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

[CreamCloud0]

Presumably, you wouldn’t allow a 20 Str 5th level fighter to lop off an ogre’s head in those circumstances either.

Which goes back to one of the underlying pieces of guidance in D&D: only roll the dice when the outcome is in doubt.

If a player makes a compelling case why an NPC should do something, the NPC should do it. There is no reason to roll Persuasion halfway through to see if the character belching makes it less likely that the NPC will act.

i'd be pretty certain a monster would die pretty quickly if not instantaneously if they had their throat slashed open by a longsword, and i can describe my fighter doing just that regardless of their stats, does the GM let my fighter bypass the roll in that situation? if i don't get to do that then why does the guy in the social situation get to do it?

you get to describe exactly how you act in a social encounter, so of course you're not going to come in and intentionally shoot your attempt in the foot by saying how you belch loudly in their face in the middle of your speech, or how you splutter and stumble over your words putting your foot in your mouth, just as i wouldn't describe my fighter tripping on some uneven ground as they charge the ogre, or fumbling their crossbow bolts as they try to load their weapon, neither speaker nor warrior is going to describe how they mess up their attempt, persuasion and social interactions are much more than just the words they say but in one of the two situations everything is going to play out like how the player describes and the other is still going to have to roll the dice every time to make sure it doesn't go sideways, it's a blatant double standard and i hate it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Presumably, you wouldn’t allow a 20 Str 5th level fighter to lop off an ogre’s head in those circumstances either.

Which goes back to one of the underlying pieces of guidance in D&D: only roll the dice when the outcome is in doubt.

If a player makes a compelling case why an NPC should do something, the NPC should do it. There is no reason to roll Persuasion halfway through to see if the character belching makes it less likely that the NPC will act.

Very much this.

Just b/c a PC has “low” Charisma doesn’t mean they can’t auto-succeed when asking an NPC for something. However, when the outcome is in doubt - and there is a meaningful consequence for failure - that “low” Charisma PC is more likely to fail the Ability Check called for by the DM than the someone with “high” Charisma.

Similarly, there’s nothing stopping a DM from ruling auto-success for an attack in certain circumstances. I mean, I don’t think it is common practice but it well within the rules (and often makes more sense narratively) for an auto-success to be declared. The double-standard that frustrates @CreamCloud0 is one that need not exist in practice.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

i'd be pretty certain a monster would die pretty quickly if not instantaneously if they had their throat slashed open by a longsword, and i can describe my fighter doing just that regardless of their stats, does the GM let my fighter bypass the roll in that situation? if i don't get to do that then why does the guy in the social situation get to do it?

you get to describe exactly how you act in a social encounter, so of course you're not going to come in and intentionally shoot your attempt in the foot by saying how you belch loudly in their face in the middle of your speech, or how you splutter and stumble over your words putting your foot in your mouth, just as i wouldn't describe my fighter tripping on some uneven ground as they charge the ogre, or fumbling their crossbow bolts as they try to load their weapon, neither speaker nor warrior is going to describe how they mess up their attempt, persuasion and social interactions are much more than just the words they say but in one of the two situations everything is going to play out like how the player describes and the other is still going to have to roll the dice to every time to make sure it doesn't, it's a blatant double standard and i hate it.

I’m reminded of a scene early in my 5e DMing days when my 10 yo son wanted his half-orc assassin rogue to kill an unsuspecting sleeping guard. I made him roll an attack. That was unsatisfactory at the time to him and it really made me reflect (later) how the combat rules for attacks need not supersede common sense for a scene. There was no uncertainty for that attack. I should have granted auto-success on his “killing blow” attempt and, indeed, it is well within the rules for me to have done so.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Very much this.

Just b/c a PC has “low” Charisma doesn’t mean they can’t auto-succeed when asking an NPC for something. However, when the outcome is in doubt - and there is a meaningful consequence for failure - that “low” Charisma PC is more likely to fail the Ability Check called for by the DM than the someone with “high” Charisma.

Similarly, there’s nothing stopping a DM from ruling auto-success for an attack in certain circumstances. I mean, I don’t think it is common practice but it well within the rules (and often makes more sense narratively) for an auto-success to be declared. The double-standard that frustrates @CreamCloud0 is one that need not exist in practice.

