D&D 5E Social Challenges & Political Conflicts

The evaluation was made in this hypothetical scenario that an alternative system like GURPS is not desirable because combat and Fireballs is still a large chunk (60%?) of what the game will be about. Commerce rules would flesh out the other 40%. It would definitely not be a typical 5E game, but speaking as someone who has actually tried to recreate the flavor of D&D magic and Fireball-tossing in other game systems, I claim that it's easier to add commerce rules to 5E when needed than to port D&D magic into GURPS, Shadowrun, MERP, or probably FATE, which are the only systems besides D&D I'm at all familiar with.

Your 60/40 number is what made me raise an eyebrow. Forty percent of the PHB is roughly another 120 pages. Even if we're only talking the stripped down Basic Rules, that's still almost 50 more pages of pure rules. That's a lot of new rules to remember for players and DMs. Personally, if I bought a system that I felt was lacking nearly half of the rules I needed, I'd be largely disappointed and probably looking elsewhere.

Of course, you know best how to run your game with your players, so I'm glad the Courtney Campbell book provided the tools you need. I may have to take a deeper look at his blog and see if there's anything I might find useful.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Your 60/40 number is what made me raise an eyebrow. Forty percent of the PHB is roughly another 120 pages. Even if we're only talking the stripped down Basic Rules, that's still almost 50 more pages of pure rules. That's a lot of new rules to remember for players and DMs. Personally, if I bought a system that I felt was lacking nearly half of the rules I needed, I'd be largely disappointed and probably looking elsewhere.

Of course, you know best how to run your game with your players, so I'm glad the Courtney Campbell book provided the tools you need. I may have to take a deeper look at his blog and see if there's anything I might find useful.

"40%" is a fraction of tabletime spent, not a page-count of anything. In my current game, my players spend maybe 10-15% of their time on Civilization-like activities such as trade, recruiting colonists, and running for mayor. But it doesn't take 10-15% of the PHB in written rules to make that work. So far I've given them only a handful of rules, which could probably be written on a single page. It doesn't take a lot of pagecount to take up table time.

So if you wanted a campaign that was going to be 40% about planning trade routes, you could probably get by with a map labelled with monster frequencies and distances as well as trade supply and demand nexuses, some simple rules for using the map as a hidden Markov model to generate a similar map for the players to see, five pages of rules on wilderness navigation/hazards (much like in Out of the Abyss, and in fact perhaps those rules could be adapted), and another five pages on trade using the numbers from your map.

E.g. Thule really wants slaves, it's a +5 for selling slaves, and Rwena is having a civil war, it's got an abundance of them and is +15 for buying slaves; but to get from one to the other you have to cross the Deadly Mirk, which is a danger area VIII two hundred leagues across. Getting across the Deadly Mirk alive as a lone adventurer is one thing, but getting two hundred slaves across the Deadly Mirk will attract all kinds of deadly attention, giving x4 on random encounter checks.

You could hack something like together today (as demonstrated by the fact that I just did) but it would need considerable polishing before I'd want to give it to players. You'd need to think through the implications of the system and whether it rewards behavior that feels "realistic" for traders. For example, will PCs using these rules naturally begin to consider tradeoffs between warships and merchant vessels? Would they ever sacrifice another six catapults for higher profits on trade? If not then the rules aren't working right, they're just murderhobo rules like regular 5E and not merchant rules like this campaign needs.

Ideally, once all the rules have been read through once, the "mercantile cheat sheet" can be written all on a single piece of paper. Together with a map, that is all the players will need during play.
 

I like the system used by True20. It is based on the Morale rules from AD&D and has a system where you can shift targets from neutral to friendly, or even accidently shift to unfriendly with a poor roll!
The problem with using a HP-style system is that social situations don't have the same finality as combat.
I like the idea of combining skill challenges from 4e and the True20 morale system.
 

