The reaction roll: Social initiative

[Frostmarrow]

I have found that when I hang out with a group of people and we meet with sombody else that certain someone will connect with one of us more than all of us. Sometimes I have chemistry with, whom I like to refer to, the NPC and sometimes one of my friends have it. The NPC can of course be friendly with the group as a whole but most of the time the NPC will be mostly interested in one.

When playing D&D I have found that the player with the best chemistry with the DM will get to talk and influence events more than the other players. I've also noticed that some players with a lower shame treshold can easily hog the spotlight more than what actually benefits the game.

I'd like to see in D&D Next a social initiative, or reaction roll, when encountering NPCs. This would just be a flat winner takes all check where the NPC will focus and talk to the winner of that check. The others can of course chime in but the winner of the social check would get to 'hold the phone'.

I see a number of advantages with such a roll. Points spent on Charisma would be points well spent. A charisma dumper couldn't steal the spotlight by interrupting or increasing vocal output. The DM would have to speak with different players without having to think about it all the time. The speaker would get to finish the conversation in his own pace without having to rush things.

What do you think? Is it preferable that social encounters are free for alls or could the gameplay be improved with a social initiative roll?

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's a little heavy-handed, but I'm liking the thought process. Rolling "reaction" upon meeting a non-hostile NPC is a good idea. Maybe rather than monopolizing the conversation, the winner of the reaction roll gets to "act first": to be the initiator of the conversation, the one who sets the tone. Everyone else must go later in the turn.

Hmm...definite potential here...just need to play around with the idea a bit.

 

[slobo777]

I have used Charisma checks for assigning NPC interest for a long time now, e.g. who gets approached by a patron, whom the king first addresses, who the next social incident happens to.

I recommend it as a way to spread attention between PCs, and remind them about their relative investments in social character skills (it's good for points spent on characters IMO to get "table time", similar to having racial abilities crop up in the rules regularly).

Some groups deliberately assign a "face man", which stymies this, and some players are just waiting for the next fight and not terribly interested. Therefore I don't think such a rule needs to be codified any more than a one-liner suggestion on ad-libbing Cha rolls.

 

[Blackwarder]

I think it should be considered for an interaction rules module.

Warder

 

[Frostmarrow]

Personally I don't have to be the center of attention. If I'm called out I do what is expected of me. If some other player is more driven to speak for the group I generally allow it without protest. However, I find that I get less interested, and less invested in the plot if I'm never expected to speak for the group. In the shadow of attention grabbing people I become less of a wholehearted D&D-player and more of a combat awaiting casual player. And that's kind of sad. –Not just on my account but there's got to be many players just like me.

 

[KidSnide]

This is an interesting issue, but I tend to think it's more about DMing than rules. A good DM will make sure that different NPCs have different connections to or reasons to focus on different PCs. The old veteran NPC or the academic NPC will prefer to speak with the powerful fighter PC or the sagely wizard PC, even if the dapper bard PC has better skills. Yes, more socially focused characters should get more social opportunities, but nobody should be left out.

Backgrounds are also a big step in this direction. Even PCs who don't think a lot about their origin stories will have a background that DMs can use to direct NPC attention towards them.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with using dice to resolve ties (i.e. which of the two PC knights does the duke address), but the in-game reality is better way to approach solving this problem.

-KS

 

[TerraDave]

As an aside, not saying much upfront, paying attention (though maybe not appearing to...or really appearing to, this depends), and then stepping at the right time, can be very effective.

At least in RL.

 

[Blackwarder]

This is an interesting issue, but I tend to think it's more about DMing than rules. A good DM will make sure that different NPCs have different connections to or reasons to focus on different PCs. The old veteran NPC or the academic NPC will prefer to speak with the powerful fighter PC or the sagely wizard PC, even if the dapper bard PC has better skills. Yes, more socially focused characters should get more social opportunities, but nobody should be left out.

Backgrounds are also a big step in this direction. Even PCs who don't think a lot about their origin stories will have a background that DMs can use to direct NPC attention towards them.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with using dice to resolve ties (i.e. which of the two PC knights does the duke address), but the in-game reality is better way to approach solving this problem.

-KS

I agree and disagree on this.

Yes a good DM will be able to make every player participate in an encounter but the same good DM could use some sort of rule sets to move the encounter from being good to being great while the same set of rules will help a new DM stand on his feet during the social encounter.

Warder

 

[ExploderWizard]

Reaction rolls for monsters used to be a normal part of play. Any creature that you encountered that didn't have a predisposed reaction would get a roll on the reaction table with modifiers based on CHA and possibly other factors such as friendly gestures, what is actually said, and so forth.

I'm all for bringing reaction rolls back.

 

[howandwhy99]

Reaction rolls aren't really initiative in conversations historically, but you could go that way.

Setting the NPCs stance was something that was determined beforehand with Alignment and other factors built into it like morale and loyalty.

Reaction rolls were rolled when the players asked certain questions or initiated specific actions that called for such rolls. These then could shift NPC attitudes towards the PC(s) and open up or close off other areas of conversation or accepted action.

Whatever you do I'd look at the barter system too for services, especially by NPC class. Purchasing actions and information from NPCs is every bit as important as talking your way into them. (or threatening, torturing, etc.) Remember, money doesn't have to be the payment. Goods and services (like sharing what you know in response) can all be as considered payment as well.

From a certain perspective, friends and allies find the character in question a profitable relationship to maintain and tend to work to do so. Enemies and opponents don't and won't.