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

[DEFCON 1]

Combat shouldnt have actions. Why get in the way of discussion? Let players describe the combat, for the sake or social skills. And skill checks? Class features? All too fiddly. Best to let the conversation take over here. Let players talk about how they hide instead of rolling dice. And damage? Eh, itll get in the way of conversation. Best to let the player talk about the damage. Oh, and, and, and....


...

Heh... you ever play Fiasco? Got everything you mentioned right there.

 

[Reynard]

Influence - Rules - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

When the PCs need to gain favor with or sway over an NPC to achieve their goals, sometimes a Deception, Diplomacy, or Intimidation check isn’t enough to get the job done. In these cases, you can implement the influence subsystem in a social encounter.<br /><br /> Influence is a short-term...

2e.aonprd.com

The discover-action, that is supposed to be used during the social / influence encounter.
As far as I understood it, the Discovery is supposed to happen during that specific interaction with that NPC and not beforehand.

--‐-----------------------------

But I would say, using concrete Examples from things that happened at the table are clearly helping the discussion.
Seeing how things actually play out at a table is different from just looking at abstract game rules.

Lol. I thought you meant 2e AD&D. I like the Pathfinder 2E Influence rules and already presented them in this thread as a good example of how to do it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Like, what are we talking about now? How the DM is organising his notes and fleshing out NPCs and adding possibilities for the Party to find out things about an NOC beforehand?

I think it is more than simply organising DM notes. On the Dm side, I think it is about a systematic way of thinking about these challenges and organising this information, so you don’t start from scratch each time you have a new challenge.

Edit. Also helping newer DMs.

 

[Shardstone]

I wonder if games like The One Ring get this level of distaste for their social mechanics. Rules for audeinces?! SPIT!!!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

...is lessen the importance of GM fiat in these kinds of scenarios, which I think is a benefit to the players and the GM alike.

This might be another sticking point for both sides of the discussion. You mention 'DM Fiat' here, and a number of other posters have also talked about it... how removing 'DM Fiat' is better for the game in their opinion. As though the Dungeon Master not making choices for what the NPCs end up doing and instead relying on the results of dice is better than the alternative. I certainly can understand that desire. It removes (or at least lessens) the possibility of a "bad DM" making bad choices or unfair choices. Removing 'DM Fiat' turns the game much more into a game, and thus players who do not trust the skills or attitude of their DM can still play and expect relatively "fair" results.

My response to that would be that I genuinely feel really bad for any players out there who play with DMs for whom their instincts and attitudes are not trustworthy enough to garner a good game. That must suck as a player that the "fiat" their DM employs is not worthwhile. I would say though that in a normal case scenario... your prototypical DM should, could, and would make logical, sound, reasonable decisions in reaction to what the players do, such that elaborate mechanical systems wouldn't be necessary to "protect" the players. I know for me... the DMs I play with are all good DMs for whom if they make a reactive decision in response to what I say... that I trust their reaction to be reasonable for whatever the NPC is that the DM is playing. And if they make that reaction with or without a die roll... that's perfectly acceptable to me.

Now admittedly, I just might be lucky and/or privileged to play with "good DMs" where I can and do trust their 'DM Fiat'. If others are not so lucky, then yeah, wanting more mechanical systems in place to override DM decision-making is understandable to me. So I wouldn't decry that need or want. But in my estimation the more hopeful response would be to just teach DMs how to make better calls and thus become more trustworthy than take away their agency and replacing it with mechanical systems. Because that road will eventually lead to CRPGs, where you don't need a human DM anymore because every response is generated mechanically. (And yes, I know the "slippery slope" argument is almost always extremely weak and fully admit that it is weak here too... but I use it merely as illustration for what removing DM agency and replacing it strictly with mechanics starts to feel like, if not actually become.)

 

[Campbell]

I'm all in favor of DM facing systems that help the DM.keeping track of more complex social encounters/situations.

But they shouldn't be player facing. There shouldn't be a social initiative or a list of 10 actions to take or such things - the characters need to react as characters to the ingame fiction and their decisions and actions should need to be informed by the ingame fiction.

In the tail end of my post, I mentioned that I do not favor 'social combat' systems, but instead favor systems like the DMG social influence system that starts and ends with the fiction. Similar systems include Chronicle of Darkness' Social Influence system, Exalted Third Edition's intimacies and PbtA moves that grant experience for going along with social influence. I'm not sure why you are bringing up combat minigame like mechanics in response to my post.

I'm personally not really a fan of how combat systems break the overall flow of most games. I prefer player facing systems that are well integrated into the game's conversation.

 

[Reynard]

This might be another sticking point for both sides of the discussion. You mention 'DM Fiat' here, and a number of other posters have also talked about it... how removing 'DM Fiat' is better for the game in their opinion. As though the Dungeon Master not making choices for what the NPCs end up doing and instead relying on the results of dice is better than the alternative. I certainly can understand that desire. It removes (or at least lessens) the possibility of a "bad DM" making bad choices or unfair choices. Removing 'DM Fiat' turns the game much more into a game, and thus players who do not trust the skills or attitude of their DM can still play and expect relatively "fair" results.

For my part, I am not really talking about "bad DMs" here, but rather mental load on the GM and how mechanics can help maintain consistent results when the GM might otherwise have 100 things they are trying to mentally juggle.

 

[M_Natas]

Yes, this is the role of magic in D&D.

Except for detect thoughts - weitere you also have to guide the interaction so that the Guard thinks about his bribability without actually setting of any alarm bells, which spell can do that? And should a Skillcheck be as good or even stronger (an Insight Check usually doesn't set off any alarms) than a second level spell?

 

[M_Natas]

Lol. I thought you meant 2e AD&D. I like the Pathfinder 2E Influence rules and already presented them in this thread as a good example of how to do it.

I find the playerfacing part horrendous. Having player turns? Having two possible actions per turn? Having defacto a divine action to find out a weakness or resistance...
That's all wrong to me. To stiff, to prohibiting while at the same time making discovering secrets (weaknesses/resistances) trivial.

The DM facing stuff is fine, the NPC statblock too, but the actual playexperience - I can't feel that that would be any good.

 

[Reynard]

Except for detect thoughts - weitere you also have to guide the interaction so that the Guard thinks about his bribability without actually setting of any alarm bells, which spell can do that? And should a Skillcheck be as good or even stronger (an Insight Check usually doesn't set off any alarms) than a second level spell?

I think the "pressing the insight button" thing is a bit of a strawman. I've never encountered a player that tried to use it as you describe.