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

[EzekielRaiden]

The mechanics I used to adjudicate all of this was basically RAW. I mean, if you look at if with hindsight, it could be loosely described as a skill challenge, but I never told the players how many successes they need or anything like that. I just described how their actions influenced the party and the mood of the feylord and the party continued from that.

I don't think social combat rules would have really improved that play experience.

I do think skill challenge rules could have though. Because, as I said, it creates tension and removes the loosey-goosey ambiguity.

Let me put it this way: you said yourself that the players had no idea how many successes they needed nor how close they might be to failure. If that's true, why would the players not simply keep throwing solutions at the problem until they inevitably succeed? There's no actual tension or concern visible to them, because all they have are a fey lord they know they can ply, and some vague descriptions from you. They've no idea if the third roll or the tenth roll or the hundredth roll will be the one that ends it. I'm absolutely certain they had fun doing this; this is not at all saying that they didn't. Instead, I'm saying that having both the adjudication and the metaphorical "finish line" invisible to them cuts down pretty heavily the tension and danger of the situation.

You can be as descriptive as you like, but I doubt your descriptions would put the fear of God in your players the same way "you have 1 hit point left, your allies are too far away, and only one enemy is still standing" does. That's the power of having visible finish lines and failure points. It's objective, inarguable, and inexorable, since every skill check must be either a success or a fail, pushing the overall situation to a climax.

In this case, I would structure the SC like this:

Spoiler: Feylord's Secret

Learn the Feylord's Secret
The Feylord is hiding something from his wife, our ally, that is harming the war against the corruption. We have to find out what it is.

Obviously useful skills include Insight, Deception, Persuasion, Stealth, and Streetwise. History, Nature, Medicine/Healing, and Intimidate all seem plausible, but unlikely to have repeatable use without a solid plan of action (e.g. using Medicine to tailor the dose of a drug to act as a "truth serum" for someone as powerful as a lord of the fey.) However, the fey can be real weird, so any skill may work if the players have a clever trick.

The Feylord does not want the party (or anyone) to know of his secret shame. Hence, failures will make him suspicious and disinclined to share at all; after two fails, the party may only get half the secret even if they ultimately succeed. If, however, they succeed with no fails at all, the Feylord will come clean to his new wife, begging her forgiveness, possibly repairing their marriage.

Possible complications (note, not an exhaustive list):
A drugged lord is an erratic and dangerous lord. How will he respond to court events unfolding while he's intoxicated?
The party may not be the only ones listening in. One failed roll may not catch the lord's attention, but may (if appropriate) reveal that someone is listening in, trying to get dirt on him so they can usurp his position.
Some of the things ordinary humans think of as just socialization may have other meanings to the fey. Given his (current) wife is helping, will the Feylord think she wants to set him up with a concubine or lover?
If the players get desperate, they might turn to other forces for aid. What kinds of beings would know the secrets of fey lords? What kind of price would they expect for their help?

Note, for example, you don't have to use an initiative order. You can instead use (effectively) "popcorn" initiative, except the players don't know that they're doing that. Just ask for an idea, and then whoever goes first picks who follows after them, possibly after some OOC discussion. Also, although it's "traditional" to be "N successes before 3 failures," you can alter the number of failures too if it makes sense. (Hard to call it a tradition from only one edition, but eh, we do that with Fighters and Barbarians being idiots from 3e, so whatever.) For example, with a really extensive skill challenge covering a lot of ground (say, more than 6 successes), it might be wise to do "7 successes before 4 failures," but make actually hitting 4 failures especially bad, while 3 is still bad in the "pyrrhic victory" kind of way.

The 5E social mechanics that exist are so light and flexible, that they allowed me to adjucate that on the fly.

...skill challenge rules are also light and flexible. That's the whole point. You should be able to come up with an interesting skill challenge in minutes. Just like how you would if the party got into a fight you weren't prepared for and had to draft up opponents quickly.

