D&D 5E Social Challenges & Political Conflicts

[valis]

I still need to clean up the formatting, but this should be a more useable adaptation of Courtney Campbell's social action system to 5e. It could probably still be streamlined further. I tried to maintain as much of the flavor as possible while minimizing the tracking of pluses and minuses to player rolls.

https://www.icloud.com/numbers/AwBU..._u9BVMOQrYVuFq#On_the_Non-Player_Character_5e

First of all, thanks for the wonderful comments. I worked a long time on this. It's based off the old Arabian Nights game, and is designed to preserve agency of the player characters and make social interactions less arbitrary.

It was designed originally for older styles of games (Basic/Expert) using the bell curve reaction table, which means their are some wonky interactions when converted to a straight 1d20 system. I've noted the same issues many people in the thread have noted.

However, having a long running 5th edition game, I do have some words of advice. The range of bonuses to stats is not +2 to +11 (Proficiency + Stat modifier). It's +2 to +17. A first level thief with expertise and a 20 charisma has a minimum value of 10 on a Charisma (Persuasion) check. They might not normally do that, but if they know you're handling these interactions mechanically, they would be more encouraged to.

What's more likely is that your bard will have a Charisma of 20 at the same time they are picking up Expertise, meaning that an mean roll of theirs will be 21, (+6 proficiency, plus 5 from stat), not considering their ability to roll at advantage or handing out inspiration dice to other people making ability checks.

What I'm saying is that difficult checks in the original system, at 11, (or 12 to get a friendly reaction) had a ~3-~8% chance of succeeding, pushed up to ~25% for characters with a very high Charisma (16+). 16 on Charisma on 3d6 down the line is very unlikely. A DC of 25 for a mid level party has a realistic possibility of having a 40%+ chance of success with very little work. Letting the Warlock roll at advantage and being granted a bardic inspiration die by the bard isn't that unlikely. Neither is a bard with expertise in persuasion when you're using this system (and they know how powerful it is).

Now, I encourage everyone to use it and change it for their own games. But know that it is trivially easy for your players to have only a slight chance of failure at middle or higher levels at tasks that should be challenging or nearly impossible. You may find if you use it as an objective resolution system that the lower difficulties cause players to become incredibly persuasive speakers, causing guards to leave their posts and flock to their cause with little difficulty. That's not a bad thing, but it is something you should be aware of.

Personally I'm a fan of objective difficulties, not level based ones (like in Pathfinder). A DC 20 cliff to climb is DC 20 for first and 20th level characters, rather than having it be a DC 15 cliff for low level characters and a DC 25 cliff for high level characters.

This also discounts the possibility of magic items or other effects that can influence the roll (which you can bet the players will leverage). It's important to keep in mind what bounded accuracy means, and how expertises and skill rolls can push the range of values. My 11th level group can routinely get +15 or more to persuasion skill checks. I asked for an investigation roll and the response was "32" today. The player isn't spec'd for investigation.

For reference:
+2 to +6: Proficiency
+4 to +12: Expertise
-2 to +5: Stat
~+1 to +4: Advantage
+1 to +6/8/10: Bardic Inspiration
Additional bonuses and effects due to magic items.

 

[valis]

Also, replacing the core stat with Charisma in all the checks is a great addition! I didn't feel brave enough to do it myself (and considered, I didn't want anyone to get that much leverage from that one single stat). It's a great idea!

 

[Dausuul]

SOCIAL INTERACTION IS NOT LIKE COMBAT. Combat is openly competitive; but the whole premise of social interaction is that you're trying to establish a basis for cooperation. If you have a competitive agenda, you need to keep it hidden. But sometimes you don't have a competitive agenda. Often neither party has a competitive agenda. The system needs to handle that.

The acid test of any social mechanic system is this: Suppose there's a social encounter between two people who genuinely do want to cooperate. Is there a significant risk that they end up not cooperating? The answer has to be "yes" or the system doesn't work. Establishing trust should be a challenge, even when the other person actually is trustworthy. That's why a combat model is the wrong place to start. In combat, if you and your opponent want to cooperate, nothing happens and you both just stand there looking at each other--there is nothing for either of you to do.

