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

[DEFCON 1]

There is a bit of misunderstanding. I am talking about a system where the attack roll and the intimidatevroll are analogous, leading to something like hit point loss leading to something like defeating your enemy. I am also talking about feats, maneuvers, spells and abilities that are designed for social combat.

Okay, so yeah that's been the impression I've been getting from what you've said previously. Glad I wasn't as far off as I thought I might have been! Of course that being said... I still wouldn't actually like or use a fuller social system that you seem to advocate for-- one with social feats, social maneuvers, social attacks, social hit points, social abilities, etc.

I have no doubt that many people might very well enjoy running "social combat encounters" that were verbal jousting coded, rather than swordfighting and spellcasting coded... I just wouldn't be one of those people. I think the actual conversation at the table between players and DM is more involving and interesting than having a second set of combat rules to play through. But that's just me. We already "roll for initiative" so much as it is... to do it again when we want to convince the guard to let us into the city? Heh... that's okay. I'll leave that to others to put together and play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

This is all cool stuff, and these are the sort of things I consider when setting DCs for social rolls. But It also takes player skill to direct the conversation in such directions that things like that are revealed, read the conversation so that you understand what sort of thing it implies, and then weave that information into your request. But all of this is acceptable use of player skill to me, no different than player's tactical acumen mattering in combat scenarios.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Discussing its addition. Come on, man.

 

[Reynard]

This is all cool stuff, and these are the sort of things I consider when setting DCs for social rolls. But It also takes player skill to direct the conversation in such directions that things like that are revealed, read the conversation so that you understand what sort of thing it implies, and then weave that information into your request. But all of this is acceptable use of player skill to me, no different than player's tactical acumen mattering in combat scenarios.

Emphasis mine.

Precisely. "Player skill" can be as much about understanding the systems in play as it can be "thinking outside the box." in a perfect world, it is a bit of both.

And just to reiterate: i don't want Social Combat for every little thing. it is there for setpiece encounters with specified stakes.

 

[Lanefan]

The table should already have an agreement on PvP play. The existence of a system of any kind does not change that.

Sure it does.

What?

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?

:: You tell me, 'cause that's how it worked in 3.xe - the PCs could try using social skills against NPCs but the NPCs couldn't use them against PCs for player-agency reasons. Not sure if the same applies in 4e or 5e.

Indeed, the inclusion of a social conflict resolution system can resolve one of the larger awkward bits of D&D - leaders of all sorts, from mayors to kings, have this weird need to be high-level members of combat-focused classes. A social conflict resolution system opens up an avenue for those who can't cleave you in half, or throw a fireball at you, to exert power in the world regardless, and do it in a systematic way that the players can still engage with.

I've never found this to be an issue. Political and-or social leaders can have or not have all sorts of possible levels/classes/abilities, although being high-level in any class does give you some experience in wielding and using power. And any of this may or may not make a difference to how easy/hard it is to talk to them and-or persuade them into or out of something.

For military leaders, though, it does make more sense that they have some levels in a martial class.

 

[Lanefan]

Were you of the thought that this entire thread of discussion was about your personal table?

Sigh.

 

[Lanefan]

There is a bit of misunderstanding. I am talking about a system where the attack roll and the intimidatevroll are analogous, leading to something like hit point loss leading to something like defeating your enemy. I am also talking about feats, maneuvers, spells and abilities that are designed for social combat.

OK, so how does "the enemy" get to fight back?

Would each character in the setting (including PCs) now come with x-number of Social Points (SP, not to be confused with silver pieces sp) that could be whittled down during these social combats; first to zero loses?

Maybe these SP would be set as [the average of your Int-Wis-Cha scores] x [half your level], rounded down?

And how would those SP be recovered, or (shudder!) "healed"?

 

[Lanefan]

Except that it isn't symmetrical. Combatants exist for (usually) no more than one combat. Hence why it is patently foolish to (for example) use 1:1 identical Vancian spellcasting design for NPCs. The one NPC gets an entire day's worth of Vancian spells; the PCs don't.

Sure they do. The only difference is whether the PC chooses to nova or not; and if the NPC caster senses she's outgunned why on earth wouldn't she nova to the best of her abilities?

Combat is inherently asymmetrical, because the goals of the two sides ("win this one combat" vs "survive indefinitely") are radically different. Just like real-life asymmetrical warfare.

The goal for both sides in any given fight should be "win this one combat", shouldn't it?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know what to tell you other than I don't think the GM can dictate player choices.

On this I agree completely. (for these purposes let's ignore mind-control magics)

However, the flip side is and IMO has to be that the players thus shouldn't be able to dictate GM choices when it comes to the NPCs. Otherwise it's neither symmetrical nor internally setting-consistent.

Conclusion: take all these social mechanics ideas, tie a big heavy rock to them, and throw them off a ship at sea somewhere.

 

[Reynard]

On this I agree completely. (for these purposes let's ignore mind-control magics)

However, the flip side is and IMO has to be that the players thus shouldn't be able to dictate GM choices when it comes to the NPCs. Otherwise it's neither symmetrical nor internally setting-consistent.

Conclusion: take all these social mechanics ideas, tie a big heavy rock to them, and throw them off a ship at sea somewhere.

Cool. And the GM can just arbitrarily decide stuff.

We should do the same with combat.