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

[Shardstone]

I would adjudicate it the follwing:
You wanna swing around the chandelier? Okay, give me an dex (acrobatics) check to see how well you do. With a ... 10+ you gain advantage, with a 15+ a hit will count as critical. With a 5 to 9 you gain disadvantage on the attack and with a 4 or less you will be knocked prone and have 0 movement left this round.

This all gets in the way of conversation. Why not just narrate it?

 

[M_Natas]

I wouldn't imagine there would be any rolls here. Nothing in this section is even remotely rising to the level of a skill challenge. As you say, I can hardly even see where a roll might squeeze in. Perhaps some kind of Streetwise or Intimidate check? But honestly I don't see any need.


Because it wouldn't have.

Has anyone said, "Absolutely every single social interaction, no matter what, needs to become a long, drawn-out, ritualized, formalized affair with all the bells and whistles, every single time"?

Because unless someone has actually argued that, your example has not contributed anything further to the discussion. If nobody is taking that position, you have tilted at a windmill.

I--and as far as I can tell, everyone else--have explicitly recognized that "social pillar mechanics," whatever form they might take, would be "a sometimes food" as I am fond of calling it. I have seen multiple different posters, including myself, call out very specifically that these rules would not be meant for universal use, and would be a bad, wrong, foolish thing to try to shoehorn into absolutely every situation.

For exactly the same reason that you wouldn't pull out a battle map and roll initiative, for example, if the players went hunting with the Lord Mayor, hoping to get him alone so they can test to see if he's a doppelganger. The hunting part, if you had them roll at all, would probably just be a couple basic ranged attack rolls. There's no need for initiative and turn order and tracking line of sight and protection from cover etc., etc., etc. It would just be some simple, straightforward attack rolls.

The existence of situations where it is not beneficial to invoke the entire rules for combat does not mean that combat rules are a pointless waste of time. Likewise, the existence of situations that would not require, nor indeed draw any benefit from, more structured social pillar mechanics does not mean that social pillar mechanics are a pointless waste of time.

Okay, but this was a more complex situation than a single "give me better prices!"-persuasion-roll.

So such examples are useful to see when to change the mode of play.

So, let's go a little more complex - let's see ... in my current campaign we had a discussion about rewards with the local head of the trade guild (a Giff) - but that was solved with melon bribes. We had an interrogation trough the town guard after the PCs were found over the dead body of a victim of a space clown - but that was quickly solved with truth spells (a problem in D&D - having truth spells for formal settings like trials and interrogations).

I think I have to go back to the campaign I run before to find a social situation that could be complex enough:

"Therapy for the Fey Lord who kidnapped the Warlock to take as his bride"

So, the Party Warlock (Fey-Patron) was nearly killed like 20 sessions before and her patron came trough a portal, "rescuing" her and bringing her to the feywild (the player was absent and it was a way for her to temporarily switch to another character she wanted to try out when she came back).

So the party was looking for ways to get into the Feywild to bring her back.

So after some other adventures that involved fighting of an invasion force that had a Kraken, they finally acquired the means to go to the feywild.

And going there, they found out, that while in the game world only some month has passed, over ten years had passed in the feywild. The Warlock was now the Bride of the Feylord and Queen of the Feywild, they had a child and the marriage was like already over.

The basic gist of the coming quest was: The feywild was under attack of an otherworldly corruption and the Fey were loosing do trough poor leadership and infighting (and in actuality, betrayel! But we will come to that). So the party was supposed to go the heart of the corruption and root it out, so they can take their Warlock back home (who now feels responsible for the feywild as a the queen and living there for ten years ...)

So before they leave the next day on their quest, there is a big feast and the Party wants to find out more about what is going on, so they try to get the feylord in a good mood and make him spill his secrets.
So during the party they tried different things from performing, talking and putting drugs in his drinks (so a skill check for any different approach to influence him) - but I didn't need to roll a social initiative or use any special mechanics - I described the feast, the players described what the characters were doing at the feast (from mingling with the more common folk to daring the feylord to take drugs with them ...) - so the basic D&D things.
It ended with the feylord on the Warlock going back to the quarters, the feylord being like hammered and high - and after a little gentle pressure from his wife (and a successful persuasion check, taking into account his condition and their relationship) he breaks down crying, spilling his secret - that the corruption took his first wife and that his first wife is coming to him in his sleep needing to be rescued- but for that he needs to sacrifice his child - so he courted the Warlock in the first place only to so he can produce a child for sacrificial purposes ... (that all played out in a shadow theater kind of way - the Feylord brought his wife to the center of his power - the theater, were the past and present of the current Lord of thos region of feywild is preserved and where it can be seen) - and he was torn about it, because he liked his child and deep down knew it was wrong, but he loved his first wife so much (which is why the corruption took the face of his first wife to influence the feylord), that is why he was sabotaging the fight against the corruption and so on.

