D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Reynard]

The point isn't to make it enjoyable, it's to make non-consensual pvp pointless. Instead of the DM saying, "Billy doesn't want to play PvP so no you can't attack him" it's "Ok, Billy, what happens?" "He misses me. Can we get back to the game now?"

But, as in my experience, the person being attacked doesn't have to shut it down that completely.

That's been my experience with roleplaying, too. I can 100% imagine one of us DMing a con-man, and others in our group leaning into that and allowing themselves to be suckered, their character forever delighted with their "magic rock" they got at a bargain basement price, or whatever.

It also has the benefit of being inherently consensual. Conflict can arise naturally within a group. We see it in movies all the time. There's dramatic tension and it informs us about the characters. It even makes us wonder what is going to happen later when one of those characters needs the other.

 

[tetrasodium]

with the D&D movie being a 'heist' film and it being called honnor among theives I will be VERY sad if it has black mail, seduction, grifting and con jobs when the rules don't support such things without magic

Sure they do, it's baked right into the rules pretty deeply
"The last part helps you adjudicate the rules of the game and modify them to suit the style of your campaign."... over reliance on that rule is part of the problem though since the gm is too often left with no cards to play before things even start.

 

[Bill Zebub]

they abjectly refuse to let their Mary Sue have any flaws or suffer any defeats. Those kinds of players create boring games.

Another thought here, because this reminds me of discussions about metagaming and Tasha's, where fears are expressed about how other people will play, and what decisions they will make, as opposed to how it will affect our own ability to make our own choices.

I can understand the complaint (even if I don't really share it) that you can't build a really effective non-magical influencer in D&D. There are a lot of things you can't build, especially without magic, and yes, that's one of them. And that's a valid complaint because it prevents "you" (whoever has this complaint) from doing something they want to.

But I tend to have less sympathy for arguments based on the fear of other people making decisions that don't fit our own aesthetic preferences. That's just going to happen a lot if we play with people who don't, well, share our aesthetic preferences, and trying to force them with rules won't work.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"The last part helps you adjudicate the rules of the game and modify them to suit the style of your campaign."...

I'm not sure what you think this means... but since it was in regards to my (somewhaat) joke about the movie let me assume you mean you think there are rules for running a con (long or short) against a PC or NPC... and if so I would love to hear them.

reliance on that rule is part of the problem though since the gm is too often left with no cards to play before things even start.

this part makes me think you may be going for the "You can make up what ever you want" side of the argument

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can understand the complaint (even if I don't really share it) that you can't build a really effective non-magical influencer in D&D. There are a lot of things you can't build, especially without magic, and yes, that's one of them. And that's a valid complaint because it prevents "you" (whoever has this complaint) from doing something they want to.

But I tend to have less sympathy for arguments based on the fear of other people making decisions that don't fit our own aesthetic preferences. That's just going to happen a lot if we play with people who don't, well, share our aesthetic preferences, and trying to force them with rules won't work.

I actually agree here. when the argument is "I want rules to help me do X in my games" I almost always agree
when the argument is "I don't trust my players how can I force them to do things my way" I don't

myy think is I want more non maigc mechanics... I can see (or at least assume) you do not.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure what you think this means... but since it was in regards to my (somewhaat) joke about the movie let me assume you mean you think there are rules for running a con (long or short) against a PC or NPC... and if so I would love to hear them.


this part makes me think you may be going for the "You can make up what ever you want" side of the argument

it's from the dmg where it basically throws the gm on the fire to finish things as you guessed yea. I agree that "ask your gm" is a design choice 5e too heavily leans on

 

[Reynard]

But I tend to have less sympathy for arguments based on the fear of other people making decisions that don't fit our own aesthetic preferences. That's just going to happen a lot if we play with people who don't, well, share our aesthetic preferences, and trying to force them with rules won't work.

I admit to creating a bit of a strawman there, or at least "imagining" a problematic player I have never actually had at the table in response to some posters in this thread. In reality, most players I meat randomly (when I run games at cons or in store, for example) are pretty good about rolling with the style at the table. It's rare for someone to completely balk, and if they do I prefer to have them say something at the first break or throw an X-card or whatever. If they don't but I notice, i try and find out what the disconnect is. In the vast majority of cases, it isn't that people are being petulant, it is that they have different expectations and are sort of watching a different adaptation of the same story in their head, if that makes sense. We can usually breach those differences with conversation -- but it is much, much easier to do at a table in person than on a message board.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think many of my reactions/opinions in this thread are because it's in the D&D forum, and although it's tagged 'general' I'm thinking in terms of 5e.

I can certainly imagine an RPG in which the weakness of the human mind plays a central role. CoC, for example. It's not so much about persuadability and influence, but it is more focused on the mind and less on killing monsters and taking their stuff.

But in D&D? That just causes a lot of dissonance for me. I hope D&D never goes that direction. Not because it's my favorite game but because when I play it I want a certain kind of game.

Yeah, I get that. Honestly, that's pretty much how most of my D&D games play out. If I want something different, I generally play a different game.

But I do think you could shift D&D a little in that direction, if you (the general you) were so inclined. I can certainly see takes on D&D type fiction that lean toward horror or intrigue, where such game elements would have a place.

One of the reasons I think a social combat system would be worthwhile is that I think players in general are pretty bad at choosing "defeat" even when "in character" or "dramatically appropriate." Not too long ago we had a thread about refusing to run away, and I am still suffering from the one about taking a bath. I have said before that I like the PCs in my games to act something like real people, and real people (paragons of virtue and unbreakable wills aside) acquiesce points and lose arguments and negotiate badly and succumb to peer pressure and break under interrogation all the time. I know we are talking about heroes here, but unflappable, indominable heroes are, well, boring. Go reread your Iliad and Odyssey, your Gilgamesh and Beowulf.

I think that you could expand the existing system a bit to allow for like "skill stunts" or something. Specific applications of a skill, usable by someone who has chosen it (maybe connect it to class, subclass, or background).

So maybe something like "Drop...your...sword" as an Intimidation ability usable when certain conditions are met (perhaps an enemy is alone and at x% of HP or something like that), and if successful, the target surrenders.

That's a quick take, but I hope the idea is clear. It'd be a pretty serious expansion of mechanics, but it would likely open up some cool elements of play.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Isn't that also the case in combat? "Thanks for that 1 HP; now I can jump back to my feet with no impact on performance."

Social interaction may be a lot less fleshed out than real combat...and a lot less fun, from a game design perspective...but I find it approximately as realistic. They're both hovering at about 3.7% realistic.

Can't heal if everyone is defeated, right?

 

[Bill Zebub]

There's some great open-minded, balanced discussion going on.

Can we have a group hug?