I like the system used by True20. It is based on the Morale rules from AD&D and has a system where you can shift targets from neutral to friendly, or even accidently shift to unfriendly with a poor roll!
The problem with using a HP-style system is that social situations don't have the same finality as combat.
I like the idea of combining skill challenges from 4e and the True20 morale system.

Combat doesn't have to have finality either. 5E combat rules work just fine for duels and limited conflict. Maybe both sides sent a champion (David and Goliath), but the champion doesn't even have to die at the end--someone could stabilize his wounds and then the losing side concedes the objective. That's essentially a way of using combat as a social resolution mechanism, but nothing prevents you from going in the other direction.

In short, it's not the combat rules that make combat final, it's the default 5E playstyle. If the players reduce an evil wizard to zero HP, they expect him to die/disappear/become irrelevant. If he makes his death saves, crawls away and revives himself to health, and then the PCs are arrested for assault and battery and the evil wizard shows up as a chief witness against them... the players will tend to be put out, because they probably didn't sign up to a civilized attitude towards violence. D&D tropes say that once you kill it, it ceases to become a problem. That's a trope, not a rule.
 

I think I'm going to have to make some tweaks to the 5e conversion of Courtney Campbell's system. Unless I'm missing something, some of the numbers just make no sense (for instance, a 2d6 + CHA result of 9 or more is translated to a DC 25 Charisma check in 5e).
 

I think I'm going to have to make some tweaks to the 5e conversion of Courtney Campbell's system. Unless I'm missing something, some of the numbers just make no sense (for instance, a 2d6 + CHA result of 9 or more is translated to a DC 25 Charisma check in 5e).

Likewise. So far I've just been going off the original book instead of the conversion doc. I equate 6+ on 2d6 with DC 10 on 2d10, and 9+ with DC 15. Then I just double the modifiers (e.g. "-1 on future rolls" turns into "-2 on future rolls"). I don't quite know what to do with some of the other rolls like the initial encounter rolls that gives you 2d6 actions and determines initial attitude--last time I just fiated something, but maybe I'll keep them on a 2d6 standard. But if I do, how do I account for Charisma on the initial roll?

If you have any solutions I wouldn't mind hearing them. I haven't come to any conclusions yet.
 


The problem with using a HP-style system is that social situations don't have the same finality as combat.
Combat doesn't have to have finality either.

<snip>

In short, it's not the combat rules that make combat final, it's the default 5E playstyle

<snip>

D&D tropes say that once you kill it, it ceases to become a problem. That's a trope, not a rule.
Just adding to Hemlock's post: in systems with social "hit points", it is generally a rule (or, if you prefer, a convention) that the results are binding. (There may also be meta-rules that allow for binding results to be overturned in certain circumstances.)

In my 4e game, I have had my players pull me up when they had achieved a certain outcome in a social skill challenge and, in a later session, I begin to describe an NPC acting in a way that conflicts with that outcome.

In Burning Wheel, which uses the Duel of Wits as its premier social resolution system, it is an express rule that DoW results are binding. They can be circumvented by clever action declarations, but not directly attacked.
 

Social situations are not binding though. People can change their minds or be affected by other social pressures after a conflict has 'ended'.
Now don't mistake me, I carry a very loose definition of HP (anyone familiar with me from WotC forums know that), many times I refer to HP loss as a near miss or barely escaped! But I feel using a different mechanic is important for the interaction pillar to distinguish it completely from combat. I treat the different levels of Morale as if they were conditions, which lends to your notion of socially 'binding'. Also, simplifing to HP you lose any granularity which is a common complaint of HP, your combat ability never worsens with HP loss but you could be 'conditioned' to not behave against a 'friendly' target (requires a CHA check for example).
In the end do what works for you but how will your players react when you say 'no you can't because you are out of RP'. That's not gonna work, while implementing a condition (i.e. Charmed or Frieghtened) will be more acceptable to players.
 


Remove ads

Top