---

Now, to turn things around: You've basically been arguing "I didn't need them in the game I run, therefore no one would benefit from adding them." That line of argument does not hold; just because your gameplay style doesn't have such situations very often doesn't mean they're generally useless. Instead, as I have said more than once, it means these things are tools, and not every tool needs to be useful to every user. A person might go years without needing a specific tool IRL (say, a socket wrench), and many cases might exist where you can get equivalent results with or without it (e.g. bolts that also have a screwdriver head), but that doesn't mean socket wrenches are generally useless.

As I said before, these things are "sometimes foods." They've got a place, they aren't for everyone, and that's okay. They don't need to be, any more than Druids need to be for everyone or Dragonborn need to be for everyone.

You've said you think situations that would call for this are rare. I disagree. Consider the following:

• Legal proceedings, court cases, etc.
• Complex negotiations (e.g. a trade treaty)
• Persuading a powerful figure to give military or financial aid
• Trying to break a cult (or other org) by revealing how the rank and file members have been lied to
• Sleuthing while attending a social function (e.g. a masquerade ball)
• An academic debate
• Impressing someone with a stage performance of some kind
• Working through intermediaries and proxies to request a face-to-face meeting
• Leveraging the corruption of a political establishment against itself
• Fomenting a revolution, starting a mutiny, or rallying a town to defend itself
• Convincing an enemy force to switch sides and support your cause instead

All of these are at least partially social events that would make sense to be more than just one single action (groups and organizations are rarely so easily persuaded), but which would be far less exciting if run just as "keep rolling until the DM decides you've failed or succeeded." They are not weird or obscure events, but rather perfectly reasonable things that could happen to almost any adventuring party exposed to relevant social groups (cults, high society, rulers, villages, ship crews, law enforcement, etc., etc.) Places where both failure and success can be exciting, where degrees between those two extremes are plausible, where the situation can (and really should) change dynamically as the players take action and engage with it.

Just as there are various rules that many groups never make use of and couldn't care less about, I imagine you would be one of the people who looks at these examples and thinks "nah, I don't need any rules for that, I can just decide when the players succeed (or don't)." But it simply does not follow that that means nobody gets value from it, nor that nothing whatsoever is gained from using some degree of more formalized structure.

Hence why others have pushed so hard on the "well why have all these rules for combat then? They get in the way of the conversation." There are systems out there that work like that, where nothing, not even combat, has complex rules. But most of us see how there is value added by the extra rules of combat. Nothing prevents there being some cases—not every case, not all the time—where a bit more structure to how social challenges play out can be very, very useful and beneficial.

I intend to reply to others as well, but I'm in dire need of sustenance, so I will do that after.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am not the biggest fan of skill challenges, but I have used them occasionally. I think they would be a fine additional option for 5e, but please, explain them better than 4e did!

 

[Quickleaf]

I think it can be useful to talk about the micro-moments that lead to that jerk mercenary being a problem.

Absolutely, great points. You have a lot here, so I've got to respond in segments.

Like, you mention a sharp veer toward hostility, but in the right circumstances, that's not necessarily a problem. It's just a player saying, "I want to take the story in this direction." If everybody else is on board, it's not a problem.

I think it's important to explicitly point out - as obvious as it is - that "if everybody else is on board" is neither a guaranteed truth, nor is it clear to all GMs & players how to achieve that consensus. When I mentor new GMs, the "how do I deal with a loud proactive player" is a point I see come up fairly regularly (they normally don't know how to phrase it that way, but that's what it boils down to).

So I guess the weight of your "IF" probably boils down to personal experiences.

The actual problem, in specific, is "interferes with another player's fun." A sharp veer toward hostility is just one situation that could, in the wrong circumstances, interfere with other players' fun. There's uncountable other situations that could do the same thing - whenever a player wants to take the story in a direction that's not fun for anyone else. Heck, even an extended scouting mission or a long social scene could fall into this camp as the grumpy dwarf in plate mail twiddles her thumbs for a few hours.

And that's not a problem with jerk mercenaries, that's a problem of player skill at performance (and maybe a bit with DM skill at player management). And that's something we can put mechanics in to help with.

