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

[Crimson Longinus]

See, I just would not make Luke's failure mean "Luke joins the dark side" in that scene. That scene is entirely about Luke trying to convince Vader to reject the emperor. Luke won that battle. Had it gone the other way, Luke would have had to fight them both.

Ok. So Luke cannot be convinced, that's never at stake? Why cannot it be? And what if it is not both sides trying to convince each other? How about in the Empire Strikes Back, when Vader says "Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son?" Or literally anything where the NPC tries to convince the PC of something. Like that is a super common situation. How is it handled?

 

[Reynard]

Ok. So Luke cannot be convinced, that's never at stake? Why cannot it be? And what if it is not both sides trying to convince each other? How about in the Empire Strikes Back, when Vader says "Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son?" Or literally anything where the NPC tries to convince the PC of something. Like that is a super common situation. How is it handled?

I don't know what to tell you other than I don't think the GM can dictate player choices.

 

[Starfox]

I have some socially inept players who love to play socially adept characters, so I am more or less forced to lean into the rules-govern side of this argument. And I would do so even if these player didn't make me lean that way. That said, when a player makes a passionate speech or acts all googly-eyed, I often let the dice rest and simply declare a success.

 

[Voadam]

I don't know what to tell you other than I don't think the GM can dictate player choices.

Sure they can.

Dominate person.

D&D generally gives Players agency over what they think and feel and do, but there are some exceptions, usually magically imposed controls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't know what to tell you other than I don't think the GM can dictate player choices.

Right, but how does it work in practice? If we have this social combat system with "social HP" and whatnot, why cannot the NPC attack the PCs beliefs and convictions? What happens in a fictional situation where they do so in the narrative? Are we just not using the system? Can the PC still try to socially attack the NPC?

I mean, "just not use it against PCs" is a perfectly understandable answer, and that's what I ended up doing with Exalted 2e, where by the rules the NPCs certainly could have been able convince the PCs about all sort of things just the same as the PCs could convince them. But it also is a bit weird to handle asymmetrical conflicts via such involved mechanics. Like if in a physical combat the NPCs were not allowed to hit back.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There has been inconsistence how the enemy stat blocks have been written in that regard, but that really isn't that relevant.

Yes, it is. Supremely relevant.

It is symmetrical in the sense that the mechanics work pretty much the same for both sides.

No, they don't. That's what I'm telling you. They don't work pretty much the same. There are significant differences--and there should be. They're run differently, for different purposes, with different goals.

 

[Reynard]

Right, but how does it work in practice? If we have this social combat system with "social HP" and whatnot, why cannot the NPC attack the PCs beliefs and convictions? What happens in a fictional situation where they do so in the narrative? Are we just not using the system? Can the PC still try to socially attack the NPC?

I mean, "just not use it against PCs" is a perfectly understandable answer, and that's what I ended up doing with Exalted 2e, where by the rules the NPCs certainly could have been able convince the PCs about all sort of things just the same as the PCs could convince them. But it also is a bit weird to handle asymmetrical conflicts via such involved mechanics. Like if in a physical combat the NPCs were not allowed to hit back.

I have been pretty clear that in my view, the system is for specific instances. It's like Chase rules: you only employ it for its designed purpose, not as a catch all. I know not everyone likes subsystems, but I do. I think that are a great way to focus play at specific moments. I simply would not employ "social combat" outside of its intended purpose any more than I would employ the Chase rules outside of a Chase scene.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, they don't. That's what I'm telling you. They don't work pretty much the same. There are significant differences--and there should be. They're run differently, for different purposes, with different goals.

The rules work the same for both of them. You can even have full PC sheet for a NPC or have a player to play a "monster" represented my a monster statblock. Only thing that is different is who controls which statblock, but that doesn't affect the rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok. So Luke cannot be convinced, that's never at stake? Why cannot it be?

Because--as you have eloquently demonstrated--it produces bad gameplay. Why else would we design anything? The purpose of design is to produce worthwhile gameplay. (Noting that what qualifies as "worthwhile" precedes the design process--that's a choice on the designer's part. D&D, for instance, has chosen three "pillars" of gameplay. Those are what it has defined as worthwhile; the design then takes those values and develops gameplay intended to be meaningful.)

And what if it is not both sides trying to convince each other? How about in the Empire Strikes Back, when Vader says "Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son?" Or literally anything where the NPC tries to convince the PC of something. Like that is a super common situation. How is it handled?

It sure as hell wouldn't be "and now the mechanics mind-control your character into doing things." Because that is obviously bad design, and when one has a choice between good and productive design and obviously bad design, well, I should think it wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have been pretty clear that in my view, the system is for specific instances. It's like Chase rules: you only employ it for its designed purpose, not as a catch all. I know not everyone likes subsystems, but I do. I think that are a great way to focus play at specific moments. I simply would not employ "social combat" outside of its intended purpose any more than I would employ the Chase rules outside of a Chase scene.

What is the intended purpose then? And if it is only narrowly applicable doesn't it leave most of the social situations to be run by the old method, suffering from everything that was perceived to be a problem with it?