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

[Mistwell]

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?

I am actually pro "social combat." In a perfect world you would have a system that allows for rhetoric and wit, both in attack and defense, and you would whittle down the opponents Resolve Points until they acquiesced. Of course, not every tiny interaction would have to use this full system, but then I don't think every fight should have to use the full combat system either.

Anyway: what do you think?

I think role play choices, even those just stated rather than acted out, still could use some systematic guidelines for how to adjudicate them.

This came up recently in an adventure. A crowded theater was on fire, we were wrongfully accused of murdering someone in that theater and causing the fire, and rather than attack the innocent panicked crowd we used persuasion, deception and intimidation to try and get people to help put out the fire, and exit without trampling people, and without them attacking us.

Can a persuasion check be made against a crowd? If not, why not? If so, how is it done, what is the DC, how many of the crowd are persuaded by such a group check? What's the likely result, and does that result vary depending on initial attitude of the crowd towards us, or based on their fear of the fire?

We also tried to persuade the guards that we were innocent and to delay attacking us at least until the fire was out. Can we make a group check against all the guards or just one? If against all, how do we adjudicate if some are persuaded and some are not? How do we adjudicate if some are sort of persuaded but also fearful of their captain who is not? Once they make up their mind, can we try again on a following round?

Our DM could really have used some more guidelines. There are some here and there, but I wish there were more, and all in one place.

 

[Shardstone]

i think your post is agreeing with mine but something in the phrasing is causing my brain to short circuit and i can't actually tell if it's retort to people 'against the social mechanics' or retort to 'the people against social mechanics'

I agree with you.

 

[Minigiant]

I am a "You're stuck. Roll to see if your PC is smarter or more suave than you" kinda guy.

I signed up to play James North not mind comtrol James North.

You are talking to a DM with Language Proficiency and Dialect rules.

 

[niklinna]

Han Solo was a charisma based rogue.

 

[Tonguez]

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?

1 We have the goals so now establish NPC motives, instincts and standard behaviour/actions

The Duke
Motive is to maintain stability, secure the marches and uphold Duchal authority -
His instinct is to uphold the law and nobility, but also the welfare of his domain
The Dukes Actions are diplomatic but pragmatic, he is looking for strategic gain +

The (ig)Noble Family
Motive is to reclaim their ancestral birthright and wealth
Their instinct is to maintain their status and privilege in the name of family honour
The noble family behave with a sense of entitlement, relying on their noble right to sway the duke.

The time is set to gather the claimants, the PCs then set about using the ‘downtime to gather information about the duke's concerns about the frontier border (motive), rivalries amongst the nobility, the current status of the noble family, their history with the castle and rumors of the hidden tunnels beneath. They also make contact with a rival noble who agrees to support their claim in return for concessions.

Then the Court convenes with the Duke and his advisors who ask each claimant to present their case. (DM: 5 rounds each getting a step towards or away from goal). Any reputation advantage can be invoked.

The PCs start by presenting their case to the duke, they can?
- use persuasion to emphasise their capability to secure the castle and protecting frontier security

• use insight to discern motives of the Duke, the Family, Other
• pledge fidelity to the Court and investment in the frontier
• challenge the capacity of the noble family, given the abandonment of the castle
• reveal rumours/secrets about castle/noble family/rivals/duke

The Family counter the claim by presenting their ancient deed and

• appealing to law and birthright, invoking historical ties to the land and family’s service to the domain (lore)
• warning caution about setting precedent for any ruffian or bandit to claim an estate (persuasion)
• presenting the duke with valuable gift as sign of esteem
• casting dispersions on PCs as uncouth ruffians, casting doubt on their capacity (deception)
• calling on support of aristocracy (charisma)

 

[MichaelSomething]

Has anyone here have luck with using PBTA for social situations??

 

[Mistwell]

View attachment 351428

There is nothing wrong telling the DM what you want to say, rolling a 1, and then telling the DM what you actually said instead of what you meant to say

 

[payn]

I think role play choices, even those just stated rather than acted out, still could use some systematic guidelines for how to adjudicate them.

This came up recently in an adventure. A crowded theater was on fire, we were wrongfully accused of murdering someone in that theater and causing the fire, and rather than attack the innocent panicked crowd we used persuasion, deception and intimidation to try and get people to help put out the fire, and exit without trampling people, and without them attacking us.

Can a persuasion check be made against a crowd? If not, why not? If so, how is it done, what is the DC, how many of the crowd are persuaded by such a group check? What's the likely result, and does that result vary depending on initial attitude of the crowd towards us, or based on their fear of the fire?

We also tried to persuade the guards that we were innocent and to delay attacking us at least until the fire was out. Can we make a group check against all the guards or just one? If against all, how do we adjudicate if some are persuaded and some are not? How do we adjudicate if some are sort of persuaded but also fearful of their captain who is not? Once they make up their mind, can we try again on a following round?

Our DM could really have used some more guidelines. There are some here and there, but I wish there were more, and all in one place.

Check out Carrion Crown Trial of the Beast module. Answers all this.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Has anyone here have luck with using PBTA for social situations??

Definitely! But this thread is in D&D General, so probably best discussed elsewhere (or things will get very spicy very fast).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think role play choices, even those just stated rather than acted out, still could use some systematic guidelines for how to adjudicate them.

Agreed, and you raise some good questions. Rules should cover things like these. I'll offer some of my opinions on this.

This came up recently in an adventure. A crowded theater was on fire, we were wrongfully accused of murdering someone in that theater and causing the fire, and rather than attack the innocent panicked crowd we used persuasion, deception and intimidation to try and get people to help put out the fire, and exit without trampling people, and without them attacking us.

Can a persuasion check be made against a crowd?

Yes, definitely. This must be so simply due convenience. We cannot roll separately for every individual, it would be an utter waste of time. Also, convincing crowds certainly is something that is commonly done.

If not, why not? If so, how is it done, what is the DC, how many of the crowd are persuaded by such a group check? What's the likely result, and does that result vary depending on initial attitude of the crowd towards us, or based on their fear of the fire?

The results and the DC will depend on the situations (you covered essential aspects) and the argument being made. If the argument relies mainly on evoking the people's fear of fire, I think it should be an intimidation rather than persuasion check. As for how many are convinced, I think this is very good situation to use a degree of success. Higher the roll, more people are convinced.

We also tried to persuade the guards that we were innocent and to delay attacking us at least until the fire was out. Can we make a group check against all the guards or just one? If against all, how do we adjudicate if some are persuaded and some are not? How do we adjudicate if some are sort of persuaded but also fearful of their captain who is not? Once they make up their mind, can we try again on a following round?

Again, you can roll against the whole group, though here the main thing clearly is to convince the captain, who is in charge. I think if you come close to the DC, but not quite, some other guards might be convinced, but as they're not in charge it might not help you much unless you come up a way to do something clever with it. In order to try again, you need to come up with a substantially new argument; they already rejected your previous one. Also if the previous roll failed really badly, this might make their attitude towards you more negative, making further rolls harder.