A thought about Social Mechanics

[Emberashh]

As Im wont to do I found myself mining the depths of the internet for ancient internet discussions about RPGs, and I ended up going down a rabbit hole of a topic regarding social mechanics and how GMs tend to use them alongside improv.

Naturally, theres a lot of contention over improv being more important than the roll, but also in the other direction where really good improv gets wasted by bad luck.

What just occurred to me though, is what if you swap who does the rolling? Ie, make the person who rolls in a conversation be the person listening rather than the one talking?

How I see it working is the player whose looking to convince an NPC of something would make their plea, using improv to sell it. Based on this, the GM has the NPC make whats essentially a saving throw, perhaps with penalties added in based on the improv (and/or something from a relevant Skill), and that is how the interaction resolves.

The single biggest advantage I see, for me, is that its probably the best way to connect a player's improv with their character Stats. Neither would be optimal alone, but neither of them would take away from the other at the same time.

It also achieves something Ive observed works to mitigate the sting of failure by positioning the resolution on something the opposition does to resist them, rather than the player making a crummy roll.

Their saving throw is basically a check to see if they've rationalized themselves away from being convinced, and so them succeeding shouldn't feel as jarring as it would if it was the player doing it.

Plus, because the player has a hand in setting the difficulty of the save, it also makes it worthwhile to try for any bonus you can get. Even if you're not up for active roleplaying, and would rather go descriptive, you can still really stick it to the NPC if you're clever, and investing your character build towards this end is just as worthwhile.

Now, I've only just had this all pop into my head, but it does seem like a really viable approach, and I wouldn't be surprised if it exists somewhere (though I can't remember ever reading a system that positioned these mechanics like this).

So thoughts?

 

[MGibster]

It's interesting, but I don't really think it makes social skills any easier to adjudicate. If the GM is still evaluating the story/lie being told and assigning a difficulty to save it's still the same amount of work on their part as having the player telling the story/lie to roll. I certainly agree that it's a viable approach if a bit novel. Does any other game have the listener make a save versus illusion?

 

[Emberashh]

It's interesting, but I don't really think it makes social skills any easier to adjudicate. If the GM is still evaluating the story/lie being told and assigning a difficulty to save it's still the same amount of work on their part as having the player telling the story/lie to roll. I certainly agree that it's a viable approach if a bit novel. Does any other game have the listener make a save versus illusion?

Thats why I think the player setting ~2/3 of the DC is the natural conclusion. In my own system this would probably be an Acuity save (meaning the players current Acuity, a sort of Mental HP, is the base target number), modified by the specific skill invoked + whatever penalties the GM deigns to give themselves based on the improv.

The GM would still be ajudicating, but only on whether or not a particular penalty should apply against their roll, which is a lot more straightforward, especially with guidelines the system can provide, and the bulk of the target is still being determined by the player and their character, giving them the most influence over the outcome regardless. (Assuming the GM doesn't fudge)

But yeah I would be interested to know if any games have gone this route.

 

[aramis erak]

What just occurred to me though, is what if you swap who does the rolling? Ie, make the person who rolls in a conversation be the person listening rather than the one talking?

It only matters who rolls if that changes the odds.
Also, most of the time, the games I've got suggest social to be done by opposed rolling.
There is a subset that are pure "don't use mechanics" for social.

 

[Jahydin]

I think your reasoning is sound and the mechanics certainly work. Similarly, you could just roll the check for them behind the screen too.

I'd suggest listening to the players input first though, then deciding if a roll is even needed. If you, as the DM, are convinced/unconvinced the players' inputs could work, just let the PCs succeed/fail. If you're unsure though, that's when a check happens.

Also, if playing 5E, don't worry about coming up with bonuses; that's what Advantage/Disadvantage is for!

 

[Emberashh]

It only matters who rolls if that changes the odds.
Also, most of the time, the games I've got suggest social to be done by opposed rolling.
There is a subset that are pure "don't use mechanics" for social.

I don't believe the odds of success are the problem. Its a matter of why the failure happens and what its being described as.

Failure sucks either way, but there is a difference between it being because your roll sucked and it being because the NPC managed to make a save.

Same phenomenon happens with opposed roll based combat. If you whiff an attack, it feels better if its because the NPC actively parried it rather than you just sucking.

 

[Umbran]

How I see it working is the player whose looking to convince an NPC of something would make their plea, using improv to sell it. Based on this, the GM has the NPC make whats essentially a saving throw, perhaps with penalties added in based on the improv (and/or something from a relevant Skill), and that is how the interaction resolves.

There is, numerically, not a lot of difference between the player doing some improv, and assigning a bonus on their skill check, and the player doing some improv, and assigning some penalty on a save.

At the moment, the usual implementation I see is a contested check: Like Persuasion vs Insight. When both are rolling, which one gets the bonus/penalty really doesn't matter, so long as it falls on someone.

 

[Emberashh]

There is, numerically, not a lot of difference between the player doing some improv, and assigning a bonus on their skill check, and the player doing some improv, and assigning some penalty on a save.

At the moment, the usual implementation I see is a contested check: Like Persuasion vs Insight. When both are rolling, which one gets the bonus/penalty really doesn't matter, so long as it falls on someone.

As said though, I don't see the math as the issue. It doesn't matter how likely you are to fail, but why you're failing.

 

[Umbran]

As said though, I don't see the math as the issue. It doesn't matter how likely you are to fail, but why you're failing.

Then I am not really sure how that means it is better to structure this as a saving throw, rather than as a bonus on the skill check. If you want to put emphasis on why one succeeds or fails, wouldn't putting that where the character can better see it - on their own skill check - be preferable?

Edit to add: noting that I currently take the player's role-play in the encounter, and use that to consider a bonus or Advantage on their skill check. What you are suggesting is not new to me - I just don't see why making it a save on the target is preferable.

 

[Squared]

I once spent some time writing a rpg that had all rolls be saves. I eventually scrapped it because then the GM was making most of the rolls and I felt that would be less fun for the players. Most people like rolling dice.

Your thesis is otherwise well considered except for one central assumption. That is that a failed skill roll represents the PC “sucking”. This is all about framing. Your characters skill represents their ability to mitigate adverse conditions and the dice part of it the randomness in the world that is not represented by a modifier. It is a simplification, it does not represent their skill.

So instead of saying, “you missed” you instead say, “the monster parried your blow”. Instead of saying “you trip over your own feet” you say “the floor boards are rotten and one of your feet sinks into the floor, tripping you.” And instead of saying, “ your impassioned speech is delivered via stuttering and incompetence” you say “your impassioned speech falls on deaf ears, the duke is not listening to what you have to say, perhaps there is some reason why he is so set in this course of action?”

In general when confronted with this sort of issue I suggest two approaches. The first, and easiest, is to offer advantage for the skill test for a well articulated argument or great roleplay. Even games without it can still make use of this mechanic. I currently use it in my M&M3 game.

The second method is what is what I do in mystery games. If the clue is critical the skill check is not about whether you find it but more the factor of success. For instance, how fast you find the clue, additional details, etc.

Similarly for a social scene, if the argument put forward by the PC is strong then maybe the result is degrees of success, not success or failure.

You ask the Duke for help against the goblin threat and he sends 5 soldiers with you, not the hoped for 20. And the reason could be that he just does not have the soldiers to spare, not that the PC “sucked” at asking for support.

^2