D&D 5E Interaction rules

[pemerton]

What are people's thoughts on the interaction system?

I like that the changing of reaction (from Hostile > Indifferent > Friendly) is seperated out from the resolution of the encounter; and Ideals, Flaws and Bonds seem as good as anything for hanging the reaction-changing triggers on.

I don't like that the check for discerning an NPC's Ideals, Flaws or Bonds is vs WIS - vs CHA would make more sense to me (the charimsatic come across as whatever the adoring masses project onto them!) and would also make CHA a more important stat.

And I don't like that the resolution is one-roll only. That seems to suggest a dynamic of: talk around the issue a bit to ascertain Ideals, Flaw and/or Bonds, bring them into the conversation, then roll for success/failure. I would prefer an attempt at a system to allow multiple "primary" checks (to use 4e jargon) - the checks to ascertain Ideals, Flaws and Bonds would be (in that same jargon) "secondary" checks. I have found that multiple checks is a better way of generating interesting and unexpected compromises as the outcome of interactions.

 

[1of3]

My problem with the current approach is the DCs are static. With a 20 you can influence anyone within the bounds of the column, no matter if it is an impressible troll or a shrewd great dragon.

Some spells would be better if they said more explicitely how they interact with it. For example, it would make sense for Charm Person, if threatening a charmed character's Bonds were the same as threatening the charmed character.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Agreed that you should be rolling against their Charisma.

It would be better if there was a bit of back and forth. How about:

- Interaction is resolved cyclically, with the instigator going first.
- On your action you can either try to discern information (Wis vs. Cha), project misinformation (if someone fails to discern against you, you tell them what you like), make an offer (persuade, bluff or intimidate to get an outcome, possibly targetting an ideal/flaw/bond) or just remain passive
- Most NPCs will remain passive, but those you want to play tricksy can project misinformation, make offers/counteroffers or size up the PCs.
- Obviously PCs are not bound by the reaction system, so if an NPC discerns information against them, then make the PC aware that they must include that in the offer or suffer a penalty. If an NPC makes them an offer 'they can't refuse' because they hit the right ideal/flaw/bond or are just very skilled, then make the PC aware that they need to include whatever is in that offer in the future or suffer a penalty.

An example would be, say, a Paladin trying to question a thief as a witness to a murder.
The thief has an ideal: their code of honour forbids killing, but also forbids snitching. Their flaw is generic greed. They have a bond with their guild.
The Paladin is the PC, but has a clear code of honour and the player has made it clear they have a bond with their family in the town.
So, the Paladin starts by discerning information, and succeeds and the thief's code of honour becomes apparent to them.
The thief knows this, and decides to project an offer that he didn't see anything - a bluff check - which luckily succeeds, but the PC doesn't have to believe that, only use it in future offers.
The Paladin's player doesn't believe the thief, but knows the thief won't snitch. He decides to gamble that the thief is greedy and makes an offer, including a 'reward' for information about people in the area before the murder, everyone and anyone - this persuade check suffers a penalty because it overrides the previous offer, but a bonus for targetting the thief's flaw. Snitching is against the thief's code of honour but the Paladin has made an attempt to work around that indirectly, so no penalty is given. The check therefore comes out neutral - it succeeds and the 'reward' gets the Paladin the information he needs.

The DM would have to determine whether or not a particular offer deserves bonuses/penalties but you can always use the benefit of the doubt mechanic from Just a Minute

 

[pemerton]

Obviously PCs are not bound by the reaction system, so if an NPC discerns information against them, then make the PC aware that they must include that in the offer or suffer a penalty. If an NPC makes them an offer 'they can't refuse' because they hit the right ideal/flaw/bond or are just very skilled, then make the PC aware that they need to include whatever is in that offer in the future or suffer a penalty.

I think that Sorcerer uses a mechanic like this - if the player want to "deny" the result of an NPC's check they can do so, but they suffer a penalty on the "denying" action; whereas if the player goes along with the NPC's successs then they don't suffer the penalty.

I like it, and think it could work well here.

 

[pemerton]

Some spells would be better if they said more explicitely how they interact with it. For example, it would make sense for Charm Person, if threatening a charmed character's Bonds were the same as threatening the charmed character.

Good point.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think that Sorcerer uses a mechanic like this - if the player want to "deny" the result of an NPC's check they can do so, but they suffer a penalty on the "denying" action; whereas if the player goes along with the NPC's successs then they don't suffer the penalty.

I like it, and think it could work well here.

I know some people hate penalties, that was my only concern. It could be worded as a bonus though, but I think if everything was a bonus then resolution would become too swift. The bonus/penalty here couldn't be advantage/disadvantage either, at least in its current state, as most checks would end up neutral.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And I don't like that the resolution is one-roll only. That seems to suggest a dynamic of: talk around the issue a bit to ascertain Ideals, Flaw and/or Bonds, bring them into the conversation, then roll for success/failure. I would prefer an attempt at a system to allow multiple "primary" checks (to use 4e jargon) - the checks to ascertain Ideals, Flaws and Bonds would be (in that same jargon) "secondary" checks. I have found that multiple checks is a better way of generating interesting and unexpected compromises as the outcome of interactions.

Actually this is the idea I liked most about the Interaction rules. The back and forth of various passed and failed rolls made for some very unnatural conversations in game. I've always used the "Say Something. Roll." method and the simple idea of completing your full argument/discussion and then rolling seems more natural to me.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't like that the check for discerning an NPC's Ideals, Flaws or Bonds is vs WIS - vs CHA would make more sense to me (the charimsatic come across as whatever the adoring masses project onto them!) and would also make CHA a more important stat.

I think WIS works to discern the situation of a character, while a CHA check could determine who at the table creates an illusory persona for an NPC. So discern actual game situation & the DM's NPC attempting to portray a personality for the masses vs. the viewer PC/NPC projecting one on to it.

And I don't like that the resolution is one-roll only. That seems to suggest a dynamic of: talk around the issue a bit to ascertain Ideals, Flaw and/or Bonds, bring them into the conversation, then roll for success/failure. I would prefer an attempt at a system to allow multiple "primary" checks (to use 4e jargon) - the checks to ascertain Ideals, Flaws and Bonds would be (in that same jargon) "secondary" checks. I have found that multiple checks is a better way of generating interesting and unexpected compromises as the outcome of interactions.

Ironically I don't like it either, but don't want to go in the direction of 3.x Complexity Checks or 4e Skill Challenges. I'd rather go old school and have maps, maps, and more maps. Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds isn't the best system I've ever encountered, but bonds are at least derived from mapping. Ideals as goals and personal codes works too, but as written flaws don't translate into game mechanics at all. EDIT: ...at least not that I can see. Any suggestions?

 

[GX.Sigma]

My only problem with it is that it's in How to Play. It should be DM-side stuff.

 

[1of3]

Why? Shouldn't players know what the rules are?