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

[Lanefan]

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

I know, and as such I've never been a fan of its use other than when it comes to instinct-based creatures. I tend not to use it for opponents who, like the PCs, can think for themselves.

 

[Reynard]

I know, and as such I've never been a fan of its use other than when it comes to instinct-based creatures. I tend not to use it for opponents who, like the PCs, can think for themselves.

But they aren't thinking for themselves. The GMs is. And GMs have limited time, bandwidth and creative energy. Having rules that help focus what NPCs and adversaries do in play is a benefit to the GM who is (as I said before) juggling a lot of things -- especially in a big set piece social encounter with multiple important NPCs and even more minor ones and players trying to engage them all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know, and as such I've never been a fan of its use other than when it comes to instinct-based creatures. I tend not to use it for opponents who, like the PCs, can think for themselves.

Then again, it is fine for the GM to make die rolls for things they could also decide. Like rolling for random encounter instead of picking an encounter. In a similar vein they might roll a morale roll or allow the PC's persuasion roll decide the NPC's attitude.

 

[Voadam]

3e had a mix of RAW social mechanics working on PCs just like monsters and working on NPCs only.

"A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell."

"Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check"

"Intimidate (Cha)
Check
You can change another’s behavior with a successful check."

 

[Lanefan]

First of all, NPCs are not GM PCs.

Yes they are.

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.

They may not serve the same long-term function but a GM who doesn't at least roleplay them as if they are full GM PCs while they are on stage is doing them - and thus IMO their own game - a disservice.

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.

The GM should set up a social challenge not by mechanics but by determining two basic things about each relevant NPC:

- overall personality traits (e.g. the Queen is friendly and charming, the Duke is a boor, the Prince is an arrogant fop, etc.)
- their underlying motivations as regards the topic at hand (e.g. the Queen is open to persuasion, the Duke has to be bribed and even then can't be relied on, the Prince is already thinking along the same lines as the PCs and might speak in support once he realizes what they're proposing, etc.)

And then with those things in mind, just let it play out as a conversation.

 

[Voadam]

I know, and as such I've never been a fan of its use other than when it comes to instinct-based creatures. I tend not to use it for opponents who, like the PCs, can think for themselves.

I am not a huge fan and only occasionally use it, but not because it is an asynchronous mechanic that does not apply to PCs, but as described in B/X it is an explicitly optional rule and I usually prefer to make retreat type decisions on my own based on the situation and what makes sense and feels right and not use dice resolution for such decisions.

"MORALE (Optional)
Any creature in battle may try to run away or surrender. Characters are never forced to do this; a character always reacts in the way the player wishes. NPCs and monsters, however, may decide to run away or surrender. To handle this situation, each monster is given a morale score. Good morale (a high morale score) indicates a willingness to fight on, regardless of the odds. Bad morale (a low morale score) means the monster will tend to panic and desire to withdraw from combat."

 

[Lanefan]

But they aren't thinking for themselves. The GMs is.

Same as the players are thinking for the PCs, yes.

And GMs have limited time, bandwidth and creative energy. Having rules that help focus what NPCs and adversaries do in play is a benefit to the GM who is (as I said before) juggling a lot of things -- especially in a big set piece social encounter with multiple important NPCs and even more minor ones and players trying to engage them all.

Agreed only until and unless those rules force the GM to have NPCs act or behave in a way they otherwise would not, or allow a die roll to overrule what has just been roleplayed. If for example the players in-character do a fine job of persuading the Duke to lend them some soldiers the dice shouldn't be able to overrule that; by the same token if all the players do is piss the Duke off the dice shouldn't be able to make him acquiesce to their requests anyway.

And for me it has to be symmetrical: if something can work on NPCs then it also has to work on PCs. Most players aren't cool with this, which makes the whole thing a non-starter.

 

[Lanefan]

3e had a mix of RAW social mechanics working on PCs just like monsters and working on NPCs only.

"A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell."

"Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check"

"Intimidate (Cha)
Check
You can change another’s behavior with a successful check."

Didn't those all get quickly errataed to only work on NPCs?

 

[Voadam]

In other games, yes. Are we discussing other games now? I had thought the topic was D&D General.

That's funny, all my examples were explicitly D&D ones.

Roleplay to x prompt, can be fine. We have it in magical control in default D&D. Doing it for social mechanics would just be different. Some want D&D to be roleplay what you want with lots of player agency, some want it to be roleplay your stats on the sheet. Some want to roleplay off the die results they get for persuasion checks, tuning their roleplay to whether they got success or failure while others go with roleplay then dice.

Roleplaying to what you want for player agency is an approach to D&D.

Roleplaying to your stats on the sheet is an approach to D&D.

Roleplaying out the results of skill checks is something people have talked about as their approach to D&D.

Roleplaying then possibly going to dice or modifying checks based on the roleplay (setting DCs or giving advantage) is a standard D&D thing too.

 

[Voadam]

Didn't those all get quickly errataed to only work on NPCs?

Not to my knowledge. Are you aware of any such errata or where it would appear?

I remember things like polymorph being updated all the time in different official versions but not the social skill mechanics.

This is from the 3.5 srd so they already had development time from 3.0.

Edit, I just checked my PDF of the 3.5 PH which has the same diplomacy and intimidate differences in phrasing and says it is from the 2012 printing, so any such errata if it was put out anywhere is not included as of 2012.