Necessity of a Social Negotiation System? – When Should It Be Relevant?

[payn]

Well, like everything it depends on the game you are running. I have been running THE GREAT PENDRAGOIN CAMPAIGN for 2+ years now, and this kind of thing is a major part of the game and has solid backing both mechanically and in the fictional setting.

Sure, if a game is built with it and doesnt have a long tradition of offloading this to fiat like D&D and other RPGs, then its a workable thing.

As an example, when you first see Guinevere, each player rolls to see if the knight falls in love with her. Because that is the game we are playing; one where people can fall in love, go mad from longing, give in to temptation or kill people out of a sudden burst of hate. These things happen all the time both in real life and (more importantly) in fiction. To me, it's a more natural way to play than one where nothing ever happens to a character that the player does not explicitly want to happen.

These things do happen in real life, but it seems a bit gamey to have every character roll for falling in love with the same NPC. That doesnt feel organic at all. I think that all or nothing isnt the dichotomy social negotiation ought to be set in.

However, Pendragon has mechanisms for modifying the chances of this happening. If a player's character is continuously greedy, so their selfish trait goes up, that makes it significantly more likely that they will be required by dice rolls to be greedy again. If you haven't developed a love for anyone else, it makes it more likely that you'll fall in love with random fey woman who turns up in your bed one night.

As an example, a player in my game has a knight, Hwyel, who started behaving callously to others, and their cruel trait increased to 15. This means that if they test cruel against its opposite, they are 75% likely to succeed on cruel, and only 25% likely to succeed on being kind -- if they succeed on one and fail on the other, then they really should react in the indicated way.

However, if your trait is <16, the GM cannot force you to roll except for unusual circumstances (like the almost supernatural beauty of Guinevere). So it's only when Hywel hit 16 that he became known as "Hywel the Cruel" and and as a famously cruel knight, it is now very hard for him not to be cruel. But it took about 6 months of play to get to that state.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I don't think social systems can be bolted onto a game which is otherwise mostly about combat and skills. In D&D, for example, there is essentially no way to portray a character becoming more cruel (The closest might be an old-school type alignment chart, but I've ever actually seen anyone do that), so if a roll result causes the GM to say "and so you beat the merchant to death" it feels very wrong, very arbitrary.

Doe we need social X systems in a game? Not if you don't want to play that style of game. But more importantly, if you DO want to play that style of game, pick a system that deeply supports it, as otherwise it just won't sit well with many people.

Interesting examples, and I agree with you about D&D. I guess my take on social is more external and less internal. The dice and past exercises dont predict or demand the future ones. Its more about raising awareness of agendas, building alliances, and impacting the setting's characters through interaction that im more interested in. YMMV.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

As an example, when you first see Guinevere, each player rolls to see if the knight falls in love with her

These things do happen in real life, but it seems a bit gamey to have every character roll for falling in love with the same NPC. That doesnt feel organic at all. I think that all or nothing isn't the dichotomy social negotiation ought to be set in.

I should have been more precise. In Pendragon it's technically called 'amor' and is a bit different from our modern take. In game terms, you get a passion of Amor (Gwen) and it has a level, much like Hywel's Cruel Trait can influence how you behave.

You can easily be a little bit in love with Guinevere and it not have much impact unless someone impugns her honor, or there's a conflict of interests involving her. So two of my player knights fell a little in love with her; they joined her guard and generally prefer her and will fight anyone who says bad things about her. As will about half of the court of Camelot. But unless they invoke their passion for her, it will not grow over time.

One of my knights -- Hywel the Cruel, actually -- managed to critically fall in love and ended up famously in love with her. He invoked the passion all the time, jousting tournaments in her honor, riding into battle crying "For queen and country" as opposed to the more usual "king and country" and so became even more devoted to her.

So, when Lancelot came along and was making eyes at the queen, I required Hywel to test his passion for her, and his passion won out, so he decided to challenge the knight to a joust. Lancelot was still just starting out, so Hywel managed (with good rolls!) to knock him to the ground. Since Hywel is also famously cruel I got him to test that also, and again the passion won out. So he murdered Lancelot, pretending a splinter from the lance had pierced his throat.

This is the game we wanted to play -- one where knights are passionate and driven sometimes by desires and needs that the player might never have thought of. The cleverness of the Pendragon system is that it requires a co-operation between player and GM to make the story turn in a given direction. Hywel's player might have not invoked his passion for her so often, used XP to buy down the passion each session and treated it as a young lad's fancy.