And oh boy, do we had now a super pissed Warlock (actually the 10 years in the feywild turned her into a Druid).

But basically, it was resolved in a way, that the feylord was temporarily freed from the influence of the corruption do to the Party "therapying" him. In order to not fall for the corruption again, in a big power move, the next day he gave his free will as a gift to the Warlock, making her the defacto supreme ruler of the feywild (at least this domain of the feywild).

The mechanics I used to adjudicate all of this was basically RAW. I mean, if you look at if with hindsight, it could be loosely described as a skill challenge, but I never told the players how many successes they need or anything like that. I just described how their actions influenced the party and the mood of the feylord and the party continued from that.

I don't think social combat rules would have really improved that play experience.

All the players could shine during the party with different approaches and use their skills/abilities wisely, while the last part was more intimate between Warlock and Feylord, because of the nature of the story and their relationship, but everybody at the table loved how it all worked out. That whole encounter took like a 5 or 6 hour session to play out (including party preparations) and it was as intense as the biggest battles we had (and in that campaign we had gigantic battles with Krakens and Gods dying and the PCs using child wizard soldiers (and regretting that immediately after getting most of them killed by attacking a freaking kraken...)).

I mean, I didn't even mean for the players to find out that way (there were other ways to figure out the secret and basically If they wouldn't have bothered to find out any of the secrets, they would have been sent into a trap to be killed off), but they thought of an approach, tried it and succeeded in a way I didn't expect when I prepped all of this and I could handle it on the fly pretty well with the existing social mechanics.

I mean, maybe DM facing, I could have used a Point system or something similiar to see how far the Feylord could be influenced, but I couldn't have really accounted for that beforehand, because the approach of the party was so different from anything I could have envisioned. They used drugs, a good time and compassion to break trough the compulsion on the feylord to not only spill his secrets but actively looking for a way to do the right thing before he was compelled and seduced to do the wrong thing again.

The 5E social mechanics that exist are so light and flexible, that they allowed me to adjucate that on the fly.

 

[Reynard]

I don't see how this could have been improved by adding more mechanics to it.

Me neither. Of course, that's not the kind of scenario I am talking about using social combat for.

 

[Reynard]

Okay, but this was a more complex situation than a single "give me better prices!"-persuasion-roll.

So such examples are useful to see when to change the mode of play.

So, let's go a little more complex - let's see ... in my current campaign we had a discussion about rewards with the local head of the trade guild (a Giff) - but that was solved with melon bribes. We had an interrogation trough the town guard after the PCs were found over the dead body of a victim of a space clown - but that was quickly solved with truth spells (a problem in D&D - having truth spells for formal settings like trials and interrogations).

I think I have to go back to the campaign I run before to find a social situation that could be complex enough:

"Therapy for the Fey Lord who kidnapped the Warlock to take as his bride"

So, the Party Warlock (Fey-Patron) was nearly killed like 20 sessions before and her patron came trough a portal, "rescuing" her and bringing her to the feywild (the player was absent and it was a way for her to temporarily switch to another character she wanted to try out when she came back).

So the party was looking for ways to get into the Feywild to bring her back.

So after some other adventures that involved fighting of an invasion force that had a Kraken, they finally acquired the means to go to the feywild.

And going there, they found out, that while in the game world only some month has passed, over ten years had passed in the feywild. The Warlock was now the Bride of the Feylord and Queen of the Feywild, they had a child and the marriage was like already over.

The basic gist of the coming quest was: The feywild was under attack of an otherworldly corruption and the Fey were loosing do trough poor leadership and infighting (and in actuality, betrayel! But we will come to that). So the party was supposed to go the heart of the corruption and root it out, so they can take their Warlock back home (who now feels responsible for the feywild as a the queen and living there for ten years ...)

