D&D (2024) Influence Action

[Shardstone]

Easy to whom? I think some benchmarks and guidelines would be helpful, espesially for new GMs.

Part of the game is the DM figuring out what easy to whom exactly means.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Part of the game is the DM figuring out what easy to whom exactly means.

I don’t think it should be, at least without benchmarks. Like monster statblocks have actual numbers too instead of just having the GM to make them up.

 

[Shardstone]

I don’t think it should be, at least without benchmarks. Like monster statblocks have actual numbers too instead of just having the GM to make them up.

So we've now highlighted the issue. This isn't a matter of quality IMO its a matter of preference. The game already tells me what easy, medium, and hard DCs are. At that point, I need to ask myself if the circumstances of a specific social situation matter. That includes the NPC's background, race, views on the party, competency, political standpoint, etc. There is no way to make easy guidelines for this that don't suck; they only describe edge cases. The best you could get is "Neutral, Friendly, Hostile" but even that fails to describe even a sliver of the complex relationships two or more creatures can have with one another.

You have a DC 15, you know what easy/medium/hard means to you, use that to judge your specific situation. It isn't that deep. We sure don't need 13 pages of rage about something this objectively petty and small.

 

[zakael19]

So we've now highlighted the issue. This isn't a matter of quality IMO its a matter of preference. The game already tells me what easy, medium, and hard DCs are. At that point, I need to ask myself if the circumstances of a specific social situation matter. That includes the NPC's background, race, views on the party, competency, political standpoint, etc. There is no way to make easy guidelines for this that don't suck; they only describe edge cases. The best you could get is "Neutral, Friendly, Hostile" but even that fails to describe even a sliver of the complex relationships two or more creatures can have with one another.

You have a DC 15, you know what easy/medium/hard means to you, use that to judge your specific situation. It isn't that deep. We sure don't need 13 pages of rage about something this objectively petty and small.

Other games with set DCs do things like say “an easy check looks like X, most skilled people can do it. A hard check looks like y, only highly trained people with specific knowledge can do this routinely.” Etc. If you’re going to set DCs, make them mean something so that a DM can quickly contextualize how the system math intends for a situation to work out.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think it should be, at least without benchmarks. Like monster statblocks have actual numbers too instead of just having the GM to make them up.

Benchmarks don’t work well for different genres, subgenres and settings.

If I want a low level game with a more spy theme, I can make stealth and social skills easier than I might in a more gritty realism game.

 

[Shardstone]

Other games with set DCs do things like say “an easy check looks like X, most skilled people can do it. A hard check looks like y, only highly trained people with specific knowledge can do this routinely.” Etc. If you’re going to set DCs, make them mean something so that a DM can quickly contextualize how the system math intends for a situation to work out.

That works really easy for athletics, really had for social situations. And do you really need to be told something vague like "It's easy if the person likes you and the request isn't suicidal" ?

 

[zakael19]

That works really easy for athletics, really had for social situations. And do you really need to be told something vague like "It's easy if the person likes you and the request isn't suicidal" ?

No, the game would say “this is what an easy persuade check looks like, hard bluff, medium intimidate.”

 

[Shardstone]

No, the game would say “this is what an easy persuade check looks like, hard bluff, medium intimidate.”

But that doesn't tell you what a "hard bluff" is, which wil lalmost always be decided by the in-game scenario. For most skills I'm down with what you suggest, but for the Influence skills, it IMO is not worthwhile trying to break down the complexity of human interaction into small and easily decided categories. It requires fundamentally reducing social interaction instead of allowing it to expand on itself, which is required. In this case, a lighter rule is better for gameplay then a more strict rule. And if a strict rule were to be provided, it would likely have ot be ignored because of how useless it is.

Is it an easy bluff is my dwarf is talking to another dwarf? What about cultural differences? What about personal differences? What are the biases of each dwarf? How do the dwarfs talk? Does iteven matter if they are the same species? These questions can't be answered for every combination of character, and so all you can really say is "If you think they'll have an easy time, DC 10; otherwise, DC 15. If you think it's a crapshoot, disadvantage or DC 20."

Now you can build a powreful, robust, and fun social system, but doing so in the PHB will noticably bend the game around it. Now we need feats, class features, and items that key to this new system, which expands all the classes with more features and options, which expands page count and makes the game bigger. It becomes then a cost/benefit analysis of, do you want the game to have Social Interaction on par with combat, do you want to reduce both systems to hit the page count, or do you want to reduce one system to hit the page count. WotC have elected for the final option which, IMO, is the best option for THEM personally.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Other games with set DCs do things like say “an easy check looks like X, most skilled people can do it. A hard check looks like y, only highly trained people with specific knowledge can do this routinely.” Etc. If you’re going to set DCs, make them mean something so that a DM can quickly contextualize how the system math intends for a situation to work out.

Sure, they might do that in the DMG as well, since that is completely DM facing material. I mean, think about it, does the player need to know if their request to the Baron is Medium or Hard for the game to function? Not really.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, they might do that in the DMG as well, since that is completely DM facing material. I mean, think about it, does the player need to know if their request to the Baron is Medium or Hard for the game to function? Not really.

Not for game to function at all, but I think they should have rough idea in order to make informed choices.

And it is confusing if the PHB says that DC is the NPC's Int score, but DMG says it it is something else. That will literally be misleading to the players and will make them misjudge their chances and be unaware of the factors affecting those chances.