But I think you need these mechanisms and options. The GM or dice can start a passion going and it may be powerful for a few sessions, but there are several ways for the player to modify it -- and so it doesn't feel as arbitrary as the canonical bad D&D GM's "you failed your save and so are in love with her and so must protect her at all costs".

Even Arthur, who loved Guinever with immense passion, agreed that she should be burned to death as a traitor and agreed on a kingdom-destroying war to subject her to justice -- because he had an opposing passion for justice that won out.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I should have been more precise. In Pendragon it's technically called 'amor' and is a bit different from our modern take. In game terms, you get a passion of Amor (Gwen) and it has a level, much like Hywel's Cruel Trait can influence how you behave.

You can easily be a little bit in love with Guinevere and it not have much impact unless someone impugns her honor, or there's a conflict of interests involving her. So two of my player knights fell a little in love with her; they joined her guard and generally prefer her and will fight anyone who says bad things about her. As will about half of the court of Camelot. But unless they invoke their passion for her, it will not grow over time.

One of my knights -- Hywel the Cruel, actually -- managed to critically fall in love and ended up famously in love with her. He invoked the passion all the time, jousting tournaments in her honor, riding into battle crying "For queen and country" as opposed to the more usual "king and country" and so became even more devoted to her.

So, when Lancelot came along and was making eyes at the queen, I required Hywel to test his passion for her, and his passion won out, so he decided to challenge the knight to a joust. Lancelot was still just starting out, so Hywel managed (with good rolls!) to knock him to the ground. Since Hywel is also famously cruel I got him to test that also, and again the passion won out. So he murdered Lancelot, pretending a splinter from the lance had pierced his throat.

This is the game we wanted to play -- one where knights are passionate and driven sometimes by desires and needs that the player might never have thought of. The cleverness of the Pendragon system is that it requires a co-operation between player and GM to make the story turn in a given direction. Hywel's player might have not invoked his passion for her so often, used XP to buy down the passion each session and treated it as a young lad's fancy.

But I think you need these mechanisms and options. The GM or dice can start a passion going and it may be powerful for a few sessions, but there are several ways for the player to modify it -- and so it doesn't feel as arbitrary as the canonical bad D&D GM's "you failed your save and so are in love with her and so must protect her at all costs".

Even Arthur, who loved Guinever with immense passion, agreed that she should be burned to death as a traitor and agreed on a kingdom-destroying war to subject her to justice -- because he had an opposing passion for justice that won out.

I see zero appeal in outsourcing the character's reactions to the dice this way. It is completely antithetical to what I want from roleplaying games. But this is just a personal preference, obviously it works for you.

 

[stonehead]

I don't think dice rolls should be involved with scenario #2 - I don't feel there should be ANY dice roll that would cause a mother of two to sacrifice a child UNLESS she's already a believing cultist. That's basic human nature - it shouldn't be a 'cool sploit' that players can abuse because they've maxed their social stats and skills. Serious roleplaying should affect this scenario, and magical effects where you absolutely puppetmaster a person should also work - but not a situation where you can just dice for it IMO

I agree that words alone couldn't make someone offer up their child, but I don't think it should be completely impossible. Imagine a trolley problem scenario. If the demon wants a child offering, I think a very skilled orator could make the argument: "It's terrible that little Timmy has to die, but if we don't sacrifice anyone then the demon is going to come up here and kill all of us."

The trope of a monster demanding one human sacrifice a month is a classic of myth and fantasy for a reason.

I would not draw the same conclusions than you. I don't think you can get anyone to act against their principles, it is just that a lot of people really do not have principles or lie about what their true principles are. Then again, in a RPG we might not have pre-established how principled every NPC is so one might just let the dice results determine that.

Im not sure if this is true. People do change, and social pressure often contributes to that. Even the most principled people develop and evolve their ideology. I agree that a ttrpg's rules probably shouldn't suppiet talking a paladin into murdering a bunch of orphans though.

This doesn't really matter either way because, like you said, most people don't have defined principles that they consciously thought of. It might be interesting if some NPCs had special resistances/weaknesses to specific arguments defined in their stat block in the same way that a troll's weakness to fire is.

When the fiction invites no conflict or no meaningful result for failure then no roll is required, IMO.
When the fiction doesn't invite a purpose for a roll.
i.e. you cannot convince everyone, no matter how much your +x on the die roll is.

I think this is true, but I don't think it's sufficient. I mean, what you say is true of pretty much all dice rolls. As an analogy, a game with a section on jumping would want to define a distance you can jump without a roll, a distance you can jump if you roll well, and a distance you can never jump. Other liter systems might not want that level of depth, but if OP is starting a thread on the topic, that level of depth is probably important to this game.

