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

[SteveC]

I'm going to agree with a lot of other people and say: break up abilities by pillar so that everyone has something useful to do in each of them. I would love to see a full-on expansion of the different pillars with this in mind. I believe that there are already some options for the Exploration pillar, so I'd love to see something full-on for social.

 

[cbwjm]

I think the guidance in the DMG is all I need, have players make their plea to the king, if it is for something the king is sympathetic to, then you get advantage on the check, otherwise it's a straight roll, or disadvantage if it is something the king opposes.

I don't often use the friendly/neutral/hostile charts as the target number though.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me personally... I see social interaction the same way I see puzzles in D&D. While they are there to ostensibly challenge "the characters"... they really are used to challenge the players. We put a puzzle into the game for the players to solve, and if we do, we do not usually let them bypass solving the puzzle by just rolling a few dice. Now of course a DM certainly CAN do that, and if that's how they want to play the game, that's cool! But for me, that bypasses the entire point of putting a puzzle into the game in the first place.

I see social interaction the same way. Roleplaying is a communicative medium, so challenging the players to communicate effectively (so that they don't have to rely on dice rolls) is pretty much the point of the game. If the party (as their characters) can effectively communicate intention and make cogent arguments to the satisfaction of the NPC I am playing... that's more meaningful and more interesting than a die roll. Does it mean at least one person at the table has to speak adequately? Sure. But as I run games amongst friends, I cull my playerbase to include those people who actually want to communicate verbally. And I do that specifically because that's the kind of game I want to run and play. Those that don't want to play in this manner? No harm, no foul... they just go look for other DMs that are more their speed.

 

[Gorck]

I fall on the side of “roll playing.” My character might be a smooth talking Bard with an 18 Charisma, but IRL I probably have a Charisma under 10. I’d hate to have my character suffer for my personal inabilities. That’s why my character has Charisma-based skills in the first place.

The player still acts out the scene, but their success or failure lies with the roll of the dice.

 

[SteveC]

One thing to think about when considering rolling for social actions or not is to consider how smooth talking characters might not always say the best stuff, it just works because they are so smooth. I just watched the Beverly Hills Cop movies, and Axel Foley is thought of as a very smooth character. Watch the movies again and see how his schemes aren't really that great, he just delivers it well and sells it based on his skills and Charisma. A GM could have shut down every one of those schemes in an instant if they were like some GMs...

 

[Quickleaf]

A friend and I were discussing this yesterday and we liked the idea of each NPC having a few tags/traits that if the player could incorporate them, they get a bonus on whatever final roll is called for (without a full on social combat system, i tend toward one singular roll at the end of the roleplay conversation to judge how it ultimately went). Things like Greedy or proud or Loves Their Mom or whatever. You could also offend one of those traits and earn a penalty. We also discussed the idea of a Secret, that if you discover it and incorporate it, it gives you advantage. Like if the new king secretly killed his father, and the PCs could let him know they know without blowing up court, they could get advantage on the roll to persuade him to send troops to defend their home or whatever.

That's actually very similar to what the 5e 2014 DMG (which everybody reads) has to say under Social Interaction (pg 244-245) about "determining characteristics"!

One thing that tends to be contentious is the use of mechanical systems in the social pillar aka "roll playing." Some people think that all interactions and results should emerge from roleplay only. others think that social interactions should be as mechanically supported as combat or exploration. And, of course, most people fall somewhere on the continuum.

So where do you stand on the topic of social pillar mechanics? Do you think a courtroom debate or plea to the king should be governed by players and GMs roleplaying, or by game mechanics, or something in between. How do you feel about old school reaction rolls, and/or modern Persuasion checks? And if mechanics should play a bigger part in the social pillar, how should those mechanics be "distributed" among classes? That is, should there be a "face" class or should everyone be able to use those mechanics?

I am actually pro "social combat." In a perfect world you would have a system that allows for rhetoric and wit, both in attack and defense, and you would whittle down the opponents Resolve Points until they acquiesced. Of course, not every tiny interaction would have to use this full system, but then I don't think every fight should have to use the full combat system either.

Anyway: what do you think?

