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

[Vaalingrade]

Late to the party, but I'm a big proponent of accessibility and the ability to play any character one wants regardless of personal ability. I don't ask for a bench press to play STR 20, so I don't ask for deNiro level acting for CHA 20.

I let particularly persuasive arguments provide circumstance bonuses and particular arguments the target would be swayed by to either be a bonus or an auto win. The roll is the character's delivery, eloquence and if needed, filling in the gap between player and character capability.

Quite frankly, in my experience, I've seen players bounce off the game, never to return again when asked to play-act or come up with the big rousing speech they expect their cool bard or diplomancer rogue to be able to produce or come up with the genius tactics or puzzle solving of characters literally smarter than Einstein, so I prefer mechanics that help them along and let them play at their level of comfort, competence and confidence.

 

[payn]

I know I beat the Paizo adventure path drum quite a bit, but this thread reminds me of how great the sub-system modules were in them. For example, folks are both asking for sub-systems and asking to avoid them on this topic. If the mechanics are in the rulebooks, then it seems quite intended for one to use them. If it's an adventure module, however, folks tend to view them as much more optional. I mean, its probably best not to play the political intrigue campaign if you don't want to use social mechanics. Though, that doesn't stop folks from ripping those pages out and running it like any other adventure anyways. (That's modular like NEXT was supposed to be until they gave up on it. )

 

[ezo]

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.

Why was it unsatisfactory to him?
Most players love rolling, it was with advantage, an auto-critical, etc.

Why wasn't there any uncertainty?
The guard could have rolled over just as he swung, messing up his attack, or any number of things that would make it uncertain.

Yes, you could have, and yes, it certainly would have been with the rules to do so. I'm just curious about the two questions I made above.

 

[Voadam]

I mean, its probably best not to play the political intrigue campaign if you don't want to use social mechanics.

I disagree.

I've done it as a player in multiple campaigns.

Social mechanics are not needed to get involved in political plots with shady characters who you are not sure can be trusted, factions, and multiple agendas.

Mechanics just add in a gamification element and tie in mechanical character build and die result resolutions.

 

[Laurefindel]

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.



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).

Intelligence is a hard stat to play, as it can mean many things (same with wisdom and charisma for that matter)

I’ve known quite a few people who had a very hard time grasping abstract concepts, did very poorly in school, live a worker-class life without much intellectual challenges - that a game like D&D would consider low Intelligence - and in most cases their puzzle-solving skills were impressive. They could recall ridiculous number of jokes, would easily pick up music skills, memorize songs, dive very deep in various trivia knowledge, intuit complex machinery and mechanics etc. My take on that is that it has more to do with culture, background and upbringing than “smarts”.

A 8 Int barbarian might know many things and fare better in several “intelligence” domains than a 18 intelligence wizard because it’s part of their culture and heritage.

So while I’m cool with the fact that a 8 Int barbarian shouldn’t be role-played like a NASA genius, I’m never going to shut down any idea or puzzle solution because of a character’s low intelligence. Not with scores of 6 or 8 at any case, no more than I would give extra hints to a 13 or 15 Int character.

A 18 score should be compared to a 3; a “dump stat” of 8 should not be more derivative from the norm than a 13.

 

[payn]

I disagree.

I've done it as a player in multiple campaigns.

Social mechanics are not needed to get involved in political plots with shady characters who you are not sure can be trusted, factions, and multiple agendas.

Mechanics just add in a gamification element and tie in mechanical character build and die result resolutions.

Not exactly what I meant. If you dont want to use sub-systems that are a feature of a published campaign, it might not be an ideal purchase. Also, its quite obvious I agreed with your statement as folks run them anyways with the sub-system module stripped out. So, this was a very odd response, unless you just wanted to take a dig at folks who like things you dont.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why was it unsatisfactory to him?
Most players love rolling, it was with advantage, an auto-critical, etc.

It was 8 years ago but I do remember him clearly being miffed that his stealthy, strong assassin couldn't gank a regular, sleeping NPC just b/c of "combat rules".

Why wasn't there any uncertainty?
The guard could have rolled over just as he swung, messing up his attack, or any number of things that would make it uncertain.

Yes, you could have, and yes, it certainly would have been with the rules to do so. I'm just curious about the two questions I made above.

Dagger at the guard's throat? I don't recall the specifics of his action declaration but there are any number of things that would make the outcome certain, too. That's up to me, as DM, to decide by taking into account both the situation I've described as well as the PC's approach and goal that the player has described.