I don't think a single rule-of-thumb can cover every case, but I can come up with two that together seem to do a pretty good job. If your character is trying to exchange goods/services/favors with an NPC, I think they should roll if they offer the NPC something roughly equivalent to what they request.

You can't just talk the King into giving up his throne, but you could at least attempt to convince a struggling minor lord to give you his territory in exchange for providing him with a nice castle, and guarantee him a long life of comfort and leisure. Even that King might be willing to consider giving it all up if you offer to save his life from the imminent invasion that would surely destroy the kingdom.

IF your character is trying to convince someone to change their ways, then you should roll if you have a good argument that resonates with that NPC. When Gandalf tries to convince King Theoden to ride to the defense of Gondor, he didn't offer up a service of equivalent value, he appealed to Theoden's insecurities. He offered a way to atone for falling for Saruman's lies, a way to leave behind a positive legacy, and he appealed to Theoden's good nature and concern for his fellow man. Such an argument would have no chance of success on Denethor.

I think there are other reasons to roll for social interactions (lying, convincing someone of the truth, impersonating someone else, trying to establish/improve your reputation, etc), but those seem like they would fall outside of a negotiation system.

 

[damiller]

I come to the thought that I am ot sure I need a "social negotiation mechanic".

Sometimes, I may want a "social conflict resolution mechanic". But those are hardly the same thing.

For a long time I didn't realize I wanted the latter.

Then I did.

Now I have one (for d20 anyway), and really what it took for me was to accept I am not interested in altering player agency, I just want a way to have a conflict with verbal judo, not real judo.

Basically I realized that it is possible to turn a static d20 roll, or an opposed d20 roll, into a contest. However, it never has to be at the cost of the player character's agency. It can be just like any social interaction roll in d20 games: I want to get the guard to let us pass/I want the wizard to do the spell for us/I want the mother to give up her child.

That COULD be a single d20 Persuasion/Intimidation/Charm/Religion roll, it could be a skill challenge (or series of d20 rolls), or it could be a series of opposed rolls that wears the sides down until one side has no points left.

Here is what I crammed together:
Duel of Wits

A side benefit, my brother noted, is that a player less adept at verbal sparring, could just select which tactic they are using - with a few words could add some flavor, and roll the dice - just like in physical combat. Because in most cases, in physical combat, players are not spending tons of time describing how they hit. They roll, they hit, the may give a bit of flourish, and it is on to the next player in the que.

And I know, this may seem like "roll playing vs role playing" but honestly, some players just do not have the desire or skill to come up with much beyond the verbal equivalent of "i hit them". Why should there be a greater burden on this part of the game? We dont' require it elsewhere.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, like everything it depends on the game you are running. I have been running THE GREAT PENDRAGOIN CAMPAIGN for 2+ years now, and this kind of thing is a major part of the game and has solid backing both mechanically and in the fictional setting.

As an example, when you first see Guinevere, each player rolls to see if the knight falls in love with her. Because that is the game we are playing; one where people can fall in love, go mad from longing, give in to temptation or kill people out of a sudden burst of hate. These things happen all the time both in real life and (more importantly) in fiction. To me, it's a more natural way to play than one where nothing ever happens to a character that the player does not explicitly want to happen.

However, Pendragon has mechanisms for modifying the chances of this happening. If a player's character is continuously greedy, so their selfish trait goes up, that makes it significantly more likely that they will be required by dice rolls to be greedy again. If you haven't developed a love for anyone else, it makes it more likely that you'll fall in love with random fey woman who turns up in your bed one night.

As an example, a player in my game has a knight, Hwyel, who started behaving callously to others, and their cruel trait increased to 15. This means that if they test cruel against its opposite, they are 75% likely to succeed on cruel, and only 25% likely to succeed on being kind -- if they succeed on one and fail on the other, then they really should react in the indicated way.

However, if your trait is <16, the GM cannot force you to roll except for unusual circumstances (like the almost supernatural beauty of Guinevere). So it's only when Hywel hit 16 that he became known as "Hywel the Cruel" and and as a famously cruel knight, it is now very hard for him not to be cruel. But it took about 6 months of play to get to that state.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I don't think social systems can be bolted onto a game which is otherwise mostly about combat and skills. In D&D, for example, there is essentially no way to portray a character becoming more cruel (The closest might be an old-school type alignment chart, but I've ever actually seen anyone do that), so if a roll result causes the GM to say "and so you beat the merchant to death" it feels very wrong, very arbitrary.

