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

[Reynard]

Definitely! But this thread is in D&D General, so probably best discussed elsewhere (or things will get very spicy very fast).

I do want to talk about it in context of D&D but that doesn't mean we can't learn from of straight up swipe from other systems.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

In all systems I GM, it’s RP first, and then rolls may modify it a little bit.

 

[Mistwell]

Check out Carrion Crown Trial of the Beast module. Answers all this.

Isn't that a Pathfinder module, so wildly different DCs and approach?

 

[Reynard]

Isn't that a Pathfinder module, so wildly different DCs and approach?

The DCs would be scaled differently, by why would the approach be "wildly different."? Pathfinder is D&D for all intents and purposes.

 

[Mistwell]

Agreed, and you raise some good questions. Rules should cover things like these. I'll offer some of my opinions on this.


Yes, definitely. This must be so simply due convenience. We cannot roll separately for every individual, it would be an utter waste of time. Also, convincing crowds certainly is something that is commonly done.


The results and the DC will depend on the situations (you covered essential aspects) and the argument being made. If the argument relies mainly on evoking the people's fear of fire, I think it should be an intimidation rather than persuasion check. As for how many are convinced, I think this is very good situation to use a degree of success. Higher the roll, more people are convinced.


Again, you can roll against the whole group, though here the main thing clearly is to convince the captain, who is in charge. I think if you come close to the DC, but not quite, some other guards might be convinced, but as they're not in charge it might not help you much unless you come up a way to do something clever with it. In order to try again, you need to come up with a substantially new argument; they already rejected your previous one. Also if the previous roll failed really badly, this might make their attitude towards you more negative, making further rolls harder.

I kind of feel like this is a 4e type Skill Challenge

 

[ezo]

Anyway: what do you think?

For social interaction, I prefer "role-play" leads to "roll-play", so ultimately it often comes down to a roll to determine if (socially) things go the way of the PCs or not.

As DM, I don't want to decide how NPCs will react. I will "adjust" their reaction (hostile, friendly, etc.), but the roll is up to the player. However, to get to the roll, the player has to role-play into it. I won't allow a player to just say, "My rogue tries to intimidate the guard." The player has to tell me how, what do they say, how do they act, etc. first.

Another thing is I insist players play the PCs incorporating the ability scores they give them. If you dump INT, you can't play your PC as a genius simply because you are. Likewise, as a player you can talk your way into the roll for social interaction, but if you dump CHA, that -1 penalty will affect your roll---I don't care how "well you role-play it".

 

[Reynard]

Another thing is I insist players play the PCs incorporating the ability scores they give them. If you dump INT, you can't play your PC as a genius simply because you are. Likewise, as a player you can talk your way into the roll for social interaction, but if you dump CHA, that -1 penalty will affect your roll---I don't care how "well you role-play it".

Out of curiosity, how do you enforce this in actual play?

 

[payn]

Isn't that a Pathfinder module, so wildly different DCs and approach?

Than 4E or 5E, sure. Though, this was posted as D&D general. Wouldn't be hard to adapt to any D&D its mostly GM facing material.

 

[ezo]

Out of curiosity, how do you enforce this in actual play?

Most importantly --- players understand.

If you dump STR, DEX, or CON, you can't role-play your way out of it. You aren't your PC. You can't go break down a door in my house because your PC failed to break a door down in a dungeon. (Well, I guess you could, but it won't help your PC any, and you'll have to pay for the door!)

So, you can't just "do things" for INT, WIS, or CHA via role-play simply because you, not your PC, would be able to. Consider solving a riddle or puzzle. A low INT martial PC isn't as likely to solve it, even if you as the player can. Now, you can certainly ROLL for your PC to solve it, because then the low INT will come into play. This is why for many such things I prefer group checks, because often the players (as a group) are also working together.

Ultimately, if a player insists that their PC convinced the guard, solved the riddle, should have found the secret door because the player said their PC looked "right there", I just tell them, "no." If you want your PC to be good at such things, because you are (so to say), then put your ability scores to favor them, take the right skills, etc. If a player can't accept that this is how I run my game, then most likely they will enjoy playing with a different group (or at least when someone else is DM).

You are playing a character, not yourself.

 

[mamba]

I only want a light framework, basically a skill, a DC and that is it. The rest depends on the argument the player makes / what they are asking for. I do not care how they say it but I do care about the content. If you are asking something extremely unreasonable, you won't be getting it, if you have a good argument, you are more likely to get it than if you have none.

I do not want this to devolve into just rolling some dice, without much other input.

As to whether there should be a face class, no, I do not want one. Pick the right skills and you are good to go, it should not be tied to a class, esp. not one I dislike