Typical Quickleaf response: it depends on the situation. I highlighted your two examples – court room debate & plea to the king – because those specific cases are structured, layered, and high stakes scenarios. These are not smooth-talking a city guard or intimidating a random captive. There's more happening here, the camera is zooming in, there's a gravitas the players can feel.

In these sorts of structured, layered, high stakes social scenes, I use a homebrew Q&A system built on the bones of skill challenges. In brief, the "system" (which is more of a guideline with pleeenty of GM on the fly adjusting)...

• The NPC poses 3-4 questions (#1 to #3/4) of escalating importance (and difficulty) to the PCs. I typically prepare these in advance.
• The PCs have a number of chances to respond equal to the current # of the question. This is narrated according to context & individual NPC, but think of it as a chime to the GM "and now it's time for the Baron to cut in and say something" to keep the scene moving and tense.
• A "success" during a question can be a convincing argument intelligently playing upon characteristics/history that the player paid attention to, it can be a certain skill check, it can be use of a spell or special ability, it might be automatic based on results of a past adventure, etc. Generally, it needs to make sense in light of the current line of the NPC's questions.
• The outcome of the structured, layered, high stakes scene is determined by the total # successes accrued in a "degrees of success/failure" chart.

One of the GMing skills that is very much a "grey zone" is discerning when to pivot from talking to rolling dice insofar as PC-NPC interaction is concerned. There's tons of tools that can help with this (reaction rolls, knowing the rules for social interaction, social status/reputation/renown, etc), but ultimately it boils down to the person in the GM seat being able to make that discernment. At least speaking of modern D&D-ish games.

 

[RangerWickett]

This is already a long thread so I'm not sure anyone will see this, but has anyone played the FFG Legend of the Five Rings RPG?

In it, there are rules for 'intrigues' which are akin to social combat - typically used for things like formal courts or when multiple groups are vying for the support of a VIP.

The dice system uses dice pools, and dice have both symbols for 'success' and for 'opportunity.' You might try to appeal to one of a lord's courtiers and fail at that goal, but you can use your opportunity result to gain some other advantage to use later in the scene.

Examples include learning something incriminating about someone else in the scene, or making an ally who will support you, or figuring out an item that a person wants so if you can get it and provide it as a gift, you'll get an easy success, or just inflicting 'strife' on someone (which functions like mental composure hit points; when you get too much strife, you either have to withdraw from the scene or 'unmask' - do something rude with negative consequences, but which alleviates your strife).

Characters also learn 'shuji,' which are social techniques similar to the 'kata' you use in combat. You might know 'tributaries of trade,' which makes you especially adept at acquiring goods, or 'all shall fear me' which lets you be so imperious that anyone who opposes for the rest of the scene you takes strife.

I'll admit, I've only managed to run a few intrigues that felt really challenging and which made good use of the mechanics. But the fact that they're there encourages players and the GM to add more texture to these scenes, instead of just rolling a Persuasion check and saying, "Well, I guess you convinced him."

 

[Reynard]

One thing to think about when considering rolling for social actions or not is to consider how smooth talking characters might not always say the best stuff, it just works because they are so smooth. I just watched the Beverly Hills Cop movies, and Axel Foley is thought of as a very smooth character. Watch the movies again and see how his schemes aren't really that great, he just delivers it well and sells it based on his skills and Charisma. A GM could have shut down every one of those schemes in an instant if they were like some GMs...

Han Solo was a charisma based rogue.

 

[el-remmen]

One thing to think about when considering rolling for social actions or not is to consider how smooth talking characters might not always say the best stuff, it just works because they are so smooth.

Another thing to consider that this made me think of (thanks, @SteveC, you are really setting up the assists today), is that not all arguments win by means of reason and clear argumentation. In fact, I'd argue that most don't - but don't want to open that can of worms. Emotion, Authority/shared values, and timeliness can all win someone over. I say this because even when a player opens their mouth to be the face for an interaction but despite bumbling hard while talking rolls a success, the target could just have easily be moved by pity or impatience, depending what is at stake - so the role-playing and the roll don't need to be at odds, even though they appear to be.