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

[EzekielRaiden]

The rules work the same for both of them. You can even have full PC sheet for a NPC or have a player to play a "monster" represented my a monster statblock. Only think that is different is who controls which statblock, but that doesn't affect the rules.

Then why don't players have lair actions? Why don't monsters have Vancian spell slots?

Your choice to pretend that these things are irrelevant is just that--your choice. They remain quite relevant to anyone actually looking at the system as a whole, and anyone actually wanting to solve the design problem of "how do we make good design for social encounters, as opposed to the many types of bad design"?

This enforcement of perfect mirror consistency between GM-run entities and player-run entities is precisely what forces such awful design. Ditch that seriously flawed requirement, and whole new worlds of design become available to you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because--as you have eloquently demonstrated--it produces bad gameplay. Why else would we design anything? The purpose of design is to produce worthwhile gameplay. (Noting that what qualifies as "worthwhile" precedes the design process--that's a choice on the designer's part. D&D, for instance, has chosen three "pillars" of gameplay. Those are what it has defined as worthwhile; the design then takes those values and develops gameplay intended to be meaningful.)


It sure as hell wouldn't be "and now the mechanics mind-control your character into doing things." Because that is obviously bad design, and when one has a choice between good and productive design and obviously bad design, well, I should think it wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

There are quite a few games where mechanics can affect the PC's values and beliefs and this is not considered bad design by people who regularly play those games. I think it is terrible, but it is not that unusual.

 

[Reynard]

What is the intended purpose then? And if it is only narrowly applicable doesn't it leave most of the social situations to be run by the old method, suffering from everything that was perceived to be a problem with it?

I don't want to put words in your mouth or make wrong assumptions, so let me state this and you can tell me if I'm off base or not:

It seems that you believe that rules in the game should apply equally to NPCs or PCs, that the rules sort of represent how the world of the game works and are independent of who is acting. Is that a reasonable statement?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then why don't players have lair actions?

They don't have a magical lair?

Why don't monsters have Vancian spell slots?

Many do.

Your choice to pretend that these things are irrelevant is just that--your choice. They remain quite relevant to anyone actually looking at the system as a whole, and anyone actually wanting to solve the design problem of "how do we make good design for social encounters, as opposed to the many types of bad design"?

This enforcement of perfect mirror consistency between GM-run entities and player-run entities is precisely what forces such awful design. Ditch that seriously flawed requirement, and whole new worlds of design become available to you.

It is not flawed, even though it might not be to your liking. And D&D combat is mostly symmetrical. It certainly has not the sort of asymmetry where a PC can attack a NPC but the NPC cannot attack the PC like suggested for the social combat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Social combat isn't about altering the target's mind. Just like arguing on the internet, sometimes it's about pulling out all sorts of tricks to make them just want you to stop and go away, so they let you have your way to make that happen or convincing onlookers enough that they join in and browbeat the target into again, relenting it stops.

The object is to win, not to win on actual points.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't want to put words in your mouth or make wrong assumptions, so let me state this and you can tell me if I'm off base or not:

It seems that you believe that rules in the game should apply equally to NPCs or PCs, that the rules sort of represent how the world of the game works and are independent of who is acting. Is that a reasonable statement?

I mostly believe that, but I am not as hardcore about it as some. I am perfectly willing to make exceptions, and social rules certainly are on are where I already do so. It just becomes more fraught to make such exceptions more involved the system is, especially as the game is mostly designed to run on symmetric manner.

I have a question for you as well: have you ever actually played a game which has involved social combat system even somewhat similar to what you're envisioning? Because I have and I am certain that I do not like it. Not saying it is objectively bad, perhaps you would like it, but there are all sort of issues and implications that might not be readily apparent without experiencing it.

 

[TheSword]

I’d like to see rules for…

Bribery
Social status
Etiquette
Using influence skills in combat
Leadership

Just like my favourite RPG WFRP 4e.

 

[Voadam]

It sure as hell wouldn't be "and now the mechanics mind-control your character into doing things." Because that is obviously bad design, and when one has a choice between good and productive design and obviously bad design, well, I should think it wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

Nah, not obviously bad design, just different.

Roleplay to x prompt, can be fine. We have it in magical control in default D&D. Doing it for social mechanics would just be different. Some want D&D to be roleplay what you want with lots of player agency, some want it to be roleplay your stats on the sheet. Some want to roleplay off the die results they get for persuasion checks, tuning their roleplay to whether they got success or failure while others go with roleplay then dice.

I am a big proponent of player agency and first person roleplay, but it is not the only good way to play. A lot is a matter of taste and what you are trying to do and what you are prizing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are quite a few games where mechanics can affect the PC's values and beliefs and this is not considered bad design by people who regularly play those games. I think it is terrible, but it is not that unusual.

We aren't talking about quite a few games. We are talking about D&D.

They don't have a magical lair?

How do you know that, though? Why is it simply not possible for a player character? Isn't that an asymmetry?

Many do.

Do they now? I had thought your (serious) beef with some of the design in 5e was that this was not the case. From what I'm seeing, only 75 creatures out of the entire 1400+ catalogue of (non-reprinted) monsters have any spell slots at all. The vast majority of creatures that do some kind of magical effect are not using such slots, even if they are presented as spellcasters.

It is not flawed, even though it might not be to your liking. And D&D combat is mostly symmetrical. It certainly has not the sort of asymmetry where a PC can attack a NPC but the NPC cannot attack the PC like suggested for the social combat.

Sure it does. Player characters don't make morale rolls. There are morale rules for NPCs. A clear asymmetry--and one directly relevant to the question of changing a being's mind.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nah, not obviously bad design, just different.

Roleplay to x prompt, can be fine. We have it in magical control in default D&D. Doing it for social mechanics would just be different. Some want D&D to be roleplay what you want with lots of player agency, some want it to be roleplay your stats on the sheet. Some want to roleplay off the die results they get for persuasion checks, tuning their roleplay to whether they got success or failure while others go with roleplay then dice.

I am a big proponent of player agency and first person roleplay, but it is not the only good way to play. A lot is a matter of taste and what you are trying to do and what you are prizing.

In other games, yes. Are we discussing other games now? I had thought the topic was D&D General.