Mike Mearls on Social Encounters

[Lonely Tylenol]

You make good points. Unfortunately I think social task resolution systems will never be optimal.

It seems you end up with either the 1-sided challenge or the DM as controller issue.

Both of which seem to be problematic.

Have you read Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules? They're a fairly viable task-based social interaction system. The premise is that any conflict between two parties can be boiled down into:

• One party has something
• The other party wants it
• There is a price at which the second party will part with whatever the first party has

Obviously, if the second party will not part with the prize at any cost, Diplomacy won't work But the prize could be anything from "this sword," "access to the vault," "a week of loyal service," or "Graz'zt's Truename." If you can either:
1. Meet the price
2. Reduce the price using Diplomacy and then meet that reduced price (which might now be "free")
...then you can have the prize.

This turns every interaction into a task-resolution scenario, where the task is "convince the NPC to give you what you want, at the lowest price possible. It actually works rather well for the sorts of interactions PCs are likely to have with NPCs.

 

[xechnao]

For those that want social encounter rules.

Social encounters come in two parts: drama and relations

Dramatic part:
Make a wisdom check against a DC appropriate to the target's stance to your cause (beneficial, in conflict etch). Sense motive may give a bonus.
If you are bluffing, along the wisdom check you must also roll a bluffing check vs target's sense motive. If you fail the target becomes more hostile and the DC gets higher.

Relations part:
Make a charsima check against target's Will defense. Knowledge may give you a bonus.
If you are injust in your premise, along the charisma check you must also roll a diplomacy check vs target's knowledge. If you fail the target gets a bonus to his Will defense.

Depending on failure and success of each roll the outcome is shaped. For example a wisdom check success and a charisma failure could mean that the target pitty's you now. This means that the target's stance is shifted to a more beneficial level. A wisdom failure and a charisma success means that the target respects you. This means that the target cannot use special tricks on you such as diplomacy or bluff or sense motive against you or even flank or sneak attack you until he gets bloodied in combat. Success in both means that you have won this social encounter, while failure in both means that you failed -nothing changes.

You may attempt to replace the wisdom or charisma roll with an intimidation roll. If you fail though the target's stance goes one level more hostile or you redicule yourself in each case respectively. Being rediculed makes you lose fame unless you become more hostile against the target.

Bad fame means that you suffer penalties in every social encounter charisma roll for everyone with enough measure of knowledge which will depending on your tier -the higher your tier, the less knowledge one will need.

 

[apoptosis]

Have you read Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules? They're a fairly viable task-based social interaction system. The premise is that any conflict between two parties can be boiled down into:

• One party has something
• The other party wants it
• There is a price at which the second party will part with whatever the first party has

Obviously, if the second party will not part with the prize at any cost, Diplomacy won't work But the prize could be anything from "this sword," "access to the vault," "a week of loyal service," or "Graz'zt's Truename." If you can either:
1. Meet the price
2. Reduce the price using Diplomacy and then meet that reduced price (which might now be "free")
...then you can have the prize.

This turns every interaction into a task-resolution scenario, where the task is "convince the NPC to give you what you want, at the lowest price possible. It actually works rather well for the sorts of interactions PCs are likely to have with NPCs.

Can the NPC use diplomacy to get something from the characters?

Can the price end up going higher than if you fail a diplomacy check?

If not, then we are somewhat back to the PCs not really risking anything in the challenge. They would either get it for what was originally asked or they get a bargain.

Now i am only quickly reviewing the scenario but honestly the challenge seems very ungratifying to me. It is usable, but rather uninteresting (change the scenario to a combat scenario)

It is basically just a simple DC check to lower the value of whatever you want.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Can the NPC use diplomacy to get something from the characters?

No. PCs are just as immune to Diplomacy as they are in the standard rules. But that's a completely separate issue. You could decide that NPCs can do the same thing to PCs, if you can get your players to agree to it.

Can the price end up going higher than if you fail a diplomacy check?

Yes. If you fail by 5 or less, the NPC will make a counter-offer, giving some indication of what it would take to make the deal work, and generally getting the better end of the deal. Fail by 6 to 9, and the NPC just isn't interested, but may respond positively to a better offer. If you fail by 10 or more, the NPC will cease negotiations permanently.

If not, then we are somewhat back to the PCs not really risking anything in the challenge. They would either get it for what was originally asked or they get a bargain.

Now i am only quickly reviewing the scenario but honestly the challenge seems very ungratifying to me. It is usable, but rather uninteresting (change the scenario to a combat scenario)

It is basically just a simple DC check to lower the value of whatever you want.

Well, it turns every negotiation into a gamble where you try to secure the lowest price possible without making the deal go sour, or alternatively, secure the lowest chance of failure possible at the lowest price you can get away with. You increase the risk of failure by offering less than the prize is worth, or by trying to negotiate with people who don't like you. You decrease the risk by offering more than it's worth.

If you absolutely, 100% must get into the secret meeting or else the king will be assassinated, you can bribe the living hell out of the doorman and increase your chances of success, but unless you make it seriously worth his while, you have a chance of failure. So you can lower that DC, but it'll hurt.

Success is not cost-free. Either you spend resources directly tempting the NPC into taking your offer, or you spend character resources on feats and skill points that provide bonuses to Diplomacy will boost your chances of success. Even then, all you are doing is reducing the costs, not eliminating them. Perhaps you can't talk the doorman into letting you into the secret meeting for free, but perhaps he'll take 100 gp instead of 200 gp as a bribe. On the other hand, perhaps you'll botch it, or seriously underestimate how much is "worth his while" and end up failing with a pretty good roll.

It's a really flexible system, and I like it a lot. I also like stakes-based systems, but this system is, for newer players, more intuitive and to-the-point. Instead of gambling an outcome versus an outcome, you gamble a resource against the NPC's desires and your talking ability.

 

[LostSoul]

It's a really flexible system, and I like it a lot. I also like stakes-based systems, but this system is, for newer players, more intuitive and to-the-point.

I'm surprised! I can't see why task resolution would be more intuitive.

Succeeding at a roll but failing anyways seems very counter-intuitive to me.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm surprised! I can't see why task resolution would be more intuitive.

Succeeding at a roll but failing anyways seems very counter-intuitive to me.

In what way do you fail if you succeed? The DC to get the guy to give you the ham is 20. You reduce it to 15 by offering him a gold piece. You roll a 17. He gives you the ham. Maybe you didn't know what the DC was when you rolled, but if you hit it, you get what you were asking for.

The reason why it's intuitive is that it's the same resolution system used throughout the entire d20 system for every task.

 

[LostSoul]

Because resolving tasks doesn't (necessarily) resolve intent.