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

[MuhVerisimilitude]

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.

But there's a very important component missing here.

The "diplomacy" in Diplomacy works because the game is set up to function that way. You could remove it and replace it with a system, but, crucially, no system is required BECAUSE the game IS about the negotiation itself. We don't need to put any abstraction in between the player and the game itself, because the player is the player in a game.

But roleplaying in an RPG is different because the player is playing a character. The game itself is NOT about how skillfully you navigate this without rules. After all there are plenty of extremely role playing heavy systems with MORE RULES FOR IT than D&D.

Bringing up the Diplomacy board game is excellent for illustrating something, though. Imagine that you had a few sessions of D&D in which the player characters meet this NPC who's just invented a board game he calls Diplomacy. He wants the player characters to play this. How do you implement this if you were to try in a campaign? It is obvious that the player is not the character.

 

[Maxperson]

But there's a very important component missing here.

The "diplomacy" in Diplomacy works because the game is set up to function that way. You could remove it and replace it with a system, but, crucially, no system is required BECAUSE the game IS about the negotiation itself. We don't need to put any abstraction in between the player and the game itself, because the player is the player in a game.

But roleplaying in an RPG is different because the player is playing a character. The game itself is NOT about how skillfully you navigate this without rules. After all there are plenty of extremely role playing heavy systems with MORE RULES FOR IT than D&D.

Why is Diplomacy about negotiation, but a roleplaying game is not about roleplaying? Like Diplomacy needs no rules for it's negotiation, roleplaying games need no rules for roleplaying.

I've also been thinking. Perhaps this is a D&D issue. Other roleplaying games with those rules you mention are designed around those rules and the players don't have the same expectations that they would have with D&D.

Bringing up the Diplomacy board game is excellent for illustrating something, though. Imagine that you had a few sessions of D&D in which the player characters meet this NPC who's just invented a board game he calls Diplomacy. He wants the player characters to play this. How do you implement this if you were to try in a campaign? It is obvious that the player is not the character.

I could pull out the boardgame and play a game against the players and it would be the NPC vs. the PCs in the fiction, but I find the game to be tedious and it lasts waaaaaaaaay too long. I'd simply make it some sort of skill challenge.

 

[Incenjucar]

The idea of using the rules is to make your character and the NPCs/monsters part of the equation, rather than just the player and the DM.

The player comes up with the lie, the rules determine of the character stammers trying to say it.
The player decides to roar, the rules determine which targets run away and which ones roar back.
The player decides to schmooze, the rules determine if the NPC thinks they look friend-shaped.

 

[payn]

I think, the problem could be the Setup of D&D. How is every game table set up? How does virtually any D&D player experience the game? By having his character sheet right in front of him.

And mainly page 1. No matter what else a player has lying around, he will have his character sheet in front of him in some form. They can see their attributes, skills, hit points, armour class, class features, name, race and so on. And it kind of makes sense to have that in front of you. Because then you can access it very quickly and find everything important very quickly.

But it also tempts (nudges!) you into certain behaviours. A player who is thinking about what to do is drawn to the nice list of skills. This tempts them to think of their next action in terms of a skill. You choose your skill and only then think about how the character might use this skill in the game world. This is not a conscious decision that you make, but one that is favoured by the fact that the character sheet is simply in front of you.

The player's thoughts on how to interact with the game are structured by looking at the character sheet. As a result, you automatically think in terms of game mechanics such as skill. You don't think "My character would now try to distract the guard with a compliment", but as a player you think "I could use my skill Persuasion on the guard, I have a +7 bonus".
You no longer embody the character and imagine that you are that character in the world, instead you see a game in front of you in which the aim is to press the optimal button.

And in my opinion, that's not ideal. Because it also restricts the player's creativity without them realising it. Actions that can't simply be assigned to one of the skills don't even occur to you anymore.

I know this is going to come as a shocker, but a lot of folks are capable of both playing the game and role playing.

The basic principle of D&D is the following:

The DM presents the players with a situation in which the players' characters find themselves, the players say or act out how their characters react to the situation and the DM then uses common sense and the rules to decide the effects of the player characters' actions and then presents the resulting new situation back to the players.

The players say what their characters do, and only then does the DM decide whether a game mechanic such as the use of a skill comes into play at all. So here we have the basic principle that the story, the narrative, takes centre stage, that the focus is on what the characters do and that the rules are only there to support this narrative, while the structure at the gaming table with the character sheet right in front of you provides a nudge to apply the rules first. So the narrative is used here to support the rules.

And you can often see this happening when players say things like: "I want to ise insight", "I want to make a persuasion roll" and so on. They're speaking in game mechanics, not character actions

So what? Combat is all game mechanics and not character actions.

I understand that folks think that mechanics get in the way of roleplaying, but as a GM, I have found I can lead folks right down the middle. I also get that this is "D&D General" but I have found folks less likely to lean into the game mechanics, and out of RP, in other RPG systems. Ones that function highly like the description here of trad GM explains, players decide. So, it is curious why D&D trends this way.

 

[Hex08]

i mean, is having your mechanical investment rendered obsolete because your GM preferrs to RP all the social scenes an issue that'd be limited to a specific edition?

Honestly, I have no idea about 4E or 5E since I never played them and so can't speak to every edition. However, when comparing, for example, 2E to 3.x the answer is yes. 3.x was a much different game and gave you the ability to build significant parts of your character around social interaction in a way that didn't exist in 2E.

