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

[FrozenNorth]

The isn't so much the example, its how the example is being portrayed. What matters about the landlord is their context in the specific game.

There is no specific game, since it is just the example used in the book to illustrate the rule.

If you need to pile on a ton of context to justify the example, it’s a bad example. And criticizing a poster from relying on the example the book he’s citing uses doesn’t reflect badly on the poster, it reflects badly on the book.

 

[payn]

While I like the idea of the PF2 influence rules, and even took some cues from them the rules I use (which are overall more inspired by the 4th edition skill challenge rules), ultimately they have the same problem that most PF2 rules have, they feel overly engineered and require quite a bit of GM mental load to run (and in this case, preparing a social encounter requires a lot of prep work).

The 4e skill challenge rules by comparison.

Skill Challenges by blaek

Skill Challenges by blaek - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

That’s funny I always felt 4E rules were under engineered and not structured enough to be interesting .

I do agree there is GM mental load and prep required but I’ve always felt the best work absolutely requires such.

 

[Incenjucar]

I will always advocate for systems over player skill.

I should never be able to make Int and Cha dump stats and then get to use my decades of D&D experience and social development to make up for them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I will always advocate for systems over player skill.

I should never be able to make Int and Cha dump stats and then get to use my decades of D&D experience and social development to make up for them.

I think when D&D players talk "systems," we can switch quickly to "things like combat and skill checks!" and miss the unique kind of play found in the social pillar.

IMO, a system that supports social play shouldn't be like combat. It shouldn't be like rolling dice and adding and subtracting modifiers. Maybe some of those elements are in play, but that is not the "core mechanic" of social play.

The core mechanic of social play is player performance. I don't mean skill, I mean in like the acting sense. Talking in a funny voice. Using body language. Making in-character choices that have impact on the story being told at the table. Making your PC come alive. Participating in a shared bit of nerdy improv.

Systems in that light are systems that support the player performance. Not systems that bypass it.

I get that not every D&D player is going to be strong in that pillar, just like not every D&D player is good at combat optimization or at puzzle solving. That's OK, and one of the areas that well-designed systems can really help with, just as they do in combat (where things like "no trap options" enable different skill levels to play characters of similar power). It's OK if not everyone can contribute to every pillar with identical effectiveness. In fact, I've seen some players bounce off of D&D because of the combat focus, because those systems are so demanding and so precise!

To really drill down to the micro level, system support for performative play means empowering players to make decisions about what their character does, and empowering DMs to solicit those decisions and to use them as the building block for how the game reacts to that decision.

Like, Alignment. It's definitely got its issues, but as a gameplay rule, it's a great social system. It gives you a simple set of descriptors and a dynamic of how they interact. In elder editions, race was also a bit of a social system (reaction tables!). The idea of awarding a free advantage for playing your flaw is a pretty good social system.

"Insult. DC 15 Charisma check or take 1d6 social damage" isn't as great of a social system, since it bypasses the kind of delight the social pillar adds to the game.

 

[Voadam]

I am not sure alignment has been a good social mechanic. It has mostly only been a penalty mechanically for not roleplaying within a limit with 1e losing a level if you change alignment and 3e losing some class powers or no longer being able to continue in certain classes if it changed.

White wolf had nature which if you role played it mechanically granted you an in game willpower point recovery.

My understanding is that roll and keep games like 7th Seas have some mechanical benefit for leaning into a flaw, so xp or an action point or something.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I am not sure alignment has been a good social mechanic. It has mostly only been a penalty mechanically for not roleplaying within a limit with 1e losing a level if you change alignment and 3e losing some class powers or no longer being able to continue in certain classes if it changed.

Yeah I don’t think I’d ever say it was meant to be directly used as part of any social mechanics in the first place, well maybe possibly technically in it’s minor connection to BTIF and how those then relate to social mechanics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not sure alignment has been a good social mechanic.

I mean, it's not perfect, but I will defend it as a very good social pillar system, because of a few reasons:

1. It gives you a broad two-word description of what is important to your character.
2. It leaves the specific application of that broad description kind of open-ended. It defines Lawful Good, but it's up to you to decide what Lawful Good is in the situations your LG character.
3. It is something all monsters also have, and something that the cosmos of D&D considers important, so it is something that helps you negotiate alliances and rivalries and oppositions
4. It allows for different kinds of heroes, who can oppose each other and disagree without necessarily wanting to exterminate each other.
5. It provides something for the party to rally around in general (assuming that you have all non-Evil characters, I guess!)
6. It's a scale with some nuance, so you can determine where you fall on the scale.
7. In early e's it ties into class expression and magic - "Druids are True Neutral, they're only going to help us if it preserves some sort of cosmic equilibrum"
8. Another interesting element of it being used on the social pillar in early e's is its brief use as a language in 1e, which allows you to communicate with other creatures of your alignment without having to share another language (and in a way that other creatures can't understand).

It has mostly only been a penalty mechanically for not roleplaying within a limit

There hasn't been a penalty for not "roleplaying within a limit" for over 20 years.

But even that penalty was a (maladroit, imperfect) way to encourage you to perform your character.

 

[Umbran]

allow us to not even properly get into the mind of other humans, something we usually can do.

