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

[Vaalingrade]

I think some blame has to fall on the view of CHA being portrayed as the only means of having appeal to others.

At a certain point of examining social mechanics, there should be some acknowledgement of 'look how ripped I am', 'I'm just as smart as you guys', 'I'm fffffflexible', 'behold my enlightenment', and Constitution is also here are other ways to sway people.

 

[Reynard]

I think some blame has to fall on the view of CHA being portrayed as the only means of having appeal to others.

At a certain point of examining social mechanics, there should be some acknowledgement of 'look how ripped I am', 'I'm just as smart as you guys', 'I'm fffffflexible', 'behold my enlightenment', and Constitution is also here are other ways to sway people.

I think Con makes a good "physical comeliness" approximation. Look how fit and healthy I am! (Especially if your D&D world actually resembles the medieval era in any way.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

(Especially if your D&D world actually resembles the medieval era in any way.)

Portly and covered in arsenic powder?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't see Swarmkeeper's posts, but I'll definitely quibble with part of their definition of "balance."

"Spotlight balance" is predicated on two assumptions which are generally false in a D&D context:
1. If players get an equal amount of game time (e.g. turns of combat) in the spotlight, then they will get an equal amount of influence on the state of play
2. If the spotlight does in fact point at each player, then they will get about the same amount of game time in it.

#1 is patently false because magic. Magic is incredibly powerful; a single spell, meaning just one turn of combat, can easily do far more than a non-spellcasting character could do in multiple rounds of combat. Hence, some archetypes need only a moment in the spotlight to gain a massive advantage--and thus giving them putatively "equal" spotlight time actually makes things less balanced, no more.

#2 is false because players have significant ability to manipulate how long and how frequently the spotlight points at them. And guess what! Magic both actively and passively keeps the spotlight pointing at spellcasters and away from non-spellcasters or minimal-spellcasters (e.g. Paladins, Rangers, and Eldritch Knights). Actively by way of obviating entire challenges/encounters with just a spell or two, so the non-caster participants...don't really participate. Passively, because spells are so important (especially spell-based healing) that even the non-casters have an incentive to long-rest as soon as the spells are depleted (and the vaunted "time pressure" is utterly implausible to maintain 24/7).

If the two premises above were actually true consistently, spotlight balance would be wonderful. But since they are false an awful lot of the time, spotlight balance is riddled with holes and rarely achieves the claimed results.

This is a huge part of why I am so adamantly opposed to it as a design element. It just...doesn't do what it advertises.

 

[Corinnguard]

Even with the A-Team, you're more likely to send B.A. to go talk to those meatheads at the gym lifting weights than you are Face.

True. He'll use his STR to diplomatically convince and intimidate everyone there. Who needs CHA when you are showing off your carrying capacity?

 

[Reynard]

1. If players get an equal amount of game time (e.g. turns of combat) in the spotlight, then they will get an equal amount of influence on the state of play

Is this important?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D has always been a teetering jenga tower of bolt on systems. I mean, thr combat was a bolt on system along with the wilderness exploration. If people want to play D&D AND have a robust social encounter rules system, they can.

"Always" is such a problematic word, wouldn't you agree? With D&D editions specifically. There's almost always something someone can bring up to point out the non-always nature of something. And I would certainly argue that there were editions, plural, of D&D that weren't like that.

 

[Reynard]

"Always" is such a problematic word, wouldn't you agree? With D&D editions specifically. There's almost always something someone can bring up to point out the non-always nature of something. And I would certainly argue that there were editions, plural, of D&D that weren't like that.

Name an edition that did not include supplements that added subsystems to the game that were not in the core books.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think some blame has to fall on the view of CHA being portrayed as the only means of having appeal to others.

At a certain point of examining social mechanics, there should be some acknowledgement of 'look how ripped I am', 'I'm just as smart as you guys', 'I'm fffffflexible', 'behold my enlightenment', and Constitution is also here are other ways to sway people.

i don't know how 'i'm flexible' is a good way of succeeding at social interaction but i do feel like some of the social skills could've been better distributed through the various stats, i know it's technically RAW to use alternate stats when it makes sense but i feel it would've been better if more stats were officially stated in the descriptions 'use X or Y stat to use Z skill', 'use STR or CHA for intimidation, use INT or CHA for persuasion, DEX or CHA for performance'

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is this important?

That's literally what spotlight balance claims: that, by sharing the spotlight, each player gets about the same influence on the campaign.

Unless you mean to say that one person getting to roleplay and never actually do anything, while another player both roleplays and does things, is balanced? I don't really think that's a position you want to take, but...well, I've been wrong about that sort of thing before...