The other big challenge with social mechanic systems is that they need to accommodate player agency. The goal of social interaction is to influence the other person's behavior. But players generally take exception to being told, "The NPC rolled well on her Persuasion check, so you do what she wants." The outcome of a social interaction needs to be an incentive, not a simple "You do or you don't." If the NPC succeeds in the social encounter, you get a (game-mechanical) cookie for doing what she wants and a smack on the wrist for going against her.

Ideally, the system can also work in parallel with traditional "talking as your character" roleplaying. If you make a persuasive argument speaking in character, that should be rewarded, but your mechanical investment in social skills should also be rewarded.

So, based on all that, what should a social mechanic system look like? I don't have an answer ready to go, but I can see promising avenues. I think the best place to start is crafting the incentives, which might build on the inspiration system already in the PHB. Then figure out how to handle the "hidden agenda versus stated agenda" question, staying away from mechanics which presume that the hidden agenda is always opposed to the stated one. It's an interesting challenge.

 

[designbot]

However, having a long running 5th edition game, I do have some words of advice. The range of bonuses to stats is not +2 to +11 (Proficiency + Stat modifier). It's +2 to +17. A first level thief with expertise and a 20 charisma has a minimum value of 10 on a Charisma (Persuasion) check. They might not normally do that, but if they know you're handling these interactions mechanically, they would be more encouraged to.

What's more likely is that your bard will have a Charisma of 20 at the same time they are picking up Expertise, meaning that an mean roll of theirs will be 21, (+6 proficiency, plus 5 from stat), not considering their ability to roll at advantage or handing out inspiration dice to other people making ability checks.

What I'm saying is that difficult checks in the original system, at 11, (or 12 to get a friendly reaction) had a ~3-~8% chance of succeeding, pushed up to ~25% for characters with a very high Charisma (16+). 16 on Charisma on 3d6 down the line is very unlikely. A DC of 25 for a mid level party has a realistic possibility of having a 40%+ chance of success with very little work. Letting the Warlock roll at advantage and being granted a bardic inspiration die by the bard isn't that unlikely. Neither is a bard with expertise in persuasion when you're using this system (and they know how powerful it is).

Thanks for the response—you're correct that I wasn't thinking about expertise or fully-optimized characters. I was thinking more in terms of average low- to mid-level characters and the example difficulty classes in the DMG. It is difficult to balance things to be a reasonable challenge for everyone when there's such a big disparity. I might make some more tweaks with that in mind.

The initial reaction roll, however, is a flat Charisma check, so expertise and proficiency are not a factor. Unless I'm missing something, getting a Friendly attitude (with a DC 25) is basically the hardest possible thing in the game—you need to roll a natural 20 with a 20 in Charisma. That's much more difficult than the 28% chance of rolling a 9 on 2d6 (which increases to over 50% with a +2 modifier).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Jack of All Trades applies to a flat Charisma check too. Could be a +9 bonus.

 

[designbot]

Jack of All Trades applies to a flat Charisma check too. Could be a +9 bonus.

Good point, though I believe the max bonus is +8 (+5 for 20 Charisma and half of a +6 proficiency bonus). A level 17-20 bard with 20 Charisma would have a maximum 20% chance of a Friendly reaction—still lower than even a level 1 character with 10 Charisma in the original system.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Whoops, you're correct. Dunno why I always think that 20th level bards get +9--that's not the first time I've made that error. AFB but I think Peerless Skill can add another +d12, and Guidance could at least potentially add +d4 on top.

But your overall point is well-taken. Flat Charisma checks do have different maxima than skill checks due to no Expertise, and the initial reaction roll has changed behavior in the adaptation to 5E, and it might be worth considering lowering the DC and/or allowing skill bonuses or circumstantial bonuses to somehow apply.