Not to sound the cynic but... if we usually can do that, the world should be in a lot better shape than it is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Combat is a mini game. Exploration is a mini game. Character creation and advancement is a mini game. Intractions are, and always have been, a mini game. That you prefer the "game" part of the social interactions to be more obscured than other parts of play is a fine preference, but it is merely a preference and does not say anything about the value of having a subsystem that makes courtly maneuvering (for example) as interesting as combat.

And, importantly, nothing takes away your ability to continue to resolve these things with checks. Even if there's "supposed" to be some social-combat structure....WotC isn't sending book-ninjas to assassinate you for your impertinent refusal to use that system.

And, to be clear @mamba I actually feel that it is valuable to go the other way when it comes to combats. Not all combats need to be complex set-piece fights with high stakes and deep mechanics. This is why I advocate for what I call "skirmish" rules.

Skirmishes are to proper combat what casual skill rolls are to skill challenges. That is, a skirmish isn't meant to be a serious danger, isn't meant to represent a full-on tactical fight. It represents the small, quick stuff, the "you meet two goblins in the hall" type things. Such rules, I imagine, would not be much used by folks like me, who prefer the rich, deep, complex tactical combat. But I imagine they would be used a LOT by folks who love the coordinated, strategic, heist-y logistical play where every fight you allow to happen at all is a risk taken etc.--the individual moves within said fight are far less relevant than the building costs across a whole delve.

This way, folks who want to focus on the big picture and only invoke the details when it's really important can do so, and those who want to get into the nitty-gritty of each character's action as it unfolds can do that too. The system is actually modular, in the sense that there are tools for high-engagement/high-detail gameplay if they're desired, and for low-engagement/low-detail gameplay if that's what's desired (because the real engagement occurs between these smaller instances of gameplay, not within them.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think when D&D players talk "systems," we can switch quickly to "things like combat and skill checks!" and miss the unique kind of play found in the social pillar.

IMO, a system that supports social play shouldn't be like combat. It shouldn't be like rolling dice and adding and subtracting modifiers. Maybe some of those elements are in play, but that is not the "core mechanic" of social play.

The core mechanic of social play is player performance. I don't mean skill, I mean in like the acting sense. Talking in a funny voice. Using body language. Making in-character choices that have impact on the story being told at the table. Making your PC come alive. Participating in a shared bit of nerdy improv.

Systems in that light are systems that support the player performance. Not systems that bypass it.

I get that not every D&D player is going to be strong in that pillar, just like not every D&D player is good at combat optimization or at puzzle solving. That's OK, and one of the areas that well-designed systems can really help with, just as they do in combat (where things like "no trap options" enable different skill levels to play characters of similar power). It's OK if not everyone can contribute to every pillar with identical effectiveness. In fact, I've seen some players bounce off of D&D because of the combat focus, because those systems are so demanding and so precise!

To really drill down to the micro level, system support for performative play means empowering players to make decisions about what their character does, and empowering DMs to solicit those decisions and to use them as the building block for how the game reacts to that decision.

Like, Alignment. It's definitely got its issues, but as a gameplay rule, it's a great social system. It gives you a simple set of descriptors and a dynamic of how they interact. In elder editions, race was also a bit of a social system (reaction tables!). The idea of awarding a free advantage for playing your flaw is a pretty good social system.

"Insult. DC 15 Charisma check or take 1d6 social damage" isn't as great of a social system, since it bypasses the kind of delight the social pillar adds to the game.

I mean, it's not perfect, but I will defend it as a very good social pillar system, because of a few reasons:

1. It gives you a broad two-word description of what is important to your character.

Regardless of whether those things are important to them or not.

1. It leaves the specific application of that broad description kind of open-ended. It defines Lawful Good, but it's up to you to decide what Lawful Good is in the situations your LG character.

Except when it comes time for the DM or magic system needs to check and then your decision on what it means means nothing because it's out of your hands.

1. It is something all monsters also have, and something that the cosmos of D&D considers important, so it is something that helps you negotiate alliances and rivalries and oppositions

By flattening it down to (depending on edition) 3 to 9 broad to the point of both meaninglessness and non-exclusivity boxen.

1. It allows for different kinds of heroes, who can oppose each other and disagree without necessarily wanting to exterminate each other.

The fact that their spells absolutely will try to exterminate each other and certain classes in the past just straight could not work with people who thought differently from them non-withstanding.

1. It provides something for the party to rally around in general (assuming that you have all non-Evil characters, I guess!)

And non Chaotic. And non True Neutral. And absolutely no Paladins before 4e...

1. It's a scale with some nuance, so you can determine where you fall on the scale.

It's 3 to nine boxen with zero nuance.

1. In early e's it ties into class expression and magic - "Druids are True Neutral, they're only going to help us if it preserves some sort of cosmic equilibrum"

It makes sure Barbarians can't be Honorable Warrior Race dudes, Bards can't be dedicated and focused on the actually pretty strict study of music, Monks are weird robot aliens, and Paladins sucked.

1. Another interesting element of it being used on the social pillar in early e's is its brief use as a language in 1e, which allows you to communicate with other creatures of your alignment without having to share another language (and in a way that other creatures can't understand).

Due to a rather stunning misunderstanding of certain usages of Latin.

There hasn't been a penalty for not "roleplaying within a limit" for over 20 years.

3e was less than 20 years ago. The Bard, Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin would like a word.

But even that penalty was a (maladroit, imperfect) way to encourage you to perform your character.

Not your character, your alignment. Normal people don't fit into 3 to 9 boxen consistently lest they suffer a learning disability.