Just a comment on this - I agree that what you say is generally true. In some approaches to D&D (eg 4e's player-authored quests) the GM might be expected to cede a bit of this sort of control also. Though not all of it, or even most of it!
D&D 5E What is a Social challenge, anyways?
Hussar
Legend
I have to admit that the notion of the DM losing agency is just bizarre. How could the DM ever actually lose agency in the game? And, even if the DM did lose agency, who cares? Agency is a player facing element. If I'm DMing, I have an infinite number of NPC's. I have complete control over 99.9% of the game. Allowing the mechanics to inform how I role play an NPC is in no way actually giving up any real authority in the game.
In my view, I'd go with a fairly simple system. Each character makes a declaration of some sort for their goal - in the example, the PC wants a discount and the NPC doesn't really want to give it. You have a pool of "Social Power" that is depleted through the discussion. So, it looks something like this:
Player: I want to get a discount from the merchant. So, I ask for a discount.
DM: Ok, roll your (We'll use the 5e rules for a moment) Persuasion vs his Insight and he rolls his Persuasion vs your Insight. Dice are rolled Ok, you both succeed, so, you each lose 2 Social Power points. What do you say?
Player: (narrating his success) Ho fat merchant. Your wares are very nice. I have just saved the city, so, howzabout a bit of a discount?
DM: (also narrating a success) Oh, sir, but, I am just a humble merchant. If I give you a discount, I take the food from the mouths of my children.
New round, checks are rolled, this time the merchant succeeds and the PC fails
DM: You wouldn't steal the bread from the mouths of my fourteen children would you?
New round, checks are rolled, PC succeeds and merchant fails - merchant runs out of Social Power POints, so, the PC wins overall.
Player: Fourteen? Last time I was here, you only had seven children and that was only three months ago. Hey, are you trying to scam me?
DM: Ok, ok, yes, yes. Ten percent for the Hero of "Insert town name here"?
Dice provide direction, players provide script.
M_Natas
Hero
If the GM is not allowed to interpret what a player is saying and o ly is allowed to roll, when the player declared a roll, the DM is not needed.
That would take forever on any table.
I mean, instead of just saying in Character what the character says, now you add several steps. That would kill any momentum of any Social interaction. In Theorie that would make the game more consistent and "fairer" but in reality that would make the game slow auf boring.
M_Natas
Hero
But we are discussing Social interaction and not battle, where we have a set of stricter rules.
Also, if you describe a unique approach to your attack, by RAW the DM can grant you advantage on that attack.
Hussar
Legend
Couple of things. Why does the DM need to "interpret" what the player is saying? The way I'm doing it, there's no need for that.
Also, why would this take any particularly longer than just playing it out. I've added a grand total of three die rolls (for each participant). I've added a grand total of maybe 30 seconds to the conversation. At the outside. And, as a bonus, now there is no inconsistency in the game.
The "depletion" approach is used in Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel - my last DoW resolution was in a BW session on Sunday. It has a few other options - Rebuttal for "active defence", for instance - but at it's core it's like your example.
But the player (for PC) or GM (for NPC) speaks first, then dice are rolled as per your example, and the response and any further words are then worked out based on those rolls. And this informs the next thing said (and if you want to just speak a non-sequitur, you have to declare the appropriate action - Obfuscate or Incite).
Needless to say, I've never experienced - either as GM or player - any concern about loss of agency!
M_Natas
Hero
Because it is the DMs Job to interpret the Action the players are taking. That is a necessary part to adjucate.
Without interpretation you reduce the DM to a number cruncher and could replace him with a computer.
So, the normal case is:
Player says: Hey shopkeep, give me rabatt because hero.
DM says: roll persuasion.
Player: 15
DM: The shopkeep looks at you: "Yo mighty hero, for saving ma arsenal you get 5% discount".
It is like a third of the text you have written to do the same.
and realisticly on the table it would look more like this:
Player: I intend to persuade the Shopkeeper to give me a discount.
DM: Ok, roll persuasion. I roll persuasion for the Shopkeep. Oh, and how much social points do you have left?
Player: dunno, let me look, where is it again? (Looks trough his stack of papers - DM ways patiently) ah - found it.
I have 10 social points. And I rolled a 15 on persuasion.
DM: Okay, the shopkeep also has a 15. You both tie and loose 2 social points. Please now play out how you are not persuaded the shopkeeper.
Player: ... I shall now describe what I'm saying after it is already resolved? That's stupid! Why can't I make an argument? Why must I roll before I speak? That's just crazy. The rolls should not determine, what I'm saying!
