D&D General Social Pillar Mechanics: Where do you stand?

[FrozenNorth]

Why wasn't there any uncertainty?
The guard could have rolled over just as he swung, messing up his attack, or any number of things that would make it uncertain.

Buddhists say “Do not mistake the pointing finger for the moon”. Geographers say “the map is not the terrain”.

Let’s come up with reasons why a professional assassin fails to kill a sleeping victim who is a regular guard is saying preset mechanics matter more than the fiction.

In my experience, this leads to a more unsatisfactory game, as verisimilitude takes a backseat to mechanics that weren’t designed to apply in 100% of situations.

When walking down a street, there is a chance you trip and break your elbow (happened to a friend in January). Does this mean that you meed to roll when walking in a dungeon?

 

[Reynard]

LOL great, so we can choose if we want to slog through combat, exploration, and/or social encounters!

I mean,if you don't like D&D, that's fine, but you should check the sign on the door to the thread.

 

[Yaarel]

The opposite situation should also be considered. If I choose to play a Reborn warlock Pact of the Undead, I have high Charisma because warlocks run off Charisma, not because I want to be the party face.

Yeah. High Charisma means a having a presence. People take one into account.

The presence can be creepy, frightening, and intimidating.

The presence can be strong and silent, and reliable.

The presence can be wondrous, uncanny and otherworldly.

The presence can be insightful, confidence inspiring, and guiding.

The presence can be expressive and socializing, and engaging and fun.

Whoever one is, Charisma describes the degree one impacts others.

 

[ezo]

Does this mean that you meed to roll when walking in a dungeon?

It depends, what is the price of failure? Is it very serious? Then yes, roll. This is sort of what happens with traps, after all.

Let’s come up with reasons why a professional assassin fails to kill a sleeping victim who is a regular guard is saying preset mechanics matter more than the fiction.

There's any number of reasons depending on the scenario. Professions "fail" all the time. However, as I pointed out, even with the mechanics, the assassin is very likely to succeed. And that, more than anything else, would be a good reason to "Not bother rolling."

To be clear, I don't care how others run their games, as long as they have fun, great! When I ask it is more to get into their heads and see if I agree or not. That's all.

I mean,if you don't like D&D, that's fine, but you should check the sign on the door to the thread.

Considering D&D is (by FAR) my favorite RPG, I really don't know where you get the concept or attitude from?

I mean, did you miss this part of my post?

I case you did, it was meant jokingly.

 

[Umbran]

So where do you stand on the topic of social pillar mechanics? Do you think a courtroom debate or plea to the king should be governed by players and GMs roleplaying, or by game mechanics, or something in between.

Something in-between. Specifically, In the end, you're going to have to use the mechanic, but any roleplaying done before the roll can and will be used to determine modifiers on the roll.

I am also pretty permissive in allowing substitutions on the stat that's used on the roll. While Charisma will always work, if you are in that courtroom and present a case based in evidence and logic, I will likely allow you to make that Persuasion check with Intelligence as the underlying stat, and so on.

And if mechanics should play a bigger part in the social pillar, how should those mechanics be "distributed" among classes? That is, should there be a "face" class or should everyone be able to use those mechanics?

I have become less and less a fan of "Face" as a role. It acts as a strong disincentive for others to engage in large parts of the game. Unless the players actually prefer to not engage, I'd prefer there not be a single "face".

I'm playing in a game right now in which we have no single face character. I've got a wizard with a decent charisma, but he's only proficient in Deception. He's a great liar, but if you ask him to convince someone with the truth? Not so hot.

I am actually pro "social combat." In a perfect world you would have a system that allows for rhetoric and wit, both in attack and defense, and you would whittle down the opponents Resolve Points until they acquiesced.

In some Fate variants, a character has Physical, Mental, and Social stress tracks, and rules for social combat are entirely analogous to those of physical combat. You can, in effect, be "killed" in a social arena - the public's perception of a character, and their social status, so damaged that they are no longer viable in play.

 

[O-Castitatis-Lilium]

For me, it depends on how well the characters know a person. If they have just met the NPC and they are trying to convince them of something, like haggling, intimidating, convincing them of a lie, whatever; then I would ask them for a roll with advantage or disadvantage depending on how well they did it or not. If the characters know them a little better and possibly see them on a daily basis, then I would only ask for a roll if they were trying to do something really stupid or funny to see if it sticks or not. Outside of that, if they know them well, then it would be just like casual conversation.

 

[MGibster]

I have become less and less a fan of "Face" as a role. It acts as a strong disincentive for others to engage in large parts of the game. Unless the players actually prefer to not engage, I'd prefer there not be a single "face".

