D&D General Social Pillar Mechanics: Where do you stand?

[Reynard]

Just for fun, let's talk about how we (individually) might resolve a scenario and see how it informs the idea of finding a sweet spot on the role-playing vs roll-playing continuum:

The PCs have recently cleared out a ruined castle of a group of bandits as well as the undead in the basement. They want to turn it into an HQ, but technically the castle belongs to a now-poverty stricked (ig)noble family. The PCs go to the local duke or whatever to ask permission to establish themselves in the castle, and find that the patriarch of the remaining members of the (ig)noble family is there making a claim on the castle ruins. The duke feels bound by the rules of nobility, but in truth would like to grant the castle to the PCs because he thinks they will protect the frontier border.

How do you frame the "court battle" of the PCs trying to convince the duke to give them the castle over the "heirs"? How do you adjudicate it?

 

[RangerWickett]

Well, have some rule of decorum that the PCs must go bring the heirs to the court so they can all plead their case together. This puts the PCs on a little mini-adventure where they can meet the heirs, learn what they're like, and maybe be tempted to let them get killed when an ankheg attacks or something.

Then when they arrive at the duke's court, some representative from the capital city is there, who generally is pushing to ensure that proper authority is maintained, because if you start breaking some rules, then nobles start thinking it's okay to break all the rules. So he's an opponent for the party.

And then have some other local VIPs be there too to hear what's going on. Give the party time to chat with them at a party or a banquet or a joust or something, to learn what matters to them.

Then we have the court. The PCs aren't just persuading the duke it's a good idea; they're persuading the duke that if he helps the PCs, it'll be a net positive for him across all the other power players.

 

[Reynard]

Well, have some rule of decorum that the PCs must go bring the heirs to the court so they can all plead their case together. This puts the PCs on a little mini-adventure where they can meet the heirs, learn what they're like, and maybe be tempted to let them get killed when an ankheg attacks or something.

Then when they arrive at the duke's court, some representative from the capital city is there, who generally is pushing to ensure that proper authority is maintained, because if you start breaking some rules, then nobles start thinking it's okay to break all the rules. So he's an opponent for the party.

And then have some other local VIPs be there too to hear what's going on. Give the party time to chat with them at a party or a banquet or a joust or something, to learn what matters to them.

Then we have the court. The PCs aren't just persuading the duke it's a good idea; they're persuading the duke that if he helps the PCs, it'll be a net positive for him across all the other power players.

Nice.

 

[RangerWickett]

Then, if I'm running L5R, I give each NPC a personal desire (ninjo) and an obligation (giri), plus a demeanor.

In Five Rings, there are five 'approaches' which match the 'five elements' of the title. Air is subtle or deceptive, Earth is stoic or focused on precedent, Fire is passionate or confrontational, Water is gregarious or relaxed, and Void is detached or mystical.

NPC demeanors typically increase the TN (target number, aka Difficulty Class) for people using a certain approach, and reduce the TN if you use a different approach. So a Depressed courtier might be harder to influence with a Fire ring approach, but easier to influence with a Void approach. A Paranoid priest might be harder to influence with Air but more susceptible to Fire. A Dutiful commander might be harder to charm with Water, but easier to sway with an Earth ring appeal to authority.

And I'd give each NPC a sort of 'victory point' value for if you get them partially or wholly on your side.

I'd have three 'rounds' of debate, where first the PCs make their case (while the NPCs take scheming actions on the sidelines), then second the NPCs make their case (while the PCs can scheme on the sidelines), then a break for the evening where everyone can scheme with each other (and possibly get up to murder or sabotage), and then finally the duke would call everyone together to make his decision . . . which might provoke a fight if the PCs screwed someone over to win, or might give the PCs some new mission if they got a partial success, etc.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm sort of in the middle on this one. I can honestly see both sides of the argument. Without mechanical support for social situations, shy players won't be able to engage with social aspects of the game. But, with mechanical support for social situations, shy players won't be pushed to try being sociable at the gaming table where it's ostensibly a safe space and try things out.

There's a lot of overlap with social and mental stuff in RPGs. The player should limit their RP to the character's stats and if they don't they're effectively cheating because they're relying on their own wits and charisma as a player to carry the character through while using mental and social abilities as dump stats.

If the character is limited to their physical stats, why shouldn't they also be limited to their mental and social stats? But a lot of people get really bent out of shape if you suggest things like having a player roll an INT or WIS check to see if the character would think of something.

If the player can rely on their own mental and social skills, the character sheet should not include mental and social skills. If the sheet does include mental and social skills, the player shouldn't be allowed to rely on their own mental and social skills. It's a having your cake and eating it too situation.

Either the character is limited by their stats in all areas or they're not limited by their stats in any area. Pick one.

 

[payn]

Just for fun, let's talk about how we (individually) might resolve a scenario and see how it informs the idea of finding a sweet spot on the role-playing vs roll-playing continuum:

The PCs have recently cleared out a ruined castle of a group of bandits as well as the undead in the basement. They want to turn it into an HQ, but technically the castle belongs to a now-poverty stricked (ig)noble family. The PCs go to the local duke or whatever to ask permission to establish themselves in the castle, and find that the patriarch of the remaining members of the (ig)noble family is there making a claim on the castle ruins. The duke feels bound by the rules of nobility, but in truth would like to grant the castle to the PCs because he thinks they will protect the frontier border.

