Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8950737" data-attributes="member: 71699">No doubt that correctly observes much play. Speaking of the rules, it goes something like this -<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Somehow it is established that the merchant is friendly, indifferent, or hostile</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players describe the conversation their character holds with the merchant</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Possibly this changes their attitude</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If the price delta is meaningful and it's not certain that the merchant will refuse it, then a check is called for</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Depending on the approach, a social skill might apply (e.g. Persuasion)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The roll indexes the conversation reaction table</li> </ol>Say the merchant is indifferent, but the bard with Cha 18 and expertise in Persuasion makes a 20+. The merchant will accept a minor sacrifice, which can play out straightforwardly as a drop in the price.That said, and taking particular note of point 4., often a minor discount just isn't meaningful so a DM could just say the player character succeeds. In my example, they're a bard, they have Cha 18, they have expertise Persuasion: for some <s>inexplicable</s> perfectly explicable (!) reason merchants almost always give them a discount.For me, a key step to richer social interactions in D&D (aside from using the rules as written) is to disambiguate the social skills. So that the situation and what players describe their characters doing matters. Consider -Persuasion: When there is an offer of something the subject wants, and what’s at stake is a creature doing or sacrificing something it is willing to do or sacrifice. Good will is normally not at stake.Intimidation: When a threat is described that [guide] the subject finds plausible, and what’s at stake is a creature doing or sacrificing something it is unwilling to do or sacrifice. Ill will and subversion are normally also at stake.Performance: When props or devices are employed to weave a narrative, and what’s at stake is a creature succumbing to the distraction or imitation. Suspicion and rejection are normally also at stake.Deception: When lying overtly or by deflection or omission is described, and what’s at stake is a chance to persuade, intimidate or imitate, for example selling a false promise, threat, or forgery. A damaged reputation and ongoing suspicions are normally also at stake.Insight: When doubts and enquiries are described, and what’s at stake is revealing desires, intentions, or integrity. Misleading conclusions are normally also at stake.Folk will have their own interpretations of these skills. Mine are based on thinking about what their names and descriptions might imply, with a view to interesting play. I wanted persuasion to feel different from intimidation in terms of how it emerges out of and drives our fiction. So rather than "I roll persuasion" versus "I roll intimidation" I am thinking about the fictional situation, what the player says they do, and what best follows?In my homebrew world, I use a couple of principles to handle this. Creatures are aware of the magical nature of the world they live in. A character who casts a guidance spell as part of a negotiation will often be seen as appropriately seeking wisdom from a supernatural entity. Hostility to that is more likely pre-existing, for example folk with opposed beliefs might demand neutral ground. Virtually everyone knows that bards can inspire, and hearing the best possible case is a benefit they look forward to. Of course, a creature lacking the benefit of such counsel might insist on parity before entering a conversation.To reflect that mechanically (i.e. to reflect awareness of magical and supernal influences), I normally increase the effective DC by a creature's level (or half their CR.) For example, approaching a red dragon for a favour might have a modifier of -8 (CR17). Our charming level-9 bard may have +12-8 = +4. To elicit any help from a hostile dragon (or let's imagine they play upon hard-won knowledge of its obsessions, and get it to indifference) where zero risks or sacrifices are asked of it (and let's face it, getting out of bed to help another creature is a terrible imposition, when you're a dragon) they would need to roll a 6+ (versus 16+ were it still hostile.) If they fail, the dragon eats them: that's only fair.In that example, I think I have been generous in supposing indifference was attainable. But generally, the point I am making is that when you ask -To me, the least answer is that it has to be play that your group wants to engage with. That means going further than "I roll Persuasion..." Here I am not criticizing "I roll Persuasion..." approaches to D&D, but rather questioning whether they are going to be satisfying for a group whose stated purpose is to engage with social interaction?EDIT Not discussed above, but also relevant, is when contests are called for. Such as when parties' interests are opposed and each seeks to persuade the other. A group also need to decide on their principles relating to that (one example is the common principle that "social skills are not mind control".) Suppose in the negotiation player characters have resolved that whatever the result, they will make no concessions: in this case, they are making no concessions. If the other party knows that, then it factors into how things play out.</blockquote>

Verification