D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Crimson Longinus]

Yup!

This is pretty much what I was saying. There is no getting around it. Folks of the cognitive orientation toward gaming broadly and resolution mechanics specifically aren’t the audience for this kind of stuff.

They do a different thing than what you want and (a) one of the primary points of play is that PCs are not inviolate by sheer player prerogative. And (b) it’s not only not adversarial GMing to provoke and prod PCs (and their players through that prodding/provocation) along the lines of the things they care about (ethos and relationships etc), it’s fundamental to your job as a GM!

(A) and (b) above are not what certain gamers are looking for. We definitely know that (we seem to always get testimonials in this kind of conversation where folks volunteer that…often repeatedly).

But if you’re looking for the sort of “social conflict mechanics” that the lead post is talking about then you’re assuming (a) and (b) as a function of design (because social conflict engages with who you are, who you think you are, who you aspire to be, what you care about, who you care about).

But what I’m saying is that you can do (b) without mechanics that affect character behaviour or thinking; you merely frame situations that challenge their values. But it’s up to the player, not the dice, to decide how they react.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’m only familiar with the game by discussion. How does it do that? And is that intentional? You say “eventually” so is it at some late stage of the game?

A thread about it was linked earlier. And you just need to keep pestering the character until they run out of willpower, which is a very limited resource.

 

[Campbell]

Three things :

1. D&D is largely a cooperative game of overcoming adventures or dungeon delving as a cohesive group. Binding social mechanics do not really serve the game's purpose very well.
2. Social mechanics should reflect some insight on how actual human beings like interact with each other. They should also have fictional positioning requirements. To affect someone it should make sense that there is some underlying susceptibility to that influence. This is how the vast majority of social mechanics I have interacted with work.
3. Intricate social systems that function like D&D combat does are lame. I get really tired of having all these examples of games with lame, uninspired social mechanics getting brought up every time this topic comes up. It's not like Exalted Second Edition has any good mechanics.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But what I’m saying is that you can do (b) without mechanics that affect character behaviour or thinking; you merely frame situations that challenge their values. But it’s up to the player, not the dice, to decide how they react.

So nothing is really at risk? Like say the way PC death is at risk in combat?

A thread about it was linked earlier. And you just need to keep pestering the character until they run out of willpower, which is a very limited resource.

I didn't read the linked thread. But the description of “you keep pestering then until they run out of willpower and give in” sounds preventable. I’m not sure of course, but I’d assume the GM can simply introduce pressures that don’t allow this kind of skill spamming to happen.

Either way, I don’t see anyone advocating for such extremes in this thread.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So nothing is really at risk? Like say the way PC death is at risk in combat?

I don’t even understand what you mean. I want the players to make hard choices regarding what their characters will do rather than have the dice to decide that.

 

[Manbearcat]

But what I’m saying is that you can do (b) without mechanics that affect character behaviour or thinking; you merely frame situations that challenge their values. But it’s up to the player, not the dice, to decide how they react.

Yeah, I don’t disagree with that, but that isn’t the point I was making (more on that at the bottom) and there are also differences when you couple (a) and (b) and when (b) is on its own.

The differences lie in two things:

1) “Conception of character (internal relationship to self and external relationships with others) arising/evolving through play contingent upon situational decision-space > action and resolution > consequences > systemitized, binding fallout” vs “inviolable preconception of character overwhelmingly (if not wholly) dictating through line of relationship to self and external relationship.”

The first is about conception emerging through play with a hell of a lot of that out of your hands. The second is about preconception being mapped onto the gamestate/fiction (either by the player directly, by the GM curating content to facilitate that, or by everyone at the table being meta-aware of the resolution mechanics having a giant MY STUFF - OFF LIMITS signature).

The player in the first is continuously staking and risking and testing character conception (internal orientation to self and relationships) during play. The 2nd is not. They always have the first and last and only say because their preconception is inviolate.

2) The other difference is in the perception of adversarial GMing. The first one looks like always-on adversarial GMing to someone unacquainted to the play. The 2nd looks like content curation (by both GMing and by that MY STUFF - OFF LIMITS resolution mechanics) that facilitates preconception of character. If you just dropped that first sort of GMing into the 2nd, there would be a whole lot of crying foul going on.



As to the point I was making, it was the formulation of:

If (a) then (b)

You can’t have (a) without (b). It’s fundamental (and, in large part, the point).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I let the players try their best, playing it out, but then I let them roll (in rare csses with advantage or disadvantage) and then go with the role.

I mean, you don't penalize clumsy players by having them play out their sword fight...
... although of course a combat also involves some smart decisions, not only rolls.

So how they approach the social interaction is important:
Persuasion? Intimidate? Deception?
Insight? Investigation?
But it is not important, how well a player knows the etiquette at the kings courtroom. If the player does not go in amd says: "Hi king", everything should be fine. And then you could talk your way out woth deception: "High King... this is how we call our regent...".

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's a mental combat to force the PC/NPC to do something. If he would never do such a thing, can the player or DM just say no? Can he say that no matter how the social combat turns out that he isn't going to do that thing? If yes, then it's still up to the player do decide and agency is preserved. Of course, if it's yes then the social combat isn't necessary since it's up to the player/DM to decide just like it is now.

What about it is social combat to get an NPC to do something, but if the PCs fail, there are consequences for failure that they agree to ahead of time?

This isn't something that you pull on the PCs to force them to do something, but they don't get away consequence free if they lose a social combat, just like they don't get away consequence free from losing a physical combat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If a social conflict system (or any system) is actually well-and-explicitly designed around intent/goal-resolution, then a GM appending a rules/resolution-driven "and" or a complication which feels like it nullifies the intent/goal of your fairly won conflict...then the problem is either (a) with the GM (not following procedures or rules) or (b) with the player's cognitive framework not onboarding what intent/goal-resolution entails.

Yeah "Yes, and..." systems should never have a consequence that invalidates the result of the success. Anyone who does so is breaking the spirit of the system, and sometimes the explicit rules of the system

 

[Maxperson]

What about it is social combat to get an NPC to do something, but if the PCs fail, there are consequences for failure that they agree to ahead of time?

This isn't something that you pull on the PCs to force them to do something, but they don't get away consequence free if they lose a social combat, just like they don't get away consequence free from losing a physical combat.

What sort of consequences? If some random stranger is trying to persuade my PC to do something he would never do and my PC loses, what sort of bad thing happens and why?