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

[Reynard]

What will this system be like so that it is malleable enough to apply various wildly differnt situations, yet still lends the specificity and structure you desire, and does so without stillfing the roleplay?

There are a number of examples of varying degrees of complexity from various games.

And who decided when the situation warrants the use of this system,

The GM, of course.

(and why it it can never used when I come up with a problematic example)

I am not sure what you mean. There are always going to be problematic examples, but they will be outliers. Haven't you ever had to adjudicate a weird fight, like in zero-G in a game without rules for it, or whatever?

and how such decision to use or not to use it is not a similar GM fiat we tried to get away from?

Because the rules give strong guidelines when to use them and not. Have you ever played Savage Worlds? It has both a highly detailed grid based combat system, as well as a quick combat system. It has a detailed chase mechanic, as well as vehicle combat rules. The guidelines in the book suggest when to employ them.

Honestly at this point I am having trouble understanding what you are arguing against by way of interrogating a hypothetical system.

 

[Reynard]

None of what I say precludes there being mechanics, but what I am saying is that it's easy to just roleplay out a major criminal trial. You don't need mechanics in order for such a trial to be easy.

I disagree, but I'm not a lawyer, so...

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree, but I'm not a lawyer, so...

Are you an expert in medieval swordsmanship? And an expert spellcaster? D&D doesn't even begin to get close to either of those things via its mechanics. Being a lawyer or not is irrelevant. Again, you don't need anywhere close to real life level of legal details in order to run a major criminal trial in D&D.

 

[Reynard]

Are you an expert in medieval swordsmanship? And an expert spellcaster?

EXACTLY.

That is why a solid mechanical system for particularly complex and consequential social encounters is useful: it serves the same purpose as combat rules.

 

[Maxperson]

EXACTLY.

That is why a solid mechanical system for particularly complex and consequential social encounters is useful: it serves the same purpose as combat rules.

No. The purpose of combat is to prevent Cops and Robbers where it devolves into, "I shot you!" and "No, you missed!" It's complex to resolve that issue in a variety of circumstances. It's not there to represent expertise.

Social roleplaying doesn't devolve into those things, so no mechanics are not needed and won't at all serve the same purpose.

 

[Reynard]

No. The purpose of combat is to prevent Cops and Robbers where it devolves into, "I shot you!" and "No, you missed!" It's complex to resolve that issue in a variety of circumstances. It's not there to represent expertise.

Social roleplaying doesn't devolve into those things, so no mechanics are not needed and won't at all serve the same purpose.

Talking to Bob the Farmer might not, but dealing with a 1000 year old lich or having to navigate byzantine laws in a foreign land might. You seem to be implying that everything is a simple discussion with an obvious winner based on logical or compelling arguments. That may be true some of the time but when it isn't (which should frankly be pretty often if you plating in a world where PCs interact with God's and monsters and alien societies) there should be a robust system or systems to facilitate resolving it.

The "roleplaying" part should not obviate the "game" part.

 

[payn]

No. The purpose of combat is to prevent Cops and Robbers where it devolves into, "I shot you!" and "No, you missed!" It's complex to resolve that issue in a variety of circumstances. It's not there to represent expertise.

Social roleplaying doesn't devolve into those things, so no mechanics are not needed and won't at all serve the same purpose.

Not in my experience. Social roleplay is just as susceptible to cops and robbers routines.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In a sense that it still a conversation, yes.

That was not my question.

 

[Maxperson]

Not in my experience. Social roleplay is just as susceptible to cops and robbers routines.

I've never once in my time playing the game experienced that.

 

[Maxperson]

Talking to Bob the Farmer might not, but dealing with a 1000 year old lich or having to navigate byzantine laws in a foreign land might. You seem to be implying that everything is a simple discussion with an obvious winner based on logical or compelling arguments. That may be true some of the time but when it isn't (which should frankly be pretty often if you plating in a world where PCs interact with God's and monsters and alien societies) there should be a robust system or systems to facilitate resolving it.

I've found diplomacy/deception/persuasion/etc. to be sufficient in resolving it. If something should succeed automatically based on the roleplay, it does. If it should fail automatically based on the roleplay, it does. If the outcome is in doubt based on the roleplay, give it a roll against a DC when talking to NPCs, and the player decides for his PC.

The "roleplaying" part should not obviate the "game" part.

It doesn't and never has. There's a boardgame called Diplomacy that has a huge social component with no robust rules for it. You and your opponents try to persuade one another to support, attack, betray, etc. the others in order to try and win the game. That social component doesn't obviate the game part, it enhances it. Just like in D&D.