IMO i think one of the biggest contributors to the double standard IS the lack of nuanced social mechanics, combat has all these extensive pages of rules and mechanics dedicated to describing how to run it, it makes playing combat straight feel important, social encounters have barely a few dedicated skills to encapsulate 'social mechanics' and it makes it so much easier for people in their minds to dismiss them as 'unimportant' and just brush past using them.

edit: it's in much the same way that people find it significantly easier to justify magical solutions working in their minds that they can similarly justify convincing someone of something working, convincing someone is not a tangible 'physical' task and thus it's difficulty is percieved as much more achievable.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

I would run it as a skill challenge: 3 successes before 3 failures. I have consolidated several skills (Persuasion, Insight, Deception and Intimidation are all Manipulation, for instance) and skills are not tied to attributes. Because of the consolidation, characters get fewer skills.

My players know that the DC increases if they use the same approach multiple times.

I would only run a skill challenge if I could easily think up 4 skill/attribute combos that could apply. In this case:
1. Manipulation(Charisma) - the party plays on the services they have rendered the duke to justify being awarded the castle;
2. Manipulation(Wisdom) - the party tries to read the duke’s body language to identify an argument he would be susceptible to;
3. Society(Intelligence) - the party uses their knowledge of traditions and customs to justify their right to the castle;
4. Society(Charisma) - the party’s grasp of court gossip allows them to suggest that the heirs might be unworthy or disloyal.

Here’s the important bit: I don’t share the above options with the players. They come up with their own approaches and justify their choices. If the approach seems weak, I’ll increase the DC (alerting the player). I’m not wedded to the written approaches.

Maybe the gnome uses Investigation(Intelligence) to get a read of how wealthy the heirs are to outbid them? Maybe the rogue uses Thievery(Dexterity) to pick the heirs’ pockets to see if they have any incriminating documents the heroes can use.

Automatic successes are also possible. Maybe the heroes propose a compromise where the heir is named lord of the keep by the character is named seneschal and the party can use the keep as their base of operations? Seems everyone would be happy with that. Maybe that successful Society(Charisma) check revealed gossip that the duke’s son has been kidnapped by drow and the party can close negotiations by offering to return the duke’s son alive and well.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Why even have players if the important decisions are taken without their involvement?

 

[Voadam]

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?

Actual social interactions and first person roleplaying and riffing are a big part of the fun so I like to emphasize those aspects as a player and a DM. I do a bunch of politicking and interactions in my games and I usually take this with just either first or second person sometimes with a die roll for second person, sometimes just back and forth with no mechanics.

I am OK with going with some prompts such as from die results or whatever, but I have zero interest in trying to enforce stats on a sheet as a constraint on roleplay characterization or policing how players play their characters or driving them to play their sheets. I much prefer characterization from a player's concept and what develops at the table on the spot in game. Balance I am concerned about mechanics for combat, not roleplaying stats. I want everybody to engage in combat and exploration and social pillars of the game, I do not want participation siloed. I trust in the general balance of 5e for combat, not for the mechanics of the social and exploration pillars.

As a second person type of thing where things are just sketched out in approaches a die roll mechanic can be useful for randomly deciding results with some character mechanic impacts, for a more in-depth type of thing I am OK with a skill challenge type of mechanic, multiple actions from different directions to build up to a resolution.

I like how 5e's aid another for advantage and bound accuracy encourages players to tag team participate in social interactions and figure out a way to help to get the benefit for big bonuses even if they are not a face character or do not have the exact social skill mechanics for the situation. More participation is better, and two players working together is great.

I really disliked 3e's skill system incentives to build one face character for the party, have them handle every social interaction, and actively discourage other PCs from interacting socially.

I am kind of intrigued by Doctors & Daleks turning social stuff into hps as well so you can logic or fast talk someone into submission, but I have not gotten it yet. It might encourage more player social interactions or be dry mechanics only.

In the 3e era I got Dynasties & Demagogues from Atlas Games as I really enjoy politics and debates and courtroom scenes in my games, and it provides d20 system rules for handling those types of things mechanically, but in the end I have barely cracked open the PDF, I just handle most of those things on the spot with loose mechanics if desired.

 

[FrozenNorth]

If using the array, a 10 is an average score for either Intelligence or Charisma. Even an 8 is fine, sometimes awkward, but can be competent.

A player can play a low score without need for exaggeration.

Even playing a score of 20 is subtle. The character might make things look easy. But otherwise, there doesnt need to be any special behavior.

A player can lean into a high score or average score when taking on the persona of a character, but only if it is interesting or fun. It is also ok to downplay the scores if the player is less into it.

Yup. For any of several reasons. The stats aren’t particularly well-defined, so the mental stats cover several traits that aren’t particularly correlated in real life. Maybe my low-Wis character is reckless, or maybe he’s just unobservant. As a player, I would definitely take it poorly if the DM told me I was playing my PC wrong, if I played my low-PC character as reckless but not particularly foolish.

