D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't want to turn this into a bashing PbtA session, but as an example of what you are talking about it works pretty well. When you say, "albeit usually more simplistically than D&D", you should be asking yourself, "Ok, so where did all that extra complexity go? How does a system get away with treating something that D&D doesn't treat with remotely enough complexity with even less complexity than D&D?"

And the answer in PbtA is that moves an enormous amount of complexity that would otherwise be in the rules of a game into the table contract of a game. Instead of the rules forming a contract between the players and the GM, PbtA asks the players to negotiate on a regular basis the contracts that govern play. This is especially true of PbtA when the Moves move away from hack and slash and toward governing social dynamics. PbtA also relies heavily on the GM improvising things on the fly, again heavily relying on table contracts to negotiate that. In other words, PbtA takes a lot of complexity out of the game and instead moves it to the metagame.

I suspect that a lot of people who take issue with the GM being able to tell them what to do by having an NPC make a skill check would also take issue with the entire premise and structure of Monsterhearts, for example.

I actually agree with most of that, though I'd say even Dungeon World has "more complex" social rules than 5E D&D, in terms of actual rules on the page. It's almost impossible to be more vague and useless than 5E's social rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

I dont play fate/fudge but is it like how in WoD and the old west end games d6 system everything was just a skill check? do they have some way to tack your health?

Yes and no but the importance of aspects with declarations/compels & how they work is an element of such an extreme difference that it's hard not to say that it does not work thst way

You have one or more stress tracks that reset every "scene" (a game term) & any stress that you can't fit in it a over into consequences+ or you are taken out. Concequences are not at all easy to remove and can absolutely cause death spirals on rocket boots but you aren't required to take them. One option is to concede a combat where you are taken out of the fight but on your terms pending agreeable negotiations over if it's an acceptable win condition the other side would allow. The other option is to be taken out but that's a terrifing thing because the victor pretty much has absolute authority over your fate right up to things like "bored now*rip*" or "and he kills them".

It allows for scenarios like frodo/smaug or level zero nobody/galactus where a fight would be unquestionably lethal & the goal is to ensure that things don't escalate that way because a consequence for a victorious powerhouse is risky& long lasting but allowing frodo to get away with just a bauble of treasure will avoid a fight thst might not be worth it
+you will often have different stress tracks for different things but they all use the same consequence slots & can't share. Yiy can pretty much fit the rules handwritten on an index card but they are a whole lot more complex than they look and the majority of the rule book is explaining how to use them

do youu know if this is online somewhere?

Fate Core System - Evil Hat Productions

Fate Core is a flexible system that can support whatever worlds you dream up.

evilhat.com

There is an online srd too since it's covered under the original ogl

 

[Reynard]

It allows for scenarios like frodo/smaug

Bilbo.

Sorry. Failed my Save vs Pedantry.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would say your Face player was absolutely right to be worried, because D&D is a RNG-heavy game, and if your system involved significant rolling, he was not going to do well.

All the games I can think of that do "social combat" successfully fit one of two models:

1) Dice pool or similar RNG-killers - All the WoD games for example. When you're using large dice pools, RNG is generally much less of an issue. A character invested in their role is almost always going to roll decently.

2) PtbA/BitD/Resistance-type mechanics where it's more about "success at a cost" and where there may well be meta-resources to override RNG, and where the consequences of success/failure are better-defined and less binary than D&D.

D&D 5E uses a high RNG-system without a net (i.e. no Take 10 or Take 20), which means that, very often, heavily-invested Faces (max CHA they can have, as proficient as they possibly can be in social skills) still absolutely constantly miserably fail their rolls. You roll a 2, and doesn't matter that you have a +9, you didn't make that 15 DC. The Barbarian who dumpstatted CHA and has no social skills rolls a 16 and he succeeds it. Only Eloquence Bards level 3 and above, and Rogue Faces level 11 and above don't face this issue, because of Reliable Talent.

No edition of D&D has done great here. D&D is just too RNG-oriented.

If you wanted to design a system that worked better, I'd suggest starting by adding "Passive Persuasion" (and Deception/Intimidation), i.e. modifier + 10, and using this as the basis of your system, and if any rolls were being made, making it easy for more-invested characters to get access to re-rolls, Advantage, and so on. You also need to decide what to do with Help, because if it's allowed all the time, it's easy to have perma-Advantage on social stuff, which is absolutely fine, but is something to consider.

But doesn't this exactly highlight why a social combat system can work? Combat uses the same d20 roll, but because of AC and HP, it isn't a single roll = success situation. You have incremental progress to a goal based on a few different factors.

If DnD isn't too RNG focused for Combat, why is it too RNG focused for social combat?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wait...where's the rule that says something to the effect of, "If an NPC makes a Charisma(Persuasion) roll of X or greater, the character is compelled to do what they say?"

In the system being proposed to be designed. Why is it that designing a new system can only work if the system already exists fully formed?

Same thing with NPCs "using" social skills on PCs. It's just not in the rules. It doesn't contradict the rules if the DM wants to make up such a rule, but it's not in the rules. And it does so happen to contradict my foundational belief that players get to choose what their characters think, and what actions they declare, unless the rules specifically state otherwise.

So if we make new rules that the players agree to.......

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that's going too far to a fairly silly degree. You could say exactly the same about stuff like applying Incapacitate and Prone to the guys buried under the rocks, rather than honor-system expecting them to RP being buried under rocks.

Hmm. Since you've been saying balanced, rational things I'll take that seriously.

Yeah, I think your thought #2 covers most of it, once you start the "combat" you lay out the expectations. Basically "Okay, guys, we are going to engage in this like a combat, if you win you get X, but if you lose Y happens". This is actually something we fundamentally have in normal combat, it is just something so ubiquitous that we don't state the obvious consequences for failure. "Social Combat" would be different and would need us to state those consequences, because no one is used to it.

And because the consequences can result in compulsion I believe it should require agreement to the terms…consent…beforehand. Unlike physical combat, where you don’t really get to decline being attacked by the dragon.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Notwithstanding people of superhuman emotional control, my point was that you don't need magic to change someone's mind or behavior.

In real life you are right.

In D&D 5e you need the consent of the person who controls that character.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm. Since you've been saying balanced, rational things I'll take that seriously.


And because the consequences can result in compulsion I believe it should require agreement to the terms…consent…beforehand. Unlike physical combat, where you don’t really get to decline being attacked by the dragon.

That's actually an interesting idea: the players and the GM -- out of character -- negotiate the stakes of any conflict prior to it commencing. "If you lose this fight, he takes your armor" or "If this social contest goes your way, the NPC joins your group" or whatever.

 

[Reynard]

In real life you are right.

In D&D 5e you need the consent of the person who controls that character.

I already stated above that needing consent and having to have safety tools isn't an argument for not having the systems in place. Many, many players require consent for your to kill a PC in combat. This isn't different than that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In the system being proposed to be designed.

I missed that the thread took a turn in that direction. Did it?

Why is it that designing a new system can only work if the system already exists fully formed?

Did somebody say that? Or are you making that claim and asking why it’s true? I’m confused.

So if we make new rules that the players agree to.......

Then you’ve got some perfectly good house rules!