D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Maxperson]

Why are you ignoring the proposition that the stakes are set by the player(s) before the contest begins? Why are you so adamantly assuming that the whole idea is some ruse to force your character to do horrible things?

I'm not ignoring anything. "Setting stakes" really isn't what D&D is about when it comes to social interactions. My group and I are not going to stop roleplaying, pull everyone at the table out of the game to discuss what stakes we should have regarding a conversation that's about to happen, and then converse. We're just going to go into the conversation.

If a system like this gets added to D&D, it should be an optional rule in the DM's Toolbox, not the default. As for the bolded above, I've never said or implied that it was the "whole idea." In fact, I've said the opposite and that if it's a possibility, it's not a system I want to ever take part in. I need to have veto power in order to make sure that my PC doesn't believe or act in a way that I don't think he would. It doesn't matter if it only happens once in ever hundred social combats, if it can happen I don't want to take part in that system.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not ignoring anything. "Setting stakes" really isn't what D&D is about when it comes to social interactions. My group and I are not going to stop roleplaying, pull everyone at the table out of the game to discuss what stakes we should have regarding a conversation that's about to happen, and then converse. We're just going to go into the conversation.

I find it fascinating that so many people have this perspective -- that the "talking in funny voices"* part of the game is somehow special and distinct from all the other parts of the game and needs to be divorced from the "game" ness.

*EDIT: This is just shorthand and not intended to be pejorative.

If a system like this gets added to D&D, it should be an optional rule in the DM's Toolbox, not the default. As for the bolded above, I've never said or implied that it was the "whole idea." In fact, I've said the opposite and that if it's a possibility, it's not a system I want to ever take part in. I need to have veto power in order to make sure that my PC doesn't believe or act in a way that I don't think he would. It doesn't matter if it only happens once in ever hundred social combats, if it can happen I don't want to take part in that system.

Gotcha. I imagine if a "social contest" system were ever to appear in official D&D (spoiler: it won't) it would surely be as an optional subsystem.

 

[Umbran]

A more detailed social combat system could work the same way: your character, you determine the odds.

Well, in a physical combat, you don't, of the moment, decide whether or not the dragon can bite you. You're made choices in constructing the character that help determine their Armor Class.

 

[Maxperson]

I find it fascinating that so many people have this perspective -- that the "talking in funny voices" part of the game is somehow special and distinct from all the other parts of the game and needs to be divorced from the "game" ness.

Nobody at my table talks in "funny voices." Why do you have to belittle what I said like that if your argument is strong enough to stand on its own?

Gotcha. I imagine if a "social contest" system were ever to appear in official D&D (spoiler: it won't) it would surely be as an optional subsystem.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not ignoring anything. "Setting stakes" really isn't what D&D is about when it comes to social interactions. My group and I are not going to stop roleplaying, pull everyone at the table out of the game to discuss what stakes we should have regarding a conversation that's about to happen, and then converse. We're just going to go into the conversation.

Well, hold on a second there.

Setting stakes is a thing that happens when the PCs choose to try to achieve some goal. You don't set stakes for a bunch of people farting around with a soccer ball - you set stakes when they decide to play a game of soccer.

If the players are trying to achieve something, presumably they already discussed what that is, and informed you of that goal. That would be the moment to set stakes. Or do your players start up conversations with your NPCs in which the players have agendas they keep secret from you, the GM?

 

[Reynard]

Nobody at my table talks in "funny voices." Why do you have to belittle what I said like that if your argument is strong enough to stand on its own?

It wasn't my intent to belittle. I was just using a shorthand. I thought the quotes would convey that.

 

[Maxperson]

If the players are trying to achieve something, presumably they already discussed what that is, and informed you of that goal. That would be the moment to set stakes. Or do your players start up conversations with your NPCs in which the players have agendas they keep secret from you, the GM?

Okay. I thought setting stakes involved not only the goal, but also what would happen if you fail. Except that depending on how the conversation goes, the failure could take the form of anything from the king saying no to the king throwing you all in the dungeon, waiting for execution.

I not only don't want to stop the game to decide on or discuss(depending on how the system is built) what the failure would be, but I don't want to be bound to one result for failure since I have no idea how the social interaction will go.

 

[Maxperson]

It wasn't my intent to belittle. I was just using a shorthand. I thought the quotes would convey that.

That isn't even what I was talking about. We get into the roleplay at my table and don't want to stop it to figure out stakes. The goal is typically apparent going into the social interaction, but what happens with success or failure very much depends on how the conversation goes. It's not something I can decide before the interaction begins.

 

[Umbran]

Okay. I thought setting stakes involved not only the goal, but also what would happen if you fail.

Broadly, yes.

Except that depending on how the conversation goes, the failure could take the form of anything from the king saying no to the king throwing you all in the dungeon, waiting for execution.

"If you fail miserably and cheese off the king, you might end up in the dungeon," sounds like setting stakes to me. You seem to approach this as if it will be a protracted conversation, when typically it is a sentence.

"Okay, I'm going to try to sweet-talk this girl to give me her phone number."
"Sure. If you fail, she might slap you, or her boyfriend may show up. If you still want to try, roll Persuasion."
"Fair. All right then. picks up dice."

The player sets goal and approach. The GM says what happens if it fails. Pretty simple.

 

[Reynard]

That isn't even what I was talking about. We get into the roleplay at my table and don't want to stop it to figure out stakes. The goal is typically apparent going into the social interaction, but what happens with success or failure very much depends on how the conversation goes. It's not something I can decide before the interaction begins.

Wait, what? Are you confused about who you are replying to and for what? Because if not you are playing games and I am not amused.