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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Yes, so what? You said it would be obviously bad, yet many games do it.

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

I'm sure it is in theory completely possible. If the PC had some sort of stronghold with certain sort of magical defences, it would seem perfectly appropriate to represent that as lair actions.

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.

I mean many monsters do not have anything spell-like to begin with. And some are just magical creatures not similar spell casters than PCs, so it makes sense if they work differently. But yes, there has been inconsistency in how the actual the NPC spellcasters have been represented. Some have spell slots, some do not. It is weird.

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.

Morale, really? That's a rule? It might be some obscure optional rule from DMG, I dunno. Weak example in any case. Point is that the rules are mostly symmetrical, you can attack them, they can attack you, same sort of mechanics are used in either case. I'm sure you actually get what I am saying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

And in D&D we do not have social combat, and as we are discussing D&D, case closed, right?

 

[payn]

And in D&D we do not have social combat, and as we are discussing D&D, case closed, right?

3E and PF1 do. Guess the case is busted back open.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I have, which is how I have come to the position that it is best used for specific types of scenes.

 

[Reynard]

And in D&D we do not have social combat, and as we are discussing D&D, case closed, right?

So what we aren't trying to do is shut out concepts from other games because we all know D&D has its own particulars.

 

[Tonguez]

3E and PF1 do. Guess the case is busted back open.

Whoa, bring the payn! roll for intimidation!

 

[Corinnguard]

3E and PF1 do. Guess the case is busted back open.

I guess we are not putting this in the File Cabinet of Resolved Topics?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I feel like I am going in circles a bit so I may have miss-spoke somewhere, but I don't think I ever advocated a social combat system that reward talkers on top of the social combat system mechanics.

Well no, maybe not you. But my comments were always in response to other poster's comments, so when you'd quote me of my responses to those people, my responses back to you would probably reference back to the original posts I was making to others. That kind of thing happens, especially when someone new enters the conversation and picks out and quotes something that was in a response to a convo that had already gone like 5 posts deep and thus the nuance of that particular quote had gotten lost.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Really? How strange. Even in 4e games, I've seen DMs open to the possibility that a clever plan of attack could provide some kind of benefit. (In that context, usually just Combat Advantage, which--for anyone unfamiliar with 4e--is a +2 to rolls, and having it enables some combat features, like Sneak Attack.)

The "DM's best friend" is just as valid in combat as it is out of combat. It should be used sparingly, to encourage legitimately clever tactics, but it should in fact be used, so that players have a motive for clever tactics and (ideally) immersive expression.

I mentioned it previously in one of the other posts... but I wasn't counting something like Inspiration (or Combat Advantage) in my comments regarding narrative bonuses, because those were not specific "combat rules" that players could aim or plan for... they were things that DMs would just give out on a whim (or not).

A player knows how to get Advantage from the Hiding rules because they are specifically mentioned in the rules as such. A player knows how to get +2 / +5 bonuses from Cover because they are specifically called out in the rules as to how you get them. But the rules do not give players specific "things to say" to get the DM to grant Inspiration... you have to just say stuff and hope the DM finds it witty enough to grant it to you.

That's what I've been meaning about the books not having "rules" about gaining bonuses from narrating your combat. You can get it if the particular DM you are with is being nice and decides to give it... but there are no rules that specifically call out when you will get it. Every table / DM can and will be different.

 

[Reynard]

I mentioned it previously in one of the other posts... but I wasn't counting something like Inspiration (or Combat Advantage) in my comments regarding narrative bonuses, because those were not specific "combat rules" that players could aim or plan for... they were things that DMs would just give out on a whim (or not).

A player knows how to get Advantage from the Hiding rules because they are specifically mentioned in the rules as such. A player knows how to get +2 / +5 bonuses from Cover because they are specifically called out in the rules as to how you get them. But the rules do not give players specific "things to say" to get the DM to grant Inspiration... you have to just say stuff and hope the DM finds it witty enough to grant it to you.

That's what I've been meaning about the books not having "rules" about gaining bonuses from narrating your combat. You can get it if the particular DM you are with is being nice and decides to give it... but there are no rules that specifically call out when you will get it. Every table / DM can and will be different.

So just an an example, in the system we have been using, you get bonuses for "targetting" the opponent's bonds, flaws or ideals, and get Advantage if you employ their Secret. Of course you have to know what those things are, which is more the free play, exploration and investigative stuff comes in. So, sucker punching someone with their Secret is kind of like a sneak attack.