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

[Voadam]

I have only seen Bards fully avail themselves of the niche. Sorcerers only get the two skill proficiencies. Warlocks also only get two, and don't even have Persuasion on their skill list.

Everybody gets two additional skill proficiencies from background also though. Any character can be skilled at persuasion.

 

[Umbran]

If they're willing to burn an invocation, warlocks can add both deception and persuasion to their skills at level 2.

I'm aware. But that's starting to burn their potential magical powers on mundane skills, so I haven't seen that route taken. I see them take Detect Magic at will at the drop of a hat, by comparison.

 

[Umbran]

Everybody gets two additional skill proficiencies from background also though. Any character can be skilled at persuasion.

sigh.

I was relating what I, myself have seen. I noted that quite plainly. I did not position this as representing broad facts. Just my own experience.

What can be done, in theory, and what actually happens in practice are usually different, so I was referring to the practice as I have seen it, as context around what I was saying.

 

[Reynard]

Okay. What does it mean then? Because what I had always understood "the spotlight" to mean is: Which character is currently acting, such that the focus of gameplay and attention is on them? That character has the spotlight. Other characters may be ancillary assistants, of course, but the character actually doing the important action is the one in the spotlight. E.g., a Fighter can be an ancillary assistant to a Wizard if the Wizard is the one casting a powerful spell, while the Fighter is keeping enemies at bay; or a Cleric can be an ancillary assistant to a Fighter, where the Fighter is carving a swathe through the baddies while the Cleric restores their HP.

The definition i understand for "spotlight" does not have anything to do with mechanical or combat effectiveness, but is about the attention of the group and the story on that person. I think ensemble TV is the most applicable analogy from media for what happens at the table, and in ensemble TV the "less powerful" characters get spotlight time on the regular.

 

[MGibster]

I was more thinking that some players are okay with, even more comfortable in, a sidekick style role. Like playing Lois or Jimmy to Superman. They are still on screen a lot, but not necessarily the mover.

Some of them are. I have one player in particular who loves fighting more than anything else. In game I mean. And that's perfectly acceptable. I just hate it when players don't feel as though their characters should be talking to NPCs because they didn't make a talker.

I have only seen Bards fully avail themselves of the niche. Sorcerers only get the two skill proficiencies. Warlocks also only get two, and don't even have Persuasion on their skill list.

I find Warlocks and Sorcerers often fill in the face niche simply by virtue of having the highest Charisma scores in the game. Some of them will specifically select a background for the character giving them additional skills in Persuasion or Deception. (I get a lot of characters with Sailor backgrounds for some reason. Probably Perception.)

 

[MGibster]

What can be done, in theory, and what actually happens in practice are usually different, so I was referring to the practice as I have seen it, as context around what I was saying.

It should certainly be noted that all of us can have wildly different experiences from one another even playing through the same campaign.

 

[cbwjm]

I still don't know how players always get the face in position to do the talking, seems very much outside my play experience. My 10 charisma fighter would often be the one rolling persuasion checks just because I was the one who came up with something to say. That's not to say that the rogue with high interaction skills didn't often get his social skills rolling, but the organic play experience meant anyone could be rolling those checks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Some of them are. I have one player in particular who loves fighting more than anything else. In game I mean. And that's perfectly acceptable. I just hate it when players don't feel as though their characters should be talking to NPCs because they didn't make a talker.

IME, this can also be mitigated by having social encounters that don't hinge on success or failure. Just like some fun stuff to do with NPCs in downtime or as part of a larger scene. That let's people who want to do direct RP get it in even if they aren't mechanically optimal to deal with mechanically poised situations.

Also, ancient DM secret: steal from other media. The group needs to do a fancy thing? The face dolls everyone else and gives them a crash etiquette lesson while the DM quietly reduces the DCs and comes up for reasons why all the noble ladies might find it charming when the barbarian drinks wine straight from the carafe and the local ruler is actually tired of courtly manners and finds the awkward nerdy wizard intriguing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

while i think that in regular definition 'spotlight' just refers to 'screentime' in DnD i think 'effectiveness' or 'mechanical reason to contribute to a scene' is pretty much an equal component of it, because this is a group game people are 99% usually going to go with the most mechanically effective player, which is why the face comes out with the silent party standing behind them doing basically nothing, because contributing would likely reduce their chances of success

basically, IMO your rate of success is as important as actually being the one everyone's focusing on, a barbarian that failed 8 sleight of hand lockpicking checks didn't have the spotlight half as much as the rogue who succeeded on all of them.

 

[Reynard]

while i think that in regular definition 'spotlight' just refers to 'screentime' in DnD i think 'effectiveness' or 'mechanical reason to contribute to a scene' is pretty much an equal component of it, because this is a group game people are 99% usually going to go with the most mechanically effective player, which is why the face comes out with the silent party standing behind them doing basically nothing, because contributing would likely reduce their chances of success

basically, IMO your rate of success is as important as actually being the one everyone's focusing on, a barbarian that failed 8 sleight of hand lockpicking checks didn't have the spotlight half as much as the rogue who succeeded on all of them.

This suggests that RPGs are meant to be "won" and only the most effective action is an acceptable one, and frankly I neither like nor agree with that idea. Playing RPGs is a fundamentally a different experience than playing a co-op board game or whatever, and suboptimal choices are sometimes, in fact, optimal for fun.