Mike Mearls on Social Encounters

[HeinorNY]

From WotC boards: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15010307&postcount=15

But I have a feeling they are aiming for something quite else. Something where mechanics treat social interaction as, well, combat, and enable you to "defeat" a foe and get them to do what you want.

The non-combat encounter rules allow the DM to dicate that effects of the party's success or failure. There's nothing inherent to the rules that say an NPC must do what the party does. The DM decides what happens, based on the NPC and the situation.

For example:

* The PCs have to negotiate with a crime lord who is holding an informant prisoner. The PCs need to talk to the informant. I might design it this way:

Success: The crime lord drags out the informant and the PCs can talk to him for a few minutes. If the PCs stay too long, the crime lord kicks them out.

Failure: The crime lord wearies of the PCs and orders his guards to attack.

In neither case does the crime lord become the PCs' friend or thrall. I might also throw in things like bribes (even if the PCs succeed, the crime lord expects a "gift") or other complications.

I think the social combat rules will be simpler than I thought, but still very useful.
The DM will decide the possible outcomes of the social encounter, give DCs based on the NPC level or on the amount of challenge he wants for that encounter, and let it roll.

 

[LostSoul]

The DM will decide the possible outcomes of the social encounter, give DCs based on the NPC level or on the amount of challenge he wants for that encounter, and let it roll.

So, in effect, the mechanics are "the DM decides"?

 

[Nikosandros]

Well, the outcome is one thing. The DM has always been able to decide on it.

What I'm curious about is how the mechanics work. It was hinted that a social "conflict" might be more involved than a simple single die roll.

 

[HeinorNY]

So, in effect, the mechanics are "the DM decides"?

I think it's gonna be more of a guidelines to DM to build social situations. The tools are already there, skill checks.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rechan]

What I'm curious about is how the mechanics work. It was hinted that a social "conflict" might be more involved than a simple single die roll.

Yeah, that's my thinking.

I recall the podcast where they said something to the effect of:

The PCs want to negotiate with a Lord for some reason.

They make a Diplomacy check.

Then the Lord says, "You know, some band of adventurers attacked my associate the Bishop of Arvendale. You guys wouldn't happen to know anything about that?" The PCs must make a Bluff check vs. the Lord's sense motive.

Then the Lord's adviser leans over and murmurs something in the Lord's ear. He makes a diplomacy check.

The Fighter decides to shut the adviser up, so he rolls intimidate.

After several more "rounds", the DM decides how effective they have been on the Noble, and then determines the outcome.

So "Social Encounters" might be sort've like a Gauge or a counter. An Encounter DC, if you will. You might say, add all your successes up to reach the EDC to Succeed. If, after combining all the results of your rolls, you don't reach the Encounter DC

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So, in effect, the mechanics are "the DM decides"?

I think that's better than a non-magical Charm spell.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

So, in effect, the mechanics are "the DM decides"?

Roughly speaking, all of D&D is that. I'd be happy with some interesting, flexible systems that give me some ideas on how to make the leadup to the decision fun.

 

[Cadfan]

Total Speculation:

If you want a preview of the social encounter rules, get out your copy of Heroes of Battle. Read the rules on designing a flowchart to manage battlefield encounters. Cross out "battlefield" and write "talky."

 

[pemerton]

I guess the question then becomes, will the players have any way of influencing what is at stake? For example, can the players cause the GM to up the ante, by upping the ante themselvesn (eg in the Crime Lord example, they promise the Crime Lord their services in response for a better outcome from him).

 

[Lizard]

The current system we use is basically "Roleplay roleplay roleplay OK, roll a Diplomacy check". Depending on how the roleplaying is going, it might be "Role a Bluff check" or "Roll an Intimidate check". The DM takes an awful lot of context into account when interpreting the roll. The pure mechanics of the current DMG are generally only used in combat situations, when someone is trying to get both sides to stand down.

I'm interested in seeing if the mechanics they have for 4e are richer than "Roll a LOT of Diplomacy checks".