D&D 5E [+] How can 5e best handle role playing outside of combat?

[Lyxen]

Personally I find the idea that you must have detailed and fiddly rules for anything forth doing dumbfounding. I mean have you ever been in a LARP? There often isn't basically any mechanics at all, it is just people talking and acting as their characters.

If I may, in our LARPs, we actually have quite a list of mechanics, based on code words, items, and abilities, which are used both for combat and outside of combat. For example, in a recent game I ran, one player used a "mental power" (whispered a code word and effect to another player) forced another one to overbid in an auction, getting all that player's money locked in escrow...

This is real time, to GM interruption, managed entirely by the players themselves, and it works really smoothly (although there are sometimes hiccups like the mage who did not understand that his sleeping powder had to be spread on the wind to "sleep" anyone it touched and who basically threw the little plastic bag containing flour at another player, to the hilarity of all).

We have tons of combat powers too, including spells and counterspells, "Battlemaster" powers (disarm, push back, dodge, etc.), knightly powers (powerful blow, fatal blows), various levels of magic and immunities, etc.

I sometimes wish that TTRPG fights could happen as dramatically and certainly as quickly as our LARP fights...

And look at the most famous D&D campaigns in the world, Critical Role. A large swathes of it is just people acting in character and immersing in the world.

Exactly, I know some people don't like the show and I confess having watched only the first few episodes, but this is the way we play (without the incredible voice acting of Matt and some others).

 

[Cadence]

There are some parts of exploration that feel akin to combat to me in that there are specific checks and rolls (finding traps, searching for secret doors, rolls opposing stealth). And there are other parts of exploration that feel different - exploring what is in a town, and often having things only come up in the game because they were asked about (is there anyone in town with a good selection of books? any talk of a business that is struggling? any stray young kids it looks like I could hire to tail someone? anyone who speaks giant? anyone who kind of looks like me and could pass from a distance? any healing potions available?).

Some of those the I would just make a ruling on and add to the world if it seems like there would certainly be/not be there (is that like ruling something an auto success?), and some I probably put in because it fits the story and seems a shame not to, and some I have them make a roll on (do I always want everything obscure they're shopping for to be/not-be in a small town's shop?). And then there's the issue of even if it is there, did they take the right approach to finding it? What if they're asking the out of town teamsters about the book owner vs. asking the local magistrate or mage? How are they trying to spot the local kids and approach them? And then there's the decision of if it is worth the bother to have them describe out the whole search process if it feels like they'd like to do something else or it's a side issue.

Or is that last paragraph social instead of exploration? Is a lot of social in D&D like that part of what I called exploration? Sometimes the folks the PCs are interacting with seem like they'd naturally react in a way regardless of roll (or requiring an exceptional roll), and sometimes a roll is called for because not every person in the bar is going to fawn over the Bard.

And does that even go over in to combat some? If the party got some tremendous luck with lots of damage on some low level spells, would the targets mistakenly think the party was higher level and stronger? Would that change how they react, or maybe attempt to leave combat? Does one need a morale or intimidation roll every time? Sometimes is it fine to let the party bluff without needing a roll if it seems like it would surely work in real life? Is it wrong to require a roll?

Even for combat, are there some places it's glossed over. Do you make the high level party roll to rout the kobolds that make a very bad life decision and try to ambush the party?

---

The issue that some games give the players formal authority to re-write NPC backstory or the like through expenditure of resources seems to me a different thing than whether social role-playing can happen in the rules. It feels like the act of having the DM decide on the NPC backstory vs. the players having authority to write that vs. the DM being open to suggestions is orthogonal to the players having the characters attempt to interact with the beings and physical world around them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know, but the purposes of them are different. Skill challenges normally take multiple rounds where each player can't repeat the same skill chack twice... there are a lot of differences. The only real thing in common is that the whole group rolls to resolve something.

I think your exaggerating the differences. Mechanically they're very similar.

 

[ART!]

Cortex Prime can be rigged up so that all task resolutions rely first on a Value and a Relationship (what belief compels you to do this thing, and who is involved or who are you doing it for?), and then adding either a combat-y ability for combat situations or a skill, talent, background or setting resource for social or other non-combat challenges. It works quite nicely.

Each of those components is represented by a single die, so any roll will usually involve 3 dice and maybe more.

 

[GuyBoy]

I am dumbfounded by the statement of said player, I don't even know where to begin to try and understand it. So if I turn to page 187 of the PHB its going to tell me when I can and cant have fun? Does page 187 say, "Fireball is an amazing spell, but its not one to cast if you want to have fun"?

Respectfully, I don’t think this is what he meant (at least I hope so!)
I think he was talking about having a set of rules that delineated certain events by “rules”.
For example, how a troll regenerates, what happens if your character doesn’t rest due to attacks, what area of effect a fireball has.
I certainly don’t think he was saying “turn to page 187” to be told when to have fun.

Personally, the fun can absolutely come from rule-delineated combat or similar ( and we all have our own view on which system does it best), but it also comes from roleplay interaction regardless of system.
The group I play with tend to have 4-10 hour sessions. Whilst I can’t remember a session that length without any combat, I can certainly remember playing 2-3 hours with no combat at all, just roleplay. Hugely enjoyable (and no references to p187 in sight!)

 

[R_J_K75]

I certainly don’t think he was saying “turn to page 187” to be told when to have fun.

I was being a bit sarcastic but its an odd saying. I think by the nature of the game having rules it somewhat implied that you are somewhat constrained within them within the game which will somewhat dictate fun.

