D&D 5E Interaction rules

[howandwhy99]

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

In certain older D&D play styles the rules were a code for the players challenge themselves in deciphering, a game long process. Like trying to solve Chess like one might solve TicTacToe. This meant almost everything they didn't have as abilities wasn't known to them. Every mechanic was actually puzzle mechanic. The MMs, DMG, setting, and module materials were all off limits in the same way some computer games may include fog of war as part of the design. The DM tracked the players, the players used the character logs to remember and help figure out what was happening.

EDIT: They brought some of this mystery back in the magic items section

 

[GX.Sigma]

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

Because I don't think it should be a rule. If it's in How to Play, it's a rule. If it's in DM Guidelines, it's a suggestion.

 

[pemerton]

Because I don't think it should be a rule.

I'm happy with it as a rule. My concern is that it be a real rule, that the players can use well or poorly (like combat) rather than an illusory rule, where all the action is really on the GM side.

For instance, at present learning an Ideal, Flaw or Bond takes 10 minutes of interaction (HtP p 15), but as far as I can tell the question of whether any interaction lasts for 10 minutes is primarily in the hands of the GM. So if a player is confident that the GM will let the interaction run for 10 minutes, there is very little to lose by trying for some insight into one's interlocutor; and, conversely, if a player is worried that the NPC, as played by the GM, is not going to hang around for 10 minutes, there's no clear mode for making a check to at least have the person hang around. (The analogue for this in the combat rules is that the GM can't just fiat an NPC out of combat - there are movement rules, withdrawal rules, action economy etc.)

In other words, in so far as they are rules, I want them to have enough tightness and structure that the players can reliably engage with them.

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.

The compromise would be to do what some other systems do, and suggest mechanics both for "simple" (one roll) resolution and "complex" (skill challenge-style resolution). For the complex system to work, there then need to be options about resource deployment etc (at the minimum, an action economy of some sort) along the lines that I have sketched out above.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The more I think about it, the more I think interaction can fit onto a combat framework. Not directly translating mind you, I don't want to have social hitpoints. I'm thinking more.. do you know the negotiation-with-staff minigame from Theme Park? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtB-cQooZzI

So the 'pendulum' of interaction begins at a point determined by the NPC's initial attitude, and I would suggest a scale that ranges (Disagreement) -> Unfriendly -> Neutral -> Friendly -> (Agreement).
Interaction takes place in rounds of length that depends on the complexity of the negotiation, so 1 minute for a casual conversation, 1 hour for court activity, 1 day for peace treaty negotiations or longer if correspondance is involved.
Initiative is a Wisdom check - whoever has the immediate sense of what's going on can act first.
As an action you may either Question, Offer, Mislead or Pass
To Question you make a Wis vs. Cha check to determine a target's flaw, bond or ideal (your choice which to aim for, target's choice which is revealed if successful), failure reveals nothing unless the target was Misleading, in which case they can reveal anything they like to you.
Flaws, Bonds and Ideals are like tokens you can spend to influence the outcome of your action. Once used, you can't bring up the same token again in this interaction. You can only spend one token per action.
Spend a token before a Question and gain advantage on the check. Spend a token after a Question and either reveal if the token is misleading or learn a second token.
Spend a token when Misleading to prevent revealing something on a success (it appears as a failure without a mislead).
To make an Offer, you make a Cha vs. Cha check, a success or failure adjusts the targets attitude up or down one step, so care is required. You must spend a token, one you know if you know any, otherwise you have to guess something about the other party. Pick the right one and you have advantage.
If you ever spend a false token, or gamble a token you don't have (ie: guess someone is greedy) then it does nothing unless it's the opposite to a genuine token, in which case the effect is reversed (disadvantage on checks, forced to reveal something no matter what the check result).
If you Pass, you stall or make small talk, but get +2 on your next check - an NPC might do this or mislead, it's not apparent which. A PC would have to note down which they really did (cards would be useful here).

A Paladin questions a thief about a murder. The Paladin wins initiative. The thief starts out Unfriendly.
He Questions, "What are you doing out here this late at night?" and the thief hasn't had a chance to Mislead yet. He succeeds the check and learns that the thief has his code of honour.
The thief makes an Offer, hoping to force the pendulum to disagreement and get out of there (disagreement isn't strictly what the name entails - it could simply be an ultimatum such as 'pay this price or we're done'). He doesn't know the PC is a Paladin, but guesses he might be optimistic, believing everyone is good by nature. He's wrong, but the Paladin isn't a cynic so just rolls a normal check and fails, putting him on neutral. "I didn't see anything, I'm just out for a late night stroll, nothing wrong with that!"
The Paladin has the upper hand now after that blatant lie but wants more information, Questions again and suceeds, and spends his token after to learn that the thief is greedy, but loyal to his guild. "I know you don't want to say anything, but if you know the murderer then you're in trouble too, and if you don't, is it worth lying for him? Murder doesn't look like your game.."
The thief doesn't like this and decides to Mislead.
The Paladin goes straight to an offer though, offering a 'reward' for information, succeeds and the NPC is at friendly (or rather, close to giving up).
The thief tries to counteroffer, at this point it doesn't matter so much to him because money's on the table. He fails, an agreement is reached and he tells the Paladin what he saw for a small fee.

So, slightly more elaborate than my previous suggestion. It might take too long though. You could allow a token spend after an offer to improve the level twice perhaps. It's got questioning, bluffing, offers and counteroffers in there though and the DM can set a round limit before enforcing the end of the interaction. Any outcome in the middle could offer partial information or something to follow-up on. I think it works best as negotiation - at each end is what each party wants and they're both fighting to get to that end. Obviously their goal can change - the thief might start out wanting to say nothing but then prefer to get a hefty reward, though his position was so weak he only ended up with a few coin since the Paladin won.