Enforcing Interaction through mechanics

[strider13x]

Charisma doesn't do much on its own mechanically. How would players react to a system where taking an Action to force a CHA contest can have serious mechanical implications? For example the town guard ordering someone to stop, if they won a CHA contest perhaps the target can 1/2 move at best? Or the tricksy Goblin pleads for his life causing you to hesitate to kill it (Attack at Disadvantage)? This gives player agency (you can still act as you choose but at a penalty) and provides more concrete uses for a players Charisma (you can use these same stunts reliably).

Now I know some players are against any sort of social "controls" but the game already has them via spells and Conditions, so there is precedent. Also, when a cop flips its lights at you do you run every time or are you compelled to pull over (be honest, we all have some sort of social conditioning!)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If you're talking about stuff that works on PCs, then their reaction to social skills is entirely up to the player.
A guard ordering you to stop is effective because people fear the consequences of not obeying and is pretty classically a Charisma (Intimidation) check. You're either going to stop or keep running however, not slow down.

If you want social skills to work on players, you'll need to translate the roll into something that they will react to: A goblin getting a high roll on a Charisma check to plead for its life is successfully offering them something they want more than to kill it.
Since they aren't getting XP for killing an already-defeated goblin, this doesn't have to be much: Services as a guide, a stash of loot, betraying a later boss etc.

For the guard example, his threat might invoke something that the players don't want: Being made fugitives, bringing the army or bounty hunters down on them, possibility being able to identify some of them. (Possibly though conversations with people that the have interacted with.)

Or have him direct his Charisma check elsewhere, such as civilian NPCs around the area to aid him in capturing his quarry.

 

[dmnqwk]

Imagine if every time you left your house, a giant salmon smacked you in the face.

How long do you reckon it'd take to give up leaving your house? A day? A week? When it comes to your suggestions players will begin to feel the same way - they will give up interacting with Guards, or they will simply not bother fighting monsters since they cannot kill them anymore. If a dice roll is required, it needs both a positive and a negative outcome - Since they were fighting Goblins I wouldn't consider it a positive outcome to be allowed to kill them, that was already on the table.

It's a nice idea but this is where a DM needs to control the situation through subtlety and manipulation, not overt control. A Player no longer allowed to do things common to the game has very little reason to bother playing after all.

 

[strider13x]

What I'm suggesting works both ways though. Players are just as frustrated when they attempt a CHA action and the DM doesn't give them the desired effect. So when a PC yells "Stop!" they know mechanically they have a chance to affect the target with a movement penalty. In my previous example with the Guard it wasn't that he slowed you down, it was to show you hesitated due to their authority (assuming they beat your check).
As far as salmon to the face, I would hope these kinds of mechanics would not be used so heavy handed that players feel their actions are no longer their own, but I find it just as awkward that the DM cannot reinforce certain social situations with mechanics. Extreme example would be when a player attacks a known friendly NPC (proving he is CN!) . Now with a "Friend" Condition applied perhaps you have to make a CHA save in order to attack them.
Maybe D&D isn't the game for these kinds of social rules. Would any game work with social rules? One not so focused on combat but a more investigative game perhaps?

 

[Uchawi]

You can implement social modifiers just like you can implement environmental modifiers, where a social skill (success/failure) impacts future roils but still allows a player/character to make choices.

 

[Mephista]

I would suggest implementing social "combat" rules. As it stands, D&D tends to focus heavily on combat rules, so it gets the most attention. Social stuff is just handled with a quick single roll and its resolved. Map social stuff out more, give people social "health," a focus on interactions and intrigue in the games.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Attacking a known friendly NPC isn't proving that your character is CN, it proves that you're a dangerous idiot. A penalty to attack them because they're a friend doesn't make sense because if they were a friend, you wouldn't be attacking them.
The penalty for killing friends is the consequences and thus fully up to the DM and fellow characters (who are likely to have issues with people killing their allies.)

The issue with player frustration sound more like a communication issue: the player wanted to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to halt the runner but the DM didn't realise, and so their action didn't have the effect that they wanted.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

detailed combat rules with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ social mechanics (the storytelling aspect), and that's worked pretty well.

And there are other games that handle social aspects better than just shrugging off social things. The OP wanted to make Charisma and (from the sounds of it) other social things more important in the game. More detailed social interaction rules is my suggestion, since more interaction-heavy games have them, and use them to great success. You don't like it, fine. But just saying "the default is fine!" doesn't exactly answer the OP.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*