 

[Hex08]

I admit im not educated on the rules of other editions and systems but how does a games rules ever prevent a GM from saying ‘yeah ok i think you said all the right things there I’m just going to waive making the roll/check/using whatever mechanic is meant to be used and auto succeed that one’?

Nothing does and there is nothing wrong with that sometimes. Unfortunately, part of the issue here is that some seem to be taking the position that in-character roleplaying should be all that matters which ignores the different skill levels and personalities of other players and, depending on the version of the game, the possible investment during character creation into social skills/feats. That's why always auto succeeding (or failing) based solely on a conversation may not be fair if that is the default mode of play.

Let's see if I can give a real world example. If anyone has been employed in a customer facing position (restaurant, call center, retail, sales, etc.) and your experience is anything like mine you may have heard a coworker give incorrect information or say something that you thought was inappropriate but the customer walked away from interaction totally happy with your coworker. In a player/DM conversation that incorrect or inappropriate thing may likely cause the conversation to go south even though it didn't in real life. A die roll, under the right system, may help balance out the outcome.

I guess part of the argument is it's all edition dependent and even though this thread is a D&D General one everyone probably naturally defaults the the edition they play or are most familiar with. As I read this thread it generally seems to me like I am talking about a different edition than most others because, when I play D&D, it's an older version and most on these boards play 5E.

In the end, everyone plays the game the way most suited to them and what works for your group works so go with it.

 

[Voadam]

That's why always auto succeeding (or failing) based solely on a conversation may not be fair if that is the default mode of play.

Can you explain what you mean by always auto succeeding or failing? Normally even persuasive people do not always succeed in getting their way. Convincing a judge to rule for you through a persuasive presentation of your case when they are being bribed or blackmailed to rule against you is very difficult.

 

[Hex08]

Can you explain what you mean by always auto succeeding or failing? Normally even persuasive people do not always succeed in getting their way. Convincing a judge to rule for you through a persuasive presentation of your case when they are being bribed or blackmailed to rule against you is very difficult.

I was just using the term in the post I quoted but I took it to mean as stated there: "GM from saying ‘yeah ok i think you said all the right things there I’m just going to waive making the roll/check/using whatever mechanic is meant to be used and auto succeed that one"

After re-reading my post I saw that I said "always auto succeeding (or failing)". I shouldn't have used the word "always" because @CreamCloud0 didn't and I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Also, from my perspective, what auto succeeding or failing in the context of this thread ultimately comes down to is conversations succeeding or failing based on DM fiat and not character design. Keep in mind I mentioned I play an older version of D&D where a character can be built in a way where the character's social skills are part of it's design by player intent so DM fiat can undermine that.

As to your example about a judge, you are correct. In that case, using 3.x rules I would set a very high DC making it extremely difficult for the character to succeed.

Also, for further clarification; none of this means I require a roll for everything, that would slow the game down and 3.x does have rules like Taking 10 or 20 that can avoid the die roll. The intent of most of my posts isn't to argue that all social situations should be handled by random dice rolls but more arguing against all social situations being just DM/player conversations because even the best role players may not be as skilled as their characters.

 

[Voadam]

I was just using the term in the post I quoted but I took it to mean as stated there: "GM from saying ‘yeah ok i think you said all the right things there I’m just going to waive making the roll/check/using whatever mechanic is meant to be used and auto succeed that one"

After re-reading my post I saw that I said "always auto succeeding (or failing) always auto succeeding (or failing)". I shouldn't have used the word "always" because @CreamCloud0 didn't and I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Also, from my perspective, what auto succeeding or failing in the context of this thread ultimately comes down to is conversations succeeding or failing based on DM fiat and not character design. Keep in mind I mentioned I play an older version of D&D where a character can be built in a way where the character's social skills are part of it's design by player intent so DM fiat can undermine that.

As to your example about a judge, you are correct. In that case, using 3.x rules I would set a very high DC making it extremely difficult for the character to succeed.

Also, for further clarification; none of this means I require a roll for everything, that would slow the game down and 3.x does have rules like Taking 10 or 20 that can avoid the die roll. The intent of most of my posts isn't to argue that all social situations should be handled by random dice rolls but more arguing against all social situations being just DM/player conversations because even the best role players may not be as skilled as their characters.

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure if you were meaning succeed based on how the roleplay turned out persuasive in that specific instance or silver tongued players always auto-succeeding or socially awkward players always auto failing.

The auto success scenario seems more likely for silver tongued characters and not social characters in 3e's set DCs and huge variance in skill points mechanical system where a 10th level fighter could easily have a +0 for a 10 charisma and no skill ranks while a bard with no special investment of feats or spells could have a +17 or higher at 10th level for choosing a class social skill as one they take every level (+13 including the extra +3 at first level) and an 18 charisma (+4). So if a DC is 15 the fighter fails three out of four times and the bard autosucceeds. If a DC is 21 the bard succeeds 85% of the time on a 4 or higher while the fighter auto fails.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

4e pretty much hammered this with SC and it's short list of skills which emphasize goal over technique. However I think more recent games have probably even surpassed that. You want structured resolution, usually as part of a general resolution framework which emphasizes what makes up the conflict, stakes, desired outcome, etc. Usually a 'fortune in the middle' kind of approach.

PbtA games, for instance, encourage the players to simply state what they're doing and potentially trigger rolls when certain key points are reached.