The opposite situation should also be considered. If I choose to play a Reborn warlock Pact of the Undead, I have high Charisma because warlocks run off Charisma, not because I want to be the party face.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It would be preferable to think that our players would roleplay the stats they have selected for their characters, and that if they "dumped" a mental stat that they would play into that fact as they play their character (since quite frankly, I think roleplaying into bad stats can be a lot of fun). And I agree with it to the point that on the rare times I get to play, I purposefully choose classes that work on high INT or I raise my INT stat even if it isn't "beneficial" per se for that class to do so... all so that I can be okay with playing to the best of my ability while still maintaining a truth in the fiction. So for instance my paladin in the Pathfinder game I've been playing in actually has a lower CON than one would ordinarily think a warrior class would have, just so that I could put a few more points into INT because I wanted to RP him as a halfway-intelligent fellow.

I kind of like to think of your game stats as giving you characterization that one should bring out in play. It's part of the unique kind of fun of TTRPG's, honestly - there's a REASON this hobby resonates with so many theater kids, and one of the big ones is that it scratches that performance itch a little bit, the fun that is in figuring out who a character is based on some evidence on paper and then pretending to be that person instead of yourself. The dice and the stats help guide that performance, but they don't really constrain it.

A big part of the fun of D&D is pretending to be a magical elf for four hours on a beautiful spring afternoon. The social pillar is one of the best places, in play, to scratch that itch.

Which is part of why "social combat" mechanics often fall flat, IMO. The social pillar is Drama Club. The combat pillar is more Math Club. And that's fine, and both work together to create a sort of mental pacing that itches different parts of your brain. A D&D that was all Drama Club or Math Club (and there are PLENTY of fantasy heartbreakers that go one of these routes) is overall a weaker experience for it.

...and Exploration is History Club, in this metaphor.

But that being said... as a DM I don't really care if the players at the table really bother playing to their mental stats or they don't. One, because I'm not really bothered by "dump stats" that players take... and two, the difference between a stat that has been dumped and one that is completely normal or adequate is like just 3 modifier points. And when it's the die roll that will swing numbers between 1-20 points... those 3 points of the ability modifier don't have nearly the same effect in comparison to warrant me getting bent out of shape over it.

So if players take an 8 in INT because they need to save their points for DEX, CON, and WIS to play what they feel is an "effective" character... I'm not going to police them when all the players at the table start trying to formulate plans and they chime in. It's not worth it to me to get that far into the weeds over it.

Because suspension of disbelief is pretty important for Drama Club, I like when there's some justification. But it doesn't need much.

If the 8 INT barbarian's player just came up with a clever solution to the puzzle, I'd want them to invent some sort of in-character excuse for it. Maybe, the puzzle solution was clear to them because their bully of an older brother who was always smarter than them punched them in the arm every time they were unable to answer that particular puzzle. Or because the solution reminded them of hunting an elk for some reason. Or whatever. Because it's a moment of characterization, I want some characterization, and an unusual success is a time for some characterization! If the characterization was lacking a bit, that's when we might roll to find out what happens - if the 8 INT barbarian can put these together. This rewards good role-playing because it makes the moment something about the succeeding character

This is also a time I might use the OOC table-talk as a sort of brain trust for the characters with higher INT. Like maybe the 8 INT barbarian's player comes up with a solution, but in practice this just gives the solution to the 18 INT wizard's player, and then the 18 INT wizard is the one who came up with it diegetically. None of us players are 18 INT, so I'm pretty OK with representing a high mental stat as linked to the best solution several people can come up with.

This style works for most mental stats. The 8 CHA grizzled mercenary might have a genuine moment of bond with someone for some reason, and if the player can make the game overall better by linking it to their character, then that's the kind of behavior I want to encourage. If the 18 CHA bard isn't bringing that, that's OK - they have an 18 CHA so when we call for a roll, they're still likely to hit it. OR, if the mercenary's player wants to give that answer to the bard and have the bard do it in the story, that's collaboration and is also the kind of thing I want to encourage. OR, for wisdom, if an attentive player noticed something odd in the room description, I'd want them to investigate, even if they're an 8 WIS rogue (or give it to the high-WIS ranger).

 

[el-remmen]

This is also a time I might use the OOC table-talk as a sort of brain trust for the characters with higher INT. Like maybe the 8 INT barbarian's player comes up with a solution, but in practice this just gives the solution to the 18 INT wizard's player, and then the 18 INT wizard is the one who came up with it diegetically. None of us players are 18 INT, so I'm pretty OK with representing a high mental stat as linked to the best solution several people can come up with.

This.

I have been saying this for literal decades on these forums.