D&D General On Social Mechanics of Various Sorts

[Reynard]

I just picked up a copy of Legendary games Ultimate Kingdoms book, and I was reading through the Relationships chapter last night as it is relative to my next campaign (the PCs are going to be crew members of a large "Planejammer" sailing the Astral Sea and they will have to make friends, rivals and enemies among the rest of the crew). It is an interesting system where PCs will earn ranks of friendship with NPCs by a series of individual "challenges" with that NPC --- usually by engaging them on a subject, doing something for them, or giving them a gift, followed by one or more skill checks. I gather from reading it that the system was initially designed for 3.5 or Pathfinder and adapted to 5E, but it seems to work on paper pretty well, with detailed writeups of the example NPCs to show you how to make use of the system in your own games.

Anyway, it got me thinking of social mechanics that can be found in various versions of D&D throughout the years, from reaction rolls to the Leadership Feat, along with the usual Persuasion and Deception checks.

How do you use social mechanics in your D&D games? If the scale of "how much do you rely on social mechanics" is from 0 (never roll; just role-play) to 10 (role-play doesn't impact the DC; just roll), where do your preferences sit on that scale? Does it change from campaign to campaign, adventure to adventure, or even between players?

Thanks.

 

[Oofta]

I tend to not use a system because I don't want to gamify social encounters. People are complex, their reactions and allegiances are complex. I may keep track of general attitude of an individual or faction, but I'll always keep it secret from the PCs.

That, and, with a systematic approach it's too easy to fall into the trap of letting dice run your game for me. I run a game where attitudes are affected by a combination of words, deeds and player skill checks, a mix. It may also depend on how the PCs approach an NPC. A barbarian king my reject "honeyed words" of a persuasion check but be impressed by an intimidation. Another PC might love being flattered or even be impressed with a deception that they know is false.

But I also want to be flexible. I've had plot arcs "spoiled" because the PCs over time won over an NPC that was supposed to be a BBEG through their actions and what they said as much as the results of checks. But it was such a unique tangent, I'm not sure a systematic approach could have accomplished that for me.

I'm interested in what other people do and what their suggestions are, I've just never figured out anything that works better than just keeping notes on interactions and letting things happen organically as best I can.

 

[Reynard]

I tend to not use a system because I don't want to gamify social encounters. People are complex, their reactions and allegiances are complex. I may keep track of general attitude of an individual or faction, but I'll always keep it secret from the PCs.

That, and, with a systematic approach it's too easy to fall into the trap of letting dice run your game for me. I run a game where attitudes are affected by a combination of words, deeds and player skill checks, a mix. It may also depend on how the PCs approach an NPC. A barbarian king my reject "honeyed words" of a persuasion check but be impressed by an intimidation. Another PC might love being flattered or even be impressed with a deception that they know is false.

But I also want to be flexible. I've had plot arcs "spoiled" because the PCs over time won over an NPC that was supposed to be a BBEG through their actions and what they said as much as the results of checks. But it was such a unique tangent, I'm not sure a systematic approach could have accomplished that for me.

I'm interested in what other people do and what their suggestions are, I've just never figured out anything that works better than just keeping notes on interactions and letting things happen organically as best I can.

So using skill checks when appropriate to inform your NPCs' response to the role-playing interactions? I think that is probably the most common approach in D&D (and certainly is in my personal experience).

 

[Oofta]

So using skill checks when appropriate to inform your NPCs' response to the role-playing interactions? I think that is probably the most common approach in D&D (and certainly is in my personal experience).

Yeah. I want character builds to matter but not to be the only thing that matters. It's a bit of a juggling act but I try to judge what people say, not how they say it and then adjust target DC or give advantage/disadvantage.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. I want character builds to matter but not to be the only thing that matters. It's a bit of a juggling act but I try to judge what people say, not how they say it and then adjust target DC or give advantage/disadvantage.

I make an active effort not to judge DCs or modifiers based on how eloquent the player is, or how well they do their accent, or whatever. It isn't fair to the quieter, less confident, or simply less acting-talented players. I don't punish role-playing in the third person, either. That being the case, I kind of come down a little more on the side of social mechanics.

 

[Stalker0]

my general experience has been…the more rolls the less roleplay.

so I may do a persuasion check at the end of a conversation (or sometimes before to set the tone), but I try not to make it any more complex than that.

 

[iserith]

I use the social mechanics on page 244 of the D&D 5e DMG. Essentially this involves the PCs trying to modify the NPC's attitude temporarily, then trying to get them to do what the PCs want. Figuring out the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw and playing to them can impart advantage on checks made to modify their attitude or getting them to do what they want.

As with any action declaration in the game, the players are expected to make clear their goal and approach so I as DM can decide whether the attempt is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure and thus an ability check.

 

[ART!]

I make an active effort not to judge DCs or modifiers based on how eloquent the player is, or how well they do their accent, or whatever. It isn't fair to the quieter, less confident, or simply less acting-talented players. I don't punish role-playing in the third person, either. That being the case, I kind of come down a little more on the side of social mechanics.

I'm a big fan of this approach, so kudos from me to you. It's hard, because it's very easy to think you should reward the rich descriptions, entertaining performances, etc. On the one hand, doing so could motivate the less socially gregarious types to up their game, but I also don't want to create a situation where only very socially gregarious, confident people are welcome at the table.

 

[payn]

I prefer these kinds of things to stay under the hood. I dont want players making character choices that are expedient, but at the cost of an NPCs favor, only to gain it back by gifting an equal number of points that is understood via metagaming. Its sort of why I stopped using XP, my players do things mechanically that will give them the best outcomes as opposed to doing things that feel organic to the character.

I do like faction level systems though. If your characters have been a thorn in the side of the city watch, they are not likely to be friendly. I find that sort of thing to be helpful, especially when starting from a strangers relationship point.

 

[Reynard]

I'm a big fan of this approach, so kudos from me to you. It's hard, because it's very easy to think you should reward the rich descriptions, entertaining performances, etc. On the one hand, doing so could motivate the less socially gregarious types to up their game, but I also don't want to create a situation where only very socially gregarious, confident people are welcome at the table.

I can't recall a time when rewarding "roleplaying skill" actually motivated quiet players to come out of their shells. Usually, it had the opposite effect. So that's why I adopted my current outlook: if there is no pressure to "perform" then the player can focus on what they want their character to do or say, rather than worrying about how they will be perceived by the other players/GM.