Preach it, Brother Umbran! I realize each player has their own personality and it's okay if they like one aspect of a game more than others, but a little piece of my dies every time I see someone avoid participating in talking to NPCs because they're not the "talky" type. Even in fiction that has a face type character, like the A-Team, that had a character named Face, the members of the team still talks to others. "Howling Mad" Murdoch doesn't just sit there and say, "We have to wait until Face shows up because I'm not good at talking to others." That would make for a boring show and it makes for a boring RPG experience.

 

[Andvari]

Just for fun, let's talk about how we (individually) might resolve a scenario and see how it informs the idea of finding a sweet spot on the role-playing vs roll-playing continuum:

The PCs have recently cleared out a ruined castle of a group of bandits as well as the undead in the basement. They want to turn it into an HQ, but technically the castle belongs to a now-poverty stricked (ig)noble family. The PCs go to the local duke or whatever to ask permission to establish themselves in the castle, and find that the patriarch of the remaining members of the (ig)noble family is there making a claim on the castle ruins. The duke feels bound by the rules of nobility, but in truth would like to grant the castle to the PCs because he thinks they will protect the frontier border.

How do you frame the "court battle" of the PCs trying to convince the duke to give them the castle over the "heirs"? How do you adjudicate it?

Ideally, I'd decide whether the duke leans towards the PCs or the nobles. If towards the nobles, the PCs must provide the duke a reasonable excuse for giving it to the PCs. If he leans towards the PCs, they just have to keep up their good manners. If the duke is indifferent or unfriendly towards the PCs, I'll allow them something like a diplomacy check if they act courteously towards him, to improve his disposition, which makes their task easier. And if the "best" PC at this is taking part in the conversation or at least begins it, I'll let that player make the roll even if it's the others doing the bulk of the dialogue.

But it's system dependant. If I'm running a system where players can specialize into roll-playing, I will feel forced to pull such rules into it. But I'll do my best to arrange things in such a way all players are comfortable and unafraid to participate in role-play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is also a time I might use the OOC table-talk as a sort of brain trust for the characters with higher INT. Like maybe the 8 INT barbarian's player comes up with a solution, but in practice this just gives the solution to the 18 INT wizard's player, and then the 18 INT wizard is the one who came up with it diegetically. None of us players are 18 INT, so I'm pretty OK with representing a high mental stat as linked to the best solution several people can come up with.

This is precisely the same feeling I have with whenever some people make the same type of argument that Fighters need "more non-combat stuff to do" or that spellcasters "are the only ones who get to do cool stuff". This idea that just because certain characters at the table have the mechanics written down on their sheet (and thus will be the ones who end up using said mechanics)... everyone else doesn't or can't contribute to the game. Which to me is ridiculous.

When the table discusses how to proceed in an adventure... the players of the Fighters, Barbarian and so on will contribute just as much to the conversation as anyone for how they proceed and could easily contribute MORE if they just happen to come up with cool ideas. But somehow if one of the other characters is the one to roll the d20 for the idea because the table has all agreed that character has the best modifier and shot of succeeding... then that means the Fighter and Barbarian are left out in the cold? Really? Or by the same token when ALL the player are discussing what to do and one of them suggests using the magic that one of the characters has access to-- somehow that doesn't "count" for that player and thus that player's martial character is this poor soul who doesn't get to "do anything" in the game because the spellcasters "do everything" by actually casting the spell that was recommended.

Now sure... maybe some people are just so mechanics and dice-roll happy that if their character specifically doesn't get to roll the die or use the mechanic then their time at the table has been a complete and utter waste (even if they contributed wholeheartedly to the ideas or planning that resulted in the USE of those mechanics)... but I believe that's an attitude that the game design does not need to apologize to and make up to them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One thing that tends to be contentious is the use of mechanical systems in the social pillar aka "roll playing." Some people think that all interactions and results should emerge from roleplay only. others think that social interactions should be as mechanically supported as combat or exploration. And, of course, most people fall somewhere on the continuum.

So where do you stand on the topic of social pillar mechanics? Do you think a courtroom debate or plea to the king should be governed by players and GMs roleplaying, or by game mechanics, or something in between. How do you feel about old school reaction rolls, and/or modern Persuasion checks? And if mechanics should play a bigger part in the social pillar, how should those mechanics be "distributed" among classes? That is, should there be a "face" class or should everyone be able to use those mechanics?

I am actually pro "social combat." In a perfect world you would have a system that allows for rhetoric and wit, both in attack and defense, and you would whittle down the opponents Resolve Points until they acquiesced. Of course, not every tiny interaction would have to use this full system, but then I don't think every fight should have to use the full combat system either.

Anyway: what do you think?

Bring back Skill Challenges. That's where I stand.