So before they leave the next day on their quest, there is a big feast and the Party wants to find out more about what is going on, so they try to get the feylord in a good mood and make him spill his secrets.
So during the party they tried different things from performing, talking and putting drugs in his drinks (so a skill check for any different approach to influence him) - but I didn't need to roll a social initiative or use any special mechanics - I described the feast, the players described what the characters were doing at the feast (from mingling with the more common folk to daring the feylord to take drugs with them ...) - so the basic D&D things.
It ended with the feylord on the Warlock going back to the quarters, the feylord being like hammered and high - and after a little gentle pressure from his wife (and a successful persuasion check, taking into account his condition and their relationship) he breaks down crying, spilling his secret - that the corruption took his first wife and that his first wife is coming to him in his sleep needing to be rescued- but for that he needs to sacrifice his child - so he courted the Warlock in the first place only to so he can produce a child for sacrificial purposes ... (that all played out in a shadow theater kind of way - the Feylord brought his wife to the center of his power - the theater, were the past and present of the current Lord of thos region of feywild is preserved and where it can be seen) - and he was torn about it, because he liked his child and deep down knew it was wrong, but he loved his first wife so much (which is why the corruption took the face of his first wife to influence the feylord), that is why he was sabotaging the fight against the corruption and so on.

And oh boy, do we had now a super pissed Warlock (actually the 10 years in the feywild turned her into a Druid).

But basically, it was resolved in a way, that the feylord was temporarily freed from the influence of the corruption do to the Party "therapying" him. In order to not fall for the corruption again, in a big power move, the next day he gave his free will as a gift to the Warlock, making her the defacto supreme ruler of the feywild (at least this domain of the feywild).

The mechanics I used to adjudicate all of this was basically RAW. I mean, if you look at if with hindsight, it could be loosely described as a skill challenge, but I never told the players how many successes they need or anything like that. I just described how their actions influenced the party and the mood of the feylord and the party continued from that.

I don't think social combat rules would have really improved that play experience.

All the players could shine during the party with different approaches and use their skills/abilities wisely, while the last part was more intimate between Warlock and Feylord, because of the nature of the story and their relationship, but everybody at the table loved how it all worked out. That whole encounter took like a 5 or 6 hour session to play out (including party preparations) and it was as intense as the biggest battles we had (and in that campaign we had gigantic battles with Krakens and Gods dying and the PCs using child wizard soldiers (and regretting that immediately after getting most of them killed by attacking a freaking kraken...)).

I mean, I didn't even mean for the players to find out that way (there were other ways to figure out the secret and basically If they wouldn't have bothered to find out any of the secrets, they would have been sent into a trap to be killed off), but they thought of an approach, tried it and succeeded in a way I didn't expect when I prepped all of this and I could handle it on the fly pretty well with the existing social mechanics.

I mean, maybe DM facing, I could have used a Point system or something similiar to see how far the Feylord could be influenced, but I couldn't have really accounted for that beforehand, because the approach of the party was so different from anything I could have envisioned. They used drugs, a good time and compassion to break trough the compulsion on the feylord to not only spill his secrets but actively looking for a way to do the right thing before he was compelled and seduced to do the wrong thing again.

The 5E social mechanics that exist are so light and flexible, that they allowed me to adjucate that on the fly.

Establishing the things the fey lord would respond positively and negatively to beforehand, and using some system or another that quantified the impact of utilizing those keys by the players, would not have made the scenario less interesting. It wouldn't have meant less roleplay -- the players still have to engage the game to get to a point of making those checks.

What I think a relatively well detailed social pillar system does is lessen the importance of GM fiat in these kinds of scenarios, which I think is a benefit to the players and the GM alike.

 

[M_Natas]

Establishing the things the fey lord would respond positively and negatively to beforehand, and using some system or another that quantified the impact of utilizing those keys by the players, would not have made the scenario less interesting. It wouldn't have meant less roleplay -- the players still have to engage the game to get to a point of making those checks.

What I think a relatively well detailed social pillar system does is lessen the importance of GM fiat in these kinds of scenarios, which I think is a benefit to the players and the GM alike.

