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

[DEFCON 1]

Why don't you take the same approach to social situations?

Because there aren't rules for Social Combat.

If there were rules for Social Combat like there are for Weapon/Spell Combat, then we'd follow those rules as written. And the same way a player can't just state a "cool description" of their attack and gain a mechanical advantage per the Combat rules... the player couldn't just say a "pithy quip" and gain a mechanical advantage in Social Combat either.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because there aren't rules for Social Combat.

If there were rules for Social Combat like there are for Weapon/Spell Combat, then we'd follow those rules as written. And the same way a player can't just state a "cool description" of their attack and gain a mechanical advantage per the Combat rules... the player couldn't just say a "pithy quip" and gain a mechanical advantage in Social Combat either.

So again, it return to the fact that this is a "D&D General" thread. I don't think it is about specific edition rules, but what could be and what you would like to see.

So, I guess my question to you is - what would you like to see. As I have already noted I would like to a range of rules on the subject that the group could choose from for their personal preference.

This discussion has actually convinced me that I would like to see that for combat and exploration too!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Of course that is precisely what you are doing by not having some degree of social combat rules.

Well, I'm all about giving bonuses for speaking well! I'm all for it! Which is why I don't actually think a social combat system as intricate as weapon combat is worthwhile.

My point is that if you are going to have a Social Combat system so that the "poor talkers" don't have to talk and they can be on equal footing with the "pithy talkers"... you can't install rules into that system that give bonuses for talking well because that aids the "pithy talkers" and hamstrings the "poor talkers". It defeats the purpose of the system.

 

[Quickleaf]

Hell, I'll reward that behavior all day long! I'd love a table where every player is an instigator.

"Do what the character would do" shall be the whole of the law.

That’s the thing. At a table where everyone wants to be feisty, instigate stuff, interrupt NPCs, talk smack to the authorities, and turn conversations into heated arguments or fights - that works, cause it’s the mode of all the players.

But have just one player who doesn’t like that mode, or have just one instigator without restraint, and now it’s an issue.

Anecdotally, I’ve never sat at an all-instigator table, but I have sat at a few where the mismatch I’m describing occurred (and was problematic / required special effort by GM to address).

To dovetail back the the topic, and what I think @I’m a Banana was getting at, the wrong reward mechanism would compound that issue, but… there might be a way to finesse a reward mechanism that ameliorates the issue, rather than exacerbating it. I don’t think we’ve landed on what that would be yet, but mulling it over.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So again, it return to the fact that this is a "D&D General" thread. I don't think it is about specific edition rules, but what could be and what you would like to see.

So, I guess my question to you is - what would you like to see. As I have already noted I would like to a range of rules on the subject that the group could choose from for their personal preference.

This discussion has actually convinced me that I would like to see that for combat and exploration too!

What we have. The DM asks us what we want to do... we tell them what it is we want to do. And if there's a question of success or possibility of failure... the DM can ask us to make a skill check. Whether that's for exploration or social, doesn't matter.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Well, I'm all about giving bonuses for speaking well! I'm all for it! Which is why I don't actually think a social combat system as intricate as weapon combat is worthwhile.

My point is that if you are going to have a Social Combat system so that the "poor talkers" don't have to talk and they can be on equal footing with the "pithy talkers"... you can't install rules into that system that give bonuses for talking well because that aids the "pithy talkers" and hamstrings the "poor talkers". It defeats the purpose of the system.

I feel like I am going in circles a bit so I may have miss-spoke somewhere, but I don't think I ever advocated a social combat system that reward talkers on top of the social combat system mechanics.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe I've been misunderstanding you. If you are considering making simple Skill checks of Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception as being "social combat"... then I'm fine with that. Because what you describe here is exactly what I've been saying... a player has to say what they want to do and the DM makes a determination of what results. "I want make the vizier back off so I can talk directly to the king" is exactly the sort of thing that the game expects of players. But I've been getting the impression from folks n the thread here that expecting "quiet" or "shy" players to think of and say a statement such as this is precisely the sort of thing the game needs to avoid by installing a "social combat" system. That it's not fair to ask those players to actually state what they want their characters to do or say.

There is a bit of misunderstanding. I am talking about a system where the attack roll and the intimidatevroll are analogous, leading to something like hit point loss leading to something like defeating your enemy. I am also talking about feats, maneuvers, spells and abilities that are designed for social combat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That would make things interesting. Unfortunately it would also bog down the RPG session as the DM (who is role-playing the foes) and the players 'combat' one another with opposing skill checks. Ex. Deception vs. Insight.

Social interaction should be about role-playing and getting into character.

Perhaps it's just my DW GM experience talking, but this just reinforces to me that it is better for the players to roll, rather than the GM, for most purposes.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What we have. The DM asks us what we want to do... we tell them what it is we want to do. And if there's a question of success or possibility of failure... the DM can ask us to make a skill check. Whether that's for exploration or social, doesn't matter.

As I mentioned elsewhere, that is basically what we do (and like) as well. However, I am all for the game having options for more or less rules for those who want them.

Now, my next question:
Do you, or would you, except the same approach for combat that you just described for a social encounter?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is a bit of misunderstanding. I am talking about a system where the attack roll and the intimidatevroll are analogous, leading to something like hit point loss leading to something like defeating your enemy. I am also talking about feats, maneuvers, spells and abilities that are designed for social combat.

I really recommend trying Exalted 2nd edition. It basically has this.

It is terrible, I hate it. (That part of the game, otherwise it is pretty decent.)