 

[valis]

Thanks for the response—you're correct that I wasn't thinking about expertise or fully-optimized characters. I was thinking more in terms of average low- to mid-level characters and the example difficulty classes in the DMG. It is difficult to balance things to be a reasonable challenge for everyone when there's such a big disparity. I might make some more tweaks with that in mind.

The initial reaction roll, however, is a flat Charisma check, so expertise and proficiency are not a factor. Unless I'm missing something, getting a Friendly attitude (with a DC 25) is basically the hardest possible thing in the game—you need to roll a natural 20 with a 20 in Charisma. That's much more difficult than the 28% chance of rolling a 9 on 2d6 (which increases to over 50% with a +2 modifier).

No, no, you misunderstand.

It's a skill check, which means that there's a 5% chance of Helpful, instead of a 2.8% chance in the bell curve system.

2 Immediately Attack
3-5 Hostile
6-8 Neutral
9-11 Friendly
12 Helpful

Which means any result of 15 or higher is indifferent - the same result as a 6+ on 2d6. Since you're using the highest charisma modifier in the group (which is usually +3/+4 at level 1), it's slightly less (~45%) then a chance of a 6+ on 2d6.


There was limited space on the worksheet, but perhaps a better division would be:
DC <5 Immediately attack
DC 5-14 Hostile
DC 15-19 Neutral
DC 20-24 Friendly
DC 25 Helpful

The fault is mine, both in not having room for the full chart, and replacing "Helpful" with "Friendly". I made it for my own personal use, so I knew what I was talking about.

Hope this clears that up.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No, no, you misunderstand.

It's a skill check, which means that there's a 5% chance of Helpful, instead of a 2.8% chance in the bell curve system.

2 Immediately Attack
3-5 Hostile
6-8 Neutral
9-11 Friendly
12 Helpful

Which means any result of 15 or higher is indifferent - the same result as a 6+ on 2d6. Since you're using the highest charisma modifier in the group (which is usually +3/+4 at level 1), it's slightly less (~45%) then a chance of a 6+ on 2d6.


There was limited space on the worksheet, but perhaps a better division would be:
DC <5 Immediately attack
DC 5-14 Hostile
DC 15-19 Neutral
DC 20-24 Friendly
DC 25 Helpful

The fault is mine, both in not having room for the full chart, and replacing "Helpful" with "Friendly". I made it for my own personal use, so I knew what I was talking about.

Hope this clears that up.

But in the original system, having a maxed out Charisma would presumably have shifted the odds quite a bit from requiring a natural 12. I get the impression that the original material is written for a system where +2 or +3 Charisma would be large, right? If you had a +2 on Charisma, then you'd roll Helpful about 1/6 of the time, which is far more than the 1/20 of the time you get with maxed Charisma in 5E. So 12 on 2d6 and 25 on d20 are not directly comparable--the DC 25 is much harder.

 

[valis]

But in the original system, having a maxed out Charisma would presumably have shifted the odds quite a bit from requiring a natural 12. I get the impression that the original material is written for a system where +2 or +3 Charisma would be large, right? If you had a +2 on Charisma, then you'd roll Helpful about 1/6 of the time, which is far more than the 1/20 of the time you get with maxed Charisma in 5E. So 12 on 2d6 and 25 on d20 are not directly comparable--the DC 25 is much harder.

Hahaha at maxed out.

Yes, a 13+ gives you a +1, a 16+ gives you a +2, and an 18 gives you a +3.

However, these scores were generated with 3d6, in order. So, yes, if someone happened to get a 16, they would have a 15% chance at helpful (rolling a 10, 11, or 12 on 2d6)

With a d20, you always have that 5% chance of success. However, you will have classes with a 20 charisma. . . rolling at advantage. . . who for some reason will have additional bonuses (ahem, bardic inspiration).

Lowering the difficulty to 22 or 23 grants similar odds without the bonuses players end up accumulating, but how often do you really want monsters to be helpful in a system where your only method of gaining experience is "overcoming" monsters?

YMMV.