D&D 5E Social Challenges & Political Conflicts

[pemerton]

Hahaha at maxed out.

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

In Moldvay Basic, at least, the maximum was +2 at 18 CHA. I think anything less than 18 was a +1. (The +1 to +3 scheme is for STR, WIS, CON and DEX AC bonus, but it is not uniform across all stats.)

 

[valis]

Correct, of course. I blame house rules.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

With a d20, you always have that 5% chance of success.

In 5E, a natural 20 does not guarantee success except on attack rolls. If you don't have at least +5, it is outright impossible to make a DC 25 check.

 

[valis]

In 5E, a natural 20 does not guarantee success except on attack rolls. If you don't have at least +5, it is outright impossible to make a DC 25 check.

Again, I blame house rules.

That said, you'd need a party with a non-negative Charisma modifier in B/X, and there's only a ~2.x% chance of a 12 anyway, and 5e characters will generally eventually have 20's in their stats, I did the best in the conversion that I could.

I prefer, and traditionally run the 2d6 systems. And, as noted above, it's easily modifiable.

 

[Frostmarrow]

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.

Interesting. I'd like to describe what I would like.

I would like my Charisma score be a currency I can spend to buy the spotlight, at the gaming table.

Now, I'm a fairly likeable in person and people generally listen to me when I speak. However I'm not a glorious hero that people adore and celebrate.

When I play a fighter I get to dominate my foes. When I play a spellcaster I get to perform miracles. But when I play a charismatic character nothing happens. Nothing. It's just plain old me again getting interrupted midsentence by a character actor barbarian. *sigh*

So this is what I propose: When I spend one of my charisma points you guys must listen till I'm finished and then you must act like what you just heard blew you away. Give me room to play a social character, allow me to develop my actual social skills, and then you should pretend to be in awe. It's only fair. I got the stats.

So when I thank the king for the suicide mission, he should award me medals and invite me to a private audience. When I haggle with the merchant he should ask half price and offer one of his daughters. When I taunt the orc chieftain he should curse my bloodline and rage. That's what I expect.

If I invest in charisma I deserve fun to the same extent strength grants in combat. I want to feel like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, Elvis Presley in Las Vegas or Mel Gibson in Braveheart. It can be done, you just need to play along.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Some social interactions, in others you could being trying to instigate something, provoke a reaction, uncover information without giving away that you're trying to, deceive/inveigle/obfuscate, start or prevent a fight, advance your social standing or tarnish someone else's, gain a reward others are also vying for, win a debate or a wide variety of things that might be outright competitive.

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.

Ideally, resolution is based on player decisions and character abilities, not player abilities. Making a check, and using it to inform RP makes more sense than judging RP and having it modify a check.

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.

The 'incentive' idea, to make persuasion/intimidation/etc of PCs less problematic. Inspiration is one obvious possibility.

If I invest in charisma I deserve fun to the same extent strength grants in combat. I want to feel like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, Elvis Presley in Las Vegas or Mel Gibson in Braveheart. It can be done, you just need to play along.

I have a rather unpleasant theory that not only has CHA been mechanically under-utilized in the past, but that some gamers seem to have something against the stat. I often see high-CHA characters RPd as annoying/arrogant jerks, for instance, more like a negative parody of a 'popular kid,' than a William Wallace.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I have a rather unpleasant theory that not only has CHA been mechanically under-utilized in the past, but that some gamers seem to have something against the stat. I often see high-CHA characters RPd as annoying/arrogant jerks, for instance, more like a negative parody of a 'popular kid,' than a William Wallace.

Most of the time the story relies on the characters getting leads in order to continue. So, basically characters don't need social skills since information needs to reach the players.

So, the value of social skills shouldn't be the information in of it self but rather how it is presented. Information gathered with skill should be presented in an impressive manner. When I intimidate the old grizzled sailor at the seaside tavern he tells me what I need to know. If I succeed with my social check I get standing ovations from the rest of the patrons.

For instance: I'm the DM. I tell you that your host serves you ale and sausages, and makes a bed for you in a room with a fire-place. Or I could tell you that you get to sleep in the barn with a cup of gruel for sustenance. The next morning you move on. There is nothing mechanically different between the two lodging options but I'm sure it will make you feel differently. If you get the first option as a reward for high charisma it might be worth the points spent.

Sometimes a negotiation is an intellectual exercise, where the players need to present logical arguments to succeed. In such a scenario charisma is of no extra use. This is one reason charisma is a dump stat. You don't need it to win and having it will win you nothing, that weren't due anyway.

 

[Dausuul]

Some social interactions, in others you could being trying to instigate something, provoke a reaction, uncover information without giving away that you're trying to, deceive/inveigle/obfuscate, start or prevent a fight, advance your social standing or tarnish someone else's, gain a reward others are also vying for, win a debate or a wide variety of things that might be outright competitive.

Most of those are examples of hidden competitive agendas. None of them changes the fact that social interaction is always based on the overt attempt to establish cooperation. Even an ultimatum--"Surrender or die!"--is cooperative. It's a proposition for an outcome that is beneficial to both parties: I get to win without a fight, and you get to survive losing.

Now, I may be bluffing when I deliver this ultimatum. In that case I have a hidden competitive agenda, to trick you into surrendering because I can't beat you in combat. But without an offer of cooperation--sincere or not--social interaction can't even get started. Often the cooperation is as simple as "We'll chat about nothing in particular, and we'll both enjoy having had the chat."

The only social interactions that allow for open competition are those in which competition serves a larger cooperative goal (we are debating; each of us is arguing an opposing position, but our goal is to cooperatively work out the best arguments), or where there are three or more participants. In the latter case, you might have, say, the ambassadors of two warring nations openly competing with each other as they seek an alliance with the king of a neutral nation. But that conversation can only continue as long as there is a possibility of cooperation between each ambassador and the king. If the king says "To the Abyss with you both" and walks out, there's no more to be said.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most of those are examples of hidden competitive agendas. None of them changes the fact that social interaction is always based on the overt attempt to establish cooperation.

OK, in the sense you're using it, fine. I'll note that in the same sense, champions dueling to the death to determine the next ruler are 'cooperating,' and you could still use regular 'competitive' combat mechanics to model that duel just fine.

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

That is not the whole premise of social interaction. Social interaction has different facets, some competitive, some cooperative. However, even in cooperative situations you have competition for dominance or opportunity. Two people may want to work together toward the same ends, but each will likely jockey for control of how they achieve those ends.

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.

When there is no competition and each party genuinely wants to cooperate with the other on a completely equal footing, that sounds an awful lot like the outcome should just fall into place after a few minutes/hours of feeling each other out.

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.

In combat, if you and your opponent want to cooperate, whether or not combat simply ends depends on what you want to to cooperate to achieve. If you are fighting an enemy and another enemy that wants you both dead barges in, you could easily team up to take down the threat to you both before finishing the fight with your enemy.

Also, skills can be used in combat. Establishing trust sounds like a skill use to me, just as de-escalating hostility would be in combat. Naturally, it would be modified by good faith actions (such as sheathing weapons in the combat example). With that in mind, the combat model, which allows for both competition and cooperation depending on what you choose to do, sounds appropriate to me.