The DM adjudication style I've come to enjoy the most is best described by The Middle Path (DMG p236):

Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

 

[ezo]

A 8 Int barbarian might know many things and fare better in several “intelligence” domains than a 18 intelligence wizard because it’s part of their culture and heritage.

This would be represented more in 5E through background and class proficiencies, than Intelligence, IMO.

So while I’m cool with the fact that a 8 Int barbarian shouldn’t be role-played like a NASA genius, I’m never going to shut down any idea or puzzle solution because of a character’s low intelligence. Not with scores of 6 or 8 at any case, no more than I would give extra hints to a 13 or 15 Int character.

A 18 score should be compared to a 3; a “dump stat” of 8 should not be more derivative from the norm than a 13.

8 shouldn't be more derivative from the norm than a 13. But when you compare 8 to 13, it is a fairly big change.

It was 8 years ago but I do remember him clearly being miffed that his stealthy, strong assassin couldn't gank a regular, sleeping NPC just b/c of "combat rules".

Why couldn't he? The rules support it, unless the NPC has a load of hit points... but you said a guard, so I would think not.

Dagger at the guard's throat? I don't recall the specifics of his action declaration but there are any number of things that would make the outcome certain, too. That's up to me, as DM, to decide by taking into account both the situation I've described as well as the PC's approach and goal that the player has described.

I disagree. Not certain, but extremely likely, yes. If a failed attempt would result in the guard waking up, cry out alarm, and hindering the PCs, then there is a significant result in failure--so I roll would be required.

I mean, not knowing specifics, but just as an example... A guard (asleep) would be, what, AC 11. I doubt he's sleeping in his armor. An "assassin" (subclass?) rogue would be +5 on the attack roll, with advantage, giving the PC nearly a 94% chance of hitting. Even if you say the guard is AC 16 (alseep at his post?), the chance of hitting is 75%.

So, let's say the PC hits. A guard has 11 hit points. The rogue will deal (at a minimum) 4d6+5 damage (level 1, critical hit with sneak attack). That's more than 99% chance to reduce the guard to 0 hit points, with about a 25% to kill it outright.

I can more easily see the argument, "It is so likely to succeed, there's no point in rolling the dice. Let's move on." Which, I agree, is perfectly fine and I do it often myself. However, for me a big part is the "how significant is the price of failure?" If it's high enough, I'll insist on the roll, just to make sure something very unlucky (and likely very funny!) doesn't happen.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why couldn't he? The rules support it, unless the NPC has a load of hit points... but you said a guard, so I would think not.

To reiterate/clarify: Yes, in hindsight, I know that the rules support it. It was a decision I made 8 years ago. I felt like it was the wrong decision made by an inexperienced DM (me) at that time.

I disagree. Not certain, but extremely likely, yes. If a failed attempt would result in the guard waking up, cry out alarm, and hindering the PCs, then there is a significant result in failure--so I roll would be required.

I mean, not knowing specifics, but just as an example... A guard (asleep) would be, what, AC 11. I doubt he's sleeping in his armor. An "assassin" (subclass?) rogue would be +5 on the attack roll, with advantage, giving the PC nearly a 94% chance of hitting. Even if you say the guard is AC 16 (alseep at his post?), the chance of hitting is 75%.

So, let's say the PC hits. A guard has 11 hit points. The rogue will deal (at a minimum) 4d6+5 damage (level 1, critical hit with sneak attack). That's more than 99% chance to reduce the guard to 0 hit points, with about a 25% to kill it outright.

I can more easily see the argument, "It is so likely to succeed, there's no point in rolling the dice. Let's move on." Which, I agree, is perfectly fine and I do it often myself. However, for me a big part is the "how significant is the price of failure?" If it's high enough, I'll insist on the roll, just to make sure something very unlucky (and likely very funny!) doesn't happen.

Go back and (re)read what I quoted from the DMG regarding The Middle Path (the bit that you cut out of your response.)
It seems you prefer the "Rolling with It" style of DM adjudication. That's fine.

 

[Tonguez]

It was 8 years ago but I do remember him clearly being miffed that his stealthy, strong assassin couldn't gank a regular, sleeping NPC just b/c of "combat rules".


Dagger at the guard's throat? I don't recall the specifics of his action declaration but there are any number of things that would make the outcome certain, too. That's up to me, as DM, to decide by taking into account both the situation I've described as well as the PC's approach and goal that the player has described.

The DM adjudication style I've come to enjoy the most is best described by The Middle Path (DMG p236):

Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

yeah the lack of clear coup de grace rules was a major bugbear when transitioning to 5e, its still a bother, having to haggle with the DM about whether my stealth attack on the sleeping enemy should be an autokill