D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[billd91]

yeah I kind of see where that is going... it just seems to me to be an extra step... like the "Ok, Billy, what happens?" "He misses me. Can we get back to the game now?" seems like a waste when "knock it off we said no PVP" does the same thing

Because there may be some kinds of PvP the player might buy in to. And there may be other days where they’re just not havin‘ it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I really don't see the value in trying to convince Max he is capable of being tricked into something. He will never accept it. He's accepted other people are possible to trick, and I take that has good enough to try and move on to discussing a system.

For example, would something like "Level + Charisma or Wisdom score" make a good baseline for social hp, with damage being based on 2+modifier before accounting for any multipliers?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really don't see the value in trying to convince Max he is capable of being tricked into something. He will never accept it. He's accepted other people are possible to trick, and I take that has good enough to try and move on to discussing a system.

THis is why my last time trying I said that for the purpose of this discussion we will assume that he can NOT be grifted... it's easier to cut the "In real life I can't be scammed" part of this discussion right out

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a spinoff of the astoundingly long lived "I roll perception" thread:

I don't mind D&D social encounters being about players presenting ideas to NPCs and GMs deciding how that goes with maybe a persuasion roll involved or whatever, but I actually like the idea of full on "social combat" system just as intricate and tactically satisfying as the physical combat one. There would be positions taken, and angles of rhetorical attack, and specific maneuvers and even social specific magic, all dedicated to winnowing down "Resolve" or "Social Hit Points" to find out who won.

I tried a rough design once with a courtly intrigue adventure in an otherwise standard D&D campaign and a couple players completely balked -- especially the one playing the face (who felt like the system undermined his high Charisma and high Persuasion skill).

How do you feel about "social combat" in D&D? Do you think any edition of D&D has gotten social encounters "right"? Are there and 3rd party things (for any edition) that you think work for "social combat"? Am I just looking for a way to play "Ace Attorney" in D&D?

I fall into the school of thought which says that there really aren't cut and dried analogies to actual melee combat to exploit here. Clearly certain individuals can 'beat' an 'opponent' in some kind of social contest in some fashion, but the types of such contests are vast and extremely varied. Nor are they necessarily very amenable to being bounded in some easy way into an equivalent of an encounter or even a complete contest. There's no necessary point where your opponent must perforce yield, for example. Nor am I convinced there are exactly very good analogs to some kind of 'state' (like say hit points in D&D, though we could be discussing many different potential game designs).

Like, I think you could, kinda sorta create a system to adjudicate something like a 'debate', or something like that, but I would think that it mostly boils down to each side having natural advantages and disadvantages based on both their strengths and weaknesses, and how they interact with the other contestant(s), and also factors related to some larger ongoing 'state of affairs'. So, yeah, a GM could basically eyeball that down to some kind of "you have a 20% chance of scoring a 'killing blow' on your opponent in each hour of debate, and he has a 38% chance of doing so to you" or whatever. But I don't see much in the way of generic tactics. I mean, sure, individuals may utilize typical ploys that work for them, but its VERY VERY individual! I don't see a way to really codify any of that.

I mean, there are game designs, TB2 comes to mind and I think this generally applies to BW, which try to do that. IMHO it comes out as a very stilted and kind of awkward process. I like more loosely defined frameworks like the open-ended 'moves' style of play in PbtAs where you just 'do stuff', it may or may not be social, and the situation and outcomes are pretty much purely the fiction. 4e SCs can contain social conflict situations as well, either as a single element, or possibly the main thrust of the SC, and you can even make up special ground rules for them to account for certain factors that are unique to the situation (IE allowed skills, disallowed skills, etc.).

 

[Chaosmancer]

I fall into the school of thought which says that there really aren't cut and dried analogies to actual melee combat to exploit here. Clearly certain individuals can 'beat' an 'opponent' in some kind of social contest in some fashion, but the types of such contests are vast and extremely varied. Nor are they necessarily very amenable to being bounded in some easy way into an equivalent of an encounter or even a complete contest. There's no necessary point where your opponent must perforce yield, for example. Nor am I convinced there are exactly very good analogs to some kind of 'state' (like say hit points in D&D, though we could be discussing many different potential game designs).

Like, I think you could, kinda sorta create a system to adjudicate something like a 'debate', or something like that, but I would think that it mostly boils down to each side having natural advantages and disadvantages based on both their strengths and weaknesses, and how they interact with the other contestant(s), and also factors related to some larger ongoing 'state of affairs'. So, yeah, a GM could basically eyeball that down to some kind of "you have a 20% chance of scoring a 'killing blow' on your opponent in each hour of debate, and he has a 38% chance of doing so to you" or whatever. But I don't see much in the way of generic tactics. I mean, sure, individuals may utilize typical ploys that work for them, but its VERY VERY individual! I don't see a way to really codify any of that.

I mean, there are game designs, TB2 comes to mind and I think this generally applies to BW, which try to do that. IMHO it comes out as a very stilted and kind of awkward process. I like more loosely defined frameworks like the open-ended 'moves' style of play in PbtAs where you just 'do stuff', it may or may not be social, and the situation and outcomes are pretty much purely the fiction. 4e SCs can contain social conflict situations as well, either as a single element, or possibly the main thrust of the SC, and you can even make up special ground rules for them to account for certain factors that are unique to the situation (IE allowed skills, disallowed skills, etc.).

I'm not going to say you are wrong, there aren't cut and dry direct analogies. But I don't think there needs to be.

I also don't think you need to be super realistic about "when your opponent loses". They lose when the Social HP hits zero. What does that look like and why? Whatever best fits the narrative. Maybe they devolve into a screaming tantrum, maybe they agree with you, maybe they sulk and pout.


I think you really lean into the fact that this is a very abstracted system, at the end of the day, it is all just about scoring points until you reach the goal. It is best to have it where it is just used to make that definitive "and now we have a final result" moment, without needing to be "realisitic" about people digging in their heels and never changing their mind and trying to judge it like a real debate.