like that part of game very much.

You cannot completely eliminate player skill in RPGs nor is it desirable. Some people are better with tactics and utilising their character's powers in combat, some are better at problem solving, some are better at coming up with arguments. It is fine. Ultimately the game requires real people to make decisions with their real brains. As long as those decisions matter, some level of player skill is involved.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The questions then become.

If my PC has a Charisma score of 22 via levels and magic items, should I be allowed to attempt to convince an NPC of something even though I can't think of a logical argument.

I'd say no. You must have some argument. It can be pretty bad one though. It results a higher DC, but with your good scores you have still a decent chance of beating it.

If NPC Monster has a Charisma score of 22 via design, should the DM be allowed to attempt to convince the party to accept their surrender even through the DM doesn't know a logical argument..

Evil Lich I surrender.
Fighter: why should I accept.
Evil Lich: Because I'm good now.
Cleric: Bull
DM: Roll Insight:
Fighter: 10
Rogue: 15
Wizard: 6
Cleric: 14 GUIDANCE! 17
Evil Lich: 22
Wizard: He's gonna teleport out the jail. I've done it twice.
Rogue: Dang it. Where are all you phylacteries?

My answer is no, and not even if the GM comes up with an argument. I don't use social skills against PCs.* I say what the NPC would say and let the players make their mind about it.

* Deception vs PC insight is an exception, but this is just about how well the PC can read the NPC. Players are not obligated to believe an NPC that beats their insight, it just means that they do not detect any obvious signs of lying. But of course they know that sometimes people lie well, and that they cannot detect deception doesn't mean that the NPC is telling the truth.

 

[GrimCo]

They do hinder it, because just like in Exalted, it would be unfair to ignore the rules and say that the character cannot do something the rules say they can do.

I would politely disagree. People add or ignore rules all the time. It's unfair only if one side decides to outright ban some rules. But in most groups, what rules are used and not used, is a collective agreement between all parties involved. Existence of robust social dynamic rules doesn't hinder your group ability to just ignore them or don't use them, if that is what your group chooses to do. It can lead to problem if some people in group want them and other don't. But then, it's not rules problem so much as incompatible group composition.

You cannot completely eliminate player skill in RPGs nor is it desirable. Some people are better with tactics and utilising their character's powers in combat, some are better at problem solving, some are better at coming up with arguments. It is fine. Ultimately the game requires real people to make decisions with their real brains. As long as those decisions matter, some level of player skill is involved.

No, you can't, that's true. But you as a player don't have to be world class swordsman to play one, so why should you be master communicator to play one? Utilizing character powers is most effective manner is just matter of game mastery. Or like kids say: Git gud.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is the part I don't get. Absence or presence of rules shouldn't matter should it? If your preference is free-form, then having rules, not having rules, either way, doesn't actually matter. If the rules are there, you ignore them. If there are no rules, you ignore that fact too. Either way, it's impossible to actually hinder freeform play.

But the reverse is certainly not true. The lack of structured play is a pretty significant impediment to a style which asks for structured play.

I think there is room here for us to have real discussion. At the end of the day, WOTC puts what rules they want in the book and that is up them. I was never fully satisfied as a GM or player with the inclusion of some of the more robust social rules via skills and many of the non-combat rules as well in 3E. I still played 3E. But over the course of that edition, I realized how much that stuff was affecting the style of play for me that made it very hard for me to run the Ravenloft setting the way I had with prior editions (and this became clear when I went back and ran Ravenloft using 2E). My issue isn't with inclusion, but I think it is better to make these areas of the game clearly optional rather than default. When it is default, it is an uphill battle to not incorporate these rules (both because peopel expect them there, and because it creates a culture of play). NWPs were fully optional in 2E, and that helped bridge style divisions. Most people I knew used them but there was no sense that you had to or ought to. And the game was designed to function with or without them.

Importantly this is just my opinion. I don't expect WOTC to adopt my opinion, I expect them to listen to their play testers and determine for themselves what makes D&D work best at the present time.