D&D General On Social Mechanics of Various Sorts

[Quickleaf]

For me it's a question of structured social scenes (e.g. parlay, court room, tense negotiation over peace treaty) VS unstructured social scenes (uh...everything else).

The former generally are where I attach mechanics. Though I do have sections, for example, where I'll write "in parlaying with the baron, if a player gives a good response to this question leveraging the baron's RP traits, that can earn an automatic success in the skill challenge."

The later is where it's a lot more freewheeling.

So they're not mutually exclusive, but that's the general trend I've adopted when I DM.

EDIT: Structure often (but not always) corresponds to narrative weight / importance to the main quest.

 

[Quickleaf]

I am still gently experimenting with social mechanics.

I can't express how much your sentiment brings me joy. If only more of us had the presence of mind to acknowledge how much of our game is "gentle experimentation."

 

[Oofta]

I can't express how much your sentiment brings me joy. If only more of us had the presence of mind to acknowledge how much of our game is "gentle experimentation."

Bah. Heck with gentle experimentation! Throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks!

 

[Quickleaf]

Bah. Heck with gentle experimentation! Throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks!

Spaghetti sounds gentle to me. If you come back with a high-nitrogen energetic material...or an al dente agnolotti... then we'll see.

 

[Oofta]

Spaghetti sounds gentle to me. If you come back with a high-nitrogen energetic material...or an al dente agnolotti... then we'll see.

Well, I didn't say I cooked my spaghetti, I like it all dente. If it al dente's your head all the better!

 

[loverdrive]

Bah. Heck with gentle experimentation! Throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks!

Throwing spaghetti at the wall sounds like heresy, and I'm not even Italian.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Playing original OA AD&D, we used the rules for families and social rank - which generate reaction roll modifiers - and also embraced the orientation towards rivals, duels etc. (Implied by various classes such as kensai, as well as the Honour rules.)

Playing 4e, we mostly used skill challenges to resolve contested social interactions (maybe the odd single check as well). Where there was no contest, free narration (which is basically "saying 'yes'") was sufficient. Whether or not there was contest depended on what the PCs wanted compared to the notes on the NPC.

 

[Charlaquin]

I use the same framework as I do for all skill checks, that I developed kinda by accident.

The player clearly and openly states their:

• Goal: I want to negotiate a better payday
• Method (which, in social interactions, mostly means leverage): I want to negotiate a better payday by emphasizing cold facts -- it's a very risky operation, and while we're friends, I don't want to freaking die for 500 gold pieces the fact that it's a very risky operation, and despite the fact that we're friends, I don't want to freaking die for her
• Ability and Skill: I want to Persuade her for a better payday by Intelligently emphasizing the cold facts -- it's a very risky operation, and while we're friends, I don't want to freaking die for 500 gold pieces

The GM then clearly and openly states:

• Requirements (what the character needs to do before even making an attempt): in this case, I didn't have any, but if the PC wasn't the NPC's friend, I'd say he needs someone to wouch for him.
• Risk (what will happen on a failure, always something more than "status quo remains"): Ok, I tell you what. If you fail, she will take her business to your competitors. Yeah, you're her friend, but she doesn't want to freaking starve for you...
• Reward (what will happen on a success?): ...but if you succeed, she will double the pay.
• Price (what will happen regardless of the result): She won't be happy, though. I'll start a 6 segment clock "Sarah is fed up by your crap", and mark 2. When it fills, you will be demoted to a mere business partner.

Then I call for a roll with static DC -- 1-10: fail, 11-17: both risk and reward happen, 18+: it's all good.

You had me up until static DC. This is otherwise very similar to how I handle it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm probably a 5 or 6. If the players roleplay a convincing reason for the NPC to do something, they will either get big bonuses to the roll or often just succeed. If the outcome is in doubt, I will roll. If they're trying something super outrageous and the NPC would never do it, they fail.

 

[Charlaquin]

My philosophy, whether in social interaction, exploration, combat, or whatever else, is that the character gathers information, the player draws conclusions from it; the player formulates strategies, the character executes them. The player has to be the one to tell me what they want from the NPC they’re interacting with and how they try to get it from them - how they tell me doesn’t matter. They can put on a voice and speak in first-person as their character, they can speak in third-person and tell me what their character says, they can tell me in abstracr terms what their goal and approach are (e.g. “I spin a sob story to try and get him to lower the price”), whatever they’re comfortable with. All that matters is that they clearly communicate what they want and what their character does to try and get it. I will use that information to determine if success and failure are possible and if failure has a consequence, and if all three are true, what the difficulty of the check will be.