I mean, I had that fleshed out beforehand. I knew the Feylord's motives and secrets and reasons for doing what he did. That's why I was able to adjudicate all the shenanigans the party came up with.

And the PCs could find out things the Feylord would react positively and badly before by asking around or interacting with him.

Like, what are we talking about now? How the DM is organising his notes and fleshing out NPCs and adding possibilities for the Party to find out things about an NOC beforehand?

I mean, yes, technically you could mechanise that more, but I would put that stuff under general DMing advice and not Social Combat.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, I had that fleshed out beforehand. I knew the Feylord's motives and secrets and reasons for doing what he did. That's why I was able to adjudicate all the shenanigans the party came up with.

And the PCs could find out things the Feylord would react positively and badly before by asking around or interacting with him.

Like, what are we talking about now? How the DM is organising his notes and fleshing out NPCs and adding possibilities for the Party to find out things about an NOC beforehand?

I mean, yes, technically you could mechanise that more, but I would put that stuff under general DMing advice and not Social Combat.

I am just saying having an underlying mechanical system that informs what success and failure might look like, establishing the stakes, is a useful tool for GMs -- especially if they are running a published adventure. If one of the key scenarios in a adventure is to acquire the backing of one faction or another, and the players understand that there is a system in place in which revealing NPC tags and utilizing them in play is a thing, they will do those things and they will be able to make informed choices.

Whether you and your group would benefit from that playing emergent, homebrew adventures isn't really relevant to the value of such a system being present.

 

[M_Natas]

I am just saying having an underlying mechanical system that informs what success and failure might look like, establishing the stakes, is a useful tool for GMs -- especially if they are running a published adventure. If one of the key scenarios in a adventure is to acquire the backing of one faction or another, and the players understand that there is a system in place in which revealing NPC tags and utilizing them in play is a thing, they will do those things and they will be able to make informed choices.

Whether you and your group would benefit from that playing emergent, homebrew adventures isn't really relevant to the value of such a system being present.

I mean, I don't think I would have anything against such a ... system.
I wouldn't call it NPC Tags but present it in a way that correlates to the Ingame-World (like secrets, motivations ect.pp.) for Immersive-Reasons, but this now more about how you present a mechanic. I mean, in practise I handle it like that at the table already like this and my Player's are "trained" to look for NPC secrets and motivations and stuff.

But what I wouldn't want would be a "Press Insight-Button to gain secret"-Mechanic like it was presented in the 2e rules.
The characters need to find the secrets during play, it needs to make sense inside the game world.

 

[Reynard]

But what I wouldn't want would be a "Press Insight-Button to gain secret"-Mechanic like it was presented in the 2e rules.
The characters need to find the secrets during play, it needs to make sense inside the game world.

Was it? I don't recall that at all.

 

[M_Natas]

Was it? I don't recall that at all.

Influence - Rules - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

When the PCs need to gain favor with or sway over an NPC to achieve their goals, sometimes a Deception, Diplomacy, or Intimidation check isn’t enough to get the job done. In these cases, you can implement the influence subsystem in a social encounter.<br /><br /> Influence is a short-term...

2e.aonprd.com

The discover-action, that is supposed to be used during the social / influence encounter.
As far as I understood it, the Discovery is supposed to happen during that specific interaction with that NPC and not beforehand.

--‐-----------------------------

But I would say, using concrete Examples from things that happened at the table are clearly helping the discussion.
Seeing how things actually play out at a table is different from just looking at abstract game rules.

 

[payn]

Oh please don't. Whenever you give players a list of options, they will default to those options. That kills every creativity and thinking in character.
There is already the problem that players see their skill list as Buttons they can press instead of thinking what their character would do.

Also this automatic "I can see into the soul of people and can discern their weakness-insight-checks" are the horror.
At my table I will never allow "I look at the guard, make an insight check to see what he is bribeable with and than use the bribe action accordingly".

Let's kill the Roleplay Part of RPGs right there. That's more like playing Sims with a worse game engine.

--------‐--------

Of course at my tables I would allow PCs to discern if a guard would accept bribes. But they would have to do actual roleplay for that. They would have to find that out inside the game world. Ask other thieves in the city which guard is bribeable. Actually have a conversation with the guard.
Not just "press insight button to gain information".

Yes, this is the role of magic in D&D.