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

[Reynard]

I would not be upset if the viceroy wants to throw my character in the jail, I would be upset if the social combat forces my character to change their mind about the viceroy being evil, and instead makes them think that the viceroy enslaving the gnomes is actually a good thing.

Ultimately to a lot of people it is pretty central aspect of roleplay to get to decide how their characters feel and thinks, and a system that routinely takes away that agency is a no go.

At least for my part, I am not talking about a system that changes the PCs minds. Like you say, agency is paramount. Rather, the PCs are trying to impact the world through social encounters, and that should come with some risk of failure and associated costs. The vizier winning may well mean you are going to the rack, even if you still think he is a jerk.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not going to go over all the questions you had right now... but this one in particular I just wanted to clear it up since I got the impression you might have misinterpreted what I was trying to saying for this point. When I said that the narration has nothing to do with the mechanics (on this point) I was actually referring to combat. How you narrate your attack in combat does not impact the dice rolling or mechanics in combat. So for instance there are no bonuses to be gained in the mechanics if you describe how you attack really well. You can't narrate "I aim for the creature's jugular" and then gain Advantage or an auto-crit or whatever from the DM because they thought "That's a good tactic!". That was all I was saying.

Really? How strange. Even in 4e games, I've seen DMs open to the possibility that a clever plan of attack could provide some kind of benefit. (In that context, usually just Combat Advantage, which--for anyone unfamiliar with 4e--is a +2 to rolls, and having it enables some combat features, like Sneak Attack.)

The "DM's best friend" is just as valid in combat as it is out of combat. It should be used sparingly, to encourage legitimately clever tactics, but it should in fact be used, so that players have a motive for clever tactics and (ideally) immersive expression.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

At least for my part, I am not talking about a system that changes the PCs minds. Like you say, agency is paramount. Rather, the PCs are trying to impact the world through social encounters, and that should come with some risk of failure and associated costs. The vizier winning may well mean you are going to the rack, even if you still think he is a jerk.

But presumably the PCs could still change the minds of the NPCs? This would make it nonanalogous to the physical combat system, which is symmetrical.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would not be upset if the viceroy wants to throw my character in the jail, I would be upset if the social combat forces my character to change their mind about the viceroy being evil, and instead makes them think that the viceroy enslaving the gnomes is actually a good thing.

Ultimately to a lot of people it is pretty central aspect of roleplay to get to decide how their characters feel and thinks, and a system that routinely takes away that agency is a no go.

Why on Earth would that be a result? I am deeply confused as to how this would ever be a thing. Why would that ever be valuable or even open to consideration?

 

[Voadam]

To get back to social mechanics to encourage role play, I often ask the bard what his insult is when he casts vicious mockery. It has been fun getting a different applicable one for every time he casts it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But presumably the PCs could still change the minds of the NPCs? This would make it nonanalogous to the physical combat system, which is symmetrical.

Except that it isn't symmetrical. Combatants exist for (usually) no more than one combat. Hence why it is patently foolish to (for example) use 1:1 identical Vancian spellcasting design for NPCs. The one NPC gets an entire day's worth of Vancian spells; the PCs don't.

Combat is inherently asymmetrical, because the goals of the two sides ("win this one combat" vs "survive indefinitely") are radically different. Just like real-life asymmetrical warfare.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why on Earth would that be a result? I am deeply confused as to how this would ever be a thing. Why would that ever be valuable or even open to consideration?

If we have a symmetrical system like combat, and PCs can convince NPCs of things, then the NPCs can also convince PCs of things. But when we have "Luke, join me," moment, I want the player to be able to decide whether to join the dark side, not the result to be dictated by the mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

I would not be upset if the viceroy wants to throw my character in the jail, I would be upset if the social combat forces my character to change their mind about the viceroy being evil, and instead makes them think that the viceroy enslaving the gnomes is actually a good thing.

So, the idea that social conflict resolution should "change your mind" is an artifact of the incredibly and woefully simplistic and reductive approach to social interaction currently used in D&D. That's not what social conflict resolution ought to be.

Social conflict resolution is "getting what you want by means of social interactions", rather like physical conflict resolution (aka "combat," in D&D) is getting what you want by means of violent physical interactions.

Does the orc "change your mind" with a sword? No. So, we don't need the Evil Viceroy to change the PC's minds in a social conflict. What we need is for the Viceroy to be able to get what he wants through social interaction.

What does that mean? Well, for an orc on a battlefield, getting what he wants means removing the PC from the battle - in D&D, by reducing them to zero hit points. So, in a social conflict, the Viceroy needs to remove the PC from the field of social battle - make it so nobody will listen to them or take them seriously. If the Viceroy can successfully make the PCs look like fools, liars, agents of a foreign power, or simply woefully misinformed vagabonds, then nobody will pay attention to their pleas. The Viceroy has to reduce the PC's social cache to nothing, so they cannot change the situation by social interaction.

 

[payn]

If we have a symmetrical system like combat, and PCs can convince NPCs of things, then the NPCs can also convince PCs of things. But when we have "Luke, join me," moment, I want the player to be able to decide whether to join the dark side, not the result to be dictated by the mechanics.

Do you allow players to make NPCs join the light side by dice rolls?

 

[Reynard]

But presumably the PCs could still change the minds of the NPCs? This would make it nonanalogous to the physical combat system, which is symmetrical.

Well, only if you consider that the only result of combat is death for one of the two sides. There are other options, which many GMs rely on because they don't want TPKs or whatever: the PCs end up captured or whatever.

But, sure. they aren't exactly the same. What's your point?