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

DEFCON 1 said:

It would be preferable to think that our players would roleplay the stats they have selected for their characters, and that if they "dumped" a mental stat that they would play into that fact as they play their character.

Click to expand...

If using the array, a 10 is an average score for either Intelligence or Charisma. Even an 8 is fine, sometimes awkward, but can be competent.

A player can play a low score without need for exaggeration.

Even playing a score of 20 is subtle. The character might make things look easy. But otherwise, there doesnt need to be any special behavior.

A player can lean into a high score or average score when taking on the persona of a character, but only if it is interesting or fun. It is also ok to downplay the scores if the player is less into it.

I'm fine with mechanics as is, both as a player and DM.

If someone wants to role play social interactions, cool, i'm down. But i'm also cool with player just explaining how and what he wants to do and roll away. While social pillar is one where role playing comes to forefront, sometimes players have days where they are more in mood to roll away. As an extrovert and professional communicator, after a long week of client meetings, sometimes i don't have it in me to turn on my "bullshido mastery" in game and that's where stats and skills come in. I'm also totally fine if player with gift of gab who plays character with cha 10 talks his way out of things. Same with people who play high CHA characters who don't wanna talk it out, or they even don't want to engage in social pillar. I played my fair share of high CHA characters without any social skills ( since there are CHA based casters, you kinda do have to pump up that stat for combat effectivnes).

overgeeked said:

My preference is to simply not have mental or social stats in RPGs. Like most Japanese games don’t. The player is on the hook for describing things, making plans, role-playing, searching, etc. When mental stats are present, they exist for things lime mana and magic bonuses, not rolling to solve a puzzle.

Click to expand...

If D&D didn't have mental or social ability scores, then yes the player would have to resolve things on there own without resorting to "having the PC do it".

Tonguez said:

I get that problem playing low int characters,mso I also bump up wis and then all preface suggests with “I notice” or “Is it wise …?’. So my characters dontgenius ideas and solve complex puzzles, but they are perceptive, and can make suggestions based on the wise approach …. It’s not easy keeping genius in check, but it can be done :0

Click to expand...

Well, since Wisdom is more "valuable" in many ways compared to Int and Cha, it isn't a sacrfice to keep it bumped up, right?

But seriously, it isn't hard keeping genius in check. In my groups, there are probably (at least) three of us who are "geniuses" out of about a dozen players. Several of the others are very intelligence as well. We all understand we are playing a character, not ourselves, which is not unlike playing a character in a theatrical performance.

Finally, I'll note that this is rarely an issue that ever comes up, and even when it does, we resolve it easily. Either way, they can always roll to see if their PC succeeds.

My approach to social mechanics has a similar basis regardless of the system I'm playing, but I do modify it slightly. It takes the Reaction Roll as a basis, which I think was a really ingenious invention that modern D&D lost: A bell curve to determine the general disposition the opposing side will have in the beginning. If the disposition would be clearly determined by something else, I of course don't roll. But otherwise the Reaction Roll helps me simulate the idea that the NPC has their inner world and approach to the party.

Then if I'm running an Old-School game, I try to judge a social encounter depending on the player's approach and intent. I wouldn't make a dice roll at all, if possible, and just play the scene naturally. The player can just describe their approach and intent and that should be about it.

But if I'm running a modern game where there are socially-relevant mechanics (and as a result, some players might specialise in those and expect those mechanics to be relevant), I'll use those. Whether you get what you want in a negotiation might still be determined by a Persuasion roll in the end, but I'll try to colour the DC depending on your character's approach and intent. I also try to make sure everyone can contribute. Stats other than Charisma can be used, or you might just talk to discover stuff about the NPC and help the high-Charisma person that way.

All in all, I try to strike a balance between not forcing people to speak exactly like their character would, and just rolling the dice and be done with it. Unlike bending bars, talking is something we can do at the table, and at least my players feel weird when their characters resolve a social encounter with too many mechanics. It feels unnatural to them. At the same time, I want to make sure that even the most socially awkward person can play a persuasive smooth talker and be a credit to their team. So intent + approach method is usually sufficient.

I ask to the player tell me how the character want to convince, intimidate, persuade, charm, bluff, etc... They do not need to tell me the exact words, but the general lines of how the attempt will be made ("I will appeal to the queen's sense of honor", "I will flatter him by recognizing his great intelect"). And no, they cannot choose a skill. They tell me WHICH is their approach to the social interation. Once I know how, I tell the player which skill to roll and keep the DC in secret, because yes, the approch define the DC. Certain approaches have more probability to ressonate with the people they are interacting.

Usually, just one roll is not enough to resolve anything but the simplest situations. I use the rolls to influence the mood of the NPCs and the disposition (and patience) they have with the players. Once patience is out, nothing you can say will change the NPC behavior. Same if disposition drops to hostile or, at least, very upset. On other hand, once the disposition is good enough towards the players, the NPC can be convinced.

Reynard said:

I do want to talk about it in context of D&D but that doesn't mean we can't learn from of straight up swipe from other systems.

Click to expand...

