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

[Vaalingrade]

How are these not normal conversations, or series of them?

Do you speak to normal actual people the same way you speak to people who hold power over you, have something you want, or otherwise you have stakes in the outcome of the conversation with?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why? You don't need that level of detail in an RPG. Combats don't include parrying, riposte, slowed reaction times due to bleeding from cuts, halved movement from a moderate stab wound to the leg, and on and on. Real life level of detail just isn't necessary.

What I would need to do is roleplay any witnesses, the prosecutor, the judge, a bailiff or guards, and possibly a defender. The PCs may or may not have a defender, depending on the nature of the government, and if there is a PC not on trial, a PC may step into the role of defender.

From there it's just roleplaying and presenting the evidence. A PC defender might get social skill rolls when appropriate at DCs set by me depending on the situation.

Yes, but as you need to roleplay this, you still ned to have established the procedures of the fictional court. Who speaks in what order, what does the judge decide, is there a jury and what their role is etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you speak to normal actual people the same way you speak to people who hold power over you, have something you want, or otherwise you have stakes in the outcome of the conversation with?

In a sense that it still a conversation, yes.

 

[Reynard]

Unless you want a context free dice rolling exercise, you still need to have the fiction.

Yes. True. Despite what some folks in this thread have been saying, there is no dichotomy. You can have both.

 

[Reynard]

Why? You don't need that level of detail in an RPG. Combats don't include parrying, riposte, slowed reaction times due to bleeding from cuts, halved movement from a moderate stab wound to the leg, and on and on.

Some do. But the point of a subsystem is to alleviate that problem, to package up the scenario in a meaningful and fun mechanical way.

What I would need to do is roleplay any witnesses, the prosecutor, the judge, a bailiff or guards, and possibly a defender. The PCs may or may not have a defender, depending on the nature of the government, and if there is a PC not on trial, a PC may step into the role of defender.

From there it's just roleplaying and presenting the evidence. A PC defender might get social skill rolls when appropriate at DCs set by me depending on the situation.

None of this precludes a system in place that facilitates play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. True. Despite what some folks in this thread have been saying, there is no dichotomy. You can have both.

Right. But my point is that you need to know the fictional procedure of the court, and once you know that, it will naturally also inform the mechanical procedure.

 

[Reynard]

Right. But my point is that you need to know the fictional procedure of the court, and once you know that, it will naturally also inform the mechanical procedure.

I disagree. Or, at least, i don't think it is worth the effort. Having a system that is designed to resolve what we can call "antagonist and asymmetrical social conflicts" (including trials) is a better solution, IMO, than trying to invent a system for each instance. But like any system, you only apply it when it makes sense and when it is going to improve play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I disagree. Or, at least, i don't think it is worth the effort. Having a system that is designed to resolve what we can call "antagonist and asymmetrical social conflicts" (including trials) is a better solution, IMO, than trying to invent a system for each instance. But like any system, you only apply it when it makes sense and when it is going to improve play.

What will this system be like so that it is malleable enough to apply various wildly differnt situations, yet still lends the specificity and structure you desire, and does so without stillfing the roleplay? And who decided when the situation warrants the use of this system, (and why it it can never used when I come up with a problematic example) and how such decision to use or not to use it is not a similar GM fiat we tried to get away from?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but as you need to roleplay this, you still ned to have established the procedures of the fictional court. Who speaks in what order, what does the judge decide, is there a jury and what their role is etc.

Sure, but that's easy peasy.

 

[Maxperson]

Some do. But the point of a subsystem is to alleviate that problem, to package up the scenario in a meaningful and fun mechanical way.

None of this precludes a system in place that facilitates play.

That wasn't my argument. @Lanefan was saying that you don't need mechanics as you can just talk at the table and roleplay. You responded with a challenge to do a major criminal trial, the implication being that it would be hard to do without mechanics. I responded with, "Why would that be hard?" and here we are.

None of what I say precludes there being mechanics, but what I am saying is that it's easy to just roleplay out a major criminal trial. You don't need mechanics in order for such a trial to be easy.