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

[DragonLancer]

I'd roll play the situation out. If they can convince the NPC/s through that means then great. Otherwise I'd then go with something like a Diplomacy check with appropriate modifiers depending on how well or badly they put their case across.

 

[Oofta]

I don't really use social combat, and don't want to reduce that aspect of the game to a scorecard. I use a mix of RP and die rolls for social situations along with keeping notes on interactions with the different factions and NPCs, although the latter is not anything strict or official.

When it comes to RP I pay attention to what the player is saying, not how and also take into consideration any other factors when I (secretly) set a target DC. What I want to avoid is gamifying the social aspects of the game. What you do and say matters and can make a significant difference but it's going to be pretty hidden from the players. I guess I just don't want people tracking reputation points or similar like they track HP. We pretty much have to have use HP given how D&D works but your status, and just as important what you perceive as your status, with others is something that should be revealed in game.

So a lot of factors go into my setting a target DC and there can be multiple checks back and forth. But how a person built their PC and what they invested in absolutely matters. On the other hand, I also try to give people that don't have charisma-based PCs a chance to shine, so it's a balancing act.

 

[Tonguez]

I like FATEs use of Motivation and Instinct in Social Combat where skill checks are used to discover NPC Motivation and then RP is input to change instincts (behavior).

its also possible to use Social zones where you set a goal (and its opposite) and the objective is to move the other character from their current position to your goal not away from it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i think your post is agreeing with mine but something in the phrasing is causing my brain to short circuit and i can't actually tell if it's retort to people 'against the social mechanics' or retort to 'the people against social mechanics'

 

[Laurefindel]

I like mechanical systems that work as an incentive for players to engage in roleplay as way of overcoming obstacles and conflict.

I don't like mechanical systems that only benefit those who invested in social skills where at best a character can do okay, but likely to botch and put their foot in their mouth.

TL;DR: I hate systems where the best way a character can positively contribute toward group success is to shut up and not interact with others.

 

[Vork_Hammerfist]

When I don't already have a pretty clear idea how the NPC would react, or I just want to see what happens/randomize things a bit, I use reaction rolls, and if appropriate, certain skills.

Using your scenario where the PCs are attempting to plead or debate with a king, let's say they are trying to convince him a friend or ally of theirs is wrongfully imprisoned and should be released.

1. First I would have the players tell me which of them is going to be their primary spokesman, as this character will be making the relevant skill check(s).
2. Next, I would have the spokesman either tell me how they want to persuade the king or let them say exactly what their character says.
3. I would then have the spokesman roll their Law (secular) skill since presumably the king wants this person locked up for having broken a law. Other PCs can attempt to help the spokesman if they also make a successful skill check (if they fail there is no effect, if they fail past a certain margin they increase the DC for the spokesman's check by some amount).
4. If the spokesman succeeded their Law (secular) check I would grant the player a small bonus to the king's reaction roll. Then I would roll for the king's reaction, adding the spokesman's charisma modifier, the bonus or penalty from the Law (secular) skill check, and a result of 9+ they would be successful, or if the king wasn't in a forgiving mood only grant success on 11+ or even 12+.

If there were any onlookers I would also do reaction rolls for them, to see what their thoughts on both the PCs arguments and the king's decision.
If the king owed the PCs a favour and they decide to call it in I would grant the players a bonus to the reaction roll.
Additionally, if the players put forth a good or bad argument for why their friend/ally has been wrongfully imprisoned I would grant a bonus or penalty to the reaction roll as appropriate.

After having typed all that out I realize it sounds like a fairly complicated and lengthy process, but at the table it is pretty fast and mostly relies on a set of purpose-built reaction roll tables specifically for a given region's laws, which makes it pretty quick and easy.

I don't know what social combat is but I don't like the sound of it.

 

[el-remmen]

mostly relies on a set of purpose-built reaction roll tables specifically for a given region's laws,

Do you have any examples of those tables you can share?

 

[Laurefindel]

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 board and passing GO for a measly 200, that doesn't mean i should just do that.

[emphasis mine]
In D&D, a character to positively contribute in combat despite having a low Str score in may ways. In 5e at any case, a 7 Str, 18 Dex fighter can excel even in melee with finesse weapons. Even without Str and Dex, spells allow all kinds of contribution in combat, not to mention stat substitution abilities like the Hexblade Warlock. Other RPG do that to a different extent.

The problem with D&D is that all the social pillar revolves around one stat, a handful of skills, background abilities that tend to be forgotten, and perhaps one of two feats that people rarely take (especially if their character aren't already socially-focused because they compete with combat feats). There are no suggestions of "social actions" that aren't "talk with the person in front of you" for the Cha-dumping party to do.

So in absence of decent social feats, class features, and skills/abilities keyed off Wis and Int (the notable exception being Wisdom (Insight)), paired with the fact that physical actions are completely mind-eyes but conversations can be real at the table, encourages a free-style social pillar where the glib player gets a glib character.

 

[kenada]

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 think it can be done and done in a way that is binding (on NPCs and PCs) without feeling bad, but I don’t think D&D is generally set up for or trying to be that game. Most social mechanics are ways to make your checks easier (such as improving disposition in 3e to reeuce the DC or the social BIFTs stuff in the 5e DMG that can give advantage). 4e’s skill challenges are the closest that comes to mind as a mechanic for running social conflicts.

In a social situation, everyone should be able to participate even if some classes might have areas where they excel. It’s not like non-warriors are made to sit out in a combat encounter. Why should they have to sit out in a social situation?

As far as reaction rolls go, I like them. They help establish that not every monster is hostile to the PCs by default. They might be neutral or friendly, and a non-combat solution is possible. I think Persuasion is fine as a skill, but it’s not mind control, and it shouldn’t be treated as such.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know what social combat is but I don't like the sound of it.

It means having a fairly involved system to track success and failure and level of impact during important social scenes, in the same way that combat scenes get granular. Characters have rhetorical attack bonuses and potential maneuvers and try and reduce the social hit point analog to 0 in order to win the argument. So, yeah, it is pretty much what it sounds like.

The reason i like it is that it brings the social pillar in line with the other granular aspects of the game. You don't role play any less -- you still say what your arguments are, the same way you describe your attacks and such in combat. But the resolution is built into the system, not the whims of the GM and how they rate your acting ability. As someone upthread said, you don't let combatants auto-win because the player is good at describing an attack. But you might grant some sort of advantage, and you would do so in social combat as well.