Mike Mearls on Social Encounters

[Irda Ranger]

It would be nice if I could get the players who tend to drift off during "talky bits" involved without having to sacrifice too much in the way of free form roleplaying.

The costs (if there even are any) far outweigh the benefits, IMO.

From personal experience I can say that good social encounter rules only deepen the game and improve it. They really help socially awkward or shy players really get involved in the "not killing things" parts of the game by relying on dice to get their point across, rather than have to make a speech in front of the other players. I don't want to enforce any stereotypes here, but I think we can agree that there are enough socially awkward or shy D&D players that helping them is a good thing. What you call "freeform roleplaying" is also a barrier to enjoyment for some people.

Good social encounter rules also help the DM be more objective about success and failure. What you call "freeform roleplaying" is the DM making a purely subjective judgment on both the merit of the argument and the openness of the NPC to being persuaded. Now there's still some subjectivity (as there always must be), but now there's some objective rules systems the players can interact with too.

 

[Irda Ranger]

You mean like Duel of Wits?

Heh.

Something like that, but without the needless complexity, the "Paper, Rock, Scissors"-like "attack" rules that mean you never know what you're gonna get, and the PvP rules that basically mean "OK, the group always does what the Elven Bard wants to do."

 

[LostSoul]

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

When I play with those kinds of mechanics ("non-magical Charm spells"), I am very satisfied with the results. I have never found them to be like some form of magical mental compulsion.

Maybe you've had different experiences, I don't know; I just know what I like. edit: I like it better than the old system, where sometimes I felt like I was trying to smooth-talk the DM instead of an NPC, and never even sure if what I was doing had any effect at all.

 

[LostSoul]

Heh.

Something like that, but without the needless complexity, the "Paper, Rock, Scissors"-like "attack" rules that mean you never know what you're gonna get, and the PvP rules that basically mean "OK, the group always does what the Elven Bard wants to do."

In my experience, I haven't found DoW too complex, though that's just my taste.

I like the fact that you don't know what's going to happen when you enter a Duel of Wits. The outcome could be something that no one expected - but you know it will be cool, because everyone has to OK it. I like those surprise twists that come about.

And elves are broken.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well I think having good social-roll rules will be really good for the social-aspect of the game. It is a nice crutch when simply rping isn't enough. It can also work well in socially-oriented games, ie: WoD, so should work well in D&D.

 

[Woas]

I'm looking forward to see what kind of rules of diplomacy/speech craft 4e has too. The subject is one of the reasons I've been so driven away from D&D in general and checking out other systems.

The first and biggest hurdle is getting over the idea that NPCs (and subsequently) the DM cannot hold a player to do something through diplomacy "cause you can't make me play my character that way!" 3rd grade mentality, I think.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The first and biggest hurdle is getting over the idea that NPCs (and subsequently) the DM cannot hold a player to do something through diplomacy "cause you can't make me play my character that way!" 3rd grade mentality, I think.

Er? That's not a third-grade mentality. That's the player feeling like control over their character has been taken away (which it has). Some people think it's fun to roleplay out what it's like to be under a Charm Person, but most people I know (including emotionally mature non-third graders) hate it. Your suggestion that NPCs can force the PCs to take or abstain from certain actions using Diplo skills is similar, and I think would go over similarly poorly.

The 4E devs are pretty focused on providing a game that most people think of as fun. I don't think 4E will address your desire.

 

[Raduin711]

Hmm.

I am somewhat intrigued by the idea that haggling a price could be handled by some die rolls. I haven't seen a useful mechanic for this. A stripped down social encounter may be what the doctor ordered.

But on the other hand, I don't want to see the social encounter system push and shove around roleplaying.

Character 1: You should give yourself up, NPC. (diplomacy roll: 1.)

NPC: Never!

Character 1: But think of what you are putting your wife and child through by resisting! After all, you did this all for them, am I right? (Diplomacy Roll: 1.)

NPC: Your astute observations and deep insight into my character mean nothing to me! I refuse to give up!

Character 1: But, the truth of the situation is, according to these documents we have uncovered, (which I show you now and are quite convincing and their veracity is obvious to even you) using that artifact you are threatening us with will actually have the opposite effect! You will actually do the reverse of what you wanted! Plus, it is clear the DM is trying to play you as simply desperate and not stupid, suicidal or insane! (Diplomacy Roll: 1.)

NPC: I must continue to resist because of your bad rolls!

Character 2: Put down the artifact or, I'll... um... scowl at you. (Intimidation Roll: 20.)

NPC: Oh, I cannot hope to stand against your intimidating scowl. I give up.

I am not saying that it will be this way, Just that I hope it is not.

 

[Nymrohd]

How about a complex skill checks mechanic similar to the one in UA? Only involving a variety of social skills according to the DM's fiat.

 

[FadedC]

Hmm.

I am somewhat intrigued by the idea that haggling a price could be handled by some die rolls. I haven't seen a useful mechanic for this. A stripped down social encounter may be what the doctor ordered.

But on the other hand, I don't want to see the social encounter system push and shove around roleplaying.

Character 1: You should give yourself up, NPC. (diplomacy roll: 1.)

NPC: Never!

Character 1: But think of what you are putting your wife and child through by resisting! After all, you did this all for them, am I right? (Diplomacy Roll: 1.)

NPC: Your astute observations and deep insight into my character mean nothing to me! I refuse to give up!

Character 1: But, the truth of the situation is, according to these documents we have uncovered, (which I show you now and are quite convincing and their veracity is obvious to even you) using that artifact you are threatening us with will actually have the opposite effect! You will actually do the reverse of what you wanted! Plus, it is clear the DM is trying to play you as simply desperate and not stupid, suicidal or insane! (Diplomacy Roll: 1.)

NPC: I must continue to resist because of your bad rolls!

Character 2: Put down the artifact or, I'll... um... scowl at you. (Intimidation Roll: 20.)

NPC: Oh, I cannot hope to stand against your intimidating scowl. I give up.

I am not saying that it will be this way, Just that I hope it is not.

Well other then the intimidation check overriding every failed diplomacy check, that doesn't sound all that bad to me. All the evidence he collected gives him some amazing bonuses but in the 1 in 8,000 chance that he rolls a 1 on 3 checks in a row there should be some pretty serious consequences. You can't have a system where social skills and stats are supposed to be important if your planning to ignore all bad rolls on them.