To be fair, I would say the "Extended Scouting Scene" is a rules & procedures (or lack thereof) problem primarily. The player skill at performance is secondary and caused or at least exacerbated by that primary problem. So I developed house rules for "Scouting Scenes" that mitigate the "Decker Problem", which I employ in addition to the GM/player experience bit.

Which leads to a few design goals:

• It is more important to play as a group than to "play your character."
• Defining the goals of the PARTY, and getting the PC's aligned with those goals, is important. Similar to how you should play a D&D character who is up for an adventure, you should play a D&D character who is up for some collaboration on a goal. That goal might be personal (acquire a lot of money), or not (save the world), but collaboration with others is going to be an important part of how you get to that goal, even if your character is typically a lone wolf sort.
• The improv rule of "say yes" means, in part, don't negate someone else's contribution. That extends to players as well as DMs, who should not negate the offerings of other players.

While I believe those are phenomenal goals and 100% support them – I've noticed they're quite difficult for even experienced players to adhere to in the heat of the game when the Duke gets feisty and retorts with something inflammatory for that one PC. The "identification with character" mode of play isn't always so easy, at least from my observation, to quickly pivot to "what's good for the group/game" mode of play. My point is – no matter how many high-falutin' principles we have, this issue come ups at the table.

So, collaboration is important, but there's no real mechanics in D&D today that encourage that kind of social collaboration. There could be! Imagine if every player got Inspiration to award to each other. Or if maybe playing your flaw granted the rest of the party inspiration (but not you!). Or if we have a "talking stick" mechanic that allows one player the ability to speak for what the party does, but that stick rotates each time the speaker fails a check.

While we're on the same page that some sort of mechanics/procedures would be beneficial, my concern isn't the reward mechanism itself. "You get Inspiration" is easy design. Done. The deeper issue is the HOW – "play to your flaw" says nothing about a subtle form of disruption that's easy for a new GM (or a tired experienced GM) to miss.

One players sparking that conflict with an authority figure, despite ongoing efforts by other players to negotiate, is the example I've seen the most across different groups. It's easy to see after the fact, but that impulse of instigator players to instigate & for GMs to reply right away – it's a really, really strong impulse.

I think relying on a social contract principle is... while it's good in principle, it just doesn't reflect the reality that this issue flies under the radar so easily, that a group doesn't realize what happened until it's after the fact post-session.

If you play a jerk lone wolf mercenary but agree as a player to collaboration, then your jerk lone wolf mercenary becomes less of a problem child and more like...early-game Cloud Strife. As a player, you know your performance is given certain constraints - you won't negate other players' contributions, you will allow party to trump individual, you will be on board with the party goals. You can still perform your character as an isolative jerk, she's just an isolative jerk who is drawn - perhaps despite her best efforts - into being a team player ("It's not like I like them or anything...d...dummy."). Drawing your sword and threatening to kill everyone just becomes...your version of an Intimidation check. Not something that takes command of the whole scene.

And then this extends to other problem player types as well. The classic Klepto Kender isn't necessarily an invalid archetype, it's just a potentially antisocial one, like our jerk merc. If we can get players to prioritize the party and not negate each other, then the annoying "No, Jarod, your character can't just STEAL my vorpal sword" becomes the more collaborative

DM: "Okay, Noelle's turn."

Jarod: "As Noelle's character goes to attack, she realizes her belt is light. She looks over to my character and sees him absentmindedly drawing pictures in the dust with her vorpal sword. He throws it back to her with sudden panic as the moment sinks in for him. He says, 'I'll finish my portrait of you later! Get those dragon army soldiers!' Also, you can have an inspiration because I used my flaw on you."

Noelle: "My character says, 'Remind me to get a bell for you when this is all over!' and leaps to the attack!"

And much of this is pretty obvious for veterans, but the PHB contains precious little on this kind of play. It's assumed, practiced, but not codified, and not mechanized, so it's lost on a lot of players with otherwise great intentions.