Doe we need social X systems in a game? Not if you don't want to play that style of game. But more importantly, if you DO want to play that style of game, pick a system that deeply supports it, as otherwise it just won't sit well with many people.

I should have been more precise. In Pendragon it's technically called 'amor' and is a bit different from our modern take. In game terms, you get a passion of Amor (Gwen) and it has a level, much like Hywel's Cruel Trait can influence how you behave.

You can easily be a little bit in love with Guinevere and it not have much impact unless someone impugns her honor, or there's a conflict of interests involving her. So two of my player knights fell a little in love with her; they joined her guard and generally prefer her and will fight anyone who says bad things about her. As will about half of the court of Camelot. But unless they invoke their passion for her, it will not grow over time.

One of my knights -- Hywel the Cruel, actually -- managed to critically fall in love and ended up famously in love with her. He invoked the passion all the time, jousting tournaments in her honor, riding into battle crying "For queen and country" as opposed to the more usual "king and country" and so became even more devoted to her.

So, when Lancelot came along and was making eyes at the queen, I required Hywel to test his passion for her, and his passion won out, so he decided to challenge the knight to a joust. Lancelot was still just starting out, so Hywel managed (with good rolls!) to knock him to the ground. Since Hywel is also famously cruel I got him to test that also, and again the passion won out. So he murdered Lancelot, pretending a splinter from the lance had pierced his throat.

This is the game we wanted to play -- one where knights are passionate and driven sometimes by desires and needs that the player might never have thought of. The cleverness of the Pendragon system is that it requires a co-operation between player and GM to make the story turn in a given direction. Hywel's player might have not invoked his passion for her so often, used XP to buy down the passion each session and treated it as a young lad's fancy.

But I think you need these mechanisms and options. The GM or dice can start a passion going and it may be powerful for a few sessions, but there are several ways for the player to modify it -- and so it doesn't feel as arbitrary as the canonical bad D&D GM's "you failed your save and so are in love with her and so must protect her at all costs".

Even Arthur, who loved Guinever with immense passion, agreed that she should be burned to death as a traitor and agreed on a kingdom-destroying war to subject her to justice -- because he had an opposing passion for justice that won out.

This sounds amazing. So far I’ve avoided Pendragon because the idea of knights in shining armor sounds so boring.

 

[aco175]

I'd be in favor of using backgrounds more. Tell me why you should get a roll to sway someone and not just some sort of diplomacy roll. Or maybe you get a bonus to the check. I'm not sure to giving advantage, but maybe based on how you judge the die roll. If the DC is based on simple (10), average (15), or hard (20), then the DM just determines if the shop can give a potion discount, will give one, or offer an alternative solution.

There are circumstances surrounding the haggle that the players might know some about. Maybe they want the last potion the night before the orcs attack the town. Maybe the potion is the last one he can get for a month and he might think another group can pay full price. Maybe he needs the coins to pay for something for his wife's birthday which means that he needs full price or is willing to give a discount to get coins. Take a few seconds to figure out what is going on and then let players give reasons why the PC could get a bonus or penalty and they can roll.

 

[Umbran]

And I know, this may seem like "roll playing vs role playing" but honestly, some players just do not have the desire or skill to come up with much beyond the verbal equivalent of "i hit them". Why should there be a greater burden on this part of the game? We dont' require it elsewhere.

No argument here. There are versions of Fate, for example, that use the exact same rules for physical combat and for social conflict resolution. You can, in fact, have both going on at the exact same time, giving new meaning to the phrase "verbal sparring".

 

[Gorgon Zee]

This sounds amazing. So far I’ve avoided Pendragon because the idea of knights in shining armor sounds so boring.

To be fair, you do have far less ability to bring in new, cool mechanics or weird monsters -- it is definitely a more focused campaign. So you do need players and a GM who are happy with a game where the types of encounter are fairly limited, and the fun is in how your knight feels and changes based on them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And I know, this may seem like "roll playing vs role playing" but honestly, some players just do not have the desire or skill to come up with much beyond the verbal equivalent of "i hit them". Why should there be a greater burden on this part of the game? We dont' require it elsewhere.

I've heard these arguments many times, but I still prefer primarily roleplaying social interactions, with maybe a dice roll to determine NPC responses (when the two criteria of "significant impact on game" and "uncertain outcome" are met). It's never felt like a problem with any group I've played with, whereas attempts to resolve those things with a more mechanistic approach have always felt...off.

Are some players less adept at this sort of roleplaying improv than others? Sure. And some players also have less grasp on math and probability and complex rules and end up doing highly suboptimal things in combat. Somehow the game goes on.