How do you frame the "court battle" of the PCs trying to convince the duke to give them the castle over the "heirs"? How do you adjudicate it?

A few items for context are missing for my perspective. Did the PCs happen upon this bandit ridden castle and dispose of them by chance? Or were they tasked with cleaning it out? Just curious.

From the sounds of it, the Duke wants the PCs in the ruin but is bound by law. I would expect the PCs to try and make the case they are the best stewards of the property since the former land owners were unable to maintain and or keep it. Though, they need to respect the landowners as well. Likley this would lead to a series of discussions with the former owner(s), law clerks, the Duke, etc.. Some type of compromise could be worked out. Likely, another quest is in the making to clear all this up. Getting there would all be done via social pillar engagment.

 

[Reynard]

A few items for context are missing for my perspective. Did the PCs happen upon this bandit ridden castle and dispose of them by chance? Or were they tasked with cleaning it out? Just curious.

Let's say they were hired to take out the bandits, but the fact that the bandits were hiding in that particular place was unknown by the authorities at the time.

 

[Vork_Hammerfist]

Just for fun, let's talk about how we (individually) might resolve a scenario and see how it informs the idea of finding a sweet spot on the role-playing vs roll-playing continuum:

The PCs have recently cleared out a ruined castle of a group of bandits as well as the undead in the basement. They want to turn it into an HQ, but technically the castle belongs to a now-poverty stricked (ig)noble family. The PCs go to the local duke or whatever to ask permission to establish themselves in the castle, and find that the patriarch of the remaining members of the (ig)noble family is there making a claim on the castle ruins. The duke feels bound by the rules of nobility, but in truth would like to grant the castle to the PCs because he thinks they will protect the frontier border.

How do you frame the "court battle" of the PCs trying to convince the duke to give them the castle over the "heirs"? How do you adjudicate it?

Under those circumstances I would have the duke quietly "disappear" the (ig)noble family and assign the PCs as castellans of the newly cleared out castle.

If the (ig)noble family was unable to clear out their own castle themselves and furthermore had no friends among the nobility that were willing to help them out by sending some troops over to clear it for the, I don't think anyone among the nobility is going to mind too much. However, I would not make any of the PCs nobles, one handy but minor act doesn't qualify you for any kind of noble status.

Alternatively, if one of the PCs was already a noble I might have the duke give them a small tower on the border somewhere.

If the (ig)noble family were already marching back to take their castle with help from their friends, I would say that they owe the PCs a favour, and they would likely invite the PCs into their (not financially compensated, but not necessarily unpaid) service.

 

[Reynard]

Under those circumstances I would have the duke quietly "disappear" the (ig)noble family and assign the PCs as castellans of the newly cleared out castle.

If the (ig)noble family was unable to clear out their own castle themselves and furthermore had no friends among the nobility that were willing to help them out by sending some troops over to clear it for the, I don't think anyone among the nobility is going to mind too much. However, I would not make any of the PCs nobles, one handy but minor act doesn't qualify you for any kind of noble status.

Alternatively, if one of the PCs was already a noble I might have the duke give them a small tower on the border somewhere.

If the (ig)noble family were already marching back to take their castle with help from their friends, I would say that they owe the PCs a favour, and they would likely invite the PCs into their (not financially compensated, but not necessarily unpaid) service.

The point was to discuss the social pillar engagement based on the scenario, not sidestep it.

 

[niklinna]

One thing that tends to be contentious is the use of mechanical systems in the social pillar aka "roll playing." Some people think that all interactions and results should emerge from roleplay only. others think that social interactions should be as mechanically supported as combat or exploration. And, of course, most people fall somewhere on the continuum.

So where do you stand on the topic of social pillar mechanics? Do you think a courtroom debate or plea to the king should be governed by players and GMs roleplaying, or by game mechanics, or something in between. How do you feel about old school reaction rolls, and/or modern Persuasion checks? And if mechanics should play a bigger part in the social pillar, how should those mechanics be "distributed" among classes? That is, should there be a "face" class or should everyone be able to use those mechanics?

Well, sometimes I stand here, and sometimes I stand over there, and sometimes I sit on a comfy chair. If I spent all my time in one place and in one stance, life would be pretty boring (even with YouTube etc.).

If a group (or game system) gets/provides maximal enjoyment from freeform roleplaying, that's great. If another group (or game system) wants to weight the freeform roleplay with a bit of formalized procedure based on what characters are supposedly better or worse at, that's great. If a group (or game system) wants to streamline social encounters with summaries of statements and a couple throws or pulls of their favorite randomizers, that's great.

All provided it's done well & fairly, of course. There's plenty of bad-faith DMing and roleplay, and plenty of poorly-designed social mechanics systems out there (well actually there probably aren't that many, but relatively). One must be continually on guard! Until one finds the group they fit well with, and then things are great.