If we want better social gameplay, I think this is the path we should walk down. Don't give me points and die rolls. It ain't about that. Give me ways to participate in a group performance, ways to make my flaws fun, ways to keep the group empowering each other, ways to be a better player of a role in the context of this role playing game.

Though D&D has done something in this regard, it's largely been accidental or incidental, and I think that if we had some good design goals for this pillar, we could get some mechanics that aren't just "combat, but using different stats."

Yeah, you get it. That's spot on.

One of the things I do with many combats now is ask the group "what's your goal here?" And I give them a 1 minute huddle. I don't think this applies 1:1 or addresses the mechanical/codification issue behind a degree of social interaction mechanics, but it might provide a procedural approach...depending on how detailed the scene is and how much that goal becomes a moving target.

For Design Principles for Social Mechanics, I think collaborative play - like you've outlined - is a good one.

A couple others that I follow and which might be useful:

Resolution of complex/extended scenes with gradient of outcomes.
Prompts/Questions for GM to keep scene moving and present new challenges.

 

[Lanefan]

Establishing the things the fey lord would respond positively and negatively to beforehand, and using some system or another that quantified the impact of utilizing those keys by the players, would not have made the scenario less interesting. It wouldn't have meant less roleplay -- the players still have to engage the game to get to a point of making those checks.

What I think a relatively well detailed social pillar system does 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.

Doesn't the GM get to have the same control and agency in playing her NPCs as the players do in playing their characters?

Because that's what a lot of this is starting to sound like: ways and means of giving the players the ability to force the GM to have NPCs react in ways and-or do things that the PCs want them to, while those same abilities are not given to the NPCs to use in return on the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

I believe this to be another misunderstanding that any social mechanic system is applicable to every single Tom, Dick, and Harry NPC the players encounter in every situation.

Just like the combat rules are applicable every time a PC pulls out a weapon and tries to use it, or someone tries to use one on them, yes. Ditto if a PC draws against another PC; the combat rules apply.

Rules are rules; they either exist or they don't; and if they exist they cover all situations to which they apply. Social interaction rules, if they are to exist, have to apply to all social interaction situations (even includng arguments or discussions between PCs!) if they are to apply to any; and bang goes player agency over their characters. And this is why they're a dumb idea.

You don't get to say "Oh, these rules didn't apply last time but they do this time and may or may not next time", because that's the highway to Calvinball.

 

[payn]

Just like the combat rules are applicable every time a PC pulls out a weapon and tries to use it, or someone tries to use one on them, yes. Ditto if a PC draws against another PC; the combat rules apply.

Rules are rules; they either exist or they don't; and if they exist they cover all situations to which they apply. Social interaction rules, if they are to exist, have to apply to all social interaction situations (even includng arguments or discussions between PCs!) if they are to apply to any; and bang goes player agency over their characters. And this is why they're a dumb idea.

You don't get to say "Oh, these rules didn't apply last time but they do this time and may or may not next time", because that's the highway to Calvinball.

No, to all of this. I use sub-systems to great effect in my games. It's ok if you cannot.

 

[Reynard]

Doesn't the GM get to have the same control and agency in playing her NPCs as the players do in playing their characters?

Because that's what a lot of this is starting to sound like: ways and means of giving the players the ability to force the GM to have NPCs react in ways and-or do things that the PCs want them to, while those same abilities are not given to the NPCs to use in return on the PCs.

First of all, NPCs are not GM PCs. They don't serve anywhere near the same function and a GM should not be too precious about them, and they absolutely do not need to have the same options and abilities as the PCs.

Second, the GM's job (or part of it anyway) is setting up challenges for the party, whether that is a magadungeon or a hostile court. Because this is a game, part of setting up challenges is determining how the rules work in the challenge and which ones apply and which don't. In the case of a social challenge, the NPCs are parts of the challenge, serving simultaneously as opposition and terrain. The point for the players is to use some combination of their personal wits and their characters' mechanics to overcome the challenge.

 

[Voadam]

Just like the combat rules are applicable every time a PC pulls out a weapon and tries to use it, or someone tries to use one on them, yes. Ditto if a PC draws against another PC; the combat rules apply.

