Mike Mearls on Social Encounters

[apoptosis]

The DM tells you your character is paralyzed and should act accordingly. Should the player stamp his/her feet and say "No way! My character wouldn't be paralyzed! Thats just not what he does. I make faces and grunts to communicate with my team mates."?
Then why can't a DM say that a particular NPC has influenced your character... without promising to give 500 gold coins to rescue his lost daughter... and to please treat him as a friend or please take into account what the NPC is asking for.
I'm not saying a person has to play their character as though under a dominate person spell and mindlessly follow the orders of the NPCs. Far from it. But if an NPC is to somehow influence a PC there should be something that "sticks" and holds the PC to doing something an NPC asks for from a victorious opposed conflict resolution system just as combat does.

That is the advantage to stake setting in social conflict. It allows the player to decide what they are willing to risk to get the reward that they are looking for.

The DM is not mindcontrolling the player, the player is the one who is deciding what control they are willing to accede for the chance to win what they desire.

 

[buzz]

That is the advantage to stake setting in social conflict. It allows the player to decide what they are willing to risk to get the reward that they are looking for.

The DM is not mindcontrolling the player, the player is the one who is deciding what control they are willing to accede for the chance to win what they desire.

Beat me to it.

 

[Wormwood]

FWIW, the Mearls quotes doesn't quite sound like the social encounter Dave Noonan described from a playtest a few months ago. That one was a lot more conflict-resolution-y.

Hence my (slight) sense of "what, that's it?".

Which probably lies more with my expectations than the rules themselves.

 

[Will]

How I would like it is this:

PCs are trying to rack up A successes. NPCs are trying to rack up B successes. Certain twists and clever ideas are worth automatic successes.

For example, the PCs and a rival are trying to impress the court and get regal favor, an automatic success might be pointing out things like 'Mmm, wait, wasn't your uncle exiled?', with perhaps an extra success with a good Diplomacy check to say it smoothly.

Why have automatic successes? Simple; to reward involvement for all players, regardless of how well-spoken they are or what skills their characters have.

I've been in games where half the party has few social skills, or has difficulty framing ideas into specific social skills; giving them a flat 'progression' point for coming up with a cool idea keeps them engaged.

(Yes, I've been contemplating social mechanics in 3.5e for a while now)

Edit:
Lots of room for tossing in successes for a lot of things, like Gather Information (Ah, I know the King loves cherries) or Sense Motive (the King seems tired of this line of flattery, better stop now).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

What if the player doesnt want his character to be hit by a sword then? I mean, he's a tough badass, and getting hit doesnt fit his concept?

How would you feel about a character in a Ravenloft game who refused to roll a fear check? Or the guy in Cthulhu who refuses to take sanity loss? Both of those take away control from the player.

The DM is there to facilitate the character's interactions with the world. Since YOU, the player, arent there to hear the guy with the 34 charisma deliver a speech with a 50+ result on his diplomacy check, the game needs a way to reflect when a character would be swayed, even if the player isnt. Particularly in this instance, since its far too easy to dig your heels in and say "No".

IMO, its just as childish as not taking damage from an attack.

Part of the problem is 3rd edition ahd mediocre social rules (granted, they were better than the DM suck up system of earlier editions). Nothing really opposed diplomacy. Fix that, and players should be willing to accept their characters can have their attitudes adjusted without their permission the same as they can have their physical status.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, a solution might be to give penalties for acting against a status. So, in that case, you are swayed that the King is probably right, but you still do what you want, so you gain a -2 (or whatever) penalty to certain checks to reflect your conscience gnawing at you.

Player retains control of character; game effect exists.

Easy.


RC

 

[Dragonblade]

What if the player doesnt want his character to be hit by a sword then? I mean, he's a tough badass, and getting hit doesnt fit his concept?

How would you feel about a character in a Ravenloft game who refused to roll a fear check? Or the guy in Cthulhu who refuses to take sanity loss? Both of those take away control from the player.

Apples and Oranges. An attack is something that happens to you largely beyond your control. A fear or sanity check is the game or DM trying to "force" you to play your character a certain way. They are bad mechanics and bad game design.

Note: I should make a distinction between failing a save vs a spell that takes control away from your character. Thats magic and its assumed within the verisimilitude of the game that magic can affect your mind. I can accept that.

I can't accept a purely metagame device that tells me I should be afraid of something.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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!

Up until this point, the character is legitimately resisting the persuasions of the PC based on either the conviction that he's right or a reduced ability to make wise decisions due to the pressure of being in a life-or-death situation. Totally believable, and often found in action movies where someone's trying to talk down a nut with a gun (usually at this point the hero comes in through a window).

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.)

In the unlikely event that the NPC is willing to take time out of the standoff to look at the PCs' evidence (although this will never happen, let's assume it does for the sake of argument), at this point no Diplomacy roll is required. You're not trying to convince the NPC anymore. He will convince himself. If a dragon is obviously walking up to attack a village, you don't need to roll Diplomacy to convince the villagers that a dragon is coming. They can see the dragon themselves, and will act according to their estimation of the best course of action in that situation. Likewise, if you offer incontrovertible proof that the artifact is going to turn this guy into a newt, and for some reason he believes that you're not trying to con him, he will act accordingly, and not use the artifact. You don't need to convince him to do so, in much the same way as you didn't need to convince him to threaten you with it.

Trying to reducto ad absurdum a game mechanic doesn't work very well if you omit details. The relevant detail here being that the NPC doesn't base his decisions solely on what the PCs tell him to do. I know many players tend to think of NPCs as either furniture or target practice, but they are supposed to represent characters with at least some degree of realistic and/or believable motivations.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

NPC: Never!

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.

Player 1: "I cut his head off!" (rolls a 1)
Player 1: "I cut his head off even better!" (rolls a 1)
Player 1: "Jumping into the air, I cut his head off" (rolls a 1)
Player 2: "I stab him" (rolls a 20)
DM: "He dies."
Player 1: "No fair! I mean, I SAID I cut his head off!"

Dice can be a pain eh? My suggestion is to join a writers group if you dont want a game. People can act irrationally. Your rolls of a 1 indicated you failed at your attempt, the same as someone trying to stab someone, jump a chasm, or pick a lock.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Apples and Oranges. An attack is something that happens to you largely beyond your control. A fear or sanity check is the game or DM trying to "force" you to play your character a certain way. They are bad mechanics and bad game design.

So says the kid who refuses to allow himself to be shot in "guns" on the front lawn. IMO, its good design, and bad players who cant accept it.

YOU arent the character. YOU arent swinging the sword. YOU arent dodging the fireball. YOU arent on the floor with your intestines hanging out of you. YOU arent laughing in the face of Strahd. Your character is. The game forces outcomes you might not be happy with all the time. If you want to flip over the table, take your dice and pout, I think it says more about you than the game.

Getting stabbed is as much in your control as getting scared. Or are you going to say "Nuh-uh! I parried that sword thrust" every time your DM says the attack hit?