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

[Crimson Longinus]

Do players get upset when dragons try to eat them? Why should they get upset when the Evil Viceroy tries to get them thrown in jail, and gives them the benefit of a trial they might actually win?

There are already games that have social conflict resolution systems, or that have systems that don't significantly differentiate between physical and social conflict in their mechanics. These games do not implode from having such systems in them.

I would not be upset if the viceroy wants to throw my character in the jail, I would be upset if the social combat forces my character to change their mind about the viceroy being evil, and instead makes them think that the viceroy enslaving the gnomes is actually a good thing.

Ultimately to a lot of people it is pretty central aspect of roleplay to get to decide how their characters feel and thinks, and a system that routinely takes away that agency is a no go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

When it comes to this line of reasoning, I think we have to figure out whether the dog is wagging the tail or the tail is wagging the dog. I don't think we have the combat mini-game because we don't have fight "narration". It's more accurately we don't have or require fight narration because we have the combat mini-game.

And that's probably true for the lack of social mini-game. We have to narrate it because we don't have the social interaction mini-game. And I think, ultimately, that's fine. I don't really want a detailed social mini-game that is as involved as combat. But I think we have to be careful where we're implying causation.

I would agree that it doesn't necessarily imply 'causation' per se. However, I do not believe the DM asking players "What do you do?" and the players responding was only invented by Arneson and Gygax because no one previously decided to incorporate conversation into the miniatures combat game they all adapted D&D from. That idea of "social combat" I think never even crossed their minds... they were too busy narrating what they were "doing" in the dungeons they were creating.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nothing. Except what you say to describe your attack roll or spell has no impact on how the attack or spell does. That's what the dice do. You cannot make your attack or spell better by "describing it well".

Not so much in 5e, no, but in the past, how you positioned the action could earn circumstance bonuses thanks to the robustness of the system.

And if someone is serious about social combat, they're not going to just leave it at the barebones roll against DC form people seem to be discussing. They're going to make it as varied as combat with all sorts of abilities (mostly for spellcasters) and an orator class with the ability to talk more than once a turn or something. Some of that was sarcasm, but you get the idea: social combat would be social combat, not just the existing skill system.

 

[Incenjucar]

Roleplaying isn't about reward or failure. Roleplaying is its own reward. We're I to roleplay badly and act super intelligent and/or charismatic for my 6 int, 6 cha PC, I would feel like a failure.

That said, I do provide roleplay XP for my players. Not to make them roleplay skillfully, but because I want other avenues to leveling than just beat up something.

Nothing about letting the dice determine the outcome ever stopped me from writing a six line metal song and singing at the table with my 10 Charisma. The dice just ensured that despite everyone at the table laughing that the outcome wasn't biased by how Extra I am. The mechanics ensured that the NPCs found it cringe instead of inspiring regardless of how it made the DM feel.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No it isn't. You need also remove the player ability to decide where to move, what power to use and generally what to do. As long as players can make decisions that matter there is certain amount of skilled play involved.

Is is for Skilled Play with the capital letters. And again, here for it.

With popcorn.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

BTW, complex minigames like combat or social combat absolutely require skill. Some people are better at this sort of mechanical and tactical thinking than others. Why is such skill being allowed to affect outcomes fine, whilst the skill of being able to intuitively read the fictional social situations and thus say the right thing is not?

 

[Umbran]

Nothing. Except what you say to describe your attack roll or spell has no impact on how the attack or spell does. That's what the dice do. You cannot make your attack or spell better by "describing it well".

Really? So battle tactics in combat don't matter in D&D?

If you accept that moving a mini on a battlemat is merely using a physical token to "describe" what you are doing, then we are talking about similar things. Taking care to speak well is not all that different than taking care to figure out the path through a battle that minimizes opportunity attacks, or grants you advantage for flanking. Knowing when to include a snide insult in your speech is not deeply different from knowing a troll is vulnerable to fire...

Since the dawn of the game, a player who understood and played the physical combat rules would get an advantage over those who do not. This is not materially different.

(it seems a couple of us have managed to make largely the same point in quick succession)

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

But I DON'T grant things like auto-crits or Advantage if you as a player say to me "I'm aiming for the dragon's eye!" Because in combat it is assumed the characters are doing all the "right things" already and looking for the best opportunities in their fighting. Likewise I don't withhold Sneak Attack from the Rogue if they don't tell me where on the monster they hit it-- the game rules assume that if you have Advantage on the attack or an ally adjacent to the creature that the Rogue character gets Sneak Attack, no narration necessary.

Why don't you take the same approach to social situations?

 

[Voadam]

Exactly. It's for individual DMs to use at their leisure. But it's not a "combat maneuver" within the rules that a player can choose to narrate and gain Advantage each and every time.

Right, not unless the DM allows it every time. In 5e even the generic maneuvers like flanking are all explicitly DM discretionary in how they are handled with optional DM rules to apply if desire. Mostly it is only class abilities that are hard defined.

A player can't make the tactical decision to "swing from a chandelier" during the combat mini-game and thus get themselves Advantage. So their narration is cool and helps set the scene, but doesn't guarantee anything during the combat mini-game.

Does not guarantee anything but it can be a completely tactically oriented decision to try and get advantage.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

So by the same token... if we are installing a social combat system in order to avoid giving preferential treatment to the players who "speak well"... then you can't modify your "social attack rolls" by what you say. Because once you do that... you again are giving the "talkers" of the table bonuses for talking well that the use of social combat itself was supposed to avoid.

Of course that is precisely what you are doing by not having some degree of social combat rules.

As a reminder, this is my original post on this thread (post #53):

"Ideally I would like to see three options implemented, even if we (my group) would only use option 3:

1. Social combat rules: Rules and guidelines for social interaction nearly as detailed as combat/movement/position rules
2. Social Interaction guidelines: Something similar to a skill challenge system but move involved. Like PF2 VP system or clocks(?) in other systems.
3. Ability / skill checks: what we use now. basically improv with DM asking for a check (with skill if it applies) as needed. Could evolve into a "skill challenge" as needed. Advice can be provided (like existing in the 2014 DMG), but not required."