Rules are rules; they either exist or they don't; and if they exist they cover all situations to which they apply. Social interaction rules, if they are to exist, have to apply to all social interaction situations (even includng arguments or discussions between PCs!) if they are to apply to any; and bang goes player agency over their characters. And this is why they're a dumb idea.

You don't get to say "Oh, these rules didn't apply last time but they do this time and may or may not next time", because that's the highway to Calvinball.

Morale in combat applies to monsters and NPCs but not PCs in B/X, 1e, and 2e.

 

[Reynard]

Morale in combat applies to monsters and NPCs but not PCs in B/X, 1e, and 2e.

 

[Lanefan]

I do think skill challenge rules could have though. Because, as I said, it creates tension and removes the loosey-goosey ambiguity.

Let me put it this way: you said yourself that the players had no idea how many successes they needed nor how close they might be to failure. If that's true, why would the players not simply keep throwing solutions at the problem until they inevitably succeed? There's no actual tension or concern visible to them, because all they have are a fey lord they know they can ply, and some vague descriptions from you. They've no idea if the third roll or the tenth roll or the hundredth roll will be the one that ends it. I'm absolutely certain they had fun doing this; this is not at all saying that they didn't. Instead, I'm saying that having both the adjudication and the metaphorical "finish line" invisible to them cuts down pretty heavily the tension and danger of the situation.

You can be as descriptive as you like, but I doubt your descriptions would put the fear of God in your players the same way "you have 1 hit point left, your allies are too far away, and only one enemy is still standing" does. That's the power of having visible finish lines and failure points. It's objective, inarguable, and inexorable, since every skill check must be either a success or a fail, pushing the overall situation to a climax.

This assumes, to continue the analogy, that the players/PCs know how long the "race" even is.

They've most likely got no idea going in whether the person they're talking to is already disposed toward agreeing with them and all they have to do is not piss him off, or whether he's neutrally-inclined and thus open to persuasion or bribery or flattery or whatever, or whether he's not going to give an inch until-unless literally put to the sword.

And thus, giving them "visible finish lines" amounts to providing the players with information the characters wouldn't know; which in my books is a big DM no-no.

That said, ideally the DM is roleplaying the NPC well enough to give a good idea (whether accurate or not!) as to how well or not-well the PCs are doing in their attempts to persuade, as the conversation goes along.

You've said you think situations that would call for this are rare. I disagree. Consider the following:

• Legal proceedings, court cases, etc.
• Complex negotiations (e.g. a trade treaty)
• Persuading a powerful figure to give military or financial aid
• Trying to break a cult (or other org) by revealing how the rank and file members have been lied to
• Sleuthing while attending a social function (e.g. a masquerade ball)
• An academic debate
• Impressing someone with a stage performance of some kind
• Working through intermediaries and proxies to request a face-to-face meeting
• Leveraging the corruption of a political establishment against itself
• Fomenting a revolution, starting a mutiny, or rallying a town to defend itself
• Convincing an enemy force to switch sides and support your cause instead

Only a few of these have come up in games I've run or played in:

Legal proceedings and court cases: relatively often. Done through roleplay (and occasional shenanigans), with the roleplay covering the key moments rather than every word of every long droning presentation.
Trying to break a cult...: rare but it's happened. Done through roleplay.
Working through intermediaries and proxies...: all the time. Roleplayed every time.
Convincing enemies to switch sides: uncommon but by no means unheard of. Done through roleplay spiced with occasional morale-like checks.

Just as there are various rules that many groups never make use of and couldn't care less about, I imagine you would be one of the people who looks at these examples and thinks "nah, I don't need any rules for that, I can just decide when the players succeed (or don't)." But it simply does not follow that that means nobody gets value from it, nor that nothing whatsoever is gained from using some degree of more formalized structure.

So you're suggesting that this all be optional, and clearly flagged as such? OK, that's far more acceptable.

I've been going on the assumption these social rules were intended to be baked into the core game.