 

[Willie the Duck]

They certainly do a credible imitation, seeing the percentage of answers that have absolutely nothing to do with roleplay and focus on the mechanics (or absence thereof) instead.

Right, that's because they don't care. It's a pretty common trajectory for threads --
OP: 'I want to talk about X'
Some other guy: 'Sure! WXYZABC and the kitchen sink!'
'That' guy: 'clearly people don't understand what X means.'

my go to answer is it is always better to have a rule (at least an optional one) you can ignore if you don't need it then it is to not have a rule you may need'

That depends on for whom the game is designed, and why; how the rest of the game is designed around them (ex: if there are ignorable castle&leadership rules, but if you ignore them fighters have little gains past name level); and even whether these rules might add confusion rather than subtract from them (particularly for the 10-12 year olds for whom this game is also designed). Also where the rules are placed. Feats and multiclassing are theoretically optional, yet I have incredible trouble finding people who play without them (to the point of having seen people in threads call it Tyrannical DMing to disallow them). While I'm less than duly impressed with the amount of non-combat rules provided in this edition, I won't stand behind a universal more-is-better,-you-can-always-ignore-some position either. There aren't universals on this, IMO, and you always need to understand the context. I've certainly seen games where trying to cover everything ended up being detrimental to the brand (late GURPS 3e and some of the more expansive Hero Systems, IIRC).

yeah, and the port to 5e IS SO SIMPLE. It would be no work at all for them to make it official. At this point I think the designers decided skill challenges are not a part of the game and moved on from it...

Sure, but for some people that is not enough. I played very little of PF2, but that system seems to have way more robust systems for social interaction and exploration. And I think the OP is not talking about roleplaying in the sense of acting like your character, but more about systems that helo gamify social interaction and exploration. In that, I think 3e has more options (and 4e has skill challenges)

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of whatever D&D 2024 ends up being. 'Optional rules covering _____' would be a good way of adding enough content to not be an immediate no-sell (in a 'why would I want that, it adds nothing?' fashion) while still being backwards compatible as we've heard it will be.

I know one game system which had the same complaints followed that trajectory. Symbaroum is a fantasy TTRPG with a thematic leaning towards venturing out into the dark scary forest and surviving by wits and skill, and then going back into towns and doing heavy mystery-solving and politicking to help resolve the overarching metaplot (which is premised as a clash of civilizations sitting on top of a supernatural ticking time bomb, with a huge amounts of unknowns). Yet when it came out, almost all the mechanics were combat- and magic- (mostly with combat-esque effects) systems. Well, as of the players and GM's expansion books, it finally has robust travel/hexcrawl and social systems. So sometimes developers listen (whether we are representative of 5e's total base, and they are clamoring for more of this, is a broader question).

 

[Charlaquin]

I stand by the assertion I’ve made before that social challenges (and exploration challenges) don’t need more mechanical subsystems. They need dynamic conflict. If you’ve got that, the systems already in place are plenty sufficient.

 

[MGibster]

Yes, they are. It's only if you want combat-optimised characters that you have that "unbalance". Any character - I mean absolutely ANY - can have a non-negligible charisma, and there are ways to get social skills for ANY class.

No, they're not all equal. If I make a Fighter I have to go out of my way to make him good at socializing. His primary stats, Strength and Constitution (I'm not making a Dex based Fighter), do not contribute anything to rolling in social situations other than Intimidation. Wait, are we still allowed to use Strength for Intimidation rolls in 5th edition? They don't start with proficiency in any social skills other than Intimidation though Backgrounds do offer some flexibility.

Contrast the Fighter with the Warlock. The Warlock's primary statistics are Charisma and probably Dexterity or Constitution is next. Right out of the box, the Warlock is better in social situations because Charisma is just that awesome of at attribute. And the Warlock also has proficiency in Deception, so, again, he's got more social tools than the Fighter does. And if we add backgrounds, again, the Warlock has a high Charisma and is more optimized for social interactions than the Fighter is without having to sacrifice anything that makes him a good Warlock.

The problem is that if you want a combat-optimised character AND someone that can interact socially, you will have choices to make, too bad, it's the essence of life.

No, you really don't. It isn't hard for a Warlock, Bard, or Sorcerer to make a combat optimized character that is still optimized for social interactions. It's not so easy for the Fighter or Monk.

 

[Maxperson]

Other RPG system on the other hand, while still having combat as something that gets a lot of screentime and rules, have more ways for characters to do things outside combat and have the rules support them with. You can make characters who are very good with some things other than combats like being a mechanic or diplomat and their ability there is not directly linked to their combat power. Maybe they are even bad at combat, something newer version of D&D wants to prevent at all cost.

Even D&D itself was already better in that regard with the 3/3.5E skill system which allowed people to specialize in certain not combat related tasks (although they were still linked to combat power in the end).
Sadly D&D has devolved since then and 5E is back to everyone being pure combat stats and a single proficiency bonus for everything else not combat.

You can take feats to give you more skills, expertise with a skill through a feat, get inspiration from roleplaying, use the traits system to guide roleplay and more. 5e supports roleplaying and gives you ways to become really good at a non-combat skill. It just takes some investment, just like it did in 3e. It just doesn't get blown through the roof like 3e did. Bounded accuracy keeps things more or less inside a box.

In fact, you can actually be better overall in 5e. Take the skill expert feat and have a 20 in a stat and at 20th level you will have +17. The thing is, in 5e a 20 DC at 1st level is going to be a 20 DC at 20th level, where at 20th level in 3e you might have +30 to the roll, but be trying to hit a 40 or 45 DC, or facing someone with +40 in an opposed check.