I don't think D&D (any edition) works as a chassis for mounting mechanics or approaches pulled from other game designs. I know some see D&D as a toolkit and implied homebrewing challenge—I just really don't. So my only contribution re: PbtA is If you really want to do a social-heavy game, don't do it with D&D! The way some PbtA games add mechanical heft and narrative stakes to social interactions—like replacing HP with Conditions that PCs take (Angry, Afraid, etc.), and forcing them to do something specific, difficult, and emotional to clear those Conditions—would be, imo, a disaster if bolted onto D&D. The systems that do social best, I think, are ones where it's not handled as a siloed subsystem or minigame, but part of the larger action resolution. Otherwise, it's going to feel like what it really is: a sideshow between fights.

Grendel_Khan said:

I don't think D&D (any edition) works as a chassis for mounting mechanics or approaches pulled from other game designs.

Click to expand...

Okay. It does, though.

Grendel_Khan said:

I know some see D&D as a toolkit and implied homebrewing challenge—I just really don't. So my only contribution re: PbtA is If you really want to do a social-heavy game, don't do it with D&D! The way some PbtA games add mechanical heft and narrative stakes to social interactions—like replacing HP with Conditions that PCs take (Angry, Afraid, etc.), and forcing them to do something specific, difficult, and emotional to clear those Conditions—would be, imo, a disaster if bolted onto D&D. The systems that do social best, I think, are ones where it's not handled as a siloed subsystem or minigame, but part of the larger action resolution. Otherwise, it's going to feel like what it really is: a sideshow between fights.

Click to expand...

PbtA doesn't have some sort of monopoly on social mechanics. Lots of styles games use them. Look at the L5R example given upthread.

Laurefindel said:

I like mechanical systems that work as an incentive for players to engage in roleplay as way of overcoming obstacles and conflict.

I don't like mechanical systems that only benefit those who invested in social skills where at best a character can do okay, but likely to botch and put their foot in their mouth.

TL;DR: I hate systems where the best way a character can positively contribute toward group success is to shut up and not interact with others.

Click to expand...

This sounds similar to what I do: I use skill challenges for both Exploration and Social. 3 successes before 3 failures.(or 5 successes before 5 failures). You need to justify the use of the skill and the stat (so if someone is lying about being a priest Insight(Wisdom) or Religion(Intelligence) could be used).

On occasion, if you come up with something that just WORKS that I didn’t think of, you get sn auto-success.

You gain experience for the encounter as well.

My least favorite advice is when someone tells me to play another game when I want to do something in D&D. As a game designer who has worked on a host of systems via freelancing, from narrative to war-focused to D&D and D&D derivative, it really is not hard to run a fun social game in D&D, or an investigation, or a mystery, or cosmic horror, or whatever. It just really isn't that hard. And if I want to add mechanics from another game to D&D, it also really isn't that hard. PbtA is literally just roll over and depending on your level of success, you get different amounts of complications and gains. It's the most brain dead thing, you could make every skill check fit this, and why it may take like an hour for the GM to figure out some ideas, it just isn't that hard. Hell, most PbtA moves can be taken straight up and put into D&D and the only thing that's changed is the exact numbers of the threshold.

People who think that you shouldn't change the rules of a game or that you need to play a bespoke game for what's literally a small part of the overall experience are really telling on themselves as being close minded. Yes, if I want to play a game about supernatural teenagers in high school and their drama, Monsterhearts is better for that; but if I want to do a game where I sometimes go into dungeons, sometimes have to debate with royalty, sometimes have to hash out negotiations with orc troops, sometimes need to investigate a gorgon serial killer, Monsterhearts is freakin' useless. But with very, very, very little change, I can do that all in D&D.

Keep in mind that most of you grognards are surely aware that a lot of old modules introduce module-specific rulesets all the time. Saltmarsh's one quest that deals with talking to a bunch of reptile people and trying to build favor via a mechanized system is from the days of TSR and was reprinted almost word for word in Ghosts of Saltmarsh. If I want to play that one specific adventure about politckinh with reptile people in a marsh, should I jump to a PbtA game and then hop right on back to D&D when I'm done? This example illustrates the absurdity of this point.

I have also both played and run in several kinds of games that do "non-D&D things" while using the D&D ruleset. I've played in political intrigue games, I've played in games where we were roman soldiers with no magic and heading out into the wilds, I've played in games that were focused on figuring out who a serial killer is, etc. D&D's rules didn't get in the way of these games. For most of them, we didn't need new rules either.

It's just so wild to me that every time someone's like "Hey, let's talk about adopting this rule to D&D" or "Hey, let's talk about running something that isn't hack n slash," a vocal minority comes out to tell you how silly it is that you would ever dare to run something so """""avant-garde"""" in D&D.

CreamCloud0 said:

even if your post is making valid points about the issues of social stuff only keying off a single stat, we both know those other situations are not what i meant when i described an '8 STR fighter' pulling off that maneuvre.

Click to expand...

Presumably, you wouldn’t allow a 20 Str 5th level fighter to lop off an ogre’s head in those circumstances either.

Which goes back to one of the underlying pieces of guidance in D&D: only roll the dice when the outcome is in doubt.

If a player makes a compelling case why an NPC should do something, the NPC should do it. There is no reason to roll Persuasion halfway through to see if the character belching makes it less likely that the NPC will act.