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

[el-remmen]

A friend and I were discussing this yesterday and we liked the idea of each NPC having a few tags/traits that if the player could incorporate them, they get a bonus on whatever final roll is called for (without a full on social combat system, i tend toward one singular roll at the end of the roleplay conversation to judge how it ultimately went). Things like Greedy or proud or Loves Their Mom or whatever. You could also offend one of those traits and earn a penalty. We also discussed the idea of a Secret, that if you discover it and incorporate it, it gives you advantage. Like if the new king secretly killed his father, and the PCs could let him know they know without blowing up court, they could get advantage on the roll to persuade him to send troops to defend their home or whatever.

The last 3E game I ran used an Influence and Reputation system for influencing social rolls that we cribbed from the first A Song of Ice and Fire RPG - but the many modifiers and high rolls made that easier to tweak in increments than I think would be easy for 5E and I am all for easy.

 

[payn]

A friend and I were discussing this yesterday and we liked the idea of each NPC having a few tags/traits that if the player could incorporate them, they get a bonus on whatever final roll is called for (without a full on social combat system, i tend toward one singular roll at the end of the roleplay conversation to judge how it ultimately went). Things like Greedy or proud or Loves Their Mom or whatever. You could also offend one of those traits and earn a penalty. We also discussed the idea of a Secret, that if you discover it and incorporate it, it gives you advantage. Like if the new king secretly killed his father, and the PCs could let him know they know without blowing up court, they could get advantage on the roll to persuade him to send troops to defend their home or whatever.

Check out the War for the Crown AP and the ultimate intrigue book for PF1. It largely works as you describe here.

 

[payn]

The last 3E game I ran used an Influence and Reputation system for influencing social rolls that we cribbed from the first A Song of Ice and Fire RPG - but the many modifiers and high rolls made that easier to tweak in increments than I think would be easy for 5E and I am all for easy.

I do a lot of faction play where reputation and standing are important. Makes sense why some folks might trust the PCs and others just want to stab them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Social situations are roleplayed and I like to keep the mechanical interference relatively unobtrusive, but the character skills still matter quite a bit.

We roleplay the discussion, and the players can get to know the NPC this way. Insight rolls might be made. These never compel the players to believe the NPC's potential BS, failure merely means that the PC doesn't notice signs of deception, but the player is still free to disbelieve.

If the players make a request, then we might roll. The DC and effect of this roll is based on the nature of the NPC and the request being made. This is not about how well the player says the thing, but about what they say. Do they give a good reason for the NPC to accept? Do the appeal to the sort of things the NPC values? Stuff like that. So for example if you request a honourable and traditional orc war chief to help you, you could appeal to their greed, and it might work. But appealing to their honour would probably have a lower DC, as they value that far above material possessions.

Like most thing in the game, this combines character and player skills. Just like in combat you get to roll with your character's abilities, but you still need to use your own brains to decide where to move, who to attack and what spell to use. The player skill mattering is not a problem that can or should be eliminated. Players making meaningful decisions is at the core of roleplaying, and as long as they're doing that the player skill at making those decisions matters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A friend and I were discussing this yesterday and we liked the idea of each NPC having a few tags/traits that if the player could incorporate them, they get a bonus on whatever final roll is called for (without a full on social combat system, i tend toward one singular roll at the end of the roleplay conversation to judge how it ultimately went). Things like Greedy or proud or Loves Their Mom or whatever. You could also offend one of those traits and earn a penalty. We also discussed the idea of a Secret, that if you discover it and incorporate it, it gives you advantage. Like if the new king secretly killed his father, and the PCs could let him know they know without blowing up court, they could get advantage on the roll to persuade him to send troops to defend their home or whatever.

This is basically what I do, except it is not this formal.

 

[payn]

Traditionally, social mechanics have been sparse compared to the nuanced and tactical combat pillar. So, I think folks tend to lean on what they are experienced with which is a more open to interpretation rulings over rules style. I also think there can be a little desire to avoid "the answer is on my character sheet" style of play. Folks want imaginative and sky is the limit role play in the social pillar.

My approach is a little more like "the answer is within my character's toolset". So, the character sheet is still very important to play. For example, my Traveller might not have any social standing to inform them on approaching a noble. They might not have any carouse skill to rub elbows with the affluent either. Though, they might have admin or law and can find a trusted advisor for a noble and work that angle. This is the process to approach role playing the game in a series of events to achieve a goal. Many folks might not work this way as they will see a low social score and lack of carouse skill as their PC simply cannot do anything at all in the situation. Or worse, IMO, they have no single roll to resolve the situation as opposed to thinking of a series of steps to achieve the goal. YMMV.

 

[Reynard]

Check out the War for the Crown AP and the ultimate intrigue book for PF1. It largely works as you describe here.

Thanks. One thing I really like about PF Aps is the player's guides are free and introduce whatever the mechanic du jour is for the AP. I will check it out. I may also own Ultimate Intrigue but I don't remember at this point.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i forget if the 'NPC disposition' rules are actually obscure official mechanics or just popular homebrew, either way i think they're good, giving more use to insight and a reason to use persuasion over intimidation, as well as incorporating TBIF (and alignment, if anyone bothers to use that anymore.)

 

[Li Shenron]

I personally (IRL) don't know anyone who advocated the usage of complex social pillar mechanics in D&D, and used them in their games for really more than 1-2 evenings. It might be a fun change on the first evening, but the second evening it's already not so fun anymore. It just cannot be put on the same level as combat resolution.

I have always been ok with simple social skills, which I use pretty much like all out-of-combat rolls i.e. first the players make narrative decisions, then the DM decides if they succeed or fail, and when the DM is undecided then we roll the dice. A complex systems drains the fun, does not feel natural, and ultimately it's not worth it for me.

 

[Shardstone]

your stats are relevant and you have to use the mechanics to affect the entire rest of the game, i don't see why social situations are so special that they get to be exempt from that, we encounter a social situation and our entire party has dumped charisma, but don't worry, i, the player, have the gift of gab and can talk my way out of the situation. i think not, maybe when my STR 7 fighter can insta-kill that stone giant by describing how cool they swing their sword and cut their throat without an attack roll.

i've heard the justification to allow it because 'it's possible to perform [the social interactions] at the table' but that doesn't work for me, it's 'possible' for me to just reach over and grab the money pile from the bank in monopoly rather than by making it all around the table and passing GO for a measly 200, that doesn't mean i should just do that.

This is unironically the best retort I've seen to people against social mechanics. I very much like the example of the str 7 fighter insta-killing with cool description.