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

[EzekielRaiden]

"Game balance" and "spotlight balance" are two different things.

That's...not how anyone I've ever spoken to about the term has used it. I am genuinely kind of baffled here. It's always been used in a game balance context to my knowledge.

 

[Maxperson]

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 don't believe in a party having a face. Any quasi-realistic character is going to want to interact with people. Just look here in the real world at all those who are uncharismatic and/or bad at communication. They talk all the time, even if it would be better for them to stay quiet. The same goes for those the party interacts with. The local lord is going to want to talk to all or most of those present, not just the one "face." It would often be rude for the party to refuse to speak except for the one person who is best at it.

 

[GrimCo]

So, this seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Gamification is fine and not co-op board game until it crosses an arbitrary line. Go straight to Tomb of Horrors. How charitable.

I don't understand what charitable means in this context, sorry. I can only speak for myself and for people that i know, but yes, gamification of social pillar is line which turns game from role play to co op board game. Tomb of Horrors is just most extreme example of adventure module that plays like board game. As i said, i'm fine with light social mechanics, emphasis light, so for me and people i play with, way the 5e does it is good enough. But, if they ever make robust social combat rules, cool. Just keep it separate enough so people can chose options better suited for their taste .

I’m not sure what the dichotomy is, RPGs are shared Storytelling, not improv theatre.
I love freeform play too, I encourage it, but that doesnt mean I get upset by rules (though I do prefer narrative focussed games like FATE). It is fully possible to roleplay during combat, actively narrating your interactions and doing in character dialogue, as much as it is possible to roleplay in any other aspect of the game, the DM can still mediate, and dice as a randomiser provides a prompt for further roleplaying, it doesn't prevent it.

Social interactions are real time, while combat is turn based. There is precise order and standardization of things you can do in combat, since you know, action limitations. You can role play in combat. But it has little effect on combat itself. Technically, you can play Descent (board game) and call it a TTRPG, just throw in some casual mid combat in character talking.

 

[Reynard]

That's...not how anyone I've ever spoken to about the term has used it. I am genuinely kind of baffled here. It's always been used in a game balance context to my knowledge.

It seems weird that multiple people have explained it and you are still "baffled." At this point it is beating a dead horse.

 

[payn]

I don't understand what charitable means in this context, sorry. I can only speak for myself and for people that i know, but yes, gamification of social pillar is line which turns game from role play to co op board game. Tomb of Horrors is just most extreme example of adventure module that plays like board game. As i said, i'm fine with light social mechanics, emphasis light, so for me and people i play with, way the 5e does it is good enough. But, if they ever make robust social combat rules, cool. Just keep it separate enough so people can chose options better suited for their taste .

Its a no true scotsman argument and I find telling people when they are and are not engaging a role playing game rather offensive.

 

[M_Natas]

So I'm more in the camp of "not more rules" for the social pillar of the game.

But can somebody give me concrete examples of more rules for the social pillar?
How do those mechanics would look like and how do they change (and improve) the gameplay?

Because right now I can't think off any one mechanic that I think would improve the game, but maybe I just don't see it yet.

 

[Reynard]

So I'm more in the camp of "not more rules" for the social pillar of the game.

But can somebody give me concrete examples of more rules for the social pillar?
How do those mechanics would look like and how do they change (and improve) the gameplay?

Because right now I can't think off any one mechanic that I think would improve the game, but maybe I just don't see it yet.

These Pathfinder 2E Influence rules are a good example. I think they improve things by giving the GM a solid foundation on how to adjudicate what the PCs do, with DCs and concrete targets and outcomes. This reduces the mental load on the GM and makes it more fair for the players.

 

[M_Natas]

You could have just stopped your post right there and that would be the answer to pretty much every issue possible.

At this point so car it seems to me that most people who want social mechanics don't have trust in their DM or very bad experiences with their DMs.

 

[Reynard]

At this point so car it seems to me that most people who want social mechanics don't have trust in their DM or very bad experiences with their DMs.

I think that is a very selective (and uncharitable) reading. Some folks (GMs and players alike) just like having rules they can lean on. Suggesting you would only want such rules because of Bad GMs is kind of insulting, even.

 

[payn]

I think that is a very selective (and uncharitable) reading. Some folks (GMs and players alike) just like having rules they can lean on. Suggesting you would only want such rules because of Bad GMs is kind of insulting, even.

I agree. There seems to be a deliberately obtuse reading of this topic where folks simply assume you either completely freeform role play or the dice decide everything entirely with nothing in between.