A thought about Social Mechanics

[GrahamWills]

An alternative approach might be to make the success of the action dependent on the roll, but the narration of that outcome dependent on the improv, so if you fail the roll, but improv‘d well, then you negate how you fail.

This also has the friendly side effect that those people who don’t like to improv will never be called on to do what they dislike doing — narrating a scene. Of course, it depends on you trusting your players not to game the system and be reasonable in their improv, but if you don’t have trust, then you have other issues to work on first!

 

[dragoner]

Improv seems like it is more subjective, and takes longer than a simple persuade roll.

 

[Emberashh]

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?

In cases where the player isn't utilizing player skill very directly? Sure.

But social mechanics are a specific problem because players will commonly speak directly in character when engaging in a social interaction. This then has to be blended somehow with the characters skill, if such specific skills exist, (Its a different topic if they should exist at all; this topic assumes they're there) and both have to be checked against in a way that doesn't undermine both efforts.

A character build has to be respected just as much (or at least proportionally) as good in-character roleplay, and neither should be able to be negated by a mostly disassociated mechanic.

Ergo, if the NPC has to react to the attempt, and roll a save that has had its difficutly defined by the Player and Player-Character, then when the NPC succeeds in spite of that, it doesn't feel like the Player just rolled and whiffed making everything they did pointless.

Instead, the NPC reacted, and invoked their own skills, and resisted the attempt. The GM then actively roleplays to illustrate why they resisted, which can be up to any number of things.

A parry always feels better than a miss.

 

[Umbran]

Ergo, if the NPC has to react to the attempt, and roll a save that has had its difficutly defined by the Player and Player-Character, then when the NPC succeeds in spite of that, it doesn't feel like the Player just rolled and whiffed making everything they did pointless.

Instead, the NPC reacted, and invoked their own skills, and resisted the attempt. The GM then actively roleplays to illustrate why they resisted, which can be up to any number of things.

A parry always feels better than a miss.

This doesn't seem to be putting emphasis on why the character actually succeeded or failed, and is instead about creating a narrative or situation in which the player never has to feel like they are responsible for failure.

Allowing players to whiff on attack rolls, but not on social mechanics rolls, seems inconsistent.

 

[Emberashh]

This doesn't seem to be putting emphasis on why the character actually succeeded or failed, and is instead about creating a narrative or situation in which the player never has to feel like they are responsible for failure.

Allowing players to whiff on attack rolls, but not on social mechanics rolls, seems inconsistent.

Well, I do think attack rolls are dumb and have subsequently abandoned them for a while, even in games designed around them.

Its actually the success with doing that thats informing this idea; its basically the same idea just tweaked to the specifics of social interaction.

 

[GMMichael]

But social mechanics are a specific problem because players will commonly speak directly in character when engaging in a social interaction. This then has to be blended somehow with the characters skill . . . and both have to be checked against in a way that doesn't undermine both efforts.

One issue: I'm seeing an effect of succeed/fail design here. As @Squared brought up, a low roll doesn't need to be "sucking," "undermining," or failure. It could just be an NPC response of, " I agree with you, but . . . "

A character build has to be respected just as much (or at least proportionally) as good in-character roleplay . . .

Does the build have to be respected, though? Why even have a social "build" if the good role-play must be respected? Conversely, must a player's physical ineptitude be considered when he rolls a critical hit in battle?

. . . A parry always feels better than a miss.

Ultimately, this seems to be increasing the GM's workload. I'm siding with the Cypher System's GM-never-rolls doctrine. And sometimes you have to hurt the PCs' feelings - telling them that they missed - in order to make the hits feel good.

 

[Larnievc]

but also in the other direction where really good improv gets wasted by bad luck.

Is it wasted though?

 

[aco175]

Is there anything to the argument that the PC is the one doing and the player is saying what the PC is doing. We would be favoring the players who can make the best roleplay dialogue over the players with no social skills. There is the argument that DMs should not ask the player to swing a sword or play a music instrument to succeed, but we ask them to say a speech or describe exactly how to pick a lock or search for a trap. There is some sort of gotcha involved in one of these.

This idea being put forward feels a bit like 4e in that you attack the save but whoever is making the save gets to roll. I could see this working better for PCs vs. monsters so you just say the monster has a will save of 13 if you get to take the better modified of INT or WIS.

A few others mentioned what is essentially the fail-forward method of dealing with failure. The bluff fails by a little and you get what you want, but not all of it, or you fail by a lot and you need to go on a quest before you get what you wanted. It is an argument to keep the game moving towards the goal.

 

[Emberashh]

One issue: I'm seeing an effect of succeed/fail design here.

Certainly. Thats a further step that could be taken is to implement a Degree system. You could do either one to help the issue but I think the ideal is both.

Does the build have to be respected, though? Why even have a social "build" if the good role-play must be respected? Conversely, must a player's physical ineptitude be considered when he rolls a critical hit in battle?

If you're giving it as an option, not respecting it is going to cause issues. (See 5e and the myriad things it promises and fails to deliver on)

And its also important because not everyone can or is always going to want to engage in in-character improv. While this idea wouldn't make not doing so strictly "optimal", it wouldn't be punishing either.

And no, because most players aren't going to get up and start sparring to resolve a fight. Many, if not most, will readily speak in-character, and especially nowadays thats part of the appeal of these games.

Ultimately, this seems to be increasing the GM's workload.

It would lessen it, unless we're going to act like having to make a die roll is a significant increase in workload.

Its a lot easier to say a given bit of roleplay deserves a particular bonus than it is to sit and judge of an NPC is going to be receptive to any given argument and then pick out an appropriate DC that'll thread the needle on making the player feel good no matter which way the dice goes.

Instead, the player sets most of the DC, if they roleplay well they'll get a relatively small bonus to that DC, and the GM simply rolls the save and responds accordingly. Ezpz

Is it wasted though?

If one recognizes how they argued should have had a high chance of convincing the person, and they fail the roll, that feels incredibly arbitrary because the player's roll has no tangible connection to the roleplay.

An NPC reacting to an argument, however, doesn't have to be connected to the roleplay mechanically to feel right.

Frankly, Id go as far as to say this idea works better even if you assume zero in-character speaking and its all just mechanics.

 

[aramis erak]

Improv seems like it is more subjective, and takes longer than a simple persuade roll.

It is. Abstracting to just a roll is pretty abstracted.
Whether or not that's acceptable, let alone desirable, abstraction is extremely playstyle dependent.

When I am running D&D in "Dungeon Penetration Wargame" mode, that is the level I use. Bonus for a short but on-point list of key points.
When I am running most other modes, I expect an attempt at improv. I adjust whether or not there's a bonus based upon skill of known players at the improve.
I almost never go to the no-roll mode, tho' if there are certain key things, I may drop the roll for those certain key things - usually things that meet NPC goals. Or that drive the party in directions I want to have them go.